Abstract

Modern debates about early marriage in Islamic history frequently collapse into moral anachronism, projecting contemporary psychological, legal, and institutional categories onto a premodern world structured by radically different conditions. This article develops a framework of contextual moral realism to explain why early adolescent marriage was morally intelligible—and often perceived as protective—in seventh-century Arabia, while being morally impermissible under modern conditions. Drawing on anthropology, moral philosophy, Islamic legal theory, historical demography, and comparative civilizational analysis, the study reconstructs the social ecology that shaped premodern moral reasoning: extended kinship households, absence of state protection, high mortality, early economic integration, and collective guardianship. The article argues that Islamic law neither invented nor idealized early marriage, nor grounded its permissibility in individual autonomy or self-authorship. Rather, it regulated an inherited practice in accordance with enduring moral aims internal to the Sharīʿa—protection of the vulnerable, harm minimization, preservation of bodily integrity and lineage, and maintenance of social stability—applied within severe structural constraints. By tracing consistent patterns across domains such as marriage, slavery reform, and political crisis management, the study shows that Prophetic ethics exhibit remarkable coherence under non-ideal conditions. When modern institutions transform vulnerability, knowledge, and responsibility, the same Islamic moral principles require different applications. The resulting shift represents continuity of moral purpose rather than ethical contradiction, and does not depend on liberal conceptions of autonomy as the basis of moral judgment.