Muhammad was a sincere person

Violation of the Debate Format I stated in R1 that R2 was just for opening arguments. The reason why R2 is for opening arguments only is because it is unfair for me who cannot present a rebuttal to Con's case in R2 since I have nothing to respond to. My opponent has accepted all my debate rules and as such this is reprehensible. Voters should take this into consideration while voting. = = = = => DEFENSE <= = = = = 1. Truthfulness and Honesty The first paragraph of my opponent's response to my argument is actually a concession of one of my points. He says: “Then he provides a story that evidences just that, that he was KNOWN as an honest and truthful person. This does not make him honest and truthful.” My opponent then says that the fact that everyone in Quraish knew Muhammad℗ to be an honest and truthful indivual doesn't make him truthful when it in fact is proof of the honesty of Muhammad℗. My opponent says that people assume people to be honest if they don't know them very well which is false. People don't call a person trustworthy and honest for absolutely no reason. Indeed, the fact that the Quraish admitted that Muhammad℗ never told a lie to anyone of them is conclusive. In his second paragraph, my opponent says that the fact that Muhammad℗ declared prophethood means that he had already won the hearts and minds of the people. He states: “When Muhammad's son Ibrihim dies, he had, indeed, ALREADY DECLARED PROPHETHOOD. He had already won the hearts and minds of those around him, proclaiming that he was a prophet, messenger of Allah.” My opponent's reasoning is flawed. Simply because Muhammd℗ declared prophethood, it doesn't mean that everyone would support him and believe him. In fact he was severly persecuted for declaring prophethood and had to go through many trials and difficulties. My opponent says that if Muhammad℗ had said that the eclipse was due to the death of one his child future deaths would have turned of up false and lead to controversy. 2 points: --> Muhammad's℗ status and power would have increased . A dark supernatural phenomena occuring precisely at the time his son dies was a perfect oppurtunity to easily elevate one's position. --> If Muhammad℗ believed he was a false prophet, he wouldn't care if no supernatural miracle occurs when he dies because he is only in it for himself and his current life. However, to lift all confusions that might occur later on, he immediately tells the truth. 2. Freedom from hypocrisy and double standards My opponent doesn't actually address and respond to the arguments I have made in this section. He makes another key concession. He admits that Muhammad℗ did not accept the bribes that the people of Quraish were making to him. This shows that Muhammad℗ was much more interested in spreading Islam rather than obtaining power and wealth. He states: “of course did not give into bribes from the Quraish; he was indulging in the power and responsibility of prophethood.” My opponent said that he was indulging from the power of prophethood. These bribes were being offered when Muhammad℗ was gaining followers in Mecca (being persecuted) for declaring and maintaing prophethood. If Muhammad℗ was after wealth and status, he easily could have accepted the offers of the Quraish, but he rejected them and went on to go through much hardship and trials. My opponent then says my other sources (some polemical) which agree and confirm the sincerity of Muhammad℗ are invalid, because they believe he was a prophet. Nowhere have they stated that they believe that Muhammad℗ was a prophet. Answering Islam in particular is anti-Islam yet believe Muhammad℗ was sincere. = = = = = => REBUTTALS <= = = = = = 1. Lies My opponent's first argument against the sincerity of Muhammad℗ was that he allowed lying in three occasions and he cites an authentic hadith. My opponent's argument isn't actually an argument against the honesty of Muhammd℗. Surely when we are speaking of the term 'lying' especially in the context of this debate, we are speaking about lying which is morally reprehensible.A point about each one: --> The first case is for war. In war, if the enemy catches a soldier and asks him for information, he will give him false information. One major deception tactic used in WWII was Operation Fortitude [1]. This isn't something that is morally reprehensible but is common in warfare. --> The second is to bring peace among people who are seriously fighting with each other. It is justified to make a lie about the other so that they become friends once again. There are absolutely no consequences. Even after they realize they have been lied to, they will forget about it, since their bitter feelings have already dissapeared by then. --> The third would not even be seen as lying especially in the West. One example of this 'lying' would be when you tell your wife in the evening coming home from work “Wow honey, is it still morning?” She says “No it is evening, why would you say that?” You say “Oh sorry, your face was shining so brightly that I thought it was still morning” she smiles and is happy. Obviously this is something said to bolster love and good feelings even though it isn't the cold dull hard facts. “Allah conveniently commanded this at the time that Muhammad had lustful feelings toward his step-daughter, Zaynab. This conflicted with local customs, but this command overturned the customs and made it permissible.” Muhammad℗ had known Zaynab since childhood and he even arranged the marriage with Zayd, so the claim that he had lustful feelings towards her is weak [2]. I ask my opponent, if Muhammad℗ had lustful feelings towards Zaynab, why would he arrange a marriage between her and another man instead of marrying her first? “These commands that enhanced Muhammad's sexual opportunities” My opponent's whole argument rests on the fact that Muhammad℗ lied about revelation in order to obtain women, increase sexual oppurtunities ect. Muhammad℗ could have obtained all the women he wanted, the Quraish offered Muhammad℗ all the women he wanted, he could have been a king but he rejected for Islam [3][4]. 2. Double standards My opponent quotes a hadith in which it says that most women will be in hell. This is simply because Islam teaches that there are many women, especially near the end times. One hadith to show why this is true. ==Sahih Muslim Book 34 Hadith 6452== ....the women would survive (and thus such a disparity would arise in the number of men and women) that there would be one man to look after fifty women. Islam teaches that the number of men will be much less compared to women. Since there is so much women, it makes sense that many of them would go to hell since there is a lot of them. Islam also teaches that there will be many women in paradise since that there are many of them. Also even if it is true that the majority of women will go to hell, it isn't because they are women but because of their evil deeds. ==Sahih Muslim Book 4 Hadith 1926== He then walked on till he came to the women and preached to them and admonished them, and asked them to give alms, for most of them are the fuel for Hell. A woman having a dark spot on the cheek stood up and said: Why is it so, Messenger of Allah? He said: For you grumble often and show ingratitude to your spouse. And then they began to give alms out of their ornaments such as their earrings and rings which they threw on to the cloth of Bilal. Muhammad was only admonishing and making the women more conscious of their good deeds , charity and their religion. Muhammad℗ was only trying to make them more aware of Islam and rush to commit good deeds. Muhammad℗ always admonished his companions and gave numerous descriptions of hell fire to them, so why should this be any different with regards to women? Key point --> For my opponent's entire arguments, he hardly expanded or went into depth about any of the sources he cited. He only presented a hadith and said 'conclusion'.