Go dress like this in afganistan and see how liberating it is
These people who live in the west should be grateful they don’t live under sharia and are able to dress like that
Loooool the amount of astagfirullah on her post by the peaceful community strikes again
Note - I don’t like his stance as a Zionist / Israel supporter but what he said about Islam is inherently true.
If religion is divine and perfect, why hasn’t it united people? Why has it fueled division, wars, and hatred?
And if people are the problem, why hasn’t religion managed to fix them after thousands of years?
At some point, you have to question both. We’ve had over 1400 years of prayers, fasting, and rituals yet corruption, injustice and hypocrisy are everywhere. Islam became a way to ease guilt not to become better. Pray, tick the box, move on while nothing actually changes.
Meanwhile, societies that don’t follow your religion often have more justice, order, and accountability. Why? Because the world runs on principlestruth, discipline, fairnessnot on inherited beliefs or claims. The issue today feels shared: A religion stripped of its spiritual depth, and followers looking for easy forgiveness without real self improvement.
That’s we as younger generations are walking away not because we hate God, but because we see the contradiction between what’s preached and what’s real. Maybe “true religion” isn’t rituals or identity. Maybe it’s awareness, character, conduct and how you treat people. If your beliefs don’t make you more honest, more just, more compassionate—then something is broken. Either in the way you follow it, or in what you’re following. At some point, you have to stop thinking inside the box you inherited… and start asking harder questions.
Muhammad was a false prophet who created a new religion by drawing on stories, beliefs, and customs that were circulating around him in Arabia.
Here is some of the main evidence:
1.) The Quran borrows stories from documented late forgeries that the early Church rejected as inauthentic:
Jesus making clay birds come to life (Quran 3:49 & 5:110) comes directly from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (mid-2nd century, ~140–180 AD). This text is not by the apostle Thomas; it is a pseudepigraphical forgery recognized by early Christians as a legendary fable.
Mary giving birth under a palm tree and shaking it for dates (Quran 19:23–26) comes from the Protoevangelium of James (mid-2nd century), another pseudepigraphical forgery falsely attributed and rejected as inauthentic by the early Church.
2.)The Quran portrays the Christian Trinity as God, Jesus, and Mary:
Quran 5:116 says:
“O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah?’”
No Christian denomination (Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) has ever taught that Mary is part of the Trinity. This suggests Muhammad was reacting to fringe or folk versions of Christianity he encountered locally.
3.) Several revelations appear self-serving:
After his adopted son Zayd divorced Zaynab, Quran 33:37 reveals it is okay for Muhammad to marry her and abolishes the adoption custom.
Quran 33:50 gives Muhammad special permission to marry more women than other Muslims.
4.)Islamic Paradise emphasizes earthly indulgence:
The Quran describes Jannah with gardens, rivers, silk couches, wine, and companions (houris) (e.g., 55:72, 56:22–24)...very different from the Christian view of heaven as eternal communion with God.
This pattern suggests Muhammad was heavily influenced by the religious environment around him rather than receiving pure divine revelation.
The descriptions of embryonic and fetal development in the Quran and the hadith contain at least three errors:
Error 1
Quran 23:14 gives the order of embryonic development but says flesh comes after bones.
>"Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allāh, the best of creators."
>
>Quran 23:14
There is never a point where an embryo is just a skeleton without flesh.
Error 2
Sahih (authentic) hadiths say women have a "thin and yellow" discharge and that the child resembles whoever discharges first.
>"Man's discharge (i. e. sperm) is thick and white and the discharge of woman is thin and yellow."
>
>Sahih Muslim 311
>"If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets discharge first, the child will resemble the father, and if the woman gets discharge first, the child will resemble her."
>
>Sahih Bukhari 3329
Women have no "thin and yellow" discharge that contributes to the child's resemblance. The child's resemblance is based on genetics, not who discharges first.
Error 3
Sahih (authentic) hadith says fetuses are a clot of blood from 40-80 days and a piece of flesh from 80-120 days.
> * "a human being is put together in the womb of the mother in forty days [0-40 days], > * and then he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period [40-80 days], > * and then a piece of flesh for a similar period [80-120 days]" > > Sahih Bukhari 3208
Between days 40-80 fetuses aren't a blood clot. They develop fingers and toes. Between 80-120 days, they aren't a lump of flesh. They develop bones.
Bruh yall don’t know how to do comedy
P1: The Quran contains verses that are compatible with findings of modern science.
P2: This compatibility indicates that those verses are referring to scientific facts that were only fully understood in modern times.
P3: If these verses were authored by Muhammad, it would be highly improbable that he acquired such scientific knowledge through ordinary means, given the historical and social context in which he lived.
P4: Therefore, the most plausible explanation is that this knowledge originated from God.
Conclusion: Quran is from God.
Above is the scientific miracle argument many Muslims commonly use. I'm going to show you how I refute this in three main ways.
This argument challenge the assumption of premise 2 that if a statement is compatible or matches with X, therefore, it specifically means X. This is not necessarily true, just because a verse/description is compatible with a particular concept does not necessarily mean it talks about or refers to it. Especially if the verse is vague/broad (which is by nature can be match many many things).
Example:
Quran 21:33
"And He is the One Who created the day and the night, the sun and the moon—each travelling in an orbit."
Muslims claim that this refer to modern heliocentric concept, but hold on, why the huge stretch? The Quran is vague here, it doesn't specify what the sun and moon are orbiting. It could be that this simply refer to the apparent motion of the sun and moon on the sky, which is something people at that time could've known. It can be that they mistakenly assume that it's the orbit of the sun since they didn't know about earth's rotation yet. It could also refer to geocentric model that may be commonly believed back then.
For the detailed argument, look at my post here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1q13ph8/argument_against_scientific_miracle_scientific/
This one also challenges premise 2 in a different way. Basically, the technique of this argument is that you make a scientifically inaccurate alternative interpretation that can also match to the same verse claimed as scientific miracle. The purpose is to show that if one claim a verse specifically predict modern science simply because it matches the description, then it's justified for you to claim that the verse is also scientifically inaccurate since it matches with your alternative interpretation. It's kind of like the reductio ad absurdum technique. It challenges the consistency and shows why vague statement cannot be reliably taken as predictions or knowledge since it's catch-all and can be matched to many things.
Demonstration:
Quran 55:19-20
"He merges the two bodies of ˹fresh and salt˺ water, yet between them is a barrier they never cross."
Muslims claim that this refer to the iconic image that shows two waters with different color met. Some even claim that this refer to halocline itself. Again, they claim this simply because it matches. Now, let's see if it also matches with my "alternative interpretation".
1. This verse says that fresh and salt water literally cannot mix.
2. This verse talks about a literal, solid wall barrier in the estuary.
Do this two interpretations match the verse? Yes, it said "barrier they never cross" so number one fits. It also fits number two since it never specify what is "the barrier" exactly.
Are these scientific? No! Fresh and salt water DO mix, just slowly. Number two is self-explanatory.
If Muslims can claim that the verse is scientific because it vaguely matches to their modern science interpretation, then I also can claim that the verse is a scientific mistake since it also vaguely matches with my scientifically inaccurate alternative interpretation. Now let's see possible counter-arguments they could make:
1. "Your interpretation is completely made up, and you stretch the verse excessively to connect it"
Answer:
So is scientific miracle interpretation, that's the point. Muslims make new interpretations and make a big stretch so they can retrofit the verse to modern science. This is also why the scientific miracle claim almost if not always existed after the discovery.
2. "You're misinterpreting the verse, you need to understand the Arabic, look at tafseer (exegesis), and the context."
Answer:
How about scientific miracle claims? Do they bring what the tafseer said or the context? I've literally NEVER seen scientific miracle claim that bring classical tafseer to support their claim, not even once. If they can just make their own interpretation for the sake of retrofitting it to modern science while ignoring tafseer or the context, why can't I do the same thing to my interpretation?
The Arabic doesn't help here, since one Arabic word can mean multiple things. They use this as an advantage to argue semantics and do the usual retrofitting obscure verses to their desired interpretation. This can also be applied to my interpretation.
>Edit (13/02/2026)
I need to clarify, this is a reductio ad absurdum argument. The conclusion of argument 2 is not that the Quran contain scientific mistake. Rather, it shows that the methodology used to prove scientific miracle in the Quran can also easily be used to prove that the Quran contain scientific mistake. If you accept the logic of the methodology, then under that framework I could also say the Quran has scientific mistake, which you wouldn't like. Thus, the conclusion is to prove that the logic is very flawed and should be abandoned.
For more detailed demonstration/explanation, see this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1pg0868/unscientific_miracles_of_the_quran/
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1pf6spt/comment/nshpnn3/?context=3
This is the most straightforward one, which is showing them that the tafseer or context is inconsistent with the scientific miracle claim. Like I said before, the overwhelming majority of scientific miracle never look at what the tafseer said. Often if you look at the tafseer of the purported scientific miracle verses, you realize that it's actually not modern knowledge at all. It mostly talks about something that is an obvious fact, common-sense, common knowledge at that time, metaphorical, symbolic, or mythological/scientifically inaccurate concept. Thus, this are meant to challenge both premise 2 and 3. Another way to use this is that if we were to apply their scientific miracle interpretation more consistently, it can unintentionally make the verse scientifically inaccurate/non-sensical.
Two examples (And the category based on the things I listed):
1. Quran 81:15-16
"I do swear by the receding stars, which travel and hide"
Some claim that this talk about blackholes, but if you look at the tafseer
, it actually talk about the stars in the sky that disappear or set on the day and reappear at night. No description specifically similar to blackholes.
Thus, it turns out that it talks about something that is an obvious fact or common-sense.
2. Quran 57:25
"We sent down iron with its great might, benefits for humanity, and means for Allah to prove who ˹is willing to˺ stand up for Him and His messengers without seeing Him."
The claim is that this proves that Quran knew that Iron comes from space. If you look at the Arabic, the word used for "sent down" is Anzalna. The word and its other forms are also used for cattle (39:6), the book (39:2), and scriptures (57:25). This clearly shows that it is not literal, but metaphorical.
If you were to accept it as literal, then this means you also need to accept that cattle are from space.
This is what I mean by:
"if we were to apply their scientific miracle interpretation more consistently, it can unintentionally make the verse scientifically inaccurate/non-sensical."
For more detailed examples, see this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1pvbtbr/these_are_some_scientific_miracles_that_i_believe/
Here I show:
1. The verse about iron from space which I've talked about.
2. Verse claimed to say that the moon is reflected, but it turns out that the Arabic word does not mean reflected, it just mean light. So the verse simply say that the moon has a light. This means it's an obvious fact or common-sense.
3. The verse about barrier that separate the two seas. There I show that one of the interpretation/tafseer says that the "barrier" actually means dry land. This means it turns out to refer to something that is an obvious fact or common-sense (again).
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1l5r0pr/the_big_bang_verse_alanbiya_30_is_weirder_than/
Here I show the tafseer of the verse that is claimed to refer to the Big Bang. It turns out that the tafseer describe a concept that seems more mythological/scientifically inaccurate, far from the Big Bang.
Note:
These three techniques aren't mutually exclusive, all can be used to one scientific miracle claim.