^Wa As-Salamu 'Alaykum ya akhee
[quote]
For example the one hadith about the age deduction using Asma' (RA) age is said to be refuted on the basis that the narrator is from a generation below the sahabah. This does not make it refuted as they suggest, it merely makes it not as dependable.
[/quote]
akhee, this is not correct and this is what it actually says:
The age difference between Asmaa ( رضي لله عنھا ) and Aishah ( رضي لله عنھا ) was narrated by historians, only from the words of Ibn Abee Az-Zinaad who did not live at the time of Asmaa ( رضي لله عنھا ) since he is from the Atbaa’ at-Tabi’een. He was credited by some and discredited by many. Furthermore, most of scholars whom he narrated from did not see Asmaa ( رضي لله عنھا ) either. Thus, the narration cannot be accepted as its chain is munqati' (discontinuous). .[It is when the chain has a missing link between the Successors and the Companion. Ibn Hajr added that the break may occur at more than one place in the chain.]
On another note, if we are to accept this very weak narration then we must also acknowledge the statement which was made after mentioning the words of Ibn Abee Az- Zinaad by the historian who narrated it.
Imam Adh-Dhahabi said:
[INDENT] “Ibn Abee Az-Zinaad said: She – Asmaa ibn Abee Bakr – is older than Aishah by ten years. I say: If this is true, then the age of Asmaa when she passed away should be ninety-one. On the other hand, Hisham ibn 'Urwah said: She lived a hundred years without a tooth falling.” [Tareekh Al-Islam, 5/354]
[/INDENT] the scholars of the past unanimously agreed on the fact: that 'Aishah (radiallahu anha) was indeed 6 years old when she was married to the Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam). Every scholar agreed on the authenticity of Saheeh Bukharee and why do we only see such odd opinions in modern age. Can any of the modernists quote any early scholar's opinion in their favour? If a scholar recorded a hadeeth in his history book, it doesn't prove he held that opinion.
and indeed Allah Ta'ala knows best