Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Is Infallible

I must point out that I found Pro's Round 3 to be much harder to read, parse, and comprehend than Round 2. That said, I have not found any of the counter rebuttals given to be cause for any concessions on my part. Instead, I can only offer further clarification, re-emphasis, and rebuttal. Pro seems to think that the resolution itself needs to be clarified. This is curious to me because the resolution is mostly of my own making from forum interactions with Pro. I personally submitted "Muhammad (pbuh) was sinless" as the resolution. Pro paraphrased this to the current resolution of "Muhammad (pbuh) is infallible." Then, Pro added "as per the doctrine of Ismah" in his Round 1. This, it seems, is where confusion might arise. In my understanding, "as per the doctrine of Ismah" means "as detailed/described in the Islamic doctrine of Ismah." So, just as a debate demands, I am taking issue with the veracity of the claim being made. I am doing so head-on, honestly, with supporting arguments, from every angle I can conceive, and with sources which do NOT have a clear anti-Islam agenda (such as wikiIslam or various blogs of Islam to Christianity converts or Christian apologists). To be clear, I have no interest in debating against what might amount to a tautological claim, akin to "My father is biologically male." The futility in that is obvious. To further clarify, I will give examples of resolutions which I am definitely not disputing here: "According to Islamic doctrine, Muhammad (pbuh) is infallible." "According to the doctrine of Ismah, Muhammad (pbuh) is infallible." "According to the vast majority interpretation of Islamic scholars, the Quran supports the infallibility of Muhammad (pbuh)." "That Muhammad (pbuh) is infallible is a central Islamic doctrine." I would not argue against any of these. What is important is what I am currently disputing. I am debating the veracity of the claim in the current resolution, not what the claim is or means. As it stands, Pro has outlined the various elements of the Doctrine of Ismah, and I have been rebutting them. After reading Pro's Round 3 rebuttal, I encourage anyone to reread my Round 2 arguments to emphasize this. Pro seems to take great issue with what is allegedly my personal, obscure, and meaningless definition of "infallible." I assure you, I am working with the same definition as stated by Pro from the Miriam Webster Dictionary, and my Round 2 arguments proceed accordingly. Pro seems to be shocked that I am going outside of the Islamic tradition in order to dispute a facet of the Islamic tradition! Apparently to me, Pro would prefer the definition of infallible to be "the inerrant nature of the collective body of words and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)." Again, this amounts to a tautological claim, which would render this entire debate absurd on its face. To clarify and emphasize, these are the sorts of arguments which are essentially the foundation for the resolution: P1: As a prophet, Muhammad did not sin-- per the correct and authoritative Islamic doctrine of Ismah. P2: Muhammad did things a reasonable person might consider immoral. C: None of these things could truly have been sinful because of P1. The above syllogism involves a bare assertion revolving around P1, the alleged authority of which is based upon this reasoning: P1: The Quran is infallible and authoritative. P2: The doctrine of Ismah is based solidly upon the Quran. C: The doctrine of Ismah is correct and authoritative. Finally, that P1 is based only upon this clearly circular reasoning: P1: The Quran is infallible and authoritative. P2: The Quran claims itself to be infallible and authoritative. C: The Quran is infallible and authoritative. Pro's Counter Rebuttals: 1. "- Illicit affirmative fallacy (1. All members are purified, 2. Muhammad (pbuh) is a member, C. Muhammad is not purified). Plus, purity need only be the case once receiving revelation, "the expression being in present tense signifies a constant will of God [to purify]" [2]. That is, if there was sin, then there was no intended purification, which contradicts the verse." Nowhere did I claim that Muhammad is not purified, so no fallacy was committed. What I did say was that no purification is needed where no sin exists. Purification implies that Muhammad possessed impurities, which contradicts his alleged infallibility. 3. Again, "worthy of following" does not necessitate infallibility. Many people in history have been good leaders; that has never led anyone to conclude infallibility. 4. "Having great moral character necessarily negates having immorality, as per the law of non-contradiction." No, many fallible humans can be described as having great moral character. This description of character does not necessitate infallibility. 5. That Muhammad was "infallible yet not perfect" is still word play; it is still a distinction without a difference. Scholars claiming that Muhammad lacking omniscience was his "sin" which he asked forgiveness for is a great stretch of the meaning of the word. That certainly is not the reason why all other Muslims need to ask for forgiveness! Regarding Pro's "syllogistic argument," what can I say? It is convoluted, lacks cogency, and has 9 (!) premises. Hence, it does not really qualify as a syllogism. As I have already pointed out and explained, some of the premises rely upon bare assertions and circular reasoning. As to Pro's rebuttals to my points A through D: A. Apparently, Pro's rebuttal to this is that the opinions of non-Muslims does not count in matters of Islamic doctrine. That is as dismissive towards the opinions of fellow humans as it is convenient for Pro's argument. I am not a Muslim, nor is much of the world. This very website is not an Islamic one. It should come as no surprise that much of the disagreement with Islamic doctrine comes from outside Islam. In essence, this is why this very debate is even possible. Again, this line of thought relies on bare assertions: P1: Only Islamic scholars can criticize Islamic doctrine. P2: Islamic scholars have no criticisms against Islamic doctrine. C: Islamic doctrine is completely without criticism and flaws. It is worth noting that Pro does not dispute the claims made in Round 2, Point A against the infallibility of Muhammad. B. I'm not sure how Pro thinks this quote from a scholar does not contradict his argument. I will submit yet another quote, the concluding one, from the same source (5): "The Muslim scholar Ali Dashti said: "The Prophet Mohammad, far from claiming the infallibility and superhuman rank later attributed to him by others, knew himself to be prone to sin." It is clear from these passages in the Hadith that Muhammad never was and never claimed to be sinless. He needed God"s forgiveness for his sins, just like you and I do." C. Regarding Muhammad having more then the prescribed maximum of 4 wives, Pro's rebuttal amounts to "the Quran says this is permissible when the Prophet does it." Clearly, this is Special Pleading. Pro's rebuttal regarding the failure of Muhammad to appoint a successor is even less compelling-- that there was "no divine directive to appoint a successor." How could Pro possibly know this? How could an infallible leader not know that such an appointment would be pivotal to the unity of the faith for centuries? I consider this to be the most compelling counter argument I have put forth; this is "the jewel in the crown" of my case. If anything should be singled out from my counter arguments, it should be this undisputed fact. D. I don't see how I "negated myself" on this point, but I have already addressed this in my response to Point 5 already. CONCLUSION: To reiterate my conclusion in Round 2, Pro's argument fundamentally rests upon bare assertions and circular reasoning. Among my many valid arguments against the resolution, the failure of Muhammad to appoint a successor and the resulting Sunni/Shiite rift still stands as the one which is the most compelling and indisputable.