Allah's Test is the Greatest Injustice Against Mankind

Either there exists no Allah in the heavens. But if true, then Allah's Test is the greatest injustice against mankind. 

Many researchers estimate that between 50,000 and 100,000 Christians convert to Islam around the world each year (link). In the US approximately 20,000 people convert to Islam annually (link), in the UK nearly 6,000 (link), in Germany an estimated 4,000 (link).

With 6.1 billion non-Muslims in the world, 100,000 converts per year is 0.001% per year. 99.999% do not convert per year. This is not coincidence. It is the logical outcome of human psychology and socialization. Children are indoctrinated into the religion of their parents from birth.

Consider the following facts:

• 99.99% of children born into Christian families adopt Christianity.

• 99.99% of children born into Hindu families remain Hindu. 

• 99.99% of children born into Jewish families remain Jewish.

• The conversion rate to Islam among non-Muslims may be around 0.001%.

In the last decades, Christians and Jews may convert to Atheism, but not to Islam. The rate of spread of Atheism (non-religion) in the West far exceeds the rate of conversion to Islam by many folds. So, the figure stays there that 99.99% of people, who are born in Christian families, they are still going into eternal hellfire according to Islam. 

These are not coincidences, but they are the logical outcome of how human psychology and socialization work. Children are indoctrinated into the religion of their parents from birth, forming emotional and cognitive bonds that are extraordinarily difficult to break. This is true for Muslims as well, where a child born in Saudi Arabia is as likely to remain Muslim as a child born in India is to remain Hindu.

This means, those 6 billion people today, who are born in non-Muslim families by Allah's design, they have 99.9999% less chance of becoming Muslim as compared to those who are born in Muslims families by Allah's Design. 

The implications of this reality for Islamic theology are staggering. 

If Allah is the designer of this system, and the system ensures that 99.9999% of people remain in the religion of their birth, then Allah has effectively created a mechanism that condemns the overwhelming majority of humanity to eternal hellfire, regardless of their inherent goodness, moral character, or humanitarian contributions.

This is not justice, but this is a rigged game.

Our sense of humanity clearly tells us that this is the Greatest DHULM (injustice) ever against mankind. There is no greater injustice in the universe than billions of innocent people being condemned to eternal hellfire simply because they were born into non-Muslim families by Allah's design.

Alone this injustice is ENOUGH to leave the religion, as it goes against humanity.

Why would Muhammad's Mother face the Eternal Fire of Hell? How this can be considered Justice?

According to Islamic belief, Muhammad's mother, Aminah bint Wahb, died as a polytheist; because of this, Muhammad was forbidden from even praying for her forgiveness:

Sahih Muslim, 976: The Prophet of Allah said: I asked my Lord for permission to pray for my mother's forgiveness, but He did not grant me permission; then I asked Him for permission to visit her grave, and He permitted me.

Muslim scholars defend the Islamic belief regarding Aminah (Muhammad's mother) being sent to Hell by claiming that the "Religion of Hanif" (the religion of Abraham) existed during that era, therefore, Aminah had a full opportunity to accept Islam, but she did not. Consequently, Allah sending her to Hell is considered Allah's justice, not injustice; let us examine this claim in the light of history and Islamic traditions:

Was Hanif Religion (also known as Religion of Ibrahim) Well-Known in Arabia?

Islamic traditions themselves acknowledge that there were only 4 followers of Hanif Religion in Mecca at that time. And even among them, 3 later apostatized and converted to Christianity, leaving only one person, Zayd bin Amr bin Nufayl, as the sole remaining follower of Hanif Religion.

However, the issue with this Zayd bin Amr is that he himself had absolutely no knowledge of anything called Hanif Religion initially. According to a narration in Sahih Bukhari, Zayd bin Amr found out about the Abrahamic religion for the first time only when he met a Christian scholar who mentioned Abraham to him for the very first time.

Sahih Bukhari, 3827: 
When Zayd asked the Syrian scholar about the true religion, the scholar replied that he should become a Hanif; upon Zayd's inquiry about what a Hanif was, the scholar said it was the religion of Abraham, who was neither a Jew nor a Christian, and who worshipped none but Allah. When Zayd heard these statements about Abraham, he immediately raised his hands and said: "O my Allah! I bear witness that I follow the religion of Abraham."

Therefore, it is proven from this account that nothing called Hanif Religion or the Abrahamic religion was "well-known" within Arabian society, rather, Zayd bin Amr learned about the Prophet Abraham for the first time only after being informed by a Christian scholar. Consequently, what chance did Aminah (i.e. mother of the prophet) realistically have to understand Religion of Hanif well enough to accept it?

Furthermore:

• There is no evidence whatsoever that Aminah ever even met Zayd.
• Similarly, what about the hundreds of thousands of other Arabian women who lived during Aminah's era but never crossed paths with Zayd, how were they supposed to accept Islam?

Social Constraints of Women:  Please also remember that Muhammad's mother lived in a society completely dominated by tribe and family; would it be possible for an ordinary woman to be influenced by the ideas of a single, reclusive man like Zayd and stand against her entire tribe and belief system?

3 out of 4 followers of Haneef Religion apostized later: In entire Arab, there were about 4 people only who converted to Hanif Deen. But even worse, all of them apostized later (and became Christians) except for only one person (i.e. Zayd). But still Islamic apologists put entire burden upon Amina (Muhammad's mother) that she should have converted to Hanif religion. This makes conversion to Hanif Deen even smaller than 0.00005% i.e. about 2 millions of pagan Arabs in the 6th century vs. one follower of Hanif Deen. (Based on historical estimates, the population of pre-Islamic Arabia in the 6th century is generally estimated to have been between 2 million and 7 million people). 

The Example of Umar ibn al-Khattab

entireUmar was a powerful and influential figure among the Quraysh. He was intimately familiar with Muhammad and his message from the very beginning. Muhammad preached to him directly, yet it took Umar seven years to accept Islam. During those seven years, Umar actively opposed Islam and persecuted its followers.

If a person of Umar's stature, intelligence, and proximity to the Prophet took seven years to convert, how can it be reasonably expected that an ordinary person (like Aminah, who was a simple woman of that era) , would accept Islam after merely "hearing" the name of Hanif Religion?

Does this trial of Aminah look like divine fairness and justice to you from any perspective? 

It is not just Aminah, but Muhammad's grandfather, Abdul Muttalib, faces the same issue because according to Islam, he did not accept the religion of Abraham, which makes him fuel for the eternal fire of Hell as well (Sahih Bukhari, 3884). 

This is despite the fact that Abdul Muttalib was a person who provided water to the pilgrims and served them according to Islamic traditions. And when Abrahah attacked, Allah sent the flocks of birds precisely because of Abdul Muttalib's prayer.

Refutation of Apologetic Excuses

Apologists have made a lot of excuses to defend the moral implications of Islamic theology. Let us analyse them. 

1st Excuse: Arab Pagans rightfully go to hell, as Message already reached them

The apologists' argument is:

If Aminah or pagan Arabs didn't convert to Hanif Deen, then they were themselves at fault, as they knew about Ibrahim and Ismael very well. Quraysh put images of Ibrahim and Ismail in the Ka'bah. The Prophet said, "By Allah, they knew those two never cast arrows (i.e. played game of chance with arrows)" (Bukhari 1601). Imam Nawawi wrote under the commentary of Hadith in Sahih Muslim about the Prophet's father going to hell (link): "This indicates that whoever died during the interval between messengers (i.e. People of Fatra فترة), following the practice of the Arabs at that time of worshipping idols, is among the people of Hell. This does not constitute holding people accountable before the message has reached them, because the message of Abraham and other prophets had already reached these people.”

The Refutation:

This defense is not merely weak, but it is also a glaring example of cognitive dissonance that exposes the human origins of this theology. When we apply basic logic and historical observation to this claim, it completely collapses.

Here is the full hadith that apologists are quoting (Bukhari, 1601):

Narrated Ibn Abbas: When Allah's Messenger arrived in Mecca, he refused to enter the Ka'ba while there were idols in it. So he ordered that they be taken out. The pictures of the Prophets Abraham and Ishmael, holding arrows of divination in their hands (for playing game of chance), were carried out. The Prophet said, "May Allah ruin them (the infidels) for they knew very well that they (Abraham and Ishmael) never drew lots by these divination arrows."

Now apply simple logic to this:

1. The collective action of a whole nation is a louder witness than one man's claim.

If the pagan Arabs actually knew that Abraham and Ishmael never cast arrows, why did they carve statues of them holding arrows? Why did they make those statues the centerpiece of their divination ritual inside their holiest shrine?

You cannot say a population knew a historical fact while their entire religious life was built on the opposite belief. The idols are physical, archaeological proof of what the community believed. Muhammad's sentence is a solitary claim against the lived practice of thousands.

An omniscient God would know this. He would never make an illogical argument that "they knew, therefore they are guilty" when their own idols prove they did not know. Only a human author, trying to retrospectively paint his ancestors as guilty, makes such a self-contradictory claim.

2. An idol of Abraham is not his message. It is the annihilation of his message.

What was Abraham's identity according to Muhammad himself? He was the man who smashed idols and preached absolute, uncompromising Tawhid.

What were Quraysh doing? They had turned Abraham himself into an idol and were worshipping him alongside Hubal and 360 other gods.

Having a statue of a man while doing the exact opposite of everything that man taught is not preservation of his religion. It is its total inversion. You cannot claim they "knew" Abraham's religion when they were committing the one sin - idol-making - that Abraham is famous for fighting against.

This is not clear guidance. This is catastrophic distortion. And by your own apologist principle from Ghazali, if a people receives a distorted message, they are excused. The idols in the Ka'ba are not proof of knowledge. They are proof that the message was so corrupted that it was unrecognisable.

3. Did a single person become a Hanif from those idols?

Apologists point to the few Hanifs to prove the message was accessible. But the hadith destroys their argument.

Sahih al-Bukhari records that Zaid bin Amr bin Nufail, the most devout truth-seeker in Arabia, was completely unaware of what "Hanif" even was. He had to travel to Syria and ask a Jewish scholar, then a Christian scholar, to explain it. Only after that foreign scholar explicitly described the religion of Ibrahim did Zaid raise his hands and declare his faith.

If Zaid bin Amr was ignorant until a Christian taught him, how can you expect an ordinary, socially constrained tribal woman like Aminah to independently deduce it from an idol?

If the pagan Arabs truly "knew" the religion of Abraham well enough to be held accountable, why did not a single pagan Arab convert to it based on this knowledge? The historical record is absolute: zero conversions. It required the direct, persistent, years-long preaching of Muhammad coupled with the Qur'an to break through tribal conditioning.

2nd Excuse. Fabricating new excuses while neglecting Muhammad's own Words 

Apologists also claim:

Scholars like Al-Ghazali says people who never heard the message, or heard only a distorted version, are excused. They are known as "People of Fatrah" فترة (i.e. those who were born in time between two prophets). Only those who saw the real message and rejected it are accountable.

The Refutation:

Muhammad never said that "People of Fatrah" (فترة)  are excused from judgement and will not go to hell. This is an innovation which later coming Islamic apologists themselves fabricated. 

This is a classic "ad hoc" rescue device (i.e., a later philosophical "patch" invented centuries after Islam’s founding to protect the religion from obvious moral absurdity). If Allah’s justice truly accounted for a person’s environment, lack of access to the message, or societal constraints, why did this nuance not apply to Muhammad’s own mother Aminah (Sahih Muslim, 976), and his father Abdullah (Sahih Muslim, 203) and grandfather Abdulmuttalib (Sahih al-Bukhari, 3884)?  

For example, look at the hadith about his father:

Sahih Muslim, Hadith 203: 
Anas reported: Verily, a person said: Messenger of Allah, where is my father? He said: (He) is in the Fire. When he turned away, he (the Holy Prophet) called him and said: Verily my father and your father are in the Fire.

And for his grandfather Abdul Muttalib:

Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 3884: 
When Abu Talib was in his death bed, the Prophet (ﷺ) went to him while Abu Jahl was sitting beside him. The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "O my uncle! Say: None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, an expression I will defend your case with, before Allah." Abu Jahl and `Abdullah bin Umaiya said, "O Abu Talib! Will you leave the religion of `Abdul Muttalib?" So they kept on saying this to him so that the last statement he said to them (before he died) was: "I am on the religion of `Abdul Muttalib." Then the Prophet said, " I will keep on asking for Allah's Forgiveness for you unless I am forbidden to do so." Then the following Verse was revealed:-- "It is not fitting for the Prophet (ﷺ) and the believers to ask Allah's Forgiveness for the pagans, even if they were their near relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are the dwellers of the (Hell) Fire." (9.113)

All of them died before the start of prophethood of Muhammad (i.e., during the era of Fatra), but still landed in eternal hellfire according to the witness of Muhammad. 

3rd Excuse. Inconsistencies and Contradictions

To resolve the moral crisis of eternal damnation for those born before or outside of Islam, apologists cite universal Quranic principles of divine justice:

• "And We never punish until We have sent a messenger." (Quran 17:15)
• "Allah does not charge a soul beyond its capacity." (Quran 2:286)

The Refutation:

But this defence collapses when confronted with Muhammad's own statements. He explicitly testified that people of the Fatra period, including his own mother, father and grandfather, will be condemned to eternal hellfire. Once the founder of the religion himself has passed such a judgment, what ground remains for apologists to argue on?

Are we to believe that modern apologists comprehend the Quran better than Muhammad did?

This is precisely the point. Only two conclusions are possible. Either Muhammad understood the Quran better than they do, or this contradiction reveals that there is no divine author behind it and that Muhammad was constructing the religion himself.

The contradiction is undeniable. On one hand, the Quran claims that God is just and does not punish without warning or beyond human capacity. On the other hand, Muhammad declares that his closest ancestors, who never received his message, are destined for eternal hell.

Such inconsistencies would not exist if Islam originated from an all-wise and all-knowing God. Their very presence is evidence that the religion was a human composition, and being human, its author was bound to make errors.

These inconsistencies and contradictions exist in Islam only due to the reason while it is not from any all-Wise and all-Knowing divine God in heavens, but these are PROOF that Muhammad was making this religion on his own. And since he was only a human, thus he was making these mistakes.

Another apologist wrote:

People the message never reached are given a direct test on Judgment Day (Musnad Ahmad 16301, Ibn Hibban 7357; graded sahih by al-Albani). 

Our response is that this hadith does not make the other ahadith disappear, in which Muhammad himself testifies that his own mother, father and grandfather are in hellfire.

So this hadith from Musnad Ahmad does only one thing. It adds another layer of inconsistency and contradiction. These conflicting reports reflect the evolving psychological, theological and polemical needs of a human founder, rather than the unchanging, flawless wisdom of an all-knowing God.

Moreover, the question is, if pagans were also "People of Fatra", why then Muhammad is cursing them  (as we will see in the next section)? 

The Claim of Muslim Scholars: The Trial is Just Because Everyone Has Heard of Islam

Religious preachers claim that Allah does not do injustice to anyone, because in the modern era, the message of Islam has reached the entire world and every non-Muslim has an "equal opportunity" to accept it. But we reject this claim. Merely hearing the name of Islam is by no means sufficient because:

1. If it took Umar ibn Khattab 7 years, how does simply hearing the name of Islam become sufficient?

2. The companions in Mecca are considered of grand stature according to Islamic belief; yet, a vast majority of them did not accept Islam for over 20 years until the Conquest of Mecca. Therefore, how is merely hearing the name of Islam considered enough?

3. The examples of Muhammad's mother and grandfather are right here, as they were unable to accept the Hanif Religion.

4. If 99.99% of non-Muslims stick to the religion of their families, it is not a mere coincidence; it is the logical outcome of human psychology and social pressure. Simply "hearing" about a religion is not enough to make someone accept it.

A severe double standard of Muslim preachers becomes evident here, i.e.,  when a Muslim wants to leave Islam, it is demanded that they must first get a "PhD" in Islam, understand every single nuance, and only then decide to leave. However, when a non-Muslim is invited to Islam, no research or knowledge is deemed necessary, but their mere "hearing" of the name of Islam becomes the justification for their eternal punishment. Is this not a blatant contradiction?

What about children with disabilities who live a life of extreme pain and suffering?

This issue takes on an ethically and rationally grave form when we reflect on children born with severe mental and physical disabilities or terminal illnesses—conditions where the only inevitable outcome is pain and death.

Without their consent, these children are thrust into an existence where every act, from breathing to movement, becomes an ordeal of agony. They spend their entire short lives in this anguish and pass away in early childhood. Here, reason questions: What was the crime of these innocents? And what moral lesson was the universe deriving from this meaningless suffering?

Religious circles typically attempt to mask this horrific reality by arguing that such a child is a "trial" for the parents, and as a reward, the child will go to Paradise and also become a means of salvation for the parents (through intercession). This explanation, though seemingly comforting, actually contradicts fundamental principles of Islamic theology:

1. Lack of Intention (Niyyah):
A core principle of Islam is that "actions are judged by intentions" (Innamal a'malu binniyat). The entire concept of reward and punishment is tied to a human's free will and conscious choice. A disabled child, who is mentally incapable of making such decisions, neither chose to be born nor consented to this agony or any "trial." When their own intention is not involved in the process, awarding them Paradise as a "reward" is as morally nonsensical as punishing someone without cause.

2. Why Paradise for Parents?
If parents become entitled to Paradise simply because a disabled child was born to them, the question of "intention" arises here as well. The parents did not "intend" to have a disabled child; rather, this situation was forcibly imposed upon them. Does granting an eternal reward for a forced and involuntary circumstance fulfill the requirements of justice?

3. Humans as a "Tool":
If it is accepted that a child was given pain solely to test others (the parents), it raises a massive question mark over divine justice. It implies that the child was not an independent human being but merely a "tool" or a "disposable object" sacrificed for someone else's spiritual growth. Does a Merciful and Just God consider it acceptable to use an innocent soul as fuel for someone else's test?

4. A "Post-hoc" Excuse:
The reality is that promising the "green gardens of Paradise" for disabled children is a post-hoc excuse—an explanation fabricated after the fact to justify a situation. Because the religious mind cannot provide a rational reason for the fundamental injustice and suffering present in this world, it resorts to a hypothetical future Paradise to label present-day cruelty as "justice."

The Apologetic Excuse: We cannot COMPREHEND the WISDOM of Allah 

Even Islamic apologists cannot deny that the case of disabled children seems to be a grave injustice according to all standards of human reason. Their final defense is to claim that Allah did not reveal the reason for such suffering because human intellect is incapable of comprehending divine wisdom.

However, this excuse holds no weight when examined logically.

The Double Standard of Human Reason

Consider the following:

• When it comes to recognizing Allah: Humans are repeatedly commanded to use their intellect to observe the universe, reflect on its design, and deduce the existence of a Creator. The Quran explicitly appeals to human reason:

  "Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the day and night are signs for people of reason." (Quran 3:190)

• When it comes to questioning divine justice: The same intellect, which was deemed sufficient to recognize Allah, is now declared inadequate to understand His wisdom. When reason identifies profound injustice, such as children born into agony, the response is: "Do not question; you cannot comprehend."

This is a fundamental contradiction. If human reason is too limited to understand divine wisdom, then it is also too limited to recognize divine existence in the first place. The very faculty used to affirm Allah is the same faculty dismissed when it raises objections.

Why This Double Standard Is Logically Indefensible:

To put it bluntly:

• If reason is adequate to affirm Allah, it must be adequate to question Him.

• If reason is inadequate to question Him, it is inadequate to affirm Him.

You cannot have it both ways. This is a fundamental inconsistency that Islamic theology has never adequately resolved.

A False Prophet would have also shielded himself by using the same excuse:

Perhaps the most telling critique is that the "incomprehensible wisdom" defense is structurally identical to what any false prophet or fabricated religion would say.

Consider:

• A false prophet claims to speak for God.

• When confronted with difficult questions, the false prophet cannot provide satisfactory answers.

• To protect his claim, he asserts: "God's wisdom is beyond human understanding. You cannot question it."

This is the perfect shield for any fraudulent claim. It is untestable, unfalsifiable, and immune to criticism. If Islam were a human invention, its prophets would have predicted exactly this defense to protect their system from intellectual scrutiny.

What the Suffering of Disabled Children Truly Proves:

The existence of children born into extreme pain and suffering, without any capacity for consent or moral choice, is not evidence of divine wisdom or justice. It is evidence that the universe does not operate according to principles of fairness.

These disabled children are living proof that the system of the universe is not the result of "Intelligent Design" or a "Just God," but rather the outcome of blind biological accidents and evolutionary processes. This universe does not operate on principles of justice. Justice does not descend from the heavens; it must be crafted by human beings themselves through their own reason and empathy.

Why a Test of PRAISING Allah? 

One could have understood if a Test consisted of helping Humanity and doing good deeds and avoiding evils.

But why a Test of worshipping and praising Allah 5 times a day?

And this "Worship and Praise Syndrome" extends beyond humans:

• Consider angels. They've been engaged in worshipping and praising Allah for nearly eternity, despite gaining no benefit from it, nor are they destined for paradise. Why does Allah demand their constant worship and praise? Yes, Islamists come up with the same lame excuse that Allah does not need worship and praise from angels, but it is the same as if Allah says: "I am eating food, although I don't need food", or if Allah says: "I am sleeping, although I don't need sleep."

• But it doesn't stop with angels. According to Islam, all creatures, from animals and insects to celestial bodies like the moon, sun, and stars, as well as mountains and each and every particle in the universe is worshipping and praising Allah incessantly. Yet, this devotion will not benefit them, as none of these entities will enter paradise and have 72 houris.

Doesn't Allah's insistence on being worshipped and praised 24 hours suggest narcissism, indicating a self-centered motive for creating humankind and the universe to praise him?

Man has created Allah, which is why all human weaknesses are also found in Allah.

What does Allah gain from the constant praises of angels, animals, birds, and even every particle in the universe? Islamic apologists might say that Allah does not need all this praise ... But then it's again like Allah constantly eating food and also at the same time saying that does not need to eat. 

Muhammad's Claim: The TEST is justified while all humans testified Allah is their lord BEFORE their Birth

Many people were not happy with Muhammad, when he claimed that their parents were fuel of eternal hellfire, while they died without recognising Allah as their lord. But people were unable to understand how their parents could have recognised Allah (or the religion of HANIF) when there were hardly any opportunities available hear the message of Hanif. 

Anyhow, Muhammad made the following CLAIM to justify the TEST.

Quran 7:172:

And when your Lord took from the children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying to them], "Am I not your Lord?" They said, "Yes, we have testified." [This] - lest you should say on the day of Resurrection, "Indeed, we were of this unaware." 

Firstly, it is not an argument, but only a claim by Muhammad. No one is able to verify it if any Allah exists, and who took them out from their loins (before their birth) and let them testify that Allah is their lord. 

Secondly, this verse claims that:

• Allah took the promise (to accept him as Lord and to worship him alone) from all humans BEFOFRE their birth. 
• Then they were made to FORGET this promise when they were sent into this world. 
• And then they will be reminded of this promise again, only AFTER their death (on the day of Ressurection). 

Therefore, the question is, whatever happened before the birth, or whatever will happen after the death, why Allah is taking a TEST on its basis in this world?

It would only become a test if Allah had appeared in this life to all humans, and then He would have put humans to a test, whereby intentional disobedience would result in eternal fire.

For example, according to the Islamic story, Allah appeared to Iblees (i.e., Lucifer/Satan), and Iblees was not caused to FORGET Allah, but still he intentionally disobeyed Him. In such a case, one can understand why Iblees will be put in hell.

But the case of humans is totally different from that of Iblees, and it has absolutely no justification:

• There are thousands of people who are born into non-Muslim families. Allah never appeared to them openly as He did to Iblees. Thus, under the influence of their families, 99.9999% of these people never accepted Allah and remained non-Muslims.
• Millions of non-Muslims truthfully try to find out the real God, but Islam has so many problematic, controversial, and anti-humanity teachings that they had to reject Islam due to their true intentions.

Not to mention, there are millions of ex-Muslims who were firmly believing and practicing Muslims. But they also felt the pain of humanity. When they tried to find God with sincere hearts, their search led them to the conclusion that there is no Allah in the heavens, and Muhammad was making revelations on his own. Thus, they left Islam and Allah.

Islam claims:

إنما الأعمال بالنيات

(Verily, the reward of deeds depends on the intentions)

But here we see a clear contradiction. Instead of being judged based on their true intentions, they are called an apostate. Islam demands that they be killed in this life, and then Allah condemns them to eternal hellfire, disregarding all the good deeds they did for mankind. 

An Islamist's objection:

An Islamic preacher wrote: 

If someone says that they do not know or do not remember acknowledging Allah as their Lord as mentioned in Surah Al-A'raf, Ayah 172, this argument is not acceptable. Allah has taken all of us out of our mothers' wombs, and we do not remember what we did or saw in the womb. An atheist does not have an answer for this either.

Our Response: 

We do not remember being in the mother's womb today, but our mother remembers, and others have seen us in the womb. There are countless witnesses.

However, in the story where Allah took a covenant from all humans after extracting them from Adam's loins, is there even a single witness to this? Allah is unseen, the angels are unseen, and the revelation is unseen. Consequently, anyone could make such claims about their religious stories where all witnesses are 'unseen'.

Muhammad's Claim: The Test is justified while mankind itself chose it for themselves

Muhammad also tried to justify the TEST by bringing the following claim:

Quran 33:72:

إِنَّا عَرَضْنَا ٱلْأَمَانَةَ عَلَى ٱلسَّمَٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ وَٱلْجِبَالِ فَأَبَيْنَ أَن يَحْمِلْنَهَا وَأَشْفَقْنَ مِنْهَا وَحَمَلَهَا ٱلْإِنسَٰنُ ۖ إِنَّهُۥ كَانَ ظَلُومًا جَهُولًا

We offered the trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains, but they refused to carry it and were afraid of doing so; but man carried it. Surely he is a tyrant and ignorant. 

In Muhammad's attempt to justify why humans were subjected to the test, a significant issue arises. This argument actually places the blame on Allah Himself rather than on humans. The questions that emerge include:

1. Why did humans agree to bear this trust?
2. According to this verse, it is Allah who created humans as tyrants and ignorant beings, and it was the sole reason that they accepted the test.
3. Therefore, if it was Allah who created humans as tyrants and ignorant beings, then the true culprit is Allah Himself. Humans cannot be held responsible for this, and they should not be unjustly punished.
4. Moreover, although Allah (i.e. Muhammad) claimed in this verse that the heavens/earth/mountains were also presented with the test, but this statement makes no sense as heavens/earth/mountains have absolutely no FREE Will and they can neither succeed nor fail nor refuse nor become afraid of doing it as they would never fall in the hell or paradise. 

This highlights the complete failure of Muhammad to present a single logical argument for putting humans to the test, especially considering that the majority of them will end up in hell by Allah's Design and suffer eternal torment. How does making humans ظَلُومًا جَهُولًا tyrant and ignorant save Allah from injustice of putting majority of humankind in eternal hellfire according to his Design?

And the jinns are not even the “Best of Creations اشرفُ المخلوقات”, and their majority too will still land in the hellfire for eternity. 

Quran 7.179:

وَلَقَدْ ذَرَأْنَا لِجَهَنَّمَ كَثِيرًا مِّنَ ٱلْجِنِّ وَٱلْإِنسِ

And indeed We have created majority of jinns and men for hell

Poor jinns. But the good thing is that they don't exist except in the minds of religiously brainwashed people.

In reality, the underlying motivation for this doctrine (i.e. all non-Muslims are fuel of eternal hellfire) was completely POLITICAL. The eternal fate of non-Muslim souls was not a fixed cosmic truth, but a flexible tool in hands of Muhammad, which he adjusted to meet the strategic needs of the political situation.

In the early days in Medina, Muhammad attempted to gain favor with the Jews by asserting that all Jews and Christians who do good deeds would go to paradise. Consequently, the message during this early phase in Median was remarkably inclusive, assuring non-Muslims that their righteousness was recognized by God independent of his prophethood.

This diplomatic necessity is encapsulated in Quran 2:62:

Quran 2:62: Rest assured that whosoever from among the Muslims or the Jews or the Christians or the Sabaeans believes in Allah and the Last Day, and performs good deeds, he will have his reward with his Lord and he will have no cause for fear and grief].

This inclusivity shattered when armed conflict with Mecca became inevitable. The Muslim migrants (Muhajirun) faced a profound psychological crisis: they were ordered to fight and kill their own blood relatives and tribesmen. In the tribal framework of Arabia, killing your kin was the ultimate taboo. To shatter this ingrained loyalty, Muhammad fundamentally altered the theological status of the Meccans. Good deeds were suddenly rendered useless without submission to his authority. By declaring that anyone rejecting his message was "fuel for hellfire," he systematically dehumanized the enemy, replacing familial affection with the animosity required to wage total war.

This psychological engineering reached its peak when Muhammad turned this doctrine upon his own bloodline. By explicitly telling his companions that his own mother (Aminah), uncle (Abu Talib), and grandfather (Abdul Muttalib) were burning in Hell, he set an unyielding standard.

The political message to his followers was unmistakable: If the Prophet’s own beloved parents and protectors are worthless enemies of God due to their disbelief, you have absolutely no excuse to harbor mercy or hesitation toward your own non-Muslim families.

This culminating policy was finalized later in Surah At-Tawbah (9:113), which forbade believers from even praying for the forgiveness of their deceased polytheist relatives:

ْQuran 9:113: "It is not fitting for the Prophet and those who believe to pray for the forgiveness of polytheists, even if they are close relatives, after it has become clear to them that they are the companions of the Hellfire."