Convert Me

Argument 1: I do not believe that can be developed any further, I believe that I have rebutted the safest bet argument. Argument 2: Yes I accept that there is no contradiction in the stated days of creation. Argument 3: Regarding the 7 heavens, this has become a moot point. It may refer to the layers of the atmosphere, though you can claim there are five, six, seven or ten. It may refer to the classification of the universe. It is ambiguous. Argument 4: Uthman and the Qur'an. Here my opponent provides an ambiguous defence, "The Qur'an was in its full form during the lifetime of the beloved Prophet, but it had to be compiled into one book. Many people memorized the Qur'an, wrote it on many things, and this way, it was easy for people to compile it later on. After his death, few problems occured, and Uthman had to find a quick and effective solution to this. What he ultimately did was to collect all the Qur'an copies, preserve the original, and burn the unoriginal ones. He then compiled it into a book, still existing today, but some parts are missing.It matches the current one." There are certain apparent contradictions or issues to what my opponent says. 1: It was in its full form, but had to be compiled. This is a contradiction. 2: "What he ultimately did was to collect all the Qur'an copies, preserve the original", my opponent has not presented evidence that Uthman ever held a true original Qur'an. 3: "He then compiled it into a book, still existing today, but some parts are missing.It matches the current one". The use of the word 'compiled' suggests that the Uthman Qur'an was assembled from bits and pieces, in a way similar to the Bible (where some parts were selected, others failed to make the final edit). The Uthman Qur'an is missing two thirds of its content. There is no evidence it is/was the same Qur'an as the orginal, nor the modern. My opponent further argues "it is still logical that the Qur'an has remained fully pure to this day. Arabs used to write every single 'event' down. Had the Qur'an been different, they would have written about different copies etc. They wrote about Uthman compiling it, and burning unoriginal copies. Had even one Arab male and female known an unoriginal form of the Qur'an, memorized it, gotten offspring, and passed on their memorization of it through generations, would we not see at least one single different Qur'an today?" Muslims had memorised inproper/divergent forms of the Qur'an, that is why Uthman ensured that only a single version of it existed. The above is good evidence to suggest that his attempt at orthodoxy was a success and that the modern Qur'an may be the Qu'ran that Uthman knew/complied. It does not confirm that the Uthman Qur'an was the same that of the Prophets. The ideal evidence would be an original 'first edition' copy of the Qur'an to be compared to one that has been printed today. Without this how certain can we be that the Qur'an is uncorrupted. Prophecies. The argument my opponent complies concerning prophecies is an interesting one. He states that, "For example, something about men looking like women means men will wear make up, etc., and there is also the thing with transsexuals, who are able to get surgeries that can make them look like the opposite gender. This has never been able before the latest centuries. Who could have known this?" The Qur'an does not mention gender surgery, it does mention men becoming like women. However, I am certain that the features of males from certain cultures, such as Byzantium would have seem effeminate from the point of view of the austere arabs. In addition the 'third gender' of Pakistan, [1] is implied by the Karma sutra to pre-exist Islam and may have been known to the Prophet Mohammed due to trade links. Some of the prophecies my opponent refers to are interesting, they do not concern clear specific details however, there is no real way of arguing for or against them and they remain in my view quite circumstantial. My opponent states that "God told Pharaoh that his body will be saved as a sign for future generations. Somewhere in 1970's, at the Red Sea, a body was found. It was not mummified, yet it was perfectly preserved. Dr. Maurice Bucaille, a great scientist and a former Christian who converted to Islam, was called to examine the body. He said there is no doubt that this is Pharaoh of Moses' time. Muslims told him that the Qur'an already said this. He was amazed, learned Arabic, etc., and converted to Islam. He studies the Qur'an entirely, and found it to speak amazingly about astronomy, geology, etc. This is God speaking of an exclusive truth, saying something no human could ever do." This is a fascinating argument, and I intend to read up more on the work of Dr. Maurice Bucaille. However Dr. Maurice Bucaille identifies Ramesses II as the Pharoah of the exodus. [2] The body of Ramesses II is described as wrapped, and as a mummy, had to be treated in the seventies due to decay and and having lost it's head during a mummification process. There seems no evidence of divine preservation. [3] In conclusion I would like to thank my opponent for the most interesting, challenging and worthwhile debate I have had here. It has been highly informative. My opponent has argued excellently, but I must invite readers to ask themselves the following question. Has pro established according to a balance of probabilities that Islam is true? Is it more likely than not that Muhammed was the final prophet of God? Though I have not been able to fully established that this is not the case, my opponent has for their part not reached the required burden of proof. For that reason I urge a vote for con. Either way, I feel enriched for the debate, and motivated to do more research on Islam. Thank you. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(South_Asia)#History [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...