The Quaran is not God's Word
Debate Rounds (5)
The Quran Contradicts Scientific Facts
For example, the Quran says that the sun set in a muddy spring. To begin with, not all translations say that the sun sets in a muddy spring. Certain translations of surah 18:86 speak of the sun setting in a black sea. Compare the following two translations:
Until when he reached THE PLACE WHERE THE SUN SET, he found IT GOING DOWN INTO a black sea, and found by it a people. We said: O Zulqarnain! either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit" Until when he reached the land of the rising of the sun, he found IT RISING on a people to whom We had given no shelter from It; Surah 18:86, 90 Shakir
Until, when he reached THE SETTING OF THE SUN, he found IT SET IN a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness"" Until, when he came to the rising of the sun, he found IT RISING on a people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun. Yusuf Ali
Note that the text does not say that the sun appeared to be setting in a black sea or what have you. The text clearly says the Zul-Qarnain found THE PLACE where the sun actually sets and rises.
Since the earth is a globe, and the sun millions of miles away from the earth (150 million kilometers on average over the year), the setting of the sun always appears to take place far away, somewhere on or behind the horizon. In phenomenological language it may still be acceptable to speak of "the place where the sun sets" when it is done from the view point of someone who is far away from this place. For example, a traveler could say that he was moving in direction of "where the sun is setting." However, the Quran goes beyond what is possible in phenomenological language when it states that Zul-Qarnain reached the place where the sun sets, i.e. the Quran is speaking of a human being who traveled to the place of the setting of the sun. Such a statement is is wrong in any kind of language, since such a place does not exist on this earth. This is a serious error that was introduced into the Quran because the author mistook a legend to be literal and historical truth.
The Quran Contradicts Itself
According to several passages in the Quran, Muhammad was the first Muslim:
Say: Shall I choose for a protecting friend other than Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, Who feedeth and is never fed? Say: I am ordered to be the first to surrender [aslama] (unto Him). And be not thou (O Muhammad) of the idolaters. S. 6:14 Pickthall
Say, verily my Lord hath directed me into a right way, a true religion, the sect of Abraham the orthodox; and he was no idolater. Say, verily my prayers, and my worship, and my life, and my death are dedicated unto God, the Lord of all creatures: He hath no companion. This have I been commanded: I am the first Moslem (Wa 'Ana 'Awwalu Al-Muslimin). S. 6:161-163 Sale
He hath no associate. This am I commanded, and I am the first of the Muslims. S. 6:163 Rodwell
Say (O Muhammad): Lo! I am commanded to worship Allah, making religion pure for Him (only). And I am commanded to be the first of those who are muslims (surrender unto Him). S. 39:11-12 Pickthall
This is contradicted by both the Quran and various Islamic traditions which refer to the presence of true believers both before and during Muhammad"s alleged "call" to prophethood. The Quran mentions that Adam, Noah, the Patriarchs, the twelve tribes of Israel, Moses, Jesus etc., were all believers and many of them even messengers who lived a long time before Muhammad: S. 2:30, 34-35, 37; 4:163; 6:84; 2:127-133; 5:110-111; 22:78
When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples: "We are Allah's helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims. S. 3:52
Ibrahim was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was (an) upright (man), a Muslim (musliman), and he was not one of the polytheists. S. 3:67 Shakir
Contradicting all of this is the claim that Moses was the first Moslem:
And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe." S. 7:143
There is no record in history of any Islam existing as a religion before the 7th century with the coming of Muhammad. Jesus and his disciples never claimed to be Muslims, nor did any of OT saints like Abraham, David, etc.
"Islam began in the early-7th century. Originating in Mecca, it quickly spread in the Arabian peninsula and by the 8th century the Islamic empire was extended from Iberia in the west to the Indus river in the east." https://en.wikipedia.org... Thus, the Quaran is basically lying when it claims that Jesus and other men of faith before Christ were Muslims. We have thousands of documents from the 1st to the 6th century CE from Roman, Jewish, Greek and Christian writers who mention the existence of Christians, Gnostics, Jews, Essenes, and many other groups, but no reference to any Muslims. They didn't exit. Surely, had they existed, they would have left evidence behind of their existence.
Muhammad, who gave Muslims the Quaran was a Pedophile/Pervert
Muhammad married and had intercourse with a 9 year old girl. No genuine man of God would have sex with a minor. God would not want such a man as his prophet:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64; see also Numbers 65 and 88)
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. According to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 41, Number 4915)
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) used to kiss her and suck her tongue when he was fasting. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 13, Number 2380)
3. 'Aishah bint Abu Bakr: He married her in the eleventh year of Prophethood, a year after his marriage to Sawdah, and two years and five months before Al-Hijra. She was six years old when he married her. However, he did not consummate the marriage with her till Shawwal seven months after Al-Hijra, and that was in Madinah. She was nine then. She was the only virgin he married, and the most beloved creature to him. As a woman she was the most learn"d woman in jurisprudence. (Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (THE SEALED NECTAR) Biography of the Noble Prophet, [Maktaba Dar-us-Salam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition 1995], "The Prophetic Household", p. 485)
This fatwah talks about Muhammad's intercourse with her:
It has not been the practice of the Muslims throughout the centuries to resort to this unlawful practice that has come to our countries from pornographic movies that the kufar (infidels) and enemies of Islam send. As for the prophet, peace and prayer of Allah be upon him, thighing his fianc"e Aisha. She was six years of age and he could not have intercourse with her due to her small age. That is why [the prophet] peace and prayer of Allah be upon him placed HIS [MALE] MEMBER BETWEEN HER THIGHS AND MASSAGED IT SOFTLY, as the apostle of Allah had control of his [male] member not like other believers.. (Source: http://www.sout-al-haqe.com...)
The disgusting action which the fatwah describes is allowed to all other Sunni Muslims:
In Surah 19:67, it states that man was created out of nothing. In 15:26, man is created from clay. Since clay is something, we have a contradiction since "nothing" excludes the possibility of "clay." Both cannot be true.
These quotes from the Qur'an are from Yusuf Ali and can be found at http://www.cmje.org...
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). A full discussion of these verses is at this link http://www.answering-islam.org... Since God doesn't contradict himself, the Quran can't be the word of an infallible God.
Does Allah forgive or not forgive those who worship false gods?
1."Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; 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).
We also have no reason whatsoever to think that the Quran is God's word. I will leave it up to Con to show me proof that it is.
1- since you started this debate, it means that you don't believe Quran to be word of God. so, if I were to prove to you otherwise, would you quit Christianity and Accept Islam? if that's the case, i would gladly prove you're wrong.
2- since I don't really want to waste my time and yours, if something is presented logically, i expect you to accept it.
3- no cursing each others religion or calling names.
if you agree, let's start, and know this, you will LOSE. because if you accept Christianity in which God wrestles Jacob and accept the historians of 2000 years ago, i can prove with 100 times more accuracy that Quran is the true and unchanged word of God.
and our last debate hasn't ended yet. i just was posting other things and didn't really have time to answer.
As for your diatribe about logic, the truth is this; what seems logical to one person is nonsense to another person and vice versa. It's really up to the voters to decide what they see as logical to them and what they don't. I, for example, see it as logical that since God is all-powerful, he can do anything He wants, such as be in two places at the same time. Thus He can be Father in heaven and Son on earth at the same time. After all, scientists have observed that even a particle can do this - be in more than one place at once. To you this seems illogical.
So I will have just one rule. Let's not ignore the points raised by each other like how you ignored all my arguments just to lay out your desired rules. You might not like my answers, and I might not like yours, but at least lets agree to answer each others points, and let the voters and readers decide what they think of the answers.
You may answer according to how you feel, but I will always bring documented facts like I did in the opening round. I agree to use logic, that is, what I see as logical. You do the same. But I have no burden of proving Christianity or the Bible in this debate. It seems that your book is so weak, that you can't prove it without comparing it to mine. If you choose to make this debate about the Bible you won't have proven anything about the Quran except your inability to defend its lies.
In any case, whatever argument you bring I will easily show the refutation. I have a feeling you're gonna find some excuse to run from this debate, but if you do, at least the evidence has already been posted for all and sundry to see. Strangely, you usually can't resist debating in the comments section, so why not do the official thing here?
this is a way to prove and define god
1- answering these questions with prove that god exists:
1-1 do u exist? (answer would be yes, otherwise we can ask who was the thing that posted that question in the first place)
1-2 if u and me and the world and trees and other things exist, so there is a thing called existence right? (the answer to this is also yes)
1-3 are you the existence or just a manifestation of it? (if u say I'm the existence, then it means if you die, everything will cease to exist, so the answer is no)
1-4 are you and existence separated? (the answer would be no, because everything that you do or think or have exist, so you are not separated).
1-5 is existence limited or unlimited? (if you say limited, then i would ask what is it limited to? the only think that can limit existence is inexistence, and inexistence does not exist, so it can not limit existence. (like if i were to say, i threw a rock in the air, it hit nothing and dropped dead, you would say how can it hit with nothing and fall down? nothing does not exist (pay attention))
1-6 existence that is unlimited, has all the power, knowledge, understanding, kindness, ... because all of these exist and are manifestations of existence.
1-7 existence can not be separated, because the only thing that can separate existence which is not it, can be inexistence, and as we said before, inexistence does not exist.
1-8 the existence that everything are manifestations of it and nothing is it, and has all the great attributes like power, knowledge, vision, understanding, kindness, beauty, ... , which can not be separated (meaning it has no son or daughter) is what we know as Allah, or God.
"the Quran says that the sun set in a muddy spring." he found it set in a spring of murky water". in this verse, Quran is talking about Zul-qarnain and his travels and findings. he traveled to the east and west of the world, and helped people. and says that he found it set in a spring of murky water. since it's talking about his understanding of the incident, how can you prove that this is against logic?!"
when you say you find something logical, it means that according to what you know and definition of logic to you, that thing appeared logical to you. and when Quran says he Found it ... means that it appeared to him that way.
"Quran goes beyond what is possible in phenomenological language when it states that Zul-Qarnain reached the place where the sun sets"
even today, japan is known as the country of rising sun. it reflects in their flag as well.
and as for prophets calling themselves Muslims, you got to know by now that Islam means to be obedient to God. as since all prophets and all faithful people of all times were so, they were all Muslims.
and as the prophets who call themselves the First Muslim, it means among the people who they are sent to guide, they are the most obedient towards god and the first one in their people who truly believe in God.
" Muhammad, who gave Muslims the Quran was a Pedophile/Pervert"
answering this calmly in hard, though i try.
pedophile: this was answered before in our first debate, though you apparently went past it. or understood it and just didn't want to agree with it.
there are different claims about the age of Aisha when she married Muhammad, and it varies between 9 and 19. also Aisha's father asked Muhammad. to marry his daughter. does it no mean that the girl was deemed ready to be married?. also, "Narrated 'Aisha:"
Aisha was daughter of AbuBakr, and AbuBakr was the person who participated in the killing of Fatima, daughter of Muhammad, and the person who took caliphate for himself contrary to Muhammad's command. also, Aisha is the person who plotted and fought against Ali in his 5 year of ruling Islam as Imam.
also, all these things you mention are from Sunni books. there was a very famous debate between a Shia and a group of Sunni clerics in the presence of Gandhi, called nights of Pishawar, after which a large group of those Sunnis became Shia.
also, the things that you Quote from Aisha doesn't make sense and contradicts the most basic teachings of Islam. "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) used to kiss her and suck her tongue when he was fasting. " i don't know if you guys fast or not, but when you fast, you can't eat or drink or ... . and also, a single person quoting something about an incident in Islam is never taken as truth.
and as for that fatwa about intercourse.
you can create a website, and post something as fatwa. that does not make your words true. there are a lot of people in the world who are trying to demonize Islam. i am a shia Muslim and live in Iran, yet if you search Shia Muslim in Google image, you see things that i have never seen in my entire life nor believe to be a part of Shia Islam.
and as for the creation of man. God first created Man while it didn't exist. as he created world while i didn't exist. man and everything else are created from nothing in this general sense.
yet, after god created heaven and earth, he started creation of man. body of first man (adam) was created from dust, which formed with water and made clay. after the creation of Adam and Eve, other humans are created with earthly rules, and through courtship. after courtship, semen and ovum (ovule?) come together and create the first cell which passes through different stages in the womb. "Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!"
Does Allah forgive or not forgive those who worship false gods?
according to Quran, if one can repent from worshiping the false gods before his death, other sins might be forgiven. but if you can't, polytheism will not be forgiven.
which goes like this according to Quran:
"Those who reject Allah, and hinder (men) from the Path of Allah, then die rejecting Allah,- Allah will not forgive them."
and as for accepting repentance :
"O ye who believe! Turn to Allah with sincere repentance: In the hope that your Lord will remove from you your ills and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow,- the Day that Allah will not permit to be humiliated the Prophet and those who believe with him. Their Light will run forward before them and by their right hands, while they say, "Our Lord! Perfect our Light for us, and grant us Forgiveness: for Thou hast power over all things.""
We also have no reason whatsoever to think that the Quran is God's word. I will leave it up to Con to show me proof that it is.
well as i said elsewhere, an illiterate person bringing a book with complete consistency during 23 years, which is so beautiful in original language that people who fought against Muhammad, ordered their followers not to listen to it because they taught it was magic, a book which makes perfect sense and has no contradiction, talks about past and future, talks about Christianity and Judaism with way more logic and sense than why they have or had as their divine books ...
take a look at this "http://www.speed-light.info...;
Notice that Con is adding his own unfounded ideas to the text of the Quran in order to make it say what it is not sayin. The text is not a first person account where Zul-qarnain says "I found the sun set in a spring of muddy water." No, this is not Zul-qarnain giving his view of what happened. This is supposedly Allah's view of what happened, which is why it speaks of Zul-qarnain in the second person as "He." As I pointed out already, "the text does not say that the sun APPEARED to be setting in a black sea or what have you. The text clearly says the Zul-Qarnain found THE PLACE where the sun actually sets and rises." Con now denies what the Quran says by claiming it only APPEARED to Zul-qarnain that he had found the sun in a spring but it wasn't actually so; but the difficulty with his argument here is that the Quran also says that "he reached THE PLACE WHERE THE SUN SET." Now, its not even possible for it to APPEAR to a man that he has reached the place where the sun sets. The sun will always appear to be far ahead of you on the horizon, so it can't even APPEAR to be in the place where you are standing. So even this is a logical impossibility! This is just a good example of Con not believing what his holy book says and twisting it to make it sound more logical by adding things that it doesn't say.
That would be like me reading Alice in Wonderland and saying that the Rabbit only appeared to talk to Alice, but the story doesn't mean that it really did so. Or reading Lord of the Rings and saying the ring only appeared to Frodo to be magical, but the story doesn't really mean that. I suppose that Con believes then, that the new born baby Jesus only APPEARED to have a conversation with his mother Mary, but he really couldn't talk yet, right? But such is the nature of the mythological stories in the Quran.
Sura 19:22-25, 33-34 "So she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a remote place. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree. She said, "Oh, I wish I had died before this and was in oblivion, forgotten." But he called her from below her, "Do not grieve; your Lord has provided beneath you a stream. And shake toward you the trunk of the palm tree; it will drop upon you ripe, fresh dates....And peace is on me the day I was born and THE DAY I WILL DIE AND THE DAY I AM RAISED ALIVE." That is Jesus, the son of Mary."http://quran.com...
So since Con's logic was, Sura 18:86, 90 was about Zul-qarnain's travels, and it therefore written from his perspective, it only APPEARED TO HIM that he had found the place where the sun sets. Now to keep this same logic, since Sura 19:22-34 talks about Mary giving birth, its only written from her perspective so it only APPEARED TO HER that the infant Jesus was talking to her. Were Mary an Zul-qarnain on LSD? Were they high on drugs? Notice that Jesus says here that he will DIE and the RAISED TO LIFE, and yet, Muslim deny that Jesus was killed and resurrected. Even though all the historical evidence we have from the first century CE from the Gospels, roman historian Tactius, Jewish historian Josephus, and most of the world's historians today unanimously agree that Jesus was crucified! So here is a case where history has proven the doctrine of Islam to be wrong.
"The crucifixion of Jesus occurred in 1st century Judea, most probably between the years 30 and 33 AD. Jesus' crucifixion is described in the four canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament epistles, attested to by other ancient sources, and is established as an historical event confirmed by non-Christian sources...The baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion are considered to be two historically certain facts about Jesus. James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus. Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him. John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be. Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. Craig Blomberg states that most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable. Christopher M. Tuckett states that, although the exact reasons for the death of Jesus are hard to determine, one of the indisputable facts about him is that he was crucified....An early non-Christian reference to the crucifixion of Jesus is likely to be Mara Bar-Serapion's letter to his son, written sometime after AD 73 but before the 3rd century AD." https://en.wikipedia.org... So Islam is clearly not from God because it teaches against historical facts that we know to be true, and it contradicts itself: the Quran claiming Jesus would die an be resurrected, but Muslims denying that it happened even though we have proof. Even the Babylonian Talmud talks about Jesus' death in the first centuy AD, so who should we believe? All the most ancient sources for the life of Christ, or a man named Muhammad who came along 700 years later, who never met or knew Jesus, claiming to know what really happened without any proof?
Con says: "Islam means to be obedient to God. as since all prophets and all faithful people of all times were so, they were all Muslims." Well, the word Christian means "follower of Christ," so all of Jesus' dsicples then would have to be Christains by your own logic, yet you say they were Mulims.
Anyone can claim to be obedient to God, but that doesn't make them a Muslim. To be a Muslim you have to follow the doctrines taught in Islam. There was no Quran carrying Islamic doctrine anywhere in history before the 7th century. Moses and David worshipped Yahwerh, not Allah. They spoke Hebrew, not Arabic. These are known facts. In fact, the Jesus taught by Islam never existed. His name, according to the Quran, was I'sa (Al Imran 3:50, 84; Al Ma-idah 5:48) The real Jesus was never called Isa. In his own lifetime he was called Yeshua in Aramaic, and Iesous in Greek. Yeshua is itself a form of Hebrew Yehoshua", which means "the Lord is salvation". However Yehoshua" is normally given in English as Joshua. So Joshua and Jesus are variants of the same name. There is absolutely no evidence from the first century or at any time that Jesus ever received a book from God as is claimed in the Quran. (Al Am an 6:90) Muslims are trying to claim figures in Jewish and Christain history were Muslims without any evidence to support these claims in their Quran.
Con: "as the prophets who call themselves the First Muslim, it means among the people who they are sent to guide, they are the most obedient towards god and the first one in their people who truly believe in God."
When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: "O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee."... When he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the FIRST to believe." S. 7:143
Now, according to Con's explanation, this means Moses was the FIRST among his people to believe, right?
And We inspired the mother of Moses, saying: Suckle him and, when thou fearest for him, then cast him into the river and fear not nor grieve. Lo! We shall bring him back unto thee and shall make him (one) of Our messengers. S. 28:7
In the case of Moses" mother, she clearly received divine inspiration (and believed and obeyed it) before God spoke to Moses. So this again is a contradiction. And the fact that Con is just making this stuff up as an excuse is seen in the fact that Aaron already believed in Moses' time, and nowhere does the Quran recount when Moses first believed before Aaron. (Sura 26:12-17) The Quran also talks about Muslims in Egypt in the days of Moses who believed BEFORE Moses, so he was not the first, contradiction again. (40:28-35, 38-46 Y. Ali)
Con says that I'm quoting from Sunni books about Muhammad marrying Aisha when she was 9 years old, so what proof did he give that Sunni sources are unreliable? None. Sunni far outnumber Shias anyway. Also he claims there are different ages given for her, but what sources did he cite? None! Even somewhere between 9 and 19 still makes Muhammad a pervert. What right does a grown man have sexing a teenage girl? Yet this marriage is supposed to be approved by God! He says "a single person quoting something about an incident in Islam is never taken as truth." Its not a single person, but many Muslim historians and scholars of Islam like Sahih Al-Bukari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, Sunan Nasa'I, Sunan Ibn-I-Majah, Ibn Hisham, Al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir and many other respected Muslim historians. http://www.answering-islam.org...
You seem to be saying, it doesn't happen with most Muslims today, therefore it never happened with Muhammad. That's like denying slavery happened because its not practiced by most Christians today. So even if most Mulsims are not pedophiles, that doesn't disprove the histocial evidence that Muhammad was one.
Con tries to reconcile the Quran's conflicting creation accounts by saying Allah made the heaven and earth out of nothing, then made man out of dust. If man was made from DUST, then he wasn't made from NOTHING as the Quran claims he was. (19:67; 3:59) Creating heaven and earth from nothing doesn't show man was made from nothing because heaven and earth are not men. I'll finish my rebuttal next round
i will start from last, about Quran being a miracle. i presented a website that you could check to find out a couple of things about Quran being miracle. things that an illiterate man could never know 1400 years ago. you ignored it and didn't even mention it.
things about pathways in the sky, speed of light, wormholes, Secrets of Pyramids, percentage of land to sea on earth, female worker bees, evolution, expanding universe, skin nerves, water coming from space, human embryo, brain function, pulsars and black holes, Sex of Baby, Iron, could seeding, also numerical wonders of Quran, ...
compare these with the things Bible says and you'll find that you're using the wrong book bro:
God created Earth on day 1 entirely covered with water Genesis 1:2
it was all dry land until later when water sprout out from beneath Genesis 2:5-6
also, about God creating Man from nothing, and dust, and clay and .... i give you an example for you to understand.
if i say, this letter was written. you can ask me how? "if i were to answer you, by this pen, or by my hands, or by me, would this make it wrong?" creating heaven and earth from nothing, then starting the creation of Man from those, is like creating Man from nothing. they come one after the other. Example: A is made from B, and B is made from C , therefore A is made from C. world was created from nothing, Man was created from world, Mas was created from nothing. makes perfect sense and is actually very logical.
you say"the Zul-Qarnain found the place where the sun actually sets and rises". first of all, if you want to say that Quran is saying the place that Sun sets and rises are the same, i want your proof on that. or you just made that up? and also your proof for the word ACTUALLY too. i guess you can't do that too. no surprises there!
the translation of Quran: "Until when he reached the place where the sun set, he found it going down into a black sea, and found by it a people ...."
i said "when Quran says he Found it ... means that it APPEARED TO HIM that way"
indeed when Quran says he found ... it means that it appeared to him that way. but the first part of verse needs explanation "Until when he reached the place where the sun set". i provided an example: Japan, being called the country of rising sun, because it's the eastern piece of land in Asia, therefor sun rises from there first in Asia, hence the name. as for Quran, it means he was traveling, he reached a seashore, no further land was visible, (therefore the most westward piece of land he could go in that direction he was going) the sun set in the sea (word AIN is used for spring and sea and you can see both in this translation and previous one in my first post), he found the sun set in the sea... the example was ignored by you, again.
also i need your commend on the part i provided about God (1-1 to 1-8). please try to deny or break it if you can. if you don't answer this, i will know that you're just trying to move your goalposts in hope of finding something that would stick, which you can't.
"Con says that I'm quoting from Sunni books about Muhammad marrying Aisha when she was 9 years old, so what proof did he give that Sunni sources are unreliable? and what is my proof that they are False?"
if you don't even care about looking at the sources i provide, why even bother to ask questions in the first place?
first of all, i gave you this.
this is a very famous debate between a Shia and some Sunni clerics in the presence of Gandhi (citation needed), which at the end of it, many of those Sunnis became Shia.
read it and you'll find out about it.
"Sunni far outnumber Shias anyway."
is this supposed to make them right? atheists outnumber Christians, do you think they are right? this reasoning is shallow and weak as usual.
and as for age of Aisha when marrying Muhammad. i did more research (thanks to you) and i can prove to you that you're wrong. (sources are provable). these are from Sunni books.
1- the year Aisha married Muhammad:
Hesham Orwa: year 13th of his Prophethood.
Zahabi: 14th or 15th year of his prophethood.
Balazari: 14th or 15th year of his prophethood.
2- best source for determining the age of Aisha is comparing her age with her sister Asma. she was 10 year older than Aisha. according to the Sunni sources, she was 27 in the first year of Hejrat. sources:
1- Altabrani, Solaiman ibn Ahmad Ibn Ayub ...
2- Ibn Asaker Aldamashqi ...
3- Aljazri ...
4- Alnavi ...
according to these she would be 17 or 18 when marrying Muhammad which is a good year for marriage. also in very hot climates like Hejaz girls mature faster. and don't compare 17 year old girls of today who have teddy bears with people of barren land of Hejaz 1400 year ago. they had to grow up way faster. and Aisha was proposed to Muhammad by her father, therefore, she was deemed ready to be married.
yet there is another way to determine her age, using historical evidence, which makes her age between 22 to 24 (sources are present).
so, saying prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was a pedophile and pervert without being able to prove it, shows that you have no case and you don't worship God, just yourself, because if you worshiped God, you would accept the last Prophet, and his miraculous book.
and as for the reason the age is tried to be shown that low in some of the hadith, is because Muhammad had an arch enemy called Abu Sufyan. he had a Son called Moaviyeh, whom killed Imam Hasan (grandson of Muhammad) and also Moavieh's son (Yazid) killed Imam Husein (great martyr of Karbala, whom last year, around 30 million people gathered to visit his shrine in Karbala). Moaviyeh was in the business of Hadith fabrication in hope of someday wiping out Islam. to prevent this, Shia carefully monitored hadith from early years of Islam and we have a branch of science called "Rejal" which researches all the hadith and the people who quoted them and their legitimacy, ... I give you an example if you care to find out about the truth of Islam, this is a simple example: "the letter of Imam Ali to Malik, whom he appointed as the govornor of Egypt"
about the death of Jesus in Quran
Quran says "And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life.", also says "Every soul must taste of death, then to Us you shall be brought back." meaning, all people will die, and Jesus, even though he didn't die in that incident (because past tenes wasn't used) will Die. and Jesus himself says in that verse, "THE DAY I DIE" not the day i died. also we have this verse, "And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure" which ensures that he didn't die there, but will die sometime after his re-coming. also Quran doesn't say no one died there, but says it appeared to them that they have killed him. also you say according to bible that Judas Iscariot was not seen after Jesus death right? we believe that he or another enemy of Jesus was mistakenly crucified instead of Jesus. (need more research on this). but be sure, JESUS WILL DIE, because he's a human being for Christ's sake.
and about this "Anyone can claim to be obedient to God, but that doesn't make them a Muslim"
Islam is from the word "salm" meaning "submit". proof of this in Quran: "Ibrahim was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was (an) upright (man), a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists" and as was mentioned before, Muslim means someone who submits himself to God. if you truly submit yourself unto God in the way the God desires, you're Muslim. no further explanation required.
about the name of Jesus being Isa in Quran. you believe in God or Yahwah? different Names of God in different languages make God different? True God is Allah, Yahwah, Khoda, Kamisama, Dieu, Gott... Your word: "The real Jesus was never called Isa. In his own lifetime he was called Yeshua" by your own weak logic, then Jesus is NOT Yeshua. since you call him jesus. Isa is his name in Arabic. that's all.
The Quran Contradicts Itself, According to several passages in the Quran, Muhammad was the first Muslim.
First can either mean in time, or in greatness and size. example: person who receives the First medal in power lifting, is First because he was able to lift more weight than any other people.
prophets are those who have greatest faith among their people, and the reason Muhammad is Greatest among them, is because he has Greatest faith a man can have. according to Quran:
"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!"
why would someone give glad tidings to his people about a person who will come for them in the future, if the other person were less great than himself? so Jesus knew that Muhammad was Greater than him.
"According to the traditional narrative, several companions of Muhammad served as scribes and were responsible for writing down the revelations. Shortly after Muhammad's death, the Quran was compiled by his companions who wrote down and memorized parts of it. These codices had differences that motivated the Caliph Uthman to establish a standard version now known as Uthman's codex, which is generally considered the archetype of the Quran known today. There are, however, variant readings, with mostly minor differences in meaning....However, the Quran did not exist in book form at the time of Muhammad's death in 632. There is agreement among scholars that Muhammad himself did not write down the revelation." https://en.wikipedia.org...
So Muhammad did not write the Quran, he did not bring "a book." Nobody knows exactly who wrote it, so its not true that an illiterate man wrote it. Even an illiterate person can repeat what he hears, or conjure up a religious book, so Muhammad speaking the Quran is not a miracle at all. Also, the Quran does not have COMPLETE consistency because it has variant readings. There are different readings of the Quran, and as I showed, it contradicts itself.
Muslims claim that because Muhammad was illiterate, he could not have written the Qur"an, and thus the Qur'an is a miracle but, what proof has Con given us to show that Muhammad was illiterate in the first place? None. First, it is doubtful that Muhammad was illiterate. Recall that when he was being raised by his uncle, he traveled as a merchant, delivering supplies to various communities. "It is known that he became a merchant and "was involved in trade between the Indian ocean and the Mediterranean Sea.""https://en.wikipedia.org... He also traveled extensively with his first wife Khadijah, who hired him to help her with her trade business. Surely there must have been some sort of written record kept to document these transactions. The merchant trade cannot exist without written records of what and how much was shipped to whom.
Second, Muhammad"s illiteracy is irrelevant to the question of the existence of the Qur"an. Muhammad did not write the Qur"an; he recited it. Others wrote down what Muhammad recited over several years, so the Qur"an would have been written whether Muhammad could or could not read and write, so the argument is irrelevant.
Third, the hadith includes numerous accounts of Muhammad writing.
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88)
Narrated 'Ubaidullah bin 'Abdullah:
Ibn 'Abbas said, "When the ailment of the Prophet became worse, he said, 'Bring for me (writing) paper and I will write for you a statement after which you will not go astray.' (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 114)
Thus, the claim that Muhammad was illiterate does not stand up to investigation. Moreover, it is irrelevant. Therefore, the claim that the Qur'an is Muhammad's sole miracle, and divinely inspired since an illiterate man could not have produced it, is also without merit.
"which is so beautiful in original language"
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, its all subjective and doesn't prove a thing. Have you ever seen a painting that to you it just looks boring and dull but to another person its a masterpiece work of art? Some American girls dress in a way that Muslim women find repulsive even though its fashion to them, and the Muslim lady's dress to the American girls is old fashions and ugly. You can't prove the Quran is beautiful. That's a subjective opinion that doesn't prove the book came from God. Mormons think the Book of Mormon is beautiful, that doesn't make it God's Word, so no matter who thinks your Quran is a beauty, that has nothing to do with being the Word of God.
As for being in the original language, the Egyptian Book of the Dead is still in its original language, that doesn't make it God's Word - the same is true for the Quran. The Declaration of Independence is still in its original language, that doesn't make it God's Word. So being in the original language doesn't prove your claim that the Quran is from God.
"talks about past and future"
Has Con given us any prophecies from the Quran that have been fulfilled? No. Anyone can talk about the past without being inspired by God. I was unable to get onto Con's link at first, and I was out of word space. Now Con expects this website to make his arguments for him. Let examine some of the false, made up propaganda on this website, used by Muslims to prove the Quran is a divinely inspired book:
This site claims that Sura 32:5 told the 7th century Arabs what the speed of light is. "(Allah) Rules the cosmic affair from the heavens to the Earth. Then this affair travels to Him a distance in one day, at a measure of one thousand years of what you count." (32:5) Now, if that is what this verse is really teaching, why didn't any of the hundreds of Islamic scholars and hundreds of millions of Muslims who lived in the following years know that is what this sura meant? The fact that the truth claimed to be in verse 32:5 of the Quran was not known before 1989 supports the much more likely hypothesis that it is a projection of modern man into the old documents. This is just modern Muslims trying to force a modern view into their old document. It was only after scientist discovered what the speed of light was that Muslims began searching for verses in their holy book to reinterpret to match up with scientific facts. If God wanted to tell us what the speed of light was, is it logical he would choose such a roundabout way of doing so, and not just put 186,282 miles per second in the Quran? Now that would have been impressive. Why can I think of a better and more clear way for Allah to show his ability to reveal deep scientific facts that he can? Hmmmm...
There is no mention in this verse of "the moon," "light" or "that angels travel at the speed of light," all of which were supplied by the imagination of modern Muslims like Pro. I dare him show me any of this in the Quran. This site didn't even give us the actual calculations, because if they did, we could see they are wrong. Here it is:
The average center-to-center distance from the Earth to the Moon is 384,403 km.
The orbit of the Moon is nearly circular. (That is why we see the Moon always with the same size)
This means for the Moon to go a full circle around the Earth it must travel a distance of 2,415,273 km (Circumference of the lunar orbit = 2r `0; = 2 x 384,403 x 3.14159)
To orbit the earth 12,000 times the Moon must travel 28,983,278,898 km (2.415,273 x 12,000). This is how much the moon travels in 1000 lunar years.
Light travels at a constant speed of 299,792.458 km. per second
There are 86,400 seconds in one day (60x60x24)
In 24 hours, light travels a distance of 25,902,068,371 km (299,792.458 x 86,400).
These two numbers are not the same. They are not even close. There is a difference of 3,081,210,527 km (28,983,278,898 - 25,902,068,371) between the distance traveled by the Moon in 1000 lunar years and the distance traveled by light in one day. This difference is over twenty times the distance between the Earth and the Sun.
Just to show the absurdity and the confusion in the Qur'an let us see the verse 70:4:
"The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years."
This verse has a similar content of the verse 32:5, but here it says that the length of the day of God is 50,000 years. This is a clear contradiction. Is a day of God 1000 years or is it 50,000 years? Does it mean that it takes 50,000 years for angels and spirits to reach God? That is awfully slow. Then how could Angel Gabriel take Muhammad to heaven and back in one night? Are these the same angels Pro says travel at the speed of light? The Qur'an is replete with contradictions and absurdities. Muhammad had found a gullible audience who gobbled everything he told them uncritically. He never thought one day his words will be scrutinized by people smarter than his benighted followers and his lies will be exposed.
Things like the shape of the earth and the expanding universe were plagiarized from the Bible which already said thousands of years before there was a Quran that the earth is a circle and God stretches out the heavens. Isaiah 40:22
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. _He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."
Pro attempts to show a contradiction in the Bible, but arguing against the Bible doesn't prove the Quran. But to answer him, Gen 2:4a says "This is the accound of the heavens and the earth when they were created." (NIV) This is a summary of Gen 1:1-2:3. Gen 2:4b-5 continues to describe the earth AFTER the 6 creation days had passed, no contradiction here.
God can make the earth from NOTHING because no pre-existing material existed for him to use, but he did use DUST to make man, thus, he didn't make man from NOTHING because Dust CANNOT be the same as NOTHING. If I buy a burger with $5, I didn't buy it with NOTHING, It doen't matter if I magically created the money out of nothing. The origin of the money from nothing wouldn't show that I bought the burger with nothing. $5 isn't nothing, and dust isn't nothing. Niether is dust clay, so the Quran contradicts itself.
No 50-year-old man had no right ejaculating in a little teenage girl! So even if she was 17 as you say this doesn't look very Godly. And Jesus' name in Arabic is Yasu, not Isa http://www.answering-islam.org...
Out of space.
so since you haven't repeated things about Zul-Qarnain and Sunset and Muhammad being the first Muslim and the problem with Sunni books and age of Aisha not being 9 and death of Jesus and prophets calling themselves Muslim, i guess those are cleared, no?
if so, I'm happy.
about Quran not having any prophecy in it:
1- In the early 7th century, the two most powerful empires at the time were the Byzantine and Persian Empires. In the years 613 - 614 C.E the two Empires went to war, with the Byzantines suffering a severe defeat at the hands of the Persians. Damascus and Jerusalem both fell to the Persian Empire. In the chapter, The Romans, in the Holy Quran, it is stated that the Byzantines had met with a great defeat but would soon gain victory. It happened that they achieved victory against the Persians in a battle on the Dead Sea:
"The Romans have been defeated in the lowest land, but after their defeat they will soon be victorious. Within three to nine years. The decision of the matter, before and after, is with God." (Quran 30:2-4)
also, in this verse, the place of their defeat was mentioned "lowest of Lands". that battle took place in the dead sea, which is actually the lowest point on earth.
about Muhammad being illiterate:
you say prove it, then you say it doesn't matter and is irrelevant?! make your point man. about him being illiterate and not receiving any teaching from any human being
"And thou wast not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came), nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: In that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted. " 29:48
"Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- " 7:157
so Quran, it clearly states it.
2- history: there is no record of him being able to read and write and receive any teaching about this from anyone. history shows that in mecca only a handful of people could read and write, but a lot of merchants came to Mecca to sell their goods. so in those days, being able to read and write wasn't a necessity for trade. even western historians like Carlyle, will Durant, Constantin Virgil Gheorghiu ... have stated in their books that Muhammad was illiterate.
"Just to show the absurdity and the confusion in the Qur'an let us see the verse 70:4:"
"The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years."
"He rules (all) affairs from the heavens to the earth: in the end will (all affairs) go up to Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be (as) a thousand years of your reckoning."
this is actually a very good question. in Islam, we believe that the day of judgement, if compared to time on earth, would be equal to 50000 years for us. and it has 50 stops. if you're a true believer, you won't wait and will pass quickly and go to heaven, if not, you have to wait your turn. in those stops God and angels ask people about what they've done in their life. since Surah 70, is talking about day of judgement for unbelievers the 50000 year is mentioned.
as for Surah 34, its talking about creation of world and affairs of earth and heaven ascending to him. and says "(Allah) Rules the cosmic affair from the heavens to the Earth. Then this affair travels to Him a distance in one day, at a measure of one thousand years of what you count."
and as for scientific proof that you say that site didn't provide, which actually did but you didn't care to look:
This site claims that Sura 32:5 told the 7th century Arabs what the speed of light is.
it doesn't. it simply means that it was there all along
"Things like the shape of the earth and the expanding universe were plagiarized from the Bible which already said thousands of years before there was a Quran that the earth is a circle and God stretches out the heavens."
Muhammad prophethood happened 600 years after Jesus, so how could bible be written thousands of years before Quran?
actually: The Christian Bible says that Earth is a 2 dimensional flat disk and the heaven is like a canopy: Isaiah 40:22. And since Earth is flat then Jesus could see the entire Earth from a single high location Matthew 4:8
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, its all subjective and doesn't prove a thing"
well, i invite you to simply listen to this. it's Surah Maryam. which talks about holy Mary and Jesus. and when all people of a nation find it beautiful, then it's beautiful.
"Muhammad had found a gullible audience who gobbled everything he told them uncritically. He never thought one day his words will be scrutinized by people smarter than his benighted followers and his lies will be exposed."
well, i guess you're talking about paul not Muhammad here. we're debating and you're losing, so the gullible one is you who can't even answer why your book is so against science? (previous debate about trinity and Jesus being God.)
about scientific facts of Quran and Muslims not knowing about all of them right now:
well, it's obvious. Quran is a book which is meant to be a guideline for people until the day of judgement. and it's layer over layer of depth and information. not one of Muslims excepts our infallible Imams claim that they know Quran completely. and verses don't have only one meaning, there is a simple meaning for normal people, then there are other meanings and interpretations for more advance people. it's like a book of codes and signs, that the deeper you delve into it, the more depth you find which never ends. therefor saying something like Speed of light is ... in Quran, wouldn't really work, because that's too specific and Quran is a guidance not a mere scientific text. also directly including all that knowledge into a book would make it be like 10 billion billion pages of info.
"This is just modern Muslims trying to force a modern view into their old document."
not really, if you could read that site you would know that that's not the case. and as for discoveries of Musims you can check this out:
you say "So Muhammad did not write the Quran, he did not bring a book." then you say "Muhammad did not write the Quran; he recited it. Others wrote down what Muhammad recited over several years" i mean did he bring a book or did he not bring a book? reciting the words of God exactly as it was revealed and having other people write it down, is bringing a book.
about creation of things, the reasoning was sound and perfect. if A is made from B, and B is made from C, then A is made from C. also with the pen example: if you say you wrote the letter with a pen, or with your hands, or yourself, does it make it wrong? they come one after the other, they are not parallel to each other. if you make a desk from logs of wood, and those logs are made from a tree, then you can say that the desk is made from a tree.
"No 50-year-old man had no right ejaculating in a little teenage girl! So even if she was 17 as you say this doesn't look very Godly"
you're just shooting in the dark hoping to hit something aren't you? if your not ok with couples having intimacy, that's really your own business. but i tell you this:
if woman is ok with it, father of woman is ok with it, man is ok with it, and God is ok with it, does it matter if you're not Ok with it? it doesn't. it's legal marriage. and if you've something against legal marriage, what do you say about this: https://en.wikipedia.org...
"Nobody knows exactly who wrote it, so its not true that an illiterate man wrote it"
an illiterate man can not write something... and no one said prophet Muhammad did.
the fact that only one version of Quran exist today that Muslims accept as true Quran, and the fact that a lot of Muslims memorized it when it was revealed to Muhammad, and the fact that Imam Ali and some of the Other disciples had wrote it down completely, and there was a reference Quran that people could use during the life of Muhammad, and the fact that pieces of it that existed in people's houses in different Islamic cities were gathered by Uthman and destroyed, and completed version of Quran was sent to them, and the fact that Muslims have always been really connected to Quran and they recite it in their ceremonies and prayers and even teach it to their children from early ages (and this was the case during the life of Muhammad as well), also, the incident that Moaviyeh during his rule wanted to change one word of Quran but faced Strong opposition of Abuzar and couldn't do it, show that Quran has not changed, even one word. and since Quran was spread thought the world, and yet the same Quran exists today after 1400 years, means that it has not changed at all.
and at the end, these reasons should be enough for you to at least doubt your words, and start considering Quran as the word of God. if you can't see yourself converting to Islam, at least do not curse Prophet Muhammad or his book, because if you're wrong and we're right, even Jesus wont forgive you.
Con actually compares Japan being called the country of the rising sun to Zul-Qarnain finding the sun SET IN A MUDDY POOL. I simply don't see any parallel here, and if you don't, vote Pro! He says it only APPEARED to Zul-Qarnain as though he had reached the place where the sun sets, and I pointed out how impossible it is for it to appear that way because the sun always appears to be on the horizon ahead of us! Further the Quran isn't saying it "appeared" to him so, nor is this a 1st person account from Zul-Qarnain. All these excuses were invented by Muslims like Con to explain away the scientific blunders in their holy book. He knows full well that I couldn't go over all these points in the limited word space I had because I took the time to address in detail specific points he made that used up my room. I also think his rebuttals were not convincing, so I need not use all my space going over old arguments when I could get in some fresh ones. But all my claims still stand unimpeached.
The Quran says Moses was the first Muslim, the Abraham was the first Muslim, that Muhammad was the first Muslim. All these claims can't be true. Con said "first" meant the first among his people to receive the message, but he dropped that claim when I showed him Moses' mother, according to the Quran, was a Muslim before him. So he couldn't be the first among his people. Con also said "first" means the most faithful. He couldn't show where the Quran defines "first" in that way, and I don't know of any dictionary that defines it so either. This is just another fabrication of Muslim apologists trying to polish errors out of the Quran. If you don't find his answer convincing, vote Pro.
He also said about Aisha's age, that Muslims don't accept something just because one person says it, and I mentioned (even giving him a link to) many sources from the hadiths that say Aisha was 9 years old when Muhammad married her. He dismissed all these as Sunni sources without giving any rational reason why we should only trust Shia sources over Sunni. Even though Sunni's outnumber Shias, "As of 2009, Sunni Muslims constituted 87"90% of the world's Muslim population"https://en.wikipedia.org... which means its not just one person in Islam but many saying that Aisha was 9 years old. Here he has the many he calls for, but denies them still.
So, the few sunni sources he cites claims she was older, about 17-18, and why should we trust them over what the majority of Muslims accept as reliable hadiths? Just goes to show that even their hadiths contradict each other; so not only does the Quran contradict itself, but so do the hadiths. This doesn't build confidence that God told any of these authors to write the Quran or the hadith. If you agree, vote Pro. Con also cites Catholics in trouble for molestation, and that helps his case how? I'm not a Catholic and never believed God supports Catholicism, so how does this justify a 50 year old man having sex with a teenage girl? If you would not want your teenage daughter marrying at such a young age, vote Pro. Notice, Pro says if the girl is ok with it, so is her family, and so is the man and his god (allah), then it's ok. So when a girl, her family, fianc"e and their god agree to female genital circumcision, that would make it ok using Con's logic. Even though this practice causes " recurrent infections, difficulty urinating and passing menstrual flow, chronic pain, the development of cysts, an inability to get pregnant, complications during childbirth, and fatal bleeding. There are no known health benefits."https://en.wikipedia.org... After being brainwashed by Islamic society, of course this teen and her family agreed to Muhammad marrying their little girl. It's still perverted though, for an old man to get horny with a little girl.
I have given good evidence for the death of Jesus, and there is no evidence to corroborate the Quran's claim that it was another man who died in his place. Con is using Quranic verses as proof of the Quran, that's circular reasoning. That's like me saying, Jesus is the Son of God because the Bible says he is the Son of God; Jesus died on the cross, proof, the Bible says so. Con doesn't accept that kind of argument for the Bible, but he accepts it for the Quran. His double standard is obvious.
Sura 30:2-4 says: "The Romans have been defeated in the lowest land, but after their defeat they will soon be victorious. Within three to nine years. The decision of the matter, before and after, is with God." Con thinks this refers to the Romans gaining victory 3-9 years after their defeat by the Persians in the Dead Sea, which he says is the lowest place on earth. The historical fact remains that they Romans were NOT defeated in the Dead Sea, but in Jerusalem. Jerusalem, unlike the Dead Sea, it is way above sea level and is definitely not the lowest part of the earth! The Dead Sea is approximately 1,407 feet below sea level. https://en.wikipedia.org... Jerusalem, however, is roughly 2490 feet ABOVE sea level https://en.wikipedia.org... So right away this prophecy fails as to where the battle took place, so thanks Con for giving me more proof the Quran is not God's Word, and proof that Muhammad was a false prophet, because his prophecy here failed.
According to Muslim scholarship this passage was supposedly "sent down" approximately around 615 AD and refers to the defeat of the Romans at the hands of the Persians. When we consult the encyclopaedias and other sources we discover that the Roman victory didn"t occur until 13 years later, not the 3-9 years stipulated by the Quran. Under Heraclius, Encyclopedia Britannica writes:
"Heraclius again invaded Persia and in December 627, after a march across the Armenian highlands into the Tigris plain, met the Persians near the ruins of Nineveh. There, astride his renowned war-horse, he killed three Persian generals in single combat, charged into enemy ranks at the head of his troops, killed the Persian commander, and scattered the Persian host.
A month later, Heraclius entered Dastagird with its stupendous treasure. Khosrow was overthrown by his son, with whom Heraclius made peace, DEMANDING ONLY THE RETURN OF THE CROSS, the captives, AND CONQUERED ROMAN TERRITORY. Returning to Constantinople in triumph, he was hailed as a Moses, an Alexander, a Scipio."
"Heraclius drove the Persians out of Asia Minor and pushed deep into their territory, defeating them decisively in 627 at the Battle of Nineveh." https://en.wikipedia.org... So in 3-9 years after this prophecy was given, Rome had not yet gained victory over the Persians, thus, this was a false prophecy. God doesn't get his dates wrong.
An illiterate person doesn't need divine revelation from God to learn a story and tell it. So Muhammad being illiterate is no proof that he heard the revelation of the Quran from God. Illiterate people make up stuff all the time. Quoting that the Quran says he was illiterate doesn't prove he was illiterate anymore than a Mormon quoting the Book of Mormon proves that what that book says about the illiteracy of anyone in it is true.
As for the speed of light in the Quran, I'll leave it up to the readers to decide whose evidence was more in line with scientific facts. As I said, it's rather suspicious that no Muslim thought Sura 32:5 was trying to tell us the speed of light until AFTER scientists already discovered what it was. If you agree, vote Pro. This verse doesn't even say what Con said, about angels travelling at the speed of light. That was added using his 21st century imagination in order to make his holy book seem more scientific.
I didn't say the whole Bible was written thousands of years before the Quran, I was talking about Isaiah 40:22, which was written by the prophet Isaiah more than 1400 years before Muhammad. Isaiah 40:22 says God STRETCHES OUT the heavens, showing the expanding universe. So Muhammad didn't need God to know this, he borrowed it from the Bible. This verse also has the earth as a circle. Even if you reject this, here's a fact: Eratosthenes living 276-194 BC, long before Muhammad, calculated the size and shape of the earth, its distance from the sun, mapped the world and climate zones using nothing but science or math, without divine revelation. https://en.wikipedia.org... "The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to around the 6th century BC" https://en.wikipedia.org... So the concept of a round earth predates Muhammad and doesn't prove one has heard from God.
Shakespear wrote some beautiful poetry, so I guess you think its the word of God because its beautiful. If the Quran is beautiful to some folks, it doesn't prove its from God.
Con argues that the Quran has remained unchanged, so how does that prove its God's word? The Egyptian book of the dead is unchanged, so is the BagavadGita of India. Heck, last years Nation Newspaper is unchanged but that doesn't make it from God. The contradictions and absurdities of the Quran are still in there.
In round 2 Con said "according to Quran, if one can repent from worshiping the false gods before his death, other sins might be forgiven. but if you can't, polytheism will not be forgiven." So his answer was "yes," if you repent, God does forgive polytheism. But the Quran says: "."Allah FORGIVETH NOT that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else," (4:48). Also 4:116. The Quran says "Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah FORGIVES ALL SINS: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Sura 39:53) Yet it says "But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith, - NEVER WILL THEIR REPENTENCE BE ACCEPTED." (Sura 3:86-91) If you agree this contradiction still stands, vote Pro.
The Quran is clearly not God's Word.
"Con actually compares Japan being called the country of the rising sun to Zul-Qarnain finding the sun SET IN A MUDDY POOL."
i invite you all to read the debate about this in round 2 and 3. the japan example was used by me for the first part of the verse, and for the second part of it, i simply said that since Quran says he found it going down ... and Quran is telling his story, it is neither wrong nor shows any fault in Quran. as for the first part, japan is country of rising sun, because the is no land to the east of it in Asia (meaning if you draw two parallel lines from most northern and eastern part of japan, parallel to the equator you will find no more lands in between those lines in Asia) . and in the direction that Zul-Qarnain was traveling, he reached a place which was the most western. he reached a seashore, no further land was visible (hence japan example), the sun set, he found the sun going into the sea ... neither is wrong, nor illogical.
Moses being the first Muslim and Muhammad being the First Muslim.
"The Quran says Moses was the first Muslim, the Abraham was the first Muslim, that Muhammad was the first Muslim. All these claims can't be true."
"Con also said "first" means the most faithful. He couldn't show where the Quran defines "first" in that way".
according to Quran: "Human beings, We created you all from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another. Verily the noblest of you in the sight of Allah is the most God-fearing of you. Surely Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware."
so, the measure of greatness/nobleness in Quran is fearing God which is the true definition of faith. PROVED
Quran is enough to explain itself.
also, Muhammad was born AFTER Moses, so if Moses called himself the first Muslim and Muhammad calling himself First Muslim, it doesn't prove any contradiction in Quran. because Muhammad came after Moses and became the greatest person who ever lived.
and the claim about prophets being First Muslims among their people is not dropped, otherwise they wouldn't be picked as prophets for their people. God knew that they would have the most faith, so he picked them among their people.
also these things have to be studied in their context. example:
"and we surely expect that Our Lord will forgive us our sins for we are the first ones to believe." which is the words of the group of wizards who believed in Moses first. if it's you, you'll want to say, these are neither first to Moses in time nor in greatness of faith, how can they be first ones to believe? no? which would be ridiculous
about Aisha's age
pro again tries to use Aisha age as a poor excuse to prove his point. i proved to him from Sunni's sources that he loves so much, that Aisha's age was around 17-18 when she married Muhammad. and also gave him a very famous debate between a Shia and a group of Sunni clerics to prove the weakness of Sunni sources. also the scientific research that Shia Muslims have about all the historians and those who recite hadith (science of Rejal). also about Moavyeh who killed grandson of Muhammad and his son yazid killing another grandson of Muhammad and his effort to uproot Islam (meaning none of the people who worked for him (like abu huraira who has mentioned 9 as the age of Aisha), can be trusted as a true reciter of hadith). all ignored and placed into the void. shows that pro only hears what he wants to hear and is just a poor missionary who works for money.
about our hadith contradicting each other
this debate is not even about hadith, but i never claimed that hadith might not contradict. I actually stated that there were a lot of people who received great amounts of money to make hadith. but, Hadith contradicting, neither shows Quran contradicts itself, nor shows that true words of Prophet and our Infallible Imams contradict themselves. it just shows that there were a lot of people who fabricated Hadith, and all of those are ignored using science of rejal. and as for more info, i invite you to read the sources i provided in previous rounds.
about an old man marrying a girl
in Islam, it's woman who has the final say in marriage, and no woman can be forced into marriage. you make it sound like Aisha was forced into marriage, which isn't the case. the fact is that prophet Muhammad actually didn't propose to Aisha, but Aisha and her father did the proposal and asked prophet Muhammad to marry her. and since prophet Muhammad always told his followers to make marriage easy, if he were to reject that man's proposal, his word and his actions would contradict each other, and a man of God can not be like that. (compare this with what you read in the bible about David falling in love with a married woman and Abraham basically whoring his wife to Pharaoh ...)
battle between Persian and Roman empires:
actually according to Islamic historians, that verse was revealed around 620 A.D. (pro desperately lying to prove his point)
and Heraclius' campaigns in Persian lands from 622 to 626 forced the Persians onto the defensive, allowing his forces to regain momentum. Allied with the Avars and Slavs, the Persians made a final attempt to take Constantinople in 626, but were defeated there. In 627 Heraclius invaded the heartland of the Persians and forced them to sue for peace.
The Byzantines and the Persians actually fought at the Dead Sea basin, which is situated at the intersection point of the lands belonging to Syria, Palestine, and Jordan. At 399 meters below sea level, the Dead Sea is the "lowest" place on Earth's surface.
so, the time matches, and the place of defeat matches perfectly (again, pro not being able to prove his point)
"Quran's claim that it was another man who died in his place. Con is using Quranic verses as proof of the Quran."
again, the way that was presented by me in the second round to prove God according to Quran, was completely ignored. using that steps, one could easily find that Jesus was not son of God, and God can not be separated. and you believing Jesus actually died, doesn't contradict Quran, because Quran clearly says "but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-" hence people thought he died, as you do. so NO CONTRADICTIONS here.
Pro's claim about most of the people accepting something makes it true.
well it doesn't. most of the Indians think of cow as some sort of divine being. Japanese worship idols. Chinese eat dog meat. most of the people in the world don't believe in god. most of the Christians have premarriage sexual activities ... does this make those things OK? again, failed to prove your point.
and i again invite everyone to read this book, it's perfect:
clerics know way more that normal people, so their debate is way more referable than two Sunni and Shia debating.
about speed of light
just read these two and decide.
about Shakespeare writing some beautiful poetry and book of the dead.
first of all, these two alone prove that Bible is not the unchanged word of God (you see guys, i don't say that bible is not the word of God, i say it's not the unchanged word of God, because according to Quran that Pro couldn't prove has changed, God sent Jesus a book)
but since we're talking about Quran, i can say that word of God, has to be 1- beautiful 2- make sense and be logical 3- guide people to the right path 4- survive thought the ages and stay unchanged. 5. be harmonious with other books of God (some parts of the bible that remains as revealed, is harmonious with Quran, hence pro uses it to say Muhammad stole stuff from Bible) 6. be enough to explain it self 7. provide a perfect basis for morality, faith, good deeds 8. be above all other books of humans in guidance and perfection 9. not having any contradictions ....
Con argues that the Quran has remained unchanged, so how does that prove its God's word?
so you accept that Quran is unchanged? and as for it being copied from Bible, i tell him that, where does in bible says that water occupies 71 percent of earth and water and iron coming to earth from sky (comets) and honey bees being all female, and skin nerves and beings who resembled humans before Adam and human embryo and planetary orbits and sex of baby .... no where. where does in bible says that Jesus was a just a human being? where does it bible you can find that god doesn't have parts and there is no father/son/holy spirit trinity? no where. so the thing mentioned about Muhammad stealing from bible, is pure B.S. for further info, just take a look at this debate:
so in general
1- Quran is unchanged.
2- doesn't contradict itself.
3- has numerous miraculous information in it that a person 1400 years ago could never know.
4- has revelations in it about Future that matches perfectly .
5- guides people to the right path.
6- accepts all prophets and good people
therefor Pro couldn't prove any of his claims and we can say that
QURAN IS THE WORD OF GOD
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.