Instigator / Con
14
1500
rating
25
debates
42.0%
won
Topic
#4550
The Quran contains 0 contradictions
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
14
1472
rating
34
debates
45.59%
won
Description
I will be Con, and my first round will be absent because I don't hold the burden of proof, Pro does.
Pro needs to prove that the Quran contains at least 1 contradiction.
Round 1
Pro holds the BOP here so take it away.
Introduction:
Thank you, Con. Though I was confused about the title of this debate, the description explained it to me more clearly.
I will be using one major argument in this debate, and if all else fails, then I will resort to multiple different arguments/talking points.
Now, Con has not laid out any definitions for this debate, so I will lay out the definitions I see fit for this debate.
Definitions:
Qur'an: The Qur'an, (also Romanized Qur'an or Koran), is the central religious text of Islam, believed by Muslims to be a revelation from God. It is organized in 114 chapters, which consist of verses.
Contradiction: In traditional logic, a contradiction occurs when a proposition conflicts either with itself or established fact. It is often used as a tool to detect disingenuous beliefs and bias.
These two words I believe is important to define.
Now let's get to the argument.
First Argument:
These are my instructions: "Pro needs to prove that the Quran contains at least 1 contradiction."
This is my answer:
In the Qur'an it states in Surah 6:115," The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all."
It also states in Surah 18:27," And recite (and teach) what has been revealed to thee of the Book of thy Lord: none can change His Words, and none wilt thou find as a refuge other than Him."
Now, if this is true, that would mean any text that Allah wrote, cannot be changed, nor corrupted. In other words, his words are set in stone per say.
But as we all know, this is not true. In verse 3 of Surah Al-Imran it states," He has sent down to you the Book of Truth confirming the previous books, and He has sent down the Torah and the Gospel."
This means that Allah has written and sent down both the Torah, and the Bible (basically Old and New Testaments) to us the people.
In turn, this means that according to the Qur'an, the Bible is literally the word of God.
Now, Muslims from all over the world when presented with this argument will say according to the Qur'an that the Bible had been corrupted by man. Corrupted. And they use these verses to try and prove it:
Sura 3:78: And there is indeed a group among them who twist their tongues with the book, that you may suppose it to be from the book. But it is not from the book. And they say, “It is from God,” though it is not from God. And they knowingly speak a lie against God.
Sura 4:46: Among those who are Jews are those who distort the meaning of the word, and say, “We hear and disobey,” and “Hear, as one who hears not!” and “Attend to us!” twisting their tongues and disparaging religion. And had they said, “We hear and obey” and “Listen” and “Regard us,” it would have been better for them and more proper. But God cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, save a few.
Now, here is the question:
If the Bible/Gospel, is literally the word of God, and Gods word cannot be corrupted, then why does the Quran also say Gods word can be corrupted, and also say the Bible is not the word of God?
Round 2
Me and YouFoundLiam have both decided that this debate would be a tie because the format is wrong, I apologise and the next debate will be one that Liam creates.
Forfeited
Round 3
Extend
Forfeited
Round 4
extend
Forfeited
Round 5
extend
Forfeited
I guess this one will be here a while.
Thanks, Brother. I do appreciate it.
.
oromagi,
YOUR QUOTE: "Will you please do us all the favor of backing off Rayan in these debates and generally for the time being? If you can't, I'm going to recommend action."
Backing off of rayhan16 with Quran axioms allows him to be more ignorant of his sickening faith of Islam, and if that is what you want, then so be it.
.
YOUR QUOTE THAT NEEDS AN UPDATE: "Certainly, the accusations of being a danger to one's own children based on religious belief by itself infringes on our code of conduct."
If you are going to be a moderator upon this esteemed Religion Forum, then I suggest that you keep up with the topic you referred too above, whereas your un-needed accusation is not required in showing my followup to Barney's position upon this matter shows no harm whatsoever IF YOU READ THE ENTIRE POST #69: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533/comments/54204
.
YOUR QUOTE OF WHICH I WILL FOLLOW YOUR REQUEST: " Your withdrawal here for the sake of clean debate without distraction would be appreciated. Thank you."
I will follow your request, but the obvious question has to be answered, and that is, what is the "Comment Section" used for other than to "comment upon the debate in question," and in my case, with actual FACTS, and therefore furthering the "clean debate" status. :)
.
.
rayhan16,
YOUR QUOTE OF DESPAIR: "Could any of you guys take action over BrotherD.Thomas? He keeps commenting unnecessary things under debates and I think he may be a bot. Please could you look into this issue."
Uh, I DO NOT comment on "unnecessary things" in the comment section of debates, as I have explicitly shown at your expense in my post #9 that its "game over" for you because I have shown ONE of MANY contradictions in your despicable Quran.
To save you further embarrassment in the future in your debate, I will follow oromagi's request and leave you to your Muslim ignorance regarding your sickening faith of Islam.
.
I agree that Brother's persistent addresses across a couple of your debates exceed the bounds of appropriate colloquy. Unlike the forums, you've got work to do here and can't just ignore his agrressions.
Brother-
Will you please do us all the favor of backing off Rayan in these debates and generally for the time being? If you can't, I'm going to recommend action. Certainly, the accusations of being a danger to one's own children based on religious belief by itself infringes on our code of conduct. Your withdrawal here for the sake of clean debate without distraction would be appreciated. Thank you.
Could any of you guys take action over BrotherD.Thomas? He keeps commenting unnecessary things under debates and I think he may be a bot. Please could you look into this issue.
.
YouFound_Lxam,
Even though I have easily shown you to be one of the most Bible ignorant pseudo-christians upon DEBATEART Religion Forums, here is ONE OF MANY toilet paper Quran contradictions to use against the "Carpet Kisser" Muslim rayhan16 as shown below:
IN THE QURAN, WHAT WAS MAN TRUELY MADE OF WHEREAS YOU CAN ONLY HAVE ONE OPTION, WAS IT BLOOD, CLAY, DUST, NOTHING, OR SPERM?:
“Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood,” (Quran 96:2).
“We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (Quran 15:26).
“The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was,” (Quran 3:59).
“But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?” (19:67, Yusuf Ali, Quran 52:35).
“He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer!" (Quran 16:4).
YouFound_Lxam, pick your blatant CONTRADICTION in the listed Quran CONTRADICTIONS shown above in how man in the Quran was created, and its "game over" for the Muslim fool RAYHAN16!
NEXT?
.
.
Why do all sweaty camel-assed Muslims all go against their despicable and sickening faith of Islam and argue or debate their abhorred faith like rayhan16 is doing in going directly against his camel humper God Allah?!!!
The Muslim Clerics are the hierarchy of his stinking Islamic faith, and they say that RAYHAN16 IS NOT TO ARGUE OR DEBATE his camel humping religion as shown herewith:
1. أَنَا زَعِيمٌ بِبَيْتٍ فِي رَبَضِ الْجَنَّةِ لِمَنْ تَرَكَ الْمِرَاءَ وَإِنْ كَانَ مُحِقًّا
"I guarantee a house on the outskirts of Paradise for one who abandons arguments even if he is right."
Source: Sunan Abī Dāwūd 4800, Grade: Sahih
2. الْمِرَاءُ فِي الْعِلْمِ يُقَسِّي الْقَلْبَ وَيُوَرِّثُ الضَّغائِنَ
"Arguing about sacred knowledge hardens the heart and produces resentment.”
Source: al-Madkhal ilá al-Sunan al-Kubrá 178
3. الْمِرَاءُ فِي الْعِلْمِ يُقَسِّي الْقَلْبَ وَيُؤَثِّرُ الضَّغْنَ
Disputation about sacred knowledge causes the heart to harden and breeds hatred.
Source: Jāmi’ al-‘Ulūm wal-Ḥikam 1/248
4. الْمِرَاءُ وَالْجِدَالُ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَذْهَبُ بِنُورِ الْعِلْمِ مِنْ قَلْبِ الرَّجُلِ
Source: Jāmi’ al-‘Ulūm wal-Ḥikam 1/248
Disputation and arguments about sacred knowledge cause the light of knowledge to extinguish in a man’s heart."
Malik ibn Anas, may Allah have mercy on him.
5. بِالسُّنَّةِ فَإِنْ قُبِلَ مِنْهُ وَإِلَّا سَكَتَ
Haytam ibn Jamil reported: I said to Malik, “O servant of Allah, if a man has knowledge of the prophetic tradition (sunnah), should he argue to defend it?” Malik said:
NO, rather he should convey the Sunnah if they might accept it from him, otherwise he should remain silent.
(Source: Jāmi’ al-‘Ulūm wal-Ḥikam 1/248)
6. إِيَّاكُمْ وَالْخُصُومَاتِ فِي الدِّينِ فَإِنَّهَا تُشْغِلُ الْقَلْبَ وَتُورِثُ النِّفَاقَ
Beware of disputes in the religion, for they preoccupy the heart and breed hypocrisy.
Source: Fadl al-‘Ilm 1/5
7. فما سكت من سكت من كثرة الخصام والجدال من سلف الأمة جهلا ولا عجزا ولكن سكتوا عن علم وخشية لله وما تكلم من تكلم وتوسع من توسع بعدهم لاختصاصه بعلم دونهم ولكن حبا للكلام وقلة ورع
The refrain of the righteous predecessors and Imams from engaging in excessive disputes and arguments was not due to ignorance or inability, but rather they remained silent due to their knowledge and fear of Allah. Those after them who spoke much and delved deeply into issues did not do so because they had more knowledge than them, but rather due to their love of speaking and lack of scrupulousness.
Source: Fadl al-‘Ilm 1/4
.
Sure,
I like Sir.Lancelots idea.
Would that work for you?
Agree for this one to be a tie and then Ixam may recreate the debate.
Ixam doesn’t have to rewrite his argument, he can just copy his original.
What do you want to do? It is the wrong way round, I want to be second which would fit the debate better
Have him make the challenge first.
I don't get this site. How can I go second and Liam to go first?
Rayhan, you mistakingly assigned yourself the wrong side.