Questions from an agnostic person (long post)
(Posting this here as debatereligion, from what I've seen, consists mostly of athiests/agnostics and I want opinions from Muslims that disagree instead, since I haven't been able to find a good answer while ghost reading on that subreddit, or looking up answer online either.)
I was born and raised in a Mild/Relaxed Muslim family with both of my parents being immigrants to a English speaking country, went to an Islamic Sunday school for a few years, followed the religious practices under family pressure, though I've never really believed in the religion, I have never even been fluent in Arabic either. Overtime the pressure dissipated, and I more or less stopped following them.
More recently, I've been relearning parts of Islam—though mostly through Google searches.
One of the things about the Quran I remembered is that it claimed to be the perfect book, so instead of looking for things to prove it true, I figured I'd look for things that would contradict that.
That might sound contradictory/biased, however finding anything that contradicts a claim as big as being perfect would just disprove the entire thing, which is why I opted for that approach.
While I am purely searching for mistakes, I am looking at both sides of the argument for every claim to try staying as humanly unbiased as possible.
I hope you can see where I'm coming from, and my logic behind this choice.
Do keep in mind that I’m not very knowledgeable on the Quran or any other religious texts really—it’s been a long time since I last read any of it, and even then, I only read small parts once a week, so I doubt I even got through a tenth of the book, that I don't actually remember anyway.
—
Since this is quite long, I'll also rank the parts by importance if you are only choosing to read/answer one.
If you plan on answering any of these questions, please read the coexisting parts written below as that has existing arguments I've read for all of them, so you may just end up repeating them if not.
1 - Why do extinct members of the genus Homo resemble non-human apes the further you go back?
2 - Do you consider the Quran regulating and censuring, instead of banning slavery a flaw?
3 - Why is disbelieving considered the greatest, most unforgivable sin?
4 - Why is there a lack of evidence for claims that should be documented from non-religious sources?
5 - They were˺ created from a spurting fluid, stemming from between the backbone and the ribcage. (With a different argument then what I've read from numerous other reddit threads)
—
Do you consider the Quran regulating and censuring, instead of banning slavery a flaw?
I've read dozens of different responses as to why it wasn't banned and none of them have really done a good job of answering for me.
The first popular argument is that slavery was common-place back then, and outlawing it would of been more harmful than positive because it'd ruin the economy and a majority of the slaves wouldn't be able to live being sent on their own.
There's also the argument of the Quran heavily critiquing slavery, meaning he knew it was a terrible thing, and it set up regulations to make sure the slaves would be treated much better, even telling people to free the slaves as a good deed, though my issue is that they did not make it a mandatory practice, and they were still property regardless of treatment.
Neither of these really fit into the claim of the Quran being timeless and perfect if ignores a massive issue because it would have been bad for the economy at some point in time 1400 years ago.
Doesn't slavery not being explicitly banned contradict the claim of being a perfect book?
The Quran clearly paints slavery as a bad thing, so the only "reason" I can think of for regulating instead of explicitly banning it is because it's not a book on morals, rather made to get people to submit to Allah, and to help guide them to heaven. This is equally as bad to me, seeing that the book knows its terrible, and bans much more things that are morally harmless, like eating pork and not marrying your cousin. (specifically for the health risks)
Why wouldn't Allah explicitly ban his followers from doing this?
Since Muslims use the Quran as a guide book for their morals, are you fine with religious countries unbanning it and following the same regulations? Assuming there won't be outside interference.
While I know individuals can't be used a good example for things like this, Muslim majority countries were the last to abolish slavery—yet, this was mostly because of pressure from the west rather than pressure from their own Muslim citizens. Unless you assume the Quran did not want to ban slavery, the book, in my opinion, is already flawed in relaying down its guidance, seeing that it was widely accepted practice by Muslims until the late 19th century.
—
Why is disbelieving considered the greatest, most unforgivable sin?
This is another thing I cannot understand how anyone is okay with, and not see the contradiction.
You could be a saint your entire life, and refuse to believe Allah as the true god because of his decision to send billions of morally innocent humans to hell because they didn't believe a book that does not have any concrete proof, and because of that Muslim serial child rapists, and Muslim terrorists are allowed in (albeit after a short stay in hell) because they were sincere believers before they died.
For comparison, if Donald trump were to pardon Jeffery Epstein and Osama bin Laden because they voted for him, but let Keanu Reeves be sent to the El Salvador prison furnace oven because he voted for Biden.
Would you consider him the most merciful?
He forgave crimes that most would consider unforgivable after all.
I Imagine, probably not. It would be pretty clear corruption.
An analogy that I have seen used to be more accurate to compare it to is a father who gave their child everything but was betrayed and cut off when they were an adult.
So, in this ridiculous alternate universe where Donald trump is that close—but not quite omnipotent loving and caring human father of those two criminals and Keanu, quite literally crafting them and everything else they love and care about into existence, giving them everything they could possibly want, yet when they become adults, he pardons the criminals, giving them enteral happiness and 70 virgins, then allows for the actor son be cooked alive forever (with potions of immortality or something,) after voting for Biden.
Would he still be considered the most merciful and just human being?
If you said no, why not? Trump raised them with everything they ever wanted, and being near omnipotent, he does not actually need the three votes from any, he simply choose to allow his two criminal sons to be pardoned of their crimes because he can, same with Keanu.
You might not be able to compare a man to a god, but being being our creator does not make him exempt from being judged by the same rules of morality. There is absolutely nothing, zero ways, to justify eternal punishment for any finite reason without extreme bias or hatred towards another person.
You could argue the same for infinite heaven, but that's irrelevant to my argument.
I am aware he is not considered omnibenevolent, rather what this shows is—
God cannot be the most merciful while simultaneously punishing billions over what to him is nothing.
Why does Allah get this biased treatment?
If eternal torture is justice, then why would the alternate universe trump be considered evil?
Trump giving one person eternal punishment for any finite reason would make him the most evil human to have lived. I'd argue even Hitler does not deserve that (prob a set amount based on all he's done,) let alone someone who's only sin is doubt, while allowing vile humans to enter heaven.
Just wiping them from existence would be moral, yet instead he chose forever torture for a crime that doesn't harm anyone you can tell exists? It seems more like that hell is just a fear tactic made up to scare people from defecting, or he's pure evil.
I've read some argue that Allah keeps disbelievers in hell forever because He knows they would never believe, even given the chance. But isn't that the same reasoning behind the test of life—to prove people would choose disbelief if given the option? If the test exists to eliminate that excuse, why isn't there a similar opportunity after death? People change their views throughout life, even at later stages. It seems extremely unrealistic to claim that in infinite time, none of them would ever reconsider, not to mention the unfair time difference.
The fact that there isn't any observable proof that the Quran is true makes the reason to put all disbelievers in hell so much worse than it already is.
If there was, everybody would know already. There are millions of Muslim's across the world, if there was undeniable proof then it'd be accepted globally and a scientific fact just as much as the theory of gravity, or evolution by natural selection.
Disbelievers, that have read or heard of the Quran, (if it's true,) are going to be punished, not for denying while knowing he exists, but only for doubting his existence due to a lack of evidence.
I have constantly seen that proof god exists is the observable universe, the laws of nature, the complexity of living organisms, and etc. That these things are too perfect to be made by coincidence.
That is a fragile argument to me—not being able to understand or have an answer to something does not mean that it was created by god. People had long thought natural disasters were a byproduct of an angry god, but we now know scientifically how they start, and what causes them to occur. You can apply the same thing with life on earth, or any of the things we don't have answers to.
Just as you cannot disprove the existence of god, you cannot disprove hat the big bang wasn't a natural event, or that life is just a simulation by 5D beings messing around with us like AI with a conscious.
Though, this can be said for numerous other theories, so I'll move onto more corroborated things.
—
Exhibit A;
Why do extinct members of the genus Homo clearly resemble non-human apes the further you go back?
The Quran does not provide a date for when Adam and Eve were created by god, but the story does not seem to fit very well when you add extinct human species into the plot anyway.
While we currently can't super accurately find the timelines or direct lineage, we do know from the skeletons that the Homo Neanderthal, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Habalis, and various other homo species all basically ancestors of the Homo Sapiens, or share common ancestry.
The reason why this supports the modern human evolution theory (sharing common ancestry with monkeys, and all other living things) is because people of European and Asian decent have about 1% to 2% Neanderthal DNA. Then you can compare the Neanderthals themselves to older species like Homo heidelbergensis then into the Homo erectus, Homo Habalis. These older humans had smaller brains, thicker skulls, and looked more primitive. The farther back you go, the more they start to resemble non-human apes.
You can look at even earlier species that aren't part of the homo genus, like the Australopithecus, that is suspected to be an earlier ancestor, and we even know it walked on two feet from fossilization of it walking.
This is obviously just a overly simplified version of it, but provides a rational explanation to our existence, and the reason for our similarity to the extinct homo species.
Did Allah make it so they 'de-evolved' into more non-human apes, or did they Adam and eve pop up when Neanderthals came around? If it's that recent, why is there no evidence of giant human fossils having ever existed if the stories of the giant humans, and the ones who could live for hundreds of years been found then?
Seeing that some people have Neanderthal DNA still, it's clear they were the great, great... great grand parents of said persons, so were they Neanderthal's descendants of Adam then?
Then would the other Homo species also be descendants as well?
Does this mean they were really de-evolving then?
If not why were our ancestors able to mate with them?
I'm aware the Quran does not provide any reasoning to this, but an unbiased person would realize just how weird that is. Where exactly does Adam and Eve fit into this structure?
Does this not intentionally led people away from the path of Islam?
The lack of fossilized remains makes it difficult to come to a 100% conclusion, but following the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, proves the monkey to humans theory has solid backing behind it, more than being added in magically by an omnipotent being.
If Allah really did make humans out of clay, did he want to mislead them by creating extremely similar species that, from an evolutionary stand point, are very clearly related? Since that supports the theory of evolution from monkeys, would that not lead people away from the path of Islam?
Not knowing the exact point humans split up from monkeys does not mean you can just ignore the similarities, and clear reversion. To me, logically speaking, it makes much more sense that the Quran just didn't know about these extinct human species, which is why nothing is said about it.
Exhibit B;
Why is there a lack of evidence for claims that should be documented from non-religious sources?
There are plenty of examples, but the first one that came to mind was the claim that Prophet Muhammad split the moon—something that supposedly happened, yet there’s no record of it in Persian, Byzantine, Chinese, Roman, Indian, or any outside sources, all of which should’ve been able to witness it.
(There is a claim that an Indian king saw it and converted, however that doesn't explain why no other civilization wrote about it, and is unverifiable, thus a worthless argument. Though if true, proves that it wasn't being hidden by Allah like Jesus not being crucified, and should have been recorded.)
The fact that this miracle should of been visible to approximately a third or half of the world, and the same civilizations would record other little things happening in the sky like a super nova's or solar eclipse in the same time periods, makes me sincerely doubt it ever happened.
A different thing that should have signs of happening from the earth's geology, was Noah's flood.
First thing, there hasn't been any evidence found of the global flood occurring at any point in human history, despite the Quran implying that it was in a few ways.
Even if you want to assume that it was a local flood, the population density is another issue.
The lowest recorded drop in the human population happened around 800,000–900,000 years ago, when our ancestors’ numbers fell to roughly 1,000 individuals. For Homo sapiens specifically, the Toba super eruption around 74,000 years ago reduced the population to somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000.
There are a few more I want to get into, like the sexism, (A woman being worth half a man in numerous ways, forced gender roles for both genders,) outdated punishments, (Lashing, stoning, cutting off hands, anything physical really,) and a few others I can't remember for whatever reason, but this is already quite lengthy, and I've spent way too long writing and researching this—I'll try to wrap it up.
—
The final thing I wanted to write about that makes me doubt Islam, is the constant vagueness, interpreting verses, and reinterpreting vague verses to benefit Islam, (often while doing mental gymnastics,) while anything that contradicts the book is what's actually wrong. (though to be fair, non-Muslims do the exact same thing, just the opposite way, but that's why none of the scientific miracles mean anything to me.)
Combining that with having to give numerous benefit of the doubts to the Quran if I want to believe it's true, but since the book is supposed to be perfect, it wouldn't make sense to do so from an unbiased perspective as so many events don't have any non-religious records, and can't be proven happened either.
(The recordings of the moon splitting from other nations being lost to time but not the other sky events for some reason, weak hadith 124,000 or just a ton of prophets being sent to all other nations yet there's no evidence of that happening anywhere outside the middle east, Allah making it so Noah's and Adam's offspring wouldn't have traceable defects from DNA evidence, Prophet Muhammad receiving weird revelations that often were specific to, and often benefited his life situation, the lack of dates, places, names, or clear predictions that would prove it was not man-made, the constant misogynistic revelations that make no sense and contradict the claim of being a fair god, or the Quran supposedly being universal yet it was only revealed in Arabic, etc.)
Let's start with this rather famous one;
1 - Qur'an 86:6-7
˹They were˺ created from a spurting fluid, stemming from between the backbone and the ribcage.
To be honest, I wanted to avoid using this as it's been recycled a lot, but it fits really well for this segment, which is why I kept it.
A scientific miracle that's not really a miracle (but technically not a mistake either)
I couldn't find a generally agreed upon argument, but I've heard people mostly talk about how it the semen fluid production is parallel to the coccyx, or the fetus creating the testicles and ovaries between that region, (far stretch that I'm not going to address as the verse has nothing to do with the birth of genitalia,) or that backbone can also translate to loin, (waist and lower back, though it can include groin area) though some say that it was actually referring to childbirth.
My problem with this is mainly focusing on how none of these interpret the verse without reaching, and the following 'scientific miracle' is kind of worthless.
Starting with both the loin argument and being parallel to the seminal vesicles, the semen produced is not created between the ribs and loin, rather right below it.
It'd be me like asking you what's between the left side door and the button area with the radio and AC, on this picture below.
If you guessed steering wheel, you'd be wrong, it's actually the glove box. (it's in the same area)
The left pic just shows the anatomy reference for comparison.
If you do include the groin area when you use the word loin, then it would be scientifically accurate, however it brings into question why even include being between the ribs and loin/groin? This can be applied with the fetus as well, because that starts in the pelvis area, so it would make more sense to just say the loin area and below rather than going up to the ribs.
For this to be accurate, you need to assume the translation meant loin instead of spine, then ignore how it says between the ribs and loin or assume it meant the entire area, and then assume loin includes the groin area as well, while also ignoring how people thought that sperm was created from the spine back then.
It's like predicting that breast milk is produced above the thighs, but below the neck, (same spots used in this surah) it's not exactly a impressive prediction when the area includes half the body, and this is done for many things.
Because of which, while technically not scientifically inaccurate, I would still consider it a flaw for being worded poorly, and needed to have way too many stretches to remain correct.
2 - Quran 11:42
Noah's flood being Global/Local.
Since the Quran doesn't explicitly state whether or not the flood was local or global, we have to make assumptions based on what's written, and there are two things that led me to believe it was global.
And it sailed with them on the waves like mountains—
And it moved on with them into waves that were like mountains—
And ˹so˺ the Ark sailed with them through waves like mountains—
I've only seen a few different explanations for this, (comparing to how a mountain looks with white capped foam, or it just being a simile,) both of which were sounded like reaching to me.
Followed by gathering two of every creature/species onto the boat, despite it not being necessary for most animals that can fly, or those not local to the region.
End,
Posted Apr 9, 2025, 8:21 PM UTC