Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
25
debates
42.0%
won
Topic
#3509
Islam is the true religion
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Novice_II
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
won
Description
This is a debate about Islam. Muslims believe that God exists and we are living a life of testing before the afterlife. We believe that Islam is the one and true religion in which all the prophets followed. We also believe in 1 God; not the trinity.
I would like to debate and get my points across and I am sure the other person would like to as well.
Please keep this respectful
Thanks
Round 1
Pro
#1
I believe that Islam is the true religion.
Atheism is flawed because you can just use logic and intellect to prove that there a is God
I want to keep my opening point short because I have nothing to really prove
I want to know your arguments first so I can respond
All I will say is why I think Islam is the truth
-Quran has been perfectly preserved for 1400 years. There are millions of reciters and memorisers to keep the message intact. Same could not be said for the bible or Torah
-Islam is the only true monotheistic religion that believes in all the Abrahamic prophets with an equal message-That there is 1 God and worship him
That is my opening point. Very weak but I want to go over the basis of my opponents argument so I can respond to that
Con
#2
Resolved: Islam is the true religion
Burden of Proof
I want to keep my opening point short because I have nothing to really prove
- Is this a joke? It must certainly be one.
- As typical, "The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove" [1]. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence etc. We understand the commonplace assertions. Pro has the entire burden of proof to show that Islam is the true religion.
Rebuttal
Atheism is flawed because you can just use logic and intellect to prove that there a is God
- This isn't why Atheism is flawed. While you could argue that its arguments are improbable you have not and by extension, you can use degrees of logic and intellect to prove any metaphysical philosophy, so your assertion here would indicate that everything is flawed.
Quran has been perfectly preserved for 1400 years.
- This isn't true. In fact, evidence shows that there are entire missing chapters, pages, verses, and otherwise left out/forgotten phrases [2]. In addition, there are many minor and major variations that have come to the religious text as well as added verses and versions that differ notably from "other versions of the time that seemed to also have an authoritative claim to being the original" [3].
- When Muslims claim that the Quran has been "perfectly preserved," it is simply factually untrue.
Sources
- https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
- https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/has-the-qur-an-been-perfectly-preserved/
- https://carm.org/islam/have-there-been-changes-to-the-quran/
Round 2
Pro
#3
- This isn't why Atheism is flawed. While you could argue that its arguments are improbable you have not and by extension, you can use degrees of logic and intellect to prove any metaphysical philosophy, so your assertion here would indicate that everything is flawed.
Let me tell you about atheism. Atheists believe that there is no God and the universe magically came to existence. There are many theories about evolution and the big bang etc, which have no relevance to the idea of God. Let us understand this scientifically. Can 0=1? No it cannot. Nothing cannot make something. It is a known fact. If I wait around in my kitchen for 1 trillion years to make a cup of tea, and I do not move a muscle, and there is every possible ingredient that I could have, no one can tell me that the cup of tea will be made, if I wait. So this idea of nothing making something is flawed, there is no evidence for it, and logically it will not work. So now we have established that nothing cannot make something, there is only 1 more option. Something. There can only be 2 options anyway, the universe can either be made from something, or nothing. As we know, cannot be made from nothing so something is the only remaining option.
Now this something cannot be existing in the universe either. The reason for this is anything in this universe is dependant. Humans are dependant on food, trees are dependant on water etc etc. There is not one thing in this universe that is independent from time or space. Simply not. So the only way this universe can even exist is if something/someone independent of time and space had created it. Before the big bang, there was something right? Even if it was a small circle of cells or anything similar, these things are not viable to be independent. So again, to reiterate my point, the universe needs to be made from something independent.
Now everything in this universe has had a beginning, even the universe. The universe cannot create the universe as it is dependant on time and space, as we have established. Now if the universe has had a beginning, for it to be created, the creator needs to be self sufficient. The reason for this is there can be an infinite loop if the creator of the universe is not self sufficient as you may ask the question, who created the creator? This is illogical, as the creator needs to be self sufficient. So now we have established that the creator of the universe needs to be independent from its creation (time and space), it needs to always have existed, needs to be self sufficient and cannot rely on its creation. Why does the creator need to be one? Why can't it be two or three? The reason for this is very simple. Muslims believe that the creator of the universe is omnipotent and this means all powerful or the most powerful. There cannot be someone or something more powerful than this creator. This is why there is only one creator.
Another point is that atheists like to think that God never created the universe. They have theories like the big bang which again are irrelevant and some even say that it came from nothing. I would like to hear an argument from an atheist on how the universe existed. Anything they say is illogical, there is absolutely no proof with their arguments as they simply do not know. However, a God is the most logical as I have described all the attributes.
- When Muslims claim that the Quran has been "perfectly preserved," it is simply factually untrue.
It is absolutely ridiculous that you could say such a thing. You gave an article from a man named David Wood. This 'Christian' is an Islam misconceptionsist. He has a YouTube channel with a large following and talks utter nonsense. He does not know about the Islamic religion. Maybe you could have linked another piece of evidence from an atheist who has no bias? There is a clear chain of narration from the Prophets (PBUH) time for the Quran. The Prophet himself had memorised it and then so did his companions. The chain of transmission link is for Hafs and Warsh and the Quran recited in Saudi today
So again, David Wood is not a credible author of any reference as he has strict bias. Same could be said for Hatun Tash who is an Islamophobe.
Now I have responded to your points, let me clear up to why Islam is the true religion once more
Islam is the only Abrahamic religion which glorifies Jesus to a large extent whilst not worshipping him as a deity. He did not claim he was, in the Bible, since you want to bring a Christian author as a suitable reference, I will tell you about the Bible.
Jesus was not God nor the son of God. This is a Christian belief which has been extremely misleading over the past couple hundred years. There are many quotes suggesting why and listed below.
‘And there is no God else beside Me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside Me. Look to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else.’ (Isaiah 45:21-22, Jonah 3:5-10)- This quote clearly suggests that 'The father' is the only God as will save all people and again clearly states that he is God and none else
‘God is not a man’ (Numbers 23:19)
‘For I am God, and not man’ (Hosea 11:9)
Jesus is called a man a lot of times in the Bible, and God, the creator is clearly not a man
‘the man Christ Jesus’ (Tim. 2:5)
‘a man who has told you the truth’ (John 8:40)
The bible also states this,
‘God is not a man nor a son of man’ (Numbers 23:19)
‘so will the son of man be’ (Matthew 12:40)
If Jesus was God, these two statements contradict each other.
‘For the son of man is going to come’ (Matthew 16:27)
‘until they see the son of man coming in His kingdom.’ (Matthew 28)
‘because he is the son of man’ (John 5:27) etc etc
Jesus also refused to be called God,
Jesus spoke to a man who had called him ‘good,’ asking him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.’ (Luke 18:19)
A God should be the greatest?
‘My Father is greater than I’ (John 14:28)
‘My father is greater than all.’ (John 10:29)
‘My father is greater than all.’ (John 10:29)
Jesus never told his disciples to worship him
‘When you pray, say Our Father which art in heaven.’ (Luke 11:2)
‘In that day, you shall ask me nothing. Whatsoever you ask of the Father in my name.’ (John 16:23)
‘In that day, you shall ask me nothing. Whatsoever you ask of the Father in my name.’ (John 16:23)
There are plenty of quotes which can be found on this website- 90 verses exactly
The bible has also many errors, numerical included, some are listed down below, courteous of this website. The Christian in this website also said there are copious errors, should the word of God have errors of any sort?
God sent Gad, to threaten David with how many years of famine?
(2) Samuel 24:13 SEVEN years of famine.
(1) Chron.: 21:12 THREE years of famine.
When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?
(1) Chron.: 18:4 David took SEVEN THOUSAND horsemen
(2) Samuel: 8:4 David took ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED horsemen
How many stalls for horses did Solomon have?
(I ) Kings 4:26: FORTY THOUSAND
(2) Chron: 9:25 FOUR THOUSAND
The Temple contained how many baths?
(1) Kings 7:26 – TWO THOUSAND baths.
(2) Chron. 4:5 – THREE THOUSAND baths
How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
(2 )Kings 24:8 – EIGHTEEN years of age
(2) Chron. 36:9 EIGHT years of age
These are the reason why the Bible cannot be the word of God, as there are errors.
Look forward to hearing your response pal
Con
#4
- No overviews, going straight to rebuttal.
"Preservence" of the Quran
- In this argument, I show irrefutable evidence that the Quran has changed significantly over time and it is simply a myth that it has been perfectly preserved. I show two sources that show many examples and synthesize historical sources to reach this conclusion
It is absolutely ridiculous that you could say such a thing. You gave an article from a man named David Wood. This 'Christian' is an Islam misconception.
- Evidence required? Also, if this is the case you should be able to refute the evidence he gets directly from Islamic sources and religious text but you have not even attempted to.
He has a YouTube channel with a large following and talks utter nonsense.
- This is pro's opinion of course. It means nothing in respect to our debate similar to if my brilliant argument was "Islam is utter nonsense therefore it isn't the true religion."
- Pro has not refuted my argument that the Quran is not perfectly preserved. I cited two specific authors, David Wood and Luke Wayne. Both Christians have made compelling cases with respect to the Quran's alterations. Pro does not even make a counter-case against the clear evidence presented he simply attacks the character of one out of the two sources I cite and provides no evidence for his claims.
Islam is the only Abrahamic religion which glorifies Jesus to a large extent whilst not worshipping him as a deity.
- But pro, your resolution is that "Islam is the true religion," not the true Abrahamic religion. There are many religions that don't even have Jesus such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Taoism, etc.
- Also, why does not worshipping Jesus make Islam true exactly? This is simply a non-sequitur and a red herring. If the overwhelming majority of religions don't even have Jesus, this is irrelevant.
"Jesus is not God"
- Con cites a source here
There are plenty of quotes [that show Jesus isn't God] which can be found on this website- 90 verses exactly
- However, con's previous objection was that I showed Christian authors to refute the "perfectly preserved nature" of the Quran, calling this biased.
- Now con sites a Muslim podcast to prove that Jesus isn't God within the bible. This is simply a contradiction. Con believes that citing sources written by different religions is biased but does the exact same thing that under his previously established "logic," would be regarded as biased and "not a credible author." In essence, my opponent has both affirmed and implicitly denied his own criteria for the validity of arguments.
- In logical contradiction form (X and not X) according to con: It is and it is not acceptable to cite a source of a different religion to attack suppositions of a religion.
Biblical Contradictions
- Many religions don't have the bible so this section is frankly irrelevant. However, I will oblige pro and refute this "evidence" anyway because there is no harm in defending Christianity against misinformation.
The bible has also many errors, numerical included, some are listed down below, courteous of this website. The Christian in this website also said there are copious errors, should the word of God have errors of any sort?
- In response to "the Christian in this website also said there are copious errors."
- To this, I say "LOL," as in, legitimately laughing out loud, because the "website" pro shows is a Q&A post of a Christian asking about supposed contradictions in the bible where he gets a thorough and detailed answer from another Christian that debunks them all within the same source.
- Pro's "source" refutes itself in an amusing fashion as he mistakingly cited a website that is purposed towards refuting his own argument and he simply copied and pasted [art of the question asked in the source showing that apparently, he did not even read it. That takes care of all the "bible contradictions" he mentioned.
- Let's parse pro's argument anyway
p1. The true word of God must not have errors or contradictions
p2. The bible has contradictions
c. The bible is not the true word of God
- Let's take pro's argument for the sake of the debate. I don't agree with it, but it also applies perfectly to Islam:
p1. The true word of God must not have errors or contradictions
p2. The Quran has contradictions
c. The Quran is not the true word of God
- It is essentially a fact that there are many contradictions within the Quran [1]. I am running out of time and will expand on such contradictions subsequently but for pro to make this argument he must also concede that there are contradictions in the Quran and therefore it is not the true word of God. Again, a self-refuting argument.
Conclusion
- Pro has not proven Islam is the true religion.
Sources
Round 3
Pro
#5
Pro has not refuted my argument that the Quran is not perfectly preserved
I am refuting that the Quran has been changed. This is a misconception. The Quran has not lost its meaning, nor has its words been changed. The Quran was revealed by the Angel Gabriel. The Angel gave revelations to the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) and the Prophet Muhammed had recited it and memorised it. Then the companions of the Prophet had memorised it from the Prophet and that is when the idea of memorisation to keep the Quran intact and unchanged started. There are 10's of millions of Quran memorisers today and thousands more each year after the Prophet's death. Con may ask about the evidence about the revelations. There have been many eye witnesses and this is written in the hadiths:
Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3634
Sunan an-Nasa'i 2668
Sahih Muslim 1180 e
Sahih Muslim 2794 a
And there are many more eye witnesses.
So in conclusion to that point, there have not been any changes to the Quran, the message has always been intact. To worship one God.
The following quote from the Quran supports the argument of it not being changed
“We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)” (Qs 15:9). This can be considered as a miracle as we know it has not been changed.
Both Christians have made compelling cases with respect to the Quran's alterations
They have made no cases, just poorly researched, oblivious, categorically clear what their motive is. They have not researched merely as enough as they should and this is the same as Con. It is just picking and choosing authors of articles who have a clear bias to want to prove Islam wrong. David Wood on YouTube has been proved wrong time and time again by Muslims such as Mohammed Hijab and Shayk Uthman
- But pro, your resolution is that "Islam is the true religion," not the true Abrahamic religion. There are many religions that don't even have Jesus such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Confucianism, Taoism, etc.
There can only be one God. I have proved this in my first argument. As there can only be one God, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism etc are all nullified and their concepts and key teachings are one of a misunderstood persons mind. As there can only be one God, it lies between the 3 main Abrahamic faiths, Islam, Judaism, Christianity. This is what makes sense, not what my belief is. The religions that worship more than one God, are illogical as I have proved that there can only be 1 God.
There has also been no comment left by Con on the atheism argument that I made at the start of argument one, so maybe he agrees with me, as God is the only entity that can make the universe.
It is and it is not acceptable to cite a source of a different religion to attack suppositions of a religion.
The website that I linked are directly to do with the Bible. As I said there are 90 quotes. They are directly from the Bible (Christian's Holy Book'). It doesn't matter where the quotes are written, whether by a Muslim or Jew or Christian author, the quotes are there. So this has no relevance to the 'David Wood' argument as he never cited anything which is remotely close to the truth due to his misconceptions which are clear if you go to that article.
- To this, I say "LOL," as in, legitimately laughing out loud, because the "website" pro shows is a Q&A post of a Christian asking about supposed contradictions in the bible where he gets a thorough and detailed answer from another Christian that debunks them all within the same source
Now this is where Con has gotten confused. I know that the Christian was defending his religion, but he literally stated that there are copious errors and the Bible is not in its 'original form' which is a thing which Muslims agree on as well. Muslims agree that the Bible, when revealed, was the word of God, yet it has changed over time to what it is now. The earliest Bible manuscripts are in Greek this was in the 4th Century. So for 400 years, there has been no evidence of a Bible, maybe because it was being changed. And Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek. So what Con has pointed out here is what Muslims believe. The article that I posted was a Christian confessing that the Bible is not in its original form. Now if the Bible is not in its original form, and there are copious errors as well as contradictions that the Christians follow, then why is it happening? Why are 2 billion humans on this planet, which is 25% of the population, following a book which has obviously been changed and altered? For Con to say that the Christian debunks these errors using the Bible we have today is an utter lie, and to that I say 'LOL' indicating that I am indeed, laughing out loud.
That takes care of all the "bible contradictions" he mentioned.
There are still 80 Bible contradictions that the author of the article hasn't answered so Cons statement is false as I mentioned another article which states all the contradictions.
The Quran has contradictions
The Quran has absolutely no contradictions whatsoever. Let me debunk all that he sent within the link which is a poorly formed article which makes no sense.
The articles first point is talking about numerical contradictions. Now the contradictions he pointed out have already been answered by many scholars. The Quran does not specify how long a 'day' is. It is not 24 hours contrary to popular belief and can vary. So again days in the Quran are not specified.
Quran 25:29: He Who created the heavens and earth and all that is between, in Six Days
Quran 41:9 Is it that ye deny Him who created the earth in Two Days ?
The two quotes that I sent above are actually in the form of a miracle. This is because, it states in the first quote, the earth and the heavens and all that is in between was made in 6 days. So this is alluding to the universe being made in 6 days. Now in the 2nd quote, it states the earth was created in 2 days. This is talking about the earth only. Now if we simplify the fraction 2/6 to 1/3, this is accurately confirmed by scientists that the earth is 1/3 as old as the Universe. How did the Quran know this 1400 years ago when there was no scientific discovery? This is the meaning of a miracle and there is plenty more where that came from.
The second point talks about which was created first, heavens or the earth.
'It is He who created for you all of that which is on the earth. Then He directed Himself to the heaven, [His being above all creation], and made them seven heavens, and He is Knowing of all things.' 2:29
'And after that He spread the earth.' Read 79:27-30
Now this is yet another misconception. Allah created the earth first. Then he turned to the heavens and then he spread the earth. It is clearly stated that he created the earth first, then moved to the heavens. The spreading of the earth is basically putting, mountains, trees, rivers, land etc on it. It was a sphere before the heavens and after the heavens there were things inside that sphere.
The third point talks about how the sun sets in muddy spring water.
'until he reached the setting ˹point˺ of the sun, which appeared to him to be setting in a spring of murky water' 18:86
This quote talks from the persons perspective. It 'appeared to him'. Not it was, but it appeared to him. The Quran does not speak about sun setting in muddy water as a fact, but just from a persons perspective. Yet another misconception. Con has just linked a website which he found on the internet that is obviously run by people who don't see the context.
The 4th point talks about how there is a resting place for the sun
(36:38) The sun is running its course to its appointed place. That is the ordaining of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing.
The article says resting place but this is only because of the switching to English translation. In Arabic, which the Quran is written in, it states appointed place. The appointed place means when the sun will come to a halt or the time it comes to a halt, and it is pretty obvious which one it means. So yet again, another misconception.
The 5th point is just ignorance at its finest. It talks about why Allah created stars.
Quran 67:5
The stars are not fired at Satan, only in place to drive him away. To drive the devil away. The article shows it 'shows the superstitions that Allah has'? Which is very weird and again shows that this is a biased website with the writer having no sense.
The rest of the points have been debunked but I am not going to have enough space to write them as I also want to talk about the miracles of the Quran. It is clear that Con cherry picked this article to fit their narrative that the Quran has no contradictions. Con could have gone to a more reliable website but actively searched something like 'Why does the Quran have contradictions' and went to page 3 and found a dodgy website with an author who has no clue about Islam like David Wood.
21:31- Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We opened them out? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? - Big Bang Theory
51:48-And We have built the heaven with might and We continue to expand it indeed.'- Expansion of the universe
43:20-“And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and of whatever living creatures (dābbah) He has spread forth in both. And He has the power to gather them together (jam-‘i-him) when He will so please.”- Extra-terrestrial life
There are many more which i can state in argument 3 and elaborate on them but I have no space as of now
Conclusion-
Con has given invalid points with invalid authors at the cost of my time and your time. Therefore, has not proved that Islam is false and my point still stands,
Islam is the true religion.
Con
#6
As there can only be one God, it lies between the 3 main Abrahamic faiths, Islam, Judaism, Christianity. This is what makes sense, not what my belief is. The religions that worship more than one God, are illogical as I have proved that there can only be 1 God.
- Pro thinks there can be one God and I think it will be most productive to meet him at that argument. There are many Monotheistic Religions or religions with one god such as Baha'i Faith, Rastafari Movement, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Vodou, Eckankar, Tenrikyo, Mandaeism, Seicho-no-Ie, Yazidism, and Atenism [1, 2].
- Pro's focus on Abrahamic religions makes this debate a foregone conclusion to me as he has now shown why Islam is true as opposed to every single monotheistic religion that exists.
The "preserved" Quran
- I don't understand the relevance of what con has said here. He responds with a backstory of the Quran and states that its "message has always been intact. To worship one God."
- I don't know who argued that the Quran posits that one should worship more than one God so this seems like an empty refutation.
- Instead, I showed two sources that document many alterations to the Quran. Pro has yet to respond to this evidence and instead calls the sources biased for no substantiative reason other than they are Christian authors. That does not refute the evidence they provide
Both Christians have made compelling cases with respect to the Quran's alterationsThey have made no cases, just poorly researched, oblivious, categorically clear what their motive is. They have not researched merely as enough as they should and this is the same as Con. It is just picking and choosing authors of articles who have a clear bias to want to prove Islam wrong. David Wood on YouTube has been proved wrong time and time again by Muslims such as Mohammed Hijab and Shayk Uthman
- How specifically are they poorly researched? What are the issues within them? In this monologue, pro says nothing that refutes the evidence, and his argument can amount to "they are Christians, therefore their conclusion is false."
- I will simply extend the argument delivered in round one of the debates that showed that there are entire missing chapters, pages, verses, otherwise left out/forgotten phrases, added verses and versions, and textual variations within the Quran [2, 3 round 1] given that it remains unrefuted.
Contradiction
- I previously pointed out that pro asserts bais when Christians attack the Quran but it is perfectly fine doing the same with Islamic podcats with respect to the Bible. I argue that this is a logical contradiction.
- The proposition pro makes can be summarized as:
It is invalid/uncredible if an author of an opposing religion critiques the pillars or beliefs of a religion
- However, this is precisely what con has done with the Muslim podcast source with respect to the Bible, and thus pro has made the negation of this proposition conflict with its assertion. Pro says:
The website that I linked are directly to do with the Bible. As I said there are 90 quotes. They are directly from the Bible (Christian's Holy Book'). It doesn't matter where the quotes are written, whether by a Muslim or Jew or Christian author, the quotes are there. So this has no relevance to the 'David Wood' argument as he never cited anything which is remotely close to the truth due to his misconceptions which are clear if you go to that article.
- The websites I linked David Wood and Luke Wayne cite verses directly from the Quran. It doesn't matter where the quotes are written, whether by a Muslim or Jew or Christian author, the quotes are there.
- I can recite pro's counter-argument back to him word for word and simply replace his sources with mine showing that he has provided no actual distinction between them contextually,
- Both sources are articles written by people of religions opposed to the one they are criticizing. Both sources cite verses of the religious text they are criticizing. Pro believes one is valid and one is not. This, of course, is special pleading.
- We have established that pro has contradicted himself in his laid-out criteria for the validity of sources.
[re] Biblical Contradictions/pro's source
Now this is where Con has gotten confused
- I actually think pro is confused here, At the end of round two he copy and pasted (in bold) several supposed "bible contradictions" from this website, but he posted a website that debunks these contradictions, even stating that a lot of them were issues arising from not reading carefully enough.
- Now pro brings up copyist errors, but those are not actual errors. Those are errors with human translation and are thus irrelevant to inerrancy. Even Quran scholars admit the Quran has copyist errors as well.
Quran contradictions
- As I originally stated "I am running out of time and will expand on such contradictions subsequently," so pro did not have to respond to anything in the article I had previously sent because I myself stated I would expand on contradictions I wished to propose. I guess that leaves me room to ignore all pro has said in response to this.
- However pro has made it a little easier for me. He states
The Quran has absolutely no contradictions whatsoever.
- Meaning if I am able to show that the Quran has only one contradiction pro would have to concede that it isn't the true word of God and also
- The contradiction I choose to expand upon is this. The doctrine towards religious compulsion.
- The Quran makes it clear that there should be no compulsion toward Islam: “There is no compulsion in religion; verily the guidance has become clear from the error. So whosoever rejects the idol and believes in God, he has laid hold onto the most firm rope which will not break; God is All-hearing, All-knowing.” (Surah al-Baqara, 2:256).
- However, in 9:5 it states: "Then when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free."
- So in one verse, it states they ought not to force people to be Muslim or use compulsion, but in another verse, it instructs a group to slay idolators unless they repent.
Conclusion
- The Quran is not perfectly preserved which following pro's logic would make it not the word of God.
- Pro contradicted himself on the veracity of sources
- The Quran has contradictions, at least one as I have shown which is all pro requested for.
Sources
Round 4
Pro
#7
There are many Monotheistic Religions
Yes I do agree with this, there are many monotheistic religions. The reason to why these cannot be included in this debate is there is less proof in them, than the Abrahamic Faiths. Why are the population of most non-Abrahamic faiths decreasing? Because there is more proof and truth inside the main religions, which is why people are converting to these main religions. Islam is the most converted to religion each year and will be the most popular in the year 2075 according to studies shown in this article. Islam has the most proof over every religion out there, and the one which has the most proof, is the one which should be considered over the one with less proof. Basic principles here, some that Con has not got an understanding of.
Instead, I showed two sources that document many alterations to the Quran
Lets start with the David Wood one. The Prophet had memorised the Quran through revelations. His followers also memorised them from the Prophet. Yes, they they were written down onto parchment papers etc and kept in Hafsa's Chest. But even if they were written down, the entire Quran was memorised by the followers of the Prophet. What David Wood has said is false that there were missing chapters, verses etc. The Quran had been compiled into a book, a complete book. Then there was a war and hundreds of the memorisers of the Quran died. But there were still thousands of memorisers alive. The 3rd Caliph (Uthman) said to burn the parchment papers etc as it had been written into a book and these are confusing to have. Then the book had been made into 7 which were distributed among the lands. And then made more and more until we have the amount we have now. If 1 Quran gets burnt now, £50,000 will be raised to build a new mosque so Islam haters will never win. But that is beside the point.
The second article you sent is wrong as well. Hafs and Warsh are not different versions of the Quran, but only mere different pronunciations of it to fit the tones of non Arab speaking people. This is the reason why Hafs and Warsh exist, to fit the pronunciation. No words have been changed, no chapters, no verses etc. It has not been changed.
So Con has clearly lied about this issue. Con has sent articles which have been debunked by many previously and now by myself. So now that is the 'changes' of the Quran, dead in the water. This is a claim which Con has no knowledge of, just picking random articles which are wrong, and have been refuted by many.
- I will simply extend the argument delivered in round one of the debates that showed that there are entire missing chapters, pages, verses, otherwise left out/forgotten phrases, added verses and versions, and textual variations within the Quran [2, 3 round 1] given that it remains unrefuted.
I have now established that there have been no changes to the Quran. No other religion that Con can name has evidence for the memorisation of their holy book nor the unchanged holy book nor the uncorrupted holy book. The only unchanged holy book is the Quran, another miracle.
I would also like to point out that there still has been no mention of the creation of the universe being other than God. I rest my case there.
- We have established that pro has contradicted himself in his laid-out criteria for the validity of sources.
I have not contradicted myself here as the quotes that David Wood had shown and sent and Luke Wayne too, are not backed up with the correct points. They have been taken out of context. The Bible verses on the other hand, look at the context of those. All the quotes that I sent are in context and if Con can refute these, then so be it, but if not, I rest my case there. The Quran has not been changed thus making the entire argument of David Wood and Wayne, wrong.
Now pro brings up copyist errors, but those are not actual errors.
Should the Word of God have any errors at all? Whether there be copious or not, the Word of God should have no form of errors, let alone copious.
Even Quran scholars admit the Quran has copyist errors as well.
What is this website? What are the sites you are using? These are all anti Muslim websites I presume? Very well. There is a quote on that website, states the reference at the bottom. The reference is unclickable, so I cannot see if he actually said that or not. So as I cannot see the reference, I do not know if he said that. And if I do not know he said that, then it is unclear if it is actually true. One Muslim Scholar vs thousands of other Muslim scholars. Even if he did say that, there is no proof of the copious errors. So unless there is actual evidence of these errors, your claim has been refuted and untrue. Con has also stated 'scholars' in plural meaning more than 1. There is only 1 scholar on this page.
I guess that leaves me room to ignore all pro has said in response to this.
And there is no response to me clearing up the supposed 'contradictions'? It is clear and evident that Con has seen sense in the contradictions I cleared up and is not refuting any of my corrections. Therefore, Con has mutually accepted that the contradictions that I have cleared up are untrue and Pro is right. To that I say 'LOL', which is indeed me laughing out loud.
- The contradiction I choose to expand upon is this. The doctrine towards religious compulsion.
I will be clearing this up as well. By the way voters, notice how he never picked a 'contradiction' which I cleared up.
These are the quotes he challenged.
“There is no compulsion in religion; verily the guidance has become clear from the error. So whosoever rejects the idol and believes in God, he has laid hold onto the most firm rope which will not break; God is All-hearing, All-knowing.” (Surah al-Baqara, 2:256).
- However, in 9:5 it states: "Then when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free."
Complete disregard for context, an absolutely detonating argument which Con makes which has no impact to the extent he wants it to have. This verse requires context. If we go back to 9:1 '˹This is˺ a discharge from all obligations,1 by Allah and His Messenger, to the polytheists you ˹believers˺ have entered into treaties with:'. This is an example of a peace treaty. This peace treaty was violated by the Mushriks in Makkah. They had 4 months to make amends or a war would be announced. The criteria of a holy war is as follows:
- The enemy must attack first, in this case, the Mushriks have already violated the peace treaty
-No innocents must be harmed
-Trees must not be damaged
-Must be led by a religious leader
Now notice the first one. The enemy have attacked first in this instance. So this contradiction is invalid. To further demonstrate how this is invalid read this:
“If one amongst the pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge.” [Al-Qur’an 9:6]
This is the context. Please do not insult my religion Con without the sufficient context. Con may argue about why the context was not given to the Christian verses, because they don't need context. Many Christians are stumped when they cannot answer many of the 90 verses about how Jesus was not God nor the son of God.
- The Quran is not perfectly preserved which following pro's logic would make it not the word of God.
- Pro contradicted himself on the veracity of sources
- The Quran has contradictions, at least one as I have shown which is all pro requested for.
None of these points have gone according to plan for Con, as I believe I have proved him wrong for all of them.
2 of the references he concluded with were from Wikipedia and this is known not to be an accurate site, and another site is an Islamic hate site which doesn't publicly display it, but it can be inferred.
So now I have answered the contradiction that Con faced me with, I can talk about some prophecies and miracles of the Quran. Not too much as I don't have much words left.
1. The Prophecies of the Quran
From 613-619 CE, the Romans were defeated and demolished by the Persians. But the Quran made an astonishing claim,
“The Byzantines have been defeated. In the nearest land. But they, after their defeat, will triumph. Within three to nine years.” [ar-Rūm 30: 2-4]. It was merely impossible for the Byzantines (Romans) to come back after such a heavy defeat but it happened and occurred. How did the Quran know this? Maybe this was chance.
2. Another Prophecy
The Prophet Muhammed Uncle was called Abu-Lahab. He hated Islam, he hated the Prophet, hated his guts. The Quran said this about him
“May the hands of Abu Lahab be ruined, and ruined is he. His wealth will not avail him or that which he gained. He will burn in a Fire of [blazing] flame.”
For 6 to 9 years, Abu-Lahab listened to this verse yet still continued to hate Islam. If he said his Shahadah before he died and accepted Islam to prove it wrong, he could have. But he never. How did the Quran know this? If this was wrong, then Islam would have been proven wrong, night night. But it was not. This is yet another Prophecy. Maybe another chance. Also want to add that these things have been proved right with eye witnesses and documentations and there is not a lack of proof, there is plenty.
3. Another Prophecy
This was a prophecy from the Hadith. '“When you see barefoot, naked, destitute shepherds competing in constructing tall buildings.”. Now where is the tallest building? In Dubai right? Dubai was once a desert and when these buildings were built, the builders were barefoot building them. Another miracle. There are plenty more. More than 40 but I just do not have the space now.
In conclusion:
-Con has not proved anything other than more proof that Islam is the truth.
I urge you to look at these arguments presented to you and vote Pro, be unbiased and open to both sides. This is my last argument I can make I think, so please, if it makes sense, vote Pro. Con has not given any sufficient evidence that is true to if the Quran has been changed, if there are contradictions etc.
Thank you for reading my points and I appreciate and value the voters time.
Con
#8
Overview
- At this stage of the debate, recall that pro has the full burden in proving that Islam is the true religion out of every single religion that exists.
Monotheistic Religions
Yes I do agree with this, there are many monotheistic religions. The reason to why these cannot be included in this debate is there is less proof in them, than the Abrahamic Faiths.
- Citation needed
Why are the population of most non-Abrahamic faiths decreasing? Because there is more proof and truth inside the main religions
- Absolutely no source is provided for this, so we can simply discard this claim. Even if it was true this is simply the ad-populum fallacy. The amount of people practicing a religion does not indicate its true value.
Islam is the most converted to religion each year and will be the most popular in the year 2075 according to studies shown in this article
- This is again the ad populum fallacy. The ammount of people converted to Islam does not indicate the truth of the religion being practiced. Most of the world believed in slavery at a time and that didn't make it morally correct.
Islam has the most proof over every religion out there, and the one which has the most proof, is the one which should be considered over the one with less proof.
- Pro has shown no evidence that indicates that Islam has the most proof at all.
- Having a larger population doesn't indicate this, and asserting such is one of the most rudimentary forms of fallacious logic.
- Pro's only justification is that Islam has more followers. On this point alone pro has lost the debate.
Contradiction
- Remember, the contradiction from pro was in logical form (X and not X)
It is both invalid/uncredible and valid/credible if an author of an opposing religion critiques the pillars or beliefs of a religion
- Pro previously said my sources were invalid for being Christian critiques of the Quran, saying in quote "maybe you could have linked another piece of evidence from an atheist who has no bias?" (atheists would have no bais presumably?). But pro simultaneously went on to cite Muslim critiques of the Bible, contradicting himself.
- Now pro could have resolved this contradiction by addressing my sources, but that would be an implicit concession that he contradicted himself. This is exactly what pro chose to do, so I will be responding to his rebuttal of my evidence that the Quran is not perfectly preserved.
- Simply note that pro first attempts to respond to the sources, then deny that he contradicted himself so this is simply an admission that he previously contradicted himself and has now supposedly debunked the sources to resolve it. This however is not the case.
The "preserved" Quran
- Note that pro does not post a single source or cite anything he says in response to my sources. By that, we can simply discard everything he states as unsubstantiated claims. I don't even have to say anything further besides this for my rebuttal but I will make brief expansions anyway.
I - David Wood
- I don't know what to say here. Pro literally did not respond to the source at all he just said "it's wrong" without any form of substantiation or showing which specific aspects are wrong. David Wood specifically shows the admission of Muhammed's companion Abu Musa, that entire parts of the Quran were forgotten.
We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara’at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: “If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust.” And we used to recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten itThis shows that entire chapters of the Qur’an were forgotten.
- Pro weirdly does not even engage with this, nor does he say anything relevant to the sources, or cite any evidence.
II - Luke Wayne
- Pro again says the source is "wrong" but goes on some tangent irrelevant to the variations presented in the source. Wayne presents many manuscript variations that alter the meaning of verses one of which beinf:
Some variants, however, raise rather meaningful questions. To list just a few, the “Great Paris Manuscript,” one of the earliest manuscripts of the Quran, has a small but rather significant variant in Surah 3:158. The standard text today reads, “And if ye die, or are slain, Lo! It is unto Allah that ye are brought together.” However, in the Paris Manuscript, there is a single additional letter not found in the modern text that reverses the meaning entirely. The verse then reads that if you die or are slain, you are NOT brought together unto Allah.12
- I extend this argument.
- Pro has not refuted it, and perhaps has given it more credence. As he did not cite a single source, all he has said in response is invalid and should be discarded.
- We must conclude that as the Quran was not perfectly preserved, accepting pro's standard it is not the true word of God and Islam is not the true religion.
Copyist Errors
Should the Word of God have any errors at all? Whether there be copious or not, the Word of God should have no form of errors, let alone copious.
- Well, given that copy errors are human mistakes, sure?
- Note however, my argument is that copy errors are errors that humans make in translation and don't actually alter the inerrancy of a religious text.
- Pro is setting the standard that any error regardless of who caused it would falsify the notion that a religious text is the word of God. Even if it was just one poorly produced Quran.
- I have shown that the Quran has Copyist errors as well, admitted by Quran scholars themselves.
What is this website? What are the sites you are using? These are all anti Muslim websites I presume? Very well.
- Pro asks what website I am using as if he doesn't know how to click links (not a good look).
- He then lies that the cite is an anti-Muslim website despite previously citing an anti-Christian podcast.
- The website is called Bible-Quran and it is a resource "This site is about Christian and Muslim beliefs about God and monotheism, Jesus and Muhammad, the Bible and Quran."
- As it is dedicated to both religious texts of the Quran and Bible is the most unbiased source possible we could have for this debate.
- The source quotes Muhammad Mustafa A-Azami, who is a Quran scholar and professor:
"We must nevertheless take into consideration that there are over 250,000 manuscripts over the globe. When comparing them it is always possible to find copying mistakes here and there; this ís an example of human fallibility, and has been recognized as such by authors who have written extensively on the subject of "unintentional errors." Such occurrences cannot be used to prove any corruption within the Quran.
- The Islamic professor takes a similar stance as me. I understand there are human errors and that they don't necessarily indicate true textual errors.
- Pro however, is saying that human copy error or not, a religious text moust have absolutely no errors or mistakes in order to be true. Taking pro's standard here, the Quran is not the true religion of God.
One Muslim Scholar vs thousands of other Muslim scholars.
- Actually pro has not cited a single Muslim scholar that says there are no human copyist errors in the Quran so we can discard this claim. This far I have cited an Islamic scholar that states openly that this is the case.
- We can conclude the Quran has many Copyist errors like any other mass produced text would have, and pro has shown no counter evidence.
Quran Contradictions
- Pro does not cite a single source for anything he says in response to the Quran contradictions in respect to religious compulsion.
- Yes, he gave us some Quranic verses, but he does not show evidence for the holy war objection or the historicity of the conflict which he uses to supposedly refute my argument.
- Following this, we can simply discard everything he has said and conclude he has not refuted the contradiction I have presented.
- As for the others he "responded" to, again, I stated I would expand myself on such in the next round so he actually didn't have to address any of them, a mistake, but on his part. I will ignore those statements as pro also does not cite any sources for them.
- I simply extend my contradiction. As far as we know, everything he says is simply false if he does not provide evidence, especially seeing that he has the full burden of proof.
Quran Prophecies
- Pro is bringing up new points in the final round and votes would as a baseline, not hold me liable to address them, but I will do so anyway.
- While pro cites the verses of the prophecies he cites no evidence that their implications actually happened, he just assumes they did?
- Number three literally isn't even a prophecy, it's just a logical leap.
- Lastly, Christianity has had many fulfilled prophecies. This would not make Islam true as opposed to a religion like Christianity.
Conclusion
- Quran scholars admit that there are human copyist errors in the Quran. This by pro's own standard falsifies the Quran as the true word of God.
- The Quran is not perfectly preserved. Con has failed to refute my argument on this point and does not cite a single source. This, by pro's own standard, falsifies the Quran as the true word of God.
- The Quran has contradictions so it is not the word of God.
- In response to every other monotheistic religion pro's only argument is that they don't have as many followers, therefore they are false. This is the appeal to population fallacy.
- Any of these points alone show that pro has not met his burden of proof.
Sources
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
ISLAM is the TRUE RELIGION
PRO makes a massive claim about the nature of the universe without defining terms.
PRO asserts that some other philosophy (atheism) is flawed without connecting that assertion to thesis. Disproof of some philosophy doesn't prove another philosophy more true unless we establish that only one of the two must be true.
PRO argues without evidence that (1) the Quran is perfectly preserved, old, and popular but it does not follow that old and popular books are particularly true. The Iliad is very old and very popular but not necessarily true in every detail.
PRO then argues without evidence that Islam is the true religion because Islam is the only true religion.
CON correctly denies that PRO has met BoP.
CON wastes time engaging on the Atheism non-sequitur. This VOTER agrees that any philosophy can be dismissed as mere logic and intellect without getting any closer to any truth.
CON counters Quran preservation by lazily linking to two biased (Christian) sources
In R2 PRO spends much time on disproving Atheism and Christianity and devotes only 3 short sentences to his thesis- all of which just amount to PRO saying that Islam is true some more.
CON gains ground by restating thesis and parsing arguments. I appreciate CON's second syllogism
No A have B
some C has B
Therefore no C is A
CON does (minimally) establish the major premise in R3 but PRO argues CON's one example is out of context. I'm sure PRO is right but CON correctly notes that PRO also fails to give us context, quote more illuminative passages or better yet, give us some really objective textual scholarship proving that CON has the context wrong.
But none of that comes and we are left with PRO making many, many assertions without much evidence. This VOTER considers all of the atheism and Christianity stuff irrelevant to thesis. PRO promised to prove that Islam is the true religion but his entire argument fails because we must first presume the Quran is true but this voter, for one, has not read the Quran and without some kind of really compelling argument that some old book has all the answers, however perfectly preserved, this VOTER defaults to skepticism.
CON's syllogism demonstrates that CON understood PRO's burden better than PRO did and could have won this debate by a wide margin if CON had only (1) Given multiple reasons for doubting the Quran's perfect veracity, rather than just self-contradiction and a few scholarly (secular) examples of each. CON harms his argument by using obviously biased sources and honestly I didn't trust a Southern Baptist website to fairly analyze the Quran for me. These are obviously competing philosophies with all kinds of motivations to distort the others claims.
As it is, CON just gives us one short example and I have no reason to particularly believe or particularly doubt PRO's out-of-context complaint, so I can't really say CON outright won the one argument thread really relevant to thesis. CON was smart to start with BURDENs of PROOF and get PRO on record as seemingly not caring about his obligations to thesis. CON wins by laying out one valid argument and backing it with one proof that was not convincingly refuted.
Running out of time
yes please vote me
yes please vote me
Can I get a vote on this please? I have only one week
Yes it is a fun topic because it is really exciting to know more things about it. I will be interested to debate though, you can be pro and I will be con. make the debate and respond to this comment when you ready
Islam's a fun topic. I think I would like to have this debate with Pro, if he's interested.