Interfaith Dialogue - Muhammad (PBUH) is dead

Print Page | Close Window

Muhammad (PBUH) is dead

Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35192
Printed Date: 21 December 2024 at 10:27am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Muhammad (PBUH) is dead

Posted By: Ron Webb
Subject: Muhammad (PBUH) is dead
Date Posted: 19 December 2015 at 9:17pm

Muslims are careful to avoid the sin of "shirk", or associating partners with Allah. There is no god but Allah, they say; and the things that they give to Allah, including their prayers and their worship, they give only to Allah.

But what about the things that Allah gives to them, the most important of which are tenets of Islam and the rules by which Muslims should live? Do they believe that Allah has a "partner" in determining these rules?

Apparently yes, for most Muslims. Allah spoke to Muslims through the Quran, which is supposed to be a complete guide to their religion; but most Muslims supplement this guide with the hadith and sunnah, which are words and teachings of Muhammad. In effect, they make the hadith and sunnah "partner" texts to the Quran, which would imply that Muhammad was a partner to Allah.

Muslims say that the hadith and sunnah don't add to the Quran, they only help to explain it. However, this is often not the case. The Quran simply tells Muslims to pray, for instance, and then leaves them free to pray sincerely from their hearts, in their own words. (To me, this should be the best kind of prayer.) The sunnah imposes additional rules on prayer, telling them exactly what to pray and how to pray. These rules are not in the Quran.

Nonetheless, many Muslims say that they follow the hadith and sunnah because the Quran commands them to obey Muhammad. However, as is often said, the Quran is very careful in its choice of words; and if you look closely you will see that you are commanded to follow the Messenger, not Muhammad. And how does one obey a messenger? By obeying his message, of course. And that is the Quran.

In response, many Muslims say that "the message" includes more than just the Quran, that everything Muhammad said and did was guided by Allah and was thus part of the "message". This seems to make Muhammad into some kind of mindless automaton who never had an original thought or opinion of his own. Besides, the hadith themselves show that it is not true:
"If I had not found it hard for my followers or the people, I would have ordered them to clean their teeth with Siwak for every prayer." - http://quranx.com/hadith/bukhari/Book-11/Hadith-12/ - Sahih Bukhari, Book 11, Hadith 12
"Were I not afraid that it would be hard for my followers (or for the people), I would order them to pray `Isha prayer at this time." - http://quranx.com/hadith/bukhari/Book-94/Hadith-14/ - Sahih Bukhari, Book 94, Hadith 14
Isn't it clear from the above that the prayer rituals are being decided by Muhammad, not by Allah? And if those rituals are an essential and permanent part of Islam, then how do you escape the conclusion that Muhammad is behaving as a partner to Allah in creating the rules of Islam?

According to the Quran, Allah is eternal, and so is His authority. Allah's words are preserved with meticulous care and accuracy in the Quran for eternity (particularly in contrast to the hadith!), precisely because they were addressed to all Muslims for eternity. Only Allah makes the rules, and He does not share that rule-making authority with anyone.

By contrast, Muhammad, peace be upon him, is dead; and therefore his authority, which was not the same kind of law-making authority as Allah's, ended with his death. His authority and his commands were never intended to apply beyond his contemporaries, which is why (unlike the Quran) no special effort was made to preserve or collect his words during his lifetime and preserve them for posterity. To suppose otherwise is to impute to him the same kind of authority as Allah -- and that, IMHO, is shirk.

That's how I see it anyway. And that's how a growing number of progressive Muslims see it.

You may wonder why I, a non-Muslim, should even care about this question. The answer is that IMHO it is mainly the hadith and sunnah that keep Islam locked in the 7th century and unable to adapt to modernity. No doubt many Muslims think that is a good thing. They don't want to be "contaminated" by modern ideas. (Ironically, they don't mind being contaminated by all the technological and scientific innovations that spring from modernity.)

Unfortunately for them, the world has progressed to a point where it is no longer possible for one "tribe" to wall itself off from the rest of the world and live in medieval isolation. Like it or not, Muslims are part of the global village. We need to get along together; and for that, Islam needs to adapt. If it doesn't bend, it will break -- and we'll all suffer the consequences.

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Replies:

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 21 December 2015 at 11:18pm

Excellent topic, indeed.

Ron Webb wrote:

Muslims are careful to avoid the sin of "shirk", or associating partners with Allah. There is no god but Allah, they say; and the things that they give to Allah, including their prayers and their worship, they give only to Allah.

But what about the things that Allah gives to them, the most important of which are tenets of Islam and the rules by which Muslims should live? Do they believe that Allah has a "partner" in determining these rules?

Simply worded, where Quran is the constitution in Islam, the Sunnah is the implementation of this constitution. Obeying as per the precise details of every ritual from Sunnah, takes an individual closer to Allah, and not to the Prophet.

Ron Webb wrote:

Apparently yes, for most Muslims. Allah spoke to Muslims through the Quran, which is supposed to be a complete guide to their religion; but most Muslims supplement this guide with the hadith and sunnah, which are words and teachings of Muhammad. In effect, they make the hadith and sunnah "partner" texts to the Quran, which would imply that Muhammad was a partner to Allah.

Giving the fact that there vast variety of people among Muslims, which is true for many other religions, if some of the Muslims do it as you have suggested, doesn�t mean the majority of the Muslims. For every new situation due to emerging requirements of the changing times, in Islam, the rules for the precedence among sources of guidance are very clear. Unlike Christianity (I can�t comment upon various other religions) where Clergy dictates, the Muslim experts use these rules to give their opinion (Fatwa) only about any new situation. Although such opinions are quite impressive, however, they are never a binding on the community. It is up to an individual to follow this opinion or form up his own by consulting any other Scholar or doing little research by himself. But the important thing is, he must be honest in his quest and it is this what determines his �pass� or �fail� at the day of the Judgment, to which no one can escape.

Ron Webb wrote:

Muslims say that the hadith and sunnah don't add to the Quran, they only help to explain it. However, this is often not the case. The Quran simply tells Muslims to pray, for instance, and then leaves them free to pray sincerely from their hearts, in their own words. (To me, this should be the best kind of prayer.) The sunnah imposes additional rules on prayer, telling them exactly what to pray and how to pray. These rules are not in the Quran.

I guess this relates to things that are �Faradh� or obligatory and those which are �Sunnah� or �Recommended�. Generally speaking, when Quran brings something obligatory, the Sunnah brings the recommended way to do it.

Ron Webb wrote:

Nonetheless, many Muslims say that they follow the hadith and sunnah because the Quran commands them to obey Muhammad. However, as is often said, the Quran is very careful in its choice of words; and if you look closely you will see that you are commanded to follow the Messenger, not Muhammad. And how does one obey a messenger? By obeying his message, of course. And that is the Quran.

This is good thinking that I must appreciate. However, remember that since the messenger was Muhammad, so who else can better understand the message and implement it the best way?

Ron Webb wrote:

In response, many Muslims say that "the message" includes more than just the Quran, that everything Muhammad said and did was guided by Allah and was thus part of the "message".

This is where I tend to disagree with those who, you said, says this. Simply because there is only one source of Allah�s message and that is Quran. But of course the Prophet was the best person to explain this message to the people. So, one must distinguish between the obligatory part of the message and then the recommended path of Sunnah.

Ron Webb wrote:

This seems to make Muhammad into some kind of mindless automaton who never had an original thought or opinion of his own. Besides, the hadith themselves show that it is not true:
"If I had not found it hard for my followers or the people, I would have ordered them to clean their teeth with Siwak for every prayer." - http://quranx.com/hadith/bukhari/Book-11/Hadith-12/ - Sahih Bukhari, Book 11, Hadith 12
"Were I not afraid that it would be hard for my followers (or for the people), I would order them to pray `Isha prayer at this time." - http://quranx.com/hadith/bukhari/Book-94/Hadith-14/ - Sahih Bukhari, Book 94, Hadith 14
Isn't it clear from the above that the prayer rituals are being decided by Muhammad, not by Allah? And if those rituals are an essential and permanent part of Islam, then how do you escape the conclusion that Muhammad is behaving as a partner to Allah in creating the rules of Islam?

You are right here to an extent only. Now that you understand that the Sunnah is the recommended path of doing the order, I hope this shall help you refine your views.

Ron Webb wrote:

According to the Quran, Allah is eternal, and so is His authority. Allah's words are preserved with meticulous care and accuracy in the Quran for eternity (particularly in contrast to the hadith!), precisely because they were addressed to all Muslims for eternity. Only Allah makes the rules, and He does not share that rule-making authority with anyone.

True, however, now you see the difference between two sources.

Ron Webb wrote:

By contrast, Muhammad, peace be upon him, is dead; and therefore his authority, which was not the same kind of law-making authority as Allah's, ended with his death. His authority and his commands were never intended to apply beyond his contemporaries, which is why (unlike the Quran) no special effort was made to preserve or collect his words during his lifetime and preserve them for posterity. To suppose otherwise is to impute to him the same kind of authority as Allah -- and that, IMHO, is shirk.

In general, you are right, but as I said, all his actions and sayings forms the guidance for us to remain on the right track. The second most important thing is the historical value of the Sunnah literature, though which the Muslims are able to defend their religion from the critical eyes of people like you. No offense intended.

Ron Webb wrote:

That's how I see it anyway. And that's how a growing number of progressive Muslims see it.

You may wonder why I, a non-Muslim, should even care about this question. The answer is that IMHO it is mainly the hadith and sunnah that keep Islam locked in the 7th century and unable to adapt to modernity. No doubt many Muslims think that is a good thing. They don't want to be "contaminated" by modern ideas. (Ironically, they don't mind being contaminated by all the technological and scientific innovations that spring from modernity.)
Unfortunately for them, the world has progressed to a point where it is no longer possible for one "tribe" to wall itself off from the rest of the world and live in medieval isolation. Like it or not, Muslims are part of the global village. We need to get along together; and for that, Islam needs to adapt. If it doesn't bend, it will break -- and we'll all suffer the consequences.

The guidance and the historical value of Sunnah, as explained above, is different than the mindset that you are alluding to. I hope you may now distinguish the two.

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 26 December 2015 at 10:13am

Thanks for your reply, AhmadJoyia. We have family visiting us for the Christmas/New Years season, so I won't have a lot of time for online discussions in the next couple of weeks. I will respond in the next few days, however. Thanks for your patience.

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 31 December 2015 at 8:48am

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Giving the fact that there vast variety of people among Muslims, which is true for many other religions, if some of the Muslims do it as you have suggested, doesn�t mean the majority of the Muslims. For every new situation due to emerging requirements of the changing times, in Islam, the rules for the precedence among sources of guidance are very clear. Unlike Christianity (I can�t comment upon various other religions) where Clergy dictates, the Muslim experts use these rules to give their opinion (Fatwa) only about any new situation. Although such opinions are quite impressive, however, they are never a binding on the community. It is up to an individual to follow this opinion or form up his own by consulting any other Scholar or doing little research by himself. But the important thing is, he must be honest in his quest and it is this what determines his �pass� or �fail� at the day of the Judgment, to which no one can escape.

If only more Muslims had this attitude!

Unfortunately, in my experience a great many Muslims think it is okay to impose their own religious opinions on others; and often those opinions are based solely on hadith.

I smiled when you commented that the clergy dictates the rules of Christianity. I think maybe you had the Catholic church in mind, led by their supposedly infallible Pope. In theory you might be right, but in practise not even the Pope's authority is absolute. I am reminded me of a Catholic friend's response to the Pope's opinions on contraception: "You don't play the game? -- You don't make the rules!"

I see no reason to assume that "the recommended way to do it" would be the same for all time. For example, the Quran obliges Muslims to wash their hands (wudu) before prayer, and the hadith and sunnah give specific instruction on how to do it. These instructions (using plain water, or dust if water is not available) may have made sense in the seventh century, before hand soap was available; but if Muhammad were alive today I find it hard to imagine that he would not have recommended using soap, or even an alcohol-based hand sanitizer.

The "litmus test" I have been using for some time now to separate the moderates from the extremists is the question of apostasy. The Quran makes it clear that apostasy is a great sin, but (as far as I know) does not impose any penalty in this life and does not obligate other Muslims to take any action against an apostate. However, there are several hadith in which Muhammad clearly orders Muslims to kill apostates. Unless I am mistaken, all four of the major madhabs (Islamic schools of jurisprudence) have declared that apostates who refuse to recant should be killed; and every implementation of sharia that I know of includes this provision as well.

So what do you think? Is the murder of apostates obligatory, or merely recommended? Or should we assume that Muhammad's commands were specific to the time and circumstances in which they were given, and were never intended to apply more than a thousand years later?

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 31 December 2015 at 12:46pm

Ron Webb wrote:

The "litmus test" I have been using for some time now to separate the moderates from the extremists is the question of apostasy. The Quran makes it clear that apostasy is a great sin, but (as far as I know) does not impose any penalty in this life and does not obligate other Muslims to take any action against an apostate. However, there are several hadith in which Muhammad clearly orders Muslims to kill apostates. Unless I am mistaken, all four of the major madhabs (Islamic schools of jurisprudence) have declared that apostates who refuse to recant should be killed; and every implementation of sharia that I know of includes this provision as well.

So what do you think? Is the murder of apostates obligatory, or merely recommended? Or should we assume that Muhammad's commands were specific to the time and circumstances in which they were given, and were never intended to apply more than a thousand years later?

IMHO, the topic of apostasy among Muslims is quite confusing, mostly because of the definition of this term �apostate� used at the time of the Prophet and the way it is understood now. It is for sure that Quran clearly says there is no compulsion on religion. Then how is it possible for Muslims to award punishment, that too capital punishment, to a person who reverts back from Islam to his pervious religion? Is this not sheer violation of Quran�s clear message? Yes, indeed it is. However, the reason this is happening is because of the confusion this term �apostate� is causing. My MS Office Word program shows me the following synonyms: renouncer, defector, deserter, renegade, absconder, traitor, run-away. Apparently, they all look and mean the similar, but actually, there is a huge difference when the same term is used specifically in Military to imply Deserter or traitor or absconder, for which capital punishment seems justified. Now, at the time of the Prophet Mohammad, in and around Mecca & Medina, there were only binary tribes. Either with or against the Muslims and there was no third option. Thus, anyone leaving Muslims, for any reason, would end up in the enemy�s camp. It is for this reason probably, that confused many Muslims in distinguishing between the apostate from the faith VS the apostate from loyalties in fighting war.

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 January 2016 at 10:45am

AhmadJoyia wrote:

IMHO, the topic of apostasy among Muslims is quite confusing, mostly because of the definition of this term �apostate� used at the time of the Prophet and the way it is understood now.

The hadith I am referring to do not explicitly use the word "apostate":

Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/083-sbt.php#009.083.017 - Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17

Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' " http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/052-sbt.php#004.052.260 - Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260

Now, at the time of the Prophet Mohammad, in and around Mecca & Medina, there were only binary tribes. Either with or against the Muslims and there was no third option. Thus, anyone leaving Muslims, for any reason, would end up in the enemy�s camp. It is for this reason probably, that confused many Muslims in distinguishing between the apostate from the faith VS the apostate from loyalties in fighting war.

This is a false dichotomy. Surely it is possible, and has always been possible, to reject Islam without being hostile to Muslims. Besides, the hadiths above are clearly talking about religious apostasy, not military treason.

If I were a Muslim, this issue alone would be sufficient for me to reject all hadith. It is hard to know from a distance of 1400 years why Muhammad said those things, or indeed whether he said them at all; but it would be easier for me to believe that they are false or distorted, rather than that God would want me to kill someone merely for their beliefs or lack of beliefs.

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 02 January 2016 at 8:23am

Ron Webb wrote:

This is a false dichotomy. Surely it is possible, and has always been possible, to reject Islam without being hostile to Muslims.

Your disagreement is obviously understandable. Nevertheless, please present your proof to support your disagreement. Also, please do ensure that your example/proof must belong to the period of time while the Prophet was alive.

Ron Webb wrote:

Besides, the hadiths above are clearly talking about religious apostasy, not military treason.

In the presence of clear Quranic directive (eg 2:256 There is no compulsion in religion�.) , all ahadith contrary to it, can�t be accepted. IMHO, this is the Islamic principle 101. Secondly, it is not necessary to put so much emphasis on �exact words� especially when all we are reading is the English translation of Arabic words put into writing decades after and communicated through oral transmissions that too, based on human memory. For an example just compare the two hadiths (Volume 9, Book 83, Number 16, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 18) narrating the same incident about a girl. Although the narrator of both of them is the same person (i.e Anas) yet we find so much difference in their wordings.

Ron Webb wrote:

If I were a Muslim, this issue alone would be sufficient for me to reject all hadith�.

This is not an objective approach.

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 02 January 2016 at 6:00pm

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Now, at the time of the Prophet Mohammad, in and around Mecca & Medina, there were only binary tribes. Either with or against the Muslims and there was no third option. Thus, anyone leaving Muslims, for any reason, would end up in the enemy�s camp. It is for this reason probably, that confused many Muslims in distinguishing between the apostate from the faith VS the apostate from loyalties in fighting war.

This is a false dichotomy. Surely it is possible, and has always been possible, to reject Islam without being hostile to Muslims.

Pardon me, but it's your claim, and a highly improbable claim indeed, that "there was no third option". Surely the onus is on you to prove that claim, not on me to refute it. I can point to billions of examples around the world today of people who choose a third option, myself included -- namely to live peacefully with everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. If you think there is some reason why that option would not have been available in seventh century Arabia, it is up to you to justify this. Otherwise it's just https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading%5b/IMG%5b/IMG - special pleading .

In the presence of clear Quranic directive (eg 2:256 There is no compulsion in religion�.) , all ahadith contrary to it, can�t be accepted. IMHO, this is the Islamic principle 101.

Here is how http://islamhelpline.net/node/3459 - islamhelpline.net explains it:

"'Let there be no compulsion in religion' means and implies that ... every individual has a God-given right to choose for himself between the paths of Truth and error, Guidance and misguidance, Belief and disbelief, Obedience or disobedience. ... Thus it is absolutely impermissible in Islamic Law to force, or coerce, or compel anyone to accept Islam as their way of life if they do not themselves, of their own free will, choose to do so.

But if one, of his own free will chooses to believe and enters Islam by declaring the shahaadah or testification of faith, then he is bound by his declaration and all the disciplines of Islam become obligatory upon such a person. If one after accepting Islam as his deen does not pray, he will be compelled by Law to offer his prayers; or if he refuses to pay the zakah dues, he will be compelled by Law to fulfill his zakah dues; or if he refuses to distribute inheritance as prescribed by Shariah, he will be compelled by Law to do so; etc. Once the person of his own free will accepts Islam, he has no right to pick-and-choose the laws he wishes to follow; but rather he will be compelled to follow all the obligatory dictates of Shariah by Law. Here one cannot say or bring forth the excuse Let there be no compulsion in religion! nor would it be accepted. This command only applies to one who has not accepted Islam as his way of life."

Actually, I have an even simpler explanation: the purpose of killing apostates is not to force them to recant, but to punish them for their sin. In fact, even recanting will not save them because their sin is unforgivable (see http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=137 - Quran 4:137 , for instance). So there is no compulsion here. They are free to leave Islam if they wish, just as they are free to commit adultery or any other capital crime; but having made that choice, they can expect to pay the penalty, which is death.

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Secondly, it is not necessary to put so much emphasis on �exact words� especially when all we are reading is the English translation of Arabic words put into writing decades after and communicated through oral transmissions that too, based on human memory. For an example just compare the two hadiths (Volume 9, Book 83, Number 16, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 18) narrating the same incident about a girl. Although the narrator of both of them is the same person (i.e Anas) yet we find so much difference in their wordings.

I don't think there is any dispute about the meaning of the two hadith I quoted earlier. They are very clear. I don't understand your point about the two hadith about the girl. I see no contradiction between the two.

If I were a Muslim, this issue alone would be sufficient for me to reject all hadith�.

This is not an objective approach.

By its very nature, religion is not objective. You can choose to believe the Quran or the hadith (or the Bible, for that matter), or not; but you can't objectively prove their truth. If you could, it would be science, not religion.

Anyway, I think we agree that the two hadith I quoted cannot possibly be true -- you because they (allegedly) conflict with Quran verse 2:256, and me because they conflict with my innate sense of morality. All I'm saying is that once you accept that two hadith are wrong, why would you trust any of them?

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 03 January 2016 at 4:54am

Ron Webb wrote:

Pardon me, but it's your claim, and a highly improbable claim indeed, that "there was no third option".

I thought you would be knowing the Early Muslim History. Anyhow, please go and verify my statement that by and large what I stated about the Binary communities, is true. Few exceptions might be there, but the fact remains that almost all the examples people give to justify their claim comes only from these binary format of existing communities at that time. Not a single case, as an example, comes where a person who had no other offense associated with him, got killed purely on the crime of change of faith.

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 03 January 2016 at 11:19am

AhmadJoyia wrote:

I thought you would be knowing the Early Muslim History. Anyhow, please go and verify my statement that by and large what I stated about the Binary communities, is true.

Sorry, that's not how it works. Either you can support your claim, or you can't. It's not up to me to do your research for you.

Anyway, what exactly are you suggesting here? Why is/was it not possible for a Muslim to leave Islam without becoming hostile to his neighbours or a traitor to his community? Or why is/was it not possible for a Muslim community to tolerate a non-Muslim minority in its midst without becoming hostile to them?

Few exceptions might be there, but the fact remains that almost all the examples people give to justify their claim comes only from these binary format of existing communities at that time. Not a single case, as an example, comes where a person who had no other offense associated with him, got killed purely on the crime of change of faith.

So what do you make of the two hadith I quoted? Did Muhammad actually say that those who leave Islam are to be killed? If so, does this command still apply today? And if not, then why would you trust any of the other supposedly "sahih" hadith?

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 03 January 2016 at 7:13pm

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

I thought you would be knowing the Early Muslim History. Anyhow, please go and verify my statement that by and large what I stated about the Binary communities, is true.

[IMG]smileys/smiley36.gif" align="middle" /> Sorry, that's not how it works. Either you can support your claim, or you can't. It's not up to me to do your research for you. Anyway, what exactly are you suggesting here? Why is/was it not possible for a Muslim to leave Islam without becoming hostile to his neighbours or a traitor to his community? Or why is/was it not possible for a Muslim community to tolerate a non-Muslim minority in its midst without becoming hostile to them?.

The tribal Arab history of those days tells us that the protection of an individual was only guaranteed through his allegiance/loyalty/association with a tribe. When Islam came, it presented them a very unique way of community living, and that is based upon their faith. Thus, Muslims became one community against whom almost all non-Muslim tribes (barring few around Medina) became hostile to them.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Few exceptions might be there, but the fact remains that almost all the examples people give to justify their claim comes only from these binary format of existing communities at that time. Not a single case, as an example, comes where a person who had no other offense associated with him, got killed purely on the crime of change of faith.

As I said earlier, this issue has confused the Muslims because of misunderstanding of the effect of a deserter on a community as compared to peaceful coexistence of a person with a changed faith. Primarily because of the phenomena of faith based community vs tribal community persisted throughout many centuries down the time tunnel. You posted the view of Islamicity scholar, who I think, was unable to provide the justification about a person who has not been given the opportunity of understanding Islam before being adopting it, just like those who are born Muslims. Would they still kill him, if his only crime is that he wants to change his faith peacefully?
On the issue of ahadith, as I said earlier or elsewhere, none can be accepted if they are found contradicting clear Quranic injunctions. This does not mean rejecting all ahadith in generality. Regarding those which are considered �Sahih�, IMHO, it only implies that their chain of transmission is sound. Secondly, this doesn�t imply the exact wordings of the Prophet, but only the implied meanings as per the understanding, memorization, and then oral transmission through at least 2 to 3 generations, before they were written down and compiled.

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 04 January 2016 at 8:04pm

AhmadJoyia wrote:

The tribal Arab history of those days tells us that the protection of an individual was only guaranteed through his allegiance/loyalty/association with a tribe. When Islam came, it presented them a very unique way of community living, and that is based upon their faith.

If protection is based on faith, then would it not follow that anyone abandoning the faith would also lose that protection?

Thus, Muslims became one community against whom almost all non-Muslim tribes (barring few around Medina) became hostile to them.

Do you think that hostility could have anything to do with Muhammad's history of attacking and plundering the trading caravans in the area? Besides, I think it's only fair to point out that the hostility was mutual. The Quran itself, with its countless exhortations to fight the unbelievers, and its slanders of non-Muslims as "accursed", "miserably slinking apes", "unclean", "evildoers", etc., is sufficient evidence for that.

Apparently so. That's what Muhammad said, according to several reliable narrators. Remember, Allah told him to be "harsh" with unbelievers and hypocrites ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=66&verse=9 - 66:9 ).

On the issue of ahadith, as I said earlier or elsewhere, none can be accepted if they are found contradicting clear Quranic injunctions. This does not mean rejecting all ahadith in generality. Regarding those which are considered �Sahih�, IMHO, it only implies that their chain of transmission is sound. Secondly, this doesn�t imply the exact wordings of the Prophet, but only the implied meanings as per the understanding, memorization, and then oral transmission through at least 2 to 3 generations, before they were written down and compiled.

I don't know of any Quranic injunction against the death penalty for apostates. On the contrary, it is perfectly consistent with the Quran's declaration of apostasy as an unforgivable sin, as I said earlier.

On the other hand, we agree that it is abhorrent to kill someone merely because they don't believe in God. I gather from your comments that you don't believe Muhammad ever commanded such a thing. I think he probably did, but his commands were directed to specific people in specific circumstances, and never intended to apply in generality or in perpetuity.

Either way, how do you decide which hadith should be believed and which should not? Merely having an apparently sound chain of transmission is no guarantee. If these hadith are false or unreliable, we can assume there are others -- not all of which we will be fortunate enough to be able to identify as contradictory to the Quran and/or the principles of natural justice. I see no option but to treat them all as suspect.

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 05 January 2016 at 12:15am

Ron Webb wrote:

If protection is based on faith, then would it not follow that anyone abandoning the faith would also lose that protection?

The protection of an individual was assured through his association with a tribe/community. It is the Islam that brought the transformation of traditional lineage based community/tribe into faith based. A quite interesting example is seen from early Muslim history. After the Muslims were recognize as on organized community at Medina, a peace treaty was put in place between the Arabs (mostly the Meccans) and the Muslims of Medina. During this time frame, many examples of such people exists who wanted to join the opposite camps. While those who chose to leave Meccans and join the Muslims, were not allowed to do so. However, those who left the Muslims (apostates), very convienently joined back to Meccans without any retribution from Muslims. Later on even at the conquest of Mecca, only few out of them and not all, were destined to be killed because of their other heinous crimes possibly including the apostasy. This example clearly shows that �Apostasy� alone was never a crime by default during the time frame of the presence of the Prophet.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Thus, Muslims became one community against whom almost all non-Muslim tribes (barring few around Medina) became hostile to them.

Do you think that hostility could have anything to do with Muhammad's history of attacking and plundering the trading caravans in the area?

Attacking of Caravan was only limited against the Meccans or their allied tribes and not elsewhere.

Besides, I think it's only fair to point out that the hostility was mutual.

Don�t you think the aggression of an aggressor must be stopped by whatever language of the time, space, and other tools, he understands?

The Quran itself, with its countless exhortations to fight the unbelievers, and its slanders of non-Muslims as "accursed", "miserably slinking apes", "unclean", "evildoers", etc., is sufficient evidence for that.

Reading Quranic verses out of the context has misled many, and probably you are no exception to it.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

As I said earlier, this issue has confused the Muslims because of misunderstanding of the effect of a deserter on a community as compared to peaceful coexistence of a person with a changed faith. Primarily because of the phenomena of faith based community vs tribal community persisted throughout many centuries down the time tunnel. You posted the view of Islamicity scholar, who I think, was unable to provide the justification about a person who has not been given the opportunity of understanding Islam before being adopting it, just like those who are born Muslims. Would they still kill him, if his only crime is that he wants to change his faith peacefully?

So their whole objective to match up with the Quranic injunction of no compulsion in faith, falls flat on the ground. Thus, their point of view about the issue of �Apostasy� can�t be accepted.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

On the issue of ahadith, as I said earlier or elsewhere, none can be accepted if they are found contradicting clear Quranic injunctions. This does not mean rejecting all ahadith in generality. Regarding those which are considered �Sahih�, IMHO, it only implies that their chain of transmission is sound. Secondly, this doesn�t imply the exact wordings of the Prophet, but only the implied meanings as per the understanding, memorization, and then oral transmission through at least 2 to 3 generations, before they were written down and compiled.

This is not true simply because all the alternative point of views of Muslims about this issue, specifically deal to bring it in harmony with the Quranic injunction of no compulsion in faith. How well their explanation are and thus can be accepted/rejected is through logical deductions/implications, as I have done and presented above.

Ron Webb wrote:

On the other hand, we agree that it is abhorrent to kill someone merely because they don't believe in God. I gather from your comments that you don't believe Muhammad ever commanded such a thing. I think he probably did, but his commands were directed to specific people in specific circumstances, and never intended to apply in generality or in perpetuity.

I can agree with you, but would also add that whatever example of such an order could be presented, none of them had just one single crime of being apostate, as I have argued above.

Ron Webb wrote:

Either way, how do you decide which hadith should be believed and which should not? Merely having an apparently sound chain of transmission is no guarantee. If these hadith are false or unreliable, we can assume there are others -- not all of which we will be fortunate enough to be able to identify as contradictory to the Quran and/or the principles of natural justice. I see no option but to treat them all as suspect.

This could be true for the novice people like you or even myself; and this is one reason that it is the work of the Jurists to ensure that all these issues (eg authentication/verification of Isnaad and compatibility etc) are taken care of before making taking any evidence into consideration and forming any opinion on any matter pertaining to the Muslims.

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 06 January 2016 at 7:42pm

AhmadJoyia wrote:

The protection of an individual was assured through his association with a tribe/community. It is the Islam that brought the transformation of traditional lineage based community/tribe into faith based.

Yes, I get it. Faith, not lineage or tribal membership, is the Islamic basis for human rights and status in the community. The Quran makes that abundantly clear. And therefore the loss of faith would imply a loss to those rights and status.

A quite interesting example is seen from early Muslim history. After the Muslims were recognize as on organized community at Medina, a peace treaty was put in place between the Arabs (mostly the Meccans) and the Muslims of Medina. During this time frame, many examples of such people exists who wanted to join the opposite camps. While those who chose to leave Meccans and join the Muslims, were not allowed to do so. However, those who left the Muslims (apostates), very convienently joined back to Meccans without any retribution from Muslims. Later on even at the conquest of Mecca, only few out of them and not all, were destined to be killed because of their other heinous crimes possibly including the apostasy. This example clearly shows that �Apostasy� alone was never a crime by default during the time frame of the presence of the Prophet.

Were those who left actually Muslims who had taken the shahada, or were they native Medinans who refused it?

Attacking of Caravan was only limited against the Meccans or their allied tribes and not elsewhere.

I doubt that would matter much to most non-Muslims at the time. Highway robbery is highway robbery. Anyone committing such crimes, regardless of how they chose their victms, can expect some hostility from civilzed society.

Don�t you think the aggression of an aggressor must be stopped by whatever language of the time, space, and other tools, he understands?

No, I don't. I will not abandon my own moral principles just because the other side has apparently done so. That is the morality of a terrorist.

Reading Quranic verses out of the context has misled many, and probably you are no exception to it.

In what way are those verses taken out of context? Surely no one reading the Quran could miss its blatant hostility toward unbelievers.

So their whole objective to match up with the Quranic injunction of no compulsion in faith, falls flat on the ground. Thus, their point of view about the issue of �Apostasy� can�t be accepted.

What a relief it must be for apostates to know that instead of being compelled to return to the faith, they are merely to be killed.

As I just said, this is not about compulsion in faith. It is about the death penalty for the unforgivable sin of apostasy.

Either way, how do you decide which hadith should be believed and which should not? Merely having an apparently sound chain of transmission is no guarantee. If these hadith are false or unreliable, we can assume there are others -- not all of which we will be fortunate enough to be able to identify as contradictory to the Quran and/or the principles of natural justice. I see no option but to treat them all as suspect.

Which jurists? Although I haven't yet found an authoritative source, there are numerous Web sites (e.g., http://ya-mujeeb.com/index.php/sharai-masaeel/islamic-politics/please-mention-the-quranic-ayaat-and-ahadees-about-the-punishment-of-apostasy-some-people-said-that - ya-mujeeb.com ) that insist that all orthodox Islamic scholars, including all four of the classical Madhabs, are unanimous in confirming the death penalty for apostates. If you know of an exception, I would be glad to hear it.

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 07 January 2016 at 12:31am

Ron Webb wrote:

While with pagan tribal communities there were no ethical or moral grounds to respect for �human rights�, other than the fear of revenge from the individual�s tribe, but with the advent of Islam, these were clearly defined, irrespective of their faith or tribe, as shown in the Quran. Kindly refer verses 9:4 and 9:6, in this connection.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

A quite interesting example is seen from early Muslim history. After the Muslims were recognize as on organized community at Medina, a peace treaty was put in place between the Arabs (mostly the Meccans) and the Muslims of Medina. During this time frame, many examples of such people exists who wanted to join the opposite camps. While those who chose to leave Meccans and join the Muslims, were not allowed to do so. However, those who left the Muslims (apostates), very convienently joined back to Meccans without any retribution from Muslims. Later on even at the conquest of Mecca, only few out of them and not all, were destined to be killed because of their other heinous crimes possibly including the apostasy. This example clearly shows that �Apostasy� alone was never a crime by default during the time frame of the presence of the Prophet.

Were those who left actually Muslims who had taken the shahada, or were they native Medinans who refused it?

IMHO, those who left Muslims (after taking shahada) were Meccans and went back to Mecca. Those of Medinans, mostly got willing conversion to Islam, but there were few who apparently did take Shahada, but remained unconvinced. They were called the �Hyopcrites�.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Attacking of Caravan was only limited against the Meccans or their allied tribes and not elsewhere.

Which �civilized society� are you referring to?

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Don�t you think the aggression of an aggressor must be stopped by whatever language of the time, space, and other tools, he understands?

No, I don't. I will not abandon my own moral principles just because the other side has apparently done so. That is the morality of a terrorist.

Justice is one principle that no civilized society would forget, how humane it might appear otherwise.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Reading Quranic verses out of the context has misled many, and probably you are no exception to it.

In what way are those verses taken out of context? Surely no one reading the Quran could miss its blatant hostility toward unbelievers.

My brother who stops you from specifics? Aren�t we doing exactly the same, one by one, God�s Willing.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

So their whole objective to match up with the Quranic injunction of no compulsion in faith, falls flat on the ground. Thus, their point of view about the issue of �Apostasy� can�t be accepted.

What a relief it must be for apostates to know that instead of being compelled to return to the faith, they are merely to be killed. [IMG]smileys/smiley24.gif" align="middle" />

Despite my sound arguments with appropriate references, the basis of your sarcasm is beyond comprehension. No compulsion in faith dictates no compelling what to talk of killing.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

This is not true simply because all the alternative point of views of Muslims about this issue, specifically deal to bring it in harmony with the Quranic injunction of no compulsion in faith. How well their explanation are and thus can be accepted/rejected is through logical deductions/implications, as I have done and presented above.

As I just said, this is not about compulsion in faith. It is about the death penalty for the unforgivable sin of apostasy.

In the absence of your proof from Quran, just repeating the original hypothesis, is meaningless.

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 07 January 2016 at 6:08pm

AhmadJoyia wrote:

While with pagan tribal communities there were no ethical or moral grounds to respect for �human rights�, other than the fear of revenge from the individual�s tribe, but with the advent of Islam, these were clearly defined, irrespective of their faith or tribe, as shown in the Quran. Kindly refer verses 9:4 and 9:6, in this connection.

What makes you think the pagans had no morals of respect for human rights? Granted their understanding of morals may be different from yours (as mine are too) but i don't think there has ever been, or could ever be, a society without some sense of morality.

In your opinion? Where are you getting your information from?

Which �civilized society� are you referring to?

All of them. I can't imagine any civilized society that condones highway robbery.

Justice is one principle that no civilized society would forget, how humane it might appear otherwise.

I think what you call justice is more like what I would call revenge, or the law of the jungle. IMHO when people seek justice they do so by appealing to the state or to some other impartial authority. When the aggrieved party is also the judge, jury and executioner, if the result is justice it is only by sheer coincidence.

My brother who stops you from specifics? Aren�t we doing exactly the same, one by one, God�s Willing.

I assumed you would know the specifics. There are probably hundreds of examples in the Quran. Here are just a few:
- "...when there came to them that which they recognized, they disbelieved in it; so the curse of Allah will be upon the disbelievers" ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=89 - 2:89 )
- "those who transgressed among you concerning the sabbath, and We said to them, 'Be apes, despised'" ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=65 - 2:65 )
- "O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-haram" ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=9&verse=28 - 9:28 )
- "We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers." ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=3&verse=151 - 3:151 )
- "Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures." ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=98&verse=6 - 98:6 )

Despite my sound arguments with appropriate references, the basis of your sarcasm is beyond comprehension. No compulsion in faith dictates no compelling what to talk of killing.

Your arguments are against a straw man of "compulsion in religion", which has nothing to do with what I am saying. Apostates are killed for the same reason adulterers are killed: as a penalty for a sin already freely committed, not in an attempt at compulsion or to force them to repent or turn away from sin.

I am reminded of that famous scene in the James Bond movie https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Goldfinger_%28film%29 - Goldfinger , where the villain has our hero strapped to a table with an automated laser cutter about to slice him in half, and is about to walk away:
Goldfinger: Choose your next witticism carefully, Mr Bond � it may be your last. The purpose of our two previous encounters is now very clear to me. I do not intend to be disturbed by another. Goodnight, Mr Bond. [leaves Bond]
Bond: Do you expect me to talk?
Goldfinger: [looks back, laughing] No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 07 January 2016 at 7:02pm

Ron Webb wrote:

As I said, �only the fear of revenge dictated their sense of Morality� whatever it was. Thus tribal protection was essential for the survival of an individual in that society.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

IMHO, those who left Muslims (after taking shahada) were Meccans and went back to Mecca. Those of Medinans, mostly got willing conversion to Islam, but there were few who apparently did take Shahada, but remained unconvinced. They were called the �Hyopcrites�.

In your opinion? Where are you getting your information from?

Please provide alternate to my opinion, if you have.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Which �civilized society� are you referring to?

All of them. I can't imagine any civilized society that condones highway robbery.

In the state of war, such measures were only used as �Economic embargo� against only the specific enemy, whereas the �highway robbery� implies earning living through these means. I hope you know the difference.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Justice is one principle that no civilized society would forget, how humane it might appear otherwise.

I guess one need to put his feet in their shoe to understand the situation of those times. What �State� or �Impartial� system do you think prevailed among them?

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

My brother who stops you from specifics? Aren�t we doing exactly the same, one by one, God�s Willing.

Well, thanks for sharing your apprehensions. But from Muslims� perspective, these are all admonitions by the Creator to His disobedient creatures against Allah�s rights and none of them is asking Muslims to do anything against them. But of course Muslims were ordered to take action against those evildoers who did violate the human rights.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Despite my sound arguments with appropriate references, the basis of your sarcasm is beyond comprehension. No compulsion in faith dictates no compelling what to talk of killing.

Sin is a violation of a God�s right and not human right. Thus Muslims are not to take action against the sins but only God; that too, after an appointed time is over for them.

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 08 January 2016 at 4:38pm

AhmadJoyia wrote:

As I said, �only the fear of revenge dictated their sense of Morality� whatever it was. Thus tribal protection was essential for the survival of an individual in that society.

Yes, you said that. What I asked was, what makes you think that?

Please provide alternate to my opinion, if you have.

You have a very strange way of seeking the truth. You seem to form opinions simply based on what you would like to be true, and then demand that others refute your opinion. If they can't or won't, you think you have the truth.

As I said before, it doesn't work that way. For an opinion to have any merit at all, it must be based on evidence of some sort. Not necessarily irrefutable evidence -- that would make it more like a fact, not an opinion -- but at least on something more than just hot air.

You want an alternate opinion? Sure, that's easy. I think that when Muhammad and his little band of credulous admirers first arrived in Medina, the peaceful citizens of that city saw no reason not to tolerate them. After all, it was unlike in Mecca, where they were being disruptive and trying to force other worshippers out of the Kaaba. By the time the more moderate Medinans realized the potentially coercive and violent nature of this new religion, it had grown too large to be controlled. Those who couldn't stomach the incessant public calls to prayer, the misogynistic treatment of women, and the general "holier-than-thou" attitude, found it easier to move to Mecca than to confront the growing Islamic community.

Do I have any evidence for this? None that I'd care to share; but please go and verify my statements. Or present your proof to support your disagreement.

An economic embargo is when you block the movement of goods and services, and thus prevent trade from happening. Highway robbery is when you attack innocent travellers on the road and steal their money or property. It's kind of the opposite of an embargo: if an embargo is in effect, there would be few travellers, no trade goods to steal and few opportunities for highway robbery.

I guess one need to put his feet in their shoe to understand the situation of those times. What �State� or �Impartial� system do you think prevailed among them?

I'm sure there were various secular and religious authorities, but in any case I was speaking hypothetically. Questions of justice can only be resolved by a neutral third party. Otherwise, it is meaningless to speak of "justice". No doubt each side in a dispute thinks that justice is on their side.

In this particular case, it's not at all surprising that neutral tribes would regard Muhammad's attacks on commercial caravans as unjust. The only ones who would condone such behaviour would be tribes that were inclined to engage in such attacks themselves, but I wouldn't define those tribes as "civilized".

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here about the word "hostile". I assumed when you said that most of the other tribes in the region became "hostile" to the Muslims, I assumed you meant merely unfriendly, not that they were physically aggressive. Unfriendly I can understand, for the reasons I have offered; but do you mean that the other tribes were actually attacking the Muslims? Seems kinda hard to believe.

Sin is a violation of a God�s right and not human right. Thus Muslims are not to take action against the sins but only God; that too, after an appointed time is over for them.

And yet adulterers are to be put to death. If Muslims are commanded to kill adulterers, then why not apostates?

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 09 January 2016 at 4:30am

Ron Webb wrote:

Yes, you said that. What I asked was, what makes you think that?

Knowledge about tribal life style is very basic especially once you have an interest about early Muslim history. You wouldn�t miss it, if you happened to read it.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Please provide alternate to my opinion, if you have.

[IMG]smileys/smiley36.gif" align="middle" /> You have a very strange way of seeking the truth. You seem to form opinions simply based on what you would like to be true, and then demand that others refute your opinion. If they can't or won't, you think you have the truth.

Ok, I must admit my fault that I do assume some basic knowledge of Islam from my brothers on this forum which ensures that I may not have to teach 101 of Muslim history on this forum. If you want to know the name of books, please note that there are many, and to satisfy the need of bro Airmano, I did give him non-Muslim sources (eg Karen Armstrong etc) to verify my statements. However, I do see you in a strange habit of putting �how�, �when�, and �what� to all the logical arguments presented to you without any counter argument to refute. Although, you might hide behind being skeptic, but this does show how much more you might need to learn about the basics of Islam. So, yes, I am not surprised from my atheist brothers when they have nothing to refute, their pet sequence of question is always there to hide behind. Nevertheless, I must surely present my source of statements, whenever asked for. But expecting basic knowledge is also not very far-fetched. Is it?

Ron Webb wrote:

As I said before, it doesn't work that way. For an opinion to have any merit at all, it must be based on evidence of some sort. Not necessarily irrefutable evidence -- that would make it more like a fact, not an opinion -- but at least on something more than just hot air.

How the evidence from history be presented other than refereeing through books that too of non-Muslim authors?

Ron Webb wrote:

You want an alternate opinion? Sure, that's easy. I think that when Muhammad and his little band of credulous admirers first arrived in Medina, the peaceful citizens of that city saw no reason not to tolerate them. After all, it was unlike in Mecca, where they were being disruptive and trying to force other worshippers out of the Kaaba. By the time the more moderate Medinans realized the potentially coercive and violent nature of this new religion, it had grown too large to be controlled. Those who couldn't stomach the incessant public calls to prayer, the misogynistic treatment of women, and the general "holier-than-thou" attitude, found it easier to move to Mecca than to confront the growing Islamic community.

Do I have any evidence for this? None that I'd care to share; but please go and verify my statements. Or present your proof to support your disagreement. [IMG]smileys/smiley2.gif" align="middle" />

Well, flaw in your argument if so conspicuous especially once you bring �treatment of women� that I have to forcefully control over my laugh over your knowledge so as not to discourage you asking questions. But I can only suggest all brothers like Airmano, Caringheart and may be you as well, to stop taking info from unreliable sources like Wikipedia on the internet. Such sources may be used as a short cut to give a quick info, but it is often inaccurate without any credentials of its authors.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

In the state of war, such measures were only used as �Economic embargo� against only the specific enemy, whereas the �highway robbery� implies earning living through these means. I hope you know the difference.

An economic embargo is when you block the movement of goods and services, and thus prevent trade from happening.

What do you do with the violators? Especially, if the violators have guns also, which they never hesitate to shoot at first sight?

Ron Webb wrote:

Highway robbery is when you attack innocent travellers on the road and steal their money or property. It's kind of the opposite of an embargo: if an embargo is in effect, there would be few travellers, no trade goods to steal and few opportunities for highway robbery.

Armed embargo was necessary just to ensure the implementation against the violators and these were not innocents. Clearly, no attacks were launched against the non-Meccan +allied (innocent) tribes. Isn�t it legitimate to ask you the name of one such incident in which �innocents� were attacked? Mind it, I have yet not asked you your source of info, but simply questioning your knowledge.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

I guess one need to put his feet in their shoe to understand the situation of those times. What �State� or �Impartial� system do you think prevailed among them?

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?

Ron Webb wrote:

Questions of justice can only be resolved by a neutral third party. Otherwise, it is meaningless to speak of "justice". No doubt each side in a dispute thinks that justice is on their side.

Your argument of �third party� is the classical example that I just talked about reflecting your depth of knowledge in the subject that we are discussing here. Please, no harm intended, at all, but my only request is to gain knowledge from some authentic sources.

Ron Webb wrote:

In this particular case, it's not at all surprising that neutral tribes would regard Muhammad's attacks on commercial caravans as unjust. The only ones who would condone such behaviour would be tribes that were inclined to engage in such attacks themselves, but I wouldn't define those tribes as "civilized".

O my dear brother, do you think with your mere conjecture based hypothetical arguments would take this discussion to any meaningful conclusion? Kindly name any single tribe of such characteristic to support your hypothesis.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Well, thanks for sharing your apprehensions. But from Muslims� perspective, these are all admonitions by the Creator to His disobedient creatures against Allah�s rights and none of them is asking Muslims to do anything against them. But of course Muslims were ordered to take action against those evildoers who did violate the human rights.

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.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Sin is a violation of a God�s right and not human right. Thus Muslims are not to take action against the sins but only God; that too, after an appointed time is over for them.

And yet adulterers are to be put to death. If Muslims are commanded to kill adulterers, then why not apostates?

Notwithstanding the fact that adultery is a human crime (how to quantify the hurt one feels if his/her spouse cheats) against not only an individual but also collective against the community, but IMHO, the fact remains Quran doesn�t prescribe killing the adulterers. Please share your source of info or reference from Quran, if you are truthful and not hypthetical.

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 10 January 2016 at 9:59pm

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Ok, I must admit my fault that I do assume some basic knowledge of Islam from my brothers on this forum which ensures that I may not have to teach 101 of Muslim history on this forum.

You don't need to teach it; you need to defend it. I am well aware of the dogmatic prejudices (what you call "basic knowledge") that most Muslims are taught regarding the conditions under which Islam came into being. I'm just asking you to consider whether there is any objective evidence for believing them to be true.

How the evidence from history be presented other than refereeing through books that too of non-Muslim authors?

If you had any non-Muslim sources for your claims, it would be interesting to see them.

What do you do with the violators? Especially, if the violators have guns also, which they never hesitate to shoot at first sight?

You enforce an embargo by preventing caravans from entering or leaving Mecca. You don't rob them.

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?

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?

The principles of natural justice are innate in all humanity. That is a bit of humanist "dogma", I'll admit, but there is plenty of psychological research and anthropological evidence to back it up. The Code of Hammurabi, for instance, existed more than two thousand years before Muhammad. There is no merit to the claim that religion, let alone any specific religion, invented ethics. I don't know the specifics of the tribes in seventh century Arabia, but I see no reason to suppose they would be any different. A society that condoned theft would be inherently unstable and would not survive long.

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. If you have a non-Muslim source for your information about the other tribes, I would be pleased to read it, but I'm afraid that anything based on traditional Muslim accounts is not trustworthy.

As you are no doubt aware, the Quran verse that prescribed the stoning of adulterers was allegedly eaten by a goat.

There are, however, plenty of hadiths that confirm the penalty. I can give you examples if you wish, but I'm sure you have read them yourself.

I am glad that you so easily dismiss these awkward hadiths, and the purpose of this discussion is to convince other Muslims to take the same approach. The question remains, however: what do you make of the hadiths in which Muhammad commanded these things? Can you just disregard the ones you don't like? And given that there are so many of them to be disregarded, how can you have confidence in any of them? How many others are equally spurious, but don't happen to conflict with anything in the Quran?

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 11 January 2016 at 11:06am

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

How the evidence from history be presented other than refereeing through books that too of non-Muslim authors?

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.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

What do you do with the violators? Especially, if the violators have guns also, which they never hesitate to shoot at first sight?

You enforce an embargo by preventing caravans from entering or leaving Mecca. You don't rob them.

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

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

and I am also sure that your �surety� is only speculative than factual. Isn�t it?

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. Here I bring back our discussion for review of your reply

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

I guess one need to put his feet in their shoe to understand the situation of those times. What �State� or �Impartial� system do you think prevailed among them?

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? [/quote]

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Your argument of �third party� is the classical example that I just talked about reflecting your depth of knowledge in the subject that we are discussing here. Please, no harm intended, at all, but my only request is to gain knowledge from some authentic sources.

This could be the problem of the times prior to when UN was formed.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

O my dear brother, do you think with your mere conjecture based hypothetical arguments would take this discussion to any meaningful conclusion? Kindly name any single tribe of such characteristic to support your hypothesis.

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.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

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.

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 called �neutral� history? 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.

Ron Webb wrote:

If you have a non-Muslim source for your information about the other tribes, I would be pleased to read it, but I'm afraid that anything based on traditional Muslim accounts is not trustworthy.

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.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Notwithstanding the fact that adultery is a human crime (how to quantify the hurt one feels if his/her spouse cheats) against not only an individual but also collective against the community, but IMHO, the fact remains Quran doesn�t prescribe killing the adulterers. Please share your source of info or reference from Quran, if you are truthful and not hypthetical.

As you are no doubt aware, the Quran verse that prescribed the stoning of adulterers was allegedly eaten by a goat. [IMG]smileys/smiley2.gif" align="middle" /> There are, however, plenty of hadiths that confirm the penalty. I can give you examples if you wish, but I'm sure you have read them yourself.

I am also amused with your jokes simply because I guess you know the truth as well.

Ron Webb wrote:

I am glad that you so easily dismiss these awkward hadiths, and the purpose of this discussion is to convince other Muslims to take the same approach. The question remains, however: what do you make of the hadiths in which Muhammad commanded these things? Can you just disregard the ones you don't like? And given that there are so many of them to be disregarded, how can you have confidence in any of them? How many others are equally spurious, but don't happen to conflict with anything in the Quran?

My brother, the punishment of Adultery is clearly prescribed in Surah Noor for the Muslims. 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. 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. Regarding the use of Ahadith in generality discussed elsewhere, I hope, I didn�t leave you waiting for my reply.

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 11 January 2016 at 11:45am

Ahmad:
If robbing was the only purpose, why other tribes were not attacked?

Indeed robbing was not the only purpose as this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad - Wiki article clarifies. Please note that the entries are referenced with sources for you to check.

Airmano

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 11 January 2016 at 8:13pm

airmano wrote:

Ahmad:
If robbing was the only purpose, why other tribes were not attacked?

Thanks bro Airmano for your favourite Wiki to show as how you understand Islam. Anyhow, even this source clearly states its limitation as follows

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (April 2015)
This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2015)
Some or all of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (April 2015)

On the more, you would see that this compilation mostly rely on Ibn Ishaq or Ibn Hashim as their primary sources who have been already categorized as the unreliable sources simply because of their weak methodology of collecting their accounts of the history.
Best regards

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 11 January 2016 at 11:36pm

In your own post you prove that Wiki is rather reliable. Can you imagine an Islamic Website stating "This article needs additional citations for verification."?
The points you raise do not imply that the claims are wrong, they indicate that more clarification is needed.

When I count the entries where "Ibn Ishaq and/or Ibn Hashim" are the only source I arrive at 6.
From the 100 entries this is a mere 6% you could dismiss on this basis. Many of the "Ibn Ishaq and/or Ibn Hashim" entries are backed up by the Quran and Bukhari. Would you consider these sources as unreliable as well ?

Talking about clarification: could you (or anybody else) finally tell us which Hadiths are reliable and which ones are not ?
It seems that you play the same game with the hadiths as with the "Surah the like thereof" by switching on and off additional criteria just as it comforts your point of view.

------------------------------------------------------

Ah, and in your reply to Ron (same page) you wrote:

"...Clearly, no attacks were launched against the non-Meccan +allied (innocent) tribes. Isn�t it legitimate to ask you the name of one such incident in which �innocents� were attacked?"

Since you (rightly) insist on quoting sources: Which source makes you say that the targeted Juhaynah tribe during the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_of_Abu_Ubaidah_ibn_al_Jarrah - Expedition of the fish was an ally to the Meccans (since I couldn't find any) ?
To finish: Could you also give your moral understanding of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_of_Kurz_bin_Jabir_Al-Fihri - this incident ?

Airmano

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 13 January 2016 at 8:46pm

AhmadJoyia wrote:

If you had any non-Muslim sources for your claims, it would be interesting to see them.

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 ( http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35192&PID=202221#202221 - 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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=24&verse=2 - 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 http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/017-smt.php#017.4214 - 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?

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 17 January 2016 at 10:58am

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

If you had any non-Muslim sources for your claims, it would be interesting to see them.

I should rather let you complete my quote by adding �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.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

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.

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.

This could be the problem of the times prior to when UN was formed.

Good that now you have read about �ghazu� and other tribal ways of living of that time; which is a good sign. Appreciated.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

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.

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.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

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.

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 called �neutral� history?

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�?

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

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.

I don�t think this is entirely true. The methodology to classify ahadith literature to authenticate through unbroken chain of narration is quite scientific in nature, through which zillions of gossip work got filtered out.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

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.

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�?

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

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

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 http://quranexplained.net/Read.aspx#Sura=24:1&T=1,11&vt=true -
Zina includes sexual intercourse between a man and a woman not married to each other. It therefore applies both to adultery (which implies that one or both of the parties are married to a person or persons other than the ones concerned) and to fornication, which, in its strict signification, implies that both parties are unmarried. The law of marriage and divorce is made easy in Islam, so that there may be less temptation for intercourse outside the well-defined bonds of marriage. This makes for greater self-respect for both man and woman. Other sex offences are also punishable, but this Section applies strictly to Tina as above defined.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

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?

The presence of clear verses in Quran is an irrefutable evidence against any hadith and not vice versa. This is basics of Islam 101. However, these questions are not new to the community. Just see http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/017-smt.php#017.4218 - Book 017, Number 4218:

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

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

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.

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 17 January 2016 at 5:55pm

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.

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.

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.

The brutality and annihilation came later.

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.

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 ( http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/017-smt.php#017.4192 - 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.

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?

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 17 January 2016 at 6:18pm

P.S.: Good grief! I just happened to scroll down from the last hadith I quoted, and discovered that there are three whole chapters (Chapters 4 - 6) of Bukhari hadith discussing the stoning of adulterer! That's 33 hadith in total (4191 to 4223); and without checking exhaustively, it sure looks like virtually every one of them confirms the penalty. And that's just Bukhari!

Are you sure that all these hadith are invalid?

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 18 January 2016 at 10:32am

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:

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�?

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]...

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:

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.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 21 January 2016 at 10:30am

airmano wrote:

...Since you (rightly) insist on quoting sources: Which source makes you say that the targeted Juhaynah tribe during the Expedition of the fish was an ally to the Meccans (since I couldn't find any) ?
To finish: Could you also give your moral understanding of this incident ?

By going through your own reference of Wikipedia at, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_of_Abu_Ubaidah_ibn_al_Jarrah - Expedition of Fish you can read it at one place as ...He was sent to observe a Quraysh caravan... and at another place (from Sahih Muslim quotation) as ..We were on the look out for a caravan of the Quraish...

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 21 January 2016 at 11:43am

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 http://sunnah.com/abudawud/15/63 - 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition_of_Kurz_bin_Jabir_Al-Fihri - this point .

Is there a reason for it ?

Airmano

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 21 January 2016 at 7:20pm

AhmadJoyia wrote:

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.

If you agree that ghazu is not morally acceptable, then why was Muhammad engaged in it?

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)?

I suppose I should have said "persons" rather than "people", i.e. there is no reason to suppose that the caravans were owned by the same persons who kicked the Muslims out. If you were (wrongly, in your opinion) kicked out of my country of Canada, do you think that you would be justified in stopping me on the highway and robbing me? Would that be fair?

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

I think Karen Armstrong made the purpose clear. They needed the money -- they had no other way to earn a living.

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?

Again, maybe "amicably" was a poor choice of words. What I meant was that some sort of impartial "justice" (even if we wouldn't necessarily agree with the principles on which this justice was based) would be applied to internal disputes, while pretty much anything goes with those who are not members of your own tribe. But this is just a general impression from what I have read. I don't know it for a fact and don't have any specific source.

Ok, so much from your guess work. But why should your guess work only goes against the Muslims?

It doesn't. I assume that the Muslims were no better and no worse than the others of that time.

That would be a discussion unto itself, but we had better save it for another time.

How do you decide on the reliability of a source? For Muslims, the main criterion seems to be whether the source is a good Muslim. Muslim scholarship is therefore almost by definition biased in favour of Muslims. IMHO a random "gossip" from the time would be a more reliable source. At least there is no a priori reason to believe he might be distorting the facts.

We're not talking about the punishment for a victimless crime of zina. We are talking about an additional punishment for the much more serious crime (against the aggrieved spouse) of adultery. As I said, murder is a form of assault; but just because we have a prescribed penalty for assault, that doesn't mean we can't have an additional penalty for murder.

Are you saying that it was okay to kill people for apostasy and adultery before the relevant Quran verses were revealed, but not after? Or do you think that Muhammad was wrong to enforce these punishments?

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 21 January 2016 at 9:02pm

Ron Webb wrote:

If you agree that ghazu is not morally acceptable, then why was Muhammad engaged in it?

The Prophet didn�t. He only used similar ways as a tactic to enforce Blockade.

Ron Webb wrote:

ahmadjoyia wrote:

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)?

I suppose I should have said "persons" rather than "people", i.e. there is no reason to suppose that the caravans were owned by the same persons who kicked the Muslims out.

Oh I see!! But why you just stopped at using plural in persons. You could have rather inquired Why not against the only single person who kicked Muslims out of Mecca?. Thus, your argumentation reflects your limitation to visualize the tribal societies of that time.

Ron Webb wrote:

If you were (wrongly, in your opinion) kicked out of my country of Canada, do you think that you would be justified in stopping me on the highway and robbing me? Would that be fair?

This example is confirmation of my assessment of your limitation. Remember that the tribal societies work in unison where an individual�s action is owned by the whole tribe same as the decision of the tribe (good or bad) is binding on every individual (to reap benefits / losses).

Ron Webb wrote:

ahmadjoyia wrote:

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

I think Karen Armstrong made the purpose clear. They needed the money -- they had no other way to earn a living.

This could be partly true where the blockade ensured strategic advantage but also helped the individuals to survive in such an adverse environment. So, if she thinks that there was no other way to earn a living, then I guess it was all the more legitimate to go for this as their prime motive. What do you think how else the exiled people would survive?

Ron Webb wrote:

ahmadjoyia wrote:

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?

Now that you have read Karen saying � they had no other way to earn a living , I think that should suffice for any reasonable mind to see their actions as fully justified.

Ron Webb wrote:

ahmadjoyia wrote:

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.

I don�t think there was any other choice in all Muslim society, thus it became a necessity and not as a choice.

Ron Webb wrote:

IMHO a random "gossip" from the time would be a more reliable source. At least there is no a priori reason to believe he might be distorting the facts.

Thanks for sharing your HO, however kindly consider this that for any report to be reliable, there are two conditions. While your view only takes one condition to be sufficient, the Muslim Scholars, in addition, also look for solid �chain of narration� and not just �random gossip�.

Ron Webb wrote:

ahmadjoyia wrote:

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.

While the punishment for all forms of zina (fornication / adultery) is explicitly defined without distinguishing them, however, you are correct, many other forms of related crime can be enacted. But then, these would not be called as �Hadd� (an offense described in Quran) but would be called �Tazeer� (penal) offense.

Ron Webb wrote:

ahmadjoyia wrote:

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.

While discussing the issue of �apostasy and adultery� the whole purpose was to show how the Islamic principle 101 must be applied without going into proving/disproving the authenticity of related Ahadith literature.

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 22 January 2016 at 9:08pm

AhmadJoyia wrote:

The Prophet didn�t. He only used similar ways as a tactic to enforce Blockade.

Muhammad stopped caravans on the road, threatened them with violence and confiscated their belongings. That is not "similar ways". That is highway robbery, by any definition. If he had only wanted to enforce the "blockade", he would have simply sent the caravans back where they came from.

You may want to argue that the end justifies the means, i.e. .that his actions are justified by offenses committed by others of the Quraysh tribe, but you can't escape the fact that Muhammad was engaged in ghazu as a source of income.

If you were (wrongly, in your opinion) kicked out of my country of Canada, do you think that you would be justified in stopping me on the highway and robbing me? Would that be fair?

Excuse me, but I thought Muhammad was supposed to be inaugurating a new ethical standard, supplanting the old tribalism of the "Age of Ignorance". Are you telling me that Muhammad was no better than what came before?

Perhaps you should take another look at my example and just answer the question. Never mind tribalism -- just tell me whether you think it would be morally acceptable for you to stop me on the highway, threaten me with violence and rob me of my possessions, because you were expelled from Canada and I am a Canadian?

This could be partly true where the blockade ensured strategic advantage but also helped the individuals to survive in such an adverse environment. So, if she thinks that there was no other way to earn a living, then I guess it was all the more legitimate to go for this as their prime motive. What do you think how else the exiled people would survive?

Again, do you think it is morally acceptable to rob innocent people (persons) because you allegedly have no other way to earn a living?

And how does one evaluate the chain of narration, except according to the reliability of the narrators?

I'm not sure how that would matter to the many women who are stoned to death.

In that case I'm disappointed, because the reason I started this topic was to discuss the authenticity and reliability of the hadith. My point from the beginning is that Muhammad (PBUH) is dead, therefore whatever commands he gave to his contemporaries should have died with him. The hadith collections we have are so haphazard, and the dubious that I don't see how anyone can take them seriously as scripture.

Allah (allegedly) made such a point of preserving the Quran from corruption. If He had wanted us to be guided by the hadith as well, then why wouldn't He have taken the same care in preserving the hadith?

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 23 January 2016 at 8:27am

Ahmad:
Thanks for sharing your HO, however kindly consider this that for any report to be reliable, there are two conditions. While your view only takes one condition to be sufficient, the Muslim Scholars, in addition, also look for solid �chain of narration� and not just �random gossip�.

Well, why don't they apply this rule to the Quran ?
The only "witness" was your prophet, who always had his "revelations" when it suited him the most.
Not really what I call a solid "chain of narration".

Airmano

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 23 January 2016 at 8:45am

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

The Prophet didn�t. He only used similar ways as a tactic to enforce Blockade.

A tactic in �Similar ways� to �ghazu� allowed the Prophet and his companions to fight back for their rights, without allowing his enemy to make alliances through the sympathies of other pagan tribes. That is the reason they were so very particular in not to attack any other but the Meccan caravans only.

Ron Webb wrote:

You may want to argue that the end justifies the means, i.e. .that his actions are justified by offenses committed by others of the Quraysh tribe, but you can't escape the fact that Muhammad was engaged in ghazu as a source of income.

No that is not a correct line of argument. Kindly name a ghazu against any other tribe except those in alliance with the Meccans to prove your point.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

If you were (wrongly, in your opinion) kicked out of my country of Canada, do you think that you would be justified in stopping me on the highway and robbing me? Would that be fair?

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.

Ron Webb wrote:

Perhaps you should take another look at my example and just answer the question. Never mind tribalism -- just tell me whether you think it would be morally acceptable for you to stop me on the highway, threaten me with violence and rob me of my possessions, because you were expelled from Canada and I am a Canadian?

I just answered you. See above.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

This could be partly true where the blockade ensured strategic advantage but also helped the individuals to survive in such an adverse environment. So, if she thinks that there was no other way to earn a living, then I guess it was all the more legitimate to go for this as their prime motive. What do you think how else the exiled people would survive?

Again, do you think it is morally acceptable to rob innocent people (persons) because you allegedly have no other way to earn a living?

I don�t think Moral high ground achieved by the Muslims could have existed against the �innocent people (person)� that you assume they were. Can you provide any evidence to support your assumption?

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Thanks for sharing your HO, however kindly consider this that for any report to be reliable, there are two conditions. While your view only takes one condition to be sufficient, the Muslim Scholars, in addition, also look for solid �chain of narration� and not just �random gossip�.

And how does one evaluate the chain of narration, except according to the reliability of the narrators?

�Reliability� through honesty and truthfulness of the narrators! Do you think, this is not important or less important than the gossips?

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

While the punishment for all forms of zina (fornication / adultery) is explicitly defined without distinguishing them, however, you are correct, many other forms of related crime can be enacted. But then, these would not be called as �Hadd� (an offense described in Quran) but would be called �Tazeer� (penal) offense.

I'm not sure how that would matter to the many women who are stoned to death.

I don�t know what�s your stats are, but yes, it can�t be ruled out as this notion was prevalent among some Muslim countries.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

While discussing the issue of �apostasy and adultery� the whole purpose was to show how the Islamic principle 101 must be applied without going into proving/disproving the authenticity of related Ahadith literature.

In that case I'm disappointed, because the reason I started this topic was to discuss the authenticity and reliability of the hadith. My point from the beginning is that Muhammad (PBUH) is dead, therefore whatever commands he gave to his contemporaries should have died with him. The hadith collections we have are so haphazard, and the dubious that I don't see how anyone can take them seriously as scripture.
Allah (allegedly) made such a point of preserving the Quran from corruption. If He had wanted us to be guided by the hadith as well, then why wouldn't He have taken the same care in preserving the hadith?

Oh, I am surprised! I thought I already answered all of this in my very first post on this topic, but it was only through your �litmus test� that we got so long in this topic to reach this point. Are you awake?

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 23 January 2016 at 8:48pm

AhmadJoyia wrote:

No that is not a correct line of argument. Kindly name a ghazu against any other tribe except those in alliance with the Meccans to prove your point.

Do you know of any other tribes who operated caravans as lucrative as the Quraysh?

Maybe a better question would be, would Muhammad have known of them? Remember, Muhammad was a Quraysh merchant. He would have known just about everything there was to know about their caravans: when and where they travelled, what goods they carried, how they were protected, how they would respond if attacked, etc. Even if there were equally appealing targets, why would he take a chance on robbing any others?

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.

Can you support your assumption that Muhammad achieved a "moral high ground"? As for "innocent people", I think the principle of most civilized nations is the assumption of "innocent until proven guilty". Perhaps some of the Quraysh caravans were owned or driven by the same people who mistreated Muhammad, but I doubt that all of them were, and I doubt that Muhammad bothered to check.

�Reliability� through honesty and truthfulness of the narrators! Do you think, this is not important or less important than the gossips?

I think that the honesty and truthfulness of an ideologue or a biased witness is more doubtful than a person chosen at random, "gossip" or not.

I don�t know what�s your stats are, but yes, it can�t be ruled out as this notion was prevalent among some Muslim countries.

Was prevalent? http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/04/asia/afghanistan-taliban-woman-stoning/ - It still is .

AhmadJoyia wrote:

While discussing the issue of �apostasy and adultery� the whole purpose was to show how the Islamic principle 101 must be applied without going into proving/disproving the authenticity of related Ahadith literature.

In that case I'm disappointed, because the reason I started this topic was to discuss the authenticity and reliability of the hadith. My point from the beginning is that Muhammad (PBUH) is dead, therefore whatever commands he gave to his contemporaries should have died with him. The hadith collections we have are so haphazard, and the dubious that I don't see how anyone can take them seriously as scripture.
Allah (allegedly) made such a point of preserving the Quran from corruption. If He had wanted us to be guided by the hadith as well, then why wouldn't He have taken the same care in preserving the hadith?

I was hoping that this discussion of the hadith related to apostasy would lead us back to the authenticity and reliability of hadith in general. That's why I was disappointed when (above, bold) you apparently wanted to steer clear of the subject. Perhaps I misunderstood.

As I said in my first response to you, however, you seem to have a very different view of the hadith from most Muslims, at least most of the ones I have previous discussed apostasy with here. I was hoping that others would join the discussion, but none have. (See also my first reply in http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35413&PID=202574#202574 - Anti-science madness .)

Do you have any thoughts on why that is? Do you think your views are representative of Muslims in general? If not, why do you think that no other Muslims care to join this discussion and offer their perspective on the authenticity and reliability of hadith?

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 24 January 2016 at 12:28am

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

No that is not a correct line of argument. Kindly name a ghazu against any other tribe except those in alliance with the Meccans to prove your point.

Do you know of any other tribes who operated caravans as lucrative as the Quraysh?

So your answer to my question is clearly seen as No . However, your counter question is also curious; but how would you define .. as lucrative as the Quraysh? Any quantification index? Anything not �opinionated�?

Ron Webb wrote:

Maybe a better question would be, would Muhammad have known of them? Remember, Muhammad was a Quraysh merchant. He would have known just about everything there was to know about their caravans: when and where they travelled, what goods they carried, how they were protected, how they would respond if attacked, etc. Even if there were equally appealing targets, why would he take a chance on robbing any others?

Knowledge about Meccan Caravans is expected of the �Migrants� but how is it possible �not to attack� other non-Meccan caravans about whom no information is expectedly known to them?

Ron Webb wrote:

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.

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.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

I don�t think Moral high ground achieved by the Muslims could have existed against the �innocent people (person)� that you assume they were. Can you provide any evidence to support your assumption?

Can you support your assumption that Muhammad achieved a "moral high ground"?

So, again you seem to dodge the question by asking counter but unrelated question. So essentially, it is reasonable to take your answer as No. However for your question, the evidence comes from your own sources which are unable to provide any ghazu which was against any non Meccan allied tribes. Karan supports this concept when she writes that all other tribes were astonished on the temerity of the Muslims; taking head on against the superpower of the time.

Ron Webb wrote:

As for "innocent people", I think the principle of most civilized nations is the assumption of "innocent until proven guilty". Perhaps some of the Quraysh caravans were owned or driven by the same people who mistreated Muhammad, but I doubt that all of them were, and I doubt that Muhammad bothered to check.

Do you think an Iranian company trading against the embargo as �Innocent�? On the contrary, do you think the Millions of Japanese Civilians killed of your Nuke attack weren�t innocent?

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

�Reliability� through honesty and truthfulness of the narrators! Do you think, this is not important or less important than the gossips?

I think that the honesty and truthfulness of an ideologue or a biased witness is more doubtful than a person chosen at random, "gossip" or not.

Your presumptuous opinion, IMHO, goes against your own logic of �innocent until proven guilty�. Hence, not very convincing.

Ron Webb wrote:

I was hoping that this discussion of the hadith related to apostasy would lead us back to the authenticity and reliability of hadith in general. That's why I was disappointed when (above, bold) you apparently wanted to steer clear of the subject. Perhaps I misunderstood.
As I said in my first response to you, however, you seem to have a very different view of the hadith from most Muslims, at least most of the ones I have previous discussed apostasy with here. I was hoping that others would join the discussion, but none have. (See also my first reply in http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35413&PID=202574#202574 - Anti-science madness .)
Do you have any thoughts on why that is?

I don�t know about others, but I did �jump� into many of the ongoing discussions. Also, I did correct my brothers (eg Brother Saint, Abu and another), when I felt that their response could have been better worded or needed correction of ideas.

Ron Webb wrote:

Do you think your views are representative of Muslims in general? If not, why do you think that no other Muslims care to join this discussion and offer their perspective on the authenticity and reliability of hadith?

My views are representative of all �Thinking Muslims� who are Muslims not just by birth but by conviction through their own comparative studies and analysis. I can�t claim, at all, that it is of a Majority opinion. Regarding others not doing as what you propose, how can I tell other than to say that a logical argument doesn't need the support of the 'Majority' but the 'reason with reasonable evidence' only.

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 24 January 2016 at 9:27pm

AhmadJoyia wrote:

So your answer to my question is clearly seen as No . However, your counter question is also curious; but how would you define .. as lucrative as the Quraysh? Any quantification index? Anything not �opinionated�?

By "as lucrative", I mean any caravan likely to be carrying cargo as valuable as the Quraysh, who were a very wealthy tribe. My point is that the Quraysh were the obvious targets. Why rob poor travellers when you can rob rich travellers?

Knowledge about Meccan Caravans is expected of the �Migrants� but how is it possible �not to attack� other non-Meccan caravans about whom no information is expectedly known to them?

I'm not sure what you mean by your question. It's very easy not to attack a caravan. I do it all the time.

No, the question is how is it possible to attack them, if you don't know where or when they are travelling, or how they might be guarded, or whether they are even carrying anything worth the effort?

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�.

My analysis does not depend on context. You were suggesting that Muhammad's tactics were successful because he occupied the "moral high ground". I am suggesting that if anything the tactics of asymmetric warfare are successful precisely because they are widely regarded as abhorrent, not moral. A numerically and militarily weaker force of insurgents cannot expect to win by "playing by the rules"; but by breaking the accepted rules of conventional warfare, they can gain an advantage against their opponents who are unwilling to resort to such tactics.

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.

This is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque - tu quoque fallacy. Indeed, Canadians were also guilty of mistreatment of the Japanese in WW2 (though I don't know if we expelled any Mormons), but that doesn't justify either episode or make them morally right. Besides, they weren't my actions, though they may have been my parents' or my grandparents'.

Can you support your assumption that Muhammad achieved a "moral high ground"?

So, again you seem to dodge the question by asking counter but unrelated question. So essentially, it is reasonable to take your answer as No.

My answer is that I question the premise implied by the question. I don't think that the Muslims had the moral high ground at all.

However for your question, the evidence comes from your own sources which are unable to provide any ghazu which was against any non Meccan allied tribes. Karan supports this concept when she writes that all other tribes were astonished on the temerity of the Muslims; taking head on against the superpower of the time.

You might want to double-check the definition of http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/temerity - temerity . It's not necessarily a compliment.

Do you think an Iranian company trading against the embargo as �Innocent�?

As I keep trying to tell you, there was no embargo. What right did Muhammad have to impose an embargo anyway? He was just robbing them, plain and simple. The fact that he preferred to rob the caravans that he was most familiar with should be no surprise. The fact that he was probably robbing the same people he used to trade with, the same people who had trusted him with information about their caravan routes etc., should help you to understand the usual connotation of "temerity".

On the contrary, do you think the Millions of Japanese Civilians killed of your Nuke attack weren�t innocent?

Again, a tu quoque fallacy. The question of whether the use of nuclear bombs was justified is a difficult one, which will probably be debated forever. But even if bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was entirely wrong and unjustified, that wouldn't change a thing regarding the raids on the Quraysh caravans.

Your presumptuous opinion, IMHO, goes against your own logic of �innocent until proven guilty�. Hence, not very convincing.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal law, requiring proof of guilty before a penalty is imposed. It doesn't mean that I have to naively believe anything I am told unless I can prove otherwise.

That's true, but it seems to me that if a Muslim is presenting aminority opinion that the majority of other Muslims think is wrong, they seem reluctant to enter the debate to offer a logical argument in favour of the majority. But I have to admit that you are an exception to that, as you are in many other ways.

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 25 January 2016 at 2:21am

Ron Webb wrote:

By "as lucrative", I mean any caravan likely to be carrying cargo as valuable as the Quraysh, who were a very wealthy tribe. My point is that the Quraysh were the obvious targets. Why rob poor travellers when you can rob rich travellers?

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

Ron Webb wrote:

Ahmadjoyia wrote:

Knowledge about Meccan Caravans is expected of the �Migrants� but how is it possible �not to attack� other non-Meccan caravans about whom no information is expectedly known to them?

I'm not sure what you mean by your question. It's very easy not to attack a caravan. I do it all the time.

attack them, if you don't know where or when they are travelling, or how they might be guarded, or whether they are even carrying anything worth the effort?

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?

Ron Webb wrote:

ahmadjoyia wrote:

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�.

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.

Ron Webb wrote:

I am suggesting that if anything the tactics of asymmetric warfare are successful precisely because they are widely regarded as abhorrent, not moral.

Since your initial assessment of my statement is wrong, therefore, your suggestion is also not valid.

Ron Webb wrote:

A numerically and militarily weaker force of insurgents cannot expect to win by "playing by the rules"; but by breaking the accepted rules of conventional warfare, they can gain an advantage against their opponents who are unwilling to resort to such tactics.

That could be valid, as I already alluded you to this as a �tactic� against their opponents. Hence these targeted operations were against a specific enemy only and not against all �rich� tribes of the area.

Ron Webb wrote:

ahmadjoyia wrote:

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.

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?

Ron Webb wrote:

Ahmadjoyia wrote:

So, again you seem to dodge the question by asking counter but unrelated question. So essentially, it is reasonable to take your answer as No.

My answer is that I question the premise implied by the question. I don't think that the Muslims had the moral high ground at all.

Well expulsion from ones homes, merely on the basis of faith alone is one such ground. Not allowed to perform �Haj� to the unarmed peaceful Muslim contingent, to which the Meccans were responsible as duty bound, as it was well known to all of Arabia, was another such moral ground.

Ron Webb wrote:

Ahmadjoyia wrote:

However for your question, the evidence comes from your own sources which are unable to provide any ghazu which was against any non Meccan allied tribes. Karan supports this concept when she writes that all other tribes were astonished on the temerity of the Muslims; taking head on against the superpower of the time.

You might want to double-check the definition of http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/temerity - temerity . It's not necessarily a compliment.

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?

Ron Webb wrote:

Ahmadjoyia wrote:

Do you think an Iranian company trading against the embargo as �Innocent�?

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.

Ron Webb wrote:

Ahmadjoyia wrote:

On the contrary, do you think the Millions of Japanese Civilians killed of your Nuke attack weren�t innocent?

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

Ron Webb wrote:

Ahmadjoyia wrote:

Your presumptuous opinion, IMHO, goes against your own logic of �innocent until proven guilty�. Hence, not very convincing.

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.

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 26 January 2016 at 12:49pm

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:

A) The Meccans got fed up with the troublemaker and kicked him out.
B) He got very angry about it and said: "This I will pay you back".
C) He did.

Airmano

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 26 January 2016 at 2:54pm

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 27 January 2016 at 12:46am

Ron Webb wrote:

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

Thanks Ron for wonderful summarization of your views and let us see how they can logically be addressed; each one of them. Secondly, I already gave you the example of the presence of rich Jewish tribes eg the %20https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Nadir%20 - Banu Nadir tribe, probably equal to, if not bigger & richer than the Quresh.
Now coming to your so called universal known facts, I tend to be selective about them, as below.

Ron Webb wrote:

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.

Agreed. Since the Quraysh were the oppressors and persecutors of the expelled Muslims, therefore, these caravans were the natural targets of enemy for retaliation. More on this topic, kindly read the %20https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina%20 - Constitution of Medina , where all adherents (including the Jews and other non-Muslim tribes) of this constitution, explicitly and unanimously agreed to consider Quraysh as their common enemy. Hence, it was only through this constitution that the Prophet was authorized to wage ghazu only against the Quraysh and not against any other random tribe not involved in this conflict.

Ron Webb wrote:

2. This would be a criminal offense (highway robbery) by any modern standard; but

Your tool of using �any modern standard� is in appropriate simply because there was no concept of %20http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation%E2%80%93state%20 - nation-state. in those times of tribal civilizations. I hope you would know that the commonly used Arabian trading routes of those times, as you call them highway, weren�t owned (or governed) by any single entity or kingdom except when it passes through respective territory of a tribe or a city. The tribal territories weren�t essentially contiguous, all the way from one trading city to another.

Ron Webb wrote:

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,

This part doesn�t belong to your list of objection, but part of my reply as supported by Karen.

Ron Webb wrote:

4. Even by those standards, robbing your own tribe was outrageous and totally against the rules.

Permanent expulsion from one�s tribe was more outrageous than obvious retaliation. It is at this point the �word� temerity� used by Karen can�t be associated with your connotation of �against own tribe� but more closely to �taking head on with the superpower�. .
Now that I have appropriately replied as well as questioned your basic premise for all this debate, it is all the more reason not to talk whatever I have said up till now. But probably that may not quench your thirst. So, going forward to defend all my statements, I present the following, para wise.

Ron Webb wrote:

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.

On the very onset, since you have picked a wrong tool of any modern standard� , hence there is no �special pleading� here. Regarding �ancient�, I think Karen�s analysis should have sufficed. Anyhow, I have now presented you with further evidence from the Constitution of Medina.

Ron Webb wrote:

You claim that:
a. Muhammad had a moral right to retaliate against the Quraysh because he had been mistreated by them.

You think �Years of persecution and then permanent expulsion� gave no moral right for retaliation?

Ron Webb wrote:

b. Muhammad limited his attacks to Quraysh caravans because his grievance was only with the Quraysh.

Absence of any proof suggesting otherwise; IHMO, benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Simply, and as per your own acknowledgement, on the principle of �Innocent until proven guilty�. However, now the clear proof from the Constitution of Medina supports my point of view.

Ron Webb wrote:

c. Attacking and robbing the caravans of individual Quraysh tribe members is a legitimate form of retaliation.

May be not. Kindly provide any evidence in which you think an �Innocent� individual was robbed or killed. The history treats the persecutors as all of �Meccans� or �Quraysh�; it�s up to you to make exceptions, but with solid evidence only.

Ron Webb wrote:

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.

Your assumed facts have appropriately been answered/questioned. Thus, my 4 replies are redundant, though I have provided appropriate response to each one of them as well.

Ron Webb wrote:

ahmadjoyia wrote:

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.

So what I meant was to consider yourself (and myself) as the prosecutor (defense lawyer) about what happened in the past, in which our Prophet is blamed for ��..Obviously, our Judge/s are our reader/s of this debate (to make their own informed opinion) based upon reliable and trust worthy evidence that we both present here to support our arguments. Thus if you bring a piece of evidence from a �random� person, on a �Witness stand�; should he not be questioned about his source of information especially if he is not the �eye witness� to such an event in history?

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 27 January 2016 at 1:13am

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.

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 27 January 2016 at 10:27pm

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Agreed. Since the Quraysh were the oppressors and persecutors of the expelled Muslims, therefore, these caravans were the natural targets of enemy for retaliation. More on this topic, kindly read the Constitution of Medina, where all adherents (including the Jews and other non-Muslim tribes) of this constitution, explicitly and unanimously agreed to consider Quraysh as their common enemy. Hence, it was only through this constitution that the Prophet was authorized to wage ghazu only against the Quraysh and not against any other random tribe not involved in this conflict.

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina - Constitution of Medina begins, "This is a writing of Muhammad, the Prophet, between the believers and the Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib and those who follow them and are attached to them, and who fight together with them in war." I see no specific mention of Jews or non-Muslims. Is there any reason to suppose that they consented to this, or had any hand in drafting it?

Your tool of using �any modern standard� is in appropriate simply because there was no concept of nation-state. in those times of tribal civilizations. I hope you would know that the commonly used Arabian trading routes of those times, as you call them highway, weren�t owned (or governed) by any single entity or kingdom except when it passes through respective territory of a tribe or a city. The tribal territories weren�t essentially contiguous, all the way from one trading city to another.

I'm not sure why it matters who owns the highway. It's still wrong to attack a traveller on that highway, regardless of his nationality, tribal affiliation, etc. Muhammad was engaged in what the Geneva Convention refers to as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Collective_punishments - collective punishment : "No persons may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed." No matter what your grievance with the Quraysh tribe as a whole, you can't assault and rob an individual caravan driver simply because he is Quraysh.

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

Depends on the "obvious retaliation", I suppose. It's not as outrageous as the penalty for apostasy, for instance. No doubt you believe that Muhammad and his followers did nothing to provoke their expulsion, but no doubt you are basing that solely on Muslim sources. How likely are they to report incidents that reflect badly on Muhammad and his followers?

On the very onset, since you have picked a wrong tool of any modern standard� , hence there is no �special pleading� here. Regarding �ancient�, I think Karen�s analysis should have sufficed. Anyhow, I have now presented you with further evidence from the Constitution of Medina.

Well, if you want to claim that Muhammad's behaviour was fully in keeping with the moral standards of the "Age of Ignorance", I suppose I won't argue with you. As for the Constitution of Medina, I'm not sure what your point is. Does it say anything about ghazu?

You think �Years of persecution and then permanent expulsion� gave no moral right for retaliation?

Assuming the Muslim claims of persecution can be relied upon, the answer is still no, it doesn't give them the right to retailate against any random caravan driver who might have had nothing whatsoever to do with the persecution.

It supports your contention that Muhammad had a grudge against the Quraysh. It doesn't change the fact that he was a thief. Allow me to repeat: an embargo/blockade would involve blocking trade, not robbing it.

May be not. Kindly provide any evidence in which you think an �Innocent� individual was robbed or killed. The history treats the persecutors as all of �Meccans� or �Quraysh�; it�s up to you to make exceptions, but with solid evidence only.

Do you think it is okay to rob and/or kill anyone who can't provide solid evidence of innocence?

As far as I know, the only evidence we have are via the hadith, i.e. the testimony of Muhammad's most committed followers, who about as biased a group as could be imagined. You're right -- if this were a criminal case, we would have to give the hadith narrators the benefit of the doubt, rather than risk imposing a severe penalty on a possibly innocent person. But we're not doing that. We're just trying to decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether a succession of heavily biased narrators is likely to have some influence on the content and reliability of the hadith. To me the answer is obvious. How could it not?

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 28 January 2016 at 12:18pm

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 http://www.dawn.com/news/674855/salaam-abdus-salam - Abdus Salam (pbuh) , did he go and rob other Pakistanis during his exile ?

Airmano

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 29 January 2016 at 1:09pm

Ron Webb wrote:

Probably you may like to specifically read https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Medina_Charter - No un-Believer will intervene in favour of a Quraysh, (because the Quraysh having declared war are the enemy) . Looking at this source, hopefully you would not miss specifically the names of all the participating tribes. With this background, the purpose of ghazu specifically against Meccans becomes fairly clear.

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 29 January 2016 at 1:44pm

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

The https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Medina_Charter - link you post is based on Ibn Ishaq.
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35192&PID=202348#202348 - 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

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 30 January 2016 at 7:02pm

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Probably you may like to specifically read No un-Believer will intervene in favour of a Quraysh, (because the Quraysh having declared war are the enemy) . Looking at this source, hopefully you would not miss specifically the names of all the participating tribes. With this background, the purpose of ghazu specifically against Meccans becomes fairly clear.

The Constitution of Medina makes no mention of ghazu. It's fairly clear that Muhammad considered the Quraysh his enemy, but that's not news. No doubt his hatred of the Quraysh was a factor, but I still think Karen Armstrong was right that his primary motivation was very simple: he needed the income.

P.S.: hey, wait a sec! When did the Quraysh declare war (before or after the Constitution of Medina?), and against whom (the Muslims or Medina as a whole)? And how do we know?

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 31 January 2016 at 10:54am

Ron Webb wrote:

The constitution clearly specifies their one common enemy as Quraysh. The Battle against this enemy was only termed by Karen as 'Ghazu'. War booty was considered legal.

Ron Webb wrote:

P.S.: hey, wait a sec! When did the Quraysh declare war (before or after the Constitution of Medina?), and against whom (the Muslims or Medina as a whole)? And how do we know?

What type of proof would you need to know that Quraysh kicked Muslims out of Mecca, if you just don't want to read?

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 31 January 2016 at 11:04am

airmano wrote:

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 http://www.dawn.com/news/674855/salaam-abdus-salam - Abdus Salam (pbuh) , did he go and rob other Pakistanis during his exile ?Airmano

Thanks for reminding about this great hero of our nation. I admit that such isolated incidents are not rare, however, our fight is still on against the terrorists in our country.

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 01 February 2016 at 5:52am

Airmano
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 ?

Ahmad:
Thanks for reminding about this great hero of our nation. I admit that such isolated incidents are not rare, however, our fight is still on against the terrorists in our country.

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 ?

Airmano

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 February 2016 at 9:52pm

AhmadJoyia wrote:

The constitution clearly specifies their one common enemy as Quraysh. The Battle against this enemy was only termed by Karen as 'Ghazu'. War booty was considered legal.

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.

As for war booty, it was only considered "legal" to rob another tribe, not your own. If it is seen as acceptable for any robber with a grudge against his tribal leaders to form his own tribe and then "legally" rob his former tribe members, can you imagine the chaos and lawlessness that would result? What temerity!

What type of proof would you need to know that Quraysh kicked Muslims out of Mecca, if you just don't want to read?

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.

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 02 February 2016 at 9:43am

airmano wrote:

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 ?
Airmano

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.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 02 February 2016 at 9:58am

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

The constitution clearly specifies their one common enemy as Quraysh. The Battle against this enemy was only termed by Karen as 'Ghazu'. War booty was considered legal.

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'.

Ron Webb wrote:

As for war booty, it was only considered "legal" to rob another tribe, not your own.

Any proof of this understanding?

Ron Webb wrote:

If it is seen as acceptable for any robber with a grudge against his tribal leaders to form his own tribe and then "legally" rob his former tribe members, can you imagine the chaos and lawlessness that would result?

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.

Ron Webb wrote:

What temerity!

Take headon with the superpower of the time merely on the basis of high moral grounds, despite knowing well its consequences.

[quot=Ron Webb]

Ahmadjoyia wrote:

What type of proof would you need to know that Quraysh kicked Muslims out of Mecca, if you just don't want to read?

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.[/QUOTE] 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.

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 02 February 2016 at 7:51pm

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.

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.

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 03 February 2016 at 4:48am

Ron Webb wrote:

ahmadjoyia wrote:

Ron Webb wrote:

As for war booty, it was only considered "legal" to rob another tribe, not your own.

Any proof of this understanding?

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?

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.

Ron Webb wrote:

Ahmadjoyia wrote:

Ron Webb wrote:

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.

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.

Ron Web wrote:

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.

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 03 February 2016 at 6:17pm

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) http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35192&PID=202392#202392 - several weeks ago .

My understanding (again, from Karen Armstrong) is that ghazu was normally an intertribal activity, not the work of a band of outlaws.

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.

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?

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 05 February 2016 at 9:43am

Ron Webb wrote:

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.

Your hypothesis of 'easy enough to find' robbers is in this air. Why would the caravan owners not take actions against them if they are as easy as you predict. Only 'high moral ground' enabled the Muslims to take head on with the superpower which no one could do in the past and hence 'breaking the precedent'.

Ron Webb wrote:

...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'." ...

But how could you deny following 2 facts: 1) The constitution. 2) No other tribe but Meccans and allies were attacked.

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 06 February 2016 at 2:34am

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

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 06 February 2016 at 4:11pm

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Your hypothesis of 'easy enough to find' robbers is in this air. Why would the caravan owners not take actions against them if they are as easy as you predict.

Because ghazu was a sort of "national sport". You don't take action (not military action, anyway) against the other team when they score a goal.

Only 'high moral ground' enabled the Muslims to take head on with the superpower which no one could do in the past and hence 'breaking the precedent'.

No, only "low moral ground", i.e. the perception that Muhammad's raids were a serious breach of precedent and could not be allowed to continue, would provoke the superpower to taking military action against them.

But how could you deny following 2 facts: 1) The constitution. 2) No other tribe but Meccans and allies were attacked.

I don't deny either of them. I'm saying that neither of them tell us the motivation for Muhamad's raids. The constitution doesn't even mention the raids, and if no other tribes were attacked that is most likely because (1) the Quraysh had the richest caravans in the area, and (2) as a former Quraysh trader, Muhammad would be most familiar with those caravans.

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 07 February 2016 at 2:03am

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

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 07 February 2016 at 3:54am

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Your hypothesis of 'easy enough to find' robbers is in this air. Why would the caravan owners not take actions against them if they are as easy as you predict.

Because ghazu was a sort of "national sport". You don't take action (not military action, anyway) against the other team when they score a goal.

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.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Only 'high moral ground' enabled the Muslims to take head on with the superpower which no one could do in the past and hence 'breaking the precedent'.

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.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

But how could you deny following 2 facts: 1) The constitution. 2) No other tribe but Meccans and allies were attacked.

I don't deny either of them. I'm saying that neither of them tell us the motivation for Muhamad's raids. The constitution doesn't even mention the raids,

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

Ron Webb wrote:

and if no other tribes were attacked that is most likely because (1) the Quraysh had the richest caravans in the area, and (2) as a former Quraysh trader, Muhammad would be most familiar with those caravans.

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

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 07 February 2016 at 5:15am

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.

"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.?

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 08 February 2016 at 10:45am

Ron Webb wrote:

Good to know your �faith� in Karen�s �expert opinion�, though your extrapolations are too off the track. Even your expert, on page 127 (ch 4), clearly writes that Even though the Emigrants desperately needed an income, plunder was not his primary objective. The raiders may have come back empty handed, but they had at least brought the Muslims to the attention of Mecca. Obviously her writing style is such to suit your mood, nevertheless her own confession on this issue is very clear.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

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.

The helpers took an oath of allegiance before inviting the Prophet to Medina. So, if a strategy needed for their help, surely they would not have hesitated in it. But since, it was never required, therefore your hypothesis is nothing but baseless assumption through extrapolating maneuvers.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

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?

Good to know that you are apt in reflecting my evidences to justify your illogic but only through circular reasoning. Quraysh was a declared a common enemy (not only for the Muslims of Mecca & Medina, but also for all the non Muslim participating tribes) as per the constitution. If you have any evidence to refute this claim, please show us or else get convinced. No �circular logic� or �delaying tactic� would suffice.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

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

How do you suppose, they didn�t? Any logic? Any evidence to support your hypothesis?

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 08 February 2016 at 8:06pm

airmano wrote:

Do you know why the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_to_Abyssinia - two migrations of Muslims to Ethiopia took place before the final migration to Medina? Similarly, do you know why the Muslims at Mecca were https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meccan_boycott_of_the_Hashemites - pushed en mass to starvation and deprivation into the secluded place called Shib Abi Talib or Shib Abi Hashim where they suffered hunger? Just because of their difference over the faith and faith alone.

Para for Ron Webb: For your eyes only, the above example of economic blockade against their own clan/tribe was initiated by the Meccans against the Muslims while the Muslims were still in Mecca. This is just in case you thought it was Mohammad who started doing it against his own people and which surprised the other tribes. Hence, one another example to refute your misunderstanding of Karen's writings.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 09 February 2016 at 2:04am

airmano wrote:

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

I used the word 'superpower' as a comparative superlative to emphasize on the word 'Mighty' used by Karen in her book for describing the strength of the Meccans as against the fragile and beleaguered Muslims at the start of the community building in Medina. So, the word used is only in relative context and not in absolute terms, that you might be confused with.

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 09 February 2016 at 2:23am

Ahmad:
I used the word 'superpower' as a comparative superlative to emphasize on the word 'Mighty' used by Karen

Since we all know the context I'd suggest "Local Power" for future use.

Agreed ?

Airmano

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 09 February 2016 at 9:09am

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Good to know your �faith� in Karen�s �expert opinion�, though your extrapolations are too off the track. Even your expert, on page 127 (ch 4), clearly writes that Even though the Emigrants desperately needed an income, plunder was not his primary objective. The raiders may have come back empty handed, but they had at least brought the Muslims to the attention of Mecca. Obviously her writing style is such to suit your mood, nevertheless her own confession on this issue is very clear.

Reminding you again that Karen Armstrong was http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35192&PID=202392#202392 - your expert , not mine. Your quote does not appear to be from Islam: A Short History. Is it from Muhammad Prophet For Our Time? If so, I'll see if I can pick up a copy next time I'm at my local library. It looks to me that she was referring to a tactical objective for that particular raid, not an overall purpose for ghazu in general; but I'd have to read the context to know for sure.

If you are referring to the Constitution of Medina, I see nothing there that would obligate them to engage in an unprovoked attack against a Quraysh caravan. It says only that the various tribes must defend each other, not attack others. And that's assuming the other tribes even consented to the Constitution, for which I still don't see any evidence.

Okay, let's assume that the other tribes ratified the Constitution of Medina and agreed that the Quraysh were a common enemy. (I don't think I ever denied that.) It doesn't say that either side had declared war. Even if it did, does that legitimize raids on private Quraysh caravans? And even assuming all that to be true -- if the raids were a legitimate part of an active war against the Muslims, whom the helpers had sworn to defend -- then why didn't the helpers participate?

How do you suppose, they didn�t? Any logic? Any evidence to support your hypothesis?

My hypothesis?

Let's review. We both agree (I think) that one reason the Muslims took to raiding Quraysh caravans was that they needed the income to survive. You are arguing that this was not the main reason, however; you claim that they have some "high moral ground" (not clearly explained) that justified the raids.

To support this theory, you claim that he restricted his attacks to Quraysh caravans (over whom he occupied this alleged "high moral ground"), as opposed to others. Okay, it's up to you to show that there were others, and that they would have been preferred targets except for this "high moral ground" thing. It's your hypothesis, not mine. I'm just asking if you have any evidence or logic to support it.

If you can't support your hypothesis with evidence, and I can't refute it either, then the bottom line is that we don't know whether Muhammad had any better targets for his raids than the Quraysh. That is often the case with ancient history; but to use our ignorance as a premise in your "moral high ground" argument is classic http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html - Argumentum ad Ignorantiam , a.k.a. the fallacy of "argument from ignorance".

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Para for Ron Webb: For your eyes only, the above example of economic blockade against their own clan/tribe was initiated by the Meccans against the Muslims while the Muslims were still in Mecca. This is just in case you thought it was Mohammad who started doing it against his own people and which surprised the other tribes. Hence, one another example to refute your misunderstanding of Karen's writings.

No, this is an example of a boycott, not a blockade. My goodness, even the title of the article is "Meccan boycott of the Hashemites"! A boycott is a voluntary refusal to do business with another party. If there was any attempt to militarily enforce a blockade against them, it isn't mentioned in the article. And even if it were a blockade, do you see any mention of stealing trade goods? Raiding the Meccan caravans was neither a boycott, nor a blockade. It was theft.

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 10 February 2016 at 11:18am

Ron Webb 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.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

The helpers took an oath of allegiance before inviting the Prophet to Medina. So, if a strategy needed for their help, surely they would not have hesitated in it. But since, it was never required, therefore your hypothesis is nothing but baseless assumption through extrapolating maneuvers.

No! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_pledge_at_al-Aqabah - Oath of Allegiance was before the arrival of Meccan Muslims in Medina whereas the constitution was framed after their arrival.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

Good to know that you are apt in reflecting my evidences to justify your illogic but only through circular reasoning. Quraysh was a declared a common enemy (not only for the Muslims of Mecca & Medina, but also for all the non Muslim participating tribes) as per the constitution. If you have any evidence to refute this claim, please show us or else get convinced. No �circular logic� or �delaying tactic� would suffice.

Who (Karen or any other scholar) says they didn�t participate? Any evidence to support your yet another hypothesis?

How do you suppose, they didn�t? Any logic? Any evidence to support your hypothesis?

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. 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. 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.

Ron Webb 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!!

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 10 February 2016 at 4:29pm

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?

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.

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.

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 " http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/highway%20robbery - highway robbery as "robbery committed on or near a public highway usually against travelers." Which part of this definition is in dispute?

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.

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. 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?

Is the weaker party automatically right, and the stronger party always wrong? 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!

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?

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 14 February 2016 at 1:02am

Ron Webb 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�.

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.

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?

�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.

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.

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?

Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 14 February 2016 at 7:05am

Ahmad:
Ok if you think semantic is an issue, then let's devour the definition [of highway robbery] that you refer...

I can only shake my head about this line of defense.
It is obvious that Mohamed committed highway robbery. Slicing pieces of hair into nanofibres doesn't make this fact go away.

Airmano

-------------
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter")

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 15 February 2016 at 10:48pm

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.

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 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blockade - 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?

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35192&PID=202743#202743 - 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?

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law - Godwin's Law .)

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.

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 17 February 2016 at 11:38am

Ron Webb wrote:

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�.

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.

Ron Webb wrote:

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.

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

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

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.

So, what else could it be, if not government? I don�t think there is any piece of land on this earth which is neither private nor government, nor at least in USA? Even the open seas are ruled through UN charters where all nations promise to abide such rules. However, if there is any such place, like the upper space, where there are no UN rules, the matters are decided based on who has the power and might to enforce his legitimacy over that area (US spy satellites and other military space appliances are the glaring examples of un-defined spaces). My point is that at those times, the caravans� safety was only limited to such assurances given by all tribes influencing on the Caravan routes through mutual pacts that they would not attack each other�s caravans. Thus when any tribe goes out of such a pact, due to any reason, the immediate action used to be to alter the routes through alternate ways to ensure their safe journey and this used to be there accepted norm. So, it used to force the Caravan owning tribes to settle their differences with this disturbing tribe either through a new pact or through fight over it. So, essentially one can see such actions of a tribe as an economic blockade of his hostile tribes� caravan. The same thing is applied in the modern times for example seizure of b/millions of Iranian Dollars & assets in American/European banks/ports/etc. However, with the presence of UN, such actions are usually legitimized under its garb.

Ron Webb wrote:

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.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

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

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.

Ron Webb wrote:

AhmadJoyia wrote:

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?

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35192&PID=202743#202743 - 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?

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.

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

Islam strongly emphasizes respecting mutual promises and pacts to ensure peace and safety. No such violations were committed by the then Muslims.

Ron Webb wrote:

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

Ron Webb wrote:

(I'll ignore the over-the-top reference to Hitler in deference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law - Godwin's Law .)

This could be systematic, but not a fallacy that you can just ignore it lest you are into double standards.

Ron Webb wrote:

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

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

Ron Webb wrote:

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.

Please provide proof of your assertion that it was a matter of hate speech that justifies the Meccans to do what they did. Secondly, kindly show which verse of Quran you think comes under this definition of hate speech of yours.

Ron Webb wrote:

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.

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.

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 20 February 2016 at 10:59pm

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.

"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 http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35192&PID=202997#202997 - 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 http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=60 - Quran 5:60 . Do you get the point?

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."

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 21 February 2016 at 11:50am

Ron Webb wrote:

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

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?

Ron Webb wrote:

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?

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

Ron Webb wrote:

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.

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_raids - history also supports to show that even though the raids were planned after migration, none succeeded for about an year or so. 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.

Ron Webb wrote:

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.

Several places, Yes; but in the end she concluded through her own analysis, similar to the one I have just shown you through the example from history.

Ron Webb wrote:

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.

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.

Ron Webb wrote:

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".

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?

Ron Webb wrote:

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.

Have they now been released in actual? or with interest? Or not yet? In any case, for Iranians, it is truly a �robbery�; you may like it or not.

Ron Webb wrote:

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.

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

Ron Webb wrote:

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?

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

Ron Webb wrote:

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.

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?

Ron Webb wrote:

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

Another tu quoque fallacy.

I don�t think I am defending against your allegations but trying to reflect back your opinion about �freedom of speech� against your own think tanks� who profess unqualified freedom of speech.

Ron Webb wrote:

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?

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

Ron Webb wrote:

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

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.

Ron Webb wrote:

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

I've http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35192&PID=202997#202997%5b/IMG - already alluded to several of them and I don't want to antagonize the moderators any more than necessary.

Sorry your this reference is probably not accurate. I couldn�t find any of your previous allusions.

Ron Webb wrote:

But since you mentioned cartoons, imagine how Muslims would feel about a cartoon portraying Muhammad as a pig or an ape. Now read the http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=60 - Quran 5:60 . Do you get the point?

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?"

Ron Webb wrote:

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?

Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 25 February 2016 at 1:26pm

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 https://books.google.ca/books?id=yFxsAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT7&ots=cQzGaDGWkI&dq=muhammad%20damra%20caravan&pg=PT6#v=onepage&q&f=false - 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 https://books.google.ca/books?id=_OzBMl-gW2oC&pg=PR13&lpg=PR13&dq=damra+nomadic&source=bl&ots=p5yqFncOv4&sig=UzeGDwE3JHjXeqIWWD3EoU5j_jA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsosHAyovLAhUF8j4KHQ0uDekQ6AEILTAG#v=onepage&q=damra%20nomadic&f=false - here and https://books.google.ca/books?id=x17xcNTKulAC&pg=PA274&lpg=PA274&dq=damra+nomadic&source=bl&ots=0ieiMNFfpB&sig=wSFvMO3YTMW2UHJvbaxhyFALspI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsosHAyovLAhUF8j4KHQ0uDekQ6AEIOjAJ#v=onepage&q=damra%20nomadic&f=false - 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 ( http://i-cias.com/textarchive/bukhari/052.htm - 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?

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?

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 ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=10 - 2:10 ), unclean http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=9&verse=28 - ), losers ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=3&verse=85 - ), that people should fight them until they are are humbled ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=9&verse=29 - 9:29 ), that no one should have any love for them ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=58&verse=22 - 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?

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?

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.

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.

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.

Posted By: AhmadJoyia
Date Posted: 27 February 2016 at 1:08pm

Ron Webb wrote:

Ahmadjoyia wrote:

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

I don�t think she is confused, as you have construed from her writings. The conclusions, usually in such writings only come for once and for all, despite the topic being discussed multiple of times through different angles before it.

Ron Webb wrote:

Ahmadjoyia wrote:

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.

Your admission through surprise defies your own claim. Any evidence of another hypothetical and imaginative theory of �charity�?

Ron Webb wrote:

Ahmadjoyia wrote:

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.

Your rejection of plain and clear proof that Muslims�s tactics was to incite Meccan�s and not a highway robbery, as you have named it, is nothing but a lame excuse.

Ron Webb wrote:

In fact, this whole "Banu Damrah" thing raises skeptical red flags for me. According to my research (sources https://books.google.ca/books?id=_OzBMl-gW2oC&pg=PR13&lpg=PR13&dq=damra+nomadic&source=bl&ots=p5yqFncOv4&sig=UzeGDwE3JHjXeqIWWD3EoU5j_jA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsosHAyovLAhUF8j4KHQ0uDekQ6AEILTAG#v=onepage&q=damra%20nomadic&f=false - here and https://books.google.ca/books?id=x17xcNTKulAC&pg=PA274&lpg=PA274&dq=damra+nomadic&source=bl&ots=0ieiMNFfpB&sig=wSFvMO3YTMW2UHJvbaxhyFALspI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsosHAyovLAhUF8j4KHQ0uDekQ6AEIOjAJ#v=onepage&q=damra%20nomadic&f=false - 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).

This hypothetical fable of yours is more feeble and un-realistic of the time; therefore carries no weight, at all.

Ron Webb wrote:

On the other hand, Muhammad did attack something other than a Quraysh caravan at Waddan. We have an authentic hadith ( http://i-cias.com/textarchive/bukhari/052.htm - 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?

This hadith is specifically about �women & children� being put into danger, if their tribe is attacked during night. Hence your old homes theory is still baseless. On the other hand, in the same reference page you should find hadith 258 that says Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children..

Ron Webb wrote:

Ahmadjoyia wrote:

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.

It is not up to you to decide. So, since there was no law, then how can we accuse anyone of robbery? It implies simply the �law of might� and that used to be the way of life of those times

Ron Webb wrote:

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?

In Islam, stealing is wrong, irrespective of faith. Also, breaking the law is also forbidden. But the question is, was there any such law over the caravan highways other than �law of might�?

Ron Webb wrote:

Ahmadjoyia wrote:

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? %20http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/public%20 - public as people under government/state/tribe/nation/UN/country. If you happen to ponder, can you tell which government or state used to rule entire inter-tribal or inter-city issues? Do you think there was some sort of government or state formulating rules/laws among entire people of Mecca and Medina including all neighboring cities or towns as well as all the caravan routes between the cities etc? IMHO, there was no such government or rule or law.

Ron Webb wrote:

Ahmadjoyia wrote:

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

Modern day dictionary is of little use to describe conditions of 7th century.
See my example of public, above. IMHO, this misunderstanding of yours is only because of your continuous refusal to understand the anachronous complexity of the situation.

Ron Webb wrote:

Ahmadjoyia wrote:

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?

Again, hypothetical. Why not give the names that you come across from wiki pages? eg. Caravan of Abu Sufayan! And what do you know about him?

Ron Webb wrote:

Ahmadjoyia wrote:

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.

Violation of trade embargo is a crime and protecting a crime is no less a crime, that too, if done through carrying weapons.

Ron Webb wrote:

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?

Again an anachronous example!!

Ron Webb wrote:

Ahmadjoyia wrote:

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 ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=10 - 2:10 ), unclean http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=9&verse=28 - ), losers ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=3&verse=85 - ), that people should fight them until they are are humbled ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=9&verse=29 - 9:29 ), that no one should have any love for them ( http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=58&verse=22 - 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?

All the references of Quran that you have quoted relates to Medinite Suras. So, without even going into the contents, your references are no good to support your allegations. This is your repeating mistake.

Ron Webb wrote:

Ahmadjoyia wrote:

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.

NO! That is not true at all. On the contrary, Muslims were tortured well within the premises of Harm. Another hypothetical theory of Meccans as �nonviolence and non-confrontation� is really nothing but more cooked up imaginative stuff for amusement than serious thinking.

Ron Webb wrote:

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?

Meccans were trading their faith. Muslims, though in shear minority, simply refused to share this trade and thus got tortured and brutally murdered and finally got kicked out of their homes. Meccans didn�t settle at their migration, but went on chasing them to even kick them out of their new locations of refuge to as far places like Court of Najashi in Habsha.

Ron Webb wrote:

Ahmadjoyia wrote:

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.

Without being specific and accurate, you are simply building castles in quick sands and thin air. This is not a scholarly approach.

Ron Webb wrote:

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.

You just can�t talk in general and bring examples out of context to provide any meaningful logic to your point. I already refuted your theory of Meccan peacefulness, same as what Karen also narrated, that it was nothing more than trading their faith for monetary gains.

Ron Webb wrote:

[QUOTE]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) Meccans were the declared enemy of Medinites. (Ref; Constitution). 2). Only Meccan Caravans were raided as an embargo. (Evidence from Wiki pages). 3). Muslims built alliances even with non-Muslim tribes as a strategy to fight against their common enemy i.e the Meccans. (Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_raids - Invasion of Waddan and Constitution of Medina). All these evidences clearly shows and supports Karen�s conclusion that finances were never the prime motive of these raids of Muslims.
Now, that I have put enough time to show my perspective as far as this topic is concerned, I am not interested in prolonging the topic aimlessly. As far as I am concerned, I don�t see any strength in your logic or argument except hypothetical extrapolations. I you want, you may continue to cherish with your views as there is no compulsion in Islam. Best regards.