Oxford Study Sheds Light on Muhammad’s ‘Underage’ Wife Aisha

[lewisnotmiller]

Very good post. I think it’s difficult for non believers to ever find an answer academically because they have no concept or knowledge of God or His Prophets so cannot ascertain the matter without bias and prejudice. To say that no God exists then claim one is academically objective is an impossibility as no human is without bias.

There is either a God or there is not. That is the real issue and atheists are the last ones to give a judgement on religious matters as their views are tainted and biased against the existence of God so I take their views on judging religion with a grain of salt.

The view of the Holy Quran is that Muhammad is an example to humanity. Also the Qur’án says that IT is the only true hadith and not any other, clearly stating it as the ultimate authority in Islam. So the case for any wrong done by Muhammad is refuted by the Quran itself no matter what accusations appeared later and now.

The only people who falsely accuse Muhammad are those biased against God, religion or Islam and some misguided believers who accept child marriage and pedophilia due to ignorant clergy. But no just and fair minded person would accept a baseless hadith over the authoritative Quran.

Ironic posting at its finest.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is a long, complex piece on research into a Hadith. It covers controversy around the Hadith, the reality of age of marriage in that era, the use of historical-critical analysis as a general valid tool applicable to Islam and Christianity and those that say it's not, possible reasons for the Hadith having been fabricated, the "isnad-cum-matn analysis" technique, "tadlis" (a form of academic deception), the history of when that Hadith appeared, the use of rival lineages for Sunni and Shiites to claim religious authority, the honor attached to the time of entry into Muhammad's household, that the "Hadith" about Aisha is not really a Hadith because it's not attributed to Muhammad and the use of age to indicate symbolic importance (40 years for example).

For those that care, it's well worth reading. I wonder what @firedragon 's analysis of all of this is.

Oxford Study Sheds Light on Muhammad’s ‘Underage’ Wife Aisha

New scholarship suggests the story of Islam's prophet marrying a minor is baseless propaganda fabricated for political and sectarian motives

Author: Javad T. Hashmi Research Director at Muslim Public Affairs Council and a PhD candidate in the Study of Religion at Harvard University

This is not a criticism, nor really a response -- just a first impression: the author of the study about a Muslim Icon is a Muslim, and Director of Muslim Public Affairs. My first question is simply, "is he really a disinterested and fair researcher?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is not a criticism, nor really a response -- just a first impression: the author of the study about a Muslim Icon is a Muslim, and Director of Muslim Public Affairs. My first question is simply, "is he really a disinterested and fair researcher?

The article is written by the Director of Muslim Public Affairs, but it's about research conducted by Joshua Little.

 

[sun rise]

My questions are not what the situation is in Islamic countries but whether or not the points made are reasonable and possible. Of course without access to the original material, we have to judge based on the article. I know, for example, that the method used, historical-critical analysis has been somewhat controversial for one thing but I have not kept up with how it's now regarded. And that's just one of my questions.

 

[sun rise]

This is not a criticism, nor really a response -- just a first impression: the author of the study about a Muslim Icon is a Muslim, and Director of Muslim Public Affairs. My first question is simply, "is he really a disinterested and fair researcher?

As @lewisnotmiller pointed out the article's author is someone else but the author of the piece does give his opinion which is fair.

But you're asking who can really be a fair researcher. My answer is that anyone who has a theory about something and is trying to see if the facts support the theory can be biased in any field as we've seen.

The corrective is to have others look at the work firstly and then replicate it or at least examine all the points.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The article is written by the Director of Muslim Public Affairs, but it's about research conducted by Joshua Little.

Thank you for the clarification. I missed that. I will do due diligence and respond later.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As @lewisnotmiller pointed out the article's author is someone else but the author of the piece does give his opinion which is fair.

But you're asking who can really be a fair researcher. My answer is that anyone who has a theory about something and is trying to see if the facts support the theory can be biased in any field as we've seen.

The corrective is to have others look at the work firstly and then replicate it or at least examine all the points.

I believe that's called "peer review?"

 

[DharmaCatLamp]

This is a long, complex piece on research into a Hadith. It covers controversy around the Hadith, the reality of age of marriage in that era, the use of historical-critical analysis as a general valid tool applicable to Islam and Christianity and those that say it's not, possible reasons for the Hadith having been fabricated, the "isnad-cum-matn analysis" technique, "tadlis" (a form of academic deception), the history of when that Hadith appeared, the use of rival lineages for Sunni and Shiites to claim religious authority, the honor attached to the time of entry into Muhammad's household, that the "Hadith" about Aisha is not really a Hadith because it's not attributed to Muhammad and the use of age to indicate symbolic importance (40 years for example).

For those that care, it's well worth reading. I wonder what @firedragon 's analysis of all of this is.

Oxford Study Sheds Light on Muhammad’s ‘Underage’ Wife Aisha

New scholarship suggests the story of Islam's prophet marrying a minor is baseless propaganda fabricated for political and sectarian motives

Author: Javad T. Hashmi Research Director at Muslim Public Affairs Council and a PhD candidate in the Study of Religion at Harvard University

It's rather convenient that in an age where having an underage wife is considered a bad thing suddenly we can call it propaganda. There are numerous hadith which clearly mention she was underage and at a certain point if you are going to call that into question you may as well call all of hadith into question.

"Liberal, modernist and reformist Muslims have long sought to deny the historical authenticity and religious authority of the Aisha marital hadith, while ultraconservative, fundamentalist and extremist elements forcefully defend it." This doesn't sound like someone has any bias at all either. The pure cool guy Muslims are just so cool not like those terrible fundamentalists!

As far as I can tell from reading this it's just a dude being like " Nu uh!" Which don't get me wrong you can do but at a certain point it seems like you just may as well throw out all Hadith. There isn't much to authenticate hadith in general other than a long chain of he said she said which doesn't really seem like the best basis for religious doctrine if you think it's the absolute truth.

Here is the line from Sahih Bukhari
(40)
Chapter: The marrying of a daughter by her father to a ruler
(39)
باب تَزْوِيجِ الأَبِ ابْنَتَهُ مِنَ الإِمَامِ

Narrated `Aisha:

that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that `Aisha remained with the Prophet (ﷺ) for nine years (i.e. till his death).

39)
Chapter: Giving one's young children in marriage
(38)
باب إِنْكَاحِ الرَّجُلِ وَلَدَهُ الصِّغَارَ



Narrated `Aisha:

that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).


حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يُوسُفَ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ هِشَامٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ـ رضى الله عنها ـ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم تَزَوَّجَهَا وَهْىَ بِنْتُ سِتِّ سِنِينَ، وَأُدْخِلَتْ عَلَيْهِ وَهْىَ بِنْتُ تِسْعٍ، وَمَكَثَتْ عِنْدَهُ تِسْعًا‏.‏

Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 5133
In-book reference : Book 67, Hadith 69

So here is the thing with this. Sahih al-Bukhari is considered one of if not the most authentic collections of hadith. If he got something this fundamental wrong doesn't it call into question all of his collection?

Reportedly Bukhari examined close to 740,000 hadith and only came away with 7,400. He concluded that numerous hadiths he had thrown away were just fabrications, often made for political gain. He isn't the only one to do this either.

I suppose my criticism here is if you start throwing out some of the most attested hadiths as propaganda you may as well throw them all out. Don't get me wrong I am all for Quranism over the modern orthodoxy we have I just think it's a little inconsistent to throw away hadiths you don't like yet stick to most of the others.

 

[Wandering Monk]

IIRC, in some ancient NE cultures, betrothal might occur at a young age, but consummation could be years later.

 

[stevecanuck]

Oxford Study Sheds Light on Muhammad’s ‘Underage’ Wife Aisha

From the link: "... there is no simple or direct causal link between child marriage and Islam...".

That is just not true. Surah 65, which sets out rules for divorce separates wives into four categories. It first gives rules for divorcing mature women who are not pregnant. Verse 4 then divides other wives into three categories, "Those who are past menstruation, those who have not yet menstruated, and those who are pregnant". Note the middle category. It clearly refers to prepubescent girls. Mohsin Khan clarified this by adding, "they are still immature", to his translation.

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

(Anyone who wants to suggest this is referring to a medical condition called amenorrhea is grasping at straws).

 

[Augustus]

Well done, I missed that. So that explains why there s no trace of it. Of course, what that means is nobody has had a chance to scrutinise it, apart from the examiners who evaluated the D Phil. I wonder, then, how these people got hold of it and started putting its findings into the public domain. It all seems highly unsatisfactory. Let's hope something eventually does get published. One for the prof perhaps.

Probably a PR exercise to try to get interest for a book deal or article writing.

 

[Augustus]

This is not a criticism, nor really a response -- just a first impression: the author of the study about a Muslim Icon is a Muslim, and Director of Muslim Public Affairs. My first question is simply, "is he really a disinterested and fair researcher?

Another way to think about the issue is that to believe Muhammad did marry a child requires one to accept Islamic theological sources written centuries after the fact as being accurate history.

These most highly regarded (by Muslims) of these sources include things like Muhammad flying on a donkey and splitting the moon.

It's a bit like relying on the Gospels and Acts for real history, although these were actually written down far closer to the events than the hadith were.

Using the critical historical method necessitates a significant reappraisal of the traditional Islamic 'history'. This has become more prevalent since the 20th c as, before then, people were overly accepting of the traditional Islamic narratives as being broadly correct, rather than theological constructs.

 

[Altfish]

The odd thing about this is that there is no mention of any research paper or the journal in which it was published. Looking on line I cannot find anything by Joshua Little. What I do find is a number of muslim websites quoting it.

I am now uneasy. Can anyone find a reference to an actual paper on this research?

Indeed, it appears not to be an 'Oxford Study' but a non-peer reviewed article by someone who studied at Oxford.

 

[danieldemol]

This is a long, complex piece on research into a Hadith. It covers controversy around the Hadith, the reality of age of marriage in that era, the use of historical-critical analysis as a general valid tool applicable to Islam and Christianity and those that say it's not, possible reasons for the Hadith having been fabricated, the "isnad-cum-matn analysis" technique, "tadlis" (a form of academic deception), the history of when that Hadith appeared, the use of rival lineages for Sunni and Shiites to claim religious authority, the honor attached to the time of entry into Muhammad's household, that the "Hadith" about Aisha is not really a Hadith because it's not attributed to Muhammad and the use of age to indicate symbolic importance (40 years for example).

For those that care, it's well worth reading. I wonder what @firedragon 's analysis of all of this is.

Oxford Study Sheds Light on Muhammad’s ‘Underage’ Wife Aisha

New scholarship suggests the story of Islam's prophet marrying a minor is baseless propaganda fabricated for political and sectarian motives

Author: Javad T. Hashmi Research Director at Muslim Public Affairs Council and a PhD candidate in the Study of Religion at Harvard University

If it's just the unpublished research of one individual researcher isn't it a little dishonest to call it an "Oxford Study" which suggests that it is a team effort at Oxford and seems to me to imply peer review?

I mean if Mr Hashmi is that dishonest in his marketing of the scholarship it makes me wonder what else he lies about.

In my opinion

 

[exchemist]

If it's just the unpublished research of one individual researcher isn't it a little dishonest to call it an "Oxford Study" which suggests that it is a team effort at Oxford and seems to me to imply peer review?

I mean if Mr Hashmi is that dishonest in his marketing of the scholarship it makes me wonder what else he lies about.

In my opinion

One can read any thesis submitted for a DPhil in the Bodleian Library: Oxford theses

So, while not published in any academic journal, these theses are available to researchers and others on request. However, permission from the author is needed for them to be reproduced in any form.

I suppose a DPhil thesis can be described as a "study", representing as it does the product of 3 years or so of research by an academic scholar.

But relying on just one unpublished DPhil is a rather flimsy basis for trying to alter the interpretation of a notorious hadith. It would be better if they could persuade the researcher and his supervising professor to publish an article based on it, so that it could be read and reviewed critically by other authorities in the public domain.

However I have the suspicion that they may not want to do that, in case they get attacked with a machete in St Aldate's, or something. The trouble with any kind of academic research into Islam is that fundies may see it as a blasphemous attack of some kind and resort to their customary barbarism.

 

[danieldemol]

I suppose a DPhil thesis can be described as a "study"

Sure, but can it be described as an "Oxford study"?

In my opinion

 

[exchemist]

Where do history paper preprints get published? Is there a thing like arxiv for history?

I don't know. But see my post about access to DPhil theses.

I've now read the OP article more carefully and it is certainly very interesting and seems judicious and balanced, with no obvious axe to grind.

I note he makes the point that always strikes me when the issue of "underage" sex comes up: we can so easily fall into the trap of back-projecting our modern cultural norms onto early societies with a different culture. Back then, people lived and died at a faster pace Life was short and you got on with it quick. The modern conception of childhood is largely an Enlightenment invention. Marriage at an early age did not imply immediate sexual relations either, especially given that polygamy was practised.

What is in some ways more interesting than the age at which Aisha was married is the general doubt cast on the literal accuracy of hadiths in general, even those regarded as "core".

 

[exchemist]

Sure, but can it be described as an "Oxford study"?

In my opinion

Well it was done at Oxford, under the supervision of the Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies and Fellow of Pembroke, though I'd prefer the term "research" to "study", which might suggest some kind of collective endeavour.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

This is a long, complex piece on research into a Hadith. It covers controversy around the Hadith, the reality of age of marriage in that era, the use of historical-critical analysis as a general valid tool applicable to Islam and Christianity and those that say it's not, possible reasons for the Hadith having been fabricated, the "isnad-cum-matn analysis" technique, "tadlis" (a form of academic deception), the history of when that Hadith appeared, the use of rival lineages for Sunni and Shiites to claim religious authority, the honor attached to the time of entry into Muhammad's household, that the "Hadith" about Aisha is not really a Hadith because it's not attributed to Muhammad and the use of age to indicate symbolic importance (40 years for example).

For those that care, it's well worth reading. I wonder what @firedragon 's analysis of all of this is.

Oxford Study Sheds Light on Muhammad’s ‘Underage’ Wife Aisha

New scholarship suggests the story of Islam's prophet marrying a minor is baseless propaganda fabricated for political and sectarian motives

Author: Javad T. Hashmi Research Director at Muslim Public Affairs Council and a PhD candidate in the Study of Religion at Harvard University

Curious how is it different than david and ashbag.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What does the study change? Mohammad remains Mohammad.