Judaism v. Islam

The forfeit is a shame, especially because my opponent had really lame reasons for forfeiting. In this round I will post short final rebuttals and give a conclusion.Rebuttals Contention 3: The Qur'an contradicts itselfClearly I have proved that the Qur'an does not contradict itself when it speaks of what God created humankind from. It is highly reasonable for God to explain things in contrast to one another, so that we do not have a mere science book from Him but a book that is more meaningful. When God says that humans were created from nothing, that clearly means a lot of things. One should first understand that the Qur'an is a poetic book in its entirety. It rhymes from the beginning to the end, although it is not grammatically classified as a poem. Therefore, it is not wrong for the Qur'an to use common and short expressions to clarify certain things for humankind.Moreover, it is highly unreasonable to suggest that the Qur'an should explain everything to the smallest detail. If you keep on asking what X is created from, then what Y is created from, etc., you will get an infinite number of answers. The book wouldn't be a book with all the information. It would be a mountain. Clearly that is not what God would want for the sake of guiding humans. Thus He limits the explanation to mentioning the core components of the body, i.e., minerals, water, etc. Imagine God saying that water was created from, then what the components of water were created from, then what the components originate from, etc. It would be useless and irrelevant information contained in the Book of God. In a clear sequence, humans are described as being created by:1. Nothing: God neither used specific tools to create, nor is there need to name the origination of the components in the Universe.2. Water/clay: Life originated from water, and science suggests clay played a role too. The Qur'an refers to clay as "fine extracts from earth," i.e., minerals that are necessary for life. 3. Sperm etc.: This is common sense.Is the Qur'an abrogated?Another alleged contradiction my opponent mentioned was that in some places, God says that His words cannot change, yet God changes one verse with another one. This is an interesting debate topic in itself, and Muslims scholars have made much research on what the concept of abrogation means in the Qur'an. To sum it up, the major interpretations of the Qur'anic verse 16:101 are:1. God replaced the earlier ayat/signs (i.e., Torah, Psalm, Injeel) with the Qur'an. The Qur'an is considered to be better because God's word is preserved in it. 16:101 says that if God lets one of His books get corrupted, He will easily replace it with something better. This, as I explained, doesn't mean God's actual Word is corrupted, but the reflection of His word, which can easily be replaced.2. The Qur'an has verses which add further detail to one another, hence God mentions that when He reveals a verse to replace another one in meaning. This goes deep into the history of the Qur'an. It was revealed in a period of around 23 years, verse for verse (or in combinations). Muslims established their own ideological community and followed Shari'a, even when they lived in areas ruled by non-Muslims. The Arabs were often very drunk, fornicating, and so on. The Qur'an came with a remedy for them: convert to Islam by free choice.Now, if a person converts to Islam, his lifestyle might be changed a lot. The Arabs who were alcoholics had to find a remedy for their diseases, hence the Qur'anic verse of the prohibition of alcohol for the Muslims (not non-Muslims, they don't follow Shar'ia):[Qur'an 4:43] "O you who believe! do not go near prayer when you are Intoxicated until you know (well) what you say." So at this point, the Qur'an merely forbad Muslims from being intoxicated before/until prayer. Then God replaced/substituted this verse with another, not to change it, but to add more meaning to it.[Qur'an 2:219] "They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: 'In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit.'"At this point the Qur'an clarified that the benefits of alcohol are outweighed by the negative effects of it. In Islam, anything that is more harmful than beneficial is per se forbidden. Finally, the Qur'an altogether forbad intoxicants for the Muslims.[Qur'an 5:90-91] "O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain?"Clearly, the abrogations in the Qur'an concerning one example (i.e., prohibition of alcohol) are not examples of God's words being changed. It is scientifically proven that alcoholism, for instance, is best cured in stages, and not in an instant full absence. Thus the Qur'an did a good thing to give a safe guidance to people who loved alcohol instead of saying immediately that they must stop drinking after subjecting themselves freely to Islamic Law.God forgiving sins Does God forgive all sins except shirk (assigning partners to God)? Yes. The Qur'an clearly mentions, though, that in this life people can be forgiven for anything if they repent or sincerely regret sinning prior to death. Even after death, a person might be forgiven by God in the Hereafter - but if he has not repented from shirk, then he will not be forgiven. So there are two stages of forgiveness, and God distinguishes between them.ConclusionI believe that Pro has not come with any significant evidence for the religion of Judaism. He simply attacked Islam. I made it clear that the Old Testament is not fully reliable, is not fully from God, and is in no way superior to the Qur'an. I have also clarified that the Qur'an is a very unique book, and more unique than the Old Testament. The debate is not about whether or not this proves God's existence - but whether Islam is a more true religion than Judaism. My opponent has not refuted many arguments, has forfeited the last debate round, and has not made any good case for Judaism.Vote fairly from the heart.