The dark truth behind MUHAMMAD AND ISLAM
First sorry for my poor English
Since all Muslims claimed that Jesus is not the son of god
And claimed that bible isn't correct
Proof that muhammad is a false prophet
Bible says " many false prophets will arise and lead many astrays" Matthew 24:11
Another verse says
" but the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in my name which I have not commanded him to speak .... That prophet shall DIE " Deuteronomy 18:12
Muhammad said what god didn't commanded him to say and muhammad said
"I have fabricated things against god and have imputed to him words which he has not spoken " al-tabari 6:111
So the prophecy in the bible appeared :)
Let's not forget om qirfa or qirfa's mother when he command his men to attack her
And kill her " they cut her body half using camels
And took her daughter for sexual reasons or i don't know why
Then they took qirfa's mother's head to muhammad and he put it in I front of people
Is that a prophet ? The religion of peace ? C'mon u gotta do better than that
He command his men to fight non-Muslims and god didn't command him to say that
Let's not forget many of his horrible crimes .
About the bible when Muslims claimed that its not the original one it's fraud
Muhammad him self admitted that the bible and Torah are the god words and it's true and original when he command his men to read it for him even quran says that bible and Torah haven't corrupted
BESIDES where's the original quran that been wretten on rocks and leaves ?
There's a copy in turkey and it's not the original one the one in turkey is from Othman
Age after he burned all the old qurans why did he burned it ???
BESIDES THERES NO EVIDENCES CAN PROOF THAT BIBLE AND TORAH IS CORRUPT
SCIENTISTS FOUND OLD BIBLES SINCE 68 ad and more than 10 other ancient bibles and compared it with the bible that we read today and it's the SAME!!!
Unlike Quran when it say that Jesus mother is Aaron sister , Aaron is Moses brother
And he died thousands year before merry and Jesus come
That is a major issue in Quran !
There's a proof in Quran that Jesus is son of god
" Jesus the son of Mary was a messenger of Allah and his word and a (spirit from him) " Quran 4:171
Spirit from him , from WHO ?
From god :)
About the crucify
In Quran Jesus said " peace on me the day I was born and the day I die and the day I shall be raised alive " Maryam 19:33
The bible mentions about 500 Eyewitnesses who saw the risen Jesus
Even Ahmad deedat couldn't beat McDowell on this debate
People found many issues in Quran but Christians respected Muslims and didn't say anything but Muslims couldn't stop make fun of the bible GOD WORDS
By the way isis are doing as Muslims were doing before
Forgot to say that Quran been written after Muhammad died
By looking for people who heard verses so that makes quran on the edge
Anyone can change god's words that time right ?
In Quran you have a verse says that Quran can't be change and in the Arabic version it doesn't say al QURAN actually the verse didn't mention the Quran maybe it means the bible or all the holy books !
We have many verses in bible as well I will say one
" HEAVEN AND EARTH WILL PASS AWAY , BUT MY WORDS WILL NEVER PASS AWAY "
Plus I bet there was more than 1 million copies of bible before Jews fraud it
It's impossible to take all those bibles and burn it and then rewrite it again!
Bible is more accurate than Quran Jesus stidents wrote it but the people who wrote the Quran were strangers they claimed that they heard the verses that's why when they wrote the Quran they asked for 2 people that heard the verses !
Jesus did miracles but muhammad didn't
Jesus created Human body and gave it the soul he bring dead people to life
Muhammad didn't muhammad used the sword to make Islam bigger
Jesus used Love :)
At the end there's no proof to claim that bible is corrupt but there's verses in bible and Quran says that bible and Torah arnet fraud muhammad him self admitted
At the end we worshipping the god
Don't say that we worship Jesus , Jesus never said I'm your god worship me !
He said worship god ONLY GOD
That's it thanks for reading I won't reply to anyone
Because all I will hear is cursing from Muslims for saying the truth
I decided to take this debate on to be a debate, not in comparative religion, but in religious interpretation. We are debating two views of interpreting the Islamic religion. I shall, hence, like to start off with a brief overview of the main tenants of the interpretation of the opposition. I would like to call the opposition's views the "Christian" view of Islam, whilst calling mine the "Secular" view of Islam. The Christian view asserts three things:
The Christian view holds Lord Jesus to be, not only the Prophet, but also the greatest (albeit not the last) Prophet.  This makes all other Prophets who diverge from Christian teachings ultimately suspicious in the eyes of traditionalist Christians. The Qu'ran gladly warns Christians and Jews not to impede and neutralize Tawhid, or "oneness."  They ultimately see this as "Shirk," or polytheism. And this is where the confusion starts. The Secular view I would like to present states three things:
Hence, in this discusssion, I will refrain from, unless absolutely necessary, interpreting Islam from a viewpoint of Hinduism etc. I will necessarily affirm that this interpretation, which I see as the objective interpretation, is better than the Christian interpretation of the religion. Ultimately, I do not present the secular view as the contingent alternative, but rather a necessary alternative-for it is the original way to interpret every religion. This leads to BoP lying on the opposition solely. With this, I would like to refute all of the opposition's main points.
a.) Muhammad as a False Prophet
The opposition starts here with quoting the Bible. From a Christian perspective, this is justified. But this debate weights two views of the religion-the Secular and the Christian. Hence, objectively, the Bible cannot provide any justification to prove that Muhammad is a false Prophet. Hence, upon further interpretation, the verses the opponent gives cannot provide justification whatsoever for rejecting Muhammad, for it is based mainly on his perspective, not not the objective perspective. The opposition then attempts to go within the framework of the Islamic religion to prove that Muhammad was a false prophet-this is what, if necessarily done, could carry some weight. The opposition cites historian al-Tabari as saying "I have fabricated things against god and have imputed to him words which he has not spoken." Content with this, the opposition says that "the prophecy in the bible appeared." How vile and utterly revolting this is-since al-Tabari is not the word of Muhammad at all, as the opposition states, and since al-Tabari never said this. Within the whole jurisdiction of the Islamic religion, only the Qu'ran is accepted to be verbatim. al-Tabari provides no insight (apart from commentaries) whatsoever on the teachings of the Qu'ran-he neither writes a chapter, nor a verse in the Qu'ran, ultimately leading this to reject the vile attempts of sophistry which the opposition employs. But even if al-Tabari was a Surah in the Qu'ran, he never did say those words. In the quoted passage, he (intends as a disclaimer to his histories) to say that "this writing of mine may [be found to] contain some information, mentioned by us on the authority of certain men of the past, which the reader may disapprove of and the listener may find detestable." He never means to destroy and corrupts the whole word of the Holy Qu'ran. 
The opposition presents the story of Qirfa as a story of an innocent old women being killed via the orders of the Prophet Muhammad. But historical records are still more or less confused about who "Qirfa" really was. Some books published after the death of the Prophet ultimately showed that she might have been killed during a raid led by Abu Bakr. Others narrate that Muhammad sent his companions on a traditional raid. However, the opposition's views that the Prophet Muhammad ordered Qirfa to be killed is preposterous. We have no evidence of that. Apart from that, her daughter was indeed captured, but she was not prostituted. Islamic histories narrates that Muhammed "sent her to the people of Makkah, and surrendered her as ransom for a number of Muslims who had been kept as prisoners." 
c.) The Bible is Corrupted
For once in the whole of the rant, the opposition correctly interprets Islam. Islam does claim that the Bible is indeed "corrupted." However, the Bible was not corrupted in the sense that the opposition thinks of it to be. The Bible as we know it now is a collection of writings from St. Paul etc. The Islamic religion thinks that the spreading of Christianity led to the ultimate degeneration of the Bible-leading to doctrines that were never taught and spread by Jesus apparently true. For example, the doctrine of Trinity was an addition: accordingly to Adolf Harnock, "[in the 2nd Century] Jesus was either regarded as the man whom God hath chosen, in whom the Deity or the Spirit of God dwelt, and who, after being tested, was adopted by God and invested with dominion."  This is the view that Islam takes regarding the Gospels (Injil). Keeping true in the spirit of secular analysis, I would like to start off by saying that Jesus did not write anything-we know teachings from a huge collection of speeches and letters that were recorded down. Because of this, we can never be sure of the de facto word of Jesus himself-and the Muslims have a very good bet, as Jesus was a monotheist. If Jesus was a monotheist, then he cannot justifiably claim that God is infested within his body, for God cannot be two-God is indivisible, and He is indeed one. Again, Injil refers to the original dictations and speeches (even writings) of Jesus.
The opposition then asks me to show "the original quran that been wretten on rocks and leaves" (emphasis added, horrid spelling original). The opposition then agains goes to his dogmatic way of arguing-the Qu'ran was dictated verbally by God to Muhammad, and it was only shortly after Muhmmad's death that the first copy of the Qu'ran was printed. The oldest Qu'ran we know of was printed in 649-75AD, mere decades after Muhammad's death.  Since then, it has remained unchanged.
d.) Peace vs. Context
Ultimately, the opposition says that ISIS are "doing as Muslims were doing before." This is absurd-the opposition presents no supporting claim to it, and the fact that throughout history Islam protected and respected Christianity in the region proves this to be so: in fact, was it not vile that Islam protected Jews in Jerusalem before it fell, but these same Jews were brutally slaughtered when, in 1099, the Crusaders sacked it? Muhammad led by the sword, because if he did not lead by the sword, he would've died. But Muhammad led by love-after taking Mecca, he spared every Fitnah within the city to show that his army was not a barbaric cult. Ultimately, I do not claim that Islam is a religion of peace or violent-people are violent. Religion is neutral. [7,2]
Christian_and_proud forfeited this round.
FF xtend gib free-lo plox
Christian_and_proud forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|