Islam (Pro) Vs. Buddhism (Con)

Thanks Con.Preface: - I’d like to remind Con that this debate is no-scoring, & thus no votes can be cast. The point is not to win or lose, it’s to have a formal setting for a serious discussion about the Topic. - The sources are enumerated, & they’ll all be referenced eventually. - The BOP is shared, it’s as much required from me to establish my case as it is from Con. - The debate is about Buddhism the Religion in its entirety, not it’s philosophical or ethical sides alone, as Con tries to make to be! Summary of 1st Round: - To establish the fact that Islam is indeed more True than Buddhism, I argued that it is more authentic, more reasonable & more accurate: 1. More authentic because we can assert with certainty that the teachings of Islam we possess today, are in fact the teachings of Muhammad: founder of Islam, for we know much about with a high degree of certainty. An aspect not existing in the Buddhist Tradition, for “Various collections of teachings attributed to Buddha were passed down by oral tradition and first committed to writing about 400 years later.” [19]. 2. More rational, because: > One: the Islamic Scripture clearly states that Reason comes before Revelation: * “those on whom knowledge has been bestowed may learn that the (Qur'an) is the Truth from your Lord, and that they may believe therein” (22:54) => Knowledge comes before Belief. * “Say, "I only advise you of one [thing] - that you stand for Allah , seeking truth in pairs and individually, and then give thought.” “ (34:36). => The way to Revelation is seeking truth by giving thought, i.e. by Reason. > Two: it also holds Reason in high esteem & encourages it in all things, to the point of making it a religious obligation. * The Prophet said: “Seeking knowledge is a duty upon every Muslim” [20] > Three: consequently, Islam is based equally on Reason & on Revelation: * The Prophet said: "He who follows a path in quest of knowledge, Allah will make the path of Jannah easy to him. The angels lower their wings over the seeker of knowledge, being pleased with what he does. The inhabitants of the heavens and the earth and even the fish in the depth of the oceans seek forgiveness for him. The superiority of the learned man over the devout worshipper is like that of the full moon to the rest of the stars (i.e., in brightness). The learned are the heirs of the Prophets who bequeath neither dinar nor dirham but only that of knowledge; and he who acquires it, has in fact acquired an abundant portion.” [21] * & also said: “The remedy of ignorance is inquiry” [22] => Which lead muslims to an over millennium quest of knowledge in all fields of knowledge [23], starting from the: * The 1st century where we see the first generation of muslim scholars in a great number of fields: Law (by the 7 companion scholars), Medicine (by Aisha, Rafidah. . .), Linguistics (by Ali, al-Aswad. . .), Chemistry (by Ja’far as-Sadiq’) . . . * The 2nd century where the spectrum of knowledge expanded to even a greater number of fields: Logic (where Abu Hanifa first formulates al-Q’iyas - syllogism - , & after him ash-Shafi’i, both founders of Schools of Thought) ; Legal Theory (by the founders of the 10 Schools of Thought) ; Grammar/Linguistics (by Sibawayh. . .) ; Chemistry (Jabir Ibn Hayan, founder of modern chemistry. . .) ; Medicine (Ibn Masawayh. . .) ; Botany (by al-Farahidi) ; Zoology (by al-Jahiz). . . * The 3rd century after muslims were exposed to Greek & Indian Thought (when their works were translated into Arabic), knowledge then expanded even more to Astronomy (Thabit Ibn Qurra, al-Marwazi. . .), Mathematics (al-Khawarizmi . . .), Philosophy (al-Kindi. . .). . . => The exploration of all fields of knowledge continued to flourish & expand in the muslim world up until the 18th century (& then became stagnate, for many historical & political reasons not relevant to the Topic). > Four: it’s a fact that Islamic Theology is based on Reason, for it can be established through Reason without relying on Revelation, & it is doable & it was done, namely by the group called Falasifah (the muslim early Philosophers), such as Ibn Sina, al-Farabi, Ikhwan as-Safa. . . according to this particular School (which appeared during the 3rd century & faded away 4 centuries later) Reason is the only arbitrary of Truth, & thus Revelation must be subject to it, & not the opposite. Point being: their findings about Theology wasn’t that much different from the Orthodox School, which instead declares that Reason & Revelation lead to each-other & can never contradict each-other, i.e. they rely equally on both approaches, without favouring one or the other, & so far, they’ve been right [24]. => Now, all this is completely exotic to the Buddhist Tradition. I am not denying that Buddhism has a lot to offer in terms of worldview, but rather it is less suitable for Reason than Islam is, wether Reason concerning the religion itself, or Reason concerning Knowledge in general; & Islamic Scripture & History is proof of that. If Con disagrees, then let him bring his own proof. 3. More accurate, because it provides accurate description of facts on one hand, & it is compatible with modern day science on the other hand. Islam claims Muhammad is a Prophet, & offers a great number of his essentially unique prophecies, most of which have already come true (& I gave some examples of these prophecies). On top of that, the Islamic Tradition also offers many ways to verify the claim of Prophethood of Muhammad, such as the following demonstration: 1- If a unique event (extremely unlikely in the future) is true, then the prediction of such event is a sign of strong prediction. 2- If all or almost all strong predictions are true, then the predictor must have high predictive power. 3- If a person is a prophet, then he must be a predictor with high predictive power with no conclusively false prediction. 4- Almost all unlikely events Person X predicted came true, with no conclusively false prediction. 5- Person X is a prophet. => (1), (2) & (3) are true, as per the corresponding definitions. Thus, if (4) is a fact, then (5) is True. * If Con contests the fact that Muhammad is a Prophet he is welcome to engage on how his prophecies are not that unique, & could easily be explained. => Nothing of the Islamic authentic scripture has ever been dismissed as false or inaccurate, or contradicting the facts, even in this modern day ; I can’t say the same thing about Buddhism, for it had to strip itself out of a number of its fundamental doctrines (such as Mount Meru legend [25]) just so it may fit modern day science, which drastically diminishes its seeming rationality! Rebuttals: - As for Con’s allegation of Intellectual Dishonesty, the debate is extended to 4 rounds, not everything must be established in the 1st round. & we have yet to see proof from Con about the rationality of Buddhism. - I am not gonna go as far as call Con dishonest, I’d rather let the facts speak for themselves. Buddhism is a worldview, like any other, largely based on faith, for a person adhering to it must believe in its Worldview, which is based on ancient teachings about: Karma, plains of existence, Samsara, Rebirth, reincarnation, Devas (gods), Asuras (demons) . . . & a million other things [26] => In short, Buddhism is predominately super-natural. If Con wishes to strip Buddhism out of its teachings for the benefit of ‘Reason’, then there is no point in further arguing for Buddhism in the first place, for Reason =/= Buddhism. “the basis of Buddhism are principles, not archaic revelation. One can test these principles for themselves.” 1. Buddhist teaching is older than Islam, ‘archaic’ here is a misrepresentation. 2. From an outsider point of view, there is little difference between archaic principals & revelations, for both essentially exhibit a worldview about a supernatural realm. 3. Testing a worldview for oneself is a very subjective approach that essentially works for any worldview (Christian for instance) no matter how subjective it is, which is then incompatible with Reason, as it is conventionally known. “in Islam, one must take everything on faith, for the whole religion is based on unverifiable revelation, revelation that must be taken on, again, faith" - This is a false bare assertion, which has already been systematically refuted in my first Round. “look at the previous round, where I cite "Quran (3:56)",where one cannot question its teachings, for if they do, they will be punished.” - The verse is a discourse about the Afterlife, which has nothing to do with the actions of this life, the one we are talking about here! Con’s contention here is a straw-man, thus dismissed. “the whole religion would collapse if it was found Muhammad was not who he claimed to be.“ - The same thing can be said about Buddhism (Dharma for instance), since a considerable amount of its teachings relies on supernatural cosmology & metaphysics, once it contradicts the facts, the religion won’t have any meaning. - However, contrary to what Con argues, the prophethood of Muhammad is very much verifiable, as I stated above. & Con is welcome to contest its verifiability. We have all the information, we just have to check through Reason if what we have prove the claim of Muhammad, or disproves it. “This is because the philosophy would still exist, for people need not take it on faith.” - Philosophy is just a small part of Buddhism. Con is trying to reduce Buddhism into a Philosophy, which it clearly isn’t. As far as Con has demonstrated, Buddhism is taken on faith, because it relies on personal experience, which doesn’t necessarily speak of its Rationality. “"If you meet the Buddha, kill him." “ - I checked the link provided by Con, & this doesn’t mean remotely what Con professed it meant!To be continued :) , your turn Con.