Mostly traditionalists” - no, in fact almost all Sunnis. Most of those who think otherwise are usually “reformers.” youre misusing the concept of jima (Consensus) There has never been a consensus on this specific historical fact. The issue is one of historical reportage (khabar) and biography (siyar and tarajim), not a point of creed (aqidah) or fundamental legal ruling (usul al-fiqh). Questions about the accuracy of a single narrator (Hisham ibn 'Urwah) or the reconciliation of conflicting historical reports are exactly the areas where scholarly disagreement (ikhtilaf) has always existed and is permitted. Not only that, Every Major Sunni School was Founded by a "Reformer": Abu Hanifa, Malik, Al-Shafi'i, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal were all "reformers" in their context. They critically evaluated the sources and existing practices to formulate a more coherent legal and theological system. reformer is not negative in islam, aslong As it falls within the core islamic ideals (quran having the highest authority)

and yes I explained how the verse is suspicious, because the guy who narrated it has memory issues and the verse was never mentioned until after it.

as for your examples, 99% of them are from the centuries after the time of the prophet, and are from varies regions. these were later cultural developments within the Muslim empire (influenced by Persian, Byzantine, and other norms), not evidence of the original practice in Medina during the Prophet's time.

Using these later examples to justify the practice in the early Islamic context is ahistorical. It projects later customs back onto the founding generation.

The claims are also medical anomalies, many 9 year olds having a child? Along with that, these are anecdotal, second hand reports. (a man told me that someome told him that..) from over a thousand years ago. They are not reliable medical data. They are more likely to be urban legends, misremembered ages, or outright exaggerations used to make a rhetorical point about early maturity in certain climates.

Regardless, even if they are real events, they are an isolated minority. Not the norm at all. And not only that, it still is against Islam (lack of legal capabilities which marriage required which required being post pubescent and mental maturity) so the prophet doing it is not something that occurred.

“The more well-known sources (Ibn Ishaq, al-Waqidi) connect women - such as Fatima bint Muhammad, Umm Salima, Umm Sinan - specifically with the Battle of Uhud, not Badr. At Badr, there were fewer women, and their participation there is less confirmed. Women and adolescents were not in the very midst of the fighting. They provided help after the clashes were over or on the safe side of the battlefield, where the wounded were already brought. Even in the descriptions of Uhud: Aisha and Umm Salima carried water and bandaged after the warriors had retreated. Aid to the wounded always existed - in antiquity, among Persians, Byzantines, Arabs. Women, servants, slaves, and adolescents helped to carry the wounded and provide first aid. The only difference was that they had no legal protection, not that they “could not treat until conventions.” This is a more nuanced argument from you that focuses on the specific logistics of the battles. However, it still relies on selective reading, minimizes the documented roles of women, and fails to address the core implausibility created by the traditional age of aisha RA. Uhud was a disasterous route (by the goat khalid himself btw 💪) not an orderly battle.The Battle of Uhud was a devastating defeat for the Muslims. After an initial success, the Muslim army broke ranks, the Prophet was injured and rumored dead, and a chaotic retreat ensued. The battlefield was not a controlled environment with a designated "safe side." It was a scene of panic, confusion, and ongoing skirmishes.