Instigator / Con
0
1515
rating
5
debates
50.0%
won
Topic

Islam vs Christianity

Status
Voting

Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

The voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
20,000
Contender / Pro
0
1537
rating
13
debates
50.0%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Round 1
Con
I thank my opponent for accepting my challenge.

Islam is currently the world’s second largest religion and it first appeared amid the backdrop of early 7th century Arabia. Whereas it was once thought in Western scholarship that the peninsula was isolated from the rest of the world, it was, in fact, reasonably integrated into the Mediterranean world and the culture thereof, as well as that of the Sassanian Empire.
The peninsula at this time was demographically divided between polytheists, Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, possibly Mandaeans, and allegedly a group of generic monotheists who worshiped the God of Abraham but were neither Jewish nor Christian.
The self-styled prophet Muhammad claimed to be passing on a direct, verbatim message from the one God, whom in Arabic is called Allah. It’s generally agreed that Allah is derived from the phrase al-Ilah (lit. “The God”), for which inscriptions have been found predating Muhammad, sometimes in reference to pagan deities. However, it is absolutely a myth that Allah was a pre-existing Arabian moon god. Muhammad argued that there’s a single God who none of the religious groups in Arabia at that time had a proper understanding of.
He took issue with Jews for rejecting Jesus, who he described as a prophet of Allah, and with Christians for trinitarian doctrine, with the Qur’an famously declaring that “He begets not (does not have a son), nor is he begotten (does not have a father/is not a son).”

Trinity vs Tawhid
Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth is God in human flesh, having come from Heaven in order to save humans from original sin.
Original sin is human nature which is inclined to sin, broadly defined as failing to conform to God’s will. Original sin causes one to perform acts which confer moral guilt, which a morally just God must respond to by judging the perpetrator, and it would cause one to perform more sinful acts in the future, perhaps eternally. Thus, a human who has and retains original sin can neither spend eternity in Heaven nor escape punishment in Hell.
Christians believe that Jesus, through means whose precise effect is still debated but generally labeled “atonement” and connected to his death by crucifixion, created a pathway for humans to be eternally saved. This meant, first, being absolved of the guilt incurred by sin and of the eternal consequences thereof; and, second, having one’s sinful nature replaced with a nature that will cause one to not disobey God. The former thing is called salvation while the latter thing is called sanctification.
Christians believe that salvation is the work of God the Son (whose human identity was Jesus), while sanctification is the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian who abides in God. Together with God the Father, these comprise the trinity, which is one God but in three persons. The doctrine that professes a trinity is called trinitarianism. The opposite of trinitarianism is called unitarianism.

Christianity has a long history of unitarian schismatics; in the 2nd or 3rd centuries AD there were the Ebionites, who considered Jesus only to be a prophet like others before him in the Old Testament. In modern times, the Unitarian Universalists and the Jehovah’s Witnesses have rejected the idea of “God in three persons”.
Historically, the trinity must’ve been a sometimes controversial idea; if you erected three humanoid statues of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, respectively, as though to worship them as three separate deities grouped together, then Christian clergy would deem you a heretic. On the other hand, if you denied the trinity, that would also get you labeled a heretic.
God is neither three separate persons nor one person. This could be a difficult idea to wrap one’s head around, especially for early or Medieval Christians who were mostly illiterate. Who had a correct understanding of the Trinity? It seemed as though only the clergy did. For everybody else, there was a serious barrier to understanding God. Hence, the issue was predictably a wedge for populist rhetoric at times.

In some cases, the problem was just the opposite: popular expression of the trinity wasn’t regulated enough and to disastrous effect. Surah 5:116 suggests that some of Muhammad’s contemporaries were literally worshipping Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a goddess. Perhaps to those who knew little about Christianity, the idea of “god in three persons” simply meant the worship of three gods, which didn’t do much to discourage them from worshiping more than three gods.
If Muhammad encountered people who worshipped God, God, God, al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat, all while calling themselves Christians, then it makes sense that he might’ve conflated the faith with a polytheistic heresy that led to further idolatry.

Regardless of whether Muhammad had sincere motives, or whether he used it as a wedge issue to gain populist appeal in his bid for power, either way his idea of the oneness of God (tawhid) was central to his religion.
Tawhid is the idea that there’s one God: indivisible and without any partners. The one unforgivable sin in Islam is shirk, which can mean either the association of created beings with God OR the ascribing to God of created attributes.

There’s just one problem with this: The Qur’an itself describes God as having anthropomorphic qualities. For example, a “right hand” with a grip (Surah 39:67), two hands, two eyes, a face, being seated on a throne, etc. These verses are a matter of controversy to this day, with about 10-15% of the global Muslim population belonging to the literalist Salafi school which believes that God must literally have these attributes since it’s written in the Qur’an.
The Qur’an was allegedly written as a message from God to restore monotheism and put an end to the unforgivable sin of shirk. However, the book includes plentiful language that encourages thinking of God as having created attributes. Even if not an express contradiction by the author (and the argument could be made that shirk theology was only formulated by later Islamic intellectuals), it’s certainly self-undermining in content, which throws its validity into question.

Origin of Bible vs. Origin of Qur’an
Christianity’s central text is the Bible; or that is, the 39 canonical books of the Old Testament and the 27 canonical books of the New Testament. Granted, some denominations claim apocryphal books as part of the Old Testament canon, but I digress.
Christians believe that the Bible is “divinely inspired”. That is, we do not assume that God literally inscribed the books on ink and paper. Instead, its content was largely made by humans who were, in some capacity, guided by the hand of providence.
Similarly, Christians disagree on whether the Bible is inerrant (that is, everything in it is literally true and without error) or whether, being filtered through the prism of imperfect humans who lived in ignorant times, it is simply good enough for the purposes of God’s plan of salvation and for theological/moral instruction.

Muslims, in contrast, accept that the Qur’an is the verbatim, unfiltered, and unaltered word of God. Any imperfections in the content of the Qur’an would mean that God himself erred and is imperfect. And as Muslims believe that the final version of the Qur’an was compiled by the Caliph Uthman with concurrence from the Sahaba just 18 years after Muhammad’s death, and as this is the version in common use today, there is virtually no room to argue for scribal error where blemishes do occur.
Orthodox Muslim doctrine takes this a step further: that the Qur’an is uncreated, existing coeternally with God. As there’s a broad consensus in the Muslim world that the Mu’tazila were heretics in all of their doctrines which diverged from the mainstream, this is pretty much indisputable from a Muslim perspective.

Now, I could try to find scientifically or historically inaccurate passages in the Qur’an. Critical resources exist online which are dedicated to pointing and calling these passage out.
But instead, I’m going to do something a bit different. I’m going to discuss the doctrine of the Qur’an’s uncreatedness, which is universally accepted as a matter of Islamic orthodoxy.

The Quran is a collection of 114 chapters (Surahs) written in Classical Arabic. Much of it is Muhammad/Allah responding to conditions of the time: rebuking unbelievers, admonishing or instructing believers, etc.
Muslims believe that all things were created by God. If something is not created by God, it either is an external object equal to God (shirk) or it is an inherent attribute of God.
The Qur’an, on its face, cannot be an inherent attribute of God. That’s because, while the ability to communicate or speak may be such an inherent attribute, the specific content of that speech, especially if resulting from a specific interaction with creation, cannot be.
In Eastern Orthodox Christianity, this is called the essence-energies distinction. There is God in Himself and there are the effects of God acting or of God being. An effect cannot be an inherent attribute, though an effect can manifest as the consequence of an attribute. The Qur’an, being compiled as the result of actions directed toward creation, can only be an effect of God acting/being. It cannot be God in Himself.
Recall that the second definition of shirk is “the ascribing to God of created attributes.” As the specific content of the Qur’an is self-evidently created as opposed to inherent, calling it an attribute runs afoul of shirk. Mainstream Islamic doctrine, therefore, is logically self-refuting.

Divine Law
Christians understand most Old Testament laws either as having been superseded by the coming of the New Covenant or as never having applied to non-Jews. In Peter’s vision of the basket, Peter (a Jew) was told by God to eat foods that were prescribed as unclean per Jewish law. Other New Testament passages describe the falling away of “the law”, usually understood to mean the Old Testament law revealed to Moses. 
Consequently, most Christians abide only by the moral law, which is known by a combination of revelation and reason. This is distinct from legal rulings by experts (fatwa/ijtihad) or by schools (madhhab) of religious jurisprudence (fiqh) in three ways: 
First, that the moral law is something discerned by all individuals, not just experts, using their consciences, reading of Scripture, and personal judgment. Unlike moral relativism, there is an objectively right answer and there are moral consequences for deciding wrong. The point, however, is that humans exercise discretion and free choice in this matter.
Second, that the moral law encompasses too broad a range of infinitely diverse topics and contingencies to be decided by either ijtihad or strict adherence to precedent (taqlid). Thus, it’s impossible to be codified in the same way as Sharia, which answers a shorter range of questions involving a narrower range of issues.
Third, that one can arrive at moral law independently of scripture so long as it does not contradict scripture. For example, the New Testament doesn’t strictly prescribe monogamy and it only has a few verses hinting at abolition of slavery as an ideal. Likewise, nothing like heroin or cocaine existed at the time. And yet, people can know by reason that slavery is wrong, monogamy is usually better than polygamy, and recreational drug use ought to be avoided. Thus, Christians are not barred from making moral judgments pertaining to matters that were never discussed in the Bible.

Muslims too believe in a moral law generally speaking. However, first precedence goes to Sharia. Sharia is the body of religious rules deriving from expert interpretation of the Sunnah, usually defined as the Quran, credible Hadith collections (e.g. Sahih al-Bukhari & Sahih Muslim), and the credible Sira (historical accounts of Muhammad’s life).
Sharia prescribes some rules which are largely unrelated to morality. For example:

“The Prophet (SAW) said, ‘Healing is in three things: A gulp of honey, cupping, and branding by fire (cauterization). But I forbid my followers to use branding with fire.”

and:

“A man asked, ‘O Allah’s Apostle, what kind of clothes should a Muhrim (religious pilgrim) wear?” The Prophet said, ‘A Muhrim should not wear a shirt, trousers, a hooded cloak, or Khuffs (socks made from thick fabric or leather) unless he cannot get sandals, in which case he should cut the part (of the Khuff) that covers the ankles.”

While it’s possible that such prescriptions might’ve held moral significance for the original 7th century audience for whom they were written, today that context is lost, leaving behind only rules for the sake of rules. 
Muslims do not suppose that Sharia only applied to Muhammad’s contemporaries but rather to all humans for all time. Not an article of Sharia can change based on shifting societal attitudes or needs. Hence, an inner city New Yorker in 2022 who wanted to practice Islam would be expected to invoke bismillah and slaughter a farm animal during Eid al-Adha.
Worse still, consider this:

“The Prophet (SAW) said, ‘Three persons will get their reward twice. (One is) a person who has a slave girl and he educates her properly and teaches her good manners properly (without violence) and then manumits and marries her. Such a person will get a double reward.”

And:

“The Prophet (SAW) sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (share of war booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, ‘Don’t you see this (Ali)?’ When we reached the Prophet (SAW), I mentioned that to him. He said, ‘O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumus.”

From the first verse, we get a common theme from Islam: It’s a good deed to buy and free a slave. However, this is framed as going above and beyond what’s mandated, as slavery is institutionally sanctioned. That same master could just as well not free his slave and he would not face Allah’s wrath for so refusing.
From the second, we see Muhammad himself defend Ali having sex with a slave girl recently taken as a spoil from war.

In other words, whereas Christians follow a New Testament that was largely neutral on the topic of slavery, while allowing for Christians to arrive at the conclusion on their own that slavery should be abolished, Islam makes slavery a part of the perpetual legal framework of the Ummah governed by Sharia. When 19th century abolitionists first arrived in the Middle East, ulemas and muftis at the time took the position that slavery could not be abolished if Allah had sanctioned it. Ultimately, the Islamic world only did so under pressure from the West.

But if slavery seems more like a “permitted” rather than “required” institution, then let’s take the death penalty for apostasy:

“No doubt I heard Allah’s apostle saying, ‘During the last days there will appear some foolish young people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Judgment.’”

And:
 
“The Prophet then sent Mu’adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu’adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu’adh asked, ‘Who is this (man)?’ Abu Muisa said, ‘He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.’ And Abu Muisa requested Mu’adh to sit down but Mu’adh said, ‘I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases)’ and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Muisa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed.”

My point here is that, while Muslims believe in a moral law just as Christians do, they’re required to give first priority to Sharia Law even where its implementation is comparably less moral, or perhaps dramatically so.

And, sure: before Christianity, God prescribed a law to the Jews that was contextually sensitive and did not amount to the final moral law for all of mankind for the rest of history.
We can assume that the Jewish law was the most pragmatic legal code for its time, and for the sake of argument we can assume the same about Sharia in early 7th century Arabia. The difference, however, is that the New Testament and its New Covenant eventually caused the Mosaic Law to give way to the final moral law. Sharia not only saw the divine law regress but, by way of declaring Muhammad to be the final messenger of God, it did not allow for even the possibility of future revelations correcting Sharia’s limitations and parochial scope. Thus, unlike the law that Christians follow, Sharia is not suitable for mankind across all ages.

Conclusion
This is a debate between Christianity and Islam. Since the two are the most popular competing claims about a God who both Christians and Muslims agree exists, and since Muslims agree that Jesus was sent by God in some capacity, I'm assuming that rebutting Islam would simultaneously advance Christianity. But if I haven't sufficiently done that, then I hope to make better use of the next 2 rounds.

In any case, I await my opponent's response.

Pro
I too thank my opponent for challenging me. 

Islam is currently the world’s second largest religion and it first appeared amid the backdrop of early 7th century Arabia
The self-styled prophet Muhammad claimed to be passing on a direct, verbatim message from the one God, whom in Arabic is called Allah. 
Now this is very interesting. Muslims believe that every Prophet was a Muslim too. The reason being is if we look at the definition of Muslim, it means 'To submit your will to the creator'. Worshipping the 1 creator if you like. This is the reason why we know that Jesus, Abraham, Moses etc were all Muslim as they gave a message to the people to follow the one God, who has created the universe and everything in it. So the misconception that Islam started with the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) is kind of inaccurate. Lets take Jesus for example. God gave him the Injil. When he shared that book to the people of that time, he was already a Muslim. He may be referred to a Christian or a Jew however he followed the Islamic teachings of worshipping one God etc and this it what made him a Muslim. 

Original sin is human nature which is inclined to sin
The original sin is an interesting one. It is believed every human is born with it and some Christians baptize to get rid of it. However if Jesus died for original sin, then why are babies born with it? And if Jesus died for everyone's sins, then why am I a sinner? Many Christians say 'Jesus loves you', does Jesus love me if I am not a Christian? I do not think so, according to Christianity, so Jesus does not love me then. It is a unfathomable chain of questions which I get different answers from different Christians. Why are babies born with sin if they have done nothing wrong? Why has God made it that you have to rid of this sin to enter heaven? 

and it would cause one to perform more sinful acts in the future
I don't get this bit. Original sin causes me to perform more sinful acts in the future? If you get rid of it, does that mean Christians cannot sin? Original sin cannot dictate if I am going to do right or wrong, because I can get rid of it and still sin. The point I am trying to make is I do believe that human nature causes one to sin. It is free will, not original sin. 

Trinity

Then we move on to the trinity, the most confusing part of Christianity. Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit, All 100% God, Jesus was 100% human. It is a contradiction in itself. If Jesus was God, he would have been omnipotent, omniscient and independent. However he could not answer this own prayer, as he was God, he did not know the hour nor the person who touched him and he was dependant on food and sleep to survive. None of these are God like qualities. You may say he is all powerful, he can do anything. He can do things which make him weaker? This is an oxymoron. If God restricts and confines himself into a space on earth which is the creation, by being dependant on the Father, this would reduce his omnipotence and make him weaker than the father. However he is God, so cannot be weaker than the father. A contradiction to say the least. There are theories like the eed, h20, body parts etc, I have heard it all. It just does not make any sense.  Plus even Christians cannot agree on this fundamental belief, so how are you expecting the rest of us to? There is nothing like the confusion of the trinity in Islam. By this I mean, it is a fundamental belief. There is no fundamental belief in Islam that is as confusing as the trinity. My salvation relies on me believing that Jesus is God, according to Christians, so why is the trinity not explicitly explained in the Bible? Why does Jesus say nothing about him being God, surely if he was God, people would have worshipped him? Can God have a God? No, but God worshipped God in the garden of gethsemane.  He prayed with his head on the ground and prostrated, much like what Muslims do now. 

Surah 5:116
Lets delve into this. I do not know where Con has got this from. He talks about the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) worshipping Mary, the mother of Jesus. When this is simply not true, it is a lie. Let me copy this verse. 

And [beware the Day] when Allāh will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allāh?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.- 5:116

Clearly this verse is talking about those who worship Jesus and his mother. God will say to Jesus, did you tell these people to worship you? And Jesus will say no. The the Christians will be like, we worshipped you and Jesus will say get out of my sight, I never told you to do so. This will happen in the hereafter. This is not talking about the Prophet nor his companions nor his followers nor the Muslims. Only those who worship Jesus, and these are obviously not Muslims. 

Surah 39:67
Lets delve into this verse now. This is a clear misconception from Con. Allah does have hands and eyes as he is described, but not like the human versions. 'There is nothing like unto him' (42:11). We do not know what these look like, but certainly nothing that we can imagine. So no, the Quran is not committing Shirk, it is saying Allah has these attributes that we do not know of, for of course he is the most powerful, the all knowing and the all seeing. 

Origin of Bible vs. Origin of Qur’an
This section talks about the origins of both books. 

Now think about this for a moment. If the holy book, that you devout your lives to, that you follow and that you think it is the truth, has errors, contradictions etc in it, then why do you follow it? A holy book, cannot have any errors nor contradictions in at all. If it does then it is not the word of God. Simple as. Why would you follow a book that is not the word of God? The earliest manuscript of the new testament is in the 4th century and in Greek. Not only did Jesus speak Aramaic, but where was the Bible for 300 years before? Plus, we do not even know the authors of the four gospels. Who is Mark, who is Matthew, who is Luke and who is John? And who are the authors of these 4 gospels? If I do not know the authors of the book, then why should I follow it? I will give some numerical contradictions from the Bible after I talk about the Quran. 

Lets talk about the Quran. It has been unchanged, no contradictions and no errors. 1400 years ago, miracles have come true, prophecies have come true, there is no book like it. I now know that Con will try to find an article from David Wood or Luke Wayne telling me why the Quran has been changed. I am prepared for this as I can refute it. Con will also try to bring me some 'contradictions' from the Quran, however these will not be contradictions, as I will explain them and refute them. I am looking forward to this. 

IF CON CAN BRING ME 1 CONTRADICTION FROM THE QURAN AND I CANNOT ANSWER IT, I WIL LEAVE ISLAM
This is a challenge. 

Numerical Contradictions of the Bible

All quotes will be from the KJV as this is the most read one I assume. 

This is the site for all references 

 2 Samuel 24:9- Then Joab gave the sum of the number of the people to the king. And there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.
1 Chronicles 21:5- Then Joab gave the sum of the number of the people to David. All Israel had one million one hundred thousand men who drew the sword, and Judah had four hundred and seventy thousand men who drew the sword.

2 Samuel 10:18- Then the Syrians fled before Israel; and David killed seven hundred charioteers and forty thousand horsemen of the Syrians, and struck Shobach the commander of their army, who died there.
1 Chronicles 19:18- Then the Syrians fled before Israel; and David killed seven thousand charioteers and forty thousand foot soldiers of the Syrians, and killed Shophach the commander of the army.

1 Kings 4:26- Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen whom he stationed in the chariot cities and with the king at Jerusalem.

These are copyist errors. If the Bible is the word of God, it cannot have errors in it, full stop. Does not matter if they are copyist or not, they are errors. And these errors are contradictions. There are plenty of contradictions in the Bible however I will leave these for round 2. 

Much of it is Muhammad/Allah responding to conditions of the time: rebuking unbelievers, admonishing or instructing believers, etc. 
The Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) never wrote the Quran at all. It is the word of God. It was only revealed to the Prophet and there were eye witnesses for this. 

Examples include: 

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3634
Sunan an-Nasa'i 2668
Sahih Muslim 1180 e
Sahih Muslim 2794 a

These are only some. 

The Qur’an, on its face, cannot be an inherent attribute of God.
The Quran is the word of God. God's speech is an attribute of God. Therefore the Quran is uncreated. Very simple. This dismisses Cons arguments of shirk. 

While it’s possible that such prescriptions might’ve held moral significance for the original 7th century audience for whom they were written, today that context is lost, leaving behind only rules for the sake of rules. 
I do not think so. This is a clever twisting by Con, however I am not falling for it. There are many things which are still relevant today. Murder, need to have witnesses and a trial and if you are found guilty, its lights out for you. Is this not relevant? There is context behind this. To save society from that criminal, to not endanger more lives of a community from a killer. 

Hence, an inner city New Yorker in 2022 who wanted to practice Islam would be expected to invoke bismillah and slaughter a farm animal during Eid al-Adha.
And what is this relevance? Islam permits people to eat meat, yes. We need to cut the animal by its jugular vein (to cause as less pain as possible to the animal) and we need to kill it quickly for the same reason. We also need to keep the animal away from the rest so it doesn't invoke fear from the other animals. This is humane. Saying Bismillah means nothing other than 'In the name of Allah'. That is all it means. Terrible red herring. 

From the first verse, we get a common theme from Islam: It’s a good deed to buy and free a slave
Now this is a huge, huge misconception. It is a clear and obvious error from Con here and as a result has spread a lie about Islam. The only legitimate way to own a slave is through prisoners of war. The holy war criteria states that a war cannot happen until the enemy attacks first, self defence. Innocent lives must not be killed, women and children must not be killed, the environment cannot be harmed and a religious leader needs to be in charge of the army. Now, a free person cannot be captured in normal life and then turned into a slave and then freed. This is totally wrong. Obviously slaves are prohibited, and in case of war, you need to treat them as a normal human being, not belittling them etc. Plus if the war captured slave becomes Muslim, you free him. Before Islam, slaves were a acquired for many reasons such as debt. There were 2 conditions. The person had to be killed or enslaved. Now Islam gives 2 more options, unconditional release or ransom. So either from a persons generosity they can be released or for a ransom. Loads of options there. Plus you have to remember, its a war. So the slave would have fought for the opposing side. It is just and fair. 

Ultimately, the Islamic world only did so under pressure from the West.
Not at all. Explained in previous paragraph. 

Sahih al-Bukhari 6930
This is the Hadith he was referring to with the apostacy bit. Very easy to answer. It is talking about those who go to extremes in religion, those who think that Muslims are the disbelievers, so ultimately, it is self defence. Very easy, misconception here from Con. 

 Sahih al-Bukhari 6923
The second apostacy verse is this. 1400 years ago, Muslims were converted by the pagans and were learning to wage war on Islam. Now apostacy is treason in context. For example, if you are a Jew, then to convert to a Muslim that is good. However if you convert back to a Jew, why did you convert in the first place? Back in the times, this would be known as a spy technique, to see what the Muslims are doing, then wage war on them and return as a Jew. It is clearly treason, something that is punishable by death, not only is Sharia countries, but also in the US. 

My point here is that, while Muslims believe in a moral law just as Christians do, they’re required to give first priority to Sharia Law even where its implementation is comparably less moral, or perhaps dramatically so.
Moral law is not separate to Sharia Law. You think killing a murderer or rapist is not moral? They have taken someone's life, they are the oppressors. This is just to the benefit on society. It is morally right to not drink alcohol as alcohol makes you more violent and a danger to society. Same with drugs, prohibited. There are 5 poisons of society. Drugs, alcohol, sexual immorality, interest dealings and gambling. Islam eradicates all of them. Is this not morally right?

That is all for Con's points. 

Now I am just going to give some of my own. 

First thing is first, we need to look at the books. The books of each religion is an important indicator whether or not it is from God. Now I have given numerical contradictions already, and it is up to Con to reply to them. If Con says that those numerical errors are copyist  errors, then the Bible is not the word of God. Now Con also said that the Bible is the inspired word of God. However this is a problem. How do you know if the Bible is the inspired word of God, if you do not even know who wrote the books? This is a conundrum. Matthew never wrote the gospel of Matthew. It was according to Matthew, so an anonymous author has written it. Same for the latter. Now if you do not even know the authors of the Gospels, why should I believe it? I should question, where did the Bible come from. As Con has admitted not God, it came from humans. Humans are known to make errors, which is why there are so much. However, the Quran has no errors. I am counting on Con to give me some supposed ones but I will debunk all of these quickly. 

The second point I would like to make is the trinity. I will give a series of quotes suggesting why Jesus is not God. 

Biblehub.com again is the reference. 

Again KJV

God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man- Numbers 23:19
Clearly this verse just rules out Jesus being God. And when Jesus was on earth, he was a man. He is also known as the son of man in the Bible as well. 
for I am God, and not man- Hosea 11:9
Same thing

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.- Luke 18:19
Jesus questions why he is called good, if Jesus was God then he would have said yes I am good. 

for my Father is greater than I.- John 14:28
How could God be lesser than God? God is supposed to be omnipotent, and Jesus saying someone is more powerful than the most powerful is a contradiction. 

There are many quotes I could delve into. However Con may accuse me of plagiarism as another debater did, even when quoting from the Bible. I may add more quotes in round 2.  


As I have already stated, the main difference between Islam and Christianity is Tawhid vs Trinity. Shirk is associating partners with God, like Jesus. This is the most severe sin a man can do, and as a result will have the most severe punishment. 

My question is simple. Why is the trinity so confusing, why is there Christians of the same sect giving different answers to the trinity and most importantly, why is it such a opinionated topic when my salvation is literally on the line. 

Plus, remember the challenge about the Quranic contradictions and please remember to answer the numerical contradictions. 

Thanks and look forward to hearing the response


Round 2
Con
Now this is very interesting. Muslims believe that every Prophet was a Muslim too. The reason being is if we look at the definition of Muslim, it means 'To submit your will to the creator'. Worshipping the 1 creator if you like. 
If “Muslim” can be defined so broadly, then why was Abu Muisa commanded to kill the man who reverted back to Judaism from Islam?
If, as we both know is true, there is in fact a distinction between Jews and Muslims, then it stands to reason that Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc. were not Muslims by mere virtue of being monotheistic. You are free to believe that these historical figures held beliefs congruent to Islam and without contradiction thereagainst, but that’s simply your belief. It is not, as you seem to be claiming, true by definition.

So the misconception that Islam started with the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) is kind of inaccurate. 
It is not a misconception. We have zero evidence of an “Injil” that differed from the four gospels we have today. We have zero evidence of a Tawrat or Zabur. There’s no reason to think that these are anything more than fictions invented by Muhammad.

We do, however, have Pliny the Younger’s letter to Emperor Trajan, written approximately 20 years after the Book of Revelation (the last book of the New Testament). Though Pliny admitted that he knew very little about Christians and their beliefs, he recounted that they “were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as a god”.
In other words, the earliest written account we have of Christians portrays them not as the followers of a prophet but the worshipers of a god named Jesus Christ.

 It is believed every human is born with it and some Christians baptize to get rid of it. 
You misunderstand. One cannot be completely rid of their sinful nature in life, as the living still reside in a world that’s inherently sinful, and in bodies that are inherently prone to sin. To quote Jesus, “the spirit is willing enough but the body is weak.” While you’d have to ask a trained theologian (I am not one) to be sure, this could possibly mean that the human soul is made perfect even in life but must still contend with the influences of a sinful body. The body is shed upon death, for it is not the body but the person within the body that’s saved.
In life, because of the limitations of one’s body, one can only become less sinful, which is the tangible fruit of the Holy Spirit in tandem with one’s personal efforts (some would dispute this latter part) as the Christian continually “abides in Christ” over the course of his life.
Granted, being less sinful will not save anyone, but that’s not the point. No amount of personal effort will be enough to earn salvation. You’re not doing this in order to be saved but because, anticipating reunion with the God who has already saved you, you want to live in a way that’s pleasing to him and in accordance with the new nature afforded to your eternal soul.

Many Christians say 'Jesus loves you', does Jesus love me if I am not a Christian? I do not think so, according to Christianity, so Jesus does not love me then. 
God loves all people. I assume that, as a Muslim, you also believe this to be true. And yet, you (or the average orthodox Muslim, at least) assume just as I do that God will ultimately reject those who reject the religion that he prescribed. I fail to see what argument you think applies to Christianity that wouldn’t apply to Islam.

Why are babies born with sin if they have done nothing wrong? 
Babies are born selfish buggers just like everyone else. Maybe their brains are too simplistic to formulate something like murder, but they are selfish nonetheless. If they haven’t sinned in the first 3 seconds of life, then they will sin down the road assuming that their existences aren’t cut short. That’s what having a sin nature means.
And that’s why the Islamic doctrine of fitra (“babies are like angels”, in a nutshell) is absurd: not only do infants behave in identifiably sinful ways but despite moral perfection allegedly being a choice offered to them at birth, there are no living humans known to have chosen that. What nobody out of tens of billions of people choose cannot really be a choice. In truth, they can’t choose to never sin, because they have sinful natures.

And yes, the idea that a baby’s default state is Islamic-style monotheism (their worldview is fantastical, nonsensical, and largely pantheistic) if not for society molding them in the shape of other faiths is so patently hilarious that I won’t deign to touch on it at length. Let this paragraph suffice.

Why has God made it that you have to rid of this sin to enter heaven? 
Why do you ritually purify your body before performing prayers? Why can’t you touch your genitals in a mosque?

It is free will, not original sin. 
Again, if it’s a binary choice between “sin or don’t sin” but nobody has ever chosen to never sin, then the choice is largely an illusion.

It is a contradiction in itself.
You’re describing the omnipotence paradox, which is an argument against the existence of an omnipotent God. If you assume that Jesus could not be God because the paradox is true as opposed to a false dilemma, then you must also assume that Allah cannot be omnipotent. If you were an atheist debating Christianity then fine, but you are not an atheist.

Also, you don’t suppose it’s possible that God the Son simultaneously existed in Heaven as God and on earth in a limited human body, and that only the human body was limited?

There is nothing like the confusion of the trinity in Islam.
Of course not. Allah simply lacks created attributes while also having humanoid attributes (tajsim) that cannot be denied lest you commit ta’til. No confusion there.
Besides, why must a doctrine be false simply because it’s hard to understand and debated in terms of its precise implications? Does Islam’s many schools of jurisprudence refute its own validity?

He talks about the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) worshipping Mary, the mother of Jesus. 
I did not accuse Muhammad of worshiping Mary. What I did say is that Muhammad likely encountered or heard about people who did, contributing to his misunderstanding of Christianity as a polytheistic framework.

Allah does have hands and eyes as he is described, but not like the human versions. 
If the passages are not allegorical, then they mean God has divisible parts. I trust that I needn’t have to explain why this is a problem?

Now think about this for a moment. If the holy book, that you devout your lives to, that you follow and that you think it is the truth, has errors, contradictions etc in it, then why do you follow it? 
Because you place your trust in the providence of God, not the humans through which the message was filtered? Because some minor discrepancies could’ve been due to later scribal error as opposed to discrepancies found in the original text?

Also, perhaps you haven’t realized it but this is a problem for Muslims too. Allah could not, or did not, protect his previous messages from corruption, and yet the Qur’an is magically infallible? How can you take Allah’s word on this if his message was corrupted and irrecoverably lost before?
Muhammad himself allegedly (per early Muslim sources) received a heretical message from Satan who was trying to pass it off as a legitimate ayah. If Muhammad was fooled (albeit temporarily), then who’s to say that he wasn’t successfully and permanently fooled at some point? What percentage of the Qur’an’s content is deception? Why should we trust a book that, by the tacit admission of credible Hadith literature, *could* include deceptions in any quantity?

It was only revealed to the Prophet and there were eye witnesses for this
What the eyewitnesses saw was a man verbally reciting a message that he claimed was from God. They couldn’t tell what he was thinking or really experiencing. 
Joseph Smith, a false prophet who lived in America 200 years ago, claimed to see a divine message inside of a hat: in truth, he saw nothing but repeated words that he’d fabricated from his vivid imagination and then carefully memorized.

Not only did Jesus speak Aramaic, but where was the Bible for 300 years before? 
The New Testament was in use during this time. By a tiny religious minority that transcribed a relatively small number of manuscripts which have since decomposed or were deliberately destroyed at times by hostile Roman authorities.
In other words, what you’re describing is a gap in the archaeological record, not a gap in history. And the archaeological gap is one that we’d expect to see given the circumstances under which early Christianity arose.

miracles have come true, prophecies have come true, there is no book like it. 
Can Pro give me a single corroborated miracle or prophecy of a miraculous nature (as opposed to, say, making a wager on something with a 50/50 chance of coming true) confirmed to have been composed before the event in question?
Because if Pro can’t, or if he can only give me an ambiguously worded passage that *could* be interpreted a certain way in retrospect, then this is nothing more than idle talk.

IF CON CAN BRING ME 1 CONTRADICTION FROM THE QURAN AND I CANNOT ANSWER IT, I WIL LEAVE ISLAM
This is a challenge. 
There’s no point. If I find something, then he’ll just find a way to interpret it as not being a contradiction. I certainly don’t want to comb through 114 chapters for what’s certain to be zero payoff.

But okay. Fine.
I’ll define “contradiction” in two ways: First, internal contradiction. The book had a single author who should’ve reasonably been able to avoid contradicting his own speech, but as the saying goes, to err is human. Second, I’ll consider things that contradict known reality to qualify.

The Qur’an contradicts itself, firstly, in that it has what Islamic jurisprudence nowadays calls “abrogated” passages.

The Qur’an states, quite conveniently might I add: 

“We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that we bring forth (one) better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?”
And yet, ironically: 

“Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an? If it had been from (any) other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.”
This itself is seemingly a contradiction, as though its author was saying, in one breath “Don’t mind contradictions; revelations get abrogated because they’re replaced with better revelations” and in the other breath, “This message is true and the proof is that you’ll find it lacks internal contradictions.”

Ironically, then, the Qur’an contradicts itself on the very subject of contradictions. A complete matchup of verses thought by Muslim scholars to abrogate each other can be found here:


Some more contradictions pointed out by non-Muslims (for example, Pharaoh being killed in a flood vs. Pharaoh repenting at the last minute and being spared) can be found here:


Scientific contradictions include, but are not limited to, the sun having an orbit (Surah 21:33, 36:40, 55:5). A comprehensive list of scientific contradictions can be found here:



Alright, so, moving on…

The Quran is the word of God. God's speech is an attribute of God. Therefore the Quran is uncreated. 
As I stated in Round 1, there’s a distinction between the ability to speak and the content of speech. One is an attribute and the other is describing an action.

Much of the Qur’an is context-specific. It responds to the actions of human beings, and especially human beings who lived in 7th century Arabia. Since these humans exercised free will (as Pro conceded earlier), their choices shaped the content of the Qur’an.
Therefore, if the Qur’an is an eternal attribute of God, then humans defined the shape of an eternal attribute of God. Those humans defined what God is inherently like, making those humans equal to God in principle, as they were able to affect God to the same extent that God could affect them. 

This is shirk. Quranic createdness is shirk. But if it’s an orthodox Islamic doctrine that can’t be dispensed with, then Islam refutes itself by committing its own unforgivable sin by the very fact of expressing its key doctrines.

There are many things which are still relevant today. Murder, need to have witnesses and a trial and if you are found guilty, its lights out for you. Is this not relevant? There is context behind this.
I do not dispute that the Qur’an holds to certain virtues in common with humanity. And I do not profess that the Qur’an must be wrong where it repeats ideas that everyone already agrees on.
What I’m disputing is the content of the Qur’an that differs from common virtue and common sense.
Some rules are not immoral but they just make no sense today. For example, using the now-primitive law codes of Sharia to govern 21st century society in lieu of modern regulations, legal norms, etc. Slaughtering an animal for Eid al-Adha and sharing the meat with your neighbors if you live in a modern urban society.
Other rules…are extremely immoral in this time and age. Pro himself wrote:

The only legitimate way to own a slave is through prisoners of war. 
I’m sure that was fine and dandy in 7th century Arabia. I won’t discount that Muhammad’s regulations might’ve improved the lot of slaves in that time. 
But today, owning a slave FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER is considered evil by all people in all non-Muslim societies. Is God’s final revelation for mankind morally inferior to what even atheists believe?

Now apostacy is treason in context. For example, if you are a Jew, then to convert to a Muslim that is good. However if you convert back to a Jew, why did you convert in the first place? Back in the times, this would be known as a spy technique, to see what the Muslims are doing, then wage war on them and return as a Jew.
I’ve heard this explanation before, but it just doesn’t follow.
Muhammad wrote the Constitution of Medina, which afforded reasonable protections to the Jews. They were citizens of his caliphate while still Jews. They fought in Muhammad’s wars as part of his army, and in the armies of the Rashidun Caliphate after Muhammad’s death. 
So then, what “treason” did these apostates commit? None. The Jew in this story, so far as we know, did at one point in his life desire to be a Muslim and then he changed his mind at a later point in his life. His reasons were his own and the consequences, so far as we know, only affected him. 
And yet he was killed. Because Sharia forbids having a change of conscience under penalty of death. Is this God’s final revelation?

I look forward to my opponent's response and to the final round.

Pro
If “Muslim” can be defined so broadly, then why was Abu Muisa commanded to kill the man who reverted back to Judaism from Islam?
The problem is when he reverted back to Judaism. This is a sign of a spy, more likely, treason. As we know, treason is a grievous sin, not only in the Islamic world, but is many places too such as the US where you would get the death penalty. 

but that’s simply your belief. It is not, as you seem to be claiming, true by definition.
The definition of a Muslim is to submit. Now all of the Prophets I named, submitted. Jesus worshipped the 1 God and so did Abraham and Moses. So by definition, they were all Muslim. 

It is not a misconception. We have zero evidence of an “Injil” that differed from the four gospels we have today. We have zero evidence of a Tawrat or Zabur. There’s no reason to think that these are anything more than fictions invented by Muhammad.
The Injil does not even exist anymore. Same with the Tawrat and Zabur. Humans have changed, humans have made mistakes, humans have corrupted these once perfect scriptures. The Bible is now corrupted. There are copyist errors and contradictions. The belief in the trinity is distorted, it used to be a belief in 1 God, however the new age Christians have manipulated the texts to put in favour this idea of a trinity.

We do, however, have Pliny the Younger’s letter to Emperor Trajan.
Pliny did not know the Christians. He wrote this letter because of what he heard from Christians of the 2nd century. This is really irrelevant because how do you know if Pliny is reliable? Same with Luke, Matthew, Mark and John. How do you know they are reliable? There are different accounts on the same thing with different things mentioned. The rolling of the stone story for example.

. One cannot be completely rid of their sinful nature in life, as the living still reside in a world that’s inherently sinful.  
So in other words, I still can sin because society is sinning? How about if I do not sin and society is sinning?

God loves all people. I assume that, as a Muslim, you also believe this to be true
Does Jesus love me if I am not Christian? 

Babies are born selfish buggers just like everyone else. Maybe their brains are too simplistic to formulate something like murder, but they are selfish nonetheless. If they haven’t sinned in the first 3 seconds of life, then they will sin down the road assuming that their existences aren’t cut short. That’s what having a sin nature means.
Are they? Do they even have the ability to sin in the first minute of their life? They do not even know what is going on, let alone sinning. Are they lying in the first 60 seconds? This is absurd if you think babies are sinful. On what basis? What sins do they do?  How do babies in the first 60 seconds of their life commit an immoral act that is against the religious law? They don't even have the ability to know between right or wrong. So how are they committing an immoral act?

, then they will sin down the road
I don't see what this has got to do with the point? If babies are born with sin, they need to have done something wrong. You cannot take an innocent baby which has freshly been born and say, that baby is a sinner. This is a belief, the baby has not done an immoral act that goes against divine law so they are not sinning. It is just a belief that original sin is born with everyone. On what basis? That the Bible tells you, that's why its true? Is the Bible reliable? Who wrote the Bible. Humans or God? I rest my case. 

And that’s why the Islamic doctrine of fitra (“babies are like angels”, in a nutshell) is absurd: not only do infants behave in identifiably sinful ways but despite moral perfection allegedly being a choice offered to them at birth, there are no living humans known to have chosen that. What nobody out of tens of billions of people choose cannot really be a choice. In truth, they can’t choose to never sin, because they have sinful natures.
Please tell me what sins babies commit when they are born? Sinful nature is not in the equation, as we believe every human has a sinful nature too. We do not believe that humans are born with sin. They can apply their free will, when they know the difference between right and wrong and then choose wrong. If I am holding a baby, and that baby hits me, am I supposed to retaliate? As obviously babies can sin according to you, so why can't I apply 'eye for an eye' to this then?

Why do you ritually purify your body before performing prayers? Why can’t you touch your genitals in a mosque?
Because we need to purify ourselves as we are dirty. We have physically become dirty, not spiritually. If babies have not sinned, then they are not physically dirty. However Christians consider them to be spiritually dirty for the sin that Adam and Eve (most specifically Eve in the perspective of Christianity) committed. This makes no sense, as God never wrote this as a rule.  

Again, if it’s a binary choice between “sin or don’t sin” but nobody has ever chosen to never sin, then the choice is largely an illusion.
 I agree with Con that humans have a sinful nature, but it is a choice. We need to commit as less sins as we can, and more good deeds as we can. If humans have a sinful nature, of course, humans are going to sin. What have babies done wrong? Sin or don't sin, is literally what it is. But Muslims believe even if we do sin, then we repent sincerely and God will forgive us as He is the most forgiving.

Trinity 

Side topic. I just want to cover this. This is why the trinity is not accurate. Omnipotence means there cannot be an entity that is more powerful than that. So if God is omnipotent then there cannot be anything else that is. When Jesus was on earth, he was in a human body. So he was separate from the father, physically. Now if the father is omnipotent then how can Jesus be? According to Christianity, God created mankind and the heavens and the earth, so Jesus did as well. If Jesus created humanity, then what did the father create? And what did the holy spirit create? If you say the father created humanity then what did Jesus create? If the father is the creator, what does that make Jesus? Things to think about, this is why the trinity is not logical.
You’re describing the omnipotence paradox, which is an argument against the existence of an omnipotent God.
How is this an omnipotence paradox? I said that God cannot be 100% human and 100% divine. Because to be human, you cannot be divine by yourself. And if you are divine, you cannot be human, as you are limited. God cannot be limited. 

Also, you don’t suppose it’s possible that God the Son simultaneously existed in Heaven as God and on earth in a limited human body, and that only the human body was limited?
Illogical. Jesus existed on earth. It was not the human body that was limited, it was Jesus. Jesus did not know who touched him from behind, God needs to be omniscient. Jesus did not know the hour, same thing. This is not the body that is limited, its the knowledge. 

Of course not. Allah simply lacks created attributes while also having humanoid attributes (tajsim) that cannot be denied lest you commit ta’til.
Allah has not got human attributes. Omnipotence, no beginning, omnibenevolence, these human attributes? When you talk about hands, I will come to that. The doctrine is not false because it is hard to understand, it is false because it is illogical. You may say, hang on a minute, God can do anything. Can God cease to exist? No, of course not, that would show his weakness. Could God lift a rock that is too heavy to lift? Of course not, that would show his weakness. Could God make himself into a human, limiting his attributes and confining himself to one place? Yes he can. Like where is the consistency here?

What I did say is that Muhammad likely encountered or heard about people who did
So what is the point here?

If the passages are not allegorical, then they mean God has divisible parts.
You are still allocating these attributes to humans. If I cut my arm off, that is a part, it is divisible. As God is indivisible, nothing of Him can be cut off. So saying that God has divisible parts is an illogical statement. It goes against his attributes the same way as the problem with Jesus being God. 

Because you place your trust in the providence of God, not the humans through which the message was filtered?
The Bible was divinely inspired. Is it believed that it was written by God? If so, why are there errors? Then you say, humans did it, God never. Evidence? Where is the proof that God wrote the Bible? If the Bible was then written by humans, the same humans with error and a sinful nature, why do you trust it? Who wrote the 4 gospels and why do you trust them? These questions cannot be answered. This is known as something called 'blind faith'. Putting trust into something you cannot prove. 

Allah could not, or did not, protect his previous messages from corruption, and yet the Qur’an is magically infallible?
The Injil got corrupted due to humans. We can see that using the Bible. Then we look to the Quran. Errors? Contradictions? No. I will answer your 'supposed contradictions later' however I know that there are none before even answering them. Now let me ask you this. Who could have written the Quran? Can be humans. Can be the devil. Can be God. You can give me another option however these are the only 3 I can think of. Humans are prone to error. No errors nor contradictions and miracles have been fulfilled. How can a human write this? Impossible, I would try and read the Quran from start to finish. Then the devil. Illogical as the Quran tells Muslims to hate the devil, to seek refuge from the devil and to worship God, not the devil. Now you want to say the devil wrote it? Impossible. Only option left is God. Argue it as you wish, this is the only option. Unless you can give me another one. 

Muhammad himself allegedly (per early Muslim sources) received a heretical message from Satan who was trying to pass it off as a legitimate ayah.
Source? You have the BoP here, please list me these sources and I will explain in round 3. 

What the eyewitnesses saw was a man verbally reciting a message that he claimed was from God
Well no. These were eyewitnesses from trustworthy people. Not from Luke, John nor Matthew who are untrustworthy. If they are not trustworthy, please explain why. Examine the sources and tell me. Plus I have stated, if it did not come from God, who did it come from. There is nothing like the Quran, nothing. 

How do you know the Bible is reliable. I know exactly why the Quran is reliable. Because there is a chain of transmission. I will state this if Con asks me to in the 3rd round. Or if Con wants to give anything that is not reliable within the chain of transmission, feel free. Do Mark, Luke, John, Matthew have a chain of transmission tracking back to when the books were written?

The New Testament was in use during this time
No evidence has been given for this claim. We need evidence, how was it in use from the 1st to the 3rd century and who said that?

Can Pro give me a single corroborated miracle or prophecy of a miraculous nature
Yes. I was looking for this comment. I will and I will use the Quran and the sayings of the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH), bare in mind the Quran is not a science book. It is a warning/guide. However there are many. Let me give a few examples. 

These are the minor ones. 

Day is mentioned 365 times
Month is mentioned 12 times
Man and Woman are mentioned 24 times equally
Life and Afterlife are mentioned 115 times equally
Say and They said are mentioned 332 times equally
Angels and Devils are mentioned 88 times equally

These are some of the scientific ones

We built the universe with ˹great˺ might, and We are certainly expanding ˹it˺. (51:47)- Expansion of the universe

and ˹made˺ the mountains as ˹its˺ pegs, (78:7)

Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass, then We opened them out? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (21:31)- Big bang theory- btw the 'heavens' means universe. The translation to English says heavens but it is universe. Plus, 'we made water from every living thing. '. What is the first thing astronomers do to determine life? Look for water, as if you see water, there is probably life. 

then placed each ˹human˺ as a sperm-drop1 in a secure place, then We developed the drop into a clinging clot ˹of blood˺, then developed the clot into a lump ˹of flesh˺, then developed the lump into bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, then We brought it into being as a new creation.1 So Blessed is Allah, the Best of Creators. (23:13)- Embryology

Now you see the mountains, thinking they are firmly fixed, but they are travelling ˹just˺ like clouds. ˹That is˺ the design of Allah, Who has perfected everything. Surely He is All-Aware of what you do. (27:88)- Floating of mountains. To put this into perspective read this. “… as a mountain range forms, it slowly sinks under the force of gravity, and the continental crust bends downward. When enough of a root bulges into the mantle to provide buoyancy, the mountain range floats.” Understanding Earth, Grotzinger & Jordan, pg. 630 (2014).'

Historical Miracles

The Romans have been defeated, in a nearby land. Yet following their defeat, they will triumph, within three to nine years. (30:2-4) . The Romans were on the verge of collapsing. They had nearly been defeated out of existence. Yet they came back and impossibly defeated the Byzantines. Chance?

In the Hadith: Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 63 it states, 'and when you see barefoot, naked, destitute shepherds competing in constructing tall buildings'. Where is the tallest building? Dubai. What was Dubai 60 years ago? A desert. There were barefooted people constructing these buildings, as Dubai was a desert, people were barefooted. This is in fact a prophecy and a prophecy on what the last days would be. Chance?

This is another historical miracle. How does the author of the Quran know these things? Cannot be chance. Cannot. 

Apparent contradictions of the Quran

The Quran has no contradictions. Let me address what Con has given me as some 'supposed contradictions'. 


“We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that we bring forth (one) better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?

“Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an? If it had been from (any) other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction.”
What? How is this a contradiction? The first verse is basically stating that if this Quran and the earlier scriptures such as the Injil and the Tawrat were revelations from God why has the Quran got similar things and laws in it to the other revelations. This answer is very simple. The question was asked by non-Muslims and they said how can divine revelations disappear? Obviously the people corrupted it. However this is something they cannot fathom. As Allah has the ultimate authority, he can abrogate the previous scriptures and come up with something better for humans; something more beneficial. And the second one literally means, if the Quran was written by some entity other than God, then surely there would be contradictions and error? As humans are prone to error, as we have seen in the Bible. Not a contradiction. Therefore the list of abrogation's in not relevant as I have cleared up this is not a contradiction. 

Then we move onto a link that Con has sent containing a list of 'contradictions' in the Quran. It is ok, I will address them all. 

1. What was man created from: blood, clay, dust, or nothing?
Adam (the first man) was created from clay or mud (water and dust)
His offsprings were created from a clot ( a drop of fluid)
Man was nothing before humans were created (obviously)

2. Is there or is there not compulsion in religion according to the Qur’an?
There is no compulsion. Muslims are allowed to attack if the enemy attacks first. This is called self defence which is not compulsion. Those who disbelieve will go to hell. It's that simple. This is not compulsion. 

3. The first Muslim was Muhammad? Abraham? Jacob? Moses?
Adam was the first Muslim as he submitted to a creator. This is the definition of the word 'Muslim'. Muhammed (PBUH) was the first Muslim to practise Islam to how it is now

4. Does Allah forgive or not forgive those who worship false gods?
Allah does not forgive people that commit shirk that do not repent. Those who repent, as Allah is the most merciful, will be forgiven. 

5. Are Allah’s decrees changed or not?
The Quran cannot and has not been changed. The other books have been changed. 

6. Was Pharaoh killed or not killed by drowning?
Pharaoh died by drowning but his body was saved

7. Is wine consumption good or bad?
Wine is haram in this life, however in the next it will not be. It is haram because it is harmful and intoxicates you. 

That is all for the contradictions on that website. 

Apparent Scientific Contradictions in the Quran. 

This may seem as I am too scared to answer it, but I will answer these in round 3. I need reminding though. I don't have time or space, so round 3 it is. Con, if you are reading this, please quote this message and say reminded. Then I will remember, thanks. There is just so much false information on this site, it will take a lot to answer. 

Much of the Qur’an is context-specific. It responds to the actions of human beings, and especially human beings who lived in 7th century Arabia. Since these humans exercised free will (as Pro conceded earlier), their choices shaped the content of the Qur’an.
If you actually look at the content of the Quran, I do not think much of it refers to 7th century Arabia at all. There is 1 chapter of Maryam (Jesus Mother) and this is not 7th century Arabia. All together there are 30 chapters. Most of it is not 7th century Arabia, this is a lie. Unless, Con has read the entire Quran and state how this is true. And I know Con never explicitly said it, but Con stated the word 'especially' considering it to be a lot. 

Therefore, if the Qur’an is an eternal attribute of God, then humans defined the shape of an eternal attribute of God. Those humans defined what God is inherently like, making those humans equal to God in principle, as they were able to affect God to the same extent that God could affect them. 

What? The Quran was written by God. God talks about these humans so then you make these assumptions that humans are equal to God. How does this make sense? If I am the least wisest man on earth. I write a book about men who are the most wisest men in the world. As these wisest men in the world have defined the shape of my text, how it is written etc, I am now among the wisest men in the world. This is not logical Con. 

The Quran is not a book about humans. It is not a story book. It is a book of guidance and warning. Non believers will say, I reject this book. Not on the basis that humans are mentioned, but because they reject the message outright, to believe in 1 God. Your argument is a fallacy. 

 Slaughtering an animal for Eid al-Adha and sharing the meat with your neighbours if you live in a modern urban society.
I can say the same to you. Christians need a blood sacrifice to forgive the sins of humanity. Before this, Christians used to sacrifice animals. Then they treat Jesus as the ultimate blood sacrifice to forgive all sins. Plus even the last bit shows you are not informed. You keep 1/3 of the meat. You give 1/3 of the meat to relatives, friends etc. You share 1/3 of meat to charity. The killing of the animal is a teaching. Don't Christians follow teachings? Or have they just given up and realised that if they change the rules of their religion to fit in with this society, they will get more converts. This is why Christianity is not treated seriously. Honestly, don't want to offend anyone here, but it is the truth. You cannot change your religion to meet societal standards. This is just wrong. Islam will never change, no matter the society. 

I’m sure that was fine and dandy in 7th century Arabia. I won’t discount that Muhammad’s regulations might’ve improved the lot of slaves in that time. 
But today, owning a slave FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER is considered evil by all people in all non-Muslim societies. Is God’s final revelation for mankind morally inferior to what even atheists believe?

Who decides between right and wrong? Who decides what is good or bad. Is it based on emotion? Is it based on facts and figures etc? What is it based on? Do humans have the right to judge subjective manners as objective? Of course not. This is silly. And for you to say, all people, this is generalizing. I am sure some want to be willing slaves. As well as this, one thing that is right to you, may not be right to someone else. For example, the USA charges money for healthcare. Being a person from the UK, yes I live in a different environment however I do not think it is right to charge someone for healthcare. Who's opinion will get prioritised. The USA, one of the richest country, or me? This just demonstrates that power and wealth and money have an influence. But this is still not right. Another thing is, being a slave with those conditions is not like being a slave in America 200 years ago. Way different. If you do not want slaves, do not declare war. There is a knock on effect here, a ripple effect, a domino effect. 

I’ve heard this explanation before, but it just doesn’t follow.
Muhammad wrote the Constitution of Medina, which afforded reasonable protections to the Jews. They were citizens of his caliphate while still Jews. They fought in Muhammad’s wars as part of his army, and in the armies of the Rashidun Caliphate after Muhammad’s death. 
So then, what “treason” did these apostates commit? None. The Jew in this story, so far as we know, did at one point in his life desire to be a Muslim and then he changed his mind at a later point in his life. His reasons were his own and the consequences, so far as we know, only affected him. 
And yet he was killed. Because Sharia forbids having a change of conscience under penalty of death. Is this God’s final revelation?
He was a Jew. He willingly changed religion and willingly accepted what he had to do to become Muslim. He then changed back. We do not know the reasons why he changed. However people did this as spies. This was a threat. Simple as that. 

This entire debate is long winded. I am going to sum it up. 

The books of the faith are the most important. These are what will decide which religion is true. 

Christianity is not true as there are contradictions in the Bible and many errors as well as copyist. 
Islam is true as there are no contradictions in the Quran and no errors. 

I rest my case. 
 




Round 3
Con
The problem is when he reverted back to Judaism. This is a sign of a spy, more likely, treason.
The guy was killed on the spot. No trial. No investigation into whether he was a spy. No mention of him possibly being a spy. Just the assumption that he must die because he went back to Judaism.

And why would a man deconvert? Hmm, I don’t know. Perhaps because his background was Jewish, he was estranged from family members (perhaps all of them) who didn’t accept Muhammad, and as he got older we wanted to be with them again? 
Because deep down he believed in the religious tradition that he was raised in, was initially attracted to Islam out of a sense of novelty or of belonging to a community, and eventually his conscience bothered him enough that he returned to Judaism?

My point is, there were plenty of legitimate reasons for him to stop believing in Islam and/or to deconvert, just as there are legitimate reasons for religious conversion/deconversion today. A truly moral religion would acknowledge that it was his inalienable right to do so without fearing murder.

And what happened to “there is no compulsion in religion”?

The definition of a Muslim is to submit. Now all of the Prophets I named, submitted. Jesus worshipped the 1 God and so did Abraham and Moses. So by definition, they were all Muslim. 
Again, this begs the question of why the aforementioned Jew was killed, since there wasn’t a shred of proof that he was a spy. Jews believe in one God and thus by definition are still Muslims, right?
The Injil does not even exist anymore. Same with the Tawrat and Zabur. Humans have changed, humans have made mistakes, humans have corrupted these once perfect scriptures. 
I made two points about the “original” versions of the Torah, Psalms, and Gospels that Islam describes:

First, that there’s no historical evidence of their existence. You apparently concede that this much is true. That was the point of this section of my Round 2 argument.
Second, that Allah failed to protect these texts from corruption. Islam necessarily concedes that this is true, and so do you. You claim it doesn’t matter, because the fault for said corruption lies with human beings. Even if that’s true, it paints a picture of an impotent and helpless God who, before Muhammad, tried to transmit a message of salvation to mankind BUT WAS COMPLETELY THWARTED AND FRUSTRATED due to the actions of human beings. 
Allah failed from his first attempt to instruct mankind via the Tawrat around 1400 BC. Then he failed again in the Zabur. Then he failed again in the Injil. And he kept failing and failing for literally 2,000 years until sometime in the year 610 AD.
Why should we believe in the providence and in the power of such a God?
You assume, even though Allah’s word was corrupted before, that we can trust the Qur’an never was. But why? Because Muslims assert that something which happened at least 3 times already is impossible?

Christians, in contrast, don’t believe in an impotent, helpless God. 
We believe in a God who had a continuous plan of salvation from Adam to Jesus, and who successfully communicated with human beings every step of the process. Even when said humans rejected God’s commands, it did not result in God’s intended message being lost forever. The message survived.
And even if humans made some errors in their written transmission of God’s message, it was not enough to overcome God’s power to save mankind through that message. We don’t worship the message, which is mere ink on paper, but rather the God who used it to accomplish his great purpose. God has used imperfect men to history-shattering effect, and there’s no reason to think he can’t use imperfect ink on paper.

Now, since I won’t be able to respond after this round, let’s suppose that you backtrack and state that even the corrupted versions of the Tawrat and Injil do transmit useful knowledge of God to mankind, though not the perfect message, and thus God wasn’t completely thwarted.
If you go with this, however, then you’ll be conceding that God can use an imperfect text to accomplish salvation, meaning that Christianity isn’t the incorrect faith merely because written scripture might contain some errors.

Pliny did not know the Christians. He wrote this letter because of what he heard from Christians of the 2nd century. 
Fair enough. And I stated as much. My point is that there’s no evidence of the earliest Christians following a prophet of tawhid named Jesus while there is ample evidence of the earliest Christians worshiping a god named Jesus Christ.

The rolling of the stone story for example.
The Gospel accounts do diverge at certain points (on minor details). None such are profound enough to have serious theological implications.

So in other words, I still can sin because society is sinning? How about if I do not sin and society is sinning?
Non sequitur. 

Are they? Do they even have the ability to sin in the first minute of their life? 
First few minutes of life? Though in fact they do (their first impulse is to selfishly cry and demand that their needs are met without any regard for the needs or interests of others), the question is irrelevant.
The worst serial killer does not typically sin while they’re asleep, but only because they’re too inactive to do so. Even if, for the sake of argument, an infant was similarly “inactive” for the time being due to their being temporarily indisposed from normal living and normal human experiences, they will sin down the road once that changes, and this is completely inevitable.
The way Islam describes it, people are born perfect and can choose good, which means MAKING A PERMANENT CHOICE to do good. But if the only thing keeping them from sinning is that they’re only half-awake and think very primitive thoughts, then they’re hardly exercising a conscious choice to avoid doing anything.

If babies are born with sin, they need to have done something wrong. 
Sin is not just “I have done” but also “I would do”. If a tiger is trapped in a cage and clearly signals that it would tear you to shreds once released, then you wouldn’t assume that it’s safe to release the tiger since he hasn’t yet had the opportunity to do what he’d do in a heartbeat if set free.
You could retort, of course, that at least the tiger isn’t guilty of killing anyone by virtue of being restrained so far, but the fact remains that, from a human standpoint at least, this is an evil creature.

Sinful nature is not in the equation, as we believe every human has a sinful nature too. We do not believe that humans are born with sin. They can apply their free will, when they know the difference between right and wrong and then choose wrong.
Humans acquire a sin nature by choosing to sin? But if they lacked it before, then why does every human originally choose to sin? Since the reward (Heaven and good standing with God) outweighs the temporary gratification, it’s the more rational choice. So then, why does nobody out of billions and billions of people pick the rational choice, if it doesn’t run contrary to their natures?

Because we need to purify ourselves as we are dirty. We have physically become dirty, not spiritually. 
What physical impurity do you incur by touching your genitals? Bacteria? Don’t your hands already have bacteria? What if simply washing your hands doesn’t get rid of all the bacteria? 
Obviously there’s more to this than just the physical. And if the body can be “impure” as measured by God, then there’s no reason to think that the soul can’t also be. God doesn’t want impurities in his eternal kingdom. But a sinful nature is perpetual impurity.

Omnipotence means there cannot be an entity that is more powerful than that. 
By whose definition? Aren’t you just asserting this without proof? Besides, the trinity asserts that all three “persons” are ultimately the same person, having no incongruence or conflict between them. There is no inherent contradiction.

When Jesus was on earth, he was in a human body. So he was separate from the father, physically.
See Round 2. Not only could Jesus have controlled a human body from Heaven but the same omnipotence paradox you’re describing could discredit the God of Islam if true. For both our religions, we must assume there’s a solution, which would likewise make it possible for Jesus to limit himself on earth.

According to Christianity, God created mankind and the heavens and the earth, so Jesus did as well. If Jesus created humanity, then what did the father create? And what did the holy spirit create? If you say the father created humanity then what did Jesus create? If the father is the creator, what does that make Jesus?
There’s no reason to assume that they all couldn’t have all done so. In Genesis 1:26, God uses plural to refer to himself as he’s creating man. This is true in both Christian versions and the Masoretic text. 
Alternatively, the unified sense of God behind the three persons could’ve done so.

Allah has not got human attributes. Omnipotence, no beginning, omnibenevolence, these human attributes? 
I don’t dispute the godlike attributes ascribed to Allah but the human ones which the Qur’an describes him as having.

Can God cease to exist? No, of course not, that would show his weakness. Could God lift a rock that is too heavy to lift? Of course not, that would show his weakness.
This is the omnipotence paradox at work, as it demonstrates that there are things God can’t do, establishing that he is not omnipotent.

So what is the point here?
In that section in Round 1, I tried to give a historical context for Islam. It was not meant to be an argument.

If I cut my arm off, that is a part, it is divisible. As God is indivisible, nothing of Him can be cut off.
“Divisible” is that which is or can be divided. Such as, for example, a part that God divides from his body to fulfill a specific function, be it reaching/grabbing or just for aesthetic reasons. Any specific body part would apply, but especially a protruding appendage like an arm.
Plus, you’ve only established that created beings cannot remove God’s arm. God himself might be able to, since he has one and a protruding appendage can logically be severed from the main whole.

The Bible was divinely inspired. Is it believed that it was written by God? 
You’d be hard-pressed to find a Christian in the world who believed that an already written Gospel of Luke descended to earth from heaven. It was written by people.

Who could have written the Quran? Can be humans. Can be the devil. Can be God. You can give me another option however these are the only 3 I can think of. Humans are prone to error. No errors nor contradictions and miracles have been fulfilled.
A careful human could write a book that doesn’t contradict itself. And I have pointed out contradictions, both internal (two Pharaoh accounts) and scientific (geocentric model of sun).

Then the devil. Illogical as the Quran tells Muslims to hate the devil, to seek refuge from the devil and to worship God, not the devil. 
Not an argument, as humans can be tricked by the devil into thinking that they’re hearing a message from God. Muhammad was so tricked and he didn’t notice until the angel Gabriel pointed it out to him.

The so-called “Satanic verses”, known by Muslims as the verses of the cranes, are documented by early Muslim historians such as al-Waqidi and Ibn Sa’d. I must clarify that, though I implied otherwise in Round 2, none of these are Hadith. However, the account was an authoritative one and, as documented by Shahab Ahmed (PhD), an “almost unanimously accepted fact in the first two centuries of Islam” prior to the Ahl al-Hadith movement.


And yes, later scholars tried to discredit the verses of the cranes narrative. Most Islamic resources on the internet will deny its validity. But this is a question of people farther removed from Muhammad’s lifetime trying to dispute those closer to the time who were relying on transmitted accounts.

Well no. These were eyewitnesses from trustworthy people. 
Even if they were trustworthy, my point was that these eyewitnesses saw Muhammad, a human, speaking.

No evidence has been given for this claim. We need evidence
I already cited the reasons why evidence would be hard to come by. However, the four gospels correctly describe events that, in a pre-literate time, would’ve been very difficult for people by 2 or 3 centuries later to know about. For example: 
-The census of Quirinius
-The various rulers of the Herodian dynasty
-Pontius Pilate (an otherwise obscure figure) being governor of Israel
-Pontius Pilate presiding over the trial of Jesus (confirmed by 1st century historian Tacitus)
-The fact that Jesus (died c. 33 AD) lived before the Jewish revolt that destroyed the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD
-A large earthquake in Judea, described by the Gospels as coinciding with the death of Jesus; modern science has confirmed that such an earthquake occurred in the region between 26-36 AD


So then, either the Gospels were written in the 1st century or, if written later, they were based on eyewitness accounts by very early Christians that were transmitted and preserved across generations.

I will and I will use the Quran and the sayings of the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH)
Now we’re getting into the alleged Quranic miracles. I’ll debunk the first few:

  1. The Julian calendar has 365.25 days. This calendar was invented 600 years before Muhammad was born, and it was in widespread use by the early 7th century.
  2. The Julian calendar has 12 months.
  3. I fail to see what the significance of this is. If there is some special significance, it could be a coincidence.
  4. ?
  5. ?
  6. ?

Now the scientific ones:

  1. Could be a reference to Job 9:8 or similar passages in the Bible
  2. ?
  3. Describes a parting of the heavens and the earth, as Saheeh International says “joined entity” and Yusuf Ali says “joined together”. This ties into a recurring theme of God making order from chaos by setting boundaries between things previously joined (see Genesis 1).
  4. Does a drop of sperm create a baby without an egg? Muhammad could’ve intuited that humans are formed from a male seed and female egg by observing chicken eggs (no miracle required), but he got this detail wrong anyway. As just about everyone else did in the ancient world, he wrongly assumed that the sperm does all the work. A fertilized egg does not develop into a “clot of blood”, but assuming that this is a metaphor for the rough shape and appearance of early fetal development, there are still problems. Namely, bones don’t form until week 10, and yet we’re supposed to assume that a fetus doesn’t grow skin (weeks 5-8 of pregnancy) until after it grows bones.
  5.  This is a stretch. Even if mountains gradually move in some fashion, they certainly don’t move “like clouds”.

Now we get into history.

  1. Not a miracle. There were two sides (Byzantines vs. Sassanians) and a 50/50 chance of correctly guessing the winner. Also, it’s telling that Muhammad didn’t give a specific timeframe, instead relying on his assessment of the situation to give a rough estimate. And in fact, he is arguably wrong; assuming this surah was penned in 614 AD, the war wouldn’t close with a Roman victory until 14 years later. Granted, Rome won a major victory in 622 AD (8 years later), but that didn’t end the war. In fact, as late as 626 AD (12 years later), the Sassanids were able to mount a siege of Constantinople, suggesting they weren’t crushed anytime in the stated time frame.
  2. Not only is this such an incredibly vague passage as to mean anything, but we can presume that none of the laborers involved in 20th/21st century Dubai skyscraper projects were naked.
  3. This triple deity pantheon was already known to pre-Islamic Arabia. See this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atarsamain

No miracles so far. Nothing that has held up to scrutiny.

There is no compulsion. Muslims are allowed to attack if the enemy attacks first.
I know this is a little off-topic, but Pro repeatedly mentions “war of self-defense” as justification for Islamic holy war.
Let’s suppose that Poland invaded Germany first in 1939. Then Germany not only defended itself but occupied Poland. Since Poland started it, would that make the Holocaust okay?
Clearly then, “who started the war” is not the only important question. There are others, such as the conduct of both parties throughout the war, and how the winning side treats the losing side. Denying the religious liberties of the losing side is a moral crime by any stretch of the imagination.
Likewise, there’s no scenario where it is justified to take non-combatant women as sex slaves. And yet, this is what Ali did in that Hadith cited in Round 1.

Pharaoh died by drowning but his body was saved
Plausible enough.

This may seem as I am too scared to answer it, but I will answer these in round 3.
Very well. Let it be noted that I won’t be able to respond to what Pro says. Judge his defense of Quranic science by its merits. Particularly, his defense of why the Quran describes the sun as having an orbit. Because I suspect that this contradiction will be very hard to explain away.

If you actually look at the content of the Quran, I do not think much of it refers to 7th century Arabia at all. 
Regardless, the Qur’an responds to historical events shaped by the actions of humans exercising free will. Had those people chosen differently on certain key decisions, the Quran would say something different. For example, Allah would not judge certain unbelievers if they had chosen to believe. Or if all of mankind had chosen to believe, he would not have judged anyone. Had men not corrupted Allah’s previous revelations, there might’ve been no Qur’an at all.

God talks about these humans so then you make these assumptions that humans are equal to God. How does this make sense?
Let me rephrase what I said:
The Qur’an is an eternal attribute of Allah. Not the ability to speak generally but the Qur’an itself. But the content of the Qur’an is God saying things to people, largely based on things that people chose to do or based on conditions created by human decisions.
God’s eternal attribute, then, is a specific response to specific choices made by specific or groups of people. Had any of those people chosen differently, that eternal attribute would consist of different words, even if only slightly so. Thus, God’s eternal attribute was determined by humans.
Any person who can do so must be thought of as godlike.

I can say the same to you. Christians need a blood sacrifice to forgive the sins of humanity. Before this, Christians used to sacrifice animals. 
The Israelites before Jesus, who lived under the Mosaic Law and Old Covenant, did this. Their understanding was limited and God provided that framework for the sake of Bronze Age/Iron Age semites. Eventually, something adequate for the entire world, with a much fuller understanding of theological nuances, and with a complete outpouring of the grace of God, took its place. 

When Jesus ushered in the New Covenant, the Old Covenant was outgrown, like an adolescent who sets aside childish things in preparation for becoming an adult. But why should an adult later revert to acting like a child again? Why should the temporary product of a less perfect time be restored to full effect when a superior covenant and understanding has taken its place?

Don't Christians follow teachings?
You mean the Mosaic Law? It was given to Jews as opposed to Gentiles, and then it was superseded altogether. See the Book Hebrews, Chapter 10.

Islam will never change, no matter the society. 
And this is a problem, as many of the laws of Islam, the final revelation of God, conflict with the laws of modern society and with the substantial moral progress that mankind has made over the last two centuries especially.




Pro
The guy was killed on the spot. No trial. No investigation.
There is no need for an investigation if the case is something like this. The reason being is, there cannot be any explanation to revert back to Judaism other than being a spy. If he did not like Islam, then he shouldn't have converted in the first place, as he knew exactly what he had to do. 

 Perhaps because his background was Jewish, he was estranged from family members (perhaps all of them) who didn’t accept Muhammad, and as he got older we wanted to be with them again? 
Is that an Islam problem? He again, was a grown man, knew exactly what he would do when reverting to Islam yet he converted back to Judaism. It is deen over Dunya- Religion over earthly desires. 

And what happened to “there is no compulsion in religion”?
No one forced him to revert to Islam, and no on forced him to convert back to Judaism. No compulsion here. 

Again, this begs the question of why the aforementioned Jew was killed, since there wasn’t a shred of proof that he was a spy. Jews believe in one God and thus by definition are still Muslims, right?
There was not a shred of proof that he wasn't a spy. And before you say innocent until proven guilty, this is a different scenario, where he converted back to a religion after reverting to Islam. It is not allowed, he knew the rules beforehand. 

Then Con states, by definition he is a Muslim. No, this is incorrect. If you submit to one God, then you follow His teachings and his Prophets. Jews do not accept the Prophet Muhammed (SAW), therefore, a Jew is not a Muslim. 

First, that there’s no historical evidence of their existence.
How could there be historical evidence of the books, if they were changed before historical evidence could be shown. The scriptures were corrupted, this is why you find many contradictions in both Torah and Bible, as I have given. So the contradictions in itself, is evidence to show that these books are not the word of God. And you find the same Prophets being mentioned in both Bible and Quran. you find similar stories of Jesus and Mary. You find similar things elsewhere as well. There can be 2 possible explanations here. The Quran has copied the Bible and was written by a human, or the Quran is the correct version of the book sent by God, with other books being similar yet not correct. I think it is pretty obvious which option it is as you can look into the contradictions of both books. The Quran has none, the Bible has many. 

Second, that Allah failed to protect these texts from corruption.
Humans corrupted these books. Nowhere in the Bible and the Torah does it say that God will protect these books, it only says in the Quran. This is a miracle in itself, as the Quran has not been changed, and the Bible has. It is that simple to understand. 

BUT WAS COMPLETELY THWARTED AND FRUSTRATED
What is the point of Prophets? To spread the message. Who were they spreading the message to. Corrupted people who would not listen and cause oppression to mankind. Why don't you ask yourself this question. Why did God not make those people listen? And that nullifies your point. 

Why should we believe in the providence and in the power of such a God?
Why is there evil in the world? Why is there murder in the world, when God clearly said murder is a huge sin. There are righteous people, and wrongful people. Wrongful people changed the scriptures, as we see from the contradictions, mistakes etc from all the holy books except the Quran. Righteous people such as Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) and his companions preserved the Quran and has never been changed with no contradictions. 

You assume, even though Allah’s word was corrupted before, that we can trust the Qur’an never was
The proof is in the pudding. Look in the Quran yourself, give me some mistakes, try to make yourself happy, yet you will never be whilst looking for mistakes in the Quran. As I am repeating again. the Quran is perfect. 

Christians, in contrast, don’t believe in an impotent, helpless God.
This is not what the scripture says. Jesus did not know the hour, God is supposed to be all knowing. God rested in the creation of the universe. God is God, and does not need to rest. Jesus did not know who touched him, I thought God is supposed to be all knowing. Jesus repeated a miracle again as it never worked the first time, God is supposed to be omnipotent. Jesus only performed miracles with the help of the father, God does not rely on God. Jesus relies on God for his existence, therefore he is not God. 

We believe in a God who had a continuous plan of salvation from Adam to Jesus
So why didn't God achieve salvation from the other Prophets who came before Jesus? I thought God is all powerful? His own creation killed him. That would mean his own creation is more powerful than Jesus, who is supposedly God. And when you say Jesus was willing, he was not. He cried and wept in the garden of Gethsemane, he said 'Father, why have you forsaken me', he said 'Let it be your will, not mine', he prostrated to God. prayed to God, like Muslims, and then apparently died on the cross. Is this Godlike?

Even when said humans rejected God’s commands
Your entire argument with the corruption points have been picked apart, by yourself.  Humans rejected Gods commands. That is all to say. Why do humans reject the commands of an all powerful God? Because they have free will. 

And even if humans made some errors in their written transmission of God’s message
The 'WORD' of God, needs to be perfect. Also question time. Which the the word of God, the Bible or Jesus?

We don’t worship the message, which is mere ink on paper, but rather the God who used it to accomplish his great purpose.
This is called, finish the sentence, blind faith. If you worship God, you need to accept everything in the Bible as God's word, otherwise it isn't. If you discount all the Bible, you are following God which you have no proof of, just a thought.  If you pick and choose what to follow in the Bible and what not to, then that is not following the Bible in its entirety, something that you must do otherwise you are not following Gods word. Tricky dilemma. 

and there’s no reason to think he can’t use imperfect ink on paper.
I thought humans wrote the Bible from an 'inspired word of God'? Now you are referring to God writing it. Contradiction. Also, God is perfect, his attributes are perfect, his speech is perfect and is words are perfect. The Bible is imperfect, the Quran is perfect. Which religion is right?

If you go with this, however, then you’ll be conceding that God can use an imperfect text to accomplish salvation
No, I won't go with this, simply because it is untrue. Even the teachings of God have been corrupted, Jesus states 'turn the other cheek' and God states 'eye for eye. Which is it? Contradiction. I can name many more, however will not have enough space. 

 My point is that there’s no evidence of the earliest Christians following a prophet of tawhid named Jesus while there is ample evidence of the earliest Christians worshiping a god named Jesus Christ.
The evidence of Pliny, is refuted as he did not know the Christians at all. This is not evidence, it is just an account. The evidence of Jesus is in the Quran. a book with no contradictions and no errors. As Con has failed to prove this untrue, my acceptance in this is the valid one. It is like saying, give me evidence of Adam and Eve, historical may I add. You can't. Because it was a long time ago. 

The Gospel accounts do diverge at certain points (on minor details).
This is major. The different accounts are contradictions. Was the stone rolled away before or after the women came? There are different accounts that say different things. Or was someone sitting on top of it? Contradiction. 

 they will sin down the road once that changes,
Nothing to do with it. We are talking about the sinning at the time of birth. What sins do they commit? It is unfair to be born with sin as they have done nothing wrong. Hilarious for you to think otherwise. 

people are born perfect and can choose good, which means MAKING A PERMANENT CHOICE to do good
2 minute babies cannot sin. Children can, teens can, adults can. Babies do not know the difference between right and wrong as their brain is too slow to comprehend it. As they grow, maturity and knowledge grows. 

Sin is not just “I have done” but also “I would do”
But committing a sin is I have done. In Islam, if you have a sin that you are going to do, and not do it, you will have a reward instead of a sin. And if you want to do good, and you don't do it, but the intention was there, it is still a reward. Look how merciful Allah is. 

this is an evil creature.
Non-sequitur.

What physical impurity do you incur by touching your genitals? Bacteria?
Do you not pee from your penis? Pee is impure. There would still be residue, maybe it is semen. Or blood. Very dirty place the genitals. 

then there’s no reason to think that the soul can’t also be.
Soul can be impure, I do not refute this. However, being born with an impure soul is ridiculous. 

why does nobody out of billions and billions of people pick the rational choice
People do. However, it is a tough choice to not sin. People forget, and lose hope, and sin. Humans do what they want. If they want to sin, they sin. No one is perfect. Except 2 second old babies. 

By whose definition
Dictionary.com- almighty or infinite in power, as God.- Omnipotent. If one entity is infinite in power, there cannot be another entity that is also infinite in power, as there can only be 1. All powerful. The most powerful. It is a contradiction to have 3 entities that are omnipotent as being omnipotent means you have infinite power, more than anyone/thing else. 

Not only could Jesus have controlled a human body from Heaven
So Jesus did not know the hour, he did not know because he controlled his body not to know? When Jesus did not know who touched him, he controlled his thoughts to make it seem like he did not know. Jesus was doing miracles, with the help of his father. Why could he not do them by himself. This entire narrative it too far fetched. Christians can try to decode and twist everything to fir their narrative, its a far far reach. Nowhere does it say in the scripture, it is just a guess. An uneducated guess. 

 In Genesis 1:26, God uses plural to refer to himself as he’s creating man
In the Quran , God is referred to as We as well. So what? No mention of the trinity. It is just a title for God. No plural for other entities. 

but the human ones which the Qur’an describes him as having.
You are thinking they are human as you cannot grasp an image of Him. Cannot be human as cannot be limited. So easy to understand, so frustrating to explain. 

 as it demonstrates that there are things God can’t do,
OMG. If God does things that show weakness, then it is a contradiction to his nature. And there cannot be a contradiction. So if there is something that makes God weaker, then that thing is not Godlike. So simple to understand. 

 It was written by people.
Of course it was. Now how did the 'people' recieve all the words. From accounts. And are the authors of these accounts reliable?? Do you even know who they are? Who is the author of Luke? Matthew? John? Unreliable and anonymous. 

A careful human could write a book that doesn’t contradict itself.
Can't be said about the Bible. Plus, the evidence is there. Torah, Bible etc etc. These were changed by humans, and obviously after thousands of years have been corrupted. I am not talking about 1 human. Over the times, thousands of humans can corrupt a book, as seen. Why is the Quran not corrupted?

And I have pointed out contradictions
Most of these I have answered, and I will answer more later on. 

Not an argument, as humans can be tricked by the devil into thinking that they’re hearing a message from God. Muhammad was so tricked and he didn’t notice until the angel Gabriel pointed it out to him.
What? The devil encourages bad. Bad deeds. To encourage murder, to encourage rape etc. To encourage bad deeds. The Quran does not advocate these in the slightest. Is charity bad? Of course not. Therefore, not the devils work. 

The so-called “Satanic verses”,
No such thing. Have been debunked by many Muslim scholars. These 'so called verses' were weak and invalid. So that point has been nullified. 

Even if they were trustworthy, my point was that these eyewitnesses saw Muhammad, a human, speaking.
They saw the revelation. There were eyewitnesses upon eyewitnesses to see this. 

The census of Quirinius
Irrelevant as the Bible states this, as we have figured, the Bible has errors. 

The various rulers of the Herodian dynasty
Red herring. Never asked for people. Asked for evidence. 

Pontius Pilate
The guy that authorised the killing of Jesus?

The fact that Jesus (died c. 33 AD) 
Not evidence. You don't even know when he died. It just states in the Bible, this is a book with errors. 

A large earthquake in Judea
Described by the Gospels, which contain errors. 

Now we’re getting into the alleged Quranic miracles. I’ll debunk the first few:
Sure. And I will rebuke your debunking. 

The Julian calendar has 365.25 days
The Roman calendar back then consisted of 304 days

  1. The Julian calendar has 12 months.
The original calendar had 10 months. 

  1. I fail to see what the significance of this is. If there is some special significance, it could be a coincidence.
  2. ?
  3. ?
  4. ?
Is it a coincidence? Or is it something more than that. By the way, these are only the minor miracles. 

Now the scientific ones:
  1. Could be a reference to Job 9:8 or similar passages in the Bible
No, as the one in Job 9:8 refers to the heavens. Not the universe. 

2. ?
Clearly Con doesn't know what mountains are. 


Describes a parting of the heavens and the earth,
No, heavens means universe. Back then, in Arabic, no such word as universe. So universe is heavens. Nothing like the Bible. 

Does a drop of sperm create a baby without an egg?
First of all, Muhammed (PBUH) never wrote the Quran, and if it was written by humans, how could they know of these things with no scientific evidence around? Impossible. 

This is a stretch.
It is not a stretch and certainly a miracle. Mountains move, the Quran also states it. 

Now we get into history.
1. Not a miracle
Of course it is a miracle. There was not a 50/50 percent chance. As the Persians were about to conquer, the romans were helpless. The romans were about to be defeated yet they came back 6-9 years later. If the Persians beat the romans, which would have been 95% likely, the Quran would have been finished. Yet they never and it isn't. 

Not only is this such an incredibly vague passage
Barefooted Bedouins. Not naked in their entirety, naked feet. It is a prophecy, the last days are among us. 

This triple deity pantheon was already known to pre-Islamic Arabia.

No it wasn't. You quoted from Wikipedia, an unreliable source. 

No miracles so far. Nothing that has held up to scrutiny.
Rebukes have proven. His rebuttle to the miracles have failed. 

I know this is a little off-topic, but Pro repeatedly mentions “war of self-defence” as justification for Islamic holy war.
You have not listened. The Holy War has a few factors. 

1. Innocents must not be killed
2. Enemy must attack first
3. Wildlife must not be harmed
4. Women and Children must not be killed. 

This makes the holocaust unacceptable as it killed innocent people. Your points have been nullified. 

This site he quoted with the 'contradictions' is an anti Islam website. If you click on the donate button on the top left, it redirects you to a donation page to ex Muslims, suggesting this website was put up to disrupt Islam. Obviously I will not have enough space, so I will send some links that nullify the points. 


Also the sun does not set in a muddy spring. This is a misconception. It was seen by a human like this, not literally. 

Earth and heavens created in six days

No not 6, 24 hour days. Days are not specified. A miracle in fact. The Quran suggests that the earth is 1/3 as old as the universe, scientifically this has been proven to be true. 

Earth created before stars

Stars are different in heaven and in the universe. 

Earth and heavens torn apart

Miracle. Big Bang theory. 

Heaven made from smoke

?

Seven heavens

Yes, 7 heavens. Not in the universe. 

There is just way to much to go into depth and answer. I can send some links but cannot answer using my own words, will not have enough space. 


Lots of misconceptions. 

I am inviting my opponent, Con, to make a separate debate and we can talk about these 'contradictions'. So if Con sees this, please challenge me to a debate revolving around contradictions, I will answer them all. Because there are none in the Quran. The website you sent has too much content, and I am not going to answer it all, as it is not your work. 

Had men not corrupted Allah’s previous revelations, there might’ve been no Qur’an at all. 
Free will. 

 Not the ability to speak generally but the Qur’an itself.
The Quran are the words of Allah. 

God’s eternal attribute was determined by humans.
No. Just no. That is like saying the parables were determined by humans, the crucifixion was dependant on humans and as Jesus was God, God's fate was determined by humans. 

And this is a problem, as many of the laws of Islam, the final revelation of God, conflict with the laws of modern society and with the substantial moral progress that mankind has made over the last two centuries especially.
The scientific discoveries and miracles and prophecies actually helped with modern society. Plus the laws as well. The criminal laws are a deterrent. The Holy War is fair and just. Isn't modern society really bad anyway? The US committing 2 genocides, Iraq and Native Americans. Islam does not advocate this. Rape and Murder. Not advocated. Drink abuse, abuse to women, all these things are not permitted. Islam would make things much better, but obviously you would not accept this as it doesn't fit the narrative you are after. 

Conclusion

Swagnarok has ultimately said that the Bible was written by humans and has not responded to any of the contradictions that I have given him. Burden of Proof is on me to prove that there is no contradictions in the Quran, and I feel as if I have done that. Therefore, I have won the debate. 

Thanks for reading this voters, appreciate it and make the right decision. 
Vote rayhan16. 

Thank you.