The Difference Between Religions Regarding Submission: A Scientific Response to the Claim “All Religions Require Submission to What the Intellect…
In discussions about the uniqueness of Islam, some skeptics argue the following:“Since Islam asks believers to submit to matters the intellect cannot fully grasp, it is no different from other religions—such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism—which also ask their followers to submit to beliefs beyond full rational comprehension. If all religions contain elements that the intellect cannot fully understand, then there is no meaningful difference between them.”
This objection may appear logical on the surface, but it rests on a fundamental methodological error. It misunderstands the real differences between religions and ignores the proper criteria by which religions should be compared. It is therefore necessary to examine this objection carefully and expose the flaws in its reasoning, while highlighting the essential distinctions that set Islam apart.
The Fundamental Methodological Error in the Objection
Reversing the Criteria and Priorities
This objection rests on a major misunderstanding concerning how religions should be evaluated. Skeptics argue: “Since Islam asks us to believe in matters whose full details exceed the capacity of human intellect—and other religions ask the same—then all religions are alike. They all require submission to the incomprehensible.”
This reasoning is flawed. It is exactly like saying: “Since the qualified physician gives me medicine whose chemical composition I do not understand, and the fraud or charlatan also gives me a mixture whose composition I do not understand, then there is no difference between them. I should reject both simply because I do not understand the details.”
This is an obvious error.
The Example of the Two Physicians
To clarify this mistake further, imagine two individuals offering you a medicine whose chemical details you do not know:
The first is a licensed physician with a recognized medical degree from a reputable university, decades of proven experience, thousands of successful treatments, published research, and employment in an accredited hospital.
The second is someone with no medical education, no experience, no successful treatments, no scientific credibility, and perhaps even a reputation for deception.
Would it be rational to treat them as equal?
Would you say: “Since I cannot personally verify the chemical composition of either medicine, they are the same, and I will reject both”? Certainly not.
The difference between them is clear and undeniable.
One has established credibility, and the other has none. Your inability to personally verify the details does not erase the rational distinction between a qualified expert and a fraud.
Applying the Example to Religions
This is exactly the difference between religions. The correct criterion is not: “Can my intellect independently verify every detail in this religion?”
Rather, the correct criterion is: “Does this religion possess strong, objective evidence for the truth of its foundations and the reliability of its source?”
In Islam, we find clear and overwhelming evidence:
• Reason establishes with certainty the existence and perfection of God.
• Reason establishes the truthfulness of the Prophet Muhammad ().
• Historical reality establishes that the Qurʾan is preserved without alteration.
Once these foundations are established through compelling evidence, submission to the unseen details becomes not only reasonable—but the most rational response possible. It is no different from trusting the prescription of a certified physician after verifying his credentials, even though you cannot personally evaluate every technical detail.
Submission in Islam Is Submission After Evidence
Foundational Beliefs Are Established by Rational Proof
What distinguishes Islam from other religions is that submission in Islam is not blind submission. It is submission after clear, conclusive evidence—rational, historical, linguistic, and experiential.
The major foundations of Islam are all supported by strong rational proofs:
• The existence of God: established by the order of the universe, the astonishing complexity of creation, the fine-tuning of natural laws, and the unmistakable signs of design in everything.
• The truthfulness of the Prophet Muhammad (): established by clear miracles, the linguistic and scientific inimitability of the Qurʾan, the historical record of his honesty and integrity, and the extraordinary civilizational transformation brought by his message.
• The preservation of the Qurʾan: established by observable reality—its exact text has been preserved for more than fourteen centuries without addition, omission, or corruption, despite being transmitted across continents and cultures.
These foundational truths are not accepted blindly—they are established through rigorous evidence.
After Establishing the Foundations, Submission to Unseen Details Is Rational
Once the intellect has confirmed these foundational truths beyond doubt, it becomes fully rational to accept the unseen matters revealed through this trustworthy source.If you are certain that the Qurʾan is truly the word of God, and that Muhammad () is truly His messenger, then accepting what they tell you about Paradise, Hell, angels, and the details of the Hereafter is not irrational at all.
Rather, it is the only rational position.
This is analogous to trusting a highly qualified physician whose expertise and integrity you have verified. You take the medicine he prescribes even if you cannot understand its complex pharmacology.
Thus: In Islam, submission is not the beginning—it is the result of evidence.It is the natural outcome of certainty, not a substitute for it.
Submission to Unseen Details Comes After Establishing the Source
When the intellect concludes with certainty that the Qurʾan is the word of God and that the Prophet is truly His messenger, it becomes entirely rational to believe what God and His messenger reveal about the unseen—such as Paradise, Hellfire, angels, and the realities of the afterlife.
This is like trusting a proven expert physician in matters you personally cannot verify, not because of blind faith but because their reliability has already been established.
Why It Is Rational for Revelation to Contain Matters Beyond Human Intellect
Reason itself demands that divine revelation include matters beyond full human comprehension, for several reasons:
The Creator’s knowledge is infinitely greater than human knowledge, so it is natural that revelation includes truths beyond our full grasp.
If everything in revelation were fully comprehensible to ordinary human intellect, this would be strong evidence that it was authored by humans rather than by an all-knowing God.
This principle is familiar even in human interactions: When a cardiologist speaks to an ordinary patient, much of his explanation exceeds the patient’s understanding. This does not mean the doctor contradicts reason—it simply means the patient’s intellect is limited in that field.
Therefore, the presence of matters beyond complete rational comprehension in divine revelation is not a flaw—it is a sign that the revelation truly comes from a higher source.
The Correct Criteria for Comparing Religions
Incorrect Criteria
People often compare religions using invalid standards, such as:
• Rejecting any religion containing what one cannot fully understand
• Preferring the religion that seems easiest or most convenient
• Choosing the religion that aligns with personal desires
• Following the majority simply because it is the majority
These are flawed and unjust criteria.
Correct Criteria
The proper criteria for comparing religions are:
Criterion 1: Strength of Evidence for the Religion’s Foundational Claims
• Is there solid proof for the God the religion speaks of?
• Is there clear evidence for the truthfulness of its prophet?
• Is its sacred text preserved or corrupted?
Criterion 2: Consistency with Reason and Human Nature
• Do the teachings contradict sound reason?
• Do they conflict with natural human instincts and moral intuition?
• Do they reflect justice, wisdom, and balance?
Criterion 3: Positive Impact on Human Life
• Does the religion elevate or degrade the human character?
• Does it build a just and thriving civilization or destroy societies?
• Does it promote goodness and justice or evil and oppression?
Applying the Criteria to Islam
When these criteria are applied objectively, Islam surpasses all other religions:
• Its foundational truths are supported by the strongest evidence.
• Its teachings align naturally with sound intellect and human nature.
• Its impact created one of the greatest and most just civilizations in human history.
Conclusion: The Truth Is Clear for Whoever Sincerely Seeks Guidance
After this comprehensive analysis, it becomes clear that the objection equating Islam with other religions in matters of submission is based on a methodological misunderstanding.
Submission in Islam is justified and rational, because it comes after the establishment of clear evidence for the religion’s truth.
Submission in other religions is often required before any proof is established—or despite evidence of corruption and contradiction.
The difference between Islam and other religions is like the difference between the trusted physician and the deceitful impostor.
Whoever sincerely seeks truth will find in Islam what satisfies both reason and heart.Whoever seeks excuses to avoid the truth will find in every religion—even the true one—something to justify turning away.
The fair-minded person weighs religions by the scales of justice and truth, not by desire or convenience. Once the truth of a religion’s foundations is established, rational submission to its details is the proper conclusion.
We ask God to guide us all to recognize the truth and remain firm upon it, and to make us among those who follow truth wherever it is found, without being swayed by desire or preference.
And God knows best. May peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his companions.