The Instigator
Cerebral_Narcissist
Con (against)
Winning
64 Points
The Contender
Mirza
Pro (for)
Losing
48 Points

Convert Me

Do you like this debate?NoYes+28
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 26 votes the winner is...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 21,232 times Debate No: 12263
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (202)
Votes (26)

 

Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

Though the instigator normally bears the burden of proof by taking this debate my opponent accepts the burden of proof.

The Rules.
1: My opponent as Pro is to make a case for the truth of their religion.
2: I as Con am to critically examine this case and attempt to test it to destruction.
3: Pro's case must consist of one or more of the following. An argument of logic/science, a test or experiment that can be recreated or performed by a non-believer or actual physical evidence (scientific data, archeology, footage, direct manifestation of the divine).
4: Unless Pro's argument fulfills one of the the criteria in point 3, he/she shall be assumed to have forfeited the debate.
5: Should I feel that I have lost the argument I will concede it and convert to the religion in question.
6: Should I remain unconvinced, but lose the vote, I will 'convert' for a period of no less than one month, during which time I will study the religion in question and attempt to live by it's tenets insofar as this is compatible with my life.
7: The standard of evidence shall be upon probabilities. My opponent must simply show that his/her religion is more probable than improbable.
8: To reiterate the burden of proof is upon my opponent.

I thank the person who takes this debate, and look forward to their opening argument. Thank you!
Mirza

Pro

Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

-- To begin with... --

I thank Cerebral_Narcissist for starting this debate, and I hope that something positive comes out of it. I am a Muslim and will therefore introduce Islam to him, and explain why this is the true religion. While atheism is not a religion per se, I will not start combating it and bring direct evidence for the existence of God, but I will rather show why Islam, out of all other religions, is the true one. That can be done by explaining which holy book is most probably a revelation from God, and so forth.

If I mention any holy book besides the Qur'an in a way that the followers of it feel being insulted, such as that I explain why it cannot be from God, then it is important to know that my intention is in no way to insult or attack anyone, but to make a case for my religion in a manner that is respectful. Even if I offend you, my apology is ready to serve you well. I look forward to a positive debate.

-- Content --

• 1. Introduction
o Islam
o Holy Book, the Qur'an

• 2. Claim to be the True Religion
• 3. Challenge of the Qur'an
• 4. A Perfect Book
o Free from contradictions, compatible with science
o Archaeological evidence of historical claims

• 5. Perfect Preservation

-- Arguments --

• 1. Introduction

"Islam" is an Arabic word that means "Submission to God." It derives from the word "salaam" which means "peace." The followers of Islam are called "Muslims." Currently, there are approximately 1.57 billion Muslims around the world[1], although not all are practising Muslims.

The Qur'an[2] is a book that was revealed throughout 23 years, step by step, starting in the year 610 AD. This way, it was easier for people to memorize the Qur'an, accept it, and so forth. The Qur'an consists of 114 chapters, and is written in Arabic. It is today as it was when Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was alive. There is archaeological and logical evidence for this, and I will elaborate this point later. Every Qur'an today is in one original version, whether you find a copy in the furthest regions in the west or the east; you will find the same one.

The Qur'an is an inimitable book, because it is written in an unmatchable style in Arabic, making it impossible for anyone to make a similar piece of text. It is a pure book, preserved since it was revealed, it is compatible with established scientific facts, and it is consisting of perfect words, none that contradict one another. It should be noted that Islamic teachings are also based on "Sahih Hadith." Those are authentic narrations of the beloved Prophet, and they comment on some Qur'anic verse, and so forth.

• 2. Claim to be the True Religion

A very important question is with regard to the truth of (a) religion(s). Which one is true? It is very easy to make a claim for Islam as a response to this question. First, I would like to give an example:

Assume that there are three cars in front of you. You are asked to enter one of them. The first car symbolizes that if you enter it, you will have access to a beautiful park, as long as you wish. It also symbolizes that it is the only car that will do such a good thing, and the others will simply lead you to something bad. The second car symbolizes that if you enter it, you will be led to the same place, but does not say that anything bad will happen if you enter the other cars. So, if you enter the first car, it is not a harmful thing. The third car symbolizes almost nothing, except that if you enter it, you will be led to a place for a while, and returned to the starting place.

I want to ask that if you are in this situation, which car would you pick? The safest one is the first. If you enter it, nothing can go wrong, since the two others say nothing negative about entering the first car. However, by entering the second and third car, you risk of being led to a bad place, so why take the risk instead of being safe? The first car is therefore the best option. Similarly, when it comes to religion, you need to ask which one claims to be the true, and which one does not. I ask my opponent to show me a verse of the Bible, Guru Granth Sahib, the Vedas, the Tipitaka, or any other scripture, which says that if you accept other religions besides this one, you will be punished.

There are some criteria. One religion can say that you will be punished for being a murderer, but not for being a follower of another religion, and not being a murderer at the same time. Hinduism, for instance, calls for belief in one God. Being a Muslim is believing in one God. However, the word "Hindu" is not found in the Vedas. Does a Muslim risk being punished? No. It is the same with all scriptures, except for one: the Qur'an.

[Qur'an 3:19] "The Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His Will)."

[Qur'an 3:85] "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good)."

There are similar verses. The religion of Islam claims to be the true one, and excludes all others. If this is the true religion, Muslims will be rewarded, and non-Muslims will be punished for their disbelief and other evil deeds. Which religion, then, is safest? If you are a Hindu, you can check the Vedas and find similar verses. If you are a Christian, you can check the Bible. Only Islam makes it cut and clear; Islam is the true religion, and no other religion is true. If you are a Muslim, you are not to be punished for being that even if Hinduism, Sikhism, Baha'ism, Christianity etc. are true. If Islam is true, you will be punished, except if you are a Muslim. Also note that Christianity is deriving from Christ, Judaism from the tribe of Judah, and so forth. Islam is not a name of men, but one referring to God, hence the meaning "Submission to [the will of] God."

• 3. Challenge of the Qur'an

On several occasions, the Qur'an challenges people to produce any text similar to it. People have tried, but were never successful.[3] The Qur'an claims that had it been written by men, it would be imperfect. It would be filled with contradictions etc.

[Qur'an 4:82] "Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy."

In all holy books, except one, you will surely find contradictions, and similar discrepancy. Those books claim to have been inspired by God, so how can God make such imperfect things? However, the Qur'an, also claiming to be from God, stands out as the only one without any form of discrepancy. No holy book or person can pass this challenge of the Qur'an. Any attempt to make a book similar to the Qur'an has and will fail. The style is unmatchable.

• 4. A Perfect Book

As I already indicated above, the Qur'an is a book of perfect words.

o Free from contradictions, compatible with science

When verses are read with understanding, no contradiction is to be found. There are rebuttals to all so-called "contradictions." Furthermore, it is not in conflict with established scientific facts. None of this applies to other holy books.

o Archaeological evidence of historical claims

I will elaborate this point in the next rounds.

• 5. Perfect Preservation

[Qur'an 15:9] "We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)."

The Qur'an is perfectly preserved since it was revealed. It was memorized by people, written down, and there are old Qur'an collection, matching today's ones. Elaboration in Round 2.

-- References --

[1]http://pewforum.org...
[2]http://www.usc.edu...
[3]http://www.islamic-awareness.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

I am honestly grateful to my opponent for taking on this debate and for posting an interesting first round. I would like to state a similar disclaimer to my opponent, in that I apologise for any statement I may make that may seem insulting to Islam.

My opponents first section is an introduction, which though does contain a pertinent claim this is repeated in section five. So I will jump ahead to address section 2, which I will rename argument 1.

Argument 1: Claim to be the True Religion

My opponents argument is that assuming that Islam or Christianity, or Hinduism are true, the safest bet is Islam and only Islam claims exclusivity of Salvation. It does not actually present any evidence that any of these religions are true, nor does it present any evidence that Islam is true. Though it is an interesting argument it does not confirm the truth of Islam.

In addition Christian scripture and the interpretation of that, suggests that Christianity also claims exclusivity.

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. [1]

So whilst it may be that the vedas require only a belief in God, and so no punishment or harm will befall Muslims if even only Hinduism is the one true faith, Christianity requires the acceptance of Jesus Christ as the sole route to salvation. Though Islam does respect Jesus as a prophet, they do not assign to him this role. If Christianity is true it is not clear that Muslims would also be saved.

So I would suggest that argument 1 is not directly pertinent to the debate, and is not entirely accurate.

Argument 2: Challenge of the Qur'an

My opponent states that,
"On several occasions, the Qur'an challenges people to produce any text similar to it. People have tried, but were never successful.[3] The Qur'an claims that had it been written by men, it would be imperfect. It would be filled with contradictions etc."

However the Qur'an states both that Allah created the heavens and the earth in six days (010.003), [2] and also that he created the heavens and the earth in eight days, or four days if you discount the creation of life. (041.009 to 041.012). [3]

(Private note, this is still arguably two verses, it just seems like a lot more).

---
010.003
YUSUFALI: Verily your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority), regulating and governing all things. No intercessor (can plead with Him) except after His leave (hath been obtained). This is Allah your Lord; Him therefore serve ye: will ye not receive admonition?
PICKTHAL: Lo! your Lord is Allah Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days, then He established Himself upon the Throne, directing all things. There is no intercessor (with Him) save after His permission. That is Allah, your Lord, so worship Him. Oh, will ye not remind?
SHAKIR: Surely your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six periods, and He is firm in power, regulating the affair, there is no intercessor except aher His (sic) permission; this is Allah, your Lord, therefore serve Him; will you not then mind?
---

Compared with.

---
041.009
YUSUFALI: Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.
PICKTHAL: Say (O Muhammad, unto the idolaters): Disbelieve ye verily in Him Who created the earth in two Days, and ascribe ye unto Him rivals? He (and none else) is the Lord of the Worlds.
SHAKIR: Say: What! do you indeed disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two periods, and do you set up equals with Him? That is the Lord of the Worlds.

041.010
YUSUFALI: He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measure therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four Days, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance).
PICKTHAL: He placed therein firm hills rising above it, and blessed it and measured therein its sustenance in four Days, alike for (all) who ask;
SHAKIR: And He made in it mountains above its surface, and He blessed therein and made therein its foods, in four periods: alike for the seekers.

(041.011 Simply mentions the creation of the heavens, omitted for space).

041.012
YUSUFALI: So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.
PICKTHAL: Then He ordained them seven heavens in two Days and inspired in each heaven its mandate; and We decked the nether heaven with lamps, and rendered it inviolable. That is the measuring of the Mighty, the Knower.
SHAKIR: So He ordained them seven heavens in two periods, and revealed in every heaven its affair; and We adorned the lower heaven with brilliant stars and (made it) to guard; that is the decree of the Mighty, the Knowing.
---

Which is 2 + 4 + 2 = 8.

Argument 3: A Perfect Book.
My opponent claims that the Qur'an is "not in conflict with established scientific facts"

---
071.015
YUSUFALI: "'See ye not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another,
PICKTHAL: See ye not how Allah hath created seven heavens in harmony,
SHAKIR: Do you not see how Allah has created the seven heavens ,~ one above another [4]
---

There is no up, down, above and below in space. Indeed this line may even suggest that the author(s) of the Qur'an believed the world to be flat.

Argument 4: Perfect Preservation

My opponent claims that,
"[Qur'an 15:9] "We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)."

My counter-argument is that the preservation of an old text does not in itself confirm it's truth, nor it's divine origin. In addition it is a false claim.

'Let none of you say', averred the pious son of Caliph Umar, 'that he has the whole Koran in his possession. How does he know what the whole of it is? Much of the Koran has gone' [5] [6]

The Uthman Koran in Tashkent is often claimed to be the oldest surviving Koran. It is apparently one of the five 'standardised' Qur'ans that was authorised by the Third Caliph in 651, 19 years after the death of Prophet Mohammed. In addition it is incomplete, with only one third of it surviving. [7]

This article strongly suggests that there was doubt and confusion as to the content and interpretation of the Qur'an both before and after the standardised version compiled by the Third Caliph. [8]

If doubts as to the content of the Qur'an existed at the time of Mohammed, we can not be certain, or even optimistic that it has been preserved. This does nothing to suggest divine intervention or the spiritual truth of Islam.

References.
[1]http://bible.cc...
[2]http://www.usc.edu...
[3]http://www.usc.edu...
[4]http://www.usc.edu...
[5] http://www.vexen.co.uk...
[6] http://www.bibliomania.com...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://debate.org.uk...
Mirza

Pro

Thank you very much.

-- Content --

Rebuttal Section:

• Argument 1
o Claim to be the True Religion
o Jesus' Statement

• Argument 2
o Creation in Six or Eight Days?

• Argument 3
o Seven Heavens, Scientific Error?

• Argument 4
o Preservation and Divine Claim
o Weak "Hadith" Cited
o Doubts About the Qur'an in Early Times?

Argument Section[*]:

• 1. Prophecies
o Fulfilled
o Signs of Day of Judgement
o What About Nostradamus?

• 2. Historical Truth
o Evidence

• 3. Mathematical Structure of the Qur'an
• 4. Further Scientific Points in the Qur'an
• 5. Explanation for Prohibition of Homosexuality (Due to my opponent's comment about it)

-- Rebuttals --

• Argument 1
o Claim to be the True Religion

My opponent said that Islam being the safest bet does not make it the true religion. I agree with this, and that is only a part of my other arguments. However, he made a thread[1] where he claimed that he wanted eternal life, and naturally, a happy one. If he wants it, then I ask, what is his best bet? Hinduism? Christianity? Sikhism? He has answered the question.

o Jesus' Statement

[John 14:6] Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

My opponent said that Christianity claims exclusivity, and used the verse above as evidence. Firstly, it is a criteria of Christianity that one believe sin Jesus (peace be upon him) in order to go to Heaven. I mention such criteria in the previous round. Secondly, as a Hindu, I agree that you will not be saved from punishment if Christianity is true, because Hindus do not accept Jesus. What about the Muslims?

In Islam, Jesus is regarded as one of the mightiest Prophets in Islam. It strongly disagrees that he is God, but he is nevertheless a Prophet, and we Muslims accept him. Now, the passage above does not mention Jesus saying that no one goes to the Father except if believing that Jesus is God. It simply says "through him," meaning by accepting him, having him in your heart. Islam agrees with this: no person is a Muslim if he denies Jesus' words, and he will not have access to Paradise. Therefore, truth of Christianity is not excluded for Muslims. In fact, "Christianity" is not found in the Bible.

• Argument 2
o Creation in Six or Eight Days?

My opponent claimed that in one place, the Qur'an concludes that the heavens and the earth were created in six days, but some verses describing it seem to make the result of eight days. I will explain what the Qur'an really says about it.

[Qur'an 41:9-12] "Say: Is it that ye Deny Him (Allah) Who created the earth in ? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the worlds. (10)He set on the (earth) mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measured therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in , in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (sustenance). (11)Moreover, He Comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: 'Come ye together, Willingly or unwillingly.' They said: 'We do come (together), in willing obedience.' (12)So He completed them as seven firmaments in two days and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We (Allah) adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) The Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge."

Reading this, you will find no contradiction. Why? Because the word 'moreover' is used in verse 11. The Arabic word used there is "suma" and means moreover, simultaneously, then. In this context, the words simultaneously/moreover are the correct ones, because the creation part is six days, and the Qur'an refers to it. Some translators translated 'suma' as 'then', but that is their own mistake. The translation I used has the correct word. There is no contradictions here.

• Argument 3
o Seven Heavens, Scientific Error?

My opponent argues that the Qur'an is erroneous in the part where it mentions "seven heavens." Firstly, heavens refer to the universe, too. Science has no objection to the fact that there might be seven so-called heavens in the entire existence. In fact, we humans have a lot to find out about our universe. This is therefore not a scientific error, but scientific theory. Secondly, a few hundred years ago, one would think that the following verse is a scientific error:

[Qur'an 51:47] "And it is We who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it."

This refers to the universe being expanded. Only almost 100 years ago, it was known that the universe kept expanding. The Qur'an mentioned it, and while it seemed to be an error, we now know that it is not, thanks to science. However, as for seven heavens above one another, let us apply it to the atmosphere. The atmosphere consists of following layers:

Troposphere
Stratosphere
Mesosphere
Thermosphere
Exosphere
Ionosphere
Magnetosphere

These layers of the atmosphere have their own tasks, and they all help in preserving life on our planet. Now, compare it to the following verse:

[Qur'an 41:12] "So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command."

• Argument 4
o Preservation and Divine Claim

My opponent claimed that preservation of an old text does not in itself confirm its truth or message. What is important here is to know that the prophecy in the Qur'an, that it will always be preserved, is fulfilled, and that it is the only religious book out of all others that stands out this way. In fact, it is the book preserved perfectly for longest time ever. 14 centuries old, and it is untouched.

o Weak "Hadith" Cited
The citation of the son of Caliph Umar is not one I can seem to find in any collection of authentic hadith. If this was said, we would have seen it in many authentic hadith, since they describe incredibly many events, sayings etc. This citation would be no exception, but I cannot even find a narration of it in authentic hadith on Google.[2]

o Doubts About the Qur'an in Early Times?

Due to restricted character usage, I will present a short argument of this. Please read source #3.[3]

The Qur'an was revealed in the Quraish dialect of the Arabic language, which the beloved Prophet spoke. It is the most advanced of the Arabic dialects. During his lifetime, people memorized the Qur'an in this original dialect. When he died, some people started writing the Qur'an down, however, it was with a different dialect, which would distort the original one. When Uthman was in power, he feared that the Qur'an would be vulnerable, so he ordered that all the Qur'an copies got collected, except the original one, and then burnt. It was successful, and the original Qur'an was preserved, and is today in a museum. Although missing some parts, there are other old Qur'an copies, all matching each other, and I have presented sources in the link I referred to above.

Therefore there was no confusion to begin with, rather because people wrote down what was unoriginal, but it was all solved, and today, there is only one Qur'an. Uthman only preserved one version, not several others.

-- References --

[1]http://www.debate.org...
[2]http://www.google.com...
[3]http://www.debate.org...

[*]Due to limited character usage, I will present the arguments in the next rounds. They are on the list of content here because they are meant to be elaboration of Round 2.
Debate Round No. 2
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

I apologise for the delay in replying.

• Argument 1
o Claim to be the True Religion

My opponent states that
"Now, the passage above does not mention Jesus saying that no one goes to the Father except if believing that Jesus is God. It simply says "through him," meaning by accepting him, having him in your heart. Islam agrees with this: no person is a Muslim if he denies Jesus' words, and he will not have access to Paradise. Therefore, truth of Christianity is not excluded for Muslims. In fact, "Christianity" is not found in the Bible."

However most sects of Christianity require not merely the belief in Jesus as a agent of the divine but the following in addition.
1: A belief in Jesus as the Son of God.
2: A belief in Jesus as God.
3: A belief in Jesus as the perfect sacrifice that absolves mankind of sin.

Islam denies all three of these statements. It is not certain that if the Catholics, or the Anglicans or the Eastern Orthodox are the one true faith that Muslims would also be accepted into heaven. The safest bet argument used by my opponent is in no way clear cut.

• Argument 2
o Creation in Six or Eight Days?

My opponent counters that,
"Reading this, you will find no contradiction. Why? Because the word 'moreover' is used in verse 11. The Arabic word used there is "suma" and means moreover, simultaneously, then. In this context, the words simultaneously/moreover are the correct ones, because the creation part is six days, and the Qur'an refers to it. Some translators translated 'suma' as 'then', but that is their own mistake. The translation I used has the correct word. There is no contradictions here."

This is a perfectly valid rebuttal, but I would ask for it to be confirmed with some sort of link.

• Argument 3
o Seven Heavens, Scientific Error?

My opponent argues that the Qur'an is erroneous in the part where it mentions "seven heavens." Firstly, heavens refer to the universe, too. Science has no objection to the fact that there might be seven so-called heavens in the entire existence. In fact, we humans have a lot to find out about our universe. This is therefore not a scientific error, but scientific theory.

This argument, though it may be true, relies on the presumption of future evidence. It can not be certain that scientists in the future will divide the universe into seven parts.

My opponent also offers that,
"However, as for seven heavens above one another, let us apply it to the atmosphere. The atmosphere consists of following layers:

Troposphere
Stratosphere
Mesosphere
Thermosphere
Exosphere
Ionosphere
Magnetosphere

These layers of the atmosphere have their own tasks, and they all help in preserving life on our planet. Now, compare it to the following verse:

[Qur'an 41:12] "So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command."

These are both fascinating rebuttals, however is it the case that this part of the Qur'an is referring to a universe that can be classified into seven parts, or the atmosphere that may be divided into seven parts. My opponent can not claim that both arguments are true, and this suggests doubt. In addition it can be argued that there are 5, not 7 principle layers, and an additional 5 layers with them. [1]

• Argument 4
o Preservation and Divine Claim

My opponent states,
"The citation of the son of Caliph Umar is not one I can seem to find in any collection of authentic hadith. If this was said, we would have seen it in many authentic hadith, since they describe incredibly many events, sayings etc. This citation would be no exception, but I cannot even find a narration of it in authentic hadith on Google.[2]"

Then I have no real choice but to accept it as hearsay and withdraw it.

o Doubts About the Qur'an in Early Times?

My opponent states that,
"When Uthman was in power, he feared that the Qur'an would be vulnerable, so he ordered that all the Qur'an copies got collected, except the original one, and then burnt. It was successful, and the original Qur'an was preserved, and is today in a museum. Although missing some parts, there are other old Qur'an copies, all matching each other, and I have presented sources in the link I referred to above."

Your sources do contain a lot of information and claims, so I do need to ask, what is the verifiable evidence that Uthman had an original Koran. Where specifically is the worlds oldest Qur'an, and what museum is it stored at?

Additional Arguments.

Abrogating Verses
The Qur'an is internally contradictory due to abrogating verses [2]. Indeed such an understanding was at the core of Islamic theology from even the early days of Islam. [3]

Contradictions with History
The Qur'an states that the Golden Calf of the Israelites was constructed with the aid or at the best of a Samaritan.

"020.085
YUSUFALI: (Allah) said: "We have tested thy people in thy absence: the Samiri has led them astray."
PICKTHAL: He said: Lo! We have tried thy folk in thine absence, and As-Samiri hath misled them.
SHAKIR: He said: So surely We have tried your people after you, and the Samiri has led them astray." [4]

However
The Samaritans did not emerge as a people until 722BC, several centuries later. [5]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...(tafsir)
[4]http://www.usc.edu...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Mirza

Pro

Thank you. I will start with rebuttals, since I believe I will have enough space for arguments this time.

-- Content --

Rebuttal Section:

• Argument 1
o Christian Sects - Which One is True?

• Argument 2
o Response

• Argument 3
o Relying on Future Evidence
o 5 or 7 layers?

• Argument 4
o Evidence of Uthman Having the Original Qur'an
o Abrogations in the Qur'an
o Contradiction with History

Argument Section[*]:

• 1. Prophecies
o Fulfilled
o Signs of Day of Judgement
o What About Nostradamus?

-- Rebuttals --

• Argument 1
o Christian Sects - Which One is True?

My opponent argues that "most sects of Christianity require not merely the belief in Jesus as a agent of the divine but the following in addition."

He listed this:

1: A belief in Jesus as the Son of God.
2: A belief in Jesus as God.
3: A belief in Jesus as the perfect sacrifice that absolves mankind of sin.

Here, we are dealing with Christian sects, not the Bible. While those two are correlated, it is important to know that all Christian sects base their beliefs primarily on the Bible. If they say something that is not supported by the Bible, then what are they telling, truth or falsehood? If the Bible is true, and they say something quite contrary to what the Bible says, then again, what is there for a Muslim to fear? Where does the Bible state that not believing in the divinity of Jesus will lead you to Hell? Not believing in the message of Jesus leads to you Hell. Furthermore, where did Jesus say that whoever denies the alleged crucifixion is going to Hell? None of these are Biblical claims, but claims of Christians. In fact, I believe that my opponent if aware that Jesus never claimed divinity either.

[John 7:16] "Jesus answered, 'My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me.'"
[John 14:28] "The Father is greater than I."
[John 5:37] "And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form"
[Luke 22:42] "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

• Argument 2
o Link for Support

My opponent wanted me to cite a source/link as support to my rebuttal. My main source is the Qur'an, but I will nevertheless do what my opponent asks me for. See source #1.

• Argument 3
o Relying on Future Evidence

My opponent claims that the seven heavens theory relies on future evidence. I agree, and that is why this cannot possibly be a scientific error. Therefore, I have validly rebutted the claim. It is important to know that many verses of the Qur'an seemed to be invalid in older times, yet today, science proves them right. Even historical claims and prophecies, and I will come to them.

o 5 or 7 layers?

My opponent said that not both arguments are true. Either it is seven layers in the atmosphere or seven heavens. I may or may not agree, but if I say that humans are made of water, and another time say that dogs are made of water, is it not possible that I am right both times? But, let us say that my opponent is right. However, one is a scientific theory, not yet disproved at all, another is an interesting observation, and one can accept it as a reference to the atmosphere or not, but it is not a scientific error. Also, are there seven or five layers?

A link to Wikipedia was provided[2], which shows five layers. However, Wikipedia itself calls it a layer.[3] Due to different functions, it may not always be listed as a layer of its own. The link explains it.

• Argument 4
o Evidence of Uthman Having the Original Qur'an

I wish to present new arguments this time, and I will therefore ask my opponent to read a lot about that on source #4 and #5.

o Abrogations in the Qur'an

My opponent linked to a site showing "abrogations" in the Qur'an. What is meant by that word is that some verses are "cancelled" or "abolished."

[Qur'an 2:106] "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?"

Muslim scholars interpret this verse in two ways. One is that it is referring to earlier scriptures, such as the Tawrat. It was revealed, but instead of the message being lost, God brings one that is better or similar. The other interpretation is referring to the Qur'an itself. If this one is true, then what is meant is that one verse may forbid something partially, for example, and one other may forbid something fully. Alcohol is a very good example. The Qur'an was revealed in stages, and it forbade things step by step. It started mentioning alcohol this way:

[Qur'an 2:219] "They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: 'In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit.'"

Allah says that there is profit and sin in wine and gambling, but the sin is greater. Is it prohibited? Not yet. Moving on, the Qur'an says:

[Qur'an 4:43] "O ye who believe! Draw not near unto prayer when ye are drunken, till ye know that which ye utter..."

At this point, the Qur'an prohibited being drunk during prayer. Moving on...

[Qur'an 5:90-91] "O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. (91)Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain?"

Now, the Qur'an makes it clear that wine/intoxicants and gambling are completely prohibited. Is it a contradiction? No. It is a law made through stages. And why so? I call this a work of wisdom. In the era of the beloved Prophet, the Arabs were drunk etc., and committed many sins. For them to start embracing Islam, they had to get used to the new laws step by step. So, the Qur'an started saying that there is good in wine and there is bad, and the bad is greater than good. Then it said that intoxicants during prayer are prohibited. Lastly, a full prohibition came. This way, non-Muslims had it easier to embrace Islam. That is why the Qur'an deals carefully with everything, and I call this a masterpiece of law apply.

o Contradiction with History

My opponent allowed me to refute this with a link due to limited characters. I thank him for that. See reference #6 please.

-- Arguments --

• 1. Prophecies
o Fulfilled

Islam makes prophecies/predicts the future. Before the Day of Judgement arrives, things must take place that are predicted. Some are in the Qur'an, but most are in authentic hadith. One example is: "Great distances will be traversed in short spans of time." The miraculous thing is that so far, no prophecy is wrong. Not one single. Some have yet to be fulfilled, such as women outnumbering men [50:1]. This is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim. What about Nostradamus? I will mention him.

o Signs of Day of Judgement

There are minor and major signs of Al-Qiyamah[7]. A list is found in source #8.

o What About Nostradamus?

"The year 1999, seventh month, from the sky will come a great King of Terror. To bring back to life the great King of the Mongols, before and after Mars to reign by good luck."

Is this fulfilled? Not only is the answer no, but his predictions were incredibly hard to understand and could be interpreted in any way.

-- References --

[1]http://www.ilovezakirnaik.com...
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://www.answering-christianity.com...
[5]http://www.islamic-awareness.org...
[6]http://www.islamic-awareness.org...
[7]YouTube Video, search: watch?v=qt9MuJvbZxE
[8]http://etori.tripod.com...

[*]To be elaborated.
Debate Round No. 3
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

• Argument 1: The Safest Bet
I will address this argument only briefly, I accept that I have made a mistake in considering what Christianity states, as opposed to what the bible states. However even if I accept the safest bet argument it does not confirm the truth of Islam (I don't think this argument can be addressed any further).

• Argument 2: Contradictory Accounts of Creation.
Unless I instantly become a scholar of Arabic, or find one that conveniently disagrees with you I have to accept that this is not a contradiction in the Qur'an.

• Argument 3: Relying on Future Evidence

My opponent states,
"My opponent claims that the seven heavens theory relies on future evidence. I agree, and that is why this cannot possibly be a scientific error. Therefore, I have validly rebutted the claim."

I do not consider this a valid rebuttal. My opponent suggests that the Qur'an is correct in dividing the heavens, by implication the universe into seven parts. There is no evidence for this. He can not, for the sake of this debate claim that future science will confirm this claim.

"A link to Wikipedia was provided[2], which shows five layers. However, Wikipedia itself calls it a layer.[3] Due to different functions, it may not always be listed as a layer of its own. The link explains it."

My opponents link still only suggests that it has five or six layers, not seven.

• Argument 4
o Evidence of Uthman Having the Original Qur'an

My opponent states,
"I wish to present new arguments this time, and I will therefore ask my opponent to read a lot about that on source #4 and #5."

The second section of source [4] makes contradictory claims. Firstly it states that,

"When Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him received the Noble Quran's Revelations in a 10-years span, he had everything documented on paper and saved with his close disciples and immediate family. He also had the entire Noble Quran memorized along with many of his followers. The Noble Quran during the times of our beloved Prophet peace be upon him was carefully preserved and protected from man's corruption."

However it then states,

"When Uthman, the third Caliph in Islam, compiled the Noble Quran".

Why, and from what did Uthman compile his standardised Quran when the original Quran revealed to/by the Prophet Muhammad was still in existence. Surely Uthman should have merely accurately copied the pre-existing Quran whilst destroying those that had been corrupted?

It also fails to offer any sources or evidence that two original Mohammad era Quran's are still in existence in perfect condition.

o Abrogations in the Qur'an

My opponent address the acusation of abrogation by claiming that subsequent sections of the Qur'an merely develop or add to previous ideas.

He states that,
"Now, the Qur'an makes it clear that wine/intoxicants and gambling are completely prohibited. Is it a contradiction? No. It is a law made through stages. And why so? I call this a work of wisdom. In the era of the beloved Prophet, the Arabs were drunk etc., and committed many sins. For them to start embracing Islam, they had to get used to the new laws step by step. So, the Qur'an started saying that there is good in wine and there is bad, and the bad is greater than good. Then it said that intoxicants during prayer are prohibited. Lastly, a full prohibition came. This way, non-Muslims had it easier to embrace Islam. That is why the Qur'an deals carefully with everything, and I call this a masterpiece of law apply."

This is also consistent with a man made Religion, with a Prophet acting very much as a politician.

o Contradiction with History (The Anachronistic Samaritan)

"My opponent allowed me to refute this with a link due to limited characters. I thank him for that. See reference #6 please."

Yes well I can see why you asked to simply post a link to that lengthy Article, I am forced to accept that this is not a historical contradiction.

-- Arguments --

• 1. Prophecies

A number of the prophecies my opponent lists are highly simplistic and concern moral issues, such as men looking like women, which would have been a real and/or imagined feature of cultures that Muslims would likely regard as decadent. They lack the specific details that would suggest divine truth. Other future prophecies, such as the sun rising in the west can not be relied upon as they are yet to happen.

A Summary of the Debate so Far.

I do not consider that my opponent has shown clear, persuasive evidence of the divine truth of Islam. I have struggled in my attempts to discredit the possibility of the divine truth of Islam, but I do not feel that my opponent has met the standard of evidence.

Restored Argument with Regards the Completeness of the Qur'an.

This article details numerous sourced Hadiths and Islamic Scholars suggesting that the Qur'an is not in a state of perfect incorruptability.

http://www.newenglishreview.org...
Mirza

Pro

Thank you.

-- Content --

Rebuttal Section:

• Argument 1
• Argument 2
• Argument 3
• Argument 4
o Evidence of Uthman Having the Original Qur'an
o Abrogations in the Qur'an

• Argument 5
o Prophecies

Argument Section:

• Argument 1
o Historical Evidence

-- Rebuttals --

• Argument 1

My opponent said that even if he accepts the safest bet argument, that does not confirm the truth of Islam. In theory, if no religion besides one claim exclusive truth, then they do not say that Islam cannot be the truth. So, by being a Muslim, you are safe if Sikhism, Hinduism, or whatever religion out there may be right in its teachings. They are universal but set some criteria.

• Argument 2

My opponent accepts that the six/eight days (the word used for 'days' is 'yawm', which can also mean period) misinterpretation is not a contradiction.

• Argument 3

Regarding the theory about seven heavens, I did not ultimately conclude that the Qur'an is "right," but that the verses are not in conflict with science, as my opponent claimed. Maybe future evidence will confirm it, maybe not because Homo Sapiens may be extinct, but right now, it is not valid to say that it is a scientific error.

I know that my source about the layers was adding one more, meaning six in total, but I gave an example. Magnetosphere is also a part.[1]

• Argument 4
o Evidence of Uthman Having the Original Qur'an

My opponent stated that my source contains contradictory claims. The Qur'an was in its full form during the lifetime of the beloved Prophet, but it had to be compiled into one book. Many people memorized the Qur'an, wrote it on many things, and this way, it was easy for people to compile it later on. After his death, few problems occured, and Uthman had to find a quick and effective solution to this. What he ultimately did was to collect all the Qur'an copies, preserve the original, and burn the unoriginal ones. He then compiled it into a book, still existing today, but some parts are missing.It matches the current one.

This one is not in its full form, because it is old, but it is still logical that the Qur'an has remained fully pure to this day. Arabs used to write every single 'event' down. Had the Qur'an been different, they would have written about different copies etc. They wrote about Uthman compiling it, and burning unoriginal copies. Had even one Arab male and female known an unoriginal form of the Qur'an, memorized it, gotten offspring, and passed on their memorization of it through generations, would we not see at least one single different Qur'an today? Yes, we would. Islam is split into many 'sects'. However, all sects have one Qur'an. If we argue about anything, we can refer to the Qur'an. If Catholics and Protestants argue, what will they refer to? Some will refer to the Bible of 73 books, others of 66, etc. They are in conflict over their 'versions' of the Bible. We Muslims are not in conflict over that. Look for any video on YouTube for any Qur'an recitation, and you will find 0% difference in the text.

See sources: [2], [3], [4]

o Abrogations in the Qur'an

I validly rebutted my opponents claim, but he said, "This is also consistent with a man made Religion, with a Prophet acting very much as a politician."

It is not obligatory to follow Islam. The Qur'an says that in [2:256], [10:99] and other similar passages. If one wishes to be a non-Muslim, he is free to do so. He can be intoxicated, or anything similar. Islam, being a religion that calls for good good hygiene, good conduct, healthy lifestyle etc., will not allow things like intoxicants. A person can feel free to follow what Islam teaches. If he wishes to remain safe, he can follow the teachings of Islam. They are nothing but guidance for people. Whoever follows Islamic system of life, marriage, hygiene, behaviour, etc., will be a successful person to an extent. So, in an Islamic country, Islamic teachings are followed (note: they are not fully applied in any nation this day). Intoxicants etc. are therefore prohibited. Why? They cause family problems, sadness, health problems, accidents, bad behaviour, etc. Similar things are also prohibited. It is to protect people and let them live safe lives. The world is big enough, so if people wish to ruin their lives, they are welcome in most of the world.

You are not a disbeliever if you do things that are sinful. Islam sets rules that are good. They are safe for all to follow. A person who follows them will have no confusion in his life. Islam tells him how to keep a good hygiene, such as washing himself five times every day before prayers, making sure his clothes are clean, etc.

• Argument 5
o Prophecies

My opponent states that the prophecies are 'highly simplistic' and concern 'moral issues'. They are simple per se, but all of them being correct, or showing signs of being correct in the future, indicates that someone greater than humans knew all this. For example, something about men looking like women means men will wear make up, etc., and there is also the thing with transsexuals, who are able to get surgeries that can make them look like the opposite gender. This has never been able before the latest centuries. Who could have known this?

"Great distances will be traversed in short spans of time"[5]
"Smog will appear over cities because of the evil that they are doing"[6]

Who could have known all this? Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) also said, "The Hour will not begin until the land of the Arabs once again becomes meadows and rivers." (Muslim)

Compare it to sources: [7], [8]

No other religion has these extraordinary, true claims. Also, 'once again' means that it was once meadows and rivers, and even that is proved scientifically.

As for the completeness of the Qur'an, I have addressed this, and will refer my opponent to source #9 and #10.

-- Arguments --

• Argument 1
o Historical Evidence

The Qur'an speaks of historical events. A good example is one of Pharaoh of the time of Moses (peace be upon him). The Qur'an speaks about the famous story of the splitting of the sea, saving Moses, drowning Pharaoh. Is this true?

Read [Qur'an 10:90-91] please.

[Qur'an 10:92] "This day shall We [Allah] save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!"

God told Pharaoh that his body will be saved as a sign for future generations. Somewhere in 1970's, at the Red Sea, a body was found. It was not mummified, yet it was perfectly preserved. Dr. Maurice Bucaille, a great scientist and a former Christian who converted to Islam, was called to examine the body. He said there is no doubt that this is Pharaoh of Moses' time. Muslims told him that the Qur'an already said this. He was amazed, learned Arabic, etc., and converted to Islam. He studies the Qur'an entirely, and found it to speak amazingly about astronomy, geology, etc. This is God speaking of an exclusive truth, saying something no human could ever do.

[Qur'an 41:53] "Soon will We show them our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth."

Thanks.

-- References --

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://www.saudinf.com...
[3]http://www.sunnipath.com...
[4]http://www.islamic-awareness.org...
[5]http://frameshiftcoaching.files.wordpress.com...
[6]http://www.pollutionissues.com...
[7]http://io9.com...
[8]http://www.cbsnews.com...
[9]http://www.answering-christianity.com...
[10]http://www.amazon.co.uk...
[11]YouTube Video, search: watch?v=_f7b3pDZAxY
Debate Round No. 4
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

Argument 1: I do not believe that can be developed any further, I believe that I have rebutted the safest bet argument.

Argument 2: Yes I accept that there is no contradiction in the stated days of creation.

Argument 3: Regarding the 7 heavens, this has become a moot point. It may refer to the layers of the atmosphere, though you can claim there are five, six, seven or ten. It may refer to the classification of the universe. It is ambiguous.

Argument 4: Uthman and the Qur'an.

Here my opponent provides an ambiguous defence,
"The Qur'an was in its full form during the lifetime of the beloved Prophet, but it had to be compiled into one book. Many people memorized the Qur'an, wrote it on many things, and this way, it was easy for people to compile it later on. After his death, few problems occured, and Uthman had to find a quick and effective solution to this. What he ultimately did was to collect all the Qur'an copies, preserve the original, and burn the unoriginal ones. He then compiled it into a book, still existing today, but some parts are missing.It matches the current one."

There are certain apparent contradictions or issues to what my opponent says.
1: It was in its full form, but had to be compiled. This is a contradiction.
2: "What he ultimately did was to collect all the Qur'an copies, preserve the original", my opponent has not presented evidence that Uthman ever held a true original Qur'an.
3: "He then compiled it into a book, still existing today, but some parts are missing.It matches the current one". The use of the word 'compiled' suggests that the Uthman Qur'an was assembled from bits and pieces, in a way similar to the Bible (where some parts were selected, others failed to make the final edit). The Uthman Qur'an is missing two thirds of its content. There is no evidence it is/was the same Qur'an as the orginal, nor the modern.

My opponent further argues
"it is still logical that the Qur'an has remained fully pure to this day. Arabs used to write every single 'event' down. Had the Qur'an been different, they would have written about different copies etc. They wrote about Uthman compiling it, and burning unoriginal copies. Had even one Arab male and female known an unoriginal form of the Qur'an, memorized it, gotten offspring, and passed on their memorization of it through generations, would we not see at least one single different Qur'an today?"

Muslims had memorised inproper/divergent forms of the Qur'an, that is why Uthman ensured that only a single version of it existed. The above is good evidence to suggest that his attempt at orthodoxy was a success and that the modern Qur'an may be the Qu'ran that Uthman knew/complied. It does not confirm that the Uthman Qur'an was the same that of the Prophets. The ideal evidence would be an original 'first edition' copy of the Qur'an to be compared to one that has been printed today. Without this how certain can we be that the Qur'an is uncorrupted.

Prophecies.
The argument my opponent complies concerning prophecies is an interesting one.

He states that,
"For example, something about men looking like women means men will wear make up, etc., and there is also the thing with transsexuals, who are able to get surgeries that can make them look like the opposite gender. This has never been able before the latest centuries. Who could have known this?"

The Qur'an does not mention gender surgery, it does mention men becoming like women. However, I am certain that the features of males from certain cultures, such as Byzantium would have seem effeminate from the point of view of the austere arabs. In addition the 'third gender' of Pakistan, [1] is implied by the Karma sutra to pre-exist Islam and may have been known to the Prophet Mohammed due to trade links.

Some of the prophecies my opponent refers to are interesting, they do not concern clear specific details however, there is no real way of arguing for or against them and they remain in my view quite circumstantial.

My opponent states that
"God told Pharaoh that his body will be saved as a sign for future generations. Somewhere in 1970's, at the Red Sea, a body was found. It was not mummified, yet it was perfectly preserved. Dr. Maurice Bucaille, a great scientist and a former Christian who converted to Islam, was called to examine the body. He said there is no doubt that this is Pharaoh of Moses' time. Muslims told him that the Qur'an already said this. He was amazed, learned Arabic, etc., and converted to Islam. He studies the Qur'an entirely, and found it to speak amazingly about astronomy, geology, etc. This is God speaking of an exclusive truth, saying something no human could ever do."

This is a fascinating argument, and I intend to read up more on the work of Dr. Maurice Bucaille. However Dr. Maurice Bucaille identifies Ramesses II as the Pharoah of the exodus. [2]

The body of Ramesses II is described as wrapped, and as a mummy, had to be treated in the seventies due to decay and and having lost it's head during a mummification process. There seems no evidence of divine preservation. [3]

In conclusion I would like to thank my opponent for the most interesting, challenging and worthwhile debate I have had here. It has been highly informative. My opponent has argued excellently, but I must invite readers to ask themselves the following question.

Has pro established according to a balance of probabilities that Islam is true? Is it more likely than not that Muhammed was the final prophet of God? Though I have not been able to fully established that this is not the case, my opponent has for their part not reached the required burden of proof. For that reason I urge a vote for con.

Either way, I feel enriched for the debate, and motivated to do more research on Islam. Thank you.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(South_Asia)#History
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Mirza

Pro

-- Content --

Rebuttal Section:

• Argument 1, 2, 3
• Argument 4
o The Authenticity of the Qur'an
o Prophecies
o Pharaoh

Argument Section [*]:

• Prohibition of Homosexuality
• Mathematical Structure of the Qur'an
• Historical Evidence
o People of Saba - The Arim Flood
o City of Iram
o Sodom and Gomorrah

• Prophecies

-- Rebuttals --

• Argument 1, 2, 3

My dear opponent and I do not seem to be in huge disagreements over these, so I will leave them for the sake of character space.

As for the first argument, I say:

[Qur'an 2:111] "And they say: 'None shall enter Paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian.' Those are their (vain) desires. Say: 'Produce your proof if ye are truthful.'"

• Argument 4
o The Authenticity of the Qur'an

1. By 'full form' I meant that it was established and full, no longer to be 'continued'.
2. Please see reference one. I am testing a new way of debate references.[1]
3. Same as #2.

o Prophecies

My opponent argues that the Qur'an does not mention surgeries. Most of these prophecies are found in authentic hadith, first and foremost. But that does not matter at all. Now, is it even important that surgeries are not mentioned? No. Why? Because it would be too complicated. What kind of a surgery? What would it involve? Is it a real surgery or just some styling? There would be too many questions. Also, it is not proper to waste character space on this, because there are tons of other more precise and interesting prophecies. I will come to it later.

o Pharaoh

My opponent stated that the argument about Pharaoh is fascinating, but that it was not Rameses II. I believe that Dr. Maurice Bucaille did indeed say it was Rameses II, but it is hard to prove which Pharaoh it was. Some say that it was Rameses II who was the Pharaoh of Moses' time, others say it was Merneptah. It is one of these, and there is no doubt that the body found is Pharaoh.[2]

Furthermore, Dr. Maurice Bucaille wrote a book called "The Bible, The Qur'an, and Science," which is free for download or read.[3]

I ask, which other book or any text has made such a great prophecy? A body preserved fully, without mummification. How can this be possible? Only if the one who created everything wills it.

-- Arguments --

• Prohibition of Homosexuality

My opponent mentioned something like homosexuality being prohibited, and that he does not agree with it (see comment section). Why is homosexuality prohibited? Firstly, Islam is a religion of justice, not equality. The former is best. Secondly, assume that Islam had permitted homosexuality alongside heterosexuality. Some may say it would be a good thing. I ask, what would a person do, who - unfortunately - may feel attracted to something/someone very few people accept? What if a person is attracted to animals only? What if a person is attracted to dead bodies? Please notice that I am not comparing homosexuality to this and that act. I am merely saying that it would not be fair to single out homosexuality among all other sexual orientations.

So, why only heterosexuality? This is the only act that can make humans breed. Of course, some people are sterile, but it is important to notice that the act of heterosexuality is permitted already, so even though they may not be able to get everything out of it, they are still acting upon the most useful thing for humans. Islam is not a religion that will permit sex with dead bodies, mothers, etc., because it is a religion that is protective and wants to let people be safe from consequences of these things. Therefore, it only permits heterosexuality, because that act leads to reproduction, and that is why Islam only justified that.

• Mathematical Structure of the Qur'an

The Qur'an is not structured in a simple way. In fact, it is structured mathematically.[4][5][6] Now, if some words of the Qur'an get distorted somehow, not only will that be known due to the literate aspect, but by looking at the number of words. For example, the number 19 is significant in the Qur'an.

[Qur'an 74:30] "Over it are Nineteen."

Now, an example is that the Qur'an is mentioned in 38 chapters. This is 19 x 2. The total amount of chapters in the Qur'an is 114, which is 19 x 6. The words "benefit" and "corrupt" both appear 50 times each in the Qur'an. There are tons of such similar codes. Remove one of the words, and we will see unequal mathematical structures. Which book has this? Who could have made it this precise? Using the theory of probability, I can safely say that there is 0% chance of this happening so precisely. A book that mentions astronomy, geology, oceanology, etc., without any err, yet being ancient, this is not possible for any human to make.

• Historical Evidence

The Qur'an does not only get the story of Pharaoh and Moses right. There are also other things.

o People of Saba - The Arim Flood[7]

Archaeological evidence proves the story of the Qur'an about people of Saba to be true. The video explains it.

o City of Iram

A city that was destroyed, which was the place of 'Ad people. The Qur'an, amazingly, describes something that took place, and we know it by using archaeological evidence. It is ultimately precise.

[Qur'an 89:6-8] "Seest thou not how thy Lord dealt with the 'Ad (people),- (7)Of the (city of) Iram, with lofty pillars, (8)The like of which were not produced in (all) the land?"

See reference #8, please. Also #9.

o Sodom and Gomorrah

The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah had inhabitants who, according to the Qur'an, acted upon numerous major sins.

[Qur'an 15:72-77] "Verily, by thy life (O Prophet), in their wild intoxication, they wander in distraction, to and fro. (73)But the (mighty) Blast overtook them before morning, (74)And We turned (the cities) upside down, and rained down on them brimstones hard as baked clay. (75)Behold! in this are Signs for those who by tokens do understand. (76)And the (cities were) right on the high-road (where the Dead Sea is located). (78)Behold! in this is a sign for those who believed."

See reference #10.

The Dead Sea is the lowest point on the planet. There are no animals, e.g. fish, to be found in it. Near that sea, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Archaeological evidence proves that there were once cities there. In fact, it is proved that that there was a great earthquake, apparently followed by some big explosions.

• Prophecies

[Qur'an 30:2-3] "The Roman Empire has been defeated- (3)- In a land close by; but they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious"

Read source #11.

[Qur'an 56:1-2] "The Hour has come near, and the moon has split [in two]. (2) And if they see a miracle, they turn away and say, "Passing magic."

The Qur'an mentions splitting of the moon in two parts in the past. NASA mentions something similar on their site. This is a picture: http://grin.hq.nasa.gov...

The moon was split, and made one again. Who knew this?

"Earthquakes will increase."
"Time will pass more quickly."

Who knew all this? As for the future, "The Muslim conquest of Rome." If this comes true, will you believe?

I thank my lovely opponent!

-- References --

[1]http://www.debate.org...
[2]http://www.witness-pioneer.org...
[3]http://www.witness-pioneer.org...
[4]http://www.miraclesofthequran.com...
[5]YouTube Video, search: watch?v=4fZIQwnOMCM
[6]YouTube Video, search: watch?v=A4Sel2GqiGM
[7]YouTube Video, search: watch?v=vDyEBQaFZyM
[8]YouTube Video, search: watch?v=NCF49ahsH8c
[9]http://www.imamreza.net...
[10]YouTube Video, search: watch?v=wvXSX2rDv1I
[11]http://en.wikipedia.org...

[*]Due to extreme lack of character space for my arguments, I will post them now because they were meant to be posted earlier.
Debate Round No. 5
202 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
"This was an extremely fascinating debate."

Thank you. I agree with your point, the Arabic word "yawm" also means period, and the Qur'an mentions no morning/evening in creation, so it is "period." However, I used the word "day" because my opponent did, so I let it be at that.
Posted by nhq 6 years ago
nhq
This was an extremely fascinating debate.

However, there was one point I believe needs clarification. Both debaters cited a segment of the Quran which more or less, states that the world was created in 6 days. However, the translation of arabic term used for "days" can actually also mean periods of time. Many muslims believe in the other translation, which would make that argument moot point for the purposes of this debate. In fact, the other translation might have actually worked in favor of Mirza, for the Earth itself did develop in 6 different periods. http://school.discoveryeducation.com...
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
It was not his duty to convert me to atheism; it was my task to try to convert him to Islam.
Posted by Rodriguez47 6 years ago
Rodriguez47
The title or central point of this debate is very misleading. Atheist or Agnostics don't convert people. They simply relay what they know whether it's factual evidence or simply their views. It's religion that convert people.
Posted by legendaryangel 6 years ago
legendaryangel
Converting someone on the internet is weak compared to conversion coming at your own personal experiences on your own choices in life away from the keyboard...Give it time, there will be another point in your life where you will see something differently and perhaps thank religion for it.

Internet converting doesn't hold strong after awhile, it takes alot more than that. So for now all I will do is pray for you and move on......
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
We do not have the means of communication to condemn them worldwide, but we do. Here is a speech of one of the most famous and popular Islamic orators in the world. You can watch all parts if you would like. Doctor Zakir Naik is the the one with the white cap.
Posted by GrabYoSocks 6 years ago
GrabYoSocks
One thing I dislike about the Islamic, religion is that they never shun or disapprove of these terrorist groups themselves if it werent for Nato or the United States getting involved. If someone can find me proof other than shiits vs sunnies I would greatly appreciate it.
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
Also, I'd say many of the actions are justified, considering western nations go in and attack islamic nations completely unprovoked.
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
That is correct.
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
m93samman
@EvilLiberal: If a terrorist claims to be [suicide]bombing some group of people or a building in the name of Islam, it doesn't mean that Islam endorses his action. If that helps clarify anything
26 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Cerebral_NarcissistMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Cerebral_NarcissistMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by innomen 7 years ago
innomen
Cerebral_NarcissistMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by jat93 7 years ago
jat93
Cerebral_NarcissistMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rekcut94 7 years ago
rekcut94
Cerebral_NarcissistMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Marcus_Aurelius 7 years ago
Marcus_Aurelius
Cerebral_NarcissistMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by DebateJunkie 7 years ago
DebateJunkie
Cerebral_NarcissistMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Amontillado 7 years ago
Amontillado
Cerebral_NarcissistMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by whatisx 7 years ago
whatisx
Cerebral_NarcissistMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by chicarica89 7 years ago
chicarica89
Cerebral_NarcissistMirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02