Judaism v. Islam

1. Conception of GodMy opponent doesn't differentiate between the concept of God in Islam and Judaism and the actual scriptures. We agree that the scriptures have different teachings - hence we differentiate between Islam and Judaism. But what we believe is from God (i.e., scripture) is different to believing who God is in essence. Thus it is easy to conclude that both Judaism and Islam accept the same concept of God. However, we might have different understanding of how God might act in certain cases. Follow carefully below.2. Honesty of the Prophet Pro doesn't understand that there is a heavy difference between lying and not telling the truth without intending to do evil. Take self-defense as an instance. If you kill a person in strict self-defense, then your intention is not evil, hence you cannot rationally be called a murderer. I cannot believe that my opponent criticized a very moral and stunning hadith of the Prophet. He who invents good information in order to reconcile good bonds between two groups of people is not recognized as a liar according to Islam. What's wrong with this? Please explain to me how this is wrong and deceitful (i.e., a lie) in any way. You don't do it to deceive, but to stop evil from occurring between people. This doesn't make you a liar, hence the Prophet allowing Muslims to invent good information in order to pick the lesser of two evils is not making him a liar or anyone else for that matter.Moreover, notice the hypocrisy involved where my opponent criticizes Islam for alleged hatred against disbelievers, yet the hadith of the Prophet never differentiates between reconciling bonds between Muslims or between non-Muslims too. That's peaceful, not hateful. Furthermore, the man Ka'ab which Pro mentions was a great enemy of Islam and Muslims, and it was necessary to kill him - hence the Prophet allowed using false information to enable killing that man. This is a military strategy, which Pro seems to be unaware of. He also seems to be unaware of the Islamic history.The Prophet never allowed lying about what Islam teaches, nor does the Qur'an allow such a thing. The reason why not telling the truth is permitted in certain cases is because it is deemed as the far lesser evil. It is better to say one untrue thing that can create peace rather than to speak the truth and create disputes between people. My arguments are firm, Pro has failed to prove anything.3. Pedophilia This point is completely irrelevant, since the debate topic is "Islam and Judaism." Pro, again, doesn't understand Islamic history. It was necessary for the Prophet to marry a young female (i.e., Aisha). She played a huge role in aiding the Prophet, being a scholar of Islam, narrating words of the Prophet, and so on. She was the daughter of the Prophet's companion Abu Bakr, who allowed his daughter to marry the Prophet. Moreover, nobody objected to the Prophet's marriage - not even his enemies. The fact is that Aisha was matured, stable, and her age was normal marital age 14 centuries ago. She was never harmed nor was the marriage an act of "pedophilia" since the Prophet had much older wives and had good relations with them.Now, one thing my opponent will have to do is wash his hands of the hypocrisy he seems to indulge in. He will have to explain how in [Numbers 31:18], little girls were kept alive for the sake of male satisfaction. I'd also like to hear the justification of the atrocious statement found in [Samuel 15:3]. Moreover, Pro seems to not having read the Old Testament. Has he heard of Solomon, who was a Prophet with many wives? Furthermore, I would love to see a prohibition of polygamy in the Old Testament. [Exodus 21:10] commands a man to treat his first wife properly if he marries more women, so we have limitations of polygamy - not a prohibition of the idea. The Qur'an on the other hand allows maximum four wives, and only one if a man cannot treat many wives justly. Find the ruling "marry only one wife" in the Old Testament.4. Brilliance of the Qur'anMy opponent did not touch upon my claims about the superb consistency of the Qur'an. The fact is that the Qur'an has never been corrupted. The Old Testament has. [1] The Qur'an is not scientifically inaccurate at any point - the Old Testament is. Read [Proverbs 6:6-8] which implies that ants have no commanders among their flock. Recall also the known story of the global flood which supposedly took place a few centuries BC - no such thing happened, no such thing is scientifically verified. On the contrary, it is scientifically criticized.The Qur'an is superior to the Old Testament in any aspect. The scientific [2][3] superiority is most significant. Dr. Maurice Bucaille wrote in his book The Bible, the Qur'an, and Science, "Why should we be surprised at this when we know that, for Islam, religion and science have always been considered twin sisters? From the very beginning, Islam directed people to cultivate science; the application of this precept brought with it the prodigious strides in science taken during the great era of Islamic civilization, from which, before the Renaissance, the West itself benefited." The same cannot be argued for Judaism. It has never been known to be very compatible with science.Moreover, in the Qur'an you don't find contradictions between God's character and God's commands. In the Old Testament, God commands slaughter of children and other innocent people. I refer to the passages I gave above. There are pornographic passages, which God clearly condemns. What is the necessity of [Ezekiel 23:20-23]? Who put such nonsensical pornography into what you call the book of God? All of this tells us that the Old Testament cannot be entirely from God. Words of men were added into it. God neither gets science wrong, nor does He contradict His own moral character.Back to the contentions.Contention 1: The Koran states that the Torah, Bible, and the Qur'an from GodThe Torah was corrupted by people who added their own words to suit their own views of religion. [Jeremiah 8:8] confirms this: "'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?The Jewish temple of Herod was destroyed in the year 70 AD, which resulted in the loss of many ancient scriptures. Moreover, when it comes to the preservation of the Qur'an, there are many points to make about this. Not only is the book unchanged, but it is preserved longer than any other book ever has. Sure, we do find ancient tablets - but these are neither full (only partial) nor are they actual books. A few letters are not hard to preserve. Additionally, Sir William Muir, a huge opponent of Islam, noted that "There is probably in the world no other book which has remained twelve (now fourteen) centuries with so pure a text."The source my opponent showed to prove that the Qur'an is corrupted is laughable. It shows nothing about scriptural changes, but misquotes hadith to show that there are missing parts of the Qur'an. This, however, is not argued by my opponent, hence I will not waste space rebutting his sources.Contention 2: The Qur'an is wrong in the formation of the spermMy opponent speaks of sperm. He doesn't read what I write properly. I said semen is referred to as "water gushing out" and this is not about the origination of sperm. He says my source doesn't mention abdomen - please see for yourselves: http://vss.sd22.bc.ca...Contention 3: The Qur'an contradicts itself"Nothing" means a lot. I was nothing before I was born, although I was a fetus. No contradiction. It is a form of expression. Moreover, the Qur'an limits its explanation so it doesn't go on forever. Before we were humans, sperm, water, clay, we were nothing. Plain simple.More on this part soon.References[1] http://www.renaissance.com.pk...; [2] http://miraclesofthequran.com...[3] http://www.kalamullah.com...