AN INCONVENIENT FACT 

Iran lowering the age of marriage  to 9 : The Truth is in the Text

Harry Liberman

Image via AI

The Quran does not claim to be an ancient historical document; it claims to be the eternal, final, and perfect word of God for all of humanity until the end of time. Presentism is the philosophical idea that we should not judge historical figures or ancient societies by modern moral standards. The progressive left  use this tool to contextualize  primitive  cultures  pointing  out a massive logical flaw when trying to apply it to orthodox Islam:

The philosophical tool of Presentism—and how different political and intellectual movements apply it—is the current and central battleground in modern cultural and political decline. 

They are looking at the past through a 21st-century lens, rather than understanding why people acted the way they did based on the laws, culture, and beliefs of their own time.  Western nations prioritize  secular legal frameworks while largely ignoring—or failing to change—the legal realities within the world’s 50+ once non Islamic  currently Muslim-majority Christian loathing Jew free nations defining the  current tension in global politics, international law, and human rights.

A religion is defined strictly by its foundational texts. Since the Quran is viewed as the final, immutable word of God, any historical practice it permits—whether slavery, specific rules of warfare, or child marriage is technically a permanent part of the religion’s DNA. terms like “modern Islam” or “moderate Islam” are logical contradictions. If the core book cannot change, any attempt by a modern Muslim to ignore or re-interpret a harsh verse is viewed not as “progress,” but as a deviation from the actual text, a lack of adherence, or a political compromise to fit into a secular world.

The fundamental core of the argument against Islam: that regardless of what modern or progressive apologists claim, the permanent text of the Quran and the historical model of Muhammad dictate the laws and societal behaviors in many Muslim-majority nations today. From this viewpoint, separating the religion’s 7th-century foundations from current human rights issues is an impossible contradiction.

Child marriage [pedophilia] and other classical practices remain codified in law is supported by the legal structures of Islamic  countries. 

The paradox of the  Progressive Leftist activist groups protesting in defense of the Iranian regime while simultaneously campaigning against sexual exploitation highlights  a glaring moral blind spot. On one hand, these factions express outrage over domestic abuse and sex-trafficking networks; on the other, they align with an anti-Western geopolitical stance that leads them to defend an Islamist state where child marriage is legally institutionalized.

The progressive left prioritize anti-imperialism and opposition to Western foreign policy above universal human rights. In their effort to oppose U.S. and Israeli actions in the Middle East, activists end up sharing rhetorical space with— directly defending—the Iranian regime, effectively sidelining the fact that Iran’s legal system permits pedophilia , the marriage and sexual exploitation of girls as young as nine years  of age. 

Iran lowering the age of marriage  to 9

The foundational text and the model of Muhammad marrying Aisha (which traditional Hadith states was consummated at age nine) are not viewed by fundamentalist lawmakers as “outdated tribal customs,” but as timeless, divine precedent (Iran’s Civil Code, Article 1041 actually sets the standard age at 13 for girls but preserves a major legal loophole allowing marriage at any age—including under 9—with paternal and judicial consent) Iraq passed highly controversial amendments allowing family matters and marriages to be governed by religious sects, effectively permitting the marriage of girls as young as 9 under certain religious interpretations. [1, 2, 3]

No mainstream Muslim leader in the  West  or the East can stand at a mosque podium and declare Quran 65:4 (or any other controversial verse) “invalid” within orthodox Islamic theology. “And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women – if you doubt, then their period is three months, and “those who have not menstruated“.  And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah – He will make for him of his matter ease.”

In traditional Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), denying a single verse of the Quran as being the word of God is definitionally classified as apostasy (riddah). Because the text is considered divine and unalterable, a religious leader cannot simply “delete” or “expire” a verse the way a secular government amends a constitution.

Because of this strict boundary, standard Friday sermons (khutbahs) in both the West and the Muslim world typically avoid reading or analyzing verses regarding child marriage, slavery, or warfare literally. Instead, speakers focus heavily on universal spiritual themes like charity, prayer, and community. However, critics rightly point out that avoiding a text does not remove it from the book.

The foundational logic  remains irrefutable :  

You cannot claim a text is timelessly perfect while simultaneously asking the world to ignore its contents based on the era it was written in.

If a text is bound by 7th-century tribal norms, it is a historical document. If it is the eternal word of God, then its contents—including the classical interpretations of child marriage—must be defended by its followers as eternally valid. Because orthodox Islam explicitly rejects the idea of a “New Testament” or a progressive revelation that overrides the Quran, this paradox leaves modern society with two starkly different realities: a text that can never be reformed on paper, and a global population that is constantly forced to choose between the literal execution of that text or the moral demands of the modern world.

Within Western democracies  the legal approach to religious texts is absolute: 

                              Constitutional and statutory laws completely override all religious laws [with one exception] !

While Western countries champion religious freedom, that freedom is legally bounded by the harm principle and public policy. A Muslim, Christian, or Jewish citizen is free to believe whatever they wish, but they cannot legally practice anything that violates domestic criminal codes.

Practices permitted in classical Islamic texts or ancient scriptures—such as child marriage, polygamy, or female under-age betrothal—are prosecuted as serious crimes (e.g., sexual assault, child abuse, or bigamy) in Western Democracies .

The reason Western countries “ignore” or tolerate the fact that dozens of Muslim-majority states codify these medieval religious laws into their national legal systems comes down to the foundational rule of modern global politics:

State Sovereignty

Under international law (such as the UN Charter), every recognized country has the sovereign right to govern its own territory and dictate its own internal laws. No Western country has the legal authority or the practical power to rewrite the family law codes of Pakistan , Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia,Gaza , or Afghanistan  etc ..

The Global Double Standard

This dynamic results in what critics rightly point out as a profound moral inconsistency. Western governments will frequently condemn domestic citizens for violating gender or child-protection laws, yet Western leaders will fly to foreign capitals and shake hands with rulers who enforce state-sanctioned child marriage or the death penalty for apostasy.

This is hypocritical pandering driven by “political correctness” and economic greed. 

To the diplomat and political scientist, it is a pragmatic necessity of a multi-polar world: you cannot force foreign nations to adopt secular, Western definitions of human rights when those nations reject Western philosophy in favor of what they view as immutable, divine law. Mass immigration from Islamic  regions will inevitably overwrite Western legal values based on how  immigrant Islamic communities remain entirely insulated and monolithic across generations  with  few   exceptions .

The  Paradox of “Democracy”  and Strength in Numbers : 

A system built on majority rule and electoral pandering is inherently vulnerable to shifting demographics. A highly focused, non-assimilating group will  leverage the ballot box to compromise secular values over time. If a small, fringe cult of a few thousand people practiced child marriage, gender segregation, or enforced death penalties for leaving the group (apostasy), it would face universal international condemnation and legal intervention. Because Islam is practiced by 2 billion people and constitutes the state religion of dozens of geopolitically and economically powerful nations, Western societies  downplay or excuse these severe human rights violations under the guise of cultural relativism or avoiding “Islamophobia” !

If  a religious system claims its foundational texts and its prophet are eternally perfect and role models for all time, then every practice sanctioned within those texts or history must be accepted by its followers as part of that perfection.The text of the Quran and the actions of Muhammad are immutable, literal, and meant to be enforced exactly as written in 7th-century texts.This means things like jizya (a tax on non-Muslims- Kafirs – the name given to  Blacks  in South  Africa – Arab slave trade ), gender segregation, and classical marriage ages are divine laws that supersede all modern human rights frameworks. This exact  literal interpretation is the proof that Islam  is fundamentally incompatible with modern civilization, rendering concepts like “moderate Islam” a logical impossibility.

“The Tyranny of the Majority” [ Domestic Precedents]

It is a   fact that political strategies have historically shifted to court influential demographics—such as the Cuban-American vote in Florida, suburban women, or LGBTQ+ advocates,men in women’s  sports, etc .When a demographic reaches a critical mass in specific electoral districts, political parties  who  want  to win elections can only survive if they adjust their rhetoric, support symbolic gestures, or fund specific community initiatives to secure those votes.

This is one of the oldest and most fundamental anxieties in political philosophy: the vulnerability of a democratic system to internal subversion, voter manipulation, and structural collapse and it is taking place in real time akin to watching the comet  heading into the planet as gullible Lilliputian sip on their latte !

Attributed to Benjamin Franklin as “A republic, if you can keep it“—captures the exact premise that a system based on popular consent requires a specific type of civic culture to survive. The founders of the United States did not overlook this flaw; rather, they were deeply terrified of it, referring to it as “demagoguery” or “the tyranny of the majority.”

The architects of modern Western democracy did not view a pure, unchecked democracy as a self-sustaining virtue. In fact, in documents like the Federalist Papers, figures like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton argued that direct democracies were inherently unstable, prone to passion over reason, and highly vulnerable to internal collapse if the electorate lacked civic virtue.

John Adams explicitly wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” 

By “moral,” the founders meant citizens committed to the preservation of liberty and the rule of law over tribal, sectarian, or personal interests.

The founders recognized that an uneducated, illiterate, or ideologically hostile majority could easily be manipulated by a clever demagogue. A populace focused entirely on narrow agendas or foreign allegiances could use the legal mechanisms of the vote to systematically dismantle the constitutional protections that guaranteed the democracy in the first place.

Western cities like Dearborn, Michigan or Thorncliffe Park in Toronto, to international financial networks—illustrate the concept of the “Red-Green Alliance.”

Independent creators like Nate Friedman are stepping into a void left by mainstream media outlets, which critics argue have been ideologically captured or compromised by financial and political interests.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg7EMNYxV9Y

While legacy corporate media often sanitizes or ignores the explicit anti-Western rhetoric and radical alignments seen at modern demonstrations, independent citizen journalists capture the raw, unfiltered reality on the ground.

Major media corporations—driven by profit, ratings, and a fear of being labeled politically incorrect—fail to investigate the deep financial and logistical networks tying Western progressive movements to groups like CAIR (which was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing case) or foreign state actors like Qatar.

Being Jewish with Jonah Platt

From this perspective, modern mainstream journalism is repeating the catastrophic historical failures of the 1930s and 1940s, when major Western newspapers downplayed or buried the realities of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. By selectively focusing their scrutiny on democratic entities like AIPAC while ignoring the massive, coordinated influence of anti-Western alliances, the media is actively participating in a dangerous, modern-day media blackout that leaves open democracies highly vulnerable to subversion from within.

Nate Friedman’s reporting focuses on stripping away the “grassroots” narrative of anti-Israel, pro-communist, and anti-war demonstrations to expose what he identifies as a highly organized, dark-money pipeline. [1, 2]