My piece over at the Guardian’s CIF section can be found here, or a longer version is below.
Writing about Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, the Orientalist scholar W Montgomery Watt wrote: “Of all the world’s great men none has been so much maligned as Muhammad.” His quote seems all the more poignant in light of the islamophobic film which has sparked riots from Yemen to Libya and which, among other slanders, depicts Muhammad as a paedophile.
This claim is a recurring one amongst critics of Islam and so its foundation deserves close scrutiny.
Critics allege that Aisha was just six years old when she was
betrothed to Muhammad, himself in his fifties, and only nine when the marriage was consummated. They base this on a saying attributed to Aisha herself, and the debate is further complicated by the fact some Muslims also believe this to be a historically accurate account. Although most Muslims would not consider marrying off their nine year old daughters, those who accept this saying argue that since the Quran states that marriage is void unless entered into by consenting adults, Aisha must simply have been an “early bloomer”. They refer to the much shorter life expectancy in 7th century Arabia and to the custom, widespread across many cultures, to define adulthood according to the onset of puberty. Indeed what defines ‘adulthood’ is often contentious. In his book, “The Invention of Childhood” Hugh Cunningham traces the historically constructed notion of childhood and its variation across time. There have been epochs, including in European history, where puberty equated to adulthood. Indeed, five centuries after Islam, King John of England was 44 years old when he married 12 year old Isabella of Angouleme. Interestingly, of the many criticisms of Mohamed made at the time by his opponents, none focused on Aisha’s age at marriage.
According to this perspective, Aisha may have been young, but she was no younger than was the norm at the time. Other Muslims doubt the very idea that Aisha was nine at the time of marriage, referring to historians who have questioned the reliability of historical narrations concerning Aisha’s age. In a society without a birth registry and where people did not celebrate birthdays, most people estimated their own age and that of others. Aisha would have been no different. What’s more, Aisha had actually been engaged to someone else before she married Mohamed, suggesting she’d already been mature enough, by the standards of her society, to consider marriage for a while. It seems difficult to reconcile this with her being nine or younger even.
In addition to this, some modern Muslim scholars have cast doubt on the veracity of the saying, or hadith, used to assert Aisha’s young age. In Islam, the hadith literature (sayings of the Prophet) is considered secondary to the Quran. While the Quran is considered to be the verbatim word of God, the hadiths were transmitted over time through a rigorous but not infallible methodology. Taking all known accounts and records of Aisha’s age at marriage, estimates of her age range from nine to nineteen. Because of this, it is simply impossible, many argue, to know with any certainty how old Aisha was.
What we do know is what the Quran says about marriage: that it is valid only between consenting adults, and that a woman has the right to choose her own spouse. As the living embodiment of Islam, Muhammad’s actions reflect the Quran’s teachings on marriage, even if the actions of some Muslim regimes and individuals do not.
Sadly, in many countries, the imperatives motivating the marriage of young girls are typically economic. In others, they are political. The fact that Iran and Saudi Arabia have both sought to use the saying concerning Aisha’s age as a justification for lowering the legal age of marriage tells us a great deal about the patriarchal and oppressive nature of those regimes, and nothing about Mohammed, or the essential nature of Islam. The stridency of those who lend credence to these
literalist interpretations by concurring with their warped view of Islam does not help those Muslims who seek to challenge these
aberrations.
The islamophobic depiction of Muhammed’s marriage to Aisha as
motivated by misplaced desire fits within a broader orientalist
depiction of Muhammed as philanderer, which emerged during the Crusades. According to the academic Kecia Ali, “accusations of lust and sensuality were a regular feature of medieval attacks on the prophet’s character and by extension, on the authenticity of Islam.”
Since the early Christians heralded Christ as a model of celibate virtue, Muhammad – who had married several times – was deemed to be driven by sinful lust. This portrayal ignored the fact that before his marriage to Aisha, Muhammed had been married to Khadija, a powerful businesswoman 15 years his senior, for 25 years. When she died, he was devastated and friends encouraged him to remarry. A female acquaintance suggested Aisha, a bright and vivacious character. Aisha’s union would also have cemented Muhammed’s longstanding friendship with her father, Abu Bakr. As was the tradition in Arabia (and still is in some parts of the world today), marriage typically
served a social and political function – a way of uniting tribes, resolving feuds, caring for widows and orphans, and generally strengthening bonds in a highly unstable and changing political environment. Of the women Muhammed subsequently married, the majority were widows. To consider the marriages of the prophet outside of these calculations is profoundly ahistorical.
What the records are clear on, is that Mohamed and Aisha had a loving and egalitarian relationship, which set the standard for reciprocity, tenderness and respect enjoined by the Quran. It was on Aisha’s lap that he breathed his last and insights into their relationship, such as they liked to drink out of the same cup or race one another, are indicative of a deep connection which belies any misrepresentation of their relationship.
To paint Aisha as a victim is completely at odds with her persona – she was certainly no wallflower. During a controversial battle in Muslim history, she emerged to lead the troops riding a camel. She was known for her assertive temperament and mischievous sense of humor – with Muhammed sometimes bearing the brunt of the jokes. During his lifetime, he established her authority and knowledge by telling the
Muslims to consult her in his absence; after his death, she went to be become one of the most prolific and distinguished scholars of her time.
A stateswoman, scholar, mufti, and judge – Aysha combined
spirituality, activism and knowledge and remains a role model for many Muslim women today. The gulf between her true legacy and her depiction in islamophobic materials is not merely historically inaccurate, it is an insult to the memory of a pioneering woman.
Those who manipulate her story to justify the abuse of young girls, and those who manipulate it in order to depict Islam as a religion which legitimises such abuse, have more in common than they think. Both demonstrate a disregard for what we know about the times in which Muhammad lived and for the affirmation of female autonomy which her story illustrates.
