The Arab Prophet was not a nonce

Christopher Melchert and 'Isa Little propose that Muhammad did not marry 'Âisha at least not when she was a child.

Joshua Little blames Hishâm bin 'Urwa, 'Urwa being a scion and survivor of the Zubayrid caliphate. 'Urwa is credited with much of the Prophetic biography especially in its Madina phase. His son Hishâm hived off to the 'Iraq and published his argument over there. Both men held the respect of many experts in fiqh so Hishâm's traditions have spread throughout the Muwattâ and other such collections.

Where I'm hazy is how Hishâm was responsible for this tradition and not his father. Or before! Little claims that the Muwattâ should have noted the Hishâm tradition and did not. Perhaps in light of Ibn Hishâm (no relation) including the tradition where Ibn Ishâq did not.

But: Where the counter-evidence? Say: of Malikî fiqh imposing age-of-consent? Failing that: Shafi'î? 'Abd al-Razzâq and Ibn Abî Shayba? I suppose John Damascene or Leo III or others could have noted a child-marriage as long as they were castigating the Prophet for his other escapades, like swiping a wife from Zayd. Where was Roman law on this practice?

I'll lay out my cards: I follow Harald Motzki's madhhab. I trust the Marwânî-era transmitters, but not the sources which they cited.

I've long thought 'Âisha was the kádhiba here. She wanted to be calipha, and used the patriarch Zubayr to take over the Madina in the wake of 'Uthmân's murder. Then she moved upon the 'Iraq where, it seems, she and hers failed to oust 'Alî. As no amira of the believers, she clung to the title of the umm of believers - in her (enforced) retirement.

The child-marriage meme came about when the Believers came to meet her and did some of those maths for which Muslims remain famous. "A bit young, though, aren't you, sweetie?" The reason John didn't note it is because John was fencing Damascenes - Umayyads - who were slower to accept 'Âisha than were the Zubayriya.

Anyway, that's where my fatwa stood, as of maybe 2005 or so. I haven't read Little's thesis yet.

THE UMMA ON THE OTHER HAND 6:25 PM MST - Jonathan Rape-Rape Brown, not to my surprise, supports the Sahihayn. That's the one man in our Plantation South allowed to support slavery including the sexual kind. Because imposing our values - our scholarship - upon a nonOccidental set of texts is Orientalist. Unless it agrees with Brown, note his (mis)use of Motzki.