Muhammad (PBUH) is dead

AhmadJoyia wrote: True, but since I don�t own exclusive rights for her, therefore, if you or anyone else brings her testimony in another issue on the forum, should she always be known as my expert?

Agreed. She is neither "your expert" nor mine.

But y/our expert�s verdict is very clear. I don�t want you to change it through any such �philosophical� discussion.

In at least three places that I have seen (the two books we have discussed, plus a transcript of an interview I came across online), Armstrong states that Muhammad raided the caravans in order to have a source of income. In only one place that you have found, she says that that was not his primary motivation -- and that was in reaction to his initial failure to achieve it. So at best I would say Armstrong's verdict is ambiguous.

That was very well taken care of by binding each and every migrant to every Helper of Medina. So, the sustenance, as Karen concluded, was not their primary objective. In fact the history also supports to show that even though the raids were planned after migration, none succeeded for about an year or so.

Yes, they had to rely on the charity of their hosts for a year or so (a surprisingly long time IMHO), but they couldn't do so indefinitely. I don't think their hosts would describe their sustenance as "well taken care of".

Not only this, even when their fourth raid was successful against the caravan of the Banu Damrah, the Muslims preferred peace over the booty. This example clearly shows the strategy adopted by the Muslims to Isolate the Meccans was their top priority.

The fourth raid was against a Quraysh caravan, and it was unsuccessful. There are a number of Web sites that mention a raid on a Banu Damra caravan, but when I check their sources (assuming they provide them) I find no mention of such a caravan. I only find references to a treaty or an alliance with the Banu Damra (or Damrah). And think about it for a second: just how likely is it that Muhammad would set out to raid a Quraysh caravan, and instead stumble upon a different caravan? Were there really that many caravans swarming around the Arabian peninsula?

In fact, this whole "Banu Damrah" thing raises skeptical red flags for me. According to my research (sources here and here), the Arabic word "damra" refers to a semipermanent settlement for nomadic tribes to keep their elderly, infirm and others who cannot travel. Obviously I'm no expert, but it sounds like that would make "Banu Damra" not a separate tribe, but rather a sort of nursing/old folks' home for nomadic tribe(s).

On the other hand, Muhammad did attack something other than a Quraysh caravan at Waddan. We have an authentic hadith (Bukhari Vol. 4, Book 52, # 256) in which Muhammad gives permission to attack a pagan encampment at night, with the risk of injuring noncombatants. Which raises the disturbing question: did Muhammad attack an old folks' home?

Can you be specific? No guess work anymore, please. BTW, it is Quran that you are questioning and yet your sole reference is Quran? Very surprising argument, indeed!!!You should be telling us any pagan / preIslamic law that prevailed in the area which was broken by the Muslims and not on the basis of Quran, which of course you don�t admit it.

I'm not interested in pagan/preIslamic law. I'm interested in the law according to Islam, of which Muhammad is supposed to be an "excellent example". I know that the Quran prohibits theft (and imposes hideous penalties for it, but that's another topic). Does this prohibition only apply to stealing from believers?

Since there was not �Republic� at those times, therefore there was no �Public� per se; what to talk of �open to public� or �for public use�. I think you are still grappling with anachronous complexity of the situation. I only wonder, when would you overcome such pitfalls in your analysis?

What the heck does "republic" have to do with it? Do theocracies and dictatorships not have roads for public use, or markets that are open to the public?

Who says they did it? Any reference to support your hypothesis?

If we can't agree that the Musims took trade goods from the Quraysh caravans by force, then I see no point in continuing. You can use whatever euphemism you want, but the dictionary calls that robbery.

No, but if you can �name� the driver of the caravan, the history would tell us if he was innocent or not.

In the absence of which, he is assumed to be guilty?

Of course Yes. The enemy fighters are very legitimate targets for each other in the times of hostilities. What else do you expect from them?

They are only legitimate targets when they are fighting -- not when they are driving caravans for private commercial purposes. If Canada and Pakistan were at war, and you and I were to meet in a third country somewhere, would it be okay for you to rob me?

Which Cartoons did Muslim drew about pagan gods? Which �slanders� are you referring that Muslims uttered against them except asking them some logical questions?

Cartoons would at least have the "I was only joking" defense to fall back on. Muhammad's attacks on other religions, "in the strongest terms" according to Armstrong, were no laughing matter.

Suppose I started preaching in a Muslim country, telling everyone that Muslim hearts are diseased and Muslims are liars (2:10), unclean ), losers (), that people should fight them until they are are humbled (9:29), that no one should have any love for them (58:22), and a thousand similar insults. Suppose the authorities warned me that I was offending and provoking Muslims and I should keep my opinions to myself, but I refused and kept on with my public tirades. What do you think would happen? What do you think should happen?

Thanks bro for bringing up this quote, as this narration clearly supports my position about the pagan Meccans were less worried about their faith and more about the possible loss of their wealth through loss of FDI (foreign direct investment)/business ventures from other tribes that they hated Muslims. It was like they had sold their faith for a petty price and hence lost all moral values with this quest for money.

I don't think you understood the quote, which may have been my fault in not providing enough context. The impact on the economy was secondary to the impact on the "Haram", the zone around that Kaaba where violence and confrontation were traditionally prohibited. It was this tradition that enabled trade, yes; but more importantly, it kept the peace. Armstrong describes Muhammad as "attacking the effigies that surrounded the Kabah"; and while I don't think she meant physical attacks, apparently the level of animosity Muhammad was causing threatened to render the Haram worthless.

Mecca seems to have been a remarkably tolerant community in which many different faiths managed to live and do business together with mutual respect. Islam should have been just one more faith to add to the mix. Why wasn't it?

Again you are wrong in your selection of reference on two counts. 1. This reference verse is from Medinite Sura and we are talking about the Meccan period. 2. This specific verse is addressing �People of book� i.e the Jews/Christians and not the Pagan Meccans. Just read a verse prior to it which reads 005.059 YUSUFALI: Say: "O people of the Book! Do ye disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in Allah, and the revelation that hath come to us and that which came before (us), and (perhaps) that most of you are rebellious and disobedient?"

The point I am making is not specific to the Meccan period, nor to the pagans alone. My point is that the message of Islam, throughout the Quran, is one of intolerance toward unbelievers. We have no primary sources to tell us precisely what Muhammad was preaching, or to whom, but we can see in the Quran the sort of attacks against other faiths that he was capable of; and whatever it was, we know that it managed to incur the wrath of a society that had a strong tradition of religious tolerance.

Your logic is flawed at least on 3 grounds. 1. Your example from present day countries (in this case Pakistan or whatever you name it) is not relevant to the tribal times that we are looking into. Recall, what I have been reminding you about �anachronous� confusion of yours. 2. You have wrongly assumed the �robbery� happened, as a fact, whereas it is the very reason of our discussion in my objection to it. 3. Haven�t the sanctions against Iran applied to all of her business owners, irrespective who did or didn�t do anything?

1. The example we are discussing is Muhammad. If you are telling me that his example is relevant only to the tribal times and not to present day, then I would agree with you -- but I don't think you want to say that.
2. Muhammad was taking things by force that belonged to other people. I call that "robbery", but I'm not going to argue semantics. Use whatever word you like. Does Islam teach that it is okay to take things by force that belong to other people?
3. I don't know much about it, but I believe that most of the sanctions are against assets owned by the Iranian government and government-related institutions such as oil companies and banks. If the sanctions affect private individuals, then I would agree that they go too far.

AhmadJoyia wrote: No that is not her final conclusion about the issue. What you are referring is her critical review in which, of course she must discuss the issue from all aspects. However, what I quoted from her is a kind of Conclusive remark about the issue after considering and reviewing all said and done. So, if you now want to throw away the testimony of your expert�s opinion, that is up to you, but her verdict is very categorical and you just can�t change it.

Reminding you again that Karen Armstrong was first cited by you, not me. She is not "my expert".

As for your quote, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I suppose if we had the time and the inclination we could digress into a deeply philosophical discussion of what we mean by "truth" in this context. Is a man's purported motivation true simply because someone -- whether himself or someone else -- says it is true? Or is there an objective truth that can be determined empirically?

If someone (particularly his companions, after numerous unsuccessful raids) were to ask Muhammad, I wouldn't be surprised if he claimed that something as mundane as wealth was not the primary objective. He would no doubt prefer to portray his actions as being based on some "high moral ground". On the other hand, any objective assessment of Muhammad's situation would have to acknowledge that his first and foremost concern would have necessarily been to find a way to keep himself and his companions from starving to death. Armstrong makes that clear in several places in her writing, notwithstanding this one passage you cite; and any other objectives would logically be dependent upon and therefore subordinate to that.

What laws might have been broken that you think these raids were illegitimate?

In the Bible, "Thou shalt not steal" is one the Ten Commandments. I assume there is something similar in the Quran, but you would know better than me.

The caravan routes were the nearest thing to highways that existed at the time. "Public" is simply the opposite of "private" -- it doesn't necessarily imply government. So, what else could it be, if not government?

They could be public as in "open to the public" or "for public use".

I don't want to get hung up on semantics, however. The operative word here is "robbery". If you ask Iranians, you would hear them almost the same allegations, but I don�t think they are correct and neither is you, as explained above.

As far as I am aware the Iranian assets are frozen ("embargoed" in the true sense of the word), not stolen.

This �isolation� was the purpose done to the caravans for reaching their tribes. But since the Quraysh didn�t want to settle their differences with Muslims through peaceful negotiations, it was all the more legitimate for them to disburse the goods as per their customary laws.

"Settle their differences"? "Disburse the goods"? Truly, you have a gift for euphemisms!

As I asked earlier, do you think it is okay to rob anyone who can't provide solid evidence of innocence? No, it�s not okay, but how do you assume it was Okay to the then Muslims?

Well, since they did it, I think it's fair to assume they were okay with it.

Can you give me an example of an atrocity committed by a caravan driver? Only if you can show that such a driver (if you have such a name) was not from Mecca or its allied tribe?

So being from Mecca is an atrocity?

Secondly, all tribal adults (barring old or disabled) of those times used to be the fighters of the tribe, whenever the tribe needed them.

Which is why they should not be held accountable merely for having (maybe) been Quraysh fighters.

Oh! Really? But probably the cartoonists don�t know it! Do they?

Another tu quoque fallacy. I'm not sure which cartoonists you are referring to (Jyllands-Posten? Charlie Hebdo?), but quite possibly some of their cartoons ought not to have been published. That certainly doesn't justify murdering the cartoonists. Perhaps more to the point, if you agree that slanderous cartoons are wrong, shouldn't you also agree that similar slanders of unbelievers in the Quran and by Muhammad were also wrong?

Please provide proof of your assertion that it was a matter of hate speech that justifies the Meccans to do what they did.

From Muhammad: A Prophet For Our Time: "...in attacking the effigies that surrounded the Kabah, Muhammad implied that the Haram, on which the Meccan economy depended, was worthless. The Bedouin tribes did not make the hajj to visit the house of Allah but to pay their respects to their own tribal gods, whose cult was now condemned by the Qu'ran in the strongest terms. The Quraysh often invoked the 'exalted gharaniq' as they circumambulated the Kabah; now this practice was dismissed as deluded and self-indulgent. Ta'if where Al-Lat had her shrine, provided Mecca with its food; many of the Quraysh had summer homes in this fertile oasis. How could Ta'if remain on friendly terms with them if they condoned the insult to their goddess?"

Secondly, kindly show which verse of Quran you think comes under this definition of hate speech of yours.

I've already alluded to several of them and I don't want to antagonize the moderators any more than necessary. But since you mentioned cartoons, imagine how Muslims would feel about a cartoon portraying Muhammad as a pig or an ape. Now read the Quran 5:60. Do you get the point?

If your �speech� is breaking the law of the land, what else do you expect? But the question is, were there any such laws that were broken by the Prophet or his followers? What was the crime of the Slave named Bilal when his master simply wanted him to renounce Islam and nothing else (no issue of words of hate etc). But when this slave refused, can you just imagine what happened with him? This was not an isolated case, but was more commonly faced atrocities which forced many of the Muslims to migrate.

Assuming the traditional accounts can be trusted, Bilal was indeed treated very badly; but how does this justify the caravan raids? What you're implying is like saying, "a Pakistani man abused my sister, therefore all Pakistanis are fair game for robbery."

AhmadJoyia wrote: How about just telling me where you got your latest quote from? Page 127, Chapter 4 of which book? Its �Muhammad   Prophet of our Time�.

Thanks! The two paragraphs preceding your quote make the point very strongly that "their aim was ... to secure an income by capturing camels, merchandise, and prisoners, who could be held for ransom." Armstrong also notes that the first few raids were unsuccessful in this objective and implies that the Muslims were becoming discouraged. So the statement that "plunder was not his primary objective" sounds more like "sour grapes" to me. IMHO if you have no means of feeding yourself then your primary objective is self-evident.

You are not getting the point here. Those among the Medinites, who became Muslims took �oath� to obey the Prophet in all thick and thin situations. However, after migration, the Prophet established a harmonious and peace loving society at Medina and invited all, including the non Muslim tribes of neighborhood, to join the cause. Those who came willingly, entered into the bond through the �Constitution�. It was this �constitution� that I am referring you, where Quraysh was clearly shown as the common enemy. Although, the constitution didn�t obligate them (non Muslim tribes) to take offensive against the Quraysh, but they would not take side or become partner of Quraysh against Muslims. Thus bringing stability in the society. Now as far as Muslims were concerned, they earned a legitimate excuse to make raids on the Quryash�s economic interests and lure them into making silly mistakes.

I've already agreed, for the sake of argument at least, that the Quraysh were a common enemy of the Muslims, the Helpers and perhaps others as well. I'm just not sure how that legitimizes the raids.

Ok if you think semantic is an issue, then lets devour the definition that you refer. There are two definitions given by Merri-Web: 1: robbery committed on or near a public highway usually against travelers 2: excessive profit or advantage derived from a business transaction So, if I am correct, the �2� is not relevant and most probably its �1� that you seems to imply, here. This �1� by definition imply that there are some �public� highways used by the travellers and robbed by the robbers thus this action is called �high robbery�. But can you show or name any of such �Public� highways on which Muslims operated on those times? Secondly, the word �Public� implies it is �Owned� or �governed� by a some sort of democratic government (from the collection of all public�s money) and travellers on it are robbed by some of their outlawed citizens. This definition is clearly not suitable to define the geo-political map of those times as there were no such �public� highways nor there were any sort government/tribe who would claim it to be �owned� by them or built with �their money�. Now that since there was no �republic�, nor any �public highway�. Therefore, by your own definition, the actions of the Muslims can�t be termed as �highway robbery�. So, on what moral authority one can assert for such a claim that the actions of Muslims must be seen as equivalent to modern day �highway robbery�?

The caravan routes were the nearest thing to highways that existed at the time. "Public" is simply the opposite of "private" -- it doesn't necessarily imply government. I don't want to get hung up on semantics, however. The operative word here is "robbery".

Raids on Quraysh (declared enemy) caravans was a tactic in the form of economic blockade and nothing more.

Do you see robbery mentioned in the definition of blockade? -- "the isolating, closing off, or surrounding of a place, as a port, harbor, or city, by hostile ships or troops to prevent entrance or exit."

How can you show those were private caravans and not the Meccan caravans owned by some of the decision makers of the city or the tribe? Any one example?

As I asked earlier, do you think it is okay to rob anyone who can't provide solid evidence of innocence?

Is that how Islam works? If I take a dislike to your country and declare it my "enemy", does that legitimize my robbing you on a lonely road in the middle of nowhere? You are confused between the conditions of today with those of the old. Hence your logic is anachronously false.

Does Islam work differently today than it did 1400 years ago?

High moral grounds are not because of being weaker party but bearing the brunt of the atrocities committed the stronger party. Do you want to exonerate Hitler of his actions? I don't think so, until you do have �double standards�!

Can you give me an example of an atrocity committed by a caravan driver?
(I'll ignore the over-the-top reference to Hitler in deference to Godwin's Law.)

In this �thought experiment�, what is your �Null hypothesis�? What are your boundary and initial conditions? What are your dependent and independent variables? In the absence of these defining parameters, I don�t think it is a thought experiment, at all. However, to answer your vague and anachronously poor �thought experiment� as it could be, I would say if you have not broken any of the laws of the country, then you should not be worried about any consequences resulting from your actions. On a very side note, it also appears that you don�t seem to be very happy with the �freedom of speech� laws of your so called �modern� times! Is it so?

Freedom of speech is not absolute. Ancient scriptures such as the Quran and the Bible are generally tolerated as historical documents, and in the context of private worship; but if they did not already exist, and if someone today started spouting the hate rhetoric against unbelievers that I find in those texts, then I would not be surprised if legal sanctions were imposed against the speaker. At the very least, Muhammad should not have been surprised that he was shunned and forced out of the community. I've no doubt the same would happen to me if I lived in a Muslim majority country, and incessantly preached against Islam. Nor would I feel especially aggrieved with that result. Just plain good manners should have told Muhammad to moderate his language.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: I just referred her as a source of my information that could be acceptable to you, but it was you who called her in as an �expert� to put credence your extrapolated opinion. Your guess work is weak; so, yes please go ahead and read her again lest you spell out something more fanciful than before. How about just telling me where you got your latest quote from? Page 127, Chapter 4 of which book?

Its �Muhammad   Prophet of our Time�.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: ]No! Oath of Allegiance was before the arrival of Meccan Muslims in Medina whereas the constitution was framed after their arrival. The Oath of Allegiance says "I will war against them that war against you." It doesn't say "I will war against peaceful travellers on an open highway." I still don't see how it obligates them to participate in unprovoked attacks against Quraysh citizens.

You are not getting the point here. Those among the Medinites, who became Muslims took �oath� to obey the Prophet in all thick and thin situations. However, after migration, the Prophet established a harmonious and peace loving society at Medina and invited all, including the non Muslim tribes of neighborhood, to join the cause. Those who came willingly, entered into the bond through the �Constitution�. It was this �constitution� that I am referring you, where Quraysh was clearly shown as the common enemy. Although, the constitution didn�t obligate them (non Muslim tribes) to take offensive against the Quraysh, but they would not take side or become partner of Quraysh against Muslims. Thus bringing stability in the society. Now as far as Muslims were concerned, they earned a legitimate excuse to make raids on the Quryash�s economic interests and lure them into making silly mistakes.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: Who (Karen or any other scholar) says they didn�t participate? Any evidence to support your yet another hypothesis? I assumed that's what you meant when you said that Muhammad could have sent the helpers (implying that he didn't). Okay, maybe some of them did participate -- but if Muhammad and his Quraysh Muslims were leading the attacks, I don't think that would change the "serious breach in precedent" that Armstrong referred to.

�Serious breach in precedent� was �temerity� against the superpower which is an undeniable fact. All other explanations are, till now, only weak at best.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: Wait a minute before you shift onus of proof. It was you who alleged that Muslims took to high way robbery by attacking the Caravans without any proof. Sorry, I assumed this was already established. Merriam-Webster defines "highway robbery as "robbery committed on or near a public highway usually against travelers." Which part of this definition is in dispute?

Ok if you think semantic is an issue, then lets devour the definition that you refer. There are two definitions given by Merri-Web: 1: robbery committed on or near a public highway usually against travelers
2: excessive profit or advantage derived from a business transaction
So, if I am correct, the �2� is not relevant and most probably its �1� that you seems to imply, here. This �1� by definition imply that there are some �public� highways used by the travellers and robbed by the robbers thus this action is called �high robbery�. But can you show or name any of such �Public� highways on which Muslims operated on those times? Secondly, the word �Public� implies it is �Owned� or �governed� by a some sort of democratic government (from the collection of all public�s money) and travellers on it are robbed by some of their outlawed citizens. This definition is clearly not suitable to define the geo-political map of those times as there were no such �public� highways nor there were any sort government/tribe who would claim it to be �owned� by them or built with �their money�. Now that since there was no �republic�, nor any �public highway�. Therefore, by your own definition, the actions of the Muslims can�t be termed as �highway robbery�. So, on what moral authority one can assert for such a claim that the actions of Muslims must be seen as equivalent to modern day �highway robbery�?

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: Yet, to refute your proofless allegation, I only referred you to the historical data clearly showing that all such raids were against the Qureysh or their allied tribes. I didn't realize you were trying refute the definition. I thought the fact that the raids were limited to Quraysh caravans was supposed to be evidence of some "moral high ground" that justified the robbery, not to disprove it.

Raids on Quraysh (declared enemy) caravans was a tactic in the form of economic blockade and nothing more.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: Now, its� up to you to either accept this fact or provide a counter proof to show your point. Its� so simple. Not just this proof, I also provided you with the historical document (the constitution of Median) which clearly shows that the Meccans were declared the common enemy, thereby legitimizing their actions as a war tactic. I still don't understand why it becomes okay to rob private caravans just because you regard the caravan's tribe as an enemy.

How can you show those were private caravans and not the Meccan caravans owned by some of the decision makers of the city or the tribe? Any one example?

Ron Webb wrote: Is that how Islam works? If I take a dislike to your country and declare it my "enemy", does that legitimize my robbing you on a lonely road in the middle of nowhere?

You are confused between the conditions of today with those of the old. Hence your logic is anachronously false.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: Now here is classical example of what I call it a double standards. Without going into the sematic, if we look at these events of the past more objectively and rationally than through only one eye, we can clearly distinguish who was the weaker/stronger party and who was standing on high/low moral grounds through their demands being just/unjust. In both the cases, the Muslims were the weaker party bearing the atrocities of the stronger Meccans and the only differences between two groups (i.e Muslims and the Meccans) was solely the �Faith�. Counting the expulsion of the weaker party as an extreme measure of cruelty adopted by the stronger Meccans, why should it surprise our brothers in modern age to view the weaker party as �thief� if the weaker party showed some �temerity� to stand up against the �superpower�? This is really amazing and beyond rational imagination!! Is the weaker party automatically right, and the stronger party always wrong?

Again you have missed the key word �atrocities� committed by the stronger party. How can you justify them morally?

Ron Webb wrote: If that is so, then I don't see how any law can be legitimately enforced. Ultimately, the state is (almost) always the stronger party -- God help us if the criminals are stronger!

High moral grounds are not because of being weaker party but bearing the brunt of the atrocities committed the stronger party. Do you want to exonerate Hitler of his actions? I don't think so, until you do have �double standards�!

Ron Webb wrote: Here is a thought experiment that might help. Suppose I went to a modern Muslim country and started preaching my own religion (or maybe atheism). Suppose further that I called Muslims "the worst of creatures", said they were all going to Hell, that they were unclean, liars, made insulting references to them as apes and pigs, etc. That would certainly show some "temerity" against the superpower, eh? How long do you think it would take before I was expelled? Or do you think that perhaps expulsion would be the least of my worries?

In this �thought experiment�, what is your �Null hypothesis�? What are your boundary and initial conditions? What are your dependent and independent variables? In the absence of these defining parameters, I don�t think it is a thought experiment, at all. However, to answer your vague and anachronously poor �thought experiment� as it could be, I would say if you have not broken any of the laws of the country, then you should not be worried about any consequences resulting from your actions. On a very side note, it also appears that you don�t seem to be very happy with the �freedom of speech� laws of your so called �modern� times! Is it so?


Edited by AhmadJoyia - 14 February 2016 at 1:09am