Instigator / Pro
14
1500
rating
25
debates
42.0%
won
Topic
#4436
The Quran contains no contradictions whilst the Bible does
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
0
Better legibility
2
0
Better conduct
2
0
After 2 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...
rayhan16
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1533
rating
18
debates
36.11%
won
Description
My previous debate was a bust. I did not engage with Con as much as I should've with the correct arguments and conduct so I want to make amends with this new debate.
The Quran has no contradictions, it is a perfect book. However with the Bible, I beg to differ. It contains hundreds of numerical and copious errors.
I will be pro and arguing for the Quran having no contradictions and the Bible containing numerical and copious errors.
Contradiction- the fact of something being the complete opposite of something else or very different from something else, so that one of them must be wrong
Round 1
Pro
#1
Second attempt at this debate, wish to correct myself.
I truly believe that the Quran is a perfect book and there is none like it which it why it makes it so unique. The linguistic miracle of the book is astonishing and not found in any other book known to man. On the flip side, the Bible contains many errors. I will list some below.
1. 1 Chron 18:4 David took from him one thousand chariots, seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand foot soldiers. Also David hamstrung all the chariot horses, except that he spared enough of them for one hundred chariots.
2 Samuel 8:4 David took from him one thousand chariots, seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand foot soldiers. Also David hamstrung all the chariot horses, except that he spared enough of them for one hundred chariots.
2 Samuel 8:4 David took from him one thousand chariots, seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand foot soldiers. Also David hamstrung all the chariot horses, except that he spared enough of them for one hundred chariots.
2. 1 Kings 4:26 Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2 Chron 9:25 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.
3. 2 Kings 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. His mother’s name was Nehushta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months and ten days. And he did evil in the sight of the LORD.
As I stated in the description, there are hundreds of these numerical and copious errors that humans made when writing the Bible.
However, the Quran has none. This is because it has been perfectly preserved from the time of the Prophet (PBUH) all the way to now with memorization taking place from every generation onwards so that it could not possibly get corrupted. In fact it is the only perfectly preserved religious book that contains no contradictions.
The BoP is on Con to find any contradictions within the holy Quran.
Con
#2
Introduction
Pro has given himself the heavy burden of both proving that the bible has contradictions and that the Quran does not. Con merely has to prove that the Quran has at least one contradictions or that the bible has zero.
I am going to make it easier on pro by exclusively focusing on the contradictions of the Quran, and have some fun by dabbing on Islam.
Also I have a feeling that pro knows there is something wrong with Islam. He literally moved to the UK because Islam destroyed whatever country he is from and he is completely reliant on a society built by christians.
Proof
Pro thinks the following things are somehow proof that Islam is right. We can get into how he is wrong that this proof exists later, but for now let's focus on how stupid it is to assume any of the following is evidence of anything
- The Koran is perfectly passed down word for word
So is the last spiderman comic I bought, so please make a less stupid claim.
- Christianity has some errors of transmission which the Quran doesn't.
The fact the passages I will share this debate are even open for interpretation, means that you can't accurately preserve the intended meaning of words from a different time period whose context is difficult to decipher. It also misses the point that words have their meanings altered over time. Yes the original language remains, but we don't understand how the writers of the Quran interpreted the definitions of those words.
- There are no contradictions
I found zero contradictions in the Satanic Bible written by Anton LaVey. Is pro arguing that this makes Satanism true?
The personal ethics of the prophet
I am going to just try to say "the prophet" I place of Muhammad (PBUH) for the remainder of this debate to show some modicum of respect, though some of the respect has to go out of the window for me to perform my best in this debate, and I assume pro wants the toughest challenge he can find, so when he overcomes that challenge it gives him the strength he needs to defend his faith on an intellectual basis in the real world.
The prophet married a 6 year old girl and is said to have consumated the marriage when his cousin Aisha turned 9 years old.
Narrated Hisham's father:
"Khadija died three years before the Prophet (ﷺ) departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married `Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old."
That's not the only citation you can find 3 different references to this fact in Islam as well
The prophet has also been witnessed French kissing a male child.
"Musnad Ahmad 16245—[Mua’wiya said]: I saw the prophet sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire)"
Also let's not forget that pro thinks that the Bible has contradictions but literally worships the Jewish God who wrote his holy book. So is he arguing that the contradictions disprove the Torah while worshipping the Jewish God in the Torah?
Part 2
Copium
Let's spend some times talking about liars. There are two types of liars. The ones who lie to others and then those who lie to themselves.
They both use the same type of strategy to lie, and that's why it is relevant. For the people who know they are lying, we just call it lying. For the people who don't know, we call it coping.
They both use a lying technique called harmonizing. For a good example of this watch the Caycee Anthony interrogation videos where she keeps changing her story to make her contradictions harmonize.
In order for the lying technique known as harmonization to be effective, you need to first presuppose that there are no contradictions in a text. So Muslims don't look at the evidence first and then make a conclusion based on the most likely explanation. Instead they practice "harmonization", and you will see pro using that technique when he responds to my arguments. Let me explain what harmonization looks like for people who don't have a liar in their personal life to use as an example.
I am going to define harmonization as follows;
"The mental gymnastics to explain away contradictions"
Instead of harmonization I ask that the judges just use common sense and ask themselves the following question. What interpretation makes more sense when applying Occam's Razor "the simplest explanation normally being the correct one"
By applying Occam's razor you can avoid having to tolerate the confusing mental gymnastics that pro will throw out to desperately fight his cognitive dissonance.
Another copium that Muslims use to deal with contradictions is a concept known as naskh that deals with contradictions in Islam. Even applying what in Naskh is admitting to the fact Quranic contradictions occur.
Naskh is the erasure of old texts by newer texts. So the more recently a text was made, the less relevant the older Quranic text here. So when you see that Muslims call their religion peaceful, keep in mind the earlier texts are about peace and the later ones written are more antagonistic.
Example- An early revelation to The prophet is
"There is no compulsion in religion. (Surah 2:256)"
That teaches religious tolerance while one of the last verses is
"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (Surah 9:5)"
Which of course replaces the verse about peace as it was written later. The fact it is even written into the Quran a system for replacing contradictions with the newer verses, shows they pretty much admit to contradictions existing.
The formation of man
There are several explanations of how humans form in Islam.
Here is a list of various ways.
If I left this like this, pro would harmonize it by saying some verses refer to Adam and others to baby's in general.
That's fair enough. The verses #1 and #5 can refer to baby's in general. Verse 2 and 3 clearly refer to Adam, the first man. Let's be generous and assume that clay and mud as well as dust, mean the same substance, but described differently. Verse 4 still contradicta then all by saying man was made from nothing. Sperm and a clot is not nothing when referring to humans formed after Adam. Dust, mud and clay even if used to describe the same substance, cannot be defined as "nothing". They are in fact something.
Length of time to create the heaven and the earth
It takes 6 days for God to create the heaven and earth according to the Quran;
"Quran-7:54: Your guardian-Lord is Allah who created the heavens and earth in Six DaysQuran-10:3: Verily your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and earth in Six DaysQuran- 11:7: He it is Who created the heavens and earth in Six DaysQuran-25:29: He Who created the heavens and earth and all that is between, in Six Days"
But hold on. According to the Quran it also tells us it takes 8 days to create the heavens and earth.
"Quran-41:9 : Is it that ye deny Him who created the earth in Two Days ?Quran- 41:10: He set on the (earth) Mountains standing firm high above it, and bestowed blessing on the earth, and measured therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in FOUR DAYS…Quran-41:12: So He completed them (heavens) as seven firmaments in Two days and …""Now do the math: 2 (for earth) + 4 (for nourishment) + 2 (for heavens) = 8 days; and not 6 days."
I am sure that the mental gymnastics of harmonization of verses that my opponent makes will be humorous here.
The day of ALLAH
According to the Quran a day to Allah is like 1000 years, but hold on, it's actually 50,000 years. This of course is nonsensical and since Muslims want their scripture taken literally than that's what we should do.
"Quran-22:47: A day in the sight of the Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning.Quran-32:5: To Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be a thousand years of your reckoningQuran-70:4: The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a day the measure whereof is fifty thousand years"
Conclusion
A book being free of contradictions or retaining it's original language, doesn't mean it's from God and if we judge a tree by it's fruit than it definitely isn't from God.
However the Quran does contain obvious contradictions.
Round 2
Pro
#3
As Con said, his job is to find a mere contradiction in the Holy Quran to disprove my argument.
He literally moved to the UK because Islam destroyed whatever country he is from and he is completely reliant on a society built by Christians.
I was born in the UK, so this is just a weird section that Con included in his argument about finding contradictions in the Quran.
Pro thinks the following things are somehow proof that Islam is right. We can get into how he is wrong that this proof exists later, but for now let's focus on how stupid it is to assume any of the following is evidence of anything
First of all, I don't think the Quran is the word of God SOLELY because it doesn't contain any contradictions, this is an assumption that Con has made. Secondly, comparing a holy book to a comic is nonsensical. Surely it would make sense to compare religious books to religious books. Otherwise the argument could be made that a comic book hasn't got a contradiction in it therefore it can be the word of God. But nowhere does it claim in a comic book that it is the word of God, the Quran does.
97:1- Indeed, ˹it is˺ We ˹Who˺ sent this ˹Quran˺ down on the Night of Glory.
The same could not be said for the Bible which has evidently been changed and corrupted.
The fact the passages I will share this debate are even open for interpretation, means that you can't accurately preserve the intended meaning of words from a different time period whose context is difficult to decipher. It also misses the point that words have their meanings altered over time. Yes the original language remains, but we don't understand how the writers of the Quran interpreted the definitions of those words.
Go to prominent Arabic speakers, they can tell you what words mean, if you aren't fluent and understand the Arabic language, then you have no right to critique the language and if it is 'open to interpretation'.
I found zero contradictions in the Satanic Bible written by Anton LaVey. Is pro arguing that this makes Satanism true?
Again, I did not say that no contradictions in a religious book makes it true, I said it was one of the reasons. Lets assume that their aren't any contradictions or errors within the Satanic Bible. As you said, it was written by a guy named Anton Lavey, the Quran claims it was written by God. The linguistics of the Satanic Bible are similar to the Quran? Please do not bring these red herring arguments to my face again.
The personal ethics of the prophet
We can dismiss this entire passage speaking about the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) because it has nothing to do with the topic and it is a red herring.
Also let's not forget that pro thinks that the Bible has contradictions but literally worships the Jewish God who wrote his holy book. So is he arguing that the contradictions disprove the Torah while worshipping the Jewish God in the Torah?
I worship God, the creator of the universe. The Jewish God is one God and so is the Muslim God. However certain attributes of the Jewish God contradict such as God being jealous etc. Anyway, another strawman argument from Con here, lets move on. So far I haven't had any contradictions to answer.
Occam's Razor "the simplest explanation normally being the correct one"
Why are you presupposing what I am going to say before I argue your misconceptions?
Naskh is the erasure of old texts by newer texts. So the more recently a text was made, the less relevant the older Quranic text here. So when you see that Muslims call their religion peaceful, keep in mind the earlier texts are about peace and the later ones written are more antagonistic.
How many more red herrings is Con going to make? The Quran has stayed the same, there are no old texts/new texts.
"There is no compulsion in religion. (Surah 2:256)"That teaches religious tolerance while one of the last verses is"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (Surah 9:5)"
Right, so Con is making the argument that Muslims can force people to convert to Islam in 9:5 but not 2:256. Ok, a little misconception. The first verse, there is no compulsion in religion, is what Allah has ordained. Muslims cannot ever force someone to convert to Islam. The second verse, lets read from 9:1.
˹This is˺ a discharge from all obligations, by Allah and His Messenger, to the polytheists you ˹believers˺ have entered into treaties with- 9:1
What are these treaties? Peace treaties aghhh, this is very violent and forceful from the Muslims, to first want peace.
You ˹polytheists˺ may travel freely through the land for four months, but know that you will have no escape from Allah, and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers.- 9:2
So after the enemy broke the peace treaties, they have 4 months to travel freely through the land and to make peace with the Muslims? Again, very forceful here.
A declaration from Allah and His Messenger ˹is made˺ to all people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Messenger are free of the polytheists. So if you ˹pagans˺ repent, it will be better for you. But if you turn away, then know that you will have no escape from Allah. And give good news ˹O Prophet˺ to the disbelievers of a painful punishment.- 9:3
As for the polytheists who have honoured every term of their treaty with you and have not supported an enemy against you, honour your treaty with them until the end of its term. Surely Allah loves those who are mindful ˹of Him˺. 9:4
So those who follow their treaty with the Muslims, then Allah says to honour your side of the treaty as well. This is very forceful.
Is this a contradiction from Con, I am genuinely confused here.
The formation of man
Ok, the first of the many contradictions, I am looking forward to this, honestly.
So Con has agreed that 1 and 5 are not contradictions. And also 2 and 3. The only verse that Con has a problem about, is verse 4. Now, where does it say that they were created out of nothing?
Do ˹such˺ people not remember that We created them before, when they were nothing?- 19:67
Or were they created by nothing, or are they ˹their own˺ creators?- 52:35
19:67 states that before man was created, they were nothing. Then Allah created them.
52:35 states, do the non believers believe that they were created from nothing or that they created themselves?
Both verses do not contradict a thing, because Allah does not state that man was created from nothing.
And it is quite funny because Con brings Yusuf Ali interpretation into the mix. These are all of them.
Sahih International: Does man not remember that We created him before, while he was nothing?
Pickthall: Doth not man remember that We created him before, when he was naught?
Yusuf Ali: But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?
Shakir: Does not man remember that We created him before, when he was nothing?
Muhammad Sarwar: Does he not remember that We created him when he did not exist?
Mohsin Khan: Does not man remember that We created him before, while he was nothing?
Arberry: Will not man remember that We created him aforetime, when he was nothing?
Pickthall: Doth not man remember that We created him before, when he was naught?
Yusuf Ali: But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?
Shakir: Does not man remember that We created him before, when he was nothing?
Muhammad Sarwar: Does he not remember that We created him when he did not exist?
Mohsin Khan: Does not man remember that We created him before, while he was nothing?
Arberry: Will not man remember that We created him aforetime, when he was nothing?
Why is Yusuf Ali the only one who states 'out of nothing'? It is obvious that he did not mean they were literally created out of nothing. Next.
Length of time to create the heaven and the earth
Second misconception. The word 'yaum' is day in Arabic and it is not specified. The amount of time a day is, is not specified when the Quran was written, it is certainly not a 24 hour period. But Con will say I am using 'harmonization' here.
"Quran-7:54: Your guardian-Lord is Allah who created the heavens and earth in Six Days- Yes it was created in 6 periods of time.
"Quran-41:9 : Is it that ye deny Him who created the earth in Two Days ?- The earth was created in 2 periods of time.
Quran- 41:10: He set on the (earth) Mountains standing firm high above it, and bestowed blessing on the earth, and measured therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in FOUR DAYS- The creation of whatever was created on the earth was 4 periods of time.
Maybe the misconception was the 4 days are added to the 2 days the earth was created. This is incorrect. The earth was created in 2 days and then the mountains and everything within the earth was created in 2 more days equalling 4 days in total.
"Quran-22:47: A day in the sight of the Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning.Quran-32:5: To Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be a thousand years of your reckoningQuran-70:4: The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a day the measure whereof is fifty thousand years"
22:47 is talking about a day in the sight of Allah
32:5 is talking about the length of a day for a matter to go up to Allah
70:4 is talking about the day of judgement
3 different things.
Conclusion
I have not been presented with any contradictions and the misconceptions have been cleared up. Con has given me red herrings. strawman arguments and has presumed my arguments as well.
Con
#4
I did use a bunch of red herrings hoping that pro would fall for them, and he did probably bite More than he should have .
He has convinced me just with that, that no contradictions occur within the Quran, and even though I see a thin path to victory, despite that...
I don't want to take that path, because most likely it will still result in a loss, and worse than that, it will make the debate appear to be closer than it is and the voting is so bad here and the bias in my favor is so large, that I think there is about a 90% chance I would gain an unearned victory.
Pro won fair and square and I congratulate him and concede. He did better than Ii thought he would.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Well, that took a turn, I didn't expect that.
Nice gesture from Con there, appreciated.
Vote Pro
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Concession
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro does a great job at analyzing and deconstructing the logical fallacies.
Con could have easily won because the resolution is so one-sided that it sets an impossible BOP for Pro to meet. But Con ended up conceding.
Despite this, Pro does argue their position very effectively and overturns the counter arguments in their favor, despite the disadvantage.
Or not. I guess I judged too quicky.
I guarantee Prez-Hilton will say, "Pro DMed me and conceded."
Test passed.
Just a test to see if the website can render Arabic.
ا یَذۡكُرُ ٱلۡإِنسَـٰنُ أَنَّا خَلَقۡنَـٰهُ مِن قَبۡلُ
I am at peak Wylted right now. Every top debater on this site should be trying to duck me right now.
You know that the Quran was translated into English and every single person on this site can Google the age of Aisha and find out she married Muhammad (pbuh) at 6 right?
People like you are already blind to the truth therefore I don't need to debate or deny your claims because they are nonsensical as they are. You are a little boy, no two ways about it
Does Muhammad (PBUH) care if you convert people or not?
Does your God care if you convert people?
Serious question because if you think what I said is wrong and you aren't arguing against it, than you are allowing others to believe what I said and possibly turning away potential Muslims
WTF you removed me as a friend. I thought we were cool.
I am not entertaining this conversation, you are not worth my time little guy
The claim about Aisha and the boy whose tongue he was sucking on are 2 different claims. Not the same one. I was not calling Aisha a boy.
Please go ahead and debunk the prophet (pbuh), marrying Aisha.
You quoted a hadith, not the Quran. So your original claim was false. Anyway, as I said not an authentic hadith, never happened. These fools, never learn smh
And Aisha was not a male, but a female. So that claim was wrong to.
And it is the same argument with the marriage of Aisha and the Prophet, pathetic, it has been debunked many many times.
Trolling is weird my guy, especially when you are wrong for every single thing lol
You are right. Aisha was not 13 but 6
You are going to hell for lying about the Quran.
Musnad Ahmad 16245—[Mua’wiya said]: I saw the prophet sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire)
The Quran has nothing to do with the Prophets accounts because the Quran was written by God. Now you are making disgusting claims about the Prophet which you have no evidence of. I don't see where the Prophet brags about having sex with a 13 year old cousin in the Hadith, nor do I see an authentic Hadith stating he wants to 'suck on his tongue'. This is a clueless attempt at an argument and you should be ashamed of yourself.
How is it a perfect book when it's prophet brags about fucking his 13 year old cousin and is sexually intimate with little boys and wants them to and I quote "suck on his tongue"?