Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Is Infallible

Foundation I. Pro accepted the burden of proof in this debate, so there is no burden on me to disprove his claim, contrary to what Pro says. I just need to cast sufficient doubt on the resolution. Having clarified that, I think that my argument does disprove the motion anyway, but that is not a requirement for me as the debate stands. Pro seems to think that the truth of the resolution is actually beyond dispute, so he naturally claims that any disagreement is going to be invalid and unworthy of serious consideration. II. Again, I am abiding by the same definition of "infallible" as Pro is, and my arguments demonstrate this. Pro's analogy of the "law abiding citizen according to the Constitution" is severely flawed in many ways: 1. The Constitution is not claimed to be an inerrant document as is the Quran. 2. The Constitution has a system for its own amendment, in contrast to the Quran. 3. No one makes the bare assertion that the Constitution commands unquestionable authority and is of divine authorship. 4. The Constitution has a vast historical, political, verifiable basis beyond itself. 5. The Constitution was not written by this single "law abiding citizen," so there is not a circular nature of authority inherent to the Constitution. 6. The Constitution was written before the "law abiding citizen" has to obey it. Therefor, the law is not written around this citizen's behavior after the fact, nor are exceptions written into the Constitution deeming this particular citizen's otherwise unlawful behavior as lawful. III. Again, Pro likens Quranic authority to the US Constitution, which entails the aforementioned disparities. Pro also continues to push for Ismah as tautologically true-- true by its very nature and definition-- which is absurd as I have already explained in depth in Round 3. 1. Purity - "Adrressed. " And I rebutted. 2. Inerrancy - "Uncontested. " Negative. My rebuttal to that point was offered in my blanket rebuttal regarding bare assertions and circular reasoning. 3. Exemplification - "Straw-man. "worthy to be followed" is entirely beside my argument here, about inerrant divine guidance! " Claims to inerrant divine guidance based upon bare assertions and circular reasoning. A claim also refuted by, according to your own words, the lack of a divine directive for Muhammad to appoint a successor-- a negligent failure the consequences of which still plague Islam to this day. 4. Morality - "Straw-man & fallacy of composition [6]. I argued that having great moral character necessarily negates having immorality, entailing being infallible to fall into immorality. It says nothing about being infallible in everything else as Con implies, which is irrelevant here. PM was illiterate! " No, that is not what I was saying, nor was I implying that. I said that describing a person as having "great moral character" does not necessarily mean that the person is infallible-- as in never committing an immoral act, ever. By that absolute standard, no one could ever be accurately described as having great moral character. 5. Imperfection This just seems to be Pro's words against Con's at this point. I do need to offer some clarification on the Jesus praying for forgiveness claim, though. As the story goes, Jesus' disciples asked him how best to offer prayer to God. Jesus' answer as to how *they* should pray involves asking for forgiveness. In the context of that story, that does not mean that Jesus was admitting that he himself prayed for forgiveness. Polysyllogism Pro's argument doesn't even qualify as a polysyllogism, as those involve the conclusion of one syllogism becoming the premise of another syllogism. It should have a clear, logical flow to it for easy examination and understanding. Again, Pro's attempt is convoluted, and it ultimately relies upon bare assertions and circular reasoning as I have clearly explained previously. A. - "Addressed. Ad populum. " No, an ad populum would be "there are more people who think Muhammad was not infallible than people who think he was. Clearly, my Point A did not resort to such an argument. B. - Con"s source here is a Christian missionary article, violating the rules of the debate, thus dismissed. If Ali Dashti means "sin" as immoral act then he is speaking against the clear statement of the Qur"an & the consensus of Muslim theologians of all sects of Islam regarding the infallibility of PM. Genetic fallacy. The quotes and authors of them are the focus here, not the source which merely prints the quoted statements. The quotes are offered in support of a "No" answer to the question: "Do all Muslims think Muhammad was infallible? " C. - "False. Special pleading is to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule without justification [11]. The Qur"an makes rules & makes exceptions for these rules, themselves rules -like any legislation or constitution does, which is all that matters here. " That justification being an authority based upon bare assertion and circular reasoning, of course. The Quran was recited by the person invoking the special exception, and it was penned after he was dead. Clearly, this is akin to retroactively raising the speed limit after the lawmaker has been speeding-- but only changing the rule for that particular person! Everyone else going that fast is still a fallible speeder. As to Muhammad not appointing a successor, I will put this as simply as I can: the infallible messenger of the all-knowing creator should have known to perform a relatively simple act to prevent the disunity and infighting which plagues the Muslim world to this day. Such a costly error of omission means that either the messenger is flawed or the message giver is. CONCLUSION Pro has repeatedly asserted that Ismah is solidly based upon the authority of the Quran, but Pro never explains how the Quran is authoritative. This is not a debate between fellow Muslims here. At risk of sounding like a broken record, this alleged authority is based merely upon bare assertions and circular reasoning. We are not debating whether or not Green is a color, which seems to be the sort of "true by definition" resolution Pro wishes we were debating here. This is more akin to debating if green is the best color for a car or house. I would like to thank Pro for a very substantive and engaging debate. I have enjoyed the experience. Finally, I ask you not to vote as if the resolution were a tautology; vote for the most cogent and compelling line of argumentation regarding the resolution.