The Muhammad and Aisha controversy

[95thrifleman]

The Mohammaed was a paedo meme is boring.

During the time period, girls where bred as soon as they started their periods. Common practice throughout the world including Christian Europe. Child mortality rates meant you had to start young and had to have a lot of kids to stand a chance of enough surviving.

[athanaric]

I think that/this (comment) is a nonsensical argument and I will now explain why... Its basically like saying that the kristallnacht of 1938 was totally OK - "if we just consider the context, culture and circumstances of the time". Nope, it was not OK. It was not OK in 1938, and it is still not OK in 2018. There was/are no excuses for it. This, regardless of context, culture or the circumstances of the time. Period.

Same thing applies to Islam and its prophet...

- A

Even if we gave him (and a lot of other mythological or historical figures) a pass due to the context of their time, the real issue is actually that in the context of his religion, Mohammed isn't perceived as a flawed, regular man or as a figure that may have only existed in mythology, but as a perfect individual who should be emulated by his followers.

[mongrel]

The fact that you are effectively trying to excuse and/or downplay his child-marriage with Aisha - by pointing out that others (like kings and so forth) did such things too - is just vile all over. Two wrongs does not make one right. Pedophilia is disgusting regardless of anything, anyone or anywhere. There are no excuses for it. Period.

Furthermore, in great contrast to all your other such examples he created a supposed "ideal" that was/is clearly encouraged to be emulated among many of his followers - this for well over a 1000 years - and counting... No other individual - in the history of mankind - has ever been as "successful" as this particular dead Arab in promoting (by his actions) the practice of child-marriage and -molestation. It is his very example that makes it still relevant even today all over the place - obviously BECAUSE of him and his actions. And, there are no excuses for that either... Period.

Now, because of this rotten and questionable ruling - we are no longer legally entitled to point that out in Europe. We are supposedly not allowed to openly disapprove of what he did, and call his actions for what they are... Because of some PC-notion that it is more important to appease Muslims, then to have actual freedom of speech and thought. That is an open stance for intellectual oppression and regression, by legal means... It is the virtually the Pandora's box which we are now fooling around with just as to appease incessantly butt-hurt Muslims - whom demand "respect". Personally, I have none... Its truly a sorry day for the EU in general, if there ever was one. Its not the EU that I want to live in nor be a part of. It also lends it self very well to ideas about Islam like...

It is a BS-movement, based on BS-ideas, by a BS-prophet, that ultimately generates and drags down everyone in some BS-reality... And, I for one don't like or want it (accordingly)... And, I think it is important to be able to express that...

This, whenever I feel like it...

- A

Utter fail of a post.

I'm not downplaying his private life, it is historical fact. It is not remarkable given every civilized nation in the hemisphere did the exactly the same damned thing. it is not rocket science. It was also practiced for millenia before he was born. So unless Mohammed owned a Tardis or modified Derlorean, he could hardly have come up with the practice himself.

Islam is submission to Allah, the word literally means that, not submission to Mohammed. ( Arguably that was the military's job, not Allah's).

Catholic canon law was quite happy regularising child marriage until the 20th century. The US still has them, and most EU states have ages of consent that would delight Gary Glitter and would have Brits locked up, ie at 14 and 15. I am not spamming TWcenter suggesting that every Euro is a paedo, not even the Brexit thread.

For an 'intellectual oppression' to occur it requires an intellect to repress. You argument lacks such qualities.

Even if we gave him (and a lot of other mythological or historical figures) a pass due to the context of their time, the real issue is actually that in the context of his religion, Mohammed isn't perceived as a flawed, regular man or as a figure that may have only existed in mythology, but as a perfect individual who should be emulated by his followers.

Fair question, but.........


Only Isis , Wahhabists, Anjen Choudhary and so-called critics of Islam like to take such a fundamentalist view of this long -dead man.

I personally dont hang out with 12 men , surviving on not much apart from locusts, wild honey and left over fish sandwiches. Never met a Jew who dealt with those who troubled with with the jawbone of an ass.

ts basically like saying that the kristallnacht of 1938 was totally OK - "if we just consider the context, culture and circumstances of the time".

So if a german kicks a ball through my window I'm to assume he's a Nazi?

We recognise the event happened and move on. What we don't do is demonise Germans forever for what happened in 1933-45.

[Prodromos]

On the other hand Mohammad was obsessed with cats and adored them, to the point where we still have the names of his favorite feline pet Muezza (or Muʿizza).

That's why Cat Stevens became Muslim. True story. He was a very confused individual.

The Mohammaed was a paedo meme is boring.

During the time period, girls where bred as soon as they started their periods. Common practice throughout the world including Christian Europe. Child mortality rates meant you had to start young and had to have a lot of kids to stand a chance of enough surviving.

I always hear this, but I wonder if it actually is true. Betrothal or even marriage is one thing, but how common was it to have actual sex with a 9-year-old girl, especially by a 50-year-old? A question for our resident historians, perhaps?

I can only find references to 12- to 14-year-old girls; even in such cases, however, consummation was almost always postponed for years due to fear of pregnancy and so on.

Example:

https://www.quora.com/Were-child-mar...Medieval-times

There were quite a few marriages for political purposes at that age, but they usually weren't consummated.

Contrary to what people now think, medieval people weren't idiots. They were aware that the younger a woman was, the less likely she was to survive childbirth - and since the entire purpose of a medieval noblewoman revolved around giving her husband children and providing alliances, an early death or infertility made her useless.

For example, a temporary peace was brokered during the Hundred Years War which included the marriage of Richard II to the French princess Isabella. She was 7 at the time of their marriage; Richard was 29 and a widower. Their marriage was never consummated - they developed a mutually respectful relationship despite her young age, and Isabella went into mourning when Richard died three years later and refused to marry the son of his usurper (a brave move for a ten-year old alone in a foreign country). She ended up married for the second time at 16 and this time died at 19 - you guessed it, in childbirth. Nineteen is a much more reasonable age for childbirth, though, so really Isabella was just incredibly unfortunate.

The counter to this is a famous example - Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII. She was married for the first time somewhere between 1-3 years old, although she never formally recognised the marriage and technically it wasn't binding in canon law since she was under 12. She married 24-year old Edmund Tudor when she was 12, and Edmund did consummate the marriage. Yeah, feel free to be grossed out. If it helps, he later died of bubonic plague, a particularly nasty way to go - leaving behind a 13-year old widow who was seven months pregnant. Margaret is the perfect case for demonstrating why people generally didn't do this; she and her child both nearly died multiple times during labour, and the early pregnancy permanently damaged her reproductive organs. She never got pregnant again, despite two more marriages - one aged 15-28, and one aged 29 until her death aged 66. She's a particularly unfortunate case, and solid evidence for why this didn't happen very often.

The best way to see whether it was an unconsummated (at first) political marriage or not is probably to look at the dates of the births of their children. Teenagers, despite being utterly unsuited to carrying and birthing a child, tend to be fairly fertile, so if the marriage was consummated early then she'd tend to have her first child (or first miscarriage) fairly young.

It seems that the idea that medieval pedophilia was common is a bit of a myth.

[Prodromos]

Not every medieval person was a prince of the realm. Even my cat could work that one out.

Henry VII's mom was widowed and pregnant by the time she was 13.If you are implying she remained a virgin, then Henry must be Jesus.

Do you have any stats on how common sex with children was among the general population? Now I'm no historian, but I always thought child marriage was mostly a nobility thing, commoners generally married fairly late, no?

The average age at first marriage had gradually risen again by late sixteenth century; the population had stabilized and availability of jobs and land had lessened. In the last decades of the century the age at marriage had climbed to averages of 25 for women and 27 for men in England and the Low Countries as more people married later or remained unmarried due to lack of money or resources and a decline in living standards, and these averages remained high for nearly two centuries and averages across Northwestern Europe had done likewise.[43]

So commoners didn't marry as children at all, generally, and nobles sometimes married at a young age but didn't have sex until much older. So basically sex with children was not normal. When it did happen (very rarely), it was with 12-14 year olds, not 9-year-olds. Muhammad evidently was very abnormal.

And referring to the very page you have posted,which says and I quote 'childless and the age at which they undertook cojugal life cannot be suggested'. Aisha had no kids So by your evidence, the whole paedo excercise is a waste of time, yes?

Aisha herself said Muhammad had sex with her as a 9-year-old, so, no. We can reasonably deduce from, "my marriage was consummated at 9" that her marriage was indeed consummated at 9.

[PointOfViewGun]

Aisha herself said Muhammad had sex with her as a 9-year-old, so, no. We can reasonably deduce from, "my marriage was consummated at 9" that her marriage was indeed consummated at 9.

You are sticking to that narrative consistently while ignoring any other evidence that puts her age at a much older age as well as ignoring the very likelihood that Muhammad didn't have sex with her.

[Prodromos]

You are sticking to that narrative consistently while ignoring any other evidence that puts her age at a much older age as well as ignoring the very likelihood that Muhammad didn't have sex with her.

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Aisha's marriage was consummated at the age of 9, which is the consensus view among Islamic scholars. Your level of skepticism wouldn't be applied to any other historical claim, it's only things you don't want to be true that seem to warrant such extreme skepticism. It's like arguing with Jesus mythicists.

[mongrel]

Do you have any stats on how common sex with children was among the general population? Now I'm no historian, but I always thought child marriage was mostly a nobility thing, commoners generally married fairly late, no?.

Mohammed wasn't general population, he was a general

So commoners didn't marry as children at all, generally, and nobles sometimes married at a young age but didn't have sex until much older. So basically sex with children was not normal. When it did happen (very rarely), it was with 12-14 year olds, not 9-year-olds. Muhammad evidently was very abnormal..

Who would bother keeping track of the plebs? Mohammed wasn't a commoner, his family was well minted. He commanded a multitude ffs.

i Asha herself said Muhammad had sex with her as a 9-year-old, so, no. We can reasonably deduce from, "my marriage was consummated at 9" that her marriage was indeed consummated at 9.

Where is that said? To quote a more reliable forum member 'You are sticking to that narrative consistently while ignoring any other evidence that puts her age at a much older age as well as ignoring the very likelihood that Muhammad didn't have sex with her. '


Aisha had zero kids , so as the honorable PointOfViewGun says, where is the evidence he had sex with her at all? I mean he had kids with two other women.

[Axalon]

...while ignoring any other evidence that puts her age at a much older age as well as ignoring the very likelihood that Muhammad didn't have sex with her.

By all means, feel free to provide any supposed evidence that (seriously) supports such (your) claims. Until that point, I think it very reasonable to continue to rely on universally established and recognized material on this matter. Meaning, "Sahih Bukhari"-hadith (7:62:88) and "Sahih Muslim"-hadith (8:3310, 8:151 and 5:58:234)... BTW, which other hadiths are you are referring too, exactly...?...

- A

[PointOfViewGun]

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Aisha's marriage was consummated at the age of 9, which is the consensus view among Islamic scholars. Your level of skepticism wouldn't be applied to any other historical claim, it's only things you don't want to be true that seem to warrant such extreme skepticism. It's like arguing with Jesus mythicists.

By all means, feel free to provide any supposed evidence that (seriously) supports such (your) claims. Until that point, I think it very reasonable to continue to rely on universally established and recognized material on this matter. Meaning, "Sahih Bukhari"-hadith (7:62:88) and "Sahih Muslim"-hadith (8:3310, 8:151 and 5:58:234)... BTW, which other hadiths are you are referring too, exactly...?...

It is objectively false to claim that preponderance of evidence shows that Aisha was 9 when her marriage was consummated. Few Hadith stories puts her age at that range while many others put it at a much older age or simple practically destroys the entire issue.

1) It is very likely that Muhammad never ever had sex with Aisha regardless of what her age of marriage was. Muhammad is said to have about 13 wives. He's also reported to have 7 children. All 6 of them are from Khadija who was his first and only wife at the time. He married others after Khadija died. The last kid is reported to be from his last wife. So, we know for a fact that he didn't really suffer from infertility. Based on these alone I can easily say that he never had sex with any of his wives after Khadija and till Maria.

2) First, keep in mind that Aisha is said to have married Muhammad in 619, and consummated the marriage at 622, 3 years later. This age is mostly reported by Hisham. When other Hadith story compilers report it they usually base it on Hisham as well.

We know that the age difference between Aisha and her sister Asma was ten years. According to historians Ibn Kathir and Ibn Hajar Asqalani, she died 73 years after Hijrah (622) at the age of 100. That means she as 27 in 622, making Aisha's age in 622 to be 17.

In Bukhari's Kitabu'l-Megazi, it is reported that anyone under 15 years of age could not participate in the battle. Battle of Uhud happened in 625. Aisha is known to have participated in this battle. That means her latest birth date was 610. That bumps her age at marriage to 9, and consummation to 12.

al-Tabari writes in his history book "Tarikh" that Abur Bakr married Aisha's mother in pre-Islamic times and that all four of his children from his two wives were born in this period. That cut off year is 609 which is the year Quran started to be revealed to Muhammad. If Aisha was born in this period that puts Aisha's latest birth date at that year which tells us that she was 10 in 619 and 13 in 622.

Sahih al-Bukhari Book 61 Hadith 515 reports Aisha saying that she was a young girl when chapter 54 of the Quran, al-Qamar, was revealed. The year of revelation for that chapter was 614. She should have been at least 5 years old at this time. That puts her at 10 in 619, and 13 in 622.

I picked different points to show not that she was definitely older than 15 but to show that there are actually many different sources that puts her age at different points, to the extent of coming from the same sources. However, I belive my point (1) is a lot more valid.

[95thrifleman]

I find this historical cherry picking very interesting. Maybe I should go through the moraly repugnant actions of famous christians and American founding fathers?

This is just thinly vieled muslim-bashing, "mohammed was a child rapist and therefore all muslims consider child rape nrormal". Considering muslim nations acknowledge that child rape is a crime and have ages of consent with the death penalty for such crimes it's a stupid argument.

Historical figures acted in the context of their time. Washington engaged in the active genocide of native americans but America does not consider genocide acceptable..... Ok, bad example there.

[mongrel]

It is objectively false to claim that preponderance of evidence shows that Aisha was 9 when her marriage was consummated. Few Hadith stories puts her age at that range while many others put it at a much older age or simple practically destroys the entire issue.

1) It is very likely that Muhammad never ever had sex with Aisha regardless of what her age of marriage was. Muhammad is said to have about 13 wives. He's also reported to have 7 children. All 6 of them are from Khadija who was his first and only wife at the time. He married others after Khadija died. The last kid is reported to be from his last wife. So, we know for a fact that he didn't really suffer from infertility. Based on these alone I can easily say that he never had sex with any of his wives after Khadija and till Maria.

2) First, keep in mind that Aisha is said to have married Muhammad in 619, and consummated the marriage at 622, 3 years later. This age is mostly reported by Hisham. When other Hadith story compilers report it they usually base it on Hisham as well.

We know that the age difference between Aisha and her sister Asma was ten years. According to historians Ibn Kathir and Ibn Hajar Asqalani, she died 73 years after Hijrah (622) at the age of 100. That means she as 27 in 622, making Aisha's age in 622 to be 17.

In Bukhari's Kitabu'l-Megazi, it is reported that anyone under 15 years of age could not participate in the battle. Battle of Uhud happened in 625. Aisha is known to have participated in this battle. That means her latest birth date was 610. That bumps her age at marriage to 9, and consummation to 12.

al-Tabari writes in his history book "Tarikh" that Abur Bakr married Aisha's mother in pre-Islamic times and that all four of his children from his two wives were born in this period. That cut off year is 609 which is the year Quran started to be revealed to Muhammad. If Aisha was born in this period that puts Aisha's latest birth date at that year which tells us that she was 10 in 619 and 13 in 622.

Sahih al-Bukhari Book 61 Hadith 515 reports Aisha saying that she was a young girl when chapter 54 of the Quran, al-Qamar, was revealed. The year of revelation for that chapter was 614. She should have been at least 5 years old at this time. That puts her at 10 in 619, and 13 in 622.

I picked different points to show not that she was definitely older than 15 but to show that there are actually many different sources that puts her age at different points, to the extent of coming from the same sources. However, I belive my point (1) is a lot more valid.

I guess that is the definitive answer. As you said the man certainly had lead in his pencil, so yes, for all the 'phobes out there, where's Aisha's kids?

[95thrifleman]

I guess that is the definitive answer. As you said the man certainly had lead in his pencil, so yes, for all the 'phobes out there, where's Aisha's kids?

Can I put £5.00 bet on: "Clearly the evil muslim damaged her internaly so she couldn't have kids" excuse? I've seen that on Robert Spencer's little hate-site on a similar subject.

[conon394]

By all means, feel free to provide any supposed evidence that (seriously) supports such (your) claims. Until that point, I think it very reasonable to continue to rely on universally established and recognized material on this matter. Meaning, "Sahih Bukhari"-hadith (7:62:88) and "Sahih Muslim"-hadith (8:3310, 8:151 and 5:58:234)... BTW, which other hadiths are you are referring too, exactly...?...

First let's consider the charge Pedophilia. Can you construct a narrative about Mohamed that excepting one child bride he had many boys and girls at hand and used for sex? If not that you are looking at what amounts to what many have already pointed out an example of elite child marriage. Common occurrence in lots of cultures across lots of history. I suppose you are equally horrified by most of history, what slavery, human sacrifice, mass murder, lack women's rights, lack anyone's rights... It would be fair to say Mohamed did not rise above the norms of his culture, that would be a fair criticism. Since some people and societies and states have done so. But using the label pedophile is inaccurate and just baiting people. Its reasonable to criticize Islam I think for absorbing a lot medieval Arab couture as being part of Islam, but falling to a simplistic that Mohamed was Pedo is childish.

So commoners didn't marry as children at all, generally, and nobles sometimes married at a young age

Hmm read Jane Austin lately say Pride and Prejudice? Lydia is 15 and married, her older sisters are getting stale in their 20s

[PointOfViewGun]

Can I put £5.00 bet on: "Clearly the evil muslim damaged her internaly so she couldn't have kids" excuse? I've seen that on Robert Spencer's little hate-site on a similar subject.

That wouldn't really have any merit too. It is a real possibility that Aisha might have suffered from infertility. However, for all 11 of Muhammad's wife to suffer from the same problem is pretty much next to impossible. That indicates us that Muhammad never even had sex with vast majority of his wives, since they were mostly political marriages.

[mongrel]

First let's consider the charge Pedophilia. Can you construct a narrative about Mohamed that excepting one child bride he had many boys and girls at hand and used for sex? If not that you are looking at what amounts to what many have already pointed out an example of elite child marriage. Common occurrence in lots of cultures across lots of history. I suppose you are equally horrified by most of history, what slavery, human sacrifice, mass murder, lack women's rights, lack anyone's rights... It would be fair to say Mohamed did not rise above the norms of his culture, that would be a fair criticism. Since some people and societies and states have done so. But using the label pedophile is inaccurate and just baiting people. Its reasonable to criticize Islam I think for absorbing a lot medieval Arab couture as being part of Islam, but falling to simplistic that Mohamed was Pedo is childish.

Hmm read Jane Austin lately say Pride and Prejudice? Lydia is 15 and married, her older sisters are getting stale in their 20s

An entirely sensible approach. In any event , I fail to see why the need to manufacture a contrived story to discourage people to become Muslims or to be 'critical' of the religion. Christians would not be tempted, Muslims don't recognise the divine nature of Christ. Atheists have no need for religion, I'm sure other beliefs can find legitimate reasons for rejecting Islam too. Complaining that Mohammed was a warllord who took on a child bride in an age awash with warlords, where such marriage customs were common amongst princes, is at best indeed childish. The only reason for this story is to incite others, obviously.

[95thrifleman]

An entirely sensible approach. In any event , I fail to see why the need to manufacture a contrived story to discourage people to become Muslims or to be 'critical' of the religion. Christians would not be tempted, Muslims don't recognise the divine nature of Christ. Atheists have no need for religion, I'm sure other beliefs can find legitimate reasons for rejecting Islam too. Complaining that Mohammed was a warllord who took on a child bride in an age awash with warlords, where such marriage customs were common amongst princes, is at best indeed childish. The only reason for this story is to incite others, obviously.

It's bloody hypocritcal considering most of the anti-muslim crowd tend to be right wing christians and christianity was spread through warlords, colonialism and slavery.

[conon394]

It's bloody hypocritcal considering most of the anti-muslim crowd tend to be right wing christians and christianity was spread through warlords, colonialism and slavery.

Yep the Abbott Arnaud Amalric didn't marry any Cathar 9 year olds after the siege of Béziers he just ordered the men to deal with the civilians this way - "Kill them. For the Lord knows who are His."

[Infidel144]

Lets use these (the 'originals')*:

Most of these narratives are reported only by Hisham ibn `Urwah, reporting on the authority of his father. An event as well known as the one being reported, should logically have been reported by more people than just one, two or three.

"Try more than eleven authorities among the Tabi`in that reported it directly from `A'isha, not counting the other major Companions that reported the same, nor other major Successors that reported it from other than `A'isha."
"Al-Zuhri also reports it from `Urwa, from `A'isha; so does `Abd Allah ibn Dhakwan, both major Madanis. So is the Tabi`i Yahya al-Lakhmi who reports it from her in the Musnad and in Ibn Sa`d's Tabaqat. So is Abu Ishaq Sa`d ibn Ibrahim who reports it from Imam al-Qasim ibn Muhammad, one of the Seven Imams of Madina, from `A'isha."
"In addition to the above four Madinese Tabi`in narrators, Sufyan ibn `Uyayna from Khurasan and `Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya from Tabarayya in Palestine both report it."
"Nor was this hadith reported only by `Urwa but also by `Abd al-Malik ibn `Umayr, al-Aswad, Ibn Abi Mulayka, Abu Salama ibn `Abd al-Rahman ibn `Awf, Yahya ibn `Abd al-Rahman ibn Hatib, Abu `Ubayda (`Amir ibn `Abd Allah ibn Mas`ud) and others of the Tabi`i Imams directly from `A'isha.
This makes the report mass-transmitted (mutawatir) from `A'isha by over eleven authorities among the Tabi`in, not counting the other major Companions that reported the same, such as Ibn Mas`ud nor other major Successors that reported it from other than `A'isha, such as Qatada!"

According to almost all the historians, Asma, the elder sister of Ayesha was ten years older than Ayesha.

"Ibn Kathir based himself on Ibn Abi al-Zinad's assertion that she was ten years older than `A'isha, however, al-Dhahabi in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala' said there was a greater difference than 10 years between the two, up to 19, and he is more reliable here."

It is reported in Taqri'bu'l-tehzi'b as well as Al-bidayah wa'l-nihayah that Asma died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Ayesha, if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.

"Ibn Hajar reports in al-Isaba from Hisham ibn `Urwa, from his father, that Asma' did live 100 years, and from Abu Nu`aym al-Asbahani that "Asma' bint Abi Bakr was born 27 years before the Hijra, and she lived until the beginning of the year 74." None of this amounts to any proof for `A'isha's age whatsoever."

According to a number of narratives, Ayesha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Ayesha's (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.

"First, the prohibition applied to combatants. It applied neither to non-combatant boys nor to non-combatant girls and women. Second, `A'isha did not participate in Badr at all but bade farewell to the combatants as they were leaving Madina, as narrated by Muslim in his Sahih. On the day of Uhud (year 3), Anas, at the time only twelve or thirteen years old, reports seeing an eleven-year old `A'isha and his mother Umm Sulaym having tied up their dresses and carrying water skins back and forth to the combatants, as narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim."

Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr, reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah -- the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Ayesha was born in the period of Jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH -- the time she most likely got married.

"Al-Tabari nowhere reports that "Abu Bakr's four children were all born in Jahiliyya" but only that Abu Bakr married both their mothers in Jahiliyya, Qutayla bint Sa`d and Umm Ruman, who bore him four children in all, two each, `A'isha being the daughter of Umm Ruman."
And:
"the passage in Tabari is not discussing the children but the two wives, identifying them by the children that they had, two each, whom he names. Then he recapitulates and says the line in question:
فكل هؤلاء الأربعة من أولاده، ولدوا من زوجتيه اللتين سميناهما في الجاهلية.
Literally: "All four of these children of his were born from the two wives whom we named in Jahiliyya."


The meaning is "were born from the two women whom we identified as being his spouses in Jahiliyya." The circumstancial modifier "in Jahiliyya" is attached to "his wives" or more precisely to the suffixed object pronoun هما "both of whom" in the verb سميناهما "both of whom we named" and not to the verb "were born." "
Other passages from Al-Tabari in spoiler:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here are some quotes from:
The History of al-Ṭabari


The History of al-Tabari Vol. 7: The Foundation of the Community
The Events of Year 1 The Marriage with A'isha
He had married her in Mecca three years before the Hijrah, after the death of Khadija. At that time she was six or, according to other accounts, seven years old...
The angel brought down my likeness; the Messenger of God married me when I was seven; my marriage was consummated when I was nine; he married me when I was a virgin, no other man having shared me with him, inspiration came to him when he and I were in a single blanket...
The History of al-Tabari Vol. 9: The Last Years of the Prophet
Events of the Year 10
The Reason Why the Messenger of God Asked for the Hands of Both A'isha and Sawdah in Marriage...
My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. Jumayah, my nurse, took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door, she stoped so I could catch my breath. I was then brought [in] while the Messenger of God was sitting on a bed in our house. [My mother] made me sit on his lap and then said, "Thes are your relatives. May God bless you with them and bless them with you!" Then the men and women got up and left. The Messenger of God consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old. Neither a camel nor a sheep was slaughtered on behalf of me...


She [Khadijah - my clarification] died three years or close to that before the Messaenger of God's departure from Mecca, and he married A'ishah after Khadijah's death. The Messenger of God saw 'A'ishah twice - [first when] it was said to him that she was his wife (she was six years old at that time), and later [when] he consumated his marriage with her after coming to Medina when she was nine years old.


The History of al-Tabari Vol. 39: Biographies of the Prophet's Companions
Excerpts from The Supplement to the Supplemented
The Death Dates of the Prophet's Wives Who Died after Him
The Prophet married 'A'ishah in Shawwal in the tenth year after the [beginning of his] prophethood, three years before Emigration. He consummated the marriage in Shawwal, eight months after Emigration. On the day he consummated the marriage with her she was nine years old.

According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijra. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu'l-tafseer) Ayesha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur'an, was revealed, "I was a young girl". The 54th surah of the Qur'an was revealed nine years before Hijra.

"Not true. The hadith Masters, Sira historians, and Qur'anic commentators agree that the splitting of the moon took place about five years before the Holy Prophet's (upon him blessings and peace) Hijra to Madina.
Thus it is confirmed that our Mother `Aisha was born between seven and eight years before the Hijra and the words that she was a jariya or little girl five years before the Hijra match the fact that her age at the time Surat al-Qamar was revealed was around 2 or 3."


*The (sort of) original arguments are from "The Learner" i.e. Moiz Amjad and are in the quote boxes.
The responses are from Shaykh Dr. Gibril Haddad, a scholar, historian, muhadith and translator of classical Arabic texts, and who was also named one of the most influential muslims in the world in the 2009 edition of the 500 Most Influential Muslims in the World, Chief Editors Prof John Esposito and Prof Ibrahim Kalin.

[PointOfViewGun]

Lets use these (the 'originals')*:

These are not the originals. The real author doesn't even seem to try referencing what he talks about, just like you chose not to link to the site you were copy pasting them from. There isn't much to check there that makes it easy as there is no reference whatsoever but a quick look shows that it even contains outright contradictions.

For example, in the question about Aisha's participation in the battle of Uhud, he first writes that Aisha did not participate and that she merely bid farewell from Medina, and then a sentence later he says that Aisha did participate to carry water to fighters but that she was 12 at the time. The author shows us that any contradiction is fine as long as Aisha's age is reported as underage.

In other examples, he doesn't even provide a proper argument. He states that al-Dhahabi is more reliable than Abi al-Zinadbut doesn't provide the slightest reasoning. We also have to accept that a 2-3 year old baby as a young girl. Perhaps where this copy-paste fails the most is that you can't really reproduce the original document, Gibril Haddad's responses. If you search online you will mostly find different versions of this copy-paste with suspiciously no chain link to the original poster. At least, from Moiz Amjad's perspective, we have a direct link to his article on his website where we can see the original document. With Gibril Haddad's responses we can not do that. I gave up after spending half an hour trying to find it. What I come across was that it's mostly hosted on Western anti-Islam websites almost exclusively.

You copy or type who the Learner and the responder are at the end of your post. You/the real author present Dr. Gibril Haddad as a respectable scholar while Moiz Amjad is presented as if he's a random Muslim, when in fact he too studied Arabic language and the Quran but under an other respectable Islamic scholar Javed Ahamd Ghamidi.