In my book The Truth About Muhammad, I take Karen Armstrong to task for misrepesenting what the Muslim historian Tabari says about the age of Muhammad’s wife Aisha when she married the Prophet of Islam:
Yet of these facts there can be little doubt. According to ahadith reported by Bukhari, the Prophet of Islam “married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed [i.e., consummated] that marriage when she was nine years old.” He was at this time in his early fifties. Many Islamic apologists claim — in the teeth of this evidence — that Aisha was actually older. Karen Armstrong asserts that “Tabari says that she was so young that she stayed in her parents” home and the marriage was consummated there later when she had reached puberty.” Unfortunately, her readers are unlikely to have volumes of Tabari on hand to check her assertion; contrary to Armstrong’s account, the Muslim historian quotes Aisha thusly: “The Messenger of God married me when I was seven; my marriage was consummated when I was nine.” (p. 170)
On a posting about her Financial Times review of my book and my response, this gave rise to an exchange between me and a commenter who calls himself variously “An American,” “Watcher,” and “Chris.” (I called him “Rick” because I am fairly sure who he is, as another fellow who called himself “Rick” made some of the same points in the same language about Armstrong and Aisha in another place some time ago, but that’s another story, and in any case his identity isn’t important.) I have decided to post this as a separate article because I believe it is instructive in many ways. A few of those ways:
1. “Chris” is typical of many who object to points that I have made in his contempt and arrogance. These are familiar features of the discourse of both the Left and apologists for jihad and Islamic supremacism, as is a refusal to discuss the issues on a rational basis or consider the evidence at hand. “Chris” is typical also in his claim to have information to refute what I’m saying, but never quite getting around to producing it. (“Chris” was apparently working from Wikipedia, although he claimed not to be — and for all I know he really does own the exact same Arabic edition of Tabari that Wikipedia refers to, although he never took up my repeated invitations to post the salient quotes, and after indulging in a bit of fun with this, finally I posted the main one for him.)
Anti-jihadists should always be prepared to be dismissed as “ignorant” as well as “bigoted,” and should always persist in the face of this, pressing the Islamic supremacist apologist to produce the evidence he claims to have, while marshalling the facts and presenting them so that they speak for themselves.
2. “Chris,” as well as Armstrong herself and many others, claim that the best Islamic sources say that Aisha was much older than nine when Muhammad consummated his marriage with her. In reality, however, the Islamic sources that Muslims consider most reliable overwhelmingly support her having been nine. Here is an excellent summary of that evidence, compiled by Sam Shamoun. It is hard, therefore, not to conclude that they reject this evidence because they do not wish to believe it — it involves implications they don’t wish to contemplate. This is of course true of multitudes today when it comes to the facts about jihad and Islamic supremacism: they don’t believe it because it is too frightening or unpleasant to be true.
3. Those implications in this case involve the fact that Muhammad, as the supreme example of human behavior in Islam, is imitated even in his child marriage — and that becomes a moral and public health issue in today’s world that is almost universally ignored. That’s why this is much more than just a squabble about old texts. It is ultimately a question about the defense of the human rights of the girls who are victimized in this way. In the name of human dignity, reform-minded Muslims need to stop denying that Aisha was nine, acknowledge that many Muslims believe she was nine and imitate Muhammad in this, and construct a case for why Muhammad is not to be an example for conduct in this particular (and others).
Otherwise, women will continue to suffer. And Armstrong and “Chris,” in attempting to demonstrate that this marriage never happened instead of facing its implications, are abetting that suffering.
I. “Chris” to Spencer:
Mr. Spencer,
Although you are correct in stating the Tabari verse, what you fail to realize is that there are a minimum of 50 verses of Tabari which discuss the marriage to Aisha, each with a differing account on the consumation date. Some are vague, others give widely varying dates. You chose the one which fits your interpretation the best. Karen uses the verses which are used the most often in mainstream Islamic discourse and recognized as correct, something which you don’t know anything about nor even attempt to participate in. Yes, people will respond saying that “just because the verse exists, then it must be true” justification. Usual when people are put into a corner about Islamic sources. It might work here, but unfortunately for you all not much outside the level of this discourse.
Just doing some thinking…
II. Spencer to “Chris”:
Watcher:
Like everyone else who ever says I misuse or misquote the Islamic sources, you fail to come up with a single specific citation.
I challenge you to do so. I have Tabari right here now as I type this. Volume VII, “The Foundation of the Community.” The section headed “The Marriage with ‘A’ishah” begins on page 6 and continues to page 8. On the bottom of page 6 Tabari says, “In this year also the Messenger of God consummated his marriage with ‘A’ishah.” Then he goes on to discuss the date, noting that accounts differ as to whether it was 7 or 8 months after his arrival in Medina. Then Tabari says: “He had married her in Mecca three years before the Hijrah, after the death of Khadijah. At that time she was six or, according to other accounts, seven years old.” So she must have been nine, or at most ten, when he consummated the marriage.
Tabari then quotes a hadith, giving the isnad in detail, and quoting Aisha as saying: “…my marriage was consummated when I was nine…” Then the rest of the section explains that the consummation took place during the month of Shawwal, but no other age is given for Aisha at the time of the consummation other than nine.
Same thing in Tabari Volume IX, “The Last Years of the Prophet.” Aisha is quoted on page 131: “The Messenger of God consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old.” Then two other ahadith are given, on the same page, each with its isnad chain, and both say she was nine.
So you say other ages are given for Aisha at the time of the consummation of the marriage, and that those other ages are given in Tabari. All right. I know of passages that seem to support her being older indirectly, but none that come out and say explicitly that she was older. So quote him, please, with the volume number and page number. I have all 39 volumes right here in my office, and I’ll check where you direct me.
Looking forward to it.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
III. Spencer to “Chris”:
What’s more, Watcher, if Aisha’s being nine is not understood as true in “mainstream Islamic discourse,” how do you explain the following?
The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reports that over half of the girls in Afghanistan and Bangladesh are married before they reach the age of eighteen. In early 2002, researchers in refugee camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan found half the girls married by age thirteen. In an Afghan refugee camp, more than two out of three second-grade girls were either married or engaged, and virtually all the girls who were beyond second grade were already married. One ten-year-old was engaged to a man of sixty. In early 2005 a Saudi man in his sixties drew international attention for marrying fifty-eight times; his most recent bride was a 14-year-old he married in the spring of 2004.
Child marriage enjoys the sanction of law and custom. Time magazine reported in 2001: “In Iran the legal age for marriage is nine for girls, fourteen for boys. The law has occasionally been exploited by pedophiles, who marry poor young girls from the provinces, use and then abandon them. In 2000 the Iranian Parliament voted to raise the minimum age for girls to fourteen, but this year, a legislative oversight body dominated by traditional clerics vetoed the move. An attempt by conservatives to abolish Yemen’s legal minimum age of fifteen for girls failed, but local experts say it is rarely enforced anyway. (The onset of puberty is considered an appropriate time for a marriage to be consummated.)”
The Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.”
In early 2007, severe drought in Afghanistan led some Afghans to sell their daughters into marriages — including girls as young as eight years old — to buy food. One Afghan mother explained: “I need to sell my daughters because of the drought. We don’t have enough food and the bride price will enable us to buy food. Three months ago my 15-year-old daughter married.” Other girls have been sold to make good on opium debts. An Afghan girl named Saliha recounts: “I was 13 when my father married me off to a 20-year-old man, whose father had given a loan to my parents and they were unable to return the amount or the quantity of opium.”
Why is all this happening, unless it bears the sanction of Muhammad’s example — or more precisely, why is all this happening, if Aisha wasn’t really nine when she had sex with Muhammad, and every Muslim knows that, and so child marriage has no more justification in Islam than it does in anything else?
Looking forward to your explanation.
Just doing some thinking.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
IV: “Chris” to Spencer:
Well, welcome back to column day. I will start at the beginning:
Aisha was married in 622, mush kida? OK:
1. Tabari Volume 4, page 50–states that all of Abu Bakr’s children (Aisha being one of them) were born during the pre-Islamic stage (jahiliya) which ended in 610 with the revelation of Iqara. Therefore, Aisha had to have been born earlier, making her at least 12, if not slightly older at the time of marriage.
2. Tabari Volume 1, Page 493–after abu Bakr converted, he was sent by Mohammed to Ethiopia in 615 to escape Meccan persecution and didn’t want to take Aisha with them so tried to push up the original marriage. She would have been a minimum of 7 (taking into account the first verse she would have to be a minimum of 12) and if the consumation didn’t happen until 3 or so years later that would make her about 15-16.
I’ll now cut to your good buddy, ibn Kathir:
Aisha’s older sister, Asma, was around 10 or so years older than Aisha, who died in 693 at the reported age of 100, although a lot of people argue that isn’t right, we’ll go with it as a good round number. In 622, that would make her like 29 and her sister like 19 at the time of marriage.
(Oh, I did a web search and apparently this is up on Wikipedia as well, so feel free.)
I am almost positive that you are going to tell me that the quotes you cite are from Aisha herself so therefore they must be true. However, there weren’t exactly birth certificates going around back then, so age is a difficult indicator–especially with the mixture of sun and moon cycles used to calculate years during the pre-Islamic times.
Now for your other matter:
There is no evidence that “Islam” was the driving factor in these child marriages, usually driven by economics (hello, dowries, especially if the United States is ripping up your country like in Afghanistan and you only have two choices to survive on the new cash-driven system: get a dowry for your daughter, or grow some opium). If you can find the fact that the 1/26,000,000 Saudis used the one Tabari verse you’ve got as justification I will definitely agree he’s got some problems. What about the people here who are pedophiles, are they using biblical justification (they are sometimes Christian)–but that argument doesn’t work because we’re here, and they’re over there, so that must be different. You always seem to be so scared of Iran–I personally don’t like Khomeni–but he said a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean that it is all “Islamic” and instantly gets enshrined into 1 billion people’s minds as right. Also, them conservative councilis of Iran usually act out of economics as well (see Tobacco fiasco a little bit earlier, using religion to do something political and economic). Bardo, just because the legal age is there doesn’t mean that people actually follow it (perhaps they see the low age as un-Islamic?). Currently, that age hovers around 23 or so years old in Iran according to the statistics bureaus in the country.–I see a problem here, you are going to argue that “simply because Khomeni (or any other thinker regardless of who they were or what people thought about the saying or whether debate occured or not or the status of that quote today is) said it, it can and will be used indirectly by all Muslims throughout the world, from that point in history on. I think that is the wierdest logic around, but go for it.
Your logic kind of turns into that whole nonsense you and Mrs. Fallici post humus (hope that’s right) had with that Reason writer: “if a non-Muslim pees on a wall, it’s because they’ve got to go to the bathroom. If a Muslim pees on the same wall, it’s because they are on a jihad against the West.”
Just doing some thinking…
(Unlike some commentors on this board, I work. Therefore, I am not able to respond at breakneck pace like you guys.)
V. Spencer to “Chris”:
Watcher — mind if I call you “Rick”? Anyway, it’s funny how your earlier statement, “a minimum of 50 verses of Tabari which discuss the marriage to Aisha, each with a differing account on the consumation date” now becomes a few passages from which you surmise that she must have been older than nine, for none of them actually states her age directly.
But let that pass. The other question is your edition of Tabari. In mine, volume 4 page 50 is discussing the Babylonian kingdom of Ahasuerus, and never mentions Abu Bakr, and vol. 1 doesn’t even have a page 493. Did you actually look these up, or just get them off Wikipedia? Anyway, the edition I have is from SUNY Press. Where’s yours from?
Anyway, even if these references are accurate, and of course I’m sure they are, as I have seen them before (although I still would like to see them from you, unless you’re just relying solely on Wikipedia), they rest on a number of unwarranted assumptions. One is that if all of Abu Bakr’s children were born in Jahiliyya, they would have had to have been born before 610. This doesn’t make sense, particularly in light of the fact that Islam proper, as marked by the Islamic calendar itself, doesn’t begin until the Hijra. It is much more likely that the time of Jahiliyya extended to the Hijra. Your second false assumption is that Aisha would have had to have been seven to have been left behind when Abu Bakr went to Abyssinia. On what do you base this assumption?
Please give me the exact citation from Ibn Kathir. I have his tafsir on hand also, and will check it.
You say: “I am almost positive that you are going to tell me that the quotes you cite are from Aisha herself so therefore they must be true.” No, you’re quite wrong. I am going to say that since the affirmation that she was nine appears in Bukhari, as well as Tabari, and in other hadith collections as well (including all but one of the Sahih Sittah), it is accorded the presumption of reliability by the great majority of Muslims. You flatly assert that “there is no evidence that ‘Islam’ was the driving factor in these child marriages,” but the evidence is just that: since Muhammad did it, it is good to do, since he is uswa hasana (Qur’an 33:21). Being “scared” of Iran, or “liking” Khomeini or not, is irrelevant — what matters is that he lowered the marriageable age of girls to nine in imitation of the Prophet, and that’s why it is a widely accepted practice in the Islamic world.
Once you dismiss all the evidence I’ve presented, you then claim that I blame Muslims with no evidence, and invoke Fallaci and Cathy Young as if that makes your point. A neat trick, but hardly convincing. I have given you Bukhari (citations available on request), Tabari, and examples from all over the Islamic world. You have given me spurious references to Tabari, and denied that the evidence from the Islamic world has anything to do with this question — why? Just because you don’t want it to be.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
VI. “Chris” to Spencer:
I am sorry that we do not share the same editions. Mine are the same as used in Wikipedia article, although I found that the references were the same later on during the day. It was published in Beirut, and the edition was printed in Arabic, not English. I am sorry to say that it comes down to it you are really good at doing nothing but showing your ability to squeeze as many personal attacks into a single post–which doesn’t merit your knowledge of Islamic discourse. Also, your inability to read what I wrote is uncanny (like I said elsewhere, I have found the reading comprehension class and would like to know if I should pay for two seats or just one), so I will say it again:
“…that there was something “Islamic” to do with the marriages…” means:
Find me the statement made by the Saudi citizen that he quoted your Tabari verse to justify his marriages. Find me the statement made by an Afghani farmer stating that he uses his in-depth study of Tabari and his high-level Islamic education (doubt that he has any, can’t do much learning when people are shooting) and not simple survival economics to sell off his daughter. Find me the statement that all Iranian men demand to marry women at nine (I quoted an Iranian government source saying that most Iranian women don’t get married until their 20s, but you don’t care unless it fits your argument.) Find me these things and then we can talk about Islam being a problem. You are trying to connect what somebody said quite some time ago to something that is happening today, and you have no connection, other than the fact that something related to it was written 1000 years ago–which doesn’t mean that everybody is using it today, or even discusses it beyond the realms of the Ulema.
As for your Tabari, I managed to drop by a mosque and ask on this particular matter (although you don’t think that mosques are worth anything in terms of Islamic knowledge). Tabari’s entire justification, the entire presence of that statement in his work, is predicated upon the presence of the Bukhari verses, which have been and are being debated extensively. I know you don’t believe this argument, especially when it comes to the verses you quote, but the “isnads” of these Bukhari verses have been and are being questioned, such was the subject of a book published out of al-Azhar (last year I think) about Tabari and Bukhari’s fuzzy math and how since the subjects of calculated math weren’t established until later, the vast majority of these dates in the sources should not be seen as correct. I will get you the title of it if you want.
Also, in response to your claim that you make to anybody who argues with you, I won’t quote again the sources that you already know about that refute your argument. Just because it doesn’t appear in the section of the book you read (Tabari’s original and the Arabic don’t have such distinctions between sections) doesn’t mean you are instantaneously right. It was about this point that I was banned last time, so I am interested to see what the next course of action is…whether things will continue, or I will “cut and run” as it was referred to by not being allowed to post a rebuttal before the discussion drifted away.
Just doing some thinking…and Rick is fine, but my name is Chris.
(By the way, in all honesty, I hope you found my apology about the banning in another posting today and will consider it. I don’t mean to launch attacks on anybody that are not true.)
VII. Spencer to “Chris”:
Watcher:
What a happy coincidence that both you and the Wikipedia article on Aisha’s age use the Dara’l-fikr edition of Tabari, published in Beirut in 1979! Now, I know Wikipedia is swell and all, but they do let a few errors creep in here and there — and entries on particularly controversial subjects are beset by apologists and ideologues, some with scant regard for facts — so why don’t you post the exact relevant quotes? Since, lo and behold, you just happen to have that exact edition right at hand, and so far you haven’t made a point that isn’t made on Wikipedia. Post the quotes here. Arabic is fine. Go on — post them right here, or send them to me at director@jihadwatch.org if you prefer.
The fact is that child marriage is rampant in the Islamic world in imitation of the Prophet. Your suggestion that only scholars know this arcana is specious. No one has to read Bukhari or Tabari or the others who testify to this to find this out — all they have to do is learn about the Prophet’s life in any Islamic school in an Islamic country.
Take, for example, what the Islamic scholar Muhammad Ali Al-Hanooti said about Aisha and Muhammad: “A’isha got married when she was 9, when the Prophet (SAAWS) died, she was 19….What is wrong in her marriage of six or nine or whatsoever?” This was published in Islam Online:
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2002-06/15/article55.shtml
…and no one at Islam Online saw fit to note that of course everyone knows that she wasn’t nine, and this al-Hanooti character is confused and misinformed (probably led astray by my black Zionist arts). Now why didn’t they do that? Why did they let it pass? And where did al-Hanooti get the idea that she was nine in the first place? From me?
The fact that Aisha’s age is debated is beyond dispute. But you are taking the fact that people dispute about it as an indication that Aisha was not nine when her marriage was consummated, and that no Muslim believes that she was — that only wicked fellows like me dig this stuff up. Would that it were so, but it isn’t.
What’s more, you say, “Find me the statement that all Iranian men demand to marry women at nine (I quoted an Iranian government source saying that most Iranian women don’t get married until their 20s, but you don’t care unless it fits your argument.)” Speaking of reading comprehension, I noted that Khomeini lowered the marriageable age of girls to nine. Did I say he required marriages to nine-year-old girls, or demanded that men marry nine-year-olds? Of course not. You are just setting up a straw man to knock down, because that is easier to deal with than what I actually wrote.
Finally, you come around to it — it’s all my fault: “You are trying to connect what somebody said quite some time ago to something that is happening today, and you have no connection, other than the fact that something related to it was written 1000 years ago–which doesn’t mean that everybody is using it today, or even discusses it beyond the realms of the Ulema.” In so saying you sidestep entirely Muhammad’s centrality as uswa hasana — which makes what this man said and did 1400 years ago, as reported in the hadith collection Muslims consider most reliable (Bukhari), very important indeed.
You also resort in this to the familiar tactic of attributing to me what I report. No problem, old man — I get this all the time. Zarqawi said that he cut off Nick Berg’s head in imitation of Muhammad’s beheadings after the Battle of Badr, but when I say that he said that, people routinely pretend that I am the one who made up the idea that Muhammad beheaded anyone. Same thing here: Muslims tolerate child marriage because of Muhammad, but when I note that, suddenly I’m the one who made up that Muhammad married a child. Well, sorry to burst your bubble, “Chris,” but all too many Muslims see Muhammad as an excellent example to imitate, in this particular and in many others.
Meanwhile, while whining about personal attacks, you never quite got around to explaining why, if the period before the Hijra was not jahiliya, the Islamic calendar begins with the Hijra, or why Aisha had to be seven if Abu Bakr left her behind. In other words, you didn’t deal with the substantive arguments I made, but instead pretended that I didn’t make any. It’s so much easier that way, isn’t it?
Rick, Chris, sure — I know who you are.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
VIII. “Chris” to Spencer:
Obviously you have found the quotes, and I won’t repeat them to you as they are available on the site. You also have said nothing that isn’t on Wikipedia, so why does that make you right, and me wrong?
Uh oh, 1979! Dangerous! People have old books! Scary! Let’s write exclamation points and “boogy boogy” scare quotes return! Spencer can read a citation! Goodness! Was there more than one set surviving?!? Are there books available in places like Cairo or Beirut that are old!?! They don’t make new printings of old editions!?! Run away!
As for jahiliya (this is getting really reflective of your knowledge on Islamic history):
Jahiliya is the period before Islam. Hijra is the migration of MUSLIMS fleeing oppression in Mecca to Medina, beginning the Islamic calendar. Because there were Muslims during the Hijra, then obviously the discussed ending of Jahiliya had occured before the Hijra. Otherwise, how could Muslims have migrated when there was no knowledge of Islam (that lack of knowledge is called Jahiliya).
Also, I don’t know if you know this (however it is talked about like every day) but the command “Iqara,” and the subsequent three time repetition story is constantly referred to as the beginning of Islam and the end of the Jahiliya. Just because the calendar starts doesn’t mean that the religion starts at exactly the same time. I am surprised at you, Robert, this is something you should know a lot more about.
By the way, whoopee that Khomeini lowered the marriable age. He looks pretty angry, too, but that doesn’t mean he wanted to kill everybody. You still didn’t answer the claim, and (let’s follow your logic) I won’t answer your claims in detail unless you answer mine. If that is the case, and “all too many Muslims” follow this example, why has the marrying age for women and men continued to increase since the revolution? Let’s move to somewhere else, like Eygpt. Why, in a country where ~85% are Muslims is the minimum marriage age 16, and most marriages actually happen much later despite the law, like into the 20s?
Uswa hasana—in what context? Hasana for bukra? Hasana for imbara7? Hasana for salawat? Tova ba-kol? Let’s assume for the moment that you’re 100% right–Mohammed married a six year old, fag3aha wa nus. What about the argument that certain rules don’t apply to everybody else and only worked for Mohammed (like the special covering for his wives, that some Muslims have inappropriately taken on themselves). This is a separate issue, but let’s delve a bit, I’m feeling adventurous. ar-Raheeq al-Makhtoum, a book that you quote sometimes, says that Mohammed had rights as a prophet that people do not, such as in number of wives, types of marriage, etc. This was not the first book to discuss it, and there are many others that make the same argument. If you are right, the next logical step might be dangerous, but we can keep that for a later date.
Just doing some thinking…
(Still didn’t answer that “find me…” paragraph, huh? Zarqawi, great. You found a murderer who was fleeing authorities in Jordan (because his Islamic tutors turned him in for being violent, but you won’t respond to that) assassinated a reporter and said something to make him sound different than an idiot. Find me the multitude of Muslims who agreed with his justification. Do you remember the protests against Zarqawi in Pakistan (no, you don’t) that said he wasn’t Muslim, etc? What about the ones in Cairo, and the religious statements from Azhar stating that his actions constituted nothing more than depraved murder? Some English poetry major had “Ax Ishmael” written on his arm right before he killed a bunch of people. So now he’s a follower of a particular English poem, or maybe an admirer of Moby Dick [my English teacher told me he is uswa hasana (a good example) of how far revenge can go], or is he still just a murderer?)
(I did deal with your substansive arguments, but you don’t respond to them and say later that I didn’t say anything about them. Also, glad to hear that everybody’s cheering you on…I feel so bad [why would I expect anything else on this site])Some Muslims are wrong and have evil intentions. You agree with their interpretations and promote an equal response to them. Transitive property applies.
IX. Spencer to “Chris”:
American/Watcher/Rick/Chris:
“Obviously you have found the quotes, and I won’t repeat them to you as they are available on the site.”
The quotes aren’t on the site. Just references. That’s why I asked you to produce them, since you say you have the book right there with you. Just so there’s no doubt about what it says, ok, old man?
“You also have said nothing that isn’t on Wikipedia, so why does that make you right, and me wrong?”
I just checked the Wikipedia article, and actually, I’ve said plenty that isn’t on Wikipedia — none of the data about child marriage in the Islamic world is in Wikipedia. Also, the quotes I gave you from Tabari are not the ones that are in Wikipedia. This doesn’t make me right and you wrong in itself, but it shows which one of us has actually researched the matter, and which one is acting out of blind prejudice.
“Uh oh, 1979! Dangerous! People have old books! Scary! Let’s write exclamation points and “boogy boogy” scare quotes return! Spencer can read a citation! Goodness! Was there more than one set surviving?!? Are there books available in places like Cairo or Beirut that are old!?! They don’t make new printings of old editions!?! Run away!”
You, like Karen Armstrong, seem to think no one will check on you. In the paragraph in question, there are no quotation marks at all, much less “‘boogy boogy’ scare quotes.” Nor did I remark on the edition’s having been published in 1979, other than to note it in the process of specifying which edition Wikipedia — and, lo and behold, you — use. And indeed, you might have the 1979 Beirut Tabari — I’m sure you do. So why not post the exact quotes from it that you (and Wikipedia) have referenced, so that we can see what it actually says?
“As for jahiliya (this is getting really reflective of your knowledge on Islamic history):
Jahiliya is the period before Islam. Hijra is the migration of MUSLIMS fleeing oppression in Mecca to Medina, beginning the Islamic calendar. Because there were Muslims during the Hijra, then obviously the discussed ending of Jahiliya had occured before the Hijra. Otherwise, how could Muslims have migrated when there was no knowledge of Islam (that lack of knowledge is called Jahiliya).
Also, I don’t know if you know this (however it is talked about like every day) but the command “Iqara,” and the subsequent three time repetition story is constantly referred to as the beginning of Islam and the end of the Jahiliya. Just because the calendar starts doesn’t mean that the religion starts at exactly the same time. I am surprised at you, Robert, this is something you should know a lot more about.
Yes, I don’t know anything about this, and never heard it before. (Actually, you can find discussion of the Hijra in my book The Truth About Muhammad, beginning on page 89, and of Jahiliyya in some detail in Onward Muslim Soldiers and elsewhere.) In any case, you are apparently unaware that the transition from jahiliyya to Islam is not an either/or, night and day matter. In this brief Muslim biography of Muhammad, he abolishes the practices of Jahiliyya in Mecca ten years after the Hijra (see #10, The Farewell Pilgrimage):
http://www.ezsoftech.com/islamic/infallible1e.asp
So Jahiliyya must have still existed 10 years after the Hijra. But of course, that refers to unbelievers. The connection of the end of Jahiliyya for Muslims to the Hijra stems from the character of Islam as a political and social system as well as an individual religious faith. That system was not implemented until the Hijra — hence the calendar connection, indicating that Islam actually begins with the Hijra, not with the Iqraa (not “iqara”): the society of Islam was not established until that time. Thus some argue that Jahiliyyah ended for Muslims at the Hijra (just as modern jihad theorists, such as Qutb, argue that most Muslims today live in Jahili societies), and hence the reference to Abu Bakr’s children all being born in Jahiliyyah does not necessarily mean they were all born before 610.
But it is certainly true that the end of Jahiliyyah is almost always identified by Muslims with the Iqraa, the beginning of Muhammad’s revelations. The point is that the term is not fully clear, and thus cannot be made the foundation of an effective argument.
By the way, whoopee that Khomeini lowered the marriable age. He looks pretty angry, too, but that doesn’t mean he wanted to kill everybody.
You’re dodging the point again. I never said he wanted to kill everybody. I said he lowered the marriageable age of girls to nine in imitation of the Prophet. In response, you have now several times misrepresented what I said — evidently you are unable to deal with the implications of what I really said.
“You still didn’t answer the claim, and (let’s follow your logic) I won’t answer your claims in detail unless you answer mine. If that is the case, and “all too many Muslims” follow this example, why has the marrying age for women and men continued to increase since the revolution? Let’s move to somewhere else, like Eygpt. Why, in a country where ~85% are Muslims is the minimum marriage age 16, and most marriages actually happen much later despite the law, like into the 20s?”
Because Egypt is not an Islamic state. The Ikhwan is working to institute Sharia there. If they succeed, watch the legal age for marriage start going down.
Uswa hasana—in what context? Hasana for bukra? Hasana for imbara7? Hasana for salawat? Tova ba-kol? Let’s assume for the moment that you’re 100% right–Mohammed married a six year old, fag3aha wa nus. What about the argument that certain rules don’t apply to everybody else and only worked for Mohammed (like the special covering for his wives, that some Muslims have inappropriately taken on themselves). This is a separate issue, but let’s delve a bit, I’m feeling adventurous. ar-Raheeq al-Makhtoum, a book that you quote sometimes, says that Mohammed had rights as a prophet that people do not, such as in number of wives, types of marriage, etc. This was not the first book to discuss it, and there are many others that make the same argument. If you are right, the next logical step might be dangerous, but we can keep that for a later date.
Uswa hasana in any and all contexts, as you know, except where specifically ruled out (as in the number of marriages). But anyway, fine. No problem. Please produce a citation indicating that Muhammad’s example in marrying Aisha is one of prophetic privilege, not to be imitated.
Just doing some thinking…
You flatter yourself.
(Still didn’t answer that “find me…” paragraph, huh?
Which one? The one in which you challenge me to find you some Muslim saying he married a child because he read it in Tabari? A silly challenge, because Tabari is not the only source, but anyway, I actually did answer that.
Zarqawi, great. You found a murderer who was fleeing authorities in Jordan (because his Islamic tutors turned him in for being violent, but you won’t respond to that)
Are you kidding? I have discussed this at length in many contexts. See, for example, this article, in which I discuss a piece Zarqawi wrote to justify his actions because he was being challenged by Muslims.
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18242
Unfortunately, as I note in the piece, his theological points have not been clearly or unequivocally repudiated or refuted by moderate Muslims.
…assassinated a reporter and said something to make him sound different than an idiot. Find me the multitude of Muslims who agreed with his justification.
Read Jihad Watch every day, and you’ll see them in action around the world. See also here, where 49.9% of Muslims surveyed approve of OBL:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467849587&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
There’s no doubt that many Muslims detest all this. Unfortunately, they are not very active against it.
Do you remember the protests against Zarqawi in Pakistan (no, you don’t) that said he wasn’t Muslim, etc?
Oh, a mind reader, eh? Actually, I remember them better than you do, as I remember that they were in Jordan, not Pakistan, and that they happened after he killed Muslims. No similar protests were made when he killed non-Muslims. Here’s something to refresh your memory:
http://washingtontimes.com/world/20051118-110234-2315r.htm
What about the ones in Cairo, and the religious statements from Azhar stating that his actions constituted nothing more than depraved murder?
Yep. Al-Azhar denounced the Berg murder — although some of the authorities quoted here seem to be more upset about mutilation of the corpse than about the killing itself:
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2004-05/12/article08.shtml
In any case, this is a thrill, but the thrill is tempered by Al-Azhar’s forked tongue — e.g., Tantawi’s approval of suicide attacks in Israel:
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP36302
Some English poetry major had “Ax Ishmael” written on his arm right before he killed a bunch of people. So now he’s a follower of a particular English poem, or maybe an admirer of Moby Dick [my English teacher told me he is uswa hasana (a good example) of how far revenge can go], or is he still just a murderer?)
Your English teacher is nuts. Get a new one. In the meantime, Muslims really believe Muhammad is uswa hasana, and your attempt at a reductio ad absurdum won’t change that.
(I did deal with your substansive arguments, but you don’t respond to them and say later that I didn’t say anything about them. Also, glad to hear that everybody’s cheering you on…I feel so bad [why would I expect anything else on this site])
Anyone can comment. You’re here too. If you don’t like what they say, come up with some substantive refutation. Everyone is waiting for you to do that. I’m looking forward to your posting quotes about Aisha from your Beirut edition of Tabari!
Some Muslims are wrong and have evil intentions. You agree with their interpretations and promote an equal response to them. Transitive property applies.
I don’t agree with their intepretations. In fact, I have repeated innumerable times that there is no “true” Islam, as Islam has no central authority. But the jihadists present their Islam as the “true” Islam, and moderates have as yet mounted no effective theological response. You certainly haven’t.
I must say, I envy your owning that edition. I have an Arabic Tafsir al-Jalalayn printed in Damascus and bought in Beirut, and an Arabic Qur’an in a handsome case, also printed in Damascus, and some other Arabic editions (mostly hadith) from Saudi Arabia, but I don’t have the Dara’l-fikr edition of Tabari. You are fortunate! Anyway, I’m looking forward to seeing those Tabari quotes.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
X. Spencer to “Chris”:
American/Watcher/Rick S./Chris:
Go ahead and post the Arabic, please, from your Beirut edition of Tabari, so that we can see exactly what it says, but I will now stop teasing you about your tall tales about your library. Let’s talk about the matter at hand. The quote you need is actually in the SUNY edition of Tabari in vol. XI, “The Challenge to the Empires,” p. 141.
It says that Abu Bakr’s 2nd wife “bore him ‘Abd al-Rahman and ‘A’ishah. All of these four of his children were born in Al-Jahiliyyah from his two wives whom we have named.”
This is the major support for Armstrong’s case and yours. Yet in The Truth About Muhammad I reported that Aisha was nine, and didn’t mention this. Was this because I was selecting the accounts that made the case I wanted to make, as you claim? No. It is because I wanted to provide an accurate portrayal of how mainstream Muslims see Muhammad. Armstrong, and you, dismiss all the evidence that she was nine, primarily because you don’t want it to be so. Yet testimony that she was nine appears in Bukhari, which Muslims consider the leading hadith collection, as well as in Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, An-Nasai, and Ibn Majah — that is, five of the six hadith collections that Muslims consider most reliable (Sahih Sittah).
Islamic theologians will tell you that Tabari does not take precedence over any of those, and in any case, Tabari also records she was nine, in several places — which multiplicity of testimony indicates a multiplicity of sources, which for Islamic theologians adds a presumption of reliability. The assertion that she was nine also appears in the sira of Ibn Ishaq, as well as in that of Ibn Kathir (I never did get that Ibn Kathir reference from you, by the way.)
Stack up all that, and place against it that Tabari says in one place that Aisha was born in the time of Jahiliyyah. Let’s assume that by the time of Jahiliyyah Tabari meant the period before 610, and add in the other scattered passages that suggest — although none of them ever say directly — that she was older than nine. Even then you don’t have a case, since the testimony of the Sahih Sittah is so overwhelmingly in favor of her having been nine.
Then there is the evidence from the Islamic world, which you dismiss as a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but which I maintain clearly stems from Muhammad’s status as uswa hasana. There is also evidence that mainstream Muslims today believe she was nine — contrary to your claim. I gave you one above, and now here is more. In al-Mubarakpuri’s biography of Muhammad, “The Sealed Nectar,” which won first prize in a Muslim World League competition for a biography of Muhammad in 1979 (ooh, 1979), it says this of Aisha: “She was six years old when he married her. However, he did not consummate the marriage with her till Shawwal seven months after Al-Hijra, and that was in Madinah. She was nine then” (p. 483).
Why does al-Mubarakpuri think this? Was he an “Islamophobe”? Why didn’t he credit these scraps from Tabari as trumping the testimony of Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, An-Nasai and Ibn Majah? Because that is not how Islamic theology works. The Sahih Sittah have much more weight than Tabari. And that is why in The Truth About Muhammad I reported that Islamic tradition says Aisha was nine. That is also why in that book, as well as in the Financial Times, I charge Armstrong with misrepresenting Tabari by saying that he says the marriage wasn’t consummated until she reached puberty, which he never says at all.
Was Aisha nine when the marriage was consummated? I don’t know and I don’t care. All I care about is what Muslims believe about it, and how that belief affects their actions today. There is abundant evidence that Islamic tradition says she was nine, much more clearly, more often, and in more authoritative sources than those that suggest (but never state) that she was older. There is abundant evidence that all too many Muslims worldwide are acting on that belief and marrying children.
On the basis of all that, I call upon Muslims not to deny that Muhammad’s example supports this behavior, but to admit that, and reject him as a literal example to be followed in this particular (as well as others, but that’s another story). You then come along and charge me with ignorance for saying that the Islamic sources say she was nine, and assert that Muslims don’t really believe this. Well, I have now given you evidence from the Islamic sources and from the behavior of Muslims today that many do. Denial is not what we need — honest reform is what we need. You are not aiding in this effort; rather, you are obstructing it.
Cordially
Robert Spencer