So what you are saying, is basing current morality and worldview on 1400 year old scriptures is not wise?

Muslims venerate Mohammed as the perfect man / perfect muslim, examples of his way of life as catalogued in the Hadith are nearly as important as the quran itself.

So yes, things were different back then, but it's a problem that millions of people alive today see such behaviour as something worthy of worship and emulation.

One of the many problems with that argument is that we are talking about a religion that is currently used as a guide and basis for the morality of billions of people. So when you say "well we cant really judge this guy by today's moral standards" you're ignoring the part where those same moral standards could be applied to people today by that religion. It is precisely because people questioned the morality of what older generations did that things could change for the better. So yeah I am going to judge the shit out of people that lived in the past because saying "no that isn't ok" is the first step to society no longer tolerating the horrors of the past.

Child marriage with no minimum age is currently allowed in 5 US states, including California. We should probably be raising more of a fuss about that if we think a guy doing this 1400 years ago is a problem.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States

Between 2000 and 2018, some 300,000 minors were legally married in the United States.[16] The vast majority of child marriages (reliable sources vary between 78% and 95%) were between a minor girl and an adult man.[16][17][18] In many cases, minors in the U.S. may be married when they are under the age of sexual consent, which varies from 16 to 18 depending on the state.[19] In some states, minors cannot legally divorce or leave their spouse, and domestic violence shelters typically do not accept minors.[20][21]

There's no nuance here. Sex with a pre-pubescent child is, by definition, pedophilia. No matter what time it takes place in.

writing about nuances, some other things to consider would be

• the ratio of men to women
• what marriage means. In a polygamous society where most men have many wives, would marrying an older man mean that you're getting consumed that night or were you becoming part of another house and waiting your maturation while allying those houses together.

i can't answer for them and i'm glad to not to live back there and then.

rules and customs that seem ridiculous today were maybe necessary there and then.

Stfu subhuman

"Nothing is More Unfair than to Judge the Men of the Past by the Ideas of the Present"

Lmao my guy over here trying to defend child marriage and rape with “akshually, societal context of the time makes that okay”.

Will you attempt to defend slavery next?

Some things in history are fucked up and objectively bad. Just because civilizations - even major ones - throughout history did a thing does not make it subjectively or objectively defensible, let alone acceptable.

And before you even try to use “now vs future historians” as an argument: yes, I’m also pretty sure some things we do today and consider to be uncontroversial will, in the future, be considered reprehensible.