This is the part IV of this discussion between Dr Ismail and YahwehSaves. We continue from where we left off. YahwehSaves will continue his responses
YahwehSaves
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 @Muritala Polemic Muslim 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._
*My 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.
RESPONSE TO THE CRITICISM OF IBN HAJAR
*Criticism of Ibn Hajar*
_This explanation by Ibn Hajar reveals a number of important points which run contrary to the initial impressions of the hadith. *The first and most obvious issue with Ibn Hajar’s commentary is that he admits that Aisha (ra) was at least 14 years of age at the time this narration takes place, putting her well above the average age of the onset of puberty in the Near East during late antiquity* (and even by today’s standards). *This is most likely why Ibn Hajar felt his own conclusion was questionable.* Despite his own doubts, however, he suggests she must have not reached puberty due to reasons completely unrelated to her actual biological or psychosocial maturity: it helped him to reconcile an apparent contradiction in her behavior with the legal prohibition of adults playing with dolls._
*Response to the criticism*
The critic’s claim appears to misunderstand the historical context and selectively interpret Ibn Hajar’s statements. Here’s a structured refutation addressing their argument:
1. The critic’s statement is an example of a strawman fallacy, it misrepresents Ibn Hajar’s reasoning by claiming that his conclusion is based on _“reasons completely unrelated to her biological or psychosocial maturity.”_
In reality, Ibn Hajar did not rely on abstract reasoning. He derived his conclusion from authentic hadith and historical evidence of Aisha’s age and circumstances at the time of Khaybar. The hadith evidence about Aisha playing with dolls was used to demonstrate that she had not yet reached puberty, which is consistent with Islamic legal allowances for pre-pubescent children. There is no indication that Ibn Hajar was trying to “reconcile contradictions” for his own purposes.
2. Biological and Historical Context. The critic states that Aisha was “well above the average age of the onset of puberty in the Near East during late antiquity.”
However, this ignores the reality that puberty varies significantly depending on numerous factors, including nutrition and health.
Historical evidence suggests that poor health and malnutrition were prevalent in 7th-century Arabia, which would have affected the age of puberty for many girls. Aisha herself, according to authentic hadith, faced malnutrition, as indicated by the hadith in Sahih Bukhari where her parents attempted to “fatten her up” as family who love to rush their girls into marriage to helped them look big (like the chicken bought in late October by a seller of chicken and over fed to look big for Christmas chicken buyers by the time he would sell it for Christmas) to the suitor before her marriage and in this case to the Prophet.
This hadith also mentions that Aisha suffered from hair loss, a common symptom of malnutrition.
Given these circumstances, it would not be unusual for Aisha to reach puberty later than the average.
The critic’s assertion that 14 years is “well above the average” fails to account for these key health and environmental factors.
3. The critic misinterprets Ibn Hajar’s use of “questionable” as an expression of doubt in his conclusion.
In context, Ibn Hajar simply acknowledges that there is a possibility, however small, that Aisha may have reached puberty by the time of Khaybar, but he still firmly supports the STRONGEST evidence that she had not.
Ibn Hajar was known for his scholarly rigor, and he carefully examines multiple perspectives before drawing conclusions. His statement that her not reaching puberty is the strongest view is based on evidence from authentic hadith, and he does not suggest that his conclusion is weak or unsupported.
4. Ibn Hajar’s evidence that Aisha was still permitted to play with dolls due to her pre-puberty status is supported by authentic hadith and Islamic legal rulings regarding the permissibility of dolls for children.
The legal prohibition on images and dolls applies to adults, but Aisha’s pre-puberty status exempted her from this prohibition. This hadith evidence aligns with the fact that Aisha had not reached puberty, further reinforcing Ibn Hajar’s conclusion.
The critic’s claim that Ibn Hajar based his view on unrelated factors or that puberty by age 14 was universal in Arabia is factually incorrect. Ibn Hajar relied on authentic hadith evidence, supported by historical and legal context, showing that Aisha had not yet reached puberty at Khaybar.
Furthermore, Ibn Hajar’s conclusions are evidence-based, not speculative, and he appropriately addresses possible contradictions without undermining the strongest view from the hadiths.
Thus, the critic’s argument lacks sufficient grounding in both historical and hadith-based evidence, while Ibn Hajar’s analysis remains solid and credible.
Let us address another criticism level against Ibn Hajar here. Though this came first before the first I responded to but it’s still not bad to bring it up.
*Criticism*
_what makes Ibn Hajar’s opinion even more tenuous is that *his view was countered by other master scholars of hadith and Islamic jurisprudence, such as Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 1066), who claimed that the prohibition was only declared after the events narrated in the hadith in question*_
*Response:*
Let’s break it down our response to this criticism of Ibn Hajar
1. Ibn Hajar’s claims are *Evidence-Based View that is Strongest.*
Ibn Hajar did not present a personal or speculative view. His conclusion about Aisha’s age at Khaybar and the permissibility of dolls is drawn from authentic hadith and a careful consideration of the historical timeline. This makes his work more evidence-based than a matter of mere opinion.
Ibn Hajar’s acknowledgment that Aisha had not yet reached puberty at the time of Khaybar (based on her age being around 14) is aligned with Sahih hadith, particularly the ones allowing her to play with dolls, which is a key marker of her pre-puberty status. This view is not tenuous, but rather supported by authentic evidence.
2. The Argument from Imam al-Bayhaqi Doesn’t Undermine Ibn Hajar strongest evidence.
Imam al-Bayhaqi’s claim that the prohibition on images (including dolls) may have been declared after the events mentioned in the hadith in question is about when the prohibition was declared. However, this does not refute Ibn Hajar’s evidence regarding Aisha’s age or her pre-puberty status at Khaybar. Like I said earlier, Bayhaqi’s is based on confused and speculative claims that in itself self refuted when it pointed out in bracket that the narrative of prohibition of doll whether Mohammed’s return from kaybar or Taburk. No decisive historical backup but speculation. Therefore Bayhaqi’s claim is not as strong as Hajar and no matter the reputation of Bayhaqi’s, Hajar reputation is also very strong in the field of Hadith scholarship, adding that he presented historical background which align with when the event of kaybar and tabuk occurred (something missing in Bayhaqi’s claims)
Bayhaqi is discussing the timing of the prohibition of dolls, not Aisha’s age or her ability to play with dolls. His statement does not undermine Ibn Hajar’s assertion that Aisha was not yet at puberty during Khaybar. Even if the prohibition came later, it does not change the fact that at Khaybar, historically and based on strongest view, Aisha was permitted to play with dolls because she had not reached puberty.
3. Ibn Hajar’s conclusion is built on strong hadith and historical evidence, rather than speculation. The fact that Aisha was allowed to play with dolls at Khaybar because of her pre-puberty status is supported by well-known hadiths and is not a matter of personal opinion.
The critic’s argument does not provide substantial evidence to invalidate Ibn Hajar’s evidences. Bayhaqi’s statement about the prohibition of dolls occurring later does not contradict the strong hadith evidence concerning Aisha’s age or the permissibility of dolls for her.
My critique of your arguments stands solid and consistent. Ibn Hajar based his work on authentic sources, and Bayhaqi’s statement does not undermine the historical evidence or hadith that Ibn Hajar used to conclude that Aisha was still pre-pubescent at the time of Khaybar. In fact the timing of the prohibition on dolls is a separate matter that does not invalidate the conclusions drawn about Aisha’s age and maturity at the time of Khaybar.
*You said*
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.
*Response*
Your challenge asking me to “bring the hadith” where Aisha refers to herself as “jariyah” at the time of consummation is based on a misunderstanding of the context of Islamic terminology and the meaning of jariyah in hadith literature.
You implying that the term “jariyah” must specifically appear at the time of the marriage consummation to prove that Aisha was still young or prepubescent. However, this reflects a misunderstanding of the nature and usage of the word in Islamic sources.
“Jariyah” is a term used in Arabic to refer to a young girl or maiden and is generally applied to girls who have not yet reached full maturity. The use of this term does not have to be directly linked to the exact moment of marriage consummation but is indicative of her age and status at a certain period of her life.
The fact that Aisha is referred to as jariyah in various hadiths is enough evidence to establish her prepubescent status during certain events, especially before the prohibition of dolls which was based on her reaching puberty.
Furthermore, one of the definition of Jariyah is “the little female girl.” This appellation applies to girls from birth to pre-pubescence. The word “jariya” has several meanings, but only one can fit Aisha.
The episode in which Aïsha was accused of adultery was in January 628, when her age was just short of fourteen. In her long and detailed account of this event, Aïsha described herself as a jariya.
According to below dictionary,
‘Jariya’ is sometimes translated as ‘young playful girl’, but it is never used to describe a mature woman, particularly one who is married, unless that person is below the age of puberty. ‘Jariya’ is also sometimes translated as ‘young girl’ or ‘young woman’. However, this does not mean that the subject has passed the age of puberty because the Arabic meaning is not the same as the English understanding of the phrase ‘young woman’. In other words, the Arabic term ‘jariya’ carries the same meaning as the English understanding of the phrase ‘young woman’ to mean ‘girl’ or ‘lass’
(Roget’s Thesaurus).
☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️
This is proven by Mufti Sayed Abdul Jaleel Saheb, Sheikh – ul- Hadith – Madressah Talimuddeen who said,
“In the Arabic language, the word “Jaria” is generally used for a young, immature girl (who has not reached the age of puberty as yet).”
☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️
2. There are multiple hadiths that refer to Aisha using terms that indicate her young age and her prepubescent status. While it may not explicitly state “jariyah” at the exact moment of marriage consummation, there is strong evidence that she was very young and prepubescent at the time and during her marriage lifestyles.
Jariyah as a term is used more broadly to refer to Aisha in events before puberty and particularly around the time she was allowed to play with dolls. Sahih Muslim (Book of Gifts) narrates that Aisha used to play with dolls even after her marriage, indicating her prepubescent status (Sahih Muslim, 3311).
3. The strongest evidence that Aisha had not reached puberty at the time of Khaybar (where you question the term “jariyah”) is the hadith that explicitly mentions her playing with dolls, a practice only allowed for prepubescent girls:
– Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151 states that the Prophet (peace be upon him) entered upon Aisha while she was playing with dolls. The Prophet laughed but did not forbid her, indicating that Aisha was still considered a child (jariyah) at that time.
– Scholars like Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani explain this hadith by emphasizing that playing with dolls was allowed only for girls who had not yet reached puberty.
Therefore, the fact that Aisha was still playing with dolls shows that she was still a jariyah.
4. In his commentary on Sahih Bukhari, Ibn Hajar explains that Aisha’s playing with dolls was a sign of her young age and prepubescent status, as girls were prohibited from playing with such toys after reaching puberty. Therefore, her being referred to in such a context points to her being a jariyah during these events. Who object to that?
Furthermore, Ibn Hajar emphasizes that Aisha was referred to as a “young girl” (jariyah) in hadith reports that describe her childhood and early marriage years.
5. It is important to note that the exact usage of the term jariyah at the moment of consummation is not a requirement to establish Aisha’s age. Islamic scholars determine historical facts based on a combination of authentic hadiths, context, and timeline.
The term jariyah applies to Aisha’s young age in various contexts, before puberty and during her early marriage. The presence or absence of the term at the moment of consummation is irrelevant to the broader context of her being a prepubescent girl during these periods.
6. Scholars like Al-Nawawi, Al-Dawudi, and others agree with the analysis of Ibn Hajar, confirming that the timeline of Aisha’s childhood activities, including playing with dolls, aligns with her prepubescent status during Khaybar, and her prohibition from these activities post-puberty after Tabuk.
So your demand for a hadith where Aisha refers to herself as jariyah during consummation is misplaced. Ibn Hajar’s conclusion that Aisha had not yet reached puberty by Khaybar is based on authentic hadiths describing her activities and prepubescent behavior such as playing with dolls. The use of the term jariyah in other contexts sufficiently demonstrates her young age and prepubescent status, and the absence of the term at the moment of consummation does not disprove the historical and legal analysis provided by Ibn Hajar and other scholars.
———————————-
*You said*
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.
*My response*
What you just said is dubious. Your claim is a misrepresentation of Ibn Hajar’s actual point. Ibn Hajar was not merely debating whether Aisha was 14 at Khaybar; he was addressing whether Aisha had reached puberty during those periods. His conclusion was based on authentic hadiths, historical data, and the timeline of events (such as her playing with dolls), which indicated she had not yet reached puberty by Khaybar, and that puberty occurred later, likely by Tabuk.
You twisted and want us to believe that what Ibn Hajar’s statement *only meant to say that the strongest view regarding those who said she was 14 at Khaibar rather than at Tabook*
This is dishonesty on your part. No wonder you added your comical laughing emoji at the end, indicating you are a lying thief.
*You said*
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.
*My response*
I’m daring you to take up the challenge to let us discuss this surah 65:4 and prove to me that it wasn’t talking about prepubescent girls. Remember we have you sources that already dealt with this issues. I also have more than enough Islamic jurisprudence on this matter and if you like take up the challenge to discuss it
I bet you will end your career
*You said*
You do NOT know what *consensus* means !!! Consensus is when ALL are unanimous about something which is NOT the case here since Al-Bayhaqi countered it.
*My response*
When Ibn Hajar referred to the “strongest view,” he was implying the most credible opinion based on authentic hadith, historical context, and Islamic jurisprudence.
Consensus in Islamic scholarship does not mean there cannot be differing opinions; it means that the dominant, well-supported view is widely accepted among scholars.
Again, Al-Bayhaqi’s opinion does not negate the strength of where Ibn Hajar’s find his view. In fact, Al-Bayhaqi’s uncertainty about the timeline (whether at Khaybar or Tabuk) shows that his position lacks the historical and factual clarity that Ibn Hajar provides, who used historical data and corroborated evidence to argue that Aisha had not reached puberty at Khaybar but likely did by Tabuk. Thus, Bayhaqi’s uncertainty does not invalidate Ibn Hajar’s strong conclusion.
I think I’m able to address and engage your points and if you find the one I’ve not addressed you can tag me on it. I will joyfully and scholarly address them.
Ire o!!!
Let’s turn our attention to Dr Ismail response to YahwehSaves
*YOU:*
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 @+234 817 005 4583 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.
*ME:*
You heard me right. Yes, _”you missed the whole point”_ of my initial response which was directed at *Murileak* to prove that the text in the parenthesis of the Hadith he brought was an *ADDITION* from a commentary in *Fathul* *Bari* . And such commentary falls short of the truth because they are opposed by stronger evidences that show that Aisha already reached puberty before consummation (let alone when she was 14 years), an age that is even older than when Mary had Jesus and married to Jesus according to Christian sources.
You erred by inclining towards the side of the *refuted* and *weakened* position of Ibn Hajar and Al-Khattabee who “opined” that, at 14 years old, Aisha has not yet reached puberty (just to find a *reconciliation* and avoid a contradiction in the legal ruling of who is allowed to have and play with dolls).
It is laughable how you neglected all these evidences for Aisha’s puberty (including the one in Aisha’s own words !!!) that she had already reached puberty before the consummation of her marriage and you choose to dabble in uncertainty than certainty.
Anyways, let me go over your beating about the bush and succinctly refute your errors once again. Hopefully, this time you will learn.
*YOU:*
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.
*ME:*
I fully understand the erroneous argument you are attempting to make.
Your argument is that Aisha, at 14 years (older than virgin Mary), had not reached puberty according to Fathul Bari.
Unfortunately for you, even the Fathul Bari (Ibn Hajar) you are clutching at expressed *DOUBT* and *UNCERTAINTY* about the position of he was inclined to.
The question you need to ask yourself is, WHY would you inclined to a doubtful position just like Ibn Hajar did and *ignore* the position of Aisha herself and other Hadith I provided which prove beyond doubt that Aisha had already reached puberty around the age of 9 years let alone the age of 14 years !!! ???
*YOU:*
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.
*ME:*
From your own admission, we can conclude the following
(I) You agree that Ibn Hajar did NOT categorically deny that Aisha had NOT reached puberty during Khaibar (14 years) but rather he admitted that it is possible she had NOT reached puberty based on the STRONGEST VIEW of the Hadith and historical evidence
*correction:*
— First, thanks for admitting the uncertainty of the ibn Hajar (which means we can NOT take his view or the one whom he is really upon as definite).
— Secondly, *THE STRONGEST VIEW* that Ibn Hajar was talking about here is the strongest view about which war it was BETWEEN Khaibar and Tabuk in the Hadith.
And the strongest view is that this is the Khaibar war !!!!!
Hence, it is NOT the strongest view about whether or not she was 14 years old or prepubescent during Khaibar or Tabuk.
Get the DIFFERENCE !!!!
Without getting this difference, you will continue to assume that the strongest view among scholars is that Aisha was still prepubescent at 14 years (which is understandable in the face of other overwhelming proof of Hadith I already posted).
(ii) To even prove that the position of Ibn Hajar which he inclined to (from Al-Khattabee) can not be true, the same ibn Hajar *elsewhere* says that Aisha (at 7 A.H when she was supposedly 14) was matured when the Abyssinian came to Medina to perform
He (Ibn Hajar wrote):
_”…*Evidently, this happened after ‘Aisha had attained puberty (waq‘a ba‘d bulughiha)* and it has already been mentioned that according to a report with Ibn Hibban it happened when the delegation from Abyssinia came. It is known that *they came in the year 7 AH,* therefore, ‘Aisha was then fifteen years in age”_
Fath al-Bari, Vol.2, 445
_______________________
From the above, you can clearly see that Ibn Hajar is NOT consistent and hence his inclination to the position of Al-Khattabee is simply to favor a reconciliation as I already stated in my previous post.
*Your claims (YahwehSaves)*
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.
*Me:*
You are terribly wrong for saying I misrepresented Ibn Hajar’s position.
Rather, I only objected to his inclination. An inclination that he himself was doubtful about !!!
Secondly, the inclination of Ibn Hajar is *NOT* evidence-based as you claimed. If it were evidence-based, he would NOT have doubted it in the first place !!!.
Again, this idea of _”the strongest view”_ you clung to is about Khaibar being the war instead of Tabuk. It is NOT the strongest view that Aisha was immature at 14 years during Khaibar !!!! Again, get the difference or else you will keep wallowing in your error !!!
Why did Ibn Hajar elsewhere say Aisha was mature at 7 A.H (when she was still 14 years) during the same year of Khaibar as I already stated previously ? This shows that Ibn Hajar was making a concession to reach a legal reconciliation in order to avoid an apparent contradiction.
*You:*
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.
*Me:*
This is a false assertion from you. I did not try to weaken Ibn Hajar argument or inclination using nothing. Rather, Ibn Hajar himself weakened his own argument/inclination by:
(I) expressing doubt about Ibn Al-Khattabee’s opinion from whom he derived his own inclination.
(Ii) testifying that Aisha was matured at 7 A.H during same year elsewhere (when the Abyssinian came to Medina)
Moreover, Ibn Hajar did NOT use any Hadith to back up his inclination because NO Hadith says that Aisha was immature at 14. On the contrary, we have Hadith (including the one from Aisha herself) that testify that she was matured or already reached puberty around the age of 9 (let alone the age of 14 years)
*You:*
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.
*Me:*
Thanks for admitting the *uncertainty* of the source that ibn Hajar based his inclination upon. This alone is enough to settle the case because we have a number of Hadith with *certainty* that she was already mature before the time of the consummation.
*You:*
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.
*Me:*
This is pure lie coming from your mouth. On the contrary, I presented Hadith that prove otherwise. For example, Hadith of Aisha’s self-testimonial, Hadith of her parents’ attempt to fatten her up over 3 yrs (to make her ready/mature), etc.
You did NOT bring any Hadith that shows she is immature at 9 years nor even at 14 years.
*You:*
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.
*Me:*
If the narrator of the Hadith in question was doubtful about which war (Khaibar=14 years) *vs* (Tabuk=16 years), WHY did he NOT ignore (Tabuk=16 years) and mention only Khaibar=14 *IF* the narrator knew that Aisha would NOT possibly be allowed to play with doll at Tabuk=16 years ???
Was the narrator also thinking that Aisha was still immature at Tabuk=16 years for him to include it ???
This alone proves that this Hadith is NOT in your support at all !!!!
*You:*
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.
*Me:*
I just proved how Al-Khattabee can not use this Hadith for his own derivation by disregarding the intentl of the narrator and the implication. Is the narrator also unaware that she could NOT possibly be playing with doll at Tabuk ?
So the goal of Al-Khattabee is based on finding a reconciliation rather than proving a historical fact.
*You:*
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.
*Me:*
Even without appealing to Al-Bayhaqi who is also on my side, I have already given multiple Hadith including the one from Aisha herself that testify to her maturity around the age of 9 years.
I would rather take the testimony of someone themselves rather than the opinion of another person who was doubtful and simply trying to find a reconciliation
We move to Part V. We are believing God that this will end in the Part VI
