Islam the master of religions and the most complete

Despite lacking completely any justification for why Islam is the master of all religions and ignoring completely every argument that stand for Buddhism against Islam. I feel that I have done more than enough to prove that Islam is not the master of all religions as I provided alot of arguments against Islam that practically went unchallenged. So after I finish refuting my opponent claims, I will give a short conclusion. ----------------------------- 1. Again my opponent is seemingly ignorant about the history of Islam. He forgot to mention that there were lots of battles Muhammad intiated without any plausible self defense. He attacked many tribes with an excuse saying that he gathered intelligence and launched multiple pre-emptive strikes on several tribes. They were not for self-defense but they were on the offense and these tribes did not fight Muhammad at all. Even if they conspired to attack Muhammad, he shouldn't be attacking them and killing them as cruel as he did. Some examples of such offensive expeditions are; Banu Salim tribe, Banu Sulaym tribe, Banu Nadir and Banu Quriaza. Banu Quriaza was a Jewish tribe that supposedly allied with the Meccans by aiding them and not fighting directly against the Muslims. However, he invaded Banu Quraiza and killed all the males in the tribe and took the women and children as slaves [1]. One can also find that Muhammad intiated many wars only on suspiscion, such as the Banu Mustaliq. Muhammad fought wars to unite Arabia and become king of Arabia. He successfully done so, no doubt. But that doesn't make him a prophet with all his ruthelessness. So if we compare him to Buddha again, Buddha was more peaceful. Lastly, my opponent has used a false premise of Jesus being God, thus he killed lots of people. However, I have no reason to accept Jesus as a God, all I said is Jesus "Personally" never killed anyone or lead a war and this is true. 2. The point is the contradiction between the two hadith. Is there a place where Allah's throne resides, ie the seventh heaven, or is he everywhere thus the sun bows down for him? If you claim the second, then the Esra and Miraj was incorrect because Muhammad went through a physical place to meet him and this place as Gabriel said he could not go forward so not to get burned by the light of Allah. Thus the two hadith are contradicting each other. This was not off-topic, you brought the argument that Christianity and Judaism contains contradictions for absolutely no reason, so I brought a contradiction within Islam. 3. This is another misunderstanding from my opponent regarding the different sects in Islam. Every Sunni Muslim will claim that his sect is the correct way of Islam. Shia will claim the same. On the contrary, anyone foreign to Islam, wouldn't know which is the correct way to follow Islam and will consider both as just sects of the same religion. Second, Shia don't pray to Ali, this is another argument from ignorance. They pray to Allah just as you do, except that they believe the rightful heir to the khilafa was Ali not Abu Bakr. They also hate Aisha and curse her for one simple reason you seem to be not aware of, is that Aisha lead a war against Ali and she lost. There were political tensions between both and it was quite clear. 4. Answeringchristianity. com is not a scientific website to be accepted as a source. It is an Islamic biased website. However, as I said I hate to back out from a debate, I will refute this claim. First, there are many different opinions about how many joints are there in the human body. Some sources say from 100 to 400 joints, the most credible source I have found says 150 joints [2]. Second, it is not that hard for people at the time to perform an autopsy and count out the number of joints in the human body. Thirdly and most importantly, this knowledge was already known since 239 BCE in Chinese science [3]. Lü-shih Ch'un-ch'iu claimed the 360 joints almost 800 years before Muhammad even existed. An advanced knowledge or prophecy must not be something that was known at the time. Thus this claim that you provided as the most powerful proof of Islam is just a plagiarism of an old Chinese science book. If there is anything to it, this Chinese book would constitute the miracle and not Islam. 5. A mistake in the Sunna has been fulfilled making my opponent first propsition in Round 2 "Find a mistake in the Quran or Sunna" to be accomplished. A mistake that went unchallenged. 6. First, he married a 9 year old virgin. So this is another argument from ignorance. He married her after the ruling of 4 women has been well established. Second, whether they were virgins or not does not even matter to the fact that he did not abide to his own rulings. He made rules and he deliberately broke them for his own benefit. Marrying a 9 year old was only for his pleasure, since there were no ties to strengthen since she was the daughter of his best friend Abu Bakr. Third, it is very hypocritical for his people to abide by his rules while he broke them completely. Lastly, if we compare Buddha to Muhammad, Buddha did not marry 11 women or a 9 year old child or not abiding by the rules that he made. Thus making Buddha better than Muhammad and Buddhism is the master of all religions. 7. I don't see how your argument relates to anything about owning concubines. Muhammad and his followers owned concubines. They killed their husbands in the wars and took them as sex slaves for the rest of their lives. This is not peaceful and this is not Godly and this definitely does not make Islam the master of all religions. If we to compare Islam with Buddhism again, Buddhism does not allow slavery or concubines or war booty. Thus Buddhism wins again. Even if these people were the transgressors, their wives and children had nothing to do with anything and definitely not complete villages like Banu Quraiza. An entire tribe was killed and children and women were taken as slaves and concubines. This doesn't look like a peaceful religion. Definitely not the master of all religions. 8. Why kill him at all? You are justifying killing of a human being just cause he disagrees with you on matters of faith. Two people read the same book, person A believed this book to be true, person B denied it. Person B will get killed for simply denying that this book is the truth. So what kind of truth is this? You either say it is the truth or be killed? The truth does not fear criticism or abandoning, cause even if the entire earth abandoned the truth it will still be true no matter what. For example if the entire humanity believed that the earth is flat, this would not make the earth flat. So if people left Islam and it is the truth, it is their loss. You kill them, it forces them to become hypocrites. You make someone who disbelieves in your faith live amongst you as a hypocrite cause it is either believe or be killed. If Christians were killed because they converted to Islam, you would revolt against this action. But now, you are justifiying the killing of Ex-Muslims just because they left Islam. All in all, Buddhism does not punish apostasy, Thus making Buddhism the master of all religions. -------------------------------------------------------I've come to the end of this debate and I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I believe I have done my best to prove that Islam is not the master of all religions and Buddhism is better than Islam in many aspects that were discussed. I've shown and my opponent did not disagree that Islam allows slavery, concubines, wars, pedophilia and death penalty for apostasy. My arguments that Buddhism is better than Islam because they do not contain such acts and mainly they went unchallenged. Thus if we use the same concept as my opponent did, then surely Buddhism is the master of all religions. My opponent has given me three tasks, which were; 1. Find a mistake in the Quran or Sunna: Which I've done round 2 and completley went unchallenged, thus making the first premise of why Islam is the master of all religions is incorrect, because Islam do contain mistakes. 2. Islam is pretty clear, only one book to follow: I've shown why this is a logical fallacy to begin with and is a very subjective and ignorant way of looking at other people religions.3. Prophecies and Advanced knowledge in Quran or Sunna: My opponent provided one argument that I have completley debunked. It was ancient knowledge and something that is not scientifically proven today and there is quite a disagreement in the number of joints. Thus the three main concepts my opponent proposed had all been resolved and debunked and also compared Islam with Buddhism and showed why in every aspect debated Buddhism is better than Islam. I have said it all ladies and gentlement. Thank you for your time and I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. ---------------------------------------------------------References:1. Tabari volume 82. . http://www.nanomedicine.com...3. Geoffrey Lloyd & Nathan Sivin, The Way and The Word: Science and Medicine in Early China and Greece, (Yale University Press, 2002), pp. 223-224