Sanggahan Terhadap Apologis Muslim Mengenai Usia Aisha

From WikiIslam, the online resource on Islam
Jump to: navigation, search
Under-construction.jpg
This Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)‎ translation for Aishas Age of Consummation is currently incomplete
In its present state this page is not intended for public viewing. Please help us in completing this translation.
      
Page History - Article's Talk page
Last edit was made on 3/2/2015
Login / Create Account

Artikel ini merupakan analisa terhadap apologetika muslim masa kini yang berusaha mengaburkan usia Aisha sesungguhnya saat dirinya pertama kali berhubungan intim dalam pernikahan dengan Muhamad.

Pendahuluan[edit]

Beberapa apologis muslim baru-baru ini mengatakan bahwa Aisha berusia lebih dari sembilan tahun kalender bulan di saat hubungan intim pertamanya dengan nabi Muhamad. Mereka mencoba menjelaskan bahwa usia Aisha saat itu bukan sembilan tahun seperti yang tercatat dalam hadist sahih maupun dari pengakuan Aisha sendiri, melainkan berusia berbeda dengan didasari kepada penyalahgunaan kutipan, sumber yang tidak langsung, metode penanggalan yang tidak akurat, dan fitnah. Teknik penelitian asal-asalan ini menimbulkan dugaan umur yang saling bentrok mengenai usia Aisha saat dirinya berhubungan intim pertama kali, yaitu 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, dan 21 tahun. Artikel ini menganalisa setiap argumen yang disodorkan oleh para apologis tersebut, dan menyediakan informasi tambahan mengenai asal muasal dan latar belakang dari argumen-argumen apologetika "Aisha berumur lebih tua", dan apa sebenarnya satu-satunya tujuan logis dari argumen-argumen tersebut.

Tujuan[edit]

Argumen-argumen yang dilontarkan oleh para apologis muslim memberikan kesan yang keliru seakan-akan masalah usia nikah Aisha merupakan perdebatan yang sudah berlangsung lama dalam Islam, dan bahwa argumen-argumen tersebut valid atas penafsiran yang nantinya bisa membawa reformasi di dalam Islam umumnya. Jelasnya tidak demikian. Tidak ada yang bisa diperdebatkan soal penafsiran atas teks mengenai masalah umur Aisha. Ayat teks jelas-jelas mengatakan satu hal, dan hanya satu hal. Bagi mereka yang benar-benar telah membaca sumbernya, adalah tidak jujur untuk mengatakan sebaliknya. Berbohong mengenai apa yang dikatakan oleh sumber asli mungkin bisa efektif sebagai dakwah, tapi tidak ada gunanya apabila tujuannya adalah untuk mereformasi agama. Tidak ada satu pun ahli Islam sungguhan, seorang yang diterima di dunia muslim dan yang oleh umat muslim kebanyakan dianggap mewakili keyakinan mereka, yang mau mendukung argumen-argumen ini. Karena itu, satu-satunya tujuan mereka adalah untuk mengalihkan kritik-kritik valid terhadap suatu keyakinan yang terus-menerus menyebabkan jutaan gadis-gadis kecil dipaksakan ke dalam pernikahan pedofilia anak-anak oleh individu-individu, dan bahkan oleh negara-negara, di mana kesemuanya membenarkan tindakan tersebut dengan secara gamblang mengambil contoh hubungan suami-isteri antara Aisha dengan Muhamad.

Sejarah[edit]

Mayoritas muslim masa kini, termasuk para ahli dan populasi muslim kebanyakan, sepakat bahwa Aisha berusia 9 tahun ketika dirinya pertama kali berhubungan intim dalam pernikahan dengan Muhamad. Ini adalah pemahaman muslim kebanyakan sepanjang 1.400 tahun sejarah Islam.

Protes atas usia Aisha demi membela Muhamad untuk pertama kalinya berasal dari Maulana Muhammad Ali yang hidup dari 1874 hingga 1951. [1] Dia bukanlah tokoh yang dihormati ataupun dianggap penting oleh Islam, karena dia anggota aliran Ahmadiyya yang keyakinannya berbeda jauh dengan Islam kebanyakan. Aliran Ahmadiyya dan tulisan-tulisan mereka juga bertitik berat kepada usaha dakwah.

Selain protes dari Ali tersebut, ada juga Habib Ur Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi (1924-1991) yang menulis di bukunya dalam bahasa Urdu, "Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka'inat" (Terjemahan Inggris. 1997), mengeluh karena dirinya "letih membela tradisi ini" yang "ditertawakan" dan "diolok-olok" oleh individu-individu yang berpendidikan Inggris yang dia temui di Karachi. Orang-orang ini mengatakan bahwa tradisi usia Aisha tersebut berlawanan dengan "kearifan dan prudence" dan "memilih budaya Inggris daripada Islam gara-gara ini", dan Habib Kandhalvi mengakui bahwa dia "bertujuan membuat jawaban kepada musuh-musuh Islam yang melempar lumpur ke tubuh sang nabi yang Pemurah".[2] Pada bulan November 2004 setelah Habib Kandhalvi lama meninggal, keluar fatwa yang mengecam Habib Kandhalvi, menyatakan dirinya adalah "Munkir-e-Hadith" (penolak hadist) dan seorang "Kafir" dengan alasan bahwa si Habib adalah seseorang yang menolak hadist.[3]

Yang lebih baru lagi, ada Moiz Amjad (yang menyebut dirinya sebagai "Si Pelajar"). Dia mengakui memperoleh argumen-argumen keliru ini dari Maulana Muhamad Ali dan Habib Kandhalvi, menrangkum dan memaparkan argumen-argumen tersebut sebagai jawaban kepada muslim yang menanyakan bagaimana cara menjawab orang Kristen yang menyebut Muhamad sebagai pedofil. (i.e. semua argumen Moiz Amjad, seperti juga argumen Ali dan Kandhalvi sebelumnya, lebih bersifat dakwah dan bukan ilmiah).[4] Pada titik di masa sekarang inilah argumen-argumen yang berasal dari aliran Ahmadiyya pada masa 1920an dan 1930an akhirnya menjadi cukup populer di beberapa kalangan muslim kebanyakan. Walaupun begitu, popularitas ini tampaknya hanya terbatas sebagai artikel atau argumen di Internet. Jelas ini adalah reaksi refleks akibat maraknya kritik-kritik di Internet atas kehidupan Muhamad, dan bukan sebagai perubahan atas apa yang diyakini muslim.

Pada Juli 2005, Sheik Dr. Gibril Fouad Haddad menjawab polemik Moiz Amjad melalui artikel, "Our Mother A'isha's Age At The Time Of Her Marriage to The Prophet", yang dimuat di SunniPath.com.[5] Dengan mencantumkan banyak fakta yang dengan mudah bisa diperiksa oleh siapapun yang memiliki hadist atau literatur sirah, Sheik Haddad menelanjangi penipuan dan pengaburan yang disebarkan oleh para apologis. Sebagai contoh, Sheik Haddad menunjukkan fakta bahwa banyak argumen tersebut yang secara keliru didasarkan kepada asumsi yang salah atas hadist yang sama sekali tidak berhubungan dengan umur Aisha, atau kesalahan dalam merepresentasikan sumber-sumber yang dikutip. (i.e. sumber-sumber ini malah mendukung fakta bahwa umur Aisha adalah 9 tahun saat berhubungan intim dengan Muhamad). Hingga hari ini, jawaban ilmiah Sheik Haddad tetap belum disanggah oleh Moiz Amjad. Haddad, sebagai salah satu orang yang telah dicantumkan dengan resmi ke dalam "500 muslim paling berpengaruh di dunia",[6] adalah seorang cendekiawan muslim dan muhaddith (ahli hadist)[6] yang ditanggapi secara sangat serius oleh muslim mainstream. Dia juga seorang kritikus vokal terhadap fundamentalisme Salafi.[7]

Sejak diterbitkannya sanggahan definitif dari Haddad, argumen-argumen kacau Moiz Amjad, lengkap dengan kebohongan dan kekeliruannya, masih saja diulangi oleh tidak terhitung banyaknya apologis muslim di Internet dengan tujuan dakwah dan apologetik yang serupa. Para penyebar argumen-argumen ini termasuk, tapi tidak terbatas pada; T.O Shavanas,[8] “Imam” Chaudhry (word-for-word plagiarism of Amjad's work),[9] Zahid Aziz,[1] Nilofar Ahmed,[10] and David Liepert.[11]

Argumen - Argumen[edit]

Berikut ini adalah argumen-argumen yang dilontarkan oleh Moiz Amjad. Kami telah memilih untuk menganalisa dan menjawab masing-masing argumen secara spesifik, karena polemik Moiz Amjad menyebar ke setiap klaim yang dibuat oleh pendakwah masa kini yang kadangkala mengunakan sebagian, bahkan semua argumen Moiz Amjad tersebut. Para pendakwah ini seringkali tidak menyebut Amjad sebagai sumber dari klaim-klaim yang mereka buat.

Argumen Pertama[edit]

Sebagian besar dari kisah-kisah ini dilaporkan hanya oleh Hisham ibn `urwah berdasarkan otoritas ayahnya. Suatu peristiwa yang dikenal luas seperti yang dilaporkan, harusnya dilaporkan oleh lebih banyak orang daripada hanya satu, dua, atau tiga.

Ini adalah contoh klasik kekeliruan berargumen yaitu Straw man. Tidak ada keharusan dalam Islam bahwa laporan harus jamak. Bahkan satu saja hadist sahih sudah cukup untuk menegaskan hukum dan praktek Islam.

Shaykh Gibril Haddad juga menggugurkan klaim bahwa sebagian besar kisah-kisah ini dilaporkan hanya oleh Hisham ibn Urwah.

Ada lebih dari sebelas orang berotoritas di kalangan Tabi'in yang melaporkan hal ini langsung dari A'isha, belum lagi sahabat-sahabat penting yang melaporkan hal yang sama, terlebih lagi para penerus yang juga melapor dari orang selain A'isha.

Argumen Kedua[edit]

Cukup aneh bahwa tidak seorangpun dari Medinah, di mana Hisham ibn 'urwah tinggal selama tujuh puluh satu tahun pertama hidupnya yang meneruskan kisah [dari dirinya], padahal di Medinah dia memiliki murid-murid yang dikenal luas seperti Malik ibn Anas. Semua narasi atas kisah ini telah dilaporkan oleh penerus kisah dari Iraq, di mana Hisham kabarnya telah pindah setelah sempat tinggal di Medinah selama tujuh puluh satu tahun.

Lagi-lagi Straw man. Tidak ada keharusan bahwa hadist harus dinarasikan di Medinah supaya bisa dianggap sahih. Lagipula, ada banyak juga peristiwa dalam kehidupan Nabi Muhamad yang diteruskan hanya oleh narasi tunggal. Apakah ini membuat narasi-narasi tersebut menjadi tidak sahih? Tidak. Menuntut adanya narasi-narasi jamak dan independen dari Medinah adalah membuat-buat standar yang tidak ada - i.e. sebuah kekeliruan straw man.

Sheik Haddad juga menggugurkan argumen ini dengan menyebutkan orang-orang dari Medinah yang menarasikan peristiwa ini.

Al-Zuhri melaporkannya dari 'Urwa, dari 'A'isha; begitu pula 'Abd Allah ibn Dhakwan, keduanya warga Medinah. Begitu juga Tabi'i Yahya al-Lakhmi yang melaporkan dari 'A'isha di Musnad dan di Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd. Dan juga Abu Ishaq Sa'd ibn Ibrahim yang melaporkan dari Imam al-Qasim ibn Muhammad, salah seorang dari Tujuh Imam Medinah, dari 'A'isha. Semua narasi dari peristiwa ini telah dilaporkan. Selain keempat pelapor Tabi'in Medinah di atas, Sufyan ibn `Uyayna dari Khurasan dan `Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya dari Tabarayya di Palestina juga melaporkan peristiwa tersebut.

Argumen Ketiga[edit]

Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb, salah satu buku yang paling dikenal luas mengenai hidup dan reliabilitas para perawi tradisi Muhamad (pbuh) melaporkan bahwa menurut Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narasi yang dilaporkan Hisham bisa dipercaya kecuali yang dilaporkan melalui orang-orang Iraq". Buku ini juga menyatakan bahwa Malik ibn Anas memprotes narasi-narasi Hisham yang dilaporkan melalui orang-orang Iraq (Jilid. 11, hal. 48 - 51).

Pernyataan sebenarnya, terjemahannya dan referensi lengkap dari buku tersebut adalah seperti di bawah ini:

Tehzeeb-001.gif

Yaqub ibn Shaibah berkata:" Dia (i.e. Hisham) itu sangat bisa dipercaya, narasi-narasinya bisa diterima, kecuali apa yang dinarasikan olehnya setelah pindah ke Iraq. (Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqalaaniy, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Jilid. 11, hal. 50)


Aku diberitahu bahwa Malik [ibn Anas] memprotes narasi-narasi Hisham yang dilaporkan melalui orang-orang Iraq. (Tehzi'bu'l-tehzi'b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala'ni, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Jilid. 11, hal. 50)

Menurut Sheik Haddad, argumen ketiga Amjad ini jika bukan merupakan kekeliruan maka adalah kebohongan. Sebenarnya, hinaan atas Hisham ibn Urwah tidaklah berdasar dan tidak didukung jika referensi yang diberikan Amjad dilihat lebih dekat.

Justeru, Ya'qub berkata: "Bisa dipercaya, sepenuhnya bisa diandalkan (thiqa thabt), tidak bisa dikritik kecuali saat dirinya pindah ke Iraq, di saat dia terlalu banyak menarasikan melalui ayahnya dan dikritik karena itu." Perhatikan bahwa Ya'qub tidak sepenuhnya mendukung kritik tersebut.

Mengenai Malik, dia melaporkan lebih dari 100 hadist melalui Hisham terbukti dari dua Sahih dan Sunan! sampai-sampai al-Dhahabi mempertanyakan keabsahan tuduhan kritik Malik terhadap Hisham.

Memang, tidak ada ahli hadist yang mendukung keraguan ini karena tuduhan-tuduhan tersebut didasarkan hanya dari fakta bahwa Hisham di masa akhir hidupnya (dia berusia 71 tahun saat perjalanan terakhirnya ke Iraq), untuk meringkas, dia berkata, "Ayahku, dari 'A'isha (abi 'an 'A'isha)" dan tidak lagi mengucap, "dinarasikan kepada diriku (haddathani)".

Al-Mizzi in Tahdhib al-Kamal (30:238) menjelaskan bahwa telah menjadi kesimpulan pasti bagi para orang Iraq bahwa Hisham tidak menarasikan apapun melalui ayahnya kecuali apa yang didengarnya langsung dari ayahnya.

Ibn Hajar juga menolak kritikan terhadap Hisham ibn 'Urwa di Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (11:45), dengan berkata: "Sudah cukup jelas bagi orang-orang Iraq bahwa dia tidak menarasikan dari ayahnya selain dari apa yang didengarnya langsung dari ayahnya".

Bahkan, untuk mengatakan bahwa "narasi yang dilaporkan Hisham ibn `Urwa bisa dipercaya kecuali yang dilaporkan melalui orang-orang Iraq" adalah omong kosong besar karena itu juga mengeliminasi semua narasi Ayyub al-Sakhtyani dari Hisham sebab Ayyub adalah orang Iraq Basran, dan juga semua narasi Abu `Umar al-Nakha`i yang berasal dari Kufa, dan juga Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman dari Kufa (Sheik Abu Hanifa), dan juga Hammad ibn Salama dan Hammad ibn Zayd keduanya dari Basra, dan juga Sufyan al-Thawri dari Basra, dan juga Shu`ba di Basra, kesemuanya menarasikan dari Hisham!

Argumen Keempat[edit]

Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal, sebuah buku mengenai [kisah hidup] para narator tradisi Nabi (saw) mengatakan bahwa ketika dirinya sudah uzur, ingatan Hisham menjadi sangat buruk (Vol. 4, pg. 301 - 302)

Pernyataan sebenarnya,terjemahan dan referensi lengkapnya adalah seperti di bawah ini:

Meezaan-001.gif

Ketika dirinya uzur, ingatan Hisham menjadi sangat buruk (Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal, Al-Zahabi, Arabic, Al-Maktabah al-Athriyyah, Sheikhupura, Pakistan, Vol. 4, pg. 301).

Lagi-lagi ini adalah fitnah di mana si penuduh tidak melihat korelasi antara hilangnya ingatan Hisham dengan hadist-hadist mengenai umur Aisha. Hisham lahir tahun 61 A.H. dan wafat tahun 146 A.H. di Bagdhad - artinya dia berusia 85 tahun ketika wafat. Dia pindah ke Iraq ketika berusia 71 tahun. Kapankah ingatannya hilang? Si penuduh tidak menyediakan jawaban.

Nyatanya, Sheik Haddad menuduh bahwa Moiz Amjad telah jelas berdusta.

Jelas-jelas dusta, al-Dhahabi dalam Mizan al-I`tidal (4:301 #9233) menyatakan: "Hisham ibn `Urwa, salah satu pribadi yang terutama. Membuktikan dirinya sendiri, dan seorang Imam. Walau, dalam usia senja ingatannya berkurang, tapi dirinya tidak pernah menjadi linglung. Jangan hiraukan apa yang dikatakan Abu al-Hasan ibn al-Qattan bahwa Hisham dan Suhayl ibn Abi Salih menjadi linglung atau berubah! Ya, Hisham memang berubah sedikit dan ingatannya tidak seperti saat masa mudanya, sehingga dia lupa sebagian dari apa yang dia ingat atau khilaf, lalu memang kenapa? Apakah dirinya tidak kebal lupa? [p. 302] Dan ketika dia tiba di Iraq dalam bagian akhir hidupnya dan menarasikan banyak sekali pengetahuan, di mana ada beberapa narasi yang kurang bagus, dan ini juga terjadi terhadap Malik, dan Shu`ba, dan Waki`, dan para ahli lain yang terpercaya. Jadi berhentilah membingungkan diri sendiri dan pusing, jangan campur aduk para Imam yang telah diakui dengan mantap dengan para narator yang lemah dan tidak jelas. Hisham adalah seorang Shaykh al-Islam. Tapi kiranya Allah menghibur kami atas kamu, Oh Ibn al-Qattan, dan sama juga seperti atas pernyataan `Abd al-Rahman ibn Khirash dari Malik!"

Argumen Kelima[edit]

Menurut tradisi yang diterima secara luas, Ayesha (ra) lahir sekitar delapan tahun sebelum Hijrah. Tapi menurut narasi lain dalam Bukhari (Kitaab al-Tafseer) Ayesha (ra) dilaporkan pernah mengatakan bahwa pada saat Surah Al-Qamar, bab ke-54 dalam Qu'ran, diturunkan "Aku masih anak-anak perempuan". Bab Surah ke-54 dari Qu'ran diturunkan sembilan tahun sebelum Hijrah. Menurut tradisi ini, Ayesha (ra) tidak saja telah dilahirkan sebelum diturunkannya surah tersebut, tapi sebenarnya telah menjadi anak-anak perempuan (jariyah), bukan bayi (sibyah) pada saat itu. Tentunya, jika narasi ini diterima sebagai benar, maka jelas bertentangan dengan narasi yang dilaporkan oleh Hisham ibn 'urwah. Aku tidak melihat adanya alasan apapun bahwa setelah komentar-komentar para ahli mengenai narasi-narasi Hisham ibn 'urwah, mengapa kita tidak seharusnya menerima narasi ini sebagai lebih akurat.

Pernyataan sebenarnya yang mengacu kepada paragraf di atas, terjemahan dan referensi lengkapnya adalah sebagai berikut:

Bukhari-001.gif

Ayesha (ra) berkata: Aku adalah seorang anak-anak perempuan, ketika ayat 46 Surah Al-Qamar, [bab ke-54 dari Qur'an], diturunkan. (Sahih Bukhari, Kitaab al-Tafseer, Arabic, Bab Qaulihi Bal al-saa`atu Maw`iduhum wa al-sa`atu adhaa wa amarr)

The precise date of the revelation of Surah al-Qamar is unknown. Ibn Hajar, Maududi, and other traditionalists said it was revealed 5 years before Hijrah (muslimhope). Zahid Aziz said it was revealed before 6 BH. Khatib said it was revealed in 8 BH. Amjad does not name his source for his claim that the verse was revealed in 9 BH. The point is that the precise date of revelation of Surah al-Qamar is unknown, and using an imprecise date to calculate Aisha’s age is not only ridiculous but stupid. However, if an estimate must be used, then why not use Ibn Hajar’s estimate which is more authoritative and traditionally accepted than Amjad’s unnamed source?

Shaykh Haddad confirms this. He also proves that the traditional estimate of the revelation of Surah al-Qamar is consistent with Aisha’s age being nine years.

Not true. The hadith Masters, Sira historians, and Qur'anic commentators agree that the splitting of the moon took place about five years before the Holy Prophet's (upon him blessings and peace) Hijra to Madina.

Thus it is confirmed that our Mother `Aisha was born between seven and eight years before the Hijra and the words that she was a jariya or little girl five years before the Hijra match the fact that her age at the time Surat al-Qamar was revealed was around 2 or 3.

A two year old is not an infant. A two year old is able to run around, which is what jariya means. As for "the comments of the experts" they concur on 6 or 7 as the age of marriage and 9 as the age of cohabitation.

Thus, Amjad’s attempt to throw doubt on Aisha’s age by using a non-traditional (i.e. spurious) estimate for the date of revelation of Surah al-Qamar is easily debunked.

This is what Amjad later said, which totally debunks his own argument above.

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

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

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

So now we have Amjad backtracking on his claim that the date of revelation of Surah al-Qamar can be determined precisely. Initially he claimed it was in 9BH. Now he says it’s some undefined time in the Meccan period. Thus, it can be seen that Amjad himself has finally seen the absurdity of his own argument.

Argumen Keenam[edit]

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

A narrative regarding Ayesha's (ra) participation in Badr is given in Muslim, Kitaab al-jihaad wa al-siyar, Arabic, Bab karahiyah al-isti`anah fi al-ghazwi bikafir. Ayesha (ra) while narrating the journey to Badr and one of the important events that took place in that journey, says:

Muslim-001.gif

When we reached Shajarah.

It is quite obvious from these words that Ayesha (ra) was with the group traveling toward Badr.

A narrative regarding Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of `uhud is given in Bukhari, Kitaab al-jihaad wa al-siyar, Arabic, Baab Ghazwi al-nisaa wa qitalihinna ma`a al-rijaal.

Bukhari-002.gif

Anas reports that On the day of Uhud, people could not stand their ground around the Prophet (pbuh). [On that day,] I saw Ayesha (ra) and Umm-e-Sulaim (ra), they had pulled their dress up from their feet [to save them from any hindrance in their movement]."

As far as the fact that children below 15 years were sent back and were not allowed to participate in the battle of `uhud, it is narrated in Bukhari, Kitaab al-maghaazi, Baab ghazwah al-khandaq wa hiya al-ahzaab, Arabic.

Bukhari-003.gif

Ibn `umar (ra) states that the Prophet (pbuh) did not permit me to participate in Uhud, as at that time, I was fourteen years old. But on the day of Khandaq, when I was fifteen years old, the Prophet (pbuh) permitted my participation."

Dr. Ali Sina, founder of Faith Freedom International and author of "Understanding Muhammad", refuted this argument:

This is a weak excuse. When the Battle of Badr and Uhud occurred Ayesha was 10 to 11 years old. She did not go to be a warrior, like the boys. She went to keep Muhammad warm during the nights. Boys who were less than 15 were sent back, but this did not apply to her.

Women and young children went to the battlefields to perform other functions.

The women and young children went on the battlefield after the battle and gave water to the wounded Muslims and finished off the enemy wounded. al-Tabari vol.12 p.127,146. During the days of the battle, the women and children were there to dig graves for the dead. al-Tabari vol.12 p.107.

Therefore, it is clear that the fifteen-year age threshold applied only to boys, and Amjad’s line of argument is clearly false.

Shaykh Haddad also showed that Amjad had used false or incomplete information.

First, the prohibition applied to combatants. It applied neither to non-combatant boys nor to non-combatant girls and women. Second, `A'isha did not participate in Badr at all but bade farewell to the combatants as they were leaving Madina, as narrated by Muslim in his Sahih. On the day of Uhud (year 3), Anas, at the time only twelve or thirteen years old, reports seeing an eleven-year old `A'isha and his mother Umm Sulaym having tied up their dresses and carrying water skins back and forth to the combatants, as narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim.

So, Aisha did not participate in Badr at all, despite Amjad’s assertion. It is also illuminating to know that Amjad had partially quoted the Uhud hadiths to falsely convey the impression that Aisha participated at Uhud when the hadiths are clear in that she was merely carrying water skins to the combatants. The last part of the hadith was omitted, either deliberately or inadvertently, an act some people may consider disingenuous.

Narrated Anas: On the day (of the battle) of Uhad when (some) people retreated and left the Prophet, I saw 'Aisha bint Abu Bakr and Um Sulaim, with their robes tucked up so that the bangles around their ankles were visible hurrying with their water skins (in another narration it is said, "carrying the water skins on their backs"). Then they would pour the water in the mouths of the people, and return to fill the water skins again and came back again to pour water in the mouths of the people.

Argumen Ketujuh[edit]

According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Ayesha (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha (ra). It is reported in Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb as well as Al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihayah that Asma (ra) died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha (ra), if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.

The relevant references required in this argument are provided below:

For the Difference of Ayesha's (ra) and Asma's (ra) Age:

According to Abd al-Rahman ibn abi zannaad:

Nubalaa-001.gif

Asma (ra) was ten years older than Ayesha. (Siyar A`la'ma'l-nubala', Al-Zahabi, Vol. 2, pg. 289, Arabic, Mu'assasatu'l-risala'h, Beirut, 1992)

According to Ibn Kathir:

Ibn-katheer-003.gif

She [i.e. Asma] was ten years elder to her sister [i.e. Ayesha]. (Al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, pg. 371, Arabic, Dar al-fikr al-`arabiy, Al-jizah, 1933)

For Asma's (ra) Age at Her Death in 73 AH

According to Ibn Kathir:

Ibn-katheer-004.gif

She [i.e. Asma] witnessed the killing of her son during that year [i.e. 73 AH], as we have already mentioned, five days later she herself died, according to other narratives her death was not five but ten or twenty or a few days over twenty or a hundred days later. The most well known narrative is that of hundred days later. At the time of her death, she was 100 years old. (Al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, pg. 372, Arabic, Dar al-fikr al-`arabiy, Al-jizah, 1933).

According to Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalaaniy:

Taqreeb-001.gif

She [i.e. Asma (ra)] lived a hundred years and died in 73 or 74 AH." (Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalaaniy, Pg. 654, Arabic, Bab fi al-nisaa, al-Harf al-alif, Lucknow)

Amjad’s objection to Sina’s analysis is similar to that of the previous argument.

When someone gets that old, people don't care too much about her exact age. It is very easy to say she was 100 years old when in fact she was only 90. The difference is not noticeable to the younger folks and 100 is a round figure. Assuming the Hadith is authentic, it could be an honest mistake. Since in those days people did not carry birth certificates, it is very much likely that the person who reported her age to be 100 did not know that she was 10 years older than Ayesha and did not sit to make the calculations and deductions. She was not an important person and it did not occur to anyone that 1300 years later it would become the subject of a controversy. This could be a genuine mistake by the narrator of the Hadith.
Once again, the author is only pointing out towards a possibility. It should be kept in mind that the author is trying to establish that Ayesha (ra) was nine years old at the time of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh). The author should be reminded that pointing out mere possibilities of error in the given information would not serve his purpose. Obviously, contrary to what the author contends, it is also "Possible" that the information given in the given in the cited paragraph is correct. The author should also keep in mind that the target of my writings on the issue is not to "prove" that Ayesha (ra) was "X" years old at the time of the consummation of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh). On the contrary, my objective was merely to show that the generally held view regarding Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage with the Prophet (pbuh) is not based upon contradiction-free information.

Apparently Amjad is not worried that his arguments all derive conflicting ages for Aisha, thus debunking each other.

Shaykh Haddad also challenges the accuracy of the information, thus casting doubt on Amjad’s source material.

Well, Ibn Kathir based himself on Ibn Abi al-Zinad's assertion that she was ten years older than `A'isha, however, al-Dhahabi in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala' said there was a greater difference than 10 years between the two, up to 19, and he is more reliable here. Ibn Hajar reports in al-Isaba from Hisham ibn `Urwa, from his father, that Asma' did live 100 years, and from Abu Nu`aym al-Asbahani that "Asma' bint Abi Bakr was born 27 years before the Hijra, and she lived until the beginning of the year 74." None of this amounts to any proof for `A'isha's age whatsoever.

Using inaccurate data, Amjad assumes Asma was older than Aisha by 10 years when a more reliable source says the age difference is up to 19 years. Taking this more reliable information calculates Aisha’s age at around nine years old, completely in accordance with the sahih hadiths where Aisha herself said she was nine years old.

Argumen Kedelapan[edit]

Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah - the pre-Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH - the time she most likely got married.

The original statement in Tabari, its translation and reference follows:

Tabariy-003.gif

All four of his [i.e. Abu Bakr's] children were born of his two wives - the names of whom we have already mentioned - during the pre-Islamic period. (Tarikh al-umam wa al-mamloo'k, Al-Tabari, Vol. 4, Pg. 50, Arabic, Dar al-fikr, Beirut, 1979)

Shaykh Gibril Haddad says that the evidence Amjad provided above is false.

Al-Tabari nowhere reports that "Abu Bakr's four children were all born in Jahiliyya" but only that Abu Bakr married both their mothers in Jahiliyya, Qutayla bint Sa`d and Umm Ruman, who bore him four children in all, two each, `A'isha being the daughter of Umm Ruman.

There is also no need to make oblique calculations using Tabari when Tabari explicitly states Aisha’s age several times.

These are Tabari’s direct accounts. He reported it at least four times, making it clear that this was what he deemed authoritative.

‘Aisha was 6 (or 7) years old when she was married, and the marriage was consummated when she was nine years old.’ Muhammad b. ‘Amr is one of the transmitters.
‘My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammad was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old.’
‘The angel brought down my likeness; the Messenger of God married me when I was seven; my marriage was consummated when I was nine; he married me when I was a virgin, no other man having shared me with him; inspiration came to him when he and I were in a single blanket...’
‘The Prophet married Aishah in Shawwal in the tenth year after the [beginning of his] prophethood, three years before Emigration. He consummated the marriage in Shawwal, eight months after Emigration. On the day he consummated the marriage with her she was nine years old.’

Argumen Kesembilan[edit]

According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before `umar ibn al-Khattab (ra). This shows that Ayesha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Ayesha's (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Ayesha (ra) should not have been born during the first year of Islam. According to Ibn Hisham, Ayesha (ra) was the 20th or the 21st person to enter into the folds of Islam (Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah, Ibn Hisham, Vol. 1, Pg. 227 - 234, Arabic, Maktabah al-Riyadh al-hadithah, Al-Riyadh) While `umar ibn al-khattab was preceded by forty individuals (Al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah, Ibn Hisham, Vol. 1, Pg. 295, Arabic, Maktabah al-Riyadh al-hadithah, Al-Riyadh).

Muslimhope shows that even if we were to believe that Aisha accepted Islam before Umar, it doesn’t mean this took place during the first year of Islam since Umar converted in 617AD, about 4 years after Aisha’s birth in 613AD. Thus, Amjad had made a miscalculation here.

1. Nobody today really knows the order. In general there is lengthy disagreement on the order of who accepted Islam, as al-Tabari vol.5 p.80-87; vol.12 p.38 discuss. If they cannot even agree on the first five men, how can they know the 21st?


2. A’isha never converted to Islam, because she never remembered a time when Mohammed did not come by twice a day and her parents were not Muslims. This is prior to the first migration to Ethiopia (617 A.D.) (Bukhari 5:245 p.158).

3. ‘Umar became a Muslim just after the first migration to Ethiopia (617 A.D.) according to Ibn Ishaq p.155,156. So what Ibn Hisham counts as A’isha’s "conversion" could be between birth and three years old.

Besides disputing the claim that Ibn Hisham reported that Aisha accepted Islam quite some time before `umar ibn al-Khattab, Shaykh Haddad also casts doubt on Amjad’s logic.

Nowhere does Ibn Hisham say this. Rather, Ibn Hisham lists `A'isha among "those that accepted Islam because of Abu Bakr." This does not mean that she embraced Islam during the first year of Islam. Nor does it mean that she necessarily embraced Islam before `Umar (year 6) although she was born the previous year (year 7 before the Hijra) although it is understood she will automatically follow her father's choice even before the age of reason.

Argumen Kesepuluh[edit]

Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am - with whose son Ayesha (ra) was engaged - and asked him to take Ayesha (ra) in his house as his son's wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam, and subsequently his son divorced Ayesha (ra). Now, if Ayesha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Ayesha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage. Unfortunately, I do not have the primary reference to this argument at the moment. The secondary reference for this argument is: Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka'inat, Habib ur Rahman Kandhalwi, Urdu, Pg. 38, Anjuman Uswa e hasanah, Karachi, Pakistan

Muslimhope shows that Amjad’s logic is wrong and not based on fact.

Even if this account is accurate, Arabs both then and today often betrothed girls soon after they were born. Abu Bakr had other daughters and it might have been one of them.

Shaykh Haddad also casts doubt as to the veracity of Amjad’s Tabari evidence, admittedly derived from a secondary reference that Amjad never checked.

Not at all, there is no mention of emigration in Tabari's account of Abu Bakr's discussion with Mut`im. Nor did he ever ask him to take `A'isha because there had been only some preliminary talk, not a formal arrangement. Umm Ruman, Abu Bakr's wife, reportedly said: "By Allah, no promise had been given on our part at all!" Rather, al-Tabari said that when news of the Prophet's interest in `A'isha came, he went to see Mut`im. Then Mut`im's wife manifested her fear that her son would become Muslim if he married into Abu Bakr's family. Abu Bakr then left them and gave his assent to the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace. Your assumption fizzles at the root when you read al-Tabari's positive assertion: "On the day he consummated the marriage with her, she was nine years old."

Argumen Kesebelas[edit]

According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: "You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)". When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Ayesha's (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word "bikr" in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is "Jariyah". "Bikr" on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a "lady". The complete reference for this reporting of Ahmad ibn Hanbal is: Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Vol 6, Pg 210, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-`arabi, Beirut.

Sina has refuted this argument.

This explanation is absolutely incorrect. Bikr means virgin and, just as in English is not age specific. In fact Ayesha was the second wife of Muhammad (after Khadijah) but Muhammad did not consummate his marriage with her for three years because she was too young. Instead he had to content himself with Umma Salamah, until Ayesha matured a little bit more. It would not have made sense to marry a beautiful woman like Ayesha and wait for three years to take her home.

And Amjad has agreed:

The author is quite right. Bikr in the Arabic language does, in fact, mean 'virgin'. However, I was actually referring to the usage of the word, not its literal meaning. It is correct that literally the word 'Bikr', like the word "virgin" refers to a biological reality, however, also just as the word 'virgin', the word 'Bikr', in the Arabic language, is used for a young woman, who has not yet had sexual contact, not for a child.

Shaykh Gibril Haddad also adds:

This is ignorant nonsense, bikr means a virgin girl, a girl who has never been married even if her age is 0 and there is no unclarity here whatsoever.

Argumen Keduabelas[edit]

According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Ayesha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Ayesha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.

Ibn Hajar's original statement, its translation and reference follows:

Isaabah-001.gif

Fatimah (ra) was born at the time the Kaa`bah was rebuilt, when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old... she (Fatimah) was five years older that Ayesha (ra). (Al-Isabah fi Tamyeez al-Sahaabah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaniy, Vol. 4, Pg. 377, Arabic, Maktabah al-Riyadh al-Haditha, al-Riyadh, 1978)

Using Fatima’s age difference with Aisha to refute the Aisha’s Age sahih hadiths is a logical fallacy because the biography of Fatima is conflicting. Nobody knows for sure when Fatima was born (when her father was a nobody), and though her death was well-recorded her age at death is not known for certain.

The traditional account is that she was born on Friday, 20th jumada ` th-thaaniyah in the fifth year after the declaration of the prophet - hood (615 AD), which means she was about the same age as Aisha.[12][13]

The most predominant view in the traditions transmitted by our traditionists is that Fatimah az-Zahra' was born in Mecca, on the twentieth of Jumada 'l-Akhirah, in the fifth year of the Prophet's apostolic career. It is also asserted that when the Prophet died, Fatimah was eighteen years and seven months old.

It is reported on the authority of Jabir ibn Yazid that (the fifth Imam) al-Baqir was asked: "How long did Fatimah live after the Messenger of Allah?" He answered: "Four months; she died at the age of twenty-three." This view is close to that reported by the traditionists of the (Sunni) majority. They have asserted that she was born in the forty-first year of the. Messenger of Allah's life. This means that she was born one year after the Prophet was sent by Allah as a messenger. The scholar Abu Sa'id al-Hafiz relates in his book Sharafu' n-Nabiyy that all the children of the Messenger of Allah were born before Islam except Fatimah and Ibrahim, who were born in Islam.

Reference: Abu Ali al-Fadl ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Fadl at-Tabrisi (c. 468/1076 - 548/1154)

Some say she was born ten years earlier than Aisha. Those who believe this also believe Fatima was aged 29 years when she died, not the 18 years traditionally believed.

Sunan Nasa’i vol.1 #29 p.115-116 actually says that Fatima was 29 years old when she died (six months after Mohammed), which makes her ten years older than A’isha. So somebody forgot a date somewhere. The authoritative hadiths of Sunan Nasa’i would generally be trusted more than Ibn Hajar, Regardless, though A’isha was younger.

Sina has refuted the accuracy of Amjad’s information:

Of course this information cannot be taken as correct. If Ayesha was five years older than Fatimah, and Fatimah was born when the Prophet was 35 years old, then Ayesha was only 30 years younger than the Prophet. So at the time of her marriage when the Prophet was 54, Ayesha must have been 24 years old. This is not certainly correct, for the reasons explained above and also it contradicts the Hadith that the apologist quoted about the age of Asma, Ayesha’s sister, who according to that Hadith was 10 years older that Ayesha and died in 73 Hijra. So at the time of Hijra Asma must have been 100 –73 = 27 years old, but according to this Hadith she was 34 years old.

Shaykh Gibril Haddad showed that Ibn Hajar was merely reporting what some narrators reported, not his own conclusion, and Amjad chose the wrong narration and also wrongly attributed that narration to Ibn Hajar, who was merely the reporter.

Ibn Hajar mentions two versions: (1) al-Waqidi's narration that Fatima was born when the Prophet was 35; and (2) Ibn `Abd al-Barr's narration that she was born when he was 41, approximately one year more or less before Prophethood, and about five years before `A'isha was born. The latter version matches the established dates.

In conclusion, Fatima’s birth date is uncertain. Despite this, Amjad used a non-traditional estimate to cast doubt on Aisha’s age, when the traditional account exactly matches the established facts. Note that Amjad omitted the traditional account in his Ibn Hajar reference, choosing instead one that is clearly in error. Some might view this deliberate omission to be disingenuous.

Argumen Ketigabelas[edit]

In my opinion, neither was it an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as nine or ten years, nor did the Prophet (pbuh) marry Ayesha (ra) at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage, because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.

Although we agree there is no evidence to support the claim (usually made by Muslims in defence of Muhammad's pedophilia) that it was an Arab tradition to give away pre-pubescent young girls in marriage to old men, no credence should be given to mere ‘opinion’ of Aisha's age of consummation when there are sahih hadiths that explicitly state that Aisha married and had sex with Muhammad when she was aged only nine.

Although an ad hominem, this neatly summarizes what an actual Muslim scholar thinks about Moiz Amjad’s scholarship.

Those that itch to follow misguidance always resort to solipsisms because they are invariably thin on sources. In this particular case "the Learner" proves to be ignorant and dishonest. It is no surprise he moves on every single point, without exception, from incorrect premises to false conclusions.

Kesimpulan[edit]

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

A. Unjustified slanders against Hisham ibn Urwah and the Iraqi narrators.
B. The use of non-sahih information to refute otherwise sahih hadiths.
C. The use of secondary, indirect sources in preference of direct testimonies.
D. The use of ‘imprecise’ dating in preference to specific dates and statements of age.
E. The use of misquoted references and erroneous information.
F. The use of incorrect logic.
G. Personal opinion.

When one examines their claims, one sees that their arguments contradict and debunk each other. Argument No. 5 says she was 14 to 21 years old. However, argument No. 6 says she was 15+, argument No. 7 says she was 17 or 18, argument No. 8 says Aisha was 14+, argument No. 9 says she was 12+, and argument No. 12 says she was 12. In other words, each and every one of the evidences contradicts and debunks all the others. Which of these so-called arguments is correct? They cannot all be correct. Clearly the apologists do not have a clue.

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

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

This page is featured in the core article, Islam and Pedophilia which serves as a starting point for anyone wishing to learn more about this topic Core part.png

Lihat Juga[edit]

Tautan Luar[edit]

Ucapan Terima Kasih[edit]

This article is greatly indebted to the following:

Referensi[edit]

  1. 1.0 1.1 Zahid Aziz - Age of Aisha (ra) at time of marriage - Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha`at Islam Lahore Inc. U.S.A. (for a refutation to the issues raised by Aziz's tu-quoque defence, titled "Mary and Joseph", click here)
  2. Semua kutipan Habib Ur Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi diambil dari Pendahuluan terjemahan Inggris tahun 2007 atas buku Urdu, "Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka'inat", diterjemahkan oleh Nigar Erfaney dan diterbitkan oleh Al-Rahman Publishing Trust dengan judul, "Age of Aisha (The Truthful Women, May Allah Send His Blessings)"
  3. Fatwa asli dan terjemahan fatwa tersebut yang mengecam keyakinan Habib Ur Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi's yang sudah sesat dari Islam, sehingga membuatnya menjadi 'kafir', bisa dilihat di sini: Fatwa's on hadith rejectors?
  4. See: "What was Ayesha's (ra) Age at the Time of Her Marriage?", by Moiz Amjad.
  5. Shaykh Gibril F Haddad - Our Mother A'isha's Age At The Time Of Her Marriage to The Prophet - Sunni Path, Question ID:4604, July 3, 2005
  6. 6.0 6.1 Edited by Prof. John Esposito and Prof. Ibrahim Kalin - The 500 Most Influential Muslims in the World (P. 94) - The royal islamic strategic studies centre, 2009
  7. Stephen Schwartz - Wahhabis in America - Islam Daily, February 26, 2005
  8. T.O Shanavas - AYESHA’s AGE: THE MYTH OF A PROVERBIAL WEDDING EXPOSED - Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc.
  9. Imam Chaudhry - What Was The Age of Ummul Mo'mineen Ayesha (May Allah be pleased with her) When She Married To Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)? - Islamic Supreme Council of Canada
  10. Nilofar Ahmed - Of Aisha’s age at marriage - Dawn, February 17, 2012
  11. Dr. David Liepert - Rejecting the Myth of Sanctioned Child Marriage in Islam - The Huffington Post, January 29, 2011 (for direct responses to David Liepert, see: Rejecting Dr. David Liepert's "Aisha Was Older" Apologetic Myth & Muhammad, Child brides, and David Liepert)
  12. Fatimah az-Zahra - (A Brief History of The Fourteen Infallibles, p. 47-53)
  13. A Brief Biography of Fatima (A.S) the daughter of the Last Messenger and the Mother of Imams - Ummah.net