This is the third part of the heated discussion between Dr Ismail Abdulsalam and YahwehSaves on Aisha’s age at Kaybar. We will start with Ismail responses in which he quoted his opponent- YahwehSaves then we will turn to YahwehSaves responses. Let’s go there:
*YOUR response:*
We will continue to talk about this till we end this weak arguments you are making.
In the first line of that comment, Ibn Hajar commented on what view was held by those he later considered STRONGEST VIEW which is that Aisha has not yet reached puberty. Then he moved on to talked about the possibility by stating the historical fact that Aisha at kaybar was 14 years old girl. He then proceed to state that at Taburk she has reached puberty.
Note: Between KHAYBAR Taburk was 2 years meaning that this is historical fact. To prove this timeline, I stated the dates these event occurred which proved that Aisha age at the time.
Where issue lies now is whether she has reached puberty or not in which Hajar already quoted as strongest view.
The fact that He then went on to say that at the time of the battle of Taboook she had DEFINITELY REACHED THE AGE OF PUBERTY proved that she had not reached puberty as the source he quoted as strongest view.
Note that this is two years after the battle of KHAYBAR. That means at Tabook she will be 16years old girl. (More on this later)
*MY RESPONSE:*
It seems you are dubiously dodging what Ibn Hajar said and the purpose of those who he said opined that she possibly had not reached puberty at 14 years.
Let me quoted the words of Ibn Hajar again and the reason why him and others (which he did not even name) opined that at 14 years during Khaibar she had not yet reached puberty.
> I [Ibn Hajar] say: *To say with certainty, [that she was not yet at the age of puberty] is questionable, though it might possibly be so*. This, because A’isha (ra) was a 14-year-old girl at the time of the Battle of Khaybar—either exactly 14 years old, or having just passed her 14th year, or approaching it. As for her age at the time of the Battle of Tabook, she had by then definitely reached the age of puberty. Therefore, the strongest view is that of those who said: “It was in Khaybar” [i.e., when she was not yet at the age of puberty], *and made reconciliation [between the apparent contradictory rulings of the permissibility of dolls in particular and the prohibition of images in general]…*
From Ibn Hajar here, we can see that he himself can NOT certainly say that she had NOT reached puberty at 14 years during Khaibar.
However, in other to have reconcilation (hence the PURPOSE and NOT necessarily based on historical fact), some opined that she had NOT reached puberty during Khaibar whilst she was 14 years in order to have a reconcilation between an apparent contradiction of permissibility to play with doll at 14 *vs* 16 as the Hadith narrator admitted.
From the Hadith, it is arguable that she still had dolls with her during Tabook war (when she was supposedly 16 years) as the narrator himself can not differentiate which one was it. So why disregard the possibility of her having dolls during Tabook war (when she is supposedly 16 years) as the narrator states ??
It is clear that the PURPOSE of Ibn Hajar and others who opined that she was 14 years during Khaibar and immature was to have a RECONCILATION and NOT necessarily because their opinion is based on historical fact.
*YOUR response:*
Again Hajar doesn’t form the opinion by himself. He was quoting a view that he started with – that she was not yet at the age of puberty. He then later based his argument that this is strongest view which is that it was kaybar when she wasn’t yet reach age of puberty. Don’t mix it up. This is the bone of contention.
Did Hajar cited Hadith that Aisha has not yet reach puberty? Yes!
Did hajar finally called this the strongest view ? Yes!
Case close down!
Hajar opinion on the contradiction it posed which he believed permitting Aisha use of idol was because of the strongest view – she has not yet reached puberty.
This is why Mohammed has not prohibited the doll for her else why allowing her to keep it until later when she was 16 before prohibition if not that it was permitted for someone who can’t discerned what is idolatrous or associate with it until she reach the stage she let go?
So,
– Aisha would be around 14 during the Battle of Khaybar (628 CE).
– Aisha would be around 16 after the Battle of Tabuk (630 CE).
This calculation is based on the commonly accepted dates for these battles.
*MY RESPONSE:*
The Hadith in question does NOT say whether she is matured or immature during Tabook or Khaibar. It is hence wrong of you to claim that you quoted an Hadith that says she was immature !!! Again, the text in parentheses in the Hadith were ADDITION by Ibn Hajar based on the intent (by others) to find a reconciliation between an apparent contradiction and NOT based on historical fact.
*YOUR response:*
Hajar wasn’t the only one to said Aisha playing with doll was permissible because she was still prepubescent girl. I quoted it at the tail of my response earlier but I will do it again:
‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and *she was taken to his house AS A BRIDE WHEN SHE WAS NINE, AND HER DOLLS WERE WITH HER;* and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3311)
Al-Khattaabee said:
From this Hadith it is understood that playing with dolls (al-banaat) is not like the amusement from other images (suwar) concerning which the threat (wa’eed) of punishment is mentioned. *The only reason why permission in this was given to ‘Aa’isha (may Allah be pleased with her) is because SHE HAD NOT, AT THAT TIME, REACHED THE AGE OF PUBERTY.*
*MY RESPONSE:*
Failed ! I asked you to bring me one scholar of Hadith that agrees with Ibn Hajar or those whose opinions he agree with that Aisha had NOT reached puberty at 14 years !!!!!! Rather, you are bringing an Hadith that only says she was married to the prophet at 7 and was taken to his house at 9.
Does Al-Khattabee agree with you that she was still immature at 14 years (or 16 years) when she still had dolls with her ????
What you and Ibn Hajar and others are missing is that the prohibited of playing with dolls at puberty was declared after the war of Khaibar or Tabuk just like Al-Bayhaqi stated.
*YOUR response:*
That they are fatten her shows she has not have the feature of puberty and this is before she got married at 6. Are you saying they were fatten her when she had married and lived with Mohammed?
Did she then attained puberty despite attempt to get her puffed out? No! When she was living with Mohammed she was still being referred to as prepubescent girl not have reached puberty.
However, to answer you question that If Aisha had not reached puberty or maturity for a married life, why would her parents despite their aim still send her to live with the prophet if their aim of fattening her up for maturity had not been met ?
Here is it, the Hadith plus Quran 65:4 justify that you marry off a prepubescent girl and consummate marriage with her and this was used in reference to Aisha who had not reached puberty and Mohammed took her and consummated the marriage.
*MY RESPONSE:*
Their attempt to fatten her up BEFORE she was taken to the prophet proves that they wanted her to be ready (matured) !!! It would defeat their purpose and goal If they still took her to the prophet without being ready. So the reasonable conclusion would be that they fatten her up over three years until she was ready before they finally took her to the prophet.
As for Sura 65:4 you dubiously ran to, it is NOT talking about prepubescent girls BECAUSE there is possibility of pregnancy for both the menopausal women and women with delayed menarche (even though they are passed the age of marriage of their peer group).
This verse takes care of the unusual anomaly in the reproductive life of women at the beginning and end of their reproductive circle.
*YOUR response:*
The reference Sunan al-Tirmidhi 2/409 does not contain a direct statement from Aisha referring to herself as a “woman.” This particular citation may be inaccurately referenced or misunderstood. In the widely accepted hadith collections, Aisha is described in terms of her age during her marriage and its consummation, but there is no direct evidence in these sources that she explicitly called herself a “woman” at the age of nine.
*MY RESPONSE:*
This is laughable and blind denial of evidence.
It is direct statement from Aisha. Stop this lies of yours. If Aisha herself said a female at 9 is already a woman, WHY should you think that she can NOT be a woman at 14 years or 16 years ?
*YOUR RESPONSE:*
In Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, Aisha describes her age at the time of marriage and when the marriage was consummated, but she does not use the term “woman” to describe herself. Instead, terms like jāriyah (young girl) are more commonly used, which indicates a prepubescent or youthful state, not necessarily adulthood or womanhood.
*MY RESPONSE:*
Bring the Hadith in question from Bukhari and show us where she applied the word _”Jariyah”_ at the time of consumation of the marriage. I know you will still run away.
*YOUR RESPONSE:*
It is not laughable because you are using modern construct in which a girl of 9-14 supposed to have reached puberty on time to describe medieval Arabia where girls experience poor growth and low health care. In the modern era girls attained puberty faster than antiquity and medieval period. No wonder they are trying to fatten her yet she is still not attained puberty at kaybar at 14.
*MY RESPONSE:*
If we should you evidence of young female being married off during medieval times, you will still run. How many times shall we show you how Mary was said to be 12 years (below 14 years) when she had Jesus ? How many times shall we show you how Thomas Aquinas testifies that the age of marriage at his time (medieval) in Summa theological is 12 years (which is below 14) .
Secondly, psychological and physiological development in females is not primarily determined by food (even though Aisha was being well-fed as I already indicated). You can have a well-fed female today at 16 and she has not started menstruating but you can have 10 years old female in antiquity or medieval times and she already started menstruating.
*YOUR response:*
When are you going to stop twisting what is plain
Ibn Hajar was not trying to justify the permission given to her to have a doll despite her being 14, he based this on the fact that their is view which is strongest that she at 14 has not yet reach puberty and Aisha used doll therefore was permitted her but for adult doll and images were forbidden. He didn’t say probably she has not reached puberty. It was based on strong view that at 14 she has not reached puberty.
*MY RESPONSE:*
Go back to the beginning of this post where Ibn Hajar clearly stated that this was meant to have a RECONCILATION (and not based on historical fact).
*YOUR response:*
This is subjective and argument from silence. Just because he didn’t directly mentioned or quote any scholar then it is it can be trashed as his opinion? Your Hadith are based on opinion and opinion in themselves and Hajar claim was not taken from thin air as I quoted Hadiths in reference to the fact that Aisha as at time she lived with Mohammed never attained puberty and your Quran 65:4 corroborated it.
Note that Hajar was a respect and reputable commentator and an expert on sahih bukhari Hadith and HISTORIAN of the Shari’s school of thought.
Al-Bayhaqi did not countered what Hajar said with any Hadith as well on whether she has reached age of puberty or not rather on whether the prohibition of doll was at kaybar or tabook. The fact remains Aisha has not reached the age of puberty at 14. It was also Bayhaqi opinion which is not substantiated by any quoted to disprove Hajar. He only Quote to us he Hadith that invalidate what Hajar claimed as strongest view.
Note that historically he was right that Aisha reached puberty at 16 with certainty at tabook which will indicate with no doubt she has not therefore the reason why dolls were permitted for her was because Images and anything associated were forbidden for grown up ones.
*MY RESPONSE:*
This has already been taken care of. In fact, Ibn Hajar only meant to say that the strongest view regarding those who said she was 14 at Khaibar rather than at Tabook. Their view is NOT even whether or not she was matured at that time.
……. Brb
Now let’s turn to YahwehSaves responses to Dr Ismail
Earlier when this conversation started you said I do not get the “I missed the whole Point” but it seems you are the one that I think missed the whole point. The resources you shared was shared with the intention that it refute @Murileak but actually brought out more CAN OF WORMS- Aisha as at 14 is not yet at puberty. This was what my first response to you centered on.
Please note that your response before this will be reaccessed with more detail responses. I wish you won’t shift the goal post at the end . So let’s address this.
You said
_It seems you are dubiously dodging what Ibn Hajar said and the purpose of those who he said opined that she possibly had not reached puberty at 14 years._
*Response*
It seems you don’t even know the argument I’m making and I will advise you to go to the first post I made on your response to Murileak.
They still stands! Aisha wasn’t at puberty at 14 and the source you posted proved my point.
By implication if she had not reach puberty at 14, her age and assumption and gymnasticism that she attained puberty at 9 becomes false. With all evidences available she had not reach puberty at 14 and there is no scholar who contented the fact that she had not reached puberty at 14 but until two years later at Tarburk. You may cite the one who talked about time of prohibition (either at Kaybar or Taburk, which is speculative) it still didn’t refute the fact that Aisha had not reached puberty at 14 years old.
Let me restate what Ibn Hajar actually said:
– Ibn Hajar did not categorically deny that Aisha had not reached puberty by Khaybar; rather, he acknowledged that it was possible she had not reached puberty based on the strongest view of the hadith and historical evidence.
– His wording such as “to say with certainty” refers to the possibility, not a definitive denial of her status at 14.
*Clarification*
_“To say with certainty, [that she was not yet at the age of puberty] is questionable, though it might possibly be so.”_
This means that Ibn Hajar is cautious, but he accepts that *there is a strong likelihood that Aisha had not reached puberty at 14.*
Ibn Hajar is a renowned scholar who did not express mere opinions. His conclusions are based on hadith evidence and the historical timeline of events, particularly focusing on the Battle of Khaybar and Tabuk.
His acknowledgment of the possibility that Aisha had not reached puberty by 14 is grounded in hadiths and the context of her playing with dolls, which, as Al-Khattabee (that I quoted) supported, was permissible because she had not reached puberty.
The purpose of Ibn Hajar’s commentary was to reconcile two issues:
1. Aisha’s age and maturity at the time of Khaybar.
2. The permissibility of playing with dolls despite the prohibition of images, based on her not reaching puberty at that time.
My argument is consistent with Ibn Hajar’s Intent. I’m not dodging what Ibn Hajar said but rather supporting his strongest conclusions. I have consistently stated that the hadith and historical timeline back the view that Aisha had not reached puberty at Khaybar.
Your claim that I’m dodging or acting “dubiously” is unfounded because my argument aligns with the established evidence presented by Ibn Hajar.
Ibn Hajar’s final stance, accepting the possibility that Aisha had not reached puberty—is factually grounded in the strongest available evidence, both from hadith and the historical timeline of the events. His caution in using the word “possibly” only shows his thoroughness as a scholar and does not diminish the weight of the evidence he presents.
*Your claims*
From Ibn Hajar here, we can see that he himself can NOT certainly say that she had NOT reached puberty at 14 years during Khaibar.
However, in other to have reconcilation (hence the PURPOSE and NOT necessarily based on historical fact), some opined that she had NOT reached puberty during Khaibar whilst she was 14 years in order to have a reconcilation between an apparent contradiction of permissibility to play with doll at 14 *vs* 16 as the Hadith narrator admitted.
From the Hadith, it is arguable that she still had dolls with her during Tabook war (when she was supposedly 16 years) as the narrator himself can not differentiate which one was it. So why disregard the possibility of her having dolls during Tabook war (when she is supposedly 16 years) as the narrator states ??
It is clear that the PURPOSE of Ibn Hajar and others who opined that she was 14 years during Khaibar and immature was to have a RECONCILATION and NOT necessarily because their opinion is based on historical fact.
*Response*
You represent Ibn Hajar’s position seems to miss some key nuances, and it unfairly downplays the evidence-based approach that Ibn Hajar took in his commentary.
Foremost, Ibn Hajar did express caution in his statement, noting that to say with certainty that Aisha had not reached puberty at 14 is questionable. However, he also clearly leaned toward the strongest view, which is that Aisha had not yet reached puberty at Khaybar.
You seems to suggest that Ibn Hajar’s position is not based on historical fact, but rather to reconcile a contradiction in the permissibility of playing with dolls. This is misleading because Ibn Hajar was careful to evaluate both hadith evidence and the historical timeline when making his case. Ibn Hajar did not simply form his conclusion to “reconcile” a contradiction; he relied on the strongest available evidence, including the historical context of Aisha’s age at Khaybar.
Secondly, you are trying to diminish the strength of Ibn Hajar’s argument by suggesting that the only reason for stating Aisha had not reached puberty at 14 was to reconcile a legal issue regarding the permissibility of dolls. This is misleading because Ibn Hajar relied on evidence, not just a desire for reconciliation.
Ibn Hajar consistently used hadith evidence along with historical events like the Battle of Khaybar to make his case. He does not imply that the argument about dolls and puberty was merely hypothetical or speculative. The historical timeline and the reports from Aisha herself lend credibility to the idea that she had not yet reached puberty at 14.
Thirdly, it very key to focus on the role of caution in Ibn Hajar’s Position.
I pointed out that Ibn Hajar was cautious and acknowledged that it’s questionable to say with complete certainty whether Aisha had not reached puberty. This caution is a hallmark of scholarly integrity; yet still sided with the strongest opinion.
Even though Ibn Hajar didn’t claim absolute certainty, his historical evidence and other hadith narrations support his conclusion that Aisha was still prepubescent at Khaybar. This caution does not invalidate the position; it strengthens it, showing that Ibn Hajar was thorough in his analysis.
You claim that Ibn Hajar and others only opined Aisha was prepubescent to reconcile an apparent contradiction regarding dolls at 14 vs. 16.
This argument, however, ignores the fact that permissibility to play with dolls was directly tied to Aisha’s status as prepubescent.
Scholars such as Al-Khattaabee validated this view, as we have seen from his statement, where he explicitly said that Aisha was allowed to play with dolls because she had not yet reached puberty. This isn’t just a legal theory; it’s backed by hadith.
You attempt to invokes Al-Bayhaqi to suggest that the prohibition of dolls might have come after Khaybar or Tabuk.
However, this doesn’t invalidate Ibn Hajar’s evidence. Al-Bayhaqi’s opinion pertains more to when the general prohibition was enforced rather than Aisha’s personal development. Bayhaqi’s is speculative as it is based on confusion and assumption. Mind you the narrative you shared that have kaybar or Taburk regarding this issue, have it in bracket that the narrative kaybar or Taburk “is doubtful”
The key point is that Ibn Hajar and Al-Khattaabee agree that Aisha was not yet at the age of puberty at Khaybar and was thus allowed to have dolls. Even if Al-Bayhaqi suggests the prohibition came later, this does not undermine the fact that Aisha was still a child at the time of Khaybar, as supported by Ibn Hajar’s timeline and the narrations.
You claim seems to be constructing a strawman by focusing too much on the purpose of reconciliation rather than the evidence supporting the reconciliation itself. Ibn Hajar’s commentary is not about creating a fictitious reconciliation; it’s about interpreting hadith in light of the strongest evidence available.
Ibn Hajar was analyzing the historical timeline and the available hadith. His conclusions are grounded in both thematic consistency of Islamic jurisprudence and scholarly rigor.
I repeat, the idea that Aisha had not reached puberty at 14 during Khaybar is backed by the timeline, as mentioned by Ibn Hajar and further validated by Al-Khattaabee. The fact that Al-Bayhaqi speaks about the prohibition of dolls coming later does not invalidate the specific historical claim about Aisha.
*You said*
_The Hadith in question does NOT say whether she is matured or immature during Tabook or Khaibar. It is hence wrong of you to claim that you quoted an Hadith that says she was immature !!! Again, the text in parentheses in the Hadith were ADDITION by Ibn Hajar based on the intent (by others) to find a reconciliation between an apparent contradiction and NOT based on historical fact._
*Response*
This is misleading. Your argument is misleading and does not accurately reflect the way Ibn Hajar and other scholars approached the matter.
1. You claim that the hadith does not explicitly state that Aisha was immature during Khaybar or Tabuk.
While it is true that the hadith itself does not directly say “Aisha was immature,” it provides contextual evidence that has been interpreted by scholars like Ibn Hajar and Al-Khattaabee. The fact that Aisha was still playing with dolls during Khaybar (when she was 14 years old) is a strong indirect indication that she had not reached puberty. In Islamic law, playing with dolls is generally permissible for children, especially prepubescent girls, but is discouraged or prohibited after reaching puberty. Therefore, her activity of playing with dolls in this context strongly suggests that she had not yet matured.
2. You argue that the text in parentheses in the hadith, which suggests Aisha had not reached puberty, is an addition by Ibn Hajar to reconcile contradictions.
This is a misunderstanding of how Ibn Hajar and other scholars approach hadith analysis.
Ibn Hajar did not invent the idea that Aisha had not reached puberty; he was using historical context and the understanding of scholars before him to clarify the hadith. The parenthetical explanations in his commentary are not arbitrary; they are based on established scholarly interpretations and jurisprudential rules regarding dolls and children in Islam.
Ibn Hajar’s purpose was not simply to “reconcile” contradictions but to provide a scholarly understanding based on available evidence. Scholars like Al-Khattaabee have validated his understanding by stating that the permissibility of dolls was because Aisha had not yet reached puberty at the time of Khaybar.
3. You tries to dismiss Ibn Hajar’s explanation by framing it as merely an attempt to reconcile contradictions rather than being based on historical fact. This is incorrect.
Ibn Hajar was working with historical data and jurisprudential rules when interpreting the hadith. While it is true that scholars often seek reconciliation in cases of apparent contradictions, that doesn’t mean they abandon historical analysis. In this case, Ibn Hajar used the timeline of Aisha’s life and the context of the Battle of Khaybar to demonstrate that she had not reached puberty by the time she was 14.
4. You ignores the broader scholarly consensus on this issue. Ibn Hajar, along with other scholars like Al-Khattaabee, built their case based on multiple pieces of evidence, including the age of Aisha, her behavior (playing with dolls), and the Islamic legal rulings regarding dolls for children.
These scholars did not base their conclusions on mere speculation; they were drawing from textual evidence and jurisprudential principles. This broader context strengthens Ibn Hajar’s position and refutes the critic’s claim that it was simply a matter of reconciliation.
There is historical evidence from the hadith and Islamic tradition that Aisha’s behavior—such as playing with dolls—indicates she had not reached puberty by 14 during Khaybar. The commentary by Ibn Hajar and others uses this fact to argue for her immaturity. Ibn Hajar did not fabricate or insert this explanation. Rather, he was interpreting the hadith within the established legal framework and historical context. Playing with dolls after puberty was not permissible, so the fact that Aisha was still playing with them at 14 is significant evidence that she had not reached puberty.
*you said:*
_Failed ! I asked you to bring me one scholar of Hadith that agrees with Ibn Hajar or those whose opinions he agree with that Aisha had NOT reached puberty at 14 years !!!!!! Rather, you are bringing an Hadith that only says she was married to the prophet at 7 and was taken to his house at 9._
_Does Al-Khattabee agree with you that she was still immature at 14 years (or 16 years) when she still had dolls with her ????_
What you and Ibn Hajar and others are missing is that the prohibited of playing with dolls at puberty was declared after the war of Khaibar or Tabuk just like Al-Bayhaqi stated.
*Response*
Here are the additional scholars or sources that support Ibn Hajar’s assertion that Aisha had not reached puberty at the time of Khaybar:
1. Al-Khattabee’s commentary clearly supports Ibn Hajar’s conclusion regarding Aisha’s age and her ability to play with dolls because she had not yet reached puberty.
2. Ibn Sa’d, in his work “Tabaqat al-Kubra,” discusses Aisha’s age and marriage to the Prophet, providing context for her development and maturity.
3. Ibn Al-Athir, a noted scholar, has also commented on Aisha’s age in various contexts, including her playing with dolls before reaching puberty.
You stated that the prohibition on playing with dolls was declared after Khaybar or Tabuk. This is speculative and not based on historical evidence. In fact the commentary you shared where it was said “… kaybar or Taburk” already have it spelt that the narrative doubtful.
Also, I think we must not forget the nuances of the prohibition:
Let me be generous to your scholar.
Based on the Historical Contex, it was formal prohibition that was given afterward and while it is possible that formal prohibitions were established after these events, the idea that a girl must not play with dolls once she reaches puberty is based on established jurisprudential principles rather than a single event or declaration. The interpretation of maturity and the related prohibitions existed within the legal framework of Islamic teachings, and these principles were recognized by scholars even before formal declarations were made.
Also, Ibn Hajar’s conclusion was based on historical analysis and authentic hadiths, and it aligns with the general scholarly consensus that children, particularly girls, could play with dolls until they reached puberty, which is also the rationale behind the statements of scholars like Al-Khattabee.
By implications Al-Bayhaqi’s statement regarding the prohibition being declared later does not negate the historical reality of Aisha’s age at the time of Khaybar. It suggests a progression in legal rulings rather than a contradiction of previously established norms regarding maturity and play.
Different scholars may have different interpretations of the timing of prohibitions, but this does not invalidate earlier interpretations of Aisha’s age and status based on evidence available to Ibn Hajar and others.
The evidence presented by Ibn Hajar and Al-Khattabee, supported by the consensus among earlier scholars, underscores that Aisha was indeed pre-pubescent at Khaybar.
Your insistence on seeking a scholar who explicitly states otherwise does not diminish the validity of the hadiths and the historical context already provided. The discussion of prohibitions is separate from the established understanding of Aisha’s age, which is well documented in Islamic literature.
You said _I asked you to bring me one scholar of Hadith that agrees with Ibn Hajar or those whose opinions he agree with that Aisha had NOT reached puberty at 14 years !!!!!! Rather, you are bringing an Hadith that only says she was married to the prophet at 7 and was taken to his house at 9._
*Response*
That is false. I quoted Aisha progressive marriage to Mohammed and then quoted Al-Khattabee.
Isn’t that was why you say _Does Al-Khattabee agree with you that she was still immature at 14 years (or 16 years) when she still had dolls with her_
Moreso, Ibn Hajar is a highly respected scholar in the field of Hadith and Islamic jurisprudence. His analysis of Aisha’s age is well-founded in historical records and authentic narrations, which provides a solid basis for his conclusions.
I’ve cited some scholar above who have the same conclusion as Ibn Hajar. Let me quote these scholars who have discussed or supported Ibn Hajar’s position regarding Aisha’s age again:
Al-Khattabee
As previously mentioned, he directly stated that the permissibility of Aisha playing with dolls was due to her not having reached puberty, implying she was still a child at that time.
Ibn Sa’d
In “Tabaqat al-Kubra,” Ibn Sa’d provides historical context regarding Aisha’s age during significant events, supporting the timeline established by Ibn Hajar.
Ibn Al-Athir
He often references Aisha’s age in relation to key events in early Islamic history, supporting the view that she was under the age of puberty during Khaybar.
Al-Muhallab ibn Abi Sufra
He is known to have discussed Aisha’s age in his commentaries, reinforcing the idea that her age at Khaybar is significant to understanding her position and status in Islamic tradition.
I would also like to note that while there may not be an overwhelming number of contemporary scholars explicitly stating Aisha’s age at Khaybar and Tabuk, the consensus among early scholars, including Ibn Hajar, is well-documented. Their historical interpretations rely on authentic narrations and the cultural context of the time.
The scholar that was cited by the author that you posted earlier didn’t cite any scholar who countered those who say anything contrary to age of aisha at the KHAYBAR or Taburk. None. The one the author cited was just talking about whether it was after or before was the prohibition of doll was made and the author himself was engaging in oversimplification and strawman fallacy of ibn Hajar.
Note: I will love to address these oversimplification and strawman made by the author you quoted who cited a weak argument of another commentator on Hajar in my next post.
It is good to reemphasize that the age of puberty can vary culturally and historically. In pre-Islamic Arabian society, as noted by scholars, girls often matured at different rates due to factors like health and nutrition. The timelines discussed by Ibn Hajar and supported by historical context make sense in light of these variances.
So, I hope you are cleared that the absence of a specific scholar stating Aisha’s exact age does not invalidate the existing evidence. The interpretations and conclusions drawn from hadiths and historical analysis by Ibn Hajar and others are sufficient to support the claim that Aisha was 14 at Khaybar and reached puberty by the time of Tabuk.
To ensure that we don’t bored our readers, we will move this to Part IV
