The Instigator
garet122
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
Bible2000
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Was the Qur'an well preserved?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
garet122
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,387 times Debate No: 67487
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

garet122

Pro

Put your arguments forward so I can refute them.
Bible2000

Con

Thank you for starting this debate, Pro. Since you did not give a definition for "well preserved", we will debate using my definition, which is that there is not a single ayah (verse) missing. Let's take a look at what the hadith, sayings and acts of the prophet himself and his followers, say about the Quran's preservation.


Briefly after Muhammad’s death, Caliph Abu Bakr needed to suppress a rebellion, and he sent many huffaz (people who had memorized portions of the Quran) to fight at the Battle of Yamama. Many of these huffaz died, and Muslim sources tell us that portions of the Quran were lost:


Many (of the passages) of the Qur’an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama . . . but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur’an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them. (Source: Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif.)


Abu Bakr appointed appointed Zaid ibn Thabit to the gathering of whatever remained of the Quran, but much more than a single ayah was already lost at the battle of Yamama.


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. (Source: Sahih al-Bukhari 4987.)


In addition, 19 years after Muhammad’s death, Uthman ordered the original Quran to be burned and that every Muslim received a changed codex with many flaws, that same codex we have right now that even Muhammad's most trusted teachers did not agree with. And yet, they could not even agree on what was the correct recitation of the Quran.


Learn the recitation of the Qur’an from four: from Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu’adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka’b. (Source: Sahih al-Bukhari 3808.)

Interestingly, Ibn Masud, first on Muhammad’s list, held that the Qur’an should only have 111 chapters, and that chapters 1, 113, and 114 shouldn’t have been included in the Qur’an. Because of this and hundreds of other differences he called this codex of the Quran a deception:

The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Quran. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him [i.e. Muhammad] whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. (Source: Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 444.)

But Ibn Masud wasn’t the only one of Muhammad’s trusted teachers who disagreed with Zaid’s Quran. Ubayy ibn Ka’b was Muhammad’s best reciter and one of the only Muslims to collect the materials of the Quran during Muhammad’s lifetime. Yet Ibn Ka’b believed that Zaid’s Quran was missing two chapters:

Umar said, “Ubayy was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur’an), yet we leave some of what he recites.” Ubayy says, “I have taken it from the mouth of Allah’s Messenger and will not leave it for anything whatever.” (Source: Sahih al-Bukhari 5005.)

If the original Quran was burned, and Muhammad's most trusted teachers did not agree with the new Quran we have, and yet they could not even remember and disputed about what the original Quran said, can it be said that it has been well preserved?

Here is another hadith showing the Quran has not been well preserved, and I could show you many more:

Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.” (Source: Sunan Ibn Majah 1944.)

The verses on stoning and breastfeeding an adult ten times are not in the Quran today. Why? Aisha’s sheep ate them.

These certainly are problems that the Bible did not have. In fact, there is no other ancient book as well attested as the Bible with its thousands of ancient manuscripts showing it has been the same in almost 2,000 years.


Thank you. I eagerly await Pro's response.





Debate Round No. 1
garet122

Pro

1) You quoted this narration:

Many (of the passages) of the Qur"an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama . . . but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur"an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them. (Source: Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif.)

This narration is not authentic (because of the way it was narrated) and it is in complete contradiction with other sahih narrations which says that several EARLY companions were huffaz of the Qur'an:

Ubay bin Kab, Abu Ayub Ansari, Ubadah bin Samit, Maz bin Jabal, Abu Darda, Abdullah bin Umar (RA), (Al-Ittiqan 1/56Section 20)
(AND MANY OTHERS)

Many other companions had memorized the Qur'an and they did not die at the battle of Yamama. What happened at the latter is that many recent converts (who were huffaz) died, so the Caliph, Abu Bakr (RA), being worried that subsequently (at future battles) others may die, he started the compilation of the Qur'an as to prevent it from being lost.

2) You just copy pasted from Christian missionary webites without trying to really understand what happened. You said that at Yamama, many verses from the Qur'an were lost but then you said that 19 years after the dead of Muhammad (pbuh) Uthman burned the original Qur'an... there is a contradiction.

3) It is true that Ibn Mas'ud's codex did not contain surah Al-Fatihah and the two last surahs, but that does not mean that he held the view that these passages were not part of the Qur'an:

A) Four of our most authentic Qira'at have unbroken chains of narrations going back to the prophet (pbuh) through Ibn Mas'ud. Al-Fatiha and the last two surahs are included in these four recitations. This evidence alone is enough to clear all doubts about Ibn Masud's Codex; these recitations are Mutawatir.

B) ""Abdullah bin Mas"ud was asked as to why he did not write al-Fatiha in his Mushaf. He replied, "If I were to write I would write it before every surah."" Abu Bakr al-Anbari explains this saying every raka"ah (in prayers) starts with al-Fatiha and then another surah is recited. It is as if Ibn Mas"ud said, "I have dropped it for the sake of brevity and I have trusted its preservation by Muslims (collectively)." (al-Qurtubi, al-Jami al-Ahkam al-Qur"an. Dar al-Kutab al-Misriyah, Cairo, 1964 vol.1 p.115)

C) Narrated Ibn Mas"ud: "Excessively recite two surahs. Allah will make you reach higher ranks in the Hereafter because of them. They are al-mu"awwazatayn (i.e. al-Falaq and an-Nas/Nos. 113 & 114) ..." (Kanzul "Ummal, Hadith 2743)

Ibn Mas'ud regarded them as being 'surah', which means they are chapters of the Qur'an.

D)"It is not proved from him that these two surahs are not from the Qur"an. He erased them and dropped them from his Mushaf refusing to put them into writing, not rejecting them as part of the Qur"an. It was so because to him nothing was to be written in the Mushaf except what was commanded by the Prophet "peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- and he did not find them written nor heard an instruction in this regard." (al-Ittiqan 1/271)

E) The narration which essays that Ibn Mas'ud did see the surah 113 and 114 as being part of the Qur'an is one that is reported in the musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and in the Mu"jam al-Kabir of al-Tabarani, it goes as follows:

Abdul Rahman bin Yazid relates that Ibn Mas"ud erased al-mu"awwazatayn from his Mushaf and said they were not part of the Qur"an. (Musnad Ahmad, No. 21188)

Even though its isnad is authentic, its matn is VERY problematic. This single narration is in complete contradiction with multiple Mutawatir reports (and most importantly, recitations) going back to Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud. We can consider it as being mu'allal (defective).

4)Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud did not object to the content of what 'Uthman's Qur'an' contained.

#1) "Abdullah bin Mas'ud disliked Zaid bin Thabit copying the Musahif, and he said: 'O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man'--meaning Zaid bin Thabit--and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: 'O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement. So meet Allah with the Musahif.'" (Jami" Tirmidhi, hadith 3104)

#2)"SO CONCEAL THE MANUSCRIPTS! I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth."

You quoted an erroneous translation of report #2 made up by lying missionaries (Acts-17 Ministry), What is in capital letter is the correct translation. (If you do not believe me, go check it in arabic).

Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud opposed the fact that Uthman nominated Zayd as the head of the commission responsible for the (second) compilation of the Quran because Zayd was younger than him.

It is important to note that Ibn Mas'ud finally agreed with the other companions:

"Uthman "may Allah be pleased with him- wrote to him (Ibn Masud) bidding him to follow the Companions in what they had agreed upon due to its benefits, (and because it lead to) unity of opinions and the end of differences. So, he inclined to it and agreed to follow and to give up the opposition "may Allah be pleased with them all." (al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya 7/217)

5)Narrated Anas: People differed about the Qur"an during the time of "Uthman to the extent that even teachers and children had differences. This reached "Uthman. He said, "You deny (valid recitations) in my presence and make mistakes in that. Those away from me must be more violent in denying and making mistakes. O companions of Muhammad! Come together and write for the people a manuscript to be followed." (al-Ittiqan 1/69)

Anas ibn Malik reported that Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman came to 'Uthman while the people of Syria were conquering Armenia and Azerbaijan with the people of Iraq. Hudhayfa was alarmed by the difference in their recitation. Hudhayfa said to 'Uthman, "Amir al-Mu'minin! Deliver this Community before they disagree about the Book as the Jews and Christians differed!" So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, "Send us the pages in your possession and we will copy them and then return them to you." So Hafsa sent them to 'Uthman. He ordered Zayd ibn Thabit, 'Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr, Sa'id ibn al-'As, and 'Abdu'r-Rahman ibn al-Harith ibn Hisham to transcribe copies. 'Uthman said to the group of the three Qurashis, "When you and Zayd ibn Thabit disagree about any of the Qur'an, write it in the dialect of Quraysh. It was revealed in their language." They did that. When they had copied it out, 'Uthman returned the pages to Hafsa and he sent a copy of what they had copied out to every region and commanded that every sheet or copy which had any other form of the Qur'an should be burned. (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 4604)

Post the complete text of the narrations, the companions all agreed on this matter, they even compared the newly compiled Qur'an to the one compiled under Abu Bakr.

"I see that we bring people to a single Mushaf so that there is neither division nor discord". And we said, "An excellent proposal." (Ibn Abi Dawud"s Kitab al-Masahif, Hadith 62. Classified as Sahih by Ibn Hajr in Fath al-Bari)

"I compared the Mushaf with those manuscripts; they did not differ in anything." (Mushkil al-Athar, Hadith 2645)

I will address the other issues in another post, insh'allah
Bible2000

Con

1) Pro says that the first narration I quoted is not authentic. He will have to give sources for credibility since the narration I quoted was written by the son of Abu Dawud Sulaymān ibn al-AshF3;ath al-Azdi as-Sijistani, a well-known Persian collector of prophetic hadith who compiled the Sunan Abu Dawud, one of the Kutub al-Sittah. Pro continues saying that companions that had memorized the whole Qur'an did not die at the battle of Yamama. That's not what the narration says:

Many (of the passages) of the Qur’an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama . . . but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur’an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them. (Source: Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif.)

2) I understand what happened very well. I said portions of the Quran were lost at Yamama, so Abu Bakr ordered what remained of the Quran to be written down, and that is what Uthman burned. No contradiction there.

3) Pro says I quoted an erroneous translation of report #2. But, I never even quoted this report! This is the report he speaks of:

"SO CONCEAL THE MANUSCRIPTS! I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth."

He claims that what is in capital letters is a correction. Check my round two and see if I ever used this quote in my arguments.

Conclusion

Pro has not said anything about Ubayy’s (Muhammad’s most trusted teacher) belief that Zaid’s Quran is missing two chapters. Also, Pro has the burden of proof in this debate, and has not given any proof that the Quran was well preserved.

Thank you. I once again await Pro’s response.

Debate Round No. 2
garet122

Pro

garet122 forfeited this round.
Bible2000

Con

I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
garet122

Pro

1) You have no knowledge of the science of ahadith. You keep bringing me an ahad narration which contradicts mutawatir reports mentionning that several companions knew the Quran by heart (they did not die at Yamama). Just check the names I have provided.

You cannnot make an argument by quoting an ahad narration, it is ridiculous.

3) Go check what you wrote at the beginning, you have quoted an abridged version of this narration:

The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Quran. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him [i.e. Muhammad] whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. (Source: Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 444.)

That is an erroneous translation propagated by some Christian missionaries. It is in fact, as I mentioned before:

So conceal the manuscripts! I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth.”(Source: Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 444.)


4) As for why Uthman (ra) burned the manuscripts:

A) The website letmeturnthetables.com explains it in a very concise manner:

"With above details in mind we can now easily fathom the reason as to why ‘Uthman –may Allah be pleased with him- burnt some manuscripts.

They were certainly personal manuscripts that did not incorporate within their spelling convention all of warranted multiple readings. This could lead later generations studying Qur’an from those manuscripts to maintain that only what their manuscripts read was true and they might have resorted to same denial which ‘Uthman feared.

In personal manuscripts there might have been instances where a person followed his tribal spelling convention. It was feared that if studied by someone not cognizant of the details and basis of the writing that way, it could again lead to serious problems.

So considering the above ‘Uthman –may Allah be pleased with him- decided to destroy all sources of the potential threat in the form of personal manuscripts. And in this endeavor he had the support of the companions of the Prophet."

http://www.letmeturnthetables.com...


B) We have to bear in mind the important fact that none of the companions where opposed to what Uthman did, they approved of it.

[The musaf] was read to the Companions in the presence of ‘Uthman.” (Ibn Kathir’s Fadhail al-Qur’an 1/89)

Ali said: “By Allah, if I were in charge of the affairs, I would have done what has been done.” (Kitabul Masahif, Hadith 62. Classified as Sahih by Dr. Wa’iz)

Mus’ab bin Sa’d reported: “I saw a large number of people present when ‘Uthman burnt the manuscripts. They liked it.” He (further) said, “And not one of them opposed it.”(Kitabul Masahif, Hadith 33. Classified as Sahih by Ibn Kathir and Dr. Wa’iz)

Ali said, “Do not speak of ‘Uthman anything but good because by Allah, whatever he did concerning the Masahif he did in our presence. He asked us, ‘What do you say regarding these recitations for it has reached me that some say to the others, ‘our recitation is better than yours’ even though this takes one towards disbelief?’ We said to him, ‘what is your opinion?’ He said, ‘I see that we should make all people recognize one Mushaf then there will be no difference or discord.’ We said, ‘An excellent proposal.’” (Kitabul Masahif, Hadith 62. Classified as Sahih by Dr. Wa’iz)

“I see that we bring people to a single Mushaf so that there is neither division nor discord”. And we said, “An excellent proposal.” (Ibn Abi Dawud’s Kitab al-Masahif, Hadith 62. Classified as Sahih by Ibn Hajr in Fath al-Bari)

Uthman did not act on its own, other companions advised him to compile the Qur'an:

Anas ibn Malik reported that Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman came to 'Uthman while the people of Syria were conquering Armenia and Azerbaijan with the people of Iraq. Hudhayfa was alarmed by the difference in their recitation. Hudhayfa said to 'Uthman, "Amir al-Mu'minin! Deliver this Community before they disagree about the Book as the Jews and Christians differed!"...(Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 4604)


5) As for your argument concerning Ubayy, I don't have the time to write a response, but read this article: http://www.letmeturnthetables.com...

Bible2000

Con

Bible2000 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
garet122

Pro

1) You said:

Pro says that the first narration I quoted is not authentic. He will have to give sources for credibility since the narration I quoted was written by the son of Abu Dawud Sulaymān ibn al-AshF3;ath al-Azdi as-Sijistani, a well-known Persian collector of prophetic hadith who compiled the Sunan Abu Dawud, one of the Kutub al-Sittah. Pro continues saying that companions that had memorized the whole Qur'an did not die at the battle of Yamama. That's not what the narration says:

I don't have to prove that it is weak or fabricated, you have to prove its authenticity; as Muslims, we cannot accept any report without assessing its authenticity. Even if you do that, you are confronted with the fact that we have mutawatir reports supporting the authenticity of the qira'ats (the recitation and content of the Book of Allah) with Ubayy bin Ka'b and Abdullah ibn Masud in the chain.



2) In the first round, you mentioned this narration:

Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.” (Source: Sunan Ibn Majah 1944.)


In Response I would like to quote these narrations:

O Messenger of Allah, let the verse about stoning be written for me.' He (the Prophet) said, 'I can't do this.'" (Sunan Al-Kubra Baihiqi 8/211 & Sunan Al-Kubra Nasai Hadith 7148. Albani (in Sahiha 6/412) said Baihiqi pointed to its authenticity)

When this was revealed I came to Prophet and asked if I could write it, he (the Prophet) disliked it.' (Mustadrik Al-Hakim, Hadith 8184. Hakim called it Sahih)

Umar said: "When this verse came down I approached the Prophet peace be upon him so I asked him: Should I write it down?' It is as if he hated that. (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, Fathul Bari, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Al I'tiraaf bil Zina,Commentary on Hadith no. 6327

According to Muslim scholars, the verse about stoning was revealed to the Prophet (pbuh) and its ruling had to be implemented, but its recitation was abrogated (it is not part of the mushaf).

The verse of stoning: Its recitation has been abrogated and its ruling still remains in effect. (Al Sindi,Sharh Sunan Ibn Majah, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Al Rajam, Commentary on Hadith no. 2543

And the companions of the Prophet abandoning the writing of this verse is clear evidence that the abrogated should not be written in the Quran and that Umar's statement about the stoning as he is on the pulpit and the silence of the companions and other than them from who were present from opposing him is evidence about the ruling of the stoning (still being implemented) (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Rajam Al Thayb fil Zina, Commentary on Hadith no. 3201

And this is whose recitation has been abrogated but ruling remains in effect. (Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-Adhim Abadi, Awn al-Mabud Sharh Sunan Abu Dawud, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Fil Rajam, Commentary on Hadith no. 3835


One may argue they (the scholars) came up with this ruling after the parchment containing the verses were eaten by a goat, this is simply not the case:

Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it.Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession. (Sahih Muslim, Book 017, Number 4194)

It should be noted that the hadith of Aisha (if it is authentic) says that a parchment on which verses were written was eaten by a goat, it does not say that the memory of our Prophet's companions was also eaten by it...



***NOTE***
(This article does not necessarily reflects the authors view about stoning, it should not be taken out of context)



For more informations, please visit these websites:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org...


http://www.letmeturnthetables.com...

http://www.islamic-life.com...



Bible2000

Con

Bible2000 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by garet122 2 years ago
garet122
@Bible2000

'haha', give me the isnad (of your so called bible) going back to Isa...'haha'
Posted by Bible2000 2 years ago
Bible2000
@garet

haha, how can you not know who wrote the gospels when they have the name of the writer? These accounts of Jesus do not contradict. Just try to give me a single contradiction, you will fail.

@LeRoy

Yeshua is the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is "Joshua." Iesous is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is "Jesus." Thus, the names "Joshua" and "Jesus" are essentially the same; both are English pronunciations of the Hebrew and Greek names for our Lord.
Posted by YassineB 2 years ago
YassineB
@garet122
why aren't you accepting any messages in your profile? :)
Posted by garet122 2 years ago
garet122
We have no isnad for the bible

We don't even know who wrote the so called-gospels

There are contradicting accounts of what Jesus (pbuh) did
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
Memory is known to be inaccurate.
Even I can't claim that my own memories are 100% accurate.
But insisting from that premise that the Qur'an hasn't been well preserved
is something else, especially since it's in Arabic, & who can read Arabic?
The Bible wasn't written in one language.
Allah hasn't been protecting the Bible, at all,
nor has "Yahweh" .
It's VERY EASY to prove that the Bible is Wrong.
Here's just one proof:
My name back then wasn't Jesus-
I had a Hebrew name, pronounced Yeshua.
Posted by Bible2000 2 years ago
Bible2000
@LeRoy

Had Muslims memorized the Quran inspired to Muhammad and written it down exactly how he recited it, I could accept that the Quran was well preserved. However, what good is a perfectly preserved book that is not from God? Allah can not be the author of conflicting books. If Bible was sent by Allah first, should we not continue believing in Bible, especially when it has those thousands of manuscripts in the original language showing that Allah has been protecting it for almost 2,000 years? In addition, Muslim sources themselves show us the Quran was not well preserved. So, yes. The question can be answered.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
OOOOOOH!!!!!
Another Nutcase SubGenius !!!
Don't any of you actually bother to read the Comments?
The so-called Qur'an was supposedly given VERBALLY by a so-called Angel
to Muhammad, who was supposedly ILLITERATE, & , was, supposedly,
written down by scribes, who supposedly later compiled it.
In other words, the Question "Was the Qur'an well-preserved? " cannot be answered.
Posted by BobbyPandaram 2 years ago
BobbyPandaram
Pro needs to claify what is meanr by well preserved.
Posted by BobbyPandaram 2 years ago
BobbyPandaram
I am up for the challenge but I think Pro needs to go first since he will be argueing in the affirmative
Posted by YassineB 2 years ago
YassineB
@ garet122
> Oh! OK.
> Then good luck ;)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
garet122Bible2000Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Too many dropped rounds by Con. Enough doubt was cast on the authenticity of the Hadith and translations Con was using for rebuttals that they were mitigated. The BoP was on Pro however in this debate and Pro offered no positive material... So I am leaving the debate a tie and awarding conduct only.