Islam is the true religion
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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
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.
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.
- 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/
- 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.
- When Muslims claim that the Quran has been "perfectly preserved," it is simply factually untrue.
‘My father is greater than all.’ (John 10:29)
‘In that day, you shall ask me nothing. Whatsoever you ask of the Father in my name.’ (John 16:23)
- No overviews, going straight to rebuttal.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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:
- 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.
- Pro has not proven Islam is the true religion.
Pro has not refuted my argument that the Quran is not perfectly preserved
Both Christians have made compelling cases with respect to the Quran's alterations
- 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.
It is and it is not acceptable to cite a source of a different religion to attack suppositions of a religion.
- 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
That takes care of all the "bible contradictions" he mentioned.
The Quran has contradictions
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.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
There are many Monotheistic Religions
Instead, I showed two sources that document many alterations to the Quran
- 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.
- We have established that pro has contradicted himself in his laid-out criteria for the validity of sources.
Now pro brings up copyist errors, but those are not actual errors.
Even Quran scholars admit the Quran has copyist errors as well.
I guess that leaves me room to ignore all pro has said in response to this.
- The contradiction I choose to expand upon is this. The doctrine towards religious compulsion.
“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."
- 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.
- 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.
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.
- Remember, the contradiction from pro was in logical form (X and not X)
- 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.
- 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 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.
- 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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.