“Would you marry off your daughter if she were six years old?”

 

That question assumes modern legal and moral frameworks can be directly imposed on 7th-century Arabia, which is a basic historical error known as presentism. No serious historian evaluates ancient figures using contemporary social norms. If we do that consistently, then many biblical figures whose marriages occurred at similarly young ages would also be morally condemned, which most Christians reject. Academic analysis instead asks whether an action was considered ethical, consensual, and socially normative within its historical context.

 

This is an example of presentism judging pre-modern societies by modern standards. Historians don’t do that. This is an established academic principle used in history, ethics, and anthropology.

 

In the ancient world Arabia, Byzantium, Persia, and even biblical Israel marriage was linked to puberty and social responsibility, not a fixed numerical age. This was true across cultures, including Christian societies until very recently. Be mindful we are explaining, not defending modern child marriage.

 

This practice was not unique to Islam. If we apply your logic consistently, would you be willing to condemn biblical figures such as Isaac, Rebecca, Mary (mother of Jesus), or medieval Christian kings who married young? If not, then the objection is selective rather than principled.

 

Islamic law does not treat historical norms as timeless commands. Contemporary Muslim scholars overwhelmingly reject child marriage because Islamic ethics prioritize harm prevention and social welfare, which clearly require maturity and consent today. Islam is morally dynamic, not frozen in the past.

 

So, the real question isn’t “Would you do this today?” because no serious Muslim scholar argues for that. The real question is whether it’s intellectually honest to mock a 7th-century figure using 21st-century assumptions while exempting one’s own tradition from the same scrutiny.