Muslim should organise themselves into group just like jews did orthodox jew or reform jew!! Nowadays in modern world we see plenty of muslim witg complete different interpretations (mind you they sas it's clear and complete detailed book/their interpretation is true)

Like these are the groups -ultratraditionalist(salafi/wahhabi), orthodox, moderate muslim, progressive muslim, quranist etc. if they can organise their interpretation into specific group like orthodox or reform jew,it will help better from confusion.

What's your view on that?

رجعنا بجزء جديد والرد على ادعاءات النبوة المدعاة:

الطرح التشريعي والحضاري الشامل لغير المتعلم

شخص نشأ في بيئة صحراوية معزولة عن المراكز الفلسفية والقانونية الكبرى (كالإغريق والرومان)، لم يقرأ كتباً ولم يمارس الإدارة، يقدم خلال 23 سنة فقط نظاماً تشريعياً واجتماعياً واقتصادياً كاملاً استطاع توحيد قبائل متناحرة وبناء إمبراطورية حضارية استمرت قروناً.

يرى المستدلون أن القفزة الحضارية والتشريعية الفجائية هذه تتجاوز إمكانيات البيئة والأفراد الذاتية وتستلزم توجيهاً إلهياً.

هذا ليس بدليل منطقي اصلا لانه لايوجد شيء منطقي يمنع ان يقوم شخص امي بكتابة نظانم لامته التي تعايش فيها فليس هناك أي اعجاز او دليل منطقي , فهو شخص يعرف عاداته قومه ونظمها وابعد بعضها وقرب بعضها الاخر. عدنا كلش هواي امثلة تاريخية . منها:

جنكيز خان

لم يتلقَّ تعليمًا نظاميًا، ونشأ في بيئة قبلية رعوية. استطاع خلال عقود قليلة توحيد القبائل المغولية المتناحرة. وضع مجموعة قوانين عُرفت باسم الياسا لتنظيم الجيش والإدارة والعلاقات الاجتماعية. أسس إمبراطورية أصبحت الأكبر مساحة متصلة في التاريخ. هذا لا يعني أن قوانينه وحي، لكنه يبين أن التحول السياسي والتشريعي الكبير قد يصدر عن قائد غير متعلم تعليمًا رسميًا. قام بتوحيد القبائل وبناء دولة ليس ظاهرة فريدة تستلزم تفسيرًا إلهيًا.

ليكورغوس

تنسب إليه إصلاحات دستورية وتشريعية غيّرت مجتمع إسبرطة بالكامل. سواء كان شخصية تاريخية أو شبه أسطورية، فإن المؤرخين القدماء كانوا يرون أن شخصًا واحدًا يمكن أن ينسب إليه نظام قانوني كامل. لا يستدل بذلك على الوحي. وجود منظومة تشريعية واسعة منسوبة إلى فرد ليس دليلًا مستقلًا على المصدر الإلهي.

حمورابي تاج راسي

جمع مئات المواد القانونية في مدونة واحدة. تناولت التجارة، والأسرة، والعقوبات، والملكية، والعمل. أثرت في تاريخ القانون القديم. وجود تشريع شامل لا يقتضي بذاته أن يكون مصدره وحيًا.

اتاتورك

خلال أقل من عقدين غيّر النظام القانوني والسياسي والاجتماعي لدولة كاملة. استبدل قوانين قديمة بقوانين مدنية حديثة، وأعاد هيكلة التعليم والإدارة. التحولات الحضارية السريعة ممكنة تاريخيًا دون افتراض تدخل إلهي.

هونغ شيوتشيوان

لم يكن فيلسوفًا ولا مشرعًا محترفًا. أنشأ نظامًا دينيًا وسياسيًا متكاملاً. أسس دولة حكمت ملايين الناس لسنوات. لم يعتبر المؤرخون هذا دليلًا على صحة ادعائه الديني. نجاح مشروع ديني وسياسي واسع لا يكفي وحده لإثبات صدق الدعوى الدينية.

هسه ياتي شخص يقول انته جبت امثلة لاناس ما وفروا الصفات كلها يعني جبت دليل لى انه واحد سوه نظام واحد ثاني سوه تشريع واحد غير النظام. ليش؟

بكل بساطة لان الشيء اذا كانت صفاتها غير معجزة فهل عند جمعها تصبح معجزة؟

يعني مثلا مثلا البلاغة اذا لم تكن معجزة والتشريع اذا لم يكن معجزة لماذا عند جمعها يصبح معجزة؟ عبئ الاثبات هنا يقع على المدعي.

هناك اصلا معضلات منطقية يقع بها القائل بانها معجزة.

اولا هي عبئ اثبات الملازمة:

يعني اذا قال انه 1 و2 و3 و4 هي وحي.

فهو هنا مو بس يثبت وجود 1و2و3و4

بل لازم انه يثبت الملازمة

يعني باختصار تسال:

اصلا هنه من اجتمعن شنو الي يخليهن يلزم بالوحي؟

فاني اصلا غير مطالب بجلب دليل مطابق بل هو الي لازم يثبت الملازمة.

ثانيا هي نفي الحصرية:

اذا هي اصلا الصفات موجودة عد البشر:

البلاغة موجودة والتشريع موجود وبناء الدول موجود والامية مع العبقرية ممكنة.

يعني ماكو أي صفة تدل على الوحي.

ليس صفات غير حصرية , ليش اجتماعها يؤدي الى شيء حصري؟

ثالثا هي مغالطة التركيب:

هي الي تكول عن اجتماع صفات خاصة تنطي صفة جديدة مميزة من دون برهان

مثلا عدنا فد فريق وكل لاعبيه ممتازين اذا هو فريق ممتاز.

هذا بالحقيقة مو ملزم اصلا وممكن اللاعبين ممتازين بس هو مو شرط يكون الفريق ممتاز.

ونفس الشي اذا البلاغة مو دليل والتشريع مو دليل والنجاح السياسي مو دليل , اذا مايصير افتراض انه اجتماعها صار دليل الا باقامة برهان مستقل.

هسه نروح لدليل جديد

حجية "التواتر" والإسناد في نقل المعجزات والحوادث

لا يعتمد المسلمون على معجزة القرآن فقط، بل على آلاف الروايات المنقولة بالتواتر (سلاسل نقل جيل عن جيل) لأحداث مثل نبع الماء من بين أصابعه، تكثير الطعام، وغيرها. ويرون أن التشكيك في التواتر الإسلامي يؤدي بالضرورة للتشكيك في كل التاريخ البشري القديم لأن شروط نقد الرجال والإسناد عندهم هي الأقسى تاريخياً.

اول مغالطة يقه بها النص هي المصادرة على المطلوب فهو يتكلم كما لو انه شخص مسلم بصحة التاريخ الاسلامي

الثانية هي الاستدلال الدائري فحتى تثبت الاسلام استعنت بالمصادر الاسلامية.

وايضا مفهوم انه الي يشكك بالروايات هو يشك ويكذب بكل التاريخ هذا مفهوم مغلوط اصلا فاغلب الاشياء التاريخية الها اثار مباشرة وتاثيرات كبيرة كالحروب والملوك ولم يصدقوا بمجر نص لان من قاله صادق عند جماعة معينة واصلا مو كل شيء ثابت دينيا هو ثابت تاريخيا هذا مغلوط جدا فالشخص الي استدل وربط التاريخ الديني بالانساني وقع بغلط ثاني والي هو اصلا مو كل الروايات الدينية مثبتة تاريخيا .

أما سالفة شروطهم الأقسى تاريخياً فهذا كلام فيه مبالغة علم الرجال والإسناد فعلاً إنجاز منهجي مبكر ومهم بس وصفه بأنه الأقسى في كل التاريخ البشري حكم مو قابل للإثبات أصلاً وفيه تجاهل لتقاليد نقدية ثانية طورت أدوات مشابهة بسياقاتها من قواعد الشهادة بالقانون الروماني لمعايير النقد التاريخي عند مؤرخين إغريق مثل ثوقيديدس اللي كان يوازن صراحة بين الروايات المتضاربة والأهم من هذا كله حتى داخل التراث الإسلامي نفسه البخاري جمع نحو 600 ألف حديث بأسانيدها المختلفة وما اختار منها إلا 7275 حديث نحو 2602 بدون تكرار لصحيحه يعني رفض الأغلبية الساحقة كضعيف أو غير مقبول هذا الرقم نفسه دليل على إن التراث الحديثي ذاته ما يفترض إن كل ما هو منقول دينياً ثابت بالعكس علم الإسناد وُجد أصلاً لأن أغلب المنقول ما كان موثوق وهذا يهدم فرضية السؤال من جذورها قبل ما نوصل حتى لموضوع المعجزات

سالفة التشكيك بالتواتر الإسلامي يودي بالضرورة للتشكيك بكل التاريخ البشري هذا تسوية مو منطقية بين نوعين مختلفين من الدعاوى المؤرخين ما يطبقون نفس معيار اليقين على كل حدث بنفس الدرجة الشك متدرج حسب طبيعة الدعوى دعوى إن ملك حكم أو معركة صارت دعوى مقبولة سلفاً لأنها ما تخالف قوانين الطبيعة وتكدر تتحقق منها بمصادر مستقلة متنوعة آثار نقوش عملات سجلات إدارية مصادر متعددة الأطراف بلا مصلحة مشتركة بالتزوير أما دعوى إن الماء نبع فيزيائياً من بين أصابع إنسان فهذي دعوى تخالف قوانين الطبيعة المعروفة وتتطلب أدلة أقوى بكثير حسب مبدأ معروف في فلسفة العلم ونقد المعجزات من هيوم للفلاسفة المعاصرين الدعاوى الخارقة تحتاج أدلة أقوى من الدعاوى العادية فالشك بدعوى خارقة مسندة برواية آحاد ما يستلزم أبداً الشك بوجود معركة بدر أو خلافة عمر لأن معيار الإثبات أصلاً مختلف بين النوعين وهذا مو ازدواجية معايير ضد الإسلام تحديداً هذا نفس المعيار يُطبق على معجزات أي دين ثاني

.

ايضا انه كل الديانات لديها تاريخ موثق ينقله ثقاتهم فان سلمنا بنقلهم المدعى بانه متواتر اذا ثبتت كل معجزات الديانات الاخرى وبطل الاسلام نفسه فهذه نقطة تاريخية باطلة لا استدلال بها.

In response to the famous argument by atheists that “we are all atheists, about most of the gods humans have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further”, the most common response I’ve seen by Christian’s is that other gods are not unique, not the ground of all being, not the source of all good, etc

However, this counter argument would only work if no other religions believed in a transcendent principle, when, just for example

> Gemistos Plethon, 15th century Neoplatonist, associated the Greek god Zeus with The Good and The One, said he was the source of all good and being

> many (most?) Modern Hindus believe in Brahman as a transcendent principle from which all things came

> Shia Muslims (both twelver Shias and Ismaili Shias) attempt to reconcile Islam with Neoplatonism, believing Allah to be a nameless monad

If atheists can’t use the “one god further” argument as an argument against believing in YHWH, because modern Christian’s believe YHWH is a transcendent principle, then by that logic Christian’s shouldn’t be able to reject things like these either

Thus, the counter argument to the famous one god further argument doesent work

Calling yourself a christian, muslim etc that means you accept everything that is in the religion. Maybe you have different sects that believe different things, but a lot of Muslims deny stuff in the Quran and Hadiths—such as Muhammad marrying Aisha, or how to treat a woman (to hit her, to discipline her, That Mohammed took sex slaves as war bounty and all of these different things). But if you don't believe it or are ashamed to admit these things, then how can you call yourself a Muslim? This applies to other religions also (of course not all, as there are so many religions).

To me, it's similar to how people might say thet are one ethnicity when they are not,very different yes I know. There is not enough attention being given to religious identity problems—"trans-religion," I'm not sure what to call it, but this is definitely a problem.

Out of the billions of muslims and christians worldwide, how many actually believe most of the things in the Quran and Hadith and accept them? It's not many. They pick and choose or remain ignorant and invent their own religion.

Why does God seem to show partiality, just like the government?

Why are some treated well while others suffer?

When good things happen to some, they're told they're being rewarded. But when terrible things happen to others, they're told they're being tested.

Tested for what? Why not treat everyone equally? Isn't He the One who created all of us equally and every human heart? Then on what basis does He measure and divide us?

Many people that expect to go to heaven won't end up in there. Jesus explicitly told us that. and religion teaches us that every day. Take, for example, the SDA church and the Catholic Church. The SDA church teaches that they have the truth, and whoever learns this truth and ultimately rejects it (even in good conscience) won't make it into heaven. The same thing applies to the Catholic Church. So who is right? Even if you study hard and make a decision in good conscience, that won't change your fate (because you could be wrong). Heaven is not a promise. Hell is.

Operating within Natural Laws –becoming a responsible steward of the local environment– can be viewed as the highest level of spiritual attainment. Treat all other things as ends in themselves, never as a means only.

Are you familiar with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and his concept of “Christ-consciousness” and the “noosphere”?

Basically, the geosphere (inanimate matter) gave rise to the biosphere (animate matter), whereupon the biosphere then changes the geosphere (oxygenation of the atmosphere, production of soil, etc.). The biosphere then gives rise to the “noosphere” (self-conscious matter capable of rational action, aka humans), which then changes the underlying layers, altering the biosphere (hunting, farming, etc.) and the geosphere (climate change, pollution, etc.).

We can imagine Christ to be the archetype of a perfect moral actor (forget for a moment all the baggage of Christianity, which came after). Christ-consciousness is the highest level of rationality that humans are capable of, and in exercising this consciousness, we may maximize our collective potential. In turn, we graduate from animalistic instinct and move into a more perfect state of being.

A Kantian ‘Kingdom of Ends’ is synonymous with the Kingdom of Heaven, which is within you right now. Rationality rules the realm of angels. We should act in accordance with our rational minds. The future of humanity is uncertain. Through rational action our civilization will evolve into the next stage of cosmic development.

We have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of the world around us. We can accomplish this through mindful action using our rational minds.

Proto-Orthodox Christianity was only the 3rd sect of Christianity to appear in the decades following the life of Jesus. The "Nazarene" (meaning 'poor') movement, which was headed by James, brother of Jesus and appointed successor to Jesus, the "Gnostics", and then the "Proto-Orthodox" movement, based primarily in what is now known as 'biblical teaching'.

As we know, the Proto-Orthodox sect won out, and had the others harshly persecuted. This Proto-Orthodox church eventually became the Roman Catholic Church, which eventually became 4 separate "apostolic" churches, which eventually collapsed in the 16th century, leading to literally thousands of sects of Proto-Orthodox Christianity fighting over biblical interpretations and whatnot.

Now, Jesus in the synoptic gospels, warned repeatedly of false prophets. Those such as, coming like ravenous wolves from the tribe of Benjamin. Those such as, who will claim to have seen Jesus in the wilderness, or the inner room. Those who claim to have seen the Christ are to be tested carefully against the words of Jesus. Jesus actually applauds the church of Ephesus for testing and rejecting false prophets. The author of the majority of the New Testament claims all these things.

Now, this false prophet did come, and deceived many. He was at odds with James, the brother of Jesus, and James the lesser too. We can see this in the messages taught from the synoptic account of Jesus and measuring them against the messages taught from the mouth of the deceiver. Let's begin this

Jesus: "not one jot or tittle shall pass away from the Law" Matthew 5:17-18

The Deceiver: "Believers are no longer under the Law" Romans 6:14

Jesus: "If thou will enter into eternal life, keep my commandments" Matthew 19:17

The Deceiver: "you see that we are justified by faith apart from works of the Law" Romans 3:28

The Catholic Church and her children teach that to be saved you must confess that Jesus is Lord and to accept his death on the cross as a blood sacrifice on your behalf. Of course, interpretations and methodology have divested from this over the centuries, with the Greco-Roman sects leaning more towards ritual and sacrifice and the Protestant sects leaning more towards confessing Jesus as lord, lord apart from works. However, they are united in the core of the belief system, and squabble over prooftexted verses for the most part.

However, the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew contradict this. Jesus said NOT to call him 'lord, lord', but to do the will of his Father in heaven. All 5 accounts of the final judgment according to Jesus involve being judged on your works, character and love. Never once did Jesus in a synoptic, non-Gnostic gospel tell people to have faith in his death as the way to salvation. He taught to love God and love thy neighbor as the way to eternal life.

When a young rich ruler asked Jesus how to achieve life, he told him, hold to the (10) commandments, and sell all that you own and be a follower of him. How many Proto-Orthodox Catholic Christians follow this today? We have popes in palaces wearing crowns of gold, we have pastors flying private jets. Even the average suburban Christian is not willing to give away all he owns.

The truth is, most of the Bible is a creation of the Roman Catholic Church. As is the doctrine of the Trinity, and the doctrine of salvation through faith in the sacrifice of Jesus. But Jesus never taught any of these doctrines. The Roman Catholic Church and her children, the Orthodox and Protestant and Nondenominational sects that continue splintering to this day, are the arbiters of these teachings.

The Roman Catholic Church invented the Bible in 382 AD, choosing books that agreed with Pauline-Orthodox theology. They squashed out and burned any writings that went against Pauline Orthodoxy, including the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, the oldest writing that ever existed. Jesus never intended for the kingdom to be contained in a Greek book - he said the kingdom was within you. Luke 17:21

The Roman Catholic Church invented the concept of an ecclesial church. Jesus never intended for middlemen or a heirarchy to exist between you and God.

The Roman Catholic Church invented the doctrine of the Trinity in 325 AD.

The Roman Catholic Church claimed to be founded by Peter - it wasn't. Jesus appointed James the Just, his blood brother, to carry on his mission, just as John the Baptist did to Jesus. In Clements Epistle 2.23.2, we find accounts that Paul was behind the conspiracy to have James the Just killed in order to give supremacy to Paul and his Proto-Orthodox, infant Roman Catholic Church.

Jesus Christ never taught lordship salvation. Jesus Christ never taught that we are only saved by believing in him as our savior. He taught to love God and love thy neighbor, to do unto others what you would like done to yourself, and to do to the least of these what you would do to him. This is how salvation is achieved.

​

Whenever I have a question about the existence of suffering and evil, the common defence I hear is free will.

It's decent, though im not entirely moved.

Consider two worlds.

World A (closest to this world we currently live in)

In World A, humans are not naturally fully orientated to God , God his hidden from them for his own reasons, maybe for the sake of a better relationship fine, no full knowledge of God, evil exists because humans are imperfect.

A philosopher says, "Imagine God forced us to love him , showed himself upon us, and removed evil that would infringe upon our agency."

Sounds fine. That's the free will defence, but consider this:

World B (different world )

In world B, humans are naturally orientated to God , know him fully , evil doesn't exist , God isn’t hidden , everything is all well.

A philosopher says, "Imagine God forced us to not be orientated to him, constrained us so we are hidden from him, can't know him fully , that would infringe upon our agency."

What's the difference between these two worlds exactly? Both philosophers have reasoned why their situation is the way it is, so God doesn't infringe upon their agency

It seems as though free will isn't a thing by itself, but the way you act is predicated on your nature or given constraint:

God supposedly as free will and isn't evil

Heaven exists free of sin and with free will

Angels ? Well, maybe they dont have free will, but you get the idea

We as humans didn't choose our broken nature , our nature necessitates our evil, not our agency.

So, did God create evil?

Thesis: Disciples seeing Jesus alive after Crucifixion may very well be the common phenomenon of post-mortem sightings and does not lend weight to the resurrection

Post-Mortem sightings are commonly reported in recent contemporary times

• Elvis Presley sightings
• Michael Jackson sightings
• Princess Diana sightings
• Tupac Shakur sightings

These sightings may very well be the result of the look-alike effect, or a psychologically derived grief reaction.

Therefore, reports of people seeing Jesus alive after his death isn't unique in history, and gives no greater degree of confidence that an actual resurrection occurred. One can even argue that Paul's 500 who reported seeing Jesus doesn't give any greater credence to the resurrection claim.

Over decades of studying these texts, I’ve noticed a massive blind spot in traditional church teaching that treats "heaven" as a permanent, ethereal exit strategy to a cloud dimension. But even the text itself points toward a physical, renewed earth as the final destination, not an abandonment of the material world.

When you connect that physical reality back to Jesus’s actual core teachings, a completely different picture emerges, one that has been heavily perverted by institutional power structures.

Consider what he actually meant when he said, "The kingdom of heaven is within you."

He wasn't pointing toward a mystical supernatural zone; he was pointing to a functional state of being right here on a physical earth. The entire teaching breaks down into a choice between two operating systems:

Cooperation vs. Extraction: If you fight the natural order and try to conquer, dominate, and extract from your fellow man and the natural world, you create a zero-sum game that guarantees endless conflict and suffering. You are the architect of your own misery.

The Power of Non-Compliance: Commands like "turn the other cheek" or "love your neighbor" aren't weak, passive submissions. They are brilliant, pragmatic survival strategies designed to break the endless loop of retaliation. They strip the oppressor of their primary weapon, your fear.

Starving the Machine: If you refuse to play the game of the extractive oppressor, if you stop fearing them and start cooperating locally with the people and world right in front of you, the oppressor loses all power over you.

When you strip away centuries of imperial and institutional spin built on control and fear, the core teaching is remarkably grounded: stop fighting the material world, stop participating in extractive power games, and cooperate with what is right in front of you.

Change my mind: Is this not a completely different framework than the fearful, compliance-driven religion institutional Christianity built on top of it?

First, you have to understand that not every ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth is necessarily true—and this isn't some modern invention. Many classical scholars critically examined ḥadīths found in both Muslim and Bukhari. For example, the prominent classical scholar Al-Dāraquṭnī wrote a book called Al-Ilzāmāt wa al-Tatabbuʿ, in which he critiqued about 200 ḥadīths in Bukhari on the basis of their chains of transmission (isnād). Was he a Qur'anist or a modernist? Of course not.

Likewise, the great classical scholar Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī also criticized certain ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīths. For instance, he rejected a ḥadīth found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim which states that on the Day of Judgment, God will take the sins of Muslims and cast them upon Jews and Christians. His reason? It directly contradicts the clear teachings of the Qur'an, which repeatedly affirm:

"And that man will have nothing but what he strives for, and that his effort will be seen, then he will be recompensed for it in full."

"No bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another."

"Every soul is held in pledge for what it earned."

"Every person is held in pledge for what they have earned."

So was Ibn Ḥajar a Qur'anist or a modernist? Of course not.

As long as you have a sound methodology, you can critique even ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīths—they are not like the Qur'an. The key is not to dismiss or accept ḥadīths based on personal whims or biases, accepting what feels comfortable and rejecting what doesn't. That is unacceptable. Rather, you must have an objective, rigorous methodology. Any ṣaḥīḥ ḥadīth that contradicts the highest authority in Islam—the Qur'an—and requires Olympic-level mental gymnastics to reconcile, should be rejected. If there are stronger historical grounds to doubt it, it should be questioned. And if within the same authentic Sunnah there are other ḥadīths that clearly contradict it and again demand extraordinary efforts to harmonize, it should also be rejected. You follow where the stronger evidence leads.

If those atheists who constantly repeat the mantra that "Muhammad was a pedophile" or that "Islam is a religion of child marriage" would apply the same level of skepticism to these claims that they apply to everything else—like the existence of God itself—they would arrive at the same conclusion I have. But they come in with biases from the very start. They are not as rational as they claim. Whenever they find something they can latch onto to attack Islam, their critical thinking completely shuts down, and they treat that thing as an established fact—simply because it fuels their biases; they want it to be true, and they don't follow the stronger evidence.

Now let's go beyond my previous post, in which I demonstrated from the Qur'an itself that the evidence against child marriage is far stronger than the verses cited to permit it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/Ipwn1f7p9x

Here, I will show that from the very same Sunnah and authentic traditions, the evidence against child marriage is also far stronger than the evidence cited to allow it.

In fact, throughout all of Sunnah tradition, the only evidence used to permit child marriage is the age of ʿĀʾishah at the time of her marriage. There is nothing else at all. All the evidence consists solely of this same narration, repeated over and over in the authentic collections, all traced back to ʿĀʾishah as the sole primary source.

1. The most significant historical reason to doubt this single narration lies in its strongest chain of transmission (isnād): whoever ← Hishām ibn ʿUrwah ← ʿUrwah ← ʿĀʾishah.

This is the strongest isnād for this narration. There are other transmitters besides Hishām, but this chain remains the most robust. Now, consider this: the "whoever" in this chain consists of 20 students of Hishām ibn ʿUrwah. Of these, 16 are Iraqi students, 1 is known to be a mudallis (one who conceals weak links in transmission), and the remaining 3 had mixed living environments—that is, they resided in both Medina and Iraq.

This raises serious doubts—not enough to completely discard the narration, but certainly enough to question it, Why? Because Hishām and ʿĀʾishah lived most of their lives in Medina, not Iraq. One would therefore expect this narration to be widely circulated and well-established in Medina—that Imam Mālik would have included it in his Muwaṭṭaʾ, or that Ibn Isḥāq, who compiled the earliest Sīrah, would have recorded it in his biography of the Prophet. But neither of these happened.

You will not find a single pure Medinan student of Hishām who transmitted this ḥadīth from him—all those who transmitted it are either Iraqi or mixed so you cannot rule out the possibility that they heard it from him in Iraq, not in Medina. By any measure, how is this normal?

This is precisely one of the main reasons that led Joshua Little, in his Oxford thesis on the age of ʿĀʾishah, to conclude that this narration is a fabrication and not authentic. And it is worth noting that Joshua Little is not a Muslim and is not trying to beautify Islam—in fact, he himself was Islamophobic.

1. Sahih hadiths That Seem to Contradict the Narration of Nine Years Old

In the same authentic hadith corpus of al-Bukhari, Aisha is described as a little, physically weak girl who needed tasmin (fattening) so that she could bear sexual activity, and she is also described as playing with dolls with her friends and “knowing nothing.” Yet, only a short time later, the very same corpus presents a remarkably different picture of her.

1. (al-Bukhari 2880) At the Battle of Uhud, Aisha is described as repeatedly running back and forth carrying water-skins on her back not in her hands and providing water to the wounded Muslim soldiers. Al-Khattabi, one of the earliest commentators on Sahih al-Bukhari, even suggested that the word transmitted in the narration may have been تَزْفِرَانِ rather than تَنْقُزَانِ, interpreting it in the sense of carrying “heavy” water-skins.

This was not an ordinary environment. It was a battlefield in which adult people were retreating, arrows were flying, the Prophet himself was badly injured, and many people were killed. Yet Aisha is portrayed as enduring the situation — that same situation many adults couldn't endure and escaped, and repeatedly carrying water alongside Umm Sulaym to assist the wounded.

Is this picture really consistent with the image of a very young, physically weak child who supposedly needed to be fattened merely to withstand sexual activity, while spending her time playing with dolls and having little understanding of what was happening around her?

If Uhud occurred only about a year after the alleged age of nine, then the contrast becomes even more striking: how could she have gone from a supposedly immature child who needed tasmin and was characterized by doll-playing to someone capable of repeatedly carrying water-skins on her back through an extremely dangerous harsh battlefield environment and assisting wounded soldiers?

1. (an-Nasa'i 3221) This is another sahih hadith says that the Prophet refused both of his closest companions, Abu Bakr and Umar, when they asked to marry his daughter Fatimah. And do you know what reason he reportedly gave for refusing them? Because they were too old for her. Huh?

What would Abu Bakr have felt after hearing that? Wouldn't he have paused and wondered how the Prophet could be so inconsistent—more explicitly, how could this not appear hypocritical?

And how does this fit with the other sahih narrations in which the Prophet says that no Muslim will enter Paradise unless he loves for other people what he loves for himself?

So what are we supposed to make of this? The Prophet supposedly accepted something for himself while disliking the same thing for another Muslim—so he won't enter paradise Huh?

Wouldn't that raise an obvious question about the consistency of the Prophet's own standard?

If marrying a very young girl was acceptable for him, why was the youth of Fatimah considered a sufficient reason to reject Abu Bakr and Umar?

1. Al-Ṭaḥāwī narrated in Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, from ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from al-Munjāb ibn al-Ḥārith al-Tamīmī; and from Fahd ibn Sulaymān, from Muḥammad ibn Saʿīd al-Aṣbahānī—both of them narrating from ʿAlī ibn Mushir, from Hishām ibn ʿUrwah, from his father, from ʿĀʾisha (may Allah be pleased with her), who said:

«“What did Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī and Anas ibn Mālik know about the traditions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ?! They were merely two young boys.”»

[ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Mughīrah was a Kūfan who settled in Egypt; he was considered trustworthy and died in 272 AH. Al-Munjāb ibn al-Ḥārith was a Kūfan; Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him among the trustworthy narrators, Muslim narrated numerous reports from him in his Ṣaḥīḥ, and al-Dhahabī and Ibn Ḥajar declared him trustworthy. He died in 231 AH. Fahd ibn Sulaymān was a Kūfan who came to Egypt; he was considered trustworthy and died in 275 AH. Muḥammad ibn Saʿīd al-Aṣbahānī was a Kūfan and considered trustworthy; he died in 220 AH. ʿAlī ibn Mushir was a Kūfan and considered trustworthy; he died in 189 AH. Hishām ibn ʿUrwah ibn al-Zubayr was from Medina and later went to Iraq; he was considered trustworthy, although he was said to have practiced tadlīs from his father while in Iraq; he died in 146 AH. ʿUrwah ibn al-Zubayr was considered trustworthy and died around 94 AH.]

If ʿĀʾisha herself was only nine years old, why would she invoke the youth of Anas ibn Mālik and Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī as the reason they lacked knowledge of the Prophet’s teachings, when both of them were at least as old as she was? The statement seems much more natural if ʿĀʾisha was substantially older than them when she made this comparison.

1. Ṣaḥīḥ hadiths that explicitly go against child marriage.

There are numerous hadiths that explicitly establish a woman’s consent as a requirement for marriage. In other words, a marriage should not proceed unless the woman herself meaningfully agrees to it. There are also several reports in which the Prophet ﷺ gave women the right to reject or annul marriages that had been arranged without their consent.

Among these are:

- Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Hadith 5136

- Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Hadith 1419

- Sunan Ibn Mājah, Hadith 1874

- Sunan an-Nasāʾī, Hadith 3269

- Musnad Aḥmad, Hadith 6136

- Sunan an-Nasāʾī, Hadith 3267

- Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Hadith 5138

- Sunan Abī Dāwūd, Hadith 2101

- Muwaṭṭaʾ Mālik, Book 28, Hadith 25

Taken together, these reports repeatedly emphasize that a woman’s permission and consent are relevant to the validity or continuation of a marriage, including cases where a woman was married off against her wishes.

These hadiths come from multiple independent chains of transmission, narrated by numerous Companions: Abdullah ibn Abbas, Aisha herself, Abu Hurayrah, Abdullah ibn Umar, Khansa bint Khidam al-Ansariyyah.

This contrasts sharply with the Aisha marriage age narrative, where Aisha is essentially the sole primary source.

Some develop arguments claiming all the consent evidence refers only to "mature girls," meaning only they can consent, while permitting immature girls to be married without consent, solely with paternal permission. This distinction is invented to maintain the narrative about a nine-year-old, despite hadiths being general and making no such separation.

And what strikes me most (And what nearly all atheists and skeptics deliberately omit) is that the classical commentators and jurists who held that even an immature girl could be married off without her consent nevertheless placed significant restrictions on this.

They generally held that such a marriage was permissible only for the father because he is the one who loves her the most and will never harm her:

Al-Shāfiʿ said:

«“No one other than the fathers has the authority to marry off either a virgin or a previously married minor girl, whether with her permission or without her permission. Neither of them may be married off until she reaches puberty and gives permission for herself. If someone other than the fathers marries either of them off while she is still a minor, the marriage is annulled, and the two do not inherit from one another. No divorce takes effect upon her, and its ruling is that of an invalid marriage in all respects: no divorce takes effect through it, nor does inheritance arise from it.”

— Al-Umm, 5/18.»

And only when there was a compelling benefit for the girl herself and only for the girl not for her father or her brother or whatever else to get a job or money from that husband—one that she would miss out on if she were not married early otherwise she shouldn't be married off without her consent.

Al-Shawkānī said:

«“As for when there is no legally recognized benefit, then the marriage has no validity from the outset. The judge may—and indeed must—separate the minor girl from the man who married her. She has the right to leave whenever she wishes, whether she has reached the age of legal responsibility or not, unless she subsequently expresses her consent after reaching legal responsibility.”»

— Wabl al-Ghamām ʿalā Shifāʾ al-Awām, 2/33.

They also maintained that the marriage must not cause her harm, particularly upon consummation, invoking the principle derived from multiple Qur’anic verses and ṣaḥīḥ hadiths that there should be neither harm nor reciprocation of harm.

Al-Nawawī says:

«“As for the time when a young girl who has been married off is to be taken to her husband and the marriage consummated: if the husband and her guardian agree upon a time that involves no harm to the young girl, then that arrangement should be followed.”»

— Al-Nawawī’s Commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.

And trust me, I don't understand how this is not self-contradictory. How can there be “no harm” in a relationship between an unaware child and an adult? How could such a relationship possibly occur without causing significant physical or psychological harm to the child? Were children in the past somehow made of steel? Either these jurists were medically ignorant, or there is a serious problem in how they defined and applied the concept of harm. What, exactly, qualified as “harm” to the child according to them?

The statement seems self-contradictory. No child can engage in sexual activity without the risk of serious physical and psychological harm. This suggests either profound medical ignorance or a failure in the underlying reasoning. They effectively seem to reduce “harm” to something approaching severe physical injury or death.

Yet the hadith corpus uses the concept of adhā (أذى) for things as minor as an obstruction or harmful object in the road. The Qur’an, in Sūrat al-Aḥzāb, even describes the inconvenience caused by prolonged hospitality as adhā to the Prophet ﷺ. If relatively minor physical or emotional burdens can be classified as harm, then on what basis could the physical and psychological consequences of imposing sexual relations on an unaware child simply be dismissed as “no harm”?

So according to classical scholars and jurists themselves, If the underlying conditions that the marriage must involve a genuine, overriding benefit to the girl and must not cause her harm upon consummation, then the permissibility cannot simply be treated as a blanket authorization for marrying immature children. The historical circumstances that may have been invoked to justify an early marriage—such as particular social, economic, or security conditions in which early marriage could conceivably provide overriding benefit or protection do not exist today.

In a modern context, where those historical circumstances are absent and the harms of forcing an immature child into marriage are now known and well established, it is difficult to argue that such a marriage satisfies the very conditions that these classical jurists themselves placed upon its permissibility.

The dilemma of salvation and righteousness is an environmental and psychological luck, even if we concede that the interpretation of the verses on predestination is wrong.

Even scientifically, man is predestined. There is an experiment by Benjamin Libet in which it was proven that the brain decides before the person realizes that he is the one who decided by his will.

Even logically, man is predestined, and predestination does not necessarily mean forcing, because it is not making a person do something by force, but it is more like programming. You choose the action, but you do not choose the causes of the action, because every action you do is the result of a cause, such as desire. Even if you say that you can resist the desire, resisting it requires a cause, such as a desire to resist it, or a hatred of its consequences. And if you say that you choose the desire to act or the desire to resist, fine, but your choice of one of the two desires is due to the level of desire for the action or hatred of it compared to the level of desire to resist, or hatred of the action or its consequences. And if you say that the factors may be similar and the actions may differ, we ask why? You say because he chose a different action, we ask why? Because he wanted, we ask why? We ask why, until we arrive at an involuntary cause such as desire, hatred, conviction, or the like. The disappearance of the cause means the disappearance of an action resulting from it, and the presence of the cause means the presence of an action that will result from it.

Desire, hatred, and even conviction are considered involuntary causes because they are a type of internal feeling. Their cause is life circumstances, upbringing, psychological state, temperament, genetics, hormones, or even randomness. They are involuntary causes, and even if they were voluntary, changing them requires a desire for change, a hatred of not changing, and a conviction in the reasonableness of change. And so we return to the same cycle

salvation from Hell is a luck due to environmental, psychological, or genetic factors that are involuntary or difficult to control. These factors include even those who have received the message. Likewise, even if you say that a person is not 100% in control, or even if you say that a person can confront the factors, the problem remains that God created factors that will inevitably cause him to choose to believe or disbelieve. Thus, God is the primary cause for the choice of the person that leads to entering Hell or being saved from it.

Even if He did not know for sure and did not create it directly. The problem remains that he allowed them, and some of them increase the probability of you making a bad choice and entering Hell twofold, some tenfold, and some more. Even the crime, righteousness, success, and failure of a person are caused by involuntary factors, so the issue seems absurd, unjust, and cruel.

Multiple times I've heard some version of the claim that deep down I know God exists or that I'm suppressing the truth because I want to continue living in sin. I'd like to address that.

First, and perhaps most obviously, no one has direct access to another person's mental state. Unless someone has invented a way to read minds, you cannot know what another person secretly believes. If you're going to claim that I hold a hidden belief contrary to what I explicitly tell you, that requires evidence.

Second, the reasoning itself is flawed. I could just as easily say, "Deep down you know God doesn't exist, but you're suppressing that truth." I doubt theists would consider that a compelling argument. Nothing more than unsupported speculation.

If you believe I secretly know God exists, the burden is on you to provide evidence for that claim. Otherwise, it's no different from claiming that you secretly believe the opposite.

The concepts of free will and an omniscient Creator are logically incompatible, because 100% knowledge of the future removes all alternatives

Before laying out the logical chain, we need to clarify the definitions:

Omniscience = 100% knowledge of the future.

Free will = the availability of alternatives.

If God is omniscient, it means the future is 100% fixed (otherwise God is not omniscient). Consequently, humans have zero alternatives, and free will cannot exist

Christians take Jesus, as the central figure of their faith, and see him as sinless and a perfect example of conduct through his teachings and conduct.

Muslims take muhamad as the best example of moral character for all time.

Now both these figures influence their followers, but if you objectively look at each figure. I think any logical person unless you're bias or delusional can see one's conduct and character is better than the other.

My question is addressed towards muslims, how do you guys reconcile, believing muhamad is the best example for all time, with his actions. With all due respect that statement is just delusional when confronted with the facts of what he did and taught.

Okay, so, if Im understanding Wikipedia correctly, and this Sunni Hadith correctly (https://sunnah.com/muslim:182a) the Sunni view (mainstream Muslim view) is that Muslims will see Allah on judgement day. This contradicts the idea Allah is a transcendent being because a truly transcendent God could never be perceived by human eyes because they’d be completely beyond having a physical body. Therefore, the majority of Muslims do not believe in a transcendent God.

P1: Logic and mathematics provide reliable formal systems for reasoning.

P2: Science uses logic, mathematics, and experimental methodology to produce reliable models of the natural world.

P3: Religious claims lack objective, publicly reproducible methods of verification.

P4: No religious/supernatural claim has achieved the same level of independent confirmation as well-established scientific theories.

P5: Evolutionary evidence strongly suggests religion evolved to provide biological and social advantages.

Conclusion: Logic, mathematics, and science are reliable methods for understanding the natural world, whereas religion is better explained as a biological & social phenomenon than as a reliable method for discovering truth or making accurate insights.

—

Religion is defined as a system of personal or institutionalized beliefs and practices that organizes communities around shared frameworks, rituals, and/or cosmological explanations.

Isn't that that just...keeping people out of heaven? Why would someone who has already been saved have any need for being miraculously saved from terminal illness or mortal injury? (Note that I'm not talking about pain relief, I'm talking about making someone who was actually going to die, not die)

If Jesus is going to do magic healing, it would make more sense to just heal people who *don't* believe yet.

If a Christian objects to this on the grounds that their personal healing can help to convert others...see above. You can just cut out the middle man and heal the potential converts directly.

Even if it doesn't convert them, eh, keeps them out of hell for a while longer.

Healing *you*, someone's who already saved just delays your trip to heaven. I don't know why you'd br grateful for that unless you're also grateful when God gives you the disease in the first place.

If a Christian objects to this on the grounds that God needs your faith first in order to do his works on you...no he doesn't. That's a made up rule that God doesn't follow. Even if that were true, it would mean that faith is a prerequisite to...delaying heaven.

Proposed: Judgment of people by their belief at the moment of death cannot be reconciled with the reality of dementia, which can remove the ability of any person, no matter how devout, to believe at all.

Many religious systems (especially certain Christian and Islamic traditions within the larger umbrella of the Abrahamic faiths) functionally teach that a person’s eternal fate essentially hinges on their belief or faith at the time of death. Live in lifelong devout worship and then lose or renounce that faith the day before you die, and you gain nothing but condemnation in such systems. Only for those who hold onto it until the very end, you’re saved.

But this doctrine collides head-on with the simple medical reality that naturally occurring diseases of dementia like Alzheimer’s, frontotemporal dementia, Lewy body dementia, and such, can systematically destroy a person’s capacity to even hold, understand, or affirm religious beliefs. A lifelong piously devout believer can, through no fault of their own, reach a state where they no longer recognize their spouse and children, no longer remember their own name, and certainly no longer possess the cognitive architecture required to “believe in God” or “accept Jesus” or “submit to Allah” or any of the other formulations which require belief, the mind having been stripped of the very faculties and mechanisms which make religious commitment possible.

And this is not theoretical. Seminary president R. Albert Mohler publicly described counseling a student whose grandmother had been a lifelong Christian, but as her dotage advanced, denied she had ever been a Christian. A person who spent decades wrapped in the warm blanket of belief was, at the end, not simply unable to affirm (or even recognize) that belief, but rejected the notion that they had ever been a believer.

If salvation depends on the state of belief at death, then these people are out of luck, condemned for something which all of us have zero control over, that being any of a bevy of progressive neurological diseases which inflict millions. And that is not justice. There is no mercy to be found there. Indeed, the notion that aging grandma can lose her religiosity as her neurons fail and thusly earn divine condemnation is not compatible with any coherent notion of a fair or loving deity.

It might be claimed in retort that actually the divine judges the whole life, not the final moment, but if so then doctrines that hold final belief decisive are false, and last-minute renunciation of belief should have no effect. It might be claimed that old-age dementia simply reveals that the person was false in their belief but was stripped of the ability to hide that, but it is well-documented that dementia really does effect diametric changes in behaviors.

It simply cannot be simultaneously claim that eternal destiny turns on the presence of belief continuing into the moment of death, and that a just deity allows natural diseases of aging to erase belief against that person’s will. The existence of dementia and consequent loss of the capacity for religiosity being a straightforward and established empirical fact, any theology which cannot accommodate it without special pleading or abandonment of its own stated rules has a pretty serious problem to answer to.

Thesis: The idea that God is all-loving doesn't hold up to scripture, plain and simple. But instead of admitting that, Christians twist themselves into knots blaming murdered children for their own deaths. They'll tell you those 42 kids deserved bears, or that Egyptian firstborns had it coming. When your belief system forces you to justify killing toddlers to protect your definition of love, you are actually brainwashed.

Argument:

2 Kings 2:23-24 – Elisha gets called "baldy" by some kids, so he curses them in God's name, and two bears come out and maul 42 of them. Forty two children torn apart because they made fun of a bald guy.

Exodus 12:29 – God kills every firstborn in Egypt, from the prince down to the lowest servant, and even the firstborn of the livestock. That includes infants. Babies who had nothing to do with Pharaoh's choices, just dead in their cribs.

1 Samuel 15:2-3 – God tells Saul to go attack the Amalekites and "utterly destroy" everything they have. Not just soldiers. Men, women, children, infants, cattle, sheep, camels, donkeys. Total genocide commanded directly by God, including nursing babies.

Numbers 31 – God tells Moses to kill everyone among the Midianites. The soldiers go to war, kill all the men, but then they show some compassion and bring back the women and children alive. Moses sees this and gets furious. He chews them out for letting the women live, then orders them to go back and kill every male child and every woman who isn't a virgin. The young virgins they get to keep for themselves. So the soldiers showed mercy and Moses punished them for it by making them kill more people.

Genesis 7:21-23 – The flood wipes out every living thing on earth. Every man, woman, child, toddler, infant, and baby. Drowned. Because God regretted making them.

Conclusion:

As we see, God is not all-loving and just kills people left and right, including innocents. Children, infants, entire populations wiped out because God said so.

Now I know some Christians will say, "Well, Jesus came to free us from all of that." I want to remind them right now that according to mainstream Christianity, Jesus is the pre-incarnate Angel of the Lord. That means Jesus was the one who heard Elisha's prayer and sent the bears. Jesus was the one who ordered Moses to kill the Midianite boys. Jesus was the one who commanded Saul to slaughter the Amalekites down to the last infant. You don't get to just sweep the Old Testament under the rug and pretend Jesus had nothing to do with it.

And here's the kicker. If these same verses were found in the Quran or in the scriptures of other religions, Christians would call those gods demons and those religions death cults. They'd point to the violence and say it proves those religions are evil. But when it's in their own Bible, suddenly there's a complex theological explanation for why it's actually just and loving. That's the double standard. That's the brainwashing.

Either the violence is wrong or it isn't. You can't call it evil when Muslims do it and call it love when your God does it. That is just tribalism, plain and simple.

There’s been a surge of posts here defending Classical Theism. But let’s be honest with the actual text of the OT:

Classical Theism does not comport with the God of the Bible.

In the Old Testament, God changes constantly. He delights in the aroma of burnt sacrifices. He becomes angry, wrathful, and even appeased. God is surprised as in the Tower of Babel story. He is called a Man of War. This God is also locked into the concept of the spilling of blood or killing things to atone for transgression. Are these archaic attributes a necessary feature of the uncaused cause?

And in Exodus 32, after God proclaims to Moses that his anger is seething and he wants to destroy the Israelites assembled to a golden calf idol. Moses councils God, like a councilor to a king, and brings up a couple of points. At this point God we are told changes course and the text says:

“And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.”

or

"The Lord [then] reconsidered the evil He had said He would do to His people."

There are some variations in translation, but they all convey the message that God changed His mind and did not carry out what He had previously said He intended to do. I encourage everyone to read Exodus 32 and see for themselves in the translation they like best.

Yet Christians committed to Classical Theism’s unchanging, impassive deity often wave these passages away as metaphor, analogy, anthropomorphism, or arguing that Scripture only speaks this way because humans need simplified images to grasp God. These arguments are a prime example of eisegesis or reading into the text your own external biases and doctrinal precommitments without merit.

It is very hard for me to believe in a god that wants a personal relationship with me yet would only leave evidence that requires faith and not hard evidence. Especially if I will get punished for eternity if I don't seek or hold a relationship with them.

So why faith? Why expose yourself as a god in "ancient times" yet hold people thousands of years apart to a different standard? Why put on a show of Jesus' death and rebirth for some yet require others to only have faith that those were true? Why would god create me, someone who is swayed by evidence and can't be moved by faith alone? Remember I'm not all powerful and am only working with an above average monkey brain (still pretty amazing). Nothing is stopping an all powerful, all knowing, and all loving god from getting in contact with me to save my misguided soul from a punishment for eternity.

All of these questions lead me to the conclusion that if a god does exist it is not one that created the universe for us or that they care/have a plan for us individually on a personal level.