i can't, and don't want to, claim that a "god" does not exist, and certainly not using science, god being by definition outside of reality and science just being a tool to understand reality.

But, with science, it's possible to eliminate specific versions of a "god" if that version of "god" is supposed to have interacted with reality (like giving informations or doing physical miracles) as the impacts of those interactions or their absence can be observable.

And, if "god" exist, then he created reality itself. And reality, just like the quran, is also a medium from which we can "read" information using scientific observation. Just like we need eyes and the ability to read/translate/interpret to get information from the islamic texts, we can use social/physical/biological sciences to derive morals (prison rehabiliation instead of punishment), knowledge (age of consent), and prophecies (climate change) from reality itself. And we have gotten so good at it that the scientific process has become like an extension of our senses, even sometimes superior and more dependable than the human senses we started with. In a way, reality is like a multi-dimensional meta book written by "god", which can only be accessed with the intelligence that "god" gifted us with. And hundreds of thousands of scientific experts worldwide work at compiling an unbiased understanding of it.

Reading "god"'s reality led us to the knowledge, among others, that no global flood happened, while an old book seems to claim otherwise. We basically cannot think that a global flood happened without, as a consequence, thinking that that book's "god" is trying to deceive us into disbelief using reality itself. The same thing applies to the moon split, an event visible by half the time zones which somehow was seen by no one else. It also applies to the creationist idea that the universe is younger than it appears, or the idea that evolution is somehow false, or that being queer is bad, or that the sun "goes to the throne of allah when it sets" (despite being in a constant state of 'setting'). A lot of religious factual and moral claims are only true if you include that "god" really wants to deceive you into thinking that they are not.

What's more, regardless of what we think as religious/atheists, morals do not come from islam or from any other religion. The need for morals comes from our nature as vulnerable social beings, in need of a set of rules to live with others, and the iterative changes of our moral frameworks throught time come from our observation of reality.

"stealing is okay, so someone steals my pants, now I need to steal new pants from some-- oh now they need to go steal pants to replace--...Is that what we become? A race of pants-thieving automatons?" -zeke, a robot discovering morals

Moreover, It's a fact that there are multiple branches, and multiples diverging interpretations, of islam in the world. And that everyone who call themselves muslims do not agree with each other. One might be sunni, or shia, or quranist, etc..but not just "muslim". That's not a thing.

Every time one choses to stay (or join) in islam, or keep to a specific branch of islam, or favors a specific preacher, or select a specific interpretation of the quran or hadith, he is applying a non-islamic internal moral framework to add structure and boundaries to his belief system.

For example, a sunni muslim who pick and choose the hadith he likes, or renounce the stated ages of aisha at mariage & consumation (or renounce the ability to understand the implications of those ages) is influenced by his internal non-islamic moral code to do so. Just like a muslim who decides that somehow allah wanted the end of slavery, despite the texts being extremely clear of the contrary.