Islam vs Other Religions

Thank you for sharing your stance with me. I will be addressing Islam from Christian Catholic perspective as I am a follower of Christ. 

I must say that I almost perfectly agree with you on the metaphysical understanding of God. If there is a God, he must be omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-mighty) and omnibenevolent (all-loving). He must be beyond time and space (as he is the creator of these concepts), but he also cannot be made by anyone or anything else (for he should be truly eternal), while most importantly, he (the infinite) must have created the entire (finite) universe from his will and with an intent. Therefore he is perfect, uncreated, and like you said, self-sufficient.

Even though I recognize Islam as having a solid understanding of who God is, I do not see a possibility that the Quran can be the flawless word of God.

You claim that the Quran has not been altered or changed without any conflicting versions, saying, "it is perfectly preserved, letter for letter, exactly as it was revealed to prophet Muhammad over 1,400 years ago, with only one version across the entire world." Unfortunately that is completely wrong. The Quran has in fact two versions, Hafs and Warsh. Notably, these two are both recognized as canonical readings of Quran by Sunni Islam. These two versions differ on not just the grammar but on entire meanings and word choices. Below is a list of just a few examples that show their differences:

It is crucial to note that there are thousands of differences between those two texts beside these examples I just gave you.

But like how Q 2:184 changes the number of people you’re commanded to feed in expiation completely changes what the passage instructs, these differences alternate entire commands that were supposedly given from God. I could go on and on about the thousands other verses, but it is not worth our time. So no, your argument about how the Quran is the perfectly preserved word of God is absolutely flawed and incorrect.

Next, you claim that the Quran has "unmatched linguistic beauty and contains scientific truths that were unknown at the time of its revelation." Sadly, this argument does not work at all. If a text has literary beauty, it does not mean it is from God. If that is so, then Shakespeare should be considered God's prophet because of how outstanding (and arguably better than Quran) his works were in terms of literary beauty. 

As for the scientific revelation, this part of the argument does not appear to be valid either. First of all, you do not provide any examples of "scientific revelation" that you speak of, which you should have mentioned. You might have meant how the Quran tells the stages of development of a child in the womb. Muslims often cite it and it is one of the most popular "proofs" for this stance. The Quran describes it as following: Nutfah → Alaqah → Mudghah → bones → flesh. It clearly states that the bones come first and that they are later "clothed with flesh" (Surah Al-Muminun (23:14). Scientifically, this sequence is wrong. Latest research found out that both bones and flesh begin developing around the same time, with neither proceeding the other in a sequence, with the bones most certainly not being "clothed with flesh." This is a clear incoherence or inaccuracy, suggesting that the Quran is either not the word of God or was not preserved properly. I could also talk how allegedly the Quran describes mountains as stabilizers of the Earth’s crust, but it is not necessary as the womb development already debunks the whole argument.

So for a fact, when we compare Islam to religions that worship human-like gods, Islam finds itself stronger in terms of its understanding of who God is (which is arguably borrowed from Christianity). Yet on preservation of revelation and compelling rational/scientific proofs it performs terribly, or least to say, controversially. 

Islam stands closer to truth than most religions considered "pagan" by Abrahamic faiths, but is still far from it, particularly by denying the divinity of Jesus alongside his crucifixion. The Quran makes a fatal mistake denying these. If Jesus was indeed crucified, then Islam has no possibility of being true (it is a core belief of muslims), but at the same time if Jesus was not crucified then Christianity collapses.

To determine if it happened let's look at clear facts and scholarly opinion. Virtually, all historians, Christian, secular, atheist, agnostic, hindu, budhist - agree that Jesus Christ of Nazareth suffered and died from crucifixion under the ruling of Pontius Pilate around 33 AD in the Roman province of Judea. His crucifixion is not only accepted by his followers (through the Gospels and the entirety of the New Testament which precisely document how it took place) but by Roman historians (Tacitus and Josephus) from that era, too. The fact is, the Quran visibly contradicts overwhelming historical evidence from all type of sources (The Romans, Jewish Talmud, and obviously Christian testimonies).

Thank you for your reply, let us go straight to the point then.

You start off by saying that Hafs and Warsh are not different Qurans. The problem is that they visibly are two different versions of that book. You admit that there are differences in vocalization and dialect, and that alone makes them two versions. But These versions do not differ just by grammar and language;  they have fundamentally different meanings and interpretations of many passages of the Quran like I have pointed out before, which you do not address. They are significant alternations of the supposed original message (read carefully round 1 again).

As for the Bible, if some of its numerous translations to all languages in the world have issues, this proves nothing about the authenticity of Quran. The Dead Sea Scrolls (250 BC to 68 AD), for example, show the same exact old testament that we have today, despite the scrolls being 2000 years old. This means the Christian writers perfectly preserved the first texts, and it is illogical based on evidence to believe corruption occured over time. So you cannot argue that the Bible has been alternated or corrupted if you fail to acknowledge your own holy book was not perfectly preserved, either.

You keep persisting on Quran's "literary beauty" argument. But your argument is subjective nonsense.

Quran has a unique style it was written in, but so do countless books throughout history. Uniqueness does not equal divinity, ever. If so, then Vedas, Homer’s epics, Dante and Shakespeare can be called divine, too. Same thing for integration of different fields of study or lasting impact on society (all of these authors undeniably had it). And do not forget that there are numerous religious texts that are also literally beautiful but informative on many fields of study. Read the Mahabharata. It is a foundation of Hinduism on not just poetry, but philosophy, ethics, law, and cosmology, although we can agree that it is a myth. 

Yet most importantly, you fail to realize all of this is extremely subjective. You cannot objectively say these texts are more or less beautiful. A Hindu, Budhist, or a Christian will all disagree with you because of their religious affiliation, like you yourself will disagree with them. It is simply lazy and wrong to say that literary beauty is a proof for a religion.

Then you go start talking about those "scientific realities" in your holy book. Once again, you do not address what I said. I like how you dodge what I said on embryology and then claim you are correct without saying why. The narrative you take contradicts your own scripture. Here is Q23:14, "then We developed the drop into a clinging clot, 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." 

the passage visibly states, that:

But according to science (simplified):

the Quran is fundamentally wrong on the development of bones and muscles; flesh is not clothed around the bones. Bones do not predate the flesh.

Dr. Keith Moore did not confirm this view. He was invoked in a study on this topic, but the Quranic commentary was conducted separately, and Moore was not even involved in interpreting the Quran. In a special edition of his book The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology he allowed a Muslim scholar Abdul-Majeed al-Zindani to add Quranic verses and commentary of that man. The issue here is that he is a known political Islamic propagandist. Later, this book's edition was condemned as a political and religious project, not a scientific one. “The result of Moore’s and Zindani’s collaboration is not an academic book and subsequent editions omit and contradict the ‘Islamic additions’.” This is why the book's version today is referred to as The Developing Human; With Islamic Additions. Funny enough, "J. Needham, a well known authority on the history of embryology and a reference cited in Keith Moore's books, has also dismissed embryology in the Qur'an as merely "a seventh-century echo of Aristotle and the Ayer-veda."" (J. Needham, Cambridge, 2nd edition 1959, A History of Embryology, page 77.)  This is on point because in De Generatione Animalium Aristotle wrote that the embryo starts as a "blood clot" and that then it gradually forms into a "lump." He also had similar but confusing order (like the Quran) of when bones and flesh are formed.

If you want me to, I could go through other alleged "Quranic scientific realities" like the "moon split in half" which is ahistorical. but it is not necessary, because:

On crucifixion, on the other hand, you reject historical consensus as mere "human opinion" but you simultaneously embrace scientific consensus when you think it supports Quran. In both history and science, consensus is: experts analyzing, debating and reviewing evidence to reach an educated conclusion. Like I said before, scientists whether of Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, or Buddhist background collectively come to a conclusion Jesus was crucified. But like you said, Muslims and Jews, forced by faith, deny it. This shows religious bias, not logical reasoning.

To put it simply;

I do not trust a book that comes 600 years after the event it talks about and says "it was made to appear so because I say so" and providing no credible evidence (Q4:157) behind this claim. It is just a blind assertion leading to blind faith.

I trust the eye-witnesses of Christ, their testimonies (that all agree Jesus was crucified), historians of that era and historians that came after it, the church fathers, and his early followers that existed since his crucifixion and beyond.

by the way, I would appreciate it if you maybe addressed me next time, not the audience. You are debating me, not giving speeches to voters. If you do it just for votes, you miss the point. This is about thoughtful engagement. Thank you for your understanding

I believe I have addressed and refuted your main objections sufficiently. Unless you have new substantial evidence to add on these points, I suggest we move on to the core matter—God Himself. Let us compare the concept of God in Islam versus Christianity.
In Islam, all Muslims—regardless of sect—agree on a clear, unified understanding of God: He is Allah, the One and Only, eternal, uncreated, absolutely perfect, with no partners, no children, no equals. He is All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-Merciful, beyond space and time, and nothing is like Him (Qur’an 42:11). He does not incarnate into creation, but He is fully aware of and in control over it.
In Christianity, however, the concept of God varies significantly between denominations. Some believe in the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one God—while others reject the Trinity entirely and follow Unitarian views. Even among Trinitarians, there are disagreements on the nature of Christ’s divinity, the role of the Holy Spirit, and the relationship between the three persons. This doctrinal variation creates multiple interpretations of who God is, while Islam’s concept remains one clear definition agreed upon by all its followers worldwide.
Could you please clarify your own denomination and your description of God, so I can better understand your position?