Unfortunately, the matter of A'isha's age really is not an issue for most of these scholars. They see nothing wrong with it. If anything, they see it as a further extension of the whole virgin fetish thing that Islam promotes. As a 9 year old who was engaged at 6, there could be no doubt as to her virginity.
I've just been reading on
the site where the question was asked where the issue of abrogation is being discussed. I won't translate the whole thing, as it is rather long, but I think it's worth having the points made here for reference.
لقد نزلت آية الرجم ، ورضاعة الكبير عشراً ، ولقد كان في صحيفة تحت سريري فلما مات رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وتشاغلنا بموته ، دخل داجن فأكلها
"A'isha narrated: "The verse of stoning and breastfeeding a grown man ten times (to establish a maternal sort of relationship) was revealed. It was in a scroll under my bed. When the prophet died and we became preoccupied by his death, a goat came in and ate it."
So, first of all, even though this is a hadith narrated in Ibn Majah that is considered authentic by many past and present sunni scholars, the guy starts of by saying that the “enemies” of Islam use this hadith to cast doubt upon the authenticity of the Qur’anic transmission and preservation. He then goes on to list all the reasons why the hadith might not be authentic, including some quotes from Imam Ahmed saying that the guy who narrates it has a habit of mixing up narrations from different sources. He also mentions the quote that I translated earlier, which is from a guy called Sarkhasy, who didn’t think the hadith was authentic either.
But, just in case it is authentic, he goes on to explain why there is no problem with abrogation anyway, and the fact that a goat ate the verses and no one really cared meant that those verses were no longer important.
In justification of abrogation, he uses the tired argument that “Islamic legislation passed through many phases during the life of the prophet until he died,” so it was necessary for older, temporary rulings to be wiped out by newer, permanent rulings. (Kinda like your baby teeth, ya know. My words, not his.) He says that no scholars have ever had an issue with the idea of abrogation as it is mentioned in the Qur’an itself. The first people to express a problem with it were…dun, dun, dunnnn…THE JEWS. The Jews opposed abrogation and stuck to the law of Moses because they concluded that abrogation was impossible. It would mean that Allah changed his mind and formed a new opinion about something after not having that opinion. (Silly Jews.) But, the Qur’an, he says, refutes that sentiment with a clear refutation because the Qur’an says that abrogation is OK. And that’s all we need to hear, really.
He then goes on to explain the three different types of abrogation:
1. Abrogation of the recitation while maintaining the ruling. This is what happened with the verse of stoning that our goat friend ate. Even though the verse is no longer recited in the Qur’an, we are still supposed to stone people for having sex with folks they aren’t married to. (I personally think the goat was just embarrassed by the verses coming out of his house. He must have figured that was a particularly dumb verse all along, so he waited for Mo to die then did humanity a favor. Thanks, goat)
2. Abrogation of the recitation and the ruling. I’m actually just going to translate this part. It’s funny.
ومثاله قول عائشة رضي الله عنها: (كان فيما نزل من القرآن عشر رضعات معلومات يحرمن، ثم نسخ بخمس معلومات يحرمن) فالجملة الأولى منسوخة في التلاوة والحكم، أما الجملة الثانية فهي منسوخة في التلاوة فقط، وحكمها باق عند الشافعية.
“An example of this is the statement of Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, ‘Part of what was revealed in the Qur’an was that 10 known breastfeeding sessions for a grown man make him a mahram (a sort of relative--someone you aren’t supposed to marry.) Then that was abrogated by 5 known breastfeeding sessions for a grown man making him a mahram’
So the first bit (the ten grown man breast feeding sessions) is abrogated in recitation and in ruling. The second bit (the five sessions) is abrogated in recitation only, but the ruling STILL STANDS among the Shafi’ites.”
He then goes on to essentially say that we shouldn't be bothered by the goat eating the verses because those verses were abrogated and no longer needed. The implication is almost that the goat eating those verses prove that they were abrogated because the companions knew they had been eaten and didn’t care to save them. He also says that we shouldn’t be surprised that it was a goat because goats are way better than mice and are one of the best livestock. (Mice, he says, are the worst animals and they pee on Qur'ans.) We shouldn’t be surprised that the qur’an was kept under a bed because the people back then were humble and not rich. They were so humble that the prophet used to wash his own clothes and fix his own shoes and blah blah blah. They weren’t kings who owned chests and safes so they made do with what they had.
And lastly, Allah is really smart and awesome, and smart…and he said he would preserve the Qur’an. So all we have to do is believe that if Allah wanted those lost verses to be preserved they would have been preserved like the rest of the Qur’an in spite of the prophet's death. The prophet conveyed his message perfectly, so whatever didn’t get conveyed perfectly wasn’t supposed to get conveyed. So there.
Oh, and he does put his name at the bottom, “Dr.” Abdullah Faqeeh. never heard of him.
Quod. As someone with no Islamic background, what's it like seeing stuff like this?
Topic: Arabic Help