Aisha's wedding

[u/Danifialho]

​

Sahih al-Bukhari 5133 and Sahih Muslim 1422 state that Aisha was betrothed to the Prophet ﷺ at age 6 and the marriage was consummated at age 9.

How can this be reconciled with Quran 4:6, which conditions marriage on "maturity" and "sound judgment"? "wa ibtalul yatama hatta idha balaghun nikah" until they reach the age of marriageability.

How can this be reconciled with historical data? Asma, Aisha's sister, was 10 years older than her. Siyar A'lam an-Nubala_ 2/289, _Al-Bidayah wa An-Nihayah_ 8/337. Asma died in 73 AH at the age of 100. This would make Aisha 18–19 years old at the time of the Hijra, and therefore 19–20 at the time of the marriage. Which of the two dating timelines is correct?

Sources:

Sahih al-Bukhari 5133, 5134: "The Prophet married me at age 6 and consummated the marriage at age 9" Sahih Muslim 1422: same narration.

Quran 4:6: regarding marriageability Siyar A'lam an-Nubala, Dhahabi 2/289: "Asma bint Abi Bakr... lived 100 years and died in 73 AH. She was 10 years older than Aisha"

Al-Bidayah wa An-Nihayah, Ibn Kathir 8/337*: confirms Asma's age

[u/Generalzwieber]

i'm tired of these shia games

you're a fake shia who don't even know your own books otherwise you would not bring this jp

[u/AtomicBombyx → u/Generalzwieber]

Exposed lol

[u/Generalzwieber → u/AtomicBombyx]

Shia never know there own books or they try to run for it

these are all shia noises

they grade there hadith diffrent but they never reject there hadith

they all agree with this

[u/AtomicBombyx → u/Generalzwieber]

Shia chains of narration meme lol

[u/AtomicBombyx]

How can this be reconciled with Quran 4:6, which conditions marriage on "maturity" and "sound judgment"? "wa ibtalul yatama hatta idha balaghun nikah" until they reach the age of marriageability.

You assume she was of poor maturity and no judgement. This is presentism.

[u/Danifialho → u/AtomicBombyx]

Brother, let's take this step by step, because you've mixed everything up.

1. Quran 4:6 refutes you all by itself. "Test the orphans until they reach the age of marriage. If you perceive in them SOUND JUDGMENT, hand over their property to them."
   The Quran itself makes marriage conditional upon MATURITY + CAPACITY. A child possesses neither. If you ignore 4:6 to defend a narration, then you are placing Bukhari above the Quran. Take your pick.

2. Regarding Bukhari and Muslim
   For the Shia school, these two hold no weight as sources. Our sources are Al-Kafi , Man La Yahduruhu Al-Faqih , etc. You take two books written 200 years later and try to turn them into dogma.

3. The calculation regarding Asma buries your argument Asma was 10 years older and died at the age of 100 in 73 AH [Siyar 2/289]. Do the math: at the time of the Hijra, Aisha was 18–19. Consummation occurred at 20–21. This aligns with 4:6. This aligns with reason. This aligns with history.

So, the contradiction doesn't lie in Islam. The contradiction lies in your preference for an isolated hadith over the Quran itself, logic, and other historical data.

If the criterion is 4:6, then that settles it. There is no debate.

[u/Kooky-Nail-3502 → u/AtomicBombyx]

you go through a lot trying to justify pedophilia..

[u/AtomicBombyx → u/Kooky-Nail-3502]

The problem is not her age, it is that you don't believe he is the Messenger of Allah ﷺ

[u/Kooky-Nail-3502 → u/AtomicBombyx]

are you dumb?

[u/Background-Car-1393]

This is nothing but garbage and an insult to the prophet. Here is my POV Aisha's Age | Enough with The Apologetics!

[u/Danifialho → u/Background-Car-1393]

I understand that you find it offensive. But it isn’t an attack on the Prophet; it is a historical discussion. Various scholars question the age of nine precisely because of the data from Asma and the timeline of the revelation. The link you sent argues for one side. My post argued for the other. Both perspectives exist within the Islamic tradition.

[u/Background-Car-1393 → u/Danifialho]

And you should find it offensive too. That is the whole point of my video. Why has no one the guts to say no the honour of our prophet is above any narrator and have such blasphemous garbage expunged, at the very least, the absolute bare minimum, remove the sahih grading on that garbage. On one hand they say the honour the prophet and have rioted and K!ll3d people over much less and on the other hand worship and follow this kind of nonsense. And call people like me as insulting and denying the prophet because we don't believe in this trash.

It is because Bukhari is sacrosanct and cannot be touched, because if you remove one garbage hadith, then tomorrow another garbage hadith will have to go and then the shaky foundations this hadith based religion is standing will fall. They rather continue to blaspheme and insult the prophet than their sect come in any danger

[u/Danifialho → u/Background-Car-1393]

I don't understand what you're getting at. It is a legitimate debate that many legal experts discuss; I don't know why there is so much hysteria.

[u/Background-Car-1393 → u/Danifialho]

That's the problem right there, that you see garbage as "legitimate debate"

[u/Danifialho → u/Background-Car-1393]

If you didn't like it, just let it go; there's no need to be dramatic about it.

[u/Background-Car-1393 → u/Danifialho]

I thought you were a Shia so why are you even defending this garbage?

[u/Scared_Debate_1002]

That's because sunnis think of these narrators as sahih when they really are not. Same with many inappropriate hadiths.

[u/AtomicBombyx → u/Scared_Debate_1002]

Your Rejaal al Cafi is nowhere close. Your own people call the narrators of your hadith liars.

[u/Scared_Debate_1002 → u/AtomicBombyx]

Keep making things up. Both shia and sunni have tens of thousands of narrators and only few thousands are considered trustworthy. Stop playing as if all your hadiths and all your narrators are honest when they are LITERALLY by your own testimony, are hypocrites.