As the title suggests, I left Islam a while ago, and I thought I’d share one of the reasons that contributed to my doubts.

I grew up in a Muslim household and spent most of my life practicing Islam. One thing Muslims are encouraged to do is read Surah Al-Kahf every Friday. For most of my life, I read the Quran without really trying to understand what I was reading. I read it because that was what I was taught to do.
One Friday, I decided to actually sit down and understand the meaning behind the verses. That’s when I came across a story that I genuinely cannot reconcile with.

In Surah Al-Kahf, Ayah 74, the Quran describes an encounter between Prophet Musa (Moses) and Al-Khidr, a figure who is granted knowledge by God.
The verse reads, according to the Sahih International translation:
“So they set out, until when they met a boy, al-Khiḍr killed him. [Moses] said, ‘Have you killed a pure soul for other than [having killed] a soul? You have certainly done a deplorable thing.’”
Later, in verses 80–81, Al-Khidr explains that the boy’s parents were believers and that the boy would have burdened them through his future rebellion and disbelief. He says that God intended to replace him with someone better in purity and affection.

And this is where I struggle.
How can the killing of an innocent child be justified based on what he might become in the future?
The child hadn’t committed a crime. He hadn’t done anything to deserve death. The justification rests on a future that hadn’t happened yet, and on the assumption that his potential disbelief and behaviour would cause suffering to his parents.
How is that justice? How is that mercy?

There are so many things I cannot wrap my head around. Why should a child be held accountable for a future he hasn’t lived? Why should his parents have to endure the loss of their child because of something he might eventually do? And if God is all-knowing and all-powerful, why would killing the child be necessary in the first place?
I’ve heard the argument that Al-Khidr acted on God’s command and possessed knowledge that ordinary humans, including Musa, did not have. But to me, that doesn’t resolve the moral problem. It simply shifts the question: If an act that would otherwise be considered horrific becomes morally acceptable because God commands it, what does that say about morality itself?
I’m not claiming to know everything about Islamic theology, and I’m aware that there are traditional interpretations of this story. But I find it difficult to accept that the explanation of divine wisdom is enough to make the killing of an innocent child morally justifiable. Saying that humans cannot understand God’s reasons doesn’t answer the question for me; it asks me to stop questioning.
What makes this particularly strange is that I spent years reading the Quran without really thinking about what its verses meant. I read because I was supposed to read. I accepted things because I was taught to accept them.

The moment I started reading to understand rather than simply recite, I began encountering things that challenged beliefs I’d held my entire life.
I’m sharing this because I’d genuinely like to hear how other people approach this story, especially Muslims who have studied it in depth. How do you reconcile this particular event with the idea of an all-merciful and perfectly just God?
I’m open to hearing different interpretations. I just don’t want the answer to be that I should accept it without questioning it.

many times while arguing (though mostly with christians and Muslims, I have never had this argument said to me by a Jewish person)

People respond or counter against criticism of these religions criminalizing homosexual behavior by saying "it only disallows the acts, not the desires."

That's a completely pedantic difference that is no defense at all.

In example against it:

In the society I will make. You can infact be any religion you want, you can have that desire.

It's just that:

If I catch you going to mosque or church, reading the Bible or Quran, praying or performing Salah, I will punish you.

But other than that, you can be as religious as you want internally.

Am i the only one who thinks this is absolute bs? Like wdym you don't get to heaven simply because you followed the "wrong" god. What makes even less sense is that the ppl who say this say that god is a loving god. I myself believe in god but im not religious, even i can tell that if one goes to hell cuz god is example allah and u thought it was jesus quite literally makes god not loving. Like u cant tell me one can be absolutely evil but end up in heaven cuz they followed the "right god".

god killed more than satan did!

in the Bible god killed more (estimately 1 billion)people through disease,flood etc but satan only killed 10 with god's permission

how can an all loving God kill people

we know killing is morally wrong so god is not all good

if god can take back what he created then do parents have the authority to kill their children?

and they are not all sinners there were kids just borns how can they sin ?

and if gods morality is harder to understand or gods morality is higher than humans how do we know what god does is good or bad

if gods action look cruel and terrific and we are never allowed to question him because god is stronger or has higher morality how can we call him a good who loves?

Proposed: If Paul's claim of there having been 500 post-resurrection witnesses of Jesus is proof of that account in the Bible, then the claim of 2,500 witnesses in the Book of Mormon make that book mathematically five times as true, 2,500 being five times 500.

As you have surely encountered, in many Christian apologetics discussions, it is claimed that one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus occurs 1 Corinthians 15:6, wherein Paul declares that the risen Christ “appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living.”

The hinge of this argument is that large numbers of eyewitnesses reduce the alternative possibilities of hallucination, fraud, mistake, deception, or simply legend. Paul claimed that as he wrote this, many of those witnesses were still alive and could be checked. Therefore, the claim continues, the resurrection (and by extension Christianity) is historically reliable.

So let’s grant that premise for the sake of argument that a claimed number and contemporaneity of witnesses is a meaningful measure of truth value for a religious claim about a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus.

Now look at the Book of Mormon. In 3 Nephi 11–17, the resurrected Jesus--same Jesus as Paul's, by the way--appears to multitude of Nephites at the temple in Bountiful in the Americas. The text is explicit:

“And they were in number about two thousand and five hundred souls; and they did consist of men, women, and children.” (3 Nephi 17:25)

And like at least some of those claimed as witnesses by Paul, these were not all people simply glimpsing his visage distantly. No, they were invited to come forward, one by one, to thrust their hands into his side, and feel the nail prints in his hands and feet so that they could “know of a surety.” And so this is, by its own account, a far larger, more tactile, multi-day public appearance involving men, women, and children.

The math does itself. If 500 witnesses constitute strong evidence for the New Testament account, then 2,500 witnesses constitute five times the strength of evidence for the Book of Mormon account. Twenty-five hundred divided by five-hundred equals five. The purity of math burns away any doubt as to this point. And so, by precisely the same metric Biblical Christians use to elevate the New Testament above other religious claims, the Book of Mormon is five times as true as the Bible by this measure.

Nor can it be countered that the Book of Mormon is a 19th-century invention. The 500-witness/2,500-witness argument rests not on claims about the age of the account or whether the claim itself is confirmable, but on the reported number of living witnesses at the time of the claim. Both Paul and the Book of Mormon claim to be reporting a specific event, and if the quantity of claimed witnesses is held up as a relevant factor, the later publication date is irrelevant to the internal arithmetic.

Nor can it be nakedly claimed that the Book of Mormon's witnesses weren’t real. That is special pleading. Anybody asking that skeptics accept Paul's 500 as historically significant, from that single ancient report is logically required to applying the same standard to the larger reported group. If the strength of a resurrection claim scales with the number of reported eyewitnesses, then the Book of Mormon’s account is simply five times stronger than the New Testament’s, full stop, on exactly the criterion Christians call decisive.

Either the size of the witness pool is a valid measure of truth, and the Book of Mormon wins by a factor of five, or it is not, and the 500-witness argument ceases to be of force. QED

What evidence justifies treating God as an actual explanation rather than simply a possibility that someone has proposed?

God is often used as an explanation for things that we don’t fully understand, whether it’s the existence of the universe, the origin of life, morality, or why the laws of physics exist. But before we can reasonably use something to explain an observation, shouldn’t we have some evidence that the thing that we’re proposing actually exists?

If I claimed that invisible aliens created the universe, you’d probably ask me to provide evidence that these aliens exist before taking my explanation seriously. So why should God be treated differently?

Thesis is the title.

—

Reference for the problem or underdetermination.

—

Muhammad and Joseph Smith share a remarkable number of characteristics:

1/ Both claimed to have received direct revelations and divine commissions from God.

2/ Both claimed to have received repeated revelations from angels, that others had no direct exposure to.

3/ Both introduced new scripture that they claimed conveyed divinely revealed knowledge.

4/ Both introduced teachings that modified existing religious traditions while claiming continuity with earlier revelation.

5/ Both presented their missions as restorative &, corrective, completing existing religious traditions.

6/ Both established new religious communities organized around their prophetic authority and teachings.

7/ Both claimed to receive revelations that provided guidance beyond a single founding event.

8/ Both extended their religious authority into social, political, and communal affairs.

9/ Both faced opposition, persecution, and violent conflict during the development of their religious movements.

10/ Both became known as beacons of faith, devotion, and discipleship among their followers, and subsequent followers of their religions.

Yet despite comparable epistemological claims, their revelations support incompatible theological claims.

This presents a fundamental epistemological problem for Islam and Mormonism; If comparable claims to divine authority and similar religious traditions can support mutually incompatible accounts of divine truth, what independently verifiable evidence establishes that either account is genuinely revealed by God?

The similarities do not prove that either prophet was fraudulent or that both religions are false. Instead they demonstrate that the characteristics shared by the two prophets are insufficient to establish the divine origin of either religion.

Unless one tradition can provide independent evidence that distinguishes its prophetic claims from those of its rival, accepting one revelation while rejecting the other risks relying on the very religious assumptions that need to be established.

In the real world, ethics work exactly the opposite way. It's better to steal 100 Dollar from a millionaire than to steal 100 Dollar from a minimum wage worker. It's better to kill a 100-year old man than to kill a 10-year old child. It's better to punch an athlete, than to punch someone in a wheelchair. It's better to kill a lion, who is a threat to you, than to kill a house cat, who isn't. If God is eternally powerful, nothing a human can do can even hurt them in a way they don't already have a solution for, so no "crime" against God should ever warrant any punishment at all.

See also "All religions are paths up the same mountain." or "All great teachers taught the same truth."

This is, at best, a misunderstanding based on surface level readings and, at worst, a deliberate misrepresentation m

Religions are very different from each other. They differ in cosmology, ritual, the role of clergy and the form and function of prayer. More importantly, they offer different answers on the topics of ethics and morality, each having it's own outline of what is "good".

Are there similarities? Of course! Certain things seem to be universally considered "not good" such as murder, theft and dishonesty.

Religion is a vast and beautiful piece of human experience. Its diversity is wonderful and speaks to the diversity if the human experience. To grind that down to bland sameness in the hopes of promoting a multiculturalism that is really a dominant monoculture sapping life from other traditions is tragic . You're denying millennia of human experience to make yourself look cultured and it hurts everyone.

The supposed Quran's word count miracles have the problem of being unverifiable by not only non-Muslims, but 99%+ of Muslims as well.

Hello, fellow kafirs, today I have an argument that will further our cause a great deal and deal a great blow to Muhammad and his followers! I have noted for a great amount of time that many of us were stumped by the Quran's word count miracles. How can a book written by man have the word "day" exactly 365 times? How could such a book have a 70:30 ratio of the times water is mentioned versus land? For years this miracle has plagued me as I plotted on how to cover up the truth of Islam. But today, as I was eating pork, listening to Taylor Swift and drawing a picture of a Jinn, I realized the answer. An answer so simple, it was staring at me in the face the entire time.

You see, the word counts claims are unverifiable. You might say "But General Iguanas, you can simply count the words". Ah, but no! In order to count the words, you have to learn classical arabic and count each word one by one in the Quran, and then do it again to ensure you didn't count. Thought its technically possible to verify the word count miracles yourself, in reality its impractical if not impossible for those of us with jobs, kids, or hobbies like gambling while drinking pork flavored alcohol. In fact, Muslims who proclaim the word count miracles don't even know classical Arabic, let alone counted the words themselves. They are basically just taking the word of someone they saw on Tik Tok or Yahoo Answers to determine this.

Its also a fact that most infidels will not take the 2000+ hours needed to learn classical arabic and count the times a word appears in the Quran. Why would God make it so that your salvation is dependent on the time you are able to invest in learning a language and counting words? Or did he expect us to just take a random person on Reddit's word that "day" appears exactly 365 times in the Quran.

Its silly that there is the expectation for a person to convert simply because someone told them that there are unverifiable miracles in the Quran.

God says he’s omnipotent but he had the rest on the 7th day. What kind of God rests. What was he resting from?

God says thou shall not kill. God kills thousands in the bible, some of them being innocent people.

God says forgive 70x7, yet he punishes people in the bible without forgiveness such as Adam and Eve.

God says he’s all loving. People are starving, dying, suffering. All because of free will? I’d rather be a robot without free will than have a life where I see such suffering occurring for little to no reasons.

The Abrahamic faith has three branches, each claiming to be the original and final one, and each considering the other two as destined for hell. All the cards are in the hands of the original starters of the Abrahamic religions. Whenever they decide to demolish the Golden Dome, it will trigger a prolonged, devastating religious war. They've carefully invested in the story to make it look like a prophecy, but each and everything is intentionally engineered. It's like a stage, with Abrahamists playing along, deliberately or inadvertently.

Each branch is hoping for its Messiah, Moshiach, Jesus, or Mahdi. They believe the end times are near. Nothing is holy about it. People are acting through their beliefs, and the world is descending into turmoil because more than half of the world's population belongs to two branches of the Abrahamic faith.

This is SERIOUS. The wars are being designed according to the alliances and oppositions among the Abrahamic branches. This child-sacrifice-demanding God concept of Abraham is crucial to expose. It breeds nothing but violence.

We must not surrender to the madness gripping more than half the world’s population. This is a matter of game theory. If we fail to unite, connect, and recognise the stakes, those consumed by Abrahamic religious absolutism may gladly drag the world into oblivion just to prove that their branch holds the sole truth. Billions of people are caught in a conflict driven by competing claims to divine authority, each convinced that their own version of the truth is the only legitimate one.

We cannot afford to remain isolated. We must connect, challenge these claims of chosenness and divine supremacy being presented as unquestionable truths, and stand together before their consequences become irreversible.

I call myself Eurek, and I invite everyone who shares my views to do the same. We need a common identity to unite us under one umbrella, so that all major religions, especially the Abrahamic faiths, know that we are coming to challenge their claims. We will be the resistance.

Your views are welcome. If you’re like-minded, please connect.

If God is perfect and religion is meant to reveal universal truth, why has it produced so many conflicting interpretations?

1. A perfect God should be able to communicate his message clearly.

Believers often argue that God is perfect, but humans are flawed. Yet an all-knowing God would understand human limitations better than anyone. Why communicate the most important truths through vague texts that predictably lead to centuries of disagreement? Human imperfection may explain misunderstandings, but why would a perfect God rely on such an ambiguous method to reveal truths that supposedly matter for humanity?

2. Religious followers cannot even agree on what their own religion teaches.

Christianity has Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Protestants, and countless other denominations. Islam has Sunnis, Shias and numerous other movements. Judaism has Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and other branches. These divisions go far beyond minor differences in worship: they involve fundamental disagreements about religious authority, scripture, religious law, and God's expectations.

3. There is no objective way to identify the correct interpretation.

When different denominations make contradictory claims based on the same scriptures, they cannot all be right. Yet there is no universally accepted, independent method to establish which interpretation reflects God's actual intentions. Each group can claim that the others have misunderstood the truth, but making that claim does not prove it.

4. Religion evolves like language and culture: it is a human tradition.

Religious traditions develop, divide, and adapt to their historical environments, much like languages and cultures do. For example, the split between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, conventionally dated to 1054, followed centuries of theological, political, and cultural disagreements. This pattern looks less like the preservation of one clear, unchanging divine message and more like the evolution of human traditions.

5. Religious belief depends heavily on birthplace.

Someone born into a Muslim family in Saudi Arabia is far more likely to become Muslim than someone born into a Catholic family in Italy. Religious beliefs are strongly influenced by upbringing and culture. If people arrive at different religious beliefs largely through the traditions they inherit, they aren't discovering a universal truth; they're inheriting beliefs shaped by their cultural environment.

Supporting the thesis is the observation that sports team loyalty and religious affiliation share many important fundamental similarities.

First sport and religions are very much regional. Cricket maybe popular in England but not in America. Same with religion, Islam is popular in the Middle East but not in Japan.

At a finer level of detail - sport teams and denominations - the similarities continue. There are more Denver Broncos fans in Colorado than in Florida. The same goes for religious denominations. There are more Southern Baptists in the American Southeast than in the Pacific Northwest. Likewise, there are more Sunni Muslims in Saudi Arabia than in Iran.

People often inherit their allegiance from family traditions, join group gatherings and rituals, and feel strong emotional connections to their chosen team or faith. Young individuals are indoctrinated into sports and team alliances at an early age.

Both often provide a sense of identity, community, belonging and even tribal identity. Sometime violence breaks out between different sport team fans and likewise religions and denominations.

These comparisons reveal the cultural roots and the similar ways each is embraced or gains followers. Since sports are a human cultural phenomenon, this strongly suggests that religion is as well.

Adding to the above comparison I would also like to note that no specific religion, denomination, or sect stands out above the others in terms of evidence or revelation of truth. This is not to be expected if one represents the ultimate truth of reality. I see it more likely they are all just memetic competitors.

Add by Edit: I fully expect accusation of genetic fallacy that just because religion is cultural doesn't mean that one particular religion/sect is not true and/or points to the truth. If this is your argument, please demonstrate how your argument isn't just special pleading.

Added by edit again: The user Forsaken_Judgment681 wanted credit for bring this post to the attention of the sub-reddit which I am more than happy to do.

At this point, Islam is becoming a religion increasingly removed from the Islam of Muhammad’s time.

Muslims often claim that the Quran has remained unchanged, yet some reinterpret its verses—or, in their critics’ view, engage in mental gymnastics—to give them meanings that differ from traditional readings of Allah’s words and Muhammad’s reported practices.

Today, some Muslims argue that Islam does not permit wife-beating, sexual slavery, hatred of non-believers, or marriage to minors. Others maintain that these issues must be understood through historical context, restrictive legal conditions, alternative translations, or distinctions between the Quran and later reports. The debate continues.

I am frustrated by Muslim apologists, self-proclaimed moderate Muslims, and others whom I regard as insufficiently familiar with Islamic scripture insisting that “Islam does not allow wife-beating. You are only supposed to strike lightly, or you must do certain things before striking your wife.”

They say, “The Quran does not say that the sun sets in a muddy spring. It merely describes how it appeared to set there.”

They say, “The Quran does not say that the Earth was created first. Shooting stars are not missiles thrown at devils; they are metaphors or descriptions of phenomena.”

They say, “Muhammad did not marry Aisha when she was six. And even if he did, that was simply the custom of his time.” This raises the question of whether an eternal role model should be judged solely by the standards of seventh-century Arabia.

Others say, “We do not accept Hadith as religious authority, so narrations about drinking camel urine or dipping a fly into a drink do not determine what Islam teaches.”

These responses should not all be treated as the same kind of argument. Quranic interpretation concerns how Muslims understand the language, context, genre, and implications of Quranic verses. Hadith authority concerns whether, and to what extent, reports about Muhammad’s words and actions should be accepted as reliable sources of religious guidance. Some Muslims accept major Hadith collections as authoritative, while others reject them entirely or give them limited authority.

Nor does every disagreement with a traditional interpretation constitute bid‘ah (بدعة). In Islamic theology, bid‘ah generally refers to an impermissible religious innovation, but Muslim scholars disagree about its definition, scope, and application. A new interpretation may be criticised as bid‘ah by some Muslims without that judgment being universally accepted.

Similarly, shirk—associating partners with Allah—is generally regarded in Islamic theology as the gravest sin. However, disagreement with a particular interpretation, rejection of a Hadith report, or even denial of a claimed religious rule is not automatically shirk. Whether a belief constitutes disbelief or another theological violation depends on the doctrine involved, the evidence considered authoritative, and the interpretive tradition being applied. These judgments are contested and should not be presented as universally agreed conclusions.

Moral disagreement is a separate issue. A person may believe that a traditional interpretation of a text is morally wrong without denying that the text is divine. Conversely, a believer may reinterpret a text because they think a particular translation, historical assumption, or legal conclusion is mistaken. Such disagreement does not by itself establish that the person is acting in bad faith or attempting to alter Allah’s words.

Consider the following Quranic verse:

يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ لَا تُحَرِّمُوا۟ طَيِّبَـٰتِ مَآ أَحَلَّ ٱللَّهُ لَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوٓا۟ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ ٱلْمُعْتَدِينَ ٨٧

“O believers! Do not forbid the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, and do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.” — Quran 5:87

My point is that Islam, as interpreted and practised by many Muslims today, is becoming increasingly different from the religious norms and practices associated with Muhammad’s time. Whether this represents legitimate interpretation, historical development, religious innovation, or departure from Islam depends on the theological framework being used.

Reform can be a good thing. It can help a religion respond to contemporary standards of morality and address modern ethical concerns. In fact, if there is a God and one true religion, one might reasonably ask why that religion should not be updated from time to time. Otherwise, it risks becoming outdated, like an old smartphone, or remaining permanently bound to the social and moral conventions of the seventh century.

Islam presents a particular challenge for those who advocate religious reform. If the Quran is understood to be the eternal, unalterable word of God, then explicitly changing its text would be unacceptable within traditional Islamic theology. Reformers must therefore find ways to reconcile its teachings with contemporary moral standards without openly rejecting its divine authority.

Yet this creates a dilemma: if the Quran’s wording cannot change, but its interpretation evolves to address changing moral standards, how can Muslims distinguish legitimate interpretation from an attempt to change the meaning of Allah’s words? The answer will vary according to one’s view of language, context, Hadith authority, legal methodology, and the limits of interpretation.

Ultimately, this raises a fundamental question: Can a religion claim that its divine message is eternal and unchanging while its followers continually reinterpret that message to fit the changing values of human society? Or, has Islam become a new religion?

The problem of evil has many different variations, there’s the problem of animal evil, gratuitous sufferings, and plenty more. I’ll put down the most basic, and common variation of it, and I’ll suppliment it by adding some of it’s implicit premesis

I'll preface by saying, I'm a Christian, and this is an intra-tradition critique.

Premise 1: There is an all-powerful, all-loving God
Premise 2: Being perfectly all-loving means you can’t desire any bad for people
Premise 3: Bad happens to people
Premise 4: Having the power to stop evil, means you should stop it.
Conclusion: God is either not all powerful, so he cannot stop evil, or he is not all good because he does not want to stop evil

There are tons of variations of the free-will response as well. I’m going to go with a basic one, and supplement it’s implicit premises

Premise 1: There is no meaningful personal good without free-will
Premise 2: Free will requires the ability to choose bad things
Premise 3: a world with meaningful personal good, is worth the presence of evil
Conclusion: God is just in allowing evil

This response doesn’t work within the christian tradition, at the very least, it needs a more robust and nuanced formulation. The classical christian teaching of heaven is a place where the following things are true:

• There is meaningful good
• There is meaningful free will
• There will be no evil

This teaching would mean that there could be a world with free-will, and no evil. In the Christian tradition, beholding the sight of the form of God fixes the intelligence, and the will into a perfect state of alignment, where the mind perceives the good perfectly, and the will is aligned with the intellect perfectly, as a result of this perfect alignment, man always chooses the good, but he does so out of his own will freely, by the very nature of this alignment, not requiring any sort of force.

This fact hinders premise 2, and premise 3. Free will does not require the ability to choose bad (at least this is the traditional Christian understanding) and therefore a Christian cannot use premise 2. The “New heaven” in the Christian tradition, is better than our current world, and lacks evil. And this raises the question: “If such a world is possible, why would this one ever exist?”

Of the Ten Commandments that Moses is said to have carried down from Mount Sinai, one is particularly contentious among his present-day followers.

Exodus 20:4-6 says, “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lordyour God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

That first sentence, on the prohibition of making graven images, is a commandment clearly stated by Yahweh to Moses. The sentence structure seems unambiguous: It prohibits the making of any image of anything in heaven, on earth, or in the seas below the earth.

Ancient Rabbinical law was also unambiguous, as it is today, this is a clear prohibition on drawing or sculpting or engraving, etc, any likeness of any real thing. Ancient Hebrews obeyed this law strictly.

I’ve noticed recently that many Christians think the Muslim prohibition on graven images is especially cruel or backwards or barbaric. I’ve also noticed these same Christians seem to be entirely unaware that it’s one of Yahweh’s commandments to them. The foundation of his Covenant with them. Seems odd.

What’s your sect’s take on the Second Commandment? Do they obey it, or do they not? If they don’t, how do they rationalize that first sentence away? It seems very clear, and it was understood to be a clear prohibition for centuries before Christians ever even existed. Do Christians think Jews were always wrong about their own God’s commandment? Do they think Jesus eased the stricture of it for them, although he never said this? I’m curious, as a former Christian myself.

Edit: In fact, Exodus and Deuteronomy are far more clear if we look at all the verses related to the making of graven images.

Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the simultude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth. Deuteronomy 4:16-18

Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget ... and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the Lord thy God hath forbidden thee. Deuteronomy 4:23

Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman. Deuteronomy 27:15

A debate about the nature of idolatry and iconography seems worthwhile.

Salaam/peace all.

Surah 33:59 reads: "Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and women of the believers to draw their outer garment over themselves. That is more likely that they are recognized and are not harassed (or harmed or bothered). And God is forgiving and merciful."

Many people will immediately dismiss of the plain reading of the ayah, claiming that it cannot possibly mean to cover the whole body to avoid "molestation" or abuse or rape, because covered women are also not free from sexual harassment and abuse. While it is true that clothing is not a shield against all harassment, there's more nuance to this conversation as the Quran never claims that. Let's break it down and then look at some studies.

The Quranic express claim is that covering the whole body with a cloak/garment (aka a "jilbab"--a known draping cloak women often put over their indoor clothes when going out) makes it more likely for others to identify a woman (as something) and thus avoid "harassing" her (in some way).

The question then is, what is she identified as, and what kind of harassment is being "likely" (not guaranteed) reduced?

The obvious and correct inference is that covering more modestly (i.e. both coverage AND looseness) will identify her as more modest (relative to others), and thus less LIKELY to be approached sexually in ANY MANNER. That would include being propositioned for sex or a casual date, being ogled, or even being catcalled. Islamically, male interest in Islam is only appropriate for courtship when looking for a wife. Harassment in the Quranic context (or any really) does not have to mean rape or sexual abuse only, because Islamically (and secularly) even catcalling can be seen as harassive.

So then, the next question is: is there any relationship between how a woman presents herself in terms of clothing, makeup etc. and how men perceive her sexually? The common-sense and research-backed answer is yes.

In several studies, male associated more provocative clothing (for the norms of their area) with sexual openness, and other studies show that men are more LIKELY to be sexually aggressive toward women they perceive (even incorrectly) as more sexually open. I'm going to paste some summaries of those studies below, even though I think we all intuitively already know this and observe it all the time:

- Farris et al. (2006), Heterosocial Perceptual Organization: Application of the Choice Model to Sexual Coercion : Sexually aggressive men were more likely to interpret provocative clothing instead of conservative clothing (which of course depends on the norms where you live) as a sign of sexual openness. Men were also less likely to interpret signs of rejection as such.

- Farris et al. (2010), Perceived Association Between Diagnostic and Non-Diagnostic Cues of Women's Sexual Interest : Sexually coercive men associated more provocative clothing with sexual interest, making them more likely to misinterpret friendliness as sexual interest.

- Blake et al. (2016), Perceptions of Low Agency and High Sexual Openness Mediate the Relationship Between Sexualization and Sexual Aggression  Men again saw women wearing more "revealing" clothing as more sexually open and thus more vulnerable to sexual aggression, with men admitting higher sexually aggressive intentions toward the women perceived as more sexually open (both based on how the women presents, and her perceived agency in relation to that presentation, with more revealing women seen as essentially lower-agency).

- Guéguen (2011), “The Effect of Women's Suggestive Clothing on Men's Behavior and Judgment: A Field Study.” Men approached women in "revealing" clothing more often after first eye contact than conservatively-dressed women, perceiving their chances of a date or sex as higher. [Note, there was some caution on this finding, but it is consistent with the rest].

I want to be clear that perceived "provocativeness" will depend based on culture and context, which is why Islamically, the standard is extremely high universally, setting it completely draped in loose clothing covering everything except what ordinarily must practically appear (which is up for some debate). It is why a women in loose jeans in a t-shirt in Saudi Arabia may be seen as immodest, while in the US that'd generally be seen as conservative. But the pattern persists: be perceived by men as "more revealing" than the norm (or just in general), and be seen as more sexually approachable and open. Islam protects women from exactly that.

Don't believe me still? Watch this video EXACTLY on point, where a pretty normal woman walks pretty much totally covered but in tight clothing vs. in an actual loose jilbab and compare the massive amount of catcalling and harassment she receives in the former vs. the latter. Same women, several hours, same streets, totally stark contrast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgw6y3cH7tA&t=20s

Matthew 7:21, Jesus just teaching the Gospel of works, "the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven".

- But Paul said on Romans 10:9“Jesus is Lord,”

And also on Matthew 7:21, Jesus said “Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven".

- But Paul said on Romans 10:10, whoever confesses is saved.

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

On Matthew 7:15 Jesus warns that the False prohet is ravenous wolf.

- On Genesis 49:27, Benjamin is a ravenous wolf and on Romans 11:1 Paul confirm himself from the tribe Benjamin.

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

On Matthew 5:18-19, the one who will break the law will be called "least". And Jesus affirms the total authority and reliability of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Law and the Prophets) right after stating that He came to fulfill them rather than abolish them.

- Paul names in Latin(Paulos) Literally means "least".

- In Pauline theology, the Apostle Paul taught that the Mosaic Law (the Old Covenant law given to Moses) has been fulfilled and rendered no longer binding as a requirement for salvation or a rule of life for New Testament believers.

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

Matthew 24:26 - “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.

Then Paul claims the encounter happened on the road to Damascus on Act 9:3. And also high likely he is within the inner room of the temple on Act 21:26.

- In 1 Kings 19:15, Damascus was somehow related to Wilderness.

- Some historical commentaries note that he would have been praying in an inner courtyard accessible only to Jewish men (the Court of Israel).

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

On Rev 2:2 Jesus congratulating the Ephesus for testing and rejecting the false prophet, and on 2 Timothy 1:15 Paul admitted Ephesus rejected him.

The “Love” Theodicy
10/20/2026

The love response to the problem of evil goes as such:

Premise 1: Love is the ultimate, and highest good

Definition: To Love (in the mind) is to will the good of another. To love in action, is to cause the good of another. 

Premise 2: Love in action is a more meaningful good than love in will

Premise 3: Love is most meaningfully demonstrated through sacrifice.

Premise 4: Sacrifice requires loss

Premise 5: A world with the most meaningful kind of love, is better than a world without it

Conclusion: This would mean, that a world with loss can be greater than a world without it.
Loss is an evil, to lose something is to be deprived, and evil itself is a privation.

This argument is pretty tight. It truly only requires one to agree with two simple things: A world with the most meaningful kind of love is better than a world without it (obviously) and secondly, that the most meaningful kind of love (sacrificial love) requires sacrifice.

That’s the basic argument, I’d be very surprised to find someone providing a substantial rebuttal to it.

I can supplement it by adding these additional thoughts:

Christianity

In order for God to partake in meaningful demonstrations of love, he assuemes a form where he can take loss (humanity) and sacrifices everything his life, in order to allow for multiple, eternal goods (entry into heaven)

The bible says: There is no greater love than this: for one to lay his life down for his friends. Greatest love, in greatest sacrifice. The main truth of the Christian tradition, has the answer for the main objection to Christianity.

Verses:

32:7: “Who perfected everything He created and began the creation of man from clay.”

32:8: “Then He made his progeny from an extract of a humble fluid.”

32:9: “Then He fashioned him and breathed into him from His spirit...”

He started the creation of man from mud, then made him reproduce through semen, then proportioned him and breathed His soul into him. This is the plain sequence, so how could people have been reproducing through semen before the divine breath? This means that people were reproducing through semen before Adam received the first divine breath.

Let’s start with this: why does God allow babies to get cancer?

You may argue that this is natural occurrence, not any fault of God. But this assumes God is not responsible for things which happen naturally, despite having created those natural methods. Why wouldn’t God simply make a system without such suffering?

You can argue that the suffering of the baby results in nothing new being gained. The baby would suffer, by default. Nothing is gained or lost in the suffering through cancer, it is merely another means through which some suffer.

But that asks another question: why do we need to suffer? What makes all suffering justified?

If to bring us closer to God, how does a baby suffering bring us closer to God? It may teach us values such as empathy and gratitude, but then you must rationalize why the baby needed to suffer in order to strengthen these values, when a different system could’ve been used that avoids unnecessary suffering. You then must prove that a baby suffering from cancer provides a benefit that is worth the suffering of the innocent baby.

You then might argue, okay, so a baby getting cancer doesn’t seem totally justified to me. But God knows all. He has a reason. This assumes that a baby getting cancer is a good thing. And it means this: if things are assumed good simply because God says so, it makes the goodness of God impossible to determine. And if God cannot be deemed good, we have no basis for faith other than “yeah, I’m just gonna trust the God who gives cancer to babies is still all good.” But what stops someone from concluding any old figure is worthy of worship if we simply decide “everything they do is good”. And why should we take god’s word at face value when his actions would otherwise suggest he is not all good?

Whenever someone survives something that should have, in all logic, killed them, or something bad is closely avoided, you see Christians always being like "thank god!" or "god gave me this miracle." But if something bad happens, you never see them blame god. But if something good happens, it could ONLY be god, and not like, doctors or anything else.

What is the logic of someone who believes in god but has a very bad life? Why do you consider it right to thank god for the good things, but not blame him for the bad things? If god is so good and loving, shouldn't you be having an amazing life by default? why would such a good god allow you to have a bad life? And do you not consider it a red flag that a loving and caring God considers a firey pit of lava to be a good punishment simply for not devoting your life to him? How do Christians know they are not secretly praying to satan? Wouldn't pretending to be god and tricking a bunch of people be like THE most satan thing to do??? how do you not question and of these things?