Allah's Test is the Greatest Injustice Against Mankind

Before we examine the question of the “test,” two preliminary points need to be stated clearly.

First point: Allah does not appear to us. His angels do not appear. And Allah does not display any miracles to us today of the kind He claims to have shown earlier generations. Nevertheless, we are still demanded to recognise Him by examining His commands and teachings through the use of our reason and common sense. Very well. Then let our reason and common sense be the standard by which we judge.

Second point: Muhammad made many supernatural claims about receiving commandments from the heavens. By their very nature, these metaphysical stories cannot be physically verified. Because both a true prophet and a clever false prophet can make such unverifiable claims, how can then our reason separate truth from falsehood? The answer lies in the nature of the commandments themselves: If they show supreme, flawless wisdom, justice, and moral perfection, they bear the unmistakable hallmarks of divine revelation. But if they contain clear contradictions, or if they primarily serve Muhammad’s own political ambitions and personal interests, then they bear the marks of a human-made religion.

Once these two criteria are clear, we can turn to the main discussion of the “test.

Allah's Test is the Greatest Injustice Against Mankind

We don't believe that any Allah exists, or Muhammad's Ahadith are true. 

But if true (as Muslims believe), then according to "reason", Allah's Test becomes 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).

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.

Consider the following facts:

• It is only estimated (not accurate figures) that about 99.99% of children born into Christian families never adopt Islam.

• And about 99.99% of children born into Hindu families never adopt Islam. 

• And about 99.99% of children born into Jewish families never adopt Islam.

• This means, conversion rate to Islam among non-Muslims is estimated to be around 0.001%.

In simple words, the probability of becoming a Muslim is overwhelmingly determined by the accident of birth. A child born into a Muslim family has an extremely high chance of remaining Muslim. A child born into a non-Muslim family has an extremely low chance of ever becoming one. This disparity is not the result of free, informed adult evaluation of evidence. It is the result of socialization designed into the human condition.

If Allah is the author of this system, then Allah has created a world in which the vast majority of human beings are effectively locked into non-Islam by the circumstances of their birth. Under Islamic theology, those people face eternal hellfire for dying outside Islam. Their personal moral character, their compassion, their honesty, and their contributions to human welfare do not alter that outcome. Only formal acceptance of Islam does.

Eternal punishment for a belief that was never freely and equally available to the person violates every ordinary standard of justice (like proportionality, consent, fair notice, and equal opportunity). It is not a fair test, but it is a rigged game.

This single fact is already decisive. A system that condemns billions of people to everlasting torment primarily because of the family into which they were born is not just. It is the greatest injustice that can be conceived. No amount of later theological explanation can erase it. For anyone whose sense of humanity remains intact, this injustice alone is sufficient reason to reject the claim that such a system is divine.

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

This is not just theory. Look at the mother of Muhammad himself..

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.

The same ruling applies to his father ʿAbdullāh:

Sahih Muslim, 203: 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, both are in the Fire.

Muslim scholars defend these reports by claiming that the “religion of the Ḥanīf” (the pure monotheism of Abraham) still existed in Arabia at that time. Therefore, they argue, Aminah had a full opportunity to accept the true religion and is justly condemned for rejecting it.

Let us examine that claim against the historical and traditional evidence.

Was the Ḥanif religion really well-known and accessible in Arabia?

Islamic tradition itself records that only a handful of people in Arab followed anything resembling the religion of Abraham. The most famous of them was Zayd ibn ʿAmr ibn Nufayl. Of the few who initially sought this path, almost all later left it and became Christians, leaving Zayd as virtually the only remaining follower of Ḥanīf religion.  

However, the issue with this only person (i.e. Zayd bin Amr) is that he also 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 reality for women of that era: 

Aminah lived in a tribal society in which a woman’s religious and social identity was almost entirely determined by her family and clan. Expecting an ordinary woman to reject the polytheism of her entire tribe, family, and social world on the basis of a solitary, reclusive man’s private convictions is historically unrealistic. The same applies to the hundreds of thousands of other Arabian women of that generation who never crossed paths with Zayd or anyone like him.

If Allah is perfect and just, then placing the burden of eternal damnation on Aminah (and on the overwhelming majority of her contemporaries) for failing to discover and adopt an extremely rare, poorly known, and socially isolated form of monotheism is not justice. It is the imposition of an impossible standard. 

The Example of Umar ibn al-Khattab:

ʿUmar was one of the most powerful and influential men among the Quraysh. He knew Muhammad personally from the beginning and heard the message directly and repeatedly. Yet it still took him roughly seven years to accept Islam. During those years he actively opposed the new religion and persecuted its followers.

If a man of ʿUmar’s intelligence, social standing, and direct exposure to the Prophet required seven years of resistance before converting, how can it be considered reasonable to demand that an ordinary woman of that era, such as Aminah, should have recognized and embraced the obscure “religion of the Ḥanīf” after merely hearing its name?

Is it really justice? Do you see any supreme wisdom in it which could come only from a divine source? 

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

Science tells us that "nature" is blind. It is not aligned with human needs or welfare. It follows its own course without regard for any justice for mankind. As a result, millions of children are born with severe disabilities and spend their short lives in extreme pain and suffering.

Islam, however, claims that Allah is neither blind nor unjust.

But then this raises an obvious question: why does Allah allow millions of children to be born into lives of intense, unchosen suffering when they have committed no sin or crime?

People in the past asked the same question. According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad responded with the following explanation (see Sahih Muslim 2632c and Sahih al-Bukhari 1248):

• The suffering of such children is a test for their parents.
• The children themselves will enter Paradise without any test.
• They will also intercede so that their parents enter Paradise with them.

This explanation conflicts with basic principles of justice and reason.

A core principle of Islam is that actions are judged by "intentions". Heaven and Hell are presented as the outcomes of free, conscious choices. A severely disabled child lacks the mental capacity to form intentions, did not choose to be born, and never consented to serve as anyone’s test. Awarding Paradise as a “reward” to someone who had neither choice nor intention undermines the entire system of religious accountability.

Secondly, If parents receive an automatic path to Paradise simply because a disabled child was born to them, the same difficulty of intention appears. The parents neither planned nor chose this outcome, but it was imposed upon them. Granting an eternal reward for a situation completely outside their control does not satisfy the standards of justice.

The promise of Paradise for disabled children by Muhammad is therefore only a retrospective justification. Because his teachings cannot coherently explain the real and present cruelty of such suffering, he invented a future compensation and call the present injustice a test. A system that must rely on after-the-fact rewards to re-label unchosen agony as “justice” fails the test of reason.

Pattern: Whenever Difficulties Arose for Muhammad, the Answer Was Always ‘Test’

Not only the case of disabled children, but whenever a contradiction, failure, or logical error appeared in the revelations, a consistent pattern emerged, i.e., the issue was immediately labelled by Muhammad as a "Test" or a "Trial" from Allah.

It is an unfalsifiable defence. You can never lose if every failure is re-branded.

For example: 

1. The Satanic Verses : A mistake in revelation became a test

Muhammad recited that the three pagan goddesses could intercede for humanity. Later he said Satan threw those words on his tongue. How could Satan corrupt revelation while Gabriel was present? The excuse:

"And We did not send before you any messenger... but that Satan threw into it... that Allah may make what Satan throws a trial for those in whose hearts is disease..." [22:52-53]

So a clear error in revelation becomes a test for the listeners.

2. The Qibla Change : A political failure became a test

For 16 months Muslims prayed towards Jerusalem to win over the Jews of Medina. When the Jews still rejected him, Muhammad changed the Qibla to the Ka'ba. No one apostatized because change of the Qibla. Yet the failure was excused:

"And We did not make the Qibla which you used to face except that We might make evident who would follow the Messenger..." [2:143]

3. The Defeat at Uhud : A military failure became a test

At Uhud Muslims were defeated, many companions died, and Muhammad himself was injured. Instead of a military explanation, the excuse:

"...and that Allah may make evident those who believe..." [3:140]
"...Allah was testing you..." [3:152, 3:154]

And there are many more such examples. 

So, how can "reason" judge from this pattern if Muhammad was a true prophet or not? 

Ask this question: Do you see any supreme wisdom in this pattern? Or do you see colours of human drama in it? 

Why a Test of PRAISING Allah?

When we use our reason, then one could understand a test if it was: Do not steal, do not kill, help the poor, protect the orphan, do not lie. A moral test.

But what kind of test is: Praise Me five times a day, bow to Me, repeat My name, glorify Me?

If a human king did this, i.e. locked his servants in a room and said "Praise me for one hour every morning and evening, or I will burn you alive in hellfire", we would call him a psychopathic narcissist, not the Most Merciful.

Apologists know this looks bad. So they come with the standard lollipop:

"Allah doesn't need our worship. But Allah demands worship from us while it is for OUR OWN benefit."

But this raises two questions:

1. If you need praise, you are not God. If you don't need it, why torture for it?

The Qur'an itself says:

"I did not create jinn and mankind except to worship Me. I do not want from them any provision, nor do I want them to feed Me." [51:56-57]

So which is it? You created us ONLY to worship you, but you don't need our worship?

If worship really benefits us, like exercise benefits the body, then the analogy should hold. A doctor tells you exercise is good for you. If you don't exercise, you lose the health benefit. The doctor does not then kidnap you and burn you in fire because you skipped push-ups.

Benefit cannot be forced under threat of torture. Once you say, "Do it or I will burn you in hell," it is no longer a benefit. It is extortion. It is a mafia boss saying, "Paying me protection money is for your own benefit, otherwise your shop will be burnt down."

True gratitude, by definition, cannot be extracted at gunpoint.

Our reason tells us clearly that refusing a "benefit" is an act of personal choice, not a crime warranting torture. The sheer disproportion of the punishment proves that this system is not about human benefit, but it is about enforcing absolute compliance.

2. The "own benefit" is a cover for control. The reality is a demand.

Every religion in history imposes repetitive, time-consuming ritual worship. Why? Human intellect tells you why, i.e., it is the most effective way to keep a tight grip on followers.

Praying five times a day, facing the same direction, repeating the same Arabic phrases, constantly saying "Allahu Akbar", all this is not spirituality, but this is indoctrination. It breaks your normal day, reminds you every few hours who your master is, and prevents you from thinking critically. North Korea does not ask citizens to help humanity, but it asks them to praise the Leader every morning. Same psychology.

If it was truly about your own benefit, it would be voluntary. Think about it:

A race is announced. The prize is a gold medal. If you take part and win, you get the medal. If you decide not to take part, you simply don't get the medal. You are not punished. You are not tortured.

All religions claim that worship of only their religious Gods gives spiritual peace, concentration, discipline. But the thing is, then offer it as a prize. Those who want it, take it. Those who don't, leave it.

But Islam does not do that. It turns a supposed prize into a life-and-death TEST. Don't take part? You will burn in Hellfire.

Doesn't it show that it was never about benefit. Benefit is the sugar-coating only. The core is a demand for submission. 

The Three Tiers of the "Test" Evaluated by Reason

When Islam speaks of a "Test," it deliberately blurs the lines between different types of obligations. In reality, the system demands three entirely separate things under the single label of a "test."

Let us use our intellect and common sense to evaluate each tier:

Muhammad used the universal appeal of Tier 1 (Morality) as a Trojan horse to force acceptance of Tier 2 (Accepting Prophethood of Muhammad in name of Allah) and Tier 3 (Being Subservience to Muhammad in name of worshipping Allah).

Final Thoughts: 

You have to come to a final conclusion: 

• Do you see any supreme wisdom in these Islamic teachings, which shows the colours of divine revelation?
• Or do you see the colours of human drama in it? 

Part 2: Refutation of Apologetic Excuses

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

Apologist Argument:

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, "May Allah ruin them (the infidels) for they knew very well that they (Abraham and Ishmael) never drew lots by these divination arrows. [Bukhari 1601].

Imam Nawawi wrote under Sahih Muslim 203 about the Prophet's father going to hell (link): "This indicates that whoever died during the interval between messengers, 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:

The following facts refute this:

1. Their idols prove the message was corrupted and they did NOT know: If they knew Ibrahim never cast arrows, why did their entire religious life consist of carving Ibrahim holding arrows and worshipping him through idols? Their physical culture is a louder witness than one retrospective claim by Muhammad. They actually believed in exactly the opposite thing, i.e., they were revering them by making their idols and by worshipping the. 

2. The result was ZERO converts due to corrupted message: In hundreds of years, out of millions of pagan Arabs, there was only ONE man (i.e., Zayd bin Amr)  who stayed on Hanif religion. And even Zayd learned nothing from those Ka'ba idols. He lived his whole life next to them and learned nothing. He only converted after leaving Arabia and meeting two foreign monks in Syria who taught him about Ibrahim. 

3. Even Abu Bakr and Umar didn't convert to Hanif religion: Before Muhammad's prophethood, Abu Bakr and Umawr also didn't convert to Hanif religion on the basis of distorted message that existed at that time. If thinkers and philosophers like Abu Bakr and Umar could not extract monotheism from those idols, how could an ordinary tribal woman like Aminah, whose whole world was her tent and clan, do it?

Moreover, Like other pagans, Abu Bakr and Umar also know Ibrahim and Ismael didn't cast arrows (according to Muhammad's Hadith). Still they didn't condemn pagans and didn't stop them. So, were Abu Bakr and Umar also cursed in that Hadith? Didn't they also fail the test like other Pagans due to that corrupted message?

4. Finally, Muhammad himself FAILED: Interestingly, Muhammad himself did not publicly embrace or preach the Hanif religion before his first revelation at the age of 40. If the corrupted stories about Ibrahim and Ismael were sufficient for ordinary Arabs to discover pure monotheism, why did Muhammad himself not do so?

Thus:

• No, Muhammad did not publicly proclaim that he followed the Hanif religion before his prophethood.
• No, he did not preach to Quraysh that they must abandon their religion and return to Abraham's pure monotheism.
• No, before his prophethood, he is not reported to have condemned Quraysh for depicting Abraham and Ishmael with divinatory arrows as a violation of Abraham's teachings.
• No, the available sources do not establish that he warned pagan pilgrims visiting the Ka'bah that their religious practices contradicted Abraham's religion.

When a test has a 100% failure rate for hundreds of years, how can reason accept that the test was "just"? Or do you see any "supreme wisdom" in this?

Excuse 2: The Prophet didn't say pagans are in Hellfire

Apologists now come up with a new twist:

The Prophet didn't say his mother Aminah is in Hell. Allah only told him not to pray for her forgiveness. Same for his grandfather Abdulmuttalib. He only cursed pagans for having images of Ibrahim/Ismail with arrows, but he didn't say all of them are in Hell.

The Refutation:

You don't need a hadith that says the exact words "Aminah is in Hellfire" to reach that conclusion. But you only need "common sense". Forgiveness was denied for Aminah only while she was charged with committing SHIRK. And all those who commit shirk, they will end up on hellfire according to Islam. 

The same is true about Muhammad's grandfather Abdul Muttalib [Sahih al-Bukhari 3884]. At his death bed Muhammad asked him to say: "None has the right to be worshipped except Allah". But Abu Talib refused to testify it and said he was on the religion of Abdul Muttalib. And Muhammad didn't correct Abu Talib at that time claiming that religion of Abdul Muttalib and Islam are the one and the same. Instead, he said that Abu Talib is in hellfire. 

Moreover, apologists themselves accept the Muhammad's father is in hellfire [Sahih Muslim, 203]. Why? What crime did  Muhammad's father commit that he deserved hellfire, but Aminah and Abdul Muttalib not? Use your reason and common sense. 

Actually, the Hadith is confirming not only Muhammad's father is in hellfire, but all Arab pagans who died before Muhammad's prophethood (without becoming Hanif followers), are in hellfire. The words of Hadith are: Muhammad said to a person: "My father and your father both are in Hellfire." [Sahih Muslim, 203].

And hadith of Haatim al-Taai also proves the same. He was the most generous person in Arabia who help poor and needy people. Still Muhammad claimed he was in hellfire (Hadith). 

Apologists only want you to shut down exactly the use of reason and common sense by making such claims. Don't let your reason and common sense to be abused by such tactics by apologists. 

Excuse 3: "Allah never punishes until He sends a messenger, so People of Fatra are excused."

Apologists quote:

Islamic 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, and got only corrupted version of message). Only those who saw the real message and rejected it are accountable.

However, this apologetic claim collapses against Muhammad's own words.

Sahih Muslim, 976: "I asked my Lord for permission to pray for my mother's forgiveness, but He did not grant it."
Sahih Muslim, 203: "Verily my father and your father are in the Fire."
Sahih al-Bukhari, 3884: His grandfather Abdul Muttalib is in Hell.

All of them were from people of Fatra (i.e. born in time between two prophets and message didn't reach them or only distorted message reached them)

If Fatra people are excused, why did Muhammad not say "My parents will get a fair test on Judgment Day"? He said they are in Hell. 

Whom should we believe? And apologist like Ghazali, who was 500 years later trying to save Islam from embarrassment, or the founder of Islam (i.e. Muhammad) himself?

Then apologists bring another excuse:

"Allah does not charge a soul beyond its capacity." [Qur'an 2:286]

This excuse will also not work as Muhammad knew the Quran better, still he declared his parents and pagan Arabs to be in hellfire. How could Muhammad demand his mother to search and find a religion like Hanif on her own in those tribal conditions? It is already charging a soul beyond its capacity. 

Excuse 4: Quran says people will not be punished till a messenger come to them

Apologists also present this verse of the Quran and claim that those people will not be punished as they got no messenger. 

"And We never punish until We have sent a messenger." [Quran 17:15]

This is the most quoted verse by apologist to defend Islamic doctrine of Test as just.

But the Qur'an itself deny this principle in the very next breath.

Contradiction 1: The Qur'an says EVERY nation already received a messenger:

"There was no nation but that a warner had passed among them." [Quran 35:24]
"And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger..." [Quran 16:36]

So, everyone already got a warner/messenger.

Contradiction 2: Then the same Qur'an contradicts itself again, and now claims that NO warner came to the pagan Arabs:

"...that you (O Muhammad) may warn a people whose forefathers were not warned..." [Quran 36:6]
"...to warn a people to whom no warner had come before you (O Muhammad)..." [Quran 28:46, 32:3]

You cannot have both. Either every nation got a warner, or the Arabs did not. 

Apologists try to fix it by inventing a clause not in the verse. They claim: "A warner came to Arabs long time ago but people forgot." However, there is no long-time-ago clause present in the verses. It is an excuse made up by apologist themselves against the clear text.

Contradiction 3: Then Muhammad contradicts once again, claiming pagan Arabs got the message and are in hellfire 

And then comes Muhammad himself. He yet declared his own mother, his father, and his grandfather are in Hellfire. If [Quran 17:15] really meant Fatra people are excused, Muhammad would have said "My parents will be tested later." But he said the opposite: they are in Hell.

Contradiction 4: It occurs when Muhammad cursed pagans, claiming that they indeed knew Ibrahim and Ismael didn't cast arrows. So, why to curse people of Fatra if they got only corrupted message? Why not leave it to hereafter for Allah to decide? 

So who should we believe? The verse as apologists twist it, or the man who revealed the verse? Do apologists know the Quran better than Muhammad? 

Dear Truth Seekers! Do you see any "supreme wisdom" in these contradictions? Or do you see more of colours of human drama in it? 

Excuse 5: "The People of Fatrah will get a second TEST in the Hereafter."

This is the only hadith apologists found to claim that People of Fatrah (those who got no message or distorted message for coming in time interval between two prophets) will not be judges, is this one (Musnad Ahmad 16301):

On Judgment Day four will plead: deaf, insane, old man, and man of Fatra. Allah will take a promise from them to obey him, and then will order them to jump into Fire (as a TEST). Those who obey him and enter the fire, will find it cool and safe (i.e. they pass the test). But those who will not enter, they will fail the test and put in hellfire for eternity). 

This fails for three reasons:

1. It contradicts more authentic hadiths. You cannot hold both to be true. If Fatra get a second test, Muhammad would have said about his parents "They will be tested later in hereafter." He did not. He said they are in Hell. Thus, this hadith seems to be a clear later fabrication to fix the contradiction.

2. Why a second test? Allah says this worldly life is the test. Why not judge them by their worldly deeds? If they were good, they showed mercy to other people and had good character. If bad, they did evil things. Instead the entire complex test of life is replaced by "Jump in this fire." What does jumping in fire have to do with being a good person? It proves apologists have no answer for the real test, so they invent a new one.

3. If a disabled child dies in childhood, and go to paradise without any test (see Sahih Muslim 2632c), why then an insane person still has to go through another test in hereafter? He was insane throughout his life and could not make any informed decision, and he also suffered miseries in this world like a disabled child, but still he has to take the second test. Is it "justice"?  

Excuse 6: The TEST is justified because all humans testified that Allah is their Lord BEFORE birth

This excuse was not presented by later apologists. But it was presented directly by Muhammad himself. 

From a human drama point of view, consider this angle: 

When a man came and asked about his pagan father, Muhammad told him, "Your father is in Hell." To cheer him up he added, "My father too is in Hell" [Sahih Muslim, 203].

But People were not happy. And they were absolutely right to be angry. You are telling them their beloved parents and ancestors, who died before your prophethood and never received any clear message, are now eternal fuel for Hellfire.

To convince them that their parents were "justly" sent to hellfire, Muhammad then came up with this excuse:

And when your Lord took from the children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants and made them testify of themselves, 'Am I not your Lord?' They said, 'Yes, we have testified.' [This was] lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, 'Indeed, we were unaware of this.' [Qur'an 7:172]

However, this verse itself destroys the concept of a just test.

1. First, it is not an argument. It is an unverifiable claim: No human can verify if such an event ever happened. No one remembers being taken out of Adam's loins. No one remembers testifying. Muhammad claims an invisible event happened in pre-existence, for which there is zero evidence except his own word. You cannot condemn billions to Hell on the basis of an event that no one can remember and no one can verify.

2. Second, please read what the verse actually says: Allah took a promise from all humans to worship Him alone BEFORE their birth. Then He made them FORGET this promise when He sent them into this world. Then He will remind them of it again AFTER their death on Judgment Day.

So the question is: What kind of test is this? You make someone promise, then you erase his memory, then you put him in a confusing world full of 10,000 competing religions, pagan parents, and distorted messages, and then you say, "Because you forgot the promise that I made you forget, you will burn forever"?

The verse itself says the purpose was "lest you should say on Resurrection Day, we were unaware." But we are unaware! Because Allah Himself made us forget. The verse proves our argument.

3. Compare this with the case of Iblees (Lucifer): According to the Islamic story, Allah appeared openly to Iblees. And then Iblees was not made to forget. He saw Allah, he knew Allah is his Lord with absolute certainty, and still he intentionally disobeyed out of arrogance. In that case, you can understand eternal punishment, i.e., openly knowing, but still intentional rebellion.

However, the case of humans is totally different. Billions are born into non-Muslim families. Allah never appears to them openly as He did to Iblis. Under the influence of family, society, and vague corrupted messages, 99.99% never accept Islam.Many of them are sincere truth-seekers. They study Islam honestly, but they find so many problematic, controversial and anti-human teachings in it that they have to reject it with true intentions, not out of arrogance.

Even the smartest Arabs like Abu Bakr, Umar, and Muhammad himself (along with millions of pagans), could not pass this so-called test before Muhammad's prophethood, despite living next to the Ka'ba. If Allah really took a covenant and then made us forget it, then the one who broke justice is not humans. It is the one who erased our memory and then punished us for forgetting.

Excuse7 : The Test is justified while mankind itself chose it for themselves

Again, this excuse was not presented by later apologists, but it was presented directly by Muhammad himself. When people objected that it is unjust to send their parents to Hell for a test they never chose, Muhammad claimed this revelation to justify it:

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. 

However, the following questions arise here:

1. Why did man accept the trust? Because Allah Himself made him a tyrant and ignorant. Read the end of the verse. The reason man accepted it is given in the same sentence: Innahu kana zaluman jahula  "Surely he is a tyrant and ignorant."

So who created humans as tyrants and ignorant? Allah did. So, who is culprit here? Only Allah himself. 

You cannot blame a child for making a foolish choice when you yourself designed him to be foolish.

2. The heavens, earth and mountains have no free will: Allah says He offered the trust to the heavens, earth and mountains, and they "refused" and "were afraid." But this makes no sense. Heavens, earth and mountains have no free will, they cannot go to Paradise or Hell. It is pure anthropomorphism, i.e., giving human emotions to rocks to make a theological point sound dramatic.

Muhammad could not present a single logical argument for why billions must be subjected to a test that, by Allah's own design, the majority will fail. And the Qur'an admits this design openly:

"And indeed We have created for Hell many of the jinn and mankind..." [Qur'an 7:179]

The majority are created for Hell. Poor jinn. But the good thing is they don't exist in reality, except in the minds of religiously conditioned people.

So the final question is this:

If humans failed the test while Allah Himself testifies that He made them tyrant and ignorant,  even though many of them are highly educated, great thinkers, philosophers, scientists, who followed their Fitra and did immense good for humanity, but still became fuel for eternal Hell only because they did not recognise Allah?

Then was it humans who were tyrant and ignorant? Or was it the TEST itself that was tyrant, ignorant, unjust, and devoid of any wisdom?

Excuse 8:  "We cannot comprehend Allah's wisdom."

• "He cannot be questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned." (Surah Al-Anbya 21:23)
• "Indeed, Allah does what He intends." (Surah Al-Hajj 22:14)

But this is a self-contradiction. As mentioned in the beginning of the article:

• Allah does not appear. His angels do not appear. No miracle today. But we are still demanded to use our reason and common sense to recognize Allah.
• But when that same reason finds injustice, we are told "Do not question, you cannot comprehend."

If reason is too limited to question Him, it is too limited to affirm Him in the first place. You cannot have it both ways.

And this excuse is the perfect shield for any false prophet. A liar claims to speak for God, cannot answer objections, then says "God's wisdom is beyond your understanding." It is untestable and unfalsifiable. If Islam were a human invention, this is exactly the defense it would invent.

Part 3: The Political Background Story (The Reason why Muhammad started claiming all non-Muslims are fuel of hellfire)

Again, please read the following from Human Drama point of view. 

The underlying motivation for the doctrine that all non-Muslims are fuel for eternal hellfire seems to be deeply political.  Muhammad adjusted this theology to meet the strategic and military needs of the evolving Islamic state. This evolution can be tracked through three distinct phases.

Phase 1: Early Medinan Period

When Muhammad first arrived in Medina, his community was militarily weak and vulnerable. He needed to secure alliances with the powerful and established Jewish tribes residing there. Consequently, his message during this early phase was remarkably inclusive. He assured Jews and Christians that their righteousness was recognized by God, independent of his own prophethood.

This diplomatic necessity is captured in the early Medinan verse:

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 or grief.

Phase 2: Mid-Medinan Period

However, this inclusivity shattered when the Jewish tribes rejected Muhammad's prophethood and declared him a false prophet. Then tensions against the Jews escalated into open conflict. Muhammad's tone shifted dramatically to reflect this new political reality. In the 3rd  year of the Medinan period, coinciding with these clashes, Muhammad claimed the revelation of this opposite verse of the previous verse of 2:62:

Quran 3:85: And whoever desires other than Islam as religion, never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.

Phase 3: Late Medinan Period 

As Muhammad consolidated power in Medina and prepared to conquer Arabia, the nascent state required absolute loyalty. The Muslim migrants faced a profound psychological crisis on the battlefield. They were ordered to fight and kill their own blood relatives and tribesmen. In the traditional tribal framework of Arabia, killing one's own kin was the ultimate taboo, and companions frequently hesitated to raise weapons against their families.

To shatter this ingrained family loyalty, Muhammad fundamentally altered the theological status of the enemy. Good deeds were suddenly rendered useless without submission to his political authority. By declaring that anyone rejecting his message was "fuel for hellfire," he systematically dehumanized the opposition. This replaced familial affection with the animosity required to wage total war.

At that time verses like this one started to reveal.

Quran 9:23: O you who have believed, do not take your fathers or your brothers as allies if they have preferred disbelief over belief.

The reason for such verses is clear, i.e., the state could not afford soldiers who might hesitate in battle or leak intelligence out of love for their polytheist families. The "hellfire" doctrine served as the ideological enforcement mechanism for this political requirement.