The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Islam (Pro) Vs. Buddhism (Con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,140 times Debate No: 72632
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)




This is a No-Scoring Debate.

=> Readers are encouraged to participate in the discussion, either in the comment section, or in the corresponding topic on the Forum:


- Islam: a religion whose 1.67 billion adherents, thus members of the Ummah, believe in the Oneness of God ; believe that its founder Prophet Muhammad is the Final Messenger of God, preceded by 124,000 Prophets before him ; & believe that the Qur’an is the Last Revelation, preceded by 604 others before it. Islam has 3 dimensions: Islam (relating to one’s actions), Iman (relating to one’s beliefs), Ihsan (relating to one’s spirituality), each of which comprises a plethora of schools of thought.

- Buddhism: a religion of eastern and central Asia growing out of the teaching of Gautama Buddha that suffering is inherent in life and that one can be liberated from it by mental and moral self-purification.

- The debate will be centred around which of the two religions Islam or Buddhism is:

1. more Relevant to present day 21st Century.

2. more True.

3. overall Better.

- Terminology:

> Relevant: appropriate, pertinent, fitting, applicable.

> True: agreeing with the facts, accurate, authentic, reasonable.

> Better: more appealing, effective, advantageous, useful.

> Religion: Scriptures, Practices, Beliefs, Laws, Theology, Spirituality, Philosophy, Thought, Sciences. . .


- 5 Rounds, 10,000 characters & 72 Hours per Round.

- Round 1: Con’s Opening Argument.

- Round 2 - 4: Pro’s Opening Argument, Pro’s & Con’s additional Arguments, Rebuttals & Counter-Rebuttals.

- Round 5: Pro’s Closing Round, Con must cede this Round.


- The BOP is shared.

- Sources are open choice:

> They can be a website, a book, a paper, a tv program. . . as long as they are authentic/authoritative.

> They can be in any language, not necessarily in English.

> They can be linked or just referenced.

- Con must cede the 5th Round.


- This is a No-Scoring Debate, thus NO votes shall be cast except in:

> ‘Agreed with before the debate’.

> & ‘Agreed with after the debate’.

- Votes shall only be awarded in ‘Conduct’ in case of forfeit or intense trolling, or in case Con failed to cede the 5th Round.

- Voters are encouraged to write an RFD nonetheless, expressing who had better conduct, arguments & sources, without awarding any points (with the exceptions cited above).

Best of Luck.



I accept. I also ask that Pro reconsider me ceding the 5th round. If this debate doesn't come to a satisfying conclusion, I'm sure Pro would like to have a part 2 debate of this topic.

Please note that a source I will be using for this debate is a book, "What The Buddha Taught", by Walpola Rahula.

1.) The Case for Buddhism
In our present day, first world, society, we have come a long way since the days of the first civilizations. In that time, empires rose and fell, new ideologies came into play, and mankind evolved into the intellectual species it is today (evolved meaning in knowledge, not literal evolution). From that evolution in knowledge, many new ideas sprang. But, some ideas were "better" than others. Two ideas that came out were Buddhism and Islam. Here, I will focus on Buddhism, and present my case for it.

Buddhism was founded by a young Prince named Siddhartha Gautama in the late 6th century BCE ( A basic synopsis is that when he was born, there was a prophecy surrounding him. He would either become a great king or a great religious teacher. His father wanted him to become a king, so he kept Gautama in the palace, not exposing him to the outside world. One day, Gautama wandered out of the palace, and saw that suffering existed. So, he became an ascetic, renounced his royal life, became enlightened, and became a religious teacher (there is much, much more to the story, but this is a brief and basic synopsis).

The closest thing there is to the actual words of the Buddha are the Pali Cannon (which is the text of the Theravada sect of Buddhism). Many different sects have separate texts, but all have one thing in common, which is following the basic teachings of The Buddha. Thus, many of my arguments will be taken from the Pali Cannon (which I will use other sources to reference, because I don't own the Pali Cannon).

My only argument for this round in an astounding argument. Unlike many other religions, Buddhism offers a great amount intellectual freedom to its followers, freedoms that are not even present in religions that came after it. In the Kalama Sutta (a part of the Pali Cannon), it details the visit of The Buddha to the town of Kesaputta. There, the Kalama (the inhabitants of the town) approached The Buddha and asked him a question.
"Lord, there are some brahmans (religious teachers) & contemplatives who come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. And then other brahmans & contemplatives come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt: Which of these venerable brahmans & contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?"
The Buddha's response goes as such.
"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them."
Here is just one example when The Buddha encourages free thought in those who follow him. It is even said that on his deathbed, The Buddha asked his disciples to question him on his teachings, to get rid of any doubt they had.(

This intellectual freedom is not found in Islam, as demonstrated in this verse in the Quar'an.
"And as for those who disbelieved, I will punish them with a severe punishment in this world and the Hereafter, and they will have no helpers." Quran (3:56)

As I hope you can see, Buddhism offers freedom and inquisitiveness, which are two important traits especially in our present day society. Buddhism encourages one to think for themselves, to analyse its teachings, and then to adopt them. Again, this freedom is not seen in a lot of religions that exist today.

2.) Extremism
I would like to point out to the reader that every religion (including Buddhism) has its share of radicals and extremists. The actions of a powerful few does not reflect the total system, but perhaps a very small, misinterpreted part. Again, this debate is about the teachings each religion presents, and not the actions done in its name. In fact, almost every ideology has its fair share of radicals and extremists, and it is not fair to generalize a religion followed by many peaceful people to these terrible connotations.

3.) I would like to thank Pro for, what seems will be, a very interesting debate. I look foreword to the upcoming rounds. Again, thank you.
Debate Round No. 1


Fist: Truth.


- Islam is the most authentic religion of the world’s great religions, & certainly more authentic than Buddhism. If Religion was the product of a founder with a message, it stands to reason that it’s authenticity relies on the authenticity of what reached us from that message & the historicity of the founder. & thus, in the case of Islam there is a strong, even conclusive, case to be made for that purpose:

1. Prophet Muhammad: whose historicity is certain beyond doubt, & that for the following reasons:

> There were in total 12,267 biographically recorded companions of Muhammad, among which 1,522 were women (all mentioned in the 15-volumes books of al-Isaba of Ibn Hajar [1])

> These companions narrated over 200,000 reports about ~11,200 unique account of the Prophet []. as-Suyuti compiled over 100,000 of these reports in his 25-volumes book: Jami’ al-Jawami’ , 28,425 of which were reports of sayings of Muhammad [2].

> A typical comprehensive book on the biography of Muhammad extend to over 10 volumes (such as Subul al-Huda of as-Salhi [3]).

> These reports speak of details of the life of Muhammad during his 23 years of Prophethood, often down to the week or the day.

=> There is an unsurmountable evidence for the historicity of Muhammad: we know exactly where & when he was born, received his revelation, & died, & we know with the same exactitude of every important thing that happened in between. It is very unlikely that a biography of any man, of any time, could amount to over 20 volumes of paper, it is nonetheless the case here, which leads us to assert with absolute certainty that the man existed & that his life & teachings are substantially accessible.

=> This however, is not found in Buddhism, far from it, there is an immense vagueness surrounding his life, & even his birth [4].

2. The Qur’an: the authenticity of which is also beyond doubt, for:

> The Qur’an, as the name in Arabic would suggest, is fundamentally a Recitation (series of recited verses) that has a textual form.

> The Textual form of the Qur’an was transcribed during the Prophet’s life, where he had 48 scribes of the Qur’an. All these transcriptions were then gathered by his successor Abu Bakr into one single Codex, which then was finally canonised by Uthman (the 3rd successor) into the Uthmanic Codex 20 years after the Prophet’s death [5].

> The Recitation form of the Qur’an was preserved independently by Reciters through the process of Tawatur: the transmission of an identical Recitation by a large number of Reciters in each level throughout the Chain of Transmission, such that they could not have conspired to spread falsehood. A condition based on probabilistic reasoning which provides extremely probable authenticity (of at least 1 in a billion billion chance of false transmission [6]).

> A valid Recitation of the Qur’an is one that fulfils the following conditions:

1. Tawatur.

2. Corresponding to the Uthmanic Codex.

3. Corresponding to an authentic Arabic (in the Qurashi Tongue).

=> All the above is proof that a valid Recitation of the Qur’an (the one we have today) is authentic beyond doubt.

=> This is hardly the case for Buddhism, not even to a much lesser degree.


The religion of Islam is the most rational religion among all others, particularly Buddhism. Rationality is related to reason, thus verifying the rationality of a religion or any other type of knowledge for that matter, consist of verifying the extent Reason influenced it. In our case, Islam is as much based on Revelation as it is on Reason, & for all Islamic Schools of Thought, Revelation & Reason ultimately lead to each-other, & thus Truth.

1. From Revelation itself:

> The Qur'an urges believers to seek Knowledge, even before Revelation, in more than 100 places. For instance:

And that those on whom knowledge has been bestowed may learn that the (Qur'an) is the Truth from your Lord, and that they may believe therein, and their hearts may be made humbly (open) to it” (22:54)

=> As the verses suggest: Knowledge is the the way to learning that the Revelation is True (not the opposite); & then comes Belief.

> The Prophet said: "Seeking knowledge is a duty upon every Muslim" [7]

=> So it's an Obligation for every Muslim to Seek Knowledge.

> According to Islamic Theology, the first requirement of a believer is: Discernment ('Aq'l), which must come before the Declaration of Faith [8].

> According to Islamic Law: There are two kinds of Obligatory Knowledge:

- Individually Obligatory Knowledge: the type that every Muslim is required to learn, such as: how to pray, how to read, how to think...

- Sufficiently Obligated Knowledge: the type which is imposed on the whole community. At least some members of the community must learn it. such as: every knowledge known to man (theology, law, linguistics, medicine, mathematics…)[9].

2. Islamic Theology particularly escapes all the mainstream paradoxes found in other religions, for instance:

> No Problem of Evil, because:

1. God is neither benevolent nor non-benevolent.

2. Good & Evil are both created by God, both equally insignificant, & both under the immediate act of God.

=> The theodicy paradox thus disappears [(4:78) , (2:35), (39:62)].

> No problem of Free Will, because:

1. There is no real Free Will [(81:29)].

2. Everything is strictly pre-ordained [(54:49)].

> No predestination paradox as there is Buddhism in the form of Anatta & the cycle of rebirth, because:

1. There is no soullessness.

2. There is no rebirth.

3. Islam, contrary to other religions, was based on, equally, both Reason & Revelation, from its very founding.

> The Qur’an consistent about using Reason before Revelation, & it’s constantly addressing “the men of reason” (in over 100 places) urging believers & unbelievers alike to observe & explore the creation, & to seek knowledge & share it:

Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know? It is those who are endued with understanding that receive admonition.” (39:9)

> The Hadiths are equally consistent with that fact:

This world is cursed and what is in it is cursed, except the remembrance of Allah and what is conducive to that, or one who has knowledge or who acquires knowledge” [10]

“"Whoever takes a path upon which to obtain knowledge, Allah makes the path to Paradise easy for him.” [11]

=> A side that is scarcely found in Buddhism!

> All Islamic Sciences, ranging from Jurisprudence, Theology, Sufism, Philosophy. . . are based on Logic to a high extent. For instance, the Science of Theology in Arabic is called Kalam, which literally translates to Critical Discourse, & it is almost entirely based on Reason.

> This place of Reason in Islam is not just theoretical or associated with religious studies alone, it is also largely practical. Muslims throughout their civilisation, of the Umayyad Empire, Abbasid Empire, al-Andalus, Fatimid Empire. . . produced an immense amount of output in all fields of knowledge: scientific, literary, historical, social, philosophical, legal, religious. I’ll come back to this later.

=> Also, not even remotely the case of Buddhism.

Accuracy/Agreement with the facts:

It would hard to delve into the Islamic Worldview & compare to what is known to us now as established facts, for the Islamic Tradition is too immense for such a task to be carried out. However, just to make a point I am gonna mention a few comparisons nonetheless:

1. Prophecies: Islam being a prophetic religion, it stands to reason to expect some prophecies made by its Prophet: Muhammad. Since there are over 300 prophecies made in the Qur’an & by Muhammad, I am just gonna mention a few:

> The Prophet was asked: "Which city will be conquered by muslims first, Constantinople or Rome" He replied "Indeed the City of Heraclius - Constantinople - will be conquered by muslims first" [13]

=> Constantinople was conquered in 1453 by the Ottomans, now it's Istanbul, & Rome is still an existing city.

> He said: “[…] the ground of Mecca will be cleft open and through it will be dug out river-like passages (i.e. wide tunnels) and the buildings of Mecca will rise higher than its mountains, when you observe these signs" [14]

=> Now tunnels are being dug in Mecca, & in 2012 a building in Mecca literally higher than its mountains was constructed: the Mecca Clock Tower [15].

> He said: "My Ummah will be chased three times by a people with flat faces -like shields- & small eyes, until they push you [my Ummah] to the Arabic peninsula[...]" some said: 'O! Apostle of Allah, who are they?' He said: "They are the Turks. By Him in Whose Hand my soul is! They will tie their horses by the pillars of the mosques of muslims" [16]

=> The Mongols (called Turks by the Arabs) invaded all the land of muslims from the east & stopped exactly at the Arabic peninsula [17].

> He also said: "There will come a time when there will be no one left who does not consume usury (interest), and whoever does not consume it will nevertheless be affected by it." [18]

=> that's the state of our Economy today, currency is in fact usury money due to inflation, & everybody is affected by it.

=> These 3 examples of extremely unique events that were realised, & most of the other prophecies were also realised.

2. Theology: Islamic Theology is compatible with all current Physical Theories, including: Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, String Theory. & also with other theories not as well established, such as Evolution. I’ll come back to that later.



I would like to thank Pro for the last round.

1.) Intellectual Dishonesty
If one were to look at the end of Pro's arguments in each section, he claims that Buddhism does not exhibit the "good" traits (rationality, authenticity, etc.) that Islams exhibits. To quote from the end of Pro's "The Qur'an" section, it goes as such:

=> This is hardly the case for Buddhism, not even to a much lesser degree.

That is quite a claim that Pro is making, yet pro does not back up this claim. In almost every section, Pro makes the same mistake; he makes a claim about Buddhism (about its inferiority to Islam), and just leaves the claim there. Pro does not even cite any sources to where he got that information from. Pro does not even formulate an argument to defend his claims of Buddhism's inferiority, only states it. Thus, I ask the reader to see that Pro's previous round was full of intellectual dishonesty, and when voting, keep it in mind.

2.) The Founders/ Foundations
The whole idea of Islam is revelation. The one God, Allah, made Muhammad his prophet, by sending him revelations. The first revelation (which is thought to be the beginning of Sura 96) Muhammad received from the archangel Gabriel. ( All the revelations Muhammad received were to become that which is the Qur'an. ( Now, this revelation (Allah sends revelations to Muhammad) sets the foundation of Islam, which is the "Shahaadah":
(i) None is rightfully worshipped except God (La ilaaha ‘ill-Allah), and
(ii) Muhammad is the Messenger of God (Muhammad-ur-Rasool-ullah).
But, the basis of Buddhism are principles, not archaic revelation. One can test these principles for themselves. These principles are "the four seals of Dharma" (, "The four noble truths", and "the eight fold path" (the last two I'm assuming everyone knows, as it is basic knowledge about Buddhism). There is much more to Buddhism, but these are few key components of its foundation.

The difference between Islam and Buddhism here is that in Islam, one must take everything on faith, for the whole religion is based on unverifiable revelation, revelation that must be taken on, again, faith. But in Buddhism, everything is testable, and everything is open to scrutiny. As I demonstrated in the previous round, The Buddha encourages people to question his own teachings, and to not take ideas on faith, but to come to those ideas using rationality. Yes, Islam may encourage rationality (again, I cannot verify Pro's claims), but one cannot question its principles and teachings. Again, look at the previous round, where I cite "Quran (3:56)",where one cannot question its teachings, for if they do, they will be punished.

Since Islam depends on revelation, the whole religion would collapse if it was found Muhammad was not who he claimed to be. It would collapse if it was found that there was no revelation at all, and the Qur'an was one big lie. But this is not the case with Buddhism. It is was somehow found that The Buddha was a war-mongering pedophile (which is very, very unlikely), the religion would not collapse. This is because the philosophy would still exist, for people need not take it on faith. There is a saying in Zen Buddhism (the founder of the Rinzai school), which goes as such; "If you meet the Buddha, kill him." ( Obviously there is much symbolism here, but the main message is, do not worry about the founder of Buddhism, but the teachings of Buddhism.

3.) Relevancy
Today, we live in an (sort of) enlightened society, a society that was founded on the principle of rationality. In this society, Islam is less relevant, because the whole religion must be taken on faith, much of which is unverifiable. But Buddhism is based on practicality, practicality that each and every individual can try for themselves. If Buddhism suits that individual, that's great. But if it doesn't, there is not penalty of punishment, penalty and punishment that is present in Islamic teachings.
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks Con.


- I’d like to remind Con that this debate is no-scoring, & thus no votes can be cast. The point is not to win or lose, it’s to have a formal setting for a serious discussion about the Topic.

- The sources are enumerated, & they’ll all be referenced eventually.

- The BOP is shared, it’s as much required from me to establish my case as it is from Con.

- The debate is about Buddhism the Religion in its entirety, not it’s philosophical or ethical sides alone, as Con tries to make to be!

Summary of 1st Round:

- To establish the fact that Islam is indeed more True than Buddhism, I argued that it is more authentic, more reasonable & more accurate:

1. More authentic because we can assert with certainty that the teachings of Islam we possess today, are in fact the teachings of Muhammad: founder of Islam, for we know much about with a high degree of certainty. An aspect not existing in the Buddhist Tradition, for “Various collections of teachings attributed to Buddha were passed down by oral tradition and first committed to writing about 400 years later.” [19].

2. More rational, because:

> One: the Islamic Scripture clearly states that Reason comes before Revelation:

* “those on whom knowledge has been bestowed may learn that the (Qur'an) is the Truth from your Lord, and that they may believe therein” (22:54) => Knowledge comes before Belief.

* “Say, "I only advise you of one [thing] - that you stand for Allah , seeking truth in pairs and individually, and then give thought.” “ (34:36). => The way to Revelation is seeking truth by giving thought, i.e. by Reason.

> Two: it also holds Reason in high esteem & encourages it in all things, to the point of making it a religious obligation.

* The Prophet said: “Seeking knowledge is a duty upon every Muslim” [20]

> Three: consequently, Islam is based equally on Reason & on Revelation:

* The Prophet said: "He who follows a path in quest of knowledge, Allah will make the path of Jannah easy to him. The angels lower their wings over the seeker of knowledge, being pleased with what he does. The inhabitants of the heavens and the earth and even the fish in the depth of the oceans seek forgiveness for him. The superiority of the learned man over the devout worshipper is like that of the full moon to the rest of the stars (i.e., in brightness). The learned are the heirs of the Prophets who bequeath neither dinar nor dirham but only that of knowledge; and he who acquires it, has in fact acquired an abundant portion.” [21]

* & also said: “The remedy of ignorance is inquiry” [22]

=> Which lead muslims to an over millennium quest of knowledge in all fields of knowledge [23], starting from the:

* The 1st century where we see the first generation of muslim scholars in a great number of fields: Law (by the 7 companion scholars), Medicine (by Aisha, Rafidah. . .), Linguistics (by Ali, al-Aswad. . .), Chemistry (by Ja’far as-Sadiq’) . . .

* The 2nd century where the spectrum of knowledge expanded to even a greater number of fields: Logic (where Abu Hanifa first formulates al-Q’iyas - syllogism - , & after him ash-Shafi’i, both founders of Schools of Thought) ; Legal Theory (by the founders of the 10 Schools of Thought) ; Grammar/Linguistics (by Sibawayh. . .) ; Chemistry (Jabir Ibn Hayan, founder of modern chemistry. . .) ; Medicine (Ibn Masawayh. . .) ; Botany (by al-Farahidi) ; Zoology (by al-Jahiz). . .

* The 3rd century after muslims were exposed to Greek & Indian Thought (when their works were translated into Arabic), knowledge then expanded even more to Astronomy (Thabit Ibn Qurra, al-Marwazi. . .), Mathematics (al-Khawarizmi . . .), Philosophy (al-Kindi. . .). . .

=> The exploration of all fields of knowledge continued to flourish & expand in the muslim world up until the 18th century (& then became stagnate, for many historical & political reasons not relevant to the Topic).

> Four: it’s a fact that Islamic Theology is based on Reason, for it can be established through Reason without relying on Revelation, & it is doable & it was done, namely by the group called Falasifah (the muslim early Philosophers), such as Ibn Sina, al-Farabi, Ikhwan as-Safa. . . according to this particular School (which appeared during the 3rd century & faded away 4 centuries later) Reason is the only arbitrary of Truth, & thus Revelation must be subject to it, & not the opposite. Point being: their findings about Theology wasn’t that much different from the Orthodox School, which instead declares that Reason & Revelation lead to each-other & can never contradict each-other, i.e. they rely equally on both approaches, without favouring one or the other, & so far, they’ve been right [24].

=> Now, all this is completely exotic to the Buddhist Tradition. I am not denying that Buddhism has a lot to offer in terms of worldview, but rather it is less suitable for Reason than Islam is, wether Reason concerning the religion itself, or Reason concerning Knowledge in general; & Islamic Scripture & History is proof of that. If Con disagrees, then let him bring his own proof.

3. More accurate, because it provides accurate description of facts on one hand, & it is compatible with modern day science on the other hand. Islam claims Muhammad is a Prophet, & offers a great number of his essentially unique prophecies, most of which have already come true (& I gave some examples of these prophecies). On top of that, the Islamic Tradition also offers many ways to verify the claim of Prophethood of Muhammad, such as the following demonstration:

1- If a unique event (extremely unlikely in the future) is true, then the prediction of such event is a sign of strong prediction.

2- If all or almost all strong predictions are true, then the predictor must have high predictive power.

3- If a person is a prophet, then he must be a predictor with high predictive power with no conclusively false prediction.

4- Almost all unlikely events Person X predicted came true, with no conclusively false prediction.

5- Person X is a prophet.

=> (1), (2) & (3) are true, as per the corresponding definitions. Thus, if (4) is a fact, then (5) is True.

* If Con contests the fact that Muhammad is a Prophet he is welcome to engage on how his prophecies are not that unique, & could easily be explained.

=> Nothing of the Islamic authentic scripture has ever been dismissed as false or inaccurate, or contradicting the facts, even in this modern day ; I can’t say the same thing about Buddhism, for it had to strip itself out of a number of its fundamental doctrines (such as Mount Meru legend [25]) just so it may fit modern day science, which drastically diminishes its seeming rationality!


- As for Con’s allegation of Intellectual Dishonesty, the debate is extended to 4 rounds, not everything must be established in the 1st round. & we have yet to see proof from Con about the rationality of Buddhism.

- I am not gonna go as far as call Con dishonest, I’d rather let the facts speak for themselves. Buddhism is a worldview, like any other, largely based on faith, for a person adhering to it must believe in its Worldview, which is based on ancient teachings about: Karma, plains of existence, Samsara, Rebirth, reincarnation, Devas (gods), Asuras (demons) . . . & a million other things [26]

=> In short, Buddhism is predominately super-natural. If Con wishes to strip Buddhism out of its teachings for the benefit of ‘Reason’, then there is no point in further arguing for Buddhism in the first place, for Reason =/= Buddhism.

the basis of Buddhism are principles, not archaic revelation. One can test these principles for themselves.

1. Buddhist teaching is older than Islam, ‘archaic’ here is a misrepresentation.

2. From an outsider point of view, there is little difference between archaic principals & revelations, for both essentially exhibit a worldview about a supernatural realm.

3. Testing a worldview for oneself is a very subjective approach that essentially works for any worldview (Christian for instance) no matter how subjective it is, which is then incompatible with Reason, as it is conventionally known.

in Islam, one must take everything on faith, for the whole religion is based on unverifiable revelation, revelation that must be taken on, again, faith"

- This is a false bare assertion, which has already been systematically refuted in my first Round.

look at the previous round, where I cite "Quran (3:56)",where one cannot question its teachings, for if they do, they will be punished.

- The verse is a discourse about the Afterlife, which has nothing to do with the actions of this life, the one we are talking about here! Con’s contention here is a straw-man, thus dismissed.

the whole religion would collapse if it was found Muhammad was not who he claimed to be.

- The same thing can be said about Buddhism (Dharma for instance), since a considerable amount of its teachings relies on supernatural cosmology & metaphysics, once it contradicts the facts, the religion won’t have any meaning.

- However, contrary to what Con argues, the prophethood of Muhammad is very much verifiable, as I stated above. & Con is welcome to contest its verifiability. We have all the information, we just have to check through Reason if what we have prove the claim of Muhammad, or disproves it.

This is because the philosophy would still exist, for people need not take it on faith.

- Philosophy is just a small part of Buddhism. Con is trying to reduce Buddhism into a Philosophy, which it clearly isn’t. As far as Con has demonstrated, Buddhism is taken on faith, because it relies on personal experience, which doesn’t necessarily speak of its Rationality.

"If you meet the Buddha, kill him."

- I checked the link provided by Con, & this doesn’t mean remotely what Con professed it meant!

To be continued :) , your turn Con.



Thank you Pro.

1.) The Question of Prophecy
Here I won't focus on the other aspects of Mohammad (as there are much, much more). But I would like to delve into the realm of prophecy. Since I am no Islamic Scholar, I would like to pose a question to Pro. Is there any source (that is not Islamic) that can verify the prophecies that supposedly came true during the life of Mohammad? Meaning a source that isn't Islamic that verify's the prophecy of Mohammad to the dot. Also proof that the prophecies were made by Mohammad, and were not recorded later into the Qur'an and/or Hedith, as to bolster the "reputability" of Islam and its Prophet, Mohammad.

2.) Rebuttals

1. Rationality
Rationality- The quality or state of being rational

Rational- Based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings

Reason- The power of the mind to think and understand in a logical way

Again, I have demonstrated how Buddhism is rational. In the previous rounds, where I cite the discourse between the Buddha and the Kalama, he clearly speaks of using one's mind to either accept or deny a certain doctrine. Again, I invite you to look at it again, check out the source, and read the passage from the Kalama Sutta.

Pro also asserts that the passage 3:56 from the Qur'an is invalid, as it deals with the afterlife. This is simply not true (the invalid part). The actions of this life directly impact one's afterlife, thus a passage on the afterlife has correlation with this life, and thus is valid.

2. Karma, asuras, devas, etc...
Karma is simply the principle of cause and effect applied to morality. One can take it as meaning the Karma from past lives, or the Karma in this life. Again, one is free to interpret it how they want to, how it makes sense to them. Very rarely can an interpretation be so far off from Buddhist teachings (such as it is Buddhist to kill babies. Such a claim contradicts Buddhist teachings).

Dharma- This refers to the Buddha's teachings (although there is deeper meaning to it).

Asuras, Devas- Many of these are the results of cross cultural interaction between Buddhism and Hinduism, such as the Buddha being deified into the 9th incarnation of the Hindu God Vishnu (in the Hindu tradition, the Buddha is worshiped as a God, and so do many Buddhist's also).
Source: Ways of the World: Second Edition- A Global History with Sources

Planes of existence- I think what Pro is referring to is the Buddha Nature. The concept itself it tricky to explain, so I encourage one to check out this article.

The beauty of Buddhism is, according to doctrine (which does matter), there is no penalty for not accepting a certain part of the doctrine. But this is simply not true in Islam (which I have reiterated, and shown new arguments for countless of times).

3. Archaic
When I go back and read the "archaic" argument, I realize that was a poor choice of words. I would like to retract that statement, as I can't even remember what argument I was trying to make.

4. Faith
Islam is based on Faith. The first of the Five Pillars of Islam (which is theologically very important) is the Shahada, or the testimony of faith that Allah is the one true God and Mohammad is his Prophet.

Faith- Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

By the definition itself, Islam is not based on proof, but rather "spiritual apprehension". And if one does not possess such apprehension, well, reference passage 3:56 of the Qur'an.

5. Importance of philosophy
Yes, in religions, there are many aspects, such as the rituals, the culture, and the philosophy. But the philosophy plays the most import part, as it is the essence of the religion, the teachings of the religion. Philosophy is the part that has the most impact on religions when compared to other aspects. Surely Pro must agree with this.

6. "If you met the Buddha, kill him"
I disagree with con's claim. So I ask the reader to check the link out for themselves and decide for themselves.

7. Conclusion
I am sure I did not address all of Pro's points, but I do look forward to the next round.

Debate Round No. 3


Second: Overall Better P-1.

- Moving to the second stage of this debate, I am gonna aim to establish that Islam is, overall, better than Buddhism:


- Message: Islam was founded to be a universal message for all-times, & all-nations: “Verily this is no less than a Message to (all) the Worlds” (81: 27), it is thus universal by design. Its message is centred around 3 concepts:

1. Devotion = Ibadah: the concept that Humans are created to recognise right from wrong & eventually recognise & worship the One True God.

2. Delegation = Khilafah: the concept that Humans are here on Earth as temporary delegates responsible for their selves & for the Earth.

3. Establishment = Imarah: the concept that the function of Humans, as delegates, is to establish themselves on the Earth by occupying it in: cultivating it, settling in it, preserving it. . .

=> The 1st concept has to do essentially with the Afterlife, the remaining two are general & universal, for they are strictly compatible with the Human Condition: Humans are mortal cognitive beings, who survive by cultivating the Earth, settling in it, & preserving it.

The Islamic Tradition
: it’s a vast tradition that holds immense amounts of Knowledge & Thought it’s ready to offer:

- Scripture:

1. Qur’an: faithfully preserved in its original language, form & meaning, & extensively studied.

2. Hadith: exhaustive accounts from the founder of Islam, equally extensively studied.

- Worldview:

1. Law = Fiqh = Physical Dimension: discourse to the body (actions & practices). Islamic Law, with all its schools & branches, is without a doubt the vastest & most comprehensive legal tradition, for it is concerned with virtually all aspects of the outward life: private, public, political. . . & has been a living tradition for 15 continuous centuries for 1/5 to 1/3 the human race,

2. Theology = Kalam = Intellectual Dimension: discourse to the intellect (beliefs & convictions). Islamic Theology is based on one of the most strait-forward doctrines: Tawhid (Oneness of God). It was systematically established as a science very early on (as early as 8th century), & its 2 major schools (Ash’ari + Mu’tazili = 98% the muslim world) which emphasise Reason & rational thought [27].

3. Mysticism = Tasawuf (Sufism) = Spiritual Dimension: discourse to the soul (spirituality & intentions). This dimension is maybe the closest link Islam has with Buddhism, as it deals with human psychology, emotions, suffering, ego, addictions, & also spirituality. & it is equally based on experience, analysis, statistics, testimony. .

- Knowledge [28]:

1. Literature: Islamic Literature is a very rich & extensive literature written in Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Indian. . .

2. Philosophy = Falsafah: Islamic Philosophy is also a vast & rich tradition, it classically encompassed: Logic ; Mathematics (Arithmetics, Algebra, Calculus, Geometry, Astronomy) ; Natural Sciences (Medicine, Botany, Zoology, Paediatrics, Mineralogy, Optics, Mechanics, Chemistry) ; Politics, Ethics, Aesthetics & Metaphysics.

3. Science: science was classically understood as a category of philosophy & it is a known fact that science flourished under Islam for over 10 centuries, which revolutionised human knowledge by thousands of discoveries & inventions (in Medicine, Maths, Physics. . .).

4. History: Islamic History is a very rich source of information about a significant portion of the human race, stretched over ~15 centuries, dozens of empires, hundreds of peoples, & a great many number of impressive persons.


- Equality: Islam has been clear cut about the Equality of Mankind in:

1. Birth: “Every child is born in the state of Fitrah (equal among all mankind)” the Prophet [29].

2. Humanity: “ “Humans are equal, like a set of a tooth-comb” “there is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, nor of a non-Arab over an Arab, nor of a white over a black, nor a black over a white” the Prophet [30].

3. Religious Obligation: “Everyone a guardian and is responsible for his charges” the Prophet [31].

- Gender: in Islam Men & Women are:

1. Equal in Birth, Humanity & Religious Obligation, for they both are among Mankind.

2. Equivalent in Gender: “Verily, Women are the equivalent to Men” the Prophet [32].

=> As far as I know Islam is the only religion that unequivocally asserts, without any ambiguity of interpretation, the equality of all human beings, man or woman, slave or freeman, believer or not ; & the equity, though not equality (for obvious reasons), in gender. Which expresses an inherent Tolerance in the Islamic Tradition not open to circumstances & interpretations.

- Religion: religion is the first of the 6 Sacred Necessities Shari’a Law is designed to preserve (along with: Life, Intellect, Lineage, Wealth & Honour), & thus Freedom of Religion is a fundamental concept at the heart of Islam: “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256). This Tolerance is apparent in how the Islamic Tradition legally & historically divides the World into 2 regions [33]:

1. Dar al-Islam: region where there is Freedom of Religion, where the tenets of Islam are freely practiced, & its message is freely transmitted, & this region includes:

> Muslims: members of the Ummah (the muslim supra-national community).

> Protected (Dhimmis): members of the People of the Book (Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians & Hindus), who are given the freedom to practice their religion, apply their own law, & own their own land. Plus, they are exempt from participating in the military (for their own protection), in exchange for a very small Jizyah Tax (~$160 per year, for every able adult male, not old, not sick, not poor & not disabled).

> Secured (Mustamin): residents not from the People of the Book: pagans, foreigners. . . have the same status more or less as the previous ones.

> Confederate (Muahid): state/nation currently under Treaty with Muslims, much like most of the World today.

> Land of Mission (Dar ad-Daawa): regions where the message of Islam is not oppressed.

> Land of Residence (Dar al-Iqamah): regions where muslims are free to practice the tenets of their religion.

2. Dar al-Harb: regions where there is less than the necessary elements of Freedom of Religion.

=> “With the flourishing of Arab civilisation, religious toleration was absolute” Le Bon [34]. Contrary to propaganda, when muslims conquered the world they showed absolute toleration to their conquered, where each community was allowed to practice its own religion & law on its own land & participate in the intellectual, economic & political life: many were non-muslim scholars teaching & learning in Islamic Universities, & many were from the elite in wealth & politics [35]. For instance: Ibn Masawayh, who was appointed by Caliph Harun Rashid as head of Bayt al-Hikma (the highest university of the world) [36] ; the Caliph al-Mamun threatened the Byzantine ruler with war for he refused to send christian doctors to teach in Baghdad, his personal adviser was a christian whom he mourned after his death by abstaining from food for a whole day [37] ; & the polymath Hunyn Ibn Ishaq who was the personal doctor of the Caliph al-Mutawakkil [38].

- Mercy: it is at the core of the Islamic Tradition, & it is one of the Four Pillars of Shari’a.

1. Mankind: Islam is explicit in being merciful towards all Mankind, the Prophet said:.

* “The merciful are shown mercy by The Most Merciful. Be merciful on the earth, and you will be shown mercy from Who is above the heavens.” [39].

* “He will enter Heaven only he who possesses mercy. It is not the mercy that one has for his friend, but the Mercy for all creation.” [40].

2. Animals: this Mercy extends also Animals, the Prophet said:

* "Do not take any living creature as a target.” [41]

* “There is a reward for serving any animate (living being).” [42]

* "There was a dog moving around a well whom thirst would have killed, an Israeli prostitute saw it and took off her shoe and watered it. So Allah forgave her because of that good deed.” [43]

3. Nature:

* "Eat and drink from the provision of Allah , and do not commit abuse on the earth, spreading corruption." (2:60)

* "If anyone cuts a tree (with no just cause), Allah brings him headlong into Hell.” the Prophet [44]


- Con claims that Islam is faith based because it requires the declaration of faith! To which I already responded by saying: “according to Islamic Theology, the first requirement of a believer is: Discernment ('Aq'l), which must come before the Declaration of Faith.”. The declaration faith doesn’t imply taking it on faith alone! God in Islam is minimalist (Existent, One & has Absolute Free Will), & there are extensive demonstrations of His existence in Islamic Theology (aka Kalam), such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Similarly, the prophethood of Muhammad is equally supported by rational demonstration to which I already provided an example.

- Con doubts the validity of the prophecies because they exist in Islamic sources! & the fact is, Hadiths are, by definition, accounts on the Prophet, thus inquiring about “non-islamic sources” of Hadiths is basically nonsensical. However, the Hadiths I provided are authenticated & purposely about prophecies appearing over 6 centuries after the death of the Prophet, where all Hadiths have been canonised & finalised centuries before ; some of the prophecies even weren’t fulfilled until very recently (20th & 21st century), they couldn’t have possibly been forged. Con’s contention here is pointless.

- Con avoids speaking about the many supernatural aspects of Buddhism but referring them to interpretation, which is a contradiction, for I can interpret Devas as the angels & devils in Islam & thus I’ll be talking about Islam not Buddhism anymore!

>>> To be continued.



Pase66 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


- Unfortunately Con forfeited his last Round, which makes the purpose of the debate, that is discussion/dialogue, obsolete.

- As per the Rules of Voting*, I win this debate by default.

=> Vote Pro.

(*) Voting:

- No votes shall be cast except in:

> ‘Agreed with before the debate’.

> & ‘Agreed with after the debate’.

- Votes shall only be awarded in ‘Conduct’ in case of forfeit or intense trolling, or in case Con failed to cede the 5th Round.









[7] [20]

[8] [Ihyaa, book-2, section-2]













[23] [28]

[24] [27]





[30] /







[37] Tarikhuna al-Muftara Alayh, by al-Qaradawi.


[39] /








Pase66 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Abdulrahman_Almrkhan 2 years ago
@drpiek you have claimed things with no evidence and I will right now refute your assumption by saying the teachings of Islam condone terrorism when it's not
Jihad means to strive to do good and defeat evil there are several types of jihad one of them is jihad by the sword which means if someone started a war on us Muslims we have to defend ourselves
Holy Quran 5.32

32. Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allah by committing the major sins) in the land!.

This prooves that it's forbidden to kill anyone who's innocent INCLUDING A NON MUSLIM
Holy Quran 2:56

Sahih International
There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.Sahih International
There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.
And my proof that suicide is forbidden
Narrated Thabit bin Ad Dahhak: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "Whoever intentionally swears falsely by a religion other than Islam, then he is what he has said, (e.g. if he says, "If such thing is not true then I am a Jew," he is really a Jew). And whoever commits suicide with piece of iron will be punished with the same piece of iron
Posted by Yassine 2 years ago
- Thanks @Death23, @tejretics, @tajshar2k & @Ajabi for the votes ^_^.
Posted by Yassine 2 years ago
- Yeah, I did not wish for you to forfeit, but still ;)
Posted by Pase66 2 years ago
I've been insanely burdened with work. Forfeiting was not the best idea, but still...
Posted by Yassine 2 years ago
@ Midnight1131

- Check the debate, Con forfeited two rounds: 4 & 5.
Posted by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Why are you voters deducting points for conduct??? Pro asked con to concede the last round, as per the debate structure.
Posted by drpiek 2 years ago
Buddhism is a religion of non violence. It has never breed Buddhist extremists that ran around beheading children in the name of God. There is no comparison here,
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ajabi 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture as per rules.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited two rounds, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. Thus, conduct to Con. | S&G - Tie. Both sides had reasonable S&G. | Arguments - Tie. I shall not score arguments as per the rules. Thus, I shall tie arguments. | Sources - Tie. I shall not score sources either, as this is a no-scoring debate. Thus, sources are tied. | 1 point to Pro. | As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Death23 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF