Construction of Islam

1. Rebuttals a) Koran unchanged since written i) I did not say that the Koran is the only unchanged book. I said that it is the only book which has not been changed for a very long period (i.e., 14 centuries). In point of fact, it is also the only religious book on earth that has remained original for such a long period of time (i.e., since it was entirely completed). No book has remained original longer than that. ii) Con cites a link which proves absolutely nothing about corruption of the Qur'an. It skips history, the hadith, the seven different ahruf (i.e., readings), etc. It is short and unprofessionally written that I will not spend time refuting it entirely. http://www.islamic-awareness.org... b) No contradictions in the Koran 'But a lot of books have no contradictions...' Which religious book has no contradictions, besides the Koran? You need to look at the theory of probability. The chances that an ancient book among many others, which speaks of science, theology, morals, warfare, history, etc., gets its points proven correct, and beats all other religious books in terms of percentage of errors (the Qur'an has zero), and so forth, are extremely low. The fact that only this book, which claims to be the last revelation from God, is passing the challenge of being error-free among all the writings that we can analyse from various religions is splendiferous. c) The Koran is irreproducible because of its style i) It is not about judgement of art. It is also about the style of language, the way a book uses various expressions in highly complex ways is not mere art. Is it subjective when a professor in English judges your and my grammar, and compares it to one who writes "yes but u kno..."? I think not. We clearly have standards of language. Nobody has passed the Koranic challenge to outmatch its language. http://www.islamic-awareness.org... ii) 'There are a lot of works no one can replicate.' Did I imply that the Koran challenged someone to replicate it, or to outmatch it? 'Particularly the Devil's Bible, which you cannot even make a copy of' Con's source does not say that. Moreover, did you know that this book Codex Gigas (i.e., Devil's Bible) contains parts of the traditional Bible, which, of course, has discrepancies? Con is comparing art to a masterpiece of literature (i.e., the Koran). It is like comparing tetris figure formations to the Law of Gravity. Furthermore, the language of the Bible is filled with slangs and so-called street language. It cannot be compared to the Koran by high standards whatsoever. iii) Con picked a verse from the Koran (in English) and criticized the way the Koran expresses its message. The English translation of the Koran is a partial reflection of the Koran. It cannot be compared to the original Arabic whatsoever. Translating the Koran in a fluent way is impossible. Con simply criticizes the English translation, which is a nonsensical thing to do. If you put ice in a heated room, will it remain solid? No, its form will change. The Koran is more complex than by mere form, hence a translation cannot and does not reflect its perfectly brilliant, original language. As for the language not being poetic, listen to the original (notice the fifth verse): http://tinyurl.com... Also notice this, readers: In the comments section, I recommended that Con uses the Yusuf Ali translation of the Qur'an (by saying it is the most prominent). If you click on the link below, and you find [11:5], then you will realize that out of three comparable translations, Con did not use the one of Yusuf Ali, but Shakir. Notice the great difference even in the English translation. Con simply used a poor English translation and used it to attack the Qur'an (and he turned away from my recommendation, too). I am not attacking Con, but simply pointing out the error in his criticism. http://www.usc.edu... d) and e) Once more I say that I never claimed that the Qur'an is the oldest book. On top of that, to claim that the math in the Qur'an is simple is nonsensical. Of course, if we just single out one of the mathematical 'points,' then yes. But, if we take into account the fact that there are numerous upon numerous mathematical phenomena that are very complex points us toward the fact that: (a) the Koran is as it always used to be (calculations prove that), and (b) that it is a work of a higher being. http://www.quranwonders.com... http://www.quranwonders.com... f) The middle of the Koran is "iron", and so is the middle of the earth i) The "iron being center" in societies is irrelevant. Food was also the center. So was other material. ii) Irrelevant. g) Other prophecies Numerous Islamic prophecies have come true. One came true many centuries ago, and it is described in Qur'an 30:2-4. http://www.answering-christianity.com... Moreover, sure, other people and religions have made prophecies. Take the Bible or the Vedas. They have numerous errors in their prophecies. Take the prophecies of Nostradamus. Do you see a few wrong ones? Yes. As for the creation of clay, this is not a prophecy, but a scientific point. Now, my opponent says that clay is not found anywhere in the body and that it is, in fact, dangerous to the health. Regarding the last point, if you drink too much water, it can turn to body toxic. Clay can be healthy if used properly. http://www.ehow.com... Nevertheless, are we actually created from clay? Is it scientifically possible? If you analyse, the components of clay are earthly materials. Minerals like magnesium and calcium, and many others, are found in the body, and withal clay. The human body needs these in order to function, hence it is perfectly compatible with modern science when the Koran states that we were created from clay. Furthermore, you use flour to create bread. You also use water. If you finish the bread, what happens when you simply pour more water and flour over it? It gets ruined. However, it does not mean that bread is not made of flour and water. Due to shortage of time, I will conclude by saying that I have made very valid rebuttals, and my opponent has not made any strong cases against Islam and its structure. Moreover, Con's last comment that "just because something is true doesnt mean that all of it is" is kind of illogical. We know that evolution is not 100% observed as true, but we regard it as such. If a lot of it is very complex, but scientifically valid, then it can be regarded as true.