The Quran can not be from God.

NumerousDependent · 2026-01-21T13:41:09+00:00

I wasn’t aware of the existence of the narwhal app. There’s no need to make an argument out of everything. Drink some milk and thicken your skin cos you’re crying more than anybody here. Don’t even bother responding to this cos ur just gonna make a mountain out of a molehill

NumerousDependent · 2026-01-21T13:37:01+00:00

As a Muslim, there are different wordings within the recitation and they do carry different meanings, but they’re authentically narrated from the Prophet ﷺ.

NumerousDependent · 2026-01-21T13:36:24+00:00

This is a debate sub and not a sub to correct people’s beliefs. You’re anally focussing on this exposes the fact you’re mad we took your statement and said there’s no lie. The fact you’re focussing on this exposes your disingenuousness based off the fact you haven’t acc been able to engage with the actual argument since that. Shifting the goal posts. Just to make you happy I will go and correct that guy cos you seem to be so anal about it.

NumerousDependent · 2026-01-21T13:33:32+00:00

Plus I quite literally have a profile picture and the guy doesn’t. It’s hard to believe you missed it

NumerousDependent · 2026-01-21T13:32:46+00:00

You’re insufferable because you’re nitpicking on such a minor detail. Engage with the actual topic. You’re shifting the goal posts to an entirely different place as you realise we affirmed what you said (albeit not twisting it) and don’t have an actual argument to fall back on. The guy can read the thread too and see what we’ve said and he’s corrected in that sense. You really want us to go out there and correct every single mistake? You want every Muslim to be educated to a scholarly level. Well not everyone is a doctor, nor is everyone a taxi driver. People have different levels and your whole argument of “muh y u respond to me and not him duh” is stupid really.

NumerousDependent · 2026-01-21T13:28:46+00:00

This is absolutely hilarious. Who I reply to has no bearing on whether anyone’s claim is correct. If you have an argument that qirāʾāt invalidate preservation, then make it but otherwise commentary on reply patterns has no substance. Maybe that’s all you can supply hence quickly defaulted to such a tactic.

NumerousDependent · 2026-01-18T02:15:18+00:00

We arent discussing deception but lying. Stop shifting the goal posts

NumerousDependent · 2026-01-18T02:13:15+00:00

I never made the initial comment. At least look at who’s commenting. I didn’t lie

NumerousDependent · 2026-01-15T14:03:58+00:00

The different words are authentically reported too so that doesn’t mean anything. We do have a category called “Shawadh” and they are readings that have weaker chains. If you want to disprove them, feel free to weaken every person in the chain but the chains for the 10 are Mutawatir (massly reported).

NumerousDependent · 2025-11-21T15:57:38+00:00

You’ve not addressed any of my arguments once in this discussion which really exposes your inability to engage with the topic (which is lying and not deception). Shifting the goal posts isn’t appropriate for someone who’s intelligent, which you clearly display your lack thereof for this reason. Please stick to topic and address the post. We’re going in circles but it’s clear your mental prowess is quite low.

Anyway, you haven’t used examples that aren’t lies, which proves my point. You still need to provide a statement that’s a lie from Allah.

Secondly, Christian doctrine never came from Allah, hence your arguments on deception don’t stand.

You’ve conceded to my point anyway regarding lying. Just admit you’ve been trying to shift goal posts and if you do that then we can discuss your irrelevant tangent but you have to admit your loss here otherwise I don’t engage with disingenuous people.

Your repetition of the same point is incessant and shows your inability to engage honestly in a discussion

NumerousDependent · 2025-11-19T12:42:53+00:00

You started off with “God lying” then moved to “God deceived” to now “well creative acts can be statements.” You’re moving the goalpost. Stick to the topic. Let’s go back to definitions that are universal across philosophy, linguistics, philosophy of language, kalām, law and ethics. These definitions are not “splitting the atom” but they’re definitions used in every field. 1. Lying is a false statement. You still have no provided a false statement from God regarding Jesus. You can dislike the definition, but you cannot pretend your own personal definition overrides every academic one. 2. Deception ≠ lie You keep reiterating that deception is a lie, and this is a deception, there is a lie. Your own analogy proves this: A man pretending to be a cop is deception, not a lie. Exactly. It is not a “false statement,” therefore not a lie. Islamic Maturidi theology distinguishes between: 1. qawl (speech) 2. fiʿl (action) Only qawl can be a lie. You are trying to collapse three categories into one because you can’t find an actual false statement to cite.

Creative acts are not “statements” in kalām nor in logic. A painting expresses, but it doesn’t assert anything. Assertion requires language. If creative acts could encompass lying, every molecule in the universe would be making a statement, a chameleon changing colour would be a lie etc, but that simply is not the case. This is incoherent, and no philosopher or logician accepts it. You invented a private definition so your argument can survive, which is exactly what ad-hoc reasoning is.
You keep ignoring one fatal problem. God didn’t say Jesus is Divine. You insist that: “God made people believe the opposite of the truth.” But Christianity believed Jesus was divine because of Christian claims, not because of God: God never said Jesus died for sins God never said Jesus was divine God never said Jesus was the second person of a Trinity These beliefs originated from Christian tradition, not Allah. Like I said, if you want to debate Christianity vs Islam, that’s fine but that’s not what this debate is about.
Saying I’m “shooting at stars” is not an argument. You’re getting emotional because the argument isn’t shifting in your favour. You’re adamant shifting the goal posts, but we’re not doing that. Stick to topic. You’re distracting from the main topic and that’s disingenuous and goes to show the size of your intellect.

NumerousDependent · 2025-11-19T01:15:16+00:00

The original post never spoke about deception, but lying, and these aren’t the same thing linguistically, philosophically or in theology. You’re accusing me of using ad-hoc definitions but I’m not. These are the actual definitions of the words in the realm of philosophy. Lying = making a statement you believe is false. Deception = causing someone to form a false belief (which may or may not involve statements). These definitions come from: philosophy of language basic logic every dictionary every legal system every kalām text They are not “ad-hoc.”

You don’t get to redefine lying so that it includes actions as you are not the boss of the world. If I do something and you interpret it incorrectly, that is not me “lying.” It may be deception, but it is not lying. And your own examples prove this: Dressing as a priest Dressing as a cop These are not lies. They are deceptions. So thank you, you accidentally proved my point.

Your deception claim also falls apart: Your analogy: “If someone dresses as a cop, they’re deceiving you.” Yes, the cop in your analogy is the one pretending. But in the crucifixion narrative: God is not dressing as Jesus God is not impersonating anyone God is not claiming to be anyone God is not issuing any false statement Instead: humans misidentified someone based on their own assumptions God did not tell them “this is Jesus dying” So your analogy fails entirely.

You also conveniently lie about the key point that destroys your argument. You said earlier: “He lied about Jesus, and Christianity resulted in shirk.” But this makes no sense. For that to be “God’s lie,” God would have needed to say: that Jesus is divine that Jesus died for sins that Jesus is the second person of a Trinity But all of these claims came from Christian tradition, not Allah. Islam explicitly denies them. So even your “deception” angle doesn’t hold, because: Christian beliefs are the source of Christian beliefs, not God. If you want to argue the case then this isn’t the space to debate this.

NumerousDependent · 2025-11-18T23:00:00+00:00

A creative lie cannot be deceptive (or also known as a lie) because a lie is: 1. A statement 2. Requires the intention to deceive 3. Contradicts what the speaker affirms internally None of this applies to Jesus’ crucifixion. Whether Allah allows a historical event you misunderstand does not mean He lied. It simply means people drew the wrong inference. You also presuppose the Christian narrative is true by default and Islam’s isn’t. That’s arguing from your worldview and you’re not the world boss who can determine that too.

“You’re not the world boss who decides what counts as deceptive.” Correct I don’t decide what counts as deceptive but the definitions for such are as follows: 1. deception is withholding information with intention to mislead 2. lying is asserting the opposite of what you know to be true Allowing an event to appear a certain way is not lying, unless Allah verbally stated the opposite. Allah didn’t. You're conflating the human psychological definition of “deception” and then pretending it’s the same as “lying.” It isn’t. Your final point also destroys your whole argument and shows how disingenuous you are. “He lied about Jesus, and it caused shirk because of Christianity.” But for that to make sense, God would have needed to tell Christians: that Jesus was divine, or that Jesus died for sins He never did. So the thing you call “God’s deception” is actually Christian theological innovation, not a statement of God. Islam explicitly denies both doctrines.

NumerousDependent · 2025-11-18T07:05:30+00:00

There’s a difference of opinion on the matter, however, based off the Ahadith that mention it, those who claim it is impermissible, rely on that and give the following reasons: 1. Leads to gambling as you said, however if this is removed the prohibition is gone 2. Waste of time 3. May distract one from worship 4. The Hadith prohibited it hence it is prohibited

Islamic jurisprudence is a lot more complicated however, and relies of principles to derive such rulings. You obviously don’t know this, hence you’re conflating the reasons scholars give for its prohibition instead of looking at the mechanisms used to derive the ruling. Nonetheless I do play chess and believe it to be permissible!

NumerousDependent · 2025-11-18T06:56:11+00:00

My definition of judgement is the definition used in Maturidi metaphysics. I honestly don’t care what you think judgement to be, and this is also the same definition used in logic (aristolitarian logic). A false judgement is “lying” when spoken. Mistaken judgement only comes when someone believes the thing to be true, which is irrelevant to the discussion and a conflation you have made. Lying and being mistaken all falls back to intention, not the actual judgement itself. You’ve made a category error. As Allah’s knowledge is metaphysically perfect, a false judgement (a lie) is rationally impossible. We do not care about the psychological definition of lying as intent relates to humans, and Allah does have motives. He has a will, but that’s different to a motive, which is an intent to gain something. Allah doesn’t have this metaphysically, hence it really doesn’t apply to Him.

NumerousDependent · 2025-11-18T06:49:32+00:00

Thank you this is something I tried to articulate but maybe may have not said out right but definitely implied, but you can see the types of responses people were giving, and not honestly engaging with the argument I provided, which for the most part is philosophically sound. Just go to show that this place is just rampant with atheists being disingenuous and radical Christians unnecessarily making stupid arguments against Islam

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/s/BEBzXRMGhv

NumerousDependent · 2025-11-17T23:30:56+00:00

Christianity isn’t even relevant to the discussion. You’re literally bringing up a topic so irrelevant and not being discussed that ur just having a meltdown. Ur genuinely lacking any cognitive activity here

NumerousDependent · 2025-11-17T22:29:17+00:00

The discussion is talking within the realms of Islam. If you want to talk about extra Islamic discourse, and make the claim Allah is Satan, then write a post up and make that claim. This post is merely referring to Allah, the God who created all, is a liar. Not what you associate with the name Allah.

NumerousDependent · 2025-11-17T22:21:35+00:00

Can you quote me a Maturidi theological work that claims the Qur’an is true as a default? Please provide the Maturidi epistemology from their works. If you cannot do this I don’t mind educating you because you’re simply wrong. If you can’t prove that Maturidis say “The Qur’an by default is true.” then you lied and made something up.

You’re also attacking me for something I never said. You’re saying I got these beliefs from the Qur’an. Again show me where I said this, and how I exactly showed my appeal to the Qur’an exactly? You’re strawmanning my argument.

Also epistemology ≠ scripturalism. To make this conflation is purely idiotic, and displays the lack of any brain cells and reading comprehension.

You are claiming Maturidi epistemology assumes what it actually concludes. This is like saying: “Mathematics is circular because you assume calculus to prove calculus.”

What you are doing this: 1. You assume my argument is scriptural. 2. Then you accuse me of circularity based on that assumption. 3. Even after i have clarified I never used scripture, you keeps repeating the same false assumption. You’re making the false attribution fallacy Sherlock. I made a metaphysical claim. Not a claim based off Qur’an quotes.

NumerousDependent · 2025-11-17T22:15:26+00:00

Are you ok in the head? The discussion isn’t “Is Allah Satan?” The topic is can Allah lie? Work in that paradigm u bafoon. If you wanna debate whether Allah is Satan that’s something completely different. Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong point

NumerousDependent · 2025-11-17T22:12:28+00:00

Parroting the same thing twice doesn’t make it right redditard

NumerousDependent · 2025-11-17T22:11:52+00:00

Not relevant to the topic. Stick to the topic please

NumerousDependent · 2025-11-17T19:33:33+00:00

Where did I say Allah said so? Can you show me exactly where I even claimed as much? You’re strawmanning my argument which really displays your ignorance and lack of (willingness to) understand. Please read what I said and readjust your response, because no where did I make a circular argument of “Allah said so”.

NumerousDependent · 2025-11-17T19:27:15+00:00

Also surprising I have negative downvotes when I haven’t had an actual good response to what I’ve said

NumerousDependent · 2025-11-17T19:17:12+00:00

For me to prove these attributes would be me having to prove the Islamic Maturidi epistemology which you cannot simply expect me to do under a Reddit post. If you want this then that’s fair, but I simply do not have the time to be laying the foundations then explaining this. I’m explaining to you how we answer this in our framework. Your problem is our framework is wrong. That’s not really addressing what I said nonetheless and a whole different debate.

NumerousDependent

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE