Skip to main content

⚡ "It Was Different Back Then" — Cultural Relativism and Universal Law

Use this when: a Muslim defends Muhammad's practices (particularly his marriages, or early Islamic military conduct) by appealing to the cultural norms of 7th-century Arabia. The argument self-destructs by undermining the universality of Islamic law — which is precisely what Islam claims to have.

The One-Line Answer​

"If Muhammad's conduct was only appropriate for its cultural context, then it is not a universal binding example for all people in all eras. But Islam claims it is. You cannot have both cultural relativism and eternal Sunnah. Pick one."

The Self-Refuting Argument​

Islam's foundational claim about Muhammad:

  • He is the seal of the prophets (Q 33:40) — the final prophet for all of humanity
  • He is the perfect human example (al-insan al-kamil) — to be imitated by all Muslims until the Day of Judgment
  • His Sunnah is universally binding across all cultures, times, and places
  • Q 33:21 — "There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern"

The "it was different back then" defense directly contradicts all of these claims. If Muhammad's conduct was only valid for 7th-century Arabian culture, then:

  • His example is not universal
  • His Sunnah is not binding outside that culture
  • Islam is a regional, time-bound religion, not the final universal revelation

You cannot invoke cultural relativism to excuse Muhammad and simultaneously claim he is the universal example for all humanity. The argument dismantles the very foundation it is trying to protect.

The Specific Issue: Aisha's Age​

The marriage to Aisha is not a minor peripheral matter. It is:

  • Cited in Sahih Bukhari 5133 — she was 6 at marriage, 9 at consummation
  • Applied in Islamic jurisprudence as a legal precedent in multiple countries
  • Invoked by scholars who set the minimum marriage age at puberty based on this Sunnah
  • Still the legal basis for child marriage laws in several Muslim-majority countries as of recent decades

When Islamic jurists in the 21st century cite the Aisha precedent to set minimum marriage age, they are not treating it as a culturally conditioned 7th-century norm. They are treating it as eternally binding law. You cannot simultaneously defend it as culturally relative and enforce it as universal law.

The Biblical Trajectory Moves the Other Direction​

The Bible's ethic is not static — it moves progressively toward greater protection and dignity, culminating in Christ:

  • Exodus 21:26–27 — protects servants against abuse
  • Deuteronomy 22 — protections for women
  • Isaiah 58:6–7 — "Is not this the fast I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice?"
  • Matthew 18:6 — Jesus' sternest warning: woe to those who cause "little ones" to stumble
  • Galatians 3:28 — "neither male nor female — all are one in Christ Jesus"
  • Ephesians 5:25 — "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her"

The OT's regulations around marriage were protective regulations in a fallen world, not divine endorsements of exploitation. The direction of the canon moves consistently toward greater human dignity.

Even by 7th-Century Standards, the Issue Was Notable​

The "it was completely normal at the time" claim overstates the case. There are indications of discomfort even within early Islamic tradition:

  • Some companions reportedly found the marriage arrangement unusual
  • Islamic scholars have debated Aisha's age for centuries — some arguing she was older
  • The debate itself shows the conduct was not universally unremarkable even within the tradition

Quick Response Cards​

"Marrying young was normal back then — don't judge the past by modern standards." "If Muhammad's conduct was culturally bound, then it is not universal Sunnah. Islam claims it is. You can't have both. The moment you invoke cultural relativism, you've conceded that Muhammad's example is not binding for all times and places."

"Christians also had early marriages historically." "When they did, they were not following a scriptural command derived from a biblical figure's marriage as Sunnah. Islamic jurists derive permissible age from Muhammad's marriage to Aisha specifically. That is a fundamentally different kind of claim."

"You're imposing Western values." "Child protection is not a Western value. It is a human value affirmed across cultures. And again: if the standard is cultural, it cannot be universal. If Muhammad's Sunnah is universal, it must answer to universal moral scrutiny."