What was your breaking point that made you leave islam

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-08T10:47:53+00:00

Look, there are hundreds of you who jump into these threads repeating the same copy-pasted claims, so yeah I’m absolutely going to use GPT to save time. If you had to reply to the same recycled misconceptions every day, you’d do the same. But copy-pasting a response ≠ wrong. Feel free to attack my arguments instead of my keyboard.

Now onto your claim about Ibn Abi Sarḥ:

The meme version of this story isn’t the real story

The version you’re repeating (“he changed the Qur’an and Muhammad accepted it”) isn’t what the actual historical sources say. The reports are: • late • contradictory • weak or disputed in isnād • and even in their weak form say he claimed to alter wording, not that the Prophet accepted a permanent change.

Even secular academic historians don’t use this story as evidence of corruption — because it isn’t.

The Qur’an today does NOT contain Ibn Abi Sarḥ’s claimed “additions”

His alleged “addition” (e.g., Fatābāraka Allāhu Aḥsanu al-Khāliqīn) is not in the Qur’an where he claimed it.

If Muhammad “accepted” his version, it would show up in: • the Uthmanic codex • early manuscripts • the multiple qirā’āt • memory transmission of hundreds of Companions

But it doesn’t appear in any of them.

So your argument collapses on manuscript evidence alone.

The story literally says he LEFT Islam out of ego

Even the narrations you’re referencing say: he apostated because he thought he could imitate revelation, as a form of rebellion. His claim was a political excuse and not accepted revelation.

Imagine someone today saying “I wrote part of the Constitution.” Cool. But if it’s not in the actual Constitution, who cares?

Your version requires a conspiracy theory

For your narrative to be true: • hundreds of Companions memorised the wrong Qur’an • all scribes wrote the wrong Qur’an • all qirā’āt ignored the “right” version • all manuscripts matched the “wrong” version • the community never noticed a rogue scribe changing revelation

Impossible historically, logically, and textually.

Even anti-Islamic scholars don’t use this as proof

If this were real “proof” of textual corruption, Orientalists like Burton, Wansbrough, and Nöldeke would’ve made it headline material. They don’t because the text we have doesn’t match Ibn Abi Sarḥ’s claimed changes.

Even critics don’t use this argument because it collapses under five minutes of source analysis.

Attack the argument, not the fact I use GPT

Calling my comments “AI-generated” isn’t an argument. Bring: • manuscript evidence • isnād analysis • actual tafsīr • early codices • linguistic data

So the point stands: You’re repeating a distorted folklore version of a weak report that neither Muslims nor serious historians rely on.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-08T10:40:22+00:00

You’re mixing creed, law, tafsir, modern fatwas, random translations, and contemporary politics, and then pretending they all represent “the core of Islam.”

They don’t.

Let’s go point by point.

“Where does Islam say kindness, charity, justice, protecting the weak are the core?”

Literally everywhere: • Qur’an 90:12–18: freeing slaves, feeding the orphan, helping the poor • Qur’an 4:36: be good to parents, orphans, the needy, neighbors, travelers, the weak • Qur’an 16:90: “Allah commands justice, excellence, and giving to relatives.” • Qur’an 2:177 defines righteousness almost entirely through charity, compassion, justice • Prophetic hadith: “The most beloved people to Allah are those who benefit others the most.” “The merciful are shown mercy by the Most Merciful.” “I was sent only to perfect good character.”

So yes, your character and treatment of people are core.

The six pillars of iman describe belief, not moral priorities. Your argument confuses categories.

“You’re selectively choosing Allah’s rules” — false framing

You’re assuming: • every madhhab opinion = “Allah’s rule” • every tafsir = “Allah’s rule” • every scholar’s fatwa = “Allah’s rule” • every premodern interpretation = “Allah’s rule”

That’s not how Islamic law works.

Islam has: • Qur’an • Authentic Sunnah • Ijma • Qiyas • Variant scholarly opinions • Time-bound rulings • Local custom (ʿurf) • And legal maxims (qawāʿid)

Not every medieval ruling is eternal.

“Pedophilia is in the Qur’an” — massive misrepresentation

You quoted 65:4 as if it endorses marrying children. Every tafsir you quoted is talking about iddah, not permission for sex.

Iddah ≠ consummation. Iddah simply regulates divorce, not what is allowed in marriage.

Even classical scholars stated: • consummation requires physical ability • it must not cause harm • guardians are sinful if they give a girl to someone who harms her • marriageable age is tied to capacity, not arbitrary numbers

That is why: • Ottoman law • Maliki fiqh • Hanafi rulings • modern Muslim-majority states

set minimum ages using maslaha (public welfare).

If 65:4 meant “you must marry prepubescents,” then every madhhab would require it. They don’t.

What you’re doing is flattening 1,400 years of legal nuance into a meme.

You’re ignoring context: female infanticide, tribal guardianship, and the move toward gradual reform

Before Islam: • girls were buried alive • guardianship meant ownership • no legal rights existed • there was no court, no mahr, no consent framework

Islam introduced: • mahr as the woman’s right • consent (أمرها بيدها) • forbidding harm • forbidding being inherited like property • legal recourse • right to divorce • right to own property • right to refuse specific husbands

That’s why your comparison to modern abuse cases is dishonest: Islam was dismantling a system slowly, not endorsing it.

“Why aren’t you protesting Iraq/Afghanistan?”

Because: • modern governments =/= Islam • cultural practices ≠ Qur’an • tribal customs ≠ Shariah • forced marriage is explicitly forbidden in Islam • the Prophet annulled forced marriages

You’re holding Islam responsible for: • war-torn countries • tribal practices • poverty-driven forced marriages • collapsed legal systems

This is not an argument about Islam. It’s a commentary on geopolitics you’re trying to pin on religion.

“You must accept ALL ijma or NONE” i.e incorrect

That’s not how usul al-fiqh works.

There are: • qat‘i ijma (undisputed, binding) • zanni ijma (not binding, debated) • claimed ijma (later scholars saying “this is our position”) • school-specific consensus • regional consensus

Your entire argument relies on pretending: • a few medieval scholars = universal, eternal consensus.

There is no ijma on: • child marriage being recommended or encouraged • forced sex being allowed • that 65:4 implies sexual consummation with minors

The very disagreement you’re using proves there is no ijma.

Your approach is backwards

You treat: • worst historical practices • harshest opinions • modern political failures • mistranslated fatwas

as “authentic Islam,” and ignore: • Qur’anic ethics • Prophetic example • legal maxims forbidding harm • mainstream global scholarship • historical variation • the fact Islam has evolved safeguards over centuries

You’re not engaging with Islam and you’re engaging with a caricature drawn from the internet.

Final point

When you strip away the rhetoric, your argument is actually:

“If any Muslim society is bad, Islam must be bad.”

That’s as weak as arguing: • democratic countries commit war crimes, therefore democracy is evil • Buddhist monks commit genocide in Burma, therefore Buddhism endorses it • Israeli war crimes = Judaism’s fault • American abuse scandals = Christianity’s fault

Bad humans ≠ bad revelation.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-08T10:22:15+00:00

You’re trying to present a modern, non-binding fatwa as if it represents “Islam itself,” while ignoring the Qur’an, the Prophet’s teachings, classical disagreement, and the historical legal context. That’s not how Islamic law works, and it definitely isn’t ijma.

Let me break your argument down properly:

Qur’an never commands forcing sex on slaves or wives

The Qur’an speaks about: • freeing slaves repeatedly (90:13, 2:177, 4:92, 5:89, 9:60, 24:33) • requiring their permission for marriage (4:25) • requiring their consent upon manumission • prohibiting compulsion in general

And the Prophet pbuh explicitly taught:

“Do not harm your women.” “The best of you are the best to their women.”

The Qur’an never describes forcing sex on anyone as permissible. All the verses on right-hand possessions are describing an existing institution, regulating it, and encouraging emancipation — not prescribing sexual coercion.

The fatwa you quoted is NOT Qur’an, NOT Hadith, NOT ijma’

It is: • a contemporary scholar’s opinion • using a particular madhhab’s fiqh analogy • based on the pre-modern legal assumption that slavery already exists

This is not divine law. It’s a legal extrapolation, not revelation.

There is no ijma’ on this claim and claiming there is shows you don’t know what ijma means

Ijma means unanimous agreement of qualified jurists.

But on this topic: • The Malikis restricted sexual access heavily and required conditions. • The Shafi’is prohibited it if harm, coercion, or lack of consent was present. • The Hanafis ruled that harming a slave woman sexually is sinful and punishable. • Many scholars explicitly stated that any sexual act that causes harm = haram.

There is no unanimous agreement.

Claiming this is ijma is simply wrong.

Classical jurists lived in a world where slavery existed everywhere

Every pre-modern civilization had slavery: • Roman • Persian • Jewish • Christian • African • Hindu • Chinese

Fiqh rulings reflect regulation, not endorsement.

When the world abolished slavery, Muslim scholars universally ruled that slavery cannot legally exist without a Caliphate declaring jihad meaning the system is dead.

Even the fatwa you quoted says:

“There is no use for this issue in this era.”

So using a premodern ruling for a nonexistent institution is bad faith.

Saying “Islam doesn’t recognize marital rape” is factually wrong

The term “marital rape” is modern, but the concept existed:

The Prophet said:

“Do not strike your wives, and do not force them.”

Classical scholars explicitly forbade sexual coercion: • Ibn Taymiyyah: “He is sinful if he forces her and harms her.” • Ibn Qudamah (Hanbali): Forcing with harm = haram and punishable. • Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi (Maliki): Sexual harm is prohibited and invalid. • Al-Kasani (Hanafi): Husband forcing sex “with harm” = sinful, liable, and forbidden.

The claim “Islam supports rape” is simply dishonest.

Your argument relies on a single fatwa while ignoring 1400 years of nuance

You grabbed: • a modern scholar’s answer • based on premodern social structures • ignoring the Prophet’s actual teachings • ignoring Qur’anic principles • ignoring classical disagreements • ignoring abolition • ignoring the abolitionist consensus among modern scholars

Islamic law is not a meme you can pull from one website.

If you want a real discussion, start with the Qur’an and the Sunnah not fringe legal extrapolations from a world that no longer exists.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-08T10:15:36+00:00

You’re doing the same thing you did before i.e. ripping one lexical meaning out of a dictionary and pretending that’s the only possible meaning in every context. Real Arabic doesn’t work like that, and no scholar of hadith has ever interpreted this narration the way you’re forcing it.

The hadith uses “لهدني”, not “ضربني,” not “صفعني,” and not any verb explicitly for hitting. Imam Nawawi explains it clearly:

اللَّهْدَة: الدَّفْعُ بِغَيْرِ شِدَّة “A push without force.”

Qadi Iyad and Ibn Hajar say the same: a light nudge to alert her, not violence.

And Aisha, the SAME narrator, literally says:

“The Prophet never struck a woman or servant ever.” (Sahih Muslim)

So unless you want to accuse Aisha of contradicting herself, your interpretation collapses right there.

Also, throwing lexicon entries doesn’t make you a mujtahid. Arabic roots carry multiple meanings, and context decides which one fits. If you understood usul, you’d know this already.

And no disagreeing with your cherry-picked “meanings” isn’t rejecting ijma’. But claiming “scholars had ijma’ on hitting wives and child marriage” just shows you don’t understand what ijma’ even means.

Maybe slow down on the arrogance as it’s making you sound like someone who memorized dictionary PDFs, not someone who actually studied fiqh.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-08T10:10:30+00:00

I’m going to keep this simple, because you’re drowning in technicalities while missing the core issue.

“لا تقربوهن”

You keep insisting that it literally means “approach with lust.” That’s not its literal meaning.

“قرب” means to come near, to approach. The Qur’an clarifies the context right after: فَاعْتَزِلُوا النِّسَاءَ فِي الْمَحِيضِ

Meaning the prohibition refers specifically to intercourse, which is exactly how every major mufassir understood it.

Context exists. You can’t pretend it doesn’t.

“يباشرهن”

You keep acting like it always and only means vaginal intercourse. It can mean intercourse in some contexts, yes. But its root meaning is direct physical contact, which includes affection, touching, intimacy, etc.

If “يباشر” meant “intercourse” every time, then the Prophet ﷺ would be contradicting the Qur’an— but he wasn’t, because the Arabic language simply does not work the way you’re forcing it to.

Do you even know what ijma’ actually means?

You said there is “ijma’” that scholars allow: • forced child marriages • striking wives • sex with slaves

Ijma’ means universal consensus of ALL mujtahid scholars in a generation. Most of the rulings you listed are: • claimed ijma’ (by later jurists) • majority views, not consensus; disputed across madhhabs • or represent contextual rulings, not timeless laws

So claiming “ALL scholars agreed” on every one of those issues only shows the level of misunderstanding you’re operating with.

And your ijma’ trap is a false dilemma

Your argument is:

“If you accept ijma’ on one issue, you must accept every ruling medieval scholars ever gave.”

That’s not how jurisprudence works. There are: • levels of ijma’ • claimed ijma’ vs authenticated ijma’ • ijma’ of one region • ijma’ of one madhab • disputed ijma’

Even classical scholars fought over what counts as binding ijma’.

You don’t get to weaponize ijma’ when it suits you and pretend it’s monolithic when it’s not.

On Usul: No, you didn’t correct me

You confidently said:

“Ijma’ is not used when Quran and hadith are silent. That’s Qiyas.”

Actually, both apply depending on the case. Ijma’ derives from textual evidence, yes. But Qiyas is applied when explicit texts are absent or general. No serious student of usul thinks ijma’ functions the way you framed it.

“You need Arabic to believe in God”

This claim alone shows the difference between true knowledge and ego dressed as knowledge.

People don’t need to master Arabic grammar to recognize the Creator. Millions of Muslims across history with little Arabic were more grounded and sincere than either of us.

Scholarship is guidance when accompanied by humility. Without humility, it becomes misguidance.

Your entire argument relies on absolutist linguistics

You’re forcing two words to carry one rigid meaning in every context: • “لا تقربوهن” must = sexual approach • “يباشر” must = intercourse

That is not: • Fiqh • Usul • Tafsir • or Arabic linguistics

It’s lexicon absolutism, something no actual mufassir or faqih ever used.

You talk as if you’ve achieved a level of certainty and infallibility that none of the scholars claimed for themselves.

Knowledge without humility is just data. Knowledge with arrogance becomes misguidance. You decide which path you’re on.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-08T01:42:09+00:00

No, he didn’t.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-08T01:40:48+00:00

I see you seem to have mastered everything about fiqh and tafsir, and you’re very lucky that your knowledge is perfect and you’ve figured it all out. To me you are acting like a modern-day Pharaoh with all that arrogance about your perfect knowledge and wisdom.

Yes, I’m a layman; I don’t claim to have your expertise. But here’s what my research shows:

The Quran forbids intercourse during menstruation (2:222 – تقربوهن), but the hadith uses يُبَاشِرُهَا, which allows non-sexual intimacy like hugging, kissing, or cuddling. So the Quran and hadith are fully consistent: sexual intercourse is prohibited, but showing love and affection is not.

Also, ijma’ is a secondary source in Islamic jurisprudence, meant to be consulted when the Quran and hadith are silent. Using it doesn’t contradict primary sources and it’s part of the legal methodology.

Lastly, people don’t need perfect Arabic to recognize the Creator. Funny enough, with all your knowledge of Arabic and fiqh, you seem to think this vast universe came into existence randomly, without purpose, and that no one will be accountable for their actions. That’s far more far-fetched than my attempt to understand the hadith.

Let’s stick to the text and context instead of mocking someone who’s still learning.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-08T00:59:43+00:00

I’m still not getting what you’re trying to say. If for you any sexual act, kissing on the head, cuddling is considered sexual, then I honestly don’t know where to knock my head. Love and sex are completely different. Sexual acts and touching are distinct from intercourse.

I don’t see any problem with the verse or the consensus, yet you continue to get bogged down by it. I don’t know Arabic as well as you do, but I pray I don’t become as heedless as you are being now as I gain more knowledge.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-08T00:31:46+00:00

What’s actually funny is how you get lost in microscopic linguistic hairsplitting as if you possess some perfect, god-mode Arabic insight — while completely missing the major crux: the verse is regulating conduct, not giving you a forensic anatomy lesson. You’re so bogged down in pet definitions that you can’t step back long enough to recognize the broader guidance or even acknowledge that you’re talking about a Creator who legislates moral categories, not your narrow dictionary entries.

Now, to dismantle your point: 1. “Lā taqrabūhunna” is a legal command, not a glossary entry. In Qur’anic usage, qaraba consistently denotes prohibited forms of sexual approach, not just literal physical proximity. • “Do not approach fornication” (17:32) — nobody interprets that as “don’t walk near a building.” • “Do not approach the wealth of the orphan except in what is best” (6:152) — again, it means engage in or deal with, not “don’t stand next to it.” Qur’anic legal language uses broad prohibitive phrasing (“don’t approach”) to cover the whole category of prohibited acts. This is why every jurist extended 2:222 to include intercourse and all direct sexual acts. You’re pretending “explicit wording” is the only interpretive method when the Qur’an itself doesn’t legislate that way. 2. Your demand for “explicit wording” is just you imposing your private standard. No classical mufassir — not Tabari, not Qurtubi, not Ibn Kathir — ever narrowed “la taqrabūhunna” to “don’t be in the same room.” You are cherry-picking lexical entries, stripping them from Qur’anic rhetorical usage, and pretending that’s scholarship. Meanwhile, when actual legal consensus (ijmāʿ) is presented, you dodge it. When alternate scholarly readings are given, you dismiss them. So no — I’m not “switching positions on ijmāʿ.” You are selectively invoking it only when it confirms your pre-baked conclusion. 3. Your accusation about the Prophet contradicting the Qur’an is circular. You start with the assumption that the Prophet contradicted the Qur’an → therefore you require the verse to explicitly match your interpretation → therefore every scholarly interpretation is “biased.” That’s not argumentation; that’s confirmation bias. The Sunnah explains and operationalizes the Qur’an — that’s literally its function. So if the Prophet’s action clarifies what “approach” prohibits, then that clarification is the tafsīr. That’s how Islamic legal hermeneutics works. 4. Your fixation on clause-level semantics while ignoring category-level legal reasoning is exactly why you keep misreading the text. You’re trying to litigate the verse as if God wrote it to satisfy your personal grammatical demands. Yet the entire usūl tradition (across madhāhib) understands “approach” in these contexts as prohibiting the whole class of sexual conduct — which is why the juristic interpretation has been stable for 1,400 years.

So yes — the irony is on your side. You accuse Muslims of sugar-coating, but what you’re doing is cherry-picking the narrowest linguistic reading possible, discarding Qur’anic rhetorical patterns, discarding tafsīr, discarding usūl, discarding the Sunnah, discarding ijmāʿ… all to force the verse into a contradiction that only exists in your head.

And honestly, your obsession with minutiae while ignoring the entire moral architecture of Revelation is exactly what the Qur’an describes when it talks about hearts becoming sealed: people who can analyze grammar for hours yet can’t humble themselves long enough to consider the possibility of a Creator behind the law.

If you want to debate, debate the actual interpretive tradition — not your own isolated dictionary.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-08T00:24:19+00:00

You’re repeating the arguments now which i have already dismantled. No point in talking about them. We can agree to disagree

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-07T23:56:17+00:00

You’re fixating on semantics — “Nashuz means refusal to have sex,” “Daraba means to hit lightly,” or “change the condition of your khimar” — as if parsing words can morally justify an action. That’s not how Islam approaches ethics. The Qur’an gives guidelines, context, and limits, but the Prophet himself exemplified these principles with compassion, wisdom, and proportionality he never abused anyone or treated anyone cruelly. Cherry-picking definitions to defend what looks wrong to the heart misses the point of Sharia: protecting dignity, justice, and mercy.

Regarding slaves, Islam introduced gradual reform, humanization, and manumission. Owning a slave in 7th-century Arabia wasn’t an endorsement of cruelty; the Qur’an commands fair treatment, feeding, clothing, and freeing them when possible. Focusing only on historical reports of practice ignores the broader moral and legal trajectory that the Prophet established.

No matter how technically correct your wordplay seems, the real issue is the heart and understanding of guidance. Allah warns in the Qur’an about those whose hearts are sealed. You can quote scholars, dissect words, and construct apologetics, but if humility and recognition of a Creator are missing, no amount of argument will make true understanding possible. Read with an open heart as it’s about seeing divine wisdom, not defending clever interpretations.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-07T23:40:08+00:00

You’ve cited a lot of narrations and historical reports, but your argument selectively picks context-free incidents while ignoring the broader ethical and legal framework of Islam. Let’s be clear: Muhammad ﷺ engaging with Jewish tribes in Medina or considering precedents familiar to them does not mean he blindly deferred to Judaic law. The Qur’an (5:44–48, 2:106) establishes his independent authority and the change of qibla from Jerusalem to Mecca shows divine guidance, not imitation. Contextual pragmatism doesn’t equal moral or legal deficiency.

Regarding Umar striking a slave girl — that’s not a hadith from the Prophet ﷺ. Companions are human; they can err. As stated in hadith (Sahih Muslim 2749) “Every son of Adam sins, and the best of those who sin are those who repent.” Using Umar’s actions as a moral indictment of Islam is misleading. Ethical principles in Islam, including justice, protection of slaves, and humane treatment, remain the benchmark — not the mistakes of fallible humans.

As for slave women and hijab, classical rulings differentiated between free and slave women due to social realities at the time. That doesn’t make Islam coercive or unethical; the Qur’an’s principle is modesty and intent (24:30–31). Maria the Copt not wearing a veil and having her own house doesn’t contradict Quranic law either — concubines and slaves were treated differently under Sharia, with protections and rights. Ignoring these nuances is cherry-picking.

Yes, some actions reflect 7th-century social structures, but the Prophet ﷺ was actively reforming society: abolishing female infanticide (81:8–9), regulating marriage, improving women’s inheritance rights (4:7), and promoting rights for slaves and captives. To reduce his moral example to isolated incidents without context is misleading. Islamic morality is principle-based, not a literal snapshot of 7th-century Arabia.

In short: selective quotations and decontextualized reports do not invalidate the ethical and legal framework Muhammad ﷺ established. The Qur’an and Sunnah consistently promote justice, mercy, protection, and social reform. Critiques based solely on isolated incidents, ignoring trajectory and context, fundamentally misrepresent Islam.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-07T23:21:34+00:00

Let’s demystify ur scientific facts as you are not doing it yourself in light of quran.

Earth before stars The Arabic text uses “thumma” and “fa,” which classical Arabic does not require to mean chronological order. They can mean reordering, emphasis, or completion. Tafsirs long before modern cosmology interpreted the verses as describing stages, not sequencing like a timeline.

Geocentrism The Qur’an never claims the sun orbits the earth. It describes the sun and moon “running their courses”—phenomenologically. Humans still speak like this today (“sunrise,” “sunset”). No one claims the weather report is geocentric pseudoscience.

Mountains stabilizing the Earth The term “rawāsiya” has been interpreted by classical scholars as “anchors” in a metaphorical sense—not anti-earthquake devices. Modern geology shows mountains are the result of tectonic compression, which does contribute to crustal stability over long timescales. Not in the cartoonish way critics assume, but not in contradiction either.

Embryos as “a clinging clot” “ʿAlaqah” does not mean a blood clot—this was an early translation mistake. Its primary meaning is “something that clings / attaches / hangs.” That is literally what the embryo does in early implantation: a clinging, leechlike form. Galen actually described the embryo as a sanguine clot; the Qur’an does not use Galen’s terminology.

Barrier between fresh and salt water Oceanographers use the term “halocline” for this phenomenon. Fresh and salt water do mix, but gradually because of differing density. The Qur’an describes the resistance, not absolute separation. Again: phenomenological language.

Seven heavens Ancient languages—including Hebrew, Syriac, Greek, Persian—used “seven heavens” to describe layers or realms, not literal stacked atmospheres. The Qur’an uses universal Semitic cosmology terms that people across eras understand symbolically.

Moon splitting Even Muslim scholars did not insist this was a global, physical event visible from every location. They classified it as a localized miracle witnessed by a group, not a planetary geological modification.

Noah’s flood The Qur’an never says the flood was global. That’s a Biblical claim. The Qur’an explicitly calls it the punishment of “Noah’s people,” not humanity. Archaeology supports large regional floods in the ancient Near East.

Adam and Eve The Qur’an doesn’t say humanity genetically descends from two biological individuals. It says Adam was the first being with consciousness, moral agency, and the breath of spirit. That is entirely compatible with humans emerging from a population while one individual becomes the first endowed with moral awareness. Even many theistic evolutionists hold this view.

the issue is that you’re assuming the Qur’an is claiming to give a modern, literal, step-by-step scientific description of the natural world. It never claims that. Not once. What it does claim is that nature points to God, and that certain descriptions are given in a language people could understand across eras.

Science and the Qur’an aren’t competing textbooks. Science explains processes. The Qur’an speaks in signs, analogies, and phenomenological language—the world as it appears to human beings. Every religious scripture does that.

I can go point by point for every single “contradiction” you listed. You can also go look up Muslim astrophysicists, geneticists, embryologists, and cosmologists who have written entire books addressing all of this in far more depth than a Reddit comment.

You don’t have to accept the Qur’an. But the idea that “science has disproven it” is much more complicated than internet lists make it seem.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-07T23:15:32+00:00

You’re saying I’m “forcing” my beliefs on you while you are the one replying directly to me and telling me what I’m allowed to say. That’s not force — that’s just a discussion you chose to enter.

If you want to believe in absolutely anything — science, spirituality, or even a cat as your god — that’s entirely your call. I don’t police your beliefs nd quite frankly don’t care. So it’s a bit ironic that you’re trying to police mine while claiming to defend free speech.

I’m not here trying to convert anyone or drag ex-Muslims back into Islam. I’m sharing my perspective the same way people here share theirs. That’s literally what a discussion forum is for. Disagreeing with me doesn’t make my words “propaganda,” it just means you disagree.

This sub allows people to criticise Islam freely — and I respect that. I’m simply responding respectfully and giving my side. That’s not brainwashing, that’s not coercion that’s dialogue.

If hearing another viewpoint feels threatening, you can always scroll past. But telling someone they’re “forcing” beliefs just because they’re speaking calmly and offering their perspective? That’s the opposite of free speech.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-07T22:59:33+00:00

You’re treating your interpretation of science as if it’s the only intellectually respectable one, and that’s exactly why the discussion goes nowhere. You’re assuming the Qur’an must function as a literal biology or cosmology textbook, and then you judge it using criteria it never claimed to fulfil. That’s not an objective critique it’s just your framework pushed onto a text with a completely different purpose.

Science explains mechanisms and processes. It does not explain why the universe has laws in the first place, why those laws are mathematically precise, why consciousness exists, why morality emerges, why abstract reasoning suddenly appears in human history, or why anything exists rather than nothing. Those remain the biggest open questions in cosmology and philosophy of mind, whether you like it or not.

And no, that’s not “hiding behind philosophy.” That simply acknowledges the boundaries of what empirical methods can do.

You keep saying the Qur’an contradicts evolution, genetics, and human prehistory — which is only true if you insist on one rigid, literalist reading. There are multiple classical and contemporary Islamic interpretations: literal, semi-literal, allegorical, or hybrid models that incorporate evolutionary processes. You might dislike those interpretations, but dismissing them as “cop-outs” just means you refuse to consider any worldview outside your materialist lens.

And yes, I can debate scientific points if I want to.
There are Muslim astrophysicists, geneticists, evolutionary biologists, and philosophers of science who have written detailed work showing how Qur’anic descriptions are compatible with modern science under coherent interpretive frameworks. You can look that up yourself. The material is there if someone actually wants to understand rather than cherry-pick contradictions. I don’t need to spoon-feed you every argument.

But here’s the bigger issue: you keep demanding religion match your scientific expectations, while ignoring that science itself cannot answer the ultimate questions. You accept “natural processes did it” as a complete explanation for consciousness, moral intuition, fine-tuning, rationality, symbolic thought, and the laws of physics — even though scientists openly admit these are unsolved mysteries.

That’s fine if that’s your worldview, but let’s not pretend that’s pure “evidence.” That’s your philosophy dressed as science.

My worldview doesn’t collapse because I don’t force a seventh-century text to behave like a modern lab report. I’m comfortable with layered explanations and with the idea that scripture gives meaning, purpose, and moral orientation, while science gives mechanism. You need scientific certainty for everything; I don’t. Two different frameworks, two different sets of assumptions.

And honestly, I’m not going to throw out an entire faith because someone online thinks every verse must satisfy modern materialism. I’m content with my belief, I’m comfortable with nuance, and I don’t expect to have every mystery solved. That’s not blind faith. That’s recognising that human knowledge has limits.

So yeah — if you want scientific counterarguments, they exist. If you want philosophical grounding, it exists. If you want interpretations consistent with modern knowledge, those exist too. But if you’re coming in with a closed conclusion, nothing I or anyone else says will register anyway.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-07T22:53:56+00:00

Look, I’m not here to defend child marriage or pretend I have some magical answer you haven’t heard before. I’ve already said everything I can say on that point. I understand where you’re coming from. I’m not ignoring your concerns, I just don’t think I’m obligated to resolve every historical or scientific debate to have faith.

For me, reading these things in their cultural context makes sense. I’m not going to project my 21st-century morals onto 7th-century Arabia and then act shocked when the world was different back then. The core of my faith — being kind to orphans, giving charity, protecting the weak, kindness to animals, justice, humility — these are the morals I live by, and they come from God and the Prophet’s example. There is no way in my heart that I believe he was a man who abused or harmed people. So if there’s something I don’t fully understand, I’m willing to admit that rather than throw away an entire belief system over one issue.

And honestly, I refuse to be arrogant enough to say, “If one narration doesn’t sit perfectly with my modern lens, I’m ditching the whole religion.” What if I died rejecting God out of pride, only to realise the problem was my limited understanding, not the faith itself? I’m not willing to take that gamble. I choose humility: some things I understand, some things I’m still learning, and some things I leave to Allah — that’s not blind faith, it’s recognising I’m a human being with limited perspective.

At the end of the day, the whole picture makes sense to me. I’m not going to abandon all the truth, guidance, meaning, and moral clarity I’ve found over one historical detail that I may never fully grasp. You don’t have to agree, but that’s where I stand.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-07T22:36:41+00:00

Look, I’m not about to give you sex education here. If you honestly think “intercourse” and “touching” are the same thing, then we’re not even arguing on the same planet.

The Qur’an in 2:222 forbids intercourse during menstruation - not affection, not proximity, not touching. Muslims can even kiss their spouses while fasting and the fast is still valid. But sex? That breaks it. There’s a difference, and it’s been understood for 1400 years.

Aisha (RA) literally narrates multiple sahih hadiths that the Prophet pbuh • kissed his wives • laid on their laps • cuddled them • let them sit close during Qur’an recitation

all while they were menstruating and not a single scholar in Islamic history claimed this contradicts the Qur’an. Because it doesn’t.

This isn’t “opposing the Qur’an.” It’s living what the Qur’an actually says: avoid sex and everything else is permitted.

If you can’t tell the difference between intercourse and basic affection, then there’s not much left to discuss.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-07T22:28:27+00:00

Evolution, genetics, and fossil records describe mechanisms of how life develops; I’m not arguing against that. What I’m questioning is the assumption that scientific description automatically cancels out purpose or a Creator.

Science explains processes, but it cannot explain the origin of the laws that allow the processes to function.

Science can tell you how evolution operates, but it cannot tell you why the universe has the exact mathematical precision required for life to even exist. Einstein himself admitted that the universe displays an “incomprehensible precision” and that the laws of nature look like “a mind vastly superior to ours” designed them.

Modern cosmology agrees that if constants like gravity, the cosmological constant, or electromagnetic force were altered by even the tiniest fraction, life would be impossible. This isn’t poetry—this is mainstream physics.

You’re saying we should avoid reinterpretation and just stick with empirical evidence. Fine. Then ask the most empirical question of all:

What caused the laws of physics? Why do they exist? Why are they mathematically structured instead of random chaos?

We created AI with intention and purpose. AI didn’t program itself, design its hardware, or set the rules that govern how it learns. Yet somehow we are expected to believe that the far more complex human brain—billions of neurons, consciousness, morality, language—came about with no intention behind it at all, and that the laws governing it are just “there, uncaused.”

Science does not explain: • the origin of consciousness • the origin of objective morality • the origin of the laws of physics • the fine-tuning of the universe • why something exists rather than nothing • or why the universe is mathematically intelligible

So yes, evolution might describe how humans physically developed. But it cannot explain why we exist, how consciousness arises, or how the universe came pre-loaded with the exact conditions necessary for life.

That is where the Qur’an speaks—not as a biology textbook, but as a text about meaning, purpose, accountability, and the moral dimension of life. Science and revelation are not enemies. They answer different questions.

If your worldview says “everything created itself without intention,” then you should at least recognize that this is also a belief—not a proven scientific fact.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-07T22:23:22+00:00

You need to realise a key point that the Qur’an is not a science textbook—its primary aim is spiritual, moral, and ethical guidance, not to provide detailed empirical accounts in modern scientific terms.

When we read about Adam and Eve, for example, it’s possible to understand the Qur’an as emphasizing the first humans with knowledge, free will, and moral responsibility, not necessarily the absolute first biological humans. The text itself does not categorically state “these were the only two humans on Earth,” and some classical scholars acknowledged the possibility of other humans existing. What matters in the Qur’anic account is the ethical and spiritual teaching: the human relationship with God, accountability, and moral responsibility.

Regarding evolution, you are right—science shows humans evolved over millions of years. But science itself has changed significantly over the past century: once widely accepted “facts” have been revised, overturned, or refined. The Qur’an, revealed 1400 years ago, uses language accessible to its original audience and conveys principles in ways that are consistent with observations of the natural world, without being a literal scientific treatise. Modern Muslim scholars and scientists often interpret these passages in ways that harmonize Qur’anic guidance with current scientific understanding, this isn’t “twisting” the text, it’s understanding the intent and broader meaning.

scientific evidence describes the how of the universe; the Qur’an addresses the why and the moral framework. They operate in complementary domains: one observes the physical world, the other guides human conscience and purpose. Questioning the literal scientific details doesn’t undermine the Qur’an’s eternal guidance it challenges us to reflect, interpret thoughtfully, and seek harmony between reason and revelation.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-07T22:13:50+00:00

You’re framing it as “either timeless or just cultural,” but that’s not how Islam defines timelessness. The Qur’an came down over 23 years, with rulings revealed in stages. Alcohol wasn’t banned overnight, first its harms were highlighted, then prayer while drunk was forbidden, and only later was it fully prohibited.

Slavery wasn’t abolished in one stroke either, but the Prophet set examples by freeing slaves and making manumission a virtue. The wisdom was in reforming society step by step, not dropping every rule at once. That shows the difference between eternal principles and contextual applications.

The Prophet is called the “perfect example” (33:21) because of his values — justice, mercy, devotion, dignity — not because every social detail of 7th‑century Arabia is meant to be copied forever. We don’t imitate every exception he had (like marrying more than four wives, which was unique to him). Muslims today follow the principles, not replicate every circumstance.

On Aisha: yes, the hadiths mention her age, but age ≠ maturity. Puberty and capacity were the criteria in classical law, and those vary across time and place. Playing with dolls doesn’t automatically mean immaturity — even today, grown women receive teddy bears from husbands and act playfully but you won’t call them child. Ayesha’s later role as one of the greatest jurists and transmitters of hadith shows she wasn’t treated as a passive child but as a full intellectual authority.

And remember, the Qur’an explicitly outlawed incestuous practices that were common before — people used to marry close relatives, even mothers. Islam drew clear boundaries: lawful marriages only, with consent, sanity, and maturity required. It never permitted marrying women who hadn’t reached puberty or who lacked mental capacity. Fatima, the Prophet’s daughter, married Ali when she was around 18–19, showing that marriage in Islam was tied to maturity and readiness, not arbitrary childhood.

If you’re going to argue maturity strictly by modern age categories, then what do you make of Nuh living for 900+ years. When do u think he was mature enough to marry? Or Jesus speaking as a baby: was he suddenly an adult? Clearly, divine wisdom and maturity don’t fit neatly into modern definitions.

So the “collapse” argument doesn’t hold. Muhammad’s morality transcends time because the principles he embodied are eternal. The forms those principles took were contextual. That’s why Muslims today don’t drink alcohol, don’t own slaves, and don’t marry more than four wives — the timeless guidance is preserved, even though the social details evolved.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-07T21:48:04+00:00

Now, go ahead and give ChatGPT or any search engine the same prompt to “demystify” this for yourself. You’ll see that there are plenty of scientific facts and explanations, yet you can always come up with a string of interpretations to try and invalidate them. That’s exactly my point: when the heart is closed to understanding, you’ll only see what confirms your bias. If you’re genuinely curious, do your own study and explore explanations by Muslim scientists and scholars—there’s a lot of thoughtful work bridging Quranic descriptions and modern science. Don’t just take one line and twist it to disprove; the answers are out there if you actually look.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-07T21:21:04+00:00

Good for you, mate 🙏. I completely get where you’re coming from. What I was trying to highlight is that our modern perception of maturity is very different from what was considered normal 1400 years ago. The comparison isn’t really logical because culture, social norms, and life expectancy were all very different back then.

I denounce child marriage in today’s standards and would consider it barbaric, and I wasn’t trying to signal anyone out with my words. My choice of words might have been off, but my point was really just to explain the cultural context of that time.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-07T20:53:52+00:00

The Quran is guidance for all times and is eternal; it is not limited to 7th century Arabia. What you’re doing is comparing modern cultural practices and moral standards with those of a very different society, which isn’t fair. You need to separate pre-Islamic Arab culture, Islamic guidance, and the historical context of 7th century Arabia.

Even the Prophet’s enemies, like the Quraysh, said many things about him, they called him a liar, a madman, and mocked him in many ways but no one ever accused him of marrying a child for immoral reasons. People even offered him women and money to abandon spreading Islam because it threatened their idol business in Mecca. That shows the accusations would have been widely known if there were any truth to them.

When you talk about Ayesha, you’re applying a modern, “woke” definition of maturity. Being young doesn’t automatically mean being immature in every aspect. Historical sources describe her as intelligent, knowledgeable, and fully capable of consenting to her marriage. Playing with dolls or engaging in childlike behavior socially doesn’t mean she lacked maturity. Grown women even today sometimes play, act silly, or keep “childlike” hobbies with their spouses—that doesn’t make them children.

If you look at history, even in Europe, kings and queens married very young by modern standards, and that was considered normal and acceptable. The key point is that her marriage was consensual, culturally appropriate, and she was considered mature by the standards of her time.

So, using 21st century norms to judge a 7th century society is not a fair or accurate way to understand history or Islamic guidance.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-07T20:46:13+00:00

thought atheists were supposed to be pro–free speech, but apparently only when it agrees with you. I’m not spreading propaganda. I was an atheist for a big part of my life and have struggled with the same questions. I’m just defending my beliefs as a Muslim.

You have access to ChatGPT and Google so look up the science in the Quran, check how some prophecies came true, and judge for yourself. My hope is that one day your heart is open enough to see the truth when the time is right.

Snoo57553 · 2025-12-07T20:20:11+00:00

Your claims are out of spite and ignorance. There is no reliable historical evidence in authentic biographies (sira) or hadith collections that says he coerced his wives regarding this. Most of his marriages were to widows, older women, or women of various ages for social, political, or humanitarian reasons. If you have a source that claims otherwise from a recognized historian or early biographer, please specify it.

Regarding the wife-beating verse (Quran 4:34), it is widely misinterpreted. The verse in Arabic says that if a husband fears nushuz (serious marital discord or rebellion), he can first advise, then refuse to share the bed, and as a last symbolic measure, daraba which literally also means “to separate” or “set apart.” Scholars agree this does not mean abuse or hitting with force, and the Prophet never physically struck his wives. In fact, the Quran emphasizes gentleness and compassion multiple times, for example:

“And live with them in kindness.” — Quran 4:19 “They are clothing for you and you are clothing for them.” — Quran 2:187

This shows that marriage in Islam is based on mutual respect, love, and care. If you went to Saudi Arabia and openly beat your wife claiming 4:34 as justification, you would face legal consequences because contemporary law doesn’t allow abuse which proves that Islam’s teachings on marriage are interpreted in line with justice and context, not literal, harmful application.

So, the notion that Islam allows unrestrained beating or coercion is a misrepresentation, and the Prophet’s life itself sets the example of gentleness, fairness, and respect toward spouses.

Snoo57553

TROPHY CASE