Muhammad (PBUH) is dead

Airmano: As you can see, truly great men don't go just out and rob, even if they are treated unjustly. So why did your prophet not behave this way ? Ahmad: Again your analogy is all messed up. While Abdus Salam had to leave due to few fanatics against an individual or in some isolated cases and is in contrast to en mass killing and then forcefully eviction of Muslims by the Quresh as a threat of genocide.

This is not how I understood it. Could you show me some proof/sources that show that:

...en mass killing and then forcefully eviction of Muslims by the Quresh [from Mecca] as a threat of genocide

really happened ?


Airmano

Edited by airmano - 07 February 2016 at 2:05am

Ahmad: Only 'high moral ground' enabled the Muslims to take head on with the superpower

You keep on repeating the term "Superpower" when talking of a certainly rich but nevertheless unimportant town on a global level of the time. Is it to make your prophet appear more "heroic" than he really was ?
As a reminder: True superpowers of the time were: China, Byzantium, Persia and the rising empire of the Franks - but certainly not Mecca.

Airmano

Edited by airmano - 06 February 2016 at 2:41am

AhmadJoyia wrote: I don't think Karen specifically state this particular notion in her book. Kindly provide the specific page number from where you deduce this notion of robbing against one's own tribe is only considered illegal?

"illegal" was your word, not mine. Armstrong described it as "a serious breach in precedent". I gave you the longer quote from her book, Islam: A Short History (pages 18 - 19) several weeks ago.

Don't you think Ghazu of those times were anything but Chaos and lawlessness? Secondly, the robbers making Ghazu usually din't live in settled towns/cities but lived a nomadic life with no firm traces of their home addresses. This was stark in contrast to the Muslims living in a very well known place to be targeted, if considered illegal by the surrounding communities. My understanding (again, from Karen Armstrong) is that ghazu was normally an intertribal activity, not the work of a band of outlaws. This is not a very distinguishing feature. What if the band of outlaws does that, would it make more or less legal? What was distinguishing there was to take headon with the superpower merely on the basis of high moral grounds, which is definitely missing with the usual robbers. That is the reason, they usually residing in hideouts as contrast to the Muslims who were living in settled place.

The point is that as members of a rival tribe, the robbers would typically be living with their tribe. Nomadic or not, they would be easy enough to find. As for "high moral ground", you have yet to make that case.

The Constitution of Medina doesn't even mention war. The only thing it says about the Quraysh (other than Muhammad's own followers), is that no one is to offer them refuge or protection. It may imply that the Muslims have declared war against the Quraysh, but it says nothing about the Quraysh declaring war on the Muslims. Good that you have acknowledged this fact. Hence it is proved that all actions by the Prophet, which karen called as 'Ghazu' were only targeted against their declared enemy, immaterial whatever Quraysh thinks.

I'm not sure what fact you're referring to, but nothing proves that his actions were only or even primarily motivated by revenge against the Quraysh.    I think Armstrong's explanation remains the best one (see the longer quote I linked to earlier): "Muhammad and the emigrants from Mecca had no means of earning a living in Medina; ... so the emigrants resorted to the ghazu, the 'raid'."

I'm not even sure that the Quraysh recognized Muhammad as a legitimate authority against whom war could be declared (which is why I asked about this). My impression is that once the Meccans kicked him out, they were done with him. It was Muhammad who eventually forced them to respond to his numerous ghazu raids. Even better. Good, now we have an agreement, here.

An agreement that the Quraysh probably did not declare war? An agreement that they would have been happy to leave Muhammad alone, if only he had been willing to do the same?

AhmadJoyia wrote: Yes, we agree that the Quraysh were their main enemy. As far as I know, the term "ghazu" was not coined by Karen Armstrong, and it applied to robbery, not war. Of course Karen didn't coin it but she only tried to linked their battles' tactics as 'ghazu'. As for war booty, it was only considered "legal" to rob another tribe, not your own. Any proof of this understanding?

To both of these points I can only say that I am relying on Karen Armstrong, who was your preferred source. If you are now questioning her use of the word "ghazu" or claiming that she didn't properly understand its conventions, then it almost seems that you are arguing against yourself. Personally I find her to be pretty reliable, on the whole. I assumed you did, too.

Don't you think Ghazu of those times were anything but Chaos and lawlessness? Secondly, the robbers making Ghazu usually din't live in settled towns/cities but lived a nomadic life with no firm traces of their home addresses. This was stark in contrast to the Muslims living in a very well known place to be targeted, if considered illegal by the surrounding communities.

My understanding (again, from Karen Armstrong) is that ghazu was normally an intertribal activity, not the work of a band of outlaws. I'm not sure why it matters though. Highway robbery is highway robbery, regardless of the robber's place of residence.

It may well be that the Quraysh kicked him out. What I'm asking is whether and when they declared war, and against whom? War against another tribe is an entirely different thing from banishment of an individual. The constitution of Medina, if you happen to read it, shall set you free from all these queries, where the Quraysh were declared a common enemy.

The Constitution of Medina doesn't even mention war. The only thing it says about the Quraysh (other than Muhammad's own followers), is that no one is to offer them refuge or protection. It may imply that the Muslims have declared war against the Quraysh, but it says nothing about the Quraysh declaring war on the Muslims.

I'm not even sure that the Quraysh recognized Muhammad as a legitimate authority against whom war could be declared (which is why I asked about this). My impression is that once the Meccans kicked him out, they were done with him. It was Muhammad who eventually forced them to respond to his numerous ghazu raids.