holy
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2024
- Posts
- 501
- Reputation
- 900
The Quran tells Muslims to "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" in one verse, then preaches "there is no compulsion in religion" in another.
It commands followers to,
while simultaneously claiming,
The entire text is filled with these inconsistencies because it was written over decades by people trying to justify whatever political situation Muhammad found himself in.
Yes, I said what I said.
It wasn't revealed all at once. It came over 23 years as Muhammad's political situation evolved. Early Meccan suras when he was powerless? All about peace and tolerance. Later Medinan suras after he gained military power? Suddenly Allah's cool with conquest and subjugation.
The abrogation principle in Islamic jurisprudence even acknowledges this, later revelations supersede earlier ones when they conflict. That's why jihadists can justify violence while moderates can claim Islam is peaceful. They're both technically right, depending on which verses they cherry-pick.
It's a political document hiding as divine revelation. Muhammad was a brilliant political and military leader who used "revelation" to consolidate power and justify his actions. I'm not saying he didn't believe it himself (he probably did) but the convenient timing of Allah's messages is pretty damn suspicious.
Look at the pattern of revelations. Whenever Muhammad faced a personal or political challenge, conveniently a new revelation would arrive with exactly the solution he needed.
- When his followers questioned why he had more wives than the four they were limited to? Revelation: special exception for the prophet.
- When he wanted to marry his adopted son's ex-wife Zaynab, which violated Arab customs? Revelation: adoption isn't real in Islam, so it's fine.
- When his child bride Aisha was accused of adultery? Revelation: she's innocent and anyone who accuses her is to be flogged.
- When his followers were getting too comfortable in his house? Revelation: don't overstay your welcome at the prophet's home.
They're solutions to Muhammad's immediate problems.
The pattern is clear as day if you study the chronological order of Quranic revelations.
In Mecca, when Muslims were weak and persecuted, the revelations emphasized patience, tolerance, and peaceful coexistence:
Then after the Hijra to Medina, as Muhammad gained political and military power, suddenly Allah's message shifted dramatically to
The most violent, intolerant verses conveniently came when Muhammad needed to motivate his armies or justify conquest. The most peaceful verses came when he needed allies or was in a position of weakness.
Even Muhammad's personal life followed this pattern. In fact, it's where this pattern becomes most obvious.
Take his marriages. Normal Muslims were limited to four wives, but Muhammad ended up with at least nine concurrent wives. How? A special revelation in Surah Al-Ahzab (33:50) that explicitly gave him, and only him, this privilege.
Or look at the Zaynab incident (AGAIN). Muhammad became attracted to his adopted son Zayd's wife. Suddenly, Allah reveals that adoption isn't recognized in Islam (contradicting previous Arabian customs), Zayd divorces her, and Muhammad marries her. All justified by convenient revelation.
Even in his household disputes, when his wives complained about his favoritism toward Aisha or when they wanted more financial support, revelations came down threatening them with divorce if they didn't accept their situation.
And, it gets worse.
The Quran even has a verse specifically to resolve a domestic dispute between Muhammad and his wives over honey. Imagine that. The creator of the universe intervening because the prophet's wives were jealous about who got more honey. Jesus Christ.
And look at the evolution of jihad in the text. First it's defensive, then it becomes offensive, then it's about conquering the Arabian peninsula, then it's about expanding beyond. Each stage perfectly aligned with Muhammad's growing military power.
This isn't how divine revelation works. This is how a political movement works. The revelations are too convenient, too timely, too perfectly suited to Muhammad's immediate needs.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Muhammad wasn't sincere in his belief. He probably genuinely believed he was receiving divine messages. But sincerity doesn't equal truth.
Many cult leaders throughout history genuinely believed they were chosen by God. The human mind is remarkably good at self-deception, especially when power and influence are involved.
What's more damning is how the Quran claims to be the perfect, unchanged word of God while containing scientific errors that reflect 7th century Arabian understanding of the world.
It describes the sun setting in a muddy spring (18:86), mountains as pegs that prevent the earth from shaking (78:7), and embryology that's laughably wrong by modern standards.
If this were truly the word of an all-knowing deity, wouldn't it contain scientific insights beyond 7th century knowledge instead of just reflecting it?
Wouldn't its moral teachings transcend the cultural norms of that specific time and place?
The fundamental issue with Islam (and frankly with most religions that claim divine revelation) is that they require us to believe that the creator of the entire universe, black holes, quantum mechanics, and the human brain... somehow chose to reveal ultimate truth through one illiterate merchant in 7th century Arabia.
The evidence points to a much simpler explanation: Muhammad was a product of his time who created a religious-political movement that served his needs. He may have been sincere, he may have even been a genius, but that doesn't make his claims true.
What's fascinating is how Islam has survived by building in defense mechanisms - questioning the Quran is blasphemy, leaving the religion is apostasy punishable by death, and critical thinking about its origins is discouraged. These aren't features of truth; they're features of ideologies that can't withstand scrutiny.
I don't say this to be disrespectful. I say it because truth matters.
If Muslims want to practice their faith, that's their business. But when any religion claims absolute truth while showing clear signs of human origin, it deserves critical examination. The same standards I apply to Islam, I apply to all belief systems, including my own.
The difference is I've examined the evidence for Christianity and found it historically sound, not because it's comfortable or convenient, but because the historical case for the resurrection withstands scrutiny in ways Muhammad's night journey to Jerusalem on a winged horse simply doesn't.
Anyways, ciao.
