WikiIslam:Sandbox/Refutación de los apologistas modernos contra la edad de Aisha: Difference between revisions

ºººTHIS ARTICLE IS UNDER TRANSLATION. PLEASE DON'T MAKE ANY CHANGES. / ESTE ARTÍCULO ESTÁ SIENDO TRADUCIDO. FAVOR DE NO HACER NINGÚN CAMBIO. (Refutación respecto a la edad de Aisha por parte de los apologistas modernos / Refutación contra la edad de Aisha según los apologistas modernos / Refutación de los apologistas modernos respecto a la edad de Aisha)ººº

Este artículo analiza la apologética musulmana moderna que intenta distorsionar la ºyoung age / edad *º {en el tiempo} de {la} consumación de Aisha.

Introducción

Algunos apologistas recientemente han afirmado que Aisha en realidad era mayor de nueve años lunares de edad en el momento de la consumación de su matrimonio con el profeta Mahoma. Han intentado explicar que Aisha tenía, de hecho, no nueve años de edad, tal como afirman los Sahih hadiths de su propio testimonio, sino otras edades, derivadas de ºmisquotationsº, fuentes indirectas, ºfuzzy dating techniquesº y ºslanderº. Estas ºdubious research techniquesº han llevado a la propuesta de numerosas edades en conflicto para Aisha en el momento de su ºconsummation (de su casamiento)º, incluyendo los 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 y 21 años de edad. Este artículo analiza ºevery single argumentoº que ºhas been put forwardº, y proporciona información adicional respecto a los origenes y la historia de los º"Aisha was older" apologetic argumentsº, y el único propósito lógico detrás de su elaboración.

Propósito

Los argumentos presentados por algunos apologistas le han dado a muchos la falsa impresión de que la edad de Aisha es ºlong contested issue / controversia de larga dataº en el islám*, y que es un argumento válido para la interpretación que eventualmente podría llevar a reformas dentro del ºmainstream Islamº. ºThis is certainly not the case. / Pero ciertamente este no es el caso.º ºThere is no argument over interpretation / No hay lugar para la discusión en cuanto a la interpretación.º ºThe text clearly say one thing and one thing only. / El texto dice claramente una y solamente una cosa.º Para aquellos que realmente han leído el ºsource materialº, es ºdisingenuousº afirmar lo contrario. Mentir respecto a lo que dicen las fuentes podría ser efectivo en ºapologetic piecesº, pero es inútil si la intención detrás de ellos es reformar la religión. No hay ni un solo académico musulmán serio --alguien que haya sido aceptado en el mundo musulmán y por los ºmainstream Muslimº como representante de sus creencias-- que respete tales afirmaciones. Así pues, ºthe only purpose they serveº es desviar el criticismo válido de una creencia que continúa ocasonando que millones de muchachas jóvenes sean forzadas a matrimonios infantiles ºpedophilic / pedofílicosº por individuos o incluso por naciones enteras, ºall of whom / todos los cualesº usan explicitamente a la relación de Aisha con Mahoma como justificativo / justificación.

Historia

La mayoría de musulmanes de hoy, incluyendo tanto a académicos como a la población musulmana en general, están de acuerdo en que Aisha tenía nueve años cuando se consumó su matrimonio con el profeta Mahoma. Esta ha sido el ºmainstream Muslim understandingº a través de los 1400 años de historia del Islam.

La primera de todas las objeciones presentadas, y probablemente defectuosa, a favor de Mahoma, respecto a la edad de Aisha fue de Maulana Muhammad Ali, quien vivió de 1874 a 1951.^[1] Él no era un personaje respetable ni notable en lo que al islam concierne, ya que perteneció a la Ahmadiyya* cuyas creencias diferían drásticamente del ºmainstream Islamº. La Ahmadiyya* y sus escritos también están fuertemente centrados en las obras misioneras.

Además de las objeciones de Ali está la de Habib Ur Rahman Siddiqui Kandhalvi (1924-1991), quien en su ºUrdu bookletº, Tehqiq e umar e Siddiqah e Ka'inat (English trans. 1997º), se lamenta por estar «cansado de defender esta tradición» de la cual se «ríen» y la cual es «ridiculizada» por los individuos ingleses ºeducated / con educaciónº que encuentra en Karachi*, quienes afirman que va en contra de la «sagacidad y prudencia» y que «prefieren la ºEnglish society / sociedad inglesaº a la islámica respecto a este tema», y ºreadily admits / admite prontamente*º que su «propósito es ºproduce / salir con /producirº una respuesta a los enemigos del Islam que ºspatter / salpicanº lodo * {¿o expresión?} al piadoso cuerpo del ºGenerous Prophet / Generoso Profetaº».^[2] Un fatwa* póstumo fue publicado en su contra en noviembre de 2004, ºlabelling / tildándoloº de Munkir-e-Hadith («ºhadith rejectorº») y de Kafir (infiel) ºon the basis of being a rejector of hadith / con fundamento en que es un +rejector+ del hadithº.^[3]

Más recientemente tenemos a Moiz Amjad, quien se refiere a sí mismo como «El Erudito». Él ºreadily admits / admite sin másº haber presentado {lift an argument*} estos argumentos defectuosos a partir de ellos ¿?, resumiéndolos y presentándolos en respuesta a un musulmán que le preguntó cómo podía responder a los cristianos que llamaban pedófilo a Mahoma (i.e. todos sus argumentos, como los de Alí y Kandhalvi ºbefore him / que lo precedieronº, ºwere apologetic in nature rather than acholarly / eran más bien de naturaleza apologética, y no académicos).^[4] ºIt was at this very recent point in history / No fue hasta este punto* reciente en la historiaº que los argumentos que tuvieron su origen en la Ahmadiyya* en los años 1920 y 1930 finalmente lograron un poco de popularidad entre unos cuantos musulmanes ortodoxos. Sin embargo, esta popularidad parece estar estrictamente limitada a artículos y argumentos en la internet, como una clara reacción instintiva a la avalancha de crítica en línea de la vida de Mahoma, en oposición a un cambio tangible en las creencias.

En julio de 2005, Shaykh Dr. Gibril Fouad Haddad respondió a la polémica de Moiz Amjad con Our Mother A'isha's Age At The Time Of Her Marriage to The Prophetº, publicado en SunniPath.com.^[5] Incluyendo muchos hechos que son fácilmente verificables para aquellos que tienen acceso a la literatura hadith* y sira*, él ºdismantle / desmanteló / desmontó / echó por tierra / deshizoº las distorciones difundidas por los apologistas. Por ejemplo, su análisis realzó el hecho que muchos de los argumentos estaban basados únicamente en suposiciones erróneas tomadas de hadiths* completamente ajenos a la edad de Aisha, o que estaban tergiversando las fuentes citadas (i.e. en realidad apoyaban el hecho que Aisha tenía nueve años). Al día de hoy, su respuesta erudita continúa sin ser replicada / contestada / respondida por Moiz Amjad. Haddad, quien fue nombrado entre los «500 musulmanes de mayor influencia en el mundo» inaugural ¿?, ^[6] es un erudito y muhaddith* (hadith* experto)^[6] que es tomado muy en serio por los ºmainstream Muslimsº. También es ºvocal critic / crítico vocal ¿?º del fundamentalismo Salafi *.^[7]

Desde la publicación de publicación definitiva de Haddad, los ºhighly convoluted arguments / argumentos grandemente enrevesadosº de Moiz Amjad, con todos sus errores obvios intactos, han continuado siendo ºrehashº por innumerables apologistas en la internet, con el mismo enfoque misionero y apologista. Entre otros ºtransmitters / emisarios / transmisorº de estos argumentos se incluye a T.O. Shavanas*,^[8] «Imamº» Chaudhry (con un plagio palabra por palabra de la obra de Amjad),^[9] Zahid Aziz,^[1] Nilofar Ahmed,^[10] y David Liepert.^[11]

Analysis

The following series of arguments were presented by Moiz Amjad. We have chosen to analyze and respond to them specifically, due to his polemics encompassing every single claim made by other modern-day apologists who sometimes use a few, or even all of them as their own. They do this often without acknowledging Amjad as the true source of their claims.

First Argument: Number of Narrators

This is a classic Straw man. There is no requirement in Islam for multiple narrations. Even a single sahih hadith is sufficient to establish Islamic laws and practices.

Shaykh Gibril Haddad also refutes the claim that most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn Urwah.

Second Argument: Locality

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

Shaykh Haddad also refutes this argument by listing the people from Medina who reported this event.

Third Argument: Reliability of Hisham

According to Shaykh Haddad, Amjad’s third argument is either misrepresentation or a lie. Apparently, the slander against Hisham ibn Urwah is unfounded and unsupported by closer reading of Amjad’s own reference.

Fourth Argument: Hisham's Memory

This is another slander in which the accuser does not correlate Hisham’s memory loss with the ‘Aisha’s age’ hadiths. Hisham was born in 61 A.H. and died in 146 A.H. at Baghdad – meaning he was 85 years old when he died. He moved to Iraq when he was 71 years old. When did his memory fail him? The accuser provides no answer.

In fact, Shaykh Haddad accuses Moiz Amjad of outright lying.

Fifth Argument: Revelation Time of Surah al-Qamar

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.

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.

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.

Sixth Argument: Battle of Badr and Uhud

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

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

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.

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.

Seventh Argument: Asma's Age

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

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.

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.

Eighth Argument: Tabari's Account

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

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

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

Ninth Argument: Time of Umar's Conversion to Islam

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.

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.

Tenth Argument: Abu Bakr's Migration to Habshah

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

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

Eleventh Argument: Meaning of Bikr

Sina has refuted this argument.

And Amjad has agreed:

Shaykh Gibril Haddad also adds:

Twelfth Argument: Fatima's Age Difference

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]

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.

Sina has refuted the accuracy of Amjad’s information:

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.

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.

Thirteenth Argument: Arab Tradition

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.

Conclusion

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

A. Unjustified slanders against Hisham ibn Urwah and the Iraqi narrators.

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.

See Also

• Aisha's Age of Consummation
• Responses to Apologetics: Muhammad and Aisha
• Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Aisha - Islamic sources relating to Aisha
• Refutations - A hub page that leads to other articles related to Refutations

External Links

• Shaykh Gibril Haddad - Biography of Shaykh Gibril Fouad Haddad at SunniPath, The online Islamic Academy
• Evidence Muhammad was a pedophile - FFI forum thread which deals with further apologetics
• Really, really wishing Aisha weren't nine - Robert Spencer debates a typical non-Muslim apologist for Islam
• Responses to "The Learner" (Moiz Amjad) and others - Collection of Answering Islam articles

Acknowledgments

References