Are Muslims on the true path?
Argument#2: According to Surah 3:7 of the Qur'an, a book was given to Muhammad (i.e. the Qur'an) in this book are verses which are clear, they are the Mother of the Book, and others which are unclear which Allah alone understands. Since the Mother of the Book is defined by Muhammad, Bukhari and Ibn Kathir as Surah 1, it stands to reason that there is 1 single "clear" chapter of the Qur'an, leaving the remaining 113 chapters unclear and understood only by Allah. Thus the Qur'an as a whole is unintelligible.
Argument#3: There are five pillars in Islam. One of these pillars is the 5 daily prayers. Yet according to Sahih Bukhari, Allah originally commanded Muhammad to enjoin 50 prayers a day upon his people. But due to Muhammad's lack of submission to Allah, but rather a submission to Moses instead, and due to the fallen nature of his people, the number of prayers were reduced. Thus one of the five pillars upholding Islam is not based upon Muhammad's actual submission to Allah but to a mere man instead as well as his eventual shame and embarrassment which caused him to not dare ask Allah to reduce the prayers from 5 down to something even less.
Argument #4: According to Surah 4:136, Muslims must believe in all the prophets and if they do not believe, they have gone far astray. However, Muslims do not know who the prophets are outside of those mentioned in the Qur'an. For example - are the Old Testament prophets Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah true prophets of Allah? The Muslim does not know. Perhaps they are corruptions or false prophets. Since the Muslim by default lacks the necessary belief in these other prophets, they have gone far astray according to Surah 4:136.
Argument #5: One of the prophets accepted by both Christians and Muslims is Jesus Christ. However the Muslim cannot substantiate the Jesus of Islam as an actual historical figure who was:
- Born of a virgin
- Not Son of God
- Not God manifested in the flesh
- Not crucified
from any sources prior to Muhammad.
Argument#6: Jesus Himself is the way, the truth and the life. Thus for Muslims to be on the true path, they must believe into Christ who bears the very titles of Allah (Truth: Al Haqq) and life
I thank Con for making this debate possible, Con posted his arguments in the first round and God willing refute all of them.
Con asserts that Satan was in the dream of Muhammad, so the "Qur'an" is from Satan, let us examine this argument:
The hadith in Bukhari 6:60:479 & 480 mention true dreams and then when you go to the Hadith located after Hadith number 481 "The Prophet returned to Khadija and said, "Wrap me! Wrap me!" (Then the sub-narrator narrated the rest of the narration.)" so after Archangel Gabriel came to Muhammad, Muhammad was frightened so he went running to his wife and said the above, from the we can conclude that revelations were happening in Cave Hira, to even assert that Satan was in this is really not so good, because you if you see some verses of the Qur'an it describes Satan as a clear enemy!
35:6 "Indeed, Satan is an enemy to you; so take him as an enemy..."
First of all, Qur'an was revealed in recatiation the Hadiths you quote above confirm this(Sahih Bukhari 6:60:479 & 480)
I want to see these definitions by Muhammad or Ibn Kathir, please present them with sources in the next round.
Allah the Almighty describes the verses that start in Surahs Ali'Imran(Chapter 3) lets see what Allah meant:
3:1 "Alif, Lam, Meem."
2:1 "Alif, Lam, Meem."
19:1 "Kaf, Ha, Ya, 'Ayn, Sad."
These verses shown above are only known to Allah, If you further see the context of chapter 3 It describes the issue perfectly.
Qur'an is easy to understand according to this verses(there are other verses) :
54:17 "And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?"
2:2 "This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah -"
The holy Qur'an is easy to understand and remember, and has not doubts, your asserts are not valid.
I will simplify what Con is saying:
'Muhammad obeyed Moses instead of Allah, therefore one of the pillars of Islam is based on shame and embarrasment.'
It is quite not bright for someone to assert something like this, during the Isra' and Mi'raj(where this event happened) Moses asked Muhammad to go ask Allah to reduce the prayers, because Moses said that people would not bare 50 prayer a day, and then it was reduced to 5 after Muhammad asked Allah for that to happen, Con uses words like submission, as in that Muhammad did not listen to God but went to Moses, as you can see from the story I said above It is from God's mercy that he allowed it to be only 5 prayers.
Submission meaning: "The action of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person:" Moses did not have superior force or authority of Muhammad or vice versa, It was Muhammad who went and asked God after Moses's sugesstion.
Yes Muslims have to believe in the Prophets that are mentioned in the Qur'an, but people like Isaiah, first before I go into your argument I will correct some of your mistakes.
Ezekiel is mentioned in the Qur'an his name in Arabic is Dhul-Kifl(or Zul-kifl) as stated in the following verses:
21:85-86 "And [mention] Ishmael and Idrees and Dhul-Kifl; all were of the patient.And We admitted them into Our mercy. Indeed, they were of the righteous." (Idrees or Idris is Enoch)
Zechariah is mentioned in the Qur'an also, his name in Arabic is Zakariya:
19:2 "[This is] a mention of the mercy of your Lord to His servant Zechariah" Then the chapter continues to talk about the birth of Jesus & John the baptist and their stories.
Isaiah has been accepted as a prophet by Muslim scholars:
"Ibn Kathir, and, Kisa'i reproduced Jewish traditions, transmitted through early Jewish converts to Islam, regarding Isaiah. Such Old Testament stories, which are not confirmed by the Quran or prophetic hadeeth, are referred to as Isra'iliyyah, and are not considered strong enough to be used as evidence in Islamic law. Isaiah is mentioned as a prophet in Ibn Kathir's Story of Prophet Isaiah"
In Islam Jesus was the Maseeh(Translated Christ) and was born out of a virgin In the following verses:
19:19-22 "He said, "I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you [news of] a pure boy." She said, "How can I have a boy while no man has touched me and I have not been unchaste?" He said, "Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, 'It is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter [already] decreed.' " So she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a remote place."
3:45 "[And mention] when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary - distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah ]."
This is not a debate whether Jesus was God, Son of God, or Jesus was crucified.
We believe that Jesus, John 14:6 "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." at his time, we believe that Jesus was the above, but was way, truth and life, not Al-Haqq which also means the reality, Muslims do not believe in the entire Bible, so to assert that Muslims have to follow the Gospel according to the guy who wrote 100 years after Jesus, is absurd, we only believe that Jesus was not begotten by God or was THE truth THE way or THE life, we believe he was truth,way, and life.
Do not force Muslims in the beliefs of Christians, first you have to establish that Christianity is the truth, I will establish next round that Islam is more logical than Christanity therefore it is the true path.
In any case, I shall respond to what you have given.
You mistakingly asserted that I claimed that Satan was in Muhammad's dream. This was not my claim. My claim is very simple:
Premise 1: Muhammad claims that if anyone has a dream which they don't like, then it is from Satan.
Premise 2: Muhammad's initial revelation at Hira was in the form of a dream, which he didn't like.
Conclusion: Muhammad's dream(alleged Qur'anic revelation) was from Satan. To try and state the Qur'an is valid because Satan is described as Muhammad's enemy does nothing to address my argument.
You also claimed that the Qur'an was revealed as a recitation. Actually, Sirat al rasool Allah by Ibn Ishaq makes it very clear that a coverlet of brocade was given to Muhammad which had writing on it and he was told to Iqra! Obviously if he's being given some writing and told to Iqra, the meaning is read in this instance and not recite.
In addition to this, Muhammad claimed that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man due to the deficiency of her mind. Yet ironically, it was a woman (Khadija) who tried to convince Muhammad that his dream was from Allah and not from Satanic or demonic sources. If Muhammad believes it was Satanic/Demonic and He was the only witness, while Khadija was absent and her testimony is worth half that of Muhammad, then there is no good reason to conclude that the revelation was from Allah.
- Argument 2 - You requested that I provide definitions of the Umm al kitab by Muhammad or Ibn Kathir.
Ibn Kathir(Source:http://www.qtafsir.com...) States "In the beginning of the Book of Tafsir, in his Sahih, Al-Bukhari said; "It is called Umm Al-Kitab, because the Qur'an starts with it and because the prayer is started by reciting it.'... (It is Umm Al-Qur'an, the seven repeated (verses) and the Glorious Qur'an.) ...(It is Umm Al-Qur'an, Al-Fatihah of the Book (the Opener of the Qur'an) and the seven repeated (verses).) "
You claim that the unclear verses are those such as Surah 3:1 and Surah 2:1 which begin with the letters Alif, Lam, Meem.
That's interesting because in Surah 15:1 It states Alif Lam Ra - These are the signs of a clear book. Supposedly the letters signify the clarity of the Qur'an and yet you state that it is those verses which are unclear and known only to Allah.
Your assertion thus is that the Umm al Kitab = All of the Qur'an minus the verses which contain the letters (which are supposed to be signs of the book's clarity) - that definition does not comport with Ibn Kathir, Imam Bukhari and Muhammad's definition that the Umm al Kitab is Surah al Fatihah.
Argument 3: Pro asserts that Muhammad did not submit to Moses. If you read the hadith you will see the clear command from Allah, then instead of saying Amen and accepting it no matter how difficult it seems to be, he listens to Moses. The justification for it is "'I know the people better than you, because I had the hardest experience to bring Bani Israel to obedience. Your followers cannot put up with such obligation"
So the pillar is based upon the disobedience the people's disobedience rather than full submission to Allah.
Argument 4: No - First of all the passage you gave does not state that Dhul-Kifl is even a prophet. Secondly, Dhul-Kifl is NOT Ezekiel. The Arabic does not transliterate as such. There is no lexical or historical support for the attribution.
As for Zechariah, the one you quoted is John the Baptists father from the NEW TESTAMENT not Zechariah of the OLD TESTAMENT as I requested. Furthermore, Zechariah of the New Testament was not even a prophet but a priest. Is there a priesthood in Islam? No there is not. Yet another reason why Islam is not the true path.
Argument 5: I never claimed that it was a debate about if Jesus was God, Son of God, crucified or whatever. I'm simply showing that there is no historical support for the Jesus you believe in. I'm demonstrating that this is one of the many examples to show that Islam is not the true path because it Isa is a myth.
Argument 6: You stated that you believe Jesus is the truth but he is not Al Haqq. That makes no sense. You say that you don't believe everything that the bible teaches yet accept these titles in John 14:6 applied to him. Why? If you agree with the titles, why even mention that you don't agree with all of the New Testament?
You also say He was truth, way and life but not THE truth THE way THE life. Then you are backtracking when you say you believe He is all of the above.
Con provided no evidence for premise 1, therefore his argument is faulty, then goes on and claims holds his argument on Ibn Ishaq, well he is not reliable, most scholars rejected him:
Several respected Muslim theologians rightly reject his (Ibn Ishaq's) authority for several reasons:
That he was a Shi'i favouring Ali over all the other contenders to the Khilfa
That he held the view that Man has free will, which is kind of contrary to the Quranic perception.
Most important of all, his report about Laylat al Qadr (the first revelation), contradicts all the hadith versions. The hadith collectors Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, etc were more careful in collecting their hadith (their chains of transmission).
There are several stories in Ibn Ishaq which are never found in the hadith. The reason why is because several hadith collectors such as Bukhari-- did not trust Ibn Ishaq.
And then says that Woman have half testimony, which is highly irrelevant, I urge viewers that not to overlook him going off-topic.
I have never said that Umm al Kitab is the letters, It is true that is Surah Fatiha, I was just explaining 3:7, you have clearly misread my presentation.
Ibn Kathir explains what you have said in 15:1 :
"Moreover, the scholars said, "There is no doubt that Allah did not reveal these letters for jest and play.' Some ignorant people said that some of the Qur'an does not mean anything, (meaning, such as these letters) thus committing a major mistake. On the contrary, these letters carry a specific meaning. Further, if we find an authentic narration leading to the Prophet that explains these letters, we will embrace the Prophet's statement. Otherwise, we will stop where we were made to stop and will proclaim,
(We believe in it; all of it (clear and unclear verses) is from our Lord) (3:7).
The scholars did not agree on one opinion or explanation regarding this subject. Therefore, whoever thinks that one scholar's opinion is correct, he is obliged to follow it, otherwise it is better to refrain from making any judgment on this matter. Allah knows best."Argument III:
The Hadith explains it, I will not quote the full hadith but I will quote the part which is important(the Hadith is long):
", 'I know the people better than you, because I had the hardest experience to bring Bani Israel to obedience. Your followers cannot put up with such obligation. So, return to your Lord and request Him (to reduce the number of prayers).' He repeated the same advice but I said that I surrendered (to Allah's Final Order)'"
Passage that clarifies Dhul-Kifl as a Prophet of God:
Quran 38:46-48 "Indeed, We chose them for an exclusive quality: remembrance of the home [of the Hereafter]. And indeed they are, to Us, among the chosen and outstanding. And remember Ishmael, Elisha and Dhul-Kifl, and all are among the outstanding."
Scholar commentry of Dhul-Kifl:
"Dhul-Kifl. He visited Meshad 'All in 'Iraq, and also the little town called Kifl, midway between Najaf and Hilla (Babylon). Kefil, he says, is the Arabic form of Ezekiel. The shrine of Ezekiel was there, and the Jews came to it on Pilgrimage If we accept "Dhul al Kifl" to be not an epithet, but an Arabicised form of "Ezekiel", it fits the context, Ezekiel was a prophet in Israel who was carried away to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar after his second attack on Jerusalem (about B.C. 599)."
Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary, Note. 2743
I am sorry I have misunderstood you, Scholars comment on Zechariah son of Berechiah :
"....Therefore, although this particular Zechariah is not mentioned by name in the Qur'an, some scholars, including Abdullah Yusuf Ali have suggested that Qur'anic verses mentioning the martyrdom of prophets and righteous men are a reference to the slaying of, among others, Zechariah son of Berechiah."
The Holy Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Note 364
In Islam we have Imamhood not Priesthoo, only God can remove sins not Priests.
We believe in the same Jesus that you believe, Islam states that Jesus never told the people that he he was divine. This belief was invented after Jesus and ascribed to him. (QURAN 5:116)
Jesus did not claim he is THE truth in the sense he is God. Con has not proved Jesus applied the term to show he God, Jesus applied the term in a different way, he meant he is a truthful person, and not a liar, etc.
in the case of Jesus, he did not claim to be THE truth, he just claimed he is the truth and indeed he is. He is the truth like all prophets are the truth, that they are not liars and that they speak the truth and convey the message of God.
Prophet Muhammad said the hell is the truth, the heaven is the truth, does that make the heaven and hell God? Certainly not, it depends in what sense you apply the term.
1. The Trinity VS. Islamic Monotheism
The doctrine of the Trinity is in essence the belief that God is a single entity made up of three distinct "persons, God is, according to this doctrine, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost. It is not correct, according to the general Christian view, to conceptualize God as a group of three, that is too polytheistic. Nor is it proper to see God as one being with three different parts, as this is too unitarianistic. To settle the confusion that undoubtedly arises from this belief, the clergy simply says that the true nature of God as the Trinity is incomprehensible to the Human mind, and should not be pondered upon.
In direct contrast to the Doctrine of the Trinity is the concept of Islamic Monotheism. It is the belief that God is only one being, on essence, and one power. He has not, according to the general Islamic view, begotten any children, nor has he shared power with anyone. This is a simple and logical representation of God, as the sole creator of the universe. As a result, there is never any confusion about the identity of God, and most Muslims understand it perfectly.
2. The Original Sin VS. Inborn Innocence
The Original Sin is the concept that Human beings are innately born sinful, as a result of Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden. The implications of this are tremendous, and its effects are see throughout the Christian tradition. This is why a child must be baptised, according to most Christians, as the child must be ritually cleansed of his inborn sin and induced into Christiandom in order to be saved. In this doctrine lies inherent patriarchy, as Eve is portrayed as the temptress and thus this is passed upon her daughters. In essence, this doctrine places the burden of parents sin upon their children, without the child being responsible in any way.
This doctrine is represented in these Bible verses:
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man,and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.
Inborn Innocence in Islam is the belief that a child is born free of blemish and sin. This stems from a greater concept in Islam. Islam states that none is responsible for the actions of others, none shall be punished for the actions of others, and none shall be rewarded for the actions of others before God.
This belief is derived from these Qur'anic verses:
And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. Qur'an 35:18
Is there any reward for good other than good Qur'an 55:60
This idea is far simpler than the doctrine of the Original Sin, and aligns with contemporary logic and reason in a way that the Original Sin never could.
Pro said I provided no evidence for premise 1 of my first argument. My claim was that Muhammad stated that if anyone has a dream which He does not like, then it is from Satan. The Hadith reference is Sahih Bukhari Volume 9 Book 87 Number 114: "Narrated by Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri The Prophet said, "If anyone of you sees a dream that he likes, then it is from Allah, and he should thank Allah for it and narrate it to others; but if he sees something else, i.e., a dream that he dislikes, then it is from Satan, and he should seek refuge with Allah from its evil, and he should not mention it to anybody, for it will not harm him."
You state that Several respected Muslim theologians reject Ibn Ishaq's authority. All you did was copy and paste from http://islamic-forum.net... . Please provide some primary sources if you're serious about scholarly referencing. It matters not however because the contexts of the Bukhari Hadiths suggest that Muhammad was asked to read as no verses had been spoken by "Jibreel" to him when he was asked to Iqra. If it was supposed to be rendered as RECITE and not READ - Why do the translations render Iqra in these hadith as READ? All this is a smokescreen however and a diversion from my simple point which is that Muhammad stated that if someone has a dream they don't like then it's from Satan, and his dream at Hira matches this criteria perfectly.
Thank you for conceding that the Umm al Kitab is Surah al Fatihah. The classifications given in Surah 3:7 are clear (Umm al Kitab) and unclear (those which are not the umm al kitab). You have not managed to refute this at all. Now you try to say that you can know the meaning of the letters by following the narrations, but that contradicts your earlier statement that the meaning of the letters is known only to Allah.
To top it off, you concede that surah 3:7's meaning is itself disputed, showing that it is not clear - it would follow thus that the meaning is known only to Allah from the Islamic presupposition.
As for the next argument pertaining to the Night journey, you emphasised the words request and surrendered. Yes, Muhammad made a request INSTEAD of accepting Allah's original command. This was due to the disobedience of His people. THen with regards to surrendered - yes he FINALLY surrendered after he was ashamed for not following Allah's original orders. In other words, he surrendered when Allah met HIS need. This is hardly perfect submission to Allah. This is saying - I'll obey you once you meet my requests.
You quoted Surah 38:46-48 to prove that Dhul Kifl is a messenger/prophet. The verses do not say any such thing. You also had to go outside of the Qur'an to a commentator to find out if Ezekiel is the Arabic form of Dhul Kifl. Since you assert that Dhul-Kifl is the Arabic transliteration, I want you to provide the lexical meaning of the name.
You conceded that you were wrong about Zechariah. None of your references help.
Your concession of the absence of a priesthood in Islam indicates how divorced it is from Judeo Christian roots.
With regards to Argument 5 - You STILL haven't met the challenge. I'm asking for PRE-MUHAMMAD sources that speak of the same Jesus that you believe in. Your Jesus is NOT my Jesus. My Jesus is God manifested in the flesh, the Son of God, who was crucified and resurrected from the dead. Surah 5:116 is not a pre-Muhammad source.
The Qur'an states in Surah 3:55 and 61:14 that the true followers would be made superior and to prevail over the disbelievers unto the day of resurrection. Where is this prevailing group before Muhammad, Pro? Why is there not the slightest blip in the historical radar? Funnily enough, Yusuf Ali states that the fulfilment of these verses was with the Christians who overcame the Roman Empire. We know from history that such Christians, right up to this very day - acknowledge the Deity, Sonship, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Argument 6 - You state that Jesus is the truth but not THE truth like all the other prophets. I challenge you to show me any other prophets who claimed "I am the way, the truth and the life". This is not describing a doctrine, these are titles Jesus applies to Himself, just like Al Haqq is a title applied to Allah.
Finally we get to your positive case. Funnily, you seem to think that attacking the Trinity means that the Islamic concept of Tawhid is correct. You deny that God can have a mulitiplicity of persons asserting that it equates to polytheism. You are confusing categories of being and person. Muslims will argue that Allah is not a person. If that's the case, then using your logic, Allah is not God since you conflate being with person.
Before putting words in your mouth, I will ask you - Is Allah one in every sense?
Since you deny that Allah is multipersonal - He cannot be love in His essence except for self love. Love would have to be an acquired attribute after he creates. That would mean He is not unchanging and thus imperfect.
As for the claim that Islam doesn't teach original sin - that is not true. Allah says that if he were to take mankind to task for their wrong-doing He would not leave on the earth a SINGLE LIVING CREATURE. That would include both the newborn and even unborn child. (Surah 16:61)
You are also incorrect to suggest that no one bears the sins of others in Islam:
See Sahih Muslim 6665, 6666, 6668 and Qudsi 110.
You Quoted surah 35:18 to show that no one bears another person's burdens. You conveniently left out these verses from the Qur'an:
Surah 16:22-25"Your God is one God; so (as for) those who do not believe in the hereafter, their hearts are ignorant and they are proud. Truly Allah knows what they hide and what they manifest; surely He does not love the proud. And when it is said to them, what is it that your Lord has revealed? They say: Stories of the ancients; That they may bear their burdens entirely on the day of resurrection and also of the burdens of those whom they lead astray without knowledge; now surely evil is what they bear.
Surah 29:12-13 And those who disbelieve say to those who believe: "Follow our way and we will verily bear your sins," never will they bear anything of their sins. Surely, they are liars. And verily, they shall bear their own loads, and other loads besides their own, and verily, they shall be questioned on the Day of Resurrection about that which they used to fabricate.
I thank my friend for posting his rebuttal, now swiftly to mine.
The dream was not a bad dream, according to the following Hadith from Bukhari 9:87:111
"The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah's Apostle was in the form of good righteous (true) dreams in his sleep...."
I thank him for providing the source, but the dream was GOOD, not he didn't like, so again your argument is false.
As for Ibn Ishaq, I did not take that from the source you have provided, but from here, I guess I apologize for not providing the source.
The Hadith in Bukhari do translate it as read, but if you go to Bukhari 1:1:4 it is said: "..... Afterwards, Allah's Apostle used to listen to Gabriel whenever he came and after his departure he used to recite it as Gabriel had recited it."
This obviously makes Ibn Ishaq false.(Not everything I copied is from the site below, 3 passages only, Con claiming I copied alot is rediculous).
Surah 3:7 never mentions Umm Al kitab, the scholars say that If Allah revealed the meaning of the letters to Muhammad in an authentic Hadith, that means it is correct, but he hasn't because Prophet never told us(as of my knowledge).
Muhammad went to Allah, Allah told him 50 prayers, when Muhammad was decending from the heavens he met Moses, Moses told him go request Allah for less prayers, because when I was leading the children of Israel, It was hard, Muhammad went to Allah, requested him, Allah reduced the amount of prayer.
I went to John and he told me that I should work 8 hours tomorrow, then on the way to the exit of the building my wife calls me and tells me that she has to meet her Mother, and wants me to take care of the kids, so she told me to take -2 hours of work tomorrow, I went back to John, I told him what happened, he said 'Alright', then I left early tomorrow.
The verses in 38:46-48 state the were chosen, chosen by God, means a Prophet of God, the verses lists them with Enoch and Ishmael, how is that not a proof for Prophethood of Dhul-Kifl.
Dhul-Kifl and Ezekiel meanings are "Ezekiel (/=6;G2;ziH0;ki.əl/; Hebrew: יְחֶזְקֵאל, Y'M17;ez'qel, Hebrew pronunciation: [jəħezG2;qel]), meaning 'May God strengthen him' Arabic also Zul-Kifl, ذوالكفل, and :حزقيال Hazqiyal, in Arabic meaning 'God will strengthen'"
 even in wikipedia, it clearly identifies that.
I have never conceded on Zechariah, Qur'an states that Prophets were killed, It is in the Bible, so we confirm that Zechariah is one of them, because they killed him.
Quran 3:181 "Allah has certainly heard the statement of those [Jews] who said, "Indeed, Allah is poor, while we are rich." We will record what they said and their killing of the prophets without right and will say, "Taste the punishment of the Burning Fire."
"the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar" (Matt. 23:35)
We have a religious leader, let say, 'System' there is Sheikh, Grand Mufti, Mufti, Muazzen, Mqeem, and Imam, pretty similar, but we have no clergy or a formal 'Priesthood'.
Again this is whether the Muslims are on the straight path, Jesus is not God manifest on flesh, we can have another debate on that, Son of God title is applied to alot of people in the Bible(Luke 3:38, Romans 8:14), I have no idea why is it funny that the true followers of God will not prevail over the disbelievers, not all Muslims are followers of God, no country applies Sharia Law, I know you like to go off-topic, but please don't, we believe in the Jesus son of Mary, how is it not the same, we believe that Muhammad was a Prophet of God, but you do not believe that, does that mean we are talking about 2 different Muhammad?
We Muslims believe that all Prophets are the truth,way, and life, Jesus happened to say it, which is true ofcourse, I could say a similar thing, that I am the way truth and life, as a guide of some sort, these are not titles of God, Jesus even denied he is good in a sense that God is good, Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone." why does he not say that Me and the Father are the only good.
I think this is a theological debate, about religion not history.
Trinity vs Islamic monotheism:
I am saying that Islamic monotheism is more logical, which is correct, I think following logic is better from following a mystery, we believe that there is nothing of creation like Allah, he does not beget or is begotten, and he is the sustainer, the Qur'an mentions Trinity but the Bible never does, yes I believe Allah is one, not 10 in 1 or 2 in 1, just 1.
4:171 explains it "... And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs."
Original sin vs Inborn innocence:
Con asserts that Islam teaches Original sin let us examine his argument:
Surah 16:61 says "And if Allah were to impose blame on the people for their wrongdoing, He would not have left upon the earth any creature, but He defers them for a specified term. And when their term has come, they will not remain behind an hour, nor will they precede [it]."
"but He gives them respite until an appointed term; and when their term comes they will not defer, from it, by a single hour nor advance, it."
Allah does not blame everyone for the act of the wrongdoers, but he will give them respite until an appointed term.
Sahih Muslim 6665 is irrelevant to our topic, here is the Hadith: "Abu Musa' reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire." 
Sahih Muslim 6666 is also irrelevant, the Hadith is similar to the above, but very long, here it is .
And Sahih Muslim 6667, is "This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of 'Aun b. Utba.", his quotes are totally irrelevant!
As for 16:22-25, it speaks about people who lead other people astray without knowledge, like any Muslim tells you pray 3 prayers instead of 5 that is what the Imam told me, so the Imam bears the sins which are commited by doing the wrong act, but will not burden his whole sins.
As for 29:12-13, here is a Tafsir which clearly removes this misconception:
"And they shall certainly bear their [own] burdens, their sins, and other burdens along with their [own] burdens, [as punishment] for saying to believers: Follow our path [previous verse] and for their leading astray those who follow them [blindly]; and on the Day of Resurrection they shall surely be questioned concerning what they used to invent, [what] they used to fabricate of lies against God, a questioning of rebuke (the lām in both verbs [la-yahmilunna and la-yus’alunna] is for oaths; in both [verbs] the [plural] indicators of the subject, wāw and nun, have been omitted)."
Please click next for the next Hadith, http://www.hadithcollection.com...
Con thinks that the mentions of killed Prophets in the Qur'an which goes with the Bible does not help, and claims that not having Priesthood is another reason why people should think that Muslims are not on the true path, and goes off-topic alot, anyways I made a decisive rebuttal to every point.
My opponent cites Bukhari 1:1:4 which says that AFTERWARD Muhammad used to listen to Gabriel whenever he came - that's NOT the same time as his first encounter. My opponent needs to look at the specific hadiths which were talking about the encounter (not afterwards) where it specifically says READ. I didn't claim you copied A LOT. I simply said you copied and pasted from a website without providing primary sources.
Argument 2: My opponent claims that Surah 3:7 never mentions Umm al kitab. My opponent obvious is unfamiliar with the Arabic of this verse. The English rendering "Mother of the Book" or "Foundation of the book" or "Substance of the book" is Umm al Kitab in Arabic.
Argument 3: My opponent tries to show an example to justify Muhammad's lack of submission to Allah's original command. The analogy is inaccurate. We're not talking about one day, we're talking about one's whole life. And the basis of this PILLAR of Islam is the disobedience of his people not perfect submission to Allah.
Argument 4: My opponent points me to Wikipedia to as his source to "clearly identify" the parallel meaning of Ezekiel and Dhul Kifl. I'm not sure whether my opponent was in a hurry or he deliberately knows that Wikipedia does not agree with him. It reads:
"Dhul-Kifl, or Zul-Kifl, (Arabic: ذو الكفل ; Possessor of a Fold) (ca. 1600?"1400? BCE), is an Islamic prophet who has been identified with various Hebrew Bible prophets, most commonly Ezekiel"
Whereas Ezkiel means "God strengthens." The readers of this debate will notice that the Wikipedia source acknowledges that this person has been identified with VARIOUS HEBREW BIBLE PROPHETS. Indeed it does go on to say most commonly Ezekiel - but if the name was a direct translation, as the evidence I have posted demonstrates it is not - why would there be room for people to identify Dhul Kifl as VARIOUS HEBREW PROPHETS? Why not just the one, Ezekiel?
Interestingly, some Muslims even think that Dhul-Kifl might be Buddha! (source: http://www.answering-christianity.com...)
My opponent claims no concession was made. I invite the readers to scroll back and read through the rebuttals to see my opponent admit that his earlier posting of Qur'anic verses about Zechariah were about the wrong one! The one from the New Testament instead of the Old. He also stated that there is no priesthood in Islam, which means that even the Zechariah of the New Testament is NOT accurately portrayed by the one in the Qur'an!
My opponent appeals to Surah 3:181 which speaks of the killing of the prophets without right. Yet this verse does not identify who those prophets were. Then my opponent appeals to the GOSPEL OF MATTHEW to somehow interpret Surah 3:181! IF that is not redactionist eisegesis, I don't know what is!
My opponent says: "I have no idea why is it funny that the true followers of God will not prevail over the disbelievers, not all Muslims are followers of God, no country applies Sharia Law" The Qur'an does not say that they will not prevail, it says that they WILL! My opponent stating that it comes as no surprise to him that the true followers don't surprise, he is contradicting Surah 3:55 and 61:14!
Argument 6: Jesus is not denying his Deity, He is simply pointing the young rich ruler to the question of "Why do you say I'm good?" The reason Jesus is good is because He's God. This is clear from Jesus's own response by telling the young rich ruler who claimed to follow the law, by telling him "One thing you lack, sell your possessions and come follow ME" Jesus is showing that the ruler had is possessions as idols and that He needed to follow HIM instead. (One cannot serve God and Mammon)
Trinity vs Tawhid: I want a clear declaration from my opponent - I asked him "Do you believe God is one IN EVERY SENSE?" He replied "Yes I believe Allah is one" But I want a clear declaration that Allah is one IN EVERY sense"
Original Sin vs Original Innocence: My opponent is twisting the meaning of the verse. It's not talking about Allah blaming everyone for the act of other wrong doers, it's whether Allah would act justly upon everyone for their OWN wrong-doing. My opponent calls the hadiths I quoted irrelevant. They most certainly are not irrelevant. They teach clearly that Christians like myself will pay for the sins of Muslims, Heavy, Serious sins.
Conclusion - My opponent to this point has not been able to provide a positive case to show that Muslims are on the true path. Indeed, Muslims pray to Allah 5 times a day to be shown the true path, which proves they're not on it.
Con rejects the Hadith because it was in third person, but still does not provide evidence for that the dream is a bad dream therefore it is from Satan(Bukhari 9:87:114), there is no Hadith that says the first dream(revelation) was a bad dream, even the Hadith he quotes from the first round which is Bukhari 1:1:3 says it was a GOOD dream and I quote:
"The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah's Apostle was in the form of good dreams which came true like bright day light, and then the love of seclusion was bestowed upon him."
Even from the Hadith it says that it is in a form of good dreams, therefore the dream is from Allah not Satan as stated in Bukhari 9:87:114 "The Prophet said, "If anyone of you sees a dream that he likes, then it is from Allah, and he should thank Allah for it and narrate it to others;"
Also in Bukhari 9:87:113 "The Prophet said, "A true good dream is from Allah, and a bad dream is from Satan."
The dream was from Allah, of course Muhammad was frightened, first time you see a being like an Angel, what are you going to do, great him? I think you would run away.
The Hadith in 9:87:114 continues to say "....but if he sees something else, i.e., a dream that he dislikes, then it is from Satan, and he should seek refuge with Allah from its evil, and he should not mention it to anybody, for it will not harm him."
Nowhere in this Hadith it says that the Prophet had a bad dream, the Hadith you mention says the opposite of what you say.
Again I state It was in recatation, even though it is translated as read in Bukhari 1:1:3, the Hadith before it(No.2) confirms what I say "Sometimes the Angel comes in the form of a man and talks to me and I grasp whatever he says."
In addition Muhammad was illiterate as said in the Qur'an:
7:157 "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet......"
Therefore it was to recite, or read in that sense, but he could not read a book or a tablet because he was illiterate as said above.
Sheikh Yasir Qadhi, explains the Muhkam and Muttashaabih as said in 3:7
"In conclusion, Allaah has called the whole Qur`aan muhkam, meaning that it is a clear source of guidance and a criterion between good and evil; He has also called the whole Qur`aan muttashaabih, meaning that its verses are similar to one another in beauty and aid one another in meaning; and, finally, He has called part of it muhkam and part muttashaabih, meaning that part of the Qur`aan is clear and not open to distortion, and part of it is unclear and open to distortion by those 'who have a deviation in their hearts.' The portion that is muhkam forms the foundation of the Book, meaning that it comprises all the moral and social laws that mankind needs for its guidance. The muttashaabih portion of the Qur`aan is clear in its meaning to 'those well grounded in knowledge,' and it is necessary to understand these muttashaabih portions in light of the muhkam ones. The actuality of the muttashaabih verses, however, are known only to Allaah."
(Shaykh Abu Ammar Yasir al-Qadhi, On the Muhkam and Muttashaabih,)
Imam Bukhari reported in the “Book of Qur’an Commentary” ( Kitab al-Tafsir) and so did others that "Umm al Kitab is the designation of Surat al Fatiha, as it is the Opening of the Qur’an. Imam Suyuti adds to this that al Fatiha contains all the subsequent knowledge that will be explicated in the rest of the Qur’anic Chapters ( Surah)."
Ibn Kathir also comments on 3:7 and says the following "It is He Who has sent down to you the Book. In it are verses that are entirely clear, Allah states that in the Qur'an, there are Ayat that are Muhkamat, entirely clear and plain, and these are the foundations of the Book which are plain for everyone. And there are Ayat in the Qur'an that are Mutashabihat not entirely clear for many, or some people. So those who refer to the Muhkam Ayat to understand the Mutashabih Ayat, will have acquired the correct guidance, and vice versa.
This is why Allah said,They are the foundations of the Book, meaning, they are the basis of the Qur'an, and should be referred to for clarification, when warranted.
And others not entirely clear, as they have several meanings, some that agree with the Muhkam and some that carry other literal indications, although these meaning might not be desired. " 
Clearly not talking about Surah al Fatiha.
Con states that Muhammad did not accept Allah first order, Muhammad did accept but then later requested God to change it after Moses suggestion.
"Your followers cannot put up with such obligation. So, return to your Lord and request Him (to reduce the number of prayers).' He repeated the same advice but I said that I surrendered (to Allah's Final Order)'"
Wikipedia says in http://en.wikipedia.org... :
"Ezekiel meaning 'May God strengthen him' Arabic also Zul-Kifl, ذوالكفل, and :حزقيال Hazqiyal, in Arabic meaning 'God will strengthen' "
Further it says:
"Ezekiel is recognized as a prophet in Islamic tradition. Although not mentioned in the Qur'an by the name, all Muslim scholars, both classical and modern have included Ezekiel in lists of the prophets of Islam."
(Ibn Kutayba,Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Masudi, Kisa'i, Balami, Thalabi and many more have all recognized Ezekiel as a prophet)
Though some people differ on it, scholars like Ibn Kathir, and Tabari agree the Ezekiel is a Prophet.
Zechariah is not mentioned by name in the Qur'an, but as I said I was mistaken between the 2 Zechariahs(OT AND NT).
I was just pointing out that Surah 3:181 says that Prophets were killed by the Jews, Zechariah is among them as said in Matthew, I am not using Matthew to interpret the Qur'an, rather confirming that Zechariah was killed.
Con likes to take a passage, and leave the others, I have used sarcasim because when you said in the previous rounds the following:
"that the true followers would be made superior and to prevail over the disbelievers unto the day of resurrection. Where is this prevailing group before Muhammad, Pro? Why is there not the slightest blip in the historical radar? Funnily enough,"
Might aswell say that the true followers prevailed, Muslims have won 100 conquests after Muhammad's death, empire reaching China till Spain, It happened in history.
"The reason Jesus is good is because He's God. "
But he denied being good as said in the verse, so what you are saying is false, I could show more verses, but I wanted to demonstrate my point, and not go off-topic.(clutching at straws)
Trinity vs Tawhid:
Yes he is one in every sense, and remember one thing, there is something called the 'Royal We' you know, the Queens and Kings refer to themselves sometimes as 'We'.
OS vs OI:
Con asserts that I twist the meanings of the verses, I wish he would demonstrate that, he could not answer, Allah said he is never unjust in the least-degree so that won't be happening, Allah, God, only said IF.
4:40 "Indeed, Allah does not do injustice, [even] as much as an atom's weight; while if there is a good deed, He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward."
"...Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire."
How are Jews and Christians paying for our sins as you said?
"...No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. 'Umar b. Abd al-'Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah's Messenger "
Again they are irrelevant, Con is just clutching at straws, Hadiths just say that Christians and Jews will be in the Hell, for they disbelieved, but the Muslim believed.(Note: some Muslims are going to the Hell fire).
Con used Hadiths that say the opposite of what he states, Con also does not bring Ibn Kathir tafsir of 3:7 but meaning of Umm-Al Kitab, but as I showed above 3:7 is a whole different than Umm- AlKitab.
At this point in the debate, I'd like to summarise some of the failures of my opponent's presentation:
1. Unfamiliarity with the difference between an Old Testament prophet and New Testament priest.
2. Ignorance of the terms within one's own text (Umm al kitab in Surah 3:7)
3. Inconsistent use of conflicting quotations to explain the meaning and application of Umm al Kitab.
Conflicting sources provided by my opponent include:
Which verses are clear, and which ones are unclear are known only to Allah - "The muttashaabih portion of the Qur`aan is clear in its meaning to 'those well grounded in knowledge,' and it is necessary to understand these muttashaabih portions in light of the muhkam ones. The actuality of the muttashaabih verses, however, are known only to Allaah."
(Shaykh Abu Ammar Yasir al-Qadhi, On the Muhkam and Muttashaabih,)"
The Umm al Kitab is Surah Al Fatihah - "Imam Bukhari reported in the “Book of Qur’an Commentary” ( Kitab al-Tafsir) and so did others that "Umm al Kitab is the designation of Surat al Fatiha, as it is the Opening of the Qur’an. Imam Suyuti adds to this that al Fatiha contains all the subsequent knowledge that will be explicated in the rest of the Qur’anic Chapters ( Surah).""
Yet Ibn Kathir quotes Surah 3:7 as follows:
(7. It is He Who has sent down to you the Book. In it are verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow (only) that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah, and seeking its Ta'wil, but none knows its Ta'wil except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it; all of it is from our Lord.'
In other words, you cannot know the Ta'wil of the mutashabihat verses. Only Allah knows. I would like to back up this by providing my opponents own words in one of his previous rebuttals where he writes:
"Allah the Almighty describes the verses that start in Surahs Ali'Imran(Chapter 3) lets see what Allah meant:
3:1 "Alif, Lam, Meem."
2:1 "Alif, Lam, Meem."
19:1 "Kaf, Ha, Ya, 'Ayn, Sad."
These verses shown above are only known to Allah, If you further see the context of chapter 3 It describes the issue perfectly."
So my opponent actually conceded that the mutashabihat verses CANNOT be understood. Allah alone knows the meaning.
4. Fallaciously assumes the Qur'an is referring to Zechariah in Surah 3:181 because Matthew mentions Zacharias, son of Barachias. This ignores the fact that Muslims do not trust the Gospels, and believe that the Tanach has been corrupted.
5. Inability to interact with evidence that demonstrates that Muhammad did not like his dream.
Not only was Muhammad frightened as my opponent concedes, but his neck muscles were twitching with terror, thought something was wrong with him, that something terrible was going to happen to him, even Khadija understood it as him thinking that something would happen to disgrace him. In other words MUHAMMAD DID NOT LIKE HIS DREAM. According to the very criteria given by Muhammad in Bukhari vol 9 book 87 number 114, His dream would be from Satan, which means that the redacter gave an innaccurate appraisal of the dreams being good and righteous when in fact they were Satanic by Muhammad's own criteria. My opponent has completely failed to address this point.
6. Inability to interact with evidence that demonstrates that Muhammad did not submit to Allah's original commands and only finally accepted a final command once it suited him.
7. Inability to interact with evidence that demonstrates that the 5 daily prayers is based upon Muslim disobedience.
8. Fallaciously places Jibreel's recitation at the beginning of the encounter when the hadiths clearly teach that Jibreels speakings occurred afterwards.
9. Erroneously claims that Iqra must have meant recite and yet was very quick to point to Isaiah 29:12 in a debate he lost against Ksang, as a prophecy of Muhammad which my opponent quotes saying "And the book is delivered to him that is not learned saying, ‘Read this, I pray thee’; and he saith, ‘I am not learned’. "When Archangel Gabriel commanded Muhammad (pbuh) by saying ‘Iqra’, he replied "I am not learned"."
10. Erroneously points me to a source to prove that Dhul Kifl is the Arabic transliteration of Dhul Kifl, when that very source says that Ezekiel is one of MANY different Hebrew prophets that he is identified with.
11. Erroneously claims that Dhul Kifl and Ezekiel have the same meaning (God will strengthen) when in fact Dhul Kifl is said to mean possessor of a fold according to the very source my opponent pointed me to.
12. Fallaciously claims that Zul Kifl is the same as Hazqiyal when the Qur'an never mentions Haqiyal and that name does NOT have the same meaning as Dhul Kifl. We are speaking of Zul Kifl/Dhul Kifl not Hazqiyal.
13. Deceptively or ignorantly does not inform the readers that the very same source he appeals to states: "Although the identification with Ezekiel is the most commonly held, it is to be noted that Dhul-Kifl has also been identified variously with Joshua, Obadiah, and Isaiah. Mirza Tahir Ahmad, the Fourth Caliph of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, identifies Dhul-Kifl with the Buddha: Dhul-Kifl in this interpretation meaning "of Kapeel"."
14. Uses false analogies to compare the 50 prayers reduced to five because of the disobedience of God's people, listening to someone else other than Allah, and eventual shame and embarrassment to have them reduced further to someone taking 2 hours off work from their 8 hour shift for ONE DAY'S WORK. A more accurate analogy would be to have the work reduced by 7 hours and 12 minutes to work for only 48 minutes EVERY SINGLE DAY because of disobedience and incompetence as per the advice of a fellow employee.
15. Back-tracks from his earlier claim that Allah's true followers did not prevail to now say that they did because of Muhammad's conquests. Not only does it contradict his earlier claim but it completely ignores my point which was that the followers of JESUS right up until the time just before Muhammad cannot at all be identified in history. There was no such prevailing group before Muhammad that believed in the same Jesus my opponent believes in.
16. Absurdly insists that Jesus claimed to not being good when Jesus Himself stated that to fulfill the law, the rich young ruler needed to sell all his possessions and FOLLOW HIM (Christ) - the same Jesus who taught that you cannot serve God and Mammon. Jesus placed Himself on the level of God and as the very object of faith that the ruler lacked. Jesus even calls Himself The Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14)
17. My opponent unwittingly holds the position that Allah is one in every sense. This results in a total destruction of His entire theological position. This means Allah is only one being, one person, one power, with one attribute.
Now my opponent is going to have the impossible task of deciding which one attribute Allah possesses. Is he omniscient or is he eternal? Is he omnipresent or his he transcendent? Is he righteous or is he merciful? Is He the creator or is he the destroyer? My opponent will have to choose carefully.
In actuality, this instance of Allah's oneness in every sense reduces Allah to a meaningless blank. Indeed we are told that there is nothing that can grasp what He is. Nothing can be likened to Him. Nothing can explain Him. This results in the complete ignorance on the part of my opponent and indeed every Muslim who serves a God they cannot possibly know.
Since Allah is absolutely one in every sense, He cannot be the necessary precondition for intelligibility of our universe. Everything being one negates diversity making rationality impossible. Yes Allah is an irrational being.
18. My opponent likewise completely ignored the verses of the Qur'an which speak of people bearing the sins of others and indeed the hadiths which comport with this. There was no response given.
Con in his final round fails to rebutt, but only tries to "summarise" my failures, first I'd point out that he droped All arguments.
As I showed there are some verses that are only clear to Allah as said in previous round, but con claims all of the Qur'an is unclear except for one chapter which is absurd, I have already showed that some verses are only known to Allah, but the Qur'an is clear, read it for yourself, It indeed makes sense.
Actually we believe that the Gospel has truth, but not as a whole, I reffered to the Gospel to demostrate that it agrees with the Qur'an on that point, Con just ignores it and claims that Muslims believe that Gospels as a whole is not to be trusted which is false, Con is just clutching at straws.
I asked Con for evidence on that the Prophet did not like his dream, he failed, just because Prophet Muhammad for the first time seeing an Angel, and getting the revelation(which makes him sweat, and weary)
" but his neck muscles were twitching with terror, thought something was wrong with him, that something terrible was going to happen to him"
That is obviously false, but he did think that something was going to happen to him.
Bukhari 1:1:3 "Then he went to Khadija bint Khuwailid and said, "Cover me! Cover me!" They covered him till his fear was over and after that he told her everything that had happened and said, "I fear that something may happen to me." Khadija replied, "Never! By Allah, Allah will never disgrace you. You keep good relations with your Kith and kin, help the poor and the destitute, serve your guests generously and assist the deserving calamity-afflicted ones." Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the PreIslamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" Allah's Apostle described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, "This is the same one who keeps the secrets (angel Gabriel) whom Allah had sent to Moses."
Clearly Prophet was scared when Angel Gabriel hold him tightly, he did not dislike the dream as said in many hadiths, for example Bukhari 1:1:3 "(the mother of the faithful believers) The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah's Apostle was in the form of good dreams "
GOOD DREAMS, how could good dreams be disliked, again Con is invalid.
If Allah did not want the commands to be changed then he would've, instead Allah even rewarded the Prophet after the prayers were reduced to 5, as said in 4:54:429 (Bukhari) :
"Allah's Apostle was addressed by Allah, "I have decreed My Obligation and have reduced the burden on My servants, and I shall reward a single good deed as if it were ten good deeds. " So Allah even rewarded the Prophet, and all Muslims.
"8. Fallaciously places Jibreel's recitation at the beginning of the encounter when the hadiths clearly teach that Jibreels speakings occurred afterwards."
Bukhari 1:1:3 will suffice " The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, "I do not know how to read. The Prophet added, "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more."
Con statement is false.
I have know idea how is Isaiah related to this debate.
Ezekiel is Dhul-Kifl, as I provided evidence earlier, Con refuses it, which is stupid.
"11. Erroneously claims that Dhul Kifl and Ezekiel have the same meaning (God will strengthen) when in fact Dhul Kifl is said to mean possessor of a fold according to the very source my opponent pointed me to."
And i quote my self:
"Wikipedia says in http://en.wikipedia.org...... :
"Ezekiel meaning 'May God strengthen him' Arabic also Zul-Kifl, ذوالكفل, and :حزقيال Hazqiyal, in Arabic meaning 'God will strengthen' "
Again Zul-Kifl means Haziqyal, Con is invalid.
I have never said that Dhul-Kifl could be only Ezekiel, but If you see the context of Dhul-Kifl, he is the same as Ezekiel, Joshua in the Qur'an is mentioned as a God-fearing man so that eliminates him, how is Ahmadiyya sect is related to this issue here.
Con claims that I have contradicted myself, this is false, see his twisting of words:
"15. Back-tracks from his earlier claim that Allah's true followers did not prevail "
" I have no idea why is it funny that the true followers of God will not prevail over the disbelievers, not all Muslims are followers of God" (Round 3)
You can notice the deceptive tactics that Con uses.
" Jesus placed Himself on the level of God and as the very object of faith that the ruler lacked"
Please are you serious, please.
Yes the Good shephard but denied being 'Good' in a sense that God is only perfect not him.
I have not understood the question, therefore i gave a dumb answer, I will contradict my self, Allah is not one in everysense, he is one being, one person, but can do anything, as said in many passages of the Qur'an.
I apologize for not understanding the question.
"18. My opponent likewise completely ignored the verses of the Qur'an which speak of people bearing the sins of others and indeed the hadiths which comport with this. There was no response given."
I have addressed it in round 4 and 3.
Con tries to attack me throught the debate, even rejects hadiths which is what his whole argument about, I refuted all 6 arguments of his thank God, I hope luck for both of us and blessings of God.