What was Aisha’s age when she married the Prophet?

A’ishah herself admits that she was six when the Prophet married her and nine when the marriage was consummated.

This Hadith is reported in both Bukhari and Muslim i.e., it is agreed upon (متفق عليه).

Not just that, it is also in Abi Dawud 4933, Al Nasa’i 3255 & Ibn Majah 1876

We also have Ijmaa’ cited:

Ibn Abdul Barr mentioned that the scholars differed on when the Prophet married her between six and seven.

But they did not differ that it was consummated at nine.

Al Istee’aab 4/1881

Ibn Kathir also cites a consensus.

Doubt 1

Hisham b. Urwah is the only narrator who reported this Hadith from A’ishah.

Comment

This is wrong.

Al Zuhri reports it from Urwah from A’ishah. Sahih Muslim 1422c

Ibrahim Al Nakha’i reports it from Al Aswad from A’ishah. Sahih Muslim 1422d

Abu Salamah b. Abdurrahman from A’ishah. Sunan Al Nasaa’i 3379

Doubt 2:

Hisham b. Urwah became senile in later age especially when he went to Iraq. Al Dhahabi spoke about his loss of memory.

Comment:

What did Al Dhahabi actually say?

– He is an absolute authority as shown by the fact his reports are in all canonical works

– The claims against him are nothing

– Everyone’s memory changes as they age. But did he mix up narrations i.e., fall into Ikhtilat?

No!

Before addressing other doubts, it is important to note an important point.

Evidences are of levels i.e., not all evidences are the same in strength.

This is important when, from your pov, certain evidences contradict one another.

Take for example:

You have a weak Hadith on one side and a Qur’anic verse on the other which seemingly contradict and can’t be reconciled.

Both are evidences but the Qur’anic verse is stronger than the weak Hadith. 

Thus, the Qur’anic verse is given precedence over said weak Hadith.

And so when you have clear, unequivocal text + Ijmaa’ (consensus) cited by classical scholars + no knowledge of anyone from the early scholars who opposed this, you’re sitting on something very strong.

One does not move from this position until there’s stronger evidence that opposes the evidence we have.

When you look at the evidences used as the basis for the rest of the doubts mentioned, none of it reaches the level of strength of the evidences cited above.

Doubt 3:

Asma was 10 years older than A’isha & she died at 100 in 73AH. That would make her 27 during the Hijrah and A’isha 17. A’isha was married 2/3 years before Hijrah and consummated after the Hijrah by a year. 

So, she was 14/15 when married and 17/18 during consummation.

Comment:

The claim that Asma was 10 years older than A’isha rests comes via Abdurrahman b. Abi Al Zinad who is weak according to the Hadith critics + there’s disconnection.

But Al Dhahabi says that Asma was older than A’isha by بضع عشر سنة.

So, which is it?

Note: The term بضع ranges from 3-9.

This means that Asma was more than 10 years older than A’ishah and that this “more” ranges from 3-9 years.

We can do some arithmetic too:

If A’isha was 9 at the time of Hijra, that means she would be born 4 years post-prophethood.

We have reports that say Asma was born 10 years before prophethood. 

If that’s the case, then her age when A’isha was born would be 14.

This is in line withبضع عشر that Al Dhahabi said

But anyhow, these arithmetic gymnastics and reliance upon questionable and disconnected reports from weak individuals is not a strong enough evidence in light of the evidences mentioned above.

Also note that they weaken Hisham who is, by consensus, a Thiqah because he became senile and those who relayed this Hadith were from Iraq and so we won’t take his report.

Yet they rush to accept the report of b. Abi l-Zinad who is differed on, and is weak according to the strongest view, with some Hadith critics saying that his reports in Madinah are acceptable but not in Iraq as he changed.

Where is the consistency??

Doubt 4:

A’isha was present at the battlefield for Badr and Uhud.

Ibn Umar was denied to take part in the battle of Uhud since he was below 15.

Thus, A’isha must have been above 15 to be allowed to be at Uhud.

Comment:

As for A’isha being present at the battlefield for Badr, I have not come across this.

As for the Ibn Umar and Uhud point, then this is an example of Qiyas done stupidly.

Sound Qiyas is to transfer a known ruling over from one issue to another that has no clear ruling because of the two issues sharing the same cause/reason (علة)

The reason why Ibn Umar was banned from Uhud was because he was *too young to fight*.

This is obvious from the fact he was allowed to take part in the battle of the Trench a couple of years later when he was old enough to fight [Muslim 1868].

A’isha did not join the Prophet at Uhud to fight. She joined as a nurse as per the Hadith of Anas [Bukhari 2880]

Therefore, Ibn Umar being prevented from fighting has nothing to do with A’isha as the ‘illah is different. 

And so saying she must have been at least 15 is not sound.

This type of Qiyas that they did is called قياس مع الفارق which means a Qiyas where there exists no uniformity or

substantial equality between the Asl [the initial issue] and the Far’ [the new issue].

And so again we have an incorrect Qiyas on one side VS the evidences we outlined above. 

There is no comparison!

And the same can be said about all of the other ‘doubts’ they bring regarding this issue.

And Allah knows best