But what about using modern standards to complain about the morals of current cultural practices? 
Part of the problem with the “child molester” angle is that back in those days, in that place, this was probably normal behavior. It has been pretty common in many times and places. It was definitely so in India, for instance, not long ago.
We can use modern standards to complain about the morals of historical figures, but thats pretty pointless. For the most part they behaved, personally, as their contemporaries expected them to.
The real issue here isn’t what Mohammed himself did. The real problem is the Muslim doctrine of the Sunnah, which is the perfection of the customs and social mores of Arabian society of the 7th century AD. That has been pernicious, destructive to Islamic societies, and probably has been the root of most of the modern worlds problems with Islam.
But what about using modern standards to complain about the morals of current cultural practices?
I am pretty sure that sex with 5,6,7 year old children was a no no in Western Civilization going all the way back to 1500 B.C. Greece. And since I consider acient Eygpt "Western Civilization", I'll throw in 3,000 B.C. Eygpt. Please provide documentation if you choose to disagree.
In India, even when girls - and boys - were “married” at a young age, they never lived together, or practically even saw each other, until puberty. Not saying that 14 year olds should marry - but young girls were not traditionally married to grown men; children were officially “married” but then lived at home with parents until of age. Gandhi and his wife were married when they were both 16, don’t know if they had some sort of familial ceremony when younger.
Please do not compare Islamic practices with Hindu practices.
I hope this movie bombs pathetically. I mean, no one wants to see it!
Oh, I think it is an issue. Marriage and sex with children may have been a cultural norm in certain times and places but murder is murder and theft is theft where ever and whenever you go. When the founder of a religion uses murder and theft to spread his "message" no written doctrine can supersede that.
A Christian sect could go astray and twist the written doctrine but they can't point to Jesus and say "look, He killed non-believers and looted their cities. How can it be wrong?" Buddhists can't point to the Buddha's actions to justify murder and theft.
But no matter what any Imam says about Islam being peaceful any Muslim can shoot his argument down with ease by saying "the prophet Mohamed killed non-believers and stole their treasure in the name of Allah." How can any Muslim credibly argue with another Muslim that the founder, the holy prophet, was in error, was a sinner, in the way he spread Islam?
Mohamed's actions are THE issue and set the course for 1,700 years of barbarism that continues to this day.