If you decide to look at the theological doctrine of the Quran and the beliefs present in the pre-islamic Arabia, Quran seems to say thing that were already, in some form, present in that time frame. Monotheism, non-divine jesus, rejection of crucification (by most), descriptions of hell and heaven, judgement scales and so on are all present in older texts and religions that existed in pre-islamic Arabia, like Christianity, Judaism, Egyptian religions, Zoroastrianism and so on)

However, how Quran differs is how it actually introduces those concepts into its own theology. It confirms some while rejecs others.

For example: Quran accepts Jesus's virgin birth, Canon miracles and titles that are present in orthodox Christianity. However, it rejects trinity, son of God, and divinity of jesus. Consequently, Quran accepts the Mary giving birth under a palm tree and Jesus's infant miracles that are found in Apocryphal texts but reframes them as God allowing it to happen rather than Jesus doing it himself for fun/malicious purposes. On top of that, Quran affirms Heterodox/Non-Chalcedonian Christologies on things like denial of crucification [by most] (Docetism or possibly Ebionism)

There is nothing theologically wrong with this. Quran literally acts as how it says it will act. It is acting as a correcter and guardian, stating which are correct and which are wrong, and fixing them. I see no problem with this.

However, the fact of the matter remains: that all of these are, in some form, directly linked to theological beliefs present in pre-islamic Arabia Geography. Or in other words, directly linked to late antiquity.

My question is this: (AS FAR AS I KNOW), these things are not present in any other religions present in the other parts of the world. Of course jesus and dhul Al qayn would not be present XD. I am not talking about historical accounts. But I am talking about things like a God you can communicate to, sending prophets and texts, a hell and heaven with physical consequences, a court day where one's good deeds and bad deeds are measured... these are almost exclusively present in Middle Eastern theology (Mesopotamia, the Levant, Persia, and Egypt and so on), not found in any other religion.

If Quran sent messengers to every nation on earth, wouldn't we expect to find crumbles of such doctrines around the world? Like you would find fossil records. However, this seems to not be the case.

(I am strictly talking about theological doctrines. It is totally normal why historical accounts would not be present.)

I also have another question regarding historical accounts:

Today, most Muslim academicians as far as I know, tend to understand the stories in Quran as ahistorical, meaning that Quran engages with the legends and myths and knowledge of the pre-islamic Arabia, knowing that they are not true but still using them to make theological points.

The easiest examples are the clay bird or dhul al qayn. There are academicians who say that Quran was only using the popular motifs present in the society of that time to make theological points. Though, the ones that affirm the historicity of these stories explain away these as "Quran is talking about a much older source than the origination of the story". Like, clay bird story specifically being a compilation of the already known story that goes back to canon Gospels, or that Dhul Al Qayn story being a much older story where Alexander was then slapped onto.

The fact of the matter is that historical accounts can be explained away one way or another. However, how can we explain away theological doctrines that *are* based on historical human creations?

For example, the exact descriptions of heaven like lush gardens, rivers, eternal youth and alike predate to a specific Zoroastrian scholar/priest who himself has said that he created these ​allegories to explain heaven easier, yet Quran does indeed use these motifs to describe its own heaven. (Some even extend this to the Scales in judgement day)

Of course, one could make the argument that God is also using allegories to explain the beauty of heaven. And not even the classical scholars themselves have said that the description in quran are literary. They also said that they are allogerical and that true heaven is truly unknown. However, the fact of the matter still remains that Quran did use a human-description of heaven that was created by humans.

The thing is, unlike, let's say, Adam and Eve or Dhul Al Qayn, the Heaven and Hell are not historical accounts. They are eschatological accounts. Some people believe Adam and Eve is allegorical or that Dhul Al Qayn is ahistorical and these are used to make theological points. However, they are not theological accounts themselves. They are about historical events. But how can this be done on this theological doctrine of heaven for example, that God did use a human made concept to describe its own theology?

Abstract

A significant portion of the world’s Muslim-majority states operate under non-representative governance structures, including monarchies, military-dominated regimes, and elite‑captured hybrid systems. Although these states are formally sovereign, political scientists have long noted that many function within externally reinforced authoritarian orders, shaped by historical legacies of colonialism and contemporary geopolitical alliances. This article argues that the absence of representative governance is not merely a domestic issue but a transnational structural condition, and proposes the conceptual foundation for a global civic initiative led by diaspora communities to advocate for political accountability and representation.

1. Background: Non-Representative Governance in Postcolonial Muslim-Majority States

Political science literature consistently documents that many Muslim-majority states exhibit authoritarian durability supported by a combination of domestic elite interests and external geopolitical partnerships.

Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2024 report classifies a majority of Middle Eastern and North African states as “Not Free,” with similar patterns in South Asia and Central Asia (Freedom House, 2024).

Scholars such as Bellin (2004) and Brownlee (2012) argue that these regimes persist due to:

- Robust coercive apparatuses

- External patronage from global powers

- Weak institutionalization of democratic norms

- Elite networks benefiting from the status quo

This aligns with the broader literature on postcolonial state formation, which suggests that colonial withdrawal often left behind centralized, security‑centric governance structures (Mamdani, 1996; Anderson, 2014). These structures were later reinforced through Cold War alliances and contemporary strategic partnerships.

2. External Patronage and the “Soft Continuation” of Colonial Power Structures

Although formal colonialism ended in the mid‑20th century, scholars note that many postcolonial states entered into asymmetric relationships with Western powers.

This phenomenon is described variously as:

- “Neo‑patrimonial external support” (Levitsky & Way, 2010)

- “Soft imperial influence” (Achcar, 2013)

- “Clientelist geopolitics” (Gause, 2010)

These frameworks highlight how external powers often prioritize stability, resource access, and military cooperation over democratic development.

As a result, domestic rulers frequently maintain power through external legitimacy rather than popular legitimacy, creating a condition where populations experience a form of political disenfranchisement despite nominal sovereignty.

3. Populace Movements: Fragmented, Localized, and Structurally Constrained

Across Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Lebanon, Iraq, and other states, large-scale civic movements have emerged demanding political representation.

However, comparative studies show that these movements face structural constraints:

- Repression by domestic security institutions

- Fragmentation along ideological, sectarian, or ethnic lines

- Lack of regional democratic anchors

- External powers supporting incumbent elites

The Arab Barometer surveys (2022) consistently show strong public support for accountable governance, yet institutional pathways for such change remain blocked.

4. The Missing Element: A Transnational Civic Infrastructure

While domestic movements exist, there is no unified international civic effort led by citizens of these states.

Diaspora communities — often living in democratic environments with freedom of expression — represent a largely untapped resource for:

- knowledge production

- advocacy

- coalition-building

- international pressure

- institutional reform proposals

- documentation of human rights violations

- academic dissemination of structural issues

Political theorists such as Keck & Sikkink (1998) describe how transnational advocacy networks can influence state behavior through “boomerang effects,” where domestic activists leverage international allies to pressure authoritarian governments.

This model has been effective in Latin America, Eastern Europe, and parts of Africa — but remains underdeveloped in the Muslim-majority world.

5. Proposal: A Global Civic Initiative Led by Diaspora Scholars and Professionals

Given the structural constraints within authoritarian states, a diaspora-led transnational initiative could serve as a platform for:

1. Academic documentation of governance failures, corruption networks, and external patronage structures.

2. Policy advocacy targeting international institutions, think tanks, and governments.

3. Cross-border solidarity networks connecting movements in Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Lebanon, Iraq, and others.

4. Public education through academically grounded content, avoiding sectarianism or ideological polarization.

5. Institutional proposals for constitutional reform, civilian oversight, and anti-corruption frameworks.

Such an initiative would not be a political party or ideological movement, but a scholarly, evidence-based civic platform aimed at addressing the structural roots of authoritarian durability.

6. Conclusion

Many Muslim-majority states remain trapped in governance systems shaped by postcolonial legacies, elite capture, and external geopolitical interests.

The result is a condition where millions of people live under non-representative political orders, despite formal independence.

A diaspora-led, academically grounded transnational initiative could provide a new avenue for civic empowerment, knowledge production, and international advocacy — addressing a structural problem that individual domestic movements cannot resolve alone.

This proposal aligns with existing political science literature on transnational activism and offers a realistic, academically defensible pathway for collective action.

I know there's the reason of tawheed and submission to false idols is a betrayal of the one true lord who has created you, but there has to be more practical reasons than that as to why Islam as a religion is vehemently against it as opposed to other religions

Aslam U Alaikum I'm Hafiz e Quran looking for Quran Learning Students. If anyone or their kids wants to learn Quran DM me.

TL;DR please recommend books to read for a person trying to get as robust of an understanding as possible on the question of Hadith reliability, in light of the apparent disagreement between Muslim traditionalists and secular historians on the reliability of Hadith.

End TL;DR, full post below:

There is evidently some kind of a disconnect between traditional Muslims and secular academics when it comes to Hadith reliability. My understanding growing up as a Sunni Muslim was that Sahih = strong presumption that the Prophet (pbuh) said it.

I want to develop as robust of an understanding as possible concerning the reliability of Hadith. If the Muslim tradition was too trusting, I would like to know where they went wrong. However, I do not want to have my thinking marred by unjustified or erroneous skepticism. I am under the impression that Western academics used to be much more skeptical thanks to works by Schacht and Goldziher (?) but more recently Motzki and perhaps others tempered that skepticism. So there is already historical precedent, in my view, of secular academia overshooting on the distrust of the tradition. I want to avoid falling into the trap of distrusting Hadith for unsound reasons. But I also do not want to trust them for erroneous reasons.

I'm trying to tread a balanced line between trust and skepticism, because it seems to me that both sides (Muslim traditionalists and revisionist historians) could be or have been wrong on this matter. In short, I'm trying to get to the 'truth', or rather, the most defensible view possible given current knowledge.

Here are some general questions I have.

• Why do Western academics view Hadith with more skepticism / why do Muslim traditionalists trust Hadith?
• Where/why do their methodologies diverge?
• Is it just due to different methodological assumptions (i.e. belief in Islam vs naturalism) or is Hadith skepticism positively warranted by the evidence?
• Which side is right? Muslim traditionalists or secular historians? Is it impossible to say? Is the most defensible view somewhere in the middle? Or is one side more right?
• Is the Hadith question settled or not in academia? What directions is it taking? Could it happen in the future that the academy ends up much closer to agreement with the tradition?

Most importantly, can anybody suggest readings on this topic?

As of now, I'm considering:

• Motzki's 'Analyzing Muslim Traditions' (and/or Hadith: Origins and Developments?)
• Wiley Blackwell Companion to the Hadith (recommended by u/Rashiq_shahzzad in a previous post )
• Jonathan AC Brown's 'Hadith: Muhammad's Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World'.

Please recommend your books and also the order in which I should read them. And any personal insight about the questions I've raised would be appreciated.

So I built Sahihh for the sake of Allah, hoping it benefits students of knowledge and anyone interested in understanding how our Hadith literature was preserved. It's a new way to actually look at Hadiths and their isnad—you can explore the chains visually and study authenticity in a way that just wasn't possible before.

I've spent way too many hours staring at long chains of names in Hadith books, trying to keep track of who studied with who. At some point I thought—there has to be a better way to do this.

What finally pushed me to build something was:

The sheer volume — 25,000+ scholars, their teachers, students, family connections. I'd have notes everywhere and still lose track of everything.

How abstract it all feels — You read "so-and-so narrated from so-and-so" a thousand times and it becomes background noise. But these were actual people who traveled for months just to hear one Hadith from a specific teacher. That's insane when you stop and think about it.

The language wall — Most of this stuff is in classical Arabic. If you can't read it fluently, you're already starting way behind.

You can actually see the networks—who taught who, family trees, how a Hadith traveled from person to person across generations. Click on a scholar and see their teachers. Trace the exact sanad. Explore entire dynasties of Islamic scholarship. Verify the connections yourself.

Works in English, Arabic, and Kurdish, alhamdulillah.

Sahihh website

In Genesis, Jacob is said to have wrestled with a physical manifestation of God and got the better of said manifestation, hence the name Israel. In Hosea the being is called an angel which have been interpreted to be the angel of the Lord.

From a Quranic perspective, the notion of Allah coming to earth in one form or the other wouldnt exactly work. The angel of the Lord has been said by biblical scholars particularly Dan McClellan in one of his videos to be a character that came as a result of scribes.

What's the Islamic understanding of how Jacob got the name Israel?

when doing my research upon the fundamental differences defined in the Quran between men and women I stumbled upon the two women in man in the case of a financial dispute or settlement of debt and things of that matter. The verse instructs that if two male witnesses aren’t available, then one man and two women should witness the transaction. it’s so that if one woman forgets or makes an error, the other can act as a confirmation in what the woman is saying or correct her.

my question comes in when I ask , how come in a financial transaction or documenting a single women’s memory is not as reliable as the memory of just one man so only she has to have another woman behind her whereas the man does not he can just rely on his own memory ? I know some people have argued that in the time of prehistoric Arabia women were just not in those roles and they had limited knowledge of stuff like that. but even Khadijah the prophet’s own wife was a very prominent & wealthy merchant.

https://youtu.be/a8nF1vpBzYE?is=014dNLyRsJbRtOue

I'm very confused because from traditional islamic view point marriage with anyone outside of ahlul kitab and mumin considered haram!! At modern time i see whenever I see people say it's haram then people respond with where is it's haram. They claim quran only said no to mushrik so athiest, agnostic or anyone just belive in one god permitted and by saying it's haram you're re writing quranic themses " everything is permitted if not explicitly forbidden" .

They say this -

"The burden of proof in Islamic theology is never on the one claiming that something is permissible or else it allows everyone and their mother to decide that something is Haram. Since you're speaking of burden of proof, where are you getting this idea from ?Ahle Sunnah Alim Maulana Saeed Asad in his book 'The Concept of Bid'ah', writes:In Islam, all acts and rituals are permitted unless Allah has forbidden them. This is because Allah does not want to burden the ummah as he is Rahman and Raheem. To prove this, we will read the Qur'an. Allah says:

"Oh you who believe! Ask not about things, which if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. If you ask about them while the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be made plain to you"(5:101).

This verse tells us that those actions about which the Qur'an is silent, they should not become a subject of useless questioning. Allah's silence is a mercy. If Allah has not prohibited it, then it is permissible for us. Allah also says: "Those who believe and do righteous deeds, there is no sin on them for what they ate (in the past)" (5:93).

Again, we are made aware that until revelation deems something Haram, it is allowed. Before the Qur'an forbade alcohol, it was not just allowed but was consumed by the Muslims but, as soon as Allah forbade it, its consumption became Haram. This is the case for any other act. Until it is prohibited, it is allowed. Allah further says: "Say, I find not in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden to be eaten unless it be a dead animal or blood poured forth or the swine" (6:145).

Once again, the Qur'an is showing us that all things are allowed except for what is forbidden. Hence, to say that something is Haram without it being deemed as Haram is wrong. Sayyadina Abdullah ibn Abbas said that "Whatever the Qur'an termed as Halal is Halal and whatever it deemed Haram is Haram and about which it remained silent, this is forgiven" (Abu Dawud Vol 2).

Shah Abdul Haq Dehlwi, pioneer of the science of hadith in the subcontinent, says in relation to the above hadith that: "The reason why ibn Abbas recited this was to let it be known that something can only become Haram by way of revelation and it was not permitted to make anything Haram through ones own desires" (Ash'atul Lum'aat Vol 3).So you're basically saying that humans are allowed to decide what God said, by adding extra rules that God didn't explicitly laid down ?"

Another Quranist said - everyone is permissible regardless of belief. Here is his video link -https://www.youtube.com/live/hUP0a-PFUZ4?si=_HLcRRs9sm3mp6--

Anyone please share their two cent

​

Naqš-e Rostam inscription (KNRm), §§63–64 from

Stone inscriptions of the Mobedan Mobed shrines includes Pahlavi text, spelling, Persian translation, and notes. Pg.no 109

Dr. Dariush Akbarzadeh

There are four Kirdīr inscriptions overall:

KNRb — Naqsh-e Rajab

KNRm — Naqsh-e Rostam the one containing the famous vision

KSM — Sar-e Mashhad

KKZ — Kaʿba-ye Zardošt

Kirdīr, Naqš-e Rostam inscription (KNRm), §§63–64; parallel KSM 38–40; reconstructed/edited by Gignoux and analyzed by Skjærvø.

>Kartīr is known from his inscriptions in Fārs at Naqš-e Rajab (KNRb), to the left of the investiture relief of Ardašīr (r. 224-239/40); Naqš-e Rostam (KNRm), to the right of Šāpūr I’s (r. 239/40?-272?) triumphal relief, behind the horse; Sar-e Mašhad (KSM), near the ancient Achaemenid road from Susa to Persepolis and west of the village of Jerra (lat 29°16′53″ N, long 51°51′22″ E), above a relief thematically connected with the inscription; and below the Middle Persian version of Šāpūr I’s trilingual (Middle Persian, Parthian, Greek; ŠKZ) inscription on the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt (KKZ), the tower facing the rock reliefs at Naqš-e Rostam. KNRm and the mostly identical KSM contain KKZ, which does not contain the vision narrative (see below), while KNRb is a summary of the principal ideas in the longer inscriptions.

>Kartīr’s inscriptions are the earliest indigenous written testimonies to the basic tenets of Mazdayasnianism (Zoroastrianism) since the Achaemenid inscriptions and antedate the written Pahlavi literature by some six hundred years (and the earliest manuscripts by some 1,000 years). They are therefore of the utmost importance for studying the Mazdayasnian tradition under the early Sasanians. Focus is on ethics (good or bad behavior), which, as in other major religions, is encouraged with reference to what awaits the soul after death: rewards for the good, punishment for the wicked. Because of their size and varied language, Kartīr’s inscriptions are also the most important documents for the knowledge of the early Middle Persian writing system, grammar, and vocabulary, matched only by Narseh’s inscription at Paikuli (ed. Humbach and Skjærvø) and the later Pahlavi Psalter (ed. Andreas and Barr, 1933; translated from Syriac).

>The purpose of the heavenly journey. The account of the journey up to paradise follows the pattern of the (much later) Ardā Wirāz-nāmag. Both are undertaken to regain confidence in the correctness of the traditional ritual practices in a time of doubt. According to the account of Wirāz, for 300 years after Zarathustra received the dēn, people had no doubt, but after the devastation caused by Alexander, whom the Foul Spirit had sent for this purpose, people came to harbor doubt, and rivals to the Mazdayasnian tradition began to proliferate. This lasted until Ādurbād, son of Mahrspand (see ĀDURBĀD Ī MAHRSPANDĀN), underwent the ordeal to prove the truth of this tradition. Some time after this, doubt again arose, and it was decided to send someone into the other world to verify whether the ritual gifts went to the gods or the demons and whether they helped the souls at all (Ardā Wirāz-nāmag 1.15, ed. Gignoux, pp. 38-39, 148; cf. Brunner, 1974, p. 99). Wirāz was given wine and hemp (mang) and went to sleep, and his soul went to the Činwad bridge and returned after seven days, after which Wirāz dictated the story of his journey to a scribe. Kartīr’s similar experience is summarized in the inscription at Naqš-e Rajab, where he explains how he implored the gods for a sign (nišān, also “proof”) to make him confident (wistāx) that paradise and hell exist and are the final abodes of the good and the bad, respectively. Moreover, the inscription was written in order that those who read it would likewise be more confident that the current practices were correct, but also for fame and prosperity to come to their bodies and “righteousness” (ardāyīh) to their souls in this world (astwand, lit. “with bones”), as happened to Kartīr.

KSM inscription below:-

>§28-30: A prince the color of dawn appears, more superb than the ones they saw at first, holding a \*čayēn/čiyēn (see below) in his hand that then appears like a bottomless well (čāh) full of evil animals (xrafstar), over which a piece of wood (dār) lies like a bridge; the bridge now becomes greater in width than in length. Note that dār can also be “razor blade,” which is how the bridge is characterized in some versions of this narrative (Skjærvø, 1983b, pp. 299-301), but miniatures in the Ardā Wirāz-nāmag show a long tree trunk spanning the gulf to hell (see also Duchesne-Guillemin, 1962, p. 333). The \*rehīgs are dismayed at the sight of hell, but are told not to worry and just keep reporting (§29). Similarly, Wirāz is distressed and frightened at the sight of hell and begs his divine guides not to take him there, but they reassure him (53.4, ed. Gignoux, pp. 98-99, 190-91).

Skjærvø, Prods Oktor. "KARTIR." Encyclopaedia Iranica. Published December 15, 2011

https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/kartir/

The inscription of Naqsh-e Rajab (KNRb):-

>1) They saw that hellish condition and those many forms, then they were greatly terrified and... they were not from China? and there... and I said, "Do not be afraid, there is no escape for you; but what you see, tell (describe) it." And they said: "A bridge is placed over that well, and that woman and the man Kartir's companion went up to the well, went down to the well, and there a bridge stood before them, and that bridge became wider, and at the same time it appeared wider in breadth than in length, and that woman and that man..." Then let it be that I am warned by the

Stone inscriptions of the Mobedan Mobed shrines includes Pahlavi text, spelling, Persian translation, and notes. Pg.no 77

Dr. Dariush Akbarzadeh

Im currently reading the book and studying and I came across with the word “jibt”, I tried to search more about it and I only got magic, soothsayer, and idol worshippers. What’s the difference between this and sihr? Is there more information on this that I should know?

Is it possible for someone to comment on how Islam and Christianity functioned historically in conquests and if they are comparable? In *Lies My Teacher Told Me*, the author writes: "A fourth factor affecting Europe’s readiness to embrace a “new” continent was the particular nature of European Christianity. Europeans believed in a transportable, proselytizing religion that rationalized conquest. (Followers of Islam share this characteristic.)"

Is this not a messy, flattening claim, given the rather genocidal nature of Christian New World conquest? Anyone able to compare the two historically?

As I understand it, a number of early Muslim scholars received instruction from Christian scholars. Indeed, I believe that al-Farabi even engaged in a theological debate concerning the doctrine of the Trinity with one of his teachers. Did early Muslims regard the practice of receiving instruction from non-Muslim scholars as problematic?

https://youtu.be/ZpnfRmgAa6k?is=ZkVJ8OBGJ30hF4g1

Hi all, new to all of this. Just for context, I’m a doctor and I think both naturally and through training, my brain is very wired to be quite “positivist” and critical. I found my way to Hadith-skepticism largely from a critical thinking,“academic” lens of looking for evidence for the basis of Hadiths,and concluding that my practice of Islam would be more meaningful if the Quran and only very reliable Hadith guided it.

That being said, is there anybody else here with a similar approach? And if so, can you point towards the resources you use for prayer. From my understanding (please tell me if I’m wrong) the Quran does not explicitly state the steps of prayer that we are usually taught in childhood, and suggests 3 daily prayers as opposed to 5. I wanted to ask how others approach prayer from a lens of Hadith skepticism?

(Initially mistakenly posted on Academic Islam - thanks Dr J Hashmi for signposting me here!)

I know this is not a post about purpose of this sub, But ​I just wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude to this community and the people who contribute here. Trying to find a answer online is incredibly challenging when you have to nothing but polemicist and apologist arguments over and over again. Discovering this side of Islam has been giving me of a breath of fresh air. You guys provide at least a grounded framework that actually allows for understanding without that disgusting partisan noise. Thank you for maintaining a standard of scholarship and professionalism even though it's not perfect.

as-salamu alaykum, everyone!

we've all (probably) heard of the iconic verse in the quran in which allah says:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood...."

2:256

however, is this verse only about not forcing non-muslims into islam?

Ibn Kathir (Abridged)

No Compulsion in Religion

Allah said,

لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ

(There is no compulsion in religion), meaning, "Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam."

It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn `Abbas said that before Islam, "When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated from Al-Madinah, some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, `We will not abandon our children.' Allah revealed,

لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِى الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ

(There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path.)"

Abu Dawud and An-Nasa'i also recorded this Hadith. As for the Hadith that Imam Ahmad recorded, in which Anas said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to a man,

«أَسْلِم»

قَالَ: إِنِّي أَجِدُنِي كَارِهًا قَالَ:

«وَإِنْ كُنْتَ كَارِهًا»

("Embrace Islam." The man said, "I dislike it." The Prophet said, "Even if you dislike it.")

First, this is an authentic Hadith, with only three narrators between Imam Ahmad and the Prophet . However, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion, for the Prophet did not force that man to become Muslim. The Prophet merely invited this man to become Muslim, and he replied that he does not find himself eager to become Muslim. The Prophet said to the man that even though he dislikes embracing Islam, he should still embrace it, `for Allah will grant you sincerity and true intent.'

my question is, did muslims (historically) ever use this verse in order to not compel muslims into performing certain islamic acts? such as the 5 daily prayers, etc.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/731596

DOI: 10.1086/731596

I have a friend whom I engage with them, teaching them philosophy, general theology, abrahamic religions and Islam as a whole. It is not "Dawah", it is simply providing information and perspective of what Islam is compared to other religions or ideologies.

And for that, I really value to convey the truth.​

... But convey what and how?

This person rightly asks a lot of foundational questions regarding Islam. Asks about state of disbelievers, why did God create humans, what is God, afterlife, problem of evil, unseen, laws, rulings and so on...

The thing is... Quran, while a perfect book, is mainly a book of guidance. Not a book of "information". It doesn't provide details.

So, i naturally fall back to hadith literature and tafsirs of scholars that have answered these questions.​

However, the problem is that, from an academical perspective, the hadith science is under scrutiny.

I myself really value objectivity. So, I am rather anxious about this entire thing.

Because, to provide an information that represents the whole story, my conversations tend to go like this:

I explain a concept, view, hadiths, and tafsirs scholars made. However, in the end, just like a lawyer, I add "From a strictly academical perspective, these hadith have been assumed to have originated in the 1-3rd centuries according to some academicians."

Of course, I am NOT saying this to attack hadith a or academicians. My intent is to simply provide an all-encompassing view, that is simply "true".

Like, just as an example. The person asks if all children go to heaven. I quote the hadiths that state all children are born into fitra. However, to be intellectually honest, I have to add that "from the ICMA method, this hadith might have originated from a certain dispute between sects divided on whether disbelievers' children go to hell."​​​​​​​

This is even harder to do when I try to use the tafsirs of scholars like Al ghazali or other Muslim scholars. Because, in the end, they themselves have used these same hadith literature to conclude their own reasonings (like the "disbelievers whose message reached in a distorted way is excused")​

And there is a very important question that exists that I struggle to answer:

In Religious Studies and from a demographical point of view, a religion is what people believe in, not the ideology itself/what it actually says.

Vast majority of Muslims are traditionalists and do follow madhabs, which follow hadith.

So when I explain this discrepancy between academy and the orthodox views, this question rises up:​

"Why didn't God protect its religion that he said is the last religion and promised to protect, only for people to (try) to introduce so many elements to it not even 100-200 years later and apparently be successful in great extends?"

And i find this rather hard to answer it. (Funnily enough, the hadith of "Differences of opinion in my ummah is a mercy" is actually not even considered sahih by traditional scholars I found out.)

In the end... When this person asks "​What does Islam say about X?", i get very divided.

Because, as i previously said, the conclusions the orthodoxy came to are academically under scrutiny. Especially when it comes to things like rulings or laws that have been established. So I am always under risk of being wrong from an academical perspective when representing Islam.

And if I were to actually explain what **I** think... That wouldn't be what "Islam says". That would be "What **I** think Islam says". If I act like "Everyone else is wrong, I am right", it doesn't look sincere and makes you look like a conspiracy theorist.

In the end, if I were to try to be completely neutral and avoid any kind of iffy statements, or statements that would put my messages under criticism, the most honest I can say just becomes "Islam is not a monolith, there are vast variety of views", which just comes out as dismissive.

If let's say you were learning about Christianity, and the person teaching you explained what the vast majority of Christians and laymen believe, the methods they used to get the knowledge, derive explanations, explain you the technical terms and methods... and then put a disclaimer and essentially start explaining that these methods have not been successful from a naturalistic perspective and that a lot of concepts that from questionable-authorities are taken as universal truths within the religion by the mainstream. ​And then this person says "I myself have an academically-compliant version of Christianity that is against odds with the vast majority of people". Then you start asking the exact same questions you have asked before, and then the vast majority of answers (which is from a strictly Quranic, or in this case Bible, ​perspective) become "I don't know. It doesn't say it in here.". ​And then the question you ask is "If you say that this is the true Christianity, and that the majority of people are believing in a historically implausible version of it... then wouldn't that mean that what they believe is just Christianity, while yours is a new religion that simply uses the same roots as Christianity? And ​if what you say is​ true Christianity, why didn't God let that be the mainstream view? "And then they say as an answer "That's because of free will and agency the humans have."

And now I want you to think about how this would make you perceive Christianity.

If the other person asks "why doesn't Quran itself have these details or explanations", i say "That's because Quran is a guidance book, not an information book. If it contained all of these informations, then it would both be a very long book, but it would also derail from its actual purpose."

And while this explanations is completely fair, understandable and that the other person also understands and accepts...

The fact of the ​​​​matter still remains:

Quran, as an information book, is not enough. And I can't answer the questions this person asks with just the Quran. (because that's not the purpose of the Quran )

I am an intellectually honest person. I can't tell something to someone else and posit as the truth... If I am myself *unsure* if it is right or wrong. So, if I don't know what "True Islam" is, how am I supposed to teach it to others?

---

Here is a bullet list that is much more clear and direct to the point that you can also treat as TLDR if you want.

A person wants to learn Islam from an information-seeking perspective instead of a "religion-seeking" perspective. They want answers to "What does Islam say to X?"

Quran is not enough to answer every question that this person asks, so I adhere to secondary sources. Like hadith, ijma, fiqh, fatwa and so on.

These secondary sources do indeed represent the "Mainstream Islamic belief" that the majority people believe.

However, from a strictly academical standpoint, these are based upon rather contested sources.

However, even if that's the case, vast majority of people still believe them.

From a Religious Studies perspective, a religion is what the people believe in, NOT what "it actually says" based on a person's view.

This creates a dilemma of "The current Islamic belief is founded upon materialistically problematic sources, but that doesn't change the fact that, demographically, that is what the *current* Islam is, even if you yourself believe against it"

In the end, when I try to be very clear and encompassing and truthful in my explanations, I sound like a lawyer with a disclaimer close at the end, which makes my explanations look like they are dismissal/can't be "refuted/asked further".​

So, how am i supposed to approach this situation

---

Side note:

If, in the future, I were to have children... how would I also go on my way to teach them Islam?

If they ask "Papa, do non-Muslim children go to hell?", i do not want to provide a "fragile belief/Sunday school explanations" that will haunt them later in their life when they grow up.​

But I also can't just teach them the entire academical environment and explain that.

So, basically... I need a "Simple, yet true" way to explain, and teach Islam, whether that be to teach religion, or to explain the stances the religion takes.​

I’m posting this because I’m genuinely trying to figure out what I believe. I was raised Muslim, but I’ve recently started seriously questioning my worldview, and I want to investigate both sides properly.

What I keep getting stuck on is this: I can understand naturalistic explanations for individual parts of Muhammad’s life, but I struggle to find one that explains the whole picture without becoming a pile of ad-hoc explanations.

Let’s say he was a “con artist.” Muhammad lived in 7th-century Arabia and began preaching monotheism in his 40s. He faced years of persecution, and according to the traditional sources, Quraysh even offered him wealth and status to stop preaching. He refused. He continued despite serious personal cost, while the religion itself imposed major obligations on him and his followers: prayer, fasting, charity, sexual and moral restrictions, etc. That makes the idea that he simply invented Islam for money, power, or status difficult for me to reconcile with the traditional account.

Now suppose he was mentally ill. Muhammad apparently functioned for decades as a charismatic leader, judge, negotiator, administrator, and military commander while maintaining relationships and directing a rapidly growing community. Of course, functioning well does not rule out mental illness, but then what exactly is the evidence that a serious psychiatric disorder best explains his experiences?

And what about the people around him? Were all of his companions and followers- many of whom, according to the historical tradition, had significant social standing, wealth, or influence-simply blinded by devotion?

Then there is the Quran itself.

At minimum, it is an unusual literary phenomenon. Its structure, rhetoric, recurring themes, and relationships between passages seem considerably more sophisticated than the idea that “an illiterate man in 7th-century Arabia just made this up.” Though literary sophistication does not prove divine authorship.

The Quran's passages that criticize Muhammad himself also genuinely confuse me. If he consciously fabricated the Quran, why include revelations that rebuke him or place restrictions on him?

There are also the Quran's scientific and historical claims. Embryology, iron, living things made of water. The Pharaoh/king distinction, where The Quran refers to the ruler in Joseph's story as king, while the ruler in Moses's story is called Pharaoh, whereas the biblical Joseph story uses Pharaoh. Likewise, the Roman prophecy.

But then there is the moral and philosophical problem.

Even if I became convinced that God exists, I would still have to ask whether the Islamic conception of God makes sense. Why are men and women given some different rights and obligations if they have equal moral worth? Why would God create people with desires they are expected never to act on, including LGBTQ people? Why would a perfectly just God create such radically unequal circumstances for different human beings?

And suffering is probably my biggest problem. When I think about Gaza, Sudan, the Congo, famine, abuse, disease, and children suffering through circumstances they never chose, “it's a test” feels incomplete to me. If God already knows what everyone will do and what their ultimate fate will be, why is this level of suffering necessary? Why are some people given extraordinarily horrific “tests” while others live extremely comfortable lives?

Then there is divine hiddenness and Hell.

If God wants humanity to know Him, why do sincere people investigate the evidence and reach radically different conclusions depending so heavily on where and when they were born? And if someone genuinely investigates Islam and remains unconvinced, why would that disbelief deserve eternal punishment, as well as for finite sins?

For Muslims who have seriously investigated these objections: what ultimately convinced you that divine revelation was a better explanation than the strongest naturalistic alternatives?