Summary:

Divine revelation should not be based on the trial and error method; it should be accurate from the first instance. 

Due to His imperfect knowledge, Allah (i.e., Muhammad) issued a command about an issue, but after identifying the error, He changed the command, calling it Naskh (abrogation).

Here are some examples of Allah learning through the trial and error method:

Zihar: 

During the era of ignorance in Arab society, there was a peculiar custom known as Zihar. If a man, in a fit of anger or unintentionally, compared his wife to his mother or her back to his mother's back, it was considered grounds for separation, akin to a divorce.  It was really a foolish practice of the people of the time of ignorance.

When Islam emerged, Allah (i.e. Muhammad) continued to endorse this foolish tradition of Zihar. However, later Allah/Muhammad had to abrogate this practice upon furious protest of his female companion. 

A companion of Muhammad who divorced his wife, Khuwaylah, through Zihar. Seeking justice, Khuwaylah approached Muhammad and expressed her grievances. However, Muhammad did not resolve her issue. Instead, against her wishes, he informed her that her husband had likened her to his mother, making him no longer her spouse but merely a cousin-brother. It is important to note that in Islam, once divorced, it is nearly impossible for a wife to remarry her husband unless she undergoes the degrading practice of Halala. Nonetheless, Zihar is even more stringent than Talaq (divorce), as it prevents the couple from reuniting even after Halala.

In response, Khuwaylah, the female companion, became furious and vehemently disagreed with Muhammad. She refused to leave and engaged in a dispute with him.

To resolve the situation and dismiss Khuwaylah, Muhammad conveniently claimed to receive a revelation from Allah. The revelation stated that Zihar had been abrogated, allowing Khuwaylah to reunite with her husband.

Sunan Abu Dawud 2214:

Narrated Khuwaylah, daughter of Malik ibn Tha'labah:
My husband, Aws ibn as-Samit, pronounced the words: You are like my mother. So I came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), complaining to him about my husband.
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) disputed with me and said: Remain dutiful to Allah; he is your cousin.
I continued (complaining) until the Qur'anic verse came down (Quran 58:1-4): 
"Allah has indeed heard the speech of the woman who is disputing with you (O Muhammad) concerning her husband, and is complaining to Allah; and Allah hears the conversation of you both; indeed Allah is All Hearing, All Seeing ... Those who declare their wives to be their mothers and thereafter go back on what they have said shall free a slave before they may touch each other. "
He then said: He should set free a slave. She said: He cannot afford it. He said: He should fast for two consecutive months. She said: Apostle of Allah, he is an old man; he cannot keep fasts. He said: He should feed sixty poor people. She said: He has nothing which he may give in alms. At that moment an araq (i.e. date-basket holding fifteen or sixteen sa's) was brought to him.
I said: I shall help him with another date-basked ('araq). He said: You have done well. Go and feed sixty poor people, and return to your cousin.
(Abu Dawud said) She paid the penalty secretly, without telling her husband. 
(This tradition is "Sahih" i.e. authentic. Link)

Why did Allah not prohibit Zihar, along with other foolish divorce practices like Ila (الإيلاء), right from the beginning? If Allah is truly perfect, it would be expected that He would have prohibited this foolish practice without delay.

Due to Allah's negligence in prohibiting it, this unfortunate woman had to engage in an ongoing dispute with Muhammad to seek its abrogation.

Prophet Muhammad's response is also puzzling. Despite the women's awareness that Zihar was an evil and foolish practice, Muhammad did not demonstrate the same understanding. He did not ask Allah to prohibit it, but instead repeatedly advised the woman to forget about her husband and move on.

If Allah, who is claimed to be 100% perfect, had not previously prohibited Zihar, He could have immediately abrogated it when the woman first requested it. However, it seems that Allah chose to observe the entire drama of the dispute between the woman and Muhammad, only revealing the solution when she persisted in her disagreement, enabling Muhammad to rid himself of her.

Please take note:

• It is indeed peculiar and foolish that although the mistake of Zihar was committed by the husband, it was the poor woman who had to bear the penalty. Such a scenario raises questions about the nature of Divine Justice.
• Furthermore, why did Allah not COMPLETELY eliminate the issue by entirely abrogating Zihar (i.e. why to still keeping it a part of Sharia and still asking to free slaves to revert it)? In the non-Muslim world, we do not encounter any problems related to Zihar. So, why did Allah persist in addressing it through various penalties?

Zihar vs marrying the wife of the Adopted son:

Islam presents a perplexing contrast in its reasoning. On one hand, according to Islamic logic, if a man repeatedly refers to someone as his son, even after adopting him, that child cannot be considered a Mahram to his foster mother. Consequently, a foster mother must be separated from her adopted son as soon as he reaches adulthood, resulting in the son being expelled from the household,  as he could no longer stay under one roof with his foster mother. 

On the other hand, Islam dictates that if a husband compares his wife to his mother orally once (even in anger), it leads to an immediate and permanent divorce. And this can be overturn only if the husband agrees to take her back, and Allah still persist in addressing it through various penalties. 

These contradictions epitomize double standards and reach the height of absurdity.

Allah boasting about his "All Hearing" power

(Quran 58:1-4): 
"Allah has indeed heard the speech of the woman who is disputing with you (O Muhammad) concerning her husband, and is complaining to Allah; and Allah hears the conversation of you both; indeed Allah is All Hearing, All Seeing 

One wonders why Allah has to boast here about his "All Hearing" powers? A "sensible" Allah didn't even need to first hear and see the whole drama of dispute and complaining, but He would have sent those commads even before Khaula (the female companion) had to come to Muhammad, or even at the begin of dispute, while Allah should also be "All Knowing", even about the future events. 

Allah didn't KNOW initially that one Muslim cannot face 10 Kafirs in battle

Compare the following 2 verses, where firstly Allah claimed that one Muslim had a strength to overcome 10 Kafirs. But then upon protest from Muslims, Allah had to ABROGATE the first verse and made a new claim in a new verse that one Muslim had a strength to overcome only 2 Kafirs. 

Surah Al-Anfal, Ayah 65:

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ حَرِّ‌ضِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلَى الْقِتَالِ ۚ إِن يَكُن مِّنكُمْ عِشْرُ‌ونَ صَابِرُ‌ونَ يَغْلِبُوا مِائَتَيْنِ ۚ وَإِن يَكُن مِّنكُم مِّائَةٌ يَغْلِبُوا أَلْفًا مِّنَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُ‌وا بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لَّا يَفْقَهُونَ 

"O Prophet! Encourage the believers to fight. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they will overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred, they will overcome a thousand disbelievers, because they are a people who do not understand."

Surah Al-Anfal, Ayah 66:

الْآنَ خَفَّفَ اللَّـهُ عَنكُمْ وَعَلِمَ أَنَّ فِيكُمْ ضَعْفًا ۚ فَإِن يَكُن مِّنكُم مِّائَةٌ صَابِرَ‌ةٌ يَغْلِبُوا مِائَتَيْنِ ۚ وَإِن يَكُن مِّنكُمْ أَلْفٌ يَغْلِبُوا أَلْفَيْنِ بِإِذْنِ اللَّـهِ ۗ وَاللَّـهُ مَعَ الصَّابِرِ‌ينَ

For the time being Allah has lightened (expectations) from you, and He has known (i.e. He has found out) that there is weakness in you. So if there are of you a hundred steadfast, they shall overcome two hundred. And if there are a thousand of you, they shall overcome two thousand under Permission of Allah. And Allah is on the side of those who are perseverant. (Translated by Dr. Kamal Omar)

Ibn Kathir recorded the following under the commentary of this verse (link):

Ibn `Abbas said, "When this Ayah was revealed, it was difficult for the Muslims, for they thought it was burdensome since twenty should fight two hundred, and a hundred against a thousand. Allah made this ruling easy for them and abrogated this Ayah with another Ayah.

In the mentioned verse, our objection is based on the word عَلِمَ means to found out, to become aware of, has now learned. This is a human attribute. The Creator of the universe described by believers is All-Knowing (Al-Alim) and has known all future events with all details from the beginning of creation. There is no addition to His knowledge because He knows everything from the start.

The initial part of Ayah 66 is noteworthy, which states: Now Allah has lightened your burden and found out that there is weakness among you. This verse clearly indicates that when Allah urged the believers to fight against an enemy ten times greater in number, it was not known to Allah that this command would be too burdensome for the Muslims. Therefore, after some time, Allah realized this error and corrected it by issuing a new command that now the Muslims should remain steadfast against an enemy twice their number and should not flee.

The attributes of the Creator of the universe described in the Quran and Hadith, such as being Wise, All-Aware, All-Knowing, the First and the Last, the Knower of the unseen, are contradicted by this verse. The being with these attributes cannot make such a blatant mistake. This verse clearly shows that the Creator described in the Quran lacks the basic ability of a good manager and has to change decisions after realizing ERRORS.

The conclusion from studying these verses is that the Quran is not a divine book but the speech of a human, whose humanity is clearly reflected in Ayah 66. Because if it were divine speech, Allah, being All-Knowing, would never say that He has now learned that the first command is impractical, thus canceling the first command and issuing the second.

It is an invitation to thought for all humans.

Liaan لعان (Accusation of Adultery)

Allah also exhibits this ignorance in the issue of 'Lian.'

Initially, the writer of the Quran (i.e. Muhammad) stated that in the case of an accusation of adultery, four eyewitnesses were required who had personally seen the act of penetration. Failure to produce these four witnesses would result in all the witnesses being lashed with 80 stripes for making false accusations, even if they were telling the truth.

Common sense dictates that punishing witnesses with 80 stripes for telling the truth is contrary to justice. This ruling was seemingly made by Muhammad during the incident of IFK, where he wanted to punish the men who testified against his wife, 'Aisha. There he first made this new rule if the number of witnesses is less than 4, then they should be lashed 80 times (even if they are telling the Truth).  Please refer to our detailed article: The incident of Ifk and the Ruling of 4 Witnesses.

However, the problem arose when the Sahaba (i.e. male companions of Muhammad) found their wives engaging in sexual activities with other men. They accused their wives of adultery without presenting four male eyewitnesses.

This situation became a significant problem for Muhammad, as his male Sahaba became extremely angry about the condition of four male eyewitnesses and they refused to accept it, reaching the brink of rebellion. Muhammad needed their support for his wars and didn't want to anger them.

As a result, Muhammad had to introduce a new revelation, abrogating the earlier requirement of four male witnesses for husbands and allowing his male companions to accuse their wives of adultery openly by simply swearing in the name of Allah. However, Muhammad did not grant women the right of Li'aan in his newly revealed verse, while the poor women were unable to rebel against him and Islam.

Sahih Muslim, 1498c:

Sa'd b. Ubada said: Messenger of Allah, if I were to find with my wife a man, should I not touch him before bringing four witnesses? Allah's Messenger said: Yes. He said: By no means. By Him Who has sent you with the Truth, I would hasten with my sword to him before that.

Therefore, when Muhammad saw that the male companions were on the verge of rebellion, then he once again played the drama of new revelation, where he gave this “exception” only to the male husbands, to make an accusation of adultery against their wives even without the 4 witnesses, and they will not be lashed 80 times for Qadhf (i.e. the false accusation).

Quran 24:6-7:
Those who accuse their wives and do not have any witnesses except themselves, should swear four times in the name of God, the testimony of each such person being that he is speaking the truth, And (swear) a fifth time that if he tells a lie the curse of God be on him.

Human intellect clearly guides us, if Allah is really All-Wise, then he would have never put the ridiculous condition of 4 male eyewitnesses (who saw the penis penetrating the vagina clearly) in the first place.

And the 2nd condition of accusation is even more ridiculous than the condition of 4 male eyewitnesses, i.e. even if the wife is telling the truth, but she does not have 4 eyewitnesses, still Islam blames her for telling a lie. This means not only her testimony will be rejected, but she will also be punished brutally for telling the truth. 

Killing ALL Dogs INITIALLY, but later changing the command upon Companions Protest

The command of killing dogs went through 4 stages of the trial and error method:

• 1st Stage: Initially, Muhammad commanded the killing of all dogs, regardless of their roles or appearances.
• 2nd Stage: In response to public outcry against the mass killing of dogs, then Allah (i.e. Muhammad) revised the ruling, allowing people to keep dogs for hunting and livestock protection while maintaining the directive to kill all other dogs.
• 3rd Stage: However, further protests led to another revision, whereby the Divine Allah rescinded the order to kill all other dogs, except those with black coloration. In this stage, black dogs were deemed as associated with devils.
• 4th Stage: Continuing opposition to the killing of black dogs prompted yet another revision. Then Allah (i.e. Muhammad) reversed the ruling once more, abolishing the killing of all black dogs, except for those that were jet-black with two spots on their eyes.

Throughout these four stages, the Sharia ruling regarding the killing of dogs underwent transformations due to the protests and concerns raised by the people.

Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1572:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ordered us to kill (all) dogs, and we carried out this order so much so that we also kill the dog coming with a woman from the desert.

Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 2845:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Were dogs not a species of creature I should command that they all be killed; but kill every pure black one.

Sahih Muslim, Hadith 510a:

Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1572:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) ordered us to kill (all) dogs ... Then Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) forbade their killing. He (the Prophet further) said: It is your duty (to kill) the jet-black (dog) having two spots (on the eyes), for it is a devil.

This is an Intriguing Contradiction in the Sharia Rulings on Dogs.

The contradiction becomes apparent when considering that if the devil was not present in dogs other than the jet-black ones with two spots on their eyes, why did Muhammad/Allah initially decree the killing of all other innocent dogs who did not possess any demonic qualities?

It is crucial to remember that a "divine revelation" should not be subject to trial and error but rather should embody the flawless wisdom of an All-Wise God from its very inception.

When examining the evolution of Islamic orders regarding alcohol, we observe a progression from leniency to strictness in three stages, reflecting an understanding of human psychology. Initially, praying while intoxicated was prohibited, followed by a complete prohibition of alcohol, and finally, the introduction of 80 lashes as punishment.

However, the case of dogs follows an opposite trajectory—orders transitioned from strict to lenient. This means that the initial decree to kill all dogs went against human psychology, and subsequent modifications were made due to the protests of people who vehemently opposed the killing of their pet dogs and advocated for the retention of dogs for hunting and guarding purposes.

Muhammad/Allah was indeed compelled to change the orders due to the intense opposition and protest from people who were unwilling to part with their beloved canine companions. This sentiment of resistance is evident in the hadith:

Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1573a: 

In conclusion, a divine revelation should be grounded in divine wisdom rather than relying on a trial-and-error approach.

Allah didn't know INITIALLY that Companions of Muhammad could not control their Sexual Desires for 30 nights of Ramadan

Initially, Allah prohibited sex with wives during the nights of Ramadan.

However, this command was completely against human nature. Even the companions, who were supposed to be exemplars of true faith, could not adhere to this unnatural rule. Consequently, they began secretly visiting their wives during the nights of Ramadan, including the prominent companion Umar Ibn Khattab.

Realizing the impracticality of enforcing such a restriction and the difficulty of punishing all the violators without causing dissent, Allah (i.e., Muhammad) recognized the need for a change. Instead of punishing Umar and others, Muhammad claimed the revelation of a new verse, which abrogated the previous prohibition of sex during the nights of Ramadan.

Surah Al-Baqarah (2:187):

“It is made lawful for you to have sexual relations with your wives on the night of As-Siyam (fasting). They are Libas (i.e., body-cover, or screen) for you and you are Libas for them. Allah knows that you used to deceive yourselves (by going to wives secretly), so He turned to you and forgave you (for this sin). So now you are allowed to have sexual relations with your wives.

Ibn Kathir wrote under the commentary of this verse (link):

 Ibn `Abbas said, "During the month of Ramadan, after Muslims would pray `Isha', they would not touch their women and food until the next night. Then some Muslims, including `Umar bin Al-Khattab, touched (had sex with) their wives and had some food during Ramadan after `Isha'. They complained to Allah's Messenger ﷺ . Then Allah sent down (the verse 8:66): (Allah knows that you used to deceive yourselves, so He turned to you (accepted your repentance) and forgave you. So now have sexual relations with them)"

Ask yourself this: If Allah knew that humans would struggle to control themselves for the 30 nights of Ramadan, why didn't He make it permissible from the start? There is no logical reason for initially prohibiting it. Did Allah initially fear that making it permissible would lead the companions to rebel against it?

Allah later BROKE his COVENANT to avoid making Sahaba Angry

The Quran itself testifies that Allah did not uphold His own covenant. If a truly omnipotent God existed, it would be impossible for Him to break His promises.

During the Battle of Hunayn (8 AH), the faith of the Prophet's closest companions, the Sahabah, was so weak that they repeatedly fled the battlefield, leaving Muhammad alone.

(Al-Quran 3:153) "Remember when you fled without looking at anyone while the Messenger was calling you from behind."

Even before Hunayn, during the Battle of Uhud (3 AH), the Sahabah abandoned Muhammad, leaving him at the mercy of the enemy. Because of this, Allah took a solemn promise from them that they would never again desert the Prophet in battle. If they did, Allah would severely punish them and cast them into eternal hellfire.

(Al-Quran 8:15-16) "O believers! When you face the disbelievers in battle, do not turn your backs to them. And whoever does so on such an occasion, unless it is a strategic retreat or joining another fighting force, will certainly incur the wrath of Allah, and Hell will be their home—what an evil destination!"

Did the Sahabah keep this promise? No. During the Battle of Hunayn, they again abandoned Muhammad, despite his calls to them. The Quran confirms this:

(Al-Quran 9:25) "Allah has already given you victory in many regions and [even] on the day of Hunayn, when your great numbers pleased you, but they did not avail you at all, and the earth was confining for you with [its] vastness; then you turned back, fleeing."

Thus, the Sahabah broke their promise once more. Allah had vowed during the Battle of Uhud that anyone who fled the battlefield would incur His wrath and be consigned to Hell.

Yet, instead of keeping this promise, Allah forgave the fleeing Sahabah after the Battle of Hunayn, contradicting His previous covenant. The Quran states:

(Al-Quran 9:27) "Then Allah will accept repentance after that from whom He wills; and Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

It is evident that threatening such a large group of Sahabah with wrath and Hell was beyond the Prophet's power. To manage this, Muhammad fabricated a verse of forgiveness, forgetting his earlier declaration of wrath for those who fled.

This kind of breaking the own covenant does not befit an all-powerful deity who claims in the Quran:

"You will never find any change in Allah's way (48:23)."

"And who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? (9:111)."

"Allah does not like those who betray (8:58)."

However, this kind of breaking the own covenant fits someone who falsely claims prophethood and, under pressure, breaks his old covenant and invents a new verse of forgiveness to maintain the loyalty of the Sahabah.

The Command to Give Charity Before Speaking to the Messenger in Private and Its Abrogation

The companions were curious about Muhammad's new religion and had many questions. However, Muhammad became overwhelmed by the constant questioning. To curb the excessive inquiries, Muhammad introduced a new condition: the companions had to give a sum in charity before asking their questions.

(Quran 58:12) O believers! When you wish to speak to the Messenger in private, give charity beforehand. This is better for you and purer. But if you lack the means, Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

However, the companions valued their wealth more than spending it to learn about Islam. They stopped visiting Muhammad and asking questions. When Muhammad realized that the companions were no longer coming to him and he was losing his influence over them, he claimed the revelation of a new verse, which abrogated the condition of giving charity before asking questions.

(Quran 58:13) Is it that ye are afraid of spending sums in charity before your private consultation (with him)? If, then, ye do not so, and Allah forgives you, then (at least) establish regular prayer; practise regular charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. 

In the commentary on this verse, Tafsir Dur-e-Mansur includes the following narration:

Ibn Munzir, Ibn Abi Hatim, and Ibn Marduwaih narrated from Ibn Abbas that the verse "when you consult the Messenger privately" was revealed because the Muslims were asking the Messenger many questions, which made the situation difficult for him. Allah wanted to lighten this burden on His Prophet, so He commanded them to give charity before consulting him privately. When Allah revealed this command, many people refrained from asking questions and seeking advice. Consequently, Allah revealed the verse "Are you hesitant..." thereby lifting this restriction and easing their burden.

The point is, if there truly were an Allah who knows everything, He would have known in advance that the companions would not pay money for this task, and He would not have set such a condition. However, since there is no such entity as Allah, and Muhammad himself claimed the revelation of verses, these "human errors" appear in the revelations.

Ten times Breastfeeding verse abrogated later by 5 times 

One wonders:

• What is the logic behind the abrogation of the verse regarding 10 times breastfeeding? 
• Why wasn't the verse about five breastfeeding sessions revealed the first time instead of ten?
• Would companions have rebelled against Allah if he had revealed the verse of 5 times suckling right in the START?

The background story:

• Firstly, Muhammad declared that an adopted son will become non-Mahram to his foster mother after becoming an Adult. This broke many families. Moreover, Muhammad also allowed foster fathers to marry their minor adopted daughters for their beauty and wealth without their consent. 
• Secondly, Muhammad also strictly forbade any interaction between women and non-Mahram men, which again caused a lot of practical problems in daily lives. 

Consequently, Muhammad found one solution, where he asked a woman to breastfeed an adult man to become Mahram. However, it was a shameful practice that an adult man breastfed a woman. It seems, to avoid the inconvenience, Muhammad later reduced the number of suckling from 10 to 5. 

Please read all details here: Breastfeeding Adults: Survival of AHADITH due to adult's breastfeeding