Mauao Man

If Muhammad Couldn't Establish a Stable Moral Code, Can Islam Claim Moral Universality?

Introduction

Islam claims to be a universal, eternal moral system — a divinely ordained guide for all humanity, across all times and cultures. At its foundation is the assertion that God revealed a perfect, immutable set of laws and ethical principles through the Prophet Muhammad. But a closer inspection of the Qur'an and Hadith literature reveals a major problem: the moral code attributed to Muhammad was neither fixed nor universally consistent. It was reactive, evolving, and often contradictory.

If a religion’s foundational morality shifted during the lifetime of its prophet — according to immediate needs, crises, or military conditions — then it logically cannot claim to offer universal, timeless ethical guidance. This isn’t speculation. It’s a testable historical and logical claim.

1. Evolving Morality: Documented Shifts in the Qur’an

The Qur’an itself reveals a trajectory of legal and ethical development over 23 years of Muhammad’s life. Here are well-documented examples:

Issue	Early Verses (Mecca)	Later Verses (Medina)	Logical Result
Alcohol	Acknowledged as a minor evil (2:219)	Totally prohibited (5:90–91)	Moral shift, not universal rule
Warfare	Pacifism and endurance (73:10, 109:6)	Offensive jihad (9:5, 9:29)	Reactionary, not principled
People of the Book	Respectful acknowledgment (2:62)	Condemnation and legal subjugation (9:29)	Contradiction
Religious Freedom	"No compulsion in religion" (2:256)	Death for apostates (Bukhari 3017)	Hadith undermines Qur’an
Women	Some reforms (4:3, 4:34)	Testimony = half, Inheritance = half, polygyny = allowed	Unequal status codified

This moral fluidity doesn’t represent timeless truth — it reflects situational ethics evolving in tandem with Muhammad’s political and military expansion.

2. The Doctrine of Abrogation: Divine Contradiction?

Surah 2:106 is the linchpin of Islamic jurisprudence regarding legal change:

“We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth one better than it or similar to it.”

The mainstream Sunni position (as held by scholars like Al-Tabari, Al-Nasafi, and Al-Qurtubi) accepts intra-Qur’anic abrogation. It means:

Some verses canceled earlier ones.
Newer verses were considered “better” or more relevant.

This is often used to explain:

The ban on alcohol.
Shifts in jihad strategy.
Changes in social laws (e.g., marriage, divorce, slavery).

But this creates a logical contradiction:

If God’s word is perfect, how can it be improved or replaced?

This undermines both the Qur’an’s claim of divine origin (10:37, 4:82) and its internal consistency. Either:

Earlier verses were defective (which makes God fallible),
Or the idea of "abrogation" is human and political.

Either way, moral universality collapses.

3. Reactive Moral Legislation: Political Context Shapes Revelation

Islamic law didn’t descend as a pre-defined code. It was shaped by Muhammad’s changing political context:

In Mecca (610–622 CE):

Muslims were a minority.
Verses focused on monotheism, spiritual discipline, and tolerance.
Warfare was explicitly forbidden.

In Medina (622–632 CE):

Muhammad became a political and military leader.
Verses justified warfare, taxation (jizya), slavery, and marriage to war captives.
Legal rulings became increasingly tribal, militaristic, and authoritarian.

This transition is documented in both Qur’anic content and Hadith narratives. The so-called "moral code" evolved with Muhammad’s status — from powerless prophet to warlord.

A morality that shifts with power isn’t divine. It’s political theology.

4. The Hadith Problem: Morality by Consensus and Guesswork

The Hadith collections — compiled 150–250 years after Muhammad — are used to fill in the gaps of Islamic law. But they’re riddled with:

Contradictions
Forgeries
Political interpolations

Even respected collections like Bukhari and Muslim contain narrations that conflict with the Qur’an or with each other. Yet, most of Islamic morality — especially in the Sharia — is derived not from the Qur’an but from Hadith.

A universal moral code cannot rely on posthumous hearsay literature.

5. The Final Nail: Internal Qur’anic Self-Test

The Qur’an offers its own falsifiability test:

Qur’an 4:82 – “Do they not reflect upon the Qur’an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would have found many contradictions in it.”

And yet, it:

Contradicts earlier verses through abrogation.
Conflicts with Hadith.
Presents moral double standards (e.g., rules for Muslims vs. non-Muslims, men vs. women).

By its own metric, the Qur’an fails to establish moral universality. No contradiction needed — the use of abrogation alone refutes the claim.

Conclusion: No Universal Morality Without Moral Stability

If the Prophet of Islam:

Changed his moral teachings depending on circumstances,
Justified contradictory rulings,
And left a legacy of legal inconsistency codified by conflicting sources…

Then the religion he founded cannot rationally claim to provide a timeless, universal moral code.

You cannot universalize a system that couldn’t remain stable in the lifetime of its own founder.

Universal morality demands coherence, consistency, and timeless relevance. Islam, as established by the Qur’an and Muhammad's actions, fails on all three counts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------About the Author

Mauao Man is a blog created by a New Zealand writer who believes in following the evidence wherever it leads. From history and religion to culture and society, Mauao Man takes a clear, critical, and honest approach — challenging ideas without attacking people. Whether exploring the history of Islam in New Zealand, the complexities of faith, or the contradictions in belief systems, this blog is about asking the hard questions and uncovering the truth.