Sina's Challenge

This round will be primarily focused on rebuttals of round 2 and address rebuttals made by Con in the previous round. As to be consistent with the 4 round “no new arguments” rule, I will not be addressing the “Misogynist: charge but will primarily focus on rebuttals of opening cases in the 2nd round. R1: Mass Murderer/Assassin In this argument, Pro goes a step further than Sina’s original charge, arguing not only that Muhammad (pbuh) engaged in mass murder, but was also genocidal towards the Jews. In turn, Pro has increased the burdens put on him in this argument by extending the original claim, however, as will be seen in this rebuttal, this burden fails to be maintained. Firstly, the basis of Pro’s argument of mass murder having occurred was in citing the incident of Banu Qurayza’s execution, all while failing to consider the historical context of the execution. Firstly, it is important to see why Banu Qurayza in specific was executed. If Pro’s claim were true, and Muhammad (pbuh) was genocidal towards the Jews, then he would have wasted no time in making sure the other Jewish tribes of Madinah (Banu Nadir and Banu Qaynuqa) followed the same fate. However, both of the aforementioned tribes also provoked the Muslims to the point of war, but upon surrendering, both tribes were allowed to peacefully depart with all belongings intact. [1] It’s important to keep note of that, because, if what Pro suggested was in the least bit true, Muhammad would have had no problem in slaughtering the tribes of Banu Nadir and Banu Qaynuqa. Hence, Muhammad (pbuh) could not have been genocidal because of that. Because like Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir and Banu Qaynuqa were among the three dominating Jewish tribes of Madina at the time. Instead, the reason why Banu Qurayza was executed, and not the other two tribes, was due to clear acts of treason. Following the Hijirah of 622 AD, the Muslims had fled to Madinah as the equivalent of asylum seekers. Having made a treaty among the major Jewish tribes of Yathrib, Banu Qurayza included [2]. The contents of this treaty were as followed: “To the Jew who follows us belongs help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided. The peace of the believers is invisible … The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the believers… The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. A man is not liable for his ally’s misdeeds. The wronged must be helped. The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war lasts. Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document” - Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah [Translated by A. Guillaume], page 232-233 The tribes of Banu Nadir were allowed to depart upon surrender, yet despite that, they continued to fight against the Muslims even after being let go, hence commiting clear treachery against the treaty. Only warrior men of Banu Qurayza, who fought against the Muslims during the siege were executed, on the basis of treachery, not on the basis of religion. None of the executed included women, children or non combatants, all of them were soldiers who deliberately engaged in treachery [1]. By removing historical context of the incident of Banu Qurayza, Con not only paints an inaccurate picture of the event, but commits a clear act of intellectual dishonesty. The execution of Banu Qurayza had nothing to do with genocide, or anti Semitism, it was simply an action that had to be taken place in response to backed stabbed by Banu Qurayza. Muhammad (pbuh) allowed Banu Nadir to leave unharmed, yet they continued to undermine the treaty by working with the Quraysh and fighting against the Muslims. Banu Qurayza would have done the same had this action not occurred. Hence, this point has been refuted. Sources 1. . http://www.haqq.com.au... 2. . https://discover-the-truth.com... R2: Madman Pro here uses the reason that since Muhammad’s (pbuh) contemporaries regarded him as mad, and also regarded him as trustworthy, muslims must call him both as to be consistent with previous reasoning. As seen below: “The only reason I point out what Muhammad's enemies said about him to prove my case is because often times Muslims will claim that Muhammad was known as the truthful one among his contemporaries - even his enemies; they use this to prove that Muhammad was an honest man and wouldn't lie about being a prophet. ” The problem with this logic is that, not only does it fail to prove anything objectively. But does not accurately represent why Muslims regard Muhammad (pbuh) as trustworthy. True, Muhammad was known as “Al-Amin: (the trustworthy one), yet that came from his character as seen throughout the Seerah. The accusation of insanity came as an unproven claim used for the sole purpose of undermining him (essentially, loaded language. ) This logic, on its own, fails to prove in any way that he (pbuh) was in fact mad. The argument is based off hearsay, and not verifiable evidence. Unless pro can prove through the Sunnah or Seerah that Muhammad (pbuh) was objectively insane, then this burden simply fails to be held. R3:Rapist Pro cites the treatment of captive women after the Battle of Hunayn. . And cites Hadith Sahih Muslim 3432. However, the Hadith itself makes no mentioned of consent, or sexual intercourse with captive wives. Only that marriage had been abrogated. Since marriage between Muslim and mushrik (polytheist) was not allowed at the time, neither was sexual intercourse. The hadith only says it’s permissible, not that it’s allowed against consent. In conclusion In short, Pro has failed to sufficiently meet the burden of proof of the debate. That being, to prove at least 7 charges beyond a reasonable doubt. As at least 5 of these charges have been thoroughly refuted, Pro hence did not meet the burden of proof required to win this debate. All thanks to Pro for an interesting and though provoking debate.