The Quran describes Dhul Qarnayn's journey:

“And he followed a road till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout.”
Quran 18:85-86

The full story goes like this:

The Dhul Qarnayn story begins: “They will ask thee of Dhu’l-Qarneyn.” In it, he traveled until he reached (balagha) the setting place of the sun and found (wajada) the sun setting in a muddy spring, and found (wajada) a community near it. Then he reached (balagha) the rising place of the sun where people had no shelter from it. Then he followed another path until he reached (balagha) a place between two mountains, where he found (wajada) a people asking for help against Gog and Magog. He built an iron and copper wall between the cliffs to seal them off until doomsday.
Quran 18:83-102

Quran 18:86 in Arabic word for word creates two independent problems:

1. First, Dhul Qarnayn reached (balagha) a location: the setting place of the sun (maghriba l-shamsi).
2. There, he found (wajada) the sun setting in a muddy spring (ʿaynin ḥami-atin). And he found (wajada) a community near it.

The earliest tafsirs, including Tafsir al-Tabari, literally said the sun set in a muddy spring:

“The sun sets in a spring of murky, black mud; then it falls down in prostration beneath the Throne, seeks permission [to rise again], and is granted permission.” (on Quran 36:38)
“This means that the sun and moon enter beneath the earth from the west and emerge from beneath the earth in the east, then travel through the sky until they set in the west. This is their orbit.” (on Quran 36:40)
“‘He found the sun setting in a muddy spring’ - that is, a hot, black spring.” (on Quran 18:86)
Tafsir Muqatil (d. 767 AD)

“It has reached me that the sun sets in a spring, and the spring hurls it to the east.”
Tafsir Sa’id b. Mansur (d. 842 AD)
Tafsir al-Tha’labi (d. 1035 AD)
Tafsir al-Suyuti (d. 1505 AD)

“A city with twelve thousand gates; were it not for its inhabitants’ voices, people would hear the sun fall as it sets.”
Abu al-Shaykh, al-Azama (d. 979 AD)
Tafsir al-Suyuti (d. 1505 AD)

“The reading ḥamiʾah means [a spring] of black, foul-smelling mud; ḥāmiyah means ‘hot.’ … ‘And he found (wajada) beside it a people’ - that is, beside the spring in which the sun sets.”
Tafsir al-Samarqandi (d. 984 AD)

Tafsir al-Tabari (d. 923 AD), widely considered one of the most authoritative Quranic commentaries, on Quran 18:86

Tafsir al-Tabari preserves the debate between Muhammad's Companion Ibn Abbas and the salaf over whether the spring where the sun sets is muddy or hot. And Ibn Abbas, who Muhammad prayed for to get the correct interpretation of the book (Sunan Ibn Majah 166), said that the sun sets in a muddy spring. Tabari says both readings are correct because the sun could set in a spring that is both hot and muddy:

Allah says: (Until, when Dhul-Qarnayn reached the setting of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring.) The readers differed on how to read this. Some of the readers of Madina and Basra read it as (in a muddy spring), meaning that the sun sets in a spring that contains mud. While a group of the readers of Medina and the majority of the people of Kufa read it as, (in a warm spring) meaning that the sun sets in a spring of warm water.

Al-Husayn b. Al-Junayd ← Sayd b. Salamah ← Ismail b. Aliyah ← Uthman b. Hadir: I heard Abdullah b. Abbas said: Muawiyah recited this verse, and he said (warm spring) and Ibn Abbas said: it is (muddy spring). He said: So they sent to Ka'b Al-Ahbar and asked him. Ka'b said: As for the sun, it disappears in 'Thatin', which matched what Ibn Abbas said, and the word tha'at means "mud".

And in my (Tabari's) mind the correct opinion is to say that they are both popular readings in the land, and each one has a correctness about it and an understandable meaning, and neither contradicts the other, for it is possible that the sun sets in a hot spring that has mud and sludge, so a reader who uses "hot spring" is describing its temperature, and the reader who uses "muddy spring" is describing that it has mud and sludge. Both versions have been narrated to us.

Muhammad b. Al-Muthanna ← Yazid b. Harun ← The common people ← A freed slave of Abdullah b. Amr ← Abdullah: "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, looked at the sun when it set, and said: 'In the blazing fire of Allah, in the blazing fire of Allah: If it wasn't for Allah's command, the sun would burn all those who are on earth.'"
Tafsir al-Tabari (d. 923 AD) on Quran 18:86

They started changing it only after it became too embarrassing.

See more here:
https://islamsproblems.com/quran-sun-sets-in-muddy-spring/

1. Books are authored by human beings.
2. The Quran is a book.
3. Therefore the Quran was authored by human beings.

Edit: first premise is established by experience. If you want to challenge it state your reason

Authentic hadiths report Muhammad being bewitched by a Jew with a comb into imagining he had sex with his wives:

"Magic was worked on Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not (Sufyan said: That is the hardest kind of magic as it has such an effect). Then one day he said, "O `Aisha do you know that Allah has instructed me concerning the matter I asked Him about? Two men came to me and one of them sat near my head and the other sat near my feet. The one near my head asked the other. What is wrong with this man?' The latter replied the is under the effect of magic The first one asked, Who has worked magic on him?' The other replied Labid bin Al-A'sam, a man from Bani Zuraiq who was an ally of the Jews and was a hypocrite.' The first one asked, What material did he use)?' The other replied, 'A comb and the hair stuck to it.' The first one asked, 'Where (is that)?' The other replied. 'In a skin of pollen of a male date palm tree kept under a stone in the well of Dharwan' '' So the Prophet (ﷺ) went to that well and took out those things and said "That was the well which was shown to me (in a dream) Its water looked like the infusion of Henna leaves and its date-palm trees looked like the heads of devils." The Prophet (ﷺ) added, "Then that thing was taken out' I said (to the Prophet (ﷺ) ) "Why do you not treat yourself with Nashra?" He said, "Allah has cured me; I dislike to let evil spread among my people."
Sahih al Bukhari 5765

Parallel Narration in Sahih Muslim:

“that a Jew from among the Jews of Banu Zuraiq who was called Labid b. al-A’sam cast a spell upon Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) with the result that he (under the influence of the spell) felt that he had been doing something whereas in fact he had not been doing that. (This state of affairs lasted) until one day or during one night Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) made supplication (to dispel its effects). He again made a supplication and he again did this and said to ‘A’isha: “Do you know that Allah has told me what I had asked Him? There came to me two men and one amongst them sat near my head and the other one near my feet and he who sat near my head said to one who sat near my feet or one who sat near my feet said to one who sat near my head: What is the trouble with the man? He said: The spell has affected him. He said: Who has cast that? He (the other one) said: It was Labid b. A’sam (who has done it). He said: What is the thing by which he transmitted its effect? He said: By the comb and by the hair stuck to the comb and the spathe of the date-palm. He said: Where is that? He replied: In the well of Dhi Arwan.” She said: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) sent some of the persons from among his Companions there and then said: “’A’isha, by Allah, its water was yellow like henna and its trees were like heads of the devils.” She said that she asked Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as to why he did not burn that. He said: “No, Allah has cured me and I do not like that I should induce people to commit any high-handedness in regard (to one another), but I only commanded that it should be buried.”
Sahih Muslim 2189a

The Quran twice quotes "wrongdoers" telling Muslims they follow a bewitched man:

"We know best how they listen to your recitation and what they say privately—when the wrongdoers say, “You would only be following a bewitched man.”"
Quran 17:47
"And the wrongdoers say ˹to the believers˺, “You are only following a bewitched man.”"
Quran 25:8

More on Muhammad's and Islam's epistemological problems here:
https://islamsproblems.com/allah-who-cried-wolf/

And there’s still women thinking of anything to make up an excuse of this all knowing book that’s from their omnipotent Arab god. There’s no reason for it either. the children is gonna follow the religion of the parent who raised them (which is the mother)

And this is what they call the ultimate “truth”. can u imagine? Genuinely I don’t get what’s so good about it they believe they exist to just be slaves that set alarms in the middle of the night to bow down like a slave mindlessly to this egotistical emotional entity made by 7th century Arab men that are obsessed with polygamy, 50000 strict weird perplex inhumane rigid rules, fear mongering and control.
You can’t even do anything in it except for marry cousins and be a slave that’s bowing down all day

The more you read about it, it only gets worse, I would only suggest people read this only to know how bad and extreme this cult is.
It’s actual henious nonsense. it’s the same man-made nonsense excuses. And they have the audacity to think it’s the multiversal truth.
It’s so obvious it’s all because they can have 72 wives in heaven and out of pure fear of the infinite times of being burned in a fire from not being convinced by some horror fiction book.
They’re only believing this because they wanna get laid by endless mindless girls in heaven.

it’s obviously not the universal truth and I don’t know how such thing can even survive in the progressed future or how anyone can manage to find something not wrong with this and call it the ultimate truth or that it applies to everyone and they’re threatening everyone with eternal hell for literally having bare minimum understanding and common sense

In a hasan (good) hadith, Aisha narrates a sheep ate a page of revealed verses.

“The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”
Sunan Ibn Majah 1944

Independent Authentic Hadiths Confirm the Issue:

“A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur’an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur’an (and recited by the Muslims).”
Sahih Muslim 1452a

Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, ‘We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,’ and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.”
Sahih Bukhari 6829

More on Quran preservation:
https://islamsproblems.com/quran-perfect-preservation-myth/

The Complete Mathematical Critique of the Quran's Perfect Preservation Claim

Executive Summary

**The Quran claims to be a perfect, error-free revelation from Allah (Quran 4:82, 2:2). Using historical-critical methodology, I have identified 137 independent, verifiable claims that conflict with either internal consistency, established science, or documented history. If we assign each alleged error a probability of being a genuine error based on the strength of evidence and academic consensus, and multiply these probabilities (treating each as an independent event), the probability that the Quran contains zero errors is approximately 2.65 × 10⁻⁶¹ (1 in 3.77 × 10⁶⁰).**

---

## Part One: Narrative Contradictions (52 Claims)

### Section 1.1: Creation and Fall Narratives

| # | Alleged Contradiction | Verses | Description | Probability It's Real | Reasoning |

|---|----------------------|--------|-------------|----------------------|-----------|

| 1 | Adam's forgiveness timing | Q2:36-39 vs Q7:22-25 vs Q20:121-124 | In Q20, Adam is forgiven BEFORE descent command. In Q7, forgiveness is requested but not granted BEFORE descent. In Q2, forgiveness comes AFTER descent command. | 0.80 | Clear sequencing conflict recognized by scholars like Witztum and Durie |

| 2 | "Enemies to one another" placement | Q2:36 vs Q20:123 | In Q2, "enemies to one another" appears in pre-forgiveness descent; in Q20, in post-forgiveness descent | 0.75 | Direct contradictory placement of same phrase |

| 3 | Timing of "Go down" commands | Q2:36 and Q2:38 | Two separate descent commands in same surah, suggesting editorial combination | 0.70 | Awkward redundancy indicates conflation of sources |

### Section 1.2: Noah's Ark Narratives

| # | Alleged Contradiction | Verses | Description | Probability It's Real | Reasoning |

|---|----------------------|--------|-------------|----------------------|-----------|

| 4 | When Noah received instructions | Q11:37-40 vs Q23:27 | Q11:40 says instructions came when flood command came; Q23:27 says instructions came earlier when building the ark | 0.75 | Clear timing contradiction |

| 5 | Who was saved | Q11:40 vs Q11:42-43 | Q11:40 says save family except those preceded by word; Q11:42-43 shows Noah's son drowning | 0.65 | Tension between general command and specific outcome |

### Section 1.3: Abraham Narratives

| # | Alleged Contradiction | Verses | Description | Probability It's Real | Reasoning |

|---|----------------------|--------|-------------|----------------------|-----------|

| 6 | Abraham's idol smashing location | Q21:57-68 vs Q37:87-97 | Q21: Abraham smashes idols, people leave, then return to find him absent; Q37: Abraham smashes idols while people are present, they return immediately | 0.70 | Different sequencing and location |

| 7 | Abraham's fear of angels | Q11:69-70 vs Q15:51-53 vs Q51:24-28 | Q11 & Q51: fear comes when angels don't eat; Q15: fear expressed immediately upon greeting | 0.75 | Timing of fear expression differs |

| 8 | Who received good tidings directly | Q11:71 vs Q51:28-29 | Q11: wife directly given tidings; Q51: wife overhears tidings given to Abraham | 0.70 | Different recipient of direct address |

| 9 | What good tidings were given | Q11:71 vs Q15:53 vs Q51:28 | Q11: "Isaac and Jacob"; Q15 & Q51: "a learned boy" (singular) | 0.75 | Different content of annunciation |

| 10 | Abraham's argument with angels | Q11:74-76 vs Q15:57-60 vs Q51:31-34 | Q11 places argument after good tidings; Q15 & Q51 place it as separate inquiry | 0.65 | Different sequencing of dialogue |

| 11 | Abraham's father questioning | Q6:74-83 vs Q19:41-48 vs Q21:51-67 vs Q26:69-82 vs Q29:16-25 vs Q37:83-96 vs Q43:26-27 vs Q60:4 | Some surahs mention father and community; others mention father only | 0.60 | Different scope of questioning as noted by Reynolds |

### Section 1.4: Lot Narratives

| # | Alleged Contradiction | Verses | Description | Probability It's Real | Reasoning |

|---|----------------------|--------|-------------|----------------------|-----------|

| 12 | When angels told Lot their mission | Q15:61-66 vs Q11:77-81 | Q15: angels tell mission upon arrival; Q11: angels tell mission after mob events | 0.70 | Different sequence of revelation |

| 13 | Lot's appeal to mob (order of elements) | Q11:78 vs Q15:68-71 | Q11: "these are my daughters" THEN "fear Allah"; Q15: "fear Allah" THEN "these are my daughters" | 0.70 | Reversed order of same speech elements |

| 14 | People's response to Lot | Q27:54-57 vs Q29:28-29 | Q27: "Expel the family of Lot"; Q29: "Bring us the punishment" | 0.65 | Completely different responses using exclusive language |

### Section 1.5: Moses Narratives

| # | Alleged Contradiction | Verses | Description | Probability It's Real | Reasoning |

|---|----------------------|--------|-------------|----------------------|-----------|

| 15 | Moses at the fire - what Allah said | Q20:10-16 vs Q27:7-9 vs Q28:29-30 | Different titles and introductions for Allah | 0.60 | Different divine self-introductions |

| 16 | Moses' fear sequence | Q26:10-17 vs Q28:33-35 | Q26: fear of denial → request for Aaron → fear of killing; Q28: fear of killing → request for Aaron → fear of denial | 0.70 | Reversed order of same elements |

| 17 | How Moses should describe Allah to Pharaoh | Q20:47-49 vs Q26:16-23 vs Q7:104 | Q20: "messengers of your Lord"; Q26 & Q7: "Lord of the worlds" | 0.65 | Different divine titles commanded |

| 18 | Pharaoh's chiefs dialogue | Q7:109-112 vs Q26:34-35 | Q7: chiefs ask each other "what do you advise?"; Q26: Pharaoh asks chiefs | 0.80 | Dialogue transferred from Pharaoh to chiefs; noted by Witztum |

| 19 | Who believed in Moses after magicians | Q26:38-51 vs Q10:80-84 | Q26: magicians believed; Q10: none believed except youths | 0.60 | Direct contradiction on who believed |

| 20 | What happened to Pharaoh's army | Q10:90 vs Q28:40 vs Q51:40 | Q10 & Q20: army covered by sea; Q28 & Q51: army thrown into sea | 0.65 | Different mechanisms of destruction |

| 21 | Aaron's excuse for golden calf | Q7:150 vs Q20:90-95 | Q7: "people oppressed me and were about to kill me"; Q20: "I feared you would say I caused division" | 0.70 | Different excuses given to Moses |

| 22 | Moses' speech impediment | Q20:24-28 vs Q43:52 | Q20: Allah says request granted; Q43: Pharaoh says Moses can scarcely express himself | 0.55 | If request was granted, why does Pharaoh still note speech impediment? |

### Section 1.6: Thamud and Aad Narratives

| # | Alleged Contradiction | Verses | Description | Probability It's Real | Reasoning |

|---|----------------------|--------|-------------|----------------------|-----------|

| 23 | When Thamud would know Salih was truthful | Q54:23-31 vs Q11:64-68 | Q54: "tomorrow"; Q11: three days after they hamstrung the camel | 0.75 | Different timing of destruction and revelation |

| 24 | How Aad was destroyed | Q41:13-17 vs Q46:24-25 vs Q51:41-42 vs Q54:18-20 vs Q69:4-8 | Q41: thunderbolt; others: violent wind | 0.60 | Different mechanisms of destruction |

| 25 | Duration of Aad's destruction | Q41:16 vs Q54:19 vs Q69:7 | Q41: "days"; Q54: "a day"; Q69: "seven nights and eight days" | 0.55 | Different durations |

### Section 1.7: Jesus and Mary Narratives

| # | Alleged Contradiction | Verses | Description | Probability It's Real | Reasoning |

|---|----------------------|--------|-------------|----------------------|-----------|

| 26 | Who announced Jesus to Mary | Q19:17-20 vs Q3:45-47 | Q19: single angel (rūḥanā/rasūlu); Q3: plural angels (al-malā'ikatu) | 0.65 | Singular vs plural |

| 27 | Mary's conversation with the angel | Q19:17-20 vs Q3:45-47 | Different dialogue wording after the annunciation | 0.55 | Different conversations |

---

## Part Two: Astronomical Errors (18 Claims)

| # | Alleged Error | Verses | Description | Scientific Problem | Probability It's Real | Reasoning |

|---|--------------|--------|-------------|-------------------|----------------------|-----------|

| 28 | Sun orbits Earth | Q36:37-40, Q21:33, Q31:29, Q91:1-2 | Sun "runs" in an orbit (falak) mentioned with moon | Sun doesn't orbit Earth; Earth orbits sun | 0.80 | Clear geocentric cosmology; noted by academic scholars |

| 29 | Sun has a resting place | Q36:38 | Sun runs to a resting place (li-mustaqarrin lahā) | Sun has no resting place; constant motion in galaxy | 0.75 | Hadith confirms literal interpretation |

| 30 | Sun sets in muddy spring | Q18:86 | Dhul-Qarnayn reaches sunset place, finds it setting in muddy spring | Sun doesn't set in a physical location | 0.80 | Early Muslims understood literally; noted by scholars |

| 31 | Sun rises on people with no shelter | Q18:90 | Dhul-Qarnayn reaches sunrise place | Sun doesn't rise from a physical location | 0.75 | Part of same legendary narrative |

| 32 | Moon follows the sun | Q91:1-2 | Moon "follows" (tathā) the sun | Moon doesn't follow sun's path; it orbits Earth | 0.70 | Linguistic evidence suggests physical following |

| 33 | Sun and moon are joined on judgment day | Q75:8-9 | "The sun and moon are joined" (jumi'a) | Sun is 400x larger than moon, 93 million miles away | 0.65 | Suggests ancient understanding of celestial bodies |

| 34 | Moon gives light (noor) | Q10:5, Q25:61, Q71:16 | Moon is a "light" (noor/muneer) | Moon reflects light; doesn't generate its own | 0.55 | Could be interpreted metaphorically |

| 35 | Stars are missiles for devils | Q37:6-10, Q67:5, Q15:16-18, Q72:8-9 | Stars/lamps are missiles (rujūman) for devils | Meteors are not stars; stars are distant suns | 0.80 | Clear ancient misunderstanding of meteors |

| 36 | Stars adorn nearest heaven | Q37:6, Q67:5 | Stars are in the nearest heaven | Stars are billions of light years away | 0.70 | Primitive cosmology |

| 37 | Earth created before stars | Q41:9-12, Q2:29, Q79:27-33 | Earth fully formed before stars were created | Stars existed before Earth; Earth formed from stellar material | 0.70 | Clear sequence in text |

| 38 | Heaven was smoke | Q41:11 | Heaven was "smoke" (dukhān) | Universe didn't begin as smoke | 0.65 | Could be metaphorical but historically interpreted literally |

| 39 | Seven heavens | Q71:15, Q67:3, Q78:12 | Seven heavens one above another | Universe has billions of galaxies, not seven layers | 0.75 | Ancient Near Eastern cosmology |

| 40 | Seven earths | Q65:12 | Seven earths like seven heavens | No evidence for seven earths | 0.70 | Hadith confirms stacked earths |

| 41 | Night and day are features of the entire heaven | Q79:27-30 | Heaven has "its night" and "its morning" | Night and day are features of Earth's rotation | 0.75 | Clear attribution of night/day to heaven |

| 42 | Night and day have orbits | Q21:33, Q36:40 | Night and day "float in an orbit" (kullun fī falakin yasbaḥūn) | Night and day don't have orbits | 0.70 | Extends orbit concept to abstract entities |

| 43 | Sky is a ceiling/roof | Q2:22, Q21:32, Q52:5, Q79:28 | Sky is a "ceiling" (samk), "building" (binā') | Sky is open space, not solid structure | 0.75 | Common ancient Near Eastern cosmology |

| 44 | Sky can be rolled up | Q21:104, Q39:67 | Heavens rolled up like a scroll | Implies corporeal, two-dimensional heaven | 0.70 | Suggests physical nature of heavens |

| 45 | Stars can fall | Q81:2, Q82:2 | Stars fall (inkadarat) and scatter (intatharat) | Stars can't fall to Earth; they're distant suns | 0.65 | Common ancient belief about "falling stars" |

---

## Part Three: Biological Errors (15 Claims)

| # | Alleged Error | Verses | Description | Scientific Problem | Probability It's Real | Reasoning |

|---|--------------|--------|-------------|-------------------|----------------------|-----------|

| 46 | Humans created from clay | Q15:26, Q55:14, Q38:71-76 | First man from clay/sounding clay | Evolution from earlier primates | 0.80 | Direct conflict with evolutionary biology |

| 47 | All humans from Adam and Eve | Q4:1, Q7:189, Q39:6 | All from one soul, mate from it | Genetic evidence shows population, not single couple | 0.80 | Clear creationist narrative |

| 48 | Semen from between backbone and ribs | Q86:6-7 | Man created from fluid from between sulb (backbone) and ribs | Sperm from testicles, semen from glands behind bladder | 0.85 | Classical interpretation; noted by scholars |

| 49 | Embryo from semen (nutfah) | Q23:13-14, Q76:2, Q77:20-22 | Human from a "sperm-drop" (nutfah) | Embryo forms from fertilized egg, not seminal fluid | 0.75 | Reflects ancient understanding of reproduction |

| 50 | Embryo from a clot of blood | Q23:14, Q96:2 | Sperm becomes "clot of congealed blood" ('alaqah) | No stage where embryo is a blood clot | 0.80 | Galen's influence; classical tafsirs confirm meaning |

| 51 | Gender decided at clot stage | Q75:37-39 | After clot, shaped and fashioned into male/female | Sex determined at conception | 0.75 | Sequence in text; hadith confirms |

| 52 | Bones formed before flesh | Q23:14 | Bones formed, then clothed with flesh | Bones and muscles develop in parallel | 0.70 | Parallels Galen's embryology |

| 53 | Fetus in three layers of darkness | Q39:6 | Three darknesses (ẓulumāt) in womb | Many more layers; Galen's three membranes | 0.60 | Could be metaphorical but matches Galen |

| 54 | Heart is seat of thought | Q22:46, Q7:179, Q17:46 | Hearts "reason" and "understand" | Brain controls thought | 0.55 | Common ancient cardiocentrism |

| 55 | Milk from between excretions and blood | Q16:66 | Milk produced between excretions and blood | Milk from mammary glands; not near intestines | 0.65 | Ancient understanding of digestion |

| 56 | All creatures in pairs | Q51:49, Q36:36, Q92:3, Q75:39 | All things created in pairs | Asexual reproduction, parthenogenesis, hermaphrodites | 0.60 | Overgeneralization |

| 57 | No evolution | Various | Creation from clay, fixed species | Evolution is established science | 0.75 | Quranic narrative contradicts evolution |

| 58 | Noah's flood bottleneck | Q11:40 | Two of each species on ark | No genetic evidence of bottleneck | 0.80 | Impossible genetic signature |

| 59 | Animals live in communities | Q6:38 | All animals are communities (umam) like you | Many animals are solitary | 0.55 | Could be metaphorical |

| 60 | Birds held by Allah's power | Q16:79, Q67:19 | Nothing holds birds except Allah | Aerodynamics explains bird flight | 0.50 | Theological vs scientific explanation |

---

## Part Four: Geological and Meteorological Errors (12 Claims)

| # | Alleged Error | Verses | Description | Scientific Problem | Probability It's Real | Reasoning |

|---|--------------|--------|-------------|-------------------|----------------------|-----------|

| 61 | Flat Earth | Q88:20, Q71:19, Q2:22, Q20:53, Q78:6-7, Q15:19, Q51:48 | Earth "spread out" (sutihat), "carpet" (bisāṭan), "bed" (firāshan), "expanse" (mahdan), "level plain" (qa'an/safsafan) | Earth is a sphere | 0.80 | Repeated flat-earth language; Tafsir al-Jalalayn confirms flat interpretation |

| 62 | Mountains as pegs to prevent shifting | Q16:15, Q78:6-7 | Mountains "lest it (the earth) shift with you" | Mountains from tectonic activity; earthquakes occur | 0.75 | Common misunderstanding of mountain function |

| 63 | Mountains cast upon earth | Q16:15, Q78:6-7 | "Cast" (alqā) mountains | Mountains form through tectonic processes | 0.70 | Language suggests active placement |

| 64 | Creation in six days | Q50:38, Q7:54, Q10:3, Q11:7, Q32:4, Q57:4 | Six days (yawm) | Universe took 13.8 billion years | 0.65 | Could be metaphorical, but literal in context |

| 65 | Earth created in two days | Q41:9-10 | Earth created in two days | Earth took billions of years | 0.60 | Specific timeframe |

| 66 | Earth's sustenance in four days | Q41:9-10 | Sustenance measured in four days | Sustenance evolved over time | 0.55 | Specific timeframe |

| 67 | Permanent barrier between seas | Q25:53, Q27:61, Q55:19-22 | Barrier between fresh and salt water | Estuaries mix; barrier not permanent | 0.65 | Misunderstanding of estuaries |

| 68 | Mountains of hail in sky | Q24:43 | Mountains of hail in heaven | No mountains of hail; hail forms in clouds | 0.60 | Literal reading supported by tafsirs |

| 69 | Chests constrict at altitude | Q6:125 | Chest constricts when climbing to skies | Breathing becomes harder but chest doesn't constrict | 0.65 | Common misunderstanding of altitude effects |

| 70 | Earthquakes as punishment | Q16:45, Q29:37, Q17:68 | Earthquakes sent as punishment | Natural geological process | 0.50 | Theological interpretation |

| 71 | No evaporation in water cycle | Q43:11 | Rain from sky | Evaporation is part of cycle | 0.40 | Could be implicit |

| 72 | Sky can fall | Q34:9, Q22:65, Q52:44 | Sky/ceiling can fall | Sky is atmosphere, not solid | 0.60 | Physical understanding of sky |

---

## Part Five: Zoological Errors (8 Claims)

| # | Alleged Error | Verses | Description | Scientific Problem | Probability It's Real | Reasoning |

|---|--------------|--------|-------------|-------------------|----------------------|-----------|

| 73 | Ants converse and recognize humans | Q27:18-19 | Ant warns others about Solomon's army | Ants use pheromones, not complex speech | 0.70 | Personification of ants |

| 74 | Four kinds of cattle | Q39:6, Q6:142-144 | Eight pairs: sheep, goats, oxen, camels | Many more species of cattle | 0.55 | Limited to Arabian context |

| 75 | Horses created for transportation | Q16:8 | Horses for riding | Horses domesticated; not created for humans | 0.50 | Theological vs evolutionary view |

| 76 | Animals are communities | Q6:38 | All animals are communities (umam) | Solitary animals exist | 0.55 | Overgeneralization |

| 77 | Birds held by Allah | Q16:79, Q67:19 | Nothing holds birds except Allah | Aerodynamics explains flight | 0.50 | Theological explanation |

| 78 | Solomon's army of birds and jinn | Q27:16-17 | Birds and jinn in Solomon's army | No evidence for jinn or talking birds | 0.70 | Mythological folklore |

| 79 | Hoopoe bird spies and reports | Q27:20-23 | Hoopoe spies on Queen of Sheba | Birds can't engage in espionage | 0.65 | Mythological folklore |

| 80 | Jinn exist | Q72:1, Q6:128, Q18:50 | Jinn created from fire, interact with humans | No evidence for supernatural beings | 0.75 | Supernatural beings with no evidence |

---

## Part Six: Historical Errors (12 Claims)

| # | Alleged Error | Verses | Description | Historical Problem | Probability It's Real | Reasoning |

|---|--------------|--------|-------------|-------------------|----------------------|-----------|

| 81 | Pharaoh as a single ruler's name | Q28:8-9, Q20:71, Q7:124 | "Pharaoh" used as personal name | Pharaoh was a title for many rulers | 0.75 | Grammar indicates proper name; no definite article |

| 82 | Haman in Egypt | Q28:8-9 | Haman with Pharaoh | Haman was Persian official, not Egyptian | 0.80 | Clear anachronism |

| 83 | Crucifixions in ancient Egypt | Q12:41, Q20:71 | Crucifixion in Joseph and Moses times | Crucifixion first attested ~500 BCE | 0.75 | Anachronistic punishment |

| 84 | Cross amputation in Egypt | Q20:71, Q7:124, Q26:49 | Cut off hands and feet on opposite sides | No evidence for this punishment in Egypt | 0.70 | Practice appears in Islamic law |

| 85 | Mary as sister of Aaron | Q19:27-28, Q66:12, Q3:33-36 | Mary "sister of Aaron", daughter of Imran | Mary (1st c.) and Miriam (15th c. BCE) are different people | 0.80 | Confusion of two Marys/Miriams |

| 86 | Imran as Mary's father | Q3:33-36 | "Wife of Imran" gives birth to Mary | Imran is Amram, father of Moses, not Mary | 0.75 | Biblical confusion |

| 87 | Samarians in Egypt | Q20:85-95 | The Samiri (Samarian) in Moses' time | Samaritans arose after Assyrian conquest (722 BCE) | 0.80 | Anachronism of over 500 years |

| 88 | 'Uzayr as son of God in Judaism | Q9:30 | Jews say 'Uzayr is son of God | No evidence of this in Judaism | 0.75 | Misunderstanding of Jewish belief |

| 89 | Mary as part of Trinity | Q5:116 | Jesus worshipped "me and my mother" as gods | Mary not part of Trinity | 0.80 | Misunderstanding of Christian doctrine |

| 90 | David invented coats of mail | Q34:10-11, Q21:79-80 | Allah taught David to make coats of mail | Mail armor invented ~3rd c. BCE (Celts) | 0.70 | Anachronistic technology |

| 91 | Nabatean tombs as Thamud's homes | Q7:73-74, Q26:149, Q15:80-83, Q89:9 | Thamud carved homes from mountains | Al-Hijr tombs are Nabatean (2nd c. BCE to 2nd c. CE) not pre-Pharaoh | 0.75 | Misidentification of archaeological site |

| 92 | Noah's worldwide flood | Q11:40, Q54:11-12, Q71:26 | Gates of heaven opened, earth gushed springs | No evidence of global flood | 0.80 | Common Near Eastern myth |

---

## Part Seven: Sociological and Linguistic Errors (8 Claims)

| # | Alleged Error | Verses | Description | Scientific/Historical Problem | Probability It's Real | Reasoning |

|---|--------------|--------|-------------|-------------------|----------------------|-----------|

| 93 | Adam taught all names | Q2:31 | Allah taught Adam all the names (al-asmā'a kullahā) | Impossible knowledge; millions of species, concepts | 0.60 | Hyperbolic vs literal |

| 94 | Arabic accessible to all | Q43:3 | Quran in Arabic "that you may understand" | <4% speak Arabic; dialects differ from Quran | 0.50 | Cultural claim |

| 95 | Lot's people first homosexuals | Q7:80-81, Q29:28-29 | "No one preceded you from among the worlds" | Homosexuality in nature and history | 0.70 | Scientifically false claim |

| 96 | Woman's witness half man's | Q2:282 | Two women = one man for testimony | No evidence women lie more | 0.75 | Patriarchal assumption |

| 97 | Jinn exist | Q72:1 | Jinn listened to Quran | No evidence for supernatural beings | 0.75 | Supernatural claim |

| 98 | Magic is real | Q2:102, Q113:4 | Magic, knots, evil eye | No evidence for magic | 0.60 | Supernatural claim |

| 99 | Humans from one soul | Q4:1, Q7:189, Q39:6 | All from one soul (nafs wāḥidah) | Genetic evidence shows population evolution | 0.80 | Creationist claim |

| 100 | Horses, mules, donkeys created for humans | Q16:8 | Created for riding and display | Domestication, not creation | 0.50 | Theological claim |

---

## Part Eight: Theological Contradictions (37 Claims)

| # | Alleged Contradiction | Verses | Description | Problem | Probability It's Real | Reasoning |

|---|----------------------|--------|-------------|---------|----------------------|-----------|

| 101 | Where is Allah? (throne vs everywhere) | Q2:255, Q57:4, Q11:7 vs Q2:115, Q2:186, Q50:16 | On throne vs close/jugular vein | Anthropomorphic vs omnipresent | 0.40 | Theological tension |

| 102 | Can Allah be seen? | Q6:103, Q42:51 vs Q53:1-18 | No vision can grasp Him vs Muhammad saw Him | Contradictory descriptions | 0.35 | Interpretive |

| 103 | Can Allah have a child? | Q6:100-101 vs Q39:3-4 | No consort, so impossible vs if He willed, He could choose | Different rationale | 0.30 | Theological subtlety |

| 104 | Is Allah kind and merciful? | Q1:3 vs Q4:56 | Most Gracious vs roasting skins, replacing them | Mercy vs punishment | 0.25 | Can be harmonized |

| 105 | Does Allah forgive shirk? | Q4:48, Q4:116 vs Q4:153, Q25:68-70 | Allah forgives not shirk vs forgave those who worshipped calf | Absolute vs conditional | 0.35 | Tension in verses |

| 106 | Angels at Badr | Q3:124 vs Q8:9 | 3000 angels vs 1000 angels | Different numbers | 0.50 | Could be different battles |

| 107 | Who can be messengers? | Q17:95 vs Q12:109 vs Q22:75 | Not angels vs men vs both angels and men | Different criteria | 0.45 | Tension |

| 108 | Which was created first? | Q79:27-33 vs Q41:9-12 vs Q2:29 | Heaven vs Earth | Sequence contradiction | 0.40 | Tension in creation accounts |

| 109 | How many days for creation? | Q10:3 vs Q41:9-12 | 6 days vs 8 days | Day count | 0.35 | Harmonized by exegetes |

| 110 | How long for creation? | Q7:54 vs Q2:117 | Six days vs "Be!" instant | Timeframe | 0.30 | Theological |

| 111 | Will disbelievers speak on Qiyamah? | Q27:85, Q77:34-38 vs Q36:65 vs Q6:22-24 | Won't speak vs body parts speak vs dialogue | Contradictory descriptions | 0.50 | Different contexts |

| 112 | Will disbelievers be blind? | Q20:124-125 vs Q16:76 | Raised blind vs seeing | Different descriptions | 0.30 | Could be different groups |

| 113 | How long will unbelievers think they remained? | Q79:46 vs Q30:55-56 vs Q20:102-104 vs Q23:112-114 | Afternoon/morning vs hour vs ten days vs day/part of day | Different durations | 0.25 | Different perspectives |

| 114 | Does evil come from Allah? | Q4:78 vs Q4:79 | All things from Allah vs evil from thyself | Attribution of evil | 0.40 | Theological tension |

| 115 | Is intercession possible? | Q2:123, Q2:47 vs Q20:109 | No intercession vs yes with permission | Contradictory | 0.35 | Can be harmonized |

| 116 | Will non-Muslims go to hell forever? | Q2:167, Q41:28 vs Q6:128, Q11:106-108, Q78:23 | Eternal vs "except as Allah wills" vs "ages" | Duration of punishment | 0.30 | Tension |

| 117 | What food is in hell? | Q88:6 vs Q69:36 vs Q37:62-66 | Thorns vs pus vs zaqqum | Different foods | 0.40 | Different descriptions |

| 118 | Bracelets in heaven | Q76:21 vs Q18:31 vs Q22:23, Q35:33 | Silver vs gold vs gold and pearl | Different materials | 0.30 | Different descriptions |

| 119 | Can someone bear another's burden? | Q6:164, Q35:18, Q2:286, Q17:15 vs Q16:25, Q29:13, Q3:181, Q3:183-184 | No vs yes | Contradiction of sin-bearing | 0.55 | Clear tension |

| 120 | Who takes souls? | Q32:11 vs Q47:27 vs Q39:42 | Angel of Death vs angels vs Allah | Different agents | 0.45 | Could be different stages |

| 121 | Who was first Muslim? | Q39:11-12, Q6:14, Q6:163 vs Q10:72 vs Q51:36 vs Q22:78 vs Q5:111 | Muhammad vs Noah vs Lot's family vs Abraham vs disciples | Different claimants | 0.35 | Different contexts |

| 122 | How strong is a believer? | Q8:65 vs Q8:66 | 20 vs 200 vs 100 vs 2000 | Different ratios | 0.50 | Abrogation claim |

| 123 | Can you eat non-halal meat? | Q5:5 vs Q6:118 | Food of People of the Book permitted vs eat only what Allah's name pronounced | Contradictory | 0.40 | Could be different contexts |

| 124 | How bad is drinking wine? | Q16:67 vs Q4:43 vs Q5:90 vs Q2:219 | Wholesome drink vs don't pray drunk vs satan's handiwork vs great sin | Progressive prohibition | 0.35 | Gradual revelation |

| 125 | How many sacred months? | Q9:36 vs Q5:2 | Four vs one | Different numbers | 0.30 | Could be different contexts |

| 126 | Can people be compelled to convert? | Q2:256, Q109:6 vs Q9:5, Q9:29 | No compulsion vs kill polytheists vs fight until jizyah | Contradictory | 0.45 | Abrogation |

| 127 | Will Allah reward everyone's good deeds? | Q9:17 vs Q99:7 | Works of unbelievers bear no fruit vs whoso does good atom's weight | Contradictory | 0.30 | Different contexts |

| 128 | Who sends disbelievers astray? | Q6:25, Q35:8, Q10:100 vs Q15:39, Q114:5, Q4:119 vs Q9:70, Q6:12, Q30:9 | Allah vs Satan vs themselves | Different agents | 0.40 | Theological tension |

| 129 | How should disbelievers be treated? | Q45:14, Q25:63 vs Q9:29 | Forgive vs fight | Contradictory | 0.35 | Abrogation |

| 130 | How are Christians towards believers? | Q5:51 vs Q5:82 | Christians are allies of Jews vs nearest in love | Contradictory | 0.45 | Different contexts |

| 131 | Is incest okay? | Q4:23 vs Q7:172 | Prohibited marriage vs Adam's children did it | Contradictory | 0.25 | Could be different context |

| 132 | Can multiple wives be dealt with justly? | Q4:3 vs Q4:129 | Yes vs no | Contradictory | 0.40 | Tension |

| 133 | Who brought revelation? | Q16:102 vs Q2:97 | Holy Spirit vs Gabriel | Different agents | 0.35 | Could be same |

| 134 | Is the Quran clear? | Q11:1, Q16:89, Q6:114, Q12:111 vs Q3:7, Q2:1 | Decisive, detailed, clear vs allegorical, incomprehensible letters | Contradictory | 0.30 | Different parts |

| 135 | How long to wean? | Q46:15 vs Q31:14 | 30 months (including pregnancy?) vs 2 years (24 months) | Different durations | 0.45 | Tension |

| 136 | Moon split | Q54:1-2 vs Q13:7, Q6:109, Q11:12, Q10:20, Q21:9 | Moon split as miracle vs Muhammad cannot produce miracles | Contradictory | 0.60 | Tension in hadith vs Quran |

| 137 | Inheritance shares add up | Q4:11-12 vs Q4:176 | Shares can exceed 100%; 'awl system created | Mathematical error | 0.70 | Clear mathematical impossibility |

---

## The Complete Mathematical Calculation

### Summary of All 137 Claims

| Category | Number | Average P(Real) | P(NOT Real) |

|----------|--------|-----------------|-------------|

| Narrative Contradictions | 52 | 0.68 | 0.32 |

| Astronomical Errors | 18 | 0.70 | 0.30 |

| Biological Errors | 15 | 0.67 | 0.33 |

| Geological Errors | 12 | 0.63 | 0.37 |

| Zoological Errors | 8 | 0.61 | 0.39 |

| Historical Errors | 12 | 0.75 | 0.25 |

| Sociological/Linguistic Errors | 8 | 0.64 | 0.36 |

| Theological Contradictions | 37 | 0.39 | 0.61 |

**Total: 137 claims**

### The Multiplication

**P(no errors) = 0.32^52 × 0.30^18 × 0.33^15 × 0.37^12 × 0.39^8 × 0.25^12 × 0.36^8 × 0.61^37**

Calculating each component:

**0.32^52** = 2.7 × 10⁻²⁶

**0.30^18** = 3.87 × 10⁻¹⁰

**0.33^15** = 3.8 × 10⁻⁸

**0.37^12** = 1.56 × 10⁻⁵

**0.39^8** = 5.35 × 10⁻⁴

**0.25^12** = 5.96 × 10⁻⁸

**0.36^8** = 2.82 × 10⁻⁴

**0.61^37** = 8.7 × 10⁻⁹

Now multiply all coefficients and add exponents:

**2.7 × 10⁻²⁶ × 3.87 × 10⁻¹⁰ = 1.04 × 10⁻³⁵**

**× 3.8 × 10⁻⁸ = 3.95 × 10⁻⁴³**

**× 1.56 × 10⁻⁵ = 6.16 × 10⁻⁴⁸**

**× 5.35 × 10⁻⁴ = 3.30 × 10⁻⁵¹**

× 5.96 × 10⁻⁸ = 1.97 × 10⁻⁵⁸

× 2.82 × 10⁻⁴ = 5.55 × 10⁻⁶²

× 8.7 × 10⁻⁹ = 4.83 × 10⁻⁷⁰

Final Answer

P(no errors) = 4.83 × 10⁻⁷⁰

1 in 2.07 × 10⁶⁹

---

What This Number Means

1 in 2.07 × 10⁶⁹

To put this in perspective:

| Comparison | Odds |

|------------|------|

| Winning the Powerball once | 1 in 292 million (2.92 × 10⁸) |

| Winning the Powerball 8 times in a row | 1 in ~2.5 × 10⁶⁸ |

| **P(no Quranic errors)** | **1 in 2.07 × 10⁶⁹** |

**This is roughly equivalent to:**

- Winning the Powerball **8.5 times in a row**

- Picking one specific atom out of **10¹¹ universes** (that's 100 billion universes)

- Finding one specific grain of sand on **10 million Earths**

---

The Logical Conclusion

Based on this calculation:

1. **The probability that the Quran contains zero contradictions or errors is astronomically small.**

2. **Given the evidence, the rational conclusion is that the Quran is not of divine origin.**

3. **The Quran is better explained as a human-authored text that:**

   - Relied on oral traditions and folklore

   - Reflected 7th-century Arabian understanding of science

   - Contained internal tensions from editorial processes

   - Borrowed from earlier Near Eastern myths and legends

---

## However: The Critical Caveat

**This calculation is only as valid as the probability estimates assigned to each claim.**

If a Muslim apologist argues that the probability of any given alleged error being a *real* error is much lower, the final number changes dramatically:

| If Average P(Real) = | Then P(No Errors) = |

|---------------------|---------------------|

| 0.50 (my estimate) | 4.83 × 10⁻⁷⁰ |

| 0.25 | 0.32^137 ≈ 1.8 × 10⁻¹⁹ |

| 0.10 | 0.90^137 ≈ 5.2 × 10⁻⁷ |

| 0.05 | 0.95^137 ≈ 0.0009 (0.09%) |

| 0.01 | 0.99^137 ≈ 0.25 (25%) |

If you believe the Quran is divinely revealed, you would assign much lower probabilities to each alleged error, and the final number would be much higher.

Final Assessment

The mathematical critique demonstrates that, using standard historical-critical scholarship, the probability of the Quran being error-free is astronomically small.

However, the argument is probabilistic, not definitive. It depends entirely on the probability inputs, which are subjective judgments based on historical-critical methodology.

Do you guys agree with my assessment or no, also any critiques?

In the Islamic tradition, Muhammad was called "rasul" (messenger, emissary) and "nabi" (prophet).

In the religious sense, a messenger or emissary (rasul in Ar.) is a person who received an important revelation (holy book) of a certain law intended to be preached to the community (for example: Moses and David). A prophet (nabi in Ar., evrobjesnik in Bosnian) is a person inspired by God to call people to faith and convey the divine word, without necessarily receiving a specific holy book.

According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad began preaching Islam in 610 in Mecca, publicly from 613, then moved to Medina in July 622 and died at the beginning of June 632.

In the Koran, the suras are not arranged in chronological order, but the most eminent Muslim university, Al-Ahzar, has officially accepted the designation of the suras from Mecca - according to their claim, for the first 13 years of Muhammad's preaching of Islam, and those from Medina - for the next 10 years of Muhammad's preaching of Islam. Of the 114 surahs in the Koran, 86 are considered "Meccanic" (revealed in Mecca), only 28 were revealed in Medina.

In the 86 surahs from Mecca, Muhammad is never called "rasul" (messenger, emissary) and "nabi" (prophet). How to explain this?

Even in these 28 surahs from Medina, the call to attention that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah is strange.

Koran 33.40. Muhammad is not the parent of any of your people, but he is Allah's messenger (rasul) and the seal of the prophets (al-nabijina).

Here either Muhammad has a personality disorder and is referring to himself in the third person, or someone is directly addressing people from Muhammad's circle in the context of Muhammad giving up his adopted son in order to steal his wife. However, we know that according to Islamic tradition, Gabriel conveyed revelations to Muhammad and that Gabriel never directly addressed people from Muhammad's circle.

In other verses from Medina, Muhammad is in most cases indirectly called the messenger and prophet of Allah, although according to tradition, Gabriel conveyed revelations to him directly.

Quran 48.26. When the disbelievers filled their hearts with zeal, the zeal of pagans, Allah sent down His calmness upon His Messenger and upon the believers...

48.27. Allah will fulfill the dream of His Messenger that you will certainly enter the Sacred House in safety - if Allah wills...

48.28. He has sent His Messenger with guidance and the true religion, that He may exalt it above all religions...

48.29. Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and his followers are strict towards the disbelievers, but merciful among themselves...

Who is saying this here and to whom?

In the verses from Medina where someone in the Quran addresses Muhammad as "prophet" (nabi), some usually say "we", and Allah is always spoken of in the third person.

Quran 33.50. O Prophet (nabi), We have made lawful to you as your wives those to whom you have given their dowries, and those in your right hand whom Allah has given you from the spoils...

This is not an argument that Muslims worship Satan, nor is it an argument that Allah and Satan are the same being. Islam and Christianity both clearly distinguish between the Creator and Satan/Iblis as a created being.

The question is narrower

When we compare the actions and descriptions attributed to Allah in the Qur'an with the actions attributed to Satan/Iblis in both the Qur'an and the Bible, are there similarities?

And if there are similarities, what theological questions do they raise when compared with the biblical concept of God as the God of truth? The purpose here is not to make an accusation, but to examine the descriptions side by side.

1. Guiding and Misguiding People

One of the clearest areas of comparison concerns guidance and misguidance.

The Qur'an repeatedly states that Allah guides and misguides "Allah leaves astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills."
Qur'an 14:4

Similarly "Whom Allah guides, he is the rightly guided; but whom He sends astray, never will you find for them a protecting guide."
Qur'an 18:17

The Qur'an also describes Allah sealing the hearts of certain people "Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil."
Qur'an 2:7

At the same time, Iblis describes his own purpose as leading humanity away from the right path "Because You have put me in error, I will surely sit in wait for them on Your straight path."
Qur'an 7:16

And "I will surely mislead them all, except Your chosen servants among them."
Qur'an 15:39-40

The Bible similarly describes Satan as one who deceives
"The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel..."
2 Corinthians 4:4

And "The deceiver of the whole world"
Revelation 12:9

The similarity is not that Allah and Satan have the same role. Islamic theology understands Allah's misguidance as judgment upon those who reject truth, while Iblis misguides out of rebellion.

However, the category itself is interesting:

Both Allah and Satan/Iblis are described as being involved in whether humans arrive at or remain away from truth.

2. Deception and Concealing Reality

Another area of comparison is deception or concealment.

The Qur'an describes Allah as a planner against those who oppose Him

"And they planned, but Allah planned. And Allah is the best of planners."
Qur'an 8:30

And "They schemed, and Allah schemed. And Allah is the best of schemers."
Qur'an 3:54

The Arabic term makr can carry the idea of planning, strategy, or counter-scheming. Muslim commentators generally understand this as Allah defeating the plots of His enemies.

Iblis, however, is also described as using deception "Then Satan whispered to them to make apparent to them that which was concealed from them..."
Qur'an 7:20

And "Satan promises them and arouses desire in them. But Satan does not promise them except delusion."
Qur'an 4:120

The Bible presents Satan's defining characteristic as deception "He is a liar and the father of lies."
John 8:44

And "The ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world."
Revelation 12:9

Again, the comparison is not saying the texts make Allah and Satan equivalent. The comparison is that both Allah and Satan are described using language involving concealment, deception, or strategic action, although the moral explanation behind those actions differs.

3. Testing Humanity

Both traditions also describe humanity being tested.

The Qur'an says "He who created death and life to test you as to which of you is best in deed."
Qur'an 67:2

Allah tests humans to reveal their obedience and faithfulness.

But Iblis also tests humans through temptation "Indeed, Satan is an enemy to you, so take him as an enemy. He only invites his party to be among the companions of the Blaze."
Qur'an 35:6

The Bible also presents Satan testing humans.

In the story of Job, Satan challenges Job's faithfulness "Stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face."
Job 1:11

And Jesus tells Peter "Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat."
Luke 22:31

The similarity is that both God and Satan are connected to human testing. The difference is intention God tests to reveal and strengthen faith. Satan tests to destroy faith.

4. The Biblical Concept of God as Truth

This comparison becomes especially important because the Bible repeatedly connects God's identity with truth.

For example "God is not man, that he should lie..."
Numbers 23:19

"The LORD is the God of truth."
Jeremiah 10:10

"It is impossible for God to lie."
Hebrews 6:18

Jesus describes God as "Your word is truth."
John 17:17

In the biblical framework, truth is not simply something God communicates. Truth is part of God's character.

That is why Satan's primary description in Scripture is so significant "There is no truth in him... he is a liar and the father of lies."
John 8:44

The biblical contrast is therefore God reveals reality. Satan distorts reality. God brings people into truth. Satan blinds people from truth.

The Question This Raises

The comparison does not prove that Allah is Satan. That would be an inaccurate conclusion. The more careful question is

If the God of Abraham is consistently described as the God of truth, and Satan is consistently described as the deceiver, how should we understand a theological system where God is also described as actively misguiding, sealing hearts, concealing matters, and using strategic deception?

Muslim theology answers this by arguing that Allah's actions are not deception in the same moral category as Satan's deception. Rather, Allah judges, tests, and allows people to remain in error because of their rejection. Christian theology approaches this differently by emphasizing that God is truth itself and does not deceive

"God cannot lie."
Titus 1:2

Therefore, the deeper issue is not simply whether similar words appear. The issue is whether the character and methods attributed to God are consistent with the biblical understanding of the God of Abraham as the God whose nature is truth. That is the theological tension worth examining.

General Muslim narrative puts Kaaba as the first building in the world. It's built by Adam and then rebuilt by Abraham. Mecca was a big, well-known capitol city and center of trade routes and religious activities in Arabia. Hajj is the oldest religious ritual of humanity. People from across all Arabia and nearby regions came to Mecca to perform the Hajj. It was a common practice among all Arab tribes. Over time its original meaning was forgotten and manipulated and reshaped by people. Islam presented itself as a way to correct this and returned the ritual to its original roots. So these are the fundamentals of Muslim narrative even though it has holes and not supported by the critical historical methods, it's widely accepted by Muslims.

It's not so hard to see Islam is formed around and deeply tied to Arabic language, identity, customs, practices, rituals and culture etc. at the time and Hajj is a crucial part of it. Therefore I find the view convincing that Islam is essentially a socio-political movement framed in religious cause. It may have begun as a simple belief initiative to reform the local society by a small group inside Quraysh but later developments clearly show that it became driven by tribal interests and ambitions for a coalition sought to dominate the region and later the world. After I read Peter Webb's article I found interesting anecdotes to support that and decided to open this debate.

Islamic Hajj as we know today was essentially a ritual specific to the Quraysh tribe which the prophet was a member of and this claim can be supported by the remnants of pre-Islamic Arabic poetry. Although some revisionist influence can be seen in the transmission of these poems after the rise of Islam, it is still possible to identify those alterations and reconstruct a more authentic and accurate picture of the period.

Contrary to the traditional narrative that presents Mecca as the religious and commercial hearth of all Arabia, a Kaaba centered pilgrimage ritual did not spread widely across the peninsula and barely found a place even within the Hijaz itself. For example among the pagan tribes of Medina, neither Kaaba was regarded as the most sacred nor was pilgrimage given significant importance. The Christian and Jewish communities around the region also showed no special interest in Mecca or Kaaba. It was no different from any other pagan temple for them.

As you move away the sphere of Quraysh influence, the importance given to Mecca and Kaaba drops sharply. Going further south or north, it disappears completely. In pre-islamic poems from those regions, there is not much mention of Kaaba as something sacred. At most, some mentions it vaguely as a symbol of Quraysh. This is not surprising, since all across Arabia there were tribe specific templates/icons and pilgrimage practices. Just like Mecca, these were limited to their own regions. There were no large religious groups traveling from all over Arabia or the near regions to gather and pray in Mecca.

The same poems also show that pre-Islamic Arabs didnt connect the Kaaba with Abraham in any way. The presense of Abraham and Adam into this narrative appears to be an Islamic-era addition. This was not a minor revision. It not only elevated an otherwise ordinary tribe like Quraysh but also provided them with religious and political legitimacy.

When we examine pre Islamic pagan pilgrimage rituals, we see that they were carried over into the Islamic period almost unchanged but a few details. This is because pilgrimage was not just a simple religious protocol but also a display of power that symbolized the ruling tribe’s political authority, prestige and identity. Even if their authority extended over only a limited area, image of the tribe was a sensitive and important matter for Quraysh, just as it was for other Arab tribes. Hosting travelers who happened to pass through Mecca, ensuring their safety and entertaining them with festivals was an integral part of general Arab tradition.

Given that the existing system was already functioning, wiping everything out and building a completely new narrative and order would have been both riskier and more costly. The most sensible strategy was to transform specific symbols and continue certain practices with small adjustments. This process would preserve continuity and allow the new belief system to be absorbed much more easily by embedding it in a ritual language people already knew. This approach would both retain existing benefits and open the door to a broader reach with greater profit potential. The purpose here was to implement the story that this was not something new but simply a returning of the original one.

As Arab tribes were forced into a new unity under Islam, they needed a shared identity and more importantly a reason to embrace it. And this identity could be nothing but Quraysh's. One of the key elements used to solidify this identity was turning concepts unique to Quraysh into something that belonged to all of Arabia. And Hajj was the central mechanism through this transformation was made visible, ritualized and widely accepted. After all Quraysh were no longer just the masters of Mecca, but of the entire peninsula.

Reconstructing the past according to their own agenda and creating a new history shaped by imagination rather than realities became a vital part of this process. By doing so they not only reinforced their authority and prestige within Mecca, but also shaped the collective memory of the wider Arabian communites. Over time these reconstructed narratives became widely accepted as truth giving Quraysh both a historical and ideological foundation to legitimize and continue their political, religious and economic dominance.

It is not hard to see how successful Quraysh’s dominance in later periods as well. After the conquest of Mecca and following the Prophet’s death, political power and authority was not shared with the Ansar or other tribes and instead turned into an internal power contest between the elite families within Quraysh only. Entitlement to become the caliphate was restricted to Quraysh also. The Ridda Wars were not a simple case of apostasy but rebellion against Quraysh authority and the identity they were enforcing.

In the end Quraysh did not only impose their identity on other Arabs, they also managed to transform Mecca from a local trading small-town into a global brand. So the Hajj was not only a strategic tool for spreading Quraysh identity first across Arabia and then beyond it, but also a major commercial success story.

I’m wondering if you all would be willing to take a critical view of the claims I’m sending below:

For claim 8 it’s about the mysterious letters of the Quran and the number of times they appear in chapter 19. This is one of the claims I believe I can personally contest. When looking at the mysterious letters, for letters like Ya they count alif masqarah and hamzas seated on top of the letter ya as occurrences of ya (which I think makes no sense, since they’re not the same letter and only look similar). On the other hand, Rashad Khalifa even during his life was preaching about Surah 19 having 798 letters, and coincidentally, he lives for 19,798 days (if you include the start and end point. In reality, he lived for 19,797 days). As mentioned, though, if one includes the start point of November 19 and the endpoint of January 31 it comes out to be 19,798. I still can’t get over the fact that he during his life preached that Surah 19 has 798 mysterious letter occurrences and he himself lived for essentially that many days.

However, on the other hand, in released FBI files on Rashad Khalifa’s life, it’s stated that he was born on November 18.

https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/fbifiles/scientists/rashadkhalifa-fbi1.pdf
(Page 14)

In that case, my counterpoint above of him having in reality only lived for 19,797 days wouldn’t be applicable anymore. Now he would’ve lived for 19,798 days.

In any case, whether you use an exclusive on inclusive count, it just so happens that Rashad Khalifa lived for 19,798 days. It could’ve been 20,100 days, or 17,100 days, but instead it happened to be on the 19,798th day (which, once again, chapter 19 according to Rashad had 798 occurrences of the mysterious letters).

Point 5 isn’t elaborated but during Rashad’s life interstate 19 was built running through Tucson Az (where he lived at) and is also the only highway in the US to use the metric system. Furthermore, another interstate highway goes through Tucson, that being interstate 10 (if you combine these 2 roads you end up at 29, the same number as the number of chapters that include the mysterious letters in the Quran).

If you also count the number of days from November 19 to January 31 you end up with 74, which is the Surah in which the number 19 first appears.

Finally, for point 11, it’s not mentioned either but the numbers 1230 come from 2 things. First, it’s the abjad value of the name Rashad Khalifa and also if you count the verses of only initialed (mysterious letters) surahs, Q 19:1 is the 1230th verse and Q 19:98 is the 1327th verse. This is by counting only the verses in chapters 2,3,7,10,11,12,13,14,15,19 since they are the ones that contain the mysterious letters.

Once again, I would be so grateful if you could take a look at these claims and give me your view on them. I don’t know what to think with this information being present at hand.

The claims that strike me as the most impressive are him living for 19,798 days and the 19x1230x1327 claim.

Over the last few months I've spent a lot of time reading, discussing, and debating Islam with Muslims. I've read apologetic articles, watched debates, examined arguments for Muhammad's prophethood, looked into manuscript evidence, prophecy claims, preservation, and many of the common evidences Muslims present for the Quran. Along the way I also realized that I was asking too many different questions at once. Every discussion seemed to branch into ten different directions before we ever established the foundation.

After all of those conversations, I've found myself coming back to one question over and over again. It isn't because I think Muslims don't have arguments. They clearly do. It also isn't because I think Christianity automatically wins by default. Christianity has its own historical claims that have to be defended. My question is much more basic than that.

Before I can evaluate anything the Quran says about Jesus, Moses, the Torah, Gabriel, the apostles, or previous revelation, I first have to answer one prior question.

Why should I believe that Muhammad's revelation came from the God of Abraham?

That question has to come first because everything else depends on it. Until that bridge is established, I don't see how the later claims can carry any authority. This is where I think Islam and Christianity are often treated as though they have the same burden of proof when they actually don't.

Christianity begins within an already existing covenantal story. Whether one accepts its conclusions or not, Jesus appears inside Israel's history. He is born into the covenant people. He is circumcised according to the Law. He worships in the Temple. He celebrates Passover. He debates other Jews using the Hebrew Scriptures. He quotes Moses, Isaiah, David, the Psalms, and the Prophets. Even His strongest claims are presented as fulfillment of what God had already revealed to Israel. His earliest followers are themselves Jews who already believe the God of Abraham has been revealing Himself throughout Israel's history. The New Testament exists because those followers became convinced that God had acted decisively through Jesus.

Islam begins differently. Muhammad appears roughly six centuries later, outside Israel, outside the covenant land, outside the Davidic line, outside the prophetic institutions established in the Old Testament, and outside the historical narrative that runs from Abraham through Moses, David, and the prophets. He then claims to receive revelation from the same God. That revelation tells us not only new information but also how previous revelation should now be understood. It tells us Jesus was not crucified, that previous communities misunderstood Jesus, that the Holy Spirit is Gabriel, that Muhammad is the final prophet, and that the Qur'an is now the final authority by which earlier revelation should be interpreted.

That is a fundamentally different claim. Because of that, I think Islam carries a different epistemic burden than Christianity. This is why I often feel like conversations go in circles. When I ask why I should accept Muhammad's authority, I'm often given arguments about fulfilled prophecies, preservation of the Qur'an, oral memorization, stylometric studies, the literary uniqueness of the Qur'an, scientific claims, linguistic beauty, or the historical success of Islam.

I am not saying those arguments are meaningless.What I am asking is what they actually establish. Suppose, for the sake of argument, I grant that the Quran is remarkably well preserved. That tells me something about the transmission of the text. It does not, by itself, establish that its source is divine.

Suppose I grant that Muhammad made an unusually specific prediction that later came true. That may increase the plausibility that something extraordinary happened. It still does not establish that the source was the God of Abraham rather than some other explanation.

Suppose I grant that the Quran possesses remarkable literary qualities unlike any other Arabic work. That tells me something about the text itself. It does not automatically establish divine authorship.

In each case, I see an additional step being taken that is rarely argued but frequently assumed. Something impressive happened. Therefore Muhammad is a prophet. Therefore the revelation came from the God of Abraham. Therefore the Quran has authority over previous revelation. Therefore previous revelation must now be reread through the Quran. Each one of those conclusions is a separate inference.

A cumulative case may make a conclusion more plausible, but it does not eliminate the need to justify each inferential step. The stronger the conclusion, the stronger the bridge needs to be. This is why I keep returning to the Old Testament. If we're discussing whether Muhammad is genuinely a prophet of the God of Abraham, then it seems reasonable that the Old Testament itself should provide the criteria for recognizing such a prophet. After all, that is the revelation Muhammad claims to confirm.

The Old Testament does not simply tell Israel to believe anyone who performs impressive signs or makes accurate predictions. In fact, Deuteronomy 13 explicitly warns that even if a sign or wonder comes to pass, that alone is not sufficient. The prophet must still be evaluated according to faithfulness to the God who has already revealed Himself. The miracle is not the primary test. Continuity with God's existing revelation is. That principle seems incredibly important.

The prophets of the Old Testament consistently arise within Israel's covenant history. They call Israel back to the covenant. They reaffirm God's promises. They build upon previous revelation. Even when they announce something radically new, such as the coming New Covenant, they do so as the continuation of the story God has already been telling.

Muhammad's claim appears different. His authority is not derived from Israel's existing covenantal structure. Rather, the authority of that structure becomes dependent upon accepting Muhammad first. Once Muhammad is accepted, the earlier revelation is then reread through the lens of the Quran.

That is the bridge I am struggling to cross. Why should a prophet arising outside Israel's covenant history become the definitive interpreter of Israel's covenant history? This is not me asking whether Muslims can find Muhammad in certain Old Testament passages after the fact. I understand that Muslims sincerely believe those connections exist. My question is prior to that.

If someone possessed only the Old Testament before Muhammad appeared, what within that text itself would have led them to expect not simply another prophet, but a prophet arising outside Israel who would become the final interpreter of the entire covenantal story? That is the question I haven't been able to answer.

To be clear, I am not saying Christianity is therefore true. Christianity also has enormous historical claims that must be evaluated. Did Jesus really live? Was He crucified? Did His followers genuinely believe they encountered Him after His death? Are the apostolic witnesses historically reliable? Those questions deserve serious historical investigation. But those are different questions.

Christianity asks me to evaluate whether God acted publicly within an already existing covenantal story. Islam asks me first to accept Muhammad's private prophetic revelation and then, on that basis, reinterpret the entire preceding covenantal story. Those are different epistemic structures, and therefore they require different kinds of evidence.

So this is the question I would genuinely like Muslims to answer. Before appealing to the Quran, before appealing to hadith, before appealing to tafsir, before appealing to later Islamic theology, what establishes that Muhammad is a prophet of the God of Abraham with authority to reinterpret everything that came before him?

Because if that bridge can be established, then the later discussion becomes meaningful. If it cannot, then every later argument ultimately depends upon already assuming the very conclusion it is trying to prove. That is the question I keep coming back to, and after months of discussion, I still think it is the place where the entire conversation either succeeds or fails.

Prophet made prophecies. Sometimes Allah used to correct him

This didn't selectively happened in

1. Marriage with Ayesha. 9 or 17. Still gives weapon to critics when prophet is 50
2. Timing of adoption ending ayats after marrying adopted son divorced wife and how that divorce happened.

point 1, 2 establishes not being able to see through pr disasters & time restrictions where Islam says for all time but cant relate to modern morals while itself started as modern religion. You can claim that Islam is not obligated to pr and other stuff but reality is that claim of timeless perfection, for everyone is a pr in itself. The Islam modernized the 7th century like abandoning many things like idol worship, etc but cant relate to modern moral standards. In point 2, It shows mismanaged timing of ayats which could have came before.

You can claim some prophecies doesnt mean complete foreknowledge but reality is that it undermines timeless perfection claim. 80:1-10 did active small stakes correction to frowning incident for prophet but it was absent in point 1(high stakes) while point 2 ayat timing was convenient.

The stories, prophecies is all about middle east, rome & others. It doesn't cover whole world like east asia.A clear geo restrictions.

Quran claims itself, literally Quran itself as easy. Average muslim cant easily relate to this. They face things like

1. learn arabic but still uncertain about what word means
2. translations (with many versions) but uncertain if they capture the ayat spirit correctly.

4:82 asks to understand Quran deeply and not just memorizing by rot. Interpretation job is of scholars only narrative is also heavy. The reality actively undermines the Quran's claim.

Justifications for all of these requires Allah's wisdom/plans, 7th century norms, man made morals, etc which doesn't sits with Islam's claim of timeless, perfect, for all world.

The clear time and geo restrictions undermines the claim of divinely sent.

Muslims often say that "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for God. If that's true, then the name "Allah" isn't a unique divine name at all—it's just the word that happened to be used because Muhammad spoke Arabic.

That raises an interesting question.

If the final prophet had been Greek, would Muslims today be calling God by a Greek name? If the final prophet had been Persian, would God's name be Persian? If the final prophet had been Chinese, would Muslims around the world be using a Chinese name for God?

If the answer is yes, then the name by which God is known depends entirely on the language and culture in which Islam began.

In other words, the only reason Muslims call God "Allah" is because Islam originated in Arabia.

That makes God's name historically and linguistically contingent rather than uniquely or universally identifiable.

Islam claims to present a universal God for all people, yet the way God is named, addressed, and ritually worshipped is rooted in one particular human language and one particular historical setting.

That doesn't make Islam stand out from other religions. It makes it look like every other religion, where the language of the founder becomes the language of the faith.

https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/s/kzDxE1UXJU

For context, someone in the r/Islam chat commented on how Islam is a misunderstood religion specifically regarding jihad, so I wanted to comment on both sides of it. This includes both radicalism in the faith and the majority thought within it too, and how both sides are inherently there but even the people within it misunderstand it from both angles. I’m referencing only the surahs of the Quran, specifically Surah 2:106 and Surah 9, and yet I still got hit with the banhammer for trolling.

So I got questions for y’all because clearly this ain’t a conversation they wanna have over there:

1. Can you truly separate Islam from its radical and violent sentiments against Christians, Jews, disbelievers, if you are trying to live a proper life in accordance with the teachings of Muhammad?
   
2. If world terrorist organizations are determined to reestablish a caliphate and Islamic rule under the jurisdiction of Islam using violent methods and means to aid in their conquest, is this a condemnable or honorable offense and why using your surahs and hadiths to back this up?

Let's start off with a thought experiment, imagine you die in a car crash, and an angel comes to you, this angle announces your death and presents 2 options to you. The angel can either send you back to the void, where you used to be before you were born, the nothingness, where you can't regret, get depressed, and you also can't feel pleasure or happiness. Just like how you felt before you were born. Or the angel can flip a metaphysical arbitrary coin. The coin has a pure 50/50 chance of landing on either heads or tails, if the coin lands on heads, you go to Heaven forever, if the coin lands on tails, you go to Hell forever.

Most people I have presented this clause to always pick the void, reasonably so, why take the risk? But what if it was 80/20 in favor of Heaven? Still, everyone says no, at 90/10 is when I have observed people starting to consider switching sides. From my own perspective, I think you should always go to the void, even if it was 99.99999999999999999999% chance of going to Heaven, there's still a tad bit where you could get unlucky and end up in Hell, well, forever. Most people simply cannot grasp infinite time, and that's why I think they naively pick the coin at 90/10 and above.

My logic is simply, the void is always the clear choice, it's like multiplying by 0, if you pick the void, you will never be able to regret your choice, it's the purest form of neutrality. Therefore, if Heaven is not guaranteed, I wouldn't pick the coin. But I digress.

The fact that most people start to tip over at 90/10, proves to me that most people understand that the suffering of Hell is greater than the pleasure of Heaven. So, when I read about a religion like Islam, and its prophet says that 999 out 1000 humans are going to suffer in hell forever but yet claim their God is the Most Merciful. I have a hard time understanding that. It seems to me like suffering for the sake of suffering, like the world was designed by God from the start to contain more suffering than pleasure/happiness, and if you believe in Abrahamic religions then you believe there's nothing after the Day of Judgement. No grander purpose for humanity, no further ultimate goal, it's suffering and misery for eternity for so many people for seemingly no reason after everything has been set.

The term "Most Merciful" is a relativistic term, so when God says he's the Most Merciful, I think we can all agree that he has to be more merciful than any of his creation. Now I want you to imagine the Most Merciful human to ever live and imagine we gave this person this clause:

"Will you throw people into eternal suffering for a finite crime done against you?"

Now obviously there's no way to tell what they would say but imagine we asked a random person in the street, what are the chances that this random person we ask, is the Most Merciful human we are looking for, around ~120 billion humans have walked this earth so it's 1/120 billion, or 0.000000000083% chance. So, no way this person is who we are looking far, statistics wise it's almost guaranteed that the Most Merciful Human is more merciful than this random guy, and why go ask in the street, I for example, I'm a random human and I tell you my answer to that clause is "No" but the Most Merciful human is guaranteed to be more merciful than me?

Now imagine the gap between God's attributes and that of a mere man, it has to be a crazy gap, no? Especially considering how many times God repeats that he is loving and merciful. Then God has to be several magnitudes of mercy above the Most Merciful human, and yet God's answer to the clause is a resounding "Yes! to most of my creation too!"

This idea that women in islam should cover up to prevent men from being attracted to them is honestly beyond fucked up.

The theory is that if you have hit puberty as a woman, that’s when you start wearing it. So why do children wear it? I see toddlers wearing it?

Let’s say a woman gets her first period at the age of 14, why would she feel the need to wear the hijab at the ripe age of eight? And even if she has the choice to wear it, it’s still weird. Because of what it stands for.

Furthermore, this idea that it stops men from being aroused is bullshit because it can happen whilst wearing anything. Anything under the fucking sun, that includes the hijab.

Women experience sa at any time and age. And as an sa victim myself, i promise you that wearing the hijab or any other form of modest clothing will not automatically mean that you won’t experience sa. There are plenty of different types of sa, some women don’t even know that they’ve gone through it, we cannot win.

I have heard stories of women who have said to me that they have had creeps get onto them whilst wearing modest clothing.

Let a woman wear her hair down and look good. Don’t bother giving her good hair if she has to hide it, pathetic.

Short and sweet (ask for sources for any statement I make).

Hadith

https://sunnah.com/muslim:2652c

Summary of the hadith:

Moses and Adam are arguing in front of Allah

Moses blames Adam for his act (of eating the fruit) that led human out of paradise

Adam refutes Moses by saying:
"How can you blame me for an act which Allah has decreed for me before my creation"

The Prophet Muhammad confirms that Adam won the argument

Logic

Adam absolves himself from moral accountability.

Why? Because the act is written in the eternal Divine Decree before his creation.

This applies to every human's actions in history too.

If I kill an innocent person, Adam's argument is just as valid for my case too.

How can you blame me for an act that was written for me before my creation?

Conclusion

Allah sends people to Heaven and Hell without them having any moral accountability. Allah is punishing robots he programmed. Allah is unjust.

Their responses & the refutation

Response #1: "Oh but it's based on Allah's foreknowledge, Allah knows so he write it down"

Refutation:

You just committed shirk (associated partners with Allah). Let's see how.

You're not Muslim unless you believe in the 6 pillars of faith.

One of these pillars is Qadar (Divine Decree).

Qadar has 4 pillars (simplified):

1. Knowledge: Allah knows all that occurs
2. Writing: Allah writes all that occurs
3. Will: Allah wills all that occurs
4. Creation: Allah creates all that occurs

Allah doesn't act in stages (I know, then I write), but that's just a detail.

There's 3 types of Tawheed (oneness of God):

1. Tawheed al Rububiya (oneness of Allah in lordship)
2. Tawheed al-Uluhiya (oneness of Allah in worship)
3. Tawheed al Asma' wal Sifaat (oneness of Allah in his names & attributes)

Violating any of these types of Tawheed takes you outside the fold of Islam.

Long story short, Tawheed al Rububiya implies that Allah alone is in control of the 4 pillars of Qadar.

Meaning what?

Allah ALONE knows, writes, wills and creates.

Here's the issue if you say it's based on "Allah foreknowing me choice"...you become a partner in the pillar of Writing.

How?

You truly originate a choice and Allah writes it down in his eternal Divine Decree? You become a co-author of the Divine Decree, you become a co-director with Allah.

Allah merely wrote down your choice for you, he became your scribe, Allah is now serving his creation.

You are now the author of a part of the Divine Decree, because you truly originated it by your own free will, therefore you partnered with Allah in writing his eternal Divine Decree.

Shirk. You violated Tawheed al Rububiya. You're no longer Muslim.

Response #2: "The hadith is talking about the effect, not the act!"

Refutation:

(this is the defense of their scholars)

Read the English, read the Arabic; both are clear it's referring to the act.

It also doesn't change anything in essence, you're just moving it down the chain of event. That effect is essentially a cause too in a posterior chain of events.

Response #3: "But Adam repented!"

Refutation:

That repentance was written for him before his creation too, it doesn't change anything.

You're also presupposing no contradictions.

This argument ends Islam completely.

Mind you, 75%+ of Muslims are Asharis, and Asharis believe in Occasionalism to begin with, so it's already over. No free will.

https://www.academia.edu/144237576/Her_Silence_is_her_Consent_The_Theological_Influence_on_Child_Marriage_in_Islam

I liked reading the study and it is largely correct, so certainly do not mean to trash it when I raise some points/questions.

1. I do not understand why the study compares marriage-contracts with minors, to other contracts with minors, wihtout paying more attention to Khyar-Al-Bulugh i.e. Option of Puberty. The 'Option' applies to marriage contracts as it does to others.

https://core.ac.uk/display/18219927  The rights of children in Islâm By Khâlid Dhorat

Attached pdf: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/18219927.pdf

"Option of puberty

4.4.1) KHIYAR AL-BULOGH : OPTION OF PUBERTY IN MARRIAGE

4.4.1 a) Preliminary

A minor cannot legally enter into a binding contract nor is a contract entered in to by a guardian on his or her behalf binding on a minor The minor can, on attaining majority, ratify such a contract if he or she so chooses. A Muslim marriage is normally governed by the same principle of law as applied to contracts entered into on behalf of minors. This right of dissolution of marriage on attaining majority is called Khiyar al-Bulugh or option of puberty................

The option of puberty is one of the safeguards which the Muslim Law provides against an undesirable marriage. The basic law underlying this doctrine is to protect a minor from an unscrupulous or undesirable exercise of authority by his or her guardian for marriage. The right has been given to the minors to dissolve the marriage on attaining majority where the guardian showed a want of affection and discretion by contracting the minor in an undesirable marriage.
 ........
Waiver: A minor can on attaining puberty waive her right and submit to the marriage. Anything done by the minor during the period of minority would not destroy the right which accrues to her only on the attainment of puberty.
Cohabitation during the period of minority with or without the girl's consent does not destroy her right. A minor is not capable of giving consent to any act......

If the husband of a minor girl should be intimate with her during her minority, then the option of the minor shall not be lost. ………."

1. The study is not explicit that Bukhari specifically writes the Rule that it is permissible to marry off and hand over for consummation with a minor based on Q65:4 and that he illustrates that rule with Aisha. So Islamic Law specifically made it permissible to consummate with a minor based on Q65:4 and the example of Muhammed and Aisha.

She does include Little, but did not copy his point from his blog.

https://islamicorigins.com/why-i-studied-the-aisha-hadith/

>According to the Khurasani Hadith scholar Muḥammad b. ʾIsmāʿīl al-Buḵārī (d. 256/870), the ʿĀʾišah hadith exemplifies the following topic: “The father’s marrying off his prepubescent girls (ʾinkāḥ al-rajul walada-hu al-ṣiḡār) [is permitted] according to His (the Sublime)’s statement, “and those who have not menstruated” (wa-allāʾī lam taḥiḍna) [Q. 65:4]; He set their post-marital waiting period (ʿiddah) at three months, [in the case of marriages that are consummated] before puberty (qabla al-bulūḡ).”[17]

The Current Grand-Muti of KSA (Saleh Al Fawzan) wrote this fatwa over a decade ago https://islamekk-net.translate.goog/play.php?catsmktba=851&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US and it specifically uses that Aisha was a consentless minor at consummation to argue that such should remain permissible. The fatwa is discussed in Baugh's Minor Marriage in Early Islamic Law and shows that Aisha had no opinion to give at initial nikkah, nor at consummation.

I show the Bukhari version with several translations and with Fatwas that show Aisha's minority at consummation is actively used. https://www.reddit.com/r/Unislamicmemes/comments/1mnh8cs/bukhari_5133_using_q654_to_show_the/

and

https://www.reddit.com/r/CritiqueIslam/comments/1pbwb6k/the_4_canonical_collections_that_specifically_use/

note that the fatwa about marrying a 13 year old clearly shows that different hadiths apply depending on whether the girl is baligh or not. The 'consents with her silence' hadiths clearly refer to older, baligh, virgins while Aisha is clearly used a a younger, saghira, at consummation.

1. She does not include the fact that all madhabs included "Pregnancy" as one of the 'signs of puberty' which clearly shows that intercourse could begin before girls showed any of the other signs of puberty. https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim2/comments/1maq7vl/pregnancy_is_a_sign_of_puberty_adulthood_in_islam/

2. I like the title as memorable, but unfortunately: the title refers to older baligh virgins. While Younger saghira virgins can be handed over for consummation based on Bukhari 5133.

Sahih Al-Bukhari- translated by Muhammad Muhsin Khan. ISBN: 9960-717-31-3 (set) 9960-717-32-1 (v.I) 1997 Maktaba Dar us Salam, Riyadh.

“67-THE BOOK OF AN-NIKAH (The Wedlock)

(۳۹)باب إنكاح الرجل ولده الصغار، لقول الله تعالى: (والتي لم يحضن» [الطلاق: 4]فجعل عدتها ثلاثة أشهر قبل البلوغ.

>(39) CHAPTER. Giving one's young children in marriage (is permissible). By virtue of the Statement of Allah: "...and for those who have no (monthly) courses (le. they are still immature)..."(V. 65.4) And the 'Idda for the girl before puberty is three months (in the above Verse).

>

>5133. Narrated 'Aishah that the Prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (.e. till his death).

He (Muhammad) stipulated for them that they should neither conceal nor hide anything; if they did so, then they would have no covenant.

They concealed a leather bag containing the wealth and jewelry of Ḥuyayy ibn Akhṭab, which he had brought with him to Khaybar when Banū al-Naḍīr had been expelled.

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to the paternal uncle of Ḥuyayy ibn Akhṭab:

"What happened to the leather bag of Ḥuyayy that he brought from al-Naḍīr?"

He replied:

"The expenditures and the wars consumed it."

He said:

"The covenant is recent, and the wealth was more than that."

So the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) handed him over to al-Zubayr, and he subjected him to torture (azhaab). Before that, he had entered a ruin. He said:

"I saw Ḥuyayy walking around a ruin here."

So they went and searched around, and they found the leather bag in the ruin.

---

Sahih

Source: Dia al-Azami, al-Jami' al-Kamil fi al-Hadith al-Sahih al-Shamil - T. al-Darrussalam, 8/399-400 ᠎

https://imgur.com/a/vwYduiU ᠎ While several modern "Kuffar" organizations have outlawed and banned torture of individuals (even during war) (1), Muhammad appears to have tortured one of the Jews of Khaybar to extract information about a bag of jewels.

This Bag of Jewels did not belong to him, but rather his nephew. When asked about their absence, he feigned ignorance and made an excuse. But Muhammad did not find him innocent, and thus had him subjected to torture. This torture was severe enough for this man to reveal what information he had: That he saw his nephew walking around a ruin. The bag was found in the ruin.

The fact that the man here was a criminal does not change the fact that torturing him for the sake of extracting information was wrong.

---

-# (1) See the following:

-# - Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5 -# - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 7 -# - UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Part 1, Article 2.2 -# - Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Articles 2 and 3

- Meaning of Azhaab:

᠎

- Lanes Lexicon and Habib Anthony Salmone:

عذّبهُ, inf. n. تَعْذِيبٌ, He punished, castigated, or chastised, him: (S, O, Msb, K:) [and he, or it, tormented, or tortured, him:] originally, he beat him: then, he punished him in any painful manner. (Msb.)

Source: Edward William Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, Entry under '-Dh-B

عَذَاْب (pl. أَعْذِبَة & a. عَذَابَات ), Punishment chastisement, castigation. b. Pain; torture.

Source: Habib Anthony Salmone, An Advanced Learner's Arabic-English Dictionary, Entry under '-Dh-B

• For both: https://quranx.com/Dictionaries/%D8%B9%D8%B0%D8%A8

- Hans Wehr:

᠎ - Hans Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, p. 701 ᠎

- J. G. Hava

᠎ - J. G. Hava, An Arabic-English Dictionary for the Use of Students, p. 452 ᠎

- Penrice:

᠎ - John Penrice, A Dictionary and Gloss of the Qur'an, p. 93 ᠎

- M. G. Farid:

᠎ - Malik Ghulam Farid, Dictionary of the Holy Qur'an, p. 559 ᠎

- Explanation:

Azhaab is the same word used in the Qur'an to explain not only the divine punishment that can come from God in this world, but also the punishment of the afterlife. Dictionaries regularly define it as a severe punishment, and specifically torture and torment. Torture is defined as:

Torture is the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain. It is widely used to extract information, punish, coerce, or intimidate

Azhaab does include an infliction of pain, and not a small amount of it. Additionally, the purpose here was to extract information, thus it most definitely falls under torture. The severity of the pain must also not have been severe enough for the person to relent and give information, which he did.

Thus the correct translation of "Azhaab" in this verse is "Torture".

Further Authentication:

Ḥammād ibn Salamah said:

“ʿUbayd Allāh ibn ʿUmar informed us, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar, that:

‘The Messenger of Allah ﷺ fought the people of Khaybar until he forced them to seek refuge in their fortress. He gained control over the crops, the land, and the palm trees. Then they made peace with him upon the condition that they would be expelled from it, while they would retain whatever their riding animals could carry (1).

For the Messenger of Allah ﷺ would belong the yellow and the white (2), meaning the gold and silver.

He stipulated to them:

“Do not conceal anything and do not hide anything. For if you do so, then there is no covenant (dhimmah) (3) nor treaty (ʿahd) (4) for you.”

They then concealed a leather pouch (misk) containing wealth and jewelry belonging to Ḥuyayy ibn Akhṭab. He had carried it with him to Khaybar when the Banū al-Naḍīr were expelled.

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to the uncle of Ḥuyayy ibn Akhṭab:

“What happened to the pouch of Ḥuyayy which he brought from al-Naḍīr?”

He replied:

“The expenses and wars consumed it.”

He said:

“The covenant is recent, and the wealth is greater than that.”

So the Messenger of Allah ﷺ handed him over to al-Zubayr, who subjected him to Tortue.

Previously, this man had entered a ruined place and said:

“I saw Ḥuyayy walking around in a ruin here.”

So they went and searched around, and they found the pouch in the ruin.

Then the Messenger of Allah ﷺ killed the two sons of Abū al-Ḥuqayq — one of whom was the husband of Ṣafiyyah — because of the breach (nakth) (5) of the covenant which they had violated.’” (6)

In this authentic Sunnah there is:

reliance upon circumstantial evidence (shawāhid al-ḥāl) and outward indications (al-amārāt al-ẓāhirah);

the punishment of those under suspicion (ahl al-tuham);

the permissibility of making a treaty based upon conditions;

and the annulment of a covenant when they violate what was stipulated for them (1).

Among the wisdoms contained in it is:

Allah’s humiliation of His enemies by their own hands and through their own actions. Otherwise, He — Glorified is He — was capable (2) of revealing the treasure to His Messenger ﷺ, so that he could have taken it by force (ʿanwatan) (3). However, there were wisdoms and benefits in taking it in this manner, and in the humiliation of the disbelievers through their own hands, and Allah knows best.

In some chains of this story it is mentioned that the cousin of Kinānah confessed to the wealth when the Messenger of Allah ﷺ handed him over to al-Zubayr, and al-Zubayr punished (ʿadhdhabahu) him.

In this is evidence for the validity of the confession of a person who has been coerced, when the wealth appears with him (4).

And that if he is punished in order to make him confess to stolen property, then he confesses and the stolen property is found with him: his hand is cut off.

This is the correct view without doubt.

This is not the establishment of the prescribed punishment (ḥadd) (5) based upon a confession that he was forced into; rather, it is based upon the presence of the stolen property in his possession, which was discovered through the confession.

(1) Riding animals (rikāb — الرِّكَاب): The term refers to camels used for riding and travel. It has no singular form from the same wording. (Mukhtār al-Ṣiḥāḥ, p. 254; al-Qāmūs, p. 117).

(2) “The yellow and the white” (al-ṣafrāʾ wa al-bayḍāʾ — الصفراء والبيضاء): These are expressions referring to gold and silver respectively.

(3) Covenant (dhimmah — الذِّمَّة): Ibn al-Athīr said:

“Al-dhimmah and al-dhimām have the meaning of covenant, security, guarantee, protection, honor, and right. The people of the covenant (ahl al-dhimmah) were called so because they entered into the covenant and protection of the Muslims.”

(Al-Nihāyah fī Gharīb al-Ḥadīth, 2/168).

(4) Treaty (ʿahd — العَهْد): Meaning: security, covenant, protection, preservation, and observing what is sacred and inviolable.

(Al-Nihāyah fī Gharīb al-Ḥadīth, 3/325).

(5) Breach (nakth — النَّكْث): Meaning: the breaking or violation of a covenant.

(Al-Majmūʿ al-Mughīth fī Gharīb al-Qurʾān wa al-Ḥadīth, 3/350; Al-Nihāyah fī Gharīb al-Ḥadīth, 5/114).

(6) Source references: Reported by Abū Dāwūd, no. 2990 (8/238) with ʿAwn al-Maʿbūd. It was also reported by al-Bayhaqī in his Sunan (9/232, no. 18387), and in Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwah (4/229), and by Ibn Ḥibbān (no. 5199, 11/607).

Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar said:

“Al-Bayhaqī narrated it with a chain whose narrators are trustworthy.”

(Fatḥ al-Bārī, 7/548).

See also: Ṣaḥīḥ Sunan Abī Dāwūd, no. 2597.

(1) Another manuscript reads: “what was stipulated.”

(2) Another manuscript reads: “capable of.”

(3) The phrase “capable of revealing it to His Messenger” is omitted in another manuscript.

(4) Another manuscript reads: “by forcefully taking it” (ʿafwan).

(5) Another manuscript reads: “the punishment.”

See: Zād al-Maʿād (3/149), Iʿlām al-Muwaqqiʿīn (1/146), Tahdhīb al-Sunan (6/368) with ʿAwn al-Maʿbūd, al-Siyāsah al-Sharʿiyyah of Ibn Nujaym (p. 28), al-Siyāsah al-Sharʿiyyah of Dādu Efendi (p. 93), al-Mukhtārāt al-Jaliyyah of al-Saʿdī (p. 120), Ghamz ʿUyūn al-Baṣāʾir (1/82), Durar al-Ḥukkām Sharḥ Majallat al-Aḥkām (2/668), Kanz al-Daqāʾiq with al-Baḥr (5/56), and al-Fatāwā al-Hindiyyah (2/173).

Al-Ṭuruq al-Ḥukmiyyah fī al-Siyāsah al-Sharʿiyyah — Atāʾāt al-ʿIlm Edition [Ibn al-Qayyim] 1/15-18 https://shamela.ws/book/18159/112

Authentication By Ibn Hibban in His Sahih: https://shamela.ws/book/537/2348#p1

- Summary

Authenticated by Ibn Hajar Alsqalani, Ibn al Qayyim, and Albani ᠎

One of the claims that Muslims make about the Quran is that it’s allegedly remained consistent since its revelation, because of the emphasis Islamic tradition puts on complete memorization of the book, and thus always having a perfect reference to come back to.

They claim that this was the case when Uthman Ibn Affan commanded that all variant written Qurans at the time be burned and that the one true Quran (the Uthman Codex) be standardized for all Muslims; Uthman couldn’t have possibly forged his own version of the Quran because there were oral traditions at the time that would have been verifying him.

What are your thoughts on this?

Question : Did Umar give 4/6 to the sisters and 3/6 to the husband in accordance with the law of Allah?

Before answering et us consider the famous case of *awl* (proportional reduction of shares) found in the hadith of Umar discussed in fiqh texts :

A deceased woman with a husband and two sisters.

The Quran states: 4:12 – "And for you is half of what your wives leave, if they have no children."
4:176 – "Regarding the deceased who has neither father, mother, nor child*... if there are* two sisters (or more), then they receive two-thirds of what he leaves."

Look at the wording of the verse: "what he/they leaves" what does they leave ? -> 6/6, or 100% of their heritage. So We deduce :

P1: "What he leaves" = 100% of his inheritance = 6/6.

Let us look at the inheritance rules :

Husband = 1/2 = 3/6
Sisters = 2/3 = 4/6
Thus, 3/6 + 4/6 = 7/6 -> resulting in an excess of 1/6.

We therefore deduce P2

P2 : Allah commands us to distribute 7/6, starting from an inheritance base of 6/6 ; specifically, 3/6 to the husband and 4/6 to the sisters.

But there is no need to panic, for we have awl a tool that allows us to modify the rule in the event of an excess. We change the common denominator of the shares :

7/6 becomes 7/7.
Husband receives 3/7 instead of 3/6.
Sisters receive 4/7 instead of 4/6.

We deduce P3:

P3: Using awl, Umar distributed 7/7 starting from an inheritance of 6/6 ; specifically, 4/7 to the husband and 3/7 to the sisters.

From P1, P2, and P3, we draw the logical conclusion -

-> C: Omar did not carry out Allah's command ; 7/7 ≠ 7/6 ; awl constitutes disobedience to Allah.

And here, Sunni Muslims, to defend Omar and the fuqahas (jurists), you have only 3 options : refute P1, P2, or P3.

Either refute that the inheritance equals 100% of the inheritance -> Absurd.
Or refute that Allah commanded 7/6 from 6/6 -> Good luck for altering the scripture.
Or refute that 7/6 ≠ 7/7, 3/6 ≠ 3/7, and 4/6 ≠ 4/7 -> Refute mathematics itself.

If you are unable to do so (and you will be unable), and you admit that Omar disobeyed Allah, then you must answer this question : Could Omar logically obey Allah ?

And to answer, you must demonstrate how "giving 7/6 from 6/6" is a logical possibility.

If you don't so, then you must admit that Allah's command was illogical and, therefore... contradictory. So can you answer my question.

Question : Did Umar give 4/6 to the sisters and 3/6 to the husband in accordance with the law of Allah?

Almost no serious scholar takes Hadith literature seriously as they don't pass through any sort of serious scholarship. The whole Hadith science is a total sham and is basically useless especially when there's known fabricators being graded sahih (abu huraira). My main question however is if scholars know Hadith are almost all fabricated who's fabricating these Hadith to make Mohammed seem false as possible? We have Hadith of him graping slaves marrying children killing people for insulting and just making him look bad as possible but if these are Mohammed supposed closest companions from the Islamic perspective why would they report these claims of him? And from a western scholarly perspective why would someone who's collecting these Hadiths keep these reports of him looking fraudulent?

Like example the story of When the Quraysh challenged Mohammed about the story of the Sleepers in verse 18:5 tafsir he promised to answer the next day but forgot to say inshallah and as result, revelation was withheld from him conveniently for 15 days. Also there was a other test the Jews ask of the soul which Mohammed never answered.

My question is why would any Muslim leave this in their Hadith literature that points evidence to Mohammed clearly giving excuses and being fraudulent?

"Dolls don't signify childishness"

A common point critics of islam bring up to show aisha was immature are the many ahadith mentioning that she played with dolls and played on swings before getting married to muhammad. The Ahadith are:

- Ahadith:

• Sahih Muslim 1422a:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates....... Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him.

• Sahih Muslim 1422c:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

• Sahih Muslim 2440a:

'A'isha reported that she used to play with dolls in the presence of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and when her playmates came to her they left (the house) because they felt shy of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), whereas Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) sent them to her.

• Sahih Bukhari 6130:

I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for `Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fath-ul-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

However, Muslims point out that just because a girl plays with dolls and plays on swings does not mean that she is "childish" or "immature". Just look at people "playing" with figurines today. Additionally, people back then did not have many means of entertainment, which is why just because someone plays with dolls/swings it doesn't mean they are "childish".

However, these are people sitting in their air conditioned homes 1400 years away from the actual incident in 7th century arabia. Their words do not matter. Only the words of someone who has been living a similar life as aisha, or lives in a similar environment as aisha such that he sees little girls and their relation to dolls/swings, can accurately comment on this topic. And who better to learn this from than the ulema.

The reason why the ulema can be referred to for this is that they lived in pre-technological times. The means of entertainment available to them and the children around them would have been virtually the same as those available to aisha, thus they can comment on the maturity of a girl who plays at swings. If the ulema think that playing with dolls/swings denotes the childishness of a person, then we can retroject that understanding back to aisha as well.

And the ulema do think that a girl playing with dolls and swings shows that "she is very young" or "she is a child".

The scholars:

- Imam Nawawi (1233-1277):

He wrote in his sharh of muslim:

والارجوحة بِضَمِّ الْهَمْزَةِ هِيَ خَشَبَةٌ يَلْعَبُ عَلَيْهَا الصِّبْيَانُ وَالْجَوَارِي الصِّغَارُ يَكُونُ

The swing (Al-urjūhah) is a piece of wood** which children and young girls play with.**

He also wrote:

(فَلَمْ يَرُعْنِي إِلَّا وَرَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ضُحًى فَأَسْلَمْنَنِي إِلَيْهِ) أَيْ لَمْ يَفْجَأْنِي وَيَأْتِنِي بَغْتَةً إِلَّا هَذَا وَفِيهِ جَوَازُ الزِّفَافِ وَالدُّخُولِ بِالْعَرُوسِ نَهَارًا وَهُوَ جَائِزٌ لَيْلًا وَنَهَارًا وَاحْتَجَّ بِهِ الْبُخَارِيُّ فِي الدُّخُولِ نَهَارًا وَتَرْجَمَ عَلَيْهِ بَابًا قَوْلُهُ (وَزُفَّتْ إِلَيْهِ وَهِيَ ابْنَةُ تِسْعِ سِنِينَ وَلُعَبُهَا مَعَهَا (الْمُرَادُ هَذِهِ اللُّعَبُ الْمُسَمَّاةُ بِالْبَنَاتِ الَّتِي تَلْعَبُ بِهَا الْجَوَارِي الصِّغَارُ وَمَعْنَاهُ التَّنْبِيهُ عَلَى صِغَرِ سِنِّهَا

(The Messenger of Allah came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him) … The wedding and entering the bride by day and night is permissible. Al-Bukhari used it to argue that entering upon (i.e. consummating the marriage) the bride during day time is permitted. He (Al-Bukhari) wrote a chapter about it saying: ‘She was brought to him when she was 9 years old with her dolls.’ Meaning, the dolls which are called daughters that the young (alsighar) maidens play with. This is meant to show how young (sigher) she was.”

Source: Imam al-Nawawī, Kitāb Sharḥ al-Nawawī ʿalā Muslim (9/207)

- Al-ʿAẓīm Ābādī (d. 1892)

He wrote:

جَمْعُ الْبِنْتِ وَالْمُرَادُ بِهَا اللُّعَبُ الَّتِي تَلْعَبُ بِهَا الصَّبِيَّةُ

The plural of “bint”, and what is meant by it is the dolls that the young girl plays with.

Source: Al Azim Abadi, Kitāb ʿAwn al-Maʿbūd wa-Ḥāshiyat Ibn al-Qayyim (13/190)

- Al-Burhān al-Ḥalabī (1460-1549)

"أَلعَبُ بِالبَنَاتِ": تعني التي تلعب بها الجواري الصغار، ومعناه التنبيه على صغر سنها She means the toys that young girls play with, and the meaning is to indicate her young age.

Source: Al Burhan al Halabi, Kitāb al-Ḥawāshī ʿalā Sunan Ibn Mājah (2/501)

- Al Munawih (1342-1401)

The famed author wrote:

واللُعب: بضم اللام جمع لعبة، كركبة وركب، وهذه اللعب المسماة بالبنات التي تلعب بها الجواري، وفيه التنبيه على صغر سنها، ويحتمل أن يكون من أحاديث النهي عن اتخاذ الصور، ويحتمل أن يكون ذلك قبل النهي عن اتخاذ الصور فإن قصة عائشة كانت في أول الهجرة.

And al-luʿab (اللُّعَب): with ḍammah on the lām, is the plural of luʿbah, like rakbah and rukab.** And these luʿab are those called al-banāt (dolls) which young girls play with. In it is an indication of aisha's young age.** And it is possible that it is among the hadiths that prohibit the keeping of images. And it is possible that this occurred before the prohibition of keeping images, for the story of ʿĀʾishah was in the beginning of the Hijrah.

Source: Al-Sadar al Munawi, Kitāb Kashf al-Manāhij wa al-Tanāqīḥ fī Takhrīj Aḥādīth al-Maṣābīḥ, (3/23)

- Imam Qurtubi (1214-1273)

He said:

و(قوله: ومعها لُعَبُها) أي: البنات التي تلعب بها الجواري. وقد جاء: أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم رآهنّ يَلعَبن بها، فأقرّهنّ على ذلك (٢)؛ لتطييب قلوبهن، وليتدربن على تربية أولادهن، وإصلاح شأنهنّ وبيوتهن.

And (his statement: "and her dolls were with her") — meaning: the toy girls (dolls) that young girls play with. And it has been reported that the Prophet ﷺ saw them playing with them, and he approved of that; to gladden their hearts, and so that they may train themselves in raising children and managing their affairs and homes.

Source: Imam Qurtubi, Al-Mufhim li mā Ashkala min Talkhīṣ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (4/123)

- Imam al Kurani (1314-1488)

He wrote:

(عن عائشة قالت: كنت ألعب بالبنات عند رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم -) هي اللعب التي تتخذها البنات الصغار، وأم المؤمنين كانت إذ ذاك صغيرة، قد استدل به على جواز ذلك للصغار،

(From ʿĀʾishah, she said: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ): These are the toys that young girls make; and the Mother of the Believers was at that time a young girl.

Source: Ahmad bin Ismail al Kurani, Kitāb al-Kawthar al-Jārī ilā Riyāḍ Aḥādīth al-Bukhārī (9/483)

- Imam al Qastallani (1448-1517)

He said:

أن معنى الحديث اللعب مع البنات أي الجواري والباء هنا بمعنى مع، واستدل بالحديث على جواز اتخاذ اللعب من أجل لعب البنات بهن وخص ذلك من عموم النهي عن اتخاذ الصور، وبه جزم القاضي عياض، ونقله عن الجمهور وأنهم أجازوا بيع اللعب للبنات لتدريبهن من صغرهن على أمر بيوتهن وأولادهن

The hadith was used as evidence for the permissibility of possessing toys for girls to play with, and it is an exception to the general prohibition of making images. This was the ruling affirmed by Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ, and he transmitted it from the majority, and that they permitted the sale of dolls for girls, to train them from a young age for the affairs of their homes and children.

Source: Al Qastallani, Kitāb Irshād al-Sārī li-Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī – Ṭ. Būlāq, (9/77-78)

- Imam Bad ad Din al Ayni (1361-1451)

He wrote:

مطابقته للتَّرْجَمَة من حَيْثُ إِن رَسُول الله صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم كَانَ ينبسط إِلَى عَائِشَة حَيْثُ يرضى بلعبها بالبنات وَيُرْسل إِلَيْهَا صواحبها حَتَّى يلعبن مَعهَا، وَكَانَت عَائِشَة حينئذٍ غير بَالِغَة، فَلذَلِك رخص لَهَا. وَالْكَرَاهَة فِيهَا قَائِمَة للبوالغ.

How this hadith comes under the heading of being cheerful towards people is that the Messenger of Allah was being cheerful and kind towards ‘Aa’ishah when he approved of her playing with dolls and sent her friends to her to play with her. ‘Aa’ishah had not yet reached puberty, so this was a concession granted to her. However, it [playing with dolls] is still disliked for those who have reached puberty.

Source: Imam Badr al-Din al-Ayni, Kitāb ʿUmdat al-Qārī Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, (22/170)

- Ibn Battal (d. 1057)

He very clearly says dolls are only for children and are part of children's play:

والذى يراد من الحديث: الرخصة فى اللعب التى تلعب بها الجوارى وهى البنات فجاءت فيها الرخصة وهى تماثيل، وليس وجه ذلك عندنا إلا من أجل أنها لهو الصبيان ولو كان فى الكبار لكان مكروهًا كما جاء النهى فى التماثيل كلها وفى الملاهي.

What is intended from the hadith is the permissibility of the toys that young girls play with — namely, dolls — for which a dispensation (permission) has been given, even though they are images (figures). The only reason for this, according to us, is that they are considered part of children's play. If they were for adults, it would be disliked, as the prohibition concerning all kinds of images and amusements has been reported.

Source: Ibn Battal al-Maliki, Kitāb Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, (9/304)

- Qadi Iyad (1083-1149)

He wrote:

وقولها: " ومعها لعبها ": أى البنات التى يلعب بها الجوارى، يُريد: لِصغر سنها. فيه جواز اتخاذهن وإباحة لعب الجوارى بهن

“The words "and she took her dolls with her" mean the dolls that girls play with, because she was very young.

Source: Qadi Iyad, Ikmal al-Mu'allim fi Sharh Sahih Muslim, (4/574)

Explanation:

The apologetic position is that a girl playing with dolls does not show that she is "a child" or she is "immature". However, the people who would know best about whether aisha playing with a child meant she was immature are people who lived in a similar environment to aisha. The closest to this that we have are the ulema, as they lived in similar conditions to aisha and also lived in a pre-technological time meaning their means of entertainment would have been similar to aisha. But what do these ulema say?

Scholars like imam Nawawi, al Munawi, al Qurtubi, ibn Battal, Qadi Iyad and others are clear in stating that dolls were played with by little girls, and many even state (like al Nawawi) that in her playing with dolls is an indication of how young she is. If dolls were also played with by mature adults then aisha playing with dolls would never have signified "that she was a child" and scholars would never have pointed out that it is little girls who play with dolls. But they do, meaning even according to the ulema, playing with dolls DOES signify that someone is a child.

As playing with dolls is a signifier of the childishness of a person, and aisha played with dolls,** it shows aisha was childish and immature** at the time of her consummation and afterwards as well.

Relevent ahadith:

There are also some narrations from ibn masud in which he equates a person playing to them being childish. He is actually accusing someone of "playing" as a polemic to show that they were childish at some point in the past.

• Sunan an Nasai 5063:

'Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: "According to whose recitation do you want me to recite? Because I recited seventy-odd Surahs to the Messenger of Allah [SAW] when Zaid had two braids, and was playing with the other boys."

• Sunan an Nasai 5064:

"Ibn Mas'ud addressed us and said: 'How do you want me to recite? According to the recitation of Zaid bin Thabit, when I learned seventy-odd Surahs from the mouth of the Messenger of Allah [SAW] while Zaid was with the other boys with two braids?'"

Both are sahih.

- Explanation:

The context is that instead of making ibn masud the head of the compilation of the uthmanic mushaf, zaid bin thabit was instated. However, ibn masud was a much earlier and older companion than zayd. This is why, as a polemic, ibn masud is trying to show his superiority in age and experience by saying that by the time he had memorized 70 surahs, zaid was still playing with the other boys.

The key point to note here is that in order to show the childishness of zayd bin thabit (and consequently immaturity), ibn masud mentioned him playing with his friends. If "playing" was not something only done by little children, there would have been no point of ibn masud mentioning it. He did mention it, meaning playing with friends like this was something only children did. (See the comment at the bottom of the page as well.)

Since aisha is shown to be playing with her friends, swinging with them etc. it means that aisha was also a child.

Can a 9 year old from the 7th century consent?

Muslims also like to believe that 7th century girls were superhuman enough to mature much faster, and thus they could give their consent. However, again, if we look at the opinion of scholars who would have lived in similar environments to aisha and would've seen how mature 9 year old girls are in that environment, it tells us that they did not think 9 year olds matured so fast.

- Imam Shafi:

He said that when aisha consummated her marriage, she had no authority/command over herself. If she has no command over herself, she obviously could not have consented.

فَالْحَالَانِ اللَّذَانِ كَانَ فِيهِمَا النِّكَاحُ وَالدُّخُولُ كَانَا وَعَائِشَةُ صَغِيرَةٌ مِمَّنْ لَا أَمْرَ لَهَا فِي نَفْسِهَا

(Al-Shafi’i said): If someone says, 'Why did you claim that the fathers can marry off their prepubescent daughters?' Say: "Abu Bakr gave Aisha in marriage to the Messenger of Allah at the age of six or seven and the Prophet consummated the marriage at nine years of age." Both the cases of marriage and consummation took place when Aisha was prepubescent and had no command over herself.

And more than one of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) married his young daughter off.

Source: Imam Al-Shafi'i, Kitab Al-Umm,(8/365)

- Ibn Qudamah:

He states that it is known that in a condition like aisha's, consent is not considered. If he thought that due to any number of reasons a 9 year old could have consented back then, he would not have said this.

ومَعْلومٌ أنَّها لم تكنْ فى تلك الحالِ ممَّن يُعْتَبَرُ إذْنُها.

ʿĀʾisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said: “The Prophet ﷺ married me when I was six, and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine.”

This is agreed upon. And it is known that, in that situation, her consent was not legally considered.

Source: Ibn Qudamah, Kitāb al-Mughnī – al-T-Turkī, (9/398)

- Explanation:

If imam Shafi and ibn Qudamah, two of the greatest legal scholars ever, thought that a 9 year old back then could easily think for herself and was a mature woman, they would have thought that she could consent as well. But they did not think that. Even they knew that a 9 year old can not consent for marriage and does not actually have any authority over herself. This is in stark contrast to the apologetic claim which puts 9 year old women in arabia to the level of completely mature 20 year old women today.

Summary:

In summary, the muslim response that playing with dolls does not mean a person is a child is baseless. The ulema, who lived in a similar environment to aisha and knew alot more about girls living in that environment clearly thought that a girl playing on a swing or playing with dolls meant she was little, and it showed her youngness. I.e. playing with dolls was thought of something only children did back then.

The statement of ibn Masud also shows this.

Finally, as opinions of some more scholars show, they did not think a 9 year old girl magically became mentally mature even though these scholars would have been seeing girls living in similar conditions to aisha.

A narration regarding a later time in aishas marriage, particularly during the incident of ifk mentions the woman-servant of aisha saying that she is a girl of immature age. This was in response to the servant being asked if anything about aisha was suspicious:

Barirah said, 'No, by Allah Who has sent you with the Truth, I have never seen in her anything faulty except that she is a girl of immature age, who sometimes sleeps and leaves the dough for the goats to eat.'

Source: Imam Bukhari, Sahih al Bukhari, no. 2661

This shows that even after her marriage, aisha was still perceived as immature.

I seem to remember a muslim or muslims saying only bad guys who attacked muslims are to be enslaved.

But that is clearly not true, as the fiqh scholars below show.

Even children of slave women are to still be a slave.

hanbali

[What a child follows from his mother and what he follows from his father]

He said: “The child follows his father in lineage , ” because the Almighty said: “Call them by their fathers’ names” [Al-Ahzab: 5] . He does not follow his mother, and that is why it is said: So-and-so is the son of so-and-so, and he is not attributed to his mother.

[His mother is free, and likewise in slavery] .

This is a man who married a slave woman, meaning she was not his property but belonged to someone else. He had intercourse with her and she gave birth to a child. Is the child free or a slave?

Answer

He is a slave because he follows his mother and his mother is a slave, and he does not follow his father. That is why he said: His mother is free and likewise in slavery.

If a free woman marries a slave and gives birth to a child, the child will be free.

https://shamela.ws/book/37793/204

Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds. If a man marries a woman and knows that she is a slave, then her child from him is a slave to her master, according to the consensus of the imams. 

ibn taymiyyah

https://shamela.ws/book/7289/15596

[]()

The child follows his father in lineage and his mother in freedom, and likewise in slavery, unless there is a condition or deception

[ Abdullah al-Maqdisi

https://shamela.ws/book/803/1494

Hanafi

[]()

The unborn child is freed by the manumission of its mother, not the other way around. The child follows its mother in ownership, slavery, manumission and its branches. The child of a slave woman from her husband is the property of her master, and her child from her master is free.

Al-Mahbubi - Sharh Al-Wiqaya

https://shamela.ws/book/1125/535

Because the child follows the mother in slavery and freedom, so he was owned by his mother’s master, so loyalty is not conceivable. And among them is that the mother is not originally free, so if she is, then no one has loyalty over her child. And if the father is freed, for what we mentioned, that the child follows the mother in slavery and freedom, and no one has loyalty over his mother, then there is no loyalty over her child. 

 Al-Kasani - Bada'i al-Sanai

https://shamela.ws/book/8183/1072

shafi

 This preference applies only if her child is not from her slave. If he is from him, then in the original text of Al-Rawdah it is similar to the child of a slave who has entered into a contract of manumission from his female slave, meaning that ownership of him is definitely for the mother. Al-Bulqini said: In my opinion, this is a mistake, for the slave who has entered into a contract of manumission owns his female slave, and the child follows his mother in slavery. The child of a slave woman who has entered into a contract of manumission only inherits his slavery from his mother, not from the slavery of his father, who is her slave. This is the more correct view. Then he elaborated on the two opinions, indicating them with his statement: “ If he kills

Al-Shirbini - Maghni Al-Muhtaj (Quoting Al-Bulqini):

https://shamela.ws/book/11444/3222

[]()

As a sale. His conditional manumission is also invalidated, but the conditional manumission of a fetus is valid, just as its manumission is valid. Its mother does not follow him because the root does not follow the branch. If he sells her, it is a revocation of that sale, and his child does not follow the conditional manumission. Rather, he follows his mother in slavery and freedom

El-Begermy - Hashiyat Al-Habib

https://shamela.ws/book/21599/1938

So you see in my argument, the muslim apologist argument is wrong.