Muhammad (PBUH) is dead

AhmadJoyia wrote: If you had any non-Muslim sources for your claims, it would be interesting to see them. 1). Book by Karen Armstrong. 'Muhammad Prophet For Our Time'; Harper press; ISBN-13: 978-0-00-723245-1. 2). Book by A. Guillaume. 'The life of Muhammad -- A translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah'; Oxford University Press; ISBN: 978-0-19-636033-1.

Thanks for the references, but I'm not sure which claims you think are supported by these sources. For instance, do either of these authors say anything to support your statement (January 7) that "with pagan tribal communities there were no ethical or moral grounds to respect for �human rights�"?

Penalty of violation is not to rob them. If robbing was the only purpose, why other tribes were not attacked?

Here is what Karen Armstrong had to say in her book, Islam: A Short History (pages 18 - 19):

"Muhammad and the emigrants from Mecca had no means of earning a living in Medina; there was not enough land for them to farm, and, in any case, they were merchants and businessmen not agriculturalists. The Medinese, who were known as ansar (the helpers), could not afford to keep them gratis, so the emigrants resorted to the ghazu, the 'raid', which was a sort of national sport in Arabia, as well as being a rough-and-ready means of redistributing resources in a land where there was simply not enough to go round.

Raiding parties would attack a caravan or contingent from a rival tribe and carry off booty and livestock, taking care to avoid killing people since this would mean a vendetta. It was forbidden to conduct a raid against a tribe that had become an ally or 'client' (a weaker tribal group who had sought protection from one of the more powerful tribes). The emigrants, who had been persecuted by the Quraysh and forced to leave their homes, began to conduct ghazu against the rich Meccan caravans, which brought them an income, but to conduct a ghazu against one's own tribe was a serious breach in precedent."

If the above is to be believed, it is clear that the main purpose of the raids was robbery, plain and simple. It is also clear that in conducting such raids against his own tribe, Muhammad was violating not just our own modern standards of morality but also the standards of his own time.

Ron Webb wrote: I'm sure there were various secular and religious authorities, but in any case I was speaking hypothetically. and I am also sure that your �surety� is only speculative than factual. Isn�t it? There were tribes, and tribes generally have leaders. There were religions, and religions generally have religious authorities. You're right that I'm only speculating (and I probably should have used the word "confident" rather than "sure"); but really, are you claiming that there were no tribal leaders and no religious authorities prior to Muhammad? Bro do excuse me for either you didn�t understand my reply or am I missing something from your reply because I can�t connect your questions from our previous discussion on this point.

I said I'm sure there were various authorities, and your response was to suggest that my "surety" was only speculative. I assumed you meant to imply that I couldn't be sure that there were authorities. Was I wrong?

Again, I was speaking hypothetically. For justice to be done, the judge must be a neutral third party. What kind of justice would it be if the judge is one of the parties involved in the matter being judged? This could be the problem of the times prior to when UN was formed.

Indeed it was. If Armstrong is right about ghazu being a "national sport", I would have to say that IMHO there was no justice (and no civilized society) in the region at that time. There was only revenge, masquerading as justice.

Ok, with this kind of argument, it could also be logical to assume that since none of the neighboring tribes objected the actions of Muhammad, thus it could prove that his actions were seen as just and norm of the community taken against the tumult of Meccans.

How do we know that none of the neighbouring tribes objected? Given that the raids were regarded as "a serious breach of precedent", I think it is likely that objections were raised. And Karen Armstrong goes on say:
"There then ensued desperate days for the ummah. Muhammad had to contend with the hostility of some of the pagans in Medina, who resented the power of the Muslim newcomers and were determined to expel them from the settlement."
So apparently there were objections even within Medina.

Don�t believe, but just read about the composition of attacking tribes in the three battles against Muslims especially the �Battle of Ditch� and you would know it. Have you ever heard the expression (attributed to various sources) that "History is written by the victors"? It is commonplace for the losers of any conflict to be described (by the winners) as the most depraved and evil of creatures. This is again a speculation based on general observation to which, yes, I may agree with you, but can you suggest any solution to this problem? How can we bring the so alled �neutral� history?

Perhaps we can't. There are many things in history we'll never know for certain. For me, however, the very fact that we have no opposition sources tells me all I need to know about the brutal thoroughness of their annihilation.

On the contrary, we do see that the traditional Muslim Scholars did their best to at least authenticate this history by classifying the chain of narrators to sift fabrication from some degree of reliable accounts, though not perfect �word to word� account. Don�t you want to give some credit to this honest and unique effort, not found anywhere else among human history.

Frankly, no. Muslim scholars judge the reliability of a narrator mainly on the depth and orthodoxy of his faith. The testimony of a "good Muslim" will always outweigh that of a non-Muslim or a skeptic.

I don�t think there is any reliable and independent �non-Muslim� sources about Muslim History. All non-Muslims, eg those that I have quoted above or many others that I came across, do use only the �Muslim� historians to build up their own opinions with their own biased intellect. However, one thing is very conspicuous that while Muslim Jurists only rely on the �Sahih� traditions, many non-Muslim historian tend to use all kind of stuff, reliable or fabricated, it didn�t matter to them, but only to malign Islam what come may. It is this approach of theirs which has caused so much euphoria against Islam among the otherwise peaceful population of the west. For example, it has come to my knowledge that one such pseudo scholar has chronologically compiled Quran from unreliable and fabricated sources (of course Muslim sources but not Sahih), which shows only its compiler�s sinister motive to divert my non-Muslim brothers from the truth of its believers.

Yes, non-Muslims use sources that Muslim scholars disapprove of (and vice versa, no doubt). But Muslim scholars reject sources mostly for ideological reasons. For instance, do you seriously think that a source that was seriously critical of Muhammad or questioned the authenticity of the Quran would pass muster according to Muslim scholars?

My brother, the punishment of Adultery is clearly prescribed in Surah Noor for the Muslims.

I'm not sure it's that clear. Many translators see it as applying to fornication (illicit sex in general) rather than the more serious charge of adultery. (Mere fornication is a victimless crime, after all, while adultery involves a breach of a marital contract and therefore an aggrieved spouse.) For instance, the Sahih International translation of verse 24:2 translation limits it to unmarried men and women -- which makes sense considering that the every next verse prescribes who they are allowed to marry. How can that be, if they are already married?

However, some of the Ahadith do narrate the punishment of stoning to them, but it must be realized that initially, in the absence of revelation of verses in Quran, this punishment was adopted from the OT. If I am not forgetting, even one of the narration of hadith is about prescribing this punishment to the Jews by consulting it from their own book, Torah.

The hadith you are thinking of is probably Sahih Musim, Book 17 Number 4214, in which Muhammad observed that the Jews were imposing the penalty of lashing instead of stoning, as prescribed in the Torah. Muhammad said, "O Allah, I am the first to revive Thy command when they had made it dead." He then commanded them to stone the adulterer to death, which they did.

Without realizing this historical fact, however, I do know some of the traditional Muslims have invented different theories to match up an apparent dichotomy between the two i.e. the Quran and the Ahadith.

Do you have a source for this historical fact, or is it just your assumption that the above hadith was before Surah an-Noor was revealed?

Regarding the use of Ahadith in generality discussed elsewhere, I hope, I didn�t leave you waiting for my reply.

To be honest, I'm still not sure how you choose which hadith to follow and which to ignore. There must be at least a dozen ahadith with valid chains of narration, in which Muhammad confirms the death penalty for adultery, as well as several more for apostasy. Can they all be false?

AhmadJoyia wrote: Thanks for the references, but I'm not sure which claims you think are supported by these sources. For instance, do either of these authors say anything to support your statement (January 7) that "with pagan tribal communities there were no ethical or moral grounds to respect for �human rights�"? I should rather let you complete my quote by adding �except through the fear of retribution from the tribal association�.

Okay, do either of these authors say anything to support your statement (January 7) that "with pagan tribal communities there were no ethical or moral grounds to respect for �human rights�, except through the fear of retribution from the tribal association"?

Secondly, do you think this pre-Islamic custom of �ghazu� has any ethical / moral acceptability in your view, even though Karan thinks that Muslims also retorted to same practice, to which of course I disagree. See my argument down below.

Sorry, I don't think I fully understood you; but in direct answer to the first part: no, I don't think that ghazu has any moral acceptability. Ghazu is highway robbery by another name.

Your conclusion is simply wrong because it was the Meccans who kicked Muslims out of their homes and not vice versa. When the Muslims gathered enough strength, they only used [I ghazu as a tactic by putting economic blockade to the trade of the �superpower of the time�. Obviously, this infuriated the Meccans and through their arrogance of power, it led them make tactical blunders.

There is no reason to suppose that the caravans were owned by the same people who kicked the Muslims out.

By the way, I wish you would stop calling it a "blockade". They weren't blocking the caravans. They were robbing them. It's like saying that the thug who assaults me on the street and steals my wallet was "blocking" me from going to the bank.

As far as �ghazu� tactic is concerned, you do agree that other tribes were Ok with it but only that it was against one�s own tribe that made Karan assume that these tribes were astonished. But why would anyone forget (including Karan) that the same tribes must have known that Muhammad and his migrant followers were expelled from their own tribe merely on the basis of differences of faith. So these tribes were only �surprised� on the temerity of the Muslims that how quickly they got bold enough to challenge the �superpower� of their time.

From what I have read, it seems to me that the ethos of the time was that internal disputes within a tribe were to be settled amicably, not by violence; whereas between tribes, there were no such ethical scruples, the only caveat being that killing another tribe member could result in a war. I doubt that other tribes cared much about the internal politics of the Quraysh, but they probably would have regarded Muhammad's raiding his own tribe as confirmation that he was an outlaw, and therefore that the Quraysh were justified in kicking him out.

Despite all that is written, even by many Non-Muslims, I guess it doesn�t really take much imagination to rationally think how a single person gathered by few and poor followers, expelled from their own homes, could have been �brutal� and had caused �annihilation�?

The brutality and annihilation came later.

Their (Non-Muslims) claim can only hold water if they can logically disprove what Muslim scholars said is not true, without invoking the �ideological reasons� into their arguments. As I said earlier, if these non-Muslims only base their conclusions from less authentic sources than the Muslims, how can anyone take them rational and not being for �un-ideological reasons�?

The claim that non-Muslim sources are less authentic is itself based on ideological reasons. The fact that names are attached to a narrative chain does not make the narrators any more reliable or any less biased.

The verse doesn�t distinguish between �married� or �unmarried� offenders. The word �Zani� for male and �zaniya� for female clearly shows anyone committing illegal sexual intercourse. Here, is the explanation of this verse [according to Yusuf Ali]...

Yes, zina is a general term, which can include adultery among other things -- just as assault is a general term which can include murder. But adultery and murder are much more serious crimes with more serious penalties. Just because the Quran prescribes penalties for zina, that does not mean that there cannot also be a more severe penalty for adultery. Muhammad himself explained this in a hadith (Bukhari, Book 17, Number 4192):
"(When) a married man (commits adultery) with a married woman, and an unmarried male with an unmarried woman, then in case of married (persons) there is (a punishment) of one hundred lashes and then stoning (to death). And in case of unmarried persons, (the punishment) is one hundred lashes and exile for one year."

If Yusuf Ali believes that 24:2 is meant to apply to married women, it's a pity he did not go on to explain why the next verse (24:3) talks about who these married women may marry.

To be honest, I'm still not sure how you choose which hadith to follow and which to ignore. There must be at least a dozen ahadith with valid chains of narration, in which Muhammad confirms the death penalty for adultery, as well as several more for apostasy. Can they all be false? For this, one has to understand Quran, preferably in Arabic as only rarely some of the non-Muslim scholars have done it; but mostly contend to amuse themselves by finding twists through others� work.

Sorry, but that didn't answer the question. I did a quick search and found at least six sahih hadith (in Bukhari and Muslim collections) prescribing death for apostasy, and another six for adultery. Is it your opinion that all of these are false? On what grounds?

Ron Webb wrote: Okay, do either of these authors say anything to support your statement (January 7) that "with pagan tribal communities there were no ethical or moral grounds to respect for �human rights�, except through the fear of retribution from the tribal association"?

I guess their views discernable from �ghazu� are pretty much same as I have opined.

Ron Webb wrote: Secondly, do you think this pre-Islamic custom of �ghazu� has any ethical / moral acceptability in your view, even though Karan thinks that Muslims also retorted to same practice, to which of course I disagree. See my argument down below. Sorry, I don't think I fully understood you; but in direct answer to the first part: no, I don't think that ghazu has any moral acceptability. Ghazu is highway robbery by another name.

Good that is what I thought too.

Ron Webb wrote: ahmadjoyia wrote: Your conclusion is simply wrong because it was the Meccans who kicked Muslims out of their homes and not vice versa. When the Muslims gathered enough strength, they only used [I ghazu as a tactic by putting economic blockade to the trade of the �superpower of the time�. Obviously, this infuriated the Meccans and through their arrogance of power, it led them make tactical blunders. There is no reason to suppose that the caravans were owned by the same people who kicked the Muslims out.

Who else can you attribute it if not to the Quresh (one of the tribes of Mecca)?

Ron Webb wrote: By the way, I wish you would stop calling it a "blockade". They weren't blocking the caravans. They were robbing them. It's like saying that the thug who assaults me on the street and steals my wallet was "blocking" me from going to the bank.

�Blockade�, because it was a tactic by the Muslims to make their enemy make mistakes in their arrogance of power.

Ron Webb wrote: ahmadjoyia wrote: As far as �ghazu� tactic is concerned, you do agree that other tribes were Ok with it but only that it was against one�s own tribe that made Karan assume that these tribes were astonished. But why would anyone forget (including Karan) that the same tribes must have known that Muhammad and his migrant followers were expelled from their own tribe merely on the basis of differences of faith. So these tribes were only �surprised� on the temerity of the Muslims that how quickly they got bold enough to challenge the �superpower� of their time. From what I have read, it seems to me that the ethos of the time was that internal disputes within a tribe were to be settled amicably, not by violence �.

Though I really don�t know your source, but even then, how amicably you think the expulsion of the Muslims was from their homes, if you don�t call brutal killings as violance?

Ron Webb wrote: �.; whereas between tribes, there were no such ethical scruples, the only caveat being that killing another tribe member could result in a war. I doubt that other tribes cared much about the internal politics of the Quraysh, but they probably would have regarded Muhammad's raiding his own tribe as confirmation that he was an outlaw, and therefore that the Quraysh were justified in kicking him out.

Ok, so much from your guess work. But why should your guess work only goes against the Muslims? On the lighter part of it, would there be any perfect chance, statistically speaking, that your guess work (assuming a fair dice is thrown by you to make another guess work) which may fall in opposite to your routine occurrences?

Ron Webb wrote: ahmadjoyia wrote: Despite all that is written, even by many Non-Muslims, I guess it doesn�t really take much imagination to rationally think how a single person gathered by few and poor followers, expelled from their own homes, could have been �brutal� and had caused �annihilation�? The brutality and annihilation came later.

Quran clearly directs Muslims to uphold the law of Justice, what come may. Those who repented, were forgiven, but those who remained arrogant, were only dealt with Justice as defined in Quran. If you think, any such definition from Quran implies brutality or annihilation, let us discuss that out.

Ron Webb wrote: ahmadjoyia wrote: Their (Non-Muslims) claim can only hold water if they can logically disprove what Muslim scholars said is not true, without invoking the �ideological reasons� into their arguments. As I said earlier, if these non-Muslims only base their conclusions from less authentic sources than the Muslims, how can anyone take them rational and not being for �un-ideological reasons�? The claim that non-Muslim sources are less authentic is itself based on ideological reasons. The fact that names are attached to a narrative chain does not make the narrators any more reliable or any less biased.

No, sorry, I didn�t suggest anything. All I am saying is �if these non-Muslims�..�. However, the onus is on to them to show how their sources are better if all they have is quotations based upon the �gossips� of the times. On the contrary, you can reject a report based upon many things, however, the methodology applied to ascertain some aspect of its reliability can�t be rejected as merely an opinion but only through sound argument to show some weakness in this methodology. In the absence of such critic, IMHO, it is this attribute which goes in favor of the Muslim Scholars.

Ron Webb wrote: ahmadjoyia wrote: The verse doesn�t distinguish between �married� or �unmarried� offenders. The word �Zani� for male and �zaniya� for female clearly shows anyone committing illegal sexual intercourse. Here, is the explanation of this verse [according to Yusuf Ali]... Yes, zina is a general term, which can include adultery among other things -- just as assault is a general term which can include murder. But adultery and murder are much more serious crimes with more serious penalties. Just because the Quran prescribes penalties for zina, that does not mean that there cannot also be a more severe penalty for adultery�.

We just can�t go on own whims to include or exclude what is there in Quran. Once the punishment for Zina is clearly prescribed in Quran, any other evidence out of Quran, can�t be accepted in any way. That is the basics of Isalm 101, which I keep reminding to my brothers.

Ron Webb wrote: ahmadjoyia wrote: To be honest, I'm still not sure how you choose which hadith to follow and which to ignore. There must be at least a dozen ahadith with valid chains of narration, in which Muhammad confirms the death penalty for adultery, as well as several more for apostasy. Can they all be false? For this, one has to understand Quran, preferably in Arabic as only rarely some of the non-Muslim scholars have done it; but mostly contend to amuse themselves by finding twists through others� work. Sorry, but that didn't answer the question. I did a quick search and found at least six sahih hadith (in Bukhari and Muslim collections) prescribing death for apostasy, and another six for adultery. Is it your opinion that all of these are false? On what grounds?

The biggest problem with Ahadith literature is that generally they are just a �snap shot� of an event without much details of the context as well as they have not been made synchronous with Quranic revelations. Thus, although these Ahadith related to apostasy or adultery are numerous, it is not possible to answer, if these happenings were before or after the revelations of relevant verses in Quran. Therefore, in the presence of clear evidence from Quran, the basic principal dictates no other conflicting evidence is admissible.

Ahmad: By going through your own reference of Wikipedia at,Expedition of Fish you can read it at one place as ...He was sent to observe a Quraysh caravan...

The article starts however with "In the next month, Muhammad sent Abu Ubaidah ibn al Jarrah along with 300 men to attack and chastise the tribe of Juhaynah at al-Khabat, on the seacoast, five nights journey from Medina" in case you haven't read it.
Admittedly there are two conflicting(?) pieces of information given.

In a quick check I could find this link
This hadith insinuates that the Juhaynah were indeed attacked by your prophet.

In your answer you did drop my question on your moral understanding of this point.

Is there a reason for it ?

Airmano

Edited by airmano - 21 January 2016 at 1:18pm