The Hadith prove Muhammad was not divinely inspired.

Wa' Alykum As-salam Warhamat Allah we barakato. When I said a "fight" it was meant as a figure of speech, a metaphor. Since you left me with only this round to refute your arguments, thus making it an "unfair fight". No harsh feelings, but definitely a disadvantage. Well no offense, but you are replies are definitely lacking. I expected you after forfeiting a round that this rebuttal would certainly be much more than this, but turns out I am wrong. Also you should have given me a reference for the second Hadith rebuttal so I can check the information you have given me. Anyway, moving on. 1. Con states: "You are right about the and Germ Theory . In the hadith you're referring to the Prophet Muhammad pbuh said "Who infected the first one?" Here he pbuh is showing there are no contagious disease conveyed to others WITHOUT permission of Allah (God). Nothing happens without the will of Allah (God)" Rebuttal: Whether it happens with the will of Allah or not has no impact to what Muhammad said. First, Muhammad clearly says in the beginning of the Hadith that there is no infection, no hama etc... The guy genuinely exclaims from that fact, then he said that a healthy camel when it gets into contact with an infected camel it gets infected as well. A simple observation that everyone at the time can make, then Muhammad replies "Who infected the first one?". Anyone reading this Hadith will simply understand that Muhammad did not believe in infection and he clearly stated it in the first place. Second, him saying "who infected the first one?" clearly shows ignorance about the nature of infection. My point has nothing to do whether the infection happens under the will of God or not. My point is a man spoken to by God would have never said a sentence like this. Muhammad words purposefully mean that one should not separate between healthy camels and infected camels even if we take your argument "that it only happens under God's will" into account. Anyone with basic biology knowledge would tell you that one should separate healthy organisms from diseased ones. Especially a man talked to from God who created biology and infections would not miss out on something like that. The "Who infected the first one?" is not a question that should be asked by a man who God speaks to him through an angel. A disastrous mistake to be honest and your reply was insufficient and did not debunk my argument at all. Also, Muhammad did not say that it happens without the will of God, this is the commentary adding these words, but Muhammad never uttered those words in any way. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Con states: A. "The implication behind the resemblance to mother or father is that if spermatozoa are lodged long before ovulation then the activation of the male genes will be at a more advanced stage than those in the ovum."Rebuttal: This is provided without any reference to confirm this fact as true or not. I can simply ditch that finding, but I went though the trouble of searching online for it and found out that it is 100% plagiarised from an Islamic forum (sunniforum.com). Here is the entire link if you wish http://www.sunniforum.com...This is in direct violation of the rules that you agreed to in the first place (R1 and R3). Nevertheless, the references provided in this website which you copy pasted from has two references. One an Islamic biased unscientific book, the second one is a dead link violating R3 since there is no confirmatory evidence to what you are saying. Nevertheless, I cannot simply outlook the flaws presented in this argument. Actually, your argument doesn't make any sense at all. I really tried my best to understand this statement, but whoever wrote this, has no understanding of biology or how fertilization occurs and he seems to have got it all mixed up. First the "male genes" that are described in your statement are the genes on the Y chromosome. This simply means that the characteristics of a male will appear earlier, but this does not affect the resemblance in any certain way. B. "therefore they will play a greater role in showing the characteristics gained from the father especially if these genes follow co dominance (with variable penetrance) or have complex inheritance characteristics." Rebuttal: I have really searched for this and found nothing except the same source that it was copy pasted from. There is no scientific basis for this statement at all. Other than that, this makes no sense in relation to the previous sentence. I have really tried my best to understand how this statement relates to the previous one (Point A). But found out it's simply nonsense that is not backed up by any evidence by someone who lacks knowledge in biology. Second, this has nothing to do with the Hadith in any possible way. The Hadith was talking about the resemblance due to who "Ejaculate" first. The female ejaculation contributes nothing to the genetic material of the fetus. It simply facilitates the sexual intercourse. Simply put, who ejaculates first has ZERO effect on the resemblance to either maternal uncles or the father. Let me go one step further since I suspect that you are going to claim that this means follicular fluid. Follicular fluid does not get discharged from the female and again it does not contribute any genetic material to the child. Follicular fluid is a liquid that fills the follicular antrum and in the ovarian follice, it surrounds the ovum.Simply put, you have not given me any sort of a rebuttal for this argument and you have taken one round from me to be able to refute any further claims you make. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Con states: A. " a HUMAN BEING is PUT TOGETHER in the womb of the mother IN forty days, he's not saying that the SPERM STAYS in there for 40 days. 40 days after the last month in the first trimester around 120 days (112 to be exact )In the second trimester 16 weeks the skin is thin, transparent and still developing." Rebuttal: Actually what Con has failed to notice is Muhammad is giving clarification for the following verse (Stated in round 2): "Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging. Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah , the best of creators. 23:12-13" What Con has accidentally done is contradict the Qur'an. Muhammad was simply explaining this Ayah in a more detailed fashion and giving a timing for these events. Muhammad did not directly say that the sperm stays in the womb for 40 days but one cannot deduct anything else and not contradict the Qur'an. The stages of the Qur'an are quite clear. 1, Sperm. 2, Clinging clot. 3, lump of flesh. All Muhammad did was simply give a timing for those events and how they occur inside the womb. Muhammad said 1. A human being is put together in the womb in forty days. 2. THEN he becomes a clot of thick blood for a similar period. 3. THEN a piece of flesh for a similar period. Even an Islamic website agrees with what I have said, http://islamicbulletin.org...According to this site it is clearly stated that the sperm stays in the womb for 40 days. Up till now, you have not provided any evidence to refute this claim or give an explanation to how it can be scientifically explained. B. " Take in consideration that this a broad description, with precision about the human creation and development at a time where there was NO SCIENTFIC KNOWLEDGE and any advanced medical equipment to acquire these facts." Rebuttal: This is why I made this debate in the first place. Muhammad claims that he is spoken to from God then he makes so many scientific mistakes that can not be avoided. Whether there was no scientific knowledge or not, God should have known that a sperm does not stay in the womb for 40 days in any possible way. He is claiming scientific knowledge from God, he shouldn't have said that it takes that long. Couldn't he say that it takes one day instead of 40? Would've been a little bit more correct and maybe one can give the benefit of the doubt due to the era this Hadith was presented in.---------------------------------------------------------------------------Conclusion: My opponent responses are definitely lacking and provided no evidence to refute any of my claims. I have no more rounds for any further rebuttals, so I have tried my best to include everything in this round. I have provided evidence from Muhammad's own words that this simply cannot be from a man who was talked to by God. But simply a 7th century Arab who had very limited understanding of the world around him and this showed from the arguments I presented. Such mistakes could not have been made by an omniscient God in any possible way. I really hoped that my opponents arguments would've been much more detailed and backed by credible sources. All in all, best of wishes. Good luck.