Aisha was 19, not 9?
Here’s the argument I’ve sometimes seen made by Muslims that Aisha was not, in fact, nine when Muhammad slept with her.
The Argument
Premise 1: Asma died in 73 AH at the age of 100
Premise 2: Asma was ten years older than Aisha
Conclusion: Therefore, at the Hijrah, Asma would have been roughly 27 years old, making Aisha approximately 17, meaning she would have been 18 or 19 when she began cohabiting with Muhammad which took place shortly afterwards.
The Problem
The problem with this argument is that neither of the premisses trace back to Asma herself. This is contrasted with the sahih hadith which provide chains saying Aisha was nine all the way back to Aisha herself. This is why the classical Sunni position overwhelmingly was that she really was nine and the older-age interpretation is a much more recent minority position.
Premise 1: “Asma died at 100 in 73 AH”
This claim has relatively strong traditional support: she is reported to have died in 73 AH, and a report transmitted through her son Urwah ibn al-Zubayr says that she had reached 100 years, meaning the information ultimately comes from someone who personally knew Asma.
The earliest surviving written source preserving this isnad is Abu Zurah al-Dimashqi, about 208 years after Asma’s death, although the chain does purport to preserve Urwah’s earlier testimony.
The wording “reached 100 years” certainly sounds like a specific age, but it doesn’t tell us whether ʿUrwah meant exactly 100 years or was giving an approximate figure such as “about 100.”
Premise 2: “Asma was ten years older than Aisha”
The important source for this claim is Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi al-Zinad (Person A), who was born around 100 AH, approximately 27 years after Asma is meant to have died so he obviously could not have personally obtained the information from her.
However, Abd al-Rahman’s statement is transmitted by al-Asmai (Person B) and later recorded by Ibn Asakir (Person C) who died in 571 AH, about 498 years after Asma’s death. The Ibn Askair chain of narration (“isnad”) isn’t graded and that its authenticity relative to the Aisha-age traditions is therefore uncertain.
| Event | Date | Time since Asma’s death (73 AH) |
|---|---|---|
| Asma dies | 73 AH | |
| Ibn Abi al-Zinad (Person A) born | ~100 AH | ~27 years |
| Ibn Abi al-Zinad (Persona A) dies | 174 AH | 101 years |
| al-Asmai dies (Person B) | 216 AH | 143 years |
| Ibn Asakir dies (Person C) | 571 AH | 498 years |
There is also an important wrinkle: another transmission preserved by Ibn Abd al-Barr (Person D) who dies in 463 AH has the wording:
“Asma was ten years or so older than Aisha”
This shows the exact ten-year figure isn’t completely uniform in the material reporting on Ibn Abi al-Zinad (Person A).
What are the consequences?
My guess is that a lot of Muslims would prefer to believe Aisha was older because they don’t like the idea of their prophet (and best example for mankind) sleeping with a nine-year-old. This is why they choose the chronology which is less well attested.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that the consequence of adopting this position is that it severely undermined the entire hadith system which makes up a substantial part of what makes Islam what it is. The entire methodology then has to be questioned.