Why Sunnis Perpetuate the Myth of Aisha’s Age

The hadith of ʿĀʾishah’s marital age—claiming that the Prophet Muhammad married her at six and consummated the marriage at nine—has long stood as one of the most disturbing reports within the Sunnī hadith corpus.

In his groundbreaking Oxford PhD thesis, The Hadith of ʿĀʾishah’s Marital Age: A Study in the Evolution of Early Islamic Historical Memory (2023), Joshua J. Little undertook the most comprehensive critical analysis of this tradition to date. Drawing upon every known version of the hadith, Little applies a refined isnād-cum-matn method—tracing both the chains of transmission and the textual variations—to uncover its origin, evolution, and eventual canonization. His findings are striking: all extant versions appear to descend from a single archetype or ur-hadith created by Hišām b. ʿUrwah b. al-Zubayr (d. c. 763–765 CE), ʿĀʾishah’s great-nephew, who likely introduced the report after migrating from Medina to Iraq in the mid-8th century.

Little situates this development within the sectarian climate of early Abbasid Iraq, a time when emerging Sunnī and Shīʿī factions were locked in fierce competition over legitimacy and memory. He argues that the hadith arose as a polemical response to early Shīʿī criticisms of ʿĀʾishah, whose political opposition to ʿAlī made her a target of enduring hostility. By portraying her as the Prophet’s beloved and innocent wife from early childhood, the report rehabilitated her image, emphasizing her purity, intimacy with the Prophet, and authority as a transmitter of his legacy.

Additionally, by reducing the age of ʿĀʾishah, she would be placed as part of the family of the Prophet (Hello al-Bayt) at an early age, thus increasing her status and authority in the religion. This was critical for individuals who ascribed to Shia leanings, as the family of the Prophet was considered the stewards of the faith after his death.

Then from its Iraqian birthplace, the report spread rapidly across the Islamic world—into Yemen, Syria, Persia, and beyond—where local transmitters adapted its chains and details to suit regional contexts. Despite these variations, the core motif of the ages “six” and “nine” endured. By the time of al-Bukhārī and Muslim, the hadith had become naturalized in Sunnī tradition, canonized with little critical scrutiny into its historical roots.

After the public release of Little’s thesis, two groups reacted strongly to his conclusions—each for very different reasons. The first were certain online Christian polemic communities dedicated to attacking Islam. Because much of their criticism relies on hadith literature, they had a vested interest in upholding the authenticity of reports that portray Islam in a negative light. Among these, the hadith of ʿĀʾishah’s marital age has long been a centerpiece of their arguments. If this narration were shown to be historically fabricated or sectarian in origin, as Little’s research suggests, it would undermine one of their most frequently used lines of attack against the faith.

The second group that reacted the most negatively to Little’s dissertation was, at first glance, more surprising: traditional Sunnī Muslims. One might assume they would welcome a rigorous historical analysis that clears the Prophet of the accusation of marrying a child. Yet the opposite occurred. Many traditionalists were furious by the findings—not because it maligned the Prophet, but because it challenged the reliability of the ḥadīth corpus itself.

For centuries, the integrity of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Muslim Ṣaḥīḥ has stood as the cornerstone of Sunnī orthodoxy. Little’s findings, however, implied that a narration universally graded as “authentic” (raḥ) most likely looked to be a later fabrication rooted in sectarian propaganda. This possibility struck at the heart of their epistemological framework. Rather than celebrate the defense of the Prophet’s moral character, many perceived the work as an assault on the sanctity of their tradition. In effect, their loyalty lay not with the Prophet’s reputation, but with the preservation of ḥadīth authority itself. To admit that a report found in their most revered collections could be inauthentic would open the door to questioning the entire edifice upon which Sunnī religious authority has been built.

Ironically, both groups—though on opposite sides of the theological spectrum—found themselves united in outrage for the same reason: their dependence on the literal authenticity of the hadith. For the Christian polemicist, the report served as ammunition against Islam; for the traditional Sunnī, it functioned as proof of the infallibility of the hadith canon. In both cases, the tradition’s truth mattered less than its utility. Each camp, in its own way, relied on the preservation of this narrative to sustain its broader worldview. Thus, when Little’s research exposed the hadith as a later invention, it disrupted not just a story about ʿĀʾishah—it destabilized the ideological foundations upon which both critics and defenders had long stood.

This controversy ultimately exposes a deeper question: What does the Quran itself say about the eligibility for marriage? If the Prophet’s actions are to be measured by divine revelation, then the standard must come from the Quran—not from later reports whose origins are historically dubious.

According to the Quran, children are not eligible for marriage. This is made explicit in verse 4:6, which uses the term al-nikāḥ—“the age of marriage”—as a milestone of both physical and mental maturity:

The verse identifies two conditions for marriage eligibility: physiological maturity (“when they reach the age of marriage”) and intellectual or moral maturity (rushdsound judgment). The Quran links these qualities to a person’s ability to manage property and handle contracts independently—signs of responsible adulthood. A child, by definition, lacks these capacities; therefore, the Quranic text itself excludes the possibility of child marriage.

In this light, any narration portraying the Prophet as marrying a prepubescent girl not only contradicts historical evidence, as Little demonstrated, but also violates the moral and legal framework of the Quran. The hadith in question thus stands at odds both with historical probability and with the ethical standard of revelation.

Ironically, when some Sunnīs attempt to defend the claim that the Prophet married a child, they turn to two arguments that collapse under even minimal scrutiny—both of which disregard the clear standards set by the Quran.

The first argument is biological: they claim that children in seventh-century Arabia matured faster than they do today. This assertion is demonstrably false. Across populations, the trend is the exact opposite. Modern children reach puberty earlier than pre-modern ones, a well-documented result of improved nutrition, sanitation, and overall health. In antiquity and the early medieval world, chronic food scarcity and nutritional deficiency delayed sexual development, not hastened it.

Extensive data—from Europe, the Middle East, and Asia—show that the average age of menarche has decreased over the past century, dropping from around 15–16 to roughly 12–13 years. This shift is directly correlated with increased caloric intake and access to protein. To suggest that seventh-century Arabian children matured faster is to ignore both biology and history: they would, if anything, have matured later than children today.

Even then, puberty alone is not a Quranic or moral benchmark for marriage. The Quran explicitly requires not only physical maturity but also intellectual and moral maturity (rushd)—the ability to manage one’s property and make sound decisions (4:6). A child, by definition, lacks these capacities, which means that even if a girl reached puberty, she would still not meet the Quranic threshold for marriage.

The second line of defense is moral relativism. Here, apologists argue that “times were different” and that such marriages were culturally acceptable in the past. But this reasoning is self-defeating: it undermines both the moral universality of the Quran and the very claim of prophetic perfection. The Quran presents timeless principles of justice, compassion, and protection of the vulnerable—standards not confined to one era or culture. To reduce morality to shifting custom is to render revelation meaningless.

If moral relativism were valid, then the transgressions of the people of Lot could likewise be excused as “their custom.” By the same logic, one could justify slavery, idolatry, or any historical atrocity as “normal for its time.” The Quran, however, calls humanity to transcend cultural norms, not to conform to them. It sets clear and permanent ethical limits: no harm, no exploitation, and no coercion in matters of conscience.

Therefore, to argue that the Prophet’s example included what the Quran itself forbids is to accuse him of contradicting revelation—the very revelation he was chosen to uphold. And suppose someone insists that child marriage is not a matter of morality but merely of social custom. In that case, they are effectively treating child rape as no more significant than deciding which side of the road we should drive on. Such reasoning desecrates the moral foundation of the religion.

When the evidence is weighed—historical, biological, and scriptural—the conclusion is beyond dispute: the Prophet Muhammad never married a child. The hadith that makes this claim stands exposed as a later fabrication, born of sectarian propaganda, preserved by uncritical tradition, and defended by those who mistake loyalty to books for loyalty to truth.

The Quran that God revealed and the Prophet lived by leaves no room for such moral corruption. It commands justice, reason, compassion, and the safeguarding of the innocent, particularly that of children—principles that define righteousness across all time. To attribute to God’s Messenger what the Quran itself condemns is not reverence; it is slander. It betrays the very message the Prophet was sent to deliver.

Believers, by definition, are lovers of truth. They stand with justice even when it challenges their own traditions, and they defend the innocent even when doing so costs them comfort or approval. The Quran teaches that the faithful “advocate righteousness and forbid evil” (3:110)—not that they excuse it, justify it, or rebrand it as piety.

To defend the notion of child marriage is to betray the very principles that define belief: compassion, reason, and moral integrity. The Prophet was sent as a mercy, not as a justification for harming innocent children. A true believer does not defend what is wrong simply because it is what they inherited from their forefathers; he defends what is right because it is true. And truth, as the Quran reminds us, always prevails over falsehood.

[43:21] Have we given them a book before this, and they are upholding it?
[43:22] The fact is: they said, “We found our parents carrying on certain practices, and we are following in their footsteps.”
[43:23] Invariably, when we sent a warner to any community, the leaders of that community would say, “We found our parents following certain practices, and we will continue in their footsteps.”
[43:24] (The messenger) would say, “What if I brought to you better guidance than what you inherited from your parents?” They would say, “We are disbelievers in the message you brought.”
[43:25] Consequently, we requited them. Note the consequences for the rejectors.

---

Related Content: