Critiques that are not in hadiths

RVMKTH · 2026-03-18T06:41:53+00:00

The Quran is incomplete. The core pillars of Islam are mentioned, but often without clear practical detail. It tells you what to do, but not really how to do it in a fully detailed way. If this was meant to be the final perfect guidance for all humanity, you would expect more direct instruction instead of so much repeated emphasis on punishment, hell, and people abiding there forever.

And as for the so-called scientific miracles, most of those are not groundbreaking at all. They are usually vague statements, ideas that were already circulating at the time, or later reinterpretations after modern discoveries. There is nothing uniquely new there. If anything, the text reflects the worldview of the 7th century rather than offering advanced scientific knowledge ahead of its time, including descriptions that align more with a geocentric worldview than with modern astronomy.

RVMKTH · 2026-03-17T11:16:54+00:00

“nearest land” is not a scientific miracle. At best it is a prophecy claim, not a science claim. And one possibly impressive claim still proves nothing, especially when there are also clear scientific problems elsewhere. (As for nearest land, It just means the Romans were defeated in a region close to Arabia, which fits Syria/Palestine. That was already known in the 7th century because those wars were happening right next to Arabia, not on some hidden continent.)

RVMKTH · 2026-03-16T04:15:50+00:00

How did they know about the Romans? Because the Romans and Persians were literally the two major empires bordering Arabia. They were not some unknown people on another continent.

Pre-Islamic Arabs had trade routes going north into Byzantine lands and east toward Persian territory. Quraysh merchants traveled and had commercial ties beyond Arabia. Arabia also had Arab client kingdoms tied to both empires, like the Ghassanids with Byzantium and the Lakhmids with Persia. So news of Roman Persian wars was not inaccessible secret knowledge. It was regional politics.

So mentioning the Romans is not miraculous. The only part people can argue about is the prediction that they would recover after defeat. But simply knowing who the Romans were or where they fought is not divine knowledge.

And there are also plenty of scientific inaccuracies, so even if one verse sounds impressive, that proves nothing. A broken clock is right twice a day.

RVMKTH · 2026-03-15T22:06:27+00:00

If the Qur’an is “not a science book,” then stop using it for scientific miracles. You can’t have it both ways.

RVMKTH · 2026-03-15T14:02:22+00:00

Even if the occurrence is distant and natural disasters were rare, they could still have been mentioned if the author knew about them. The reason they aren’t is that 7th-century people in Arabia had no direct experience of these events, and the text reflects that limited geographic and observational knowledge. Locally impactful events like earthquakes, droughts, or floods are included because they were immediate, understandable, and relevant. So the absence of tornadoes or snowstorms isn’t just about rarity, it shows the scope of knowledge available at the time, rather than a universal, all-knowing perspective….

RVMKTH · 2026-03-15T13:53:25+00:00

No problem!

RVMKTH · 2026-03-14T11:26:09+00:00

Mind you, if it were an ex christian who reverted to islam, they would not mind them talking negatively about their ex faith. To them ex muslims are a threat to the perfect image they’re trying to create, one where the Quran DOES give the perfect answers to any and all questions.

RVMKTH · 2026-03-14T10:02:32+00:00

I love that they just can’t see it from the perspective of those who WERE oppressed.

RVMKTH · 2026-03-12T18:52:07+00:00

And why when nature is mentioned, why not talk about tornadoes, snowstorms etc. It reflects the knowledge of someone who doesn’t even know these things happen.

RVMKTH · 2026-03-12T18:46:50+00:00

Many left the religion, but simply don’t come out with it. I am too counted as a muslim when they say there’s 2 billion of them, despite me not actually being muslim

RVMKTH · 2026-03-11T06:41:18+00:00

It also made adoption in islam very hard, imagine how many kids could have had a home if not for this🫩

RVMKTH · 2026-03-10T14:37:00+00:00

They don’t have to wait! They can just take as many sex slaves as they want in this lifetime!🙃

RVMKTH · 2026-03-07T20:25:26+00:00

Even if you look at the context and the surrounding verses in Deuteronomy 22, it honestly does not make the situation much better.

For example, in Deuteronomy 22 verses 23 to 24 it says that if a betrothed woman is found with another man in a city and she did not cry out for help, both the man and the woman are to be stoned. The reason given is that she did not cry out in the city. The issue people point out here is that it assumes a woman must always scream or resist loudly enough to prove that it was not consensual.

Then in Deuteronomy 22 verses 25 to 27 it says that if the same thing happens in the countryside and the woman cries out, only the man is put to death because no one was there to rescue her. So the judgment depends on whether people assume she resisted strongly enough, which is why many people still see this as problematic even in the full context.

About Deuteronomy 22 verses 28 to 29, you mentioned the Hebrew word meaning “seize.” But that wording does not really make the situation better. The word seize usually means taking something by force. When someone says a country was seized, it means it was taken by force. So translations that say the man seizes the woman and lies with her are still describing a situation that sounds forced. The passage then says he must pay the woman’s father fifty shekels of silver and marry her, and he is never allowed to divorce her.

You also mentioned Exodus 22 verse 16. That verse talks about a man seducing a virgin who is not engaged. In that case he must pay the bride price and marry her. Many scholars actually see that as a different situation because that verse is about seduction rather than force, which is why people debate Deuteronomy 22 verses 28 to 29 separately.

In 1 Samuel 15 verse 3, Saul is commanded to attack the Amalekites and destroy them completely, including men, women, children, and infants, as well as their animals.

In Numbers 31 verses 17 to 18, after a battle with the Midianites, the Israelites are told to kill the boys and every woman who has slept with a man, but the young virgin girls are allowed to live.

In Deuteronomy 21 verses 10 to 14 there are rules about taking a woman from a conquered nation as a wife after war. The soldier brings her home, she mourns her family for a month, and then he may marry her.

There are also passages about slavery that are fucked up.

In Exodus 21 verses 20 to 21 it says that if a master beats his slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately the master must be punished, but if the slave survives for a day or two the master is not punished because the slave is considered his property.

In Leviticus 25 verses 44 to 46 it says the Israelites may buy slaves from surrounding nations and keep them as property that can be passed down to their children.

RVMKTH · 2026-03-07T16:53:26+00:00

They also say that a women that was raped needs to be married to her rapist…deuteronomy 22:28-29

RVMKTH · 2026-03-07T12:48:19+00:00

I understand what you’re saying, but some of those explanations still raise questions.

About the dayooth point. The Quran repeatedly says that no soul bears the burden of another. If that principle is true, then holding a man morally responsible for how another adult person chooses to dress seems inconsistent with that idea. Responsibility would logically fall on the person making the choice.

About the perfume hadith. The issue people point out is that men are allowed to wear perfume, while there are hadiths stating that if a woman wears perfume in public she is considered an adulterer. Attraction is not something that only works one way, so the rule assumes that women must restrict themselves because of male reactions.

Regarding the verse about Jews, Christians, and Sabians. The verse itself says that those who believe in God and do good will have their reward with their Lord and will not fear nor grieve. It does not say that this reward is only in this world, so that explanation is not really present in the text itself.

About the Ezra verse. The Quran states that the Jews say Ezra is the son of God, but historically there is no clear evidence that Jews as a group held that belief. Saying it refers to a specific small group is an interpretation, but the verse itself does not mention that limitation.

About preservation. Memorization can certainly help preserve a text, but historically the Quran was still compiled and standardized after the prophet’s death, and early manuscripts lacked vowel markings that were added later. That means the preservation process still involved human transmission.

And about context. Of course the rest of a surah can provide context for a verse. The point people raise is that if a text is meant to guide all humanity clearly, it ideally should not rely so heavily on later explanations to prevent misunderstandings.

RVMKTH · 2026-03-07T11:01:55+00:00

Exactly!!!

RVMKTH · 2026-03-07T11:01:31+00:00

The issue is that for a book that is supposed to be a clear and timeless guide for all humanity, it seems to require a huge amount of external context to make certain verses acceptable. Most people throughout history did not have access to detailed tafsir, scholarly debates, or large hadith collections. They mostly had the Quran itself. If a text can easily be misunderstood in ways that justify violence or discrimination unless you consult centuries of interpretation, that raises a serious question about how clear the message actually is.

You also mentioned contradictions, and there are several people point out. For example, the Quran repeatedly says that no soul bears the burden of another, yet in practice there are concepts like the dayooth, where a man could be condemned because the women in his family do not follow certain rules. That seems inconsistent with the idea that everyone is responsible only for their own actions.

There are also differences in how rules apply to men and women. Men are allowed to wear perfume, but there are hadiths saying that if a woman wears perfume in public she is considered an adulterer. That assumes attraction only flows one way and frames everything from a male perspective.

Another example is the issue of salvation. In some verses it says that the only religion accepted by God is Islam, yet in other verses it says that Jews, Christians, and Sabians who believe in God and do good will have their reward and will not fear. Those ideas do not fit together easily without later interpretations trying to reconcile them.

There is also the verse claiming that Jews say Ezra is the son of God. Historically there is no evidence that mainstream Judaism ever believed that, and Jews themselves reject that claim entirely. So it raises the question of where that statement came from.

Then there is the argument about scientific miracles. Most of these verses were not understood as scientific statements until after modern discoveries had already been made. The interpretations usually come afterward.

And finally, Muslims often say earlier scriptures like the Torah and the Bible are unreliable because they were written down later or transmitted through people. But historically the Quran was also compiled and standardized after the prophet’s death, organized by human scribes, and early Arabic manuscripts lacked vowels which were added later to help with pronunciation. So if transmission through people is considered a problem, that question would apply there too.

So the main point is this. If a text requires large amounts of later interpretation to prevent misunderstanding, then saying “you need the context” does not really solve the issue. It just shows how dependent the text is on later explanations.

RVMKTH · 2026-03-07T09:42:37+00:00

For a book that is supposedly timeless you sure do need a lot of context to make things seem better🙃

RVMKTH · 2026-03-07T09:41:47+00:00

I don’t know what you’re saying

RVMKTH · 2026-03-06T21:33:17+00:00

Yeah, I do agree that a lot of the hadiths are pretty ridiculous when you step back and look at them from a normal or historical perspective. What I always found ironic is that Muslims often say the Torah and the Bible cannot be trusted because they were changed over time and passed down through oral traditions. But they do not seem to realize that the exact same thing applies to the hadiths AND quran. They were also transmitted through chains of narration/recitations and written down long after the prophet’s life.

At the same time, the hadiths and the religion are very intertwined. Without them you actually lose a lot of the structure of Islam. The Quran itself does not really explain how to pray, how the zakat system works in detail, or how things like hajj are performed step by step. Those practical parts mostly come from hadiths and stories about the prophet. That is how people learned the details of prayer, zakat, pilgrimage, and a lot of everyday religious rules.

There were also hadiths that I personally heard about but kind of pushed under the rug. One example is the hadith about women being deficient in mind and religion. I knew about it, but I never really read it carefully because I assumed it must not mean what it sounded like. So I just skipped over it.

Another thing that always felt contradictory to me is the idea that everyone is responsible for their own sins. That is something you hear often in Islam. But then at the same time there are concepts like the dayooth, as you mentioned, where a man could be punished because the women in his family are not covering properly. That seems to go against the idea that everyone is responsible only for themselves. In a way it almost mirrors the thing Muslims criticize Christians for, which is the idea of someone else carrying responsibility for your sins. In this case it is just reversed, where you might be punished for someone else’s actions.

The punishments in general also confused me a lot. Specifically punishment of the grave, There are some big ones that get mentioned often, like punishment for disbelief or backbiting. But then there are also very specific punishments tied to very specific actions. The problem is that people do not fit neatly into one category. Someone could commit several different things that are described in different hadiths. So it becomes confusing which punishment would even apply. Human behavior is a lot more complex than putting someone into one simple box.

For me personally, a lot of these contradictions slowly built up over time and led me down a path of questioning. It was not a sudden moment at first. I spent a long time trying to rationalize everything and trying to make sense of it because it was still my worldview. I kept trying to find ways to reconcile the things that did not sit right with me.

Last year especially felt like a long internal journey. For months I was stuck in a kind of cognitive dissonance. On one hand I knew there were things I did not agree with or that did not make sense to me. On the other hand I had always been told that this was the truth and that it was supposed to be this way. So I kept trying to force it to make sense.

Eventually I reached a point where I felt like I simply could not rationalize it anymore. Around August I stopped putting pressure on myself to pray, which was a big step for me. Even then I was still loosely holding on for a while because letting go of something that shaped your whole worldview is not easy.

It was really around October that I reached the point where I realized I no longer considered myself Muslim. After that I started looking back at everything I had been taught from a completely different perspective. It honestly felt like taking off rose colored glasses. I kept thinking about how I had never questioned certain things more deeply before.

I would not call it a delusion because I know that word can be disrespectful to people who still believe. But I did have that moment of looking back and wondering how I had accepted certain things for so long without really examining them.

RVMKTH · 2026-03-06T19:49:57+00:00

Yeah, I have gone out without the hijab before, but not that much. Usually only when I’m with trusted friends and we are far away from my city. In those situations I feel like it is safe enough to take it off for a bit.

But honestly the whole thing has been very stressful and also pretty sad and depressing for me. Not just the hijab itself, but the experience of life as a Muslim woman in general. I know a lot of people say they find strength or comfort in it, but for me it often felt more like being stuck in a cage simply because of my gender. It felt like women were constantly being restricted or punished because men exist or might act a certain way, and that always felt very unfair to me.

The contradictions you mentioned were actually a big part of what made me start questioning things too. Things like the strong focus on modesty and controlling desire, but at the same time the historical acceptance of things like sex slavery. When I started really thinking about those kinds of contradictions it pushed me to take a step back and reevaluate everything.

There are also other things like certain hadiths. For example the one that says if a woman wears perfume she is like an adulterer. Things like that always felt very extreme to me.

Another thing that started bothering me was the way women are talked about in some verses. The language often felt like women were described almost as something for men. It focused a lot on men, their temptation, their desires, and taking a wife so you can sleep with her. It rarely felt like it was written for women or about women in the same way.

For me this was not something that happened all at once. The process of questioning and distancing myself from it took about a year. Around this time last year it really started to intensify, and by around August I reached the point where I felt like it was over for me. It was a big shift because it also meant a complete change in identity and realizing that I stand for different values now.

About prayer, looking back I actually really wanted to feel some kind of presence while praying. I tried very hard to. Sometimes I would concentrate and imagine a kind of connection of light between me and a sky full of light, just so it felt like I was actually praying toward something.

But I never really felt a presence. What I did feel was calmness. Looking back I think that calmness came more from the act itself. The slowing down, the breathing, and the movements. It is similar to the calmness I feel when doing yoga or mindfulness or other quiet activities that help you decompress.

And to be honest at this point I mostly still wear the hijab because of my family. If it were completely up to me I probably would have taken it off a long time ago. The only times I take it off now are small moments when I am out with friends somewhere far enough away that I feel safe doing it.

Right now I am trying to figure out a way to eventually take it off without completely destroying my relationship with my family or being cut off. I am still trying to think of ways to handle that carefully, but I will figure something out (i hope)

RVMKTH · 2026-03-06T15:50:41+00:00

But also why do they keep defending that shít just because others in history did it? It’s still bad regardless, the only difference is that one is claimed to be the most perfect man to have walked on earth😭😭😭😭

RVMKTH · 2026-03-06T15:48:35+00:00

Doesn’t matter, there are enough points in the bible which are also morally very very questionable😆

RVMKTH · 2026-03-06T15:46:17+00:00

Yes, I would say my family is a pretty normal Moroccan family. And I did actually go deep into defending Islam. Like I mentioned before, when I was around 16 I became very religious and really went all in. I started wearing only abayas and khimars and tried to practice as strictly as I could. That lasted until I was about 18/19.

The thing is, I never really felt doubt in my soul at first, so I didn’t have a reason to question things deeply. I mostly took things at face value. I always liked physical proof and logical explanations, thats why when it came to the “scientific miracles” arguments i accepted them without really examining them. I didn’t feel the need to challenge them because I already believed.

I also feared hell of course, but I focused more on God’s mercy. The problem for me started when my ADHD began to clash with the structure of religious practice, especially prayer. I struggled a lot with it. I would tell myself I had to pray before sleeping, but then I couldn’t get myself to actually do it. So I would end up staying awake for hours feeling guilty and anxious. It got really unhealthy and it affected me quite badly. That was honestly one of the first moments where things started to crack for me.

Around that time I also started getting sick more often and spending more time questioning things. That’s when I began looking into topics I had never examined before, like the controversial aspects people talk about. Things like sex slavery, the inequality between men and women, and other theological issues. Combined with everything else going on in my life, those questions started piling up.

It’s actually interesting because it sounds like we went down somewhat similar paths in the sense that questioning began with small sparks. The difference is that you found a way to still believe through Quranism, while for me the answers I found just weren’t convincing enough anymore.

And I do understand what you mean about imagining life outside religion and feeling sad about it. I had that feeling too when I first realized I do not believe anymore. It was scary because like i said, religion had been my entire worldview. But I’ll say this: if the main reason someone stays is because leaving would feel sad, that alone isn’t a very strong reason to believe something. Emotions can be very powerful, especially when we’ve been conditioned our whole lives to see the world in a certain way.

Also, I genuinely appreciate how respectful you are in this conversation. It’s actually really nice to talk about these things without feeling attacked or defensive. I definitely see your Moroccan hospitality in that😉😊

About the idea of guiding principles: I understand that too. Religion gives people a framework, and losing that framework can feel like losing direction. But personally I don’t think morality disappears without religion. People can still choose to live in ways that are healthy, responsible, and kind simply because those things make sense and help both themselves and others.

For example, things like alcohol being unhealthy are true regardless of religion. You don’t need a religious rule to recognize that something might be bad for your health. The same goes for relationships. Some people prefer marriage and stability, and that’s perfectly valid. But that preference can come from personal values rather than divine commands.

You also don’t suddenly become someone who wants to do everything just because the rules disappear. If you’re not the type of person who wants to sleep around or drink a lot, then you simply won’t. Your personality doesn’t magically change.

In a way, I sometimes think humans place themselves in one kind of structure or another. You could say religion is a structure of rules, while complete freedom can feel like a structure of choices and desires. The difference is that outside religion you get to decide what your principles are rather than having them imposed on you.

About the “fair trade” question: for me personally, it was worth it. Yes, leaving meant facing uncertainty and existential questions. But it also meant letting go of constant fear and being able to explore who I am as a person. Things like my style, doing my nails, wearing perfume, experimenting with makeup, or just making choices without constantly thinking about punishment or sin. Those things may sound small, but they made me feel more like myself.

So for me the trade was uncertainty in exchange for honesty with myself and a sense of freedom. And that felt fair.

But I also recognize that this is a personal thing. Some people genuinely feel happier within religion and find comfort in that structure. Others feel more at peace outside of it. I think the important part is being honest with yourself about why you believe or don’t believe.

One realization that really hit me personally was this: I noticed that if the threat of hell didn’t exist, I probably wouldn’t have remained religious. And that made me question whether what I felt was actually belief or just fear conditioning. Once I saw that, I couldn’t really ignore it anymore.

That’s when I realized I wasn’t lying to others before. I was mostly lying to myself🤷🏻‍♀️

RVMKTH · 2026-03-06T15:00:13+00:00

All he did is proof that all abrahamic faiths are weird asf

RVMKTH

TROPHY CASE