Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Is Infallible

Resolution - I shall remind everyone that the resolution of this debate reads: ‘Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Is Infallible As Per The Islamic Doctrine Of Ismah’, as in, infallible in conveying the message of God & infallible in acting upon it. According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, infallible means: ‘unerring, not liable to mislead, deceive or disappoint’, & ‘incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith’[*]. - The object of this debate is not a mathematical statement to be deductively demonstrated, or a scientific hypnosis to be checked in accuracy against observable facts. It is rather an Islamic religious doctrine, that of Infallibility. Knowing that the foremost source of authority over any Islamic doctrine is the Qur’an -& I doubt even Con would contest that!- the validity & truth value of the doctrine of Ismah (infallibility), thus, rests primarily on its conformity to Qur’anic teachings. Preface - Con has committed a number of fatal fallacies which should outright invalidates his entire case -arguments & rebuttals. Particularly: 1. Straw-man: Con’s rebuttal is essentially a straw-man of my case & the resolution itself, refuting a different proposition other than mine, by invoking some vague notion of ‘infallibility’ quite beside the one argued for & the specified definition (Ismah). 2. Red-herring: Con’s negative case is mainly a red-herring, most contentions therein are extraneous to wether the Prophet (pbuh) was infallible in conveying revelation & acting upon it. 3. Circular logic: which Con, ironically, falls into by resorting to arguments which begin with what he’s trying to end with. Like, ‘according to non-Islamic morality the Prophet (pbuh) was not infallible, therefore the Prophet (pbuh) is not infallible -as per non-islamic morality’. Which is also entirely irrelevant to the resolution -on Islamic doctrine. - Con’s notion of infallibility, other than being unrelated to our resolution, is loosely defined & profoundly incoherent. He assumes an objectively universal notion of infallibility, such that infallible means correct in everything according to all possible references, correct or incorrect alike. Which is a self-contradictory concept, as per the law on non-contradiction. In particular, he argues against an idea of infallibility - the Prophet (pbuh) being correct according to himself as reference that is (“self-reinforcing argument"), by appealing to references different from his own. This obscure understanding of infallibility renders it completely senseless. In this sense, everyone is at the same time infallible -himself as reference & infallible -others as reference. Absurd! => By straw-manning the notion of infallibility specified in the resolution with an unintelligible one, Con might as well have argued Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is not @#%$ & he would’ve made exactly the same impression. Counter-rebuttals 1. Purity - 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. 3. Exemplification - The verse states that following the Prophet (pbuh) is equal to guidance. That is, all Prophet’s acts to follow are guided. Thus, necessarily, none are erring or liable to mislead or deceive or disappoint. Hence, the Prophet (pbuh) is infallible in act, as per the definition (*). 4. Morality - Having great moral character necessarily negates having immorality, as per the law of non-contradiction. Thus, negates not being infallible against immorality. 5. Imperfection - The distinction is quite relevant & necessary. Having free will yet not having omniscient knowledge on Good & Bad is paradoxical to having all-encompassing infallibility, for there is a chance for the free agent to chose Bad over Good from lack of knowing which is which, thus a chance of fallibility from ignorance. - Throughout the span of revelation (23 years [3]), the Prophet (pbuh) had yet to gain full knowledge of divine morality. Thus, he is left with the choice to act, by his own free will & judgement, on matters which have yet to be known/revealed. The Prophet (pbuh) need not be infallible in other than conveying & acting upon revelation, for lack of it. According to Muslim theologians, this necessary human imperfection mandates humility to God in asking for His forgiveness for one’s human shortcomings, & those are the sins mentioned in the verse [4]. Rebuttals Syllogism - Con’s syllogism is simply a straw-man of my argument, which would be correctly formulated as: P1. An Islamic doctrine is valid, if & only if it is consistent with the Qur’an. [true, by design] P2. Ismah is an Islamic doctrine. [fact] P3. Ismah is valid, if & only if it is consistent with the Qur’an. [true, from P1. & P2.] P4. God’s messenger is infallible (as per Ismah), if & only if he’s infallible in conveying God’s message & acting upon it. [true, by definition, cf. R1] P5. God’s message is infallibly conveyed, if it is conveyed with faithfulness in transmission, inerrancy in execution & inviolability of person. [true, as per the definition of infallibility, cf. (*)] P6. God’s message is infallibly acted upon, if it is followed sincerely with humility & divine guidance, & exemplified with high moral character. [true, cf. 3. above] P7. According to the Qur’an, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) conveyed God’s message with faithfulness in transmission, inerrancy in execution & inviolability of person. [fact, cf. R2] P8. According to the Qur’an, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) followed God’s message sincerely & with humility, under divine guidance, & exemplified it with high moral character. [fact, cf. R2] P9. According to the Qur’an, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) infallibly conveyed God’s message & infallibly acted upon it. [true, from P5. & P6. & P7. & P8.] C. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is infallible (as per Ismah). [true, from P3. & P4. & P9.] A. Non-Muslims - As shown before, the list could have 4 elements or 4000, it is completely irrelevant to the validity of the doctrine in question, as a non-Muslim (or Muslim) person is never an authority on Islamic doctrine, for that is the property of Scripture. Further, it also assumes an incoherent & unintelligible notion of infallibility other than the one concerted. B. Muslims - All that Con has mentioned here is perfectly in line with my case, & simply does not negate the Prophet (pbuh) being infallible in conveying revelation & acting upon it. C. Islam - Marriages sanctioned in the Qur’an when needed to allow for political unions & for female leadership… “O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation” (33:50) & prohibited once the need was relieved “Not lawful to you, [O Muhammad], are [any additional] women after [this]” (33:52). Thus, all was done according to God’s command, infallibly. & there was no divine command to appoint successors for the Prophet (pbuh) to have failed acting upon it either. D. Prophet sins - Con negated this point himself in B: ”... and should therefore ask Allah for forgiveness”, as established earlier in (5.), that is, there was no actual sin but the “sin” of imperfection of being or shortcomings in acts for lack of knowledge yet to be revealed. Conclusion - Con has utterly failed to rebut the thoroughly established doctrine of Ismah (infallibility in conveying & acting upon the message of God), resorting instead to straw-man & red-herring fallacies, unintelligible notions of infallibility, irrelevant authorities on Islamic doctrine! Sources [*] goo.gl/yNn2vA [2] goo.gl/eJB13T [3] goo.gl/rc3qgp [4] goo.gl/xxyms2