Belief in the Old Testement precudes belief in the New Testement or Koran

Thank you. -- Rebuttals -- 1. Isaiah predicting Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) My opponent claimed - without any evidence - that Isaiah 42:1-4 speaks of the Messiah, not the beloved Prophet Muhammad. I will analyze these passages further and prove that they do not speak of Jesus. [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. (2)He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets. (3)A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; (4)he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his law the islands will put their hope." Let us see verse 11 of Isaiah 42: "Let the desert and its towns raise their voices; let the settlements where Kedar lives rejoice. Let the people of Sela sing for joy; let them shout from the mountaintops." This speaks of the one that is awaited as being a descendant of Kedar. [Genesis 25:13] "These are the names of Ishmael's sons in the order they were born: Nebaioth, the first son, then Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam..." Kedar was one of the sons of Ishmael, and he [Ishmael] was exactly the ancestor of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). My opponent moved on to saying that the awaited Prophet will come with new teachings because the translation is "his teachings" not "his laws." There is no big difference. In fact, "his teachings" is even more appropriate since they not only cover laws, but everything else. They cover the teachings of a new scripture, new law, new standards, and so forth. 2. Exception My opponent claimed that I said that only Prophet Muhammad was an exception to changing the law. First of all, the argument about the 10 Commandments was completely ignored by my opponent. Second of all, none could change the Law except those who were meant to do so. If anything, Islamic Law is similar to Mosaic Law. Also, the Old Testament contradicts itself in several occasions, and what is part of the Mosaic Law could be contradicted within the Old Testament, which means that any new Law that comes without making big changes is just as valid. 3. A Prophet like Moses My opponent said that the passages predicting Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) are actually dealing with all Prophets that came after Moses. This is a very untrue statement. There is not one single Prophet that is as similar to Moses as Prophet Muhammad was. My opponent ignored my comparison between the two. I will do it again: o Both were rulers o Both were rejected by their people, then accepted o Both got a new scripture revealed unto them o Both spoke what God commanded directly o Both established new laws in the nations they ruled o Both were born naturally (both parents, Jesus only had one) o Both died naturally (they were not murdered or they did not directly go to Heaven) o Both were forced to emigrate (Exodus and Hijrah) o Both had families and offspring No other Prophets were this similar. Moving on, my opponent said that Moses never received a Law by himself, but in front of 1.2 million people. By this logic, if I receive a diploma in front of 20 people, they all received it? The entire point is that God revealed the Torah [to] none other but Moses. Other people did not receive it, it was Moses. God commanded Moses to speak through the scripture; no other people did it at his time. No other. I did not ignore the argument. I made it clear that the Torah (hereby Mosaic Law) was revealed [unto] Prophet Moses. [In front of] others has absolutely nothing to change about that fact. 4. Semantics My opponent falsely said that I used semantical arguments. I never said that we did not have the Old Testament today, nor did I say that it is true. I said that the original was true, and Islam has no basis on it today whatsoever. He said that, "like the New Testament and the Koran, are inconpatible with the Old Testament, and because they aknoledge the veracity of it, invalidate themselves." Did I say this? No, my opponent did. [He himself] concluded that because the Qur'an acknowledges the veracity of the OT, it invalidates itself. I am defending the Qur'an and saying that it is not invalid because it holds a different view toward the Torah than what my opponent erroneously said. Moreover, even [if] I say that the Qur'an says that the current Torah is true, I have still made other arguments that make the Qur'an fully valid in both cases. Therefore, my claim stands strong and there are no semantics from my side. -- References -- http://www.biblegateway.com...