Muhammad (PBUH) is dead

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?

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

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

AhmadJoyia wrote: Your logic implies opportunity based model in which all and everyone involved has proportional, if not equal, opportunity to score a goal (through highway robbery). Thus implying chaos of such a nature and magnitude, which is obviously not suitable for a sustainable community living; and is in stark contrast to the reality existed at those times. Thus, not a valid hypothesis.

Well, the "national sport" model was suggested by Karen Armstrong, not me, so if you think it is in "stark contrast to the reality", then it seems that you don't have much faith in her assessment. Which is fine, except that I think you ought to at least present some evidence of this stark contrast before you dismiss her expert opinion. To me, Armstrong's portrayal of the ethos at the time sounds about right. There were stable communities within each tribe, but the inter-tribal rivalries and occasional outright warfare do indeed sound like chaos to me. I wouldn't want to be travelling the highways at that time and in that region without an armed escort.

Again your suggested sport model does not hold ground simply because if it was, then Prophet could have easily sent the helpers to do the job well within this sport and never have exited the wrath of Meccans. Their chances of winning could have easily increased many fold with the type of info, you suggested the migrants had about the caravans, without even violating the rules of your sport. Isn�t it? Since this didn't happen, thus, your sport theory doesn�t hold ground at all.

"Sent the helpers"?   As easy as that? "Hey guys, I wonder if you'd mind just popping down to the ravine for me, and attacking and robbing a caravan on my behalf? Oh, and bring me back any jewels or other valuables you collect, eh?"

The whole point of these raids was to provide employment and a source of income for the Muslims. The helpers presumably had their own jobs, providing their own sources of income. Surely it was enough that they allowed the Muslims to stay in their city. On top of that, you want them to commit armed robbery for the Muslims as well? And then hand over the proceeds to Muhammad?

Repeating yet again, Quraysh was declared a common enemy thus legitimizing raids on their caravan.

Okay, so following your logic above, if they were a common enemy then why didn't the helpers also join in raiding the caravans?

Again repeating, the presence of rich Jewish tribes negates your hypothesis.

And again repeating, did these rich Jewish tribes actually operate caravans? And did Muhammad know enough about those caravans to know their defenses, their travel routes and schedules, the commodities or valuables they might be carrying, etc.?

Edited by Ron Webb - 07 February 2016 at 5:16am