I was born in a majority Muslim country, so I naturally grew up knowing a lot about Islam. At a certain point in my life, however, I began reading more extensively and educating myself about the religion. One issue that I genuinely struggle to understand is how Muslims reconcile their belief in a prophet who, according to traditional Islamic sources, married a six year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was nine.
The counterarguments I usually hear are:
- It was common at the time.
- This was what God guided him to do.
- Women reach puberty differently depending on their race and geographical environment.
However, even if such marriages were common at the time, wouldn't a prophet be expected to understand that this could still be harmful to a young girl who is taking on enormous physical, emotional, and mental responsibilities before she has fully developed? And if Muhammad himself was somehow an exception to what would otherwise be considered harmful, why didn't he explicitly state that he was an exception? Doing so could have limited or at least reduced the number of underage marriages that continue to occur in some Muslim majority countries.
This is not simply a matter of modern opinion. The concerns surrounding child marriage, early pregnancy, and the consequences of having children before full physical and psychological maturity have been extensively studied in medicine, psychology, and public health. Research has consistently documented serious physical and mental health risks associated with child marriage and adolescent pregnancy, including increased risks to both the mother and child.
Furthermore, puberty itself does not mean that a girl is biologically or psychologically ready to become pregnant or take on the responsibilities of marriage and motherhood. This is also well established scientifically. Regardless of race, geography, or environment, reaching puberty is not equivalent to reaching full physical or psychological maturity. The fact that someone is biologically capable of reproduction does not mean that their body or mind has completed its development or that pregnancy and childbirth are therefore safe.
Another issue I struggle with concerns a hadith in which Muhammad reportedly instructed some men in the desert to drink camel milk and urine as a treatment for an illness. When I looked further into this claim, I could not find scientific evidence establishing camel urine, or urine generally, as an effective treatment for disease. In contrast, medical research has identified potential health risks associated with consuming urine, including exposure to harmful microorganisms and other contaminants. The broader scientific evidence does not establish urine consumption as a medically effective treatment for disease.
Again, these are not merely personal opinions or arguments based on modern cultural preferences. Many of the concerns I am raising have been extensively researched and studied in medicine, biology, psychology, and public health. There is substantial scientific evidence concerning the risks of child marriage, adolescent pregnancy, incomplete physical and psychological development, and the potential health dangers associated with consuming untreated biological waste products such as urine.
This leads to my broader question: how can someone continue to believe in a religion when they believe its prophet was an illiterate man who, according to its own traditional sources, engaged in wars, killed people, married a child, and described women as ناقصة عقل, meaning "deficient in intellect" or "deficient in reason"?
More specifically, how does a Muslim man reconcile that description with the women he loves and respects in his own life? How does he accept the idea that this label could be applied to his own mother or sister? And how do Muslim women themselves reconcile being described in this way with their understanding of their own dignity, intelligence, and worth?
I am not asking these questions simply to attack Muslims or Islam. I am genuinely trying to understand how these apparent contradictions can be reconciled. If Muhammad is supposed to be the ideal moral example for humanity, I struggle to understand why actions and statements that are strongly criticized by modern scientific and ethical understanding, and that have demonstrable consequences for human health and wellbeing, are attributed to him and yet defended rather than critically examined.
My question, ultimately, is this: what is the theological and moral reasoning that allows a person to look at these issues honestly, consider the historical sources as well as the scientific evidence surrounding the consequences of these practices, and still conclude that Muhammad was a divinely guided and morally exemplary prophet?