Instigator / Pro
7
1500
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#5157
Jesus was morally superior to Mohammed
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Morphinekid77
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
5
1500
rating
4
debates
37.5%
won
Description
It is this house's belief that Jesus of Nazareth was morally superior to Mohammed the founder of Islam.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Greetings all and welcome to my first debate. Just a brief introduction to today's topic, I, a Christian, will be arguing that Jesus of Nazareth was morally superior to Mohammed, the founder of the Islamic religion. To phrase it negatively, I believe Mohammed lived a life that was far, far morally inferior to that of Jesus Christ. For the sake of space, time, and brevity, I will not get caught up in the semantics of what we mean by morally inferior or superior.
I will take it as assumed that my opponent, and the judges already have an innate sense of what constitutes an immoral life and what constitutes a moral life. We will assume that morality exists and one can act either morally or immorally.
As for my sources, I will be using primarily, at the request of my opponent, Islamic sources. Namely Quran, Hadith, and Tafsir. And at the request of my opponent, I will keep it brief.
1. Jesus lived an amazingly moral life according to Quran and New Testament.
This much is not in dispute by my opponent. His Quran agrees that Jesus (Isa) was a great prophet who performed many acts of miraculous kindness through His miracles.
Surah Ali Imran (Quran 3:49) Jesus speaking in Quran says:‘I have come to you with a sign from your Lord: I will make for you a bird from clay, breathe into it, and it will become a ˹real˺ bird—by Allah’s Will. I will heal the blind and the leper and raise the dead to life—by Allah’s Will. And I will prophesize what you eat and store in your houses. Surely in this is a sign for you if you ˹truly˺ believe.
The New Testament also agrees. Jesus performed many great acts of healing. Restoring sight to the blind, cleansing lepers of their disease, and even restoring life back to the dead. (Luke 4:18, John 11)
Jesus is also called "Pure" in the Quran (Surah 19:19) and in fact, Allah was so pleased with Jesus, he did something for Jesus he did not do for Mohammed, that is, saved Him from death and took him to himself, that is, Jesus is where Allah is.
Surah An-Nisa, Ayat 158But Allah raised him [‘Iesa (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allah is Ever All-Powerful, All-Wise.
So we start to see a picture forming. Jesus, according to my opponents own holy book, is a wonderful miracle worker, who's ministry results in the healing of the sick, sight to the blind, the raising of the dead, and Allah was so pleased with Jesus he took him to himself!
That's quite a Man indeed. Now, what of Mohammed? Did Mohammed live a moral, miraculous life? I'm afraid we cannot say the same.
2. Mohammed, according to Islamic sources, engaged in pedophilia.
I will be quoting from Hadith here, these Hadith are available online, in English for free, and are graded Sahih, that is to say, they are authentic.
Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 5, #234"Narrated Aisha: The prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six. We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Harith Kharzraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's messenger came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age."
Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 7 #65"Narrated Aisha that the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: "I have been informed that Aisha remained with the prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).""
Sahih Muslim, Book 008, #3311A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.
From Sunan Abu Daoud (Volume 2, #2116)Aisha said, "The Apostle of Allah married me when I was seven years old." (The narrator Sulaiman said: "Or six years."). "He had intercourse with me when I was 9 years old."
Al-Bukhari, along with Sunan Abu Daoud and Sahih Muslim make up the primary Sunnah that Muslims follow, and are regarded as the most authentic Hadith we have. There can be no dispute from my opponent that Mohammed's child bride Aisha was only 6 at the marriage and 9 at the consummation.
Just imagine, little 9 year old Aisha, playing with her dolls, too young to even understand what is going on, when she is handed over to Mohammed to consummate their "marriage." Let us compare this to how Jesus treated little girls.
Mark 5:39-43And when he had entered, he said to them, “Why are you making a commotion and weeping? The child is not dead but sleeping.” 40 And they laughed at him. But he put them all outside and took the child's father and mother and those who were with him and went in where the child was. 41 Taking her by the hand he said to her, “Talitha cumi,” which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.” 42 And immediately the girl got up and began walking (for she was twelve years of age), and they were immediately overcome with amazement. 43 And he strictly charged them that no one should know this, and told them to give her something to eat.
The evidence speaks for itself. Muslims believe that Mohammed was a shining example for all of mankind (Surah 33:21) I feel compelled to ask my opponent:
Who was the better example, the Man that gave life back to the dead, opened the ears of the deaf, healed the leper, and then went back to Heaven, or the man who contracted marriage with a six year old and slept with her when she was 9?
I have more to say about the life of Mohammed, his allowing of legal prostitution (Mutah marriage, which the Shia still practice) his allowing of marriage to pre-pubescent girls in the Quran (Surah 65:4) and his legacy of violence he left behind.
However, to be brief as my opponent asked, I have narrowed it down to this issue.
Thank you all.
Con
#2
Jesus is also called "Pure" in the Quran (Surah 19:19) and in fact, Allah was so pleased with Jesus, he did something for Jesus he did not do for Mohammed, that is, saved Him from death and took him to himself, that is, Jesus is where Allah is.
In Islam all prophets are infallible i.e they don't sin or make mistakes. Muhammad was also taken towards God during the night journey (Isra and Miraj).
2. Mohammed, according to Islamic sources, engaged in pedophilia.
Muhammad had around 12 wives. His marriages were all political as was the case for marriage everywhere. They were mainly divorcees and non-virgins, which were highly undesirable during that time. Only 1 was 'allegedly' a virgin and child. If Muhammad wanted, he could have definitely married more virgins and no one would have shunned him. But he didn't.
Pedophile (def from Wikipedia): is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12
Based on the definition pedophiles are specifically attracted to children or at least prefer them. Muhammads marriages shows that is highly unlikely. The problem is with when westerners think of marriage they ultimately think of sex, however for the most part marriage in societies was not for sex, it was primarily for politics (like family politics). Muhammads marriage to Aisha was political and narrations proves that. Children past the age of puberty are considered adults.
I will be quoting from Hadith here, these Hadith are available online, in English for free, and are graded Sahih, that is to say, they are authentic.
Al-Bukhari, along with Sunan Abu Daoud and Sahih Muslim make up the primary Sunnah that Muslims follow, and are regarded as the most authentic Hadith we have. There can be no dispute from my opponent that Mohammed's child bride Aisha was only 6 at the marriage and 9 at the consummation.
Actually I can dispute she was not 6-9. Aisha was 'allegedly' 6-9. Hadith compilation came hundreds years after the prophet. Certain personalities like Aisha were controversial because of her opposition to Ali (the 4th caliph). Aisha was later accused of adultery in her life. To protect her innocence, many Muslims would give her the youngest age to prove she was not adulterer and protect her "virgin" title. This is why they stressed on her age. Sunni hadith record her young 6-12. Whereas Shia hadith record her 14-16. I doubt PRO cares about the intricacies.
Regardless, child marriage is allowed in Islam. And it is normal (statistically) too around the world. Islam endorses marrying young. I will explain why. Children, today, are biologically sexually active around 13. However, consent laws in the European and western countries don't allow them to be sexually active until they reach an arbitrary age. These laws repress children's basic desires. Islam recognizes that humans have desires and does not repress them. This is why some parents choose to marry their children young. For its benefits.
Just imagine, little 9 year old Aisha, playing with her dolls, too young to even understand what is going on, when she is handed over to Mohammed to consummate their "marriage." Let us compare this to how Jesus treated little girls.
Just because she played with dolls does not mean she does not understand what's going on. Hadith shows she was quite mature in her speaking. She participated in war, gave lectures, etc. Pubescent girls and boys are more mature than kids today because unlike going to high school they already have experience with working, managing finances, and the family. You say marriage in quotes. It was a marriage. Marriage is by definition consensual.
Who was the better example, the Man that gave life back to the dead, opened the ears of the deaf, healed the leper, and then went back to Heaven, or the man who contracted marriage with a six year old and slept with her when she was 9?
Both men were moral. And I would argue Muhammad was more well-rounded (balanced). Jesus lived a good life but was mainly focused on aspects of asceticism. Muhammad participated in many things. He was a political, social, legal, theological, etc person.
I have more to say about the life of Mohammed, his allowing of legal prostitution (Mutah marriage, which the Shia still practice) his allowing of marriage to pre-pubescent girls in the Quran (Surah 65:4) and his legacy of violence he left behind.However, to be brief as my opponent asked, I have narrowed it down to this issue.
We can talk about Mutah or temporary marriage. Yes, Muhammad waged wars. Islam is not a pacifist religion. Violence is not necessarily bad. Otherwise, we wouldn't have police. When I said keep it brief, its best not to quote many hadith to prove one point i.e Muhammad married Aisha young. I get the point.
Round 2
Pro
#3
First of all a big thank you to my opponent who has given a thorough reply and treatment of evidence. Let's dig in.
My opponent states:
In Islam all prophets are infallible i.e they don't sin or make mistakes. Muhammad was also taken towards God during the night journey (Isra and Miraj).
However, Muhammed came back from his "night journey" and died as a man (Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 2 #638-641) The same was not true of Christ. Where is He now? If you believe the Quran He was taken to Allah and stayed there. Mohammed didn't.
My opponent states:
Muhammad had around 12 wives. His marriages were all political as was the case for marriage everywhere. They were mainly divorcees and non-virgins, which were highly undesirable during that time. Only 1 was 'allegedly' a virgin and child. If Muhammad wanted, he could have definitely married more virgins and no one would have shunned him. But he didn't.Pedophile (def from Wikipedia): is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12
Based on the definition pedophiles are specifically attracted to children or at least prefer them. Muhammads marriages shows that is highly unlikely. The problem is with when westerners think of marriage they ultimately think of sex, however for the most part marriage in societies was not for sex, it was primarily for politics (like family politics). Muhammads marriage to Aisha was political and narrations proves that. Children past the age of puberty are considered adults.
Wow, a lot to go through here. I will start with the first claim. Number one, My opponent is justifying Mohammed's marriage, and subsequent penetration of a little 9 year old girl on the basis that their marriage was "political'. What this actually means my opponent has not elaborated on.
Can you imagine using this so called defense in court? A man gets arrested for bedding a 9 year old, and his defense is, "Oh but judge! our marriage is merely political!"
Does this slogan offer ANY relief to the shocking crime of what Mohammed did? I don't care if their marriage was political, juridical, rhetorical, or metaphorical. The founder of Islam performed intercourse on a 9 year old.
Secondly, My opponent is trying to portray a cold, shallow, "political" marriage that bore little resemblance to a passionately romantic marriage between two lovers. The Hadith contradicts this claim.
Sahih Al-Bukhari 2581
The wives of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) were in two groups. One group consisted of `Aisha, Hafsa, Safiyya and Sauda; and the other group consisted of Um Salama and the other wives of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ). The Muslims knew that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) loved `Aisha, so if any of them had a gift and wished to give to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), he would delay it, till Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) had come to `Aisha's home and then he would send his gift to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) in her home. The group of Um Salama discussed the matter together and decided that Um Salama should request Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) to tell the people to send their gifts to him in whatever wife's house he was. Um Salama told Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) of what they had said, but he did not reply. Then they (those wives) asked Um Salama about it. She said, "He did not say anything to me." They asked her to talk to him again. She talked to him again when she met him on her day, but he gave no reply. When they asked her, she replied that he had given no reply. They said to her, "Talk to him till he gives you a reply." When it was her turn, she talked to him again. He then said to her, "Do not hurt me regarding Aisha, as the Divine Inspirations do not come to me on any of the beds except that of Aisha." On that Um Salama said, "I repent to Allah for hurting you." Then the group of Um Salama called Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and sent her to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) to say to him, "Your wives request to treat them and the daughter of Abu Bakr on equal terms." Then Fatima conveyed the message to him. The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "O my daughter! Don't you love whom I love?" She replied in the affirmative and returned and told them of the situation. They requested her to go to him again but she refused. They then sent Zainab bint Jahsh who went to him and used harsh words saying, "Your wives request you to treat them and the daughter of Ibn Abu Quhafa on equal terms." On that she raised her voice and abused `Aisha to her face so much so that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) looked at `Aisha to see whether she would retort. `Aisha started replying to Zainab till she silenced her. The Prophet (ﷺ) then looked at `Aisha and said, "She is really the daughter of Abu Bakr."
I want you to notice that Mohammed loved and preferred Aisha so much he would not so much as open a gift unless in her presence. And what do you know, the prophet would not even receive revelation from Allah unless he was on her bed!
Using my opponent's definition of pedophile, we can clearly see a man here who strongly preferred his 9 year old bride to his other wives. At least after Kadijah died. So, by my opponent's standard, Mohammed fits the bill.
My opponent states:
Actually I can dispute she was not 6-9. Aisha was 'allegedly' 6-9. Hadith compilation came hundreds years after the prophet. Certain personalities like Aisha were controversial because of her opposition to Ali (the 4th caliph). Aisha was later accused of adultery in her life. To protect her innocence, many Muslims would give her the youngest age to prove she was not adulterer and protect her "virgin" title. This is why they stressed on her age. Sunni hadith record her young 6-12. Whereas Shia hadith record her 14-16. I doubt PRO cares about the intricacies.
I would not recommend casting doubt on the collection of Hadith all of Sunni Islam has declared as the most reliable. If you do so you are at risk of undercutting your entire Deen and becoming Kafir. Much of the Shia hadith have not even been translated to English, as they are far less open about their source materials than Sunnis. That being said, a man well into his late 40's with a 16 year old is still, pedophilia. Regardless, even if you could prove she was 16 (you cant the hadith are clear) Mohammed himself allowed marriage to pre-pubescent girls in Quran 65:4. We can touch on that later.
My opponent.
Regardless, child marriage is allowed in Islam. And it is normal (statistically) too around the world. Islam endorses marrying young. I will explain why. Children, today, are biologically sexually active around 13. However, consent laws in the European and western countries don't allow them to be sexually active until they reach an arbitrary age. These laws repress children's basic desires. Islam recognizes that humans have desires and does not repress them. This is why some parents choose to marry their children young. For its benefits.
"These laws repress children's basic desires..."
I have no response to this statement. Christ have mercy.
My opponent:
Just because she played with dolls does not mean she does not understand what's going on. Hadith shows she was quite mature in her speaking. She participated in war, gave lectures, etc. Pubescent girls and boys are more mature than kids today because unlike going to high school they already have experience with working, managing finances, and the family. You say marriage in quotes. It was a marriage. Marriage is by definition consensual.
My brother in Abraham, she was NINE! How can a NINE year old consent to marriage? She doesn't even understand basic biology let alone what was about to happen to her. I want you to think long and hard about what Mohammed did to Aiash, and what my opponent is saying in his defense. Aisha was a mature 9? Children's basic desires?
I don't know about you, but I need a shower. I will now give the floor back to my opponent.
Thank you all.
Con
#4
However, Muhammed came back from his "night journey" and died as a man (Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 2 #638-641) The same was not true of Christ. Where is He now? If you believe the Quran He was taken to Allah and stayed there. Mohammed didn't.
This is what I said: "Muhammad was also taken towards God during the night journey (Isra and Miraj)." and you interpreted as me saying Muhammad was was taken and stayed there like Jesus. That is not what I said. I pointed out the similarities.
Similar (def): resembling without being identical.
You said Jesus was favored as being taken to God. I said the same favor happened on the night journey. I am aware he came back. Let's not discuss further.
Wow, a lot to go through here. I will start with the first claim. Number one, My opponent is justifying Mohammed's marriage, and subsequent penetration of a little 9 year old girl on the basis that their marriage was "political'. What this actually means my opponent has not elaborated on.
No, that is not the only justification. I explained more in the following.
Can you imagine using this so called defense in court? A man gets arrested for bedding a 9 year old, and his defense is, "Oh but judge! our marriage is merely political!"
The western courts is not the rest of the world. Why should the person care what courts think? Shouldn't they care what God thinks?
Does this slogan offer ANY relief to the shocking crime of what Mohammed did? I don't care if their marriage was political, juridical, rhetorical, or metaphorical. The founder of Islam performed intercourse on a 9 year old.
Yes. And I accepted that Islam does allow child marriage.
Secondly, My opponent is trying to portray a cold, shallow, "political" marriage that bore little resemblance to a passionately romantic marriage between two lovers. The Hadith contradicts this claim.
The marriage was done for the purpose of family politics. That was the main goal for all his marriages.
I want you to notice that Mohammed loved and preferred Aisha so much he would not so much as open a gift unless in her presence. And what do you know, the prophet would not even receive revelation from Allah unless he was on her bed!
Not all Muslims take such Hadith's. Which is why I gave the explanation of Shia and Sunni hadith. Shias don't take most of those hadith because they come from unreliable people (i.e Aisha). They believe she boasted of such things to undermine the holiest woman in Islam, Fatima the daughter of Muhammad. She was also jealous of Khadija, Muhammads first wife, and Hadith confirms this as well. So I don't interpret this narration as being true based on my school.
Using my opponent's definition of pedophile, we can clearly see a man here who strongly preferred his 9 year old bride to his other wives. At least after Kadijah died. So, by my opponent's standard, Mohammed fits the bill.
I already explained why such a hadith exists.
I would not recommend casting doubt on the collection of Hadith all of Sunni Islam has declared as the most reliable. If you do so you are at risk of undercutting your entire Deen and becoming Kafir. Much of the Shia hadith have not even been translated to English, as they are far less open about their source materials than Sunnis. That being said, a man well into his late 40's with a 16 year old is still, pedophilia. Regardless, even if you could prove she was 16 (you cant the hadith are clear) Mohammed himself allowed marriage to pre-pubescent girls in Quran 65:4. We can touch on that later.
No Shias are not Kaffir. Since you are such a fan of hadith there is a hadith which the prophet says: "whoever calls one a kaffir is a kaffir". Yes Islam allows child marriage. So no need for hadith.
"These laws repress children's basic desires..."I have no response to this statement. Christ have mercy.
Consent laws in the west repress children who are biologically sexually mature. In the west, children have to wait around 5-7 years to have sex. You dont' have an argument against that, of course. Islam understands that it is natural and allows it. Which ideology is more repressive to basic desires?
My brother in Abraham, she was NINE! How can a NINE year old consent to marriage? She doesn't even understand basic biology let alone what was about to happen to her. I want you to think long and hard about what Mohammed did to Aiash, and what my opponent is saying in his defense. Aisha was a mature 9? Children's basic desires?
9 year olds don't need to consent. Do children in America consent to getting vaccinated? No. Their parents do it for them. She understood perfectly well what was going to happen as did most girls of the time. Child marriage was prevalent in all societies long time ago. And they are normal now as well. You're just not aware of it. I don't see arguments here. Just assertions. Not why this is wrong. Just "she was 9 so its wrong". We are having a debate. I have already given arguments for it. I don't see the same from your side.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Again, a massive thank you to my opponent and to you the judges for taking the time to read this debate and consider each side's case carefully. Since this is my last round and chance to speak, I will now simply formulate my closing case, as well as a recap of what we have discussed so far.
My opponent, as you have seen in his replies, has not even tried to dispute the fact that Mohammed,( the man he claims is morally superior and more "well rounded" than Jesus Christ)...had sex with a 9 year old little girl. Yes, he made some brief references to the Shia's rejection of the Sunnah which I have quoted, yes, he pontificated that she may have been around 14-16, but at the end of the day, my opponent has openly, and shamelessly defended child marriage, Mohammed's penetration of a 9 year old, and pedophilia more broadly.
For the West, he has stated, simply "represses" the so called "desires" of children. Child marriage, he insists, is the norm, and common throughout the world. It is I, dear reader, who is living in a bubble, he would have you believe.
It is I, who simply said "It's wrong because she's nine" without providing a reason why a grown man having sex with a little girl is wrong.
Let that sink in.
Because my opponent couldn't defend his prophet, my opponent wholeheartedly embraced pedophilia, and shifted the burden of proof on me to explain why it is wrong.
The debate was not about whether pedophilia is wrong. We already assumed a moral framework. So, what DID we learn in this debate?
We have learned, that based on his own holy book, Jesus Christ lived a pure, miraculous life, one of service to His fellow man. One of miracles, one of healing, one of hope.
We have learned, dear judges, that Mohammed married a child at age six. Three year later, that same man, whom Muslims call the seal of the prophets, the example for all mankind, the Rasul Allah, took her into his chambers and took that 9 year old's virginity. I would like to ask one final question to my opponent. Do you really believe, are you really going to stand here and claim, that the delicate, tiny frame, of an innocent 9 year old little girl, could physically sustain what Mohammed did to her? The horrific injury she must have sustained at such a tender age would be enough to turn the stomach of any man or woman with a conscience.
Your daughters, your nieces, your sisters, they are fair game according to my opponent and his prophet.
Now, in closing, I would like to turn your attention to the hot sands of Arabia. We see someone, a figure. A small shape.
It is a little girl. Sweet, adorable Aisha. Wrapped in her little Hijab, playing with her dolls.
But suddenly, we see a Man in the distance, He approaches her. He stoops down to her, and with a smile says, "My daughter, you are free.." Alas, it is not Mohammed, you see friends, we have found ourselves in the good timeline. It is Jesus Christ. The one who healed the sick, and gave life back to a little twelve year old girl.
And that is the difference between the two.
Again, this is my closing argument, so I would like to say thank you one more time to my opponent for a very engaging and rewarding debate.
Thank you all!
Con
#6
Again, a massive thank you to my opponent and to you the judges for taking the time to read this debate and consider each side's case carefully. Since this is my last round and chance to speak, I will now simply formulate my closing case, as well as a recap of what we have discussed so far.
Thank you as well, for being respectful. Debates should be seen as a way of learning new things and revising your beliefs. Which is why I discuss with people that come with genuine intentions of learning and not solely here to win.
My opponent, as you have seen in his replies, has not even tried to dispute the fact that Mohammed,( the man he claims is morally superior and more "well rounded" than Jesus Christ)...had sex with a 9 year old little girl. Yes, he made some brief references to the Shia's rejection of the Sunnah which I have quoted, yes, he pontificated that she may have been around 14-16, but at the end of the day, my opponent has openly, and shamelessly defended child marriage, Mohammed's penetration of a 9 year old, and pedophilia more broadly.
Right.
For the West, he has stated, simply "represses" the so called "desires" of children. Child marriage, he insists, is the norm, and common throughout the world. It is I, dear reader, who is living in a bubble, he would have you believe.
Children, both girls and boys can marry at young ages in Islam. Yes it is the normal. Normal as a statistical term. India, parts of Africa, and Middle East still practice child marriage. Even some parts of western countries. So it is normal by definition.
It is I, who simply said "It's wrong because she's nine" without providing a reason why a grown man having sex with a little girl is wrong.
Yes. After puberty, children are no longer children. They are adults
Let that sink in.
Yes, I'm sure it has now. Let's move on from the shocker effect because that would mean we are arguing emotionally.
Because my opponent couldn't defend his prophet, my opponent wholeheartedly embraced pedophilia, and shifted the burden of proof on me to explain why it is wrong.
No, I explained why it is ok. And I gave reasons why. Now it's up to you to explain why it's not ok to have sex with what you consider a "child" (although they are not biologically). PRO only said she is 9 and imagine them having sex. Which is weird. But its not a logical argument why its wrong. If PRO gave such arguments like it's wrong because it could hurt her or X, Y, Z. At least then PRO's argument would hold more ground.
The debate was not about whether pedophilia is wrong. We already assumed a moral framework. So, what DID we learn in this debate?
No, the debate was about Jesus being morally superior. You said, "We will assume that morality exists and one can act either morally or immorally. " And that's all you said. PRO didn't explain how child marriage is immoral. PRO asserted it.
We have learned, that based on his own holy book, Jesus Christ lived a pure, miraculous life, one of service to His fellow man. One of miracles, one of healing, one of hope.
Yes. Muhammad also performed miracles. He did heal peoples hearts and gave them hope. Otherwise, his religion would not have gained many followers.
We have learned, dear judges, that Mohammed married a child at age six. Three year later, that same man, whom Muslims call the seal of the prophets, the example for all mankind, the Rasul Allah, took her into his chambers and took that 9 year old's virginity. I would like to ask one final question to my opponent. Do you really believe, are you really going to stand here and claim, that the delicate, tiny frame, of an innocent 9 year old little girl, could physically sustain what Mohammed did to her? The horrific injury she must have sustained at such a tender age would be enough to turn the stomach of any man or woman with a conscience.
Well if you think just about sex, then of course its weird. But that's just an emotional argument. I will explain why its a good decision. The marriage was consensual. Her parents decided to marry her because children can't consent (PRO agrees with this). Parents are supposed to act in the best interest of their children (morality PRO agrees with). Her parents could not know they made a bad decision (if the marriage hurt her) post-hoc (occurring or done after the event). Why was it a good decision to marry her to Muhammad? I'll explain
Many parents would consent to marrying off their children if the benefits outweigh the cons. What are the benefits? It's similar to marrying an important person (like the president, an important tribesmen, etc). Not all parents would agree with marrying their children off to those people, but some would (hence why its normal statistically). Marrying children to people like the president does more good. Why? The girl/boy who is getting married won't have to work, worry about their children, food, education (if they don't want to). Parents would argue it's a good decision because their children are set for life. They won't know if they made a bad decision until it results in bad consequences (like harm to the child). Which PRO did not argue. Aisha could have opposed the marriage but she did not. She was fine with her parents decision (backed by hadith).Neither did Aisha ever reject to the marriage later (post-hoc).
Thank you for the debate. Good luck!
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Fantastic debate from both sides.
Despite my opinion, I am going to be completely non-biased in this vote.
The title and description of the debate hovered over the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was morally superior to the Prophet Muhammed.
Pro uses the Qur'an, Hadiths, and Tafsir as all of his sources, so it is safe to assume that we are dealing with the Jesus described in the Qur'an, and not the Biblical description of him.
Our opponents argued with 3 main points:
Was Jesus morally superior in his actions than Muhammed was?
Was Muhammed by definition a pedophile?
The Credibility of the Hadiths.
1. Who provided the more convincing argument? Tie
The argument kind of went into a different direction, and if this was a debate about Muhammed being a pedophile, I would give the vote to Con, because Pro made a mistake in not defining what morally superior means to the argument. Assuming that we are talking about the Qur'ans definition of Muhammed, and the Qur'ans definition of Jesus, it is safe to assume that we should be basing moral superiority's definition off the Qur'an. Con takes the point because according to the Qur'an, it is not immoral to have sexual relations with minors, which refutes Pro's main critique of Muhammed by definition. Whether or not it is actually immoral to have sexual relations with children is beside the point in this debate, because Pro is going based off of the Qur'ans definitions of things. Now Pro doesn't say directly that he is going based off of the moral definitions of the Qur'an, but however he does not provide one at all. So Con is forced to use the language "according to the Qur'an" to make up for this.
However, this is not what the debate was about. The debate was about whether Jesus of Nazareth was morally superior to the Prophet Muhammed. Pro claims that because Jesus didn't have sex with kids, and treated them a different way, then that makes him morally superior. This again doesn't hold much ground since the definition of morally superior when it comes to having sex with kids is permissible according to the Qur'an, so this argument falls short. However Pro also claimed that Jesus was morally superior, because Jesus didn't die, and went up to heaven with Allah, but Muhammed died as a man, and it is not said whether or not Muhammed went to heaven. This by itself is not a lot to go off on, because the Qur'an (according to the debate) doesn't explicitly state if Muhammed went to heaven or not. That would be the deciding factor, but unfortunately there is little to go off of.
Because of this, I am going to have to put this criterion, as a tie.
2. Which participant provided more reliable sources? Pro
I think it is safe to say that Pro wins this critique because he provided more sources from the Hadiths and the Qur'an than Con did. Con mostly just refuted, the Hadiths, and brought up a couple definitions of words. Overall, though, Pro wins this criterion.
3. Which participant's arguments had significantly better legibility? Tie
I think both participants arguments were equally legible. I had no hard time understanding either argument.
4. Which participant had significantly better conduct? Tie
Again, both parties were very respectful and kind to one another, and I would have to put this criterion as a tie as well.
Hopefully you both agree this vote was unbiased and fair.
Thank you both for being involved in a great debate.
> "Quran came from Allah's ass. Allah is a pig. Quran came from pig's ass. Those who read Quran read from pig's ass."
Wait, isn't Allah yo momma's name?
/joke
I'm cleaning up the reports backlog. I hate to agree with Best.Korea on anything, but insults against public figures are allowed.
That said, I'm really surprised no one turned his insults around into a Yo Momma joke. At least LogicalDebater turned a bit of it around into a Grammar Nazi joke.
Bumpitty bump
Bump for votes
I have just surfed the Quran and searched for a surah that supports the idea of not speaking ill of Allah.. and I couldn't actually find any. I suppose that you may be allowed to speak such words of Allah.
Actually, I was already told that endless insults may be used against Allah and prophet Muhammad.
Now, I dont have endless insults, but I can give a few.
You were doing a great job at merely insulting Allah and the prophet Muhammad.. I just also hope that nothing gets blown away here.. if you know what I mean.. you have to watch out for your account now.. he "@" the mods. They're probably gonna.. blow the Islamic talk out. I mean.. out of here.
I was merely insulting Allah and the prophet Muhammad. Since they are not members of this site, endless insults may be used against them.
Bist du facist?
You're behaving like a fascist whenever someone throws yahtzee turd crap at the furher.
"Quran came from Allah's ass. Allah is a pig. Quran came from pig's ass. Those who read Quran read from pig's ass."
There's a bit of logical inconsistency here that I should point out..
"Quran came from Allah's ass" and "Allah is a pig" and "Quran came from pig's ass"
For here, Since Allah is a pig.. therefore, Quran came from a pig's ass" not "Quran came from pig's ass"... due to "Allah is a pig" as written..
and to provide additional explanation:
"Allah is pig" does not equal "Allah is a pig"
I have reported every one of your filthy troll comments. If you're not here to offer intelligent contributions and just want to act like a dog than get the hell off my thread. I'm not even Muslim and you're starting to piss me off. @mods somebody get this guy out of here.
Understand that your war of words do not have any significant value in this world.. for your war has no meaning except the act of wasting time not for your own improvement.. but for your own enjoyment.
Quran came from Allah's ass. Allah is a pig. Quran came from pig's ass. Those who read Quran read from pig's ass.
"So he lied to make things better. That means he didnt lie. Understood." Yes according to you He is a liar so I believe a liar.
I enjoy how triggered you are by other people who are confident in their beliefs. I'll leave it at that.
Everything and nothing is a part of logic.. preaching is also logical.. if that is what you think is going on here.
So he lied to make things better. That means he didnt lie. Understood.
Can you imagine how a fight between Aisha and Muhammad looked like?
Aisha: "I married a pig."
Muhammad: "So what, I worship a pig."
"Allah can't lie because there is no point in believing him then."
So there is no point in believing Allah. Allah is a pig. Allah lies a lot.
You call yourself logicalDebater but all I see is preaching lol
"So Allah lied when he said that he likes those who clean themselves. Allah didnt mean that. Allah doesnt like them." - Allah can't lie because there is no point in believing him then. Allah says such things for the betterment of people. Not himself. That's the difference.
Time doesn't wait for you, time wants you to wait for time.
You do not have time, your time is all being taken away.. not for the sake of your will.. but for the sake of others will.
Do not act for the purpose of enjoyment, act for the purpose of improvement.
"metaphors and generalizations are not contradictions."
So Allah lied when he said that he likes those who clean themselves. Allah didnt mean that. Allah doesnt like them.
"Pigs are Najis. They are ritually unclean."
That was a metaphor for Muhammad. It means that prophet Muhammad is an unclean pig.
The "let there be light" cat fight has begun In this comment section.
""It also says he doesn't have emotions. So what can we deduce from here?""
"That Quran contradicts itself?" - metaphors and generalizations are not contradictions.
"Did you know that pigs are protected animals in the Quran? Its banned to eat them. Allah protects his kind."
- Pigs are Najis. They are ritually unclean. It doesn't mean they are dirty. You can sleep with a bed filled with pigs if you like. It's okay in Islam.
"It also says he doesn't have emotions. So what can we deduce from here?"
That Quran contradicts itself?
Did you know that pigs are protected animals in the Quran? Its banned to eat them. Allah protects his kind.
"Fine then, be upset." - I'm not. I enjoy you being upset.
"It says in the quran that he does." - It also says he doesn't have emotions. So what can we deduce from here?
Since your God is a pig, and your God wrote Quran, it follows that pig wrote the Quran.
"why not? People can't be upset?"
Fine then, be upset.
"Allah does not "like""
It says in the quran that he does.
" neither should they be" - why not? People can't be upset? Interesting...
"maybe Allah likes being a pig" - Allah does not "like". I don't think you know how to read properly. Refer to previous comment #26
"No. People will."
Well, if Allah isnt upset, neither should they be. Besides, maybe Allah likes being a pig. Maybe its his fetish.
"my views are open in this debate."
I have no time to read your debate, but muslims tend to support arranged marriages, such as sometimes selling their teenage daughters to old rich men against their will.
No. People will. Because people are irrational. Like yourself.
Great. So Allah wont be upset when I call him a disgusting ugly pig.
No. God does not "feel" according to Islam. He has attributes.
"I'm not an emotional person. So insults have 0 impact on me."
Is Allah an emotional person?
"But I cant help but hate muslims" - that's okay. I'm not an emotional person. So insults have 0 impact on me. But, please continue. I enjoy it.
"They pretend to support child marriages, but the circumcision in islam is real." - my views are open in this debate.
Well, no, it was not "necessary". But I cant help but hate muslims. They pretend to support child marriages, but the circumcision in islam is real.
Was that really necessary?
Please stop acting offended on behalf of Christian and Muslims. No Christian in his right mind would be offended at the idea that Christ led a more moral life than Mohammed. We believe He's God so He led a more moral life than ANYONE, He's perfect. And secondly, I said some less than charitable things about Mohammed in this debate, and my opponent, by all accounts, a devout Mulsim, took it like a champ. If he's not offended, accusing me of blasphemy and carrying on, you shouldn't be either. This is a debate website, we're here to challenge each other's beliefs. Literally the point of the wbesite.
"Do you think critique and blasphemy are the same thing?"
I think that they are the same. Muslims call atheists rude names, so atheists call Allah a pig. Its a reasonable critique of the system.
Mate, you said this is an act of blasphemy. Do you think critique and blasphemy are the same thing?
"but you could say that it's only an interpretation of your own idea of the bible or the quran at least.." - it's the definition of blasphemy. I'm not interpreting here.
"In fact, there are verses against the idea of who is superior to who or who is inferior to who." - No Quran says that believers (not Muslims) are superior to disbelievers.
"which are simply a comparison of superiority, specifically moral superiority in this situation." - right. Quran believes that both Jesus and Muhammad were moral. Bible does not. If the Bible believed everyone was equal it wouldn't send immoral people to hell.
"especially the act of ranking moral superiority between two individuals (which was performed in this debate" - I understand your point. But you are being pedantic. The premise is not the most accurate. But again, Christians interpret that the Bible does not accept Muhamad.
"The debate is directly a blasphemy against both sacred items.. if you have read the topic and description, you might've understood what I had meant by "this whole debate in conclusion considered an offensive act against Christianity and Islam" - Again there is no offense because there is no blasphemy. Muslims themselves criticized Muhammad. Some believe he was infallible (i.e perfect). Some believe he was infallible in only delivering the message and could make mistakes.
"In addition to "offensive act", since the writing itself alone is simply a blasphemy itself, it can be written as an "offensive act" because it is also considered a blasphemy.. which is also what is going on here in general." Muslims have been critiquing Islam and Quran for centuries. Christians as well. They called Muhammad a magician and such. Criticism is allowed in Islam. Not blasphemy.
Mate, this is a poor excuse for an interpretation.
No verse in the bible or the quran supports your interpretation because the interpretation pro or con had made is not an interpretation of the bible neither is it an interpretation of the quran.. but you could say that it's only an interpretation of your own idea of the bible or the quran at least..
In fact, there are verses against the idea of who is superior to who or who is inferior to who.. which are simply a comparison of superiority, specifically moral superiority in this situation.
Perhaps these are the verses that supports the idea of not having moral superiority especially the idea of not having superiority:
1. For the bible:
Philippians 2:3 (New Testament): "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves."
Matthew 23:11-12 (New Testament): "The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."
Galatians 3:28 (New Testament): "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
2. For the quran:
Surah 49:11 (Quran): "O you who have believed, let not a people ridicule [another] people; perhaps they may be better than them; nor let women ridicule [other] women; perhaps they may be better than them."
Surah 4:36 (Quran): "Worship Allah and associate nothing with Him, and to parents do good, and to relatives, orphans, the needy, the near neighbor, the neighbor farther away, the companion at your side, the traveler, and those whom your right hands possess. Indeed, Allah does not like those who are self-deluding and boastful."
Especially
Surah 49:13 "O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted."
The whole purpose of listing those verses is to allow you to recognize and to recognize the value of superiority in both the bible and the quran, which is that both sacred items are against the value of superiority and superiority.. especially the act of ranking moral superiority between two individuals (which was performed in this debate)..
The debate is directly a blasphemy against both sacred items.. if you have read the topic and description, you might've understood what I had meant by "this whole debate in conclusion considered an offensive act against Christianity and Islam"..
In addition to this explanation, taking the action and have taken the action of ranking "moral superiority" between "Jesus of Nazareth" and "Muhammed the founder of Islam" (the action alone) itself is an offensive act against both religion, especially an offensive act against the sacred items that they have which also contains information of belief its own.
In simple terms, the action of comparing moral superiority, especially writing things alone as such as "Jesus was morally superior to Mohammed" is simply a blasphemy itself when the Islamic and Christian sacred items are included in this debate.
In addition to "offensive act", since the writing itself alone is simply a blasphemy itself, it can be written as an "offensive act" because it is also considered a blasphemy.. which is also what is going on here in general.
I was unaware that you pinged me. So I feel obliged to reply. Let me clarify further so you understand where we are coming from.
1. "I think that this whole debate is very much an act of blasphemy towards both sacred items of which is the bible and the Quran..." - Blasphemy: the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk. PRO did not blaspheme or insult. He is criticizing Muhammad. Criticism is good. PRO was respectful too.
2. "Nowhere in the bible or the Quran says that Jesus is morally superior to Mohammed." - Yes it doesn't say that in the Bible or Quran. But Christians and Muslims also focus on interpretation not just translation. If the Bible says X is immoral or they interpret it from their scholars, then they will argue it.
3. "his debate in conclusion is considered an offensive act against Christianity and Islam." - There is no offense because there is no blasphemy.
Hope you understand now.
Thanks for the debate.
And just one further clarification for the voters. When i said, " If PRO gave such arguments like it's wrong because it could hurt her or X, Y, Z. At least then PRO's argument would hold more ground."
I meant: when PRO argued that child marriage is wrong because it hurts. He asserted it without backing it up. Evidence shows such a marriage did not have that effect. Thanks
Pointing out something irrelevant of what I am doing as "you are negatively influencing the tide of the debate" seems highly irrational and judged from ambivalence and equivocation.
I am simply pointing out something relevant about what's happening in this comment section dealing with you and me.
My friend, I am politely going to ask you to stop posting your assessment of this debate and me and contender here. This is not appropriate protocol. Save your opinion for judge time. You are negatively influencing the tide of the debate.
For Morphinekid77, who took the message I wrote for him within one of my comments on this debate offensively(comment #11):
I am a user just like you on this website, I reason as much as I should reason.
This should answer all of your question in #10 :
Read clearly.
" think that this whole debate is very much an act of blasphemy towards both sacred items of which is the bible and the quran..."
I never blasphemed Jesus. If you're claiming I did, show me or get off my thread. As for Mohammed, I was stating facts about his life that Sunni Muslims readily acknowledge.
"I believe that neither of you are qualified professionals to even create such conclusions based on religious materials that are also incorrectly informed."
And you are? Random stranger on the internet?
"(This is for PRO)-- >Maybe for your first debate, you shouldn't have yapped so much without being a bit more humble about having those conclusions made which are greatly irrelevant to the point you're trying to reach.. instead the conclusion that you made is more against you than it is to be with you as one.."
You are GREATLY violating debate art ettiquet by posting this hear. Save your opinions for JUDGE time. Which, by the way, you just lost that privilege because I am blocking you for your inexcusable behavior here in the comments.
And no, nobody in this debate was offended. If my opponent and I are able to get along and have a debate, which is what this site is for, then who are you to tell us otherwise?
"I think that this whole debate is very much an act of blasphemy towards both sacred items of which is the bible and the quran.."
Yes, what's the problem. It's a debate of opposing sides.
"Nowhere in the bible or the quran says that Jesus is morally superior to Mohammed." Yes. But Christians don't accept Muhammad as a prophet so this is one of the points they dispute
"I believe that neither of you are qualified professionals to even create such conclusions based on religious materials that are also incorrectly informed."
What does qualified professional mean? How do you know we are not qualified?
"Maybe for your first debate, you shouldn't have yapped so much without being a bit more humble about having those conclusions made which are greatly irrelevant to the point you're trying to reach.. instead the conclusion that you made is more against you than it is to be with you as one..:"
The topic is Islam vs. Christanity, the assumption is that God exists. How is discussing two people Muhammad and Jesus is irrelevant to that discussion?
Obviosuly if you are an atheist all religion is nonsense to you. So I don't understand why your contention. Would you agree Morphinekid77?
I think that this whole debate is very much an act of blasphemy towards both sacred items of which is the bible and the quran...
Nowhere in the bible or the quran says that Jesus is morally superior to mohammed, in fact both sacred items may be against superiority between humans.
I believe that neither of you are qualified professionals to even create such conclusions based on religious materials that are also incorrectly informed.
(This is for PRO)-- >Maybe for your first debate, you shouldn't have yapped so much without being a bit more humble about having those conclusions made which are greatly irrelevant to the point you're trying to reach.. instead the conclusion that you made is more against you than it is to be with you as one..
This debate in conclusion is considered an offensive act against Christianity and Islam.