God's commands do not become good because humans approve them, and they do not need human interpretation to become moral. But humans do need careful interpretation to understand what God has commanded, especially when language, context, and application are disputed.
Why the argument feels strong
The strongest version of the objection is this: if Muslims say, "Whatever God commands is good," then goodness may seem arbitrary - as if cruelty would become good if God ordered it. But if Muslims say, "God commands what is already good," then goodness seems to stand above God, and human reason becomes the judge of revelation. Add to this the fact that Muslims interpret texts differently, and the objection concludes: God's commands do not really settle morality; human interpretation does.
That is a serious argument. It presses two real questions: what grounds morality, and how do limited people understand divine speech?
Goodness is rooted in who God is
The Islamic answer is not that God's commands are random acts of power. Allah commands from perfect knowledge, wisdom, justice, and mercy. His will is not detached from His attributes. So goodness is not above God, nor is it a human invention. It is grounded in the reality of the One who is perfectly good, wise, and just.
Indeed, Allah commands justice, excellence, and giving to relatives, and forbids immorality, wrongdoing, and oppression.
Quran 16:90
And your Lord does injustice to no one.
Quran 18:49
This means Muslims do not believe that oppression could become good by divine labeling. Allah has told us He does not wrong anyone, and His commands reflect His wisdom. At the same time, human beings do not possess a complete view of every consequence, every soul, every age, and every hidden reality. So when revelation and limited moral intuition clash, the believer does not assume God is deficient; he examines his understanding.
Interpretation discovers the command; it does not create its goodness
Yes, God's commands need human interpretation in the simple sense that revelation comes through language, events, general principles, specific rulings, and the example of the Prophet (PBUH). That is why Islamic law developed disciplined tools: Arabic language, context, consensus, analogy, objectives of the law, hadith criticism, and the distinction between clear and disputed texts.
O you who believe, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. If you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day.
Quran 4:59
The Prophet (PBUH) also taught that not every matter is equally obvious:
The halal is clear and the haram is clear, and between them are doubtful matters which many people do not know.
Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim
So interpretation is not an embarrassment. It is part of obedience. A judge interprets a law; he does not thereby become the source of the law. A doctor interprets symptoms; she does not thereby invent the body. Likewise, scholars interpret revelation to identify God's ruling as faithfully as possible.
What this proves, and what it does not
The argument does prove that slogans are not enough. One cannot simply say "God commanded it" while ignoring authenticity, context, language, legal method, or the difference between a clear ruling and a debated application. It also proves that humility is necessary: some issues allow legitimate disagreement.
But it does not prove that morality is independent of God. It does not prove that divine commands are arbitrary. And it does not prove that every human interpretation is equally valid. Islam holds together two truths: Allah's command is good because it comes from the All-Wise, and human beings must work carefully to understand that command.
The need for interpretation shows our limits, not God's. Revelation remains the measure; scholarship is the disciplined effort to read that measure without bending it to desire.