Sina's Challenge

Due to an unintentional absence the last round, I will make up by merging my opening case with rebuttals. Thanks to Con for his patience As I could not fit my entire opening case and rebuttals in this round without surpassing the character limit, I will put 1 of my rebuttals in this round and focus mostly on the entirety of my opening case, with the exception of the case “Misogynist” accusation, as to not violate the 4th round rule of “no new arguments”. This round will be primarily my opening case; the next round will be primarily my closing rebuttals. With all intentions presented: a foreword. Foreword: Historical relativity It is important to note that when judging historical figures, or evaluating their overall character. One ought to consider the values that were dominant of the society at the time, as do most historians. It is a at best, hugely unfair to judge individuals of bygone days by modern standards. As said individuals would not have only been wholly unaware of as they would not have yet, but would also make no practical sense as such morals would have been followed by anyone at the time. That is not to argue for complete moral relativity, but to ignore historical context in instances like these would be unfair at best, but at worst, the height of intellectual dishonesty. Such is the opinion upheld by most modern historians of the field. As illustrated by British Historian Christopher Dawson: " We have been taught by the great nineteenth-century historians and sociologists that every age must be judged by its own cultural standards and achievements, and that we have no right to expect the Anglo-Saxons of the seventh century to conform to the standard of eighteenth-century French philosophers or nineteenth-century liberals. We now realize the importance of the dynamic periods in history when a new start is made from small beginnings, since for an historian the seed time is more important and more deserving of study than the time of harvest." - The Formation of Christendom (pg 183) Argument 1: Narcissism Narcissism is a personality disorder characterized by an overinflated since of self importance, often creating a lack empathy towards others and a strong tendency towards vanity and openly seeking admiration [1]. In short, among the most characteristic symptoms of narcissism include: -Regular displays of arrogance and haughty behaviour -Requiring constant and excessive praise for validation - A strong sense of entitlement and a lack of empathy towards others.[2] Thus, in order to prove that Muhammad(pbuh) is a narcissist, one would have to show any enduring patterns of conceit, entitlement, vanity and arrogance both in his character and throughout historical accounts of his life (the Seerah). However, it is throughout the Hadith, Sunnah and Seerah that such character cannot even be hinted towards. Not in his character, his beliefs or any account of his life can one rationally come to the conclusion of narcissistic tendencies. Abu Dharr narrates: “Once, I observed Salman and Bilal arriving in the presence of the Noble Prophet (S). Salman, out of respect, fell down at the Prophet’s feet and kissed them. The Noble Prophet (S) endeavoured to prevent him from performing this act. “Do not perform acts that the non-Arabs perform for their emperors,” advised the Noble Prophet (S). “I am (just) a servant from amongst the servants of Allah - I eat what they eat and sit where they sit.” ( Dars-hai Az Zindagi-e-Payambar, Page 162; Biharul Anwar, Volume 76, Page 63 )[3] It is in this narration that one can see not only a strong since of humility being displayed by Muhammad, but also the refusal to be held up to a pedestal. Such behaviour would be near impossible to an individual holding any narcissistic tendencies, as the constant need for validation from others would prevent them from acting as such. As well as the fact that such an individual would feel entitled in doing so, as they believe themselves. Furthermore, it is in his beliefs that narcissism is condemned. As constantly throughout authentic narrations does Muhammad denounce arrogance. As seen in the Hadith below: “Verily, Allah has revealed to me that you must be humble towards one another, so that no one wrongs another or boasts to another.” -Source: Sahih Muslim 2865, Grade: Sahih (Authentic)[4] Sources: 1. http://psychcentral.com... 2. http://www.halcyon.com... 3. http://anecdotesofahlulbayt.blogspot.ca... 4. http://abuaminaelias.com... Argument 2: Lecher Lecherous behaviour is defined by exhibition of an excessive and offensive degree of sexual desire. In short, for one to prove Muhammad (pbuh) as a lecher, one would have to demonstrate that he constantly exhibited excessive sexual lust to the point of indecency. However, both historical standards and the morals of today, Muhammad (pbuh) was in fact the opposite, being highly chaste throughout his life. In fact, he had remained wholly abstinent until his first marriage to Khadijah at the age of 25[1]. Keep note, that the opportunity to engage in pre-marital sex was fully open in the region at the time. The fact that Muhammad remained chaste up until marriage is emblematic of his deliberate refusal to engage in his sexual desires until a married and willing partner was found, in this case his first wife Khadija [2]. Therefore, Muhammad’s sexual behaviours simply couldn’t be described lecherous by simple virtue of that fact. However, one can go farther into the Sunnah to see the clear condemnation of fornication made in the hadith as seen in the Hadith below. Narrated by Abdullah Ibn Masud: We were with the Prophet while we were young and had no wealth whatever. So Allah's Apostle said, "O young people! Whoever among you can marry, should marry, because it helps him lower his gaze and guard his modesty (i.e. his private parts from committing illegal sexual intercourse etc.), and whoever is not able to marry, should fast, as fasting diminishes his sexual power." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, #4) Sources: 1. 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://www.sahih-bukhari.com... Arg/Rebuttal 1: Pedophilia As referenced in my previous foreword one cannot honestly evaluate the character and morality of historical figures without coming into serious consideration of the cultural context of their time. I.E, to judge what is and is not pedophilia by the subjective standards of society. Therefore, to judge whether or not Muhammad (pbuh) exhibited any inclinations towards pedophilia, one must come to an objective observation on what pedophilia is. According to Professor Abel G, Greenberg D in his 1996 Understanding assessment and treatment of Paraphillias. Pedophilia is described “ the fantasy or act of sexual activity with prepubescent children” [1] In Pro’s argument, the basis of his charge to Muhammad as a pedophile comes in the following hadith in Sahih Bukhari, in reference to the consummation of Aisha (RA). As seen below: "Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)." [2] The age of Aisha’s age and consummation is not being denied, however, this consummation had occurred because Aisha had reached the age of puberty. In 7th century Arabia, the age of maturity and consent was not 18 but depending on the age that puberty is reached. If Muhammad (pbuh) had exhibited pedophilic inclinations, than he clearly would not have waited 3 years for the consummation to occur. The consummation had to had occurred for a reason if he (pbuh) would wait such a specific span of time before consummation would occur. As the Quran was at the very core of Muhammad’s beliefs system, it is also important to not that pre-pubscent intercourse is prohibited. As seen in Surah An-Nur, ayat 59 “And when the children among you reach puberty, let them ask permission [at all times] as those before them have done. Thus does Allah make clear to you His verses; and Allah is Knowing and Wise.”[3] The Quran, in this ayat, clearly prescribes a specific age before any martial intercourse is permissible, that being the age of puberty. Women in Arabia of the time, and women inhabiting arid climates similar to that would have had to grow up quicker, and had the strong tendency of reaching the age of puberty rather early. If that is not enough proof, French philosopher Montesquieu, whom in his treatise The Spirit of Laws (which used in the development of the American constitution) also states that women in hot climate, women were marriageable at ages 8,9 and 10 years old. And that was in reference to consummation itself, and not chaste marital relations.[4] With Aisha being the only significantly young wife of Muhammad (pbuh), it is also important to note that Muhammad showed no special degree of sexual inclination to the prepubescent, a required burden in proving that he is a pedophile. Sources: 1. https://www.psychologytoday.com... 2. http://www.usc.edu... 3. http://quran.com... 4. http://www.constitution.org... My apologies for my unintentional absence in the last round, as I could not fit my whole case into this round alone, I will wrap things up in the final round (primarily focusing on rebuttals). Now, Onto to Pro.