This is part VI of this heated debate between YahwehSaves and Dr Ismail. We apologize that it is this long. It was a serious back and forth between these two parties. Here is YahwehSaves continuation below:
*You said*
(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
*My Response*
Your claims require a thorough response as you are attempting to selectively quote Ibn Hajar to suggest a contradiction and mislead on the timeline. Let’s address these claims point by point, while also refuting the inconsistencies in your argument and the selective use of sources.
Claim Breakdown
1. You attempted to argue that Ibn Hajar contradicts himself by stating that Aisha had already attained puberty in 7 AH when the Abyssinian delegation came, thus implying that Aisha was mature at the age of 14. You selectively quotes from Fath al-Bari to suggest that Ibn Hajar contradicts the position that Aisha was prepubescent at 14 years old.
Chai!!!
Your use of the quote from Fath al-Bari is highly selective and misleading. First, Ibn Hajar’s reference to “waq‘a ba‘d bulughiha” (that this event took place after her attaining puberty) is not a definitive statement of fact, but part of a broader scholarly discussion. Scholars like Ibn Hajar often present multiple views when discussing complex issues, analyzing varying reports to reconcile them. In this instance, Ibn Hajar discusses a different event that occurred during 7 AH, unrelated to Aisha’s playing with dolls or her maturity during Khaibar.
Here is contextual Evidence.
Ibn Hajar’s analysis in Fath al-Bari is consistent when discussing Aisha’s prepubescent state during the events of Khaibar. The dolls hadith and the events of Khaibar are part of a distinct context that should not be conflated with the unrelated event of the Abyssinian delegation’s arrival. You failed to acknowledge that Ibn Hajar discusses both these events independently in different contexts. By attempting to merge these separate discussions, you create a false contradiction where none exists.
2. You assumed that Aisha was 15 years old in 7 AH and tries to frame this as definitive proof of her reaching puberty by that age. However, this is a misrepresentation of the timeline.
Aisha was born around 613–614 CE, and the migration to Medina (Hijra) occurred in 622 CE. The Battle of Khaibar took place in 7 AH, which corresponds to around 628 CE. Therefore, Aisha would have been approximately 14 years old at the time of Khaibar, not 15 as you suggested.
Even if the Abyssinian delegation arrived in 7 AH, that event does not negate the evidence that Aisha was still prepubescent during the Battle of Khaibar, as shown by her playing with dolls, which Ibn Hajar mentions in his discussion.
Just because an event (like the Abyssinian performance) is mentioned after the Battle of Khaibar does not automatically imply that Aisha had reached maturity at that point. The evidence of her playing with dolls remains a stronger indicator of her prepubescent state during Khaibar.
3. You tried to argue that Ibn Hajar’s quote about the Abyssinian delegation proves that Aisha had already reached maturity by 7 AH, thus negating the earlier hadith about her playing with dolls.
The two events—the Abyssinian performance and the dolls hadith—are unrelated and do not contradict each other. Ibn Hajar, as a scholar, was discussing multiple reports, some of which mention later stages of Aisha’s life. You are attempting to force a contradiction by conflating these distinct events. The fact that Aisha may have reached maturity at some point after Khaibar does not negate the evidence that she was prepubescent during Khaibar.
Ibn Hajar and other scholars analyze events in their historical context. The hadith about Aisha playing with dolls is specifically tied to the Battle of Khaibar, where it is used as an indicator of her prepubescent status. The mention of later events, such as the Abyssinian performance, should not be used to retroactively alter the conclusions drawn about her earlier years.
So your attempt to discredit Ibn Hajar’s analysis by selectively quoting and conflating unrelated events is misleading and erroneous.
The key point remains:
– Aisha’s playing with dolls during Khaibar is strong evidence that she had not yet reached puberty at that time.
– Your argument, based on a quote from an unrelated event (the Abyssinian performance), does not disprove this fact.
– Your selective quoting of Fath al-Bari misrepresents the overall scholarly consensus and the approach that scholars like Ibn Hajar take when analyzing multiple reports.
– Your lack of context and your attempt to force contradictions where none exist demonstrate the weakness of his argument.
*You said*
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.
*My response*
Your conclusion that Ibn Hajar is “not consistent” is a falsehood based on a misunderstanding of how scholars like Ibn Hajar approach hadith analysis and historical evidence. Scholars frequently deal with complex, multi-faceted traditions, and they present a range of interpretations based on the available evidence. This complex approach is not a sign of inconsistency but of intellectual honesty and depth in scholarship. Let’s refute this false conclusion point by point.
1. You claimed that Ibn Hajar was inconsistent simply because he presented multiple views or “inclined” toward a particular position. However, this reflects a misunderstanding of how Islamic scholarship works. Scholars like Ibn Hajar evaluate all available reports, sometimes arriving at a preferred or “stronger” opinion, while acknowledging other possibilities. This is not inconsistency but rigorous scholarship.
Ibn Hajar’s job as a commentator was to weigh the evidence and consider all the perspectives, which is why he addresses both the hadith and its varying reports. Presenting multiple views or reconciling seemingly conflicting reports does not imply that the scholar is inconsistent; it indicates a thorough, evidence-based approach to ensure no aspect is overlooked. Ibn Hajar is recognized as one of the greatest hadith scholars because of this rigorous, methodical process.
2. You claimed that Ibn Hajar’s inclination toward Al-Khattabee’s position was merely an attempt to “reconcile” different views. However, reconciliation is a normal and essential part of Islamic legal and historical analysis, especially in hadith studies. When apparent contradictions arise, scholars aim to reconcile these by looking at the broader context, different chains of narration, and the reliability of sources.
Far from being a weakness, reconciliation is a vital scholarly tool. Ibn Hajar, like all reputable scholars, uses reconciliation to harmonize seemingly conflicting reports. This is a standard method in Islamic scholarship, and it is rooted in the desire for a balanced and comprehensive understanding of the evidence. Ibn Hajar’s preference for a certain view is based on the strength of the evidence, not on inconsistency or personal bias.
Example, Ibn Hajar’s discussion of Aisha’s playing with dolls and her maturity is based on rigorous analysis of hadiths and historical reports. He acknowledges the evidence suggesting she was prepubescent during Khaibar, while also noting other reports. Your failure to grasp this methodology lead you to falsely accuse Ibn Hajar of inconsistency.
3. You misinterpreted Ibn Hajar’s approach as inconsistent, but Ibn Hajar consistently maintains that Aisha had not reached puberty during the events of Khaibar, which is supported by the hadith of her playing with dolls. His discussion of the Abyssinian delegation arriving in Medina in 7 AH does not negate his earlier analysis; it simply provides additional context for a different event. Ibn Hajar does not contradict himself.
His analysis remains consistent: Aisha was likely prepubescent during Khaibar, as indicated by her playing with dolls. You attempt to discredit this by citing unrelated events (like the Abyssinian delegation) is a red herring. Just because Aisha may have reached puberty later does not mean she had reached it by the time of Khaibar. This is a deliberate conflation of two separate time periods.
4. Finally, you failed to provide any substantial evidence to support your claim that Ibn Hajar was inconsistent. Instead, you relies on selective quotes and conjecture, rather than engaging with the full scope of Ibn Hajar’s analysis. You also disregards the scholarly methodology of reconciliation and fails to address the key hadith about Aisha playing with dolls. What would you have done if I were the one making claims you are making and you have Ibn Hajar to prove she hasn’t reach puberty at Kaybar?
So, without strong evidence to back your claim, your argument remains baseless. You have not provided any credible counter-evidence to refute Ibn Hajar’s analysis or the broader scholarly consensus. Instead, you resorted to dismissing Ibn Hajar’s work without fully understanding or addressing it.
At this point I will love to conclude the session since I still have one more round to respond to, your conclusion that Ibn Hajar was inconsistent is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how Islamic scholarship works, especially in the context of reconciling different reports. Ibn Hajar’s methodology is consistent, thorough, and well-established. As said repeatedly, you have provided no credible evidence to discredit Ibn Hajar’s conclusions and instead relies on misinterpretation and selective quoting.
Ire o!!!
Dr Ismail responded to YahwehSaves and below are his responses
*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 are going to the last part of this engagement between Dr Ismail and YahwehSaves. Note that after this last part Dr Ismail failed the respond back to YahwehSaves. Let us move to Part VII
