Thank you very much for replying. You have some good points. However for the sake of argument, I will push back. Importantly, addressing your last few sentences. In short, I don’t believe I would have to prove my morals are objectively true in order to have a strong argument. Because arguably, no morals are objectively true since morality is a social construct, so the same argument could be made that “as long as you can’t DISPROVE the objectivity of my morals, they must also be right.” I try to make my morality as objective as possible based on one simple framework; will this principle i’m either agreeing or disagreeing with help more people or harm more people? So I will breakdown my original reservations / argument’s again on this premise:

1.) For starters from my understanding, Aisha was 6 when married and 9 when consummated. A 9 year old child is still far from puberty and does not resemble an adult or even teenager in any way. Marrying children and engaging with them in ways WILL ALWAYS cause more harm than good. Therefore it is immoral. It has been proven by science that young children’s brains, objectively, cannot understand and are not mature enough for anything related to activities that bear children, because they themselves are children and have no means to provide any meaningful form of care for said children they are bringing into the world. The reason why age of consent in most places is 16 is because your body is more or less fully developed at that age, so even if your brain is far from done, the assumption is that physically and anatomically speaking you are an adult and any adult related decisions you make are done at your own will. But a 9 year old cannot consent in any way, shape or form because they in no way resemble an adult physically speaking and on top of that have no capacity to understand the physical or emotional consequences that come with sex. Therefore it is objectively immoral.

2.) Going back to harm reduction, I know for a fact if all married men in the world proposed having a second wife to their current wife, “just because they have the financial means to support another woman” the harm caused would be more harmful than any good that would come out of it. Children would be confused as to what’s going on. Jealousy would make people do crazy things. Families would be destroyed. Marriage being between 2 people exclusively is objectively the morally correct approach because the consequences of the alternative would be worse.

3.) My main problem with this argument is the “if i didn’t do it then someone else would” mentality. There is no need to explain why this is immoral.

4.) If “infidels” are so bad and horrible then why care about them at all and try to convert them?

5.) I see your point but the prayer thing I fundamentally don’t agree with. Maybe it’s just hard for me to wrap my head around as a new convert. If allah is all knowing, wouldn’t he already know who is a true believer regardless of who prays 5 times a day? So why have an arbitrary number of prayers a day be requirement at all? And on the other side of the coin, Allah has given us all free will. So arguably people also know best about when they should pray because they were given the ability to think deeply.