The Instigator
truthseeker613
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Mirza
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

evidence for religion

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,306 times Debate No: 15936
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (33)
Votes (5)

 

truthseeker613

Con

I chalenge any one to provide evidence for any religion beside judaism. God, the revelation of god at sinia, and the bible can all be taken as a given if my opponent so desiers. burdon of proof is obviosly on my opponent. last responce is not for new argument, rather only responce, clarification, and sumerization.
Mirza

Pro

Thank you. I shall begin by praising God and thanking Him for giving others and particularly myself the opportunity to have a civil discussion over such fascinating and important topics. It is indeed in accordance to the religion I follow and represent in this debate - namely Islam - that we have such exchanges where we learn from one another and share mutual respect.

[Qur'an 49:13] O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).

1. Introduction

The religion of Islam is based on the Holy Book known as the Qur'an, and the narrations of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), which are recorded in the authentic hadith. The name Islam is not dated back to a person or a tribe. Its root lies in the letters 'slm,' or simply the root word salam, which means peace. Islam itself means "Submitting [your Will] to God." By these definitions, Islam is a religion of peace through submission to God.

The Qur'an itself dates back to 14 centuries ago, although we Muslims do not believe that its revelation marked the beginning of Islam. Since "Islam" means submitting your will to God, any person who did that prior to the revelation of the Qur'an was a Muslim. When the Old Testament was revealed, the Jews who followed the Torah and followed God's commands were, in fact, Muslims. When we refer to them as "Jews" we simply mean that they were followers of the tribe of Judah. We Muslims also believe that the Qur'an was revealed to the last Messenger, Prophet Muhammad, through the angel Gabriel, and that the beloved Prophet neither authored it nor contributed to its authorization. He memorized what was revealed to him and he passed on the message of the Qur'an. With that being said, I hope we all understand what kind of a religion we are discussing, and I will move on to explaining why Islam is a true religion of Almighty God.

2. Similarities between Judaism and Islam

My opponent is a Jew and seems to believe that Judaism is the true religion of God. I will draw some similarities between Jewish teachings and Islam. If we look at the term "Allah" we realize that it is the same as found in the Bible, hereby the Torah. The very first passage in the Old Testament mentions God in no other way than the Qur'an itself does. That is if we read the Arabic texts.

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

In other words: In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. In Judaism, we understand that God is One, has no partner, and has no competitor in either might, wisdom, mercy, or any other positive attribute. Judaism believes in Prophets like Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, just to mention a few (and may peace be upon them all). The religions also share many similar moral laws. Anything like adultery, gambling, intoxicants, or other evils are considered morally wrong.

But we do have different beliefs, too. Whereas the Jews believe in the Torah as the ultimate source of God, they reject the Qur'an. They also reject Prophets Jesus and Mohammad (peace be upon them), while Muslims accept both. In fact, the Qur'an is not here to tell us to throw out the Bible. It actually makes respectful references to it, but makes it clear that it contains corruptions made by man over time. So, what my opponent should do is to accept the similarities between the religions, see where they differ, and then judge which religion is true.

3. Evidence for Islam
  1. The Qur'an is the only preserved religious book
  2. The Qur'an contains no contradictions nor errors
1. If we look at the various religious texts in the world, we find that all of them have been corrupted to an extent. Only one of them is an exception, and that is the Qur'an. A noticeable condemner of Islam, Sir William Nuir, acknowledged this very fact by concluding, "... we may upon the strongest presumption affirm that every verse in the Coran is the genuine and unaltered composition (or recitation)."

. If God exists, His ultimate Message is to be preserved.
.: The Qur'an is the only book claiming to be from God that is preserved.
.:: Therefore, the Qur'an is probably the true Message of God.

Pay attention to the fact that I do not rely entirely on this model, but I do believe that if God wants to single out His own message apart from false messages claiming to be from God, then His message must be preserved so that it does not turn into falsehood.

2. A doctrinal error can be used as evidence against a doctrine itself. If something is supposedly inspired by God, but it contains elements that are clearly made by men who made common errors in ancient times, then what verification is there that this 'something' is from God? Why would God inspire falsehood and tales of the ancients? It seems to me like the various religious scriptures contain elements of truth, but indeed also elements of falsehood that were common in cultures and times of their origin. I would like to hear from my opponent whether or not he believes in a literal description of creation in Genesis, or the global flood. If not, I will pick other points.

In my next rounds, I will go in-depth with evidence of Islam and link the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) with the texts of the Old Testament. In the next round I expect my opponent to come with either critique questions to my points.

Debate Round No. 1
truthseeker613

Con

I thank you for accepting this debate it should be enlightening. I'll skip your beginning words as I am pressed for time, and they don't seem relevant. Starting with #3, evidence for Islam: You state The Koran is the only preserved religious book. I ask you to prove this, specifically with regard to the original version of the bibl in Hebrew. In addition I seem to remember that at one point there were 7 versions of the Quran until one powerful person decided one was accurate and had the others destroyed, Please correct me if I'm wrong about this. I challenge you to bring evidence that the Koran has remained unchanged. To do this you would need to have the original/1st Koran ever written.
With regard to your 2nd point I ask, what is the evidence in the fact that there are no contradictions? Is it so supernatural to write a book without contradiction? (I reserve the right to challenge the Korans lack of contradiction.) I fail to see the logic of your evidence.
With regard to your question of whether the beginning of genesis is literal it may or may not I have yet to hear a convincing argument one way or another.
Frankly your evidence thus far I have found quite unconvincing. Look forward to hearing some hard evidence. (oh and don't even bother mentioning the literary quality of the quran it's totally subjective, and cannot be shown.). I await your evidence.
Mirza

Pro

Thank you for your response.

-- Rebuttal section --

Point 1: Preservation of the Qur'an

Con asked me to prove that the Qur'an is the only preserved religious book. I say that the burden of proof is not only on me. As a matter fact he is the one who should tear apart my claim by putting forth a challenge to the Qur'an. There are religious books in the amount of water drops in the oceans, and I fail to realize how I can describe them all right now, right here. To my opponent: if you disagree then refer to another religious text which is supposedly uncorrupted.

How can I prove that the Qur'an is preserved? There is this phenomena called the challenge of time that threatens everyone and everything. If you analyze, there are disturbingly and quite fascinatingly very few things which can pass the challenge of time. Has any person lived for centuries? Has any long period of time been free of violence and bloodshed? Has any specie evolved to a point where it has become biologically static? Ad infinitum. We clearly see that very few things can actually remain original and simply unchanged for long periods of time.

I claim that the Qur'an has passed the challenge of time. In order for the text of a book to remain authentic, it must match many criteria. It should be easily distinguished between its original form and possible corrupted copies, have independent historical sources confirming its text, and in later times, it must be confirmed original by e.g., archaeology. The Qur'an meets all these criteria.

Old manuscripts: There are various archaeological discoveries concerning old copies of the Qur'an. There are literally thousands of old copies of the Qur'an that perfectly match the texts of one another. Not all of the old manuscripts are full, but the parts they share with other manuscripts are confirmed, and in this cycle the dozens of old Qur'anic manuscripts keep confirming each other. http://www.saudinf.com...

It should also be noted that the Qur'an is the only book which is the exact same. If you restore a copy from the very deep ground, visit an alienated Muslim village in China, or whatever else you can think of, you will not come across a single Qur'an in its original language (Arabic) that is different in the text than any other Qur'an in the world. Not even the numerous sects in Islam disagree that we only have one Qur'an today.

I would also like to clarify something which some people easily misunderstand. It is true that we can find books older than the Qur'an being in their true form, but they are only fragments and in no way fully preserved. A small tablet from some century BC that is partial, one sided, and named a "book," that is not being fully original and preserved.

7 ahruf: My opponent mentioned so-called seven versions of the Qur'an. What he is referring to is, in fact, not the term 'version' but 'reading.' It is true that the Qur'an was revealed in seven ahruf that basically means seven readings. This is not a corruption of the Qur'an since it was intended to be revealed in seven readings. When the Angel Gabriel recited the Qur'an to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the Prophet asked the angel to read it in another way, all until the angel came with seven readings of the Qur'an and did not continue anymore. It is also true that we today only have one reading of the Qur'an.

Now why is this? After the death of the Prophet, the Arabs spread Islam across Arabia. Naturally people started translating the Qur'an into their native dialects, so they eventually mixed the 7 ahruf. The close companion of the Prophet, Uthman, who also happened to be the caliph, became worried that the Qur'an would be distorted. So, he had the power to call all Qur'anic copies and burn them all except the one that those who memorized the Qur'an and heard the Prophet recite it agreed upon. There was no longer confusion about the Qur'an, and now we have it in the dialect of the Prophet himself. If the Bible was compiled by the closest companions of Jesus, or the Buddhist texts by Buddha himself or even one person who lived in this times, I would drop this point. But no such thing happened, except with the Qur'an.

Also, while the seven readings were different, the meaning was and remains the same. You can name a color whatever you want, but a term does not change its appearance.

Point 2: Corruption of the Bible

The very fact that the Bible was revised and translated into Latin, revised and translated back to Hebrew and Greek, ultimately proves that the Bible has been corrupted and is not entirely authentic. In fact, the contradictions in it and the many grammatical and terminological discrepancies in it even in the Hebrew and Greek point toward no more, no less than corruption.

Point 3: Contradictions in the Qur'an

My opponent wants me to demonstrate that the Qur'an has no contradictions. That is like counting every strain of grass on the planet. I cannot compare every sentence and say, "You see, I told you no contradictions!" You have to put forth a challenge, I have to accept it and either concede to your point or dismantle it.

-- Arguments section --

Point 1: The mathematical complexity of the Qur'an

Imagine an engineer constructing something that is extraordinarily complex, and is dependent on such a perfect structure that if only one part of it became distorted or changed, the entire invention would fail. Can you in this regard simply replace one part with another, and still let it function perfectly? No, not in this given scenario. Now, we have the Qur'an that has deep meanings in each of its over 6,000 verses. If you remove one word from a verse, not only would the meaning most probbly be distorted, but the entire melodic structure of the verse and the verses next to it would be broken.

In the Qur'an we find that numerous words are mentioned in specific amounts. The words "man" and "woman" are both respectively mentioned 24 times each. The words "patience" and "hardship" are mentioned 114 times each. The terms "zakat" (obligatory charity" and "barakah" (wealth increase) are both mentioned 32 times. "Life" and "death" are mentioned 145 times each. I can go on for ages.

Can any human being produce such a mathematically structured book, with very deep meanings, and still contain numerous upon numerous mathematical points that do not distort the meaning, but create such a miraculous system? How could the author of the Qur'an know when to add "life" and when to add "death," and do so by creating deep sentences over 114 chapters? Compare that to dozens of other mathematical points.

More to come.
Debate Round No. 2
truthseeker613

Con

I referred to the Hebrew bible specifically as an example of an uncorrupt religious text. I don't understand why you asked specifically for religious text, according to you any and every old text should be corrupted.
My opponent "proves" that the bible is corrupted. My challenge to his proof is as follows: There are translated/revised versions of the bible and there is also an original unadulterated Torah which preserves the original text.
//"In fact, the contradictions in it and the many grammatical and terminological discrepancies in it even in the Hebrew and Greek point toward no more, no less than corruption."//
I would like to point out no examples were given, which I believe invalidates this statement. Ironically I made the same mistake last round which my opponent points out in his next words. I will clarify this matter: The thing I have noticed about contradictions in religious texts is just about all of them can be answered. Everyone brings "contradictions" to the religious writings of others and everyone else provides answers it is for this reason that I don't consider the claim of no contradictions valid evidence because every religion claims that. I have no doubt that if I bring you contradictions in the Quran that you will be able to answer them. I challenge you to bring me contradictions in the Old Testament (contradictions in other works are also invited; I can wiggle out of almost any contradiction.). If you provide me with unanswerable contradictions then you may have a point unless I find one in your Quran till then, I maintain there is nothing unique about not having contradictions.
Regarding your claims of mathematical brilliance, I have no specific problem with it other than the fact that I personally don't find it particularly compelling, It would be helpful if you could also provide the source for these statistics as I don't have time to count it myself and I doubt that you did either, so if you could provide the source I would appreciate it.
Being that evidence can be subjective and I may be biased. If you don't mind in addition to your evidence providing advise on what you would consider purification of the mind/body/soul to be more open to the truth.
Mirza

Pro

Thank you.

-- Rebuttal section --


My point regarding the translation and revision of the original Hebrew into Latin, and back to Hebrew, was not refuted. If a text loses its original idioms, metaphorical statements, linguistics, and is as much as revised into another language, and revised back to its original language, then that text is no longer in its genuine construction. I presume that my opponent is fully aware of the archaeological findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Although they are very old and well-preserved, they are not fully constructed as they used to be. The scroll of Isaiah is said to be in its fullest, and that it matches the Book of Isaiah as it is written in scriptures from 900-1000 AD, but not entirely. Several textual variances are found, and although they might not be very significant, they are still there. Small corruption, moderate corruption, none of this changes the definition of corruption. The fact remains that the Hebrew Bible has been distorted to an extent. [1] The instigator might say, "Well those are not important differences," but I think we both agree on the fact that scholars have certain disputes over the meanings of certain passages.

I find the Old Testament to be morally flawed. In certain places it calls for modesty, in other places it uses sexual imagery to make a point. Read [Ezekiel 23:20:22] and [Song of Songs 8:1-3]. I am sorry to say that I find this to be immoral content that is in no way inspired by God. Did God inspire some people in ancient times to write stories about the taste of female private parts, or how some random people felt about their bed and the day a woman showed her body to so-and-so? How can you call this an inspiration of God? I think that one should analyze these passages closely and say whether or not they are from God.

Regarding the uniqueness of not having contradictions, recall I put forth the concept of time challenge which my opponent did not touch. I presume he agrees with my point that time is changing things and it is hard to keep up with it. Surely you can write a book without contradictions, but it depends on the style of the book. If you write a poem, it is metaphorical and free from contradictions in whatever context you put it in. I am dealing with a book like the Qur'an. It is not a poem, but a set of moral guidelines, teachings of wisdom, and so on. For such a book to never be changed, and not even have a single contradiction, proves something about its special origin.

-- Arguments section --

C1: The Qur'an is structured with complex mathematics

Since the Qur'an has very complex mathematical structures, one should ask himself how that was possible. How could a human author a book that was supposedly not planned before some events of his life, and then arrange words in such ways that they match each other perfectly? How could a man write a book and then choose to add different words and their antonyms in such precise ways that the meaning is not lost? Is this possible? No. I gave the analogy of the engineer's product in the earlier round.

That being said, the fact that certain words have antonyms present around the Qur'an simply shows that it would have been impossible to change the context of the Qur'an. If you took a random verse or word out of a random chapter in the Qur'an, then you would have unmatching antonyms. http://tinyurl.com...

This point is very broad and I have merely summarized a few basics about it. The fact remains that the Qur'an is mathematically structured, and we have good reasons to believe that it was planned by a Divine being, not men. For people in desert lands to produce such an extraordinary book would have required them to be supernatural, which they were not. Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was illiterate and could never have managed to write as much as a chapter of the Qur'an with his own hands, let alone write all of it during his life and always be at risk of getting oppressed and killed. His situations in life made it impossible for him to produce the Qur'an. Why would he risk his life forever if he knew that he authored a book claiming to be from God? Obviously this was not an option, nor did it happen. The Qur'an was revealed unto him by the command of God Himself.

C2: Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is prophesied in the Old Testament

Since my opponent believes in the Old Testament, I hope he will also believe in the passages which foretold the coming of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). We know that many people claim to be prophets and inspired by God, but if someone was foretold in various religious scriptures, then that person must have an important significance. If he is foretold in a positive manner and his persona is described accurately in the scriptures, then we can reasonably believe that he is a unique person. Being foretold by scriptures containing the word of God (but not entirely) as a coming Prophet means that you are, in fact, a Prophet.

If the instigator wants, I can argue for the predictions of the coming of Prophet Muhammad in various religious scriptures. I will summarize what the Old Testament says.

In Deuteronomy 18:18, God spoke to Moses (peace be upon him) saying, "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him." The words "a prophet like thee" are analogous and precise. Unless the verse said merely a prophet will come, we can now find out the exact Prophet it refers to. We realize that God told Moses that there will be a Prophet like him. We probably think of Jesus.

The similarities between Jesus and Moses (peace be upon them) are that they were both Prophets, righteous people, and followed the commandments of God. Surely, this seems like a good comparison. But, there were also major differences. Moses was born of two parents - Jesus was born of one mother in a miraculous way. Moses died a natural death, while Jesus did not die a natural death whether you look at him from a Christian or a Muslim viewpoint. Moses received a Law, Jesus only confirmed the previous one. Moses was a statesman and was forced to migrate, while Jesus was not a statesman by any means.

There are clear differences between these two Prophets. Now, let us analyze the similarities between Prophet Moses and Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon them). We know that both were rulers and received new Laws. They used the revealed Laws to rule their nations. Both had parents, died natural deaths, had families, spoke of only what God commanded them, and finally, both received two new revelations that contained the new Laws. We find that there is not a single Prophet who is more similar to Moses than Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Speaking of common people, that's totally ruled out. Clearly we see that Prophet Muhammad fills the criteria of being a Prophet like Moses himself, as predicted in Deuteronomy 18:18.

For more on this point, please refer to my debate on a similar issue. http://www.debate.org... reading: http://www.thewaytotruth.org...


C3: The Qur'an contains advanced scientific points

Most religious books make certain scientific points. Some say that the Earth is still, the sun revolves around it, and so on. Even the ancient Greeks who were wise men made scientific errors that are not even used as jokes today. They got some scientific points right, some wrong. Can it be possible that only one ancient book contains hundreds of scientific points, none of which are disproved, and several are confirmed by science centuries after their revelation? The Qur'an has stepped up to that challenge. I will elaborate later. http://www.quranandscience.com...

I will come to my advise. Start by comparing Islam to Judaism. http://tinyurl.com...

-- Reference --


[1] http://carm.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
truthseeker613

Con

The 1st thing my opponent says regarding the bible being translated and translated back I already said, the Jewish Torah is in the original Hebrew not translated back and forth.

Next my opponent says that in the book of Isaiah slight discrepancies have been found between old versions and current ones.

Regarding this a common mistake has been made. I just looked back and I thank god for guiding me, I quote myself from the previous round "My challenge to his proof is as follows: There are translated/revised versions of the bible and there is also an original unadulterated Torah which preserves the original text."
The term Torah does not refer to the original testament in its entirety, rather specifically to the 5 books of mosses. I quote Wikipedia :
The name Torah also known as the Pentateuch penta- [five] [1] refers to the Five Books of Moses [2] the entirety of Judaism's founding legal and ethical religious texts. [3][4] A "Sefer Torah ("book of Torah") or Torah scroll is a copy of the Torah written on parchment in a formal, traditional manner by a specially trained scribe under strict requirements.
The Torah (Hebrew Bible) is the first of three parts of the Tanah,
The example you gave was not from one of the 5 books of mosses.

My opponent next goes on to say how the Old Testament cannot be the word of god as it has immoral language.

1st and of foremost importance for this debate is, that this is totally 100% irrelevant.
Once you mentioned it though I suggest you get a different translation, as I have both the original Hebrew and multiple translations and they do not say what you did.
I would continue but for a few reasons, one of which being that it is irrelevant, this is all for now on this topic.

"Regarding the uniqueness of not having contradictions, recall I put forth the concept of time challenge which my opponent did not touch. I presume he agrees with my point that time is changing things and it is hard to keep up with it. Surely you can write a book without contradictions, but it depends on the style of the book. If you write a poem, it is metaphorical and free from contradictions in whatever context you put it in. I am dealing with a book like the Qur'an. It is not a poem, but a set of moral guidelines, teachings of wisdom, and so on. For such a book to never be changed, and not even have a single contradiction, proves something about its special origin"

It seems my opponent did not respond to my response in the previous round so I will repeat them:
In my experience I have seen a great many attempts at using contradictions in scriptural writings to disprove. The problem with this method is they are almost always answerable it's pointless to show "contradictions" in the Quran as even I can probably answer most of them up or explain them away. Therefore I proposed the following solution; you provide a contradiction in the Torah and if I can't ans. I have to bring a contradiction to the Quran. Until this is done I maintain there is not much evidence in it "having no contradictions", as it is not unique.
Regarding what my opponent says about me not challenging "time challenge", (aside from not being to the point he is making), is clearly false. I quote myself from the beginning of R2:" You state The Koran is the only preserved religious book. I ask you to prove this, specifically with regard to the original version of the bibl in Hebrew. In addition I seem to remember that at one point there were 7 versions of the Quran until one powerful person decided one was accurate and had the others destroyed, please correct me if I'm wrong about this. I challenge you to bring evidence that the Koran has remained unchanged. To do this you would need to have the original/1st Koran ever written."
Furthermore I should point out I find this evidence quite weak unless it can be shown that many other texts that have been attempted to be preserved have not been properly preserved.
Furthermore I do have a problem with almost all the evidence provided so far. It is for the most part practically imposable to verify, the mathematical thing I asked for a source no response am I supposed to just take your word for it or count it myself?
No contradictions: how can I verify that?
Perfectly preserved: how can I verify that
I don't say they are totally invalid but I consider it a major weakness that all the evidence is practically unverifiable. I ask my opponent to keep this in mind and present more verifiable evidence.
(While I am at it I remind my opponent that he said in the comment section that he would explain the significance of the numbers it seems this was left out.)

I now move on to my opponent's argument section:

"For people in desert lands to produce such an extraordinary book would have required them to be supernatural, which they were not."

What do desert lands have to do with anything?
As I am sure you know the Arabs at some points in history were very advanced in mathematics, and literature, medicine ect.

"Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was illiterate and could never have managed to write as much as a chapter of the Qur'an with his own hands, let alone write all of it during his life and always be at risk of getting oppressed and killed."

1st of all no evidence for his illiterateness has been given. 2nd even if he was, it would not be too difficult to get a scribe to write it for him.

"His situations in life made it impossible for him to produce the Qur'an."

Please elaborate.

"Why would he risk his life forever if he knew that he authored a book claiming to be from God?"

Please explain how he risked his life.
Regarding the 2nd half the answer is quite simple fame and power. Many many people risk their lives for such reasons. Dare devils, some soldiers, kings, dictators, the starters of religions such as Christianity, ect.

In c2 my opponent brings evidence from the Old Testament. Again I bring up the problem of using verses as evidence as they are too open to interpretation. If the verse would say it clearly, fine, but as I will show, it does not. I am not saying the verse can't theoretically be interpreted as my opponent does; all I'm saying is that it isn't necessary so, invalidating it as evidence.
The verse states "from amongst their brethren" which would imply a Hebrew. The source you quote says Mohammad was considered "brethren" because he descended from Ishmael, Isaac's brother. Very weak.
The link says it can't be referring to an Israelite because of another verse that says there will be no other prophet in Israel as great as mosses, as mosses was the only one to speak "face to face" with the lord.
The fallacy with this is that in the 1st verse all it says is that god told mosses I will set up a prophet from amongst their brothers just as you are. It does not say that the prophet will be as great as mosses, it says, he will be a prophet as mosses is, another way of reading it could be he will be he will be from amongst their brethren as you are. Or it could be a combination of both; he will be a prophet from amongst their brethren as you are. So the verse it would seem to me does not exclude jew nor imply Mohammad. Rather it seems more probable that it is referring to one of the Jewish prophets.
My opponent goes on to compare the similarities between Mohamed and mosses against the similarities between Jesus and mosses. This as I stated before is really not so relevant as the verse does not say he will be a similar person to mosses rather it just says he will be a prophet as mosses is or an Israelite as mosses is or both.
(And regarding that Mohamed is more similar to mosses. 1st I point out you left out a major similarity that Jesus had that Mohamed didn't, that being Jesus was a Jew. Further more you left out all the Jewish prophets mentioned in the Old Testament.).
I thank my opponent for an enlightening debate, and await the rest of the evidence.
Mirza

Pro

Thank you.

-- Rebuttal section --

My opponent further disagreed with me regarding the translation and revision of the Bible. I try to cut it short because the topic is not about that, but the logic of my opponent is simply inadequate regarding this issue. Do we agree that when the Jewish temple of Herod was destroyed in the year 70 AD, several scriptures in their original language were lost? If so, then how do you explain the fact that St. Jerome made a widely known translator of the Bible into Latin, and that it was used as a standard version of the Bible? I believe he also used Greek to correct and recreate lost texts of the Hebrew Bible. This is corruption. You cannot say that it is the same after all these lost texts and further revisions. Read [Jeremiah 8:8].

Furthermore my opponent said that "the example you gave was not from one of the 5 books of mosses." But notice how I clearly pointed at the Hebrew Bible when I gave the example of Isaiah and Dead Sea Scrolls. Book of Isaiah is part of the Hebrew Bible, and the Torah [i.e., the five books of Moses] is also part of the Hebrew Bible. http://en.wikipedia.org... my argument is perfectly valid.

Con went on to say that my objection to the context of the Old Testament is irrelevant. How so? If a book contains immoral language, but it claims to be inspired by the most moral being, then why should I not question it? Can you really tell me that sexually immoral content is part of a moral God's inspired work? Regarding my mistranslation, notice that I did not use my own translation, but the translation made by people who understand the text. I don't see where there is a mistranslation anyway.

Regarding contradictions, I already pointed out a moral contradiction in the Old Testament. I don't want to go too deep into explaining the various textual contradictions, so I am putting forth a more unique one. Also, did I not prove that other books have been corrupted? I already pointed out how the Old Testament got corrupted, and I can easily do the same for other holy scriptures. But I asked Con to tell me which book has not been changed. I simply cannot refute every single book here. I already refuted one example he gave, which was that of the Old Testament.

I will cut some points short:

1. Mathematics

I gave the link to a very detailed video about mathematics in the Qur'an.

2. Desert lands

Yes, the Arab lands suffered from what is called "the times of ignorance." My opponent mentions the prosperity of Arabs, but that was during the Islamic Golden Age, after the revelation of the Qur'an, not prior to it. http://en.wikipedia.org...

3. Illiteracy of the Prophet

Please read: http://www.lastprophet.info...

4. The situation of the Prophet

He had no reason to write another book. If anything, he could get rid of polytheism by becoming a Jew or a Christian. Being a Muslim made his life oppressed and very hard. He had to fight battles for the survival of Muslims and Islam, and even had to face prosecution during his entire life. It is highly improbable that he would write the Qur'an.

-- Arguments --

1. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in the Old Testament


[Isaiah 42:1-4] Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations. He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his law the islands will put their hope.

This verse is another description of the coming of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). This cannot be a prediction of the coming of Jesus because he brought no law with him, but confirmed the law preceding him (i.e., the Law of Moses). Regarding Deuteronomy 18:18, my opponent made several mistakes. Why is Prophet Muhammad's lineage to the earlier Prophet a "very weak argument"? Moreover, the fact that the new Prophet (i.e., Muhammad) was not predicted to come from Israel simply proves my case right. He was not from Israel, but what we now call Saudi Arabia.

Was he a Jew? No, but remember how I reconciled the term Jew with the term Muslim in the earlier rounds? A Jew who followed the teachings of God prior to the revelation of the Qur'an was a Muslim. A Muslim is not merely "a follower of Prophet Muhammad". Sure, that is a condition, but the meaning of "Muslim" is "one who submits his will to Almighty God." People did that before the beloved Prophet was alive. Therefore, there is no need to say that the Prophet had to be Jew, since a follower of a specific righteous group was not a non-Muslim. Also, when one says that Jesus was a Jew, he simply goes into semantics (in this context). I follow the teachings of Christ (that is a condition for being a Muslim), so I am technically a Christian (hence the name "Christ-ian"), but of course I am not regarded as one. So it is simply about dancing with the terms and using them the way they suit you and the way people generally look at them.

[Psalm 72:8-17] He will rule from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the Earth. The desert tribes will bow before him, and his enemies will lick the dust. The kings of Tarsish and of distant shores will bring tribute to him; the kings of Sheba and Seba will present gifts to him. All kings will bow down to him and all nations will serve him, for he will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help. He will take pity on the weak and the needy, and save the needy from death. He will rescue them from oppression and violence, for precious is their blood in his sight. Long may he live! May gold from Sheba be given to him. May people ever pray for him and bless him all day long. Let corn abound throughout the land; on the tops of the hills may it sway. May his name endure for ever; may it continue as long as the sun. All nations will be blessed through him, and they will call him blessed.

This verse is another prediction of the beloved Prophet. It describes him so well as to even mention his name. Now where do we see his name (i.e., Mohammad)? Notice the part where he will be called "blessed." The meaning of "Muhammad" is blessed, praiseworthy, glorified, etc. Other translation of the original word in this passage also say "praiseworthy." http://bible.cc...

His name is mention in clear ways in other passages too, using another form of Muhammad, such as Ahmad. Clearly, there is good evidence that all these verses predict the coming of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). He told us to follow the Qur'an and his example.

3. Scientific points

My opponent did not really touch on this. I hope he can comment so I can come with further explanations.

Praise be to God.
Debate Round No. 4
truthseeker613

Con

"Do we agree that when the Jewish temple of Herod was destroyed in the year 70 AD, several scriptures in their original language were lost?"
Just because some were lost doesn't mean they were all lost.
"Read [Jeremiah 8:8]."
Here we come interpretation of verses again, this verse as many others are is extremely vague and open to interpretation, technically you might be able to understand the verse to say what you did but it is by no means the only interpretation. For example it's not clear who is the speaker and who is being spoken to. You can understand it that the prophet is talking to the evil ones or that the evil ones are talking to the prophet. Neither of these supports your claim.
Regarding the 2nd paragraph, I asked regarding the torah, and my opponent brought evidence from the Hebrew bible, but that's not what I asked for.
My opponent did not seem to understand why the torahs divine origin is not relevant. The reason is because we are debating whether unchanged text is unique, regardless of whether it's divine or not, no books according to you remain preserved.
Regarding the translation "notice that I did not use my own translation, but the translation made by people who understand the text. I don't see where there is a mistranslation anyway."
Quite perplexing as my opponent did not actually provide a translation rather an incorrect accusation. My opponent accuses of "" Perhaps he means song of songs 8:1 were it mentions a child nursing from his mothers breasts. Grow up. This is complete lack of conduct to outright lie accusing the scriptures of immorality. Why didn't he quote the verses verbatim because it doesn't say the disgusting things he says they do over there.
New International Version (�1984)
If only you were to me like a brother, who was nursed at my mother's breasts! Then, if I found you outside, I would kiss you, and no one would despise me.
New International Version (�1984)
I would lead you and bring you to my mother's house--she who has taught me. I would give you spiced wine to drink, the nectar of my pomegranates.
Reagarding Mohamed's illiteracy I don't find the evidence convincing at all, and as I pointed out he could have hired a scribe.
Regarding the fact that he "had no reason to Wright the book" I already explained in the previous round; power and fame. (Or it's possible that he really believed that he was a prophet and all the rest but just because he believed it doesn't mean it's true. Insane asylums are full of people like that.).
Moving on to your argument section:
My opponent brings proof from Jeremiah as before I consider this evidence invalid as it is based on a vague verse. It could just as easily be referring to Jesus or a messiah who has not yet come.
My opponent doesn't understand why I say that brethren probably don't refer to Mohamed. The reason is simple he isn't even 4th cousins with these Hebrew how could he be called brethren just bec. they had a common great great ect. Grandfather if so everyone could be called brethren if they all descended from Noah. To call Mohamed brethren of the Jews is a big stretch.
Regarding my opponent's next point I suggest he reread his link and what I wrote, as I showed that the verse does not exclude an Israelite, my opponent quotes me as saying the opposite.
Next my opponent brings evidence from psalms. If anything this verse seems to go against my opponent, I quote pieces of his translation: "He will rule from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the Earth… All kings will bow down to him and all nations will serve him…" Sounds like he will rule the whole world not just a lot. This I don't think was done which means the verse is probably referring to a messiah who has not yet come.
Lastly regarding the scientific stuff my opponent wrote nothing rather simply put up a link. I will respond anyway.

regarding universe" a plain simple reading of the verse is the understanding of astronomy at that time (ie. sun and moon revolve around the earth.), which science has rejected. The link goes on to interpret the verse fitting with modern science. That's not what the verse says.

Next regarding "human". That verse is taken strait out of the bibl genesis 2:7.

Next regarding "earth": Anyone can see that clouds bring rain, and wind moves clouds.

regarding the last one its similar to the 1st.

summary:

1)preservation and no contradiction:

My opponent has yet to show that this is so miraculous.

2)mathematical structure of Koran:

3)from old testament:

All arguments have been refuted 1 by 1.

4)science:

just refuted see above.
Mirza

Pro

My opponent said that "just because some were lost doesn't mean they were all lost". True, but that proves my entire point that some form of corruption had taken place. I never said every bit of the Hebrew Bible was corrupted. Islam teaches that while some of the teachings of God might there, others have been distorted. As for [Jeremiah 8:8], I see a clear cut statement that the Word of God was distorted by lying pens. Moreover, if we take it in the context we can see that this is about priests who were in possession of the Law of God, and were boasting about their wisdom. Hence the response to them was that simply that the lying pens turned the Law of God into something false.

Con tried to place a distinction between my criticism of the Torah and the Hebrew Bible. The latter contains the Torah. It is called the Tanakh. It is relevant to bring it up because I do not see a good reason for believing in the Old Testament rather than the Qur'an. If you have the Qur'an being original and consistent, then why not accept it as the pure Word of God? What kind of benefits are there from picking the Old Testament?

As for the translation of immoral verses, my opponent said that I did not provide a translation. In the earlier rounds he said, "Once you mentioned it though I suggest you get a different translation." No, I did not write the verses here, but I referred to them. I never said you should use any specific translation. No matter which one you use, these verses have the same meaning. Am I incorrect in saying that the verses I referred to are immoral? No. Any sexual imagery in what you call the book of God cannot be from God.

The passages [Song of Songs 8:1-5] give an analogy. The first verse mentions suckling, but that is simply an analogy given by this woman who depicts herself being with a man. Why is such sexual description in the book of God? [Ezekiel 23:20-22] is even worse. This contradicts the moral teachings in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, this part of the Bible cannot be the Word of God, and thus the Hebrew Bible is not fully the word of God.

-- Arguments --

1. The Prophet's illiteracy

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was illiterate, as has been made evident by various independent sources. My opponent seems to acknowledge this, but then he moves on to say that he could have hired a scribe to write the Qur'an. But this is a mere hypothesis. Anything "could" have happened. Coming up with an assumption that makes sense is not necessarily true. The Arabs of ancient times used to write down as much as they could about all kinds of events. It happened once that a goat ate a copy of the Qur'an. What happened was that this got recorded into the hadith. We have many random events being recorded in the hadith. How come there are absolutely no independent and authentic sources from those times that accurately describe the Prophet hiring someone to write the Qur'an? That would have been recorded without any doubt. Therefore, this hypothesis that he hired a scribe is null. It doesn't work. The beloved Prophet himself being illiterate also makes it far less likely that any human authored the Qur'an. And if the Qur'an was authored by people of those times, then most surely the Pagan and Jewish tribes in Arabia would not have converted to Islam after being amazed by the Qur'an, but they would have written something to challenge it. But they admitted they could not do that.

2. Prophet Muhammad in the Old Testament

The beloved Prophet was a direct descendant of Ishmael (peace be upon him). What my opponent says is quite ambiguous. Of course the generations are distant - but that doesn't mean that they are not related to each other. Now, my opponent implied that if the prophecy is true, then the beloved Prophet will rule the entire world and not only parts of it. That has already been made evident. Islam grows rapidly, and in almost every country in the world you will find Muslims who follow the example of the Prophet. Many leaders around the world recognize him as a hero, even if the leaders are not Muslims.

"I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life." - Mahatma Gandi

Moving on, we see that in [Genesis 17:20] another promise was made to Ishmael: "And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation." This perfectly describes Prophet Muhammad. One of the greatest nations in the times of the Prophet was the one of Muslims, and it remains so today.

[Song of Songs 5:16] "His mouth is sweetness itself; he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, this is my friend, daughters of Jerusalem." According to Jewish commentators, this is a description of God and his love of humankind. This, however, does not seem to be the correct interpretation, if we look at the wording and the context. From Song of Songs 8:8-16 we read that this man is described with certain good words, and it endings with saying "he is altogether lovely."

The term used for "altogether lovely" in Hebrew is "Mahamaddim." This is plural because a majestic person is referred to as "im." Remove "im" and you get the essensce "Mahamad." It is called the royal plural that queens and kings use for themselves too. The meaning of the word "Mahamad" is also "the Praised One." That is the exact translation of "Muhammad." Here we see that a prophecy of the coming of Prophet Muhammad was made in the Song of Solomon.

Read [Isaiah 29:11-18]. A fraction of it says, "And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which [men] deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned." This is probably one of the most significant references to the beloved Prophet. When he was commanded to read the Qur'an by Angel Gabriel, the Prophet responded saying, "I am not learned." The very first revealed chapter of the Qur'an was surah 96, verses 1-5. Compare it to Isaiah 29.

[Qur'an, al-Iqra, 96:1] Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher.

As a reaction the Prophet responded, "I am not learned." This had been accurately predicted in Isaiah.

3. Science in the Qur'an

I gave a link describing the amazing science in the Qur'an. While some of the facts found could have been discovered 14 centuries ago, notice how the Qur'an has no errors compared to any other book of those times containing many scientific errors alongside scientific facts. How could the author of the Qur'an know what was a scientific fact and what was an error? Embryology in the Qur'an was described better than any people or books had described it prior to its revelation. The expansion of the universe was also mentioned. The spherical shape of the Earth. And it goes on for a long time.

To conclude, I think I have established fair grounds for belief in Islam. I think my opponent should look at the similarities between this religion and his own, and find that the Qur'an does not criticize his scripture, but it corrects them. We believe in the same Prophets, we acknowledge the earlier revelations, and we share many same moral values.
Debate Round No. 5
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ant981228 5 years ago
ant981228
I'm not entirely sure what your resolution was... exactly?
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
The instigator's mistake? Asking the opponent to convince himself, not the audience.
That's not how debates work, truthseeker613.
Posted by truthseeker613 6 years ago
truthseeker613
Arabs, but that was during the Islamic Golden Age, after the revelation of the Qur'an, not prior to it. http://en.wikipedia.org......

this link doesnt work properly
Posted by truthseeker613 6 years ago
truthseeker613
" notice that I did not use my own translation"
How am I supposed to notice that if you a)didnt provide a translation. b)didnt give any source for your translation.
Posted by truthseeker613 6 years ago
truthseeker613
"
"Furthermore my opponent said that "the example you gave was not from one of the 5 books of mosses." But notice how I clearly pointed at the Hebrew Bible when I gave the example of Isaiah and Dead Sea Scrolls. Book of Isaiah is part of the Hebrew Bible, and the Torah [i.e., the five books of Moses] is also part of the Hebrew Bible. http://en.wikipedia.org...... my argument is perfectly valid"
Yes that may be true but thats not what I asked for I asked for an example from the torah. It is unfair to use the entire old testiment as it is much longer than the koran the torah is much closer. as it is aprox. the same # of letters. and they are both the foundations of thier religion. As it is the quran has an unfair advantage of being around for a much shorter piriod than the bibal.
Posted by truthseeker613 6 years ago
truthseeker613
out of curiosity how do you understand this verse who do you think is talking to whom?
Posted by truthseeker613 6 years ago
truthseeker613
" Do we agree that when the Jewish temple of Herod was destroyed in the year 70 AD, several scriptures in their original language were lost?"
so what if a few were lost there were others not lost.
Posted by truthseeker613 6 years ago
truthseeker613
pray tell were did you get your translations from?
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Weird. It should work now: http://tinyurl.com...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
truthseeker613MirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was arguments were ultimately more convincing.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
truthseeker613MirzaTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro's arguments were not sucessfuly refuted
Vote Placed by MontyKarl91 6 years ago
MontyKarl91
truthseeker613MirzaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: While Pro was not very convincing in his argument, he at least made an attempt.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
truthseeker613MirzaTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's claims were standard in dense the Qu'ran, Con was not familiar with the standard rebuttals to this and even allowed Pro to shift the BoP back to them (Con has to prove the qu'ran is corrupted - what?). Fairly dominating performance by Mirza, 3:1.
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
truthseeker613MirzaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Kind of a poorly worded resolution. Pro had a better structured and supported argument overall.