The Quran we recite today is, verbatim, the Quran recited by Prophet Muhammed
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Please do not accept this debate unless you are a Muslim debater.
-- TOPIC --
The Quran we recite today is, verbatim, the Quran recited by Prophet Muhammed
-- STRUCTURE --
1. Opening
2-4. Rebuttals
5. Closing
-- RULES --
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is equally shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
11. Violation of any of these rules merits a loss.
I Introduction
Pro must show that the Present Quran recited today is, verbatim, the Past Quran spoken by the beloved Prophet (pbuh) –that the present record is identical in content to the historical record: data has been accurately preserved.
II Chain of Transmission in Information Theory
Any data transmission from source A to destination B is done through a chain of intermediate nodes across transitional channels. To achieve accurate data transfer it is necessary that: the chain of transmission is unbroken from source to destination, lest data is lost, & that all nodes & all channels preserve data lest it gets corrupted (ref. chart).
As to the nodes. Absent data removed from us in time or place (such as historical records or distant events) are known reportatively, through Testimony. We know data storage is required to allow for data transfer through time. In fact, Testimony is a form of storage node where the received data is stored & then later redistributed. An accurate testimony, therefore, is such that acquired data is accurately retained & accurately relayed. A reliable witness, ergo, must accurately retain the facts (raw data) & accurately relay them.
As to the channels. To preserve raw data in its original format (visual, oral, textual) adequate mediums are required. The output (received data) must be identical to the input (transmitted data): image to image, sound to sound, & text to text.
In the real world, data transfer & storage involve physical transformations which are prone to error. Hence, backup chains of transmission are used to avert such risks; or corroborating independent testimonies in our case.
III Chain of Transmission (Isnad) in the Islamic Tradition
Islamic scholars require 3 standards on Isnad to determine perfect accuracy of transmission: Talaqi (lossless reception), Sihha (soundness), Tawatur (divergent propagation).
Talaqi (lossless reception) postulates that: Vocal records must be communicated aurally (when oral data is received through hearing from the source -Samaa), or orally (when oral data is confirmed by the source -Iqra) ; Written records must be transmitted through replication (facsimile copying -Naskh) or entrustment (transfer of possession of written record -Munawala). In other words, communication channels must conserve raw source data.
Sihha (soundness) postulates that: a historical record is deemed sound when it is: transmitted through an unbroken chain of witnesses all of whom adept to accurately retain facts & truthfully relay them, precisely corroborated by other chains by cross-examination, & free from any reasonable doubt. – From what we have demonstrated earlier, we can naturally infer that this standard is already adequate to establish accurate preservation. Though, possibility of human error is not naught.
Tawatur (divergent propagation) postulates that: perfect preservation is achieved by: congruence of direct sensory testimonies by a great number of independent witnesses, such that it is inconceivable they could have all conspired to tell the same lie, at each & every level of the Isnad all the way back to the source. – This condition is conclusive regardless of the reliability of witnesses; ergo effectively eliminating all chances of human error or whims. This is how we know for a fact Australia exists & Winston Churchill existed without having witnessed them.
When all 3 standards are satisfied the Isnad is deemed Mutawatir; all nodes & channels in the unbroken chain of transmission preserve data. Accurate transmission, therefore, guaranteed.
IV The Quran
The Quran (literally The Recitation) is the spoken words recited by the beloved Prophet (pbuh) in formal prayer & revised in the Last Recitation (the year of his death). Particularly, he recited it to his companions for memorization, who recited it back to him for confirmation (Oral Quran); & also dictated it to the scribes among them to be written down, who then read it back to him for confirmation –as he was illiterate (Textual Quran). The histories of the Oral Quran & Textual Quran evolved independently.
Islamic scholars identify 5 data types which constitute the Quran: word sequences (Ayat), phonetic sounds (Huruf), dialectical pronunciations (Lughat), vocal performances (Qiraat), & dictated inscriptions (Rasm). The language in which the Quran was spoken is the dialects of 7th century Arabs, aka Classical Arabic. Consequently, the words with which it was conveyed were expressed in different dialects known as “the Seven Letter (Ahruf)” –albeit primarily in the Qurashi dialect (the Prophet’s mother tongue). Hence, the recurrent variants in the aforementioned data types.
V Oral history of the Quran
The Oral Quran was memorized by the companions during the 23 years of its revelation. Some of whom completed the Last Recitation (the final version of the Quran), namely: Abu Bakr, Uthman, Zayd… & many others. Who then spread across the Islamic world & taught the Quran to their disciples (like: Ibn Amir, Abu Jaafar…), who also taught it to others (like: Nafi, Asim…) & so on. These are referred to as Reciter (Qari).
Each Reciter had his own preferential variants according to which he recited the Quran. A Recitation is a preferential way of reciting the Quran. For example: Nafi recites verse 1:4 “Maliki yawmi deen” (Master of Judgement Day), while Asim recites it “Maaliki yawmi deen” (Sovereign of Judgement Day).
Islamic scholars require Mutawatir Isnad for a Recitation to be valid: oral & aural lossless reception, sound transmission & Tawatur. From what we have established in III it follows that a valid Recitation does, in fact, accurately preserve the Oral Quran: its words, sounds, pronunciations, & performances.
VI Textual history of the Quran
The Textual Quran (Kitab) was recored onto leaves, bones, rocks, goatskin & parchments. After the beloved Prophet’s death, his successor Abu Bakr commissioned Zayd to collect all these records into a single codex. Record submissions from scribes thenceforth were all required to have two witnesses to the fact that they were indeed transcribed in the presence of the beloved Prophet (pbuh). Zayd was among the companions who completed the Last Recitation. The issuing compiled complete Quran is know as the Bakri Codex. It was passed down to Abu Bakr’s successor Umar & then to his daughter Hafsa (the Prophet’s wife).
Umar’s successor Uthman opted to standardize the written Quran into a unified Letter (dialect). He commissioned a team of companions together with Zayd to replicate the Bakri Codex while prioritizing the Qurashi Letter in textual variation, granted consensus among the companions is reached. Several copies were made of the new codex & sent out to different centers of the Islamic world. These are referred to as the Uthmanic Codex. – The expansion of the Islamic empire led to a huge influx of new converts beyond the Arabian peninsula who did not speak the language. This led to dispute among them over the right way to recite the Quran, & along that the propagation of nonuniform copies of the Quran. Hence, Uthman’s efforts of standardization. All non-standardized copies of the Quran were then ordered to be burned or erased.
The Quranic inscriptions dictated by the Prophet (pbuh) were compiled into the Bakri Codex by entrustment, & later into the Uthmanic Codex by replication, all while satisfying the Sihha (sound transmission) & Tawatur (through consensus) conditions. Therefore, the Uthmanic Codex does, in fact, accurately preserve the Textual Quran. Since, all copies of the Quran originate therefrom following the same methods. In fact, the extant Quran manuscripts reported to be copies of the Uthamnic Codex (namely: Topkap, Tashkent, & Huseini codexes) are “perfectly preserved except for few obvious scribal errors” Dr. Altikulac.
VII Preservation of the Quran
Islamic scholars designate the Present Quran (the Quran recited by Muslims) as a Recitation such that it must fulfill all the following conditions:
1 Mutawatir Isnad.
2 Perfect conformity to the Uthmanic Codex.
3 Perfect conformity to the Arab Tongue in any of its Letters (dialects).
Among the 60 Recitations extant today, 10 sufficiently fulfill 1 but also all 3. These are called the Ten Recitations (or the Ten), which effectively constitute the Present Quran. We have already shown that condition 1 is sufficient to establish accurate data transmission. Without further examination we can already assert that the Present Quran is accurately preserved; ergo, verbatim, the Past Quran. To reinforce Pro’s case, we shall go further.
The Ten & the Uthmanic Codex are completely independent mediums of data transfer. The mere fact of congruence between the two is ample reason to infer their accuracy. Imagine you acquired an audio recording & a script of the same lecture from independent sources, if these are in agreement, then you immediately gain confidence in their accuracy. Conversely, if these are accurate, then they must be in perfect agreement. Likewise, the Ten & the Uthmanic Codex are demonstrably accurate records of the Past Quran. It follows that they must also be in perfect agreement. In fact, they are, just as expected. This further confirms that the accuracy of the Ten & of the Uthmanic Codex must, therefore, be True. The Present Quran is, verbatim, the Past Quran.
C Conclusion
We have established that today’s Quran is accurate in many ways, all of which, expectedly, in perfect agreement. A Muslim reciting the Quran according to the Ten is, indeed, uttering the same Quran recited by the beloved Prophet (pbuh). The Oral Quran & Textual Quran have been accurately preserved in the Ten & the Uthmanic Codex respectively. The Quran recited today is, verbatim, the Quran recited by Prophet Muhammed (pbuh).
Vote Pro.
Before we proceed, we must define the perimeter of our subject: what precisely is the raw source data that if ascertained to be preserved, then Pro wins, else Con wins.
I Source Data
The source data -Quran- is the verses recited by the beloved Prophet (pbuh) such that they are: recited in Salat (formal prayer) and also in the Final Recitation (before the Prophet’s death), i.e. they are designated as revelation and also non-abrogated. – Therefore, only non-abrogated revealed verses are part of the Quran, else not.
A Recitation & the Quran are equivalent. In effect, reciting the Quran in any of its 7 Letters is sufficient -by the statement of its author, & also necessary -for no other recitation beyond the 7 Letters is recited by its author. – Therefore, the preservation of a Recitation in one or more of the 7 Letters (not necessarily all 7) is equivalent to the preservation of the Quran.
The source data is, thus, the body of non-abrogated revealed verses recited according to any one (or more) of the 7 Letters.
II Con’s Fallacies
Con’s ‘There is a broken chain’ is a negation of ‘all chains are unbroken’, not of ‘there is a chain'. To negate the latter. Con must instead prove that ‘all chains are broken’.
Con’s ’There are variants in the Quran’ is a negation of ‘there are no variants in the Quran’, which is False. Con must show that these variants are not original, otherwise the statement has no added value.
Con’s ‘there is disagreement, therefore it’s Untrue’ is a fallacy. Disagreement has no bearing on Truth or accuracy. There is a disagreement on whether the Earth is round, therefore the Earth is flat! The point is in examining each claim on its own merit.
Con dismisses the demonstrably certain preservation of the Quran in favor of dubious anecdotes. We do not dismiss the existence of gravity the moment we see a ballon going up. What is uncertain must be understood in light of what is certain, not the contrary. This is equivalent to believing your dead grandma came back to life when someone tells you “I saw your grandma”, rather than understanding they may have meant in a dream or visited her grave, in light of the fact that she is dead.
Con takes for granted the reports in the Sunnah & disregards the Mutawatir Recitations. He must show us what exactly is his criteria for accepting these & not those, otherwise we are compelled to believe he is just making unfounded assertions.
III Manuscripts
In the Islamic Tradition, 8 categories of data transfer of historical records are recognized (e.g: aural reception, oral confirmation, replication, & entrustment). The lowest two are: will (records transferred by inheritance -Wasiya) & finding (found records -Wijada), both of which are categorically inadmissible in scriptural records (Quran & Hadith) in the Sunni Tradition (as opposed to the Shia Tradition).
In case of findings (material records in modern terminology) not only is there no possibility of recourse as is the case for will, no data transfer occurs either. Sunni scholars admit found written records (save of Quran & Hadith) only in two cases:
1 Handwriting, when recognizable to belong to the author.
2 Writing style, when literary style, script, stroke, ink, paper… indicate provenance.
With the advent of computers & modern technics of carbon dating, paleography… the ways & the degree by which manuscripts are verified has significantly improved. Unsurprisingly, modern Muslim scholars have increased confidence in the value of Quranic manuscripts, as compared to their predecessors. But how much exactly can manuscripts tell us?
We do not have the beloved Prophet’s handwriting -as he was illiterate. Nor do we know the handwritings of his scribes, except probably Muawiya -but with no surviving Quranic text in his handwriting. Hence, we are left the only option of examining the Writing style of the manuscript to infer its providence. In such case that a Quranic manuscript is accurate, it must, therefore, conform to all the other established Quranic facts through sound chains of transmission, including the Ten & the Uthamic Codex.
In fact, the extant manuscripts said to be of Uthmanic origin today are all virtually conform to the standard Uthmanic script. E.g. Topkapi Codex, dated to the 1st century after the Prophet’s death. It has exactly 2270 variations from the modern text almost all are in script, mainly in the letter ‘alif’ (like the difference: a & ɑ), except in 8 instances which are clearly scribal errors (e.g. وولا =&& no). This is also true for the upper-text of the Sanaa Codex. In fact, the under-text of the Sanaa Codex is, so far, the only non-Uthmanic Quran manuscript in existence. Before I respond to Con’s objections, Con must prove why this Codex is relevant to begin with.
IV Rebuttals
memorizing things is one of the worst ways to preserve it
saw different forms of recitation of the Qur’an
We used to recite a surah… I have, however, forgotten it…
The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding …a tame sheep came in and ate it.
…reminded me many verses that I had nearly forgotten.
'I missed an Ayah of Surat Al-Ahzab that I heard the Messenger of Allah reciting… so I searched for it and found it with Khuzaimah… so I put it in its Surah.
V Argument
P1 Data is accurately preserved from absent source to present destination, if therebetween is an unbroken chain of intermediate storage nodes which accurately store data & accurately redistribute it, & transitional channels which conserve raw source data, & also backup chains. [as per Information Theory]
P2 Historical records are deemed Mutawatir from source to present, if therebetween is multiple chains of witnesses adept to accurately retain facts & to accurately relay them, perfectly corroborated by a great number of other independent witnesses (by cross-examination) such that it is inconceivable they could’ve all lied to tell the same untruth, at each & every level of the chain –while conserving raw source data (oral records through oral mediums & written records through written mediums). [as per the Islamic Tradition]
P3 Therefore, Mutawatir (perfectly preserved) historical records are accurately preserved. [follows from P1+P2]
P4 The Ten Recitations (or the Ten) are determined Mutawatir oral record. [as per fulfilling P2]
P5 The Uthmanic Codex is determined Mutawatir written record. [as per fulfilling P2]
P6 Therefore, the Ten are an accurate record of the Oral Quran; & the Uthmanic Codex is an accurate record of the Textual Quran. [follows from P3+P4+P5]
P7 The Ten perfectly conform to the Uthmanic Codex. [by design]
C1 Therefore, the Present Quran -identified with the Ten- is a perfectly preserved record of the Past Quran. [follows from P6+P7]
P8 The Ten & the Uthmanic Codex are, independently, in perfect agreement. [fact]
C2 Therefore, 'the Quran recited today is, verbatim, the Quran recited by the beloved Prophet (pbuh)’ is True. Hence, Pro’s case. [follows from P8+P9]
VI Conclusion
To refute my case Con must show either that the above syllogism is Unsound, Or that any of its premises is False. In case Con fails to prove either propositions, Con necessarily loses the case, for my argument stands & so do its conclusions. In case Con attempts to argue against other than the Argument, this would constitute, by definition, a straw-man fallacy, warranting Con’s loss –as per the rules.
Vote Pro.
As he failed to offer any rebuttals to my Argument, it sill stands, warranting thus Con’s loss.
- Thank you for the vote. I will get to our debate within a couple of days.
I kept screwing up my vote as I rethought the points allocation and said 'pro violated' but you are Pro, very confusing
- Challenge sent.
"If you dont want to debate this topic, say what topic about islam you want to debate."
- I will send you the challenge shortly. I am fine with debating any topic on Islam, law, history, theology, politics, or the beloved Prophet (pbuh). I am also open to any Islam vs West/East or whatever debate. The more difficult for me the better.
"Quran produces violence"
- The wording is weird, but I can debate it. Maybe something like 'The Quran Promotes Violence'.
"Quran causes muslims to hate atheists"
- Weird way of wording it again. 'The Quran Promotes Hate Against Atheists'?
"God of Quran is evil"
- Might have to define the terms precisely to avoid semantics, but works for me.
"Islam is a religion of hate"
- 'Islam Promotes Hate'. Sure.
"Any of these work for me."
- I can debate all of them at the same time. But you're free to chose.
If you dont want to debate this topic, say what topic about islam you want to debate.
I am open to debating:
"Quran produces violence"
"Quran causes muslims to hate atheists"
"God of Quran is evil"
"Islam is a religion of hate"
Any of these work for me.
"Islam does not encourage authoritarianism"
With me being placed as Con.
With authoritarianism being defined as "blind obedience to authority".
- Alright. Do you have a resolution in mind?
Okay, make a debate or challenge me.
The topic I want to debate is about authoritarianism of islam.
Make the argument time 2 weeks.
- You are half way through your first round with all that. You seem to have a lot to say about this. Why don't we have a debate on the subject & you can show us how Islam is authoritarian & how Muslims take over & all that.
"If people are not willing to accept your authoritarian system to fight off Islam by virtue of it being authoritarian, they wouldn't accept Islam either for being supposedly authoritarian"
Thats not a contradiction. First, you are assuming that my system = islam, and that the only variable for acceptance is authoritarianism.
It seems that I will have to feed you the facts because your muslim brain wont comprehend how it works.
1) There is a non-authoritarian society.
2) Muslims multiply and become majority.
3) Muslims take over and introduce authoritarian society.
There is no choice here involved for non-muslims who oppose to authoritarian regimes, since they become minority.
They cant reject or accept.
The very fact that they were opposed to all authoritarian regimes is what allowed muslims to multiply and preach their authoritarianism.
Non-authoritarian regimes literally cant reject islam without themselves becoming a different form of authoritarianism.
Your muslim brain doesnt want to comprehend this.
Muslims multiply through high birth rates, and through lies to make people convert. People who convert to islam start justifying authoritarianism.
So the ratio of non-authoritarians and authoritarians slowly changes.
Muslims preach authoritarianism and convert many to it.
When still minority, muslims pretend to be in favor of religious freedom.
This tricks many, and many become muslims.
When majority, muslims start justifying authoritarianism to their members.
First, you assumed that an average person can recognize authoritarianism every time, or not be seduced by islam into accepting authoritarianism.
I clearly said that my system is authoritarian and people didnt want to accept it because they believe in allowing religion to exist. My system does not have the charms of islam.
They fail to recognize that islamic religion is authoritarian.
So when muslims become a majority, they will abolish non-authoritarian society and establish muslim authoritarianism.
Free speech will not be tolerated. We will not be able to say that allah is a pig without going to prison or worse. Muslims will bully atheists all the time.
Your freedom to believe in allah will be tolerated. My freedom to believe that allah is a pig and that muhammad was a homosexual and that quran is written by satan - these will not be tolerated.
Muslims have done this in every country they took over.
Freedom of religion is a delusion. Atheists will lose unless they realise it.
"This is basically a truism. We can't be reading the same bible by Prophet Muhammed if the language didn't exist back then."
- Whatever this means, we can have a formal debate on the subject where you can show everyone the truism nature of the statement.
- You're contradicting yourself. If people are not willing to accept your authoritarian system to fight off Islam by virtue of it being authoritarian, they wouldn't accept Islam either for being supposedly authoritarian -according to you- either. If Islam is taking over for whatever reasons, then not being authoritarian is probably one of them.
This is basically a truism. We can't be reading the same bible by Prophet Muhammed if the language didn't exist back then.
I am not confident in it at all. It has nothing that can attract people.
People are not ready to introduce authoritarian system to fight off islam.
Islam will take over and introduce its own authoritarian system on them.
It sucks that people only realize it when its too late.
"I did propose introducing a North Korean system to help fight off islam, but sadly the world prefers islam and that is what the world is going to get."
- Maybe you are not confident enough on the substance of your system?
Contrary to the popular belief, I am not here to debate anyone.
You are a muslim. You think that islam is right. That is a sad story, but not something I can change. Islam spreads throughout the world. It will take over most of the world.
I did propose introducing a North Korean system to help fight off islam, but sadly the world prefers islam and that is what the world is going to get.
Plenty of good news for muslims.
Plenty of bad news for atheists.
"That is impossible. The fact that the Quran has been translated into multiple languages automatically prevents the title from being true."
- Perfect! I assume you wanna defend that in a debate?
"It's too bad the opponent forfeited."
- You can always pick up the baton & defend the topic yourself.
"Now someone might think that Quran is right."
- Winning a resolution has no bearing on its Truth. It may have something to do with the skill of the debater & the bias of the audience.
"We already have enough problems with Christians thinking their God exists."
- I don't disagree.
"Theoretically, we could let muslims and christians fight over who is more right."
- No fight needed. Muslims are.
"Naturally, atheists like to make fun of theism. But the fact is that theists keep producing new arguments for existence of God."
- I assume you're ready to prove otherwise in a debate?
"I even heard one muslim say that even if islam is proven false, it is still good because it benefits society."
- Which is what the False Atheism pretends.
"This is why atheism is at a disadvantage. It is not just that its impossible to prove that God doesnt exist. Its very hard to prove that religion is not beneficial for society. Theists play the game "I assume, you must disprove". Such game gives them advantage."
- Wanna give it a shot?
"North Korea managed to surpress religion, which is a great thing for everyone. Still, there are some religious people in North Korea.
I guess religion is a disease that cannot be simply removed."
- This sounds like a good resolution for a debate.
- Cool video...
Very happy Muslims dancing along to Haram music. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVDIXqILqSM
Haram why? Has rhythm, melody that isn't solely vocal and can put the dancer in a trance, in this case a 'happy' one.
Its too bad the opponent forfeited.
Now someone might think that Quran is right.
We already have enough problems with Christians thinking their God exists.
Theoretically, we could let muslims and christians fight over who is more right.
But that doesnt benefit atheists like me. Whoever wins at that fight will ultimately come out more powerful, and atheism will be further surpressed.
Naturally, atheists like to make fun of theism. But the fact is that theists keep producing new arguments for existence of God.
I even heard one muslim say that even if islam is proven false, it is still good because it benefits society.
So yes, we atheists face a lot of problems due to massive number of theists compared to atheists.
Unlike atheism, theism is a world view with set goals for society.
This is why atheism is at a disadvantage. It is not just that its impossible to prove that God doesnt exist. Its very hard to prove that religion is not beneficial for society. Theists play the game "I assume, you must disprove". Such game gives them advantage.
North Korea managed to surpress religion, which is a great thing for everyone. Still, there are some religious people in North Korea.
I guess religion is a disease that cannot be simply removed.
That is impossible. The fact that the Quran has been translated into multiple languages automatically prevents the title from being true.
"Islam is a lie"
- Do you wish to debate that topic too?
thanks for the clarification. i am enjoying this debate
Note:
- Typo in this passage: "Con’s ‘There is a broken chain’ is a negation of ‘all chains are unbroken’, not of ‘there is a chain'. To negate the latter. Con must instead prove that ‘all chains are broken'" => instead of 'there is a chain' , it should be 'there is an unbroken chain'.
Some people burn their Qurans because they think Allah is the general wrongdoer.