The Instigator
NiqashMotawadi3
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
tahir.imanov
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Muhammad Ibn Abdullah spoke falsehoods in some authentic hadeeths

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
NiqashMotawadi3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,888 times Debate No: 48620
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

NiqashMotawadi3

Pro

PREFACE

In this debate, Pro has to make a case that Muhammad Ibn Abdullah spoke falsehoods in some authentic hadeeths, while Con has to refute all those with good arguments and empirical evidence. If Con fails to do that but just offers back-flipping apologetic, he/she loses the debate.

DEFINITIONS

Mohammad Ibn Abdullah: The man considered by Muslims to be the one who received divine inspirations that revealed the Qur'an.

Falsehoods: Inaccurate or false information.

Some: One or more.

Authentic Hadeeths: Islamic narrations that are considered authentic by Hadeeth scholars.

Empirical evidence: Evidence that is acquired by means of observation or experimentation, and could involve secondary/indirectly-observed evidence that can be traced back to sensory experiences.

RULES

This debate will follow the rules and regulations of the Niqashian Debating Regulations and Etiquette Level 1.7 (Strict).

It is obligatory for my opponent to read the whole document(http://www.debate.org...), otherwise he/she might commit violations. I have provided technical and non-technical summaries for each section. There are basically two sections, one is "Critical Rules" and the second is "Etiquette Standards."

According to Article A1.9 of the NDRE, I can add additional rules. So I will add those:

R1- The first round is for acceptance.

R2- The burden of proof is on me, but any apologetic Con gives should be based on empirical evidence.

R3- Both participants should follow the rules and definitions in the opening statement, and follow the rules mentioned in the NDRE.

META

Only members with a minimum of 5 completed debates can accept.
Rounds: 4.
Voting period: 2 Weeks.
Time to argue: 72 hours.
Argument Max: 10,000 characters.

I await my opponent's acceptance.
tahir.imanov

Con

I accept challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
NiqashMotawadi3

Pro

INTRODUCTION

It is important to note that both Pro and Con share the assumption that Hadeeth scholars are correct in specifying which Hadeeths are authentic, provided that this is an agreed-upon definition of "authentic hadeeths" presented in the opening statement.

I win this debate if I provide at least one falsehood Mohammad said in an authentic hadeeth. Con's role is provide good apologetic (based on empirical evidence) which refutes every case I make. I'm going to start with three cases, so that Con has enough character-space to address every point I put forth.

MY CASE

Falsehood #1: Five things only God knows

Narrated Ibn `Umar: Allah's Messenger said, "Keys of the unseen knowledge are five which nobody knows but Allah . . . nobody knows what will happen tomorrow; nobody knows what is in the womb; nobody knows what he will gain tomorrow; nobody knows at what place he will die; and nobody knows when it will rain[1]."

Although I seem to have four objections to those "five keys to unseen knowledge only known by Allah," I will only comment on "Nobody knows what is in the womb." The hadeeth claims that such knowledge can only be only known by Allah, when in fact, we could use 2D/3D ultrasound imagery to know almost exactly what is in the womb[2].

Falsehood #2: Jews worship Ezra as the Son of God

The same claim is also mentioned in the Qur'an, and the apologetic seems to be that this just refers to a heretical group of Jews, and not all Jews. Nevertheless, the difference between the Qur'anic verse and the authentic hadeeth(which mentions this claim too) is that while the Qur'anic verse gives no context and leaves the matter vague(and therefore, could be only referring to a heretical group of Jews), the hadeeth contains a context clarified by Mohammad himself.

Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri: "During the lifetime of the Prophet some people said, : O Allah's Messenger ! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" The Prophet said, "Yes; do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun at midday when it is bright and there is no cloud in the sky?" They replied, "No." He said, "Do you have any difficulty in seeing the moon on a full moon night when it is bright and there is no cloud in the sky?" They replied, "No." The Prophet said, "(Similarly) you will have no difficulty in seeing Allah on the Day of Resurrection as you have no difficulty in seeing either of them. On the Day of Resurrection, a call-maker will announce, "Let every nation follow that which they used to worship." Then none of those who used to worship anything other than Allah like idols and other deities but will fall in Hell (Fire), till there will remain none but those who used to worship Allah, both those who were obedient (i.e. good) and those who were disobedient (i.e. bad) and the remaining party of the people of the Scripture. Then the Jews will be called upon and it will be said to them, 'Who do you use to worship?' They will say, 'We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son. What do you want now?' They will say, 'O our Lord! We are thirsty, so give us something to drink.' They will be directed and addressed thus, 'Will you drink,' whereupon they will be gathered unto Hell (Fire) which will look like a mirage whose different sides will be destroying each other. Then they will fall into the Fire. Afterwards the Christians will be called upon and it will be said to them, 'Who do you use to worship?' They will say, 'We used to worship Jesus, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son,' Then it will be said to them, 'What do you want?' They will say what the former people have said[3]..."

It is important to summarize what this hadeeth says:

1- Mohammad is talking about what happens on Judgment Day.

2- Mohammad specifies that ALL people will gathered from EVERY nation.

3- Mohammad clarified a two-step procedure to filter out disbelievers:

A- At first, people who worshiped something other than Allah(e.g idols), will be filtered out, till their remain only Muslims(the obedient and disobedient) and People of the Scripture(a term used to described Jews and Christians; the actual Arabic version of this Text says literally "Ahl El Kitab" as in "People of the Book").

"None of those who used to worship anything other than Allah like idols and other deities but will fall in Hell (Fire), till there will remain none but those who used to worship Allah, both those who were obedient (i.e. good) and those who were disobedient (i.e. bad) and the remaining party of the people of the Scripture."

B- Then the People of the Scripture(Jews and Christians) will be called out. Even though they worshiped God, they will be accused of worshiping other figures before God, and so they will be also condemned.

"Then the Jews will be called upon and it will be said to them, 'Who do you use to worship?' They will say, 'We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son..."

"Afterwards the Christians will be called upon and it will be said to them, 'Who do you use to worship?' They will say, 'We used to worship Jesus, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son...'"

Nevertheless, the Jews do not worship God through anyone(as Christians arguably do through Jesus). It is obligatory for them, by scripture, to worship God alone.

Some Muslim apologists argue that "Uzair" in Arabic does not to refer to Ezra, but it refers to Enoch, although that goes against the translations of the Hadeeths. Nevertheless, such apologetic ignores that Jews are being accused of "worshiping" Enoch, who is an angel that is never worshiped in Judaism (much like Angel Gabriel is not worshiped in Islam), and so such apologetic ignores the part in the authentic hadeeth where God punishes the Jews for actually worshiping Enoch, and the speaker he appoints make it clear that God doesn't take upon him a "son" or a "wife;" which is exactly the same reply given to Christians, although we have no empirical evidence whatsoever of a Jew throughout history who has claimed to have worshiped Ezra or Enoch.

In summary, after this long study, it is definite that this authentic hadeeth contains a falsehood, regardless if we consider "Uzair" to be Ezra or Enoch.

Falsehood #3: After fetal development, Allah determines the sex of the baby

Anas b. Malik reported directly from Allah's Messenger that he said: Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, has appointed an angel as the caretaker of the womb, and he would say: My Lord, it is now a drop of semen; my Lord, It is now a clot of blood; my Lord, it has now become a lump of flesh, and when Allah decides to give it a final shape, the angel says: My Lord, would it be male or female or would he be an evil or a good person? What about his livelihood and his age? And it is all written as he is in the womb of his mother[4].

Scientifically speaking, a baby's sex is (in most cases) decided at the time of conception[5]. Nevertheless, according to a peer-reviewed study, "Androgen Receptor Repeat Length Polymorphism Associated with Male-to-Female Transsexualism", concludes that the "male gender identity might be partly mediated through the androgen receptor[6]," which could a genetic reason why we have transsexuals, although there are psychological and social reasons that also should be taken into consideration. Nonetheless, this Hadeeth can't be even said to explain exceptional cases as it clearly says "when Allah decides to give it a final shape, the angel says: My Lord, would it be male or female", knowing that the effect of the androgen receptors is only in the early development of the sexual organs(stage 14 out of 17 of the figure below), and not when the fetus is almost complete or complete.





In summary, this hadeeth commits another falsehood which says that gender is determined by Allah when the fetus is complete, when 99% of the cases of sex-determination occur during conception, while less than 1%(cases of male-female transexualism) occur when the sexual organs start developing(stage 14), which is not even close to when the fetus is completely shaped(stage 17).

CITATIONS

*The phrase "خلاصة حكم المحدث" stands for "Conclusion on authenticity" and "صحيح" stands for "authentic." Hadeeths were confirmed as authentic by the Authentication Arabic Engine (http://www.dorar.net...).

....

[1] Sahih al-Bukhari 1039. In-book reference : Book 15, Hadith 34. USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 2, Book 17, Hadith 149. Direct link to (English and Arabic) text: http://sunnah.com...

الراوي: عبدالله بن عمر المحدث: البخاري - المصدر: صحيح البخاري - الصفحة أو الرقم: 1039
خلاصة حكم المحدث: صحيح
...

[2] Michailidis GD, Papageorgiou P, Economides DL (March 2002). "Assessment of fetal anatomy in the first trimester using two- and three-dimensional ultrasound". The British journal of radiology (Br J Radiol.) 75 (891): 215–219. PMID 11932213.
...

[3] Sahih al-Bukhari 4581. USC-MSA web (English) reference : Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 6, Book 60, Hadith 105. Arabic reference: Sahih al-Bukhari Book 65, Hadith 4624. Direct link to (English and Arabic) text: http://sunnah.com...

لراوي: أبو سعيد الخدري المحدث: البخاري - المصدر: صحيح البخاري - الصفحة أو الرقم: 4581
خلاصة حكم المحدث: صحيح
...

[4] Sahih Muslim 2646. USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 33, Hadith 6397. In-book reference : Book 46, Hadith 8. Direct link to (English and Arabic) text: http://sunnah.com...

الراوي: أنس بن مالك المحدث: مسلم - المصدر: صحيح مسلم - الصفحة أو الرقم: 2646
خلاصة حكم المحدث: صحيح
...

[5] "Sexual Differentiation" by Rey,Rodolfo, MD, PhD, Josso, Nathalie MD, PhD. Chapter 7.

[6] Biological Psychiatry Volume 65, Issue 1 , Pages 93-96, 1 January 2009. "Androgen Receptor Repeat Length Polymorphism Associated with Male-to-Female Transsexualism."
tahir.imanov

Con

Thanks for such nice argument, and for so detailed sources for citations. Argument is based under assumption "God exists," I hope Pro is not going to start a debate whether God exists or not. Because in his argument he did not object to hadiths under assumption "God does not exist," but whether, these hadiths are empirically true or false. Which begs the question, are empirical truths are absolute truth, and they are not, because we as a human beings do not have infinite set of observations. And occasionally our observations and tests we conduct are happen to be false, or wrong, or lab exploded before we got results. It happens to be Pluto (not the dog Pluto) is not a planet anymore.

Truth #1 : Five things only God knows
"Well, gee, let me think. Umm, no. Look, in a mechanical, Newtonian universe, not a problem. I mean, you know enough variables, you can predict the outcome; but quantum physics blows that out of the water."[1] Actually nobody can object to these five statements, if he/she heard Quantum Mechanics.
"Verily the knowledge of the Hour is with Allah (alone). It is He Who sends down rain and He Who knows what is in the wombs. Nor does anyone know what it is that he will earn on the morrow: nor does anyone know in what land he is to die. Verily with Allah is full knowledge and He is acquainted (with all things)."[2]
First, let's discuss knowledge of God. The knowledge of God is Independent, and Absolute. Which basically means, God does not depend on anything or anyone for His Knowledge, and His Knowledge is Absolute, there is nothing out of His Knowledge, and His Knowledge covers everything. The terms which is used to describe The Knowledge of God are 'Ilm Al-Ghayb - things that only God knows, and is not acquired through any means; and 'Ilm Al-Muheet - The Knowledge that encompasses anything and everything in every detail.
But human knowledge is not independent and absolute. There are always margin of errors, sometimes huge, sometimes less. For example, nobody knows when it will rain. But if you say weather forecasters do it all the time, firstly predictions are not done by forecasters, but by meteorologists. Secondly the information is given are based on current observation of weather and retrospective data on weather condition(s), and it has too many variables. Which means the data presented about weather has margin of error. And weather forecasting are not predictions about future but predictions about present. If I see dense cloud going towards to mountain, I make prediction that it will rain, and I become a shaman of tribe, but there is always probability a wind will come and take cloud away, in which case I will have huge problem. I suggest everyone to watch the youtube video "If" of Vsauce[3].
Now, let's return to wombs. When it talks about womb, it talks about birth of new life, and Pro used the correct description "almost exactly" which means knowledge is not Absolute. And all scientists will tell you (I use word "you" in abstract and general mean) nothing (regarding knowledge) is precise, absolute, or 100%. For example the best of my knowledge, the confidence interval for sex of baby is 95%, there is a probability the doctor saying you will have a boy, when you are going to have a girl. God knows you while you were in womb, and others did not know you were even existed. Which means only God knows who will be concepted and when.

Truth #2 : Ezra
As you should know, worshipping someone (in Quran or in hadith) does not just mean prostrating or praying to someone or something, it also means (depending on context) giving Exclusive Attribute of God to someone or something else. And hadith is also uses general terms, which are not specific, we know that not all Christians believe Jesus is son of God, there exist (and existed, but massacred by other Christians) small groups who call themselves Christian, but do (did) not call Jesus son of God. And you aware that Arab Jews in Yemen considered Ezra as the son of God. And every nation does not mean all members of the nation, because there were atheist Jews, who did not believe even in God, let alone call someone son of God. And there were Muslim Jews also, are they going to hell with their nation?! Which means nation here does not refer to blood relations, but a belief.

Truth #3: Sex of Baby
The shape of baby (not just sex) is given by God, if you say God is Creator of all things, that include the properties and attributes of all things, which includes the genetic code. The hadith shows that before the development of sexual organs, no one (except God) knows the sex of a baby, which means you cannot determine the "sex of sperm" by taking and looking at it. And scientifically speaking science is often wrong about what is true, but often correct about what is false. Basically, if God creates something, that means shape is also given by God. The end of story.


1. Dr. R.Mckay. SGA episode 408.
2. Quran, Surah 31 (Luqman), Ayah 34. Yusuf Ali Translation.
3. http://www.youtube.com... /Note: It is a channel link, look up for video with name If./

Debate Round No. 2
NiqashMotawadi3

Pro

DISCLAIMER

Con only offered weak arguments and refused to support them with any empirical evidence, while misinterpreting the hadeeths, ignoring certain falsehoods and sometimes even contradicting himself.

In the first round, I made it clear that the nature of this debate is going to be empirical, and that Con's role is provide empirical evidence for his apologetic. Hence, Con has to accept this condition. I myself have NOT mentioned any absolute truths, but grounded this debate on an empirical basis from the opening statement, similarly to typical debates on this website, which, from what I understand, never make claims of absolute knowledge (if we were to assume that such knowledge exists). Therefore, Con's tactic of requiring absolute truths in a debate on empirical knowledge is simply a desperate attempt to derail the debate.

While I do assume, for the sake of argumentation, that God exists, I don't assume that Mohammad's words and descriptions of God are absolute truths, as that would be begging the question, since the debate is to examine whether the authentic hadeeths that are listed above have any empirical truth to begin with.

REBUTTAL

Falsehood #1: Five things only God knows

*In this falsehood, Mohammad claims to know "the Five keys of the unseen knowledge," and claims that "knowledge of what is inside the womb" is one of those keys.

Con responds, "...knowledge is not Absolute. And all scientists will tell you (I use word "you" in abstract and general mean) nothing (regarding knowledge) is precise, absolute, or 100%."

Rebuttal: By this, Con has inadvertently established that Mohammad committed a falsehood in this authentic hadeeth. I'm going to explain this in a form of deductive argument(which ends with an absolute truth)...

P1- Mohammad in the authentic hadeeth claims there are only FIVE keys to unseen knowledge.

"Keys of the unseen knowledge are five which nobody knows but Allah"

*This sentence explicitly states that the keys are five, not that Mohammad is just telling us about five of them.

P2- Con, in his response, claimed that empirical knowledge doesn't have absolute certainty, and claimed that epistemological claims which lack certainty are keys to an unseen knowledge.

(Con claimed that, "nobody knows what is in the womb," is a key to an unseen knowledge, given that scientists are only "95%" sure of what is inside the womb).

Conclusion: According to Con's reasoning, Prophet Mohammad committed a falsehood when he limited the keys of unseen knowledge to FIVE, since according to Pro's reasoning, the Keys of knowledge are Billions(if not more) of epistemological claims.

In other words, Con declared all epistemological claims (e.g "nobody knows the health benefits of my pizza") to be keys of the unseen knowledge, because scientists are never 100% certain of such claims, although Mohammad explicitly says, "keys of the unseen knowledge are five." Therefore, such keys do not include all epistemological claims such as "nobody knows the health benefits of my pizza," which means that Pro's apologetic attributes a major falsehood to Mohammad, even if it does so inadvertently. Moreover, if Mohammad is just being inaccurate, then he is also committing a falsehood, according to the definition of "Falsehoods" in Round 1: Inaccurate or false information.

Falsehood #2: Jews worship Ezra as the Son of God

*In this falsehood, Mohammad claims that the Jews at Judgment Day will be punished for worshiping Ezra as the son of God.

The hadeeth explicitly dictates that the People of the Scripture(Jews and Christians) will be judged after people who didn't worship God or worshiped something else(Atheists, Polytheists, Pantheists, etc) are punished.

Con claims, "As you should know, worshiping someone (in Quran or in hadith) does not just mean prostrating or praying to someone or something, it also means (depending on context) giving Exclusive Attribute of God to someone or something else."

Rebuttal: Except that Con has not given any shred of evidence that Jews do that to Ezra.

Con further remarks, "And you aware that Arab Jews in Yemen considered Ezra as the son of God."

Rebuttal: I'm only aware that this is a falsehood started by a Muslim apologist(Ibn Hazm) who was trying to come up with an apologetic for the claim that the Jews worship Ezra, even when he was located in Spain... 300 years apart from when Mohammad made that claim, when Yemen Jews themselves claim that they give Ezra the same status as every other Prophet, since they're often accused in the Jewish community for (Ironically) hating Ezra[1]. Con needs to provide a trusted, academic citation to back up his claim.

Con continues, "And every nation does not mean all members of the nation, because there were atheist Jews, who did not believe even in God..."

Rebuttal: "Atheists Jews" will not survive the first procedure, which starts with punishing anyone that didn't worship God. The second procedure it the one that punishes people who worshiped God plus other things. Moreover, when the "Jews" were addressed, the "religious Jews" were addressed as they are the ones that belong to the "People of Scripture," and not a heretical group, in parallel to how the majority of believing Christians(who worshiped Jesus) were addressed.

In summary, Con has only given falsehoods and baseless claims, although it is clear that Mohammad refers to religious Jews who would be called forth and punished for worshiping Ezra, when the Jewish scripture dictates that Jews must only worship God (much like the Qur'an does), and when Pro has failed to show how even one Jew has ever worshiped Ezra.

Falsehood #3: After fetal development, Allah determines the sex of the baby

Con misrepresented the hadeeth and responded to something I wasn't even arguing.

*I need to make a correction that in the previous round, I based my numbers on another graph(which I later removed because it was less detailed, but forgot to update the numbers). So I ended up saying "14 out of 17" when I meant "17 out of 23," however I realized that as soon as I clicked submit and notified Con about it immediately.

*The falsehood that Mohammad commits in this hadeeth is that he says that gender is determined by Allah when the fetus is complete, when 99% of the cases of sex-determination occur during conception(sperm meeting egg), while less than 1%(cases of male-female transsexualism) occur when the sexual organs start developing(stage 17), which is not even close to when the fetus is completely shaped(stage 23).



Con responded, "The hadith shows that before the development of sexual organs, no one (except God) knows the sex of a baby..."

Rebuttal: This is a misrepresentation of what the Hadeeth says. The Hadeeth is clear in saying "When Allah decides to give it[The Fetus] a final shape, the angel says: My Lord, would it be male or female." The fetus begins developing sexual organs at six weeks[2]. It definitely doesn't have a final shape then. Therefore, Con here is falsely equivocating between the key-terms "right before the fetus has a final shape" and when the "sexual organs are complete," which occur at different stages, and therefore cannot be used interchangeably.

Con continues, "...you cannot determine the "sex of sperm" by taking and looking at it."

Rebuttal: You could, if you perform experiments. Parents who follow the in-vitro method can choose to the gender of their child, since scientists can tell if the sperm holds an X or Y chromosome through different reliable technologies and experiments[3]. For instance, Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg, clinical director of a U.S. fertility clinic, claims that his methods are 99.9% effective in specifying the gender of the baby before in-vitro conception[4].

In conclusion, I didn't receive an actual response or apologetic. I only got a misrepresentation of what the Hadeeth said and a couple of unscientific claims which ignore scientific progress.

SUMMARY

Con has failed to provide any substantial apologetic, but first appealed to the uncertainty of all empirical knowledge, when Prophet Mohammad explicitly said that the "keys of the unseen knowledge are five" which is an explicit statement as opposed to "five of those keys are." In the second apologetic, Con used baseless assertions(which were mostly false) to try and say that some Jews worshiped Ezra(when he had absolutely zero evidence for that). For the third, Con simply misinterpreted the Hadeeth and never answered the actual falsehood; the sexual organs developing after the fetus is finally shaped, when we scientifically know that sexual organs develop much earlier, specifically in the middle of the process of fetal development--when the fetus is incomplete.

Pro is expected to present substantial apologetic and empirical evidence in the next round, otherwise the voters will be 99.9% convinced that the authentic hadeeths are in the wrong, which is enough for me to satisfy the burden of proof on empirical grounds.

CITATIONS

[1]"The Jews of Yemen", in Yemen: 3000 Years of Art and Civilization in Arabia Felix, edited by Werner Daum, page 272: 1987

[2] Geary, David C. (2009). Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences (2nd Ed.) Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

[3] Baby Girl or Baby Boy - Now You Can Choose: A Look at New Biology and No Law; Faust, Susan M. Online at: http://heinonline.org...=

[4] http://abcnews.go.com...


tahir.imanov

Con

  • Five things only God knows.
These five things belongs to Ilmi Al-Ghayb, which means only God knows these things. But that does not mean Ilmi Al-Ghayb consists of only these five things. And it does not mean these things are unknown for eternity, for example, "nobody knows what will happen tomorrow" does not mean, whatever happens tomorrow, when tomorrow comes, will be unknown for everyone, even when we are in tomorrow. For example, you are pretty sure (with confidence interval 99%) tomorrow you will hack debate.org website. What if you die tonight, or website crashes, or your stuff explodes, or you have been hacked or etc. (I can go for eternity, if it was physically possible).
Premise: "Nobody knows what will happen at next second of his/her life." Therefore all these five things are true. Whatever you will say about tomorrow (or any data relating with one of these categories) is going to be based on retrospective data of our experiences, which means we are arguing for future based on data from past.

And point of hadith is "do not make absolute claims regarding these issues" not "do not rely on statistical data" or "do not study weather conditions" or etc..
  • Ezra
The source is "Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 6, Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, page 1108". Your counter argument is Ibn Hazim lived in Cordoba (around 9th-10th century, and Cordoba of Spain) then his arguments are purely conjecture without any basis, which throws out the majority historical data. And it underestimates Ibn Hazim, who is the author of "Scope of Logic" who said "the Sun is always vertical to a particular spot on Earth" and "woman can be political leader".
  • Baby
The hadith does not say the sex is given after certain period of time, it says God decides to give it final shape, which is true, if God created an object, it means God created its attributes and properties with it. And angel asking for sex of baby and etc., means even angels, for certain time period does not know the sex of baby. Which means for a certain time period no one knows the sex of a baby, except God. Your assumption fails, because hadith does not say anything about sex is given after the certain period of time, it just say angel does not know the sex, so he asks God and then writes it and other stuff.
Debate Round No. 3
NiqashMotawadi3

Pro

DISCLAIMER

Con's performance in this debate was disappointing. Con's apologetic entirely consisted of misrepresenting clearly-stated and explicit statements within the Hadeeths, and even misrepresenting external sources such as Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 6, page 1108.

REBUTTAL

Falsehood #1: Keys of the Unseen Knowledge are Five

Narrated Ibn `Umar: Allah's Messenger said, "Keys of the unseen knowledge are five which nobody knows but Allah . . . nobody knows what will happen tomorrow; nobody knows what is in the womb; nobody knows what he will gain tomorrow; nobody knows at what place he will die; and nobody knows when it will rain."

Con argues, "These five things belongs to Ilmi Al-Ghayb, which means only God knows these things. But that does not mean Ilmi Al-Ghayb consists of only these five things."

Rebuttal: I have already addressed this point in my previous round. The sentence is explicit in saying that they are five. The key-phrase is "Keys of the unseen knowledge are five." If the Hadeeth was talking about five of the keys it should have said "Five of the keys of unseen knowledge." An example of this would be the difference between saying "Sex positions are five" and "five of the sex positions are."

In summary, Con's apologetic simply claims that all epistemological claims are keys to the unseen knowledge, when Mohammad explicitly states that "Keys of the unseen knowledge are five."

A possible solution out of this is to concede that Mohammad here was being inaccurate in his explicit statement. Nevertheless, for this debate, "falsehoods" were defined as inaccurate or false information, and so Mohammad would have also committed a falsehood if this is the counterargument Con wants to adopt.

Falsehood #2: Jews worship Ezra as the Son of God

Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri: "During the lifetime of the Prophet some people said, : O Allah's Messenger ! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" The Prophet said, "Yes; do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun at midday when it is bright and there is no cloud in the sky?" They replied, "No." He said, "Do you have any difficulty in seeing the moon on a full moon night when it is bright and there is no cloud in the sky?" They replied, "No." The Prophet said, "(Similarly) you will have no difficulty in seeing Allah on the Day of Resurrection as you have no difficulty in seeing either of them. On the Day of Resurrection, a call-maker will announce, "Let every nation follow that which they used to worship." Then none of those who used to worship anything other than Allah like idols and other deities but will fall in Hell (Fire), till there will remain none but those who used to worship Allah, both those who were obedient (i.e. good) and those who were disobedient (i.e. bad) and the remaining party of the people of the Scripture. Then the Jews will be called upon and it will be said to them, 'Who do you use to worship?' They will say, 'We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son. What do you want now?' They will say, 'O our Lord! We are thirsty, so give us something to drink.' They will be directed and addressed thus, 'Will you drink,' whereupon they will be gathered unto Hell (Fire) which will look like a mirage whose different sides will be destroying each other. Then they will fall into the Fire. Afterwards the Christians will be called upon and it will be said to them, 'Who do you use to worship?' They will say, 'We used to worship Jesus, the son of Allah.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son,' Then it will be said to them, 'What do you want?' They will say what the former people have said..."

I asked Con to give an academic source that Jews worshipped Ezra, Con gave the source " "Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 6, Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, page 1108." After I checked this source, it was clear to me that the source said nothing about that particular matter. The source only says that Ezra has a tomb, much like most prophets in Judaism and Islam:

"There are number of traditions concerning the site of Ezra's tomb. According to Josephus it is in Jerusalem; other hold that he was buried in Urta or in Zunzumu on the Tigris; but the general accepted version is that his tomb is situated in Uzer, a village near Basra. This tradition is mentioned by Benjamin of Tuleda, Pethahiah of Regensburg, Judah Alharizi, and other travelers, Jewish and non-Jewish who visited Babylonia[1]."

In other words, Con misrepresented the source as it says nothing about the Jews worshipping Ezra. On the contrary, Jewish academic sources claim that Yemeni Jews(who Con accused of worshipping Ezra, according to some traditions, actually are accused of hating Ezra, and therefore, refusing to name their children after him as a result[2].

Moreover, we know that Jews are forbidden to worship any tombs. According to the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, which stands for "Condensed Code of Jewish Law":

"On the day preceding Rosh HaShanah, after the prayer of Shacharis, it is the practice to go to a cemetery to walk around the graves of righteous people. And we give charity to poor people, and we increase requests in order to awaken the holy righteous people who are in the decomposed earth to request good for us on the day of judgment. And also because it is the place of the burial of righteous people, the place is holy and pure, and the prayer is accepted there more [readily], since it is on holy ground. And the blessed holy one will do kindness in the merit of the righteous people. However, he should not face the corpses who dwell there [in prayer], because the matter is close to being in the category of (Devarim 18:11) "And someone who seeks the dead." Rather, he should request from the blessed G-d that He have mercy on him in the merit of the righteous people, the dwellers of the dust[3]."

In summary, this says that Jews should only pray to God at the graves of righteous people(much like Muslims do at the grave of Mohammad), but never worship the dead themselves because that would be almost following the sin described in Devarim 18:11 which is "seeking the dead." It is also important to mention that the Jews have tombs for many of the Prophets. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that they worship Ezra as the son of the God, when they treat him like all the other prophets, except for Prophet Moses who is given the highest rank among the Prophets.

Con further argues, 'Your counter argument is Ibn Hazim lived in Cordoba (around 9th-10th century, and Cordoba of Spain) then his arguments are purely conjecture without any basis, which throws out the majority historical data. And it underestimates Ibn Hazim, who is the author of "Scope of Logic" who said "the Sun is always vertical to a particular spot on Earth" and "woman can be political leader"'.

Rebuttal: My main counterargument against Ibn Hazim was that he is wrong. He based his apologetic on the myth that Yemeni Jews don't call their children "Ezra," and thought that this is because they worship him. I explained that they actually call their children "Ezra," and that they were accused of doing otherwise, because they were accused of hating (not worshiping) Ezra[2,4]. Moreover, Con seems to be making a false appeal to authority. Ibn Hazim is a Polymath, not a Historian. He could be brilliant at mathematics and logic, but that doesn't make him a historian or an expert on historical matters, and by Con's own admission, he was in Spain and never a contemporary historian or a historian to begin with, and so it is highly unlikely for him to know what the Yemeni Jews worshiped.

In summary, Con has failed to give me one academic source or even "one Jewish source" that claims that Jews worshiped Ezra, but is simply quoting a Muslim apologist on a matter that relates to Judaism itself, which means that the claim that "Jews worshiped Ezra as the son of God" is simply a falsehood so far.

Falsehood #3: After fetal development, Allah determines the sex of the baby

Con argues, "...hadith does not say anything about sex is given after the certain period of time, it just say angel does not know the sex, so he asks God and then writes it and other stuff."

Rebuttal: The Hadeeth says that only when Allah decides to give it the final shape(and therefore he has not given it the final shape yet, but has only decided to do that), does the angel ask if it will be male or female, which means that giving it the final shape depends on that particular question.

DROPPED ARGUMENTS

1- You cannot determine the "sex of sperm" by taking and looking at it.

2- Atheist Jews are among the People of the Scripture.

3- The second hadeeth does not make a parallel comparison between Christians and Jews.

SUMMARY

Con's arguments were mostly self-contradictory and based on misrepresenting sources, when I made it clear that I expected good apologetic supported with empirical evidence. This is my final round, so I can no longer respond to any contradictions and falsehoods. Nevertheless, I had higher expectations for this debate, so I was left disappointed.

I thank Con for participating,
It was at least interesting.

CITATIONS

[1] Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 6, Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, page 1108

[2] http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com...

[3] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (128:13). Found online here: http://hebrewbooks.org...=

[4] "The Jews of Yemen", in Yemen: 3000 Years of Art and Civilization in Arabia Felix, edited by Werner Daum. 1987
tahir.imanov

Con

Niqash, your assumption of my argument being weak and etc. is subjective, objectively they are not. I did not misinterpret anything, I just gave the same interpretation of Muslims of last 1.4 centuries, it is you who tries to interpret it as you want, and then say it is wrong. Hadith says keys of unseen knowledge is 5, not the unseen knowledge, because we know that unseen knowledge is more than 5, for example we don't know who will go to hell or heaven, if the Hadith means what you want it to mean, then prophet gave one less item. But we know that Hadith does not mean what you want it to mean, because the very first word of Hadith (first word in English translation of Hadith) - "KEY". And if we leaved in Newtonian universe your claim would be somewhat rational, but in our universe it is not. And it is fact that you cannot make an absolute claim for/about anything and anytime.
Sorry, I think I gave the wrong source, but I also lost the web links. But I did enough research on it. You are claiming that Uzair is Ezra, but you need to empirically prove it, and you did not. Secondly it is historical, therefore whatever you say about it is going to Testimony, we cannot observe it or test it in lab. Thirdly Uzair is not Arabic version of Ezra, the Arabic version of Ezra is Alif-Zaay-Raa-Alif or 'Ayn-Zaay-Raa-Alif, however Uzair is 'Ayn-Zaay-Yaa'-Raa, entirely two different words, thirdly there are several western scholars, such as Professor Gordon Darnell Newby associate Uzair with Enoch, who is son of YHWH[1]. And there are some who even associate Uzair with Azariah such as Professor Viviane Comerro. So if you say Uzair is Ezra you have to empirically prove that all other versions of Uzair is false. And I do not know how are you going to observe or test them, but you can try.
Debating the sex of baby as other topic is irrational when you already brought up the keys of unseen. Because it is already included there. And I gave the answer. I read your rebuttal, and I laughed, because it shows you do not have any idea who God is and who God is not in Islam, God does not depend on anything or anyone or anyone's question(s) for His actions. But anyway let me give you a lesson on grammar. Hadith says "would it be" not "will it be", the rational people would (or rather should) ask what the difference is. When we say "will" we talk about future, things we want (or willing) to do, or we making promises. But when we say "would" we talk about past. Therefore when angel says "would it be" that means it is already decided but the angel does not know. Hereby, I thank my teacher.
And yes God gives the shape, because God is Creator, and as Creator when He creates, He creates with attributes, properties, therefore He is also Creator of attributes and properties of His creation.

I used ridicules, in the argument, and my intention is not to insult anyone. I just want to show how Niqash's argument is irrational in funny way. :)



1. - http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by makhdoom5 2 years ago
makhdoom5
naqash u bring garbage man/. i must debate with u.
but u never wanted to debate with me.
no body wants to debate with me what the hell man.
Posted by makhdoom5 2 years ago
makhdoom5
and i wish i would be debating.
whats wrong with Wikipedia.
u dont see something is from Wikipedia.
see what is material.
coz Wikipedia also use reference.
i always says its double check.
what link source is about see that if Wikipedia also has given reference then check that reference dont say Wikipedia is wrong.
keep in mind if Wikipedia is wrong then every person is wrong.
coz when u take reference from something or some information u must check that as well is it correct or not.
if i give u nasa website link as reference then u may say oh its 100% but we have seen many times statements from these kinds of resources also has been challenged and refuted.
well leave its not debate under consideration any more.
Posted by makhdoom5 2 years ago
makhdoom5
oh man some dumb assss stupid u debate with.
man who told u who know what is in womb.
man its 100% correct no body know what is in womb.
and u must be saying only about gender even u do city scan u could be wrong.
it not only depend on machine and it depend on examiner or radiologist.
and there is % of accuracy about scanning many times result is wrong.
if 1% wrong then still i goes into guess.
as fat as gender is concern.
but here ALLAH and prophet saww said about no body know what is in Womb.
its not only gender its color its any birth defect its all aspect not only gender.
and ultrasound scanning don't gives clear picture.
u always do same man u interpret things in ignorant fashion.
about whom there is much to refute ur claim.
scientifically.
but some dumb may be tried that.
i will come soon its time i must come back man.
and soon i will come back.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
That's shifting the burden of proof. If you claim that Enoch is specifically called the son of God, you have to prove it. You claimed a Muslim apologist said through the Wikipedia link, although the page only says that he considers Uzair to be Enoch, which means you misrepresented your source as your source was the Wikipedia link, and presented a different apologetic in the last round when I couldn't respond to it.
Posted by tahir.imanov 3 years ago
tahir.imanov
For me it does not matter who worships whom. And I already told you when Quran tells "worship" it does not only mean prostrating in front some guy or tree, it also mean giving exclusive attribute of God to someone or something or calling someone son/daughter of God or etc. You have to to also define what worship is there is being talked about. And prove empirically.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
"firstly Pro has to prove empirically that Uzair is Ezra. After he does then burden of proof will be on me. And he did not and he cannot, because it is historical."

Your trick was to bring up an apologetic you didn't first adopt, and place it in the last round, but that didn't work for you, as I had already shown that the Jews do not worship either Ezra or Enoch or anyone but God himself, so it doesn't really matter who you take Uzair to be.
Posted by tahir.imanov 3 years ago
tahir.imanov
@ iamanatheistandthisiswhy
I did not use just wikipedia as source, and we are discussing only three hadithes, and sources are given by Pro, and I do not have to cite them.
I do not have to discuss third hadith because it can be discussed in first and I did, and as Pro's claims of second hadith, firstly Pro has to prove empirically that Uzair is Ezra. After he does then burden of proof will be on me. And he did not and he cannot, because it is historical.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
Weird punctuation problems there, appearing where the shouldn't, not appearing when then should.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
RFD Part 1/2

Pro"s case consists of three arguments. The five things only God knows, the Jews worshipping Ezra, and when the gender of the baby is developed. I will consider each argument and rebuttal below.

The Five Things

Here Pro quotes the Hadith saying there are 5 things that only God knows. He attacks the claim that God can only know what"s in the womb. Con states that nothing is known by us humans for absolute certainty. Pro came back by showing by Con"s own words, the Hadith is wrong. If God only knows 5 unknowns, but there are really billions of unknowns, the Hadith is wrong. Con says those aren"t the only things God knows and then goes onto claim we can"t know anything for certain. Which is strange because Pro never negated that. It seems to me Con is only asserting this claim without evidence. He doesn"t provide any Hadith to support this view, it"s just speculation away from the text. Pro says its quite clear that the Hadith says it"s five things. Con"s rebuttal seems circular to me "Hadith says keys of unseen knowledge is 5, not the unseen knowledge, because we know that unseen knowledge is more than 5"

But this assumes the Hadith is true in the first place. The Hadith did not mean there are only 5, because there is more than 5. That"s like saying, the bible doesn"t say the universe is geocentric because the universe is not geocentric. Con then goes onto talk about how we can"t know anything for certain. We get it and Pro never claimed otherwise, so Con is attacking a straw man.

Pro wins this section for Con"s bad responses and strawmen.

Ezra

Pro presents the argument that the Hadith claims the Jews worshipped Ezra, which is clearly false. Con claimed someone worship something without knowingly doing it. He also says there are Arab Jews that consider Ezra to be the song of God. Along with claiming there are atheist Jews that would be judged, so it doesn't mean they must be of the jewish religion.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
RFD part 2/2

Pro pointed out the Hadith said people of the scripture, not of race. Pro also pointed out that Con gave no evidence to support the claim that the Jews worshipped Ezra nor provided evidence that Arab Jews worship him. Pro showed the Arab Jews are criticized for hating Ezra. Con said his source was "Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 6, Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem, page 1108". But he didn"t quote it or explain what was in it at all. Con straw-manned Pro"s attack on Ibn Hazm. Pro pointed out Con"s false usage of the Encyclopedia Judaica. Con essentially concedes he used the wrong source. He drops his arguments and claims Ezra is Enoch. But Pro already addressed this claim in his second round! Con drops arguments, makes already refuted arguments, and misuses sources.

Pro wins in this section

Fetal development

Pro brings up the Hadith claiming Allah determines the babies sex after is has become a lump of flesh. Even thonception. Pro says ough we know it"s almost always determined at the moment of conception. Con responded to this argument very weakly. He says you can't determine what the sex is before it's created and claims science is usually wrong. He provided no evidence for that claim though. As Pro pointed out it clearly says "When Allah decides to give it[The Fetus] a final shape". Pro"s interpretation seems more reasonable. Con in the next round basically makes the same exact argument. Only until the very last round does Con try to give evidence of his interpretation. By claiming would means past tense. But in English, it can be used in a past tense and used to express future tense in a past sentence. "Would it be" can mean future if it is talking about a past story. Is the same true in Arabic? No source is given. No source is given to support Con"s interpretation either. Pro"s seems more intuitive, so I would say Pro won here because of the lack of sources on Con"s part.

Pro wins arguments and sources.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
NiqashMotawadi3tahir.imanovTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Firstly Pro gets conduct points, as Con went against the rules of the debate by only offering apologetics and not empirical evidence. With respect to Source points, these points go clearly to Pro, as Pro offered multiple sources, while Con offers a Wikipedia link. Argument points go to Pro as it was logical and backed by evidence, while Cons arguments were not backed up and just apologetic word play. Interesting debate and a clear winner.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
NiqashMotawadi3tahir.imanovTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.