Well, that is a cop out.

If I were Islamic and claimed it was true, then I would have the burden of proof wouldn't I. I am not Muslim.
You however, claimed it was false. YOU MADE THAT CLAIM. And that means you have the burden of proof.

Its your standard.

Its also the standard routinely listed by atheists:

The first thing to keep in mind is that the phrase “burden of proof” is a bit more extreme than what is often needed in reality. Using that phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case. A more accurate label would be a “burden of support” — the key is that a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof. http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/burdenofproof.htm

Amazingly, the burden of proof for YOU evaporates as soon as you actually have to back up the snake oil claims you are selling?

The debate is over because you clearly cannot support what you are saying, and just rejected your own standard while, frankly, being incredibly arrogant about the entire thing.

But then, what else other than sheer and blind arrogance would drive someone to tell a billion people that they were wrong ... unless they proved to HIM, but some ever changing standard, that they were right ... and, BTW, all claims he made require no support. Smarter than a billion people JUST by being obstinate, eh?

You do realize that some Muslims have Ph.D's and quite intelligent and educated? If you deny that they are educated and intelligent, does that make it so?

Again, lets test your standard. If I JUST reject atheism's silly arguments, is that a valid position that makes Christianity proven fact? But its good enough for atheism ...

Clearly, even when repeatedly spelled out you don't want to understand no matter how many people explain it to you.