u/PeaFragrant6990

Thesis in title.

Please actually read all the way through before responding, I ask two specific questions and preemptively respond to what you might say.

Sahih Muslim 2748b:

“Mohammed said: “If you were not to commit sins, Allah would have swept you out of existence and would have replaced you by another people who have committed sin, and then asked forgiveness from Allah, and He would have granted them pardon.”

The same narration from another companion of Mohammed in Sahih Muslim 2749.

These are Sahih narrations, the highest possible rating of authenticity in Hadith methodology. Multiple companions narrate it and it’s recorded by Imam Muslim, one of, if not the most authoritative Hadith collector along with Bukhari.

So according to Mohammed, if people DIDNT sin, Allah will not just kill but wipe you out of existence and replace you with people who DO sin so Allah will forgive them.

Two of the names of Allah are “the most fair” and “the most merciful”

My questions are twofold and rather simple:

1. How is it fair to the people who never sinned that Allah will not just kill them but wipe them out of existence and replace them with people who will sin?

2. How is it merciful to the people who never sinned to not just kill them but wipe them out of existence and replace them with people who will sin?

The answer is simple. These are not fair or merciful actions.

(If you prefer syllogisms:

Premise 1: Islam claims Allah is “the most fair” and “the most merciful”.

Premise 2: it is not fair or merciful to kill or wipe out of existence those who are completely innocent for the purposes of replacing them with those that commit moral wrongdoing.

Premise 3: Allah will wipe out of existence those who are completely innocent for the purposes of replacing them with those who commit moral wrongdoing.

Conclusion: Allah is not the most fair and merciful, therefore Islam is false)

Seriously, even just killing the innocent wouldn’t be as bad. At least then Allah could give them eternal paradise for not sinning. But he goes a step further and WIPES THEM OUT OF EXISTENCE.

Preemptive Responses:

I predict that if anyone does actually answer these two questions, they will not do so with logic and reason, but rather appeal to mystery and appeal to authority, both of which are logical fallacies.

For example, I predict no one will answer: “Allah is fair in annihilating those who have never sinned for reasons x, y, and z. Therefore, Allah would be morally obligated to wipe from existence those who had never broken Allah’s law”. That would be answering with reason. (I think no one would respond this way, because those reasons don’t exist and these actions are cometary unjustifiable using any sort of rationality, but I am happy to be proven wrong).

Instead, what I predict is that there will be two types of responses: appeals to mystery and appeals to authority, both equally fallacious.

For example: “Allah knows best”. Not only is this an appeal to mystery, it’s an admission of defeat. It’s saying “I don’t have an answer to these but I am dogmatically required to defend Allah no matter how horrible the action is”. If you ask a Christian: “why did Jesus say x and do y? That seems unlike what Jesus is portrayed as” And in response they say “Jesus knows best”, are you ready to become a Christian? No! Of course not. They didn’t answer your question or even try to. So if the best response you can give is proverbially shrugging your shoulders, that’s not an answer.

On the authority end, these responses will be things like “fairness and mercy is whatever Allah says they are”. If that’s your response, then all rational discourse has broken down. The conversation literally can’t progress. Now No can mean yes, yes can mean no, up can actually mean down, mercy and fairness can actually mean “punish those who had never done anything wrong”. This is also an admission of defeat. It’s acknowledging that you can’t rationally defend Allah’s actions as fair and merciful, so you have to deny the basic definitions of words and even say they mean the exact opposite. If that’s your response then there’s no further discussion to be had. Allah could torture a baby in front of you and you’d still defend him because dogma forces you to turn a blind eye. The sad thing is, if Allah were actually the things Islam claims you’d never have to turn a blind eye because he would never do that. If that’s your response, then when Allah claims to be the most fair and the most merciful that’s a mistake. What he actually meant to say was “I am the most powerful”, because fairness and mercy are just however he chooses to express his power. So by claiming to be fair and merciful, Allah is either ignorant of what these words actually mean, or he’s lying about being those things. Either way, Islam would be false.

Thank you for reading, have a nice day.

Thesis in title.

Important Note:

At the end I ask three specific questions. If you do not answer these three questions I will have to simply refer you back to them, because until they can be answered sufficiently, the argument would not be refuted and Islam would be false. If you’re here to defend Islam, great, glad to have you. But please answer the questions as they are the main points of the argument.

Sources:

Sunan Ibn Majah 349 (Sahih):

“The prophet passed by two graves and he said “verily, they are both being punished, but not for a sin difficult to avoid. As for one, he is punished for the habit of soiling himself with urine. As for the other, he is punished for the habit of backbiting”.

Sahih Al-Bukhari 1378 (Sahih):

“The Prophet (ﷺ) once passed by two graves and said, "They (the deceased persons in those graves) are being tortured not for a great thing to avoid." And then added, "Yes, (they are being punished for a big sin), for one of them used to go about with calumnies while the other never saved himself from being soiled with his urine." (Ibn `Abbas added): Then he took a green leaf of a date-palm) and split it into two
pieces and fixed one piece on each grave and said, "May their punishment be abated till these (two pieces) get dry."

That’s right, two people being tortured in the grave. One for gossiping, another for … soiling themselves.

What exactly is this punishment in the grave, you might ask?

Sahih Al-Bukhari 6366 (Sahih):

“Narrated Aisha: two old Jewish ladies entered upon me and said “the dead are punished in their graves” but I thought they were telling a lie and did not believe them in the beginning. When they went away and the Prophet entered upon me, I said “Oh Allah’s Messenger! Two old ladies…” and I told him the whole story. He said “They told the truth; the dead really are punished, to the extent that all the animals hear (the sound resulting from) their punishment”. Since then I always saw him seeking refuge with Allah from the punishment in the grave”.

So for the crime of …. peeing your pants… Allah will have you tortured when you die so horrifically that ALL animals will hear the sounds of you being tortured.

Sunan Abu Dawud 4753 (Sahih) adds more details to this “punishment in the grave”:

“The grave is constructed until their ribs are crushed… one who is blind and unable to speak will be placed in charge of him (the one being punished), having a sledge-hammer such that if a mountain were struck with it, it would become dust. He will give him a blow with it which will be heard by everything between the east and the west except men and jinn, and he will become dust.”

So for peeing your pants, Allah will crush you in your grave until all your ribs are crushed and then give some blind and unable to speak jinn a massive hammer with the force to crush mountains and hit you with it, so hard, that literally every creature on earth will hear you being tortured. Except for humans… somehow… because that’s TOTALLY how sound works. It’s pretty cool of every animal on earth to not act like they are constantly hearing horrific screams of countless people being tortured and earth shattering blows at literally all hours of the day and for this phenomenon to coincidently not be recorded or observed in any way, shape or fashion.

Conclusion:

Now, ask yourself: does this seem like a REASONABLE or RATIONAL response to someone soiling themselves? Is this what “the most just”, “the most loving” would do to people who soil themselves?

Of course not. This sounds, frankly, made up. It sounds exactly like a story medieval women would tell their children to scare them into not soiling themselves. In FACT, Sahih Al-Bukhari 6366 literally records Mohammed hearing of the “punishment in the grave” from two old Jewish ladies and from that point on is always praying Allah would spare him from it. It was LITERALLY an old wives tale even according to Islamic sources. Not even Aisha, an actual child according to Bukhari 5134, believed it, but Mohammed did. He didn’t even know about it before then, because Aisha didn’t ever see him pray for refuge from this torture until AFTER he heard it from the old Jewish ladies. Imagine that.

It even gets WORSE for Mohammed’s credibility, because in Tafisr Ibn Kathir 40:57, Mohammed outright DENIED the “punishment in the grave” when he heard it before later changing his mind:

“I (Aisha) said “this Jewish woman, whenever I do her a favor, says: May Allah save you from the torment in the grave”. The Messenger of Allah said “The Jews are lying, and they tell more lies about Allah. There is no torment except on the day of Resurrection”. Then, as much time as Allah had willed should pass, he then came out midday, wrapped in his robe with his eyes reddening, calling at the top of his voice: “The grave is like patches of dark night! O peopled if you knew what I know, you would weep much and laugh little. O people, seek refuge with Allah from the torment of the grave, for the torment of the grave is real” … after that, Mohammed always prayed to Allah for refuge from the punishment in the grave“.

Allah’s perfect Messenger, one who had a direct line to all-knowing Allah, DENIES something pivotal about the afterlife as FALSE and made-up LIES. After some time he comes out and completely flip-flops and says “actually they are right! EVERYONE seek refuge from the punishment in the grave!”

Mohammed believed an old wives tale, whose origin doesn’t come in Jewish tradition until centuries AFTER the Torah, centuries after Jesus even, by much later Rabbinic authors. In fact, scholars like Arent Jan Wensnick point out the concept of the “punishment in the grave” doesn’t appear in Jewish sources until AFTER Islam because those Rabbinic sources that mention it don’t appear until the 9th-12th century. Not only did he beleive this old wives tale but he outright DENIED it as lies at first, showing that Mohammed was not a true prophet, as a true Prophet in communion with an all-knowing God would know instantly whether something as important as that was actually true or not. At worst? he would say “I don’t know, let me ask Allah”. But he doesn’t. It’s old Jewish women that gave him this “revelation”, not Allah.

This also sounds like the exact OPPOSITE of what the most just and the most loving and the most rational being would do to people who soiled their pants.

You can’t say these sources are weak, they are all Sahih, the highest of the high in Hadith authenticity. You cannot get more authentic than Sahih. It literally means “authentic”. These are also coming from arguably the most influential and authoritative Hadith collections. Ibn Kathir is also one of, if not the most authoritative and trusted Tafisr within the Islamic tradition. To deny this story would be to claim you know more about Islam than Ibn Kathir and Mohammed himself.

So, here are questions Muslims must answer. If a sufficient answer cannot be given, then we have no reason to think Islam is true:

1. How is it JUST or FAIR that someone who soils their pants is tortured so horrifically with their ribs crushed and hammered with the force to destroy mountains to the point every creature on earth hears their screams?

This isn’t about morality, this is about rationality. If you can’t JUSTIFY Allah’s actions with the reasons as to why that action merits that reaction, then by definition Allah isn’t “the most just” or “the most fair” and Islam is false because “just” requires a “justification”. So explain how soiling yourself warrants specifically having all your ribs broken and being hit with a sledge hammer with the force of a nuke. If you respond saying “Allah knows best”, that is not an answer, that is an appeal to mystery, which is a fallacy. If the best defense for Islam is a logical fallacy, then we have no reason to think Islam is true.

2. Why didn’t Mohammed know about this punishment in the grave BEFORE old Jewish ladies told him, and more importantly why did he deny outright something he should have known to be true?

This is a pretty pivotal aspect of the Islamic afterlife: he told EVERYBODY to seek refuge from this horrible thing and Aisha saw him pray CONSTANTLY after this for refuge. Allah’s messenger several years into speaking with and gaining revelation from Allah and his angels should have known about this well beforehand. But even if they didn’t yet tell him, once he was told, an all-knowing Allah should have gave him the discernment right there, because him calling them liars only to flip flop does nothing but destroy his credibility. He didn’t even say “I don’t know, let me ask Allah”. He said “they are liars, there is NO punishment in the grave”. That is a TRUTH claim that he later contradicted. So according to Islam’s own sources, Mohammed made a truth claim and then contradicted himself, proving he is not a real Prophet and thereby Islam is false.

3. Why is there literally no evidence for every creature on earth constantly hearing the screams and torture of the dead and earth shattering blows despite that with the advent of modern science we can hear and measure and record all frequencies animals can hear?

The sources say every creature on earth “hears” those things except humans and jinn. Sound waves are measurable. Even if we can’t hear them personally, we can measure them at all frequencies. We can also measure and record animal behaviors. Animals do not behave like they are constantly hearing such things. Mohammed made an empirical claim: all creatures hear such things. So explain empirically (using science, measurements, and reason) why we see no evidence of a such a thing despite having more than the capability of seeing and measuring such a thing. Mohammed says the torture emits a sound. He says all the earth’s creatures except humans and jinn hear those sounds. Sounds are by definition measurable with instruments. Where are these sounds and why don’t animal behaviors reflect such a thing?

According to Surah 9 Mohammed was called “the Ear” by those around him because he kept repeating the things people around told him. These accounts above just prove they were right. This isn’t the kind of behavior we would expect of an all-knowing all just deity and a prophet of an all-knowing deity. This is exactly the kind of nonsense we would expect from a man who repeated the things he was hearing without any real discernment. Why would you ever follow a “prophet” who listens to old wives tales and contradicts himself on such matters? Why would you think a just and fair God would torture people beyond agony for simply soiling themselves?

Thesis: Islam’s justice system is completely inept at carrying out justice and heavily discriminates against women, proving it is not of divine origin from an all knowing God who cares about justice.

Instead of trying to instantly respond, I’d ask you actually read the full argument so we could get to the heart of the issue. I’ve probably already responded to what you might say in defense of the Quran and Mohammed.

The Sources:

Surah 24:4: “And those who accuse chaste women (of sexual immorality) and then do not produce four witnesses - lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. And those are the defiantly disobedient. 6 And those who accuse their wives [of adultery] and have no witnesses except themselves - then the witness of one of them1[shall be] four testimonies [swearing] by Allāh that indeed, he is of the truthful. 8 But it will prevent punishment from her if she gives four testimonies [swearing] by Allāh that indeed, he is of the liars.”

If someone accuses another of sexual immorality, they must bring four witnesses. If they cannot produce four witnesses, THEY are punished and whipped EIGHTY times. Explicitly, it says a man can accuse his wife of adultery and that testimony of ONE man can count as the witness of four and she will then be punished. But the woman must produce four witnesses and her own, testimony doesn’t count as a witness. In fact, because she is a woman, her testimony is worth HALF that of a man’s in Islamic courts:

Surah 2:282: “And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses - so that if one of them [i.e., the women] errs, then the other can remind her. And let not the witnesses refuse when they are called upon.”

A woman’s testimony is only worth half of a man’s and she needs another woman to help her because women so unintelligent and forgetful.

Do you think that’s reading it out of context? Not according to the words of Mohammed himself:

Sahih Al-Bukhari 304:

“Once Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) of `Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."

According to Mohammed himself, the testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man, and that’s why they are deficient in intelligence (Even though he’s literally the one that gave that ruling, which is the same as saying “it’s because that’s why”) and that’s why the majority of hell is full of ungrateful women who curse. Not rapists. Not murderers. Women who are ungrateful to their husbands. You can’t say he was just talking to these specific women. He says ALL women’s testimonies are worth half that of a man, because of their “intellectual deficiency”. If he only meant these specific women the Quran and Mohammed would say these specific women are only allowed half a testimony. But it says women in general, and this is Allah’s revelation for all time and for all people. “Quran Only” Muslims can’t get out of this either because Surah 2:282 says the testimony is half because women are so forgetful and gets things wrong so she requires another woman to help her think, which is just another way of saying women are intellectually deficient.

Conclusion:

Seriously think to yourself for a moment: “is this the justice system an all knowing all good all just God would come up with?” That you need specifically FOUR witnesses for some arbitrary reason? That if you’re a man you can be your own four witnesses but if you’re a woman you can’t even be one? That if you can’t come up with four witnesses even if you and two others witness it, YOU’LL be lashed eighty times for not producing a fourth witness and your testimony will NEVER be accepted for anything ever again? Of course not. This is the exact opposite of what we would expect.

If you’re a woman, why would you ever want to follow and defend someone like Mohammed who calls not just you specifically stup*d but all women stup*d, so much so that even if you see something with your own eyes it’s not evidence? He’s literally said any woman is intellectually deficient, therefore they only get half a testimony. If a man’s intellect gets them a full testimony and your intellect only gets you half of one, that means he’s saying you are only half as smart as a man. Any man. Even if that man has an actual intellectual disability, he gets a full testimony, not you. If you and SEVEN other women catch your husband commit adultery, YOU’ll be punished because your women witnesses only count as 3.5 witnesses and you can’t be your own witness. In fact, your husband could cheat on you with a dozen women he he secretly married and NONE of you would be able to testify because you can’t be your own witness as a women. Your husband could then accuse YOU of cheating and since he can be his own four witnesses you would then be punished. You are worth so much more than that. You are so much more valuable than that. You are so much smarter than that. Don’t listen to these awful things that Mohammed says about you that are obviously false. If there is a good God, he wouldn’t have made you “deficient”, so much so that your testimony is worth half of any man, and that the majority of women are going to hell for these deficiencies. You are not deficient. You are not broken.

If you are Allah and your goal is to bring the sexually immoral to justice, why would you ever require specifically four witnesses? That means as long as you do it in private or even public with only three or less men around, you are immune from the law. How insane is that? How is that justice?

If you want to stop sexual immorality, Imagine how much MORE sexual immorality will be brought to justice if Allah only required THREE witnesses or allowed a woman’s testimony to be equal to a man or allowed a woman to be her own witness. Clearly, massive amounts more of immorality would be actually punished. That alone proves that Allah’s “perfect” system of justice can actually be very easily improved. If we can think of an objectively better system to achieve Allah’s supposed goals in half a second, that proves the Quran is not from an all-knowing God. This system sounds exactly like the result of a misogynist from the seventh century who held a degraded view of women and didn’t actually care about justice for them. If Mohammed didn’t care about justice for you, and thought you were so stupid that any man on earth is twice as smart as you, why would you follow him? The average IQ of a man is 100. Anyone below an IQ of 70 is considered mentally disabled. Mohammed says women are half as smart as men, which means he thinks the average IQ of women is around 50. He literally thinks you are beyond the outdated r-word used to describe the clinically mentally disabled.

Preemptive Response:

“Allah knows best”

This is just a thought terminating cliche. It’s not an answer, it’s an appeal to mystery, which is a fallacy. It doesn’t engage with any of the points brought up. It’s just an admission that you don’t have an answer. A parent knows more than their child. But if your parent said they were concerned about your safety but kept sending you alone into dangerous places, how long until you start questioning what they actually want? If they said they wanted to raise you healthy but fed you broken glass, how many bites before you start to question what they said? If your parent says they want justice and fairness but constantly treat your sibling like a king but you like mud on their shoe, how long would it be until you realized your parents lied? When Allah and Mohammed say they want justice and fairness, but discriminate against women unfairly in the courts and make it infinitly harder for a women ago actually get justice, how long before you realize that was a lie? You don’t have to be omniscient to see men and women are treated unequally and women unfairly and that Allah’s justice system is inept at actually punishing sexual immorality. If Allah knows best, his actions should line up with rationality and reason. If God is real, then he gave you a mind and he wouldn’t be so cruel as to give you a mind and then forbid you from using it. It’s okay to admit that you don’t have an answer. But until you can provide one, this argument isn’t refuted.

Here is what you will need to answer or else the argument isn’t refuted:

- Why is a man allowed to be his own four witness but a woman can’t even be one (24:6, 24:8) and how is that fair?

- If a man cheats on his wife in private, and the woman cannot produce any witnesses and in turn is lashed eighty times as the law commands (24:4), how that fair? How is justice being served here by lashing the victim eighty times?

- What is the proof that all women are “deficient in intelligence” to the point that they are half as smart as men as Mohammed claims (Bukhari 304)

- Why didn’t Allah make the requirement two or three witnesses, or another such simple change which would drastically increase the amount of sexual immorality that is actually punished?

Thesis: Through objective archeological evidence and the authentic Islamic sources themselves, the Quran we have today has definitely been changed and is not “perfectly preserved, dot for dot, letter for letter” as many Muslims love to claim.

I preemptively response to objections below. If you repeat something I’ve already responded to in the main argument I’m just going to refer you to them until you respond to what I have said to your response already.

Also note that in order to show that the Quran has NOT been changed you would have to respond to all of these 4 points. Each of these points individually shows there has been changes. So even if you refuted one, you’d have to refute the rest to save the traditional narrative given by Muslim apologists about “perfect preservation”.

1. Objective Archeological Evidence

One of the earliest manuscripts we have of the Quran is the Sanaa Manuscript found in Yemen. Muslims will be happy to hear that the upper layer conforms pretty much entirely to the modern Qurans. However they will be saddened to hear that the top layer is clearly written over an older bottom layer, which scholars date circa 632-669 AD. The bottom layer contains many differences between modern Qurans and has many additional words and phrases that are not in the modern version. This demonstrates objectively, the earliest versions of the Quran are not what we have today. It is like when you see someone has erased something on paper and written over it. You can still see and make out bits of what they wrote originally. You can see the eraser marks. You can see bits crammed into the lines where they were clearly not planned for and retroactively added.

In fact, the same exact thing exists in the Mashhad Codex. Another one of the oldest manuscripts dated similarly with a top layer that matches modern Qurans, but a bottom layer with things clearly written over it. Dr. Dan Brubaker has done extensive work detailing all of these differences with more work soon to be published, for specific examples I will recommend his research. You can even search these manuscripts online and see the changes with your own eyes.

2. The Authentic Islamic Hadiths themselves say there was massive amounts of disagreements over what the Quran was and what was to be included

If we didn’t already have objective archeological evidence of changes, the Hadiths (Sahih Al-Bukhari 4987, for example) also speak about Uthman observing the differences and disagreements in Quran texts at his time and taking it upon himself to standardize the text. He (a man, not a prophet) sent out a few copies of his version and commanded the burning of all other variants and manuscripts. Not everyone agreed with Uthman’s version though. Abdullah Ibn Masud at first refused to give up his codex and called Uthman’s actions “deceitful”. The very same companion Ibn Masud who learned over seventy Surah directly from Mohammed himself! (Sahih Muslim 31, Hadith 6022). Another who disagreed with Uthman’s actions and manuscripts was the companion Ubai Ibn Ka’b. Mohammed himself said if you were going to learn the Quran from anyone, you should learn it from them:

Sahih al-Bukhari 4999:
“Abdullah bin `Amr mentioned `Abdullah bin Masud and said, "I shall ever love that man, for I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, 'Take (learn) the Qur'an from four: `Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu`adh and Ubai bin Ka`b.' "

Mohammed said learn from Ibn Masud and Ubay Ibn Ka’b, NOT Uthman, who was alive at the time this was spoken. Uthman, who was not a Prophet, nor was he spoken about as authoritative on the Quran by Mohammed, took it upon himself to standardize the texts. He contradicted the command of Mohammed by opting for his own version of the Quran over learning it from Ibn Masud and Ubai bin Ka’b who called his version “deceitful”. In fact, Ibn Masud was so confident, he said this in Bukhari 5002:
“Narrated `Abdullah (bin Mas`ud): By Allah other than Whom none has the right to be worshipped! There is no Sura revealed in Allah’s Book but I know at what place it was revealed; and there is no Verse revealed in Allah’s Book but I know about whom it was revealed. And if I know that there is somebody who knows Allah’s Book better than I, and he is at a place that camels can reach, I would go to him.”

According to Ibn Kathir in Al-Bidaya wal al-Nihaya 7/244, Ibn Masud only relented to not further splinter the Muslims, not because he agreed with Uthaman.
After completing his version, Uthman burned all other variants. Ibn Masud was later thrown out by Uthaman, had his ribs broken, and was banned from Medina for his disagreements with him. What his actions show is that the Quran we have today exists because of the choices and changes of a single man, from earlier versions of those Mohammed called most reliable, and also by destroying all other variants Uthman now destroyed the only possibility of comparing the oldest manuscripts to verify which was correct. Ironically, by burning the variant Qurans, Uthman destroyed the possibility of proving his version is correct. One of the benefits of an ancient text with an uncontrolled chain of transmission (like the New Testament,) is that you can compare ALL variations from around the world from as early as there are extant copies. You would know for certain how close what we have today is to the originals or at least the earliest we presently have found. You can now NEVER do this with the Quran because of Uthman, because of this “righty guided Caliph”, we will now never be able to actually know what was in the first Qurans.

3. The Authentic Islamic sources themselves say multiple verses and surahs were not abrogated, but lost

This is not even to mention the various Hadiths about the various changes and lost parts:
Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.501:
Abu Musa Narrated:
“We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust". Notice how the companion of Mohammed doesn’t say it was abrogated, it says it was “FORGOTTEN”. And abrogation only applies to legal rulings. This is not a legal ruling, this is wisdom and stories. This isn’t even just a verse either. This is a WHOLE chapter as long as Surah 2, so at least two hundred verses long.

Additionally, Sunan Ibn Majah 1944 (rated Hasan) says: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me (Aisha) under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.” In fact, Sahih Muslim Book 017, Hadith 4194 verifies this missing verse: “Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: ‘We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah’, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah.” Mohammed’s companions and wife explicitly say there were things in the original Quran that are no longer there and they fear it will be forgotten, not that it was abrogated.

4. The different Arabic versions of the Quran Today

When you say “the Quran”, which Quran are you referring to? The Hafs? The Warsh? The Qalun? The most popular version of the Quran today, the Hafs, wasn’t even formalized and printed until 1924 in Cairo, Egypt. Muslim apologists like to claim the almost ten or so accepted versions of the Arabic Quran are merely “dialectical” differences and emphasize different diacritical marks and none actually change any meanings. But this is also objectively false. There’s words and phrases that exist in one version but not the other. For example, Surah 3:133 of the Hafs has an extra word “and” that is not present in the Warsh. Surah 2:58 of the Hafs says “we give mercy”, the Warsh says “he gives mercy”. Surah 2:259 of the Hafs says “we shall raise up”, the Warsh says “we shall revive/make alive”. Surah 43:19 in the Hafs says “they are the slaves of the Most Gracious” but the Warsh says “they are with the Most Gracious”. Surah 2:9, Hafs says “they deceive”, Warsh says “they seek to decieve”. For Imam Hafs, the “Bismillah” at the start of the surahs are part of the revelation, for Imam Warsh they are not. These are differences of words that actually change the meaning. These are differences of what is actually a verse and what is not.

Muslims will say “all of the Qirat was revealed by Allah”. But this cannot be. These versions have differences in vowels and diacritical marks. Vowels didn’t exist in Arabic in the seventh century in the written script and diacritical marks were very sporadically used at that time as well. Also, there was no written Quran by the time of Mohammed’s death, and the Quran was reveled in the Qurashi dialect. So how exactly were the Qirat with specific vowels revealed when vowels didn’t even exist yet and came about AFTER the death of Mohammed? Mohammed is the “Last” prophet. No one else could have revealed them and he died before they came about.

Conclusion:

Believing the Modern Quran is what Mohammed gave originally is not only something that would have to be taken on blind faith, but something that would have to be believed IN CONTRAST to objective facts from archeology and the words of Mohammed and his companions themselves.

Ibn Umar, a companion of Mohammed said it best:

“It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: "Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.'" (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524).

(Ismail Ibn Ibrahim, Ayyub, Naafi, and Umar are all rated Sahih and thiqa (“trustworthy”) by Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim and they rely on them for multiple narrations in their Sahih collections).

Preemptive Responses:

“The goat verse was abrogated”. The text never says that, no prophet was present when it was lost, and Umar himself says Muslims are still to follow that ruling so no, objectively, it has not been abrogated. Unless you think that goat was a prophet, but that would just make the Quran false for Mohammed not being the last prophet and that still doesn’t solve how the earliest Quran manuscripts are different than the modern versions in additional words and phrases shown in point 1.

“It was abrogated in text but not recitation”. That’s not a thing. This is AFTER Mohammed died and Allah said there will be no more prophets after him. So no, it was not abrogated. Unless you want to argue that a goat was a prophet and his snack was a divine command from Allah, It was eaten and lost, and Umar says Muslims are still to follow that ruling. The whole point of abrogation is to inform people are NOT suppose to follow a specific ruling anymore. You cannot abrogate a command you are still supposed to follow. Nothing replaced this command and no prophet was present, therefore it wasn’t abrogated. Also, that still doesn’t answer the objective archeological evidence of changes in point 1 for example.

“The changes do not affect the meaning or overall message” that would be a perfectly adequate response if we were talking about about some other ancient text that doesn’t claim to be the explicit eternal and literal word of an all powerful God (whom “none can change the words of” according to itself) and if there weren’t sections lost and “forgotten” like the goat verses. But it does claim to be the eternal unchangeable preserved word of Allah and sections were lost. So therefore this is still a massive problem for Islam, and debunks the idea of “perfect preservation”, or the “dot for dot, letter for letter” narrative.

Thesis: Several multivariate analyses from multiple sociologists worldwide find not just corollary but also causal links between Islam and discrimination, persecution, and violent conflicts at a rate MANY times beyond thier non-Muslim counterparts. Scholars accounted for confounding variables and also cite specific Islamic beliefs that lead to these behaviors to demonstrate causality. This is not some sole researcher, this is multiple separate teams across the globe all coming to the same findings. This is not mere correlation, these are multiple multivariate analyses that demonstrate Islam is not only positively associated with but causes these behaviors.

Important Disclaimer (Must Read):

Unfortunately, when I provide multiple scholarly sources people love responding without even reading the (very short) excerpts or any of the post itself so I have to preemptively again say: No, these studies do NOT only show mere correlation, they take into account other variables like poverty, interstate conflict, culture, and everything else Muslims love to use as an excuse for the behavior below and even compare different sociological models to eliminate confounders and bias. Even after accounting for such things, researchers still find that Islam is influential in spreading discrimination and conflict at rates FAR above their non-Muslim counterparts. If your response is “Correlation doesn’t equal causation”, let’s stop right there. No one ever said it did, read the studies below. They’re explicitly not just talking about correlation and many times they explicitly state how they accounted for the normal confounding variables. The studies below show Islam also causes these behaviors too and cite specific beliefs that cause them. If you’re not going to actually read the excepts below and actually engage with the content, you’re wasting everyone’s time.

The Studies:

1. “The Influence of Religion on Interstate Armed Conflict: Government Religious Preference and the First Use of Force”, Davis Brown, Journal for the Scientific Studies of Religion.

“A state with a (nonzero) median Christian Government Religuous Preference (GRP) is 60% less likely to intiate a fatal armed conflict than a state with no Christian GRP. A state with maximum Christian GRP is 73% less likely. Whereas empirical results suggest states with Christian GRP’s are less likely to use force, they also suggest that states with Muslim GRP’s are moderately more likely… at the lowest threshold of using force, a state with the median nonzero Muslim GRP (7.50) is 84% more likely to resort to force than a state with no Muslim GRP (versus an analogous Christian state being 37% less likely)

“Christianity with its restrictive war ethic, is negatively correlated with the measured outcome, and Islam, with its permissive war ethic is positively correlated (with conflict and force). No such correlation is measured with Buddhism’s bi-modal war ethic”.

“The evidence suggests that Muslims tend to have more fundamental beliefs than other religious groups suggests that Muslims may be more susceptible to to what Pech and Slade term the “terrorist meme” - an ideal expressing selective interpretation of the Quran that is spread throughout the Islamic world. In this way, fundamentalist beliefs may act as a facilitator for religious terrorism. Similarly, describes how the jihadi message successfully motivates Muslims “because it is a natural extension of the dominant narrative in the Islamic world” and is “minimally counter-intuitive for most Muslims”. Higher levels of fundamentalism may enhance this acceptance of the jihadi message”.

2. “Getting Religion Right in Civil Wars”, Monica Duffy Toft, Journal of Conflict Resolution.

“These models provide support for the hypothesis 1B: centrally religious civil wars are disproportionately an Arab Muslim phenomenon, even when controlling for standard variables and potential confounders”.

“The results are clear that religion is a motivator for rebellion among Arab Muslims while their Christian counterparts are more likely to be motivated along secular lines after 1990”

3. “Are Muslims Distinctive? A Look at the Evidence”, M. Steven Fish

“We controlled for the major structural factors that might create a spurious correlation between Islam and authoritarianism, and while several of these factors may explain part of the correlation, they do not account for all of it” (Meaning Islam does have a causal link with authoritarianism, not just corollary) (236).

“… self proclaimed Islamists have been responsible for over three fifths of all incidents and nearly seven tenths of all deaths. Terrorism is not a uniquely Muslim disease, but its perpetrators in recent times are disproportionately Muslim”

“Muslims may be more prone to tolerate terrorism in the name of their religion- which in turn points our attention to explanations for Islamic terrorism that have a religious dimension”

“Vocal and Accountability Score; Muslim Countries: 32.4, based on 44 Muslim Countries, Non-Muslim Countries: 51.9, based on 128 Non-Muslim Countries.” (Meaning Muslims score very low in voice and accountability within their governments compared to non-Muslim countries)

Table 5.2: Data on Large Scale Political Violence in the Largest Muslim and Christian Countries. 20 Country Average of Death of Population as a Percentage:
Christian Countries: 0.40
Muslim Countries: 0.82
(Meaning deaths from violence in Muslim Countries is over DOUBLE that of Christian countries on average).

4. “Is Islam More Conflict Prone than other Religions? A Cross Sectional Study of Ethnoreligious Conflict”, Jonathan Fox

“Islamic majority groups engage in more than double the average level of religious discrimination as non-Islamic groups and nearly five times the average level of Christian majority groups… thus, there is clear evidence that religion is considerably more important to conflicts involving Islamic majorities and less important in conflicts involving Christian majorities” (11).

5. “Religious Persecution in Cross-National Context: Clashing Civilizations or Regulated Religious Economies?”, Brian J. Grim, Roger Finke

“Persecution of more than 1000 persons is present in 40% of Muslim majority countries compared to 3.9% of Christian majority countries” (645). (Muslim majority countries have over TEN times as much persecution as Christian majority countries!)

6. “Culture vs. Rational Choice: Assessing the Causes of Religious Discrimination in Muslim States”, Ani Sarkissian, Jonathan Fox, Yasemin Akbaba

“For example, in Azerbaijan, the average minority discrimination score for Christians is 12, while for Sunni Muslims it is 3. In Iran the level of discrimination against Baha’i is 28, while for Sunni Muslims it is 1”. (The higher the score, the more discriminated against) (440). (Christians are 4 times as discriminated as Sunni’s in Azerbaijan and Baha’i are 28 times more discriminated than Sunni’s in Iran!)

7. “Islam and Suicide Terrorism: An Empirical Analysis”, Seun Wang Choi, Davis Brown, Global Studies Quarterly

“We find that (1) countries with greater Muslim populations are likely to experience more suicide attacks, (2) countries with greater Sunni Muslim populations are more likely to experience suicide attacks, and (3) countries with greater Hanafi Muslim populations (in contrast to other Sunni legal schools) face the greatest risk of experiencing suicide attacks. The overall analysis suggests Islam is positively associated with suicide attacks, although the degree of its association is not uniform among all branches” (shocker)

“To avoid spurious results, we included seven confounding variables common to previous research: human rights, protections, democracy, foreign occupation, armed groups economic development, civil war, and total terrorist attacks”.

“Accordingly, we reason that high levels of suicide attacks in the Hanafi or Salafi countries are related to the subversive impact of the Salafi movement”

8. “Getting Religion: The Puzzling Case of Islam and Civil War”, Monica Duffy Toft, Harvard University.

“The process of religious outbidding would explain why Islam is so much more likely to be involved in civil wars than other religions: Islam has a specific (and today very active) obligation-to-defend-by-force component … Young men answer these calls by traveling to areas of armed conflict, often bringing cash and arms with them, to satisfy what they believed to be a religious obligation to defend Islam against attacks from non-believers”

“Islam has jihad, an aspect of which conceives defense of the faith from external threats as a religious obligation. This aspect of jihad makes travel over long distances and the risk of death in conflicts over the defense of faith not only rational but desirable”

9. ”The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the 21st Century”, Brian J. Grim, Roger Finke.

“Social Restrictions are higher within Islamic tradition not only because it looks to the community of Muslims and its religious leaders to regulate religion, but also because there are movements throughout the Muslim world that advocate a greater role for Islam in the public sphere, including implementing a stricter version of Sharia”

10. “War and Religion in the Secular Age: Faith and Interstate Armed Conflict Onset”, Davis Brown, Rustledge Studies in Religion and Politics.

“Many of God’s revelation (which today constitutes the Quran) coincided with military activity, and the victories and defeats associated with Islam’s origin all contributed to how the umma defined itself (Cook, 2005: 6-7). In addition, the early Muslims inherited a fatalistic determinism from their pre-Islamic Arab culture, with the resulting belief that all events were determined absolutely by God (Trombley, 2003: 155)”.

“The scriptural basis for actually fighting Jews and Christians is Quran 9:29. Muslims are to fight against those who do not believe in God or the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and (or through) his messenger Mohammed forbidden, have not performed Dana, and then until they pay the jizyah (tax) submissively”.

“Islamic Law is frozen at a time when Islamdom was very strong, its technology equivalent or superior to that of its rivals, its higher learning flourishing its military campaigns largely successful, and Islam itself being propagated rapidly (Martin, 1991). These characteristics naturally induced historical perception of self-superiority, and that has strongly influenced the Islamic perception of Otherness. In Islam, the Other consists of the forces of deception, unbelief, and shirk, as opposed to the forces of the straight path and submission to God … such a worldview is a recipe for Islamic hostility toward non-Islam”

“The Prophet participated in 27 Muslim (military) campaigns and directed anther 59, during the last 9 years of his life (a total of about 9 military engagements per year)”.

11. “In God’s Path: The Arab Conquest and the Creation of an Islamic Empire”, Robert G. Hoyland

“(Mohammed) initially attempted to spread his message solely by preaching, but but he received a hostile reception for most of his fellow Meccans and had to make a journey in search of a refuge (a Hijra), ending up in the nearby oasis town of Medina. The time of peaceful preaching was now over, he decided, and it was time to use force to carry out what he perceived to be God’s will”.

12. “The World of Medieval Europe”, Clifford R. Backman.

“The attack on Rome in 846, for example, left thousands of dead in the streets and reduced hundreds of churches to ashes. The Arab seizure of Sicily, in particular, left tens of thousands of Latin and Greek Christians dead, homeless, or exiled, and thereby created a particularly sensitive focal point for ethnic and religious antagonism. Muslim incursions into northern Italy and southern France left heaps of Christian dead behind them, and the invaders carted off many of the valuables found in Christian churches and monasteries. In their attacks the Muslim armies - whether from Spain, Morocco, Tunisia, or Egypt- were aided by mercenaries and slaves brought north from sub-Saharan Africa, marking the introduction of Black Africans into European history”

Conclusion:

According to the many studies above, Muslim governments are 84% more likely to resort to force (as opposed to non-Islamic governments, and Christian governments being 37% less likely to use force) (1), religious centered civil wars are a disproportionality Arab Muslim phenomenon even AFTER accounting for confounding variables (2), Islam is both correlated AND causally linked with authoritarianism (3), Islamic majority groups engage in more than DOUBLE the average level of religious discrimination compared to non-Islamic groups (4) and nearly FIVE times the level of religious discrimination compared to Christian groups (4). Persecution of more than 1000 persons is present over TEN times more in Muslim majority countries than Christian majority countries (5). Non-Muslims face persecution and discrimination at rates up to TWENTY EIGHT times more in Muslim majority countries like Iran (6). Islam is also positively associated with suicide bombings especially related to the Salafi movement (7), and various studies also cite specific Islamic beliefs that CAUSE these behaviors (8). The Quran teaches Islam is to be spread by violent conquest (9, 10) and Mohammed (who is Islam’s “perfect moral example” and pattern of conduct according to the Quran) waged dozens of violent conquests, followed by centuries of Muslims following this pattern of conduct (10, 11, 12) and set the precedent of conquest as not just permissible but an obligation to Muslims.

Objectively, as demonstrated by the multiple studies above, Islam is both positively associated AND a causal factor in violent conflicts, discrimination, persecution at rates FAR exceeding their non-Muslim counterparts many times over even after accounting for confounding variables like poverty, governments, etc. Therefore, it is a matter of fact to say spreading Islam causes and spreads persecution, discrimination, and violent conflict at rates far above non-Muslim groups and religions.

To say otherwise is sociologically indefensible based on the data. If you disagree you must provide more multivariate studies that either negate or show different findings. Simply saying you disagree because you don’t like what the data shows isn’t rationality and it doesn’t change what the facts are. “What about X religion?” Doesn’t matter, that’s not the thesis. Unless you can show the data that the group is associated with and spreads violence and persecution more than Muslims, you haven’t disproven the thesis. If you respond to overwhelming trends and data with anecdotal evidence, frankly that demonstrates you don’t really understand how statistics work. One example of another group persecuting somebody else doesn’t negate the findings of these studies. If you wish to disprove this thesis you have one option: Negate the overwhelming trend above by showing MORE multivariate analyses that contradict the research of the dozen sources above. Anything else does not disprove the thesis.

Thank you for reading, have a great day.

Thesis: The Quran Says the Sun Sets in a Muddy Pool Literally.

Surah 18:86: “Until, when he (Dhul Qarnayn) reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water”.

The standard script of response is to say it merely “appeared” to him the sun set in a muddy spring. But through the text, the words of Mohammed himself, and other historical documents, it is clear and explicit that this understanding is not what the Quran is saying.

Firstly, the Quran is not a text written from the observational perspective of limited human men. It is written from the perspective of Allah (and Jibreel). Hence the Quran’s use of “we” and “I”, and its bold claims about what is and was. So this excuse doesn’t work. But importantly, Surah 18:90 says he also reached “the point” where the sun rose. “The point”….. It affirms there is a specific singular point where the sun rises, not “it appeared to him the sun rose. That ONLY makes sense if these verses are literal.

Secondly, Mohammed himself affirms the literal understanding of the text:

Sunan Abu Dawud 4002: (Rated Sahih)
“I was sitting behind the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets ? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water (Hamiyah).”

Now, some well read individuals may recall and counter with Sahih Al-Bukhari 4802:

“Once I was with the Prophet (ﷺ) in the mosque at the time of sunset. The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "O Abu Dharr! Do you know where the sun sets?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know best." He said, "It goes and prostrates underneath (Allah's) Throne; and that is Allah's Statement:-- 'And the sun runs on its fixed course for a term (decreed). And that is the decree of All-Mighty, the All-Knowing....”

So what does Mohammed believe about where the sun sets? Does the answer reside in a muddy pool or prostration before the throne of Allah? Are the Hadiths just contradictory on the subject?

Interestingly, no, not at all. The answer resides in a fourth century text known as “The Alexander Romance”. It is a collection of mythological tales of Alexander the Great that the Quran “borrows” in extremely similar details. Alexander the Great, The “two horned one”, ie, “Dhul Quarnayn”, heads wests, finds the sun “setting in a muddy pool”. He finds the people at the point where the sun rises and sees the sun destroy their settlement. He builds a wall to retain Gog and Magog, and many other details taken almost verbatim and added to the Quran. Some versions of the Alexander Romance also specifies that when the sun sets in the muddy pool, it enters the “window of heaven”, prostrates before the throne of heaven, and asks permission to rise again. The two Hadiths above aren’t contradictory but complimentary. They are both describing the same thing, which Mohammed affirms in both parts as literal. He says the sun literally sets in a muddy pool where it literally enters a window of heaven and prostrates before the throne of Allah to gain permission to rise. (This is rather interesting when paired with the Quran verse (9:61) and Hadiths which call Mohammed “The Ear”, for always repeating stories he was told by others.)

So yes, the Quran and Mohammed do teach the sun literally sets in a muddy pool and rises from a singular point. Mohammed himself affirms it in the most authentic Islamic sources and the Quran borrows the story from a text that affirms it literally sets in a muddy pool and literally rose from a single point. Even if we didn’t have the Hadiths or The Alexander Romance, the Quran itself says there is a singular “point” where the sun rises, which Dhul Quarnayn actually “reached”. That makes no sense on a metaphorical understanding.

If you say the Quran is metaphorical here, you are contradicting the words of Allah and Mohammed himself. For a text that’s supposed to include many “scientific miracles” it sure seems to get shy when its cosmological claims are actually examined

Thesis: Islam Permits and Spreads Abuse of Women

(While I do recognize this is a charged topic, my intentions are truly not to insult or offend but to bring to light data and sources of a major ongoing issue most may not be aware of. While there are some who identify as Muslim and condemn the beating and abuse of women, sadly they are in the minority as exemplified by the data and traditional rulings and sources below. When this argument says “Islam”, it is referring to the beliefs held by the majority of Muslims worldwide. )

When objectively examining the data worldwide, researchers and meta-analysts overwhelmingly come to the same conclusion: Muslim women face abuse (of the emotional, physical, sexual, and even fatal variety) significantly more than their non-Muslim counterparts, and that Islamic religious beliefs are not just correlated but influential in spreading the behavior and acceptance of such. This statement is backed up by dozens of studies and even the Islamic sources themselves, many of which are listed below.

Sources:

1. “Intimate Partner Violence in Muslim Communities”, Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 2016.

This is a meta-analysis of 35 different empirical studies both in the United States and abroad.

Excerpts:

“(Intimate Parter Violence) is a major problem afflicting Muslim families similar to any other faith community. They have also highlighted that Muslims, as a faith, culture, and sociopolitical community, have special and additional intersecting factors that complicate the contextual circumstances of IPV that involved their varied religious and cultural traditions
…
In general these studies found high prevalence levels of IPV (Intimate Partner Violence) among Muslims living in the US and globally. Consistent with IPV research in general, verbal and psychological abuse was found most prevalent, followed by physical, sexual, and fatal. Individual family, and interlocking social problems, traditional beliefs, spirituality, and immigration related stressors were associated with IPV as identified by several studies. Studies on beliefs about IPV found that there tended to be higher leniency and justification of abuse in Muslim cultures than is the Western norm. Muslim men across the board tended to justify abuse more than Muslim women, except when the wife had an affair.
…
Three studies conducted in Bangladesh identified that Muslim women were more likely to experience all forms of IPV (Intimate Partner Violence) than their non-Muslim counterparts. However, a fourth study by Dalal et. al. found the same differences between Muslim and non-Muslim women in all forms of abuse except for physical abuse.
…
Consistent with these Bangladeshi studies, an Egyptian study also found Muslim women to have higher prevalence levels of IPV (18.4%) compared to their Christian counterparts
…
A study conducted in Saudi Arabia comparing men and women found that 30% of the participating men were physically abusive towards their wives, while 34% of the women identified themselves as victims”

—————————————————————

2. “Muslim Women’s Experience of Domestic Violence and Abuse: A Meta-Ethnography of Global Evidence”, National Library of Medicine, 2025.

Another meta-analysis of 33 relevant studies.

Excerpts:

“Muslim women reported experiencing a range of DVA (Domestic Violence and Abuse), encompassing physical, psychological, emotional, economic, social, and sexual abuse.
…
In terms of physical violence, women encountered various forms such as beatings, slaps, kicks, and hits from their partners and from members of the family-in-law.
…
Findings suggest that women may experience sexual assault at the hands of both their husbands and in-laws.
…
They reported feeling hurt, and angry (Nordian et al 2003), and often expressed deep concerns for the welfare of their children (Hayati et al 2015). Participants of the included studies felt mistreated and unloved, worthless, hopeless, and helpless
…
Studies report that polygamy and concubinage were contributing factors to DVA.
…
Cultural beliefs often influence Islamic values within the society (Ghafournia, 2017). These religious values and beliefs were subject to the interpretation and guidance of religious leaders. Sharia law dictates that women must be obedient to their husbands. Men felt empowered to punish their wives if they perceived them as disobedient.
…
It is evident that religious beliefs were a strong influence on women’s acceptance of DVA and reluctance to leave and seek help.”

—————————————————————

3. “Are Muslims Distinctive?”, M Steven Fish. 2011

“Females in Muslim countries have a substantially smaller healthy life expectancy advantage than they do in non-Muslim countries. In Muslim countries females have healthy life expectancy that range between three years shorter and six years longer than those of males. The median is a female advantage of about two years. In non-Muslim countries females live between one year less and twelve years longer than males. The median is a female advantage of almost four years.”

—————————————————————

4. “Global Slavery Index”, Walk Free. 2026

Many Muslim majority countries make up the highest rates of slavery and sex slavery than other non-Muslim countries. The Arab States in particular have the highest prevalence of slavery per capita in the world. The National Organization for Women reports that 71% of all modern slaves are women. In addition to forced labor, these women and young girls are often sexually assaulted and sexually exploited under the threat of physical violence and death with little to no hope of freedom or justice.

————————————————————

Data Summary:

The data is both objective and clear: globally, Muslim women are subjected to significantly more Intimate Parter Violence and Domestic Violence and Abuse from their husbands and in-laws than their non-Muslim counterparts in the same region and in the West. This is not some solitary study, this is a compilation of over 60 studies in multiple meta-analyses, many of which display admissions of abuse from Muslim men themselves. Muslim women have lower life expectancy than their non-Muslim counterparts. Consistently Muslim women face higher rates of abuse of many varieties, have decreased life expectancy, and Muslim majority countries make up some of the highest rates of human trafficking and sex slavery in the world. The studies identity Islam in this trend not just as correlated but influential.

—————————————————————

Why is that?

Unfortunately, both the Quran and surrounding Islamic literature explicitly command and condone physical and sexual violence amongst women, which the studies note have been made reflective and quoted in Islamic rulings, which lead to higher rates and acceptance of such horrific behaviors in countries that apply Islamic rulings.

Permitting of Physical Violence:

Surah 4:34: “Men are in charge of women by what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in absence what Allah would have them guard. But those from whom you fear arrogance – advise them, forsake them in bed, and strike them. But if they obey you seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.”

Sahih Muslim 947b: “I (Aisha) said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?”

Sunan Abu Dawud 2146 (Sahih): “Do not beat Allah's handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) complaining against their husbands. So the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They (those husbands who take to beating their wives) are not the best among you.”

Sunan Abu Dawud 2147 (Sahih) : “The Prophet said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.”

Permitting of Sexual Violence:

Surah 4:24: “You are forbidden to marry married women except your slave-girls.”

Sunan An-Nasa’i 3333 (Sahih): **“**It was narrated from Abu Sa'eed Al-Khudri that the Prophet of Allah sent an army to Awtas. They met the enemy, fought them, and prevailed over them. They acquired female prisoners who had husbands among the idolaters. The Muslims felt reluctant to be intimate with them. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime revealed:
"Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (slaves) whom your right hands possess," meaning, this is permissible for you once they have completed their 'Iddah.” “

Sahih Al-Bukhari 2542: “I saw Abu Sa`id and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Sa`id said, "We went with Allah's Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Bani Al-Mustaliq and we captured some of the 'Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) (whether coitus interruptus was permissible). He said, "It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence."

Note that Islam affirms Mohammed is the “perfect moral example until the Last Day” in the Quran, therefore Muslims must defend every action and decision of Mohammed as good and permissible. The condoning of physical and sexual violence against women is also exemplified through things like Sharia Law, Fatwas from Islamic schools of Jurisprudence, and traditional exegetes. If you personally identify as a Muslim but condemn abuse of women like these cases above, great! But that is heretical to what has commonly been understood as “Islam” since the seventh century onward. Since the majority of Islamic constituents do hold and defend these actions and beliefs, that is what is being identified as “Islam” in the thesis is “Islam permits and spreads abuse of women”.

—————————————————————

Conclusion:

In short, the data backs up exactly what we see explicitly laid out in the Islamic sources. As Islam spreads, so too does violence and abuse against women spread. This is not an assumption. This is not simply a hypothesis. This is the explicit commands and Islamic sources backed up by objective data from multiple research groups worldwide. If you want to argue Islam does NOT permit or spread the abuse of women, you will have to provide MORE meta-analyses and studies that show the opposite of all of these studies above and also show how when the Quran and Hadiths explicitly permit these things they’re actually saying the exact opposite, that it’s NOT permissible to beat your wife or take a women as a sex slave when they text says such a thing exactly. Even if you found one study that says Islam is not positively associated with DVA or IPV, you would have just brought one source against dozens that say the exact opposite. That’s not enough to overturn an observed trend nor would it make the Quran and Hadiths say the exact opposite of what they literally say.

The main question I will leave our Muslim friends with is this: if Islam is good for human flourishing, why does the spread of Islam directly influence and contribute to the increase of the physical, emotional, sexual, and even fatal abuse of women?

If you are a Muslim, doesn’t this data concern you at all? Don’t you feel any kind of empathy for the countless women facing these horrific circumstances? Don’t you feel repulsed or disgusted at the physical and sexual abuse condoned and carried out by Mohammed and his companions in the Quran and Hadiths? Because you can’t say you do not want women to be physically and sexually abused also and support the spread of Islam when the two are demonstrated to be causally linked by the sources above. If not, what if that was your wife, your sister, your mother, daughter, or your even yourself that was being physically and sexually abused or taken as a sex slave? Would you care then?

The sources and data demonstrate that when you spread Islam, you are actively increasing the chances the women in your life will be physically and sexually abused.

It’s not a secret to point out that Islam details a very specific point-reward system for good and bad deeds through the Quran and Hadiths. Essentially, on judgement day, Allah will weigh the good deeds against the bad and that will determine your reward or punishment.

For example, in narrations from Bukhari and Muslim, a prayer in the Masjid will be rewarded “27” times more than a payer at home. A prayer in Masjid Al-Haram is said to be be rewarded 100,000 times more. In Surah 6:160 it says bad deeds are only recorded as bad deed, but every one good deed is counted “tenfold”. Surah 97:3 says worshipping on the night of Al-Qadr is worth “1000 times” a normal month’s worship. Good deeds will be rewarded exponentially more during Ramadan, and so on.

This ultimately creates an issue where because the explicit numeric value has been labeled, Allah has created a system to be gamified. A person can now plot out a way to maximize their reward in heaven instead of simply doing good because it is good. A wealthy Muslim will be able to achieve an exponentially higher reward than a poor Muslim ever could. In fact, one could, for example, pray in Masjid Al-Haram during Ramadan on the night of Al-Qadr and receive 100,000 x 10-700 (depending on narration) x 1000 (97:3) x 10 (6:160) good deeds. At minimum you will receive ten billion good deeds for this.

Because you took advantage of Double XP Weekend, you’re set for life. You don’t ever have to worry about doing anything bad again, because think of how many decades, if not centuries it would take to do ten BILLION bad deeds to match worship during this ONE night of the year, and that’s only if you do it once. It’s not even worth your time to worship or do normal good deeds regularly. Why do a full normal month’s worship when you can just do the same thing during one night of Ramadan in Mecca and receive THOUSANDS of times the reward? According to Allah, normal worship is just 1/1000th as good as during Al-Qadr. Doing this and then worrying about normal worship is like a multi-billionaire picking up a dirty penny on the street; Not even worth the effort or time.

If you truly believe in Islam, you should only care about doing good deeds in these times and places. Eating pork? Premarital sex? Alcohol? It’s all irrelevant as long as you make sure you worship and pray in these special times and places. If you are a true believer, you would never bother praying at home because praying once a month at your Masjid is roughly equivalent to Allah as saying a prayer a day alone.

Worst of all, because Allah laid out the exact formula he’s using, you can now calculate EXACTLY how much bad deeds or haram things you can get away with and not be punished at all. See something you want that others have? Do you want to have premarital sex? Do you want to eat pork? Lie? Cheat? Steal? You can calculate EXACTLY how many good deeds you need to ensure you can do those things and face ZERO punishment from Allah. Essentially, everything shy of shirk (which is considered the one unforgivable sin, worse than rape and murder) and you’re good. Because Allah gave away the formula, Islam’s morality is completely broken in both the technical and philosophical sense.

Think about how much BETTER it would be if Allah never gave exact figures to rewards. Muslims would be encouraged to be MUCH more moral people at ALL times and places because you don’t know how Allah is calculating your eternal reward, so you would do the best you possibly can. The world be a MUCH better place if people couldn’t gamify Allah’s religion to do the bare minimum and exponentially rewarded. Instead we get essentially customer reward punchcards (“Do nine good deeds and get a tenth on Allah!”) battle passes (“Pay for a pilgrimage to Mecca and get 100,000 good deeds!”), double XP weekend (“1000x multiplier, this Al-Qadr only!”), everything but a few loot boxes shy of the latest money hungry AAA title, designed to draw you in and keep you loyal at the price of actual merit. At this point, I’m surprised the Quran didn’t come with micro-transactions for new limited time Quran skins.

Preemptive Responses:

“We should still do good because it’s the right thing to do” Allah himself cares literally 1000x more about worshipping during the night of Al-Qadr than all other times of the year. One night of worship on Al-Qadr is the equivalent of over 83 years of normal worship (1000/12months). Allah himself cares more about worship on this one night than a literal lifetime of piety. If Allah himself doesn’t care about those other nights, you shouldn’t either. If Allah himself won’t punish those bad deeds that are drowned out with good ones, there’s no objective reason to care.

“The rewards are hyperbolic, the exact numbers aren’t known”. Not only does that contradict the consensus of Islamic scholarship in the verses and narrations I brought above, but even if it were true the underlying fact remains: you are rewarded exponentially more in these times and places so the argument still stands.

If you do response with a counter argument, please include a • at the beginning of your response (• Like this) to let me know you have actually read the argument. The last two posts about Islam I’ve made, out of over a dozen responses, not ONE had actually read the argument as none included a similar sign and all responded to something I had already preemptively addressed. If you’re not going to bother reading the argument I’m not going to bother responding.

Surah 35:18:

“No soul burdened with sin will bear the burden of another. And if a sin-burdened soul cries for help with its burden, none of it will be carried—even by a close relative.”

Very clear - EVERYONE is accountable for their actions ALONE. No one shall carry the burdens of another. Fair, makes sense, explicit.

Surah 29:13:

“Yet they (disbelievers) will certainly ˹be made to˺ carry their own burdens, as well as other burdens along with their own.”

This is the opposite to what was said earlier. A “contradiction” is an assertion of a claim and a negation of the claim being made at the same time. For example:

1. It is the case that X will happen.

2. It is not the case that X will happen.

Or, more formally, “P” and “Not P”. Asserting both at the same time violates the law of non-contradiction.

The Quran makes the following claims:

1. Everyone will carry their burdens alone.

2. Not everyone will carry their burdens alone.

Quite literally, an assertion of “P” and “Not P”, the definition of a contradiction. Therefore, the Quran is contradictory and therefore false.

Preemptive Responses:

- “Abrogation” does not and can’t work here because it’s making absolute claims about eternal judgement in both cases. 35:18 says NO SOUL will carry another’s burdens. Yet 29:13 says SOME SOULS will carry their burdens as well as the burdens of others. These statements cannot both be true at the same time. Abrogating verses are always about judicial and legal ruling on Earth. They are never about the eternal judgment of Allah and the Quran claims “you will never find any change in the laws/ways of Allah” three times (35:43, 33:62, 48:23). Even if you could somehow demonstrate that the verses above are abrogation despite no evidence existing, you would have just proven a different contradiction because that would mean the laws and ways of Allah changed.

- “It’s talking about misleading others being counted against you” doesn’t solve the contradiction. Misleading others would still be their burden, their actions. It says that person will carry burdens their burdens as well as another’s. There wouldn’t be a contradiction if the second verse said “people will carry the burdens of their choices and also for misleading others” because that’s still their choice they are being held accountable for, as they chose to mislead. But the verse says they will be held accountable for their burdens (which would already include misleading others) AS WELL as the burdens of others.

- “Allah saying “No Souls” is hyperbolic” You don’t get to just claim something is hyperbolic when you see it’s a contradiction. You have to show there is an indication of hyperbole in the text, of which there is none. It says “No Soul” will bear the burdens of another no matter how much they scream or beg or “cry for help” and “not even a close relative” will be able to bear their burdens. That is the exact opposite of hyperbole. There is no indication of hyperbole because it doesn’t use general language, Surah 35 uses specific language and exact details and speaks in absolutes. It doesn’t say “like” or “as” or use any idiomatic phrases that are commonly understood as hyperbole. The Tafsirs are unanimous: Surah 35 means exactly what it says, it is not hyperbole (Al-Madudi, Ibn Kathir, Al-Jalalayn, Ibn Abba). There is no indication of hyperbole in the text, in the Arabic, or in Islamic scholarship.

If you do respond with a counter argument, please include ^ at the beginning of your response ( ^For example) to let me know you have actually read the argument. The last time I posted I requested something similar and it proved to me not a single person actually read the argument all the way. I’m not going to bother responding to someone who didn’t actually read the argument, it’d be a waste of everyone’s time. If they didn’t read the original argument all the way they won’t read the response all the way either.

Thanks for reading