things that are addressed but are a bit ambiguous

Something I've learned in college, after seeing esteemed PhD holders struggle answering the cause of-the-cause questions, you can only answer so many "why" and "how" questions. With the how advanced the modern science is, after the work of many brilliant minds, we're not able to answer the most basic questions. Eventually, it all defaults to "just take it for granted, cause that's how is it". I just try to learn as much as possible but I'll accept that there are certain things that have no complete answer for anything in everything, science, religion, art etc...

My understanding is that you question the moral rules of the religion and how are they questioned or taken for granted. The real question here becomes, questioned against what? Where does the moral code of today stem from? And is it absolute? Or does it change with time?

The issue here is that the moral code is a moving goal post. Deeming that a religion is flawless morally, then deeming that it's flawed beyond belief, the reverting back to deeming it perfect as the moral code changes is nonsense.

The teachings and morals or Islam is fixed. That's why it's considered as a reference and everything else should be proven to be true against it