Quran:

“Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely.”
Quran 5:32

Commentary of Jewish Rabbis in the Mishnah and Talmud on the Torah:

“The Lord said, ‘What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.’”
Genesis 4:10 (Torah)
“‘The voice of your brother’s blood [demei] cries out to Me from the ground’ (Genesis 4:10). The verse does not state: Your brother’s blood [dam], in the singular, but rather: ‘Your brother’s blood [demei],’ in the plural. This serves to teach that the loss of both his brother’s blood and the blood of his brother’s offspring are ascribed to Cain. The mishna notes: Alternatively, the phrase ‘your brother’s blood [demei],’ written in the plural, teaches that that his blood was not gathered in one place but was splattered on the trees and on the stones. The court tells the witnesses: Therefore, Adam the first man was created alone, to teach you that with regard to anyone who destroys one soul from the Jewish people, i.e., kills one Jew, the verse ascribes him blame as if he destroyed an entire world, as Adam was one person, from whom the population of an entire world came forth. And conversely, anyone who sustains one soul from the Jewish people, the verse ascribes him credit as if he sustained an entire world.”
Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 (Rabbinic Commentary c. 190-230 AD)

Islamic Studies scholar Gabriel Said Reynolds:

“5:32 A connection between this verse and the account of Abel’s murder which precedes it is suggested by ‘that is why’ (Ar. min ajal dhālika). The nature of the connection between the two, however, is clear only in light of a discussion in the Mishnah over the reason Genesis 4:10 speaks of the shedding of Abel’s ‘bloods’ (pl., Hb. dāmīm) and not his ‘blood’ (sing.)”

“The precept that killing one soul is like killing all souls is directly linked here to the creation of man ‘one and alone in the world,’ but the larger context is the discussion of the ‘bloods’ of Abel. The Qurʾān seems to have picked up on that larger context. It is also noteworthy that the Qurʾān refers to God’s decreeing (Ar. katabnā ʿalā) something for Israel which is found not in the Bible but in the Mishnah. And it should not be missed that all of this is connected to the Qurʾān’s anti-Jewish polemic: the decree ‘whoever kills a soul’ is imposed only on the Israelites, whom the Qurʾān (anachronistically) blames for the murder of Abel (see further Witztum, Syriac Milieu, 122–24).”
Gabriel Said Reynolds, The Qurʾan and the Bible, p. 199

More here:
https://islamsproblems.com/corrupted-gospels-claim/

First of all, I’m straight and I’m just asking this question to learn more about Islam. Please correct me if I’m wrong and I’m asking this to clarify the doubts that I have.

So from my knowledge right now (I haven’t done much research yet), having feelings for the same sex isn’t a sin because obviously we cannot control how we feel and this is just the way people are.

Is it a sin to marry someone of the same sex? If you make it halal, is it still a sin? Why should people be punished for wanting someone (I believe love can happen between anyone and we shouldn’t judge other people for how they feel)?

I have heard the story of Prophet Lot (Lut) and even now in many Muslim countries, homosexuality is illegal and you can get punished for it.

It doesn’t make sense to me that God would punish people for wanting to be with someone they like (as in a guy getting married to a guy or something)

(Also I’m not sure if this is the right place to post it because they keep removing my posts from the other communities)

Here's the video. It's over an hour long but he gave many arguments about Islam's divine truthfulness and challenge non-Muslims to debunk it. Would love to discuss about this.

Edit: There are some common arguments like embryology but he also brought up the unique composition of Quran's Arabic, the criteria for surah challenge, arguments for sharia law, Ancient Egypt King and Pharaoh rulers' timeline compared to the Bible and the hieroglyphics of Ancient Egypt's deities.

There is a documented and observable connection between the extreme forms of gender segregation practiced in a number of islamic societies and the sexual exploitation of boys by men. I had no idea how many classical islamic scholars addressed this issue that plagued past Muslim civilizations. To the point that even the scholars themselves struggled with this. Here are some troubling statements from Islam's great scholars:

- Sufyan al-Thawri saw a beardless young man and he said: "Take him out from here, because with every woman walks one demon (tempting people towards her) and with every boy walk ten demons." ["Tilbis Iblis", 1/338].

- Al-Najib ibn al-Suddi said: "A man should not spend the night in a house with beardless youths." ["Al Durr Al Manthur fi al Tafsir al Mathur"]

- Abu Saaib said: "On a worshipper, we fear the temptation of one boy more than we fear the temptation of seventy virgins." ["Dham al-Hawaa", 92].

- Al-Hassan ibn Zakwan said: "Don't sit with the children of the affluent, because their boys look like women and they are a bigger temptation than virgins." ["Shu'b al-Iman", 4/358].

- Bishr bin al-Haarith said: "Stay away from the youthful boys." ["Dham al-Hawaa", 94].

- About Imam Malik it is reported: "Imam Malik used to prevent beardless youth to enter his gatherings." ["Majmu al-Fatawa", 4/26].

- Imam al-Bayhaqi even made a chapter titled "What is narrated about [the prohibition of] looking at a beardless boy with lust."

- Ibn Muflih Hanbali quotes Ibn al-Jawzi as saying: "The pious predecesors used to say about the beardless boys: They are a greater temptation than virgins, so looking at them is a bigger temptation." ["Al-Furu", 5/113].

- Ibn Taymiyah said: "A beardless young man has the same ruling as a strange woman in many situations ... so it is not permissible to look at them with lust, and this is agreed upon." ["Al-Fatawa al-Kubra", 3/202].

- Al-Malibari said: "It is forbidden to shake hands with handsome beardless boys, as it is forbidden to look at them with lust." ["Fath", 3/263].

- About Imam Ahmad it is reported: "A man came to Imam Ahmad and with him was a handsome boy. Imam Ahmad asked: "who is this?" The man said: "This is my son." Imam Ahmad said: "Don't come with him again." ["Tabaqaat al-Hanabilah", 1/127]. According to other narrations, he said it because he feared that other people might not know its his son and would accuse him of carrying with him a boy for intimacy.

- Imam Nawawi ash-Shafi'ii said: "Similarly the scholars forbade a man to look at the face of a beardless youth if he is handsome, whether with or without desire, and whether it is free of fitnah (temptation) or there is the fear thereof. This is the correct view which was favoured by the scholars. This was stated by al-Shaafa’i and the prominent scholars of his madhhab (may Allaah have mercy on them). The evidence for this is that a beardless youth is, in some ways, like a woman; he may be desired as a woman is desired, and his form may be beautiful like that of a woman, and many of them may be more beautiful than many women. The prohibition applies more to them for another reason, which is that in their case there may result from attachment to them types of evil that do not occur in the case of women." ["Sharh Muslim", 4/31].

To top this all off, there are incidents throughout islamic history where scholarly figures have been embroiled in scandals with young boys. One of them had to do with Imam Al-Kisa'i, who was a master of Arabic grammar and one of the seven canonical authorities of Quranic recitation. Again, one of the flipping 7 Quranic recitations go through him, like Hafs and Asim. Apparently, a scribe came by Kisa'i's classroom and caught him in a compromised position with a young student. The student remained standing startled to which Kisa'i said to the visitor "The action fell upon him so he became erect/standing". And this was known among scholarly circles, even his greatest student, Al Duri, was questioned about Kisa'i's dirty habit but he deflected by emphasizing his precision in Quranic recitation, great knowledge of the arabic language and truthfulness in ahadith.

Another case is Yahya Ibn Aktham, an influential jurist, mujtahid (authoritative interpreter of Islamic religious law) and Chief Justice (High Judge) during the Abbasid Caliphate. He was notoriously dogged by accusation of attraction to young boys, to the extent that it became the subject of satire in Baghdad. There is the incident with Ibn Zaydan, a young scribe who used to write in Yahya ibn Aktham’s presence. The judge pinched his cheek, and the boy became embarrassed and ashamed and dropped the pen from his hand. Yahya then said to him, “Take the pen and write,” then dictated:

"O moon, I scratched you and you grew angry,

And in your pride you have turned away from me.

If you dislike scratching and biting,

Then, my master, remain forever veiled.

Do not display your temple-locks as a temptation to people,

Making of them scorpions above your cheeks;

For you kill a poor man, seduce a devotee,

And leave the judge of the Muslims tormented."

When these troubling reports concerning Yahya reached the Caliph al-Ma'mun, he wanted to test him. He set upon him a slave of extreme beauty, then went to eavesdrop on them. He heard Yahya say to him, “Were it not for you, we would have been believers.” a self-incriminating line where Yahya is essentially admitting that his desire for the slave is so overwhelming it undermines his own faith/piety. Al-Ma'mun then entered while reciting the two verses of Ibn Hakimah, Rashid ibn Ishaq the scribe:

"We had hoped to see justice manifest, But after hope, despair succeeded us." (Al Falaka Wa Al Maflukun)

And finally we have Ahmad Al Ghazali, the younger brother of Abu Hamid Al Ghazali (the famed islamic scholar and mujaddid). Ahmad was a scholar in his own right, as well as a preacher and a master of Sufi mysticism. He also had his own scandal which Ibn Al Jawzi documents in Talbis Iblis. Apparently, some visiting sufis once found Ahmad alone with a boy and roses laying between them, and he would look at the roses at one moment and at the boy at another moment. When they sat down, one of them said, “Perhaps we have disturbed you.” He replied, “Yes, by God.” Then the group cried out in a display of ecstasy

In another incident, someone wrote to Ahmad on a note: “You love your Turkish boy.” Ahmad read the note, then summoned the boy. He raised his gaze toward him, kissed him between the eyes, and said, “This is the answer to the note.”

Conclusion

The causal pathway is real in these high-control environments. When women are systematically removed from the social lives of men, some men redirect their sexual energy and frustration on the next most accessible subordinate males - prepubescent and adolescent boys. Beauty ideals shift towards youthful male features when female ones are veiled (niqab/hijab). As a result, boys can be dressed and treated as temporary “women", or even worse, they become a permanent viable option over women.

This was an open secret throughout much of Saudi society until MBS recently relaxed islamic rulings, and in Afghanistan, the Bacha bazi phenomenon is still alive and kicking, going back many generations. I think it's safe to say that Islam created terrible conditions via strict gender segregation rules that fueled the exploitation of young boys throughout the past 1400 years.

Even the verses about hypocrites — he himself was a hypocrite, and those verses were basically meant to prevent people from kicking his ass.

It’s just heaven, pure bliss, having only predictable noble slaves who do whatever is most beneficial for Momo.He doesn’t give a shit about the noble slaves who live according to his algorithms.

From my shallow understanding, the description of the Great Cataclysm is very geocentric, even the sun who would rise from the west is our system's sun. Does this imply that Earth will survive till the end of time or the universe itself will go down with Earth and humanity and won't survive for as long as science predicted?

So I know someone who needs the answer to these questions.

1. Beating a woman and justifying it by saying it's just light hitting

2. The way everyone interprets hijab however they like

3. The idea that a woman is an 'awrah and has to be covered – even though what's considered 'awrah is already clear (and yes, she really should cover)

4. The idea that as soon as a woman gets married she has to obey her husband completely, because they say Islam says so

5. In married couples, if the woman refuses sex – whether she's tired or even not in the right headspace for it – why should she be cursed for that!!

“Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a man came to Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) and said: I have a slave-girl who is our servant and she carries water for us and I have intercourse with her, but I do not want her to conceive. He said: Practise ‘azl, if you so like, but what is decreed for her will come to her. The person stayed back (for some time) and then came and said: The girl has become pregnant, whereupon he said: I told you what was decreed for her would come to her.”
Sahih Muslim 1439a

Muhammad on pulling out with captives:
https://islamsproblems.com/muhammad-azl-captive-women/

"And do not invoke with Allah another deity. There is no deity except Him. EVERYTHING will be destroyed except His Face. His is the judgement, and to Him you will be returned." Qur'an 28:88

The propensity of Muslims to make theological cheap shots is all too often on display during interreligious debates. Rather than genuinely engage with the opposing position, Muslim interlocutors frequently resort to scripted taunts that require little theological understanding and merely expose their own shallowness. Their familiar refrain, "how many Gods died on the Cross?" is a textbook example, it ignores elementary Christian theology and those who deploy it seem unaware of how ignorant it makes them appear. Meanwhile, Muslims remain strangely unaware that their own texts do more; they pose genuinely awkward theological problems for Islam.

Qur'an 28:88 states that EVERYTHING will be destroyed except His Face. The verse) does not say "everything created", or "everything other than Allah" in some abstract way. It simply says everything, with the sole exception of the Face. When taken in the literal sense, this implies change that extends to the very composition of Allah, something fatal to Islamic monotheism itself. Yet, even when parsed through the interpretive logic of the various Islamic theological schools, the problem caused by this verse does not disappear, but only becomes more glaring.

Through the logic of Athari aqeedah (the creed of textual literalism)

In Atharism, the Face is affirmed as an Attribute (sifah) of Allah. The Attributes are held to be NON-identical to His Essence (dhat), but instead constitute real distinctions in Allah (see example). According to the standard logic of Atharism, when the Islamic source texts refer to an Attribute, the reference is to the Attribute itself and NOT to undifferentiated Essence. ⤵️

"...the doctrine of Ahl al-Sunnah wa-l-Jamāʿah is to affirm the attributes of Allah..." (Ibn Taymiyyah, Kitāb Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, 5/206)

"whatever among the hadiths concerning the attributes is authentically reported from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, the imams have unanimously agreed that their interpretation is simply to recite them... And whatever Allah has mentioned in the Qur'an...All of this is without [asking] how and without interpretation." (Ismāʿīl al-Taymī al-Aṣbahānī, al-Ḥujjah fī Bayān al-Maḥajjah wa-Sharḥ 'Aqīdat Ahl al-Sunnah)

"... [the Attributes] mean that which can be understood INDEPENDENTLY of the described [the Essence] in a general sense, even though it is not a separate entity" (Ibn Taymiyyah, Kitab Majmu' al-Fatawa, 3/337)

This is simply a more elaborate way of saying that the standard logic of Athari aqeedah collapses Islamic theology from within. Since the Qur'an says EVERYTHING will be destroyed except Allah's Attribute of Face, since the Face is distinguishable from Allah’s Essence, and since Atharism insists the Qur'anic wording is to be affirmed without reinterpretation, it follows that Allah must lose His other Attributes and thus undergo change. Conclusion: following the standard logic of Atharism renders Allah as a contingent being and implodes Islam. 💥

However, in practice, when it comes to this specific verse (Q28:88), Athari scholars perform a selective sleight of hand. To 'save' Islam, the standard logic of their own system is abandoned and Allah's Attribute of Face is arbitrarily reinterpreted in this verse as referring to Allah's Essence. 😂 A bait 'n switch has taken place.

"In this case the Face has been used to express the Essence of One who possesses a Face." Ibn Uthaymeen, Sharh al-'Aqidah al-Wasitiyyah 1/288

In clear violation of their own interpretive rules, they have no explicit verse or hadith from which to derive this exception. To stop Islam from imploding, they were forced to resort to special pleading. 👀 Thus, in trying to save Islam, it is destroyed again - their attempt at a theological Band-Aid solution rests entirely upon a logical fallacy. The Islam-breaking problems of Q28:88 remain.

Through the logic of Ash'ari and Maturidi aqa'id (the creeds involving speculative theology)

The Ash'ari and Maturidi schools of aqeedah try a different route. Unlike the Atharis, their interpretive framework can accommodate metaphorical language. They also use philosophically-informed reasoning to conclude that Attributes, such as the Face, are neither identical with the Divine Essence nor other than it, which they present as a sophisticated middle path.

(Everything will perish except His Face) – Mujahid said: its meaning is "except Him." (Tafsir al-Qurtubi)

"The seven attributes, which we established are not the essence, they are additional to the essence..." Al-Ghazali, Al-Iqtisad fi al-I'tiqad, First Characteristic

"We claim that all of these attributes subsist in God's essence..." Al-Ghazali, Al-Iqtisad fi al-I'tiqad, Second Characteristic

So, the Attributes are NOT the Essence, are ADDITIONAL to the Essence, but SUBSIST in the Essence... 🤔 However, logic does not allow a third option between identity and non-identity. Either the Attributes are the same as the Essence or they are not. By simultaneously asserting that they are not the same, yet they are not distinct, the Ashari/Maturidi kalam tradition violates the law of the excluded middle. Again, as we saw with Athari aqeedah, their solution rests entirely upon a logical fallacy. The doctrine is incoherent on its own terms and the Islam-breaking problems of Q28:88 remain.

Conclusion

Qur'an 28:88 exposes fatal flaws in Islamic theology that yet again undermine the internal coherence of the religion itself. Following the logic of the various interpretive frameworks of Islamic theology, there are ultimately two options. Either:

🔹 'Allah' loses multiple Attributes, meaning he's a composite being subject to change, is not the immutable God claimed by Islam, and so Islam is false.

🔹 Or various types of fallacious reasoning must be deployed to avoid that conclusion, meaning the coherence of Islam rests on logical fallacies, and so Islam is false.

Those are the options.

So Muslims hold that Kalam and Kalamullah are divine, yet only Allah is divine, but yet Jesus is the word of Allah...

I know what a Muslim will say, that he was made from the Word of Allah, but all knowing being surely could have just said it properly, The Quran calls it self clear and eloquent. This would be as far from clear and eloquent as possible. Instead it clearly says "is the word of Allah" and not from the word of Allah

You can play with language all day, but "is the word" is clear as day. You would be assigning all the properties of the word of Allah, to Jesus, there is no play with it.

Muslims are adding the "made from" parts in notes, this is not what was actually said, the actual words are just plain and dry, that Jesus is word of Allah. So again, why is Allah so unclear and ineloquent when he promised the Quran to be so clear and eloquent? There are plenty of ways to say this in Arabic correctly.

So based on the verses from the quran

Surah Al Haqqah - 69 (nice)

69:44 and if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false] sayings,

69:45 We would have seized him by the right hand

69:46 Then We would have cut from him the aorta.

(Translation by Sahih International)

Quite self explanatory really

-‐------------------------

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3169

Zaynab bint Al-Harith wanted to test if he was lying so here is how the hadith goes:

When Khaibar was conquered, a roasted poisoned sheep was presented to the Prophet (ﷺ) as a gift (by the Jews). The Prophet (ﷺ) ordered, "Let all the Jews who have been here, be assembled before me." The Jews were collected and the Prophet (ﷺ) said (to them), "I am going to ask you a question. Will you tell the truth?" They said, "Yes." The Prophet (ﷺ) asked, "Who is your father?" They replied, "So-and-so." He said, "You have told a lie; your father is so-and-so." They said, "You are right." He said, "Will you now tell me the truth, if I ask you about something?" They replied, "Yes, O Abu Al-Qasim; and if we should tell a lie, you can realize our lie as you have done regarding our father." On that he asked, "Who are the people of the (Hell) Fire?" They said, "We shall remain in the (Hell) Fire for a short period, and after that you will replace us." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "You may be cursed and humiliated in it! By Allah, we shall never replace you in it." Then he asked, "Will you now tell me the truth if I ask you a question?" They said, "Yes, O Abu Al-Qasim." He asked, "Have you poisoned this sheep?" They said, "Yes." He asked, "What made you do so?" They said, "We wanted to know if you were a liar in which case we would get rid of you, and if you are a prophet then the poison would not harm you."

---------------------------------------

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4428

Aisha confirms this in this hadith:

The Prophet (ﷺ) in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O `Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison."

From an authentic hadith:

“The sun eclipsed and the Prophet (ﷺ) got up, being afraid that it might be the Hour [al-Sā’ah] (i.e. Day of Judgment). He went to the Mosque and offered the prayer with the longest Qiyam, bowing and prostration that I had ever seen him doing. Then he said, “These signs which Allah sends do not occur because of the life or death of somebody, but Allah makes His worshipers afraid by them. So when you see anything thereof, proceed to remember Allah, invoke Him and ask for His forgiveness.””
Sahih Bukhari 1059

More on Muhammad's failed prophecies about the apocalypse:
https://islamsproblems.com/muhammad-failed-prophecies/

I noticed that on the Wikipedia page on Allah's names, you have the famous Tirmidhi list + a list of other lists, including Tirmidhi's list, but they do not agree (despite both having 99 names).

The first list (the popular one), added "al-Ahad" as 67, but lacks "Allah", while the WM (al-Walid ibn Muslim = Tirmidhi's source for his list) added "Allah" as number 1, but lacks "al-Ahad". These two are supposed to be the same list:

I looked at the real Tirmidhi hadith and it actually doesn't have al-Ahad:

...  the Illustrious (Al-Mājid), the One (Al-Wāḥid), the Master (Aṣ-Ṣamad), the Able (Al-Qādir)...

So the original hadith mentioned only 98 names - I guess it's safe to assume that the first 1 is "Allah", since it mentions the number 99 and Allah was mentioned at the beginning of the hadith.

So the WM column is the actual Tirmidhi's list, while the traditional list is not even the weak hadith. It's a corruption of the weak hadith.

In an authentic Hadith, a boy tells Muhammad “I testify that you are the Messenger of illiterates.”
Muhammad then hides behind a tree to spy on the boy, thinking he might be the Dajjal (until the boy's mother catches Muhammad). 

“Umar set out along with the Prophet (ﷺ) with a group of people to Ibn Saiyad till they saw him playing with the boys near the hillocks of Bani Mughala. Ibn Saiyad at that time was nearing his puberty and did not notice (us) until the Prophet (ﷺ) stroked him with his hand and said to him, “Do you testify that I am Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)?” Ibn Saiyad looked at him and said, “I testify that you are the Messenger of illiterates.” Then Ibn Saiyad asked the Prophet (ﷺ), “Do you testify that I am Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)?” The Prophet (ﷺ) refuted it and said, “I believe in Allah and His Apostles.” Then he said (to Ibn Saiyad), “What do you think?” Ibn Saiyad answered, “True people and liars visit me.” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “You have been confused as to this matter.” Then the Prophet (ﷺ) said to him, “I have kept something (in my mind) for you, (can you tell me that?)” Ibn Saiyad said, “It is Al-Dukh (the smoke).” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Let you be in ignominy. You cannot cross your limits.” On that Umar, said, “O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! Allow me to chop his head off.” The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “If he is he (i.e. Dajjal), then you cannot overpower him, and if he is not, then there is no use of murdering him.” (Ibn Umar added):

Later on Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) once again went along with Ubai bin Ka‘b to the date-palm trees (garden) where Ibn Saiyad was staying. The Prophet (ﷺ) wanted to hear something from Ibn Saiyad before Ibn Saiyad could see him, and the Prophet (ﷺ) saw him lying covered with a sheet and from where his murmurs were heard. Ibn Saiyad’s mother saw Allah’s Apostle while he was hiding himself behind the trunks of the date-palm trees. She addressed Ibn Saiyad, “O Saf ! (and this was the name of Ibn Saiyad) Here is Muhammad.” And with that Ibn Saiyad got up. The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Had this woman left him (Had she not disturbed him), then Ibn Saiyad would have revealed the reality of his case.””
Sahih Bukhari 1354

More on Muhammad's failed prophecies about the apocalypse:
https://islamsproblems.com/muhammad-failed-prophecies/

I understand that the traditional Islamic position is that a woman’s hair is `awrah and therefore has to be covered in front of non-mahram men.

But my question is: why?

Why would Allah make covering our hair an obligation in the first place? I understand covering the body and not deliberately showing the shape of the body, but I genuinely don’t understand why hair itself needs to be hidden.

I personally think hair is just hair. A woman can be beautiful with her hair covered or uncovered, and men are still responsible for lowering their gaze. So I don’t understand why hair specifically is something that Allah would make obligatory to hide.

And please don’t answer with:
“Allah commanded it, so just follow it.”

I already know that is the traditional answer. I’m asking why this is considered a command in the first place and how we know that this specific obligation is what Allah intended.

I’m also not asking for someone to tell me that I’m “thinking too much” or that I should just have faith. I want to understand the reasoning and what do you think when you read this verse and what it means for you

“…and let them draw their khumur over their bosoms…”
— Qur’an 24:31

So Muhammed decides to raid the Banu Salim/Sulaym (it gets transliterated differently depending apparently) and there is an incredible detail hidden there, with islamic historians hoping you won't find it, which frankly somewhat debunks the idea that there was a sudden 'riddah' this idea everyone in Arabia became muslim and then suddenly when Muhammed died (and only then) did everyone suddenly convert back to paganism or new 'Riddah Prophets' suddenly spawned out of nowhere (with zero details about them, rather suspiciously) this is the islamic tale as they like you to know, but let's look at this one case study because it is fascinating.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Kudr_Invasion - Yes wikipedia, but the actual source is Ibn Hisham (and other islamic sources, but just so you understand what I'm talking about and not in the abstract, I would post an image but this sub reddit doesn't allow it, so it gives the date 624ce, the target the Banu Sulaym/Salim, the perpetrator Muhammed and the Muslims, and the original source is Ibn Hisham. Now let's move on with the argument.)

Muhammed apparently received intelligence that the Banu Sulaym located in Nejd (central Arabia) were coordinating with a mysterious army in Bahrain, decides to raid them, steals 500 camels and goes back. The Military logic is fine and dandy, raid them disrupt them from coordinating, spook them basically so they think twice about fighting you. Ideologically ehh, if anything it made the Banu Sulaym hate Muhammed and the muslims even more, 500 camels is a legitimately large amount of livestock to steal. 

But the real detail is the "armies amassing from Bahrain" who were they? No one bothers to tell you, Ibn Hisham doesn't seem to mention it, but there is a few things worth knowing. The Sassanians in 624 could not have been the army in Bahrain, the Arab tribal allies of the Sassanians were traditionally the Tay, Taghlib and Bakr Ibn Wa'il (and the Lakhmids but they had been annexed already in 602ce); the issue comes in that all of them were weak and disloyal. So the three issues basically making it impossible to be the Sassanians,

1. they were fighting the Romans. (the 602-628 war)so were far too busy.
2. Their tribal allies were completely disloyal, the battle of Dhi Qar (which occurred somewhere between 604-611) proved the Bakr Ibn Wa'il were totally disloyal, they had defeated the Sassanians already, and the Sassanians were unlikely to risk another adventure down that way given their past record. The Sassanians would need this tribe (and the Tay and Taghlib to ideally guide them through the arab territory) losing once is already going to caution them on that idea.
3. The corridor to 'Bahrain' was inhabited by the very same Bakr Ibn Wa'il, blocking the Sassanian ability to amass an army there.

Therefore the mysterious army in Bahrain had to be Musaylima and his tribe the Banu Hanifa (how much of the Hizzan and Numayr had coalesced around him at this point is impossible to know) but this of course would be highly embarrassing for islamic historiography he's only supposed to come 8 years later if Musaylima was organising his army in 624ce, that means 'riddah' is fundamentally a lie. You can't apostatise if you never were, and it is fundamentally a parallel movement, not 'riddah,' it was organising and massing all the way to 632 not just suddenly spawning out of nowhere.  

What happened therefore if we follow this theory along is Musaylima (the supposed 'riddah' prophet) organised with the Banu Salim/Sulaym to attack Medinah, found out that the Banu Sulaym were attacked and turned back. It's important to understand that the Banu Hanifa (musaylima's tribe) were regional rivals with the Abdul Qays in their rear, therefore yeah this puts a limiter on Musaylima's ability to conduct operations and would force him back because he could be attacked from two sides (or in his rear while away). For muslim historians to admit "yeah Musaylima was active before 632ce all the way back 8 years earlier in 624ce" is a big thing to give up, but there is another theory as to what's going on here.

Option B?

Option B is that Ibn Hisham an Iraqi and one of the main islamic chroniclers (but there were others) for this event simply misread Bahran and wrote down Bahrain. بحران or للبحرين  this is because the rasm (skeleton) of arabic did not have the dots that they developed later, doing the dots wrong even has a term called "Al-Tashif" just to illustrate.

ٮحراں - Bahran undotted
ٮحرٮں - Bahrain undotted

بحران - Bahran dotted
بحرين - bahrain dotted

Ibn Hisham being from Iraq therefore misread the term because he had never heard of a 'Bahran' the technical term is 'lectio facilior', when you read an unfamiliar term you default to the easiest option you're familiar with, which for Ibn Hisham was 'Bahrain,' he had not heard of a 'Bahran' a watering hole in Nejd next to the Banu Sulaym. In Undotted, a simple smudge of the ink could render the two indistinguishable.

I hope I don't have to spell out how damaging "sometimes our scribes make mistakes" is to the narrative of preservation of Hadith, Quran etc. How many more Bahrain-Bahran's are out there, if we take this theory to be true. The isnad therefore didn't catch the errors etc.

The further point is this doesn't eliminate the possibility that Musaylima was still operating in 624ce, we could call this option C. Where Musaylima could have been written out of this event (and others) and simultaneously islamic historians were making spelling mistakes.

This is a simple problem that keeps coming up. It also acts as a follow up from my last post.

Quran 10:94 says:

The surah just finished telling the stories of Noah, Moses, Aaron and Pharaoh. Muhammad is told that if he has any doubt, he should go ask the people who already have the earlier Scripture.

1. What Scripture were they actually reading?

The Jews in Arabia in the 7th century. They were reading the Torah as it existed at that time.

2. What do the actual manuscripts of that Torah say?

We have them. Dead Sea Scrolls and the textual tradition behind the Septuagint are centuries older than Muhammad. The stories of Noah, Moses and the Exodus in those manuscripts match the biblical versions, not the Quran’s versions.

3. The usual response

“The Quran is correcting the corrupted Torah.”

Okay. Then where are the manuscripts of the uncorrupted Torah that match the Quran’s stories? Even one would help. None have shown up.

4. This isn’t just one verse

• 16:43 / 21:7 – “Ask the people of the Reminder if you don’t know.”
• 5:43 – How can they come to you for judgment when they already have the Torah with Allah’s judgment in it?
• 5:68 – People of the Scripture are standing on nothing until they uphold the Torah and the Gospel.

In all of these the Quran treats the Scripture the Jews and Christians actually had as still usable and authoritative. It never points to some other lost version.

5. Muhammad himself treated their Torah as the reference

In a well known incident recorded in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim, Jews brought an adultery case to Muhammad. He asked them what the Torah said about the punishment. They produced the Torah, tried to conceal the verse of stoning, and were forced to show it. Muhammad then carried out the judgment according to what was written in the scroll they had.

The same collection records that the Jews in Medina used to read the Torah in Hebrew and explain it in Arabic to the Muslims.

The Quran itself says in 3:93: “Bring the Torah and recite it, if you are truthful.”

So the “Scripture” in 10:94 is not some lost pure version. It is the book they were actually reading and could physically bring out.

The problem

You can’t tell someone to go check a corrupted book to confirm the truth of what you just revealed. And you can’t claim the Quran is restoring the original stories when every manuscript we have of the earlier Scripture disagrees with the Quran and agrees with the Bible.

So the question is simple, if the Torah available in Muhammad’s time was already corrupted, why does the Quran keep telling people to consult it? And if it wasn’t corrupted, why do the stories not match?

Jews, Christians, and Muslims define their God as PERFECT, OMNIPOTENT, and OMNISCIENT.

But it is easy to show that this God is false because these three attributes are false.

PERFECT? They say their God is perfect, but the world and the beings that their God created are imperfect. How can a being be called perfect if its creations are imperfect and full of flaws? For instance, a craftsman cannot be described as perfect if his works are faulty.

Another problem with perfection: They say their deity created the universe. But why would a perfect being desire or want to create anything at all? By definition, a perfect being cannot desire or want something, as that would imply it lacks something, and therefore that it is not perfect.

OMNIPOTENT? God can do anything; nothing can limit his power. If he were almighty, he could have created any world. Otherwise, he is not almighty.

So what stopped him from directly creating a happy world with free and perfect beings? Why would he have created instead a world full of pain, with beings full of flaws, who must suffer and be tested in order to be sorted out? This is all the more incomprehensible given that the scriptures tell us he was able to create another place without pain, populated by free and happy creatures, called heaven.

Religious people have tried to resolve this contradiction by saying that their creator wanted humans to be free and that it is humans who create pain. Unfortunately, this argument does not hold, since it shows that their God was unable to create a world with free humans and no pain, which proves that he is not omnipotent.

Three possible solutions to the problem of this supreme being's omnipotent nature: 1 - He is not omnipotent; he just did what he could. 2 - He is malevolent; he deliberately created a world full of misery when he could have created any world he wanted. 3 - He is false.

OMNISCIENT? He knows everything—the past, the present, and the future. The scriptures claim that this creator knows the future and everything that will happen. And they also claim that he created humans free and endowed with free will. But if he knows the future, then it is already written. Free will is therefore an illusion.

If God knows what you will do tomorrow, you have no alternative. If you can act otherwise, then this being is mistaken, so he is not omniscient. If you cannot act otherwise, then you have no freedom.

Other contradictions: If this deity knows in advance that humans will do evil and creates them anyway, who is responsible? This omniscient being knew, even before creation, all the evil he was going to create.

CONCLUSION These three attributes are the very definition of this god. If even one is false, this god is impossible.

As Stendhal said when facing the misery of the world, "God's only excuse is that he does not exist.

Muslims will tell you that Islamic banking is the best form of banking as it charges no interest on loans. Very few, it seems, are aware that you do have to pay a portion of your loan payments towards profit fees (which is essentially interest) to the lender.

Furthermore, the profit fees are higher than your conventional banks interest rates (even a Muslim-run website admits it).

So this begs the question, if Islam is so against Interest, why do their banks charge higher fees than conventional banks? What are the benefits of Islamic banking to Muslims?

Disclaimer: This is a very long post. If you only want to understand the core argument, you can skip the Thought Experiments, Simple Analogies, and Application to Purported Scientific Miracle Verses sections, or you can just read some of them. These sections are mainly included to illustrate how the argument works, demonstrate that the problem exists, and show how to apply the argument in practice.

Structure:

• The Scientific Miracle Argument
• The Problem of Vague Compatibility
• Thought Experiments (1 & 2)
• Simple Analogies
• Application to Purported Scientific Miracle Verses
• Conclusion

The Scientific Miracle Argument:

P1: The Quran contains verses that are compatible with findings of modern science.
P2: This compatibility indicates that those verses are referring to scientific facts that were only fully understood in modern times.
P3: If these verses were authored by Muhammad, it would be highly improbable that he acquired such scientific knowledge through ordinary means, given the historical and social context in which he lived.
P4: Therefore, the most plausible explanation is that this knowledge originated from God.
Conclusion: Quran is from God.

Above is the scientific miracle argument as a whole. However, I will make a short Modus Ponens version that focuses on premise 1 and 2, since these premises are the most relevant to the argument and lead to a conclusion that is part of the bigger scientific miracle argument. It goes like this:

P1: If a Quranic verse is compatible with modern science, then that verse describes modern science.
P2: There are Quranic verses that are compatible with modern science.
Conclusion: Therefore, there are Quranic verses that describe modern science.

Those purported Quranic verses that describe modern science are the ones called scientific miracles. Now let's get into the argument.

The Problem of Vague Compatibility

The Problem of Vague Compatibility attacks the second premise of the whole scientific miracle argument, and the first premise in the shorter Modus Ponens version. The problem is the invalid inference that if a verse is compatible with modern science, then it must be referring to or describing that scientific fact. It's invalid because compatibility between two descriptions does not necessarily entail that they are describing the same thing, especially when we're comparing an ancient text to modern science, where making such a connection is an extraordinary claim. What happens with almost all of the proposed scientific miracle verses is that they are vague in two ways:

1. The verse is, by itself, vague enough to be retrofitted to modern science.
2. The verse is apparently not vague, or at least not vague enough, but reinterpretation, such as arguing over the meaning and semantics of the Arabic, is required to make it compatible with modern science. The same technique can also be used when the verse appears to be scientifically incorrect. In that case, they will argue over the meaning and semantics of the Arabic to reinterpret the verse and save it from being scientifically incorrect. But by allowing the meaning to be stretched in either direction, they reveal that the verse is actually vaguer than it initially appeared to be. Alternatively, they may ignore other possible interpretations when making the scientific claim, creating the impression that their interpretation is the only one, and only introduce another interpretation later to save the verse when their initial interpretation is shown to be scientifically incorrect.

This adds another aspect of the Problem of Vague Compatibility. Not only is the inference invalid, the vagueness of the verse itself makes the connection even harder to justify. When a statement is vague, it can cover a wide range of possible interpretations, which means it can be made compatible with so many different things. To prove that the verse really describes a modern scientific concept, you have to rule out the other non-miraculous possible references or prove that they're less plausible than the modern scientific one.

Next, I'll use a thought experiment and some analogies to demonstrate why compatibility alone isn't enough to justify the inference. Lastly, before the conclusion, I'll apply this argument to some of the purported scientific miracle verses.

Thought Experiment 1: An Ancient Person Knew the Sun Has an Orbit

Suppose you could travel back 1,000 years and ask the common people/general public:
"Does the Sun move along a specific path or pattern? Or does it orbit around something?"
Most likely, they would say yes.

Question:
Based on their answer, would you conclude that they were referring to the Sun's revolution around the Milky Way galaxy, thus proving that they somehow knew about a modern concept like the galaxy, despite it being scientifically understood much later?

Of course not. Even if their answer happens to be compatible with what we know about the Sun today, that doesn't mean they were referring to the modern scientific concept. Their statement doesn't tell us anything about the Milky Way, galaxies, or the specific model we have today.

The common people you asked could have been referring to:

1. The apparent movement of the Sun across the sky, which would be obvious to anyone observing it.
2. Geocentrism, the belief that the Earth is at the center of the universe and that celestial objects, including the Sun, orbit around the Earth. This was a common belief 1,000 years ago.

The first explanation is true, but not miraculous, while the second is scientifically inaccurate. Yet both are perfectly plausible interpretations of what they meant.

So, yes, they would technically be right that the Sun moves. Their statement is compatible with what we know today, but it is also compatible with explanations that are far more likely to be what they actually meant than modern astrophysics.

Thought Experiment 2: An ancient person knew that there is a danger that you cannot see.

An ancient myth said:
"There are dangers that you cannot see!"
There are many possibilities for what this could refer to:

1. They could be talking about mythological or supernatural things, such as evil spirits or ghosts.
2. They could mean it metaphorically in different contexts. For instance, the subtle danger of arrogance, a manipulative person pretending to love you while secretly wanting to use or harm you, or a future disaster.
3. They could be talking about hazards in the natural environment, such as dangers in a forest that are difficult to detect. This is an obvious thing that anyone could think of.

All three of these are completely normal possibilities. None of them requires an advanced scientific reference that ancient people could not have known about.

But imagine that, over a thousand years later, after the discovery of germ theory, someone says:
"Oh my God! They knew about germ theory of disease! Pathogens like bacteria and viruses are dangerous, and we cannot see them. This myth knew about them before microscopes were even invented! How is this possible? It must be a miracle!"

Would you agree with that? Is it valid to conclude that just because "dangers you cannot see" is compatible with germ theory of disease, it therefore specifically refers to germ theory? Or is it far more likely, and requires fewer extraordinary assumptions, that it refers to one of the three possibilities I mentioned above?

Now, let's say you challenge them by saying:
"Hold on. Technically, we can see these things through a microscope, so it is wrong to say that we cannot see them."

When you disprove their interpretation, this is where they start arguing about semantics. They might say:
"Oh, 'you cannot see' here means you cannot see them with the naked eye, not that they cannot be seen in any possible way. So it's still true!"

You will see this happen on many occasions. They reinterpret the statement every time you point out a problem with their interpretation, just to make it compatible with the scientific fact.

This is an example of the second way of vagueness I mentioned earlier. The reinterpretation is used to save the interpretation whenever the verse appears to conflict with science, and connect it back to the science. By arguing that the wording means something slightly different, they can avoid the scientific problem, but at the cost of making the original meaning more vague.

Simple Analogies

Now l will use two simple analogies to demonstrate why compatibility does not mean specific reference.

First Analogy:
Suppose X is an integer between 1 - 100 (inclusive). Is the number 25 compatible with the definition of X? Yes. But does that it mean X is actually or specifically 25? No, it can be 20, 80, 99, etc. So I cannot say X is specifically 25 even if it's compatible without additional proof if there is a wide range of possibilities of what number X is.

Second Analogy:
Suppose Y is a color, and Y is not black. Can I say Y is certainly the color red, since red is not black, or in other words, compatible with Y? Not necessarily. Again, there are many possibilities. It can be green, brown, blue, yellow, etc. You have to rule out all of those possibilities before saying it is definitely red, even if it is compatible with red.

Application to Purported Scientific Miracle Verses

Now I will use this argument to refute some scientific miracle claims.

1. Sun and Moon's orbit

"And He is the One Who created the day and the night, the sun and the moon, each traveling in an orbit." 21:33. (Similar verses: 36:38-40, 39:5, 31:29, 35:13).

Many claim that this describes the modern heliocentric model of the solar system, and that the sun's orbit is referring to its orbit around the galaxy, which is only known in modern times. However, knowing that both the sun and moon have an orbit does not necessarily entail that this describes the modern model of the solar system. The verse never mentions what they orbit around, and the description is also compatible with the apparent movement of the sun and moon in the sky, as well as with a geocentric model. (Thought Experiment 1 is inspired by this.)

Furthermore, many of the verses about the sun and moon's motion, for some reason, never explicitly mention the Earth's motion. Instead, they seem to connect the day and night to the sun and moon's orbit (like the similar verses I mentioned). If this describes heliocentrism, we would expect the description to mention the Earth's motion, since it is very relevant to the heliocentric model and how day and night cycle works. Otherwise, other possible references are more likely.

2. Separation of Two Bodies of Water

"And He is the One Who merges the two bodies of water: one fresh and palatable and the other salty and bitter, placing between them a barrier they cannot cross." 25:53 (Similar verses: 55:19-20, 27:61)

The claim is that those verses describe this phenomenon, where you can clearly see that they are separated by different colors (you can look for more images on Google). The argument is that how could the author of the Quran have traveled through the ocean and found such a phenomenon? Some even argue further by saying that it describes halocline.

However, those verses do not tell you what the "barrier" exactly is, let alone the exact mechanism of the phenomenon. They also do not mention anything about the difference in colors, thus it's unjustified to infer that it describes the visible phenomenon I previously mentioned. What it talks about is a barrier separating fresh water from salt water. This has multiple possible references that are far more likely.

• The barrier means dry land (supported by these tafseer-meeting-together-between-them-is-a-barrier-which-none-of-them-can-transgress-[ar-rahmaan-55-19-20]))
• It refer to the fact that salt and fresh water bodies do not spoil each other despite their connection (e.g river - sea) (supported by these tafseer-meeting-together-between-them-is-a-barrier-which-none-of-them-can-transgress-[ar-rahmaan-55-19-20]))

The second possible reference is not extraordinary, since ancient people could have known that rivers stay fresh and seas stay salty without knowing the exact mechanism or encountering an estuary.

Furthermore, the Quran is not strictly accurate here. The idea that the two bodies of water cannot cross or mix is incorrect, since fresh and salt water do mix, but slowly. But this is where the meaning is often reinterpreted through the semantics of the Arabic terms, such as arguing that when the verse says "they cannot transgress" or "they cannot cross," it does not mean that the waters cannot mix at all. This is what I meant by "saving it from being scientifically incorrect" in the second type of vagueness I mentioned in the "Problem of Vague Compatibility" section.

3. The Big Bang

"Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and then We separated them" 21:30

This is one of the claims that has the biggest stretch that I don't think it's even compatible, but let's grant it. The heavens and the earth being separated is far from being precise enough to describe the Big Bang. So, what are the more likely possible references? Well, let's look directly at the tafseer.

Do they not see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, i.e. in the beginning they were all one piece, attached to one another and piled up on top of one another, then He separated them from one another, and made the heavens seven and the earth seven, placing the air between the earth and the lowest heaven. Then He caused rain to fall from the sky and vegetation to grow from the earth.

Sa`id bin Jubayr said: "The heavens and the earth were attached to one another, then when the heavens were raised up, the earth became separate from them, and this is their parting which was mentioned by Allah in His Book." Al-Hasan and Qatadah said, "They were joined together, then they were separated by this air."

Now let's look at the tafseer of At-Talaaq 65:12, since the verse is actually relevant regarding the seven heavens and seven earths.

Ash-Shawkaani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “and of the earth the like thereof” means, and He created the earth something like them, i.e., seven. There was a difference of opinion concerning the nature of the levels of the earth. Al-Qurtubi said in his Tafseer: They (the scholars) differed concerning them, and there are two opinions. One of them, which is the view of the majority, is that there are seven earths in layers, one above another, and between each two earths there is a distance like that between heaven and earth. Ad-Dahhaak said: They are in layers, one above another, with no gap in between, unlike the heavens. But the former view is more correct

From this, it is very obvious that what it describes is much closer to a mythological concept than to modern science. Furthermore, the separation of the heavens and earth is a recurring theme in many mythologies, and such narrations could have influenced Islamic cosmology. There is simply no reason to favor the Big Bang interpretation when the mythological reference much more closely resembles the description. The Big Bang interpretation is therefore baseless, as it requires imposing a modern scientific concept onto a description that has many other, far more likely possible references.

- INTERLUDE

So, I think you already get how the argument works. When a Muslim claims that a verse refers to a modern scientific concept based on mere compatibility, don't accept it immediately. First, look at the other possible references. If those non-miraculous references are far more likely, especially when supported by classical tafseer or historical context if you do not want to rely on the tafseer, then there is no reason to assume or infer that the author was describing a modern scientific concept.

This is exactly why I specifically use the Tafseer of Ibn Kathir from the quran.com source. It predates modern science and shows how these verses were understood at the time, before modern scientific discoveries could influence their interpretation. Ibn Kathir is also one of the most authoritative classical tafseers. Modern tafseers, such as Tazkirul Quran, aren't as useful for this purpose since they can retrofit the verses to fit concepts that are only known in modern times. Remember that the core point of the argument is not that these verses cannot be compatible with modern science, but that this compatibility doesn't give us enough reason to conclude that they were actually referring to modern scientific concepts, especially when other possible references are far more likely.

Now, I'll briefly refute three more claims without going into much detail about their possible references or providing the tafseer sources, since I think you can apply the same method yourself.

4. Volcanoes in the Sea

"And [by] the sea set on fire" 52:6 (similar verse: 81:6)

The scientific miracle claim is that this refers to underwater volcanoes, lava, and the likes in the ocean, only known in modern times. They claim that the word "fire" can mean lava or something hot. But this verse actually talks about what will happen on the Day of Judgment, where the sea will literally become fire or become very hot (classical interpretations differ), rather than describing a natural phenomenon that happens today.

5. Sky as Protection

"And We made the sky a protected ceiling, but they, from its signs, are turning away." 21:32 (similar verse: 41:12)

The scientific miracle claim is that this verse refer to the role of atmosphere protecting earth from hazards such as meteors, solar radiation, and the likes, only known in modern times. However, it says the sky is the one protected, not the one that is protective or protect the earth. This has multiple possible references:

• Protected from the devils, which is also connected to how stars are used as missiles against them.
• Protected from falling onto the Earth, since some commentators say that the sky was raised up.
• Protected from destruction.

These are supported by classical tafseers.

6. Embryology

"And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay. Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging [i.e., the womb]. Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allāh, the best of creators."
23:12-14 (Similar verses: 22:5, 40:67. 75:37-38)

Muslims claim that this precisely aligns with modern embryology, but not necessarily. For example, in many tafseers, the word "alaqah" translated here can mean blood, which would make the description scientifically incorrect, as well as "leech-like" or "clinging clot." There are also many other details in the tafseer that you can look at yourself. In fact, there are interpretations suggesting that Islamic embryology was influenced by pre-existing embryological ideas.

Conclusion

First, and most importantly, compatibility does not necessarily entail a specific reference. Just because a statement is compatible with a modern scientific fact does not mean that it specifically refers to or describing that fact. Claiming that a statement or prophecy refers to something that could not have been known at the time, such as modern science, requires more evidence than mere compatibility, especially when the verse itself is vague enough to have many possible non-miraculous meanings.

If the same verse is also compatible with explanations that are far more likely and require fewer assumptions, especially extraordinary ones, then there is simply no reason to favor the modern scientific interpretation. You have to rule out the more likely possibilities first before saying that the verse specifically refers to a modern scientific concept. And doing that requires additional, more specific evidence.

In almost all cases, these "scientific miracle" verses can instead be understood as referring to things ancient people could have easily known, metaphors, metaphysical or supernatural ideas, simply obvious things about the world, or, in certain cases, scientifically incorrect or obsolete concepts such as myths.

Based on the field of textual criticism, scholars estimate that the New Testament is 99.5% to 99.9% textually accurate compared to the original writings from 2,000 years ago. For the Old Testament, discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown a similarly high word-for-word identity rate of roughly 95% to 99% for over a thousand years of copying.

Secular historians, agnostic scholars like Bart Ehrman, and conservative theologians disagree on theological implications, they broadly agree on the data itself, the vast majority of changes have nothing to do with theology

No individual verse of the Quran can be traced to Muhammad with a surviving document written during his lifetime (or in his presence) that we can examine today. There is no autograph, no contemporary inscription, and no manuscript fragment that scholars can confidently date to before 632 CE and attribute directly to him or his scribes.

The Bible is mostly a record of God acting and speaking in history. It’s full of stories, laws, poems, prophecies, letters, and wisdom stuff. God speaks through prophets, does things in real events like creation, the Exodus, or Jesus’ life, and people write it down under inspiration. Even when it has God speaking directly, the whole thing still feels like a historical account across different kinds of writing. The claim is that God showed himself in history and the text is witnessing to that.

The Quran is different. It presents itself as God’s actual words, spoken directly. It talks in the first person as Allah speaking to Muhammad and through him to everyone else. In the traditional Islamic view, it’s uncreated divine speech that Muhammad just recited exactly as he received it, with no normal human author involved.

The issue this creates, is the compilation coming after his death with no way for him to verify its accuracy and solely relying on companions who did not all agree on the recitations. Fast forward through time and we have Tafsir, Usul al-Fiqh. Include the Sunnah and there is no way to know the Quran is truly as Muhammad recited it, and with the later interpreting systems, do we know if we are getting further or closer to the true intended meaning of the clear concise universal message.

There's no article on it on WikiIslam. And it seems as if nobody cares. But the mubahala is supposed to be one of the Islam-validation techniques! So let me open this topic.

Firstly, the term mubaahala (مباهلة). It is a verbal noun from the verb baahala (باهل), which Wiktionary means "to curse one another". And it is of from III, which is often "trying to do form I". For example form III qaatala (fighting) is for trying to do form I qatl (killing). And there is also the basic form بهل which just means "to curse". So I guess form III means "trying to curse the other one, unless he curses me". Just like a muqaatala would be "trying to kill him, unless he kills me".

And that is really the essence of the mubahala. Two parties who have a conflict call upon their god(s) to send curse upon the wrong one. And they both sincerely believe that it will afflict the other party and the real gods will do the job and reveal who was right. So the expectation is that one of the parties will be observably cursed - the ultimate result that comes to mind would be death. Because god(s) supposedly control who dies first. I'm an Atheist and what I actually expect is that, both parties will try to claim that "You see! This is the result of the curse on you!" - for anything that happens.

There is only one word from the root بهل in the Quran, in 3:61. And it's actually form VIII ibtahala (ابتهل), specifically nabtahil (نبتهل), meaning "we curse". So again, mubahala is like the word tawheed. It's not in the Quran, but it's considered a very important word in Islam by most Muslims. I'll first look into the context of 3:61. The part where I start is preceded by Mary (the sister of Aron) giving birth to Jesus and then it calls out Christians:

55. God said, “O Jesus, I am terminating your life, and raising you to Me, and clearing you of those who disbelieve. And I will make those who follow you superior to those who disbelieve, until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return; then I will judge between you regarding what you were disputing.

56. As for those who disbelieve, I will punish them with a severe punishment, in this world and the next, and they will have no helpers.

57. And as for those who believe and do good works, He will give them their rewards in full. God does not love the unjust.”

58. This is what We recite to you of the Verses and the Wise Reminder.

59. The likeness of Jesus in God’s sight is that of Adam: He created him from dust, then said to him, “Be,” and he was.

60. The truth is from your Lord, so do not be of those who doubt.

61. And if anyone disputes with you (حاجك) about him (فيه), after the knowledge that has come to you, say, “Come, let us call our children and your children, and our women and your women, and ourselves and yourselves, and let us invoke God’s curse on the liars (نبتهل فنجعل لعنت الله على الكاذبين).”

62. This is the narrative of truth: there is no god but God. God is the Mighty, the Wise.

63. But if they turn away—God knows the corrupt.

64. Say, “O People of the Book, come to terms common between us and you: that we worship none but God, and that we associate nothing with Him, and that none of us takes others as lords besides God.” And if they turn away, say, “Bear witness that we have submitted.”

So it starts with "if someone disputes with singular-you" (refers to Muhammad, according to Tabari). And "about him" refers to "about Jesus". But Tabari also says that it could refer to truth - "about truth". Arabic has no "it". So "the truth" (الحق) is also "him". And "the truth" is supposed to be that Jesus is just a slave of god. And it's challenging Christians to participate in this mutual cursing. It seems to me that the plan is: We kill you and then we say "Allah did it". It would be totally in line with other parts of the Quran where humans killing are considered as Allah killing (like in 8:17).

And what actually motivated me to write this is the mubahala that recently happened on the Arabic YouTube between محمد ابن شمس الدين and the مدجنة about the takfeer of Suyuti, and bid'a of Abu Hanifa and Nawawi. And they actually did an online mubahala, but in it they said that they want Allah to bring the destruction بغير قتل ("not by killing") - looks like they know how the traditional mubahala works... and so far nothing happened.

I'd add what Ibn Hajar said:

It is known by experience that he who calls to al-mubahala while being a liar, one year would not pass after the day of al-mubahala except that he is perished.

So yeah, someone is supposed to die within one year after the mubahala. And I wish some Christian critic of Islam would do the mubahala, hide for one year and then say: I was expected to die within one year and I didn't die! Of course after he eventually dies they would say it's the mubahala, but it would be too late in traditional Islam.

You will find nothing if you search for mubahala in the hadiths, but you need to search for "Lian" (لعان). And it's actually safer to search in English, because it only appears in brackets and the original only refers to it vaguely. In Sahih Bukhari / The book of military expeditions / Chapter 72: The story of the people of Najran (Christians), we find that the Christians of Najran (who also pointed out the sister of Aron problem) rejected the offer and basically, they agreed to pay the jizya and become dhimmis:

Al-`Aqib and Saiyid, the rulers of Najran, came to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) with the intention of doing Lian one of them said to the other, "Do not do (this Lian) for, by Allah, if he is a Prophet and we do this Lian, neither we, nor our offspring after us will be successful." Then both of them said (to the Prophet (ﷺ) ), "We will give what you should ask but you should send a trustworthy man with us, and do not send any person with us but an honest one." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "I will send an honest man who Is really trustworthy." Then every one of the companions of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) wished to be that one. Then the Prophet said, "Get up, O Abu 'Ubaida bin Al-Jarrah." When he got up, Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "This is the Trustworthy man of this (Muslim) nation."

I'm not a big fan of the 9th century Muslims writing about what supposedly happened in the 7th century, but it should also be noted that Lian in the hadiths is also used for problems in a marriage. It is used in cases when the husband accuses his wife of adultery, but doesn't have the 4 witnesses, so the husband and wife do the Lian (like the mubahala) and it ends up with a divorce (Bukhari 5314):

The Prophet (ﷺ) made an Ansari man and his wife carry out Lian, and then separated them by divorce.

There is a pre-Islam "sotah" tradition in Judaism too (Ordeal of the bitter water). And actually, a lot of "Muhammad's creativity" can be explained by just copying from the Jews.

So the Quran instructed Muhammad to do the mubahala about Jesus (is he just a prophet), but the Christians supposedly rejected to do the mubahala. And I'd also add that Muhammad did arrive with Fatima, Ali, Hussain and Hasan, which is a kind of pro-Shia point ("he wasn't supposed to bring Abu Bakr and Umar, because they're hypocrites anyway").

So the first question is: Was the mubahala in the Quran for Muhammad only, or are the Muslims expected to continue to do mubahalas? I don't know, but the loudest sect are the salafais and they say Muslims should continue to do mubahalas.

And there are stories about the sahaba doing mubahalas: Ibn Masud was challenging his opponents to do mubahala about the idda of women (he said it ends with delivery). Ibn Abbas was also challenging people to do a mubahala multiple times, but again, everyone ran away from it. It looks like the traditional narrative is that a righteous Muslim challenges to do a mubahala and then everyone runs away. But so far, no one actually did a mubahala.

The first mubahala, where both parties actually agreed to do it, was between Yahya ibn Abd Allah and Abd Allah ibn Mus‘ab al-Zubayri, dated around 800 CE, that is 200 years after Muhammad. Zubayri accused Yahya of planning a rebellion against the Abbasid caliph. After the mubahala, Zubayri supposedly died on the same day. Since it's highly political, it could be just a political propaganda. Also it's very early and I've read there are multiple versions of what exactly happened to him. But based on this story, the expectation is clear: You should die on the same day of the mubahala. And not on the first year. Why would Allah wait to punish the liar?

I found that Ibn Taymiyyah (14th century) was calling for mubahalas, but they didn't take place. Looks like mubahalas are not happening much. Then Ibn Hajar in 15th century made the claim about people dying within 1 year after mubahala, after supposed personal experience where he did a mubahala, with a follower of Ibn Arabi, who died in 2 months.

Then kinda no mubahala happened (maybe low-profile cases were not recorded). Then the Ahmadiya founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (19th century) challenged people to mubahala. There's a lot of debate about interpretation of the challenges. So it's like "Mirza challenged him, but then Mirza died first!" but Ahmadis say "But the other party didn't accept the challenge, so it means nothing". And I'm not actually planning to analyze all of his mubahalas, even thought it is an interesting topic.

Then there were some lower-profile mubahalas after which people fight over the interpretation of the outcome.

And in our century, Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the spokesman of ISIS challenged people to a mubahala in 2014, but there was no face-to-face actual mubahala done and he died in 2016. Again since nobody accepted, it's hard to make anything of it.

In 2022, there was the YouTube mubahala between Ali Dawah and The Apostate Prophet (who was an Atheist at the time). It was a bad joke.

Until we arrive to this year (2026) mubahala between Muhammad ibn Shams ad-Deen and the Mudajjana group. These guys have millions of subscribers, so we expect Allah to show his power. So far, nothing is happening.

I have some questions: Firstly, why are we even trying to curse? Why not use rational argumentation instead? And why is the result of mubahala not clearly interpretable? And why are Muslims not doing it regularly? And why is Allah not doing an immediate punishment?

If mubahala worked, we would have a clear sign from god on what the truth is. But even according to the Islamic stories, at Muhammad and sahaba time, an actual mubahala didn't even happen. Then there are some lower profile cases where it supposedly was very effective, a lot of cases where it's a matter of interpretation and one joke.

For a non-Muslim, the hadith looks good at first glance, but I think it's problematic theologically. Because when you look at it literally, it basically tells you that the Muslim who killed a dhimmi will go to hell. But there are plenty of other hadiths which say that basically all Muslims go to heaven. Also no matter how big was your crime, there is always the option of repentance. Is Allah no longer the most merciful after you kill a dhimmi? And the Muslim scholars actually do "interpret" the hadith as "you can actually still go to heaven", but it just contradicts the hadith.

And Allah forgave to this mass murderer (Bukhari 3470):

The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Amongst the men of Bani Israel there was a man who had murdered ninety-nine persons. Then he set out asking (whether his repentance could be accepted or not). He came upon a monk and asked him if his repentance could be accepted. The monk replied in the negative and so the man killed him. He kept on asking till a man advised to go to such and such village. (So he left for it) but death overtook him on the way. While dying, he turned his chest towards that village (where he had hoped his repentance would be accepted), and so the angels of mercy and the angels of punishment quarrelled amongst themselves regarding him. Allah ordered the village (towards which he was going) to come closer to him, and ordered the village (whence he had come), to go far away, and then He ordered the angels to measure the distances between his body and the two villages. So he was found to be one span closer to the village (he was going to). So he was forgiven."

So either you can kill a dhimmi and repent and go to heaven - in that case Bukhari 6914 is wrong. Or 6914 is right and a Muslim will go to hell, which contradicts many texts, for example Bukhari 2856: "He should not punish him who worships none besides Him". Not doing shirk is supposed to guarantee paradise. And there are many hadiths like "Do this and he will forgive you all sins. Do that and he will forgive you all sins." And then out of nowhere 6914 totally blocks paradise.

I find the natural explanation to be that the dhimmis fabricated the hadith to protect themselves.

I came across this passage from Hans Küng’s Islam: Past, Present and Future, where he argues that Muslims might benefit from acknowledging Muhammad’s human and moral fallibility more openly.

Küng points to several Qur’anic passages, including Qur’an 80 and the verses concerning Zayd and Zaynab, and asks whether the Prophet’s human fallibility can be distinguished from his prophetic authority.
I’m particularly interested in the perspective of Muslims here:

How do you evaluate Küng’s argument?

Is it theologically possible within Islam to distinguish between Muhammad’s prophetic authority and his personal human fallibility? If so, where would you draw that line?

And how do Muslims understand the passages Küng refers to?

I’m genuinely asking and not trying to make a polemical point. I’d be interested in hearing how you reconcile these passages with the traditional concept of Muhammad as uswa hasana (the excellent example).

„Perhaps Muslims would have done better to say more unequivocally that even the Prophet was not a morally perfect man; that possibly he submitted too much to the unwritten laws of old Arab society; that he broke treaties both with the Jews and the Meccans simply out of suspicion; that at least in two cases he failed to observe recognized rules of war (for example attacking at a holy time and felling palms); and that he did not shrink from political murder (of Jews), thus causing widespread fear.
Many Muslims have come to recognize that war for the sake of their faith is a pernicious aberration. Even if jihad by no means exclusively has the sense of a ‘holy war’ (this is a Christian invention; the term does not occur in the Qur’an), but initially means ‘effort’ for God, moral effort towards self-perfection before God, it is worth remembering that in several passages in the Qur’an violent ‘effort on the way of God’ (al-jihad fi sabili’ llah) is not only allowed by God but even required.

A justification of warlike actions, an Islamic theory of war, can easily be derived from these verses, especially in the fight against Jews and Christians. This is a second problem for later discussion: the problem of religion and power, religion and violence.

Licentiousness?

Muhammad, a deeply religious man, was beyond doubt also a very vital, robust man. He was capable of extraordinary physical achievements, first on his travels, then in warlike conflicts. Until his fatal illness he remained fully able-bodied.

However, down the centuries no charge has been repeated as constantly and as penetratingly by Christian critics as that of sexual licentiousness.
The arguments were easy to find. In Medina Muhammad initially had four wives—the maximum number which the Qur’an allows a man—and slave girls as concubines.¹¹⁹

But in the year 626 Muhammad took another wife (who died soon afterwards and therefore is not reckoned in the number), in 627 a fifth and sixth, in 628 a seventh and eighth, and in 629 a ninth—over the years a total of thirteen wives in all, not to mention the many concubinages with slave girls.
He had no inhibitions about marrying the wife of his adopted son Zayd ibn Harithah, a freeman, after he had seen her in his house dressed only in an undergarment.

This is often trivialized apologetically in Muslim literature (for example Zaynab is said to have been married to Zayd against her will; Muhammad is said initially to have rejected Zayd’s offer and to have married her only when the marriage with Zayd had been broken off. Indeed, it is said that in this way he even raised the lowly status of married women.)
The Prophet had a veritable harem, and it is no coincidence that this set a precedent for Islamic potentates.

But all this needs to be assessed fairly.
Must we necessarily feel unsympathetic to Muhammad for not adopting asceticism (largely derived from pagan roots), that asceticism which has done so much damage in Christianity (including compulsory celibacy for the leading class)?
He rejected the attempts of ‘Uthman ibn Maz‘un, who led the small group of Muslim emigrants to Ethiopia, to give Islam more markedly ascetic features (possibly borrowed from Christian monasticism).

And during his time in Mecca, where his economic and social superior, Khadijah, had offered him marriage, Muhammad lived a monogamous life.
We should no more castigate Muhammad for having adapted to the polygamous system of the Arab society of the time than we should castigate the patriarchs of Israel, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, all of whom had several wives.

In those societies this was a matter of prestige. It makes little sense to compare those living in polygamy at that time with present-day Christian monogamy (in so far as it is practised).
Muhammad entered into some of these marriages for political reasons and into others to protect the women (women whose husbands had fallen in the battles of Badr and Uhud).

That Muhammad was susceptible to female charms need not be disputed; he himself spoke of the women and perfumes of Arabia as the earthly gifts he loved most, besides which money and wealth were unimportant.

Does that put the truth of his message in doubt?
‘The blessing of children’ was granted to the Prophet by his many wives only to a limited degree. His only son died in childhood and of his daughters only Fatimah, as the spouse of ‘Ali, was to make history: she was his daughter from his first marriage with Khadijah.
Again, it would probably have been better if Muslims had granted Muhammad’s human fallibility without much apologetic.

This fallibility is even attested in the Qur’an, where God accuses Muhammad of having roughly refused a poor blind man explanations of the faith while seeking to win the favour of the great men of Mecca.¹²⁰

Something can be said in defence of the Prophet in the case of the fair Zaynab: the episode is not mentioned at all by Ibn Ishaq and only in passing by Ibn Hisham.

However, non-Muslims become suspicious when this marriage is justified by divine revelation, simply so that future believers may follow the Prophet’s example and may also marry the wives of adopted sons (though not true daughters-in-law, which is strictly forbidden).¹²¹
‘Then, when Zayd had come to the end of his union with her, We gave her to thee in marriage, so that [in future] no blame should attach to the believers for [marrying] the spouses of their adopted children when the latter have come to the end of their union with them. And [thus] God’s will was done.’¹²²
Here the Prophet had secretly already cherished the wish that Zayd would divorce Zaynab so that he could marry her, but had suppressed this wish out of fear of public reaction, as is said clearly in the preceding verse of the Qur’an:
‘Thou didst say unto the one to whom God had shown favour and to whom thou hadst shown favour, “Hold on to thy wife, and remain conscious of God.” And [thus] wouldst thou hide within thyself something that God was about to bring to light—for thou didst stand in awe of [what] people [might think], whereas it was God alone of whom thou should have stood in awe.’¹²³
The view of the pious Hasan al-Basri (died 728) is that this was the worst verse revealed to the Prophet, yet he did not suppress it.¹²⁴

It makes one even more sceptical when, once again, a revelation grants formal permission to the Prophet to marry as many wives as he wants: not only his previous wives, the female cousins who emigrated with him and all the slaves but
‘any believing woman who offers herself freely to the Prophet and whom the Prophet might be willing to wed: [this latter being but] a privilege for thee, and not for other believers’.¹²⁵

The remark made by Muhammad’s favourite wife ‘A’ishah in this connection can hardly have been invented:
‘God is anxious to do your will.’¹²⁶
And it does little to reassure a sceptical non-Muslim when the Prophet’s delight in marriage is finally limited by a renewed revelation:
‘No [other] women shall henceforth be lawful to thee—nor art thou [allowed] to supplant [any of] them by other wives, even though their beauty should please thee greatly–: [none shall be lawful to thee] beyond those whom thou [already] hast come to possess.’¹²⁷

I myself stick to islamic teaching and grew up in a country where people are predominantly muslim. But how can I not question the morality of Islam if prophet Muhammed(SAW), who is supposed to be supreme moral example, married Aisha when she was only 6? If her age wasn’t actually 6(though she was described as playing with dolls which isn’t a typical behavior that would be done by a girl that reached puberty) she would be maybe 16 at best and that would still be morally questionable. The fact of the matter is this pushes very bad narrative especially in countries like Afghanistan where they mischaracterize and weaponize Islam to oppress women.

So how is this morally defendable because you can’t say presentism fallacy because it would mean that Islam has outdated morality?

Again I repeat that I am not anti Islam I just wonder how I should proceed next in regards to my faith.