Talk:Aisha/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

The article contains false info. based on western slander, twisted biased history, and hate against Muslims

what is your problem Dougweller?! where is the original research in my edits??!!! All the info. I provided are well-sourced. Both Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham stated in their books that Aisha was born in the pre-Islamic era. What exactly is your problem? and the historical comparison between Asma and Aisha is also well-sourced.

and why don't you add child marriage category to the article of Mary??!!! Doesn't your catholic encyclopedia state that she was 12 years old when she married Joseph who was 90 years old?!!!

and why don't you add in the article of Mary a paragraph about her accusation of adultery by the jews and a paragraph about what the Jewish Talmud says about her--Karam87 (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably because I've been busy removing anti-Muslim sources from other articles? I'm not even completely convinced Mary ever existed in any case. Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

what exactly is your objection regarding my edits?! could you please mention them here so we can discuss them?--Karam87 (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The Article is FULL (and I mean FULL) of false info. It is written, like most of wikipedia's articles, by Wicked Liars --Karam87 (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

1- the figure of the age of Aisha is almost always attributed by the authors of the traditional sources [i.e. books of hadiths] to one man only called Hisham ibn Urwah which makes this claim weak and unreliable.

2- Most traditional sources [if not All of them] state that Asma was 10 years older than her sister Aisha---> go to the article of Asmā' bint Abi Bakr ----> see when Asma was born ---> she was born in 592 ----> this means that Aisha was born in 602 (8 years before Islam and 20 years before she married Muhammad).

Furthermore, the idea that she was betrothed to Jubayr ibn Mut'im before Muhammad is also another reason to consider the figure given, through comparing her age with the age of her sister, more reliable.--Karam87 (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I've taken this to WP:RSN given your attack on me and other editors which makes a discussion here look futile. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

There is zero historical evidence that Mary was 12 or that Joseph was 90 when they were married. There is plenty of evidence provided by Muslims about the age of Aisha. This was never disputed until Christian evangelicals started to claim that Muhammad was a "pedophile". Yes, Christian websites do maker this anachronistic and spurious claim, but that's quite separate from the evidence of Hadith collections. People who want to claim that Aisha was older have to ignore the plain evidence of Muslim sources and invent elaborate calculations of the kind you adopt. Your edits are cited to unreliable websites and primary sources, not to scholarship. Paul B (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

First, There is a historical evidence that Mary was 12 and Joseph 90 when they got married:

A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place. [from The Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm]

The Historical evidence, which is based on the gospel of James, that Mary was 12 or 14 and that Joseph was 90 is stronger than the historical evidence that Aisha was 9 or 10, which is based on some narrations reported in the books of hadiths, because the earliest book of hadith was written in the 2nd century after Prophet Muhammad and the gospel of James was also written in the 2nd century after Prophet Jesus.

The key point here is that the books of hadiths itself provide 2 figures regarding the age of Aisha:

1st figure- is the narrations of Hisham ibn Urwah which are repeated many times in the books of hadiths that Aisha was 9 or 10.

2nd figure- is the narration, which is mentioned in the earliest written book about the biography of Prophet Muhammad "Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham", that Aisha was born in the pre-Islamic era and converted to Islam when she was young girl, which means that she was at least 18 years old when she married Muhammad after his migration to Medina.

the 1st figure doesn't have anything to support it. However, the second has many:

1- books of hadiths narrate also that Asma was 10 years older than Aisha--> go to the article of Asma and see when she was born---> since Asma was born in 592---> Aisha was born 602

2- books of hadiths narrate also that Aisha was betrothed to Jubayr ibn Mut'im before Muhammad.

Thus, books of hadiths provide the narration of Hisham ibn Urwah, and provide also other narrations that refute it. In contrast, neither the gospel of James nor any another gospel provide other info. that can refute the claim that Mary was 12.

Second, books of hadiths were NEVER considered "holy" by Muslims. There is only one "holy" book in Islam and that is the "Holy Qur'an". There are +10,000,000 Muslims around the world who memorize ALL the Qur'an "All of it" by their hearts "their memories". In contrast, there is NO ONE "and i mean NO ONE at all" among Muslims who memorize any book of hadiths.

This is because Muslims never considered the books of hadiths to be "holy books".

Muslims consider book of hadiths to be "books of history" NOT "holy books". There is a difference between "holy book; which is the Word of God" and "book of history; which is the narrations of people".

Because Muslims treat the books of hadiths as books of history "narrations" NOT as holy books, they developed a criteria to recognize their hadiths as either fabricated "Mawḍū" or weak "Ḍaʻīf" or Sahih "reliable" or....etc. [you can search and read about Hadith terminology]; Which means that Muslims do not consider everything in the books of hadiths as necessarily true!!--Karam87 (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

- the Western definition of child marriage is "getting married before 18". thus, "child marriage category" can be added to the article of Mary.--Karam87 (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no legitimate "Gospel of James". Look at the relevant page for a start. You are talking about a so-called "infancy gospel" which has not considered a legitimate historical source by anyone, including the Catholic Encyclopedia. Not that it matters. It was quite normal to be married at the age of 12 in those days. Indeed 12 was the age of consent in many countries until fairly recently in historical terms. Equally, the marriage between Aisha and Muhammad was normal in the context of Arabic culture at the time (and European culture for that matter). I don't recall anyone saying books of Hadith were "holy", so I don't know why you are rambling on about this and blathering about memorising texts. You whole argument is self-contradicting, since you are using biographies and hadiths to support your own claims, or rather those you copy from websites. The issue is the claimed reliability of the narrations, which, btw, includes recorded narrations from Aisha herself [2]. Paul B (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

This is the thing. Some people look at Aisha marrying early as strange. But see Child_marriage:"Before modern history, child marriage was a common practice found everywhere in the world..."In ancient and medieval societies, girls would be betrothed at or before puberty." As I understand it, there is no minimum age limit for marriage in Islam - Karam87, are you arguing this is incorrect? Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

All the hadiths you referred to in the link are narrated by Hisham ibn Urwah who claimed that his father narrated these hadiths to him and that his father heard these hadiths from Aisha. The English translation of the hadiths doesn't mention the complete series of the narrators of each hadith. the English translation only mentions the name of the final person in the series of the narrators. The complete series of each hadith can be found in the Arabix text:

1- To check the Arabic text of the first hadith you referred to, check: http://sunnah.com/bukhari/63/120

The complete series of narrators of this hadith is:

حَدَّثَنِي فَرْوَةُ بْنُ أَبِي الْمَغْرَاءِ، حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ مُسْهِرٍ، عَنْ هِشَامٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ

Narrated Farwa ibn Abi Al-Maghra', that Ali ibn Mos'her narrated, that Hisham ibn Urwah narrated, that his father "Urwa" narrated, that Aisha narrated

2- To check the Arabic text of the second hadith you referred to, check: http://sunnah.com/bukhari/63/121

The complete series of narrators of this hadith is:

حَدَّثَنَا مُعَلًّى، حَدَّثَنَا وُهَيْبٌ، عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ

Narrated Moualla, that Wohaib narrated, that Hisham ibn Urwah narrated, that his father narrated, that Aisha narrated

3- To check the Arabic text of the third hadith you referred to, check: http://sunnah.com/bukhari/63/122

The complete series of narrators of this hadith is:

حَدَّثَنِي عُبَيْدُ بْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو أُسَامَةَ، عَنْ هِشَامٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ،

Narrated Obaid ibn Ismael, Narrated Abu Usama, Narrated Hisham ibn Urwah, Narrated his father.--Karam87 (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you think that Al-Bukhari (who was born in 194 A.H) heard directly from Aisha (who died in 58 A.H)?!! If you check the complete series of the narrators of every hadith "regarding the age of Aisha", you will find that "Hisham ibn Urwah" is always there. All these hadiths were narrated through him.--Karam87 (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

regarding the gospel of James, it was and it is still considered reliable "but not holy" by the Catholics. This is why the Catholic Encyclopedia cited it.

It is not only the Catholic Encyclopedia. You check this site as well: http://christianity.about.com/od/newtestamentpeople/p/marymotherjesus.htm :

Mary was a young girl, probably only about 12 or 13 years old when the angel Gabriel came to her. She had recently become engaged to a carpenter named Joseph.

Most Catholics approve the gospel of James as a book of history, and cite many of the info. in it in their articles.--Karam87 (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

back to the books of hadiths: the word "hadith" itself means literally "narration". I.e. books of hadiths are considered by Muslims to be books of narrations (a lot of narrations narrated by a lot of people during the Abbasid period), and of course, there are many narrations that contradict each other.

This is why Muslim scholars developed criteria [see: Hadith terminology] to recognize these narrations as either reliable or corrupted or fabricated... or etc.

and every Muslim scholar has his own point of view regarding the reliability of each hadith. for example, some of the hadiths that were considered by some Muslim scholars as reliable were considered by other Muslim scholars as weak or even fabricated...and so on.

This is because Muslims do not treat books of hadiths as "holy books", but rather as "books of history and narrations".--Karam87 (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't contradict myself... I simply explained which narration is more reliable.--Karam87 (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, "the age of marriage" in Mainstream Islam is "being mature enough".

more than 95% of the countries that are members in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation define the age of marriage by "being mature enough. Here are examples:
-the age of marriage in Pakistan: 18(male) 16(female)
-the age of marriage in Indonesia: 19 16
-the age of marriage in United Arab Emirates: 18 18
-the age of marriage in Sudan: Puberty Puberty [With requirement for willing consent of both parties.]
-the age of marriage in Somalia: 18 16
-the age of marriage in Senegal: 20 16
-the age of marriage in Egypt: 18 18
-the age of marriage in Algeria: 22 18
-the age of marriage in Libya: 20 20
-the age of marriage in Mauritania: 18 18
-the age of marriage in Morocco: 18 18
-the age of marriage in Kuwait: 17 15
-the age of marriage in Jordan: 16 15
-the age of marriage in Iran: 18 16
-the age of marriage in Iraq: 18 18
-the age of marriage in Malaysia: 21 21
-the age of marriage in Palestinian territories: 16 15
-the age of marriage in Afghanistan: 18 16
-the age of marriage in Bangladesh: 21 18

100% of the national citizens in United Arab Emirates are Muslims, and the age of marriage in this country is 18 for males and 18 for females.

Indonesia and Pakistan are the largest Islamic countries in the world. The age of marriage in Indonesia is 19-16, and in Pakistan is 18-16--Karam87 (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Paul, I didn't rely on internet sources! I relied on

1- The earliest written books about "Sīratu Rasūli l-Lāh" (Arabic: سيرة رسول الله‎ "Life of the Messenger of God") for Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham. I provided a link to each one of the two books. The book of Ibn Ishaq can be read here: [3]. and the book of Ibn Hisham (first volume) can be read here: [4]

In page 186 of the book of Ibn Ishaq, and page 271 of the book of Ibn Hisham, they mentioned: "Aisha CONVERTED TO ISLAM WHEN SHE WAS YOUNG GIRL AFTER THE CONVERSION OF HER FATHER". This means that she was born before Islam, because her father Abu Bakr converted to Islam in 610. He was the first man to accept Islam after Ali.[5][6][7][8][9]

2- Furthermore, I pointed that According to almost all the historians, Asma was ten years older than her sister Aisha. I provided the following sources: (Al-Dhahabi, Siyar A`la’ma’l-nubala’, Vol. 2, p. 289, Arabic, Mu’assasatu’l-risalah, Beirut, 1992.) (Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidayah wa’l-nihayah, Vol. 8, p. 371, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah, 1933).

I also provided another source for this statement "that Asma was 10 years older than Aisha", and this another source is the history of Damascus (Arabic: Tarikh Dimashiq) for Ibn 'Asakir. you can check this statement in the book of Ibn Asaker through this link:

[10]

the statement "Asma was 10 years older than her sister Aisha" is highlighted in yellow.

If Asma was born in 592, then Aisha was born in 602. Thus, she was (at least) 18 years old when she married Muhammad.

I also provided HISTORICAL SOURCES for the following:

Asma died “a few nights after her son, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, had been martyred. He was killed on Tuesday 17 Jumada al-Ula in 73 AH”(Bewley/Saad 8, p. 180.) or 7 October 692 CE. At her death she was 100 years old.(Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidayah wa’l-nihayah, Vol. 8, p. 372, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah, 1933) (Ibn Hajar Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, p. 654, Arabic, Bab fi’l-nisa’, al-harfu’l-alif)--Karam87 (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of problems in the article. It is obviously written by wicked haters of Islam who enjoys twisting and lying. Those "Wicked Twisters" seems to be in everywhere in this stupid wikipedia.--Karam87 (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you read the Wikipedia guidelines about assuming good faith and not making personal attacks against other editors. Edward321 (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Brill's 3rd edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam has:

ʿĀʾisha entered the prophet Muḥammad’s home as his wife about three years before the hijra (migration) to Medina, when she was around six or seven years of age, according to most sources. She had previously been promised in marriage to a young relative of hers named Jubayr b. Muṭʿim, whose family was still pagan. When the prophet Muḥammad, through the good offices of his aunt Khawla bt. Ḥakīm, expressed interest in ʿĀʾisha after the death of his wife Khadīja, in 619, Abū Bakr consulted with the boy’s family. By that time, Jubayr’s parents were against the idea of their son marrying into a Muslim family and the engagement fell through. ʿĀʾisha’s marriage to the Prophet was not consummated until approximately three years later, when she was either nine or ten years old, as the majority of sources report (Ibn Saʿd, 8:58–62; Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, 8:139). However, according to the chronology of Ibn Khallikān (d. 681/1282) she would have been nine at her marriage and twelve at its consummation (Wafayāt al-aʿyān, 3:16), a chronology also supported by a report from Hishām b. ʿUrwa recorded by Ibn Saʿd (d. 230/845; al-Ṭabaqāt, 8:61). There are stories of a young ʿĀʾisha still playing with dolls and her young girlfriends after she had come to live with the prophet Muḥammad. Child marriage was not an uncommon practice in the Arabian peninsula (and elsewhere) at the time, often being contracted for political purposes between leading families. Since ʿĀʾisha was the daughter of Abū Bakr, one of Muḥammad’s closest Companions and his trusted ally since the beginning of his prophetic calling, this liaison carried significant political overtones.

— Afsaruddin, Asma. "ʿĀʾisha bt. Abī Bakr." Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE. Edited by: Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, Everett Rowson. Brill Online, 2014 <http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopaedia-of-islam-3/aisha-bt-abi-bakr-COM_23459>

That's all it says about her age. As our article says, the EI is "the standard reference work in the field of Islamic studies". Citing your own selection of primary sources and making a case for a different age is what is called original research, and isn't allowed on Wikipedia. If you do feel that a significant number of reliable sources that say something different and are being neglected, then you should produce those sources. A reliable source for this point would be any recognized expert in the field, for example, someone who holds official lectures on the history of early Islam at a reputable institution of higher learning. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

nonsense... Quoting a passage from the Encyclopedia of Islam about the age of Aisha is like Quoting a passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia about the age of Mary. Thus, "Child Marriage" category CAN BE ADDED to the article of Mary as well.

A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place. [from The Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm]

That is all it says about the age of Mary.

Furthermore, I didn't cite my own selection! If you checked my edits, you would find that I cited all the narrations together.

1- I cited, in the beginning, that traditional sources claim, according to the narrations of Hisham ibn Urwah, that Aisha was betrothed at the age of six or seven and married at the age of 9 or 10.

2- Then I cited, afterward, that the earliest traditional sources (for Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham) mention that Aisha was born in the pre-Islamic perioud. [and i provided links to check the books of Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham, which are considered "RELIABLE SOURCES"]---> refers to the point that Aisha was at least 18 years old at the time of her marriage.

3- Then I cited, afterward, that most [if not all] traditional sources mention that Asma was 10 years older that her sister Aisha [And I provided three RELIABLE SOURCE-Books for this statement alone]. ---> refers to the point that Aisha was at least 18 at the time of her marriage.

Finally, I referred to two key points to consider the narrations that support the figure of 18 more reliable than the narrations that support the figure of 9 or 10:

1st point- Aisha was betrothed to Jubayr ibn Mut'im before Muhammad, which makes it unlikely that she was 9 or 10 when she married Muhammad.

2nd point- Most [if not all] the narrations about the age of Aisha were narrated through one man only "Hisham ibn Urwah".

Every sentence, in my edits, was supported by "RELIABLE SOURCES", and often with links to check the sources online.--Karam87 (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, many modern Muslim scholars, like Gamal al-Banna for example, stated that Aisha was at least 18 years old when she married Prophet Muhammad: according to the narrations that she was born in the pre-Islamic period, and the narrations that she was 10 years younger than her sister Asma.--Karam87 (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither Ibn Ishaq nor Ibn Hisham are reliable sources for the age of Aisha at marriage. Reliable sources are those that clearly reflect the current scholarship concerning a claim, not those that reflect the scholarship which was only current around 1200 years ago. Those two sources are primary sources which current scholars use to make such a determination, but in that way they are no different from any other such primary source. The Catholic Encyclopedia wasn't even part of the then-current scholarship when it was written 100 years ago, let alone being part of current scholarship nowadays. So, no, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not in any relevant way akin to the Encyclopedia of Islam, which is a current scholarly work. If you do feel that Ibn Ishaq or Ibn Hisham is a reliable source for the age of Aisha and are being disregarded, you should try asking for input at WP:RSN, as that noticeboard is supposed to deliver community consensus as to what is or isn't a reliable source. Editors here will probably not ignore a clear consensus. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

First, your "POINT OF VIEW" regarding "the Catholic Encyclopedia" or "the Encyclopedia of Islam" is INVALID. It is simply your "own point of view" NOT what reality is. It is very clear that many Catholic scholars don't agree with you.

http://christianity.about.com/od/newtestamentpeople/p/marymotherjesus.htm :

Mary was a young girl, probably only about 12 or 13 years old when the angel Gabriel came to her. She had recently become engaged to a carpenter named Joseph.

"Claiming that Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham are not reliable sources" or that "I can't refer to them in the article" refers only to "some problems within you", because source-books and chronicles from the middle ages and even from the dark ages are frequently referred to everywhere in wikipedia [see: Battle of Thermopylae, for example, where the writing of Herodotus are frequently referred to in the article (even in the infobox; where the crazy number "2,500,000" of Herodotus is cited)]. Now, if the source of Herodotus can be cited, then why the source of Ibn Ishaq can not be cited!?!

Even this article itself refers to the traditional sources like (Al-Bukhari) and (al-Tabari) regarding the age of Aisha. Then, why should not it refer to the traditional sources also like (Ibn Ishaq) and (Ibn Hisham) regarding the age of Aisha?!

although current scholarship consider Herodotus to be crazy and consider that the Persian army was about 70,000, the figure "2,500,000" of Herodotus and his writing are referred to in the article.

chronicles and traditional sources are frequently referred to as reliable sources in many articles. Thus, your argument is simply INVALID.

Furthermore, consensus doesn't make sense in these matters. There was a clear consensus among Christians in the middle ages that Jesus (their idol) is sitting above the clouds watching them [11][12]. Now, they found themselves to be wrong.--Karam87 (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The entire article needs to be re-written. It is not only about the age of marriage. It is about the entire article.--Karam87 (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus within the framework of the core policies is in fact the only way to proceed in writing Wikipedia articles. This is because there is no central authority which decides content disputes. You may ask about any sources at WP:RSN. I'm confident that Herodotus would not be considered a reliable source for the number of Persian soldiers at the Battle of Thermopylae. There are in fact many current, reputable scholars who expressly state that Herodotus' numbers are inaccurate. The goal of Wikipedia is to reflect the state of scholarship as it is, not as it was. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that you didn't get my points! What I said is that "I can cite the source-books of Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham, because they are reliable sources." They are frequently cited in many articles.

Thus, Your claim "that I can't cite them" is simply INVALID, because they are already cited in many articles.

Furthermore, many sources from the dark ages and the middle ages are cited frequently in many articles as well. Thus, I can cite the book of Ibn Ishaq just as other editors (here in wikipedia) were allowed to cite the book of Herodotus for example.

Moreover, "Child-marriage category" should be either added to the article of Mary or removed from the article of Aisha.

and by the way, the so-called "Encyclopedia of Islam" was widely criticized by Muslim scholars. It is far from being a reliable source according to them. I checked the internet and found that many Arabic published works criticized it. "This is just a note for you"--Karam87 (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I never said that you or anyone cannot cite them. I'm not sure what your words within quotation marks are supposed to be, but those are not my words, despite your presentation of them. I know you believe that Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham are reliable sources for the claim, but your belief is incorrect. The fact that they are cited in many articles is irrelevant to whether they are reliable sources for the claim, as such has never been a criterion for consideration of whether a source is reliable. If you read WP:RS, you may see that this is the case. Again, if you disagree, the place to take it up is at WP:RSN. Users there can give a sufficient verdict. Many Arabic published works can criticize Afsaruddin's article in the Encyclopedia of Islam all they want, that does not shake its position as a reliable source for the age of Aisha. Everyone involved, from Afsaruddin herself to the editors of the EI, are all established experts in their fields who teach at reputable institutions, with no academic controversy surrounding them at all. That is more than sufficient to qualify it as a reliable source. Again, read WP:RS; it says "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable." That's exactly what Afsaruddin's article is. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that "Arabic published works criticized Afsaruddin's article in the Encyclopedia of Islam". I said that many "Arabic published works criticized the so-called Encyclopedia of Islam itself (all of it)". I wasn't talking about Afsaruddin's article. I was talking about the EI itself (all of it). [and this was just a note for you about the EI]. Your claim that "the editors of EI are established experts in their fields" is simply "YOUR OWN POV". There are other established experts in their fields who criticized it and criticized its editors.

Moreover, "claiming that there is no academic controversy surrounding them at all" is also your own POV. I found that a number of its editors are labelled as biased Twisters.

Finally, read WP:RS; it says "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable." That's excatly what Ibn Hisham's book is.

Ibn Hisham's book is absolutely reliable for the issue in spit of your disagreement.

If a group of scholars think that there is a historical proof that Aisha was 9 or 10 or 12, then there is also another group of scholars think that there is a historical proof that she was 18 or 20; according to the given difference (in traditional sources) between her age and the age of her sister Asmā' bint Abi Bakr which is (10 years). Both the two historical sayings should be presented. Moreover, if there is a historical saying that she was born in 613/614, then there is also a historical saying that she was born before Islam (i.e. before 610) according to Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham, and both sayings also should be presented.--Karam87 (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Being a biased twister in the judgement of another academic is not an academic controversy. That's just an academic disagreement. An academic controversy is a case where a person is reprimanded or sanctioned by an official academic group or institution for their misconduct. If there is "another group of scholars think that there is a historical proof that she was 18 or 20", and this groups of scholars are reliable sources, then properly cite that group of scholars and add that information to the article. No one may rightly remove that information assuming all those conditions are met. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

But this is what reality is: A number of the editors of EI were labelled as biased Twisters by many Muslim scholars. EI is absolutely not a reliable source for a great number of scholars.

Furthermore, most of the editors of EI are Western non-Muslims, which means that it is worthless and doesn't represent Muslims. In contrast, the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia are Christians. Thus, it of course represent Christians.

So, the "child-marriage" category should be added to the article of Mary, because this is what "the Christian editors" of "the Catholic Encyclopedia" said about the age of Mary. :)

regarding the second point: Of course there is "another group of scholars think that there is a historical proof that she was 18 or 20". I did already mentioned Gamal al-Banna previously as an example.

Furthermore, I don't want to add something specific to the article. I didn't say that I want to add something specific. In fact, I want to re-write it all. This is what i was doing: "re-writing it all". The entire article needs to be re-written. this is what I said before. It is not about the age of marriage. It is about the entire article.--Karam87 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Result: Both claims about the age of Aisha should be included, and this currently corrupted biased article needs to be re-written.--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a result. Right or wrong, this needs a proper discussion, not one based on a statement that "The article contains false info. based on western slander, twisted biased history, and hate against Muslims". This is not an appropriate section to discuss this further. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

what is the problem in the statement "The article contains false info. based on western slander, twisted biased history, and hate against Muslims" if this is what the current article is?!--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

So which editors are expressing hate against Muslims? Because every word in the article was written by someone. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

“The lies (Western slander) which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only.” - Thomas Carlyle--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Recycling of Arguments about Aisha’s Age

Looking through the archives of discussion about Aisha, I see that the debate about her age is the single issue that recurs most often. However, the various discussions are all essentially the same points made by different people; this latest round does not contribute any new material.

I am wondering if we should start a separate article or archive link (… or some kind of resource … I am not particular about what) to contain this material. People who have questions about Aisha’s age can be referred to it so they will know what has already been considered. If they still have something new to contribute, not covered in the previous rounds of the debate, of course they can bring it to the discussion page. But at present a great deal of space is being devoted to a fairly small amount of real information.

I would suggest that the following points have already been discussed to death and do not need to be resuscitated.

Both Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham stated in their books that Aisha was born in the pre-Islamic era … In page 186 of the book of Ibn Ishaq, and page 271 of the book of Ibn Hisham, they mentioned: "Aisha CONVERTED TO ISLAM WHEN SHE WAS YOUNG GIRL AFTER THE CONVERSION OF HER FATHER". This means that she was born before Islam, because her father Abu Bakr converted to Islam in 610.

In fact the reference provided for “Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham” (pp. 115-117 in Guillaume’s translation) reads:

The Companions who Accepted Islam at the Invitation of Abu Bakr. Those who accepted Islam at his invitation according to what I heard were [list of names, including] Asma d. Abu Bakr, together with his little daughter ‘A’isha.

This does not reveal Aisha’s age because it does not tell us how long “after her father” she was converted. Assuming it is a list of people who converted before Umar (itself not a watertight assumption), then it proves Aisha was converted before August 616. But knowing that she was then “little” still does not tell us her age at conversion. It could mean that she was considered a Muslim from the day she was born - though it does not necessarily.

After running a “Control F Aisha” through Ibn Ishaq, I did not find anything that indicated Aisha’s age. If Ibn Ishaq had actually made a statement that “Aisha was born in year X” or “Aisha was Y years old at event Z,” that would certainly have been valid material. But there was nothing.

I did find a statement about Aisha’s age in Ibn Hisham. It’s in note 918 (page 792 of Guillaume’s translation) and it reads:

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.

The only place I have read anything suggesting that “Aisha was born in the pre-Islamic era” was not in Ibn Ishaq or Ibn Hisham but in Tabari (vol. 11 pp. 140-141 in the SUNY edition).

In the Jahiliyyah, Abu Bakr married Qutaylah. She bore him Abdallah and Asma. He also married in the Jahiliyyah Umm Ruman. She bore him Abd al-Rahman and A’ishah. All of these four of his children were born in al-Jahiliyyah from his two wives whom we have named.

But Blankinship’s translation has been questioned. Both Haddad and Al-Haj have indicated that an equally valid translation of the final sentence would be:

All of these four of his children were born from his two abovenamed wives from al-Jahiliyyah.

I.e., no statement is being made about the birthdates of the children, but only about the dates of the marriages. Since the meaning of the sentence is disputed, I don’t see how it can be used to make a case in any direction.

the figure of the age of Aisha is almost always attributed by the authors of the traditional sources [i.e. books of hadiths] to one man only called Hisham ibn Urwah which makes this claim weak and unreliable.

One exception to this observation is the tradition referenced in the main article that Aisha was born “early in the fourth year” (Ibn Saad). This is not via Hisham at all, but via “Habib, the mawla of Urwa”.

Further, how many hadiths document that Asma lived to be 100? Ibn Kathir and Ibn Hajar, who lived centuries after the event, both seem to be quoting the same hadith. I have never seen an independent tradition that corroborates this age-difference. The narrator of that lone hadith is Hisham ibn Urwa (Asma’s grandson), the same man who narrated about Aisha’s age. I am not disputing that Asma lived to be 100, but I don’t see why Asma’s age should be considered any better documented than Aisha’s.

Most traditional sources [if not All of them] state that Asma was 10 years older than her sister Aisha.

Again, the centuries-later historians (Ibn Asakir, Al-Dhahabi or Ibn Kathir) all seem to be citing the same source. Is there a chain of transmission for the original statement, or was “ten years” just the calculation of someone who lived too long after the event to be considered an authority? Either way, it is relevant to whether this argument should be part of the discussion.

Aisha was betrothed to Jubayr ibn Mut'im before Muhammad, which makes it unlikely that she was 9 or 10 when she married Muhammad.

Aisha’s betrothal to Jubayr ibn Mutim does not tell us much about her age, since parents in most pre-industrial societies have married off infants. If Aisha was engaged at a given date, that only proves that she had been born.

Remarks about Mary are not relevant. She was not a person connected to Aisha, and her age is not relevant to the question of Aisha’s age.

Can I ask that this information (in whatever format is most appropriate) be stored somewhere easily accessible, but not a place that intrudes on the main article? Other editors can of course add new material to the list. But please note that it is a list of “issues that have been argued to death” and not a place where people are invited to continue arguing to death.Petra MacDonald 02:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

you are almost wrong in every word you said.--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Zwanzig, your citations of Ibn Abd al-Barr and Ibn Asakir were unrealistic. I can take your word that these scholars made the comment about Asma being ten years older than Aisha (although I would like to know whom they were citing - they lived a very long time after the event). But did these Muslim authorities living in a Muslim culture really express Asma's birth-year as a date AD? And not also as a date AH? I don't believe it. In any case, 594 is the wrong year AD. If she lived to be 100, that's 97 solar years, so if she died in 692, she was born in 595.

Given the level of dishonesty that has surrounded this whole debate for several years now, we need to be careful of sources. Don't assume that everyone is telling you the truth. Even if you trust the person who told you, it could be that some other person fooled him.

If you think people who disagree with you are wrong, explain your case. If you have something new to add, that is particularly welcome. But don't just ignore years of discussion and re-insert arguments that have already been debunked.Petra MacDonald 12:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Petra, your problem is that you committed a lot of mistakes in the essay above (possibly, because of the typical anti-Islamic motivations in the West).

first of all, "Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham"... Here is the book of Ibn Ishaq translated by Guillaume... As it can be seen, in page 114, Ibn Ishaq mentioned that Ali bin Abi Talib was the first man to accept Islam, then he mentioned at the end of the same page that Zayd ibn Harithah was the first man to accept Islam after Ali, then he mentioned that Abu Bakr converted to Islam after them, then he mentioned (in a list) the ones who converted after Abu Bakr at the invitation of Abu Bakr (and we see that Aisha "together with her sister Asma" is mentioned in this list)... Ibn Ishaq mentioned that Ayesha converted to Islam when she was young (together with her sister Asma)... If Ayesha was born in 614 CE, then she was absolutely born as a Muslim, because the conversion of her father occurred earlier than this time (ibn Ishaq himself "as you can see right now" mentioned the conversion of Abu Bakr directly after the conversion of Khadija, Ali, and Zayd)... it is quite easy and clear to notice that Ayesha (who converted to Islam when she was young "together with her sister Asma") was born in a time before 610.

second, you quoted from Ibn Hisham that "Ayeshah was betrothed to the Prophet at the age of 7 and married to him at the age of 9 or 10". However, you didn't mention in your quotation that Ibn Hisham himself attributed this claim to "Hisham ibn Urwah" (the same questioned man)... can you please explain why you didn't mention that Ibn Hisham attributed this claim to Hisham ibn Urwah"??!

As for “Habib, the mawla of Urwa”... you said it: "he was the mawla of Urwah", and this means that he heard it from Hisham ibn Urwah as usual.

As for Mary, her age is relevant to this topic... if you read the conversation above, you will find that she was married to Joseph at the age of 12 or 14 (when he was 90 years old). Thus, the marriage of Mary should be classified as a "Child-Marriage".

As for Jubayr ibn Mut'im, I advise you to read this article.--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I can provide a lot of reliable sources like this one which state that Asma was 10 years older than Ayesha, and that Asma was born 27 years before the hijra... which means that Ayesha was born 17 years before the Hijra (approximately 604 CE)... and this also means that she was 18 years old when she married Muhammad.--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You do not understand what we mean by reliable sources. See WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Official government sites are not reliable sources for history - they simply represent the officially approved version. [13] is in no way a reliable source either by our criteria. I loved the bit "I think that the Prophet wouldn’t marry a girl who is younger than his youngest daughter." Why not? Interesting though that it doesn't actually say anything bad about child marriage. As for Mary, I've already said that I'm not convinced she was a real person but if she was she also seems to have been a child bride. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

forget about this source, what about this and this and many others i provided few hours ago, and you just deleted them!--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I second that Dougweller: Gov Websites do not trump the views of historians & even many, many Islamic scholars who hold the view that Muhammad married Aisha at 6 and consummated the marriage at 9, something that is obviously clearly morally wrong (and also explains Aisha turning out to be a pretty vile character in later life). Sorry, hard truths. Clearly, those are not reliable sources and carry no weight here. Those two sources you just provided? Sorry, but they're in Arabic. Probably banging on about evil, racist western orientalists. How about all the Sunni scholars who agree with them about Aisha's age? Stop trying to push a preferred POV. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

this source is not a government website by the way. It is the official website of Dr. Muhammad Nabulsi; one of the most famous Sunni Imams in the world.

Somchai, arguing with you is just a waste of time.... I already provided 6 sources a few hours ago, and all of them were just deleted (because of the typical anti-Islamic motivations).... My edit here in the article "Muhammad" was also reverted without any logical reason as well.--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

the problem I face here or anywhere else is not a problem of reliable sources, for I have already provided many reliable sources, but the problem is within your hate. Otherwise, how do you explain that the famous saying of Lamartine that I added to the article of Muhammad was deleted?! Is it because that I don't provide reliable sources?!! or is it because some people can't stand the truth?!--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Arguing with you is a complete waste of time actually, as you refuse to pay attention to Wikipedia procedure. LOL "Anti-Islamic motivations" - the typical response to non-Muslims when they disagree with something a Muslim has said, right? I'm sorry but the last time I looked at those oh so peaceful and loving Hadiths, Sunni scholars and Western scholars, they disagreed with you. I repeat: You are not trying to make things neutral, you are trying to push your preferred POV. You're not going to. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Lying as you breath! I have just already mentioned a Sunni scholar (and a famous Imam) "Muhammad Nabulsi" who considered that she was in her 20s [but it seems that you couldn't even read what i wrote, because of the diseases that wine has cause to your head]... Another famous Sunni scholar Abbas el-Akkad also considered, in his book "the Truthful daughter of the Truthful" that Aisha was at least 15 when the Prophet married her...Shawqi Dayf also considered in his book "Muhammad the Seal of the Prophets" that she was approximately 20 years old.. There are also many others.

However, the problem here, as I said before, is your hate and your sickness. This is what Thomas Carlyle himself said about you. He himself admitted that you are Liars...Reverting my edit here proves this as well...--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Somchai himself describes himself in his talk-page that he is devious, deceiving & evil. Why should I even discuss with such a character?!--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably a waste of time pointing this out to someone who calls all Westerners liars, but it is [14] that is the government website. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I don't think that I said "ALL" Westerners, but what I said is "Most of them"/"the vast majority of them" [and this what Thomas Carlyle himself said about them]. As for this reference, it is an internet-library & encyclopedia (similar to the [library of congress] or [Google.books] or [the British Encyclopedia]) that includes a great number of the Arabic published books, and offers the chance to search in all these published books together for a particular topic. If you check the reference again, you will find the name of the source-book provided at the top of the Article (directly under the bold title). It is [المصدر: أعلام النساء، عمر رضا كحالة، 1959] which means: [A'alam An-Nisa, Umar Rida Kahale, 1959]. So this article is quoted from the book of Kahale..

this article in the Arabic Encyclopedia also mentions that Asma was 10 years older than Aisha.

--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

And here is another Muslim scholar. He is from the West, and his name is Dr. David Liepert. He also considered in his book "muslimchristianandjew' that Aisha was at least 17 years old when she married the Prophet. --Zwanzig 20 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

And if anyone called the vast majority of Asians/Africans/Muslims/Jews etc liars, you'd post that also? Liepert seems to have published that book himself - through [15] which doesn't seem to work. It seems now to be [16]. You need to read WP:RS and WP:VERIFY before bringing any more sources here. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

As Doug says: Faith of Life publishing has no reputation whatsoever: It does not even appear to have published any books apart from Liepert's, which suggests that it is just Liepert's own publishing company. To add to that: Liepert has no credentials and no reputation as an historian of early Islam.

Just as we do for every article, we cite sources which have reputations in the relevant field. For claims about human evolution, we cite reputable biologists of human evolution. For claims about early Islamic history, he cite reputable historians of the early Islamic period. Look at what some of the claims in this article are cited to: Asma Afsaruddin writing in the Encyclopedia of Islam and Denise Spellberg, published by Columbia University Press. These are established historians of the topic who on that basis hold professorships at well-respected, accredited institutions of higher learning, published in the normal, peer-reviewed, academic manner. Start by reading sources of that nature to see what they say—do not just depend on non-expert or apologetic literature which confirm your point of view under the false premise that they are reliable sources. If you have questions about whether a source is reliable, you can ask them at WP:RSN. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

the Statue of Abbas el-Akkad in Egypt. el-Akkad is far more established historian of the topic than all the amateurs mentioned in the current article.

the street of Abbas el-Akkad in Greater Cairo, Egypt

please, stop this fallacy... I didn't mention David Liepert alone, but I mentioned many others with him. I mentioned Dr. Liepert as an example from the West. Abbas el-Akkad, the one I mentioned previously, is far more established historian of the topic than all the amateurs you mentioned Atethnekos and all the amateurs mentioned in the current article. Abbas el-Akkad considered in his book "the Truthful daughter of the Truthful" that Aisha was approximately 15 years old when the Prophet married her.

As for Dr. David Liepert, he has several other published books as shown here, and he has credentials and reputation in the field of Islamic issues. He is also a writer in Huffingtonpost. Dr. Liepert also holds degrees and fellowships from the University of Saskatchewan, the University of British Columbia, and Stanford University in California. He is a member of the Canadian steering committee for the Tony Blair Faith Acts Foundation and is interfaith and media director and spokesperson for the Muslim Council of Calgary and for the Sayeda Khadija Mosque and Community Center in Toronto. The recipient of numerous community awards and a much sought-after speaker, he is also vice president of the Faith of Life Network - an internationally recognized Muslim organization dedicated to helping diverse communities live together.

So Dr. Liepert has credentials and reputation in the field of Islamic issues. And I mentioned him just as an example from the west. The ISBN of his book (which i referred to) is: 978-0-9813882-0-5

Beside Abbas el-Akkad, I mentioned another scholar Shawqi dayf who considered, in his book "Muhammad the Seal of the Apostles" that Aisha was approximately 20 years old at the time of her marriage.

Beside these two scholars, I referred to the article of Arab Encyclopedia, which states that " Asma was 10 years older than Aisha / وهي أكبر من أختها لأبيها عائشة أم المؤمنين بعشر سنين ". which means that Aisha was born in 605 CE (before Islam)

Furthermore, the current article cites al-Tabari, al- Bukhari, al-Nasa'i and Ibn Sa'd [who only repeated the narration of Hisham ibn Uwah], then why should not it cites al-Tabari himself [who mentioned that Aisha was born in the pre-Islamic period], or Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham who mentioned that Aisha Converted to Islam when she was young girl "together with her sister Asma" after the conversion of her father Abu Bakr [who was the first one to accept Islam after Khadija, Ali, and Zayd].. If Aisha was born in 613/614, then she was absolutely born as a Muslim for a Muslim family... and Ibn Ishaq or Ibn Hisham weren't going to say that she converted when she was young together with her sister Asma. Why should the article also not cite the numerous traditional sources which stated that Asma was 10 years older than Aisha, like Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, Al-Dhahabi, Abu Bakr Al-Bayhaqi, Ibn Kathir, and Ibn 'Asakir.

In addition to the Arab Encyclopedia (which states that Asma was 10 years older than Aisha), the Global Arabic Encyclopedia also states that Asma was 10 years older than Aisha... These two sources (together with Abbas el-Akkad) are "super reliable sources"... which means that Aisha was born 10 years after Asma [who was born 27 years before the Hijra according to the traditional sources (I can also cite many traditional sources which stated that Asma was born 27 years before the Hijra)].. Thus, Aisha was born 17 years before the Hijra [604 CE] and married the Prophet Muhammad when she was 18.--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Beside all these, I referred to a popular Sunni Imam Mohammad Nabulsi who said that Aisha was possibly in her 20s when the Prophet married her.--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have questions about whether sources are considered reliable, you can pose them at WP:RSN. Liepert's credentials are in anesthiology, not early Islamic history. He also has a reputation for expertise in interfaith relations. He seems to be excellent at what he does. He does not pretend to be an expert in early Islamic history, however. He may have his own personal opinions about early Islamic history, as many people do, but those do not extend to the level of professional judgements. El-Akkad died over 50 years ago. He had no credentials whatsoever. His view about Aisha's age may have been current when he wrote it 80 years ago (although even that is not certain), but there is no evidence of any currency among historians teaching today. Dayf's credentials and positions were in literary criticism. Which page does he make that claim? Nabulsi's credentials and positions were in education studies, and that is a self-published article openly meant for apologetics, not scholarship.

Read also WP:SYNTHESIS: Concluding from a reliable source which states something like "Asma was 10 years older than Aisha" to your own conclusion which does not exist in the reliable source that Aisha was some age at marriage will most likely be considered original research, which is not allowed.

I would suggest this as an exercise; this may be a learning experience. Start by reading Afsaruddin's entry and the first chapter of Spellberg's book. Then, try to find a work published by a mainstream academic press in the last 20 years, written by a tenured professor who teaches on the subject on early Islamic history at an accredited, mainstream university who disagrees with Afsaruddin's or Spellberg's viewpoint. When you have that, bring it here, and we will include it along with all the other viewpoints. If you cannot find such a work, before you come back to suggest other less reliable sources, perhaps you should ponder why it is that the viewpoint you want to include does not have support among the most reliable sources. Also, think about how the sources you are suggesting may differ from the mainstream sources. If after this exercise you feel that the article is still neglecting some reliable sources, then you can continue the argument. This is just a suggested exercise that I think may be helpful to you. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Atethnekos, What are your credentials to say that el-Akkad doesn't have credentials!? this is ridiculous... If el-Akkad doesn't have credentials, then all the amateurs mentioned in the article don't have credentials.

Let me make it more clear for you.. those whom you mentioned [i.e. Afsaruddin's or Spellberg's] are absolutely unreliable sources who lack the required credentials.--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

the numerous traditional sources which state that Aisha was 10 years younger than Asma, and that Asma was born 27 years before the Hijra, and the numerous modern sources [like the Glopal Arabic Encyclopedia] which state that Aisha was 10 years younger than Asma, and that Asma was born 27 years before the Hijra; leads to the point that: Aisha was born 17 years before the Hijra and married Muhammad at the age of 18.

This point has many scholars [and Imams] who supported it, and you have no credentials to criticize them.--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Spellberg and Afsaruddin are top-quality reliable sources for the claims for which they are cited. They are the exact opposite of amateurs. They are employed by Indiana University Bloomington and University of Texas at Austin respectively specifically for their expertise on such matters. These are perfectly mainstream, reputable institutions. Put it this way: You go to professional dentist when you want an opinion about your teeth. You go to a professional historian when you want an opinion about history. That's roughly the sort of reasoning we follow at this encyclopedia. If you don't accept that sort of reasoning, then you are going to have a very hard time fitting in here. If you want to pretend that they are unreliable sources, go ahead, but your view is not accepted by the community. If you sincerely doubt that, then go ahead and ask the community at WP:RSN. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Neither Spellberg nor Afsaruddin nor any of those cited in the current article have the reputability and the credibility of Abbas el-Akkad.--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

In addition to being more reputable and more reliable, Abbas el-Akkad had a much better access to the original Arabic sources. This of course makes him far more reliable in the specific issue.--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Being employed by Indiana university or by university of Texas doesn't mean that you a reliable source at all. Being a reliable source requires being frequently referred to by the specialists in the specific field. Abbas el-Akkad is very well known in the field of "historical biographies", and his reputation in this field is far greater than all the amateurs mentioned in the current article.

So, your opinion about Abbas el-Akkad doesn't matter. what does matter is the opinion of the specialists in the field.

Westerner amateurs aka scholars, in general, have a bad reputation in the field of Islamic studies or Islamic history, and they were widely criticized by almost every Muslim scholar specialist in the field, and by many honest Western scholars as well like Thomas Carlyle. Thus, they are not reliable sources at all in this field (because of their bad reputation and because they are widely criticized by the specialists in the field).--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Any proof of that? Or is this just more of the "Western scholars cannot be relied upon! They're automatically bias!" I'm sick of hearing this. Criticizing Muhammad isn't racist, saying Westerners are inherently unreliable/liars/"Islamophobes" is bigoted nonsense. I've read the Hadiths. Take a look at Sahih Muslim 8:3310. Other views all seem to be fringe theories not in line with most Islamic scholarship and historical views. Funny how this has only been challenged today! And please, stop the SYN material and spewing of unreliable sources...--Somchai Sun (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Spellberg and Afsaruddin have excellent reputations. They are frequently referred to by specialists in the field. Just look at some of the citations to Spellberg's book: [17]. No one has doubted the overall quality of their scholarship. Spellberg's book has positive reviews in British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, JAOS, Iranian Studies, The Middle East Journal, and International Journal of Middle East Studies. The Encyclopedia of Islam in which Afsaruddin is writing is probably the most cited work in the field, next to the primary sources. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Atethnekos, Abbas el-Akkad is far more reputable than the ones you mentioned, and he is far more respected in the specific field "historical biographies" than them. In fact, I don't consider the ones you mentioned as reliable sources at all, and they don't seem to have any reputation at all in the specific field.

As I said before, the Western scholars are considered, in general, unreliable in the field of Islam and Islamic history. You might like to refer to them, but I don't like to do so.

In addition, Muslim scholars have better access to the original Arabic text of the primary sources. This of course gives them a very important advantage.

As for Dr. Nabulsi, he is a popular Sunni Imam and specialist in the field of hadiths. and of course being specialist in the field of hadiths is a very important advantage in this issue "the age of Ayeshah".

Moreover, there is nothing wrong if i cited the numerous traditional sources like ibn 'Abd al-Barr, Al-Dhahabi, Abu Bakr Al-Bayhaqi, Ibn Kathir, and Ibn 'Asakir which all state that Asma was 10 years older than Aisha, and that Asma was born 27 years before the Hijra.

the numerous traditional sources which state that Aisha was 10 years younger than Asma, and that Asma was born 27 years before the Hijra, and the numerous modern sources [like the Glopal Arabic Encyclopedia] which state that Aisha was 10 years younger than Asma, and that Asma was born 27 years before the Hijra; leads to the point that: Aisha was born 17 years before the Hijra and married Muhammad at the age of 18.

Somchai, you yourself describe yourself in your talk page that you are devious, deceiving & evil, and I don't like to discuss with such a character, but I will say this for you anyway: "books of hadiths were NEVER considered by Muslims as holy books, and contradictions already existed in them since the beginning of time. They are just books of history that might contain errors and contradictions like any another book of history, but this doesn't mean that they are not reliable."

the Islamic books of hadiths are just like the Christian Canonical gospels. They are just books of history that are full of contradictions and errors. In contrast, The Holy Qur'an is unique & genuine. It is not a book of history or narrations, and no one ever was able to find any single error or contradiction in it at all.

Atethnekos, I have an exercise for you. talk this category "child marriage" and try to put it in the article "Mary", because this is what the top-reliable scholars specialists in the field with excellent reputation have said about the age of Mary in the Catholic Encyclopedia: Just look at how many times the Catholic Encyclopedia was cited :)--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I won't follow your exercise, because I believe that would violate WP:POINT. I've tried to help you and bring you to understand the standards of the English Wikipedia. I'll leave the rest up to you. Again, if you think that something is a reliable source, or not a reliable source, you can find community judgement for it at WP:RSN. Good luck with your editing. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

"In fact, I don't consider the ones you mentioned as reliable sources at all, and they don't seem to have any reputation at all in the specific field." - you see, this is the crux of your problem here Zwanzig 20. You're being partisan and polarized, claiming western sources are automatically bias & unreliable. You're arguing from a one-sided POV. No one doubts that some scholars hold the belief that Aisha was not a child bride (which are all relatively recent argument), but this doesn't cancel out the opposite views, in that she was a child bride. Considering the majority of Western scholarly views are based on Sunni Jurisprudence and Scholarship...why aren't you calling these Sunni scholars "liars" and such? Why are they not the target of your scorn? Ah, that's right, you respect them, right? Sheesh. --Somchai Sun (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Atethnekos, I am of course not going to ask this community here to tell me what to do in an issue like this. the refusal to put the child marriage category in the article of Mary, while keeping it in the article of Ayeshah, is a clear example of WP:Bias & WP:Double standard. This is why I said before that the Westerners are in general unreliable in the field of Islamic studies or Islamic history, because they are biased in general.

Somchai, Western scholars are in general unreliable in the field of Islamic studies or Islamic history, because they are partisan and polarized, serving the particular agenda of the Western Zionist bigots. In addition to this, they don't even have an access to the original Arabic text of the traditional sources; which makes them far less reliable in this field than Muslim scholars.

Traditional sources considered that Aisha was a maiden not a child bride ["maiden" means in Arabic "Bakr بكر". This is why Abu Bakr was called Abu Bakr (father of the maiden)]!! Saying that she was married at the age of 9 or 10 didn't mean that she was a child bride, and traditional sources didn't consider that she was a child bride. Traditional sources considered that she was a maiden, because at that time, women used to become adult and mature enough in a similar age [Just take the example of Mary who married Joseph when she 12 and was considered a maiden not a child bride.]

No one of both Muslims and non-Muslims [before the 20 century] said or considered that Prophet Muhammad had a child bride, because Aisha was considered a maiden like Mary at the time of her marriage.

Just take the example of Mary, and you will understand.

The books of hadiths are not considered holy in Islam. They are not considered books without errors. They are just books of tradition "Traditional books", and no Muslim ever would say that the books of hadiths are holy or without errors. Muslims never say that. They are just books of tradition. They are reliable, but this doesn't mean that they are 100% accurate.--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Zwanzig 20:, you need to take a step back. It's fine for you to believe that "Western scholars are in general unreliable in the field of Islamic studies or Islamic history, because they are partisan and polarized, serving the particular agenda of the Western Zionist bigots." However, it is not OK to try and edit any article based on that belief. Certain scholars are regarded as reputable and reliable and can be used no matter where they are from. If you think that a particular scholar is not reliable then the place to discuss that is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Wikipedia articles should be written based on the consensus of a group of editors and not by one person holding a given belief. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 01:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, next time read what I wrote before replying to me! read WP:Bias & WP:Double standard in order to understand what the issue here is. 1st of all, the child marriage category should be put in the article of Mary or removed from this article. 2nd, the age of Ayeshah is disputed: which means that the article shouldn't say that she was born in 613 or 614 or that she married the Prophet when she was 9 or 10, but it should say that the age of Ayeshah is disputed with some traditions mention that she was 9 or 10 and some traditions mention that she was 18 & that she was born before Islam. 3rd, the article should depend mainly on the works of Muslim scholars rather than Christian or Atheist ones: a paragraph like: "==Non-Muslim view of Aisha==" might be added in order to include what non-Muslim scholars like Spellberg think about her, but the main article should depends on the works of Muslim scholars not non-Muslim ones, because Muslim scholars are more reliable in this field with a far better access to the original text of the traditional sources.

Was the article of Mary, Peter, Jesus, John...etc written according to the Muslim or Jewish scholars or according to the Christian ones?! Was the article of Mary, Peter, Jesus, John...etc written according to the Islamic or Jewish view or according to the Christian view?!

Just as these article were written according to the Christian view, the article of Ayeshah should be written according to the Muslim view, and a paragraph like "==Non-Muslim view of Aisha==" might be added.

4th, Ayeshah is not recognized in the Muslim tradition as a politician! she didn't have any role in politics except after the martyrdom of Uthman and only for a short period of time. She, like many Muslims of that time, considered that the murderers of Uthman should be killed. This is why she had a role in the battle of the Camel, but this doesn't mean that she had any interest in politics. the major role of Ayeshah was as a preacher of Islam not as a politician. the "==Non-Muslims view of Aisha==" is that she had a role in politics, but this is just based on fantasy and lies.

The real role that Ayeshah had in the history of the Muslim world is as a preacher of the faith of Prophet Muhammad. This is how Aisha is recognized in the Muslim tradition and by Muslim scholars.

5th, Aisha wasn't the favorite wife of the Prophet Muhammad. His favorite wife was Khadija (pbuh).[18][19][20][21]. Thus, saying that Aisha was the favorite wife is just a claim.

6th, Sunni Muslims don't revere anyone over Ali. Sunni Muslims criticize Ayeshah also [as well as anyone who had a role in the civil war against Ali], but they honor her because Ali himself honored her, and the Sunni traditions mention that Ayeshah regretted her role in the civil war against Ali. Ali is considered by Sunni as the best man ever after Prophet Muhammad.[22] and the fourth Rashidun Caliph.

Although Saul was a Messiah [an anointed one], he fought against another Messiah [king David (pbuh)] who was better than Saul. Does this mean that Saul was evil?!!! of course no! and David himself spared the life of Saul, and honored him as well.

Ali was like David, and the ones [like Muawiyah I, 'Amr ibn al-'As, and many others including Ayeshah] who had a role in the civil war against him were like Saul. This is the Sunni view of the ones who had a role in the civil war against Ali. They don't revere them over Ali. they criticize them because of what they did against Ali, but they still honor them just as the Jews still honor Saul.

7th, it is called "The incident of al-Ifk/The Incident of the Slander" not the accusation of adultery!! this is: per WP:COMMONNAME. This is how the event is typically referred to.

The Jewish tradition "Talmud" consider that Mary committed adultery. Does this mean that the article of Mary should include a paragraph about her being accused of committing adultery by her own people?!

Just as Mary was falsely accused, Ayeshah was also falsely accused, and the accusation of both Mary & Aisha is typically referred to as the Incident of the Slander.--Zwanzig 20 (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I did indeed read everything you wrote, I always read everything. However, it might be best to try and shorten what you want to say as some editors will take a look at the length and say Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. Unfortunate but that is just the way it is. I'm not interested in what is or is not included in the article but just what is the consensus as to the article contents. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 23:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing Aisha's age of marriage from the introductory paragraph

I do not see any legitimate reason to place Aisha's age of marriage at the introductory paragraph.The only purpose such placement seem to serve is to alert the attention of English speaking readers to an issue dominant in anti-Muslims/ anti-religion western discourse about Aisha. I suggest he removal of that sentence from the introductory paragraph, as its placement seems more linked with a covert attempt- motivated by ideological reasons- to bring the issue of her age of marriage to the mind of readers- which is quite shocking to modern, urban people- which is not really the most neutral thing out there. The discussion of this issue need to be restricted only to the section designated for that topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.90.99 (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

We have "The issue of Aisha's age at the time she was married to Muhammad has been of interest since the earliest days of Islam, and references to her age by early historians are frequent," which contradicts your "only purpose" assumption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

At the very least the sentence needs to come later in the introductory paragraph. Placing This issue straight after the name of Aisha really feels like someone is trying to make it stand out above all other aspects related to that historical figure- like her leading o a military campaign against Ali, or her being considered the most influential religious scholar after the Islamic prophet to Sunni Muslims, in other words the order is ideological, not innocent.

Also reading this article one notices a conspicuous lack of discussion of why this issue sparked debate among Muslim scholars in the first place. There is almost nothing about the Shia/Sunni split about issue .More problematically, only Sunni sources and Hadiths are used in this article to 'prove' that Aisha was a 6 when she got married.Someone needs to balance the article a bit. Muslims are not only Sunnis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altwab (talk • contribs) 18:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The order is chronological, not ideological. However the first sentence could be expanded beyond "wife of Muhammad". If you think the article need a better balance of sources then your best bet is to make some specific suggestions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Is it really ok to call Muhammad a pedophile?

User:77.103.185.140 has insisted on leaving the line: "which would essentially mean that Muhammad was a paedophile" in this article. I believe this is inappropriate and should be removed, and I have done so twice. Not wanting to start an edit war, I invite 77.103.185.140 to express his opinions here. -- Kndimov (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a WP:POV & WP:OR addition for sure. Sure, some individuals describe Muhammad as a pedophile, but many others do not. Some Muslims even make the bold claim that marrying a 6-year-old is not pedophilia (Sunnis/Salafists for example), while others make the claim Aisha was much older at the time of her marriage consummation... We do not give lop-sided views here, and WP:WEIGHT must be exercised. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It's nonsense. It's imposing our laws and culture on an entirely different culture and period. Child marriage was not uncommon in medieval Europe and elsewhere. See [23] "The practice of girls marrying young is most common in sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia. In other parts of Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, marriage at or shortly after puberty is common among some groups. In parts of Western and Eastern Africa and Southern Asia, the marriage of girls before puberty is not unusual." "In Ethiopia and some areas of West Africa, some girls get married as early as age 7." Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

(e-c) It is certainly anachronistic and to a degree biased to describe one person by the perjorative terms of a later time and culture. It also relates to Muhammad, who is not the subject of the article, and probably should be in an article directly about him if anywhere.John Carter (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Our prophet pedophile? Naujubillah. He married her because of the order of Allah. Moreover Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had sex with Aisha for first time when she became a prepubescent. Why people don't understand it? HiJiGN€ ^{Tell me} 19:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be unacceptable to use a term like "pedophile" in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. It is (1) an emotionally-laden term that (2) adds no real information and (3) is often bandied around in a manner that ignores the technical (DSM-5) definition.

In the case of Muhammad, there is no serious doubt that when he was 52 he initiated a sexual relationship with a 9-year-old prepubescent, and that he continued that relationship for the next six years (at which point she reached menarche). Readers can draw their own conclusions from this circumstance. It insults the intelligence of the readers to assume that they wouldn't know how a modern Western court of law would view this behaviour. At the same time, we have too little information to know exactly how a modern psychologist would assess this person.

As to whether this behaviour was normal in seventh-century Arabia: well, how are we to know, given they didn't leave written records? It was probably not usual (because it wasn't usual in most societies) and they probably didn't make much fuss when it happened (because they don't exactly seem to have been great champions of children's rights). But the previous sentence is just speculation based on original research - we don't really know.

Rather than sitting in medical, legal or moral judgment, rather than calling people names, I think we should just state what happened and cite the sources.Petra MacDonald 12:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Its not POV if it is a fact. If she was 9 years old when he had sex with her then he was indeed a pedophile, check Pedophilia 82.4.255.94 (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As stated many times, you cannot apply a modern term/concept to a different time period. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

And why not? What year did pedophiles officially become pedophiles? And what term do we use for someone who had sex with a 9 year old, 1400 years ago Neil? 82.4.255.94 (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Late 19th century according to the article you supposedly read - Pedophilia. You can do your own homework for your second question. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have some reliable sources which say that he was a pedophile, then you could include that information with due weight somewhere. It's unlikely that you would find such sources though, because no responsible scholar is going to give a psychiatric diagnosis of a person about whom there is very little information. If you read Hitler: Diagnosis of a Destructive Prophet (Oxford University Press, 1998) by Redlich, you see the standard conclusion of responsible scholars: There is simply not enough data to make a psychiatric or psychological diagnosis. And that's for a person for whom we have detailed reports from his personal physician, personal correspondence, private writings, etc. For Muhammad, we have nothing even close to that. As Aaron W. Hughes says: "As any scholar of early Islam will tell you, we know next to nothing about the prophet Muhammmad." [24]. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

As I've said before, this would violate NPOV. Child marriage is still accepted in various parts of the world, and in the past it was much more common. King John's half-brother William Longespée, 3rd Earl of Salisbury married Ela of Salisbury, 3rd Countess of Salisbury when she was 9. None of this has anything to do with a purely sexual interest in children. Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you justified Mohammed as not being a pedophile because he had sex with a "prepubescent" girl, and not a "child"??? This is CLEARLY pedophelia! 129.180.158.114 (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding to Category:Child sexual abuse in religious groups

This article should be added to "Category:Child sexual abuse in religious groups" because:

The majority of traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of six or seven, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, or ten according to Ibn Hisham,[6] when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina;[7][8][9]

Also, the article Criticism of Muhammad has this to say:

From the 20th century onwards, a common point of contention has been Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, who was six or seven when betrothed to Muhammad[37] and nine, or according to al-Tabari, ten, when the marriage was consummated.[37][38][39][40][41] American historian Denise Spellberg states that "these specific references to the bride's age reinforce Aisha's pre-menarcheal status and, implicitly, her virginity."[37] Colin Turner, a professor of Islamic studies,[42] states that since such marriages between an older man and a young girl were customary among the Bedouins, Muhammad's marriage would not have been considered improper by his contemporaries.[43] Moreover, Karen Armstrong, the British author on comparative religion, has affirmed that "There was no impropriety in Muhammad's marriage to Aisha. Marriages conducted in absentia to seal an alliance were often contracted at this time between adults and minors who were even younger than Aisha. This practice continued in Europe well into the early modern period."[44]

Critics such as Baptist pastor Jerry Vines and the Dutch Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders have cited the age of Aisha to denounce Muhammad for having had sex with a nine-year-old, referring to Muhammad as a pedophile.[28][45][46] Pandit Chamupati wrote that Aisha was about the same age as Muhammad’s granddaughter, and a better way for Muhammad to make Abu Bakr (Aisha'a father) a relative would have been to adopt Aisha as his own daughter and marry her off.[47]

Please let me know what you think. Hebrew Warrior (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

HIGLY OPPOSE The category you mentioned is full of religious cults who abused children at a massive scale. This is not the case here. I will not go into a discussion with you into the religious side for that will only start an edit war. But the simple reason is that the category you mentioned does not have ANYONE like this article. When other articles like this are included in that category THEN, and only then can this be included. It takes literally 2 minutes to look at the category and realize that what you are trying to do is enforce an agenda. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I second that, the historical account shows that what took place were within the societal norms of the time. It would not be appropriate to categorise this article into that group. Mbcap (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think you are going too far by saying that this marriage was "within the societal norms of the time". First, we don't know what was normal, since there are so few records; at best, this might have been normal. Second, what was normal in most pre-industrial societies was the legal marriage of children. There have been very few societies where it was normal to consummate a marriage with a pre-pubescent.

The real point seems to be that Arabia was a society with no central government and no "laws" as we understand them - only customs. These customs could not be enforced unless transgressions were serious enough to warrant bloodshed. Aisha's marriage was almost certainly unusual, but it didn't fall into any recognised category of "offence".

While the "it was normal for the time" argument has yet to be proved, I agree that any "abuse" or "crime" category is inappropriate. Plenty of strong sources for the facts have been provided, and readers come to Wikipedia to learn facts.Petra MacDonald 23:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually Petra Mcdonald, you are simply expressing your views here. It does not matter the slightest if any records exist as long as there are enough secondary sources that stipulate that it was within the societal norms of the time. There are indeed enough sources to suggest so; just do simple google search (books/news/scholar). Sources say marriage of children was legal at those times and an accepted norm. Aisha was 6 when she married and after she started puberty at the age of 9, the marriage was consummated. She was not pre-pubescent as it was not allowed according to them to consummate a marriage with a pre-pubescent wife. This is the majority opinion. Yes, I agree it should not be categorised into that. Mbcap (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not denying that the legal marriage of children was an accepted norm. Of course it was. In fact, Arabs used to marry off hypothetical daughters who had not yet been born (although Muhammad did not encourage this particular custom). What I am questioning is whether it was normal to consummate a marriage with a prepubescent.

Do you have a reference for your assertion Aisha had already reached menarche at age 9 in 623? If so, that should certainly be included in the main article, because it does in fact make a difference to the way readers perceive the information.

Aisha states that she was still a jariya (“prepubescent girl” or “slave” but never a free woman of childbearing age) as late as January 628 (Bukhari 3:48:829 and other similar ahadith). She speaks of herself in the same way regarding a separate incident that occurred a few months earlier or later (Muslim 4:1940). It is also strongly implied that she had not reached puberty in Abu Dawud 41:4914, since Muhammad did not become annoyed (as he did in Abu Dawud 32:4146) but just laughed. This incident was in July 628. So Aisha must be considered a prepubescent at least up to this date unless there is clear evidence that she was misusing her vocabulary or lying about her maturity.

Consummation of a marriage with a prepubescent is specifically permitted in the Qur’an (cf Q65:1, 4 with Q33:49), but this does not prove it was also a pre-Islamic custom. It could be that it was a new custom directly derived from the precedent of Aisha's prepubescent marriage.

So my position is that Muhammad was doing something that was probably (not certainly) counter-cultural; but (almost by definition) was not illegal. And I think that makes a difference to the way it should be categorized in an encyclopaedia.Petra MacDonald 09:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

First thing to be said is that what you said about the Qur'anic verses is wrong. Qur'an 65:4 and Qur'an 33:49 don't give any permission to consummate marriage with prepubescent girls. Actually, I couldn't understand in the beginning how you made this odd interpretation of the verses, but after searching the anti-Islam websites in order to find out the source of this falsity, I understood. You were told by those imposters of the Christian missionaries that the phrase "those who didn't menstruate" is meant to be a reference to "prepubescent girls". In fact, this is false!

"Women who didn't menstruate" include "women with Polycystic ovary syndrome", women with Anorexia nervosa, or women with other problems (see: Amenorrhoea which can be primary or secondary). Any woman (Muslim woman) who loses her husband (whether by death or by divorce) have to wait for a period of 3 months before being able to marry again if she didn't menstruate in the period that preceded the divorce or the death of her husband. This is what the phrase "those who didn't menstruate" actually means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.31.49.59 (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

As for your request for a reference which specifically states that Ayesha was adult and mature enough at the time of her marriage, here is a reference: "Explanation of Sahih Muslim, by Imam Nawawi, Book of Marriage, Hadeeth 75, Vol 9, p.207": citing Imam Dawudi (in his comment on the marriage of Ayesha) said: ‘And Aisha then had physically matured well indeed’.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.31.49.59 (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

In addition, the Arabic word jariya (جارية) doesn't mean “prepubescent girl” or "slave" as you said. You are wrong. The word is actually used to refer to a "free woman of a young age (specifically of childbearing age)" or to a "concubine (regardless of her age)" like the 300 concubines of Solomon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.31.49.59 (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

As for the age of Ayesha, you need to notice that it is only one person (only Ayesha) who made this claim that she was 9 years old at the time of her marriage. Neither the Prophet Muhammad nor anyone else made any similar claim. This allows us (as Muslims) to criticize the reliability of Ayesha's claim.

Call for Reference Check

To speak of facts, I'd like a check on this one. As of today, the article includes the sentence:

Ibn Khallikan, as well as Ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi citing Hisham ibn Urwah, record that she was nine years old at marriage, and twelve at consummation.

This is referenced to:

Afsaruddin 2014: "according to the chronology of Ibn Khallikān (d. 681/1282) she would have been nine at her marriage and twelve at its consummation (Wafayāt al-aʿyān, 3:16), a chronology also supported by a report from Hishām b. ʿUrwa recorded by Ibn Saʿd (d. 230/845; al-Ṭabaqāt, 8:61)."

This may well be a faithful citation of the secondary reference Afsaruddin. However, after reading through every tradition about Aisha in volume 8 of the Tabaqat, I cannot find one that gives her age as nine/twelve. There are three that say six/nine, two that say seven/nine and one that says six only. Perhaps I missed it. Or perhaps my translator (Bewley) cut this tradition from her abridgment (if so, it is a particularly unfortunate omission). Can anyone confirm that the alleged citation does in fact exist?Petra MacDonald

Year of marriage

Seems an anomaly has crept in applying the various date references in Hijri and converting to AD. In Muhammad's lifetime, events in chronological order were Death of Khadija, marriage to Sawda and marriage to Aisha. Year of Aisha's marriage cannot be 619 AD, when the earlier two events are marked as 620 AD. For now, i back calculated and am using 620 AD in template, which may be reverted in all locations if there is stronger proof. Atif.hussain (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2015

You can NOT have a picture of either Muhammed nor his wives, this is an offense to me as a Muslim. Please remove any pictures as they're obviously not made by Muslims and have no meaning in itself for us. Thank you! 78.230.70.1 (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The inclusion of pictures of Muhammed (and his wives) have been discussed at great length.
Please read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ which also explains how you can configure your browser so that you do not see such images. - Arjayay (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight

Hey the article lacks a prominent viewpoint and is not lending the proper weight to Shia viewpoint. Besides the body of the article, the lead must include Shia viewpoint about Aisha. Mhhossein (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2015

I would like to add the following sections to the "Age at marriage" section.

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Per discussion, consensus is not clear Mdann52 (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Your Request about Abu Bakr's Daughters

First response - just the facts

Al-Dhahabi has his own Wikipedia article, which links to the text of his book Siyar a‘lam al-Nubala’ (The Lives of Noble Figures). His article about Asma bint Abi Bakr is number 143 and it is in volume 2. The full text is here. https://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B1_%D8%A3%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%A1/%D8%A3%D8%B3%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%A1_%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%AA_%D8%A3%D8%A8%D9%8A_%D8%A8%D9%83%D8%B1

The article begins with her name, then a long list of the people who narrated hadith from her. The next words are:

وكانت أسن من عائشة ببضع عشرة سنة

This means something like:

She was older than Aisha by ten years plus a few.

The word "few" is precise in Arabic: it means "three to nine". So it could be translated:

She was thirteen to nineteen years older than Aisha.

Then he goes on to talk about her emigration to Medina and her participation at Yarmouk. There is no reference for any of these basic facts about Asma. Probably Dhahabi assumed them to be so well attested that no reference was required (similar to "Muhammad was born in Mecca and he died at Medina"). From our point of view, of course, we are left with the disadvantage that we don't know what the source was.

However, he does cite sources for the less well-known information later in the article. After a narration from Asma on another topic, we read:

قال عبد الرحمن بن أبي الزناد كانت أسماء أكبر من عائشة بعشر

This means something like:

Abdulrahman ibn Abi’l-Zinaad said that Asma was older than Aisha by ten.

Then he moves on to the next narration. He makes no comment about the contradiction with the previous tradition, let alone on the reliability of either narration.

One fact should be obvious to us without further research. It is not true that "all the historians agree that Asma was ten years older than Aisha". Dhahabi does not agree with it because he cites two contradictory narrations with no comment on which one to prefer.Petra MacDonald (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Second response - the other two historians

I double-checked the other two references. Long story short, our friend 5.107.81.93 has shown absolute good faith in providing valid sources. It's only his use of the sources that I would question.

As the user says, Ibn Asakir writes:

قال ابن أبي الزناد: وكانت أكبر من عائشة بعشر سنين

This means:

Ibn Abi'l-Zinaad said: "She was older than Aisha by ten years."

Although the wording is not identical to Dhahabi's, it is still sourced to the same narrator (Ibn Abi'l-Zinaad) and the meaning is the same.

Ibn Kathir writes:

وهي أكبر من أختها عائشة بعشر سنين.

This means:

She was older than her sister Aisha by ten years.

He does not cite his source. The wording is a third variant (addition of the word "sister" as well as "years" and using a pronoun instead of "Asma"). Either he is citing a different tradition or he is giving a paraphrase.

Note that Ibn Kathir also wrote this about Aisha's age (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya, Le Gassick's translation, vol. 2, p. 94):

His statement, "He contracted marriage with 'A'isha when she was six, thereafter consummating marriage with her when she was nine" is not disputed by anyone, and is well established in the sahih collections of traditions and elsewhere.

Therefore to claim Ibn Kathir's authority for the tradition about the sisters' age-difference to "prove" that Aisha was any other age would be to misrepresent Ibn Kathir's conclusions.

Third response - general observations

These three historians are authorities: unlike, say, Discovering Islam, which just seems to be someone's blog and an unsuitable resource for Wikipedia, they should be taken seriously.

However, it is not correct to pin a whole case on two citations of a single source plus a third anonymous citation that may or may not be independent while ignoring the body of evidence that states something different. The overall case seems weak when we consider that we are dealing with three claims, one of which must be false.

1. Asma was born in 595.
2. Aisha was born in 614.
3. The age-difference was ten years.

The assertion most likely to be correct is the one about Aisha because it is multiply attested and derives from Aisha herself. It could only be wrong if Aisha were mistaken or lying; it is not possible that so many different witnesses all misrepresented her identically. The assertion of Asma's age is not as strong because (as far as I know) there is only one tradition, deriving from Asma's son. If there is a mistake about either sister's age, it is more likely to be Asma's than Aisha's. The weakest assertion is that of the ten-year age-difference because it derives from a weak narrator who was not a contemporary. It also contradicts an alternative tradition that the age-difference was 13-19 years, although that is only important if the strength of this tradition can be established.

You can cut and paste any or all of this to Asma's talk page if you think it would help.Petra MacDonald (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Marriage year

It's claimed in this article and Muhammad's article that Aisha married in 619 C.E. and it's is also said that Muhammad hadn't married any other woman during Khadija's lifetime. As it's claimed in Khadija's article that she died in 620, then either the marriage year for Aisha and Muhammad is wrong or Khadija had died in 619 or even earlier. Please solve this problem and enlighten me. Keivan.f^Talk 12:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The marriage year should be around 623 CE. According to Sahih al-Bukhari,

Narrated 'Aisha: .. He married me after three years of her (Khadija_bint_Khuwaylid) death...

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:58:165

Msayati (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a secondary source that explicitly says that the marriage was in 623 AD? A source that says that the marriage was three years after another event whose date can be argued about is only useful as a supplementary citation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"Aisha betrothed to Muhammad in the year 623 in Medina"[25] Msayati (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The source says "Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad in the year 623 in Medina, when she was nine years old." [26] It also says Aisha was 18 when Muhammad died. Edward321 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

"Hakim ibn Hizam said, 'Khadija bint Khuwaylid died in the month of Ramadan in the tenth year of prophethood.'" (Ibn Saad/Bewley vol. 8 p. 12.)

"Aisha said, 'The Messenger of Allah married me in Shawwal of the tenth year of prophethood, three years before the hijra. I was six. The Messenger of Allah emigrated and reached Madina on Tuesday the 12th of the month of Rabi' al-Awwal. We had a wedding in Shawwal on the eighth month of hijra and I was nine at that time.'" (Ibn Saad/Bewley vol. 8 p. 43.

In fact the same dates are given in numerous sources. You can see that Aisha was married in the year of Khadija's death even if you don't know that Ramadan is the ninth month and Shawwal the tenth; and you can also see that the date of Aisha's wedding in Medina was about three years later. You might need to use a calendar converter ([27]) to work out that Khadija died in April/May 620, that Aisha was legally married in May/June 620, that the hijra was in September 622 (Rabi' al-Awwal is the third month) and that Aisha's wedding was in April/May 623. Are these dates solid enough, or would you like me to hunt for alternative sources?Petra MacDonald (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Some of you guys may have good intention but this could be borderline WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, don't overuse the primary source when there are secondary sources dealing with these things. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we do have modern histories that place the marriage in 623.

A few months at Medinah found the Prophet at the end of his resources … How parsimonious the Prophet was compelled to be is shown by the fact that when, seven months after his arrival, he married Ayeshah, there was no wedding feast. Since her father, the faithful Abu Bakr, provided the bridegroom with the indispensable gift to the bride, perhaps this ill-assorted union (for as such we must characterise the marriage of a man of fifty-three to a child of nine, dragged from her swing and her toys) was accelerated by the desire to obtain some ready money. (Margoliouth, D. S. (1905). Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, pp. 234-235. New York & London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.)

It is not clear just when the marriage actually took place. According to some versions, it was in the month of Shawwal of the Year 1, that is, some seven or eight months after the arrival at Medina; but, according to others, it was not until after the Battle of Badr, that is, in Shawwal of the second year of the Hijrah. (Abbott, N. (1942). Aishah – the Beloved of Mohammed, p. 6. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.)

[a list of the women whom he married] … 3. 'A'ishah bint Abi Bakr (Quraysh Taym), married in 623/1 aged 9; the only virgin Muhammad married. (Watt, W. M. (1956). Muhammad at Medina p. 295-296. Oxford: Oxford University Press.)

Again, we have reference to the minority position that the marriage was in 624. The issue here seems to be Aisha's repeated assertion that she was 9 when the marriage was consummated, that they were together for 9 years, and that she was 18 when Muhammad died (in 11 AH). However, she was married in the tenth month of the year and Muhammad died in the third month. So was the exact length of their married life eight and a half years or nine and a half? Either could be considered "nine". However, Aisha clearly states that she was born in 9 BH and that she was six at the time of the contract in 3 BH, so the earlier date of consummation seems to be correct.Petra MacDonald (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Petra MacDonald:. According to Sahih al-Bukhari,

Narrated 'Aisha: .. He married me after three years of her (Khadija_bint_Khuwaylid) death...

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:58:165

Al-Dhahabi also stated in his book about Sawda, the second wife of Muhammad,

Sawda passed away in the last year of Umar's caliphate. Sawda was the only wife of prophet Muhammad for four years and she did not share him with any other woman and any slave. Then he married Aisha.

As I mentioned above, there are lots of debate about these dates and there are lots of references that have conflict with each other. In the current version of the article, the birth date and her death also have conflict [678 (death) - 67 (age) = 611 (birth) != 613/614]. My only point is to provide all different aspects to the readers to be neutral. I've recently found several books that discuss these issues; However they are also all in Arabic (Tarikh Sahih Islam by Niknam Arabshahi, Sahih Men Sirato Nabi Alazam by Morteza Alameli). Msayati (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The age discrepancy makes sense when you realize that the Hijri calendar is 354 days per year vs the 365/366 day Gregorian. So, in theory (And this is just for the talk page as without sources this is just SYNTH/OR) if she was 67 years old when she died according to sources measuring by the Hijri, she would have been ~64-65 according to the Gregorian calendar as that 11-12 day difference over the course of 67 years would equate to over 800 days. So theoretically, if we assume this is the case, then when she dies in 678 CE, you do the math using this calculation and you get 678-(64 or 65) which gives us a birth date of 613/614. This could easily be where the descrepancy arises from, if different sources are measuring with different calendars. That is why it is important to directly quote sources that specifically mention firm dates and not try to work out the math on your own.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Msayti, thank you for your willingness to stick to the facts and provide real information. It's much appreciated.

Dhahabi lived 600 years after Muhammad and his paragraph about Sawda is a synthesis of earlier traditions, according to his best estimate of what was most likely to be accurate. I don't think it gives us any fresh problems - it might even solve a few.

1. The different traditions about Sawda's death arise from an ambiguity in the Arabic text. It isn't quite clear whether she died "in 54 AH" or "at the age of 54". Discussion of the right answer isn't really relevant on Aisha's page; but Dhahabi was certainly more entitled than most of us to decide which he thought was correct.
2. "She was his only wife for four years ..." seems to me to be saying that "no other wife lived in the house". Although Muhammad legally married Aisha only a few days after he married Sawda, she did not live with them immediately. Most sources say that she moved in three years later (late in 1 AH), but Ibn Kathir refers to isolated traditions that it was four years (in 2 AH). So, again, Dhahabi was entitled to his opinion.

I caution everyone to remember that there was no such year as 0! The Islamic calendar jumps from 1 BH to 1 AH with no year 0 between.Petra MacDonald (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Response to user:Petra MacDonald about Abu Bakr's Daughters

First of all, I should recommend you to read Wikipedia:Competence is required. The actual problem with user:Petra MacDonald here is that she is not even a competent person in the first place. She acknowledged previously here on the talk page of user:Edward123 that she is not even able to read a word in Arabic. A swift search is sufficient to show that she copied-pasted the majority of her false arguments from one single article posted on answering-Islam.org & wikiislam.net without having any knowledge of what she is talking about. @Petra MacDonald: once you learn how to read and write a simple sentence in Arabic, you may tell us what your "general observations" are, but given that you haven't even read the sources, your "general observations" are valueless.

The facts about the difference between the age of Ayesha and the age of Asma All (and I emphasize the word "all") Muslim scholars of history and tradition maintained that the difference between the age of Ayesha and the age of her sister Asma was precisely 10 years. This includes al-Dhahabi himself:

1. Original text:قَالَ عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بنُ أَبِي الزِّنَادِ: كَانَتْ أَسْمَاءُ أَكْبَرَ مِنْ عَائِشَةَ بِعَشْرٍ.
   

English translation: Narrated Abdul-Rahman ibn Abi-al-Zinad: Asma was 10 years older that Aisha.
Source: Al-Dhahabi, Siyar a`lam al-nubala'. Volume 2. Page 289.[28]

1. Original text: وكانت هي وأختها عائشة وأبوها أبو بكر الصديق، وجدها أبو عتيق، وابنها عبد الله، وزوجها الزبير صحابيين رضي الله عنهم. وقد شهدت اليرموك مع ابنها وزوجها، وهي أكبر من أختها عائشة بعشر سنين
   

English translation: She, her sister Aisha, her father Abu Bakr, her grandfather Abu Atiq, her son Abdullah, and her husband al-Zubair were Companions - God bless them -. She participated in the Battle of Yarmouk with her son and her husband, and she is ten years older than her sister Aisha.
Source: Ibn Kathir, the Beginning and the End. Volume 8. Page 345.

1. Original text: قال ابن أبي الزناد: وكانت أكبر من عائشة بعشر سنين.
   

English translation: Ibn Abi al-Zinad narrated: and she (Asma) was ten years older than Aisha.
Source: Ibn 'Asakir. History of Damascus. Volume 69. Page 8. [29]

General observation 1

• There has never been any Muslim scholar of history and tradition who presented "an alternative narration" about this age difference between the two sisters Asma and Aisha or "disputed the authenticity" of this narration. @Petra MacDonald: ask your friends on answering-Islam.org to find one Muslim scholar at least who "disputed this age difference" or one Muslim scholar at least who presented "an alternative narration". Given that I am a competent person who have read and studied all these sources, I can assure that they will never be able to bring "a genuine quotation from a scholar disputing the narration" or "a genuine quotation from a scholar presenting an alternative narration". Al-Dhahabi never "disputed the authenticity" of this narration anywhere, and also never presented anywhere "an alternative narration". In fact, the only narration he presented was itself the narration of Abdul-Rahman ibn Abi al-Zinad which asserts the age difference was only 10 years:

Original text: قَالَ عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بنُ أَبِي الزِّنَادِ: كَانَتْ أَسْمَاءُ أَكْبَرَ مِنْ عَائِشَةَ بِعَشْرٍ.

English translation: Narrated Abdul-Rahman ibn Abi-al-Zinad: Asma was 10 years older than Aisha.

Source: Al-Dhahabi, Siyar a`lam al-nubala'. Volume 2. Page 289.[30]

The phrase "slightly over 10" found on the previous page is not a narration in the first place given that there is no narrator for it and there is no source for it and it is not found anywhere else in the whole books of Muslim history and tradition except in that isolated page. Thus, claiming that that phrase is "an alternative narration" is a dishonest claim.

The facts about the date birth of Asma bint Abi Bakr

1. Original text:وقال أبو نعيم الأصبهانيّ: ولدت قبل الهجرة بسبع وعشرين سنة
   

English translation: Abu Nu`aym al-Isfahani narrated: She (Asma) was born 27 years Before Hegira.
Source:Al-Isaba fi Tamyiz al-Sahaba. Ibn Hajar Asqalani. Volume 8. Page 14.[31]

1. Original text: كَانَ لِأَسْمَاءَ يَوْمَ مَاتَتْ مِائَةُ سَنَةٍ وُلِدَتْ قَبْلَ التَّارِيخِ بِسَبْعٍ وَعِشْرِينَ سَنَةً، وَقَبْلَ مَبْعَثِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بِسَبْعَ عَشْرَةَ سَنَةً،
   

English translation: When Asma died she was 100 year old. She was born 27 years Before Hegira, and 17 years before the Prophet – Peace and Blessing of God be upon him – received his first revelation.
Source: Al-Tabarani, al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr. Volume 24. Page 77. [32]

1. Original text: وكانت لأسماء يوم ماتت مائة سنة ، ولدت قبل التاريخ بسبع وعشرين سنة [وقبل مبعث النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بسبع عشرة سنة]. وولدت أسماء لأبي بكر وسنه إحدى وعشرون سنة .
   

English translation: And Asma was 100 years old at the time of her death. She was born 27 years Before Hegira [and 17 years before the Prophet – Peace and Blessing of God be upon him – received his first revelation]. Asma was born for Abu Bakr when he was 21 years old.
Source: Majma al-Zawa'id, Ali ibn Abu Bakr al-Haythami. Volume 9. Page 260.[33]

General observation 2

• There has never been any Muslim scholar of history and tradition who presented an alternative narration about this birth date of Asma bint Abi Bakr or disputed the authenticity of this narration.

In Conclusion, Mrs. Ayesha was born 17 years Before Hegira and married the Prophet at the age of 18 according to all books of Muslim history and tradition based on details of her sister Asma's age.

On the other hand, however, Muslims who calculate 'Ayesha's age based on details of her sister Asma's age, about whom more is known, as well as on details of the Hijra (the Prophet's migration from Mecca to Madina), maintain that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen when she got married. Such views cohere with those Ahadith that claim that at her marriage Ayesha had "good knowledge of of Ancient Arabic poetry and genealogy" and "pronounced the fundamental rules of Arabic Islamic ethics"

— "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. Asma Barlas. University of Texax Press 2012. ISBN 0-292-70904-8 Page 126.‏

Facts about Abdul-Rahman ibn Abi al-Zinad & Hisham ibn Urwah Hisham ibn Urwah is the main narrator of the narration "that Ayesha married the Prophet at the age of 9 or 10", while Abdul-Rahman ibn Abi al-Zinad is the main narrator of the narration "that Asma was 10 years older than Ayesha". User:Petra MacDonald copied "false" claims posted on answering-Islam.org and pasted them here telling us that Abdul-Rahman ibn Abi al-Zinad is not reliable narrator, and that Hisham ibn Urwah is. These claims are bullshit.

• Both Imam Malik and Imam Tirmidhi considered Ibn ibn al-Zinad to be a trustful reliable narrator. There are a lot of ahadith in both Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim and other books of Sahih hadiths that are narrated by ibn Abi al-Zinad and all of them were classified by Bukhari and Muslim as "Sahih".[34] Examples of ahadith narrated by ibn Abi Al-Zinad in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim: [35]
• On the other hand, Hisham ibn Urwah was called "liar" by Imam Malik. Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani said about Hisham ibn Urwah that he might fabricated things in the Ahadith. Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani said that the memory of Hisham ibn Urwah deteriorated later in his life. Al-Dhahabi said that Hisham ibn Urwah suffered deterioration in his memory later in his life.[36]

In addition, the father of Abdul-Rahman ibn Abi al-Zinad (Abi al-Zinad) was called the "Commander of the Faithful in the Hadith" due to his top and ultimate reliability as a narrator.[37]

Reasons to consider the narration of ibn Abi al-Zinad more reliable and trustful than the narration of Hisham ibn Urwah 1. Hisham ibn Urwah was criticized and called "liar" by Imam Malik. In addition, he suffered deterioration in memory later in his life. On the other hand, Ibn Abi al-Zinad was consider top reliable and Sahih narrator and his father Abi al-Zinad was considered the "Commander of the Faithful in the Hadith".
2. Ibn Ishaq states in his Sirah Rasul Allah that Mrs Ayesha "converted to Islam when she was little girl" together with her father Abu Bakr and her sister Asma and lists them among the earliest converts. Stating that Ayesha "converted to Islam when she was little girl" instead of saying that "she was born in Islam" means that she was definitely born before 610 and that her age at the time of her marriage can't be less than 18 years old.

3. Imam Dawudi, the first scholar of hadiths ever to write an explanation of Sahih Bukhari and the second scholar of hadiths ever to write an explanation of Muwatta Imam Malik asserted that Ayesha was adult and mature enough at the time of her marriage.

Original text: قَالَ الدَّاوُدِيُّ وكانت عائشة قد شبت شباباً حسناً رضي الله عنها
English translation: Narrated Imam Dawudi: and Aisha - God bless her - then had physically matured well indeed’.

— Explanation of Sahih Muslim, by Imam Nawawi, Book of Marriage, Hadeeth 75, Vol 9, p.207: citing Imam Dawudi in the context about the age of Mrs. Ayesha at the time of her marriage to the Prophet.

What reliable secondary sources say

• This dates refers to the early days of Islam. For it is known that Aisha’s sister Asma, who was born in 595, was 15 when she became a Muslim. This indicates the year 610, when the Prophet started to receive the revelation and this then shows that Aisha was at least 5, 6 or 7 that day and that she was at least 17 or 18 when she married the Prophet in Medina.

  — Aisha: The Wife, The Companion, The Scholar. Reşit Haylamaz. ISBN 978-1-59784-266-2. Published by Tughra Books in 2012. p. 203.

• CONCLUSION: In light of the above discussion, there can be absolutely no doubt that any narration stating that Ayesha was 6-9 years old at the time of her marriage to Prophet Muhammad, is inaccurate. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that suggests that Ayesha was 19-21 years old at the time of her marriage.

  — Prophet Muhammad’s Wife Ayesha: Her Age at the Time of Marriage. An article by Prof. Muzammil H. Siddiqi.

• We can say that ‘Aisha was at least 19 when she got married according to the sources we have.

  — Nabulsi Encyclopedia. Orientalists or liars. An article by Dr. Mohammed Rateb al-Nabulsi.

• Furthermore, since her sister Asma, ten years older, was 100 when she died, and since it is a matter of record that Asma died more than seventy-two years after Aisha's wedding, a calculation based on those numbers put her age at the time of her consummation at greater than seventeen.

  — Muslim, Christian, and Jew: Finding a Path to Peace Our Faiths Can Share. ISBN 978-0-9813882-0-5. David Liepert. ‏Page 262.

• On the other hand, however, Muslims who calculate 'Ayesha's age based on details of her sister Asma's age, about whom more is known, as well as on details of the Hijra (the Prophet's migration from Mecca to Madina), maintain that she was over thirteen and perhaps between seventeen and nineteen when she got married. Such views cohere with those Ahadith that claim that at her marriage Ayesha had "good knowledge of of Ancient Arabic poetry and genealogy" and "pronounced the fundamental rules of Arabic Islamic ethics.

  — "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an. Asma Barlas. University of Texax Press 2012. ISBN 0-292-70904-8 Page 126.‏

--5.107.103.96 (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2016

citation 83 is incorrect - the source of Aslan is correct - the page number is inaccurate. It should be 74-75, not 136 Nydia A. Blood (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nydia A. Blood: You're probably looking at a different edition of the book. The 2011 "updated edition" has a similar passage on the pages you cite, but the passage quoted here has different wording. Eperoton (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)