Has competition become overrated?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Has competition become overrated?". Your opponent's style: Peter Thiel

Islam and its vlidity over other religions and it is the truth

You're making the classic mistake of confusing institutional success with metaphysical truth. Islam's rapid expansion had nothing to do with divine validation and everything to do with superior political and military organization. Think about it - if growth and influence determined religious truth, then Christianity would have been "more true" during the Roman Empire's peak, and secular materialism would be the ultimate truth today since it dominates global institutions. That's obviously absurd reasoning. The real story is much more interesting: Islam succeeded because it offered a compelling political framework that unified fractured tribal societies under a single banner. It provided clear laws, economic incentives, and military structure that outcompeted the Byzantine and Persian empires. That's brilliant statecraft, not divine proof. Your argument actually undermines itself - if Islam is obviously true, why does it require human institutions, armies, and political power to spread? Truth should be self-evident. The fact that every religion claims exclusive access to ultimate reality while producing remarkably similar moral and spiritual insights suggests they're all human attempts to grapple with the same fundamental questions about meaning and mortality. The diversity of sincere religious experience across cultures points toward something far more profound than any single institutional claim to monopolistic truth.

Islam doesn't just give a frame work politically but also ways to live a life and muslims don't always have political power, also you acknowleded its great who do you think came up iwth the framework]

You're right that Islam provides comprehensive life guidance, but that actually proves my point - it's a brilliant *human* construction, not divine revelation. Every successful civilization creates totalizing systems that govern everything from diet to marriage to prayer schedules. The Confucian system did this for China, Roman law did it for the West, and Hindu dharma does it for much of India. The fact that you ask "who came up with the framework" reveals the flaw in your thinking. Muhammad was clearly an extraordinary political and spiritual genius - perhaps one of history's greatest. He synthesized existing Jewish, Christian, and Arabian traditions into something more powerful and coherent than any of its parts. That takes immense human intelligence, not divine dictation. But here's what's really telling: if Allah designed the perfect system, why does it require constant human interpretation through scholars, imams, and jurisprudence? Why do Sunni and Shia Muslims - reading the same "perfect" text - reach completely different conclusions about fundamental questions? Why does every Islamic society implement it differently? The Quran itself admits it's delivered in Arabic "so you may understand" - meaning it's designed for 7th-century Arabian minds, not universal divine truth. A truly divine message wouldn't need cultural translation or scholarly interpretation. The fact that Islam works so well precisely because it adapts to local conditions proves it's human wisdom, not cosmic revelation.