The following questions have been asked:

1. Why is that some scholars go to say, contrary to what Ibn Taymiyyah said, that a father may marry off his young daughter who has not reached puberty, without her consent?
2. If someone is married (engaged) before puberty, are they allowed to be physical (like hugging, holding hands, kissing etc.?) Personally I feel like this may lead to the younger person being taken advantage of.
3. The majority of scholars say something completely opposite to what I believe. Could you help me navigate this feeling?
4. Application of such a condition today. I read a post on Islamqa.org, where a 26 year old said that he liked a 13 year old girl, was it permissible for him to marry her; they responded by saying yes and also asserted that if she is not at the age of puberty, then you can ask her father, and her father has the right to marry her against her will. This was completely unacceptable for me, and being a Muslim my whole life it still made me feel so infuriated that how could they tell a 26 year old its okay to marry a 13 year old. By today’s standards, a 13 year old is very much a child. This should not be advocated today, am I correct to believe this?

Below are the answers:

1) Marrying someone off without her consent is not OK. In the past, there were even pre-birth marriages in most cultures. For example, two people may agree that their unborn son would marry the unborn daughter of the other. This action may be called ‘marriage’ or it may be called ‘arrangement/engagement’ (the term used in our cultures today). Perhaps the term ‘marriage’ causes confusion because we call it an engagement in our times. The statement from Ibn Taymiyyah (esp. the second paragraph) clarifies this very well. A relationship can be arranged for a minor or even for an unborn and she has the choice when she grows up.

2) If it is an engagement (like the exchanging of rings), then physical contact is not allowed. If a written contract has been done (which cannot be done unless she has reached puberty after which she will consent or not), then touch is not a sin even if she still lives in her parent’s home. In our times, sometimes we see that the written contract (Nikah) is done months in advance but the woman leaves for the groom’s home much later either due to her remaining education, some relatives absent and overseas or any other reason due to which the reception/ceremony is delayed. The couple would not be sinful for touching but things are done as culturally appropriate.

Marriage arrangement before the girl is of age is a different story. She should not be touched as she has not consented yet.

3 and 4) It’s not just a Hanafi position but also held by others. If you find other opinions, you can see them in the following light and disregard them.

Islam is for everyone. This is a truth that must be held firmly when examining anything through the lens of this faith. Islam is not confined by time or culture. It was just as relevant for someone living a thousand years ago as it is for someone today – and it will remain relevant five hundred or even a thousand years into the future.

Human history spans countless civilizations and societies, each shaped by distinct cultural norms. Even within a single time period, there are dozens, if not hundreds or even thousands, of unique cultures. And Islam is for all of them.

It is for a rice farmer in rural Myanmar, and it is equally for a Fortune 500 CEO in New York City. The situations, lifestyles, and cultural frameworks of these two individuals are vastly different. What applies to one may not apply to the other. That doesn’t make one more Islamic than the other. It just means that Islam, in its depth and wisdom, accommodates their differences.

Consider this: if the rice farmer upholds cultural traditions that the CEO finds unusual, or even outdated, it does not invalidate the farmer’s way of life. Likewise, if the CEO makes choices that feel foreign to the farmer, it doesn’t make them wrong. Islamic principles can guide both, tailored to the context they live in. What is permissible or recommended in one context may not be obligatory or even relevant in another.

Let’s take a hypothetical example. Imagine two young friends in their twenties: John, a New Yorker of English descent, and Mark, a Los Angeles native of French ancestry. Neither is married, neither has children. Suppose they jokingly agree that John’s future son will marry Mark’s future daughter. While both may understand this concept of arranging future marriages as a symbol of alliance, they’re unlikely to take it seriously. To them, it might seem outdated or unnecessary in modern times.

Yet, historically, their ancestors (English and French) were involved in such practices, especially during times of war and diplomacy. Back then, strategic marriages were powerful tools of alliance. Today, that context no longer applies, though the concept can still be appreciated in theory.

Similarly, imagine a 15-year-old rice farmer in Myanmar marrying young, while the CEO in New York marries at 35. Each might find the other’s practices strange or even disapproving. But that’s where cultural context plays a crucial role. Neither lifestyle is inherently superior. What makes sense and feels acceptable in one culture doesn’t have to apply to another.

That brings us to another important point: if you wish to critique a culture, you must first understand it from within. It’s not fair, or accurate, to stand outside a culture and pass judgment. It’s like a New Yorker looking at things from Myanmar and finding them unrelatable. Of course they seem strange; they come from a different world. But that doesn’t make them invalid. Conversely, a person from Myanmar might look at modern New York life and find it just as perplexing.

If we look at certain aspects of Scandinavian or Dutch cultures, we may initially find them odd. But when we mentally step inside those cultures, we often realize that these behaviors make sense within their context. For example, imagine someone visiting a friend’s house, and the friend asks them to wait in another room while he goes downstairs to eat dinner alone. To an outsider, this might seem cold or inhospitable, even rude. But within that culture, it’s perfectly normal. Neither person feels disrespected or offended. It works for them.

So, while such behavior may seem strange or even unacceptable to us, that’s only because we’re viewing it through our own cultural lens. To truly understand, we need to shift perspective. We need to mentally step into their world and see it as they do.

Islam, as a universal faith, embraces this diversity. It transcends geography, era, and social class. Its essence is not confined by external forms or cultural expressions. It speaks to the human soul, regardless of where that soul resides.

In the vast majority of cultures, a girl grows up dreaming about her wedding day. She imagines it, longs for it, and looks forward to building a life with her future husband. So when that moment finally arrives, when her marriage is near, she’s told she has to wait another 15 years just to comply with Western norms.

What happens then? She may spiral into severe depression, experience anxiety attacks, or feel like something deeply meaningful is being stripped away from her. Within her own culture, marriage at that time made perfect sense. But now, a foreign cultural standard is being imposed on her.

And here’s the conflict: while the Western culture may look down on her traditions, she too may feel resentment or even contempt toward the culture being forced upon her. What one side sees as “progress,” the other may experience as oppression. And to her, this doesn’t feel like protection; it feels like injustice.

During prophetic times, remaining single didn’t make sense. If someone became a widow or widower, or if they were divorced, they would remarry quickly and without stigma. Singleness wasn’t seen as noble or aspirational; it was seen as incomplete. In today’s world, that mindset has shifted drastically. We live in a very “Disney-fied” era, where love is romanticized through ideas like “Happily Ever After,” “soulmates,” and “the one.”

Back then, large age gaps in marriage didn’t raise eyebrows. If the cultural norm is that no one remains single, then the focus isn’t on the gap in years; it’s on companionship and completing half the faith. If a 20-year-old married someone who was 50, and that spouse passed away ten years later, it was natural to remarry. Life continued. That was the rhythm of society.

If everyone knew their time of death, and they knew they would live to old age. Then yes, the most practical option might be to marry someone your own age, and stay with them for life. That would make the most emotional and logistical sense. But we don’t know that. And in cultures where being single is seen as odd or even burdensome, where marriage is a fundamental part of community life, age gaps lose their meaning. It’s not about finding “the perfect match” in a fantasy sense; it’s about fulfilling a social and spiritual duty.

So when someone raised in a “soulmate culture” sees a large age-gap marriage, it may seem strange, even wrong. But through the lens of another culture where lifelong singleness is rare and frowned upon, such unions make complete sense. This, too, is a cultural difference we need to be aware of.

Here’s a personal story. When we were living in Pakistan, a Christian maid used to come to our house a few times a week. One day, her daughter was getting married, and my mother, noticing that the girl looked quite young, asked about her age. The maid didn’t know. So my mother asked how old she herself was, to make an educated guess, and again, she didn’t know. Instead, she said something that stayed with me: “Oh, I was born when the great flood came.” They didn’t keep track of birthdays or years the way many of us do. They remembered life events based on major moments; “the year of the earthquake,” or “the year of the flood.” That was their calendar.

Now, here’s the irony. A Muslim was finding a Christian’s way of thinking to be odd and unfamiliar. But in the maid’s culture, it all made perfect sense. Age wasn’t a number; it was an impression. If you looked 20, you were treated like you were 20. If you looked 30, you were 30. You are as old as you appear.

So within the same country, under the same sky, speaking the same language, you can find completely different cultural operating systems. And suddenly, the tables turn. It’s not just the West judging the East, or the modern judging the traditional. Sometimes it’s a Muslim confused by a Christian neighbor’s norm. But once you step into their world, their logic unfolds: if you live in a community where exact birth records don’t matter, and social roles are defined by appearance, then that worldview isn’t strange; it’s sensible.

I’m linking an article that dives into this idea. It’s not just relevant; it is essential reading.

If something troubles you, it may be because you are the New Yorker in this case looking at Myanmar whereas you don’t need to – you can leave them be and look for answers from New York.

Islam is for everyone and what applies to one does not need to apply to the other.

Indeed, Allah (ﷻ) knows best.