The Instigator
Ahmed.M
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Microsuck
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

There are proofs supporting the belief that the Quran is from Allah

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Ahmed.M
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/17/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,428 times Debate No: 22922
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

Ahmed.M

Pro

proof:

to produce belief in its truth.


Belief:

Confidence in the truth or existence of something


The rest of the resolution is straightforward and means exactly what anyone would first think it means, no semantics please.


= = = = = What is this Debate about? What is each side arguing? = = = = =


This debate will be about the proof supporting the divine nature of the Quran. Are there any good arguments and reasons to believe the Quran is a divine message revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him)? Or is the proof weak and not enough to warrant it divinity? Pro will be arguing that there are good reasons to believe the Quran is a divine message revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). Con will only be arguing that the proof supporting the Quran is weak and not enough to warrant it divinity.


= = = = = Debate structure for each round = = = = =


1. Acceptance

2. Opening Arguments

3. Rebuttals/Arguments

4. Closing Statements/Rebuttals


No side can present new arguments in the last round only rebuttals and closing statements.


= = = = = Clarifications = = = = =


I would like to present a small system that my opponent and I have to use, I encourage the audience to use this method as well. This is without any bias and is what one should be thinking whenever a truth in about anything is presented.


1. Luck/ Chance/ Coincidence

2. Author was very intelligent and figured it out(research, tests etc), a genius

3. Already existing information, nothing new

4. Common sense/observable (anyone can figure this out)

5. A source beyond all the capabilities of man at the time was involved (Allah in this case).


When there is a prophecy or a fact that is discovered later not only in Islam but in any religion, one must realize that this does not make it miraculous based on one occurrence and I realize this. However if there are numerous occurrences where the only explanation that applies is number 5 and number 1 is not viable anymore, then one should believe it has strong proofs supporting it.


Also the verses of the Quran I and my opponent have to use is from Abdullah Yusuf Ali's interpretation. One can find all the chapters of the Quran by changing the number in the URL. For example the URL for chapter 2 of the Quran is:


http://scholaris.com...


and the URL is for Chapter 7 of the Quran is:


http://scholaris.com...


The only difference between the chapters are the numbers, one is 002 (for chapter 2) and the other 007 (for chapter 7). With these clarifications, introductions, and conditions, this debate is ready to begin.

Microsuck

Con

I would like to thank my friend for agreeing to debate this topic with me.

Definition challenge

I'd like to provide my own definitions for "proof." I define "proof" as support for a proposition. In this case, the proposition that the Qur'an is from Allah.

Clarification

I agree with my partner's five criterian:


1. Luck/ Chance/ Coincidence

2. Author was very intelligent and figured it out(research, tests etc), a genius

3. Already existing information, nothing new

4. Common sense/observable (anyone can figure this out)

5. A source beyond all the capabilities of man at the time was involved (Allah in this case).

I'd like to request to add to this list:

6. Context - The context of the Qur'an or the Hadith must support the scientific or prophetic claim.

7. Truth - It must be truth in its entirety

With those 2 items added, I have nothing more to say. Good luck.


Debate Round No. 1
Ahmed.M

Pro

= = = = = => Contentions<= = = = = =


1. Historical Accuracies in the Quran


The Quranic distinction between Pharaoh and King


In the Quran during the time of Prophet Yusuf (Joseph), the ruler of Egypt is referred to only as King. During the time of Moses, the ruler of Egypt is strictly referred to as Pharaoh. Chronologically, the story of Yusuf (Joseph) takes place before the story of Muusa (Moses) in the Quran (peace be upon both prophets).


==Surah Yusuf Chapter 12 Verse 43==

The king (of Egypt) said: "I do see (in a vision) seven fat kine, whom seven lean ones devour, and seven green ears of corn, and seven (others) withered. O ye chiefs! Expound to me my vision if it be that ye can interpret visions."


==Surah Yusuf Chapter 12 Verse 72==

They said: "We miss the great beaker of the king; for him who produces it, is (the reward of) a camel load; I will be bound by it.”


==Surah Al Araf Chapter 7 Verse 104==

“Moses said: "O Pharaoh! I am a messenger from the Lord of the worlds.”


==Surah Yunus Chapter 10 Verse 75==

“Then after them sent We Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh and his chiefs with Our Signs. But they were arrogant: they were a people in sin.”


From here we can see the ruler of Egypt during the time of Moses is strictly referred to as Pharaoh and that the ruler of Egypt during the time of Prophet Yusuf (Joseph) is referred to only as King (peace be upon the prophets). There are historical reasons for these clear distinctions within the Quran. The time line of Ancient Egypt is provided by the National Geographic [1].It is a well known fact historically that the title of Pharaoh began to come into use in the New Kingdom era of Egypt [2][3]. Before the New Kingdom era they use to refer to the ruler as king not Pharaoh. During the Middle Kingdom for example, the rulers were Theban Kings. So the title Pharaoh is used after the title king is used in ancient Egyptian history. Since the Quran is from Allah, we would expect the Quran to differentiate between this and this is exactly what it does. This matches up exactly with the Quran which makes these key distinctions and as such is historically accurate.


To Summarize: The Quran says the title King was used before Pharaoh, Ancient Egyptian history shows that the title King was used before Pharaoh


The Queen of Sheba and Sun Worship


==Surah An Naml Chapter 27 Verses 22-24==

“But the Hoopoe tarried not far: he (came up and) said: "I have compassed (territory) which thou hast not compassed, and I have come to thee from Saba with tidings true.

"I found (there) a woman ruling over them and provided with every requisite; and she has a magnificent throne.

"I found her and her people worshipping the sun besides Allah: Satan has made their deeds seem pleasing in their eyes, and has kept them away from the Path,- so they receive no guidance.”


Prophet Sulaiman (Solomon) (peace be upon him) was informed by the Hoopoe bird that he saw the people of Sheba and the Queen of Sheba. The Quran mentions that they were worshipping a sun diety. The modern evidence for the location of the kingdom of Queen Sheba is Southern Arabia around Yemen [4][5]. The national God of Sheba was called Almaqah. For a long time, people thought that this was a lunar diety. Recent investigations have shown that the characteristics represent a solar diety. This makes the Quran historically accurate with the most recent data (2012) available.


Until recently Almaqah was considered to be a moon god, under the influence of a now generally rejected conception of a South Arabian pantheon consisting of an exclusive triad: Father Moon, Mother Sun (the word "sun" is feminine in Arabic), and Son Venus. Recent studies underline that the symbols of the bull's head and the vine motif that are associated with him are solar and Dionysiac attributes and are more consistent with a sun god, a male consort of the sun goddess.”[6]


2. Scientific accuracies in the Quran


Oceanography


==Surah An Nur Chapter 24 Verse 40==

Or (the Unbelievers' state) is like the depths of darkness in a vast deep ocean, overwhelmed with billow topped by billow, topped by (dark) clouds: depths of darkness, one above another: if a man stretches out his hands, he can hardly see it! for any to whom Allah giveth not light, there is no light!”

What is most obvious at the beginning is that the Quran mentions darkness in the depths of the ocean. While it may seem obvious to us today, this could not have possibly known during the time the Quran was revealed. This is because man could only have dived at most 20-30m into the ocean. From 0-80m into the ocean is the euphotic zone which is well lit and sufficiently illuminated [7]. This verse in the Glorious Quran then mentions waves, and it clearly mentions waves inside a deep ocean. Therefore, it is mentioning internal waves in the ocean. What is stated in the Quran accurately agrees with modern science. The Massachusetts institute of technology says:


internal waves — huge but nearly invisible ripples that occur in the oceans, the atmosphere and stars”[8]


Water Cycle


==Surah Az Zumar Chapter 39 Verse 21==

Seest thou not that Allah sends down rain from the sky, and leads it through springs in the earth? Then He causes to grow, therewith, produce of various colours: then it withers; thou wilt see it grow yellow; then He makes it dry up and crumble away. Truly, in this, is a Message of remembrance to men of understanding.”


The Quran mentions the origins of Groundwater and springs as being rain which goes through the earth. This agrees with science [9]. One might try to argue that this has been copied or plagiarized from Greek philosophers but the fact of the matter is that none of the famous Greek philosophers had a clue about this fact. The Water Problems Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia states:


Aspects of groundwater origin were considered in many projects and philosophic works of the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers (Miletsky, Plato, Aristotle, Kar, Seneka, Pollio etc). The first quantitative concepts of groundwater formation due to infiltration of atmospheric precipitation were formed by French scientists P. Perro and E. Marriott in the middle of the eighteenth century based on the study of water balance in the Seine River” [10]


This is strong evidence that the origins of Groundwater or springs were not known or even conceived of during the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) but the Quran mentions this amazing fact many centuries ago.


3. High Quality Literature


Precise wording of the Quran


==Surah Al Imran Chapter 3 Verses 96-97==

The first House (of worship) appointed for men was that at Bakka: Full of blessing and of guidance for all kinds of beings.

In it are Signs Manifest; (for example), the Station of Abraham; whoever enters it attains security; Pilgrimage thereto is a duty men owe to Allah,- those who can afford the journey; but if any deny faith, Allah stands not in need of any of His creatures.”


The name Bakka is an ancient name and another name for Makka, specifically it is for the place of the Kaaba where Muslims perform pilgrimage [11]. The 'b' and the 'm' are interchangable as explained. The root word of Bakka in Arabic means to crowd, to suffocate (stifling) etc [12]. When we analyze the second verse after Bakka is used, this reveals a precision on the use of words within the specific context. The next verse then talks about the obligation of pilgrimage and the word Bakka is a much better word to use then Makka in this context since Bakka specifically refers to the Kaaba and the Kaaba is a place which is crowded with pilgrims. This reveals a precision on the usage of words in the Quran.


==>Conclusions<==
Arguments are unique to the Quran and cannot be applied to other scriptures. The arguments either could not have been known or reveal precision on the Quran, which provide proof that it is from Allah.


Sources

http://www.debate.org...

Microsuck

Con

I wish to thank my partner for being willing to engage in this debate with me. Before I refute my partner’s case for the Qur’an, I’d like to take a few moments and make a very brief case against the Qur’an.

The Case against the Qur’an

IS THE QUR’AN THE WORD OF GOD?

There are several passages in the Qur’an which cannot possibly be the Word of God. Such a case is in the opening sura called the Fatihah:

In the name of the Merciful and Compassionate God. Praise belongs to God, the Lord of the Worlds, the merciful, the compassionate, and the ruler of the Day of Judgment! Thee we serve and Thee we ask for aid. Guide us in the right path, the path of those Thou art gracious top not of those Thou art wroth with, nor of those who err.

These words are addressed to God in the form of a prayer. They cannot be the word of God because God does not pray to himself. Why would God be praising himself as God? Why would he address himself as the ruler of the Day of Judgment? It makes no sense.

To remove such difficulty, one only needs to add the imperative “say” at the beginning of the sura. The word “say” appears more than 350 times in the Qur’an and it is obvious that some of those times were interpolated.

THE FOREIGN VOCABULARY OF THE QUR’AN

The Qur’an tells us that it is an Arabic Qur’an (12.1) and anyone who pretends that there is in the Qur’an anything but Arabic has made such a serious charge against God. The difficulty is, there are t least 275 words that cannot possibly be pure Arabic. For example, the word Qur’an itself comes from Syriac. (Warraq, 2003)[1]

VERSES MISSING, VERSES ADDED

There is a tradition that Aisha, the Prophet’s wife, that there was a ‘verse of stoning,” where stoning was prescribed as punishment for fornication—a portion which is now lost. Why is it that the Qur’an now only prescribes 100 lashes? If the story is not true, then why is it that Islamic law (even today) decrees stoning when the Qur’an demands flogging? Consequently, over 100 verses are missing.

Any interpolation or change to the text of the Qur’an is fatal to the dogma that states that the Qur’an is purely the word of God. For that, we have a story of a scribe named Abd Allah b. Sa’d Abi Sarh:[2]

The last named had for some time been one of the scribes employed at Medina to write down the revelations. On a number of occasions he had, with the Prophet’s consent, changed the closing words of a verse. When the Propeht had said “And God is mighty and wise,” Abd Allah suggested writing down, “knowing and wise” and the Prophet answered that there was no objection. Having observed a succession of changes of this type, Abd Allah renounced Islam on the ground that the revelation, if from God, could not be changed at the prompting of a scribe such as himself. After his apostasy he went to mecca and joined the Qorayshites.

Needless to say, Muhammad (p) had him assassinated once Mecca was captured.

Abd Allah had the right to apostasy, and he has firm ground on the rejection of Islam. The Qur’an tells us that it is perfect and the Qur’an as we have it today was from heaven. So, this begs the question: How could the Prophet (p) allow such a change to the Qur’an?

Because first round is only for opening arguments, I'll leave it as this. I'll refute my partner's case in the next round.



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

[2] Ali Dashti, p. 98 quoted by Warraq, I, p.114

Debate Round No. 2
Ahmed.M

Pro

= = = = => Rebuttals <= = = = =


My opponent's sources


Ibn Warraq heavily relies on 19th century orientalist works. In his works, he hardly refers back to the earliest sources for the biography of Muhammad (seerah) (peace and blessings be upon him) and does not refer to classical and early muslim scholars (Muslim, Bukhari, Hanbali, Ahmed etc). How can one take his work seriously? It appears it cannot.


1.Wording of the Quran


My opponent seems to have problems stating that if the word “say” was put at the start of the surah then it would be from Allah. I'm pretty sure “In the name of Allah most Gracious most merciful” is quite synonomous with “say”. Also Allah sent this down to show us correct prayer. I fail to see what is so contradictory/wrong with this chapter of the Quran. It is somewhat like the lord's prayer in the bible.


==Gospel of Matthew Chapter 6 Verses 9-13==

“After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.”


2. Foreign vocabulary of the Quran


My opponent says that the word Quran is syriac. What does he base his claim upon? Ibn Warraq. Ibn Warraq has a poor knowledge of Arabic since instead of using the various detailed Quranic commentaries and explanations of the verses and his own knowledge of Arabic, he relies upon a readily available and simple english translation of the Quran, Yusuf Ali. What kind of authority does Ibn Warraq have to state that the word Quran is syriac? Absolutely none.


The Quran means recitation as shown in the following verse:


==Surah Al Qiyamah Chapter 75 Verse 18==

“But when We have promulgated it, follow thou its recital (as promulgated).”


The word in arabic for recital is Quran (قُرْءَانَهُ). Also the Encyclopædia of Britannica confirms Quran means recitation [1]. I encourage my opponent to look at sources outside of Ibn Warraq.


3. Verses missing Verses added


My opponent claims that there was a punishment of stoning for fornication and says that there is stoning for fornication today. My opponent then says that today Islamic Law demnads stoning for fornication. Let us keep in mind that fornication is premarital sex between two people who are not married. First, my opponent gives no evidence for his claims. Second, Islamic law comes from the Quran and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). What does the Quran say for the punishment for fornication, lashes.


==Surah An Noor Chapter 24 Verse 4==

And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;.”


Quran says lashes for fornication not stoning. Stoning is for adultery.


My opponent then says that a man contributed to the Quran. I would wholeheartedly agree that if any man contributed to the Quran it would be fatal and impossible to believe it is the full word of Allah. However, there is no factual proof for such a weak claim. My opponent talks about Abdullah Sarh and how he apostasized after knowing the Quran was altered by him. He doesn't specify which chapter or verse of the Quran has been altered but he is most likely referring to Chapter 23 of the Quran and relies on this source at section #4 (biased) [2].


The simple reason why it cannot be said Sarh contributed to the Quran is because the alleged tainted Chapter was revealed while Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was in Mecca and Sarh embraced Islam and became a scribe when Muhammad (pabbuh) migrated to Medina. These are two different times and as such the claim contradicts the known facts.


= = = = => Contentions <= = = = =



Since my opponent's argument was rather short, I can expand upon my previous contentions


1. Historical Accuracies in the Quran


The Lost City of Iram


The Quran says:


==Surah Al Fajr Chapter 89 Verses 6-8==

Seest thou not how thy Lord dealt with the 'Ad (people).

Of the (city of) Iram, with lofty pillars.

The like of which were not produced in (all) the land?”


In these verses, only the Quran mentions a city by the specific name of Iram which has been considered fiction because of the complete lack of historical evidence for it. It was considered non-existent by most historians throughout the centuries for these reasons. However, recent archeological discoveries provide proof for the city mentioned in the Quran. In the December 1978 edition of the National Geographic, the discoveries of the Ebla tablets have revealed much information about the ancient city. What was astonishing was the mention of another ancient city in the tablets by the name of Iram. It says in the article:


“The names of cities thought to have been founded much later, such as Beirut and Byblos, leap from the tablets. Damascus and Gaza are mentioned, as well as two of the Biblical cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah. Also included is Iram, an obscure city referred to in Sura 89 of the Koran.” [3]


This lends credence to the historical Iram which is only mentioned in the Quran.



2. Scientific accuracies in the Quran


Biology


==Surah Ya sin Chapter 36 Verse 36==

Glory to Allah, Who created in pairs all things that the earth produces, as well as their own (human) kind and (other) things of which they have no knowledge.”


==Surah An Najm Chapter 53 Verse 45==

“That He did create in pairs,- male and female.”


The Quran mentions that the plants and vegetation the earth produces come in pairs and compares it with the human beings. We now know that human beings have genders, male and female which is being compared with plants. This would strongly suggest that the Quran mentions that plants and vegetation have female and male characteristics which has been confirmed by science in recent times. If my interpretation seems to be stretching in order to fit with science in this case then consider the second verse which says pairs for human beings and then says male and female. This is what the Quran is referring to when it says pairs in the first verse, male and female.



==Surah Al Anbiya Chapter 21 Verse 30==
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"

The Quran mentions that every living organism is made up and comprised of water. This is a fact as the human cell which is mostly cytoplasm, has 80% water. This is not something which could have have been observed or even known during the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).



3. High Quality Literature


Precise wording of the Quran


==Surah As Saffat Chapter 37 Verses 140-144==

When he ran away (like a slave from captivity) to the ship (fully) laden."


The arabic word for running away/fleeing is
abaqa which is used specifically for a runaway slave as shown in the brackets in the verse. This opens up a profound meaning. These verses talk about Prophet Yunus (Jonah) (peace be upon him) and how he ran away from his duty as a Prophet because of how people ignored and paid no attention to him. He did not wait for Allah to tell him to stop his prophetic duties but stopped of his own accord. Prophet Jonah (peace be upon him) is not a slave in the usual sense (of a human master), but a slave and follower of Allah and he is running away from the duties and commands Allah has given him as a Prophet. This precise wording has moral and spiritual implications as well as the obvious physical implication.

Sources

http://www.debate.org...

Microsuck

Con

Thank you for your refutations. In this round, I will rebut my partner's opening arguments.

I. HISTORICAL ACCURACIES IN THE QUR'AN

I fail to see how historical accuracies prove that the Qur'an is miraculously divine. However, I'll still give a quick refutation of each argument.

I will have to respond to these in the next round. However, I think that showing a historical mistake in the Qur’an is enough to bury the argument (and the Qur’an) 6 feet under:

  1. 1. The Jewish beliefs concerning Ezra
    1. a. 9.30, “The Jews call ‘Uzair (Ezra) a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they are intimate; what the Unbelievers of old use to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth.

Nowhere in Jewish history was Ezra called the “son of Allah”, not today, not then, and not in Prophet Muhammad’s time.

II. SCIENTIFIC ACCURACIES IN THE QUR’AN

This was my partner’s most interesting contention, and one I want to spend a lot of time on debunking each of these “miracles.”

A. OCEANOGRAPHY

There are several assumptions made by my opponent:

  1. 1. No one prior to the Qur’an knew that the oceans were dark; and
  2. 2. This verse is not simply referring to knowledge known by sailors that the deeper the sea the darker it gets.

The problem is, people already knew this. For proof, I bring two pieces of evidence:

That is the outlet to the sea, where the deep water lies unmoved and dark' - The Argonautic, book IV 3rd Century BCE

'She plunged into the dark sea midway between Samos and Rocky Imbrus' -The illiad, Book XXIV, 8th Century BCE

So, people already knew that the ocean was dark.

Finally, it could have been known because of pearl diving. Pearl diving was known to have been in existence for about 1000+ years—before the time of Muhammad. In fact, these divers had to descend to over 100 feet on a single breath; which undoubtedly exposed them to waves, drowning, and the darkness of the sea.[1] Miracle? I don’t think so!

B. THE WATER CYCLE

First, let’s review the water cycle in the video I’ve provided in the right of the screen:

My partner claims that the water cycle was predicted in the Qur’an; yet this is not true—not by the stretch of any imagination. Let’s review the verse:

39.12 “Seest thou not that Allah sends down rain from the sky, and leads it through springs in the earth? Then He causes to grow, therewith, produce of various colours: then it withers; thou wilt see it grow yellow; then He makes it dry up and crumble away. Truly, in this, is a Message of remembrance to men of understanding.”

According to the Qur’an, this is the order of the water cyce:

  1. 1. Allah sends down rain from the sky
  2. 2. Leads it through springs in the earth
  3. 3. Causes to grow and produce various colors: then it withers

First, the fact that water drops from the sky is by no means miraculous. WE see it happen all the time. It is very easy for someone to say that something happens—not necessarily why or how it happens.

Secondly, the Qur’an says that Allah sends down the rain from the sky—i.e., it comes from Allah. The problem is it leaves out the all important evaporation.

Finally, the Qur’an tells us that it leads through springs in the earth and causes various colours; basically saying in a rethoric divice that rain makes the flowers grow—no miracle there.

III. HIGH QUALITY LITERATURE

I have several qualms with this argument.

1st) Judgment of art is subjective, so even if my partner thinks that the Qur’an is high quality literature, it by no means proves that it is.

2nd) 11.5, “Now surely thy fold up their breast that they may conceal (their enmity) from Him; now surely, when they use their garments as a covering, He knows what they conceal and what they make public; surely he knows what is in the breast.”

The above statement is a giant run on. I can barely read it!

CONCLUSION

Although the Quran has rhetorical power in certain places, it is by no means a first rate performance. It contains historical fallacies; scientific absurdities and wishful thinking; and contains many run on sentences.



[1] De Silvia, K. M. (1995). Vol. 2 of History of Ceylon, History of Cleyon: History of Sri Lanka. Peradeniya: Ceyon University Press. pp.56 Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com... on 22 April 2012

Debate Round No. 3
Ahmed.M

Pro

= = = = => Defense <= = = = =

1. Historical Accuracies in the Quran


My opponent does not respond to any of my contentions. He said he will refute it in R4 but R3 was the main round for rebuttals and my chance to respond to them. I cannot respond to rebuttals made in R4 in R4. Anyways, what my opponent presents is not a rebuttal of my contention but another argument against the Quran. I will defend against the allegation on the Quran but my opponent has to actually address my contentions not dodge them and present other arguments.


My opponent says that Jews never called Uzayr the son of God. If we take a look at the encyclopædia of Judaica, an authentic source of information on Judaism we see that Ezra was called the son of God. It says:


“...the 'righteous who live in Yemen believed that 'Uzayr was indeed the son of Allah.' According to other Muslim sources, there were some Yemenite Jews who had converted to Islam who believed that Ezra was the messiah. For Muhammad, Ezra, the apostle (!) of messiah, can be seen in the same light as the Christian saw Jesus, the messiah, the son of Allah.”[1]


In the History of the Jews in Arabia, the Jews living in Hijaz were involved in rituals and religious activities regarding Uzayr (Ezra) [2]. My opponent made a bold assertion that no one ever thought Uzayr (Ezra) was the son of God. This is not supported by the evidence as was shown.


2. Scientific Accuracies in the Quran


Oceanography


My opponent only partially addresses the argument. I said that the Quran is mentioning internal waves but my opponent only attacked the darkness in the depths of the ocean. Let me show the verse once again:


==Surah An Nur Chapter 24 Verse 40==

“Or (the Unbelievers' state) is like the depths of darkness in a vast deep ocean, overwhelmed with billow topped by billow, topped by (dark) clouds: depths of darkness, one above another: if a man stretches out his hands, he can hardly see it! for any to whom Allah giveth not light, there is no light!”


If one reads carefully knowing that billow is another word for wave, the Quran is clearly mentioning internal waves in the ocean which is proven by science. My opponent ignored this. Regarding the darkness in the depths of the ocean, my opponent is trying to downgrade the argument by showing works which are much lesser in degree in all honesty than the verse in the Quran. This verse mentions darkness in levels in the ocean (depths of darkness one above the other) , and internal waves. The Greek works are much lower in degree and in context cannot be taken seriously. The section in Argonautica in context says:


“So he spake; and Triton stretched out his hand and showed afar the sea and the lake's deep mouth, and then addressed them: "That is the outlet to the sea, where the deep water lies unmoved and dark; on each side roll white breakers with shining crests; and the way between for your passage out is narrow.” [3]


This is talking about a large white mouth (beaker) which will lead them to the bottom of the sea. This source cannot be taken seriosuly whereas the verse in the Quran can be taken as a literal explanation of the nature of the deep sea. His second source says the person plunged into the dark sea which is the surface of the sea. This is not an accurate source of the levels of light in the ocean/sea, as it illuminated on the surface under regular conditions. My opponent then says pearl divers can dive 100ft (30.5m). This is in the euphotic zone of the ocean and is illuminated. I would like to remind the audience that the darkness wasn't the only part I talked about but internal waves which was much more important.


Water Cycle


My opponent has attacked a complete strawman of my argument. My argument here was that the Quran mentions the origins of Groundwater (part of water cycle) which was absolutely not known or even conceived by the Greek philosophers or any of the intelligency of the time. I provided a source proving this. My opponent tries to dodge this as evident by his statement:


“Finally, the Qur’an tells us that it leads through springs in the earth and causes various colours; basically saying in a rethoric divice that rain makes the flowers grow—no miracle there.”


Does my opponent talk about how the verse said that rain is lead to springs (groundwater) in the earth? He ignores the crucial part about rain going to springs (origins of groundwater) but simply says that the rain makes flowers grow. A complete strawman. Also, I never claimed the entire water cycle was in the verse but arguing a crucial part of it was (origins of groundwater).


3. High Quality Literature


My opponent completely brushes off my whole contention and labels it as subjective. There are good reasons why we read very old plays such as Shakespeare in high school until today. I didn't simply say “The Quran is an amazing work of literature”, I gave examples on verses where specific words are used in given contexts and match perfectly with them. I gave reasons, justifications, and sources for why the Quran can be said to be of high quality literature. My opponent must address this, he cannot simply ignore and brush it off. They were sound and valid arguments.


Once again, my opponent doesn't actually address my arguments but brings forth another argument. He says the Quran in one verse is a run on sentence but doesn't expand or explain. My opponent simply presents a verse and doesn't explain anything.


= = = = => Conclusions <= = = = =


I would like to bring in all the threads of this debate and draw conclusions from it. At the beginning of this debate, I presented a system by which to come to conclusions based on various truths in the Quran presented:


1. Luck/ Chance/ Coincidence

2. Author was very intelligent and figured it out(research, tests etc), a genius

3. Already existing information, nothing new

4. Common sense/observable (anyone can figure this out)

5. A source beyond all the capabilities of man at the time was involved (Allah in this case).


A summary of the contentions for the Quran presented and explained in this debate:


Historical Accuracies

1. Quranic distinction between Pharaoh and King of Egypt (Chronological accuracy)

2. Queen of Sheba and Sun Worship

3. Lost City of Iram

Scientific Accuracies

1. levels of darkness in ocean, internal waves

2. origin of groundwater (rain)

3. sexes of plants

4. every living organism made up of water

Literary Quality

1. Precise use of the word Bakka in context

2. Prophet Yunus (Jonah) run away (like a slave from captivity)


These are the seven arguments I have argued and defended in this debate. 7/9 of them were not even addressed. One of them was only addressed partially (oceanography) and the other one wasn't attacked but a strawman of it was (watercycle). As for my opponent arguments, I have addressed every single one of them.


None of these facts in the Quran could have been known during the time of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), weren't existing, wasn't commonsense, Muhammad (pabbuh) was illiterate and didn't undergo strenous education, and all of this could not have been simply luck or a coincidence. It seems plausible to assume #6, a source beyond all the capabilities of man at the time of Muhammad (pabbuh) was involved, Allah. I would like to remind the audience that the resolution is:


“There are proofs supporting the belief that the Quran is from Allah”


My opponent has not even addressed almost all my arguments so at least for this debate, I urge a Pro vote. At least in this debate, there are proofs suppporting the belief that the Quran is from Allah. There are reasons to believe this from Allah (God). The main reason is because my opponent has not even addressed most of my arguments while I have addressed all of his.

Sources

http://www.debate.org...

Microsuck

Con

I wish to thank my partner for his great deal of professionalism that he has shown throughout this debate. This round, I will defend my opening arguments and, if time permits, I will defend my rebuttals.

THE CASE AGAINST THE QUR’AN

My partner makes a ad hominem on my source, Ibn Warraq, by saying that we cannot take his work seriously. Ad hominem means “against the man” or “against the person.” It is made when you reject my claims based upon the author of my source rather than the proposition being made.[1]

IS THE QUR’AN THE WORD OF GOD?

The Qur’an states that the Qur’an has no human author. If there was anything in the Qur’an that cannot be the Word of God, then obviously the Qur’an is false. There are several places which the Qur’an says such a thing:

  1. 1. 17:88, “Say: ‘If the mankind and the jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another.’”
  2. 2. And if you (Arab pagans, Jews, and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur'an) to Our slave (Muhammad, Peace be upon him ), then produce a surah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allah, if you are truthful. [Qur'an 2:23]

As Goldziher points out:[2]

Devout Mu’tazilites voiced similar opinions [as the Kharijites who impugned the reliability of the text of the Qur’an] about those parts of the Qur’an in which the Prophet utters curses against his enemies. God could not have called such opassages ‘a noble Quran on a well-guarded tablet’”

Ibn Warraq continues:[3]

As we shall see, if we were to apply the same reasoning to all parts of the Qur’an, there would not be much left as the word of God since very little of it is worthy of a Merciful and Compassionate, All-Wise God.

Dashti notes:[4]

The praise of Him who carried His servant from Mecca to Palestine cannot be God’s utterance, because God does not praise Himself, and therefore must be Muhammad’s thanksgiving to God for this favor

So as we see, one cannot say that the Qur’an is the ENTIRE and PURE Word of God “preserved on a tablet” if there truly was a human author that wrote part of the Qur’an. This is the argument, my partner misrepresented the argument.

FOREIGN VOCABULARY OF THE QUR’AN

I, for one, am well aware that the Qur’an means “recital” in Arabic. However, my partner once again strawmans my position. I argue that the Qur’an cannot possibly be purely Arabic. One tradition tells us that “anyone who pretends that there is in the Qur’an anything other than the Arabic tongue has made a serious charge against God.” Yet, I point out that the Qur’an is not entirely in Arabic because there are words deriving from different languages into the Arabic tongue. Al-Suyuti points out that there are over 107 foreign words in the Qur’an and over 275 words that can be considered foreign. My partner hasn’t refuted this argument.

VERSES MISSING, VERSES ADDED

Un-refuted. For now, I wish to go to the Hadith in order to find support for this claim and further back up my point.

THE QUR’AN WAS COMPILED BECAUSE OF VARIANT READINGS IN THE QUR’AN

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

VARIOUS MANUSCRIPTS HAVE DIFFERENT VERSES

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

(Hadith references: http://cmje.org...)

I am out of room so I will request a part 2 of this debate if my partner would like.



[1] For more on the ad hominem fallacy, see “Logical Fallacy: Argumentum Ad Hominem” from Fallacy File retrieved on 25 April 25, 2012 http://www.fallacyfiles.org...

[2] Goldziher (2), p. 173 quoted in Warraq, I. (1995) “Why I am Not a Muslim”, p.107

[3] Ibid

[4] Ali Dashti, p.148f quoted Ibid

Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
Conduct: Con made new arguments in the last round, which was against the debate format explictly stated in the first round, so this point goes against him.

Convincing Arguments: Pro provided the necessary proof, however liberal it was, but con never fully refuted any of pro's arguments. Con only partially refuted the arguments of pro. Con's proof in the end backfires on him and he ends up having even worse rebuttals for this reason.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Pro had BOP but defined proof extremely liberally. Con then decided this wasn't enough and defined proof even more liberally, as just anything that "supports the proposition." Accuracy is a risky argument as you only need a single example to show it isn't accurate, but it was enough to meet BOP in this debate due to weak counterarguments. Con successfully showed that the Qu'ran may not be reliable, but his own definition of proof trips him up on this - there was no need for the support to be reliable support, just support. Structure could have been improved in this debate, and both debaters need to learn that not all evidence is proof. Conduct was fair - use of new arguments in last round justified by lack of rebuttal opportunities in round 2. Medium-quality debate. Aff win.
Posted by Ahmed.M 5 years ago
Ahmed.M
You introduced new arguments in your last response....

We wouldn't really need a second debate if you used all your characters in all your responses.

Thanks for the debate though.
Posted by Ahmed.M 5 years ago
Ahmed.M
You said: "I told you that I would need more time to adequetly address the historical accuracies. However, I have addressed the fact that there are historical mistakes in the Qur'an."

I will be responding to the alleged mistake. You must understand though that you didn't actually address my argument. What you presented was not a rebuttal but another case.

You said: "Second, I refute all of the "science" in the Quran showing that it is circular reasoning or is not supported by the Qur'an."

Actually no, you only addressed the oceanography one partially and attacked a strawman of the water cycle one. For the water cycle one, I wasn't arguing the entire water cycle but a portion of it. I said that the Quran talks about the origins of groundwater and springs as being rain which no one knew. You didn't address that.

You said:"As for as the literacy rate, I show that it is subjective and doesn't provide divine inspiration--likewise, it is not unique to the Quran."

You can't simply ignore the argument and say it is subjective but must actually address it. I gave two examples where the Quran uses specific wording in the right contexts and gave an explanation why the words are precise. You simply ignored all that
Posted by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
I told you that I would need more time to adequetly address the historical accuracies. However, I have addressed the fact that there are historical mistakes in the Qur'an. Second, I refute all of the "science" in the Quran showing that it is circular reasoning or is not supported by the Qur'an. As for as the literacy rate, I show that it is subjective and doesn't provide divine inspiration--likewise, it is not unique to the Quran.
Posted by Ahmed.M 5 years ago
Ahmed.M
wow completely dodged almost all my arguments and the ones you addressed, you only addressed them partially.
Posted by Wanted797 5 years ago
Wanted797
I'm interested to see where you go with this Pro. I fail to see how you are going to show the Quran to be a reliable and valid source. Historical events do not prove or show any nature of divine intervention.
Posted by Ahmed.M 5 years ago
Ahmed.M
what do you mean by truth in it's entirety. The specific verses I will be arguing or the entire Quran? I can't argue the entire Quran, because that's too much too cover...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
Ahmed.MMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
Ahmed.MMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con introduced new arguments in the last round, thus the conduct point. Con argued with his own definition. Pro provided enough proof. Con did not actually address the arguments very well, but either partially addressed them or said the argument was subjective.
Vote Placed by bluepawn24 5 years ago
bluepawn24
Ahmed.MMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Ahmed.MMicrosuckTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Will put up RFD in comments.