The Instigator
Microsuck
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Clash
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

It is probable that the Qur'an is from God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Clash
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,665 times Debate No: 24091
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

Microsuck

Con

I want to begin by saying how delighted I am to be debating Clash on this very important religious issue. It's good to be able to argue with someone who is so knowledgeable about the Qur'an and about Islam. For my part of the debate, I'll be arguing that, on balance of probability, the Qur'an is not a revelation from God.


OPENING ARGUMENTS


C1: THE QUR'AN IS IMPERFECT

By imperfect, I refer to the fact that the Qur'an is prone to error, contains contradictions, and contains imperfections one would not expect if the Qur'an was indeed authored by God.

Sub point 1: Verses missing from the Qur'an and Interpolations in the Qur'an

The Qur'an tells us that it is the perfect Word of God that is perfectly preserved from other works from God that later became corrupt.1 However, the Qur'an had verses missing and verses added from the Qur'an. In fact, many scholars believe that there are interpolations in the Qur'an which have been added at a later date. The implications of such are enormous.

The Hadith records several cases in which the Qur'an is missing verses, verses were lost because of the Prophet's (pbuh) memory and verses were abrogated all together. Let's take a look at some of them:

Zaid bin Thabit said, "When the Quran was compiled from various written manuscripts, one of the Verses of Surat Al-Ahzab was missing which I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting. I could not find it except with Khuzaima bin Thabjt Al-Ansari, whose witness Allah's Apostle regarded as equal to the witness of two men. And the Verse was:-- "Among the believers are men who have been true to what they covenanted with Allah." (33.23) Volume 4, Book 52, Number 62, Narrated Kharija bin Zaid. 2

This Hadith is telling us that Zaid bin Thabit can confirm via memory that a Qur'an verse has been lost. How much more could have been lost? This is one thing that shows how unreliable oral tradition can be.

The Qur'an also contains interpolations which are verses that were later added to the text and were not written by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Another interesting Hadith is one which confirms that different Quranic manuscripts said different things which caused confusion amongst the early Muslims.


Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.'(33.23) Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510, Narrated Anas bin Malik.


There are important things to note in the above Hadith:

1. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an
2. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit [the same person referenced in the previous Hadith that I brought up] on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue."
3. 'Uthman ordered copies that were imperfect to be burned.

Sub point 2: The Qur'an contains arrogations.

An abrogation is, by definition, a verse that cancels out another verse. The Qur'an tells us:

Whatever verses we [i.e., God] cancel or cause you to forget, we bring a better or its like. (Qur'an 2.105)

Note that the above passage makes the claim that when a better or similar ayah is available, Allah will change it and cause the older ones to be forgotten.

According to al-Suyuti, the number of abrogated verses is estimated between 5-500. 3

Ibn Warraq notes:


Is it fitting that an All-Powerful, Omniscient, and Omnipotent God should revise His commandments so many times? Does He need to keep revising so often? Why can't he get it right the first time, after all, He is all-wise? Why does He not reveal the better the first time? 3

Apostate of Islam, Farooq Ibrahim, notes:

Note that the ayah 2:106 above is clearly making the claim that only when a better ayah or similar ayah is available, does Allah change it and cause the older ones to be forgotten. And to drive the point home, the ayah continues on that Allah has power over all things. It puzzled me that Allah being all-wise needed to reveal better or similar ayahs to replace older ones. Perhaps this was understandable for a Muslim if the Quran is talking about books given to Musa, then Isa, and finally Prophet Mohammad. But what about ayahs within the life-span of Prophet Mohammad in the Quran – Allah was claiming to change earlier ayahs revealed in the Quran. This seemed completely out of context and reason for the Quran that claims to be for all time and all peoples.4

C2: A SURAH LIKE IT

The Qur’an boasts that no-one else can create a Surah like it. It challenges the disbelievers to make a single Surah that replicates even the smallest of the Surahs. However, this challenge disproves the Qur’an.

The Qur’an and Hadith record when the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) thought that a revelation was from God. Rather, it was from Satan and God had to quickly correct the Prophet and the Muslims from following the incorrect Surah. The implication is that Muhammad did not know if the Qur’an is from God or if it was from Satan. As such, Satan was able to replicate the Qur’an.

Here are the relevant Qur’an passages. 5

Say: "If the mankind and the jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another." [Qur'an 17:88]

I am out of room so I’ll give the other passages in round 2. Good luck.


[1] Quran 15:9; 41:42.

[2] The Hadith is found online at http://cmje.org.... All Hadith references can be confirmed at this website.

[3] Warraq, I. (2003). Why I am Not a Muslim. Amherst, New York, United States: Prometheus Books. Page 114

[4] http://www.answering-islam.org...

[5] http://www.islamic-awareness.org...


Clash

Pro

Thank you, Microsuck, for challenging me to this great and very important debate. It's a pleasure to be debating with you again.

As Pro, I will argue that it is probable that the Quran is from God, meaning that it is more likely than not. Since Microsuck and I have agreed to give only arguments at round 1, I will now only give my arguments, and then I will refute Con's arguments in my second round. In proving my case that it is more probable than not that the Quran is from God, I will give 3 arguments:


1) 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. Then we examined the water of the Atlantic Ocean and discovered features entirely different from those of the Mediterranean Sea. According to our expectations, these two seas that merged in the strait of Gibraltar should present similar characteristics in terms of salinity, density and other properties. 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.'[1]

seas

'About the picture: The Mediterranean sea water as it enters the Atlantic over the Gibraltar sill with its own warm, saline, and less dense characteristics, because of the barrier that distinguishes between them. (Marine Geology, Kuenen, p. 43)'.[2]

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

He is the One who has set free the two seas; one is sweet and palatable, and the other is salty and bitter. And He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed. (25:53)

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 (including prophet Muhammad) at the Arabian peninsula (where the Quran was written) didn't in any way have knowledge or experience on oceanography. And 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 fact could only have come from God.


2) The word 'Haman' in the Quran

A Haman was basically a close helper of the Pharaoh, and was "the head of the stone quarries".[3] Surprisingly, the Quran mentions Haman as a person who directed construction work under the command of the Pharaoh:

"Pharaoh said, 'Council, I do not know of any other god for you apart from Me. Haman, kindle a fire for me over the clay and build me a lofty tower so that perhaps I may be able to climb up to Moses' god! I consider him a blatant liar.' (28:38)

What is amazing is that the name Haman was not known until the decoding of Egyptian hieroglyphics in the 19th century (1,300 years after the Quran). When the hieroglyphics were decoded, it was understood that Haman was a close helper of the Pharaoh, and was "the head of the stone quarries".[Ibid]

For example, in the dictionary of People in the New Kingdom, that was prepared based on the entire collection of inscriptions, Haman is said to be "the head of stone quarry workers".[Ibid]

Now, the old testament mentions the word Haman. However, according to it, a Haman was the helper of a Babylonian king who inflicted many cruelties and evils on the Israelites.[Ibid] This is obviously wrong. Indeed, the Quran is far more correct with recent archaeological discoveries, and nothing and no one described this word "Haman" before the Quran so correctly as the Quran did.

This historical fact could not have been understood in the time that the Quran was written and finished. In fact, hieroglyphics could not be deciphered until the late 1700s.[Ibid] However, in a miraculous way, the Quran tells us this historical information 1,400 years ago.


3) The challenge of the Quran

“If you (mankind) are in doubt concerning what We revealed to Our servant, than bring a chapter like it….” (2:23)

This chapter is used as a proof of the Islamic creed. Indeed, if someone successfully create just one chapter like that of the Quran, then the Quran cannot be from God. However, although many people (like for example thinkers, poets, and literary critics such as Musaylamah; Ibn Al-Mukaffa‘; Abu’l-’Ala Al-Marri; Yahya b. Al-Hakam al-Ghazal; Sayyid ‘Ali Muhammad; Ibn al-Rawandi; Bassar bin Burd; Sahib Ibn ‘Abbad; Abu’l; and some wannabe Christian missionaries [4]) have tried to create a chapter like that of the Quran, they have all failed, and the challenge of Quran has remained unbeaten for 1,400 years. Not even the Arabs, who were masters on the Arabic language and known to have been Arabic linguists par excellence, failed to successfully challenge the Quran.[5] Indeed, E. H. Palmer is very correct in saying that:

“The best of Arab writers has never succeeded in producing anything equal in merit to the Quran itself.' [Ibid]

Now, it is obvious why nobody has been able to produce a chapter like that of the Quran, because although the challengers have had the same tools, like for example the 29 Arabic letters, they have completely failed to:

1. Replicate the Qur’ans literary form. [Ibid]

2. Match the unique linguistic genre of the Qur’an. [Ibid]

3. Select and arrange words like that of the Qur’an. [Ibid]

4. Select and arrange particles like that of the Qur’an. [Ibid]

5. Match the Qur’ans phonetic superiority. [Ibid]

6. Equal the frequency of rhetorical devices. [Ibid]

7. Match the level of informativity. [Ibid]

8. Equal the Qur’ans conciseness and flexibility. [Ibid]

Forster Fitzgerald Arbuthnot, who was a notable British Orientalist and translator, states:

“…and that though several attempts have been made to produce a work equal to it as far as elegant writing is concerned, none has as yet succeeded.' [Ibid]

The Quran is an amazing book by itself and a Arabic literature of a masterpiece. The fact that no one has been able to take the challenge of the Quran in over 1,400 years (i.e. producing just one chapter like that of the Quran) indeed proves its divine source.


Conclusion

This information (the Quran on the seas and the word 'Haman' in the Quran) just cannot have been known by prophet Muhammad or by any other person at the time of the Quran. Moreover, argument 3 (the challenge of the Quran) proves that the Quran is from God because no one has been able to produce a chapter like it. Not even the Arabs could challenge it, even due they were masters on the Arabic language and on Arabic poetry. Indeed, these examples clearly shows us that the Quran is from God.

The conclusion stands very strong: It is more probable than not that the Quran is from God.


Sources

[1] http://www.quranmiracles.com...

[2] http://www.islam-guide.com...

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

[4] http://www.hamzatzortzis.com...

[5] http://www.hamzatzortzis.com...

We can see that I have used '[Ibid]' in many places here, so what does it mean? '[Ibid]' means that it is in the same place. If I for example make source [1] as the source behind A, and then make [Ibid] as the source behind B, then that means that B are from the same source as A, which is from source '[1]'.
Debate Round No. 1
Microsuck

Con

Thank you, Pro. This will have to be a quicky as my internet was down yesterday. Please forgive me for the delay.

Throughout this debate, my opponent used two main lines of evidence: 1) Scientific foreknledge; 2) Historical forekowledge. The third "evidence" he provided is the style of the Qur'an. I'll get to that in a little.

1) THE QUR'AN AND THE SEA

My opponent argues that the "barrier in the sea" was foretold in the Qur'an. First and foremost, all holy texts boast scientific foreknowledge [1] and therefore, based upon my opponent's logic, I should accept all sacred texts.

So, let's review the verse that my opponent gave and we need to have several criterian for the argument to hold any water (pun intended).

1. It must not be vague
2. It must not have been previously known or guessed
3. It must be a scientific fact that is well established. [2]

It is He Who has let free the two bodies of flowing water: One palatable and sweet, and the other salt and bitter; yet has He made a barrier between them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed. [25.53]

2) Haman in the Qur'an.

Due to time restraints, I will deal with that in the following round.

3) The Style of the Qur'an cannot be reroduced


The first and foremost problem that I see is that this is extremely subjective. How do we match the style of the Qur'an when it is subjective?

Secondly, the Qur'an is not perfect in style as Nöldeke, Theodor
notes on this challenge:

"[W]hile many parts of the Qur'an undoubtedly have considerable rhetorical power, even over an unbelieving reader, the book, aesthetically considered, is by no means a first-rate performance. ...let us look at some of the more extended narratives. It has already been noticed how vehement and abrupt they are where they ought to be characterized by epic repose. Indispensable links, both in expression and in the sequence of events, are often omitted, so that to understand these histories is sometimes far easier for us than for those who learned them first, because we know most of them from better sources. Along with this, there is a great deal of superfluous verbiage; and nowhere do we find a steady advance in the narration. Contrast, in these respects, "the most beautiful tale," the history of Joseph (xii.), and its glaring improprieties, with the story in Genesis, so admirably executed in spite of some slight discrepancies. Similar faults are found in the non-narrative portions of the Qur'an. The connection of ideas is extremely loose, and even the syntax betrays great awkwardness. Anancloutha are of frequent occurrence, and cannot be explained as conscious literary devices. Many sentences begin with a "when" or "on the day when," which seem to hover in the air, so that the commentators are driven to supply a "think of this" or some ellipsis. Again, there is no great literary skill evinced in the frequent and needless harping on the same words and phrases; in xviii., for example, "till that" (hatta idha) occurs no fewer than eight times. Muhammad, in short, is not in any sense a master of style."[3]

The third problem that I see is that there are many books that cannot be reproduced. Let's take, for example, the Codex Gigas, also knowns the Devil's Bible.

1. It is the largest midevil manscript ever found.[4]
2. It is estimated that reproducing only the calligraphy, without any of the illustrations will take 5 years with non-stop writing.[ibid][5]
3. It cannot be printed.[6]

So, based upon my opponent's logic, why shouldn't I accept the legend of the Devil's Bible?

The final nail in the coffin is the fact that the Qur'an is FAR from perfect. Ibn Warraq notes:

"In verse 9 of sura (sic) 49, "If two parties of believers have started to fight each other, make peace between them," the verb meaning "have started tofight" is in the plural, whereas it ought to be in the in the dal like its subject "two parties". (In Arabic, as in other languages, verbs can be conjugated not only in the singular and plural, but also in the dual, when the subject is numbered at two."[7]

I am out of time. Apologies to Pro.

[1] See, for example, the so called "miracles" of the Bible in science. From the CMI. http://www.creationists.org...

[2] The Big Bang Theory, for example, is not well established.

[3] Nöldeke, Theodor. "The Qur'an," Sketches from Eastern History. Trans. J.S. Black. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1892. Quoted http://ho-logos.blogspot.com....

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org... The Codex Gigas means "Giant Book."

[5] Legend has it that a monk did it in one night in order to save his life; though it cost him his soul to the devil.

[6] http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com...

[7] Warraq, Ibn. Why I am Not a Musim. page 111


Clash

Pro

Thank you for your rebuttal. And it is completely fine concerning your internet being down etc.

I will in my next round defend my arguments from Con's objections against them. In what follows now, I will refute Con's arguments and show how they fail to prove that it is more probable that the Quran is not from God.


Is the Quran imperfect?

No, it's in fact Con's arguments which are imperfect. Con first argues that there are verses missing from the Quran and that there are interpolations in the Quran. To prove his first claim (that there are verses missing from the Quran), Con gives a hadith narrated by Kharija bin Zaid. This hadith, according to Con, is telling us that Zaid bin Thabit confirmed via his memory that a verse in the Quran had been lost. Well, that's not quite true. This misunderstanding can easily be solved by simply just reading the hadith carefully:

Zaid bin Thabit said, "When the Quran was compiled from various written manuscripts, one of the Verses of Surat Al-Ahzab was missing which I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting. I could not find it except with Khuzaima bin Thabjt Al-Ansari, whose witness Allah's Apostle regarded as equal to the witness of two men. And the Verse was:-- "Among the believers are men who have been true to what they covenanted with Allah." (33.23) Narrated Kharija bin Zaid.

As we can clearly see, Zaid bin Thabit only said that he could not find that verse except with Khuzaima bin Thabjt Al-Ansari, meaning that he did find it but only with Khuzaima bin Thabjt. I urge Con to start reading the hadiths carefully before making to fast conclusions.

In Con's second point, Con argued that the Quran contains interpolations which are verses that were later added to the Quran. By proving this claim, Con gave a Hadith which he said confirmed that different Quranic manuscripts said different things which caused confusion amongst the early Muslims. This hadith is very misinterpreted and misunderstood by Con, because this Hadith does not in any way say that there was verses which were later added to the Quran, as everybody can see by reading the Hadith.

This Hadith is talking about Uthman and what he did, which is what Con himself said: 'Uthman ordered copies that were imperfect to be burned.' He did this, as everybody can see in the hadith, because Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Quran. Indeed, this was a great thing which Uthman did, and almost all Muslims now and at the time of Uthman agree that it was a good thing.

Seekersguidance.org, a Muslim site which promotes the message of Islam, nicely and shortly explain why Uthman did what he did:

'Many people during the time of `Uthman had their own explanatory notes in their personal copies of the Qur’an. Others had written down portions of the Qur’an themselves. In order to prevent any future issues of explanatory notes being considered as part of the Qur’an or arguments due to a mistake on the part of the writer – claiming that he has something of the Qur’an which others do not have - these old copies were burnt.

Next, the Caliph `Uthman ordered a group of the companions to write down the Qur’an in an official, standardized copy and these new copies along with recitors were sent to peoples of different lands. This was done out of their love of the Qur’an and avidness that revelation be preserved, unaltered.' [1]


God cancels out verses in the Quran?

Con quoted verse 2:105 of the Quran which says: 'Whatever verses we [i.e., God] cancel or cause you to forget, we bring a better or its like.' (2:106 - Corrected: This verse is 2:106 of the Quran, not 2:105 as Con said. Just a little mistake)

If Con wants to argue that God did in fact really cancel some verses in the Quran, then he have to tell us which verses those are and also provide proofs that those verses really was canceled.

Moreover, even if God really did cancel God can change, replace or cancel any verse he likes in the Quran, because He is the author of the Quran. This debate is about if it is probable that the Quran is from God, so as long as all the verses of the Quran was canceled by God himself and not humans, the Quran is still from God.

Concerning those two people Con quoted (Ibn Warraq and Farooq Ibrahim). I really don't need to say anything more than 1) Both of them are biased, and 2) What Ibn Warraq and Farooq Ibrahim are saying is that how can an All-Powerful, Omniscient, and Omnipotent God change earlier verses revealed in the Quran. This to them doesn't make sense. This problem is easily refuted by for example many different Muslim scholars.

However, it's also completely irrelevant to the topic of this debate. The debate topic is about if it is probable that the Quran is from God, not about how illogical it is for a omnipotent God to change, replace or cancel a verse from his own book. Again, as long as all the verses of the Quran was replaced, changed or canceled by God himself, and not humans, then the Quran is still from God, even if someone thinks that it doesn't make sense that a omnipotent God would do that. Just like this rebuttal will still be from me even if I replace, change or cancel some of it, because it was again me who did it.

In summary, Con must tell us which verses those are and also provide proofs that those verses really was canceled. Moreover, even if Con successfully do that, this argument is still irrelevant to the topic of this debate and cannot in any way prove the Quran is not from God. I urge Con to drop this argument because it cannot prove anything and is basically just a failure.

And as for al-Suyuti's claim that there are 5-500 abrogated verses in the Quran, this is nothing more than a false and non-evidenced claim. As long as those 5-500 so called 'abrogated verses' in the Quran are not showed and proven to really be abrogated, this claim remains nothing more than a failure and a pure lie.


Satan and the Quran

Con argued here that Prophet Muhammad thought that a revelation was from God, but that it rather was from Satan and God had to quickly correct prophet Muhammad and the Muslims from following that incorrect verse. I suppose Con is talking about verse 17:88 of the Quran since that was the verse he quoted. Con has however given zero evidences to back up this absurd and laughable claim. Until he does that, this argument is nothing more than a failure.

In fact, this verse like some other verses which challenges mankind to produce just one verse or chapter like that of the Quran, in contrast to Con's false statement, proves that the Quran is from God, as I clearly showed at my first round.

Moreover, even if Satan tried to give a incorrect verse to prophet Muhammad, God as Con himself said, quickly corrected prophet Muhammad and the Muslims from following that verse. In others words, God protected the Quran and quickly corrected prophet Muhammad and the Muslims from following that incorrect verse which Satan tried to give to prophet Muhammad. This could only show that the Quran truly is from God.

As long as no verses really was influenced and put into the Quran by Satan, and that those verses wasn't corrected by God, then the Quran is still from God. If Con however wants to argue that Satan was successful in giving prophet Muhammad incorrect verses, and that those verses got into the Quran without God finding it out and taking it away, then go for it. I would love to see Con give some evidences that Satan was really successful in giving prophet Muhammad incorrect verses, and that those verses really got inside the Quran without God finding it out and doing something about it. But as for now, Con has only given non-evidenced claims.


Conclusion

Con's arguments are all very flawed and clearly refuted.

The conclusion stands: It is more probable than not that the Quran is from God.


Sources

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

Debate Round No. 2
Microsuck

Con

Once more, myopponent has overwhealmed me woth stuff to research woth very little time on my part. I humbly forfeit this round and I'll have my arguments up ASAP.
Clash

Pro

My opponent has unfortunately forfeited. I understand why and it's fine.

Because it would be impossible for me in my last round to defend my arguments and refute what Con will say in his last round, I will now defend my arguments as I said.


Defending my argument 1: The Quran on the seas


Con's first objection to my argument is saying that all holy texts boast scientific foreknowledge. This claim is just beyond exaggerated. Clearly not all holy texts have scientific foreknowledges. If this absurd claim is to stand, Con have to show us that all holy texts has scientific foreknowledges in them.

We can however argue that there are some holy texts which have scientific foreknowledges in them. And indeed, that's probably true. However, even if there are some holy texts which have scientific foreknowledges in them, that would not prove anything against the Quran or its divine claim, because the Quran makes it very clear that God has sent many more books besides the Quran to mankind (just four are mentioned).

These books which was sent to mankind by God before the Quran, according to the Quran, were all corrupted over time since they was meant only for a particular people at a particular time. Indeed, it is possible that there are some other holy texts which have scientific foreknowledges in them which must have been from God.

Muslims however will just say that this information was really from God, and because Muslims believes that God has sent many other holy texts to many other different people (like the Bible and the Torah), we have no problem accepting that some holy texts may have scientific foreknowledges in them. Although Muslims believe that the other holy texts have been corrupted over time, we also believe that the holy texts may also still contain some of God's words, because God has sent many other holy texts besides the Quran to mankind.

Moving on to Con's second and last objection. Con gave 3 criterias for my argument to hold any water (i.e It must not be vague, it must not have been previously known or guessed, and it must be a scientific fact that is well established).
However, Con provides absolutely no evidences that my argument doesn't fulfill any of these criterion's. Thus, this objection is nothing more than a failure.

Summary of these two objections

These two objections are the objections which Con made against this argument. As we can see, they are both flawed and are not successful in refuting my argument. In fact, they are not even really and directly rebutting it.

Con's first objection is that all holy texts has scientific foreknowledges in it. Con has given zero evidences to back up this absurd claim. Con's second and last objection to this argument is 3 criterias which Con gave to my argument. Con didn't give any evidences that these criterias wasn't fulfilled by my argument or that these criterias refuted my argument.

It is very clear that Con's two objections to this argument are nothing more than failures and are totally unsuccessful in refuting my argument. Indeed, my argument on the Quran and the seas stands very strong.


Defending my argument 2: The word 'Haman' in the Quran


Con couldn't respond to this argument because he didn't have time. I extend this argument to the next round.


Defending my argument 3: The challenge of the Quran


Con starts by saying that the challenge of the Quran is subjective. Con doesn't tell us why and nor does he give us any evidences for this claim. Moreover, had it been subjective then the pagan Arabs would have used this charge against the Quran already, and that would have put that challenge to an end.

However, they didn't. In fact, they had to resort to ad hominem as anyone who reads the arguments of the pagan Arabs against Prophet Muhammad can see. The language of the Quran surpasses any known Arabic poetry in regards to its eloquence, and to argue against the evidence by simply making excuses or dismissing it as a “subjective”, only shows us Con's deep ignorance regarding the subject of the matter.

In Con's second objection to this argument, Con said that there are many books that cannot be reproduced. But in what way? It is probably true that there are many books that cannot be reproduced, like for example a book which contains a language which we cannot understand at this time.

However, are there any book that cannot be reproduced in the way the Quran cannot be reproduced? That is, in an beautifully, eloquent, deeply and meaningfully way as the amazing Quran? Not at all, and I challenge Con to give me just one book that cannot be reproduced as language, poetry and literature is concerned.

Hamza tzortzis says:

'What makes the Qur’an a miracle, is that it is impossible for a human being to compose something like it, as it lies outside the productive capacity of the nature of the Arabic language.

Therefore, this leaves only one conclusion; a Divine explanation is the only coherent explanation for this impossible Arabic literary form – the Qur’an. Hence, it logically follows that if the Qur’an is a literary event that lies outside the productive capacity of the Arabic language, i.e. an impossibility, then by definition, it is a miracle.' [1]

The Quran, as Hamza tzortzis correctly states, is indeed a miracle. And to to compose something like the Quran is in fact impossible. I urge Con to go to this site if he wants to learn more about the amazing inimitability of the Quran and why it is impossible to successfully take the challenge of the Quran. [Ibid]

The Devil's book

Con asked why we shouldn't accept the legend of the Devil's Bible? But in what way should we accept it? We can surely accept it in some ways, like for example that it is a interesting and a very big book. However, can we accept it as a book from God? Absolutely not.

The devil's book is not even close to the amazing Quran. Moreover, zero evidences has been given by Pro to show us why the devils book is from God. The three points Con made on it does not in any way prove that it is from God (i.e It is the largest medieval manuscript ever found; it is estimated that reproducing only the calligraphy, without any of the illustrations will take 5 years with non-stop writing; and it cannot be printed). Moreover, the devils book itself doesn't claim to be from God, so it just absurd then to say that it is from God. It's like saying that A is from B, although A himself says that he is from C.

Now, Con never claimed that the devil's book is from God. But if why did he then mention it? After all, my case is only that the Quran is from God. If Con wants to argue that the devil's book is from God, then he must provide evidences for that. If Con don't want to argue that the devil's book is from God, and it doesn't look like he does, then why mention it at all? Moreover, even if Con wants to argue that the devil's book is from God and even provide evidences for that claim, that would still not refute the Qumran's divine claim (see defending my argument 1: The Quran on the seas)

In finishing, Con said that the Quran was far from perfect. To support this claim, Con then quoted ibn warraq. First of all, Ibn warraq is just a biased anti-Islamist. Moreover, I don't see how he proves that the Quran is far from perfect. He is only talking about words being in the plural etc. Please, Con, tell us how he shows us and proves to us that the Quran is far from perfect. More importantly, tell us what evidences he gives to support his claims.


Conclusion

We can clearly see that all of Con's objections against two of my arguments are all failures. My second argument (i.e The word 'Haman' in the Quran) have for now gone completely un-responded.

My arguments stands strong and so does still the conclusion: It is more probable than not that the Quran is from God.

Thank you.


Sources

[1] http://www.hamzatzortzis.com...

[2] http://www.survivalistboards.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Microsuck

Con

I forfeit this debate. Thank you for the time. Please do forgive me for wasting your time. I really know nothing about this subject and wanted to learn more. Thank you for teaching me a bit more about Islam and the Muslim reason why they believe that the Qur'an is from God. Please vote for Clash.
Clash

Pro

Thank you, Microsuck, for your humble concession. I'm also happy to hear that I have learned you more about Islam. I guess the only thing left to say now is just vote Con.

Thank you and thank you Microsuck for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
royalpaladin, thanks for sharing with us your amazing knowledge about the Quran and its great faults. :)
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
fine. Sorry I am rather lousy lately.
Posted by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
I took some arguments away because I got over the character limit. Source '[2]' was behind some of these arguments but I forgot to take Source '[2]' away when I posted my argument. So source '[2]' should not really be there. Just a little mistake. I'm sorry.

Thank you.
Posted by Ahmed.M 4 years ago
Ahmed.M
>>"I'm talking aout on this website"
I don't want to give any Muslim on this site a title of knowledge. I think every Muslim including myself on this website is a layman.

Also I responded to your thread in the forum you made. Every time you bring an argument against the Quran or Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) you don't respond after I address it. Do you think I addressed your points? If not give a response. It makes you look dishonest and unsincere when you post polemic and leave it at that.

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
I'm talking aout on this website
Posted by Ahmed.M 4 years ago
Ahmed.M
>>"Ahmed, thanks for your comments. Who do you think is most knowledgable about Islam?"
Of course Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and his companions were the most knowledgeable but that is back then. Today I can't say who is the 'most knowledgable' today because that is ultimately subjective but someone who I would recommend to obtain Islamic information is Bilal Philips. Enroll and take the courses here (free) if you are serious.
http://www.fanarinstitute.com...

>>"The only reason why I'm doing debates on Islam is to learn about it."
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Should have added http://suralikeit.com...
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Microsuck
Ahmed, thanks for your comments. Who do you think is most knowledgable about Islam? The only reason why I'm doing debates on Islam is to learn about it.
Posted by Ahmed.M 4 years ago
Ahmed.M
BTW Microsuck stop quoting from Ibn Warraq.
Posted by Ahmed.M 4 years ago
Ahmed.M
"It's good to be able to argue with someone who is so knowledgeable about the Qur'an and about Islam. For my part of the debate, I'll be arguing that, on balance of probability, the Qur'an is not a revelation from God."

I don't think any Muslim on this site deserves that praise, none of the Muslims on this site are that knowledgeable on Islam.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
MicrosuckClashTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
MicrosuckClashTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
MicrosuckClashTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. Micro, you would have won. He misinterpreted your Satan analysis. Satan was able to reproduce a passage proving that people CAN write false suras, which further means that the Quaran is not unreproducible. The Quaranic challenge was defeated in ancient times.