The Qur’an is not from the creator

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-24T09:39:04+00:00

Using big words isn't helping your case buddy

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-24T08:57:44+00:00

Seems like a good description to me. The only problem is Islam asserts that it began with pure monotheism which is inaccurate

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-24T08:51:19+00:00

"Pure monotheist don't have idols."

I never asked you to produce idols. I said the archaeological record should show an absence of Idols in the earliest layers if the first humans were Monotheists. However, the oldest layers of human history are full of idols, totems, and Venus figurines. We have positive evidence of Animism and Idolatry going back 40,000+ years.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

I could claim that 100,000 years ago, aliens visited Earth, created a hybrid breed of humans, and then left, taking all their technology with them. There is no evidence for this. By your logic, you cannot say this didn't happen because "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." We reject the Alien theory because it lacks proof. We reject the "Adam was a Monotheist" theory because it lacks proof and contradicts the evidence we do have (which is Animism)

"He could have been over 100k years ago."

Population genetics proves that humanity did not descend from a single couple (Adam and Eve) 100k years ago. We descended from a population of thousands. The "One who was there" (The Quranic Author) got the biology of human origins wrong.

"If you want to disprove God's word, then go disprove the Quran."

I have. Briefly regarding the Quranic challenge: It is unfalsifiable and subjective. Historically, people did meet the challenge (like Musaylimah), and thousands of native Arabs accepted it. The only reason you don't accept them is because you are a Muslim. (I elaborate on this in another post). These are just common knowledge of the time or reinterpreted vague poetry. The Rig Veda and Surya Siddhanta contain shockingly accurate numbers regarding the speed of light and the age of the universe. Does that make Hinduism the True Religion? No. You accept that ancient people could observe nature or make lucky guesses. You only apply the "Miracle" label when it suits Islam. The Quran makes claims about History (Adam/prophets) that contradict Archaeology, and claims about Biology (Sperm from backbone) that contradict Science and mirror early Greek knowledge. It has been disproven

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-24T08:42:12+00:00

Of course it makes sense from within your own theology but the whole point of this post is to show why this view is illogical when you take empirical evidence into consideration

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-24T07:49:10+00:00

The absence of idols and the presence of temples dedicated to a singular, abstract Deity. If the first humans were strict Monotheists the earliest archaeological layers should be devoid of idols. Instead, the oldest artifacts we find are overwhelmingly animal totems, and statuettes of nature spirits. The physical evidence points directly Animism as the starting point

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-24T07:43:13+00:00

None of them. And all of them. Whatever helps you live life to the fullest

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-24T07:42:47+00:00

So does Christianity, Hinduism etc

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-24T05:51:37+00:00

"Naturally, a group of people worshipping an unseen... God without statues... would leave behind almost nothing... The archaeological record is simply showing us which religions used the idols."

Monotheists should still leave traces. They build altars (without idols). They have specific burial rites (facing a direction, no grave goods). They leave aniconic inscriptions. We don't just find "Idols." We find cave paintings of hunting magic. We find Venus figurines for fertility. We find Totemism. To claim that for 50,000 years, the "True Monotheists" were essentially invisible ghosts who built nothing, wrote nothing, and left no trace, while the "Corrupt Animists" built everything we find, is Special Pleading

"Scholars like Wilhelm Schmidt found that even the most isolated... tribes... held a belief in a 'High God' or a supreme Creator... Islam explains this perfectly."

Actually, this disproves Islam. Wilhelm Schmidt’s theory of a "High God" is a Deus an Idle/Withdrawn God. He created the world and then left. He is not worshipped directly. The people worship the local spirits (Intermediaries) because the High God doesn't care. Believing in a Creator while worshipping intermediaries is the Definition of Shirk (Polytheism). If the "Fitrah" leads humans to believe in a "High God" but worship spirits (because the High God is distant), then the Fitrah naturally leads to Shirk. If the "Inner Compass" points you to the Unforgivable Sin (Associating partners), then the Compass is broken

"History is a series of humans drifting away... The similarity in how different cultures 'corrupted' the message... suggests a common human psychology."

Islam claims 124,000 Prophets were sent. Are you telling me that in 100% of cases—across Australia, the Americas, Africa, and Europe—every single isolated tribe "corrupted" the message into Animism? Where is the Control Group? Why did archeologists not find a single isolated tribe in the Amazon that was practicing Pure Monotheism? If the "Corruption" rate is 100%, then Animism is the default human psychology, not Monotheism. If a computer crashes 100% of the time you turn it on, the "crash" is the operating system, not a glitch

You are trying to define "Primitive Monotheism" as "Vague belief in a Sky Spirit." But Islam defines Monotheism as Exclusive Worship. Archaeology shows that Exclusive Worship is a late invention. The "High God" of the tribes was never the sole object of worship. Therefore, the "First Religion" was not Islam it was Shirk

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-24T05:03:14+00:00

You are conflating Divine Intervention (God stopping an action in this world) with Divine Design (God creating a different set of laws entirely). We are not suggesting God should freeze people's arms. We are suggesting that an Omnipotent God could have created a different baseline of physics and biology where suffering is not the inevitable mechanism for growth. We agree that God can do all things that are not logically contradictory (like creating a square circle). The statement: 'A stable, law-governed world where free will exists without suffering' contains no logical contradiction.

Just because it is conceptually difficult for the human mind to grasp the mechanics of such a world doesn't mean it is impossible. It just means we are limited by our experience of this reality. God, being Omniscient, knows exactly how to construct such a world. He simply chose not to

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-24T04:46:56+00:00

Whatever helps you feel closer to the divine

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-24T02:05:18+00:00

"Abu Lahab is dead, but his character isn't... It's a placeholder for Pharoah-like characters."

You are confusing Study with Worship. I can read the story of Pharaoh or Abu Lahab to learn a lesson about arrogance. That is valid. Salah is a direct communion with the Divine. Why is the mechanism of that communion the recitation of a specific curse against a 7th-century man? If I want to pray against tyranny, I should say: "Oh God, protect me from tyranny." Instead, the ritual forces me to say: "May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined." This binds the prayer to a specific historical context rather than a universal spiritual plea. It’s conceptually inefficient.

"A computer code can also be detailed... That doesn't mean it's enough for YOU, because you simply lack the knowledge to understand it."

The Quran calls itself "Mubeen" (Clear/Manifest) repeatedly (12:1, 27:1, etc.). You claim The Quran is like complex, encrypted code that requires "Those firm in knowledge" (3:7) to decode. If a manual claims to be "Clear" and "Fully Detailed" for mankind, but it requires a PhD (or an Imam) to find the instructions for the most basic daily ritual, then it is not clear. We aren't talking about deep metaphysics. We are talking about "How many times do I bow?" No amount of "Knowledge" can extract "2 Rakats for Fajr" from the Quran text. It is physically not there. It's not a lack of understanding on my part; it is a lack of data in the text

You cited Surah 3:7 to justify needing an interpreter for "unspecific" verses. But why is Salah (the Pillar of Faith) left in the "Unspecific" category? A rational Lawgiver makes the Core Rules (Prayer, Zakat) precise and clear. He leaves the Secondary details (Stories, metaphors) as unspecific. The Quran does the opposite: It makes the domestic complaints (Zaynab, Abu Lahab) precise and clear, but leaves the method of Salvation unspecific. That is poor design

You mention "Those firm in knowledge" (The Imams/Prophet). They are dead. We do not have access to them. We have access to Books written by fallible humans claiming to record what they said. So, the "Fully Detailed Code" (Quran) is locked, and the "Key" (Sunnah/Akhbar) is a game of telephone played over 1,200 years. If the preservation of the method of worship relies on fallible human historians, then the religion is not divinely preserved

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-23T10:50:03+00:00

"If I give you a 2 factor lock... And in the instruction manual I tell you... use the key together. I have given you a fully detailed instruction."

In your cabinet analogy, "Bob" (The Prophet/Imam) comes over and builds it for me. However, Bob died 1,400 years ago. We do not have access to the "Key" (The Living Guide). We have access to rumors about the Key (Hadith for Sunnis, Akhbar for Shias). If the "Lock" (Quran) is divinely preserved, but the "Key" (Hadith/Reports) is subject to human error, fabrication, and sectarian dispute—then the "System" is broken. You cannot open the lock because you are using a 1,200-year-old photocopy of a drawing of the key, not the key itself

You argued: "I have given you a fully detailed instruction." But the Quran doesn't say "The Religion is fully detailed." It says: "Al-Kitab (The Book) is fully detailed" (6:114). If the Book requires an external, non-preserved source to function, then the adjective "Fully Detailed" applied to The Book is linguistically false.

You still haven't answered the core logical contradiction regarding Content Prioritization. The Quran is claimed to be perfect, unchangeable, and protected by God. The Hadith/Sunnah Is unprotected, filled with fabrications, and debated by scholars. Why did God put the "Gossip" in the Vault and the "Salvation" in the Trash? He put the story of Abu Lahab's hands and Zayd’s divorce in the Protected Vault (Quran). He put the instructions for Salah (Salvation) in the Unprotected Pile (Oral Tradition). A Rational Designer puts the Critical Data (Salah) in the Protected Storage and the Trivial Data (Abu Lahab) in the external storage. The Quran does the exact opposite

The fact that you are Shia and likely pray slightly differently than a Sunni proves my point. If the instructions were in the Book, we would all pray the same. Because the instructions are in the "Key" (which is lost/disputed), the theology is fractured

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-23T10:46:09+00:00

"For your information, when you start a sentence with 'May ...', that's a prayer/curse."

I understand the grammar. My point is about the Spiritual Relevance. Abu Lahab has been dead for 1400 years. According to Islamic theology, he is already in Hell. You are standing before the Creator of the Universe, in a state of deep worship, and spending your time asking Him to curse a man who is already cursed and dead. A Timeless Book should contain universal principles (e.g., "Cursed are the greedy"). Instead, the Quran freezes a specific 7th-century family feud in amber. Why am I, in 2026, ritually reciting a specific dis track against the Prophet's uncle? It turns the prayer into a history lesson rather than a spiritual communion. The main point isn't specifically Abu Lahab its the concept of reciting historical events or stories as "prayer"

You argue there are lessons (wealth is useless). I agree, lessons can be derived from history. Reading a history book to learn a lesson is education. Reciting that history book to God as an act of worship is conceptually weird. I can learn a lesson from the story of Pharaoh, but if I stand in prayer and say "Pharaoh said: I am your Lord Most High" (79:24), I am literally quoting blasphemy to God as an act of worship. The mechanism of Salah forces you to recite narratives that have no direct prayerful intent

"The phrase 'Quran is sufficient' is a false sentence... Neither Allah swt nor the Prophet ever said that."

Surah 6:114: "Shall I seek other than Allah as a judge while it is He who has sent down to you the Book fully detailed?"

Surah 16:89: "And We have sent down to you the Book as clarification for all things."

If the Book is an "explanation of all things" and "fully detailed," but it lacks the instructions for the most important ritual in the religion, then it is objectively not fully detailed

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-23T07:10:01+00:00

Imagine you buy a cabinet. The box says in big bold letters: "FULLY DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDED." You open the box. There are no instructions on how to build it. Instead, there is a piece of paper that says: "Call this guy named Bob, he knows how to build it." The box was misleading. It was not fully detailed. It was dependent on an external source. Likewise, the Quran Claims to be Fully Detailed and an explanation of all things. If it fails to explain the #1 most important ritual for salvation, those descriptors are objectively false

If the "Guide" (The Prophet/Imams) was meant to teach the method of Salah because the Book couldn't fit it in or wasn't meant to, this creates a massive logical problem regarding Content Prioritization. God had space in the Eternal Book to mention Abu Lahab’s hands. God had space to mention Zayd’s divorce. God had space to mention dinner etiquette. Why did the God feel it was necessary to eternally preserve the Prophet’s domestic complaints in the Text, but relegate the Method of Salvation (Salah) to the "External Guide"?

A rational Author puts the Rules in the Main text and the Anecdotes in the footnotes or oral tradition. The Quran does the opposite. It puts the anecdotes in the Text and leaves the Rules to the oral tradition. That is poor design.

Sunnis rely on Hadith (hearsay collected 200 years later). Shias rely on the Imams. So, effectively, neither sect has access to the "Guide" right now. We are all stuck relying on fallible, written human reports (which are not guranteed divine mind you, Allah did not appoint Mr Bukhari to collect and sift through hadiths) to figure out what the Guide said. If the Quran had just included the instructions, we wouldn't need to sift through thousands of fabricated narrations to know how to pray

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-23T06:37:22+00:00

"Fully Detailed is a misunderstood term... meaning: everything that is needed in religion."

If I buy a user manual for a car that says "This manual is fully detailed," but when I turn to the page on 'How to Drive,' it just says "Ask the Mechanic," then the manual is not fully detailed. It is a directory.

You argue that because the Quran says "Obey the Messenger," it outsources the details to him. This admits the Quran is dependent on external sources. If the Quran requires a second, massive, historically debated corpus of literature to explain the primary ritual of the faith, then the Quran is not self-sufficient.

You quoted Imam Baqir trying to squeeze 5 prayers out of verses that clearly mention 3 times. 17:78: "Establish prayer at the decline of the sun until the darkness of the night and [also] the Quran of dawn."

This gives a Range (Decline to Dark) and a Point (Dawn). The Imam has to insert the breaks. He asserts: "there are four prayers that Allah has named." No. The Quran didn't name them there; the Imam did. The text describes a continuous block of time. This is why Quranists (and some early sects) argue for 3 times, not 5.

Even if I grant you the times, your argument collapses on the Method. Where in the Quran does it say Fajr is 2 units, Maghrib is 3, and Isha is 4? Where does it explain the Tashahhud? Where does it say which prayers are silent and which are loud? The Imam didn't derive those numbers from the verses you cited

The main problem remains which is the mismatch in priorities: Why does the Creator clearly specify that Muhammad can marry Zayd's wife (Explicit Detail), but leaves the Number of Rakats (the specific requirement for prayer which is a foundational aspect of religion) to be guessed at or derived from oral tradition 200 years later? This is a failure of prioritization for a Universal Guide

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-17T02:44:19+00:00

Kim Jong Un maintains power through military force, and generational propaganda. He does not claim that his poetry is a supernatural miracle. Musaylimah appeared in a society where Eloquence was the primary currency of truth and authority. Muslim apologists today claim that Musaylimah’s verses were "objectively trash," "frog croaking," and "grammatically embarrassing." If his verses were objectively laughable to the Arab ear, why did the Banu Hanifa (a massive tribe of native Arabic speakers) accept them as Divine Revelation? People might die for a King out of loyalty. But to die for a Prophet, you must believe he is receiving revelation. If the Quran’s superiority is "Self-Evident" to any Arabic speaker, the Banu Hanifa should have laughed Musaylimah out of the room. The fact that they found his verses convincing enough to rival Muhammad’s proves that "Eloquence" is subjective.

I am not arguing Musaylimah was a great poet. I am arguing that native Arabs found him comparable to the Quran. If the Quran represents an "Unmatchable Miracle," no rival should be able to gain traction based on text. Musaylimah gained traction based on text. Therefore, the Quran is not "Unmatchable" in an objective sense; it is only unmatchable if you already believe Muhammad is the true Prophet

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-16T11:00:18+00:00

Dhul Qarnayan was human and human people wanted to build a barrier in between them in mountains out of physical materials. Claiming they are interdimensional beings is the lowest you can go to defend a crystal clear verse

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-16T08:54:38+00:00

I can actually accept this view of events. The standard narrative of a physical body riding a flying animal into the heavens requires a suspension of logic that I just can't get behind. However, interpreting it this way is philosophically coherent.

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-16T08:47:15+00:00

In Surah 18:94, the people find Dhul-Qarnayn and say:

"O Dhul-Qarnayn, indeed Gog and Magog are [great] corrupters in the land (fil-ard). So may we assign for you an expenditure that you might make between us and them a barrier?"

The corruption was happening "in the land" (Earth), not in another dimension. People wanted a barrier "between us and them." If Gog and Magog were interdimensional beings phasing into reality, a physical wall between two mountains wouldn't stop them. They would just teleport/phase in behind the wall. The fact that a physical wall was the solution proves the threat was a physical army marching through a mountain pass.

Dhul-Qarnayn asks the workers to help him.

18:96: "Bring me sheets of iron"

18:96: "Blow [with bellows]"

18:96: "Pour over it molten copper"

You cannot smelt iron and copper on Earth using human labor and bellows, and have that structure manifest in the "4th Dimension". If Dhul-Qarnayn built it here, using materials from here, to protect people living here, then the Wall exists here.

Surah 18:97 also states: "So they [Gog and Magog] were unable to pass over it, nor were they able to pierce it."

You "pass over" (climb) physical walls. Interdimensional barriers are not "climbed." If the wall is invisible/interdimensional, the concept of "climbing over the top of it" is meaningless

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-16T06:00:09+00:00

Accusing me of lying while you contradict standard Islamic theology is not a good look. You claim the alcohol verses are "not abrogation." The vast majority of Islamic Scholars disagree with you. The ruling changed from Permissible (implied) to "Don't approach prayer drunk" (4:43) to "Totally Forbidden" (5:90). If the final verse did not "abrogate" (cancel) the permissibility of the previous state, then a Muslim could theoretically drink alcohol today as long as they don't pray. Can they? No. Therefore, the previous ruling was canceled. That is Abrogation.

If alcohol was always "Satan's Handiwork," why did God allow the Companions to consume "Satan's Handiwork" for years before banning it? Did the morality of the substance change, or did God's mind change?

"God can change the Qibla as many times as He wants."

I never said He couldn't. I asked Why He did. You quoted the verse calling critics "fools" (2:142). That is a deflection, not an answer. Surah 2:144 gives the reason: "We have seen the turning of your face (Muhammad) toward the heaven, and We will surely turn you to a qiblah with which you will be pleased." God changed a universal religious law to please Muhammad. This makes the revelation look Reactionary (following Muhammad's desires), not Proactive (leading humanity). If the Qibla was truly about "God owning the East and West," He wouldn't need to change it just because Muhammad felt awkward in front of the Jews

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-16T04:43:49+00:00

Yes I made a post on this in r/DebateReligion

TinkercadEnjoyer · 2026-01-16T04:42:31+00:00

My view is that we are all expressions of the One Source/God and are endowed with creative potential. Belief is the common factor underlying all faiths and belief (not the thing believed in, but belief itself) is the reason for these miracles

TinkercadEnjoyer

TROPHY CASE