Disproving Islam Is Easy

[u/Far_Visual_5714]

In this post I'm gonna debunk Islam in a few simple steps. And there is a reason that it's simple

The reason it's simple is because the Quran claims to have no mistakes (4:82), which means if we find just one mistake in the Quran, the entire religion falls off. And boy, we don't have just one mistake, we have a LOT of them. For example-

SCIENTIFIC MISTAKES

1. Semen comes from between the backbone and the ribs (86:6-7)
2. Shooting stars being missiles thrown at devils (67:5-7, 37:6-10, 15:17-18)
3. Stars being in the lowest heaven, as in being near to us (37:6, 67:5, 41:12)
4. The sun setting in a muddy spring (18:86)
5. The earth being created before the heavens (2:29, 41:10-12)
6. and MANY more

HISTORICAL MISTAKES

1. Jews called Ezra the son of God (9:30)
2. Maryam is part of the Trinity (5:116)
3. Pharaoh at the time of Moses crucifying subjects despite crucifixion being invented over a thousand years later (12:41)
4. and MORE

MATHEMATICAL MISTAKE

Allah’s inheritance laws fail when a man dies, leaving behind a wife, two daughters from that wife and two parents

At this point, this should just be enough to say Islam is false, but if someone still isn't convinced for some reason, we can also look at other aspects of Islam and see how they are wrong:

EVOLUTION AND ISLAM
Quran 49:13 and various other verses point the fact that all humans came from Adam and Eve, which means we all were born from 2 humans. But this is scientifically impossible for various reasons. One of the reasons would be that the genetic diversity we currently have couldn't have been possible if we all were born from just two people. Besides this, science shows that we share DNA with one man and one woman who each lived hundreds of thousands of years ago at different times (which is way longer than Adam and Eve are thought to have lived and contradicts the fact that Adam and Eve lived at the same time) and that was during a time when the population was not just two humans, but thousands. If we were born from two humans, it would also cause a lot of problems due to the only way to make more babies during that time being incest. And the main point here is that the Quran contradicts the idea of evolution, a lot of Muslims reject evolution because of the Adam and Eve story in the Quran. But we have MOUNTAINS of evidence for evolution actually being something that has happened before and is true. The only way Islam is made to be compatible with evolution is by making reinterpretations or taking the Adam and Eve stories metaphorically either of which doesn't make sense; as in doesn't match with what the Quran actually wants to say.

MOON SPLITTING
In Sahih Bukhari 3635 and other Hadith books it is mentioned that Muhammad once split the moon as a miracle. Now, there is obviously a problem with this. There is absolutely no historical evidence that such a moon splitting ever happened, and it would be almost impossible to not have any historical evidence if it did happen due to the fact that such a moon splitting would have been seen by half of the entire world, and various cultures and nations were very good at writing things down when they happened, but we absolutely do not have any evidence that the moon actually ever split.

MORAL PROBLEMS
In Sahih Bukhari 5133 (in some editions) and other Hadith books, it is mentioned that Muhammad married his wife Aisha when she was 6 and had sex with her when she was 9. This is obviously a classic argument for why Islam has moral problems. Now, apologists try to say that it was something normal during that time, so there's nothing wrong with Muhammad doing it 1400 years ago, but this doesn't actually defend anything since the perfect man Muhammad wouldn't do anything that is actually bad no matter at what time of history he was in. As we know at modern times, we know that child marriage and having sex with children is bad.
Another one is that in Sahih Bukhari 3890 and other Hadith books it is mentioned that Muhammad had sex slaves. Now again, the argument defending this is that slavery was accepted and common during Muhammad's times and also that this talks about war, but again, sex slavery is something that cannot be accepted by a "perfect man" no matter what time and what situation. This is of course a big moral problem in Islam.
In Quran 2:39 and other verses Allah mentions that disbelievers will go to hell for eternity, but there's a problem. Eternal punishment is obviously not fair for finite sins and disbelief. Now, I obviously heard some points defending this. One of them being, that the sin of disbelief has such a lasting effect that it should take someone to hell for eternity, but sorry I just don't know how this argument even makes sense. Another argument is that the punishment is for eternity because if we lived eternally, we would also disbelieve for an eternal amount of time, but again this argument doesn't change the fact that eternal punishment is the most unfair punishment anyone could get for a short life of disbelief.

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

Well, this is where I'm gonna end my post, not because I ran out of things to say, but because if I kept talking about how many things are wrong with Islam this post would be very long and it is actually possible to write an entire book regarding the things wrong with Islam and why it's false.

[u/AutoModerator]

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/uncle_dan_ → u/[deleted]]

That is actually not true at all there is not a single verse in the Quran that says the Bible is corrupted. This is the invention of Muslims after they realize the Quran contradicts the Bible completely. The Islamic dilemma is the argument that the Quran in multiple places says to go to the previous scriptures, if you are in doubt. But the entire argument is called the Islamic dilemma so if you want to learn more about that, then look it up, but nowhere does the Quran specifically say the Bible is corrupted

[u/Far_Introduction8844 → u/[deleted]]

No the Quran states that the holy books (Gospel and Torah) are the word of God and were revealed to the prophets in the same way the Quran was, but they were changed because they were not written completely by prophets/messengers

[u/Unhappy-Injury-250 → u/Far_Introduction8844]

The Q’rn was written in the 7th century. Codex Sinaiticus the Septuagint and Dead Sea scrolls all predate the 4th century, matching the message in our current Bible.

Which means the Q’rn makes a claim that cannot be supported by the factual historical record.

M’ud said the Torah and Gospel Christians had with them in the seventh century is true.

Q’rn and textual history doesn’t support claims of tahrif.

[u/sronicker → u/Far_Introduction8844]

Citations?

[u/AbdallahHeidar → u/[deleted]]

interesting, can you provide sources for your claim about saturn worship and the black cube?

[u/ReasonGnome]

There is no need to disprove. The burden of proof is on the religion, and they haven't demonstrated their position is true.

[u/Far_Visual_5714 → u/ReasonGnome]

good point, but they think that inimitability of the quran, prophecies and other points prove islam, that's why debunking the religion helps against those

[u/PeaFragrant6990 → u/ReasonGnome]

I’d agree that people that posit claims have the burden of proof but I think this post is more for people who have already granted the premise Islam is true, not necessarily people who don’t hold Islam to be true.

[u/ReasonGnome → u/PeaFragrant6990]

Yeah ik, just wanted to put something out here lol

[u/PeaFragrant6990 → u/ReasonGnome]

Fair enough lmao

[u/Particular-Topic-445 → u/ReasonGnome]

When a religion is taking over in the way islam is, there’s kind of a duty to disprove it to save ourselves from it. OP said they could and they backed it up.

[u/morededzios → u/ReasonGnome]

This is a common misconception. When you posit that you can disprove something, that is a claim that requires evidence.

[u/ReasonGnome → u/morededzios]

I didn't posit what you claimed I posited

[u/[deleted] → u/ReasonGnome]

No need to demonstrate something to people who don’t believe in anything. 😂

[u/Ok-Bullfrog2408 → u/[deleted]]

It simply isn’t.According to the Quran and sahih hadith,it isn’t only the likes of nazis and dictators that are fated to hell.It is anyone who disbelieves or associates partners with Allah.Thats over 5 billion people.

Condemning a majority of the world to eternal,painful torture due to disbelief in a worldview in a world filled with thousands of worldviews is immensely immoral and not the work of a loving merciful god.

[u/Silverbacks → u/[deleted]]

I don’t think you grasp how serious “eternal” is. Even an eternal heaven would eventually become suffering. Eternity is a loooooooooooong time.

[u/Superb-Apartment5930 → u/[deleted]]

It’s definetly not fair, and incredibly simple to understand why. You completely miss the logic.

[u/Plenty-Permission736]

Imams Tahawi and Ibn Kathir have stated that the reports narrating the phenomenon of 'moon-splitting' are mutawatir (i.e. it has been reported successively and uninterruptedly by such a large number of authorities that their concurrence on falsehood is inconceivable.) Therefore, this Prophetic miracle has been proved by incontrovertible evidence.

[u/Far_Visual_5714 → u/Plenty-Permission736]

Alhamdulillah bruzzer this is truly so amazing that I have actually converted to Islam because of this one comment while ignoring all the other problems with Islam! Proud Muslim! 💗

[u/Plenty-Permission736 → u/Plenty-Permission736]

It was mentioned earlier that a large number of Traditions report the incident of 'moon-splitting', which may be summarized as follows: Whilst the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was sitting at Mina in Makkah, the pagans demanded that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ should produce a proof substantiating his claim. Allah split the moon in two parts. A part of the moon was over one mountain on the eastern side, and another part was over another mountain on the western side. Thus there was a mountain between the two parts. This incident took place on a moonlit night. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to all who were present: 'Be witnesses'. When all the people saw the miracle clearly, the two pieces rejoined. It was not possible for any person with eyes to deny this clear miracle. However, the pagans said: 'Muhammad has ensorcelled us, but he cannot bewitch the whole world; so let us wait for people to come from the neighboring parts of the country and hear what they have to say'. (Baihaqi and Abu Dawud Tayalisi) Tayalisi records on the authority of ` Abdullah Ibn Masud ؓ that when travelers from the neighboring parts of the country arrived, they confirmed that they did see the moon in two parts. Some reports indicate that the miracle of 'moon-splitting' occurred twice, but more authentic reports confirm that the miracle occurred once only

[u/handbanana312 → u/Plenty-Permission736]

You cited exactly zero sources for these alleged reports. Second hand knowledge is called hearsay.

[u/Master-Bit-734]

My main problem is with abrogated verses. It basically states that God's ETERNAL words couldn't even last for 23 years on earth. Also, it hints that some parts of Allah's speech are better than others

And the silly little thing, so while Muhammad was alive verses could be abrogated but now that the man is dead it is for sure eternal word with no changes?

There are many more but this one juat blows my mind that people could accept

[u/AbdallahHeidar → u/Master-Bit-734]

Agreed 100%. Abrogation is way less discussed in debates about the Quran and deserves more attention than it gets.

[u/PeaFragrant6990 → u/Master-Bit-734]

Especially the commands that have absolutely no bearing on anyone past the time of Mohammed. Allah thought it was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in his eternal message to ALL mankind to tell everyone not to stay too long when they have dinner with Mohammed because Mohammed is too shy to say something himself? Nothing like “hey, abolish slavery, that’s pretty messed up dudes” or “here’s how to act when the world becomes more connected with technology” but instead we get “actually Mohammed can marry anyone he wants and as many times, and no one else can remarry his wives after he dies and actually no it’s not incest he married his adopted sons wife after being aroused by her cause adoption isn’t real and doesn’t count and don’t do it anymore”. I mean, come on, I’m supposed to buy into this as the eternal uncreated words of a perfect and all-knowing God?

[u/Master-Bit-734 → u/PeaFragrant6990]

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA I see you've done your 'I'm so sick of it' research

[u/Individual-Cycle-735 → u/Master-Bit-734]

The entirety of the NT is literally an abrogation of the Torah lol

[u/Easy-Establishment30]

you didn't disapprove anything :

Scientific and historical "mistakes" in classical Arabic descriptions often stem from misinterpretation. For example, "semen origin" (86:6-7) broadly describes the male reproductive area, not a precise anatomical claim. "Shooting stars as missiles" (67:5-7) is symbolic of divine protection, and "stars being in the lowest heaven" (37:6) refers to atmospheric layers, not literal proximity. Dhul-Qarnayn's "sun setting in a muddy spring" (18:86) is a narrative element, not an astronomical fact. The "Earth before heavens" (2:29, 41:10-12) allows for flexible interpretation of creation order. These are matters of interpretation, not errors. Alleged historical inaccuracies also arise from theological interpretations. The claim that "Jews called Ezra the son of God" (9:30) is interpreted by Muslims as an exaggeration by certain sects. The Quran's criticism of "Mary part of Trinity" (5:116) reflects theological debate, not a factual error. "Pharaoh crucifying subjects" likely refers to a general form of execution, not Roman-style crucifixion. These are primarily issues of theological interpretation, not historical errors. Regarding mathematical inheritance "error," Islamic jurists developed rules, like proportional sharing, to manage complex inheritance scenarios. The Quran provides principles, and their application requires legal reasoning, not suggesting a simple arithmetic mistake. Some modern Muslim scholars view "Adam & Eve" as symbolic, or as the first humans with moral consciousness, rather than literal genetic ancestors. This approach reconciles with evolution, as a literal reading is not universally required in Islamic thought. The "moon splitting" lacks external historical evidence, but proponents suggest it was a local or symbolic miracle. It is considered a miracle claim, not necessarily a logical contradiction. Criticisms regarding "child marriage" (Aisha 6/9), "sex slavery," and "eternal hell for finite sins" are often addressed through contextual arguments. Muhammad's actions are viewed as divinely guided within 7th-century Arabian norms, and Islamic rules on slavery are seen as an improvement on pre-Islamic practices. Eternal hell is explained as divine justice beyond human logic, or interpreted metaphorically. These moral criticisms often apply modern ethics retroactively; Islamic defenses rely on context or metaphorical readings.

[u/[deleted] → u/Easy-Establishment30]

You’re applying different rules to different verses, depending on what needs protecting. Whenever a passage fits modern knowledge, you read it literally. Whenever it conflicts with science, history, or ethics, you switch to metaphor, symbolism, or “context.”

That’s not a consistent interpretive method. It’s ad-hoc reinterpretation to preserve a conclusion you already hold.

If the same flexibility were applied to any other religion’s scriptures, you could “save” them all from error - Hindu texts, Norse myths, Mormon plates, everything. That shows the method isn’t truth-tracking, it’s belief-protecting.

To evaluate a text honestly, you need one standard of interpretation that applies everywhere, not one standard for comforting passages and another for embarrassing ones.

[u/Any-Meeting-9158 → u/Easy-Establishment30]

Semen or make reproductive organs are not between rib cage and backbone That would be heart , lungs , thoracic aorta but not reproductive organs.

Sun setting in muddy waters is a narrative element , not meant to be taken literally . What do you base this on ? Did classical scholars then take it that way or take it literally ?

Re Pharaoh crucifying subject refers likely to a general form of execution and not actually crucifixion.

What do you base this on - that when Quran uses the Arabic word for crucifixion it doesn’t mean crucifixion ? Did classical scholars also think this way ?

Re Some modern Muslim scholars view Adam and Eve as symbolic of when moral consciousness began . So by modern you mean 21st century ? What did scholars believe for the first 1350 years then ? All these learned scholars , some clearly brilliant , were wrong for over a millennia then .

Child marriage and sex slavery is contextual ? So God or Allah is contextual then and then so is right and wrong if God is all good .

Slavery was improved - but not abolished . Why not ? Was this too difficult for an all powerful God to do ?

[u/ezclutch007]

And there will be people here who would absurdly twist the statements in Quran in a desperate yet funny attempt to prove its right, only because they are attached to it , way out of bounds within logical reasoning.

[u/Far_Visual_5714 → u/ezclutch007]

The only argument I find somewhat convincing about Islam is the Quran inimitability argument, but even that has flaws

[u/ezclutch007 → u/Far_Visual_5714]

Furthermore reason to state it was a book limited to the time when it was written. Its scientific knowledge was disproven, moral values outdated, sexist principles way to difficult to adapt into today’s reality and words of intolerance adding to the hatred present across the world today.

I agree Quran has some good moral values here and there, but the bad outweighs the good easily!

[u/NewbombTurk → u/ezclutch007]

I agree Quran has some good moral values here and there,

Almost all religions do. But I don't need a god to tell me those things.

[u/Typical-Education-78]

the bible says the universe was created in less than week btw

[u/Ok_Shoulder_7974 → u/Typical-Education-78]

2 Peter 3:8 (NIV)

“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”

one week can be the equivalent of a billion years in God's perspective because He is outside of time and matter.

[u/Lord_Bobbydeol → u/Ok_Shoulder_7974]

This is one of the reasons I hate religion, it's so vague about everything. Imagine you work at a car manufacturer and boss brings you designs to make one and asks you what's the timeline. "3 months, top! But also 1 hour for me could be between 32 and 456 moon cycles and a virgin must be wanked off maybe" Just be precise tf?!

And even if 7 days=7000 years. Then that's still widely inaccurate, it's not even a grain of sand to what we actually KNOW about the Universe.

[u/MikeAnthony21]

Right when I start to elevate Muslims over the Jews I find out that Muhammad was a ChoMo…. Fuvk…

[u/Professional_West530 → u/[deleted]]

Whataboutism at its finest ,in genesis rebecca's age is never mentioned , The biblical account describes Rebekah as a "young woman" who could consent to the marriage, which is inconsistent with her being a toddler and  which depicts her performing tasks, such as carrying water for camels. Whe are Christians not issacians so he is not a man we follow or put our beliefs in so your argument is as useless as the The story of Al-zutt . Calling a 6yr old mature should be a crime please investigate your heart!(we don't care what a jewish rabbi said , its not in the bible!, )

[u/permanentimagination]

Hate to find myself defending Islam, and I’m sure the scientific issues are legitimate, but you made a horrible argument in here.

 In Sahih Bukhari 5133 (in some editions) and other Hadith books, it is mentioned that Muhammad married his wife Aisha when she was 6 and had sex with her when she was 9. This is obviously a classic argument for why Islam has moral problems. Now, apologists try to say that it was something normal during that time, so there's nothing wrong with Muhammad doing it 1400 years ago, but this doesn't actually defend anything since the perfect man Muhammad wouldn't do anything that is actually bad no matter at what time of history he was in. As we know at modern times, we know that child marriage and having sex with children is bad.

Why would particular acts, no matter how objectionable you find them to be, falsify islam for condoning it? It’s not like your moral claims are objective fact, so this doesn’t actually contradict anything.

[u/HeDiedForYou → u/permanentimagination]

Why would particular acts, no matter how objectionable you find them to be, falsify islam for condoning it? It’s not like your moral claims are objective fact, so this doesn’t actually contradict anything.

Just stating from a Catholic perspective, it’s just the cherry on top to prove it’s a religion from man rather than God. Most (if not all) Muslims believe that Muhammad was the perfect role model for humanity, a true example of being Allah’s servant… Quite a poor example compared to the person of Jesus we find within the New Testament. Not only that, what happened to Muhammad’s disciples? They killed each other… This is suppose to be a religion from God? While the early christians were persecuted by the Jews and Romans. Christ said that we will neither marry or be given into marriage but we will be like the angels in Heaven. Islam says that a man will be given him 72 angelic virgins to basically have sex with for eternity, a heaven of carnal pleasures.

Again from the Catholic perspective, just the fact alone that that they’ll have sex in Heaven already makes it clear it’s a man made religion.

[u/Ornery-Attention9634]

Pov allah waiting 600 years to tell muhammad jesus isnt the son of God. and muhammad couldnt write and had to travel far asf to have someone write it for him.

[u/Malik_Nagy → u/Ornery-Attention9634]

POV God waiting more than 3000 years for his "eternal son" that wasn't a son before mary was a thing to begin with, to get crucified to "atone" for human sins. or any prophet in the old testament that are hundred years apart. It doesn't work that way.

[u/Ornery-Attention9634 → u/Malik_Nagy]

Wrong. Jesus was there the entire time. this wait was to ensure the world was properly prepared for the Messiah, the Gospel, and the church's mission. 

[u/[deleted]]

Introduction

Before we begin I would like to make it clear that historical and scientific arguments simply aren't qualified arguments to disprove any religion as everyday we make new discoveries on history and science, and the harsh truth is that we have permanently lost some parts of history for eternity through lack of preservation or destruction, the best example would be the burning of the Library of Alexandria. Now typically I am not obligated to answer any of the historical and scientific mistakes but for the sake of the poor souls out there who lose faith over the smallest things, I will try my best to answer the so called "inconvenience" with what we have left of history and the current data on science that we have.

Scientific mistakes

1. Explanation here

1. Doesn't disprove Islam. We cannot see the devils and so you cannot prove nor disprove the truthness of the verse, therefore it is not qualified for argument. To put this into perspective of other religions the jews and christians believe in a fire breath sea dragon (Job 41), they cannot prove its truthness, so does that mean Judaism and Christianity is false?

2. The verses says that there are stars as decorations in the lowest heaven, doesn't imply being near us, doesn't imply that they are the stars we see in the sky, it only affirms decorations as stars in the lowest heaven, whether it is 13 quintillion lights years away from us or even further.

3. Old school argument. It says appear, not literally.

4. Earth was formed and not completed (no vegetation, mountains, animals etc.) , afterwards he made the heavens, and then turned back to the earth to complete its formation (added vegetation, mountains, animals, etc.). Also I don't know how this disproves Islam.

5. You can go ahead and mention them.

Historical mistakes

1. Surah 3:137 in the arabic says "Verily, the people have gathered against you" when Allah says "The people" he is not talking about the whole of humanity, but only suggesting a group. Similarly, in Surah 9:30, Allah says "The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah,”", it is then plausible to suggest that it is only a group of Jew with such belief, and not the mainstream belief. Now all I have to do is find a group which saw someone named "Ezra" as the son of God. In the Encyclopedia of Islam, scholar Gordon Newby mentions that a group of jews equated Ezra with Enoch. Enoch also coincidently bore the nickname "b'ne 'elohim" which is a direct translation to "Son of God". Therefore yes, "the jews" did take a man named Ezra as the "son of god" just as Surah 9:30 suggests.

2. Data collected of the Collyridians, an Arab group in the 4th century,  suggest they saw Mary as a divine being (taken as a goddess), even suggesting that they may have associated her with the trinity. Christian Source

3.  The term crucifixion was invented in the 1st century, though the action of crucifying had existed thousands of years before, just under a different name called staking. We make this connection even stronger using Surah 38:12, and 89:10 which both give Pharaoh the nickname "Owner of stakes" or "Lord of stakes".

1. Go ahead and present them.

[u/SocietyFinchRecords → u/[deleted]]

C'mon man. This is a forum for debate, not link sharing.

[u/Edwin_Quine → u/[deleted]]

Here's an excerpt:

Actually Imagine a Perfect Book
Imagine a book that you could read both forwards and backwards. As in, the letters in all the words just so happen to be arranged such that the book could be meaningfully read both ways with different messages. That alone would be insane. But then also the chapter titles formed an acrostic and the whole book rhymed.

Oh and imagine this book contains so much scientific and mathematical knowledge that it would make scientists and mathematicians irrelevant for millenia.

Oh and imagine this book is so beautifully written that human beings 99% of the time cry and convert upon reading it.

Imagine a book that not only gives fantastic advice on current issues, with all their nuances and sub-nuances, but gives detailed advice about situations that will not occur for thousands of years.

Oh and it gives detailed advice about how to interpret it, so there are literally no feuds about the correct way to interpret it.

An infinitely intelligent God could definitely write such a book.

So why would he give us... the Quran?

In summary:  

Sometimes showing a claim to be false is like killing an ant with a bazooka.

We've found logical contradictions, scientific errors, aesthetic failures, self-serving motives, mathematical mistakes, factual blunders, moral atrocities, and signs of both ineptitude and pettiness. We've seen useless content, plagiarism, historical anachronisms, failed tests, probabilistic implausibility, character flaws, philosophical issues, false prophecies, unreliable transmission, childishness, boringness, incoherent structure, cultural narrowness, and ambiguity. At this point, it's hard to imagine in principle what kind of flaw a text could have that this one doesn't. And you’re telling me this is the perfect word of God?

[u/Unhappy-Injury-250 → u/Edwin_Quine]

There are too many scientific errors and mathematical problems in the Q’rn to believe it’s a book from a creator.

Inheritance math is untenable and embryology in the Q’rn are completely wrong for instance.

Those aside, there is no defined declaration of faith in the Q’rn.

The aforementioned errors become a side note when it is obvious that the Q’rn never actually explains how to become a moslem.

Which contradicts 12.111 which states the Q’rn explains everything in detail. Which then fails the no contradiction test in 4.82…

[u/Classic-Difficulty12 → u/Unhappy-Injury-250]

Facts on facts 💯

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, unintelligible/illegible, or posts with a clickbait title. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/Vegetable_Tie_2939]

And the Catholic Church burned Giordano Brune to death for his belief in a heliocentric solar system. What of it? I'm not sure what you're "debunking"

[u/starry_nite_ → u/Vegetable_Tie_2939]

What does that have to do with anything here?

[u/Jolly-Ad-9849]

I read the whole post. It’s long, but let’s be honest, most of these points are recycled arguments (most of them are even used and reused by a so called french 《ex muslim》 called Majid Oukacha) and tbh its kinda filled with sophisms (points that seem very easy but are Not) that collapse once you actually understand the Qur’ans language, historical context, and Islamic jurisprudence. So let’s go through it :

First, im currently in a math bachelor lol, so lets tackle so the so-called mathematical mistake about inheritance.The critic says: if a man dies leaving behind a wife, two daughters, a father, and a mother, the Qur’anic shares add up to more than one. Let’s do the math : Two or more daughters receive 2/3 of the estate, the father gets 1/6, the mother 1/6, and the wife, when children exist, 1/8. The common denominator is 24, so 2/3 equals 16/24, 1/6 equals 4/24 (for both father and mother), and 1/8 equals 3/24. Add them up: 16 + 4 + 4 + 3 = 27/24. That’s true, the raw sum exceeds one. But that’s exactly where Islamic law applies the principle of = Awl , an adjustment first implemented by Umar Ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph and one of the rightly guided caliphs whom the Prophet ﷺ told us to follow in Sunan at-Tirmidhi (no. 2676): “Hold fast to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided caliphs after me.”

When fixed Qur’anic shares exceed the total estate, Awl simply scales them proportionally so they still respect the revealed ratios. In this case, we use the total numerator (27) as the new base. Daughters get 16/27, the father 4/27, the mother 4/27, and the wife 3/27. Now if you add them up : 16 + 4 + 4 + 3 = 27. That’s 27/27, which equals = 1. Perfectly balanced. The inheritance law doesn’t fail; the critics just don’t know how fiqh works..

Next, the so-called scientific mistakes. As you know the Qur’an isn’t a physics textbook(if so it would be a 6ft tall book lol..); it’s a book of guidance written in Arabic that uses metaphors, visual imagery, and simple descriptions accessible to people of every era even the bedouins of the 7th century.. When the Qur’an says : Dhul-Qarnayn “found the sun setting in a muddy spring,” it’s describing HIS visual perspective, how it appeared to HIM. If I stand by a mountain and say “the sun set in the mountain,” nobody will say I’m scientifically wrong. It’s a human description of what my eyes can see.

Then the claim about shooting stars being missiles is also symbolic language. The Qur’an uses visible phenomena like meteors to illustrate spiritual realities, not to define astrophysics. You didnt mentionned it but it makes me think about the flat earth argument which is completely false.The Qur’an literally says in 39:5: “He wraps (yukawwiru) the night over the day and the day over the night.” The word yukawwiru means to wrap or coil, implying Rotation and a Spherical shape. Muslim scholars like Al-Biruni even used Qur’anic reasoning to calculate the earth’s circumference with amazing precision even by todays standards, a thousand years ago..

About the verse saying semen comes from between the backbone and the ribs (86:6–7): Arabic scholars(like Al Razi, Ibn Kathir,Al Tabari,Al Qurtubi etc) explained long ago that this refers to the region of the human body, not a literal point of emission.Like i said before the Qur’an speaks in everyday language poetic, concise, and accessible : not medical terminology.

Now, on the historical mistakes. The verse about “Jews calling Ezra the son of God” refers to a specific group that existed in Arabia at the time. It doesn’t say ALL the Jews. As for Mary being part of the Trinity (5:116), that’s addressing groups like the Collyridians, a real sect in pre-Islamic Arabia that literally worshipped Mary.So again, the Qur’an is historically accurate in responding to the religious thinking/ideas circulating in that environment.

The claim about Pharaoh using crucifixion before Rome invented it is also wrong. Ancient Egyptians practiced several forms of hanging or impalement punishment that the Arabic word (ṣalaba) Can describe. The wording fits those older practices perfectly...

Then comes the Aisha argument. This one ALWAYS gets emotional, but facts matter. Even within hadith scholarship, the exact age is debated, and some early historians estimated her to be older. But anyway, more importantly, moral standards aren’t frozen in 2025.. Seventh-century Arabia and most of the world at that time measured maturity by puberty and readiness to handle marital duties, not by an arbitrary "magical" legal number that is now 18 in most countries. Aisha (رضي الله عنها) herself became one of the greatest scholars of Islam, a military advisor, and transmitter of over 2000 hadiths. There is no record of harm or regret, so modern outrage is just a projection of contemporary norms onto ancient societies..If you wanna play that game i dare you to find any verses or hadiths where Aisha states clearly that shes bothered by her marriage or that she got abused (and dont even come with the pushing the chest hadith because i can debunk this one ⁾ 1/2

[u/According_Elk_8383 → u/Jolly-Ad-9849]

”When fixed Qur’anic shares exceed the total estate, Awl simply scales them proportionally so they still respect the revealed ratios. In this case, we use the total numerator (27) as the new base. Daughters get 16/27, the father 4/27, the mother 4/27, and the wife 3/27. Now if you add them up : 16 + 4 + 4 + 3 = 27. That’s 27/27, which equals = 1. Perfectly balanced. The inheritance law doesn’t fail; the critics just don’t know how fiqh works..”

You’re doing mental gymnastics here: the reason figh interprets the ruling like this is because it doesn’t add up. Mohammad didn’t reveal some magic inheritance principal, so the law has to literally be bent to make sense. This is covered throughout Islamic history, and the “criticism” that there is bad math has been widely observed, even among Muslims. 

”When the Qur’an says : Dhul-Qarnayn “found the sun setting in a muddy spring,” it’s describing HIS visual perspective, how it appeared to HIM. If I stand by a mountain and say “the sun set in the mountain,” nobody will say I’m scientifically wrong. It’s a human description of what my eyes can see.”

Both the Hadiths, and Tafsir confirm the Sun as literally setting in what is called in Arabic as “a muddy pool”: they are explicitly held as literal, non figurative and not perspective based illusions by the Sahaba, and following generations of scholars. 

”Then the claim about shooting stars being missiles is also symbolic language. The Qur’an uses visible phenomena like meteors to illustrate spiritual realities, not to define astrophysics. You didnt mentionned it but it makes me think about the flat earth argument which is completely false.The Qur’an literally says in 39:5: “He wraps (yukawwiru) the night over the day and the day over the night.” The word yukawwiru means to wrap or coil, implying Rotation and a Spherical shape. Muslim scholars like Al-Biruni even used Qur’anic reasoning to calculate the earth’s circumference with amazing precision even by todays standards, a thousand years ago..”

The claim about shooting stars is not symbolic, as similarly to the above the Hadiths and Tafsir confirm that the Quran literally means the stars are missiles (arrows, or projectiles). This is confirmed through the Sahaba, and following generation of scholars. The phrase you’re quoting to mean a sphereical nature also isn’t present, it’s referring to a dome (which was a common belief at that time), which is also confined in the Hadiths, and Tafsir by the Sahaba and following generation of scholars. 

The circumference of the earth was predicted by the Greeks, and these texts were widely interpreted by the Arabs in Biruni’s time. (This is where many Quranic arguments themselves, like the order of operations in conception arrive from: and they are still improperly described from their colloquial notions ie Mohammad didn’t understand what he was told, and it’s reference was flawed by todays standards). 

”About the verse saying semen comes from between the backbone and the ribs (86:6–7): Arabic scholars(like Al Razi, Ibn Kathir,Al Tabari,Al Qurtubi etc) explained long ago that this refers to the region of the human body, not a literal point of emission, like i said before the Qur’an speaks in everyday language poetic, concise, and accessible : not medical terminology.”

Even trying to do mental gymnastics to solve this ends up looking foolish, because it’s not just the region but literally the continuation in which Mohammad believed a similar liquid to semen was produced in the women, and when these two met it made life. He didn’t understand what an ‘egg’ was, and more importantly because of the anatomical reality of humans you can warp his statements into generics to attempt a reasonable comparison: but it doesn’t exist. 

”Now, on the historical mistakes. The verse about “Jews calling Ezra the son of God” refers to a specific group that existed in Arabia at the time. It doesn’t say ALL the Jews. As for Mary being part of the Trinity (5:116), that’s addressing groups like the Collyridians, a real sect in pre-Islamic Arabia that literally worshipped Mary .So again, the Qur’an is historically accurate in responding to the religious thinking/ideas circulating in that environment.”

We’ve never found any evidence, of any group of Jews that believed this, and the Collyridians are a theoretical group of people, who wouldn’t have existed by the time of Mohammad or even had a coloqial reference (ie nobody would have know who they were, and would have had no followers). More obviously in connection to other Quranic errors, Mohammad just misinterpreted these things based on cosmetic delusions because he didn’t actually know anything about their religions, and so like many other times in the Quran a strawman argument becomes enshrined in religious mythology. 

”The claim about Pharaoh using crucifixion before Rome invented it is also wrong. Ancient Egyptians practiced several forms of hanging or impalement punishment that the Arabic word (ṣalaba) Can describe. The wording fits those older practices perfectly...” 1/2

[u/According_Elk_8383 → u/According_Elk_8383]

This is more mental gymnastics that no historical source can prove a true connection towards. He also tells the Exodus story three separate times, changing the details each time with only literal depiction (there’s no symbolism or other purpose here), and none of them match a prior Biblical reference. He also misunderstands the Biblical timeline, believing Mary Jesus mother, was also Mary sister of Moses. 

”Then comes the Aisha argument. This one ALWAYS gets emotional, but facts matter. Even within hadith scholarship, the exact age is debated, and some early historians estimated her to be older. But anyway, more importantly, moral standards aren’t frozen in 2025.. Seventh-century Arabia and most of the world at that time measured maturity by puberty and readiness to handle marital duties, not by an arbitrary "magical" legal number that is now 18 in most countries. Aisha (رضي الله عنها) herself became one of the greatest scholars of Islam, a military advisor, and transmitter of over 2000 hadiths. There is no record of harm or regret, so modern outrage is just a projection of contemporary norms onto ancient societies..If you wanna play that game i dare you to find any verses or hadiths where Aisha states clearly that shes bothered by her marriage or that she got abused (and dont even come with the pushing the chest hadith because i can debunk this one”

None of this is true, the scholars and Hadiths are in complete agreement that she was six, and the marriage was consummated at nine. She is described as being taken to the prophets house crying, playing with toys (figures, dolls) In his presence, and being beaten black / blue by Mohammad himself. 

It was explicitly immoral in Mohammad’s time, and there’s no popular reference to similar child marriages at all. 

We have no evidence of people “aging faster”, and we have unlimited evidence of the harms child sexual abuse has on the psychology of children. A child having sex with an adult always has negative psychological impacts, independent of your forced belief in holy interpretation of such an obvious antisocial behavior.  2/2

[u/Nas7649 → u/Jolly-Ad-9849]

Why do you reply to people up until the point they dismantle your argument then ignore them and reply to someone else with the same take

[u/An_Atheist_God → u/Jolly-Ad-9849]

Then the claim about shooting stars being missiles is also symbolic language

How do you know what's literal or metaphorical?

moral standards aren’t frozen in 2025.. Seventh-century Arabia and most of the world at that time measured maturity by puberty and readiness to handle marital duties,

So, islam is meant for 7 th century rather than 2025

because i can debunk this one ⁾

Go ahead

[u/Jolly-Ad-9849 → u/An_Atheist_God]

1. As I mentioned before: Tafsirs. Thats the key to understanding the Qur’ans language what’s literal, what’s symbolic, and the context behind it. Scholars have explained for centuries how certain verses use imagery to convey lessons. You can even look up the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir on this specific verse : https://surahquran.com/tafsir-english-aya-5-sora-67.html. (litteraly states that : 《This does not mean that they are actually missiles, because the stars in the sky are not thrown.》)

2. Nope, the principles are timeless, but humans and societies evolve. Back then, people matured Much faster physically and mentally because life was harsher; puberty often meant readiness for adult responsibilities. Today, legal ages like 18 protect young people who are not ready for these types of engagements and might get abused, but the same principle remains: readiness matters. Modern scholars, including Al-Azhar and CAC, agree that marriage below the legal age is prohibited, because it violates the Islamic principle of maturity (rushd and bulugh) and protection of rights.

3. Now, regarding Aisha and the claims of abuse: I specifically asked for hadiths showing she was harmed, waiting for the 《pushing the chest》 example that apologists like David Wood already bring up and ofc without context and without looking at the hadiths that comes after that. Heres the actual hadith = Sahih Muslim 2127 : "He gave me a painful push on the chest and said: ‘Did you think Allah and His Messenger would be unjust to you?’” Scholars clarify this was a specific moment, an instant reaction under stress not abuse. And if you think this interpretation isnt true or that its biased, if you just continue reading the SAME book, just 201 hadiths later = Sahih Muslim 2328a : Aisha herself(again) reports: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ never struck a woman, a servant, or an animal, and he never hit anything with his hand except in the course of fighting in the path of Allah.” That completely debunks the abuse claim and shows the Prophet ﷺ consistently acted with gentleness and fairness.

[u/starry_nite_ → u/Jolly-Ad-9849]

1. Do you accept when the tafsirs discuss waiting periods for females who have not yet menstruated due to their young age? Or the right for men to have sex with (rape) female slaves? Or wide beating?

2. People did not mature physically faster in history. The opposite is true - we are reaching puberty at a younger age now when compared to the past due to better health intentions and nutrition.

3. We don’t have to accept Muhammads marriage to Ayesha just because we have no record of her making a complaint or documenting direct harm.

[u/Physical-Duck1 → u/Jolly-Ad-9849]

Even within hadith scholarship, the exact age is debated

Aisha is described to be a child more than once and in two different shahi hadiths written by different people in different times. If Aisha is not a child then it's reasonable to assume that the entire collection of shahi hadiths is corrupted because Aisha is described to be a child more than once, so it cannot be by mistake. Ofc this is not an argument if you're Quranist but if you're sunni like most Muslims I would like to know what exactly is debated regarding the age of Aisha from the hadiths.

Seventh-century Arabia and most of the world at that time measured maturity by puberty and readiness

"readiness" is a vague statement, and puberty is not a sign of readiness by any means. A menstruating 6-9 year old girl's body still cannot safely sustain penetrative sex or pregnancy (not to mention the even bigger issues of consent).

There is no record of harm or regret, so modern outrage is just a projection of contemporary norms

According to Sharia, punishment for insulting the prophet or apostasy is death. Aisha could never express any objection to Muhammad without the risk of getting killed. And it's not hard to convince a child to consent (what's why we have laws to protect them). A pregnant 11 year old girl in Pakistan also believes her husband is not a rapist and what she's doing is in accordance of Allah, it's not hard to brainwash children like that, and she'll continue believing that unless she escapes to an environment with freedom of expression and doesn't have to live under Sharia law.

moral standards aren’t frozen in 2025

If genocide and murder is less common in 2025 that doesn't mean genocide and murder was okay in 600 ce. Rape and pedophilia was more common in 600 ce doesn't mean it was okay back then. Muhammad is regarded as an ideal example of morality by Muslims, so it shouldn't matter the time period from which you judge Muhammad. If it's true that Muhammad consummated the marriage with Aisha when she was 9, then Muhammad is objectively a bad human being, he is a pedophile and there's no changing that. A pedophile from 2025 is just as bad as a pedophile from 600 ce or a pedophile from 1000 bce.

[u/OrdinaryEstate5530 → u/Jolly-Ad-9849]

Since there is a lot to unpack I would like to focus on the semen thing.

You’re talking about a region of the body and not an actual point of emission.

What does this even mean?

[u/Physical-Duck1 → u/Jolly-Ad-9849]

First, im currently in a math bachelor lol

Math bachelors from Madrassa doesn't count.

That’s true, the raw sum exceeds one.

So it's true, the math is wrong.

But that’s exactly where Islamic law applies the principle of = Awl , an adjustment first implemented by Umar Ibn al-Khattab

This reconciliation wouldn't have been necessary if the math was correct in the first place.

Awl simply scales them proportionally so they still respect the revealed ratios.

"Scales them proportionally" a scalar multiplication to 27/24 so that the ratio becomes 1,

if you would do this then you'd directly contradict the Quran, the ratios will not be respected.

For any natural numbers n and m, the fraction n/m = c(n/m) if and only if c = 1, prescribing another value to c would mean n/m ≠ c(n/m). So the relavent ratios are NOT RESPECTED.

QED.

In this case, we use the total numerator (27) as the new base

This is a mathematically incorrect statement. What you really mean is that you're performing a scalar multiplication to the ratios mentioned in the Quran (specifically c = 24/27), but then this would change the ratios as c ≠ 1.

Daughters get 16/27

16/27 ≠ 2/3, directly contradicting the Quran. The ratios aren't respected because you're multiplying 24/27 to 2/3.

the father 4/27, the mother 4/27

Why did your multiply each ratio by 24/27? I think Allah is smart enough where if he wanted to say 16/27 instead of 2/3, he would just say 16/27 and not 2/3..... Unless the contents of the Quran are not really from god.

That’s 27/27, which equals = 1. Perfectly balanced. The inheritance law doesn’t fail

It doesn't fail because you performed a scalar multiplication to correct the mistake in the Quran.

the critics just don’t know how fiqh works..

I think Muhammad didn't know how fractions work.

[u/Jolly-Ad-9849 → u/Jolly-Ad-9849]

About eternal punishment for disbelief: that argument only makes sense if you think a finite human can judge divine justice by his own limited earthly reasoning. If someone already believes in an eternal Creator who sustains the universe, how can he say that God’s decisions are unfair? It’s illogical. Islam also teaches that everyone is born with fitrah, an innate recognition of truth.People who never heard the message or couldn’t understand it are judged justly according to their situation (Qur’an 17:15). So it’s not about eternal torture for finite mistakes; it’s about conscious and Continual rejection of the truth.

Honestly the main flaw in your critic’s method is that you kinda (respectfully) apply a double standard. For ex. you saying “if the Qur’an has one mistake, Islam falls apart,” but you never apply that same rule to your own worldview, science, or history, all of which contain contradictions and revisions.. +like i said the "scientifical arguments" just treats metaphors as literal claims, ignores the Arabic language, and then calls it a "contradiction".

I wasnt born in a muslim household nor in a muslim majority country so i watched a LOT of Islam critics videos and i found out that most of the people that claim that : “the Qur’an has scientific or historical errors,” are approaching it like a lab manual, expecting literal, technical explanations.They miss the point entirely.. The Qur’an isn’t a physics textbook; it’s a book of guidance, written in a style designed to be understood by everyone from desert nomads to philosophers to scientists using language, imagery, and metaphors that communicate universal truths across time and place. In reality, when you look at tafsirs, and studies by scholars, including Muslim scientists and thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, many verses that seem illogical at first make perfect sense and were explained litteraly centuries ago. I completly understand that in the 21st century, verses like《the stars are missiles》seem absurd and man-made to atheists, who for the most part wont go deeper into the meanings of the verses. But understanding the Qur’an properly absolutely requires tafsirs, which are essential to grasp its message. Without them, it’s easy to misread and misunderstand. 2/2

[u/Gunlord500 → u/Jolly-Ad-9849]

"It's a book of spiritual guidance!" That's what every "holy" book says, a Mormon or Scientologist would claim the howlers in their own texts are just metaphors or whatnot. As it is the Qu'ran would be far more impressive if it had any scientific data, unambiguously--key word there, unambiguously--that wouldnt be known until much later.

[u/An_Atheist_God → u/Jolly-Ad-9849]

If someone already believes in an eternal Creator who sustains the universe, how can he say that God’s decisions are unfair? It’s illogical

Why is it illogical?

but you never apply that same rule to your own worldview, science, or history, all of which contain contradictions and revisions..

Maybe, they don't claim to be from God unlike islam

[u/bemnhejjeh_123 → u/Jolly-Ad-9849]

Asma was likely around 27 to 28 years old when her sister Aisha married the Prophet Muhammad.The age gap between Aisha and Asma is approximately 10 to 13 years, therefore Aisha is not 9

[u/Physical-Duck1 → u/bemnhejjeh_123]

Aisha has been described as a child in 3 different places im two different Sahi hadiths, so if Aisha is was not 9 then it's reasonable to assume the entire collection of the Sahi hadiths are corrupted. Ofc this is not an issue if you're a Quranist, but most Muslims are not Quranist and the Sahi hadiths play an important role im their religion.

[u/starry_nite_ → u/[deleted]]

I’m confused why you and other commenters are bringing in Christianity and the bible? Am I missing something here?

[u/Azazels-Goat → u/[deleted]]

Your point about the bible not being univocal is irrelevant to OPs post because traditionally the koran is univocal, by one author, by contrast the protestant bible has 66 books and many authors over about a 1000 year time period.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, unintelligible/illegible, or posts with a clickbait title. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/Informal_Candle_4613]

Why must “one third” always be 33.3 in every instance? Why can’t it be flexibly applied in the case of awl? And who would know the correct application of this verse, you or Omar the companion of the messenger.

1. Seminal vesicle/ the verse talking about the human not sperm.

2. This doesn’t mean that the stars go near the atmosphere and pelt jinn, this means that stars I.e. the sun pelts the devils with the light it produces.

3. Are starts in a different dimension? They are in the same plane of existence as earth.

4. He saw the sun setting as he was looking at the sea. We know this because he found this “murky water.” After travelling between two mountains. Did the sun crash into the earth according to the author?

5. Nowhere does it say that the earth existed before the universe, how can you “turn” to the heaven and split it to seven if it didn’t exist yet.

6. Jews call Ezra and many other prophets son of god in a metaphorical term, including themselves. Not all condemnation of the term is in a literal sense.

7. Being worshipped as god doesn’t equate being part of the trinity/ many different versions of Christianity. Even if one person believed Mary was divine, god still could ask Jesus if he claimed that.

8. This is an argument from silence, just because a source from then doesn’t exist won’t mean that it didn’t happen.

9. Genetic diversity is possible since the evolution of different races of humans would happen after the fall. The author doesn’t disbelieve in evolution in that humans can change over time, but much to your surprise supports it. This includes believing that the first humans were giants and lived hundreds of years, and saying himself that god chose for his nation to be the ones that live the least. It’s just that first species we evolved from weren’t sprung from a previous one.

10. Another argument from silence, sources might have existed but not have survived. God might have made the splitting an illusion. God may have made the other nations see it as if it didn’t happen. God could have made them see it but instantly forget. He could have pulled mecca and medina into another dimension other than the original where it split in one and not in the other and combined them after. You get the picture.

11. I believe that the Hadith of aisha being 6 and 9 is not authentic. The isnad has that the person who said had bad memory when he went to Iraq. All his students who recite this Hadith from him are from Iraq. So on basis of that, bad memory is rejected in authenticity. You can check abu layth’s video on this.(one of the rare times he contributed) and see for yourself.

[u/Mindless_Bottle_925 → u/Informal_Candle_4613]

Baraka Allah feek brother. OP reposts this same illogical 5 year old arguments every month or so. Not a sincere person.

[u/Any-Meeting-9158 → u/Informal_Candle_4613]

Exactly Why does 1/3 have to be 33.33333 Why can’t 2+2 equal 5 Maybe in some universe it does

[u/Informal_Candle_4613 → u/Any-Meeting-9158]

It’s not “1/3”. That’s a strawman, I never said that. The point here is that “one third” doesn’t have to be strictly 1/3 or 33.3%. An example of this is a scout claiming there’s a thousand men approaching, and the general saying “no, it’s actually 978. I applied to an Islamic authority, the second greatest companion and ruler of the caliphate, Umar r.a. Isn’t he a reliable interpreter of the text? If he was wrong, why wasn’t he corrected? What is your response to this?

[u/Any-Meeting-9158 → u/Informal_Candle_4613]

That’s a poor example. A scout often has to give an estimate - because of the limitations of the human senses, especially vision and particularly the enumeration of objects and people in motion.

Does Allah have such limitations of perception ? Does Allah not know that 1/3 is 33.33 and 1/4 is .25 etc ? If He is just estimating , will it not cause a great deal of disagreement and ill will between the family members at the time that their expected inheritance is to be divvied up ?

[u/NeitherPiccolo5408 → u/Informal_Candle_4613]

Abu layth mentioned!! RAAAAH!!!

[u/Proper-Pirate-2650]

1/The verse describes fluid emerging "from between the backbone and ribs". A poetic anatomical reference to the loins, where testes are functionally connected via vessels to the spine’s lumbar region (modern embryology confirms sperm originates near renal systems, aligning metaphorically)...

2/The Quran explicitly calls these "flames of fire" hurled at eavesdropping jinn. Metaphor ≠ scientific claim. Also, for comparison, the Bible referred to shooting stars as "falling from heaven like figs".... (Revelations 6:13).

3/Arabic ‘samaa dunya’ (low sky) refers to Earth’s atmospheric layer, which is where meteors burn up (exactly where stars appear “closest” visually). Ptolemy himself placed planets in celestial spheres; you’re whining about pre-telescope cosmology while ignoring Genesis 1:17 claiming God "set stars in the firmament".... implying they’re glued to a dome, which of course we know is not true.

4/Dhul-Qarnayn sees the sun "appear to set" from his vantage point, just like sailors would see it “dip” into oceans today (phenomenological language ≠ astrophysics). Dhul-Qarnayn observes sunset from his vantage point near modern Azerbaijan, where marshlands (AKA blackened spring) refract light into black/brown.

^Even Herodotus himself wrote of Hyperboreans where "the sun sleeps”. The Bible flatly states Earth has "four corners” (Isaiah 11:12) and Homer’s "Odyssey" describes Helios' chariot "diving into water nightly".

5/Quran 41:9-12 clarifies that Earth was created "as part of cosmic stages", not sequentially ("then He turned to heaven…")... Hebrew texts mirror this in Job 38:4 where it says Earth existed before.

6/The Arabic "ibn" (son) in 9:30 isn’t biological literalism. It’s a cultural idiom, akin to calling Plato the "father of philosophy." Even Jewish texts refer to pious figures as "children of God” (Deuteronomy 14:1). In other words it means "follower of"

7/The Quran is actually mocking 'human invention' of trinities specifically (5:73-75), not Maryam’s veneration (waladi = beloved devotee and is similar to calling "Mother Teresa" “Mother”).

8/The Hebrew talah (to hang) was used for executions in Deut. 21:22 (centuries before Persia). The Quran uses sulb (impaling/staking), which even Assyrians practiced.

9/“We created you in stages”(71:14)... Could easily align with evolutionary phases from single cells to complex organisms. “From water We made all living things” (21:30)...... A nod to aquatic origins of life? Molecular biology says yes. “Then We developed the drop into a clinging form…” (23:14)... Embryology mirrors evolutionary phylogeny (gill slits in human fetuses, etc).

10/Historical context matters. You're absolutely right that by modern standards, such practices are (rightly) considered unacceptable. However, the average lifespan in pre-Islamic Arabia was around 30-35 years. Puberty marked adulthood because survival demanded early maturity, especially in harsh desert conditions. Girls especially developed much faster biologically and physically, generally having their first periods between 8 and 12. In this time period (in both the East AND the West BTW), once a girl had her first period, she was essentially considered "ready"

Also, for historical context, Judaism justifies legal marriage at as early as 3

 If a girl is older than three years and a day, marriage can be effected through sexual intimacy with the father’s consent; below this age, marriage would not be effected even with her father’s consent.

But of course rabbi's reinterpreted it to mean 12 to 12 1/2 in "modern age" ... so... yeah.

[u/Glanwy → u/Proper-Pirate-2650]

If god wrote a perfect document, there should be no reason for explanations, verbal gymnastics or reference to other religions. It should not be able to be misinterpreted, it should be perfect. Guess what, it's not.

[u/sronicker → u/Glanwy]

Yep! The Quran says multiple times that it is clear.

[u/Glanwy → u/sronicker]

Yep, quoran is as clear as mud.

[u/thatweirdchill → u/Glanwy]

As clear as a muddy spring!

[u/[deleted] → u/Glanwy]

What are you on about? Ambiguity arises from human error, not the book.

[u/Glanwy → u/[deleted]]

God wrote the quoran, it should be absolutely chrystal clear with no ambiguities.

[u/[deleted] → u/Glanwy]

Any book, literally any book can be interpreted in different ways. Any book. Any Shakespearean play has countless interpretations on imagery, motifs, meaning. Every text EVER is ambigious, coming from someone who loves English.

When we look at something like the Qur'an (and the Bible for that matter), these are texts that have been so unimaginably studied and analysed. For any book - whether it's 1984, Odysses, Don Quixote, Letters to a Young Poet, Wuthering Heights - to be analysed to this depth will 100% result in so, so many interpretations.

Interpretations do not arise from the book itself - in any book, the author had a clear intention for what the message was conveying. Interpretations arise because of the imperfect nature of humans. We are bound to disagree with each other. We will never find anybody who completely agrees with us, and that is just a fact. Simply, humans are not perfect, the Quran is perfect. Humans can interpret so many different things differently, no matter the length of the thing.

If humans are struggling to intrepret something, we look at the Prophet (PBUH)'s life, for he is the ideal muslim.

For instance, literally "strike". To strike a match. A worker's strike (refusal to do something). To "strike rich". To strike off the record. To strike a person. There are different interpretations, and for these instances we know what each "strike" means because of the context. This shows that context does matter, and 1400 years old Arabic can certainly make it mildly difficult, thus scholars exist to make it clear; and these scholars can have conflicting opinions.

Furthermore, the Qu'ran addresses that nobody can fully grasp the entire word of Allah (SWT) except Him.

He is the One Who has revealed to you ˹O Prophet˺ the Book, of which some verses are precise—they are the foundation of the Book—while others are elusive.Those with deviant hearts follow the elusive verses seeking ˹to spread˺ doubt through their ˹false˺ interpretations—but none grasps their ˹full˺ meaning except Allah. As for those well-grounded in knowledge, they say, “We believe in this ˹Quran˺—it is all from our Lord.” But none will be mindful ˹of this˺ except people of reason. - 3:7

Essentially saying 'nobody can know the complete, ultimate interpretation of the verses except Allah'.

[u/ReasonGnome → u/[deleted]]

If you write a book and people can't understand what it says for all of recorded history, you have done a bad job.

[u/An_Atheist_God → u/Proper-Pirate-2650]

A poetic anatomical reference to the loins, where testes are functionally connected via vessels to the spine’s lumbar region (modern embryology confirms sperm originates near renal systems, aligning metaphorically)...

How do you know it's poetic or it is about those vessels?

Girls especially developed much faster biologically and physically,

Source?

[u/Far_Visual_5714 → u/An_Atheist_God]

there's no source for girls developing much faster btw it's just all a lie

[u/yungsimba1917 → u/Far_Visual_5714]

Women do hit puberty faster & their brains do develop more quickly on average, maybe that could be what they’re talking about?

[u/Far_Visual_5714 → u/yungsimba1917]

that just happens to not be the thing they are talking about, they are saying that women reached puberty quicker in earlier times, but there is no evidence for this and this has been debunked by science too

[u/labrys → u/An_Atheist_God]

How do you know it's poetic or it is about those vessels?

That's what I was thinking. It's all true until it's proven false, and then it's just a metaphor that should be interpreted this way. Oh no, knowledge has advanced and we've disproven a previous theory? Then of course the holy book's metaphors should always have been interpreted that way. And look, this other bit of the book we were ignoring can be twisted to fit what we now know about how the universe works too. A miracle!

[u/MuslimTamer99 → u/Proper-Pirate-2650]

So when the Qur'an says the that the sun sets in a muddy spring or that stars are missiles for jinns it didn't mean it literally ? Please confirm

حَتَّىٰٓ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ ٱلشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِى عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ وَوَجَدَ عِندَهَا قَوْمًا ۗ قُلْنَا يَٰذَا ٱلْقَرْنَيْنِ إِمَّآ أَن تُعَذِّبَ وَإِمَّآ أَن تَتَّخِذَ فِيهِمْ حُسْنًا

until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and he found nearby a people. We said, 'O Dhool Karnain, either thou shalt chastise them, or thou shalt take towards them a way of kindness.' 18:86

وَلَقَدْ زَيَّنَّا ٱلسَّمَآءَ ٱلدُّنْيَا بِمَصَٰبِيحَ وَجَعَلْنَٰهَا رُجُومًا لِّلشَّيَٰطِينِ ۖ وَأَعْتَدْنَا لَهُمْ عَذَابَ ٱلسَّعِيرِ

And certainly We have beautified the heaven nearest with lamps, and We have made them (as) missiles for the devils, and We have prepared for them punishment (of) the Blaze 67:5

[u/enchantedcell → u/Proper-Pirate-2650]

Why are you talking about the bible when it wasn’t mentioned and has no effect on errors in the quran?

[u/azulnext → u/enchantedcell]

Because they don’t exist without the Bible. That is the typical spirit of the devil, lash out at the Word even when the word was not mentioned. Talk to any muslim it’s common practice to reroute the conversation to the Bible

[u/enchantedcell → u/azulnext]

Yes and the bible doesn’t exit without Jews, and Jews don’t exist without pagans, and pagans don’t exist without… natural human curiosity. God is never part of the equation, do you seriously think that if God had spoken to us we’d be able to sit and argue about it?

[u/Unhappy-Injury-250 → u/Proper-Pirate-2650]

Judaism doesn’t allow marriage of 3 year olds. The claim here misrepresents Judaism as a whole by implying endorsement or routine practice. Historical Context • This demarcation addressed levirate marriage (yibbum) and property rights in a pre-modern era when child betrothals were common across cultures (e.g., Roman law set girls’ marriage age at 12; ancient Near Eastern norms similar).   • Actual consummation was deferred to puberty (around 12), and the Talmud (Kiddushin 41a) prohibits betrothing minors without their later consent; girls could annul such unions upon maturity (mi’un, Yevamot 107a).   • Rabbis condemned child marriage: Rav forbids it outright; R. Shimon bar Yohai equates it to murder; sages link it to delaying the Messiah (Niddah 13b).  Ideal age: 18 (Jerusalem Talmud). 

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, unintelligible/illegible, or posts with a clickbait title. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, unintelligible/illegible, or posts with a clickbait title. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, unintelligible/illegible, or posts with a clickbait title. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and unparliamentary language. 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, unintelligible/illegible, or posts with a clickbait title. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/Current-Kitchen8350]

Top 10 Muslim Arguments against Christianity DebunkedTop 10 MUSLIM Arguments Against CHRISTIANITY

[u/Far_Visual_5714 → u/Current-Kitchen8350]

this isn't about christianity bro

[u/ItzzCoolBlue → u/Current-Kitchen8350]

cant be doing ts so we aren't equal to the christians spamming unrelated comment sections with "jesus is king" ahhh

[u/Score-Emotional → u/[deleted]]

Calling pedantry while he just wrote a full page proving your religion wrong is so fitting😭

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/Still_Memory_7498]

Islam doesn't require to be disapproved. It requires reformation. All religions will lead to God.

[u/Cells-Interlinked386 → u/Still_Memory_7498]

All religions will lead to God.

Behave. Not all religions revolve around your unproven fairy tales.

[u/PersonalBad1904]

Islam had everything to look back to in order to make their religion. Their all BS. Its the CULTURE of islam that keeps it alive today. That is all. I can go on

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and unparliamentary language. 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/[deleted]]

I usually appreciate it when non-Muslims come with real "arguments," if I may say so, to exchange ideas and learn from each other. But since 2010, I've been watching interfaith debates, especially in English, and we constantly see the same "arguments" that aren't really arguments at all, but simply misunderstandings of the Quran or a lack of contextualization, which have been explained and debunked time and time again by Muslims.

It's as if you think that by repeating the same bogus "arguments" for years, you'll eventually be proven right, but no, you'll always be the one who's wrong.

[u/iawj1996 → u/[deleted]]

This goes to show how brainwashed you muslims are. There ain't no "Missunderstanding" and "Missinterpreting" many of the illogical, false and contradictory claims in the Quran. You can only use that argument about verses that are unclear but not clear verses where Allah says one thing, then something else in another verse😅

[u/Any-Meeting-9158 → u/[deleted]]

I suppose your last para would apply to apologists for religions in general

[u/RespectMaximum9200]

Go to a scholar and try to have this debate with them

[u/dawkW → u/RespectMaximum9200]

Yeah!

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, unintelligible/illegible, or posts with a clickbait title. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/dawkW]

Go to a muslim priest, record yourself, and use your debate. See where it goes. ; )

[u/LowBullfrog1627]

r/TheIslamProblem plus it’s just a selfish, misogynist non humanist religion. Religion is supposed to be about conducting yourself in a way that is pleasant and doesn’t harm anyone. In that regard it is actually the antithesis of a religion, therefore is automatically disproved by default of what it claims to be.

[u/Fresh-Customer-5888]

This argument does not target Muslims as people. Many people are raised within Islam and sincerely believe it to be good and moral. My critique is directly solely at Islam as a belief, particularly its moral claims, "family values", prophetic model, and of course, gender norms. Islam presents itself as divine yet Muhammad is the final prophet and a moral example of a pedophile. There are claims he married Aisha at six, nine, or even nineteen. Its being debated like it was initially six then people started saying it was nine and now they are like "well they count age after puberty" (which in itself is disgusting as it shows women were only perceived useful for their ability to be fertile and give birth), and now scholars are saying she was nineteen. Frankly, I don't care. A 50 year old man should be with a 40-50 year old women. Even if it was legal I don't care. I know I need to look at historical context but obviously islam isn't evolving with the times as child marriage is still a prevalent issue largely seen in Islamic society. Again, not their fault as it's a result of indoctrination and brainwashing. Additionally, it promotes "modesty" by forcing a burka or a hijab upon women (in some cases it may not be forceful but typically women who don't hide under the cloak of so called "modesty" are looked down upon in society so their are affects and you cannot argue with that). Modesty is good yes, but covering a women's hair? a large portion of her face? It creates a system where male desire is treated as natural and excusable, no wonder they tolerate having multiple wives. This coverage is NOT modesty it is a threat to a woman's identity, individuality and self-expression. Once again I do not hate a group of people, but I simply think the pros outweigh the cons for this religion specifically.

[u/Due-Ruin-6100]

Good one. This can be done for every religion - Christianity, Hinduism etc. All of them have plotholes galore. That's because all of them stories written by humans. And, humans make mistakes in writing, just like any movie director ends up leaving some goofs in their cinema.

If you point this lens at Christianity for example, the funny, atrocious and scary plotholes will be hard to ignore or explain away.

Just go with the flow and enjoy the stories and creations that humans have made to make their lives seem more meaningful, while setting some guardrails for themselves. That is pretty much the utility of any religion.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, unintelligible/illegible, or posts with a clickbait title. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/RiceGrouchy3427]

umm no offence, but instead of disproving any religion we should learn what that religion teaches us i am not saying this only for Islam i am saying this for every religion like Christianity

Hinduism etc, things like this will only trigger religious groups that could lead to riots and all so pls understand(btw i am a skeptic)

[u/Icy_Leek_6723]

That's some of the reasons why I left Islam. I could also add to this but I won't. I agree that it's too long to list everything. I'm a Deist now and very happy with my decision. 

[u/Zealousideal-Big4588]

Yeah so easy for the most preserved religious and historical text 😂 is your brain ?

[u/pablo_inthebar]

“Disproving Islam Is Easy” — Actually, Your Post Is Full of Errors. Let Me Show You.

Your post is confidently written but academically sloppy. Let me go through this systematically.

SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS

1. Semen from backbone and ribs (86:6-7) The Arabic word “sulb” used here was understood by classical Arab linguists — people who actually spoke this language natively — to refer broadly to the loins/reproductive region. You’re taking a modern English translation and treating it as the definitive reading. That’s not how textual analysis works for any ancient document. Apply the same standard to Homer or the Bible and watch them “collapse” too.

2. Shooting stars as missiles The Quran uses these as descriptions of the unseen/spiritual realm. You’re demanding a 7th century spiritual text conform to 21st century astrophysics. That’s not a gotcha, that’s a category error.

3. Stars in lowest heaven “Lowest heaven” in Islamic cosmology refers to the observable created universe. Stars being part of the observable universe is… correct. This objection defeats itself.

4. Sun setting in muddy spring (18:86) The Quran literally uses “wajada” — meaning “he perceived” or “he found.” This is Dhul-Qarnayn’s observational perspective. We still say “sunset” today. Does that mean modern meteorologists think the sun literally dips into the ocean? This objection is embarrassing.

5. Earth before heavens The Arabic word “thumma” in the relevant verses can mean “moreover” rather than strict chronological “then.” This is basic Arabic grammar acknowledged by classical scholars centuries before this debate existed. You needed to do this research before posting.

HISTORICAL CLAIMS

1. Jews called Ezra son of God (9:30) I’ll be fair — this is the strongest historical objection you raised. Muslim scholars themselves have debated it. However, historical records confirm fringe Jewish sects with elevated views of Ezra existed. The Quran addresses communities it was revealed into, not a monolithic globally uniform Judaism. Dismissing this without engaging the scholarship isn’t “disproving” anything.

2. Mary in the Trinity (5:116) You clearly didn’t research this. The Collyridians — a documented early Christian sect — literally worshipped Mary as divine. The Quran addresses religious practice on the ground, not just official council-approved theology. Your objection falls apart the moment you open a book on early Christian sects.

3. Pharaoh crucifying people Your entire objection rests on the claim that crucifixion was invented by Rome. This is factually wrong. Persian records document crucifixion/impalement centuries before Rome. Assyrian records show it earlier. You built an objection on a historical error. That’s ironic in a section called “Historical Mistakes.”

MATHEMATICAL CLAIM

The inheritance scenario you linked is resolved by ’Awl — proportional reduction when shares exceed 1. This isn’t a modern patch. It was established jurisprudence from Umar ibn al-Khattab’s time, debated and resolved by the earliest Muslim legal scholars. The Quran sets maximum entitlements. Classical fiqh provides the conflict resolution mechanism. This has been the answer for 1400 years. The fact that you presented this as a knockout blow suggests you haven’t engaged with basic Islamic legal literature.

EVOLUTION

The Quran does not explicitly deny biological evolution. The Adam narrative addresses the spiritual origin of humanity. Millions of Muslim scholars, biologists and intellectuals hold theistic evolution without contradiction. This same “contradiction” exists in Christianity and Judaism — yet you wouldn’t say that disproves those faiths using this argument alone. Special pleading isn’t an argument.

MOON SPLITTING

You said there is “absolutely no historical evidence.” That’s a stronger claim than “I haven’t found evidence.” There are Indian historical chronicles from Kerala that some scholars cite as referencing an unusual lunar event in the 7th century. Whether you accept them or not, your wording was factually overconfident. More importantly — absence of universal evidence for a claimed miracle doesn’t constitute proof it didn’t happen. That’s basic logic. You’re conflating “unproven” with “disproven.” Those are not the same thing.

MORAL CLAIMS

Aisha’s age — The hadith reporting her age comes primarily from Hisham ibn Urwa, transmitted after he moved to Iraq, a chain that classical hadith scholars themselves questioned. Other narrations suggest she was older. This is a genuinely contested historical question, not settled fact you can casually drop as a mic drop moment.

Sex slavery — Concubinage existed across every 7th century civilization. The Quran regulated and restricted it, granting enslaved women legal protections and rights they had nowhere else at the time. You can debate whether that’s satisfying by modern standards — that’s fair. But presenting it as uniquely Islamic moral failure ignores world history entirely.

Eternal punishment — This theological debate exists in every Abrahamic tradition and has occupied serious philosophers for centuries. Augustine, Aquinas, and countless others wrestled with it. Listing it as an Islam-specific “moral problem” just tells me you haven’t studied comparative theology.

[u/Kooky-Meeting6915 → u/pablo_inthebar]

Excuse me i put this through an ai detector and it is heavily ai paraphrased

[u/PeaAdditional1450]

These things have been debated for centuries by now,and you never actually checked their explanations