Muhammad (PBUH) is dead

AhmadJoyia wrote: Since the embargo was only against the Meccans and allied tribes, hence only they were the targets. Your assumption that they were the only rich tribes, must be supported through evidence from you.

I'm not assuming that. I honestly don't know. What I'm saying is that neither do you.

Here is what we know, or at least what I think we can agree upon:
1. Muhammad and his companions were stopping Quraysh caravans, threatening them with violence and stealing their merchandise.
2. This would be a criminal offense (highway robbery) by any modern standard; but
3. By the unenlightened standards of the "Age of Ignorance", it was called ghazu, and according to Karen Armstrong it was considered a sort of national sport. On the other hand,
4. Even by those standards, robbing your own tribe was outrageous and totally against the rules.

So far, it looks bad for Muhammad as an exemplar of morality, whether modern or ancient. However, you want to engage in a sort of "special pleading" in which you claim that Muhammad's case is exceptional. You claim that:
a. Muhammad had a moral right to retaliate against the Quraysh because he had been mistreated by them.
b. Muhammad limited his attacks to Quraysh caravans because his grievance was only with the Quraysh.
c. Attacking and robbing the caravans of individual Quraysh tribe members is a legitimate form of retaliation.

It is up to you to offer evidence in support of the above three claims. If you could, then you would have a strong case for your special pleading argument. Without that evidence, however, all we have are the four facts I listed above. Those facts by themselves do not paint a very flattering picture.

On the other hand, the mere presence of rich Jewish establishments in the area are recorded in the history.

I'll take your word for it; but did they operate caravans? Would Muhammad have known enough about them to undertake an attack on them?

How was it difficult for the �Helpers� of Medina to pass this information to the �Migrants�, if that was such an essential for the survivability of their brethren?

Would the "helpers" have known enough about them? After all, in a lawless culture that apparently considered ghazu a normal part of business, a caravan operator would have to be crazy to make such details widely known.

AhmadJoyia wrote: This is not what I meant. From your own example, if there is an embargo against Canada, then it is expected that all its citizens including companies etc, would not be allowed to make trades just like Iranian companies/banks are not allowed to do the same, up until few days ago. The only thing is, that you so sagaciously miss out; who is so powerful to do it against the Canadians, if it is not done on moral grounds? Thus it was Muslims� moral high ground that enabled them to tease the superpower of that time and it was this �temerity of the Muslims� that amazed the other Arab tribes. Muhammad was engaged in what would now be called "asymmetric warfare". It has nothing to do with "moral high ground". Quite the opposite, in fact: it is especially effective because it is a level of moral depravity which civilized societies find abhorrent. Terrorism is a good example of this. How quickly you change your spectacles to analyses the centuries old situation with those of modern day by drawing flimsy analogies, is nothing but called as �totally out of context�. However, from your perspective being a part of Superpower, you may call your actions as justified as what governed the expulsion of �Mormons� internally, or to the Japanese in WW2, internationally. My analysis does not depend on context. You were suggesting that Muhammad's tactics were successful because he occupied the "moral high ground". No! I only said, and as supported by Karen, that it was perceived acceptable to the other tribes of the area.

I am unable to find your reference to "perceived acceptable". I was responding to your statement in bold above.

You (by person Mr Ron Webb) don�t have to be apologetic here and I don�t think I have committed a Tu-quoque fallacy here as yet; simply because my use of word �superpower� implied the �superpower� of the time, that is, the Meccans; and then drawing an analogy with such justification as our present day superpowers do give to their similar actions. Thus, if you are abhorrent of, as you seems to be (as you gave reference to this fallacy), you should also be abhorrent of the similar actions committed by the then superpower i.e. the Meccans against the Muslims in their expulsion from the homes. Aren�t you?

What we did to Canadian citizens of Japanese descent during WW2 was indeed abhorrent, because they did nothing to deserve such treatment. As for the Muslim/Quraysh conflict, I don't think we'll ever know who was principally to blame. Of course the Muslims will blame the Quraysh, but we know that the message Muhammad was preaching was extremely offensive to them, and we know that he refused to stop when requested to do so. There is no doubt that anyone preaching against Islam would be forcibly expelled from an Muslim country. Fair or not, it is at least understandable. It can't be compared with Japanese Canadians, who were about the least offensive people imaginable, and wanted only to be accepted by their adopted country.

I know that. But you should rather be happy that I didn�t change it to my liking while quoting Karen! But the question is, do you agree with her notion of head on against the superpower?

I don't know what you mean by "head on against the superpower". I don't approve of attacking private citizens, and I don't think that is a head-on attack on the superpower as a whole. I see echoes of that attitude in modern terrorist attacks, and I think it is reprehensible.

As I keep trying to tell you, there was no embargo. What right did Muhammad have to impose an embargo anyway? Moral high grounds as listed above.

Every terrorist claims the same moral high ground. That's why true justice must be decided and rendered by an independent authority. Otherwise it is nothing more than revenge and self-interest.

No,not even here you can call it tu quoque fallacy, simply because I don't think that the Caravans were innocent but guilty of violating the embargo. Secondly, the Muslims weren't even close to be called as 'Superpower'.

You weren't comparing superpowers. You were comparing innocent (until proven guilty) persons -- the innocent Quraysh caravan owners/drivers attacked by Muhammad, and the innocent Japanese citizens killed in the nuclear strikes. IMHO the nuclear strike and the killing of thousands of innocent Japanese was a necessary evil that averted the deaths of ten times that many soldiers on both sides if the war had been prolonged. The same cannot be said for the attacks on the Quraysh caravans.

However, I did ask you to tell us if you consider the civilian victims of your Nuke attack as 'innocent' or not?

Again, not "my" nuke attack. But I repeat: the American nuclear strike in WW2 is irrelevant. It may be morally indefensible, or not; but that would not affect the moral indefensibility of Muhammad's career as a highwayman.

Taking a testimony of a witness/evidence (eg a particular hadith) in an argument whose import could be legal, is all that we aim to look at the Islamic history. Isn�t it? Rejecting such a reliable evidence merely based on �adhoc�, �non-specific� and �frivolous� reason, and in contrast, of accepting a random (whose own truthfulness may be doubtful) person�s testimony (�gossip� or not), is still not convincing, at all.

(I'm not sure I understood your point, so I hope I am responding to it sensibly.) The hadith narrators are not on trial. The presumption of innocence is to protect persons from the harsh consequences of a wrongful conviction -- better that several guilty caravan drivers should go free, for instance, rather than that a single innocent caravan should be attacked.

In the case of a trial, the benefit of doubt would be applied in whatever way favours the accused. So for instance, if a Muslim judge were to try to impose the death penalty on an apostate, on the basis of a hadith that stipulates it, the defense would be that there is at least a reasonable doubt in the reliability of that hadith. The presumtion of innocencs of the accused means the presumption that the hadith by which he is to be condemned might be false.

airmano wrote: Ahmad: Since the embargo was only against the Meccans and allied tribes, hence only they were the targets. I think you don't need a psychology degree in order to understand what happened:

Thanks for your enlightenment with paraphrasing from your imagination, but for more details, please see my rebuttal to Ron' post.

Ahmad: Permanent expulsion from one�s tribe was more outrageous than obvious retaliation

When your country did everything that was needed to get rid of Abdus Salam (pbuh), did he go and rob other Pakistanis during his exile ?


Airmano

Edited by airmano - 28 January 2016 at 12:35pm

Ahmad: Looking at this source, hopefully you would not miss specifically the names of all the participating tribes.

The link you post is based on Ibn Ishaq.
Only a few pages earlier you posted that he is not a reliable source.
What made you change your mind all of a sudden ? Gabriel ?


Airmano

Edited by airmano - 29 January 2016 at 1:48pm