The Instigator
Jacob_Apologist
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Clash
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Is Muhammad a true prophet of God ?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
Clash
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 13,185 times Debate No: 25242
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (4)

 

Jacob_Apologist

Con

I am challenging any muslim out there to defend your prophet's authenticity. This debate challenge is my first one, and I am just getting familiar with the options and methods of these debates. I don't even know if there are some muslim apologists available on this website.

Perhaps I will have to make some other topic to see how the debates go here. If this the first round post of mine then take it as the notification and acceptance for the topic.

Remember that the opponent needs to defend Muhammad, Islam. I am going to disprove him on theological grounds that is, from the authority of Scriptures, - the Bible vs Islamic sources.

If you want to go first, it's your choice, in this first round you can post your case, and I will proceed in second round. If not you can just post your acceptance declaration. I have reduced the voting period to 1 month. I don't know why most here are not comfortable with long voting period.

Keep in mind, the "criteria" of judging Muhammad's authenticity would be the key. I won't let you prove your case by presenting irrelevant evidence away and out of the obvious criteria. The criteria that is the Theology, the revelation of the God of Abraham.
Clash

Pro

I accept. As Pro, I will argue that prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him - hereafter 'PBUH') is a true prophet of God. I'm looking forward to a nice and great debate.

I now turn it over to Con for his arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Jacob_Apologist

Con

Muhammad did not claim to found a new religion; rather he professed to be another prophet of the same God of the Bible. He supposedly confirmed the revelation given by previous prophets, mentioned them and some prophets of the Bible, appealing to them (S 2:136; 3:84). If the Bible is argued to be false, that again disproves Muhamad, since that is the whole foundation of his claims according to himself. So why do we have a completely new religion of muslims -Islam, and Muhammad it’s founder? Precisely because whatever he claimed and taught was wrong, he did actually founded a new religion, which cannot be true, in light of evidce and reasons.

A person who is open to study evidence for God and religion, will certainly find out, that in disproving the claims and of Muhammad alone, we find great a deal of positive reasons to think Christianity is true, or atleast that it is highly probable. Somewhat similar when pondering the objective evil in the world we are compelled to believe in the existence of God.

Remember, in order to judge this supposedly new prophet, we would obviously judge him if he is even consistent with the previous prophets. A person in Muhammad’s time must do exactly this analysis. We do not test the prophethood of Moses by the way, he was the very first prophet who was given revelation, message to be written as scripture. If one doubts on Moses, and the other Major Prophets of OT, then he is simply rejecting the God of Abraham, Moses. Such a person is free to reject the foundational scriptures; what we are concerned here is the truth of Islam. Similarly to test Jesus’ truth, we would see him first if he is consistent with all previous revelation, but that’s another topic.

I will prove that Muhammad is not a prophet of the Yahweh God of Bible,-- the God of Abraham. The evidence of my case will be based on the facts that Muhammad is Inconsistent with all the previous prophets of God; which is the bare minimum basic criteria for him to be true.

He contradicted with the fundamental theology of previous revelation. I will be mainly defending 3 contentions:

  1. He was not even from the promised linage of Isaac, through whom God made the covenant
  2. He goes against the Spiritual teachings of previous revelation
  3. He denied the works & purpose of coming of the Messiah Jesus


In response, I’ll be refuting any positive argument given by Clash “Pro” and if required and word limit permits, will present more arguments disproving Muhamad. My objective will be to convince Clash and all readers, specially Muslims that, the founder of Islam was a false prophet.

1) God promised Abraham, that he will establish his covenant only through his Son Isaac; calling him the only son of Abraham, chosen and promised by God to be Abraham’s heir of the covenant.


Genesis 17:15 Then God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name.16 I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her. Then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."17 Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, "Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?"18 And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before You!"19 But God said, "No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after HIM.20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.21 But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year."22 When He finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham. (also Gen 22:1-2; Heb 11:17, James 2:21)


Muhammad claimed to be a descendent of Ishmael, the wrong son. So he was not even from the promised linage of the covenant. This is one of the strongest & foremost evidence against him. There are some archaeological evidence and other good reasons against his claim that he was even a descendant of Ishmael, but even if we take that true, that doesn’t help him at all.


2) Spiritual & Moral opposite teachings of Muhammad

In the Gospels, Jesus very clearly taught that Christians are not to fight for their religion. His apostles also taught the same (Luke 6:27-36, Matt 5:38-48 Matt 26:47-56)

These teachings of Love, and compassion by Jesus were quite new to those listeners of Jesus, however they were only being strengthened what God earlier commanded about compassion in the OT.[1]


“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms"(Ephesian 6:12)

The religious wars fought by the Jews in the time of Moses etc, were fought to protect the promised land and children from the sinful foreign invaders; they were all particular temporary defensive wars. In the OT, God never commanded a worldwide physical battles, attacks, wars in order to convert others as we see in Islamic concept of Jihad. A muslim cannot make a "Tu quoque fallacy" by attacking some instanc of wars in the OT. If you consider them, it's essential that you need to understand the concept of Theocracy and Monarchy, where the covenant and laws were limited in the land and children of Israel.[2]


Contrarily Qur'an says that the Gospel & Torah (previous books of Allah) taught fighting for God. This is just another false claim of Muhammad.

"They fight in the way of God; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon God in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran"(S 9:111)

Read Sura 9, 8, 11 like:(Mohsin Khan)S 9:29: Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger Muhammad (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Check Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number #24 and #387; Sahih Muslim Book 1,Number #29 to #33 where Muhammad tells the purpose of his life.

There is also a popular myth: Jihad means inner struggle. No, Jihad only has one meaning, study this source that quoted a Muslim source as well refuting that modern misconception.[3]


3) Muhammad denied the mission and works of the Messiah

The denial and rejection of the mission and works, and nature of Christ also entails denial of all prophesies of those things in the Old Testament[4], This proves that Muhammad was not deviating from some minor issues of the doctrines, rather he went contradicting the whole theology and revelation of the God.

The specific and explicit point here is Muhammad’s rejection to the suffering, death and resurrection of the Christ. We see in the Bible, Jesus tells about his purpose of his coming in flesh (Mark 10:42-45, Luke 24 : 44-49. Matthew 26:26-32)

He predicts his death and resurrection. John 12:30-32 Luke 18:31,32 Matthew 16:21. His crucifixion and death mentioned in John 19, Luke 23, Matthew 27. Compare Muhammad's denial. (Surah 4:156-157)

If Muhammad is a true Prophet of the same God of Abraham, Moses, David. God in being consistent in is theology cannot change his whole doctrine & mind suddenly some 600 AD. Muhammad has to be necessarily false in any case.


[1] http://www.godandscience.org...

[2] http://www.gotquestions.org...

[3] http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...

[4] List of Messianic Prophesies, proving that the works of Jesus was only fulfillment on whole Law and Prophets as Jesus himself said. http://www.teachinghearts.org...

Clash

Pro

Thank you, Jacob.


Con's Arguments

In what follows now, I will refute Con's arguments and show that they are not successful in proving that prophet Muhammad is not a true prophet of God.

1. The Bible and Other Revelations

Con said that prophet Muhammad confirmed the revelations given by the previous prophets, mentioned them and also some of the prophets of the Bible. That's true. However, the revelations given to the previous prophets, including the Bible, was meant only for one particular people at one particular time. Muslims believe in those original revelations given to the previous prophets, like the Gospel given to Jesus and the Torah given to Moses for example, but we don't believe in those we have today. Why?

Because all those other revelations have been corrupted and doesn't exist in the original form anymore, although it may still have some of God's words in it. So when Con states that prophet Muhammad confirmed the revelations given by the previous prophets, Con must be aware of the fact that this is not an affirmation of the books which he currently calls the holy Bible. Thus, it is a failure to use the Bible in order to show that prophet Muhammad wasn't a true prophet of God, as Con has mostly done here.

But what criteria do Muslims use to distinguish the passages in, for example, the Bible? Dr. Jamal Badawi nicely answers this question:

"There is a verse in the Quran that tells us that the Quran itself is the criterion. Any passage from the Old or New Testament that is consistent with what the Quran has confirmed, then Muslims can accept those portions in the Bible as having remained intact. However, if passage in the Bible contradicts what is said in the Quran, such as an immoral character of the prophets or the deification of Prophet Jesus, then Muslims consider those sections as human interpretations rather than the pure words of the prophets in the past." [1]

As for Con's claim that the whole foundation of prophet Muhammad's claims are from the Bible according to himself, this must be dismissed since Con gives no evidences for this claim whatsoever.

2. The Promised Linage

Con said that God promised Abraham that he will establish his covenant only through his son Isaac. Thus, since prophet Muhammad claimed to be a descendant of Ishmael (the wrong son), he cannot be a true prophet of God. Con claims that this argument is the strongest argument against prophet Muhammad. In fact, this argument is one of the weakest arguments against prophet Muhammad. Dr. Jamal Badawi nicely explains why:

'There are a few more interesting points. The verse that we sited last session, found in the Book of Genesis, discusses the promise made to Abraham saying, “As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.” (GEN 17:4). Notice, this applies to Abraham and his seeds and at that time Isaac wasn’t even born yet. This shows that the promise applies to the seeds of Abraham, without necessarily discriminating between either of his sons.

We find that even as early as the twelfth chapter, before Ishmael was born, there’s a verse, similar to the one just mentioned, addressing Abraham, it says, “I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing”. What appears from this, according to the Bible itself, there is no evidence whatsoever of the exclusion of Ishmael. Furthermore, there is positive evidence that a promise was also made to Ishmael to make his descendants a great nation.

Therefore, both, Isaac and Ishmael, were definitely included in the promise of God in blessing the nations of the earth. This is historically manifested since the last prophet of God is a descendant of Ishmael." [2]

3. Opposite Teachings

Con said that Jesus taught that Christians are not to fight for their religion. Thus, since prophet Muhammad taught the opposite of this teaching (i.e., fight for your religion), he cannot be a true prophet of God. This argument is just beyond illogical. Just because prophet Muhammad taught something opposite of that of Jesus doesn't mean that he isn't a true prophet of God.

Moreover, why couldn't God change this teaching (supposing that God really said this)? Why can't God change the teaching "Don't fight for my religion" to "Fight for my religion"? Well, He can. There are no compelling reasons to believe otherwise and there are also nothing bad with fighting for your religion. Indeed, to say that God couldn't change this teaching is beyond absurdity. God can do whatever He wants because He is omnipotent. That includes changing the teaching "Don't fight for my religion" at the time of Jesus to "Fight for my religion" at the time of prophet Muhammad. Having in mind how it was at prophet Muhammad's time and place, it only seems logical that God would allow prophet Muhammad and his followers to defend and fight for their religion.

4. Did Prophet Muhammad deny the mission and works of the Messiah?

It is also true that prophet Muhammad denied some of the things which the Bible says about Jesus, like for example that he is God. However, we Muslims don't believe that those teachings about Jesus really was from God himself in the first place. Rather, they were only from human interpretations. Thus, prophet Muhammad only denied what we Muslims will say that God himself denied. This is in fact why prophet Muhammad came at all, namely to expose the lies made before him concerning Jesus and to give the real truth about Jesus, which is that he was only a prophet of God.


My Argument

My argument is clear and simple. It goes like this (in syllogism):

1: God himself says in the Quran that prophet Muhammad is his true prophet.

2: The Quran has been proven to be from God.

Conclusion: Thus, since God himself says in the Quran that prophet Muhammad is His true prophet and since the Quran has been proven to really be from God, it automatically and logically follows that prophet Muhammad is God's true prophet.

Now, in order for this argument to work, I must successfully prove that the Quran is from God. That's an easy task. There are several arguments which proves the Muslim claim that the Quran is from God. However, because of the character limit, I will only give and defend one argument. Namely, 'The Quran on the seas' argument.

The Quran on the seas

Modern science has discovered that in places where two different seas meet, there is a barrier between them. For example, the famous French oceanographer, J. Cousteau, says:

"We studied the assertions by certain researchers about barriers separating seas, and noticed that the Mediterranean Sea had its own salinity and density and housed autochthonous fauna and flora. The two seas presented different features even though they were adjacent. This greatly puzzled us. An incredible barrier prevented the two seas from coming together. The same sort of a barrier had also been observed in Bab Al-Mandab in the Gulf of Aden connecting with the Red Sea." [3]

This fact that astounded oceanographers was revealed 1,400 years ago in the Quran:

He has let free the two seas meeting together. Between them there is a barrier which they do not transgress. (55: 19-20)

The people at the Arabian peninsula (where the Quran was written and revealed) didn't have any knowledge or experience on oceanography. Even if they did have some knowledge or experience on oceanography, they could never have known that some seas has barriers in it, because this barrier cannot be seen by the naked eye and has been discovered only in the modern age, using advanced and modern equipments to discover it. Indeed, this information could only have come from God and thus, proving that the Quran is from God.

_______

Sources

[1] http://jamalbadawi.org...

[2] Ibid.

[3] http://www.quranmiracles.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Jacob_Apologist

Con

The argument that all previous revelation of the God of Muhammad were meant to be for limited period and public is false. Compare the commands of Jesus that the Gospel must be proclaimed to all nations beginning from Jerusalem. He also prophesied of the end times and his second coming for judgment of the world. Therefore it is very obvious that the Gospel of Jesus is meant till the judgment day, for all nations of the world (John 3:16-21; Mark 13:10; Matt 28:18-20; Matt 24 and book of Revelation)

One greater myth among Muslims, is that their previous revelation of Allah are corrupted and lost, so they believe only in the words of Muhammad for his proof, and even judge the previous revelation on basis of Muhamad’s book, thus whatever bits of the corrupted lost books match with Islamic sources, they believe that part to be true very conveniently. Hence they are straightway denying the criteria of his truthfulness. I’d ask you to re-read my case for the necessity for Muhammad to go consistent with the supposed previous prophets and their revelation. If he fails, he is disproved evidently as inconsistent.

It is impossible to judge Muhammad on his own claims, and even judge all the previous prophets on based on his revelation. Even if a muslim claims previous books are lost, that immediately entails that according to the muslim, Islamic concept of God is a weak God who couldn’t preserve his holy revelation, thus disproving the concept of Islamic God. It is obvious and imperative for Muhammad that whole foundation & basis of his claims are the previous prophets. I don’t even need Muhammad’s words to attest that; it is an essential criteria otherwise everyday anyone will be claiming to be a new prophet, and we’d have millions of religions claiming to be from same God of Abraham, Moses. However Muhammad did appealed heavily to the scriptures of Jews and Christians for his verification Yusuf Ali S 10:94 “If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt”. He also supposedly confirmed the previous revelation what he called as the books of Allah, (Surah 2:40-42,126,136,285,89,91,97,101; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47; 6:92; 10:37; 12:111; 35:31; 46:30; 4:136 and so on)

The argument of Jamal Badawi is very poor, since I already quoted full passage of Gen 17 to make it explicit. Jamal says when God promised Abraham in Gen17:4, that time Isaac was not born hence the promise includes Ishmael. That’s argument from silence with no reason, moreover the promise is a future promise, and we read further that it is unambiguously stated that the heir of the covenant promise is Isaac alone, he is even called the only Son of Abraham, as he is the son through God’s blessing. In v20 also you can read, the promise to Ishmael was a separate blessing meant temporary in his household after he and his mother settled down in Egypt. It was not related to the eternal covenant to Abraham which is through Isaac; Gen 17:4-7


God changing his mind and eternal teaching

Clash says “Indeed, to say that God couldn't change this teaching is beyond absurdity. God can do whatever He wants because He is omnipotent. That includes changing the teaching”

Even though Quranic references claim that Allah never changed his mind especially to such a level, there are lots of minor changes within Islam that is called doctrine of abrogation.

To quote from a page:

Surah 16/101 “When We (Allah*) substitute one revelation for another - and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages) - they (non-Muslims*) say, ’Thou art but a forger’: but they understand not” (surah 16 is from 622 AD - the time when Muhammad was busy changing Islam from peaceful to living from killing, robbing and extortion - and later to a full religion of hate and war).

Allah not only did those minor abrogation but according to Muhammad, Satan puts words in prophet’s mouth as revelation and write scripture, but Allah correct and abrogate those Satanic revelations to prophets. So not only humans but Satan corrupt and write their own revelation.

S 22/52 “Never did We (Allah*) send a messenger or a prophet before thee (Muhammad*), but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs - - -”. (from the middle of the Mecca period mainly - ca. 614 - 617 AD (perhaps 616 AD) and shortly after the infamous “Satanic Verses” Muhammad quoted in 53/19-22 in a situation where he had much to gain from becoming friends with the rulers and ruling class in Mecca: “Have ye seen al-Lat, al-Uzza, And another, the third (goddess), Manat (the three daughters of the main god in Mecca at that time, al-Lah*)? These are exulted idols whose intercession is hoped”. Muhammad afterwards changed the 4 short verses to: “Have ye seen al-Lat, al-Uzza, And another, the third (goddess) Manat? What! For you male sex, and for Him, the female (for children*)! Behold, such would be indeed most unfair!” (Muhammad was an Arab and was sure a god would look down on women as much as Arabs did*). This episode made a lot of “noise”, and it was most convenient for him to receive (?) a verse telling all prophets had had experiences like that, and that he was not to be blamed).

For commentary of this verse, see Ibn Abbas tafsir on “altafsir.com”

Now if Clash is true, then you all can claim to be new-prophets and say that Allah changed his mind. Where is the authenticity and consistency of this God then? The question of the matter is that God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33). I proved that the Gospel of Jesus is meant for whole world, till the end times and judgment day. God also instructed to reject and rebuke anyone’s teaching that contradicts the true Gospel (Galatians 1:6-9). It is inconceivable to think then, that still God somehow changed his mind and spiritual teachings from “holiness, unconditional love, and compassion” to radical worldwide hatred of jihad which is upside down of the teachings of whole prophets and Christ. So it is all prophets and Christ Vs this one man -Muhammad’s own claims.

More Circular reasoning to justify Muhammad

Clash says again, admitting that Muhammad denied many of the things of old prophets and Jesus Christ, but this is only because those things are corrupted, manmade, not true revelation.

“Thus, Muhammad only denied what we Muslims will say that God himself denied. This is in fact why prophet Muhammad came at all, namely to expose the lies made before him concerning Jesus and to give the real truth about Jesus, which is that he was only a prophet of God”.

Again, if I claim to be a new prophet of Allah by claiming that Muhammad’s books were corrupted, what argument would such a muslim give to disprove me? If that to be maintained all should claim to be new prophets by rejecting every other’s revelation to be corrupted, and we should have a chaos of self-proclaiming prophets. Say: Prophet Jacob Apologist denied what God himself denied, this is in fact why Jacob Apologist came at all, to expose the lies made before him concerning Muhammad and Jesus, to give real truth about all prophets.

To copy his conclusion that would be for my revelation X- “since God himself says in the book “X” that prophet JacobApologist is His true prophet and since X has been proven to really be from God, it automatically and logically follows that prophet JacobApologist is God's true prophet”

Lastly, Scientific predictions are not any criteria at all for judging a prophet. The arguments from miracles of Quran are based on eisegesis, you can read articles how easily those misrepresentation of Quranic verses are refuted. Moreover we should agree even Satan can know scientific knowledge better than humans, it doesn’t help you. If that’d be any criteria then Nostradamus must be a greater prophet.

Clash

Pro

Con said that we Muslims believe only in the words of prophet Muhammad for his proof. This is untrue. We can also believe in what the Bible says as long as it goes hand in hand with the Quran. In fact, prophet Muhammad himself told us to look at the Bible because it itself proves his prophethood (i.e., The prophecies which confirms his coming etc). Thus, to say that we Muslims believe only in the words of prophet Muhammad for his proof, is completely wrong.

Con said: "It is obvious and imperative for Muhammad that whole foundation & basis of his claims are the previous prophets. I don’t even need Muhammad’s words to attest that; it is an essential criteria otherwise everyday anyone will be claiming to be a new prophet, and we’d have millions of religions claiming to be from same God of Abraham, Moses. However Muhammad did appealed heavily to the scriptures of Jews and Christians for his verification. He also supposedly confirmed the previous revelation what he called as the books of Allah."

Rebuttal: Con didn't say that prophet Muhammad's claims are from the previous prophets, or that it is obvious and imperative for prophet Muhammad that the whole foundation & basis of his claims are the previous prophets. What Con really said is that "If the Bible is argued to be false, that again disproves Muhammad, since that is the whole foundation of his claims according to himself." (He said this at his second round and it was this that I argued against). In response, I said: "As for Con's claim that the whole foundation of prophet Muhammad's claims are from the Bible according to himself, this must be dismissed since Con gives no evidences for this claim whatsoever." Apparently, Con has still not given any evidences whatsoever to prove this claim.

And yes, prophet Muhammad did confirm the previous revelations given by God. But as I have said several times, what prophet Muhammad confirmed was only those original revelations given to the previous prophets, not those we have today.

Con said: "Again, if I claim to be a new prophet of Allah by claiming that Muhammad’s books were corrupted, what argument would such a muslim give to disprove me? If that to be maintained all should claim to be new prophets by rejecting every other’s revelation to be corrupted, and we should have a chaos of self-proclaiming prophets. Say: Prophet Jacob Apologist denied what God himself denied, this is in fact why Jacob Apologist came at all, to expose the lies made before him concerning Muhammad and Jesus, to give real truth about all prophets."

Rebuttal: It is a fact that the Bible has been changed/corrupted over time. For more information about this, I would recommend to read the top Bible scholar Bart D. Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why". To say that the Bible has not been changed/corrupted over time but have been 100% pure is absurd. So prophet Muhammad was only telling the truth. Notice however that prophet Muhammad did not say that the previous revelations were 100% corrupted but only that they haven't been 100% pure. Thus, Con's claim that prophet Muhammad simply just rejected the previous revelations as corrupted, is false. Prophet Muhammad only rejected the current revelations as corrupted in many places, but completely confirmed the original revelations sent to the previous prophets by God.

Jesus Gospel?

Con's claim that the gospel of Jesus is meant till the judgment day is absurd because the original gospel of Jesus doesn't exist anymore, and we all know the gospel of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John came after Jesus, meaning that they were not present during the time of Jesus. So, if we suppose that Jesus really said that his gospel is meant till the judgment day, then Jesus claim failed because the original gospel of Jesus doesn't exist anymore.

The Promised Linage

Con continues to claim that God promised Abraham that he will establish his covenant only through his son Isaac. However, how do we know that God really said that He will establish his covenant only through Abraham's son Isaac? Can Con prove to us that God really said this? Well, I don't know. What I however know is that Con has not done this yet and thus, this argument fails.

It must also be noted that, unlike the Christian notion of a first covenant with prophet Abraham, Islam sees a multiplicity of covenants, in which each prophet and his followers were given a covenant by God. Furthermore, Islam does not limit the prophetic tradition to the Israelites and their precursors.

God changing his mind and eternal teaching

As for the whole Satan thing, I'm not going to respond to this because I don't see how it in any way proves that prophet Muhammad isn't a true prophet of God. I'm also not going to respond to Con's claims about Jihad and Islam being a religion of hate and war because this has very little to do with the actual topic of this debate, although Con is completely wrong about these things.

Con said: "Now if Clash is true, then you all can claim to be new-prophets and say that Allah changed his mind. Where is the authenticity and consistency of this God then?"

No, you cannot claim to be a prophet and say that Allah changed his mind. This is not what I said. The only thing I said is that God could change the teaching "Don't fight for my religion" at the time of Jesus to "Fight for my religion" at the time of prophet Muhammad. And having in mind how it was at prophet Muhammad's time and place, it only seems logical that God would allow prophet Muhammad and his followers to defend and fight for their religion. Notice that Con has completely failed to answer my question as to why God couldn't change the teaching "Don't fight for my religion" at the time of Jesus to "Fight for my religion" at the time of prophet Muhammad.

Con also said that God instructed to reject and rebuke anyone’s teaching that contradicts the true Gospel. (Galatians 1:6-9). In fact, this is something which Paul said.

After that, Con said: "It is inconceivable to think then, that still God somehow changed his mind and spiritual teachings from “holiness, unconditional love, and compassion” to radical worldwide hatred of jihad which is upside down of the teachings of whole prophets and Christ. So it is all prophets and Christ Vs this one man -Muhammad’s own claims."

Even if God did change from “holiness, unconditional love, and compassion” to "radical worldwide hatred of jihad", that would still have very little to do with prophet Muhammad and would not in any way prove that prophet Muhammad is not a true prophet of God. Moreover, if you call the God of the old testament a God of “holiness, unconditional love, and compassion”, then you certainly have not read the OT and what God does there.

My Argument

First, I wasn't trying to judge prophet Muhammad by scientific predictions. Second, Con gives no evidences whatsoever that the miracles of the Quran are based on eisegesis. Third, Satan may know scientific knowledge better than humans, but what does that have to do with my argument and how does it refute it? Fourth, how is Nostradamus a greater prophet and how does he have anything to do with my argument?

It is very clear that Con has completely misunderstood my argument. As I said in my second round, "since God himself says in the Quran that prophet Muhammad is His true prophet and since the Quran has been proven to really be from God, it automatically and logically follows that prophet Muhammad is God's true prophet." For this argument to work, I had to prove that the Quran really was from God. To do that, I gave an argument which proved that the Quran was from God. Namely, the "Quran on the seas argument". Con refutes nothing of this. Rather, he begins to talk about things which has very little or nothing to do with my argument. My argument goes completely unrefuted and thus, I extend my argument.


Debate Round No. 3
Jacob_Apologist

Con

I appreciate the efforts and initiative of Clash to take my debate challenge, and I hope that readers specially muslims carefull analyse and study the arguments of both sides. Let us recall, in my case I gave 3 major contentions to disprove Muhammad, based on simple reasons from theology.

  1. He was not even from the promised linage of Isaac, through whom God made the covenant
  2. He goes against the Spiritual teachings of revelation
  3. He denied the works & purpose of coming of the Messiah Jesus


Clash tried to refute my contentions but failed miserably. We have seen how poor attempts given by Muslim’s leading apologist Jamal Badawi, so it would be wrong to think that Clash is a bad & layman debater because none of the Muslim apologists can ever resolve the Paradox of Islam. From my opponent we didn’t see a single reasonable positive argument that support Muhamad, on the contrast we see that if his circular reasoning is to be taken then muslims have to take myself any anyone else to be a new prophet because of our own claims.

In his rebuttals, I see he has been straightway ignoring all my evidences, asserting that I never gave them. For example Genesis 17 that I quoted full passage beforehand was ignored by him especially v19-21, similarly Badawi also simply couldn’t read the passage because of his faith.

The only argument Clash gave to evade whole criteria of Muhammad’s authenticity, by simply calling the previous books of Allah to be ultimately corrupted and lost. I shown ref from Islam itself that Muhammad never rejected them, instead he repeatedly kept confirming & appealing to them. Making them the foundation for his authenticity, and that he is from the same God who sent those prophets and books, and claimed that those books testify about him (S 7:157-158). I proved that Muhammad allegedly confirmed the books between the hands (musaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi) of Jews and Christians, the books that are with them in his time.

So the scripture of Allah are lost except from the minor parts that Muhammad plagiarized from the bible in his book Quran, muslims accept that part to be true. Muslims believe all the books of Allah before Muhammad are ultimately lost, unrecoverable, even though Muhammad said the books of Allah are incorruptible and eternal (S 6:34,115; 18:27) and that He guards his scripture; as well as consider all books to be equal (S 15:9; 2:136; 4:136) I can do the very same with Quran, I claim to confirm original Quran, but not the present Quran which is corrupted. The part of Quran that goes in line with my new book is to be taken true only.

Further, he tried to remind us that there are some prophesies of Md in the Bible. I’d not like to address them because there are actually N numbers of “prophesies” found by muslims in the Bible. You should simply read this page for the answers, on how we know that Muhammadd was refuted in his claims that bible prophesied of him [1].

The only prophesies of Muhammad fit for him are prophesies of false prophets who will come and deceive many. Matthew 7:15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.16 You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.20 So then, you will know them by their fruits”.

This is why it is obvious to think Muhammad is a false prophet because of his anti-biblical doctrine, instead of thinking that it was God who turned upside down, changed his mind, teachings and nature, from the message of the bible being eternal and for everyone, He suddenly deceived everyone 600years after Christ. So the case of Clash is true only if his concept of God is true; where his idea of God’s omnipotence includes God turning himself into the evil deceiver, which is the attribute of Satan instead.

Also notice that the counter argument that God can change himself, his nature, teachings et al because Christians also believe the teachings of OT and NT are different. This is a tu quoque fallacy first of all, secondly I have already pointed out that there are two different covenants in OT and NT, which muslims would not try study, though I gave a good article for that.

Clash said the Gospel of Jesus is not what Jesus’ disciples preached, based on the circular logic again that original Gospel is lost; because Muhammad’s religion does not match with whole scriptures. The Gospels and epistles Apostles wrote, were inspired by Jesus only, this if why he chose the men to proclaim the Gospel to whole World, (cf John 21:24; Acts 1:1-11; Mark 1:1; Romans 1:1; 1 Cor 15:1-28) The complete message of the Gospel was obviously to be preached after Christ’s death and resurrection which was the completion of his mission. So Jesus prepared apostles, warriors to proclaim his Gospel to all nations.

I showed that neither scientific knowledge nor some absurd prophesy and prediction given by someone can be taken as proof that the person is a true Prophet of God. Otherwise notable scientists should claim to be prophets. Many prophesies of Nostradamus has came to be true, if he claimed to be prophet then Muslims should accept him as well. God said even false prophets can perform miracles, so even miracles alone can’t prove someone to be a prophet. The foremost criteria of a prophet coming after Jesus, is that he must be consistent with all the prophets.

And Apostle John even wrote “I testify to the one who hears the words of the prophecy contained in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.” Revelation 22:18

So, I’d ask all muslims, if you believe in Muhammad for those reasons, basically because of his own words even though his whole religion contradicts the revelation of God. Then why don’t you accept me to be a new prophet as well if I claim to be one? I confirm the original Quran, not the Quran you have today that is corrupted.

Clash recommended Bart Erhman’s work to learn that Bible is corrupted. Again as I said, if the previous books of Allah are really corrupted and no more with the believers today, it only disproves the author of those books, according to Muhammad it is Allah himself. That entails that Muhammad’s words are false; hence the branch on which Muhammad is sitting is chopped off. Nevertheless if you really wish to study the secular arguments of Bart Ehrman, then I recommend you to read the work of Dan Wallace and James White refuting Ehrman. The article “The Gospel according to Bart” by Dan is a must [2]

Muhammad confirmed and appealed to the Scriptures of Christians only in his ignorance and in mere words. In fact his whole religion goes opposite to the consistent revelation and theology by the God of Abraham, and Moses. The true God Yahweh, not Allah (Al-ilah). I have presented the evidence so that you can consider these claims for yourself. You can only conclude that the claims of the Quran are false. It does not confirm the teaching of the Bible; it does not make clearer the teaching of the Bible; and Muhammad is not foretold in the Bible. It is because the Qur'an is false that Muslims have had to rewrite the Gospel, with books like "The Gospel According to Islam -Ahmad Shafaat” and "The Gospel of Barnabas", in order to make the Bible and Quran confirm each other. This also explains why so many Muslims attack the Bible and accuse it of being changed; they are trying to escape the failure of the Qur'an by laying the blame on others, the true prophets and apostles of Christ. Muhammad fails the test of his authenticity, he is judged to be a False Prophet.


[1] http://www.unchangingword.com... Is Muhammad in the bible?

[2] http://bible.org...

Clash

Pro

Thank you for a great debate. It has indeed been a pleasure.


The Promised Linage

Con said that I have failed miserably to refute this argument. However, despite Con's response, he has completely failed to answer my question as to how we can know that God really said that He will establish His covenant only through Abraham's son Isaac. Con has also failed to prove that God really said that He will establish His covenant only through Abraham's son Isaac. Just because the Bible says that God said it that doesn't make it true, especially when we have in mind that the Bible doesn't exist in its original form anymore, has been changed over time, and contains several contradictions and errors.


Jesus Gospel

I never said that the Gospel of Jesus is not what Jesus disciples preached. Con is making a Straw Man now. What I said is that the Gospel of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John came after Jesus, meaning that they were not present during the time of Jesus. This is a historical fact, just like it is a historical fact that the original gospel of Jesus doesn't exist in its original form anymore.

Moreover, Con's claim that Jesus said that his followers should proclaim his gospel to all nations goes quite against the Bible itself. For example, In Matthew 15:24, Jesus allegedly said that "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel." He also instructed his disciples "Do NOT go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel."(Matthew 10:5-6)


The confirmation of the previous revelations

Con continues to claim that prophet Muhammad confirmed the previous revelations. Con tries to prove his arguments from the Bible by saying that the Bible was confirmed by prophet Muhammad himself. However, as I have said several times, what prophet Muhammad confirmed was the original revelations given to the previous prophets by God, not those we have today. If the previous revelations haven't been changed over time and exist in their original form right now, then why did prophet Muhammad come at all? What reasons is there for God to make prophet Muhammad a new prophet with a new revelation if the other revelations have remained 100% pure? Because they have not remained 100% pure and this is something which almost every biblical scholar agree with. Moreover, although the current Bible is corrupted, it is not completely false. So, we can still find today in the Bible some traces of the truth, such as verses that contradict with the Trinity. That is why Muslims are willing to accept the current Bible only to the extent that it does not contradict with the Quran.

Con also claimed that he proved that prophet Muhammad allegedly confirmed the books between the hands of the Jews and Christians, the books that are with them in his time. But what evidences or sayings of prophet Muhammad did Con give to prove this claim? None. It is very clear that prophet Muhammad pointed out the corruption of the Bible and the previous revelations (See for example the hadiths 2:136, 992:461, and 993:614). It isn't that prophet Muhammad denied the revelations given by God to the previous prophets like Jesus and Moses. Prophet Muhammad completely accepted them as divine revelations. The only thing which he denied is the current revelations because it is a historical fact that they have not remained 100% pure.


Inconsistent?

One of Con's main claim in this debate is that prophet Muhammad is inconsistent with all the previous prophets of God. But has Con really showed us that prophet Muhammad is inconsistent with all the previous prophets of God? Not at all. It is very clear that Con has not successfully proved his claim that prophet Muhammad is inconsistent with all the previous prophets of God. In fact, the only prophet which Con tried to show conflicted with prophet Muhammad, was Jesus. He tried to do this by saying that Jesus taught his followers to"not fight for your religion", which is the opposite of prophet Muhammad's "fight for my religion". However, recall that I asked "Why can't God change the teaching "Don't fight for my religion" at the time of Jesus to "Fight for my religion" at the time of prophet Muhammad?". Con has once again failed to answer this question.

It must also be noted that just because a prophet comes some centuries after another prophet and differ with some of his teachings, that doesn't make him a a false prophet. This is what Con tries to say and it is absurd. Jesus for example also differed with many previous prophets before him. For example, Moses commanded his followers to utterly destroy the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Deuteronomy 20:17). Jesus on the other hand commanded his followers to "love your enemies" (Matthew 5:43-48).

The fact of the matter is that prophet Muhammad is not inconsistent with all the previous prophets of God. On the contrary, prophet Muhammad is quite consistent with the previous prophets of God. For example, prophet Muhammad, just like with all the previous prophets of God, taught strict monotheism. This is the most important teaching of God, and although some small things have changed throughout the history, monotheism has been the sole message of God to mankind.

Moreover, prophet Muhammad fasted and taught his followers to fast 1 month every year. Similarly, Jesus fasted 40 days (Matthew 4:2) and Moses is recorded in the Torah to have fasted 40 days too (Exodus 34:28). Prophet Muhammad prohibited pork. Similarly, Leviticus 11:7-8 of the Bible prohibited pork. Prophet Muhammad was circumcised. Likewise, both Jesus and Moses was circumcised. There are many more examples of the consistency between prophet Muhammad and the previous prophets. Because of the character limit, I'm not able to give them all. However, I recommend to watch this video if you want so see some more examples.[1]


My argument

Con claimed that he showed that neither scientific knowledge nor some absurd prophesy and prediction given by someone can be taken as proof that the person is a true Prophet of God. This is absurd. As I clearly showed in my previous round, all of Con's objections against my argument was fallacious. In regards to Nostradamus and prophesies, this has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is not about any prophesies. In regards to miracles and so on, this has also nothing to do with my argument.

Con has once again completely misunderstood my argument. My argument is not saying that prophet Muhammad is a true prophet of God because of prophesier or miracles. Rather, it is saying that prophet Muhammad is a true prophet of God because God himself says so. Where does he say this? In the Quran. But how do we know that the Quran is from God? Because it has information in it which could only have been from God (See my "The Quran on the seas" argument). This information was not known in the time of prophet Muhammad or before his time. In fact, this information was discovered only later in the modern age by using advanced and modern equipments to discover it.


Conclusion/Summary

Con's outdated and flawed arguments has clearly been shown to be unsuccessful in proving that prophet Muhammad is not a true prophet of God. You will also, if you read my argument carefully and with an open mind, see that it successfully proves that prophet Muhammad is God's true prophet by using simple and clear logic. Con's attempt in refuting my argument, as I have shown, fails completely. Instead of actually refuting my argument, Con Straw Man attacks it by talking about things which have very little or nothing to do with my argument. Since Con has failed to refute my argument and since I have refuted all of Con's arguments, we can rightly conclude that I have successfully fulfilled my BOP, which is to prove that prophet Muhammad is a true prophet of God and to refute the arguments which says otherwise.

A vote for Pro is strongly urged.


Sources

[1] http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
EricDon123, I have no idea of what you're talking about. However, if you want to debate with me about if prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is a false prophet of God, feel free to send me a debate challenge.
Posted by EricDon123 4 years ago
EricDon123
I'm against this. Muhammad is a false prophet of GOD. Nowhere in the Bible that says there will be a Prophet from Arabia. Btw, Islam was not written in the bible, anywhere. If I'm wrong, then prove it by showing us a verse about it's written in the Bible.

Isaiah 46:11
calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.

The prophecy also tells us whom God would use as his instrument in bringing his children from the Far east into the church of Christ

It says FAR EAST, not MIDDLE EAST.

If I'm wrong, please give us a verse saying something against this argument.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
I read this, but don't want to vote because I'm very, very biased.

I'm sure this could be the case for a lot of readers; it's the kind of debate which attracts people who already feel strongly about the issue in question.
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
Indeed, I'm also surprised to see the low numbers of votes. I seems like it's only Muslims who have voted for me here (Notice however, I didn't tell any of these two persons to vote for me; they voted completely by themselves). Having in mind that I'm taking the position that prophet Muhammad is a true prophet of God, I don't think anybody expect Muslims would vote for me anyways. But indeed, as Jacob said, just cast your vote if you have read and understood this debate.
Posted by Jacob_Apologist 4 years ago
Jacob_Apologist
I am quite surprised to see the low numbers of votes after 2 weeks with so many viewers. I must remind the members; if you read and studied the debate, don"t be lazy to vote! In my other debate I saw people only voted only to counter one vote bomb when they saw one. This should not be followed; you should not wait for vote bombers to make counter it, rather cast your own vote if you have read and understood. Just a reminder!

@Baggins, I see you have not carefully read the debate. 1 I repeatedly refuted the claim that Islam promotes "prev books are lost" rather I proved from Quran that it holds that its impossible for any book of allah to be altered.
2. My arguments entails; if prev books of allah got corrupted then Islam proves to be false.
2b. If previous books of allah could corrupt and lost; then by the same token we should consider that Quran too could be corrupted and lost, its not in its original form today and as I claimed you should believe ME as the new prophet. This was not addressed by my opponent.
So please carefully give your analysis why you are voting.
Posted by Ahmed.M 4 years ago
Ahmed.M
--Convincing Arguments--

Con Arg #1
Con's first argument was that Muhammad (pbuh) claimed to be a prophet of the God of the bible which is false as there is absolutely no statement of Muhammad (pbuh) claiming to be a prophet from the bible. Pro showed this.

Con Arg #2
I cannot really comment on this so tie.

Con Arg #3
Con's second argument was basically about changed rulings. Con said a perfect God wouldn't do this. Pro should've responded that the ruling was perfect for that place and time but didn't and only said "God can do what he wants". Which is true, but he would do perfect things like rulings.

Pro Arg #1
Con pointed out how Con's argument is based on interpretation but didn't elucidate. Ultimately Pro won this argument because Con didn't respond adequately enough.

To Pro: Your interpretation of the Quran has to have a solid basis. Did the early scholars/caliphs/Muhammad (pbuh) interpret a certain verse the way you interpret it? You cannot interpret a verse in whatever way you want.

The implications of Pro's argument that wasn't addressed is more stronger than the implications of Con's third argument so Pro wins slightly here

--Reliability of Sources--

Both debaters used heavily biased sources to support their respective cases which hinders honesty, truth, and objectivity.
Posted by Ahmed.M 4 years ago
Ahmed.M
--Conduct--

Conduct is tied because both debaters have not made personal attacks etc.

--Spelling and Grammar--

Con:
-Spelt evidence wrong in R2 first paragraph "evidce"
-Spelt exegesis wrong in R3 last paragraph "eisegesis"
-Spelt careful wrong in R4 first paragraph "carefull"

Pro:
"Just because prophet Muhammad taught something opposite of that of Jesus doesn't mean that he isn't a true prophet of God."

When Pro says "of that of", he should have said of Jesus. Of that of is really unnecessary and could have been worded differently.

"There are no compelling reasons to believe otherwise and there are also nothing bad with fighting for your religion."

Since both sides made small grammatical and spelling mistakes and there is no noticeable difference between the two of you, this section is a tie.
Posted by lovedebate11 4 years ago
lovedebate11
GO pro!!!
Posted by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
An interesting little fact. When Quran is translated, it is never considered as the word of God. It is only considered as a translation of Word of God. A perfect translation is impossible. 'The Quran' only refers to the original Quran in Arabic and not to any of the translations.

There is nothing wrong with reading translations. However in case of any confusion, it is essential that we look back on the original.

If we apply this criteria to The Holy Bible, Christians will admit that the original Bible is lost and what we have is a translation of translation at best.
Posted by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
RFD:

Here is my understanding of the criteria used by Con. Since Allah confirmed that the Torah, Psalm and Gospel were earlier revelation, a contradiction between them and Quran would lead to a contradiction in Islamic theology. However as Pro pointed out this criteria is flawed. While Quran confirms that these books were earlier revelations, it also confirms that they are not available in original form now. So an inconsistency with The Holy Bible does not make The Holy Quran inconsistent.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ahmed.M 4 years ago
Ahmed.M
Jacob_ApologistClashTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I gave Pro 1 point because the implications of his one argument that wasn't adequately addressed is slightly stronger than the implications of Con's inadequately addressed 3rd argument. Full Analysis in comments. This was a Good Debate. UPDATE: I shifted the points around to counter Smithereens Votebomb.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
Jacob_ApologistClashTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I was more convinced by Con's arguments on this matter and he had more sources
Vote Placed by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
Jacob_ApologistClashTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I think both had good conduct. I feel Pro had better spelling and grammer. I also felt that Con made more convincing arguments. Both tied resources. Con made convincing arguments that God would not change His mind or His Word&Law. He proved his first argument. More so Con gave doubt into Muhammad being a prophet of God, the Biblical God.
Vote Placed by baggins 4 years ago
baggins
Jacob_ApologistClashTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comment.