Muhammad was a sincere person

Sources for R3 http://en.wikipedia.org... [1] http://books.google.ca... [2] http://www.articlecity.com... [3] http://www.iqra.net... [4] - - - - - - - - - - = = = = => DEFENSE <= = = = = Throughout this debate, my opponent's responses to my case for the sincerity of Muhammad℗ has been very inadequate, consisting of a few sentences. He has dropped a few points in R2, the majority of them in R3, and has conceded a number of points.1. Truthfulness and HonestyMy opponent says that Muhammad℗ was said to be an honest person because he was a prophet and everyone had to believe he was honest. My opponent ignores the argument where the Quraish have said that Muhammad℗ has never told a lie to them. Clearly to never tell a lie encompasses before his prophethood. Drops and concessions: → My opponent conceded that Muhammad℗ was known to be a truthful person by the Quraish→ My opponent drops my argument about the Black stone→ My opponent drops my argument about Quraish saying that Muhammad℗ has never lied to themAs for the eclipse, it is not as if every blood member of Muhammad's℗ family needs to have an eclipse every time one them dies. Some of Muhammad's ℗ family (such as his wife Khadija) have died and yet no one was suprised there was no eclipse. If Muhammad℗ attributed the eclipse to the death of his son, everyone would have believed him and everyone would have still believed him if no future eclipses occured yet he still tells the truth, a testimony to his honesty. My opponent then asserts that there could have been people who believed that he was dishonest but provides no evidence. 2. Freedom from hypocrisy and double standards "If Muhammad had accepted the bribes from the Quraish, he would have foiled his plan for power. He could easily be exposed for taking the bribes and his hidden agenda would have been made clear."My opponent is helping my case with these statements. First of all what plan for power? I already explained in R3 that Muhammad℗ could have been a king if he accepted the offers of the Quraish. He could have fulfilled his plan for power but refused to continue the seemingly dim and harsh future of prophethood.See R3 Source 3 ctrl f → They offered MuhammadSee R3 Source 4 ctrl f → money and power If Muhammad℗ was not a sincere person and only cared about wealth or power, he wouldn't care about being exposed for his true self because his only objective is to obtain power and wealth. My point stands. Drops and concessions: → My opponent drops the hadith which shows that Muhammad would treat everyone (even his daughter) the same with regards to legal punishments→ My opponent drops the sources citing a number of non-muslims who have an understanding of the life of Muhammad which have attested to his sincerity and do not believe he was a prophet→ He concedes that Muhammad℗ did not accept the bribes of Quraish = = = = => REBUTTALS <= = = = =1. LiesMy opponent claims that lying in this debate is not linked with morality and he tries to play semantics. However, I have defined my terms clearly! My opponent hasn't read my definition carefully. "Probity in intentions" clears up any qualms my opponent may have. Probity means having uprightness and strong moral principles, all rooted in morality[1][2]. Hence the phrase "Probity in intentions" means moral intentions. I have clearly shown in my R3 response why the 'lying' my opponent pointed is not remotely immoral but actually moral. 'Lying' in each of those circumstances produces positive and beneficial results which actually supports and affirms the resolution. Instead of playing semantics, my opponent should have tried to rebut my points. Since my opponent stated that this was his strongest argument, this proves detrimental to his case. Dropped points:→ My opponent drops the rebuttal I gave to him about Zaynab→ My opponent drops the rest of the charges against Muhammad℗ of increasing his sexual opportunities since I said that he could have obtained all the women he wanted but refused for Islam 2. Double standardsMy opponent has simply rehashed his argument without responding to my rebuttals. I said that Muhammad℗ was addressing this specific group of women in order to make them more charitable and conscious with regards to the afterlife. He also admonished for the reason told in this hadith:==Sahih Muslim Book 4 Hadith 1982==...I saw Hell also. No such (abominable) sight have I ever seen as that which I saw today; and I observed that most of its inhabitants were women.....(Not for their disbelief in God) but for their ingratitude to their husbands and ingratitude to kindness. If you were to treat one of them kindly for ever, but if she later saw anything (displeasing) in you, she would say: i have never seen any good in you.From this hadith we can clearly deduce that Muhammad℗ was talking to specific women who were harsh on their husbands by mimimizing the good he has done and emphasisng the small bad that he may have done. If a woman isn't like this to her husband then obviously Muhammad℗ isn't addressing her. He was only talking to a specific group of women who were this way, as a way of admonishing them as I explained earlier. Muhammad℗ would admonish his companions. Two examples:==Sahih Muslim Book 40 Hadith 6811== Abil Huraira reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as seying: The fire which sons of Adam burn is only one-seventieth part of the Fire of Hell. His Companions said: By Allah, even ordinary fire would have been enough (to burn people). Thereupon he said: It is sixty-nine parts in excess of (the heat of) fire in this world each of them being equivalent to their heat. ==Sahih Bukhari Book 6 Volume 60 Hadith 145== Narrated Anas: The Prophet delivered a sermon the like of which I had never heard before. He said, "If you but knew what I know then you would have laughed little and wept much." On hearing that, the companions of the Prophet covered their faces and the sound of their weeping was heard..... Muhammad admonished and made his companions more fearful Allah's punishments by giving descriptions of the hell fire etc."Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said: "Yes." He said: "This is because of the deficiency of her mind."My opponent takes the phrase deficiency as meaning that women in Islam are considered unintelligent which is false. Both men and women overall are regarded as equal in Islam, but each gender has its stronger points than the other one. In this case the testimony of a women is half to a man because in emotional cases such as rape, murder etc, the emotional side of a women is sure to have an effect on the objective truth. However, this same 'weakness' is a strength with regards to child care and empathy. A comprehensive study states: “females are more aware of emotions than males while the latter are more adept at managing emotions than the former, and that there are no significant differences in emotional-social intelligence between the various ethnic groups that have been examined in North America.” [3] Both have weak and strong points, but are overall equal.ConclusionsI ask the audience to vote for me based on the grounds that my case was not thouroughly dealt with. You can see my opponent has dropped and conceded numerous points with regards to my case ,whereas I have addressed all of my opponent's points. My opponent also violated the format explicitly stated in the first round. For all these reasons, I urge a Pro vote.Sources http://dictionary.reference.com... [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;[2] http://www.eiconsortium.org...;[3] it first says 'URL' not found press enter in web address area again