The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
23 Points

Judaism v. Islam

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,291 times Debate No: 17373
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (53)
Votes (6)




Thank you, Mirza for accepting this challenge.


I have noticed some past debates about Islam that Mirza has done. I am interested in proving why Islam is false. (Note: I will be arguing from a JEWISH perspective fighting FOR Judaism).

==Burden of Proof==

Pro will fight for Judaism; con will fight for Islam.

  • Round 1 is for acceptance
  • Round 2 is for opening arguments ONLY
  • Round 3 is a refutation of the opening arguments
  • Round 4 is a rebuttal to anything left unanswered
  • Round 5 is for closing statements; no rebuttals/new arguments allowed.


  1. Thou shalt be respectful
  2. Thou shalt cite all sources
  3. Thou shalt not forfeit; forfeit will result in a loss
  4. Thou shalt not use the debate to proselytie; just to present your views.
  5. Thou shalt respect the ruels and structure.
  6. Failure to abide by the rules and structure will result in a loss
  7. Cross examination is allowed and encouraged.

Thank you and best of luck to my opponent! I hope for an interesting debate.



Thank you, sir. I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting this debate. I hope it is fruitful.

Fact 1: The Koran states that the Torah, Bible and Koran are from God!

We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of apostles; we gave Jesus the son of Mary clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit. It is that whenever there comes to you an apostle with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?—Some ye called imposters, and others ye slay! –Koran 8:87

Now, here come my first questions in cross examination:

  1. Is the Torah from G-d?

  2. If so, did you know that G-d said in the Torah he would preserve His Word?

  3. If it is corrupt, doesn’t that make G-d a liar?

Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until the Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account for those messengers. (6:34

The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: NONE CAN CHANGE HIS WORDS: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all (6:115

For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present and in the Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme felicity. (10:64)

These verses are clear. You cannot add or change the words of Allah. This leads me to my next set of cross examination:

  1. The Torah says that G-d promised to preserve his word. Did he break that promise?

  2. Why does Allah need 3 revelations?

  3. Does the Koran really mean that the Torah and Bible are from G-d?

Fact 2: The Koran is WRONG in the formation of sperms!

"Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted-Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs," (Qur'an 86:5-7).

At first reading of this Qur'anic verse, it is obvious that the error is that sperm comes from a man's chest. After all, the chest is "between the backbone and the ribs"? The abdomen is below the backbone and ribs, and the male testicles are far below that.

This error is important because in Islam, if one thing in the Qur'an is false, then Islam is false. In Islam the Qur'an was supposedly transmitted directly to Muhammad from God through the angel Gabriel. Therefore, it cannot have even a single mistake. But, as you can see, it does.

A drop

The verse says that it is the "drop" that is emitted from the chest area. It is not referencing the testicles that descend from the abdominal area (not the chest). In addition, by definition, a drop is a small quantity of liquid that is separated from a larger body of liquid. Gravity acts upon it and it drops; hence, the term "drop". Drops are not in the human body. They are outside of it. Human blood flowing through the veins is not in drops, neither is the seminal fluid, which is emitted from the prostate, in drops. It is the seminal fluid that carries the sperm from the testicles as it exits the body that then forms drops. Therefore, what the Qur'anic verse is talking about is not the testicles, but the seminal fluid and sperm mixture that has left the body during sexual intercourse. It is the drop that the Qur'an says is formed from "between the backbone and the ribs." This is an obvious and blatant error.

Where do testicles form?

  • "The testicle originally forms in the back of the abdominal cavity, similar to the position of the ovaries in girls. Near the end of pregnancy, the testis begins to descend to the scrotum.

  • "The testicles begin inside the abdominal cavity."

  • At seven months, "The testicles begin to move down from the abdomen into the scrotum.”

  • "Normal testicular development begins at conception and the testicles first appear in the abdomen at about the level of the kidneys.”

Even if it can be surmised that the testicles were formed in embryonic development in the very lower part of the chest area, it still does not solve the problem wherein the Qur'an states that man is formed from the drop that is emitted from between the backbones and the ribs. The drop, the liquid, is not formed in embryonic development and does not begin such development until the testicles begin to mature. This occurs after the birth of the baby and after the testicles has descended out of the body.

Conclusion: The Koran is wrong.


  1. 1.The Children's Hospital of

  2. 2.Penn State Children's Hospital:

  3. 3.Allina Hospitals and Clinics:

  4. 4.Long Island Jewish Medical Center,

Fact 3: The Koran CONTRADICTS itself!

  1. What was man created from, blood, clay, dust, or nothing?

    1. "Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood," (96:2).

    2. "We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).

    3. "The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was," (3:59).

    4. "But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?" (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35).

    5. "He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4).

    6. Does Allah forgive or not forgive those who worship false gods?

      1. Allah forgives not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgives anything else, to whom He pleases; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed," (4:48). Also 4:116

      2. The people of the Book ask thee to cause a book to descend to them from heaven: Indeed they asked Moses for an even greater (miracle), for they said: "Show us Allah in public," but they were dazed for their presumption, with thunder and lightning. Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority," (4:153).

    7. Are Allah's decrees changed or not?

      1. "Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34).

      2. "The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who hears and knows all, (6:115).

      3. None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Know thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (2:106).

      4. When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not," (16:101).

Cross Examination

The Qur'an says, "O ye who believe! Turn unto Allah in sincere repentance! It may be that your Lord will remit from you your evil deeds and bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, on the day when Allah will not abase the Prophet and those who believe with him. Their light will run before them and on their right hands; they will say: Our Lord! Perfect our light for us, and forgive us! Lo! Thou art Able to do all things," (66:8-9). Notice how it says if you are sincere you may receive forgiveness.

Question: How do you know you are sincere enough to be forgiven of Allah?

Question: Does it give you peace to know that even if you are very sincere then, at best, you may receive forgiveness?

Question: If you say that you know you are sincere enough in your repentance before Allah, how do you know you are not deceiving yourself?

Question: Is your heart really good enough to muster enough sincerity before a Holy and Righteous God?

Question: If you say yes, I honestly and humbly ask you "Are you being prideful?"

Question: If you say you are not being prideful, then are you boasting in your sincerity?




In this debate I will attempt to correlate similarities between Islam and Judaism, and I will also try to explain why Islam is probably the true religion. My opponent will try to refute the teachings of Islam while I will be very defensive. My criticism of Judaism will probably be based on scriptural discrepancy, prophecies as a case for Islam, and so on.


1. Allah of Islam, God of Judaism

One thing that troubles many people is the question of which God you should believe in. It is common to hear people of different religions claiming that their God is the true one, but the God of such-and-such a religion is false. Philosophically speaking, such a discussion is a low-level one. If you define God as the highest conceivable being, then regardless of your Faith, you cannot logically define Him as say, a caused being. If He was caused, then the cause that caused God was obviously greater than God, hence the use of the term God is totally wrong in this case.

Nonetheless, in Judaism and Islam, we do not have to argue about whose conception of God is the true one. In both the Tanakh and the Qur'an, one reads that God neither begets nor was He begotten, God is above everything, et cetera. Muslims and Jews agree upon many similar qualities of God. However, certain people always try to place a distinction between 'God' and 'Allah,' as if we were dealing with two different beings. Now, compare the English and the Arabic translations of Genesis 1:1 below:

[Genesis 1:1] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

[Genesis 1:1] Fee al-badi' khalaqa Allahu as-Samaawaat wa al-ard

It is obvious that the term for God in Arabic is simply Allah, hence theists who repeatedly attack Muslims' usage of the term are blaspheming according to their own religions. To conclude, both Islam and Judaism have very similar views on God, and where they differ is in terms of scripture, not conception of God.

2. Honesty of the Prophet Muhammad*

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), a strongly moral man who lived in Arabia 14 centuries ago, is recognized as the last Prophet in Islam. He received the last scripture from God (i.e., the Holy Qur'an), and this scripture remains original to our very modern times. Muslims do not believe that he authored the Qur'an, but that God taught it to him through the angel Gabriel (peace be upon him). [1] I have a few points to make.

1: The Prophet never lied

The beloved Prophet, prior and during his Prophethood, was known to be a very humble and moral man. He helped the poor, contributed to improving his community, and did innumerable other very honorable deeds. One of the very good qualities he possessed was honesty. He was known as one who never lied. This is evidential due to the fact that after he received Prophethood, his new enemies (polytheists etc.,) called him a madman, madman, and many such things. One thing they did not call him was a liar.

"Once the chiefs of the Quraish were sitting and talking about him. Nadhar bin Harith, the most experienced of them all, said, “O Quraish! You have not been able to find any plan to meet the calamity that has fallen upon you. Muhammad grew up from childhood in your presence. He was the most liked, honest and faithful among you. Now when he has grown to maturity and has presented these things to you, you say, he is a magician, a soothsayer, a poet, a mad man. By Allah! I have heard his Message, he is none of these things. A new calamity has fallen upon you." [2]

By definition, an honest man never lies. A lie, by definition, is a statement told by someone who is certain that he does not tell the truth. If, however, he knows that he is not telling the truth, yet persists on doing it, then he lies. But the fact is that Prophet Muhammad had full certainty that the Qur'an was revealed to him by God. Even his enemies acknowledged that he believed in that. This is an irrefutable fact.

2: The Prophet claimed that he received a revelation from God

According to the Prophet, the Qur'an was revealed to him by God. This is known throughout all the hadith we have about his lifetime. So, since he never lied, which there is strong evidence for, why did he claim that the Qur'an got revealed to him? Can we say that a circle is squared? No, that is a logical fallacy. Can we, then, say that the Prophet never lied, claimed that the Qur'an was revealed to him by God, but that it is not true? No, that is fallacious. If indeed he did not lie, yet claimed that the Qur'an is from God, then why try to find error in that? Moreover, he did not see visions because the Qur'an was revealed to him throughout a period of around 23 years, and he was commonly as healthy as other people. In fact, there are reports in hadiths that at a certain old age, he had gray hairs in so few numbers that you could count them. That tells us something about his well-being.

3: No evidence that the Qur'an had a human author

In ancient Arabia, the Arabs used to narrate all kinds of events. In the hadith (i.e., narrations of the Prophet) we read about his life to the smallest details. We read how many gray hairs he had. We read how a person greeted another person. However, in no hadith, especially no authentic hadith, do we read about anyone ever aiding the Prophet in authoring the Qur'an, or writing it by themselves. If someone actually did that then surely there would be some sort of evidence for that. There's none.

Moreover, the Qur'an is a consistent and reasonable from the beginning to the end. It neither has internal contradictions, historical errors, scientific errors, or any other error one could come up with. The ancient Greeks made wrong scientific claims, the ancient Romans made wrong scientific claims, and even the Bible (hereby also the Torah) had and still have many scientific errors. Why does an ancient book like the Qur'an not have any such errors? What kind of a human could find time in a very busy and often repressive lifetime to sit and cherry pick scientific facts and distinguish them from errors? Did the Prophet think, "The Greeks claim the earth is the center of the heavens and the earth, but my telescope tells me otherwise"? No, by no stretch of imagination could he have done that. And even if he did, then how could he have done it for about a thousand of other scientific points?

3: The Old Testament confirms the validity of the Prophet

Lastly, it is important to notice that the Old Testament holds numerous statements about the coming of the Prophet. [3] In Deuteronomy 18:18, God speaks to Moses and tells him that a Prophet like him is to come, who will not speak of his own, but what God commands him. This fits to Prophet Muhammad. Moreover, the Prophet is linked to earlier Jewish Prophets who are also recognized in Judaism. This point will be elaborated on.


In this round I conclude that the Prophet did not author the Qur'an, nor is there evidence that anyone else did. This points us toward a miracle, and that is a miracle from God. I will establish more evidence for Islam and a case against Judaism in the following rounds. I apologize for the short time.


*30 minutes to respond after this section, had a lot of work today. Excuse me please.

[1] Finality of the Prophethood, Syed Abul A’la Maududi:

[2] Prophet Muhammad: Honesty and Truthfulness:


Debate Round No. 2


1. Allah, the god of Judaism

I will concede to these points:
  1. Allah means "God" in Arabic
  2. Islam means, "Submission to God."
  3. Muslim means, "One who submits to God"

However, it is very clear that the God as Muslims understand it is not the God Jews understand it. If you truly want to "Muslim" (i.e. Submit to God), that God has to exist and has to be the true God.
I am arguing that Judaism's God=/=Islam's God

type of theism
strict monotheism
strict monotheism
Trinitarian monotheism
ultimate reality
one God
one God
one God
names of God
Allah (Arabic for God)
Yahweh, Elohim
Yahweh, the Holy Trinity
other spiritual beings
angels, demons, jinn
angels and demons
angels and demons
revered humans
prophets, imams (especially in Shia)
saints, church fathers
identity of Jesus
true prophet of God, whose message has been corrupted
false prophet
Son of God, God incarnate, savior of the world
birth of Jesus
virgin birth
normal birth
virgin birth
death of Jesus
did not die, but ascended into heaven during crucifixion
death by crucifixion
death by crucifixion
resurrection of Jesus
second coming of Jesus
divine revelation
through Muhammad, recorded in Qur'an
through Prophets, recorded in Bible
through Prophets and Jesus (as God Himself), recorded in Bible
view of sacred text
inspired, literal word of God, inerrant in original languages
views vary
inspired, some believe inerrant in original languages
human nature
equal ability to do good or evil
two equal impulses, one good and one bad
"original sin" inherited from Adam - tendency towards evil
means of salvation
correct belief, good deeds, Five Pillars
belief in God, good deeds
correct belief, faith, good deeds, sacraments (some Protestants emphasize faith alone)
God's role in salvation
divine revelation and forgiveness
predestination, various forms of grace
good afterlife
eternal paradise
views vary: either heaven or no afterlife
eternal heaven
bad afterlife
eternal hell
views vary: either eternal Gehenna, reincarnation, or no afterlife
eternal hell, temporary purgatory (Catholicism)
view of fellow Abrahamic religions
Jews and Christians are respected as "People of the Book," but they have wrong beliefs and only partial revelation.
Islam and Christianity are false interpretations and extensions of Judaism.
Judaism is a true religion, but with incomplete revelation. Islam is a false religion.


While it is true that there are points we agree on, there are some points that are irreconciably different.

2. Honesty of Muhommad

Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka'b). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." (Bukhari 59:369)

Allah's Apostle said] "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." (Bukhari 49:857)

When they came to him they spoke to him and made him promises, treating him well, saying that if he would come to the apostle, he would give him an appointment and honor him. They kept on at him until he went with them with a number of Jews… [Once the Jews were disarmed] all the apostles’ companions fell upon their Jewish companions and killed them except one man who escaped on his feet. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 981).

Thoe Hadith clearly states that one is able to LIE in certain circumstances. Is it ever okay to lie? How do I know you're not lying about your religion?
It is clear Muhommad was not a moral man (i.e. one of his 12+ wifes was 9 years old!)

Peophilia is permitted.

The legitimacy of “marrying” pre-pubescent girls who have not yet had their “monthly courses” is established both in the Qur’an and in the "perfect example" set by Muhammad for his Muslim followers.

The Qur'an:

Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same) (65:4)

The rule concerns divorce, which obviously implies marriage. Muhammad wanted believing men to observe a three month waiting period before evicting their wives, to make sure that they weren’t pregnant.

Muhammad elsewhere encouraged his men to marry “young girls” for sexual pleasure:

"Allah's Apostle said to me, "Have you got married O Jabir?" I replied, "Yes." He asked "What, a virgin or a matron?" I replied, "Not a virgin but a matron." He said,"Why did you not marry a young girl who would have fondled with you?" (Bukhari59:382)

Lest there be any doubt by what he meant by “young,” Muhammad set the example by marrying and having sex with Aisha when she was only 9-years-old:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: “Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine.” (Sahih Muslim 3309) This is confirmed in many other hadith as well.

According to the most reliable traditions, Aisha brought her dolls to Muhammad’s house for play (Muslim 3341) and he would fondle the little girl in the tub while taking baths with her (Bukhari 6:298). Aisha was just a teenager by the time Muhammad died, but she had already spent over half her life in marriage to him

Even worse for Muslims is that part of the Qur’an was actually “revealed” while Muhammad was in bed with this little girl:

[Muhammad said] "…the Divine Inspirations do not come to me on any of the beds except that of Aisha." (Bukhari 47:755)

[Muhammad] said, “Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn’t it time that you recognize that I am Allah’s apostle?” He (Abu Sufyan) answered, “As to that I still have some doubt.” I (the narrator) said to him, “Submit and testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of Allah before you lose your head,” so he did so. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 814)

3:151 We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed.Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers.

Does this sound like a moral and righteouss man to you?

2. Many people claim to have recieved revelations from God. That doesn't mean they did.

3. No evidence the Koran had a human author

So if the book is anonymous, are we suppose to automatically claim that G-d wrote it? I would also LOVE to see your sources!

3. OT valids the prophet

The problem is that those prophecies are so vague anyone can fulfill them. Christians claim it was Jesus!
The truth: that prophet was none other than JOSHUAH! If you go through the Book of Joshuah you CLEARLY SEE that it was HIM that was raised up. Muhommad never sinned in Islamic theology; guess what? MOSES SINNED!


My opponent took a Jewish verse out of context and applied it to someone it was not meant to be applied to. In addition, his sources never added up because those sources had no sources of their own. Therefore, I urge a strong vote for pro!



In this round, I will rebut my opponent's opening arguments against Islam, as well as refute his objections in the third round if there is enough room for that.


Contention 1: The Qur'an states that the Torah, Bible, and the Qur'an from from God

When making a statement about an event, the grammar can imply that the event is past tense or present tense. If I say that it rained, but the sky is clear and blue, then I am speaking of two events: the former (i.e., it rained) is described using the past tense of "to rain," while "the sky is clear" is described using the present tense of "to be." Clearly the rain does not happen while the sky is clear, since "it rained" suggests that it happened in the past, while "the sky is clear" suggests that it is happening right now.

[Qur'an 7:154] When the anger of Moses was appeased, he took up the tablets: in the writing thereon was guidance and Mercy for such as fear their Lord.

There's a clear distinction between the Torah in its original form, and the Torah we have today. Muslims do not have to believe in the current Torah. What the Qur'an says is that we have to believe that the Torah was sent by God, but nowhere does it make it necessary for a Muslim to believe in the current Torah whatsoever.

Additionally, my opponent asks whether or not I know that God said in the Torah that He would preserve His Word. This doesn't matter at all, because I am not forced to believe in the Torah in order to be a Muslim. If I wish to, I can accept the parts which agree with Islam. In fact, one does not have to pick between the Qur'an and the Torah, but accept that while we take the Qur'an as the highest priority and the verbatim word of God, we can still believe in the parts of Torah that are deemed as true by Islam.

Nevertheless, the Word of God is in no way merely the physical Word of God. The Torah doesn't claim that the written word will remain written and unchanged. It rather says that the Word of God will be preserved, but that is possible in many ways. Imagine I have a message that people should hear of. If I say it will be preserved, why does the message have to be preserved in only say, one essay or one book? Why can it not be preserved in the minds of people and be passed on orally throughout generations?

Clearly God's Word can be preserved without the Torah being preserved. The Torah contains words of God, but is not the Word of God. In fact, since the Qur'an has never been altered (so that we cannot distinguish between the original and the fake), it is easy for Muslims to argue that the Word of God was passed on from being written in the Torah to being written in the Gospel, and lastly to be written in the Qur'an. So if one changes a word in the written form of the Qur'an, that doesn't actually change God's divine Word. Just like if someone manipulates a picture of me, he doesn't actually manipulate me (i.e., my essence), but a reflection of myself.

The contention is affirmed in its true meaning: The Qur'an accepts that it is from God, while the Injeel and the Torah were from God.

Contention 2: The Qur'an is wrong in the formation of the sperm

The more reasonable interpretation of this contention should be: The Qur'an is wrong about the location of the emission of the sperm. I have many objections to my opponent's contention (which is a myth, not a fact). I will split the responses into several points.

P1: Wrong interpretation by Pro

Pro states that the male testicles are far below the backbone and the ribs. While this is true, it has nothing to with the Qur'anic verse. The Qur'an doesn't say that the sperm gushes out, but the semen, which contains sperm but no more than 5% of it. The fact is that sperm mixes with seminal fluids before is gushes out from the penis, and this fluid is referred to in the Qur'an as "water gushing out." There is not a single mentioning of specifically sperm, how it is produced, where it is formed, etc. On the other hand, the Arabic word "Maain" is simply used to refer to the entire fluid that gushes out of the body after the seminal fluids and the sperm have been mixed.

Furthermore, it is laughable how those who object to the Qur'anic verse by scientific means actually have a scientifically wrong opinion on the matter too. Fact is, the semen is neither stored nor produced in the testicles. The sperm is. Those two fluids mix somewhere in/near the abdomen, which is far above the testicles (which Pro agrees with).

P2: Semen becomes a full mixture in the abdomen

Sperm has to travel through a complex process before it mixes with the seminal fluids and can finally gush out from the body. Take a look at the following picture and description of the process:

More specifically, read this carefully (from same source):

P3: "Between" is not a mathematical term

Definition of between: in, to, through or across the space dividing two people, places, times etc [1]

One will have a hard time finding a strict mathematical definition of this term. The fact is that something can be between two objects even though it is not directly between them with the strictest measurements. The space which separates two objects, as is clear by definition, is referred to as 'between.' Look at this: Notice how the lower square is not directly between the left and right ones at all, but there is nothing wrong with saying that it is between them, because clearly the space between the left and right square is 'between.'

There's more to say. Even in mathematics, one can deal with approximates. The number 0.999 is often referred to as 1. The number Pi is often shortened to 3,14, even though it has far more decimals. Are all the mathematical tests which say that Pi should be used as 3,14 wrong? Not the least. It is an approximate number, thereby a correct one too.

P4: The area between the chest and the backbone contains the abdomen

As I have made evident, the space dividing two objects is called 'between.' If one takes a simple look at the human body, it is clear that the main front part is the chest (i.e., ribs) and the main back part is the backbone.

So since we can deal with approximates in mathematics and science, there's nothing wrong with the Qur'an stating that the semen gushes out from the area between the chest and the back. The entire space goes down to almost the testicles, hence it is totally correct to refer to it as the Qur'an does. Remember, your head is not directly between your shoulders either - but to say that it is is actually correct.

Contention 3: The Qur'an contradicts itself

There are two words in play here: contradiction and contradistinction. By definition, a contradiction is a logical impossibility, where two opposites are true at the same time (while they cannot be). However, a contradistinction is a term used to distinct between two different things, which can be true at the same time, but are used to contrast one another.

For instance, it is a contradiction to say that the human body consists of bones and at the same time say that the human body does not consist of bones at all. It is illogical. A contradistinction, however, is for example Pro coming to me with one question over 3 years, and I give different answers all three times: Mirza, what does the human body consist of?

1st year: Bones
2nd year: Flesh
3rd year: Water

Although every year I give different answers, none of them are contradictory, nor are they mutually exclusive. We consist of bones, flesh, water, but not only of either one of them. Similarly, the Qur'an says we were created from nothing (period before clay), then God created life/humans from clay, which continued through sperm. All of these are true.

Clay creation:
Water creation:

And naturally, sperm. Science agrees with Islam, and there's no contradiction.


Debate Round No. 3


Thank you again for your quick reply.

Contention 1: The Koran states that the Torah, Bible, and the Qur'an from God

The problem here is you haven't demonstrated ONE TIME where the Torah was corrupted. I would love to know how it was corrupted, who corrupted it, and under what basis you have to make the claim the Torah is corrupt.

1) Many texts go unchanged such as the writings of Divine Marquis. They remain exactly as the day they were written [1] I ask you, how does the 'fact' that the Koran was unchanged prove the Koran is divine?

2) In fact, there ARE corruptions of the Koran [2] [3]

Contention 2: The Qur'an is wrong in the formation of the sperm

Actually, the abdomen is located between the thorax and the pelvis. [4] Furthermore, sperms as I keep telling my opponent, sperms originate in the testicles [5] [6] [7] This is a process called "Spermatogenesis" [8] [9]

Notice that one of the sources you used [10] is actually to my advantage. Nowhere does it use the word, "Abdomen" nor does it have any sources itself; therefore, it is more of an "invalid" source as it is unreliable.

(More rebuttals coming later to conserve space).

Contention 3: The Qur'an contradicts itself

My opponent has answered just ONE of the contradictions and thus the others stand. He claims that it is a "Contradistinction" rather than a "Contradiction."

The problem is Koran 19:67 claims that it is out of nothing. How do you rationalise that?


My opponent has not answered all of my objections due to space.
My opponent has not answered many of my contradictions.
My opponent has failed to show how any of the Torah was corrupted.
My opponent failed to show why we should not believe in the Torah.

**Remember: This is the final round to respond to my claims. Next round is summary and reason for voting**
**The reason I kept this so short is to give you the max space to reply**



1. Conception of God

My opponent doesn't differentiate between the concept of God in Islam and Judaism and the actual scriptures. We agree that the scriptures have different teachings - hence we differentiate between Islam and Judaism. But what we believe is from God (i.e., scripture) is different to believing who God is in essence. Thus it is easy to conclude that both Judaism and Islam accept the same concept of God. However, we might have different understanding of how God might act in certain cases. Follow carefully below.

2. Honesty of the Prophet

Pro doesn't understand that there is a heavy difference between lying and not telling the truth without intending to do evil. Take self-defense as an instance. If you kill a person in strict self-defense, then your intention is not evil, hence you cannot rationally be called a murderer. I cannot believe that my opponent criticized a very moral and stunning hadith of the Prophet. He who invents good information in order to reconcile good bonds between two groups of people is not recognized as a liar according to Islam. What's wrong with this? Please explain to me how this is wrong and deceitful (i.e., a lie) in any way. You don't do it to deceive, but to stop evil from occurring between people. This doesn't make you a liar, hence the Prophet allowing Muslims to invent good information in order to pick the lesser of two evils is not making him a liar or anyone else for that matter.

Moreover, notice the hypocrisy involved where my opponent criticizes Islam for alleged hatred against disbelievers, yet the hadith of the Prophet never differentiates between reconciling bonds between Muslims or between non-Muslims too. That's peaceful, not hateful. Furthermore, the man Ka'ab which Pro mentions was a great enemy of Islam and Muslims, and it was necessary to kill him - hence the Prophet allowed using false information to enable killing that man. This is a military strategy, which Pro seems to be unaware of. He also seems to be unaware of the Islamic history.

The Prophet never allowed lying about what Islam teaches, nor does the Qur'an allow such a thing. The reason why not telling the truth is permitted in certain cases is because it is deemed as the far lesser evil. It is better to say one untrue thing that can create peace rather than to speak the truth and create disputes between people. My arguments are firm, Pro has failed to prove anything.

3. Pedophilia

This point is completely irrelevant, since the debate topic is "Islam and Judaism." Pro, again, doesn't understand Islamic history. It was necessary for the Prophet to marry a young female (i.e., Aisha). She played a huge role in aiding the Prophet, being a scholar of Islam, narrating words of the Prophet, and so on. She was the daughter of the Prophet's companion Abu Bakr, who allowed his daughter to marry the Prophet. Moreover, nobody objected to the Prophet's marriage - not even his enemies. The fact is that Aisha was matured, stable, and her age was normal marital age 14 centuries ago. She was never harmed nor was the marriage an act of "pedophilia" since the Prophet had much older wives and had good relations with them.

Now, one thing my opponent will have to do is wash his hands of the hypocrisy he seems to indulge in. He will have to explain how in [Numbers 31:18], little girls were kept alive for the sake of male satisfaction. I'd also like to hear the justification of the atrocious statement found in [Samuel 15:3]. Moreover, Pro seems to not having read the Old Testament. Has he heard of Solomon, who was a Prophet with many wives? Furthermore, I would love to see a prohibition of polygamy in the Old Testament. [Exodus 21:10] commands a man to treat his first wife properly if he marries more women, so we have limitations of polygamy - not a prohibition of the idea. The Qur'an on the other hand allows maximum four wives, and only one if a man cannot treat many wives justly. Find the ruling "marry only one wife" in the Old Testament.

4. Brilliance of the Qur'an

My opponent did not touch upon my claims about the superb consistency of the Qur'an. The fact is that the Qur'an has never been corrupted. The Old Testament has. [1] The Qur'an is not scientifically inaccurate at any point - the Old Testament is. Read [Proverbs 6:6-8] which implies that ants have no commanders among their flock. Recall also the known story of the global flood which supposedly took place a few centuries BC - no such thing happened, no such thing is scientifically verified. On the contrary, it is scientifically criticized.

The Qur'an is superior to the Old Testament in any aspect. The scientific [2][3] superiority is most significant. Dr. Maurice Bucaille wrote in his book The Bible, the Qur'an, and Science, "Why should we be surprised at this when we know that, for Islam, religion and science have always been considered twin sisters? From the very beginning, Islam directed people to cultivate science; the application of this precept brought with it the prodigious strides in science taken during the great era of Islamic civilization, from which, before the Renaissance, the West itself benefited." The same cannot be argued for Judaism. It has never been known to be very compatible with science.

Moreover, in the Qur'an you don't find contradictions between God's character and God's commands. In the Old Testament, God commands slaughter of children and other innocent people. I refer to the passages I gave above. There are pornographic passages, which God clearly condemns. What is the necessity of [Ezekiel 23:20-23]? Who put such nonsensical pornography into what you call the book of God? All of this tells us that the Old Testament cannot be entirely from God. Words of men were added into it. God neither gets science wrong, nor does He contradict His own moral character.

Back to the contentions.

Contention 1: The Koran states that the Torah, Bible, and the Qur'an from God

The Torah was corrupted by people who added their own words to suit their own views of religion. [Jeremiah 8:8] confirms this: "'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

The Jewish temple of Herod was destroyed in the year 70 AD, which resulted in the loss of many ancient scriptures. Moreover, when it comes to the preservation of the Qur'an, there are many points to make about this. Not only is the book unchanged, but it is preserved longer than any other book ever has. Sure, we do find ancient tablets - but these are neither full (only partial) nor are they actual books. A few letters are not hard to preserve. Additionally, Sir William Muir, a huge opponent of Islam, noted that "There is probably in the world no other book which has remained twelve (now fourteen) centuries with so pure a text."

The source my opponent showed to prove that the Qur'an is corrupted is laughable. It shows nothing about scriptural changes, but misquotes hadith to show that there are missing parts of the Qur'an. This, however, is not argued by my opponent, hence I will not waste space rebutting his sources.

Contention 2: The Qur'an is wrong in the formation of the sperm

My opponent speaks of sperm. He doesn't read what I write properly. I said semen is referred to as "water gushing out" and this is not about the origination of sperm. He says my source doesn't mention abdomen - please see for yourselves:

Contention 3: The Qur'an contradicts itself

"Nothing" means a lot. I was nothing before I was born, although I was a fetus. No contradiction. It is a form of expression. Moreover, the Qur'an limits its explanation so it doesn't go on forever. Before we were humans, sperm, water, clay, we were nothing. Plain simple.

More on this part soon.




Debate Round No. 4


GMDebater forfeited this round.


The forfeit is a shame, especially because my opponent had really lame reasons for forfeiting. In this round I will post short final rebuttals and give a conclusion.


Contention 3: The Qur'an contradicts itself

Clearly I have proved that the Qur'an does not contradict itself when it speaks of what God created humankind from. It is highly reasonable for God to explain things in contrast to one another, so that we do not have a mere science book from Him but a book that is more meaningful. When God says that humans were created from nothing, that clearly means a lot of things. One should first understand that the Qur'an is a poetic book in its entirety. It rhymes from the beginning to the end, although it is not grammatically classified as a poem. Therefore, it is not wrong for the Qur'an to use common and short expressions to clarify certain things for humankind.

Moreover, it is highly unreasonable to suggest that the Qur'an should explain everything to the smallest detail. If you keep on asking what X is created from, then what Y is created from, etc., you will get an infinite number of answers. The book wouldn't be a book with all the information. It would be a mountain. Clearly that is not what God would want for the sake of guiding humans. Thus He limits the explanation to mentioning the core components of the body, i.e., minerals, water, etc. Imagine God saying that water was created from, then what the components of water were created from, then what the components originate from, etc. It would be useless and irrelevant information contained in the Book of God. In a clear sequence, humans are described as being created by:

1. Nothing: God neither used specific tools to create, nor is there need to name the origination of the components in the Universe.

2. Water/clay: Life originated from water, and science suggests clay played a role too. The Qur'an refers to clay as "fine extracts from earth," i.e., minerals that are necessary for life.

3. Sperm etc.: This is common sense.

Is the Qur'an abrogated?

Another alleged contradiction my opponent mentioned was that in some places, God says that His words cannot change, yet God changes one verse with another one. This is an interesting debate topic in itself, and Muslims scholars have made much research on what the concept of abrogation means in the Qur'an. To sum it up, the major interpretations of the Qur'anic verse 16:101 are:

1. God replaced the earlier ayat/signs (i.e., Torah, Psalm, Injeel) with the Qur'an. The Qur'an is considered to be better because God's word is preserved in it. 16:101 says that if God lets one of His books get corrupted, He will easily replace it with something better. This, as I explained, doesn't mean God's actual Word is corrupted, but the reflection of His word, which can easily be replaced.

2. The Qur'an has verses which add further detail to one another, hence God mentions that when He reveals a verse to replace another one in meaning. This goes deep into the history of the Qur'an. It was revealed in a period of around 23 years, verse for verse (or in combinations). Muslims established their own ideological community and followed Shari'a, even when they lived in areas ruled by non-Muslims. The Arabs were often very drunk, fornicating, and so on. The Qur'an came with a remedy for them: convert to Islam by free choice.

Now, if a person converts to Islam, his lifestyle might be changed a lot. The Arabs who were alcoholics had to find a remedy for their diseases, hence the Qur'anic verse of the prohibition of alcohol for the Muslims (not non-Muslims, they don't follow Shar'ia):

[Qur'an 4:43] "O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say."

So at this point, the Qur'an merely forbad Muslims from being intoxicated before/until prayer. Then God replaced/substituted this verse with another, not to change it, but to add more meaning to it.

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

At this point the Qur'an clarified that the benefits of alcohol are outweighed by the negative effects of it. In Islam, anything that is more harmful than beneficial is per se forbidden. Finally, the Qur'an altogether forbad intoxicants for the Muslims.

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

Clearly, the abrogations in the Qur'an concerning one example (i.e., prohibition of alcohol) are not examples of God's words being changed. It is scientifically proven that alcoholism, for instance, is best cured in stages, and not in an instant full absence. Thus the Qur'an did a good thing to give a safe guidance to people who loved alcohol instead of saying immediately that they must stop drinking after subjecting themselves freely to Islamic Law.

God forgiving sins

Does God forgive all sins except shirk (assigning partners to God)? Yes. The Qur'an clearly mentions, though, that in this life people can be forgiven for anything if they repent or sincerely regret sinning prior to death. Even after death, a person might be forgiven by God in the Hereafter - but if he has not repented from shirk, then he will not be forgiven. So there are two stages of forgiveness, and God distinguishes between them.


I believe that Pro has not come with any significant evidence for the religion of Judaism. He simply attacked Islam. I made it clear that the Old Testament is not fully reliable, is not fully from God, and is in no way superior to the Qur'an. I have also clarified that the Qur'an is a very unique book, and more unique than the Old Testament. The debate is not about whether or not this proves God's existence - but whether Islam is a more true religion than Judaism. My opponent has not refuted many arguments, has forfeited the last debate round, and has not made any good case for Judaism.

Vote fairly from the heart.
Debate Round No. 5
53 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mirza 5 years ago
I'm not debating... reincarnations of my earlier opponents.
Posted by Curt 5 years ago
con, I'd take ya up on this!
Posted by thett3 5 years ago
he was going to leave anyway, and he got caught plagiarising (see my debate with him on God) and so he left earlier.
Posted by jat93 5 years ago
What happened to this guy?????? Finally there was another intelligent Jew on the site and then he leaves =/
Posted by baggins 5 years ago
It is interesting to see that Mirza has made full efforts to debate against some solid plagiarism. However, I think it is akin to what we call in Hindi as 'Patthar Par Sar Maarna' (Contesting stones with head).

It should be an auto win for him, as long as he bothers to point out that each of the Pro's round consist of pure copy-paste.
Posted by GMDebater 5 years ago
Thanks. Con needs to do a TON in the next round for debate.
Posted by jat93 5 years ago
Interesting to see an argument from a Jewish perspective. Don't see a whole lot of that around here. Some guy (truthseeker613) came along and started some Jewish debates but he hasn't been around in months. Cool.
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Again, if you feel that you do not like debate comments you should choose a different medium for debate.
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Feel free to challenge me whenever you feel ready.

Also, which Church should I attend? The sissy Churches or the Catholic Churches that gave it back as good as they got?
Posted by Mirza 5 years ago
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by harrytruman 9 months 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Islam is evil!
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit...What a shame, Mirza and GMDebater both did good jobs in the presentation of their arguments.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: plagirism and ff
Vote Placed by ohnoyoulost 5 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 5 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by thett3 5 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, what a shame.