Sanggahan Terhadap Apologis Muslim Mengenai Usia Aisha: Difference between revisions

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

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 hinaan. 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

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

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

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.

Argument Pertama

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 debunks the claim that most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn Urwah.

The Second Argument

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.

The Third Argument

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.

The Fourth Argument

This is another slander in which the slanderer 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 slanderer provides no answer.

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

The Fifth Argument

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.

The Sixth Argument

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.

The Seventh Argument

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.

The Eighth Argument

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 four times, making it clear that this was what he deemed authoritative.

The Ninth Argument

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.

The Tenth Argument

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.

The Eleventh Argument

Sina has refuted this argument.

And Amjad has agreed:

Shaykh Gibril Haddad also adds:

The Twelfth Argument

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.

The Thirteenth Argument

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