I would like to see you list your best arguments against Islam. Thank you!

 Al Salam u Alaykum Wa Rahmatullah. this was not accepted to be posted in r/islam so I am posting it here.

First of all, I have heard of the theories that the law of killing apostates in Islam is equivalent to modern treason, and I accept this view. However, this is not the main perspective. The main view among scholars of Islam, both ancient and modern, is the killing of apostates, especially if the apostate will openly advocate for their new religion or atheism.

Now, let's engage in a simple thought experiment. Imagine that all religions in the world declared they would kill apostates. We would create a world of 'Munafiqs.' Christians might begin killing all Muslim converts, which we Muslims would of course not accept. So, why would we expect people to tolerate this? Essentially, it's asking for war among all religions

Kindly, reply to me ONLY if you support the later version of intrepretating the Had. if you are among the people who say that its equivalent to modern treason or, only the Apostate who starts a war in the community should get punished, then I am with you 100%.

This is probably not a very a good argument against islam but I still decided to make it.

1. 21:30: Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them

Muslims like to imagine this verse as the big bang miracle but if you look at older myths for example.

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/epic/hd_epic.htm

A Sumerian myth known today as “Gilgamesh and the Netherworld” opens with a mythological prologue. It assumes that the gods and the universe already exist and that once a long time ago the heavens and earth were united, only later to be split apart. 

2. Quran claims there is 7 heavens above us

this concept is also similar to a another idea in mesopotamian mythology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_heavens#Mesopotamian_cosmology

my conclusion is why is Allah repeating old myths about the world?

Isn't it pretty suspicious?

Hello! I small time ago made a post asking for counterpoints and arguments regarding the claim of the intimability of the Quran, and got fairly good responses from here. So i decided to make this post, asking what you people think here of some of the arguments that i have heard presented in favour of Islam while researching, so i can get a better picture as a whole.

So some of the more precise claims are mostly prophecies, which mostly to me are mostly vague or just made up layer, tho i find some of these more precise and maybe authentic than the others:

- The prophecy about the conquest of Constantinople, that happened in the year 1453. (So much much later than the canonisation of hadiths, so it can not be like the prophecies abour Rome or Perisa which i think are just made up later) tho this as a prophecy is somekind self fulfilling, but idk :D

- Then the prophecy about the spread of interest, but this tho could have been present at that time.

- The third the prophecy about spread of sexual immorality and somekind of a new sexual disease with that.

- Fourthly the mongol siege of baghad that occured in the year 1258, tho this is fairly vague to me it still stands out.

- Fifthly the prophecy about how the buildings of Medina would one day reach the top of the mountains and there would be somekind of tunnels made to the mountains.

- Sixthly the prophecy about the rise of suicide and mentaö health issues.

- Sevently the "talking shoes" prophecy, tho i find this really vague but still somekind precise.

- Eightly the green arabia and river prophecy (And to this same a prophecy about the city of tabuk)

- Ninthly the prophecy about the time passing quigly.

- And lastly the prophecy about the Dhul Qhasala cult, and i think that it is rather precise tho it can be interpeted.

And then secondly some the arguments about the Quranic knowledge of ancient historical facts that were later discovered, and that how could Muhammad have known then any other way than revelation. Some of the more precise are the:

- Pharaohs claim to divinity.

- The Pharaoh and King distinction in the stories of Jospeh and Moses, that they dont have in the Bible.

- The usage of Silver coins in ancient egypt.

- The usage of door locks in Ancient Egypt.

- The figure of Haman and hes place in Egypt.

- The moon, sun and venus gods worshipped by the people of Abraham.

- The angels of Babylon at the time of Solomon.

So if you guys would have some responses or counterpoints to these kind of arguments, feel free to respons! And im sorry if this is so long and exaustive :D

Thanks! :)

A woman named Khaula Bint Hakim gave herself to Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, for sexual pleasure (He did not marry her).

Sahih al-Bukhari صحيح البخاري 4823

باب هل للمرأة أن تهب نفسها لأحد 4823 حدثنا محمد بن سلام حدثنا ابن فضيل حدثنا هشام عن أبيه قال كانت خولة بنت حكيم من اللائي وهبن أنفسهن للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالت عائشة أما تستحي المرأة أن تهب نفسها للرجل فلما نزلت ترجئ من تشاء منهن قلت يا رسول الله ما أرى ربك إلا يسارع في هواك رواه أبو سعيد المؤدب ومحمد بن بشر وعبدة عن هشام عن أبيه عن عائشة يزيد بعضهم على بعض

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?pageid=192&BookID=24&PID=4919 Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 62 :: Hadith 48

Narrated Hisham's father:

• Khaula bint Hakim was one of those ladies who presented themselves to the Prophet for marriage*. 'Aisha said, "Doesn't a lady feel ashamed for presenting herself to a man?" But when the Verse: "(O Muhammad) You may postpone (the turn of) any of them (your wives) that you please,' (33.51) was revealed, " 'Aisha said, 'O Allah's Apostle! I do not see, but, that your Lord hurries in pleasing you.' "

• (for marriage): added by the translator

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5113

————————————————————————

Aisha (Muhammad’s child bride) is not happy about this.

Sahih al-Bukhari صحيح البخاري 4823

باب هل للمرأة أن تهب نفسها لأحد 4823 حدثنا محمد بن سلام حدثنا ابن فضيل حدثنا هشام عن أبيه قال كانت خولة بنت حكيم من اللائي وهبن أنفسهن للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالت عائشة أما تستحي المرأة أن تهب نفسها للرجل فلما نزلت ترجئ من تشاء منهن قلت يا رسول الله ما أرى ربك إلا يسارع في هواك رواه أبو سعيد المؤدب ومحمد بن بشر وعبدة عن هشام عن أبيه عن عائشة يزيد بعضهم على بعض

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?pageid=192&BookID=24&PID=4919 Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 62 :: Hadith 48

Narrated Hisham's father:

• …'Aisha said, "Doesn't a lady feel ashamed for presenting herself to a man?"…

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5113

————————————————————————

But Allah came to the rescue and approved this relation (with Khaula) by revealing, as usual, some ayas (verses).

تُرْجِي مَن تَشَاء مِنْهُنَّ وَتُؤْوِي إِلَيْكَ مَن تَشَاء وَمَنِ ابْتَغَيْتَ مِمَّنْ عَزَلْتَ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكَ

• You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you;

Quran 33:51

————————————————————————

Aisha is not happy with Muhammad’s Allah.

Sahih al-Bukhari صحيح البخاري 4823

باب هل للمرأة أن تهب نفسها لأحد 4823 حدثنا محمد بن سلام حدثنا ابن فضيل حدثنا هشام عن أبيه قال كانت خولة بنت حكيم من اللائي وهبن أنفسهن للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقالت عائشة أما تستحي المرأة أن تهب نفسها للرجل فلما نزلت ترجئ من تشاء منهن قلت يا رسول الله ما أرى ربك إلا يسارع في هواك رواه أبو سعيد المؤدب ومحمد بن بشر وعبدة عن هشام عن أبيه عن عائشة يزيد بعضهم على بعض

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Page.aspx?pageid=192&BookID=24&PID=4919 Bukhari :: Book 7 :: Volume 62 :: Hadith 48

Narrated Hisham's father:

• …'Aisha said, 'O Allah's Apostle! I do not see, but, that your Lord hurries in pleasing you.' "

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5113

————————————————————————

But who was this woman "Khaula"?

Khaula Bint Hakim was Muhammad’s maternal aunt, the sister of his mother.

Musnad Ahmad مسند أحمد 26768

26768 حدثنا محمد بن جعفر قال حدثنا شعبة وحجاج قال حدثني شعبة قال سمعت عطاء الخراساني يحدث عن سعيد بن المسيب أن خولة بنت حكيم السلمية وهي إحدى خالات النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم سألت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عن المرأة تحتلم فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لتغتسل

Translation:

26768 - "..Khaula Bint Hakim al-Salmiya, who was one of the prophet's maternal aunts, ..asked the prophet about the woman having a wet dream, he said she should wash herself.."

https://www.islamweb.net/amp/ar/library/content/6/26052/%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%AB-%D8%AE%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%AA-%D8%AD%D9%83%D9%8A%D9%85-%D8%B1%D8%B6%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%B9%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7

Also…

• Khaula bint Hakeem is the aunt of the Prophet of Islam

(Musnad Ahmad 27313)

https://islamicurdubooks.com/hadith/hadith-.php?hadith_number=27313&bookid=24&tarqeem=1

————————————————————————

Actually, Khauala is just one of the many women that lined up to have sex with the prophet:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported:

• “I felt jealous of the women who offered themselves to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and said: Then when Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, revealed this:" You may defer any one of them you wish, and take to yourself any you wish; and if you desire any you have set aside (no sin is chargeable to you)" (xxxiii. 51), I ('A'isha.) said: It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire.”

(Sahih Muslim 1464a)

https://sunnah.com/muslim:1464a

So the hadeeth goes like this:

Muslim (315) narrated that Thawbaan, the freed slave of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said:
I was standing beside the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) when one of the Jewish rabbis came and said: Peace be upon you, O Muhammad. I gave him a shove that almost made him fall over and he said: Why did you push me? I said: Why don’t you say, O Messenger of Allah? The Jew said: We only call him by the name that his family gave him. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “My name is Muhammad, that my family gave to me.” The Jew said: I have come to ask you something. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Will it benefit you anything if I tell you?” He said: I will listen. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) scratched the ground with a stick that he had with him and said: “Ask.” The Jew said: Where will the people be on the Day when the earth is changed to another earth and the heavens (likewise)? The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “They will be in darkness near the bridge.” He said: Who will be the first people to cross (the bridge)? He said: “The poor muhaajireen.” The Jew said: What will be presented to them when they enter Paradise? He said: “The choicest pieces of whale’s liver.” He said: What food will be given to them after that? He said: The bull of Paradise, which used to graze along its edges, will be slaughtered for them.” He said: What will their drink be? He said: “From a spring there that is called Salsabeel.” He said: You have spoken the truth. I came to ask you about something that no one on earth knows except a Prophet or one or two men. He said: “Will it benefit you anything if I tell you?” He said: I will listen. I have come to ask you about the child. He said: “The water of the man is white and the water of the woman is yellow. If they meet and the maniy of the man prevails over the maniy of the woman, it will be a male, by Allah's leave. If the maniy of the woman prevails over the maniy of the man, it will be a female, by Allah’s leave.” The Jew said: You have spoken the truth; you are indeed a Prophet. Then he left and went away. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “This man asked me what he asked me, and I had no knowledge of any of that until Allah granted it to me.”

The excuse from islamqa however is this:

The third view appeared recently, and says that the role of determining the sex of the foetus is shared by the man and the woman. The one who developed this view and is propagating it among people – as far as we know – is Dr Jamal Hamdaan Hassaanayn, a specialist in anatomy and embryology. With regard to the explanation of the hadith of Thawbaan (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: The kind of sperm that fertilises the egg depends on the electrical characteristics of these germ cells. When the egg has a negative charge, it attracts the sperm carrying the Y chromosome which always has a positive charge, and that leads to a male child. As the sperm that carries this chromosome and has a positive charge is higher according to the laws of nature, then the semen of the man will become dominant, and thus the prevalence of the man’s semen will lead to producing a male child. This is astonishingly in accordance with what the prophetic hadith says: “If they meet and the maniy of the man prevails over the maniy of the woman, it will be a male, by Allah's leave.”

But if the egg has a positive charge, then it will attract the sperm carrying the X chromosome, which has a negative charge, and will lead to producing a female child. This is also mentioned in the prophetic hadith: “If the maniy of the woman prevails over the maniy of the man, it will be a female, by Allah’s leave.”

Therefore, both man and woman play a shared role in determining the sex of the child. End quote.

However, a post on the exmuslim subreddit says this(in the comments second excuse): https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/146w1zv/comment/jnvk1et/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Which one is true? And could someone help simplify the scientific jargon for me? Can Dr. Jamal be debunked?

https://youtube.com/shorts/H_7Hpfh5N0M?si=wbi5pDXJfUc_6iZ9

Gold has definitely been found to cause infertility in men but not for women. This has been scientifically proven. Amazing how we can find out about this and Islam got it right.

So, I know the other three schools execute homosexuals. But, I heard Hanafi's don't? Is this true? With all the hadiths saying to execute gays' I'm confused how they can do that. But,, I bet there is still a severe punishment's for it in hanafism. What is the punishment for it in hanafism?

Narrated `Abdullah bin `Umar:

The Prophet (ﷺ) prayed one of the `Isha' prayer in his last days and after finishing it with Taslim, he stood up and said, "Do you realize (the importance of) this night? Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight would be living after the completion of one hundred years from this night." The people made a mistake in grasping the meaning of this statement of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and they indulged in those things which are said about these narrators (i.e. some said that the Day of Resurrection will be established after 100 years etc.) But the Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Nobody present on the surface of earth tonight would be living after the completion of 100 years from this night"; he meant "When that century (people of that century) would pass away."

Now muslims say he just meant everyone living right now would be dead in a 100 years but I have two questions.

1. Why would Muhammad call it a special night?

2. Why would Muhammad say something useless as everyone would be dead in a 100 years?

I generally enjoy this sub for the information and quality arguement. Regardless if it’s pro or anti. As an ex Muslim, who studies Islam actively. When I scroll through this sub, I find the anti Islamic arguments well written, defendable and sparking of questions. But I’d like to know what the Muslims here think?

In this Sahih al-Bukhari hadith you can clearly see Aisha accused Muhammad of pulling self-serving revelations out of his ass when it's the most convenient.

​

Sahih al-Bukhari 4788

I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).' (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4788

​

The verse(s) in question is very blatant self-serving nonsense, its really indefensible. Aisha was clearly right in what she said. Basically Allah revealed Muhammad can marry whoever he wants including his first cousins and does not have to pay any of his wives a dowry.

​

The Quran verse 33:50-51 for full context

"O Prophet! We have made lawful for you your wives to whom you have paid their ˹full˺ dowries as well as those ˹bondwomen˺ in your possession, whom Allah has granted you.1 And ˹you are allowed to marry˺ the daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and aunts, who have emigrated like you. Also ˹allowed for marriage is˺ a believing woman who offers herself to the Prophet ˹without dowry˺ if he is interested in marrying her—˹this is˺ exclusively for you, not for the rest of the believers.2 We know well what ˹rulings˺ We have ordained for the believers in relation to their wives and those ˹bondwomen˺ in their possession. As such, there would be no blame on you. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

It is up to you ˹O Prophet˺ to delay or receive whoever you please of your wives. There is no blame on you if you call back any of those you have set aside.1 That is more likely that they will be content, not grieved, and satisfied with what you offer them all. Allah ˹fully˺ knows what is in your hearts. And Allah is All-Knowing, Most Forbearing.

https://quran.com/33?startingVerse=50

​

Ibn Kathir explanation how these verses were revealed

Imam Ahmad recorded that `A'ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, used to feel jealous of the women who offered themselves to the Prophet . She said, "Would a woman not feel shy to offer herself without any dowery" Then Allah revealed the Ayah,

تُرْجِى مَن تَشَآءُ مِنْهُنَّ وَتُؤْوِى إِلَيْكَ مَن تَشَآءُ

(You can postpone whom you will of them, and you may receive whom you will.) She said, "I think that your Lord is hastening to confirm your desire." We have already stated that Al-Bukhari also recorded this.

https://quran.com/33:51/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir

​

According to Fred M. Donner in John L. Esposito's The Oxford History of Islam, Donner claims that Prophet Muhammad and the early Muslim community believed that the End Times was imminent. Did Prophet Muhammad genuinely believe the End Times was imminent, or did he intentionally mislead his followers to incentivize righteousness?

Like, is there any contradictions in the hadith that are just so blatant and in your face, that it's impossible for a Muslim to weasel and mental gymnastics their way out of it. Preferably, can i have multiple different contradictions. Like, can I have a list?

For the product of the 7th century it's not great imo.

Siddharth Gautama, Jesus, Lao Tzu and many more seem like moral giants for their time and even today.

I'm curious what the Quran provides that can't be found in earlier texts.

Could someone explain how “what the right hand possesses” translates to female slaves? What is the origin, the etymology, the history, the exact translation, the various interpretations of the phrase. Do we not possess ourselves/our own bodies, and possess our belongings? Are any of the words in “Ma malakat aymanukum” can only be used to refer to another person?

“Let them live where you live ˹during their waiting period˺, according to your means. And do not harass them to make their stay unbearable. If they are pregnant, then maintain them until they deliver. And if they nurse your child,1 compensate them, and consult together courteously. But if you fail to reach an agreement, then another woman will nurse ˹the child˺ for the father.”- 65:6 Surah Talaaq

This Ayah seems to imply that during a divorce, a man should be providing for a breastfeeding wife if they divorce. But if they cant reach an agreement he takes the child to be breastfed by another woman.

How are people okay with that?

so quran 69:44-46 says: "Had the Messenger made up something in Our Name, We would have certainly seized him by his right hand, then severed his aorta,"

​

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

​

Seems pretty straightforward right? But, muslims argue that the Arabic word for the two is different, one is al-abhar and another is al- wateen. But, i hear exmuslims say that the words mean the same thing? I'm confused!

​

Muslims also argue that it was just a figure of speech. As in, it was just a saying to show he was in pain.

What is your rebuttal to this?

Does these fiqh support death for apostasy? I know Shafi and Hanbali do, so i'm sure the other two do too. I just haven't found them. As a bonus, can someone give me a list of scholars that give death for apostasy. Finally, are the any scholars that use the Quran to argue death for apostasy? Like maybe using 4:89 and the verses about the hypocrites?

A unique contribution on the era when Islam was at one of its most dynamic stages of growth in the first century, was made by the Israeli-Palestinian historian Suliman Bashear (1947-1991), who taught at both Palestinian universities and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Using ancient manuscripts, he examined theological discussions that the proto-Muslims had in the first centuries. His starting point is a beautiful paradox. Just like Western 'revisionists', he does not regard the traditional accounts as reliable historiography. It contains too many contradictions for that. Bashear's added value lies in his unique resources. He received a tip from the Israeli Islamologist Meir Jakov Kister that ancient manuscripts from the early days of Islam could be found in Damascus, in the famous Zahiriyya library. Bashear himself could not visit the Syrian capital because of his Israeli nationality. Prominent Palestinians in the West Bank, including Saeb Urayqat, confidant of PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, provided him with photocopies of the manuscripts. In 1984 he self-published the Arabic book (An Introduction to the other history: Towards a new reading of Islamic tradition. Jerusalem, 1984).

Especially in the oldest sources, Bashear encounters disagreements just about everything!

Did Muhammed have sons or not? Who established the canon of the Quran and when? Was Mohammed illiterate or not, was he actually an Arab? Did he have a Christian hairstyle in his youth, did he have a Syrian background, what was his name before he was called Muhammed? Did the later 'caliph' Umar also heard revelations from the mouth of the angel Gabriel? Did the second caliph Umar buried himself in a monastery or was it Umar the first, who would have immersed himself in the Jordan River with his horse and all? (Jesus was baptized in the same river by John the Baptist.) Should believers fast during Ramadan and/or in other months? How do you perform the ritual prayer? Can or must one make the same movements as the Jews? and someone points to Quran 4:52; relating to those who have been condemned by God. He says that someone has an interpretation of that verse that dates from 'before Islam' or the life of Muhammad. The contradictions are sharpest in the oldest writings. Bashear calls them “pointed protrusions”.

They are gradually being polished away however, in newer manuscripts...

Title : Quran, Trinity and Mary علیه السلام

Allah says in (Quran 4:171):

{And do not say, "Three"; desist -- it is better for you.}

These three were not specified in the Quran, but Allah revealed a general statement to warn us from referring to Allah as a Trinity.

No matter who these three are, all concepts of the trinity are blasphemous according to the Quran, whether the concept of the trinity aligns with the three main churches or does not.

Offering any form of worship to any human/object/animal is a major shirk. Whether you call this human as a god or no, you are still worshiping him, and by your worship, this human technically becomes a god.

Washington Irving (1783-1859) was an American short-story writer, essayist, biographer, and a historian.

he states in his book “life of mahomet” “ The Mariamites or worshippers of mary, regarded the trinity as god the father, the son and mary”

other sources that talk on mariamites

• Ebenezer Cobham Brewer (1810-1897) was a British lexicographer. in his book “Dictionary of phrases and fables.

• Eutychius of Alexandria, Sa'id ibn Batriq (877-940) who was the Melkite Patriarch of Alexandria,

He says in his book: ‘Chaplet of Pearls’:

{Some (people) used to say that Jesus and his mother are two gods beside God, which are called Mariamities.}

The colyridians were arabian pre islamic arabian christians who viewed mary as a

Strictly speaking, this verse need not be read as a reference to a version of the Trinity but rather as an example of shirk, claiming divinity for beings other than God (see IDOLATRY AND IDOLATERS). As such, it could be understood as a warning against excessive devotion to Jesus and extravagant veneration of Mary, a reminder linked to the central theme of the Qurʾān that there is only one God and he alone is to be worshipped (see WORSHIP).

Ppl have to understand The Quran is a message for all mankind and refuting All blasphemous accusations and attributions To Allah ﷻ.

And do not say three !

have fun with this one Atheist!

A few days ago a Muslim asked me if I agreed with the following statement:"We are all servants and worshippers of God, I believe that we should strive for peace and understanding of one another instead of senseless arguing and conflict."

I had to answer him honestly. "Ideally we would strive for peace and mutual understanding. Unfortunately, the authentic doctrines of Islam do not allow this as a realistic possibility. It is only Muslims who are not fully aware of all the teachings of Islam or have received them in a partial manner who genuinely believe this is possible."

With this in mind, let's look at the Sunni doctrines on this. I have mainly, but not exclusively focused here on presenting material from manuals of Islamic Law. Online Muslims who don't know any better sometimes object that such books are the words of 'random scholars'. But nothing could be further from the truth. These fiqh books reflect the systematic synthesis of legal rulings from the Qur'an and Sunnah according to the agreed upon methods of the juristic schools. They are the books of the experts of Islamic Law and these rulings reflect authentic Sunni legal doctrines.

(1) Jihad is offensive:

The Mukhtasar al-Quduri (Hanafi fiqh):

• “Jihād is a collective obligation; when a group of the people establish it, [the obligation] lapses from the rest, but if none of them establish it, [then] all of the people are guilty of wrongdoing by its omission.” (p.678) (https://ibb.co/KrRftCh)
• “Fighting unbelievers is obligatory, even it they do not initiate it against us.” (p. 678) (https://ibb.co/KrRftCh)

Reliance of the Traveller (Shafi'i fiqh):

• “Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others…. If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin.” (p. 600) (https://ibb.co/9p3rrH7)
• “there are two possible states in respect to non-muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad is a communal obligation… meaning upon the Muslims each year.” (p.600) (https://ibb.co/9p3rrH7z
• “The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” (p.602) (https://ibb.co/s650VGP)
• “The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim.” (p.603) (https://ibb.co/7zbQ1Tg)

Minhaj et Talibin (Shafi'i fiqh): (https://archive.org/details/cu31924023205390)

• “War against infidels was already during the lifetime of the Prophet an obligation for which the Moslem community was jointly responsible though some authorities maintain that at that period it was an obligation incumbent upon each individual Moslem.” (p. 457) Al-Risala (Maliki fiqh) - https://ia802701.us.archive.org/10/items/TheRisala/TheRisala-ATreatiseOnMalikiFiqh.pdf
• “Linguistically jihad is derived from jahd, which, acording to al-Misbah, is effort in what someone does, or juhd which is ability. It is a technical term for the Muslim fighting the unbelievers who have no treaty with the intention of elevating the word of Allah or presenting Islam.” (Section 30.1)

Al-Umda fi 'l-fiqh (Hanbali fiqh):

• “It is permissible to launch a surprise attack on the unbelievers, to shoot missiles at them with the catapult, and to fight them before declaring war on them.“ (p. 314) (https://ibb.co/py45cmj)

Tafsir ibn Kathir:

• “Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because They are Idolators and Disbelievers” (https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/9.30)
• “Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets. Hence Allah's statement, (Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,)” (https://quranx.com/Tafsir/Kathir/9.28)
• “The pure religion reached its deepest aims against Allah's enemies, and whenever Muslims overcame an Ummah, they moved to the next one, and then the next one, crushing the tyranical evil doers. They did this in reverence to Allah's statement, (O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you)” (https://quranx.com/Tafsir/Kathir/9.123)

Tafsir al-Qurtubi:

• “It is an UNQUALIFIED COMMAND to fight without any precondition of hostilities being initiated by the unbelievers. The evidence for that is in the words of Allah: ‘and the dīn belongs to Allah alone.’ The Prophet said, ‘I was commanded to fight people until they say, “There is no god but Allah.”’ The āyah and ḥadīth both indicate that the reason for fighting is disbelief because Allah says: ‘until there is no more fitnah,’ meaning disbelief in this case. So the goal is to abolish disbelief and that is clear.” (2:193) (https://ibb.co/6PNcsyG)
• “When he emigrated, he was given permission to fight those idolaters who fought him when Allah said: ‘Permission to fight is given to those who are fought against’ (22:39), and then he was given permission to fight idolaters IN GENERAL.” (al-Qurtubi 2:216) (https://ibb.co/YNqjhSy)

​

(2) Peace is only temporary, treaties are treacherous:

The Mukhtasar al-Quduri (Hanafi fiqh):

• “If he secures a truce with them [ie non-Muslims] for a period, then later thinks that breaking the truce is more beneficial, he is to [formally] renounce [the truce] to [the enemy] and fight them.” (p. 682) (https://ibb.co/3krFmyM) Reliance of the Traveller (Shafi'i fiqh):
• “There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the status quo. Allah Most High Says, “So do not be fainthearted and call for peace when it is you who are the uppermost.” (p. 605) (https://ibb.co/0cD1rXk)

The Encyclopaedia of Islam:

• "Since a permanent state of war existed between the Islamic state (dār al-Islām ) and other countries ( dār al-ḥarb ), **Muslims were permanently in a state of hostilities with non-Muslims'." (Reddit)
• “Hostilities came to an end either by Islam’s victory over the enemy, agreement to submit to Muslim ruie at the expense of paying the d̲j̲izya in the case of d̲h̲immīs , or peace with the enemy for a limited period, if the imām decided that fighting was harmful to Islam. Such peace was of a limited duration, not exceeding ten years, until the imām could resume the war. The imām should not terminate the fighting if the number of Muslim warriors was not less than half the number of enemy warriors (Sūra VIII, 66-7), until victory was attained.” (Reddit)
• “Its perpetual character. The duty of the d̲j̲ihād exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. “Until the day of the resurrection”, and “until the end of the world” say the maxims. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.“ (Reddit)

​

(3) Slaves are secured through offensive jihad:

The Mukhtasar al-Quduri (Hanafi fiqh):

• “If we [the Muslims] overcome his house, then his real estate property is fay’-booty, his wife, his mount and his major children are [all] fay’-booty.” https://ibb.co/7N3L6wK

Al-wajiz fi fiqh al-imam al-shafi'i (Shafi'i fiqh) 

• "one must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year… one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – Jews and Christians, typically] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked. A woman and her child taken into slavery should not be separated...One may cut down their trees…. One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide… they may steal as much food as they need…" (citation found on https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Al-Ghazali).

​

Friends, this is Islam. ☝️

If prayer is a fundamental aspect of Islam, then why are its specificitites not mentioned in the Quran, but in the Hadith?

Maybe the way to pray is supported by mutawatir hadith and was a medium to which later generations directly followed without much complications. However, this does not answer the question of why it was not mentioned in the Quran. This makes me think that prayer does not have as much specificity as a majority of Muslims today think it has.

For those that don't know, "wingman" in the context of this conversation refers to someone who helps a friend with romantic relationships, specifically when it comes to sex with a person they desire.

The reason I ask this question is because Allah did this for Muhammad at least TWICE in the Quran. Allah intervened with revelation to help Muhammad fornicate with a woman he desired. Muslims claim their Allah is the same God of the Hebrew Bible, therefore if there is no evidence of God ever dropping revelation to help another prophet get laid to same level of degree, Muhammad is clearly a fake prophet.

Here is the evidence against Muhammad

First instance - Mary the Copt was a "slave" girl gifted to Muhammad from Alexandria. According to SAHIH hadith from the Sunnah, Muhammad was caught raping (yes this is the appropriate word to use because a "slave" cannot consent) her in his wife Hafsa's bed. His wives were not happy until he forbid himself from doing it again. Allah then intervened in favor of Muhammad's penis desires.

Once again, this Hadith is graded SAHIH the Arabic word for AUTHENTIC/GENUINE

Sunan an-Nasa'i 3959

It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but 'Aishah and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed: "O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you.' until the end of the Verse.

https://sunnah.com/nasai:3959

Supported Tafsir explanation

O Prophet! Why do you prohibit what God has made lawful for you, in terms of your Coptic handmaiden Māriya — when he lay with her in the house of Hafsa, who had been away, but who upon returning [and finding out] became upset by the fact that this had taken place in her own house and on her own bed — by saying, ‘She is unlawful for me!’, seeking, by making her unlawful [for you], to please your wives? And God is Forgiving, Merciful, having forgiven you this prohibition.

https://quranx.com/Tafsir/jalal/66.1

Second instance - Muhammad lusted for his adopted sons wife Zaynab bint Jahsh. The marriage fell apart because of this and Allah conveniently revealed a verse so Muhammad can marry his adopted sons wife. We're not done there, on their wedding night when Muhammad's followers would not leave, Allah revealed a verse so sexually frustrated Muhammad could consummate the marriage.

History of Al-Tabari Vol. 8, pg. 1-3

Muhammad Ibn Umar (d. 207) <– Abdullah Amir Al-Aslami (d. 151) <– Muhammad b Yahya b Habban (d. 121): The Messenger of God came to the house of Zayd b. Harithah. (Zayd was always called Zayd b. Muhammad.) Perhaps the Messenger of God missed him at that moment, so as to ask, “Where is Zayd?” He came to his residence to look for him but did not find him. Zaynab bt. Jash, Zayd’s wife, rose to meet him. Because she was dressed only in a shift, the Messenger of God turned away from her. She said: “He is not here, Messenger of God. Come in, you who are as dear to me as my father and mother!” The Messenger of God refused to enter. Zaynab had dressed in haste when she was told “the Messenger of God is at the door.” She jumped up in haste and excited the admiration of the Messenger of God, so that he turned away murmuring something that could scarcely be understood. However, he did say overtly: “Glory be to God the Almighty! Glory be to God, who causes the hearts to turn!” When Zayd came home, his wife told him that the Messenger of God had come to his house. Zayd said, “Why didn’t you ask him to come in?” He replied, “I asked him, but he refused.” “Did you hear him say anything?” he asked. She replied, “As he turned away, I heard him say: ‘Glory be to God the Almighty! Glory be to God, who causes hearts to turn!’” So Zayd left, and having come to the Messenger of God, he said: “Messenger of God, I have heard that you came to my house. Why didn’t you go in, you who are as dear to me as my father and mother? Messenger of God, perhaps Zaynab has excited your admiration, and so I will separate myself from her. Zayd could find no possible way to [approach] her after that day. He would come to the Messenger of God and tell him so, but the Messenger of God would say to him, “Keep your wife.” Zayd separated from her and left her, and she became free. While the Messenger of God was talking with ‘A’isha, a fainting overcame him. When he was released from it, he smiled and said, “Who will go to Zaynab to tell her the good news, saying that God has married her to me?” Then the Messenger of God recited: “And when you said unto him on whom God has conferred favor and you have conferred favor, ‘Keep your wife to yourself .’”- and the entire passage. According to ‘A’isha, who said: “I became very uneasy because of what we heard about her beauty and another thing, the greatest and loftiest of matters – what God had done for her by giving her in marriage. I said she would boast of it over us.

https://archive.org/details/TabariVolume08/page/n25/mode/2up

SAHIH Hadith further confirming the story.

Sahih Muslim 1428b

Anas (Allah be pleased with him) reported: When the 'Iddah of Zainab was over, Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said to Zaid to make a mention to her about him. Zaid went on until he came to her and she was fermenting her flour. He (Zaid) said: As I saw her I felt in my heart an idea of her greatness so much so that I could not see towards her (simply for the fact) that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) had made a mention of her. So I turned my back towards her. and I turned upon my heels, and said: Zainab, Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) has sent (me) with a message to you. She said: I do not do anything until I solicit the will of my Lord. So she stood at her place of worship and the (verse of) the Qur'an (pertaining to her marriage) were revealed, and Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) came to her without permission. He (the narrator) said: I saw that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) served us bread and meat until it was broad day light and the people went away, but some persons who were busy in con- versation stayed on in the house after the meal. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) also went out and I also followed him, and he began to visit the apartments of his wives greeting them (with the words): As-Salamu 'alaikum, and they would say: Allah's Messenger, how did you find your family (hadrat Zainab)? He (the narrator) stated: I do not know whether I had informed him that the people had gone out or he (the Holy Prophet) informed me (about that). He moved on until he entered the apartment, and I also went and wanted to enter (the apartment) along with him, but he threw a curtain between me and him, as (the verses pertaining to seclusion) had been revealed, and people were instructed in what they had been instructed. Ibn Rafii had made this addition in his narration:" O you who believe, enter not the houses of the Prophet unless permission is given to you for a meal, not waiting for its cooking being finished..." to the words"... Allah forbears not from the truth.

https://sunnah.com/muslim:1428b

Here is the full Quran verse regarding dispersing from the prophets home that Allah revealed on Muhammad and Zaynabs wedding night.

Surah Al-Ahzab - 53

O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Prophet except when you are permitted for a meal, without awaiting its readiness. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have eaten, disperse without seeking to remain for conversation. Indeed, that [behavior] was troubling the Prophet, and he is shy of [dismissing] you. But Allāh is not shy of the truth. And when you ask [his wives] for something, ask them from behind a partition. That is purer for your hearts and their hearts. And it is not [conceivable or lawful] for you to harm the Messenger of Allāh or to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allāh an enormity.

https://quran.com/33/53?translations=20,84,42,17,85,18,95,48,101,19,22,46,32,25

Lastly, lets also not forget Allah forbids Muslims from having more than FOUR wives yet Muhammad had NINE wives at one time, including a child bride. This continues the theme of Allah really caring about Muhammad's sexual desires being fulfilled.

Here is the Quran verse forbidding more than FOUR wives.

Surah An-Nisa - 3

If you fear you might fail to give orphan women their ˹due˺ rights ˹if you were to marry them˺, then marry other women of your choice—two, three, or four. But if you are afraid you will fail to maintain justice, then ˹content yourselves with˺ one1 or those ˹bondwomen˺ in your possession.2 This way you are less likely to commit injustice.

https://quran.com/en/an-nisa/3

Here is the Quran verse Allah revealed exclusively for Muhammad to have more than four wives. Allah also generously included allowing Muhammad to marry his first cousins and not have to pay a dowry to any of his wives.

Surah Al-Ahzab - 50

O Prophet! We have made lawful for you your wives to whom you have paid their ˹full˺ dowries as well as those ˹bondwomen˺ in your possession, whom Allah has granted you.1 And ˹you are allowed to marry˺ the daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and aunts, who have emigrated like you. Also ˹allowed for marriage is˺ a believing woman who offers herself to the Prophet ˹without dowry˺ if he is interested in marrying her—˹this is˺ exclusively for you, not for the rest of the believers.2 We know well what ˹rulings˺ We have ordained for the believers in relation to their wives and those ˹bondwomen˺ in their possession. As such, there would be no blame on you. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

https://quran.com/en/al-ahzab/50

Miriam is one of the Israelite female prophets mentioned in both the Old Testament and the Tanakh. She is the daughter of Amram and the sister of Aaron. Several verses in the Quran mention that Maryam, the mother of Isa (Jesus), is the sister of Aaron and the daughter of Imran. This must be an improbable coincidence, as it would mean that Mary, the mother of Jesus, shares the same father and brother names with Miriam. Even Christian tradition does not support this notion. According to Christian tradition, the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus, is not Imran or Amram but 'Joachim'.

The Christians of Najran also asked Muhammad about this, and Muhammad gave an unclear answer. Muhammad argued that people give names according to previous prophets. Clearly, it would be an extraordinary coincidence if the names of the father and brother were indeed the same.

Many contradictions have been debunked, what is one that is very strong in your opinion?

In my experience of debating Muslims online, every so often a Muslim, out of ignorance, will mock the manner of Christs death, thinking that this is somehow an argument against Christianity. They do not understand that, "we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called... the power of God and the wisdom of God." (1 Corinthians 1:23)

Moreover, also out of ignorance, they seem to be unaware of the nature of Muhammad's death. They will often say that Muhammad 'knew his time on earth was finished', or that he 'chose martyrdom'. This paints a very romantic picture. Now, overlooking the fact that even things like dying from diarrhea make one a martyr in Islam, such Muslims are far from the mark. According to the Islamic source texts, this was the manner of Muhammad's death:

• He died from poison (Bukhari 4428), which is something he said he had a cure for (Bukhari 5779).
• Despite Islamic underestimations of such persons, it was a Jewess who killed him (Bukhari 2617). It is also reported that her poisoning was a test of him being a prophet, the thinking being that if he was truly a prophet he would avoid the poison (Abi Dawud 4512). However, he failed this test and eventually succummed to the poison. He died basically from being arrogant and thinking that he was untouchable, accepting food from his conquered enemies after slaughtering the people.
• He died with the same sensation (Bukhari 4428) of what he said a false prophet would feel (Qur'an 69:44-46), namely of having his aorta cut.
• On his death bed Umar would not even let him write his last instructions (Bukhari 7366).
• He died after asking for a pot to urinate in. His last words seem to be asking to urinate (Shamail 387).
• During his life, Muhammad said that the bodies of prophets would remain incorrupt (Abi Dawud 1531). However, there are reports that after death nobody buried him for 3 days and his body was decomposing (link# 1, link #2).

This was a death that was not only not as these Muslims imagine, but it contains a number of aspects that actually show that Muhammad was NOT a true prophet.

https://fatwaa.com/what-is-the-correct-understanding-of-sahih-al-bukhari-1-chapter-61-hadith-3329/

The quidnunc mentality is best analogised to the attitude of a village busybody. Such a mentality is both self-abasing and self-aggrandising. It is self-abasing because it makes one’s own sense of self-satisfaction dependent on the responsiveness of one’s fellows to one’s badgering of their private pursuits. That is, the success of the life of someone in possession of the quidnunc mentality hinges on the willingness of other people to desist from conduct which she regards with distaste. It is also self-aggrandising as it takes for granted that one’s fellows can be prevailed upon to modify patterns of behaviour that are not harmful.

Islam perfectly encapsulates this mentality as it makes the success of the lives of its adherents dependent on their ability to ensure that their family members do not stray into “sin”. It is, in this respect, self-abasing. Islam is self-aggrandising because, as exemplified in the various Quranic verses which prescribe death for apostasy, it takes for granted that disbelievers can be coercively prevailed upon.

The broader problem with Islam is that, much like other edificatory perfectionist ideologies, it can only conceive of one ideal form of human flourishing to the detriment of all others. Submission to the Almighty and nothing else. If one fails to pursue this form of good, then one is condemnable in the present and to be condemned in the hereafter. It matters not that one spent one’s life toiling to do good works, all that can be wiped away, disregarded as it were for failing to pursue this good. This line of reasoning reveals yet another error in Islamic thought: values can be commensurated and given objective weights. This is a typical error in utilitarian philosophy where subscribers to the doctrine believe that opposing values can be weighed against each other to arrive at objective conclusions about the good. In reality, there is nothing objective or scientific about the endeavour. It is mere hand-waiving. To illustrate, and assuming arguendo that worship of Allah is indeed objectively good, Islam would have us believe that a Muslim rapist who fasts and prays five times a day deserves Allah’s mercy more than a nonbeliever doctor who spends his life travelling to third world countries to provide life-saving care.

Islam’s consequentialist leanings are even more apparent when one considers the idea of hell and the punishments for apostasy. It utilises the idea of deterrence to cow people into remaining devout by threatening the most inhumane punishments. It is consequentialist because although these punishments can be said to be proportionate in the sense that they are arranged in a range from most severe to least severe, they violate the principle of commensurability which is a fundamental aspect of retributive justice. This entails that the harshness of the punishment should roughly match the nature of the crime (or sin in this case). So while the punishments can be said to be proportionate to one another, they violate the deontological constraint of commensurability.

The Euthyphro dilemma presents two distinctly authoritative and incompatible normative points of view: (1) God commands x because it is right; or (2) x is right because God commanded it. (Where ‘x’ denotes some act)

This is a dilemma because in (1), the standards by which we judge God’s commands are against an objective standard. Thus, if God’s commands do not pass muster under such a standard, we can rightly object that God is immoral. The entailment of this is that one has a reason not to obey such a God since he is immoral. Further, the fact that God is subject to moral requirements entails that he isn’t omnipotent as he did not create those requirements.

If we adopt (2), then we accept that God can command us to perform an act that is profoundly wrong (under the terms of human morality), and in thus commanding us he can make performing that act right. The problem which arises here is that God’s morality is essentially arbitrary. Thus, God can proclaim himself to be benevolent even if he were to rip humans apart at random. This might be out of line with our conception of benevolence, but because God dictates the terms of morality, he can arbitrarily assign normative qualities to his acts.

Recognising that Islam cannot pass muster under (1)—given that this would expose Islam to claims of unfairness, discrimination, arbitrariness and general immorality—most Muslims adopt (2). The problem arises when we attempt to reconcile this with the text of the Quran. To take a simple example, Al-Fatihah 1:1 states: “In the name of Allah—the most compassionate, the most merciful”. The claim to be the most compassionate and merciful is unintelligible to a mortal given that Allah is speaking in terms which are defined arbitrarily by him. Yet, Islam, and the Quran specifically, was clearly written to be understood by readers. Indeed, in Al-Baqarah 2:44, Allah asks, “Do you preach righteousness …”. If Allah’s normative terms were all arbitrarily defined in his own terms, asking humans about their “righteousness” would be pointless since we wouldn’t be able to comprehend what exactly he means by the term given that he probably has a different conception of what it entails.

TLDR: the Quran and the nature of its prose prohibits Muslims from claiming that Allah can make an immoral act moral. As such, Allah, like humans, is subject to an external moral standard which imposes constraints on his exercise of power.

What was the consensus of the scholars(4 madhabs, others) regarding this verse? Did they support forcing jizya on Jews and Christians? Did they take this verse to mean offensive jihad, even if the Muslims weren't attacked? Was this verse ever abrogated by a more peaceful verse? I think it's pretty self explanatory. But, Muslims say it's taken out of context.