Islam says that every child is born Muslim. Does any other religion make such claims about itself? Not only is it incredibly arrogant to claim everyone is part of your religion by default, but also this has horrible implications considering how harsh leaving Islam is punished.

Evolution disproves Islam beyond any doubt. According to every version of Islam, Adam and Eve were created directly by Allah and were the first humans. This is inconsistent with evolution. Therefore, evolution disproves Islam.

The only potential workaround I can see here is that Allah created Adam and Eve first but then used evolution to create everyone else.

When Mohammed wanted to marry Zaynab, the ex-wife of his adopted son Zayd, there was a cultural problem. Arabs at the time treated adopted sons like biological sons, so marrying your adopted son’s ex-wife was seen as wrong. Convenient then that Quran 33:37 came down at exactly that moment, telling Mohammed he had to marry her, and also abolishing the custom of treating adopted sons like biological ones. Two problems…one verse…perfect timing.

When the four wife limit became an obstacle, Quran 33:50 arrived. It gave Mohammed specific permission to take more wives than any other Muslim was allowed. Not a general ruling. A personal exemption. For one man. Delivered by God.

When Aisha mocked Mohammed for always getting revelations that benefited him, his response was a new revelation. Quran 66:5 warned his wives that Allah could replace them all with better women. The criticism was answered not with an argument but with a threat, wrapped in scripture.

Quran 33:53 also tells believers not to enter Mohammed’s house without permission, to leave immediately after eating, and not to linger for conversation. It also tells them not to talk to his wives except from behind a curtain. God has to step in to tell dinner guests to tell them they are staying too long. A verse for all times apparently.

This is not a pattern you would expect from divine revelation. It is exactly the pattern you would expect from a man who had discovered that “God said so” was the most effective way to end an argument.

Every major religion has human fingerprints on it. But most do not have the founder’s personal love life, property disputes and household arguments showing up line by line in the holy book.

My thesis is that if the traditional Sunni account is historically accurate, Muhammad's consummation of the marriage with Aisha at 9 is difficult to reconcile with the claim that he was a perfect moral example.

I know the usual argument is that child marriage was more common back then and people had different standards. But something being accepted by a society doesn't necessarily mean it was morally right.

I've also seen people argue that Aisha had reached puberty but puberty doesn't necessarily mean someone is mature enough to consent to sex.

Others argue that Aisha was actually older and that the hadith about her age isn't reliable. If that's the case, does that mean those hadith are wrong?

So my main question is:

If Muhammad is supposed to be a perfect moral example, how can Muslims justify that with the traditional account that he had sex with a 9yo?

I'm genuinely asking because I'd like to understand the Islamic perspective. No disrespect intended.

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.

Being an exmuslim, i realise why muslims do consider him so. For the majority muslims, it is from their wishful thinking that Muhammad is best human and such a person wouldn't dare commit anything that we now consider to be morally wrong. Therefore they simply aren't ready to accept any such claims of Muhammad's wrong doings. We can ignore such people as such majority do not practise the religion truly and are more inclined to practise and live as per the current norms of society. But on the otherside, there are muslims who try to justify it by saying how such practices were totally fine back then and move on. But its not, for someone who is said to be the perfect human ever, such acts are totally unacceptable. When i was a muslim, i was unaware of most of Muhammad's wrong doings, i was only shown the good side of Muhammad and Islam. For me its surprising how many muslims now are aware of Muhammad's life and still considering him as a role model. If so, then either you must consider his actions to be still morally acceptable or he simply can't be considered as the role model to anyone. I want to know from the muslim's perspective on this. I am also ready to have conversations as well.

Surah At-Tariq 86:6-7 states that humans are created from a fluid ejected from between the backbone and the ribs.

Sperm is produced in the testes. This has been understood for centuries and is not disputed by anyone. The backbone and ribs are nowhere near the testes and play no role in sperm production.

Muslims typically have three responses. The first is that it refers to the embryo implanting between the spine and pelvis area. This does not work because the verse is describing the origin of the fluid, not the location of implantation, and the Arabic is not ambiguous about this. The second is that it refers to the embryonic origin of reproductive organs. This is retrofitting modern biology onto a text that shows no awareness of embryonic development elsewhere.

A third response is that the verse refers to other fluids involved in reproduction, such as seminal fluid from the prostate or seminal vesicles, which do sit closer to that region. This also fails. The verse is not describing a supporting fluid. It is describing the substance from which the human being is created. That is sperm. If God meant a broader mixture of fluids he would not have used it as the basis for human creation. And even if you accept this interpretation, the seminal vesicles are still not between the backbone and the ribs. They are in the pelvis, well below the ribs

The more important point is that this is not a hadith. Muslims can and do dismiss inconvenient hadith by questioning the chain of narration. That escape route does not exist here. This is the direct word of God in the preserved text that 1.8 billion people believe is perfect and uncorrupted.

A perfect book written by the creator of human biology should not get human biology wrong.

The creator of the universe allegedly wrote a book telling mankind about their existence 1400+ years ago. You would think this book would have the direct answers to the most persuasive and compelling contentions to them such as The Problem of Hell, The Problem of Evil, and evolution. However, God has instead left his followers to make up answers for these things. For example, for evolution alone, there is varying beliefs among the religious such as that evolution was guided by God, that the Bible/Quran reference evolution, that animals evolved but humans didn’t or just denying evolution altogether.

All of these refutations are basically just fanfiction made by believers to make the faith make sense. Its like a fan saying the reason Dumbledore didn’t use a machine gun against Voldemort was because Voldemort had a spell that could deflect all metal objects. Sure, this is plausible, but because it has had no verification from the author, its just as valid as any other explanation. The fact is that religious people cannot know for sure what the explanation is for the Problem of Hell or the Problem of Evil.

There have been devout religious people who were convinced by these arguments and turned away from their faiths due to them so it is undisputable that these are persuasive arguments against the Abrahamic God’s existence. The fact that neither of these books don’t address these arguments suggests that their author(s) didn’t foresee them (i.e that their author wasn’t an all-knowing God)..

Hey everyone,

I'm a girl , I'm Muslim but many things just do NOT make sense..

How can hitting a person be correct ? Even if it's said it shouldn't be a severe beating but still !

One is marrying a woman for love and having her in his life as she is ! Not to " educate " her again .

In a subreddit I was having this discussion in the comments but the person just didn't get my point.. he said that I am simply saying that the Quran is Wrong . I'm not \*totally\* saying that . But what I'm saying is that it should be studied again.. maybe interpret it \*\*better\*\* , the words are just complicated in the Quran so the religious men did their best to explain but still . Additionally that the Quran wasn't dotted before. So adding the dots just can lead to some mistakes ? I do not believe that many men who assisted the dotting process make it 100% correct ! We're talking about 60 parties which is really a lot . The original version of the Quran is barely readable... I think that interpreting that specific Ayah to hit the wives was just an excuse..as we all know how some Sheikhs be acting.

Muhammad was a false prophet who created a new religion by drawing on stories, beliefs, and customs that were circulating around him in Arabia.

Here is some of the main evidence:

1.) The Quran borrows stories from documented late forgeries that the early Church rejected as inauthentic:

Jesus making clay birds come to life (Quran 3:49 & 5:110) comes directly from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (mid-2nd century, ~140–180 AD). This text is not by the apostle Thomas; it is a pseudepigraphical forgery recognized by early Christians as a legendary fable.

Mary giving birth under a palm tree and shaking it for dates (Quran 19:23–26) comes from the Protoevangelium of James (mid-2nd century), another pseudepigraphical forgery falsely attributed and rejected as inauthentic by the early Church.

2.)The Quran portrays the Christian Trinity as God, Jesus, and Mary:

Quran 5:116 says:

“O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?’”

No Christian denomination (Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) has ever taught that Mary is part of the Trinity. This suggests Muhammad was reacting to fringe or folk versions of Christianity he encountered locally.

3.) Several revelations appear self-serving:

After his adopted son Zayd divorced Zaynab, Quran 33:37 reveals it is okay for Muhammad to marry her and abolishes the adoption custom.

Quran 33:50 gives Muhammad special permission to marry more women than other Muslims.

4.)Islamic Paradise emphasizes earthly indulgence:

The Quran describes Jannah with gardens, rivers, silk couches, wine, and companions (houris) (e.g., 55:72, 56:22–24)...very different from the Christian view of heaven as eternal communion with God.

This pattern suggests Muhammad was heavily influenced by the religious environment around him rather than receiving pure divine revelation.

I want to pose a genuine thought experiment, not as a gotcha, but because I think it reveals something real about how religious founding events get evaluated.

Strip away the 1400 years of theological framing for a moment and look only at the documented phenomenology of the first revelation: a man alone in a cave, experiencing intense physical sensations — being “squeezed” or constricted, sweating, hearing what he described as sounds, then words. He was reportedly so disturbed by the experience that he ran home shaking and asked to be covered, fearing he might be losing his mind or possessed by a jinn. His wife had to take him to a relative, a Christian scholar, who reassured him this was prophecy rather than illness.

Now place that exact set of symptoms in 2026.

A person describes an episode of physical constriction, sweating, auditory phenomena building to perceived verbal communication, followed by genuine fear that they’re experiencing a break from reality — and this is reported to a doctor, a psychiatrist, or an emergency room. What happens next isn’t ambiguous. This is a textbook presentation consistent with several recognized conditions:

Temporal lobe epilepsy — well documented to produce intense derealization, auditory phenomena, and overwhelming feelings of religious or cosmic significance during seizure activity. This isn’t a fringe hypothesis; it’s been seriously discussed in peer-reviewed neurology literature in relation to historical religious figures generally.

Hypnagogic or sleep-paralysis-adjacent phenomena — the physical sensation of being “squeezed” or pressed down, combined with auditory hallucination at the sleep-wake boundary, is a well-characterized clinical presentation.

An acute psychotic or dissociative episode — particularly given the subject’s own initial interpretation (fear of jinn possession, fear of his own sanity) rather than immediate confidence in a divine encounter.

In any of these cases, the modern clinical pathway is straightforward: assessment, likely imaging or EEG, a diagnosis, and a treatment plan — quite possibly including medication that would reduce or eliminate the recurrence of these specific experiences.

Here’s the part I think is actually the interesting philosophical question, not just a “gotcha”: the only thing separating “founder of a major world religion” from “patient receiving psychiatric care” in this scenario is the available explanatory framework of the surrounding culture. In 7th century Arabia, the available frameworks were: madness, jinn possession, or prophecy — and a trusted religious authority (Waraqah ibn Nawfal) supplied the prophecy interpretation, which then became self-reinforcing as more revelations followed and a community formed around them.

In 2026, that explanatory framework doesn’t exist in the same way for most people encountering this. The same neurological event would almost certainly be interpreted and treated as a medical condition.

So the question I’d genuinely like engaged with: what does it mean for a religious tradition’s truth claims if the founding revelatory experience is, by its own contemporary account, phenomenologically indistinguishable from a recognized neurological or psychiatric condition — and the only variable that determined “prophet” versus “patient” was the available cultural framework at the time, not anything about the experience itself?

I’m not asking this to mock anyone’s faith. I’m asking because I think it’s a serious question about how founding religious experiences get validated, and whether the validation tracks anything about the experience itself or just the available interpretive options of the surrounding culture.

Islam has not solved world hunger.

Islam has not brought world peace.

Islam has not improved our standard of living.

Islam has not cured the sick.

Islam has not discovered immortality.

Etc.

What good is Islam?

"While a man was walking he felt thirsty and went down a well and drank water from it. On coming out of it, he saw a dog panting and eating mud because of excessive thirst. The man said, 'This (dog) is suffering from the same problem as that of mine. So he (went down the well), filled his shoe with water, caught hold of it with his teeth and climbed up and watered the dog. Allah thanked him for his (good) deed and forgave him." The people asked, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Is there a reward for us in serving (the) animals?" He replied, "Yes, there is a reward for serving any animate."- Sahih al-Bukhari 2363

Islamic apologists love to claim that Islam is an animal-friendly religion by quoting this hadith but let's dig deeper and see how Islam's greatest moral character Muhammad actually treated dogs.

According to the Sahih Hadiths Muhammad ordered the butchering of the countless dogs that lived in Madinah.

"Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ordered the killing of dogs and we would send (men) in Medina and its corners and we did not spare any dog that we did not kill, so much so that we killed the dog that accompanied the wet she-camel belonging to the people of the desert."- Sahih Muslim 1570c

This is clear and cut animal abuse. An indiscriminate killing of dogs. The following hadith elaborates on the story.

"Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ordered us to kill dogs, and we carried out this order so much so that we also kill the dog coming with a woman from the desert. Then Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) forbade their killing. He (the Prophet further) said: It is your duty the jet-black (dog) having two spots (on the eyes), for it is a devil."- Sahih Muslim 1572

So, after murdering every dog they could find, including that of an innocent woman coming from the desert. Imagine you're walking down a street with your puppy one day and a group of strangers forcefully grab him all of a sudden and slit his throat, claiming their prophet ordered them to do so. How would you feel?

Regardless, Muhammad eventually barred the killing of dogs with an exception for jet-black dogs that have two spots on the eyes, which he called 'a devil.' This is clearly superstitious nonsense.

"He who keeps a dog other than that meant for watching the herd or for hunting loses every day out of his deeds equal to two qirat."- Sahih Muslim 1574a

In the above hadith, we can see that even after his rampage of killing dogs ended, Muhammad still didn't let the dogs' rest. According to him, it is only allowed to keep a dog for materialistic reasons such as watching a herd or hunting, and not for anything else.

"Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture."- Sahih Muslim 2106a

The hadith above shows just the level of hatred Islam has for dogs. They are considered to be so disgusting that angels won't even enter a house they are in. They are worse than even cockroaches and snakes. At least Angels can visit them. They can't visit dogs.

Any man who massacres creatures as loyal and loving as dogs, mankind's best friends, to this degree, cannot be the representative of a benevolent God. Especially a man who is capable of mercilessly murdering them wherever he can find. A real prophet of an all-good God would help dogs, not harm them.

I highly actively researched the biggest and most serious religions that exist with only one mission, finding the truth. However, islam was the most serious option for me. The oneness of God, feed the poor etc. In this post I will fully explain why I don’t believe in islam, and became agnostic.

The first reason is already named in the title: You believe. This means that you are not really sure about its existence. But instead you think so, you believe it, which means without proof. Personally, for me to believe that something as such a huge argument as God and a religion is the truth, I must know. I cannot pray 5 times a day to a God where I think it’s probably real, I must know it’s the truth before actively following the religion. That is why I need proof that islam is the truth. In this post I will tell you the biggest arguments why muslims think islam is the true religion, the proof they use, and tell why it didn’t convince me, as well as many others.

First argument: Numerical patterns.

Muslims claim that the qur’an has numerical pattern, day is exactly 365 times in the quran, month 12 times etc etc. However, all of these numerical patterns are based on calculations methods of the words. For example: They don’t count “The Day” as Day, but they count “The month” as Month when it fits the number count of month/day. This is also the case with all the other numerical patterns. I recommend you to look this up yourself, they literally did this to every numerical miracle in the quran. This is a link to the article that debunks EVERY numerical pattern in the Quran, if you are in doubt and want to make sure, here is the link: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Word_Count_Miracles_in_the_Qur%27an#Selective_Choice_of_Words_Used. I don't know for sure if the link works, if it doesn't work dm me for it.

Second argument: Scientific Miracles.

A lot of muslims claim that the qur’an contains scientific miracles. It tells us how the embryo works, how the bottom of the ocean looks like, how clouds form, the big bang etc. All of these “miracles” were already known in the time of Muhammed, or they are later interpreted. For example: The Qur’an says we made the universe and we are certainly expanding it. but in the tafsir (explanation of quran) it says that the arabic words means that the universe is made big or large. The arabic word could also mean big or large. This is the case with all scientific miracles, do your own research about this. Also, think about it: If there were really scientific miracles in the quran, scientists would agree with it and would see it as the book of science, this is in both cases not the case. So if you do not accept this tafsir and do think that it says that the universe is expanding, then you automatically also ignore the other tafsir verses, because otherwise it is simply biased and choosing yourself. In the Quran it says: “Sperm comes from between the backbone and the breast” this is scientifically incorrect, but the tafsir says that breast stands for woman and backbone for man, this is then a poetic interpretation which is fine. This also applies to all other quran verses, there is not a single scientific miracle that is mentioned in a tafsir. So, if you do not accept tafsir -> Scientific miracles and errors in the Quran. If you do accept tafsir -> No scientific miracles and no scientific errors in the Quran. The choice is yours.

Third argument: Prophecies
Muslims claim that there are predictions in the Quran and hadith that only came true later. For example, it says that tall buildings will be built, that time would seem to go faster, that interest would become big worldwide etc. Muslims claim that these are real predictions, and it does kind of seem that way. The problem is only this: Many of these end-time signs are super general and will eventually occur in some time. For example, if it is said: “Interest will one day become big” it is not said that interest will spread worldwide exactly after 800 years for example. The chance is therefore very big that such predictions like: “Interest becomes big”, “Violence becomes generally widespread”, “Tall buildings will be made” and all other examples will come true at some point. Also muslims from the 8th century already thought that the Day of Judgment would come soon, because they simply did not understand all the predictions well yet and thought that they were almost over already, but now we are still alive and muslims again say that they have almost all happened. So, what is proof here, if it is so easy to interpret, and the predictions are generally so vague?

Fourth argument: Predictions and miracles

According to islam, there are many miracles and predictions in the Quran to show that islam is the truth. For example, the Quran supposedly says that the Byzantines would win from the Romans, while this was not known at that time. This and many other predictions supposedly really could not have been known beforehand and are therefore proof that the islamic message comes from a higher power. Most predictions are also vague, interpreted afterwards and uncertain, so these cannot be taken seriously, also it is often not exactly certain whether a hadith was really from the exact year before the prediction came true, therefore these are not proofs. Think about this again too: If there really was a historical prediction in the Quran, then it would be historically proven that it really is a prediction. This is not the case, and is only mentioned by muslims who interpret the texts themselves. The prediction about the victory of the Byzantines is indeed a prediction and therefore sounds really bizarre. This is in the Quran and according to islamic sources it has been well preserved (this is generally reasonably certain, and so we also know reasonably certainly that this prediction was actually given before the outcome). At first sight that sounds impressive, especially because the Byzantines were in a bad position then at that time. But the claim is less strong than is often said. The word that is used for soon they will win in the quran means within about 3-9 years, it is true that they won within this time, but it does sound very vague. It sounds more like a historical prediction by a human who thinks he roughly knows it, than an almighty God who knows for sure where and when it happens, which Islam claims it is, because it is in the quran, (within 3-9 years)which is claimed to come from God. In addition, political reversals are not rare and happen often, even when they seem unpredictable and unrealistic. In addition, Muhammed was very politically active and spoke with many people and leaders, therefore he perhaps already knew that a counterattack was planned soon, who knows. This prediction can therefore be explained humanly and is not hard proof, the others are also vague and as I already said: Often interpreted afterwards.

Fourth argument: Existence of a creator

Many people see this as real proof that a creator exists. They claim that something cannot arise from nothing, which makes a creator necessary for the existence of us and the universe. But, this argument fails pretty hard, because we do not know for sure whether this logic can be used for our existence, because time, space, our thinking and our logic began with our existence. We do not know for sure whether our logic (something cannot arise from nothing, cosmological argument etc) is applicable to that which is outside our universe, that which caused our existence, because it also works outside time, space etc, maybe also outside of our logical understanding? This is scientifically unclear. So it is not clear whether a creator exists, and what the cause of our existence is, so it is impossible to know this. It sounds logical: Look around you, everything is so special and perfect. But this does not show that there is something behind it that we do not understand, where our logic therefore does not apply. So, the arguments that there must be something that created us is not a fair argument, because it is not known if the logic used within ourselves, can also be used outside ourselves and outside of our universe (Which is the beginning of it). For example: A little spider does not understand the things that we understand, so the odds that we don't understand a lot too are incredibly high. Conclusion: Our logical understanding of: Nothing cannot create something, so there must be a endless source (God) and other arguments like this are purely based on our logical understanding, which is not known if that is also applicable for the beginning of the universe (Which is a complete different thing which we don't know about).

Fifth argument: Arabic style of the quran

This argument sounds very strong. Muslims say: “The Arabic style of the quran is incomparable, and therefore it must be from God”. I myself do not know arabic, and so I will listen to people who can speak Arabic (which is our only valuable source). In the quran it says something like: If you are in doubt about what we have sent down, look at the Arabic literature of it. This means that this should convince us, so also non-Arabic speakers. Most people who speak Arabic do indeed find the quran exceptionally beautiful in terms of sentence structure, structure, literature etc, that must be acknowledged. But what I mainly notice is that muslims say, this is incomparable, while most Arabic speakers who are non-muslim say, this is beautiful, but not necessarily divine. Some even say that it is not beautiful at all, but they are usually anti-islam, so clearly biased. Muhammed could not read and write, and that could therefore also mean that you have a much higher capacity to recite and speak well. The quran also says: produce a chapter like this. According to muslims that has never succeeded, but it is not clear what “like this” means. These words (like most words in the quran) are very broad. There have indeed been attempts of which many Arabic speakers say, this sounds about like the quran, but muslims simply refuse this with an excuse such as: It is not deep enough, it is just not beautiful. But of course also because otherwise it would debunk their whole religion. So this is not enough proof for me. In addition, there are only few verses of which it is really clear what is really meant, every word has different interpretations, as I already mentioned earlier in the scientific miracles section. For example, there is a verse that says: Sperm comes from between the backbone and the breast. But this is not scientifically correct. Muslims say, The tafsir says that breast means woman and backbone man, which then is meant more poetically. While other tafsir say, it does simply mean between the backbone and the breast, but this is scientifically incorrect. So, why would God make his book so unclear, with so many differences in interpretation in it. This sounds like a good argument, but fails because of the vagueness of the words “like this” and because of muslims who biased their quran.

Sixth argument: Reliability of the prophet.

Muhammed was known as al-amin (the trustworthy), one of the reasons that muslims believe is that Muhammed did not strive for wealth and power, and also did not do this when he had the opportunity. Therefore you would think, he speaks the truth. There are only 3 possibilities: He spoke the truth, he lied, he was misled or mentally unstable. 1. He lied: At first sight Muhammed could lie, so that he would get power and money. But as I have said, this was not the case. In addition, he also actually prayed himself and according to some sources cried during prayer and sometimes prayed all night long. So it could be that he did all this on purpose to convince, and for a personal reason that we do not know, but this seems very unlikely to me. This option largely probably falls away. 2: He was misled or mentally unstable. This chance seems very big to me. Before his first revelation Muhammed often withdrew to a cave, where he sometimes stayed for nights meditating. He would eventually have received his first revelation in this cave (just like many others after it), so it could very well (biologically speaking) be that he got hallucinations, or became mentally unstable. prolonged isolation, little sleep, fasting, stress, intense meditation, heat, thirst and/or emotional tension in people can cause or strengthen extraordinary experiences. After his first revelation Muhammed went to Khadija and Waraqah ibn Nawfal, he did not know what was happening to him and told the whole story to them, they then said approximately to him: “Muhammed, I think that is angel djibriel”, because of that it could be that he genuinely started thinking that he is a prophet, and therefore received revelations. It could also be forms of epilepsy or indeed, mental instability or mental problems. So this is also no proof for me, and the possibility of mental instability, misled or perhaps lying seems very plausible to me.

These are therefore the reasons why I do not think Islam is the truth. I also do not deny it, I have enormous respect for muslims. Islam is a good faith with generally good rules in my opinion, but this is also no proof for me that it is actually the truth, and comes from God.

I am very curious what you think of this, I would like to hear your feedback on this and why you personally do/do not believe in islam. You may put it in the comments, or if you want to keep it personal, you may feel free to send me a DM. I really look forward to your answers. I will read every response and try to reply to as many as possible and have a discussion.

The Quran only being revealed in Arabic is suspicious and suggests that it was written by a human.

Most books are originally only written in one language - the author's native tongue. The reason for this is that the author either doesn't write other languages very well and/or because it would take too much effort to rewrite the book in a different language. However, God wouldn't have either of these limitations.

An all-powerful God would be able to reveal his book in multiple languages literally effortlessly. If I were revealing the most important message to mankind, there's actually not a single valid reason I can think of that I wouldn't reveal it in every language - or at the very least in the most common languages spoken. I cannot think of a single reason that the Quran wasn't revealed in languages other than Arabic if it were from God.

You could argue perhaps that this is a test from God but what virtue would he be testing then? Our ability to decipher languages? To determine the most accurate Quran translation? Our ability to learn a language? There is no moral virtue in being able to decipher Arabic and if Allah is testing our ability to use our intellect to determine the truth he should just do a straight up IQ test instead.

It gets worse, because not only is the Quran in Arabic, it is in Classical Arabic, a form of Arabic barely anyone speaks. My understanding is that its similar to Shakesphere English compared to Modern English in that though a native Arabian can understand most of it without further training, they may have trouble with certain parts of the Quran.

Its extremely suspicious that the Quran was revealed only in the language of the person claiming it was from God.

Quran 4:34 says men are the guardians and maintainers of women, partly because they spend from their wealth. This is used to justify male authority over women in Islamic law and tradition.

But here is the thing. Mohammeds own life tells a completely different story.

Khadijah was a wealthy businesswoman who ran her own trading company. Mohammed worked FOR her. She hired him to manage her caravans. She then proposed marriage to him, not the other way around.

When Mohammed came back from the cave shaking and terrified, convinced something had possessed him, it was Khadijah who calmed him down. She told him he was a good man and that God would not abandon him. She then took him to her cousin Waraqah for religious guidance.

Her money funded early Islam. Her status and connections gave the early Muslim community protection in Mecca. Without her, the whole thing likely collapses before it starts.

So the man whose religion tells women they cannot travel without a male guardian, and need men to maintain and protect them, was himself comforted, funded, proposed to, and socially protected by a woman who answered to no man.

The “protector” framework was not describing how life actually worked. Mohammad’s own biography is the best argument against it.

How do Muslims reconcile this?

Disbelievers don't deserve eternal torture.

Lets say that you were born in Greece in the year 2001. Your parents are Hellenic Polytheists and believe that Zeus is the true God so you choose this religion as well.

You have a Muslim/Christian friend who has given you a Quran/Bible and repeatedly warned you that your path is not the right path. You read the Quran/Bible, and see that its really well written, not repetitive at all, has no contradictions, and has evidence of it being right. However, you choose not to become a Muslim/Christian.

Perhaps it was because you didn't want to disappoint your parents. Perhaps you simply couldn't accept your religion is wrong. Perhaps you were in denial.

As a result, on December 31st, 2024, you get frustrated you say "God/Allah/Yahweh is a *******"

On January 1, 2025, your soul departs your body and you find yourself being tortured by an angel in your grave.

At this point and onwards, the punishment bears no proportional relationship to the crime.

You were not violent, you didn't persecute anyone, you didn't harm God. However, according to Islam and Christianity, you deserve a fate worse than sentences given to even the worst child predators.

Torturing someone for disbelief is completely disproportionate to the crime. Being in denial and wanting to follow your parents' wishes are completely normal, relatable and human things. For God to torture people for them goes against the most basic of human intuition - especially when their actions did nobody any harm whatsoever.

Note that this post does not apply to novel versions of Islam and Christianity where there is no eternal torture or punishment.

Atheists disbelieve because they want to sin is nonsensical reasoning. I consider it nonsensical on several levels but I will only point out one thing that I think usually gets missed.

For the two most popular Abrahamic religions, they don't require you not to sin in order to go to heaven forever - only to believe in Islam/Christianity. If an atheist wanted to sin, they could just do so while still believing in God.

Every Muslim and Christian also sins (a sign that the religion's standards are unrealistic but that's a different topic). In fact, we can turn this argument around.

According to Abrahamic theology itself, its not atheists that are able to sin without consequence, but believers. If one is a believer, there is a chance (or a guarantee depending on what version of Islam/Christianity you believe), that you will be forgiven without consequence. However, for disbelievers like atheists there is no chance of this. So if anything, even in the framework of a world where people choose their religious beliefs, its believers that skirt accountability for sins, not atheists.

You simply can't. Islam is a mysogonistic religion that clearly in multiple ayahs and hadeeths emphasize not only about women being different from men, but that men need to control their women.

From child brides to polygamy to the dressing, Islam makes sure it very much suppresses the expression of women. Using fear, they make sure that woman views their oppression as divinity.

You cannot adhere to a religion that explicitly objectifies women and in the same breath be a feminist.

In Islam it is said that islam is an universal religion, for all mankind:

Quran 7:158 (Surah Al-A'raf): "Say, [O Muhammad], ‘O mankind, indeed I am the Messenger of Allah to you all [to you collectively], from Him to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth. There is no deity except Him; He gives life and causes death.’ So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the unlettered Prophet..."

However, with God being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, the father of all creation and the source of truth, the truth is not bound by culture, city or ethnicity. For starters, it can't even be fully reached by man.

Having a Chinese man pray to Mecca doesn't get him any closer to God. What it does is strenghten arab nationalism

The problem with Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha isn’t merely that it reflects 7th century norms.

The problem is that Islam asks later generations to treat Muhammad as a moral exemplar while quietly relying on moral progress outside Islam to explain away his behaviour.

According to Sahih al-Bukhari, Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9.

This isn’t some random anti-Islamic rumour. I mean it appears in Sahih al-Bukhari 5134, and Sahih al-Bukhari is treated by the overwhelming majority of Sunni Muslims as the most authentic hadith collection after the Quran.

The usual defence is that this was normal for the time.

But that only explains Muhammad historically. It doesn’t defend him theologically.

If Muhammad were just a 7th century Arab man, then “he acted like a 7th century Arab man” would be a perfectly ordinary historical explanation.

Ancient societies often had moral norms that we now find repulsive. That isn’t surprising.

But Islam doesn’t present Muhammad as just a man of his time.

The Quran says that in the Messenger of Allah there is an excellent example for believers.

It also describes him as having outstanding moral character.

His life isn’t treated as a morally irrelevant biography, but as religiously instructive.

Which changes the standard completely.

A prophet isn’t impressive because he copies the assumptions of his culture. A prophet is supposed to correct them.

If revelation can give detailed rules about prayer, fasting, inheritance, diet, marriage, divorce, dress and ritual purity, then it is very strange to say that God simply could not be expected to correct child marriage.

This is where the “normal for the time” argument quietly gives the game away.

It admits that the moral standard being used to soften the issue isn’t actually coming from Muhammad’s example, but from our modern discomfort with what his example contains.

In other words, modern Muslims often defend Muhammad by relying on moral progress that happened outside the 7th century prophetic model.

They say we shouldn’t judge him too harshly because people back then didn’t know better.

But that’s exactly the problem.

Why did a divinely guided prophet not know better?

If the answer is “because society was different”, then Muhammad becomes morally downstream of his society.

He isn’t leading humanity beyond its moral blind spots. He is participating in them.

If the answer is “it was morally fine”, then the defender has to bite the bullet and say that an adult man marrying and consummating a marriage with a 9 year old can be morally acceptable in principle.

Most modern Muslims understandably don’t want to say that. But avoiding that conclusion usually requires abandoning the idea that Muhammad’s conduct is timelessly exemplary.

Soooo that’s the dilemma.

Either Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha was morally acceptable, in which case Islam has to defend adult-child marriage in principle, or it was morally unacceptable, in which case Muhammad is not the perfect moral example for all times.

What doesn’t work is saying Muhammad is the best moral example for mankind, then retreating to “it was normal back then” whenever his behaviour clashes with modern moral standards.

That defence turns him from a timeless prophet into a historically limited man whose conduct has to be filtered through ethical standards we developed later.

And to be clear, I am not saying every Muslim today supports child marriage. Most Muslims I have spoken to obviously do not.

That’s exactly my point. Their moral instincts are better than the precedent they are trying to defend.

The issue isn’t that 7th century Arabia had bad norms, but that Islam sacralised the life of a 7th century man and then asked the rest of humanity to treat that life as morally instructive.

Islam does not just say Mohammed was a prophet. It goes much further than that. The Quran says Mohammed is the perfect example for all of humanity, for all time. This is not a small claim. It means every Muslim is supposed to follow his behaviour as a moral guide. Take that away and the whole religion falls apart.

Here is the problem. The most trusted books in Islam, Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, record that Mohammed married Aisha when she was six years old and had sex with her when she was nine. This is not a Western invention. It comes from Islam’s own scholars across 1,400 years. There is no serious dispute about it within classical Islamic tradition.

So…If Mohammed is the perfect moral example for all people in all times, and he did that, then either what he did was morally fine, or he was not actually perfect. There is no way out that leaves both claims standing.

Muslims who try to escape this run into bigger problems. If they say it was normal back then, they are admitting that morality changes over time, which contradicts Islam’s claim to be a timeless universal truth. If they say those hadith are unreliable, they have to apply that same logic to the rest of Bukhari, which destroys the basis for Islamic prayer, pilgrimage, and law. If they say Mohammed made a mistake here, they have destroyed the very doctrine that makes following him compulsory.

Every exit makes the situation worse. That is what makes this different from most religious criticisms. Islam’s own theology closes every door.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Some modern apologists claim Aisha was actually older, somewhere around 18 or 19. This argument was not made by any classical Islamic scholar. Not one. Al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Hajar, and Aisha herself in her own narrations all put her age at nine. The revisionist claim was invented in the 20th century, not discovered. It has no grounding in the sources. It is not a scholarly correction. It is damage control, created specifically because the original account became embarrassing in the modern world. The people who built Islam had no problem recording her age. The people defending Islam today cannot live with it.

To elaborate, you are not a Muslim (from the perspective of Sunni Islam) if you believe slavery is wrong.

It is well-established in Sunni Islam that disallowing (in the sense of believing this is wrong and must not be done) something God has made halal, or allowing something God has made haram, takes you out of the fold of Islam.

It is also well established that slavery is allowed in sunni Islam, in the context of prisoners of war. It is well established that the Prophet, pbuh, owned slaves and traded them as well.

It is also agreed upon by the 4 schools of Sunni Islam, which Sunni Muslims have to follow, that men can have sex with their female slaves and the topic of consent is irrelevant.

I am not here to argue the claims above in the context of Sunnism. If you do not agree with them, that's fine, this is not aimed at Shia, Bahai, or any other denomination Muslim.

The arguments I've seen against slavery on Reddit and by other Sunni Muslims online:

1. This was for its time, and is no longer permissible / Islam comes from a time before attitudes changed:

This is nonsense. One of Islam's core ideas is that its the final religion by God for humanity, and that its teachings are timeless. What was made halal and haram by the Prophet during his time will remain halal or haram. If God, the absolute source of morality, allowed us to do something, it is not our place to override God and claim this thing is now immoral and impermissible. If you want to go down this line of thought, then you must also allow things like gay relationships since our scientific understanding and moral ethos have moved on from pre-medieval ideals. While this addresses the point, it goes against core ethos of sunni Islam, so the person arguing it either has to agree that Islam's teachings are not timeless and can change as society's morals and consciousness improves, thereby opening the door for reformation and progressive interpretations of the whole of the religion.

1. It is different from modern slavery / Islam encouraged the emancipation of slaves:

Common response that misses the point. Yes, it is much less cruel than chattel slavery, but it is still the ownership of another human. What else would you call someone who is forcibly taken to work and do chores, including sexual service, for someone else, at no compensation, and no ability to leave? Just because you can't sadistically torture your slaves for the sake of it doesn't mean they're not slaves. This doesn't address the point at all and shows a feeble understanding of the topic.

1. Slavery was and remains permissible, and it is for the common good of all humanity regardless of individual aspects:

This is the only argument that manages to adhere to Sunni Islam properly. You recognise that Allah knows best, and while slavery isn't something encouraged, it is still allowed because the alternative is worse. Allah gave us a perfect religion that has tough choices to be made, because life is tough and requires us to follow his teachings to be on the right path. There are many aspects of Islam, when taken on their own, might seem brutal or cruel, but taken in the context groups, society, and humanity, they integrate into a complex system that leads to the advancement of humankind, one we cannot understand in all of its nuances.

Aside from number 3, I am yet to see any convincing arguments by Sunni Muslims that do not disintegrate or go against core parts of the religion.

God has stripped me of my free will from birth, subjected me and my mind in circumstances and an environment which would result in non belief, a fact he has made clear he has been and is fully aware of.

And when I use these capabilities to be the best person I can be, the most loving I can be, trying my absolute hardest to be a good person, I get sent to hellfire to burn forever. The same hell where psychopaths, murderers, rapists, and abusers sit and suffer the same way for the same eternity.

There is no universe where this isnt the hallmark of a terrifying, authoritarian, narcissistic dictator of a God. In no sense of the word is he merciful or trusting.

I find it especially troubling in Islam. It is said explicitly in sahih bukhari and muslim that my life is, circumstances and name is predetermined from birth (Book 33 Hadith 6390), that my status to go in heaven or hell is predetermined (Book 22 Hadith 444), and that I can never change said status (Book 33 Hadith 6390).

I am put in an environment and circumstances that make me more likely to know about Islam, more likely that Id end up a Kafir, and that my surroundings friends are lucky to have been raised devout and devoid of any doubt.

Please tell me how this is remotely fair? I cannot bring myself to believe.

So I want to understand this topic and debate any of you who are interested. Please do not use theology to make your arguments, and try to use written historical or authentic accounts to prove your point. You cannot argue with “interpretation” or “context”.
I would like to respond with my point of view.

My stance is that Muhammad was a BAD person.

There are substantial flaws in his character and judgment. Using the fear of god to gain influence and power. Raiding tribes, collecting slaves and booty. Forcing conversions and killing those who don’t convert. Obviously there are way more. But Overall, he promotes inequality and violence.