The Instigator
NiqashMotawadi3
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
PhileasFoggOfVictoria
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Some authentic Hadeeths show that Prophet Mohammad was neither highly moral nor well-mannered

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
NiqashMotawadi3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,297 times Debate No: 35290
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

NiqashMotawadi3

Pro

I'm looking forward for a great debate. My position is that there exists authentic hadeeths(or narrations) in which Prophet Mohammad was not highly moral and well-mannered.

Authentic hadeeths: By this, I mean narrations that are accepted to be authentic by many Muslims based on the chain of narrations(who said them to whom after the Prophet). They are considered "authentic" by the majority of Muslims[1], who also happen to have the belief that Mohammad is highly moral and well-mannered[2]. I'm not arguing that those hadeeths must be authentic, and thus the Prophet must definitely be considered immoral. All I'm arguing is that some of those accepted hadeeths do not reflect the highly moral and well-mannered Prophet that many Muslims describe. What I'm simply saying is that you can't follow those authentic hadeeths(which are authentic according to the majority of Muslims and the chain of narrations) and give the Islamic prophet those traits.


A- Examples of those Authentic Hadeeths:

1- The Prophet saying, "If you see a man performing Jahilya's funeral rituals, make him bite his dad's pen!s."

١- إذا رأيتم الرجل يتعزى بعزاء الجاهلية ، فأعضوه بهن أبيه و لا تكنوا
الراوي: أبي بن كعب المحدث: الألباني - المصدر: صحيح الجامع - الصفحة أو الرقم: 567
خلاصة حكم المحدث: صحيح

٢- من تعزى بعزاء الجاهلية ، فأعضوه بهن أبيه ، ولا تكنوا .
الراوي: أبي بن كعب المحدث: الألباني - المصدر: تخريج مشكاة المصابيح - الصفحة أو الرقم: 4828
خلاصة حكم المحدث: صحيح

Those are two authentic hadeeths saying that. Jahiliya is name the of the pagan society that preceded Islam. "Hin abeeh" literally stands for his father's male[3], which is a reference to the father's pen!s[4]. The Prophet is definitely not highly moral or well-mannered if he said that, regardless if it was later proved that those rituals were horrible(even though I doubt that because they're funeral rituals) or that he was really pissed off that day. To command his people to make someone bite his father's thingy says much about his manners and morals.


2- The Prophet pushing his young wife Aisha and causing her pain.

"He pushed me and caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?" [Saheeh Hadith-Book 004, Number 2127]

...

There are more reasons that support my position. However, I'm going to settle down for two in this round. My opponent has to refute them both to establish that I'm wrong in saying that according to the authentic hadeeths, Prophet Mohammad wasn't highly moral and well-mannered.


(Do not accept the debate if you don't accept the rules)
Rules of the debate:

1- No acceptance round. Opponent has to start arguing in his/her first round.

2- My opponent only has to disprove all my claims to win the debate. He/she doesn't need to make any claims, because I'm the one providing evidence that there exists such authentic hadeeths.

3- Forfeits are not allowed. If anyone forfeits a round, he/she directly loses the debate.

I wish my oppoent the best of luck!


Citations:

[1] Donmez, Amber C. "The Difference Between Quran-Based Islam and Hadith-Based Islam"

[2] Al Mubarakpuri, Safi ur Rahman (2002). Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar).
Darussalam. p. 74. ISBN 9960-899-55-1.

[3] Dictionaries: Lisan Al-Arab and Qamoos Al-Moheet.

[4] http://fatwa.islamweb.net... [Islamic website that admits that "Hin" stands for pen!s]
PhileasFoggOfVictoria

Con

I thank my opponent for giving me the opportunity to participate in such interesting a discussion. And I also ask Allah, my Lord, the Absolute and the Eternal, to give me good conduct and to make it possible for me to bring the Truth which comes from him in the most delicate form.

First of all, I would like to ask Pro whether he could be so lofty to give the actual chains of narrators as well. With the first Hadeeth, he hasn't given an acceptable reference at all.
The second one hasn't got a derivation either, but I succeeded to find that it is from Saheeh Muslim - a prominent Hadeeth collector.

Until Pro has brought the references of the first Hadeeth, I will not give commentary on it.

The second Hadeeth

The entire narration is as follows:

Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): "Should I not narrate to you (a Hadeeth of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother?" We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was Aisha who had narrated this: "Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)?" We said: "Yes". She said: "When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps until he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: 'Why is it, O Aisha, that you are out of breath?' I said: 'There is nothing'. He said: 'Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me'. I said: 'Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you', and then I told him (the whole story). He said: 'Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me?' I said: 'Indeed'. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: 'Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?' She said: 'Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it.' He said: 'Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi' (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you.'"

This complete narration was to make the context a little more clear.

Furthermore, the Arabic word translated as 'struck' above is لحز, which is even better translated as 'push' and, at the most, 'slap with an open palm' - not a hard, violent slap. According to the Hadeeth, the push made her sore (awja'atni).

But in other narration, the struck on the chest of the prophet (pbuh) is always rather metaphorical. To drive away evil...

- Amir ibn Raba and Sahl ibn Hunayf went out to bathe. Amir took off his woolen robe. He [Sahl] narrates: "I looked at him and I cast the evil eye on him. He went down into the water then I heard a noise coming from him. I called out to him three times but there was no answer. I went to call the Messenger of Allah who came on foot and waded his way in the water. Then he slapped/pushed his chest with his hand, saying: "O Allah! drive away from him its heat and its coolness and its harm." Then he rose up and said: "If one of you sees something that pleases him in his brother - whether in his person or property - let him invoke blessing for him, for the evil eye is a reality."

(Tafsir ibn Kathir)

Similarly, in a narration it states:

- Ubbay said: There occurred in my mind a sort of denial which did not occur even during the Days of Ignorance. When the Messenger of Allah saw how I was affected, he slapped/pushed me on the chest. I broke into a sweat and felt as if I were looking at Allah in fear.

(Sahih Muslim)

My own refuting arguments

Since Pro has not stated whether the burden of proof was upon him only, I suppose it is shared.

The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said:

“Fear Allah wherever you are. And follow up a bad deed with a good deed and it will wipe it out. And behave towards the people with a good behaviour.”

(Recorded in at-Tirmidhi)
- (On the authority of Abu Dharr Jundub ibn Junada and Abu Abdul Rahmaan Muaadh ibn Jabal (may Allah be pleased with both of them)

He (pbuh) has also said:

“I have been sent for the purpose of perfecting good morals.” (Recorded in al-Haakim)

And:

“I am a guarantor of a house in the highest part of Paradise for the one who makes his behaviour good.” (Recorded in Abu Dawood)


I find it hard to believe that a man who puts such a high price upon good manners, can be a barbarian or an immoral person of any sort.

I await the clarification of the first Hadeeth and perhaps some more.
Debate Round No. 1
NiqashMotawadi3

Pro

I thank my opponent in return for accepting this challenge. I assure him that the burden of proof is on me (as I stated in the rules of this debate). My role is simply to provide authentic hadeeths which contradict Prophet Mohammad's highly-regarded morals and manners, while his role is to provide effective refutations.


1- Concerning my first reason

I'm going to present the chain of narrations as my opponent requested, although I had already provided the exact source of the hadeeth and its official ruling in the first round. Fortunately, this hadeeth has only one narrator.


(1)

إذا رأيتم الرجل يتعزى بعزاء الجاهلية ، فأعضوه بهن أبيه و لا تكنوا

الراوي: أبي بن كعب
المحدث: الألباني
خلاصة حكم المحدث: صحيح


Translation: Narrator is Abi Bn Kaeb, Speaker is Albani, Official ruling on the authenticity of the narration: Authentic.

There are also other hadeeths identical to this one which are authentic... and I shall present more if my opponent disregards the official ruling given on the authenticity of this particular one, which says that the Prophet Mohammad commanded, "If you saw a man doing the jahliya's funeral rituals, make him bite his father's pen!s and don't hesitate."


2- Concerning my second reason:

My opponent gave us the context of the third hadeeth with only one counterargument. He also commented on the use of the word "struck" instead of "push" in his own translation, although mine did not include the word "struck." As a native Arabic speaker, I used the word "push" because that is exactly what the Arabic word translates to, and we both seem to agree on that particular translation.


2A- Refutation of my opponent's counterargument:

My opponent provides a citation which shows that "pushing" could be metaphorical for pushing the evil out. However, his citation is about a man who pushes/strikes his own chest to drive the evil out. I have to remind my opponent that what is discussed here is about being pushed by another person, and that the push caused Aisha "pain," which means that (1) it is not a well-mannered way of teaching her something, and (2) it could be regarded as a sign of domestic violence. Here is the citation again, "He pushed me and caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?" [Saheeh Hadith-Book 004, Number 2127]

My opponent then provides another citation of Mohammad doing the same thing. I shall treat this as further evidence for a lack of refined manners and high morals. Even if the Prophet did it for religious reasons, it remains wrong. Imagine a practice of sexually molesting an infant to drive the evil out. Such an act is not justified just because it was done because of religious reasons.


3- Refutation of my opponent's argument:

"I find it hard to believe that a man who puts such a high price upon good manners, can be a barbarian or an immoral person of any sort."

This is an argument from personal incredulity. Hence, a weak one. That man could easily be a hypocrite or someone that can't follow what he preaches(e.g what was offered by my opponent in his last citations). Take for example Rabbi Shammai who preaches that a person should greet people with cheerfulness[1], and yet he has been caught in many situations where he would chase gentiles with a measuring rod(large stick)[2]. In addition to this, people might dictate rules of politeness and love, in order to fight their own mischief, rudeness and lack of manners. In other words, to say that "he created great rules on manners" doesn't entail "he couldn't have violated them" or "he was a great moral person himself." Saying that is actually committing a non-sequitur logical fallacy. Moreover, I never said Prophet Mohammad was a "barbarian" to begin with. I only said that he is not as well-mannered and highly moral as he is described by the majority of Muslims.


In summary, my opponent has not yet responded to the first hadeeth in which Prophet Mohammad says, "Make a man practicing certain funeral rituals, bite his own father's pen!s." Nor did he effectively refute the claim that the Prophet pushing Aisha and causing her pain was an immoral and ill-mannered way of teaching her something. Hence, my position remains that a Muslim can't follow those authentic hadeeths, and consider the Islamic Prophet a well-mannered and highly moral person. I've also noted in the first round that there are other reasons than those two. However, I don't see a good reason to present them in this round, because the two reasons happen to be enough to support my position.



[1] Pirkei Avos 1:15 - Teaching of Shammai.

[2] http://www.jewfaq.org...
PhileasFoggOfVictoria

Con

I would like to excuse myself for not noticing the regulation on the burden of proof. And, not as a part of the debate, I would like to ask where my opponent lives.

First Argument of my Opponent

After examination, I have found that it is indeed authentic, but some others are more authentic. My question is: in what sense does this sentence turn our Holy Prophet into an immoral person? First of all, in our society the word 'penis' or any euphemism of it is considered pejorative. But, as my opponent knows better than I, in Islam, we have no taboos. Everything we need to talk of, we talk of. No censure.

To make the point I'm trying to put forward clear, I shall add a credible definition of the word morality, extracted from Wikipedia.

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong).

As we can see, it has to do with deeds or plans for a deed. Biting the private parts of your father can be seen as an immorality. Asking someone personally to do so is an insult and therefore as well immoral.
But the prophet did not address any person directly: he stressed the seriousness of such actions by making it a little heavy...
Not within the borders of immorality.

Counterargument towards my Opponent's Refutation of Argument #2

I beg his pardon on this, for I had a more clear explanation which did not came to me before me first argumentation.

Immorality can be viewed from two opinions: ethics, which change with every nation and generation and theological jurisprudence, which lasts in its original form.

According to both, violence is immoral. The World Health Organization defined violence in its report of 2002 as follows:

Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

None of the words in the Arabic context refer to an injury, and Aisha herself spoke only good about the Prophet after his death, which makes it only more clear that none of the results of violence mentioned above is actually present in this case.

SINCE MY OPPONENT has been so kind to remind me that the burden of proof rested upon him, I no longer think it is required to further strengthen my own arguments.

I await Pro's reply.
Debate Round No. 2
NiqashMotawadi3

Pro

My opponent has chose not to respond to my refutation, which means I'll be only countering the apologetic he provided in the previous round. It's important to note that both my references for the hadeeths were accurate according to my opponent. My only mistake was that I left out the chain of narrations in the first round.


1- Concerning my first reason:

Both of us have reached an agreement that the first hadeeth is authentic. However, my opponent insists that Prophet Mohammad was well-mannered and highly moral when saying "If you see a man performing Jahilya's funeral rituals, make him bite his father's pen!s." I've explained my position on that matter in the first round, but I will extend my explanation here. The Prophet is expected to be a moral teacher and someone who "puts a high price on manners and morals," as my opponent argues. However, when reading the quotation, it sounds like something P Diddy would have said. I'm not making a comparison between the two men , but rather explaining how disjoint the quotation seems from the character of a (supposedly) highly moral and well-mannered person, who also happens to be a teacher who preaches manners and piety.


1A- Contention 1: " First of all, in our society the word 'penis' or any euphemism of it is considered pejorative. But, as my opponent knows better than I, in Islam, we have no taboos. Everything we need to talk of, we talk of. No censure. "


The Prophet used "Hin Abeeh" (father's male) as a euphemism for pen!s, and he did that because saying "Faraj"(pen!s) was a taboo in that particular situation. Nonetheless, he conveyed the vulgar meaning. That is why I didn't find him well-mannered. I would understand the Prophet saying that in a private discussion that deals with sexual or medical matters, but this is clearly not the case in the hadeeth I provided.

According to the authentic hadeeths and the Prophet himself, vulgarity is not something God likes.
"Beware of vulgarity for indeed Allaah does not love the one who is vulgar in speech nor the one that's vulgar in action, and beware of oppression, for oppression will be darkness on the day of resurrection..." This is an authentic hadeeth (Ibni Hibbaan V.11 Page 530) narrated by Ibni Hibbaan[1]. My opponent has yet to convince me that "make him bite his father's pen!s" is not a vulgar expression, but something God would like. Paramount to that, there is no question that vulgar terms and expressions are prohibited in Islam according to that authentic hadeeth, as opposed to the looseness my opponent claims is present in Islam.


1B- Contention 2: "Biting the private parts of your father can be seen as an immorality. Asking someone personally to do so is an insult and therefore as well immoral. But the prophet did not address any person directly: he stressed the seriousness of such actions by making it a little heavy... Not within the borders of immorality."


Imagine a person saying, "He who prays like a Jew, will be forced to rape his mother." How is that not an immoral command? It follows all my opponent's criteria. (1) It's not addressing a person directly, (2) it's stressing the seriousness of such action, (3) It's making the situation heavy (I don't agree that the Prophet made the situation just a "little heavy"). Clearly it is an immoral command because of the threat. Similarly, the Prophet's command is immoral because of the "make him bite his father's pen!s."
Needless to say, the Prophet insulted everyone who practices those rituals by what he said. How is that not insulting, but saying that to one person is?

My opponent supplied a definition of morality which I accept, although I don't agree with his line of reasoning. We already have an immoral action and a decision that says that anyone caught doing the rituals should be punished.
I ask my opponent to define to me the traits/aspects of an immoral commandment. I simply consider the aforementioned commandment immoral based on the Islamic morality because of: (1) vulgarity of the words, (2) obscenity of the act and the (3) violent and terrifying threat.



2- Concerning my second reason:

The second hadeeth described Prophet Mohammad pushing Aisha and causing her pain. I'm going to directly deal with the only objection my opponent raised.


2A- Contention 3: "None of the words in the Arabic context refer to an injury, and Aisha herself spoke only good about the Prophet after his death, which makes it only more clear that none of the results of violence mentioned above is actually present in this case."

I believe my opponent misunderstood the definition of violence which he brought fourth. It says "Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury...". If a push didn't result in injury, but had a high likelihood in resulting in injury, it still is considered violent. Let us not forget that the push we're talking about resulted in pain for Aisha.

Furthermore, If none of the Arabic context refers to an injury, this doesn't mean that an injury didn't happen. I didn't mention an injury, so the BoP(Burden of Proof) is on my opponent to prove that one didn't happen. Aisha—did—speak well of her husband after his death, but let us not forget that she was appealing to this followers and political allies[2] and that domestic violence was common back in those days[3]. I wouldn't be shocked if a wife beaten by her husband would say positive things about him on his funeral at the times Mohammad. It's like children beaten by their fathers praising them after they grow up. I don't see that impossible as my opponent suggests.


In summary, the two reasons still hold. I haven't seen any good apologetic that changed my mind about my position. My location is Lebanon(my opponent asked me that in the previous round).



[1] Ibni Hibbaan V.11 Page 530

[2]
Spellberg, D.A. (1996). Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of ‘A’isha bint Abi Bakr. Columbia University Press. pp. 4-5. ISBN 0-231-07999-0, ISBN 978-0-231-07999-0.

[3] muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_womens_history/summary/v023/23.3.clark.html
PhileasFoggOfVictoria

Con

PhileasFoggOfVictoria forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
NiqashMotawadi3

Pro

I thank my opponent for his previous replies. However, because of this forfeit he loses the debate according to the rules I presented in the first round. "3- Forfeits are not allowed. If anyone forfeits a round, he/she directly loses the debate. "


In summary, my argument in this debate was that Prophet Mohammad, according to some authentic hadeeths, was not highly and well-mannered. I showed that by giving two hadeeths that prove that: (1) When he said, "Make anyone practicing Jaheliya funeral rituals bite his father's pen!s and don't hesitate. (2) When he pushed Aisha, his young wife, and caused her pain. In my opinion, I haven't received any worthwhile objections or apologetic from my opponent, who forfeited in the previous round and didn't respond to my refutation of his previous apologetic. My opponent can still argue in the last round, but I won't be able to respond to any objections or counterarguments he will present. Anyhow, I thank my opponent for this thrilling debate and hope we could debate a related issue soon.
PhileasFoggOfVictoria

Con

Thank you, my rival, for your ever prompt reactions and good conduct.

I wish to apologize for the forfeit I made. It would be only fair to lose this debate and this doesn't hurt me. In the few months I have been debating on this site, I have not won any debate yet... No matter.

PERSONAL CONCLUSION

The Prophet (pbuh) did not say this, but to stress the seriousness of the error. Compare this exclamation with those of them pop stars that many people almost worship these days: the morality of the Prophet was better than anyone's.

Not all pain leads to injury. If the educational tick of the Prophet did cause some injury, it would have been mentioned. Thus, injury is no part of pain, and not always likely - it was not violence.

I do share the wish of debating with my opponent again soon. But this time with a very clear resolution. (Note: I did not say 'clearly expressed' - I said 'clearly' in context)
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
NiqashMotawadi3PhileasFoggOfVictoriaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I wish to apologize for the forfeit I made. It would be only fair to lose this debate and this doesn't hurt me. In the few months I have been debating on this site, I have not won any debate yet... No matter. sorry Con to win you need to complete your debates.