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?

No matter what you say, by definition, Hafs and Warsh have to be considered two versions of the Quran. They are very similar, but still differ in thousands of cases across the book, and denying that is being intellectually dishonest. Some alternations are less significant, some are more. I am aware that Arabic is much different from English, but it does not excuse the two versions to change if the words are plural, singular, in present or in past tense as frequently as they do. Classical Arabic has very strict grammar rules. It is true that the language has stylistic leeway, but distinctions itself are not meaningless or always accidental. They can carry heavy weight, that indeed change what passages say. Just claiming that it is simply linguistic flexibility is a major exaggeration, which I think you are aware of. But Bible translations have often an identical problem. It is only illogical to take the "one version" argument as a proof for a divine revelation.

Once again, you cannot deny beauty is subjective, but I see it is hard for you to accept that. You still want to prove Quran with this, now talking about rhythmic precision and other ideas. Honestly, I could not care a bit that the book has all that stuff, because so do Loony Tunes and Hollywood. I am not saying the Quran is ugly, if you think I was ever implying that. I think it is still beautiful, and really does have depth in it. But that is not and will never be proof for it. I could go on about how the Bible is infinitely more poetic just because I see it as more beautiful. But I am not going to, since I prefer to follow logic and reasoning to determine something, not personal bias.

I see you tried to create your own analogy of how Islam explains the creation of embryo in the womb, but it is not correct. the Quran explicitly says this process is a sequence. First bones are formed, then they are clothed with flesh. But it is just not the case in modern science. cartilage (not even bone  yet) and muscle develop simultaneously, and the actual creation of bones (ossification) takes place when muscle is already there. Saying the Quran is making a "broad description" is a poor attempt of explaining this passage and that it miraculously aligns with science. Such claim does not match Arabic grammar or biology either. 

Moore did state that about what was given to him. The problem is that he did not study it and was just told how Muslims interpret it. If you really analyze it, it is wrong, muscles are not clothed around the bones. Moore himself later clarified he had only been repeating Muslim colleagues’ interpretations for a Saudi edition, and he never endorsed the Qur’an as scientifically accurate. There is a reason why other scientists do not consider his book's special Islamic decision as reliable.

Sure, a religious text can go off topic and become a science book. But none of them are usually right, including Quran. Taking its pseudo science ideas as literal facts will debunk your faith quickly. I am not going to believe that a tribal community in Arabia alongside Muhammad saw the moon split in half around 600 AD and not a single person outside of their group saw it. Historically this did not happen. But believe what you want to believe. At some point this becomes blind faith, though.

I do rely on historical consensus, but so do you to prove your alleged scientific realities in the Quran. We all rely on consensus because there is not a lot of things we can objectively prove about anything in life that is not a human concept. It is just that when something reaches a very high level of authenticity we consider it a fact. So is Jesus' crucifixion. Mathematically, if you add up the amount of evidence for it, there are better odds he really did die and rise from the dead.

You claim that I ignore things like that the gospels were written a considerable amount of time after Jesus, but I do acknowledge that. Jesus did not tell his disciples "Go write a book about me," He told them to spread the gospel. And so they did. We have clear evidence that Christianity went all over the known world in the first decades, reaching Rome, Gallia, Greece, Mesopotamia and Persia. Importantly, The earliest book of the New Testament was Paul's letter to Thessalonians. It was not originally a religious text at all. It was just an epistle of one of the apostles to Christian Thessalonians who faced persecution. Paul wrote it to encourage them to stay strong and that they should respond with love and compassion to the persecution they are facing. It shows that the apostles did not intend to write anything in the first place. Only later on when the eye-witnesses of Christ started to die out did some of them start to actually write things down so their knowledge would not be lost. Oh and Jesus also Spoke Greek, not just Aramaic.

As for your question, all Christians that are not heretical have the same understanding of who Jesus is, no matter what denomination they are. Denominations mainly differ on smaller things like on the importance of Mary, saints and church's power. To be fair, just search for it yourself. Preferably find catechism or read the Nicene creed. Or you can read the Bible but that will take you quite a while.

note that Jehovah's witnesses or Mormons are not Christian, they deny core Christian doctrine.

In the next round I will try to address how I personally think Quran came to be.

It does not seem you are here to truly understand — but rather to dismiss. You have already ignored several of the scientific points I raised, points I am confident you cannot disprove.

And you have dismissed the moon splitting as if it were simply a tribal claim, but historical records show otherwise. The Qur’an (54:1) records: “The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has split.” This was not presented as a metaphor — it was a physical event witnessed by the people of Mecca as a sign. The Prophet ﷺ’s contemporaries, including disbelievers, attested to seeing it. Reports also exist from India, where King Chakrawati Fern saw the event and recorded it, aligning historically with the lifetime of Muhammad ﷺ. To say “no one outside saw it” is historically inaccurate — just because the event did not make it into every civilization’s surviving records does not negate that some did record it. Ancient astronomical records are incomplete, and selective preservation is common, but we do have testimonies from outside Arabia.

It does seem like you have not read my previous arguments fully. I myself said 2 rounds ago that I will not delve deeper into any other scientific realities Quran claims to provide because one contradiction is enough to say that the Quran is not perfect nor divine. So it is not sensible to put a focus on a hundred verses at once. No, there is no record of king Chakrawati Fern confirming the moon was split in half. There is no independent historical evidence from anywhere else about it for at least 500 years after this event. This is pure Islamic tradition. Sure, Quran can claim that disbelievers saw it, but there is no evidence for that outside of its own scripture. It could not have been a physical event on historical or scientific basis; maybe only an appearance specifically for that small group of people.

The sequence may be vague, though this is not the key problem (but it still is a problem overall). The key problem is that bones are not "clothed" with flesh. This does not match modern biology. It is not just overlapping; this is contradictory. Even the sequence you gave clearly shows it. "ossified bones" (which is just bones, all bones are ossified from the definition of the word bone) develop simultaneously with muscles; they do not predate the muscles, and the muscles are not "clothed around them" like the Quran says. It is true that Greek medical theories on this had major inaccuracies, but so does the Quran. And no, this knowledge was not far from its time. It is identical to the one of Greeks and Hindus, and I showed it to you.

No, Islam did come to erase Christianity. the Quran repeatedly contradicts all core Christian beliefs (Divinity of Christ, Trinity, crucifixion, salvation through Christ, his resurrection). It is outright denial of the gospels as wrong on almost everything. The Quran hates Christian belief and wants it gone, saying that those who are Christian will be punished (Surah al-Ma’idah (5:73), or that Jesus will reject Christians in heaven (Surah al-Ma’idah 5:116, but note that this verse does put words in Jesus' mouth, not quote him). This is a clear attempt to erase a faith, not to "confirm it" (your words here)

I am not sure why you would quote Matthew 15:24 here. The verse is correct. He came for the lost sheep of Israel (Israel means "of ones who strive with God"). Though it is contradictory for you to quote any scripture, because Jesus also said, "I and the father are one," "No one comes to the father except through me," "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end," "before Abraham was, I am." So if you trust Matthew 15:24, you are making nonsense not trusting other biblical verses.

Sorry to break it for you, but translations of the Bible have the same type of differences as Warsh and Hafs. They differ from the sentence structure to specific words used. Yes, translations have visible variations, but so do Warsh and Hafs, and I showed it to you. Stop arguing that. That means no, Quran has not really been preserved word-for-word, Hafs and Warsh prove it.

You say that those who were not the true prophets were exposed by the Quran. Okay, but so was Islam on core doctrine about Jesus by Christians.  The Bible talks A LOT about the false prophets. Here's just a few examples:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." (Matthew 7:15)

“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies…” (2 Peter 2:1)

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed," (Galatians 1:8)

"And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” (2 Corinthians 11:13–15)

Now look at all these. Don't they remind us of someone? Maybe a man from Arabia who lived around 600 AD, 600 years after the gospels. The same man who around that time entered a cave called Hira in which he heard "Archangel Gabriel" (a voice)  commanding out load "Iqra!" (read). The same man who then replied he could not read for he is illiterate, after which "Archangel Gabriel" seized him, and pressed him so hard that he could not breathe. This "angel" repeated that 3 times. Each time the man answered "I am not a reader" and each time the "angel" squeezed and started strangling him. Then the voice shouted “Recite in the name of your Lord who created—created man from a clot (ʿalaq). Recite, and your Lord is most generous…”

The same man that after this encounter:

This man was Muhammad, and you know the rest of the story. How then that voice started telling him “You are the Messenger of God," and how the voice gave Muhammad the Quran.

Guess who, according to the Hadith, convinced Muhammad it was not Satan? His Wife and the wife's "Christian" cousin. The cousin (Waraqa) said “This is the same Namus (the angel Gabriel) who came to Moses. Would that I were alive when your people drive you out!" This is the only explanation both Hadith and Quran provide. Unfortunately neither of these books explain why the woman thinks that the mysterious voice was Gabriel in the first place.

But how about we will see why this really could be the Archangel Gabriel? let's check what the Bible describes him.

"Mary, do not be afraid. You have found favor with God. 31 See! You are to become a mother and have a Son. You are to give Him the name Jesus. 32 He will be great. He will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give Him the place where His early father David sat. 33 He will be King over the family of Jacob forever and His nation will have no end.” (Luke 1:26-38)

“Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. 14 He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, 15 for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born. He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God" (Luke 1:11-16)

“I am Gabriel,” replied the angel. “I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news!" (Daniel 1:19)

Gabriel is gentle, calm, reassuring, and never violent. He shows compassion with authority.

But the Quranic one is aggressive, violent, uneasy, and forceful. He almost kills Muhammad by strangling him and leading him to suicide.

This is not the same Gabriel. Besides, he told Mary that she will bear God's son, but then preaches to Muhammad that she did not. All of this biblically, based on the evidence, is Satan disguised as Archangel Gabriel. Look at the verses from before:

"But if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed,"

"for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.”

So if you say that Islam disproves Christianity, note that Christianity disproved Islam, too,  just 600 years earlier.

This is why I am very critical to Quran. I do not respect Satan, for he is the root of evil, so I cannot have a lot of respect for something that is probably demonic. By the way, the best part of this is that I do not even need to prove to you that the Quran is wrong on science or other things (although it is). Even if it somehow was correct nonetheless, it still would be knowledge given from Satan, not God.

But remember that I respect Muslims as people, and so I respect you.

As for your question, I can define to you core Christian doctrine. I see that the Christians you told me you have met believe in God 'very differently.' First of all, anyone who calls themselves Christian is not necessarily a Christian. Many people have heretical views and do not submit to any serious religious authority, which is why there are many denominations out there. Like when a protestant pastor disagrees with another pastor, he automatically creates a new denomination (and I oppose that).

Every true Christian believes that God is one in 3 persons; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

They relate to each other distinctly (The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, etc.), but they are all eternally united as one divine essence (God). Christianity is strictly monotheistic. There is one God, one divine essence. Whenever you speak about any person of the trinity, you speak of God. It is a very difficult concept that can be misunderstood, hence there are hundreds of heresies on this topic. These include: Arianism, Modalism, Nestorianism, Docetism, Adoptionism, Partialism, Ebionitism and more). The Quran thinks the trinity is "Allah is the third of three." That is actually a heresy called Tritheism, debunked by the early Church Fathers.

For you to know, there is a really good chance that when anyone will ask a random Christian on the trinity, they might say something heretical. This is because most people are not theologians, and explaining God is not an easy thing. This is why a strong Church authority that defines what is dogma and what is heresy (through ecumenical councils) is required. So do not try to learn about these complicated things from a random self-proclaimed Christian around you (whom I am to you), but maybe an apologist or a clergy member preferably.

So in the end, my main points are: If one contradiction exists, the Quran is not perfect nor divine. Islam and Christianity refute each other, but Christianity did it 600 years before Islam even existed. Christians are strict monotheists, and anyone who does not understand that does not understand the faith.

Note that I did not insult Prophet Muhammad. I respect him as a man, because I think he was deceived, so he does not hold much guilt for anything. I told you that I only do not respect Satan, who based on evidence, was disguised as Archangel Gabriel when giving the Quranic revelation.

On splitting of the Moon, you brought nothing new to the table. I already showed you that scientifically and historically this did not happen. You make a conflicting claim that "not every local event in antiquity was recorded globally." So you admit that it was a local event, not a literal one, meaning the moon was not physically split in half. Yet before you insisted that it was indeed physically split (making it not a local event). This is, again, contradictory, or you have to admit that you were wrong.

But for some reason you claim there is a "Western scientist" who found evidence that this really took place. First of all, you do not provide any source, name of the scientist, or even a specific proof he found. Second of all, a physical splitting of the moon is impossible scientifically, so a scientist cannot prove it by any means. If it did happen, Earth's tides and axial tilt would be shifted completely, the day and night cycle would stop functioning properly, leading to a total ecological and climatic collapse (a.k.a. an apocalypse). So either that "scientist" was an idiot (tried to explain something that cannot be explained by science), or you made him up.

So your strongest defense is essentially: ‘We believe it happened because the Qur’an says so.’ That’s circular. It simply means that this is not a reliable evidence for Quran's authenticity, so you were wrong this whole time.

you keep pursuing on embryology, but it only shows how little science you know. Eventually, you said the same thing as before, and you did not address me saying how you were wrong about it from before. Still, you wrote that the Quran: "describes the sequence as humans perceive it: the skeletal structure forms first, then is “clothed” with muscle." I have to correct you for the third time; bones are formed simultaneously with the flesh, and the flesh is not "clothed" around bones. I even described to you the entire process in detail in the previous round, but you are not listening. You make absolutely no sense and you have practically no understanding of modern science. There is no "different perception" as you claim. The Quran is just wrong on this, and you fail to realize that while trying to argue it isn't as a person without a lot of scientific knowledge.

'Oh it's just a linguistic difference' no it isn't. This is just a lazy excuse. If your book is meant to have scientific proofs, then it must be judged against science, not poetry. Science does not change with a language. Quran is objectively wrong, and you failed to show otherwise.

Next, you proceeded to talk even bigger nonsense. "Christians themselves declared that the Torah was altered" what? Nobody thinks that, and you again gave me no source for such a bold claim. This is a straight up lie. Also, for some reason you are surprised that we associate Jesus as God. I already showed you the verses that visibly say Jesus is God, but you clearly ignore them. You are making no point here at all.

Then you made a completely senseless analogy, saying: 'If Christians shout "Oh God" but not always "Oh Son" then they have a secret recognition of one true God.' Excuse me? This is just a joke. I am not even going to respond to this one.

About Revelation and Gabriel, even in the Bible, most prophets initially feared the angels that gave them the revelation. That is undeniable and the scripture clearly states that. But Gabriel physically violated Muhammad, almost strangling him to death and pushing him to commit suicide. Like I showed you before, Quran's Gabriel is completely different than the one in the Bible. From gentle, calm, reassuring, and non-violent, Gabriel turned into an aggressive, violent, uneasy, and forceful person. This is a contradiction, and I cannot trust the Quran that an archangel behaves like that. This is how Satan operates, not God's messengers.

You later ask a first, genuinely good question. "If you reject my scripture, why should I accept yours?" I already answered it to you, though. The Quran claims to disprove the Bible, but the Bible also disproved Islam, just 600 years earlier.

The Bible not only predicts but warns about Muhammad and Satan. And if Christians can perfectly preserve the Old Testament (Dead Sea Scrolls, 250 BCE to 68 CE), so could they preserve the New Testament.

Next, you asked: 'Which Bible canon is the authoritative Word?' I am a Catholic, so I follow the oldest Bible canon of 73 books composed by the early Church Fathers, and I am sure that this is the one and true canon. Protestants reduce the number to 66 because Martin Luther felt like the apocrypha books were not "holy enough," but this is heretical (he did it based on personal feelings, not facts).

Next, your "preservation" point is not even about preservation. You just say that there are "competing versions" of the Bible. That has nothing to do with preservation. I seriously have no idea what you were trying to say there.

On trinity, once again you visibly show  that you are not really reading what I say. I literally predicted that you would quote Qur’an 4:171 (which you did) and I explained to you before that the Quran does not understand the concept of Trinity and actually names a heresy debunked by the Church Fathers (Tritheism), but you brush it off like I never even pointed that out. This shows arrogance and a deliberate refusal to engage with the facts I provided.

So just because you do not understand what the Trinity is (you follow a heretical understanding of it) does not mean it is logically incoherent. If you would genuinely try to comprehend it you would see that it is quite brilliant. I even told you to first research about Trinity before making claims on it, but of course you didn't do that. Just pure arrogance and bias here. And only because something is simple and easy to comprehend (Like the simplicity of Allah in the Quran), it does not mean that it is ultimately correct. In fact, it might suggests this is not the truth considering that almost anyone can come up with such idea.

Then once more you claim that Islam did not come to destroy faith but restore it. I debunked this 1 round ago, though, and you never addressed my response. Go read it, actually. I am not going to repeat myself pointlessly. 

Oh and if that was not bad enough, you suddenly made your own "conclusion" that brought up completely new topics we have not yet discussed. But alright, I'll try to address these briefly.

Islam makes women the property of men. It strips away most of their rights, makes them unable to leave their house without the husband's permission, allows the husband to have numerous wives but wives only to have 1 husband. It forbids women from taking divorce while letting men do it by just shouting the word "divorce" 3 times, and allows husbands to beat their wives up for any misdoing. This treatment of women is still common in most Muslim homes and is absolutely disgusting. Islam protects women from anything but its own followers.

You visibly know nothing about Christian discipline. We are instructed to fast for periods of time. Gluttony is one of the 7 deadly sins. Plus, the Church always taught that the body is the Holy Spirit's temple and we must be disciplining ourselves to be and look holy. As for alcohol, excessive drinking of it is a sin. But alcohol in small amounts is not evil. Obsession and addiction is. But funny enough, despite prohibitions, Muslim societies still have major alcohol problems.

You criticize Christians for slavery but you don't mention yourself how deeply rooted it was within the Islamic world for centuries. In fact, Islam practiced slavery way before Europeans did and for a much longer period of time. Like in the treaty of Baqt (652 AD), Nubians committed themselves to provide 360 healthy slaves to the Muslim caliphates every year. This treaty lasted for 7 centuries. The Bible clearly says that all humans are made in the image of God (Imago Dei). Remember that it was the Church that was the leading force in the abolitionist movement. So like Muslims violated the Quran's command on equality, so did some Christians.

I have no idea why you attack monasticism (people voluntarily submitting their lives to God instead of earthly desires), but sure, if you prefer your desires, monasticism is not mandatory, just encouraged.

In summary, throughout this debate, I showed you that:

You were not able to debunk any of these, you showed a lack of scientific knowledge, and you were visibly not listening most of the time. While I respect the effort you put into this debate, your responses were often evasive, repetitive, and at times outright dismissive of the evidence I provided. Instead of addressing my actual arguments, you spoke generally about the points you were throwing at me without responding to what I say about them. I warned you not to do that throughout the debate, but you still insisted on going your way.

Like I said at the start of the debate, Islam indeed appears to have a very plausible idea of God in accordance to science and logic (which is borrowed from Christianity and Judaism), but it cannot be the word God based on its internal contradictions, historical and scientific inaccuracies, as well as moral flaws that reveal it as either a work of an evil man or Satan himself.

I know you are very biased toward Islam, but I also admit that I possess my own bias whatsoever. The difference between us is that I provide, facts, evidence, and solid reason to prove my points, when you rely on vague claims, subjective assertions, and circular reasoning that collapse once examined critically.