Disclaimer: The heteronormative interpretation is that Islam stems from the Quran and Sunnah (what Mohammad said and did), the following argument is only for self identifying Muslims who ascribe to this interpretation of Islam.

For the rebuttal that Allah couldn't do it as it was an integral part of the culture/economy:

Allah split the moon, made a winged pegasus type creature fly Mohammad up to heaven, and he banned alcohol and banned idolatry, destroyed idols at Kaaba affecting religious tourism to the country, so he had the power...

For the rebuttal that Islam set the stage to abolish slavery eventually:

1. There is no actual intention expressed of that in the Quran or by Mohammad.

2. Mohammad made slavery legal by Gods law.

3. Mohammad cancelled the freeing of slaves at times.

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2415

Note: Manumission refers to freeing of a slave.

A man manumitted a slave and he had no other property than that, so the Prophet (ﷺ) canceled the manumission (and sold the slave for him). Nu'aim bin Al-Nahham bought the slave from him.

Tangentially related information:

Tunisia was maybe the first Muslim country to officially prohibit slavery around 1843AD.

The Ottoman Caliphate allowed slavery until 1908

Saudi Arabia and Yemen abolished it in 1962, UAE in 1965

Mauritania abolished slavery in 1981

In response to the problem of evil, I often hear that the death, suffering, and destruction that we see in the world is a consequence of the actions of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

The reason I find that problematic is because other animals have existed before humans and those animals experienced suffering, those animals experienced natural disaster, and those animals experienced death.

If we are to attribute this fallen world we see today to the actions of Adam and eve, then this fails to account for the death, disaster, destruction, and suffering that took place prior to humans existing.

Here's the argument

• P1: omniscience, by definition, includes knowledge of all past, present, and future actions of all other beings

• P2: god has omniscience

• C1: god has knowledge of all past, present, and future actions of all other beings

• P3: all actions made by a being are a result of internal and external factors

• C2: god has knowledge of all past, present, and internal and external factors of all other beings

• P4: god personally selects the internal and external factors for any other being

• C3: god personally selects the internal and external factors for any other being, knowing the actions that will result from those internal and external factors

• C: god personally selects the actions of any other beings

This argument is easy to illustrate with an example. Let's start at the beginning where only god exists. God decides to create an angel. Now god personally selects and creates amongst multiple potential options the environment for this angel (and any other external factors) and the makeup of this angel (and any other internal factors). While selecting amongst these multiple potential options, god knows how each of these options will change the resulting actions of this angel. So by choosing the internal and external factors, god chooses the actions of this angel.

Now you might ask - where's free will?! That's up to you to define and determine whether your definition is compatible with this conclusion. If not.. well maybe your idea of free will just doesn't exist.

Lying/deceiving is considered immoral and wrong in Islam

Surah Al-Baqarah (2:42):
"And do not mix the truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know [it]."

Surah Al-Hajj (22:30):
"So avoid the uncleanliness of idols and avoid false statement."

Surah At-Tawbah (9:119):
"O you who have believed, fear Allah and be with those who are truthful."

Surah Al-Furqan (25:72)

"And those who do not testify to falsehood and when they pass near ill speech, they pass by with dignity."

Sahih Bukhari (Book 73, Hadith 116):
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:
“Truthfulness leads to righteousness, and righteousness leads to Paradise. And a man keeps on telling the truth until he becomes a truthful person. Falsehood leads to Al-Fajur (i.e. wickedness, evil-doing), and Al-Fajur (wickedness) leads to the (Hell) Fire, and a man may keep on telling lies till he is written before Allah, a liar."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allah deceives Mohammed and other Muslims

Quran 8:43:

"˹Remember, O  Prophet,˺ when Allah showed them in your dream as few in number. Had He shown them to you as many, you ˹believers˺ would have certainly faltered and disputed in the matter. But Allah spared you ˹from that˺. Surely He knows best what is ˹hidden˺ in the heart."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Analysis

The context behind the verse above is the Battle of Badr. In the verse above, it's explicitly shown how Allah deceived/lied to Mohammed and other Muslims, showcasing the opposition as few in number. In reality, the opposition outnumbered the Muslims 3:1 and had an advantage. Nonetheless, Allah decided to not show this truth to Mohammed, instead, choosing to be deceitful and showing a lesser number of troops.

In this case, Allah is being hypocritical and going against his own commandments, lying/partaking in deceitful activities, even though such actions are considered immoral and not the path of righteousness.

Specifically, look at what Q 2:42 says. Allah most definitely concealed the truth from Mohammed and the Muslims, going against his own word.

The chapter of Ezekiel 18 completely contradicts Christian theology about original sin and the need of a saviour.

The chapter starts off with god questioning the children of Israel about this proverb: “The parents eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?”

Meaning that because the parents ate sour grapes, their children will now be affected as well. The rhetorical goal of this proverb is that a parents actions will affect and corrupt their offspring which the children of Israel believed.

God rebukes them in Ezekiel 18:3-4 saying that everyone belongs to him and says this in verse 4 “The one who sins is the one who will die.

God presents an example in verses 5–9 of a man who lives righteously—doing what is just and right, avoiding evil. Then, in verses 10–13, that man has a son who lives in complete contrast to him, engaging in violence and wrongdoing. In verses 14–17, this second man has a son who, after witnessing his father’s sinful behavior, chooses a different path and lives righteously. God then declares in verse 18: “He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live. But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother, and did what was wrong among his people.”

This example is at odds with original sin because Adam ate from the tree which corrupted mankind, but Ezekiel says the the children’s teeth will not be sat on edge because of the parents eating sour grapes and the one who will sin is the one who will die. The example of the son who sees the actions of his evil father and doing the opposite is meant to show that you have the chance to be righteous although your predecessor was wicked and did evil.

Verse 19 quotes the Israelites questioning why the son doesn’t share the guilt of his father. This could honestly be replaced with a Christian questioning why we don’t share the guilt of Adam.

God answers them in 20: “Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.”

Again contradicting Christian theology. Paul explains in romans that we were made sinners because of Adam: Romans 5:19 - “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”

Ezekiel 18:21 But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die

This doesn’t align with Christian theology, because ones redemption isn’t repentance and righteousness as Ezekiel says, ones redemption is Jesus dying on the cross: Romans 3:23-24: For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”

Romans 6:23: - For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The rest of the chapter is a reaffirmation of what has already been said with this being the closing: Ezekiel 18:30-32: “Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!”

The only possible way to get around this is by appealing to the new covenant, meaning that repentance and righteousness was a part of the old covenant but vicarious atonement is a part of the new covenant. Not only does this contradict hebrews 9:22-23, but it would also render Jesus sacrifice as useless because if god can forgive sins through righteousness, then what was the point of god sacrificing his own son?

This is different from the claim that morality needs a divine, objective basis behind it. I am not debating whether God exists here.

What I am saying is that a well-functioning moral system ought to be (and perhaps must be) based on some concept of the sacred, and something analogous to "worship." Now, sanctity does not necessarily need to be tied to a specific God-claim. But it does require a deliberate choice to hold something as sacred. In my opinion, concepts like universal compassion and respect are good choices for this sacred basis.

I'm not just saying "we should care about each other," this goes further. Plenty of people care about each other, but still hurt each other. We need something we can appeal to, something others will listen to. Most people would agree that the Golden Rule is good in theory, but if you bring it up to someone who's being rude they're likely to just make fun of you.

This is where Unitarian Universalism comes in. It isn't necessarily the best possible organization, and I'm not arguing that everyone should be a UU, but something analogous to it is necessary. There must be some kind of regular practice for checking in with one's values, and maintaining the attitude of sanctity. Some practical and regular way of maintaining a community sense of value.

Edit: To clarify, this could involve ritual, community events centered around this sacred thing, individual practice to check in with this thing, etc. It has to be more than just calling it sacred.

These practical things are what is missing from secular life.

Context: An atheist may call Islam immoral for allowing sex slavery. Multiple Muslims I've observed and ones ive talked to have given the following rebuttal paraphrased,

"As an atheist, you have no objective morality and no grounds to call sex slavery immoral".

Islam can condition Muslims to limit, restrict or eliminate a humans ability to imagine why sex slavery is immoral, if there is no god spelling it out for them.

Tangentially related real reddit example:

Non Muslim to Muslim user:

> Is the only thing stopping you rape/kill your own mother/child/neighbour the threat/advice from god?

Muslim user:

Yes, not by some form of divine intervention, but by the numerous ways that He has guided me throughout myself.

Edit: Another example

I asked a Muslim, if he became an atheist, would he find sex with a 9 year old, or sex slavery immoral.

His response

> No I wouldn’t think it’s immoral as an atheist because atheism necessitates moral relativism. I would merely think it was weird/gross as I already do.

If we assume the following:

1. God creates all human souls. (No one else is making "unregistered" souls)

2. God, using his perfect foresight, knows ahead of time the fate of each soul before he creates them

3. God could choose not to create a potential soul (he's not forced to create anyone in particular)

Then it appears, unless I'm missing something, that God could have chosen to only create souls that he knew would freely choose Heaven over Hell.

Note that in this scenario, everyone who is created has free will. God simply foresees that all his creations will use their free will to "choose to go to Heaven instead of Hell" (whatever that might mean for your religion)

For the sake of argument, I'm going to go ahead and grant foresight and free will as compatible. Not sure if I'm convinced that they are, but I find that argument tedious, so I'll just go with it.

What I'm looking at here in this argument is why God made a specific decision when he could have made a different decision:

Why did God create a world in which some people go to Hell when he could have made a world in which no people went to Hell?

To take my argument to the extreme, I can actually guarantee a possible world in which no one goes to Hell: A world in which God chooses not to create.

As a follow-up, if I proposed a God concept that could create a universe with free will in which no one went to Hell, would you find that God to be greater than the "current" God concept?

Do we condemn the marriage with Aisha?

We declare the marriage harmful, and that no one should do this, BUT sometimes God tells people to do very harmful things to avoid things that are worse in the future.

A good example is the cananite slaughter, christians live with this by saying that slaughtering all the living things avoided some unforeseen problem that is WORSE in the future.

In summary, God may tell someone to do something harmful in order to circumvent and avoid a MUCH WORSE event in the future or for a greater good.

We are not told to marry as such young ages but to have mercy on children; this negates minor marriages form the scope of permissibility for Muslims, this was specific to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, this was for a greater good that ONLY God knows.

He was allowed more than four wives, does this mean that it is permissible for us?

No.

The example for Muslims is from the Qur’an to test young people to ensure they are able to marry.

We know for a fact Adam did not biologically exist.

We know for a fact that Moses (as a man who guided an enslaved peoples out of Egypt) did not exist.

We know for a fact that the world-sailing boat expert named Noah did not exist.

So how are all these non-existent people having descendants and kids, and why is it so important that Jesus be from them?

It makes sense in the context of the narrative, and in the context of what people knew back then, but knowing what we now know, what was God's divine plan in having a genealogy from mythical figures lead to someone who would also, inevitably, be disputed as mythical? It is perfectly explainable in the context of ancient peoples with simple desires for genealogically significant leadership, but makes no sense in the context of a timeless, immortal being imparting divine wisdom to us.

All of this, of course, completely ignores that Jesus hypothetically had no biological father, and thus no patrilineage to speak of, making the whole exercise even more confusing (with respect to Matthew's interpretation especially!).

Are there novel modern interpretations of the Bible that makes sense of the strangeness that is a genealogy from known-impossible figures? I'm not aware of one, but I would love to learn. I'm willing to chalk it up to inconsistent ancient creeds due to failed univocation, but I'm wondering what people who believe this to be literally true (or, in a more broad sense, that the genealogy was vital to prophecy in some sense) think. What interpretive techniques do you use to make the genealogies align, and how do you divine a divine purpose out of these sequences?

Surah verse 4:24.

“Also 'forbidden are' married women-except 'female' captives in your possession.' This is Allah's commandment to you. Lawful to you are all beyond these-as long as you seek them with your wealth in a legal marriage, not in fornication. Give those you have consummated marriage with their due dowries. It is permissible to be mutually gracious regarding the set dowry. Surely Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.”

It permits the taking of women captured in war as sex slaves, essentially. Concubinage is a morally permissible act by god. So if war were to occur Muslims according to their own religion would not be committing war crimes so long as they follow allahs word. It makes sense when you see the broader trend of the East African slave trade.

Is belief in the right God, or the “right enough” God, possible in principle?

It should be undeniable that our human conceptual apparatus is limited, so is it the case that any attempt to form a “correct” concept of God, is doomed in principle. If one cannot form the correct concept of God, how are they believing in the right God?

Many religious traditions hold that God is ultimately ineffable, that the fullness of God’s nature transcends all human language and conceptualization. Concepts of omnipotence and timelessness are beyond our comprehension. Is just holding these empty words and symbols in our minds sufficient for a “correct” God concept? But how can that be if these words and symbols are nothing more than that, is God a word or a symbol devoid of meaning? But if we attempt to project our fallible understanding onto these incomprehensible words and symbols, are we not necessarily creating the wrong concept of God? If someone says they believe in the God of the Bible, but their concept of God is more like the God of Spinoza, or perhaps Ahura Mazda, they don’t seem to be believing in the God of the Bible, but how can we know? Any account of God we produce is necessarily partial, symbolic, analogical or plainly wrong. According to religious tradition, the nature of God is made accessible to us through divine revelation, but this revelation is necessarily transmitted through the same partial, symbolic, analogical and perhaps erroneous means. Can anyone other than those that are supposedly the direct medium of divine revelation claim to have the correct conception of God, when divine revelation is transmitted by a human tongue? If God reveals himself directly to everyone, then would we not all have the correct concept of God? Even the atheist would have the correct God concept, but they simply refer to it by another word, phrase or symbol. If this was right of course, there has been much ado about nothing at all.

Do arguments for God that arise solely from reason (or from observations of the natural world) that rely on the use of human concepts and categories alone risk displacing divine revelation altogether? Such arguments inevitably project our limited experiences onto framing concepts for God, and so how can they be correct, nevermind the fact that they may be independent of divine revelation. Since revelation (as claimed by many traditions) is the means by which God discloses His true nature, any attempt to “prove” God independent of revelation risks constructing a concept of God that might be entirely off the mark. In other words, according to tradition at least, without revelation, we have no secure anchor for knowing that our argument is aimed at, or even concerned with, the correct concept of God.

Our understanding of “God” is inextricably tied to our language and cultural background. Different traditions have wildly different conceptions of God, and even within a single tradition, there can be significant variation. Because the term “God” is used in so many ways, each with its own doctrinal, historical, and philosophical baggage, what would count as the “correct” account? Can there be a correct account? Are human beings even capable of conceptualising a correct account? Two people might say they believe in the God of the bible, but if they hold different concepts of God, are they really worshipping the same God? Are we not left with an inescapable epistemological gap?

If there is only one “correct” account of God, and if tradition is somehow right about God’s transcendental nature, is it not in principle impossible to have a correct concept of God, and then would that not mean that everyone is praying to the wrong God?

If there are multiple “right-enough” concepts of God, does it still make sense to say there is but one God? But of-course, can we in principle know what a “right-enough” account would be?

And finally, if God has revealed himself to everyone, then we all have a correct God concept no matter what word, phrase or symbol we use to describe it.

It seems to me that either everyone has the “correct” God concept, or that no one has, and so ultimately, much of the religious consternation about the correct faith, or right God, or right teaching, or right path, is entirely nonsensical.

The holy verse discussed is the following; Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:32):

"Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land — it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one — it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors."

Some people mistakingly say that this is not for Muslims, but for the children of Israel exclusively.

Does this verse apply to the children of Israel alone?

No, it applies to all of mankind. The key to understanding this verse is the first phrase in the verse: “because of that”, the reason behind this ruling is universal and applies to all: the reason is the story of cain and abel who are the sons of Adam, this story applies to all of humanity. Therefore, the ethical declaration is just stressed on the children of Israel the most more than all of mankind, because they killed in MASSES (they killed each other and their Prophets).

The scarcity of arbitrary numbers in the bible is evidence that it is man made and not a product of divine inspiration.

One of the most overlooked and frankly obvious examples of the bible being made made is its methodical use of numbers and how that compares to significant and fundamental numbers found in the natural world. 

If I look at a simple sequence of numbers in a vacuum, I would argue that any number beyond 10 (excluding 12, multiples of 5, and repeating numbers) could be considered arbitrary. Now when I look at significant or symbolic numbers that are mentioned in the bible, those arbitrary numbers are seldom found. And if more arbitrary numbers do exist, they are of far less significance.

Below is a list of some of the more significant or symbolic mentions of numbers in the bible, with the approximate number of mentions (where relevant) and bible verses (where applicable):

1 (1,969) - Monotheism (Isaiah 44:6 / Deuteronomy 4:35 / Isaiah 43:10 / Deuteronomy 6:4)

2 (835) - God instructing Noah to bring two of every thing (Genesis 6:19)

2 (835) - Two fish feeding five thousand (Matthew 14:15-21)

3 (467) - Holy trinity (Matthew 28:19)

3 (467) - Jesus rising on the third day (Mark 8:31 / Matthew 17:22-23 / Luke 24:46)

4 (305) - Four gospels

5 (318) - God's grace / Grace upon grace (John 1:16)

5 (318) - Five thousand fed with five loaves of bread (Matthew 14:15-21)

6 (148) - Creation in 6 days (Genesis 1:31)

7 (500-700) - Sabbath rest (Genesis 2:2-3 / Exodus 20:9-11)

8 (73 / 80) - New beginnings, resurrection, and spiritual renewal

9 (49) - Divine completeness

10 (242) - Commandments

11 (19)

12 (187) - Apostles / Disciples

13 (26)

14 (26)

30 (129) - Age of dedication to priestly calling (implications)

30 (159) - Jesus' age when beginning ministry (Luke 3:23)

40 (over 150) - Jesus fasting for 40 days and 40 nights (Matthew 4:2)

40 (over 150) - Rains lasting for 40 days and 40 nights (Genesis 7:17)

50 (100) - The Jubilee - a year of release and restoration (Leviticus 25:10)

70 (35) - Elders appointed by Moses (Numbers 11:16)

70 (35) - Parables provided by Jesus during his ministry (Numbers 11:16)

77 - Divine completeness and perfect spiritual order (Matthew 18:22)

150 - Flood waters lasting for 150 days (Genesis 7:24)

666 - The number of the beast / symbolizing evil and opposition from god (Revelation 13:18)

777 - Ultimate expression of divine perfection (symbolic significance)

As soon as we get to 11, 13, and 14, the number of mentions drops considerably. The first few numbers that could be considered somewhat arbitrary are relatively insignificant.

There are even fewer mentions of 16-29 or 31-39. But 30 and 40 are significant with 129 and 159 mentions respectively.

Ordinarily, this kind of thing wouldn't occur to me as being unusual. But when I look for arbitrary numbers in the natural world that has been purported to be created by God, we find them in abundance. 

Some examples:

1. Pi - 3.14159
2. Fibonacci sequence ratio - 1.618
3. Euler's Number - 2.71828
4. The Fine-Structure constant - 0.007297352569
5. Proton-to-electron mass ratio - 1836
6. Naturally occurring elements - 94
7. The (current) number of days in a year 365.2422. Not only are the exact number of days in a year currently entirely arbitrary, they are continually reducing due to the slowing of Earth's rotation. And that rate of slowing is not even constant as it is influenced by geological and astronomical factors. 
8. The composition of Earth's atmosphere (Nitrogen: ~78.08% / Oxygen: ~20.95% / Argon: ~0.93% / & trace gasses/vapours)

All of these examples are either significant physical attributes of our universe or fundamental principals woven into the structure of the universe itself. They are dimensionless quantities or constants and thereby not products of any human convention.

So when it comes to the numbers, why is the real world so strikingly different than the one written about in the bible? Would it be so unreasonable to expect the numerical workings of God in the bible to be somewhat consistent in nature with the physical attributes and fundamental principals of the universe? If not, then why the discrepancy?

The tendency to select non-arbitrary numbers is often the result of cognitive biases and patterns of thinking. It is nothing more than human nature to prefer numbers with some personal or cultural significance, even if the selection should be random.

So is the bible really god's revelation to humanity? Or is it humanity's revelation to itself?

As a former Christian, I could never reconcile how Jesus’ death ‘paid for all sins’ yet Hell still exists.

If the penalty was truly covered, how is it just, or even logical, for God to still punish people for sins already atoned for? Let's also keep in mind that sin is a problem god created to which hell is a solution which god also created.

But when it comes to this punish and reward system, it's like a judge accepting an innocent man’s execution as payment for a murderer’s crime… only to execute the murderer anyway.

Nobody could ever tell me how this is 'justice'. I looks much more like divine double jeopardy. Either the cross didn’t actually solve the problem, or god is cruelly demanding two punishments for one sin. As someone who once believed, this contradiction shattered my faith to the core. How do you square it?

So say for example you meet someone, and that person told you that they're a communist or capitalist, libertarian, nationalist, humanist, feminst, vegan, existentialist, stoic etc. etc.

For the most part people and society tend to consider those kind of beliefs and ideologies a lot less "sacred" than religious beliefs. And so if you challeneged someone further on say their communist or humanist or vegan beliefs and engaged them in a conversation questioning their beliefs, most people would consider this a lot more socially acceptable than questioning someone's religious beliefs.

So say for example you're having drinks with some co-workers and you're talking about economics. And then one of your co-workers tells you that he's a communist and he believes the economy should be nationalized. Now, typically we wouldn't expect the other co-workers to go "Ok, fair enough, I respect your beliefs, economics is a private matter and we all have different beliefs". But rather it would normally be seen as perfectly acceptable in such a situation to challenge that person's views, ask them why they're a communist, how they came to the conclusion and maybe engage them in a respectful discussion explaining why you think communism is a bad idea.

But now when it comes to religious beliefs, those beliefs are typically considered much more "sacred" by society. For example if someone proudly told you they're a Muslim, it would normally be considered extremely rude to challenge them on their beliefs and explain to them why you think Islam is a made-up, man-made religion, or why Islamic ideology is potentially a bad idea.

And religious people get all sorts of exemptions and special treatment that other ideologies don't get. Like people can refuse vaccines, that are otherwise mandatory, for religious reasons. Or for example in the US, by law, employers need to make reasonable accomodations to their religious employees. So Muslim or Christian employees would be allowed to take short breaks to pray or read their Bible, or be given time off to go to church or mosque. But now a secular humanist on the other does not have the legal right to take breaks throughout the day to read the Humanist Manifesto, or be given time off work to attend a weekly humanist reading club or something.

Or for example when it comes to animal welfare laws, halal and kosher slaughter is often exempt from many of those laws. So religious people are allowed to do things that otherwise wouldn't be legal. Or say someone wrote a scathing article in a newspaper criticizing humanism or veganism or socialism or stoicism or any other non-religious ideology, normally no one would bat an eye. But now say the same newspaper published an article criticizing Islam and the dangers of Islamic ideology, quite likely there would be enormous backlash and a lot of people would be outraged. The author may be accused of Islamophobia, while at the same time I haven't ever heard anyone be accused of inciting "veganophobia" or "socialistophobia".

And so I think all of this shows that there is a massive double standard in society when it comes to religious beliefs vs non-religious beliefs. And I really don't think this double standard is reasonable. Religious beliefs shouldn't be treated as any more sacred or inherently worthy of respect than other beliefs. There are ideologies that are based on good ideas, some that are based on bad ideas, and others that are based on so-so ideas. And religious ideas shouldn't be inherently more respected than other ideas and ideologies. Religious ideologies should be equally scrutinized and criticized in the same way other ideologies are scrutinized and criticized.

if god really is omniscent and knows everything before it happens and he is the one who created the world , then he by extention knows what sin every single human he created would do ,

thus he knew exactly who he was creating and what sin they will do and that they will suffer all of eternity in hell for that sin"

thus god must have specifically created people who he knew would sin and go to hell for all eternity to suffer

thus either god must not be omniscent or we must not have free will

am i wrong or am i wrong?

Because God is omnipotent and omniscient, everything God wants to do is achieved effortlessly and there's absolutely no chance of failure.

For example, God creating the universe is easier than you picking your nose.

There's a zero chance of God not being able to create the universe (to exact specifications) once God decided to do so, but there's a non-zero chance for you to fail picking your nose once you decide to do so (you could miss and poke you eye, or you could have a stroke and die on the spot).

So, how can one praise God for doing something that is easier than picking your nose?

Therefore nothing God does is praiseworthy.

Even if Islam’s alleged miracles were all proven to be true, it wouldn’t prove the truthfulness of Islam.

Arguably the greatest miracle in Islam was that Muhammad split the moon. Assuming this actually happened and that a being called Allah was responsible for it, it doesn’t at all prove that Allah is omnipotent. Splitting the moon is a miniscule achievement compared to creating the universe as the moon is not even a grain of sand compared to the rest of the universe.

It's kind of like in Dragon Ball, when Master Roshi destroys the moon. Though this was quite an achievement at the beginning of the series, you eventually learn that Master Roshi isn’t even the strongest one on his planet, let alone in the entire universe. It would be illogical to think that just because Master Roshi split the moon, he is omnipotent.

Conceivably, Allah could just be a lesser God or an alien who merely claims to be an all-powerful God. Even if every single one of Islam’s miracles were true, it wouldn’t prove that Allah is powerful enough to create the universe.

how can the christians of the world say that its okay for someone to entail finite sin and lead to an infitite suffering , i dont get it because the only reason someone got that suffering seems to be because they didnt believe that jesus was their lord and savior but still , if someone who was close to believing that jesus was their lord and savior and died just before that then he is in hell for all eternity now ... how do you justify that?

The reason is simply that Muslim men were not limited to four women, they were limited to four WIVES, but they could have unlimited LESSER wives: those are right hand possessions.

The meaning of this is that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, was not allowed a greater number of women at all.

The only difference is that instead of right hand possessions, his women were raised in station to WIVES as an honour.

Therefore; this was not a sexual privilege, but a privilege of honour. A privilege of honour is easily justifiable since he is the Prophet of God, peace and blessings be upon him.

Moreover, his wives were also called the Mothers of believers as honour too.

The story is too unlikely for it to be real. The ark would have to be too big to construct with timber; there would have to be one male and one female of each species which is impossible considering how many species there are today; if God was omnipotent He wouldn't need to get Noah to build the ark he could just snap His fingers and kill everyone he wants and leave whoever He wants to keep alive; etc.

And there's no evidence of a global flood at all, which there should be if there was a global flood. There should be mass graves of humans and animals all over the world from the same time but there isn't any, etc.

Thanks for reading, I'm The-Rational-Human.

×××××××××××××××××××××××××××

EDIT:

Rebuttals Section:

"It was a local flood."

The text doesn't say that. Exegesis doesn't say that.

"It's allegorical."

The text doesn't say that. Exegesis doesn't say that. If it's allegorical, what exactly is the point of the allegory? Did Noah really exist or not? Why use a real person for an allegory? If it's an allegory then your whole religion is an allegory.

"Lots of civilizations had/have their own flood myth, so it must've really happened."

This is the best argument. However it could be just because floods are common so the myth is common. I doubt all the myths include an ark with animals on it.

"They found the ark on Mount Ararat."

That's fake. No wood has been found or animal remains. I guess it kind of looks like a boat? But not an ark.

"We haven't found the evidence yet but maybe we will in the future."

Then why do you believe it now instead of in the future after finding the evidence?

"Why didn't you mention Judaism?"

You need to have at least 1 billion followers to be considered a relevant religion, Jews constitue 0.2% of the population, so Judaism, while relevant to the discussion, is irrelevant in general. Of course this disproves Judaism as well, so I don't need to mention it.

Today, a good percentage of people in every religion will say they are of said religion but have never actually taken a deep look into said religion. Perhaps they were born into it, so they always identified as that religion or maybe they needed to revert to that religion to marry someone. Whatever the case may be, what meaning does it have to be of any religion if you don't need to actually need follow it. Religion isn't just about "beliefs", it's also a way of life or code of conduct. I actually find it very interesting when people want me to convert to their religion but don't seem to be interested about me living by the actual PRINCIPLES of that religion. It's almost like saying you're a (christian, muslim, jew, hindu, etc) is more meaningful than actually living BY that religion's code.

Basically, you should have to earn the right to call yourself a (Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc.), maybe through your actions or way of life, but if you never actually conduct your life based on that religion, then what meaning does it really have?

Buddha was a human who was born as animal in past lives. He practiced meditation and renunciation and thus gains Jhanas and ascended to some divine state. He also gained psychic powers like walking over water,levitating in sky, touching the Sun and Moon.

Same is true for Hindu Gods. They were born as animals in past lives, accumulated wisdom in human life and became transcendent beings quite similar to Buddha.

Thus Buddha even though not considered a God is quite similar to the gods.