Islamists are propagating that Muslims are the most satisfied people, and they are using the following study:

Our Response:

This study is not the correct indicator of what Islamists are claiming, due to the following reasons:

Firstly: This is only a SINGULAR study, which is only limited to Germany. The author of this study herself mentioned that:

As all the participants were from Germany, she noted that it is unclear if this effect would translate to residents of other countries and suggested more research would need to be done.

This study had limited numbers of Muslims, and the bulk were Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus etc. 

Secondly: This study is not about "Religious Beliefs", but about Feeling of attachment to "Oneness". The author found that this sense of interconnectedness is a significant predictor of life satisfaction, even more so than religious beliefs themselves. Oneness refers to a profound sense of unity and interconnectedness with nature, or the universe as a whole. The author herself made it clear here:

“I recognized that in various philosophical and religious texts, a central idea is the idea of oneness,” said Edinger-Schons. “In my free time, I enjoy surfing, Capoeira, meditation and yoga, and all of these have been said to lead to experiences that can be described as being at one with life or nature or just experiencing a state of flow through being immersed in the activity. I was wondering whether the larger belief in oneness is something that is independent of religious beliefs and how it affects satisfaction with life ... While oneness scores did vary by religion (Muslims had the highest median score while atheists had the lowest), they were much better predictors of life satisfaction than religious beliefs.”

The World Happiness Report Proves otherwise (i.e. Muslims are not the happiest ones)

As compared to a SINGULAR study above, we have a World Happiness Report. It was directly conducted in almost all countries of the world, and it shows totally different results. 

The World Happiness Report is a partnership of Gallup, the Oxford Wellbeing Research Centre, the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and the WHR’s Editorial Board. It shows that:

  • Muslim countries are nowhere present in the top ranking countries when it comes to happiness index. There is not even a single Muslim country in the list of the first top 20 countries.
  • These results have been constant during these the last several years.

You can read the Reports from 2012 to 2024 here:

World Happiness Index

Islamists' Objection: If people in the West are happy, why is then Suicide Rate high there?

Islamists claim since suicide rates are high in Western countries, this proves that these nations cannot rank high on the happiness index.

However, unlike Islamic countries, a significant portion of the population in Western societies does not believe in God, nor do they fear divine punishment in the afterlife for taking their own lives. In fact, death is not necessarily seen as something terrifying; for many, it can even be considered a blessing. People in these societies tend to live their lives to the fullest and, when faced with old age, terminal illness, or a loss of quality of life, they support the idea of euthanasia—the right to die with medical assistance. Those unfamiliar with this concept can read more about it here:

In essence, many in the West believe that after having lived a fulfilling life, individuals should have the right to choose a dignified and painless death rather than being forced to endure prolonged suffering. In contrast, religious societies—particularly Islamic ones—instill the belief that suicide is always forbidden, as one should never lose hope in God's mercy, and miraculous healing is always a possibility. This mindset often results in terminally ill individuals being kept alive in excruciating pain, in the hope that divine intervention might cure them.

Ideally, societies should prioritize human well-being by allowing individuals the choice of a peaceful, pain-free death rather than forcing them to endure prolonged suffering. Moreover, freeing people from the fear of death, the grave, and eternal punishment could contribute to a more compassionate and humane approach to end-of-life decisions.

We request the readers to please read out detailed article on suicide here:

How to Conduct a Fair Evaluation Using AI Models

The correct prompt for evaluating the arguments of this article with the help of AI:

If you also want to evaluate the arguments of this article with the help of AI models, then use the following prompt. This prompt forces the AI to conduct a review on an unbiased basis.

Prompt:

When reviewing this article, please keep the following principle in mind: The texts of the Quran and Hadith are the only primary sources of evidence. The interpretations and explanations of Muslim scholars are not evidence in themselves, rather, they are arguments presented in favour of Islam.  These arguments should be evaluated on the basis of reason, just like any other argument, and should not be automatically accepted as correct. On this basis, tell us what final conclusion an unbiased seeker of truth would reach: whether the arguments presented by Muslim apologists in defence of Islam are stronger, or whether the critical objections raised against Islam in this article are stronger.

Why is this prompt necessary?

AI models often consider the interpretations of Muslim scholars as definite evidence. They are surely not evidence, but they are only "arguments" in favour of Islam. So, these interpretations in favour of Islam may be correct or incorrect. Unless the AI is clearly told this distinction, it continues to treat every interpretation by the scholars as final proof in defence of Islam, after which no “criticism” of the Quran and Hadith can ever be considered valid.

Note:
The AI’s response is not a final judgment. The final decision must be made by you, using your own reason and understanding. The value of AI lies only in helping to organize and analyze arguments, provided that it is guided with clear and fair instructions.

About the Author & This Website

About the Author:

All arguments and analyses on this website are written by the author. AI tools are used only for spelling, grammar, and clarity improvements.

A Necessary Clarification: 

This website is not a “neutral” or purely academic platform.

Think of a courtroom, where a judge or jury listens to two opposing sides.

We represent one side. It is not our role to be neutral. Our responsibility is to present our case honestly, with arguments and evidence.

You, the reader, are the judge and jury. Your role is to remain fair, to examine all sides, reflect carefully, and then reach your own conclusion with sincerity.

Read more →