JIHAD: A comprehensive study.

Knowing that some posters here are politically guided, I just wanted to put another version of the same story: The Life of Mohammad (not as funny as The Life of Brian I agree :lol:)

Muhammad Takes his Message Public
After several similar experiences, Muhammad finally began to reveal the messages he was receiving to his tribe. These were gathered verse by verse and later would become the Qur'an, Islam's sacred scripture. In the next decade, Muhammad and his followers were first belittled and ridiculed, then persecuted and physically attacked for departing from traditional Mecca's tribal ways. Muhammad's message was resolutely monotheistic. For several years, the the Quraysh, Mecca's dominant tribe, levied a ban on trade with Muhammad's people, subjecting them to near famine conditions. Toward the end of the decade, Muhammad's wife and uncle both died. Finally, the leaders of Mecca attempted to assassinate Muhammad.


The Military Period
The Meccans did not take Muhammad's new success lightly. Early skirmishes led to three major battles in the next three years. Of these the Muslims won the first (the Battle of Badr, March, 624), lost the second (the Battle of Uhud, March, 625), and outlasted the third, (The Battle of the Trench and the Siege of Medina, April, 627). In March, 628, a treaty was signed between the two sides, which recognized the Muslims as a new force in Arabia and gave them freedom to move unmolested throughout Arabia. Meccan allies breached the treaty a year later
 
Muhammad's religious career is often divided into two periods: the Meccan Period which lasted for thirteen years, from the start of his revelations to his emigration to Medina; and the Medinan period, which lasted the remaining ten years of his life.
The Meccan Period is characterized by the more elliptical and otherworldly portions of the Qur'an, and by the story of the rejected and persecuted prophet. Had the assassination plot against him in 621 succeeded, his religious career would have been similar in broad outline to that of Jesus.
However, Muhammad escaped the trap set for him and went to live in the oasis of Medina. There he evolved from the charismatic head of a small group to the political and spiritual director of a large community.


I know it is going to make some christian fundies become hysterical, but I love the bolded part.
 
HannibalBarka said:
I know it is going to make some christian fundies become hysterical, but I love the bolded part.
I often wondered what would have happened if the romans had executed Barabas instead of JC.
 
HannibalBarka said:
He did not really kill them since he conquered Mecca without a fight.
But let's say he did, He was just following a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooog judeo-christian tradition of killing who ever doesn't submit to God (Sodome and Gomorra, the Flood, etc) :lol: :lol:


Pleae, if you want to join this conversation, use references, it is childish to just spout whatever comes into your head. This is to be a COMPREHENSIVE STUDY, not a shoot from the hip spitting match.

Back up statements with references from the Koran. This is not related to Christianity at all.
 
Katheryn said:
Pleae, if you want to join this conversation, use references, it is childish to just spout whatever comes into your head.

If you want to join this conversation, use a brain, it is childish to just copy and paste whatever comes from your google search or quoting a outdated book talking about Giants fighting humans :lol: :lol:
 
HannibalBarka said:
He did not really kill them since he conquered Mecca without a fight.
But let's say he did, He was just following a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooog judeo-christian tradition of killing who ever doesn't submit to God (Sodome and Gomorra, the Flood, etc) :lol: :lol:

You seem to be following your long-established tradition of trying to drag the thread off-topic with ad-homimen attacks as usual, I see.

Pathetic. Just pathetic.
 
Katheryn said:
Oh no, dare I get involved in this? Hmmm....

:mischief: :mischief:

By all means do, both you and Aneeshm's comments are very welcome. Although I think Shariah is a little off topic, we may well get to that later.

Mott1 said:
I always feel that the best way to research something is by studying the original sources first. In the case of researching Islam, the Quran and hadith would be the best place to start. However if you are looking for sources to back up your position on jihad, I would refer you to the material published by western Muslim apologists such as Karen Armstrong and John Esposito.

You misjudge me, I've seen enough of apoligists to know that that's not entirely where a better understanding lies, if I'm going to get to grips with this subject I'd like to steer clear of apologists to some extent.


Let me just say that from a strictly historical standpoint, it is impossible to know for sure that a man named Muhammad even existed. In all likelyhood he did exist, particularly in the way the aspects of his life are recorded that are thorn in the side of Muslim scholars who are confronted with the difficult task of representing Muhammads actions with modern predilections.
After all, its hard to imagine that an early devout Muslim biographer such as Ibn Ishaq would have invented Muhammads marriage comsummation to a nine year old girl, his marraige to his ex-daughter-in-law or his affinity for beautiful slave women.

You are not exaggerating I have read a deal of sources and so far they all appear to differ on the exact story, what I have found though is that Mohammed was far from being a perfect saintly figure and the accounts to which I give most credence show that he was not some black and white figure but had both dark and light sides to his character.

Muslim scholars in general, have struggled (no pun intended) with these and other aspects of Muhammads life for centuries. Still some historians believe Muhammad is an amalgamation by way of the Quran, Hadith and Sira, constructed later to give him a sort of omniscient status.
However these historical speculations have had no effect on Islamic doctrine or practice. So for the purpose of our debate, it is less important to know what really happened in Muhammads life than what is accepted, among the Islamic ummah, to have happened, because the latter forms the foundation of Muslim belief, practice and law.

Now I will present the history of Muhammad from the begining of his career as a prophet up to the point before The Battle of Badr, which was Islam's greatest early jihad victory. I believe the meaning of jihad cannot be truly appreciated until we examine the scope of Muhammads military campaign, but I think that presenting the early part of his career can give us glimpses into the origin and meaning of jihad.

Mecca

According to Muslim tradition, Muhammad was born in Mecca on the year 570. Visitations by the angel Gabriel began in Muhammads adulthood, he would later interpret these visitations as revelations from Allah and they would continue sporadically for the rest of his life.
At the age of 40 he proclaimed himself prophet of Allah and first began preaching his revalations to the people closest to him. His first wife Khadija became the first convert to his newfound faith, followed by Ali (who would later play a large role in the Sunni-Shiite schism), Bakr and a few others.
Three years after Muhammad proclaimed himself prophet of Allah he began preaching publically, this was the initial step toward injecting his religious ideas into the actualities of social and political life. Muhammad called upon his Meccan tribesmen (the Quraish) to embrace his faith with a warning from Allah, "I am a warner to you in face of a terrific punishment." His preaching was not recieved well by his fellow kinsmen and even his uncle Abu Lahab rejected Muhammads claim to prophethood. He called out to Muhammad, "May your hands perish all this day. Is it for this purpose you have gathered us?" Allah himself gave Muhammad his response to Abu Lahab in a new revelation: "May the hands of Lahab perish! Nothing shall his wealth and gains avail him. He shall be burnt in a flaming fire, and his wife, laden with ******s, shall have a rope of fibre around her neck!" (Q 111.1-5), (Bukhari #293). As we shall see, Muhammad often became frustrated by skeptics of his preaching.
Muhammad continued to preach with little success, his anger and fustration over his failure to convert the Quraish began to grow. On one occasion he came upon a group of Quraish at the Ka'ba. He walked around the stone three times and on the third pass he stopped and declared: "Will you listen to me, O Quraish? By him who holds my life in His hand, I bring you slaughter" (Ishaq:130/Tabari VI:101). Ultimately, Muhammad would turn from violent words to violent actions.

At the time before Muhammad the Arabs where among the most religious tolerant people, pagan Arabs in pre-Islamic times worshiped 360 gods. Mecca thrived on religious pilgrimages, it was known as a center of trade and pilgrimage, travelers from all the surrounding regions passed through Mecca. The Meccan merchants made great profits from the pilgrimages to the Ka'ba, local deities from all surrounding tribes were represented in the shrine. The Arabs tribes were frequently at war with each other, but among them all, the Meccans had an envious position. The holy place of all the sorrounding Arab tribes was in Mecca and that meant power and money for Meccans. So it is not difficult to understand why relationship between the fledgling Muslim cult and the Quraish worsened, as Muhammad became more vocal and his demands more persistant the Quraish became more hostile.

Madina

After years of increasing tension with the Quraish, Muhammad ordered his followers to leave Mecca and in 622 he himself fled to the nearby town of Medina at the invitation of some of his Muslim converts.
This emigration from Mecca to Medina is known as the Hijra and was a major turning point in Muhammads career, here he evolved from an ordinary apocalyptic preacher to a political and military leader.
In Medina Muhammads divine revalations began to change, the brief illustrational verses of the early revalations of the Quran surrenderd to long and straight foward language, much of which was concerned with laws for the new Muslim community. It should be noted that three Jewish tribes resided in Medina: The Banu Qaynuqa, Bani Nadir and the Banu Quraiza all of which exerted great influence in Medina and welcomed Muhammad and his newfound cult. It is evident that Muhammad was influenced by Judaism, many of his laws were formulated through dialogue with the Jews and soon he elevated himself among the ranks of Jewish prophets. He wanted to gain their acceptance of his prophetic status and adopted many Jewish rituals, such as forbidding pork and the practise of several daily prayers; Muhammad even had his adherents face Jerusalem for their prayers.
However, like the Quraish, relationship between the Jewish tribes of Medina and Muhammad became strained. The Jews would not accept Muhammad as their prophet and Muhammad did not take rejection well.

Muhammad began gaining power and influence among the residents of Medina, with the combination of the muhajiroun (Muslims who came from Mecca) and the flourishing ansar (Muslims who converted in Medina) Muhammad had a strong base of support. He now felt confident in confronting the Quraish, whom he begrudged, and began raiding their caravans.
These raids kept the young Muslim movement resolved by amassing wealth and prestige, consequentially these raids helped form Islamic theology. In one inccident a band of Muslims raided a Quraish caravan at Nakhla, a settlement not far from Mecca. The raiders attacked the caravan during the sacred month of Rajab, when fighting was forbidden.
Upon returning back to the Muslim camp loaded with booty, Muhammad refused to share in the loot or have anything to do with them, he said: "I did not order you to fight in the sacred month." Muhammad was now afflicted with a political dilemma because the Quarish attested that "Muhammad and his companions have violated the sacred month, shed blood therein, taken booty, and captured men" (Ishaq 287-288).
But then Muhammad recieved another revelation, Allah deemed that the Quraish's opposition to Muhammad and their failure to acknowledge his prophethood was more offensive than the Muslims violation of the holy month, the raid therefor was justified.

"They question thee, O Muhammad, with regard to warefare in the sacred month, Say: warfare therein is a great transgression, but to turn men from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and the Inviolable Place of Worship, and expel His people thence, is a greater transgression with Allah: for persecution is worse than killing" (Q 2.214).

The sin the Nakhla raiders commited in violating the holy month was nothing compared to the Quraish's sins. Their sins being that of opposing Muhammad and rejecting him as prophet. Once Muhammad recieved this revelation, he took his portion of the booty and prisoners.
Now this was a very signifcant revelation, because it led to the fundamental structure of jihad and Islamic principles that has had repercussions throughout the history of Islam. 'Good' became identified with Muhammads revelations (teachings and examples) and anything that was conducive to the benefit of Muslims and 'evil' became associated with anything that opposed Muhammads teachings or harmed Muslims, without reference to any larger moral standard. You can say that the Moral absolutes were swept aside in favor of an overreaching principle of self interest.



OK. we're taking this slowly good. I agree the early part of Mohammeds career does shed light on the Jihad.

mott1 said:
I think this is sufficient information to continue our discussion. However consider these questions: at this point in Muhammads history, what can we deduce from Muhammads actions that can reveal a significant moral standard to jihad?


What inner struggle did Muhammad and his followers overcome that allowed them to engage in the ''Jihad with the sword," or the what you call the "lesser jihad"?

In response to your questions, I'd say Mohammed certainly spent a great deal of time reflecting on his newly acquired beliefs before he decided to take action in more forceful methods as did his followers.

To answer your questions the first part of the Koran deals with Jihad in it's earliest sense, when warfare was non existent before Medina and I want to show where the foundation of Jihad came from first before we deal with the more warlike side of Islams early foundation.

http://www.islam1.org/khutub/

There are Qur'anic verses revealed during the period when the prophet was in Makkah that discussed Jihad. Some of these verses that Allah sent down, strictly talked about the Jihad against one's desires, against Satan, and the jihad to give Da'wah using verbal means with patience and forgiveness, because at that time, Jihad in the form of physical fighting was not yet permitted.


Allah (S.W.T) said in surat Al-Furqan, what can be translated as, “Obey not the disbelievers, but Jahidhum strive against them (by preaching) with the utmost endeavor, with it (the Qur'an) .” (Verse 52) Imam “Ash-Shawkaani said: do not obey the disbelievers when they call you to worship their Gods, but continue to strive by preaching and calling them to Allah and read to them and warn them from the Qur'an, then Imam Ash-Shawkaani said: This surah revealed in Makkah and the order to fight was after migration to Madinah.



Other evidences revealed during the Makkan period, Allah (S.W.T) praises the believers for practicing jihad rather than fighting the disbelievers in surat Al-Ankabout, what can be translated as, “As for those who Jahado strive hard in our cause. We will surely guide them to our paths...” (Verse 41) Imam “Ash-Shawkani explained this by saying those who strive in the cause of Allah, to earn the pleasure of Allah, and to hope for good things from Him, they will be guided to the path that will lead them to Allah. Imam Ibn Attiyyah said this verse was revealed during the Makkan period when Jihad in the form of fighting was not yet permitted. In this verse, Jihad meant to work hard to spread the Deen of Allah and to ask for His pleasure. Imam Ibn Al-Adham called those who practiced this jihad: “Those who applied there knowledge and they do what they learned.”



And also Allah (S.W.T) said in surat An-Nahil, what can be translated as, “Then, verily Your Lord – for those who emigrated after they had been put to trials and thereafter strove hard (for the Cause of Allah) and were patient, verily, your Lord afterward is Oft-Forgiving and Most Merciful.” (Verse 110) This was another verse that was revealed in Makkah. According to most scholars, this immigration occurred during a time when torture of the Quraysh was at an all time high for Muslims.

During the Makkan period, Allah (S.W.T) ordered the Prophet (S.A.W.) and the believers to spread the message of Islam among the people even if they were met with accusations, bad manners, and emotional and physical torment. Allah ordered them to be patient and to forgive those people that reject the message. Allah (S.W.T) said in surat Az-Zukhruf, what can be translated as, “So turn away from them (O Muhammad) , and say: Salaam (peace) ! But they will come to know.” (Verse 89) And also Allah (S.W.T) said in surat Al-Hijr, what can be translated as, “…So overlook (O Muhammad) , their faults with gracious forgiveness.” (Verse 85) And also Allah (S.W.T) said in surat Al-Jathiyah, what can be translated as, “Say (O Muhammad) to the believers to forgive those who (harm them) and do not hope for the Days of Allah (i.e. His recompense) …” (Verse 14)

Da'wah should be given with patience, and forgiveness for those who reject the message. This is the most practical strategy for giving da'wah, which was established during the 13 years of the Makkan period. Although the Muslims were met with disapproval or oppression, not using violence made the best atmosphere for the Muslim's to convey the message openly and effectively. They did not have to waste their time and energy responding to every harsh comment or action with similar behavior. This bad behavior would only contaminate the environment, and how many people would listen to the truth if they are busy fighting? Violence only fills people's hearts with hatred.

Once in Madina though as you rightly say his outlook changed from one of peacefull striving to one more war like, I think we can agree that this part of his carreer shows a less forgiving and more war like side to Mohammeds personality. We even get a little insight into his mistake in attacking the caravan, and his attempt to justify it. A little c.hink in his armour maybe?

I can find no fault with your history so far, as it agrees with much of what I have found out for myself. I will say though that the history of Mohammed is a contrary one in itself, and he seems to be a man both of wisdom and justice and a man also who sometimes failed in his struggle himself and gave into his baser temptations . The years mentioned in Medina seem to be years where Mohammed attempts to place laws on all the people, to solidify his rule and sometimes to deal brutally with sedition mostly amongst not only individuals but his growing disatisfaction amongst the Jews is also apparent. The wars you have mentioned so far were quite small scale and were not as bloody as they might of been, still there is more to come.:)

Here's a good account of the years in Medina for those who are interested.I may post more thoughts later.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/medina.htm

The city hitherto called Yathrib, later renamed Medinat al-Nabi or “City of the Prophet,” was situated on the western edge of the central Arabian plateau. Compared with Mecca it was a climatic Eden, with hundreds of gardens, palm groves, and farms. As Mohammed rode into the town one group after another called to him, “Alight here, 0 Prophet! Abide with us! “And with Arab persistence some caught the halter of his camel to detain him. “The choice lies with the camel; let him advance freely” the advice quieted jealousy, and hallowed his new residence as chosen by God. Where his camel stopped, Mohammed built a mosque and two adjoining homes, one for Sauda, one for Aisha; later he added new apartments as he took new wives.

In leaving Mecca he had snapped many kinship ties; now he tried to replace bonds of blood with those of religious brotherhood in a theocratic state. To mitigate the jealousy already rampant between the Refugees (Muhajirin) from Mecca and the Helpers (Ansar) or converts in Medina, he coupled each member of the one group with a member of the other in adoptive brotherhood, and called both groups to worship in sacred union in the mosque. In the first ceremony held there he mounted the pulpit and cried in a loud voice, “Allah is most great!” The assembly burst forth in the same proclamation.

Then, still standing with his back to the congregation, he bowed in prayer. He descended the pulpit backward, and at its foot he prostrated himself thrice, while continuing to pray. In these prostrations were symbolized that submission of the soul to Allah which gave to the new faith its name Islam” to surrender,” “to make peace”—and to its adherents the kindred name of Musijinin or Moslems—”the surrendering ones,” “those who have made their peace with God.” Turning then to the assembly, Mohammed bade it observe this ritual to the end of time; and to this day it is the form of prayer that Moslems follow, whether at the mosque, or traveling in the desert, or in alien lands. A sermon completed the ceremony, often announcing, in Mohammed's case, a new revelation, and directing the actions and policies of the week.

For the authority of the Prophet was creating a civic rule for Medina; and more and more he was compelled to address his time and inspirations to the practical problems of social organization, daily morals, even to intertribal diplomacy and war. As in Judaism, no distinction was made between secular and religious affairs; all alike came under religious jurisdiction; he was both Caesar and Christ. But not all Medinites accepted his authority.

A majority of the Arabs stood aside as “the Disaffected,” viewed the new creed and its ritual skeptically, and wondered whether Mohammed was destroying their traditions and liberties, and involving them in war. Most of the Medina Jews clung to their own faith, and continued to trade with the Meccan Quraish. Mohammed drew up with these Jews a subtle concordant:
 
Sidhe:
The early Meccan suras did not call for violence or to fight the unbelievers, however we must understand that the origin of jihad can not be determined by consigning to only a part of Muhammads teachings. As we have seen, Muhammads revelations changed and these changes expounded the meaning of jihad. The later revelations did not accord jihad two separate meanings, they simply supplemented Muhammads earlier teachings which is to strive for the moral betterment of Islam.

You state:
Sidhe said:
I will say though that the history of Mohammed is a contrary one in itself, and he seems to be a man both of wisdom and justice and a man also who sometimes failed in his struggle himself and gave into his baser temptations.

Muhammad was indeed human and you and I both know that to err is human, so for Muhammad to falter in piety would not be aberrant. However Muhammads teachings and actions comported by the revelations from the Divine are not fallible. Again, Muhammads actions are not fallible, he may or may not have struggled with the baser human temptations but they are not reflected in his teachings and actions however contradicting they may seem.

The premise you are clinging to, the 'inner' (struggle of the soul) and 'outer' (struggle of the sword) jihad as two separate distinctions, are not employed as such in the Quran. Fighting (outer) is merely a form of jihad "in the way of Allah" that is consistant with the struggle of the soul (inner). You will find that at least half of the relevant jihad verses that relate to the 'struggle of the soul' are embedded in passages talking about warfare, fighting and killing in the way of Allah.
It's the passages (i.e. string of verses pertaining to the same circumstance) that are important. Many of those jihad verses occur in passages that refer to external struggle (emigaration, fighting, killing and lawful looting).

I would think that words such as (striving with) "wealth," "equipment," weapons (or implied weapons, see Q47.4 "smite them at their necks"), etc., should suffice as smoking guns from the Quran.
Anyone who contends that jihad is an 'inner' struggle is engaging in semantic gymnastics, if not downright sophistry-by skirting the smoking guns that do exist in the Quran, and really don't require tafseers or hadiths to interpret. The verses are in fact straight forward.

You have quoted commentaries for some of the Meccan revelations from an Islamic site to inforce your position. I have no problem with this, in fact I encourage it, however do so with an objective eye. Try to find sources that offer a counter view to the same subject in order to maintain objective balance. You then can analyze both (or many conflicting) sources, synthesize the information and come to your own personal conclusion.
Adherents read the Quran subjectively, as such they are unable to see its errors objectively. This is normal. Believers love their faith and they cannot see the faults in the object of their love.

For example, take this quote from the source you provided:

Although the Muslims were met with disapproval or oppression, not using violence made the best atmosphere for the Muslim's to convey the message openly and effectively. They did not have to waste their time and energy responding to every harsh comment or action with similar behavior. This bad behavior would only contaminate the environment, and how many people would listen to the truth if they are busy fighting? Violence only fills people's hearts with hatred.

The contradiction in this quote is clear to any objective observer moderately versed in Islamic theology. The very same Muslims that this commentator speaks of would later "waste their time and energy responding to every harsh comment or action with similar (in fact more extreme) behaviour." He states "Violence only fills people's hearts with hatred." Does that include Muhammads heart as well? Apparently the irony has eluded this commentator given Muhammads violent career.
But this is what faith does to people. Rational people do all sorts of mental acrobatics to prove something irrational because otherwise their entire belief system crumbles. However, since irrationality cannot be defended rationally, they end up saying irrational things. This is not a slight on people of faith. I did the same when I was a believer. I said so many stupid things to cling to my faith until I could no longer fool myself and once I admitted that one thing was wrong, all the other errors became apparent.

If you have nothing more to add to Muhammads early prophetic career I will continue from where I left off begining with the Battle of Badr which plays an important role in Islamic theology as well as the future of Islam.

I was out of town for the holiday so aside from a few personal issues my next response will not be detained.
 
Sidhe:
The early Meccan suras did not call for violence or to fight the unbelievers, however we must understand that the origin of jihad can not be determined by consigning to only a part of Muhammads teachings. As we have seen, Muhammads revelations changed and these changes expounded the meaning of jihad. The later revelations did not accord jihad two separate meanings, they simply supplemented Muhammads earlier teachings which is to strive for the moral betterment of Islam.

You state:


Muhammad was indeed human and you and I both know that to err is human, so for Muhammad to falter in piety would not be aberrant. However Muhammads teachings and actions comported by the revelations from the Divine are not fallible. Again, Muhammads actions are not fallible, he may or may not have struggled with the baser human temptations but they are not reflected in his teachings and actions however contradicting they may seem.

This I see as a falsehood with Islam personally, an attempt to put Mohammed on the same pedestal as Jesus as a sort of divine and infallible figure as Jesus was, to be frank from what I have read of his life and the Koran I see no mention that the person himself was infallible or even considered himself this way, in fact he has been oft quoted as being actually quite self depracating and concious of his own faults a man of uncommon honesty, I assumed this applied to analysing himself too. So why he should now be infallable is beyond my comprehension? The writings maybe: his actions? I see no reason to believe he wasn't driven by baser instincts like every other mortal in history.

The premise you are clinging to, the 'inner' (struggle of the soul) and 'outer' (struggle of the sword) jihad as two separate distinctions, are not employed as such in the Quran. Fighting (outer) is merely a form of jihad "in the way of Allah" that is consistant with the struggle of the soul (inner). You will find that at least half of the relevant jihad verses that relate to the 'struggle of the soul' are embedded in passages talking about warfare, fighting and killing in the way of Allah.
It's the passages (i.e. string of verses pertaining to the same circumstance) that are important. Many of those jihad verses occur in passages that refer to external struggle (emigaration, fighting, killing and lawful looting).

I would think that words such as (striving with) "wealth," "equipment," weapons (or implied weapons, see Q47.4 "smite them at their necks"), etc., should suffice as smoking guns from the Quran.
Anyone who contends that jihad is an 'inner' struggle is engaging in semantic gymnastics, if not downright sophistry-by skirting the smoking guns that do exist in the Quran, and really don't require tafseers or hadiths to interpret. The verses are in fact straight forward.

If you mean that what Jihad means now to Muslims compared to what it meant at the moment the Koran was written are different then I would have to agree. The Koran does paint a more war like picture of Jihad, one that softened over the years of more peacefull Islamic times.

You have quoted commentaries for some of the Meccan revelations from an Islamic site to inforce your position. I have no problem with this, in fact I encourage it, however do so with an objective eye. Try to find sources that offer a counter view to the same subject in order to maintain objective balance. You then can analyze both (or many conflicting) sources, synthesize the information and come to your own personal conclusion.
Adherents read the Quran subjectively, as such they are unable to see its errors objectively. This is normal. Believers love their faith and they cannot see the faults in the object of their love.

For example, take this quote from the source you provided:



The contradiction in this quote is clear to any objective observer moderately versed in Islamic theology. The very same Muslims that this commentator speaks of would later "waste their time and energy responding to every harsh comment or action with similar (in fact more extreme) behaviour." He states "Violence only fills people's hearts with hatred." Does that include Muhammads heart as well? Apparently the irony has eluded this commentator given Muhammads violent career.
But this is what faith does to people. Rational people do all sorts of mental acrobatics to prove something irrational because otherwise their entire belief system crumbles. However, since irrationality cannot be defended rationally, they end up saying irrational things. This is not a slight on people of faith. I did the same when I was a believer. I said so many stupid things to cling to my faith until I could no longer fool myself and once I admitted that one thing was wrong, all the other errors became apparent.

If you have nothing more to add to Muhammads early prophetic career I will continue from where I left off begining with the Battle of Badr which plays an important role in Islamic theology as well as the future of Islam.

I was out of town for the holiday so aside from a few personal issues my next response will not be detained.

I assure you if I could find many sources that have a more fundementalist perspective I would do so but to be honest they appear to practically non existent. I assume mainly because they are written in Arabic and not translated into English.

Anyway I apologise fot not getting back to you sooner, feel free to continue with the history from this point forward.
 
Pfft. No Jihad in history compares to what will come with the Butlerian Jihad, or Paul Muad'Dib's jihad. 10s of billions will die!
 
This I see as a falsehood with Islam personally, an attempt to put Mohammed on the same pedestal as Jesus as a sort of divine and infallible figure as Jesus was, to be frank from what I have read of his life and the Koran I see no mention that the person himself was infallible or even considered himself this way, in fact he has been oft quoted as being actually quite self depracating and concious of his own faults a man of uncommon honesty, I assumed this applied to analysing himself too. So why he should now be infallable is beyond my comprehension? The writings maybe: his actions? I see no reason to believe he wasn't driven by baser instincts like every other mortal in history.

From what I know of Islamic orthodoxy, and from the Hadithic tradition, Mohammed, though a man, was supposed to be "The Perfect Man", who every Muslim must strive to emulate. That is why his actions have to be treated as divine or infallible - he is held up as THE ideal example for man for all ages for all eternity for all circumstances and societies and places for all people and races.

The Hadithic references:

“Verily Allah granted eminence to KinAn from amongst the descendants of IsmA’il and He granted eminence to the Quraish amongst KinAns and He granted eminence to BanU HAshim amongst the Quraish and He granted me eminence from the tribe of BanU HAshim” (5653).

“I shall be preeminent among the descendants of Adam on the Day of Resurrection and I will be the first intercessor and the first whose intercession will be accepted” (5655).

Muhammad uses an effective simile to show the difference between himself and the five or six Apostles that he recognized as having preceded him. The religion of the other apostles is like a building “imposing and beautiful” but for one brick. “I am that final brick,” he says (5673-5676). With his coming, the edifice of religion becomes perfect, and there is no room or use left for any future prophet. “I have come to finalize the chain of Apostles,” he says (5677). With him the old religions are abrogated and the possibility of any new one is exhausted. So any new religion or revelation must be a mischievous innovation.

Though it may not be evident from the three Hadith I posted, they have traditionally been interpreted to mean that just as the Bible is infallible for the Christians, the actions and life of Mohammed are the infallible guide of morality for the Muslims.

If you mean that what Jihad means now to Muslims compared to what it meant at the moment the Koran was written are different then I would have to agree. The Koran does paint a more war like picture of Jihad, one that softened over the years of more peacefull Islamic times.

Again, I confine myself to my knowledge of the Indian context. At least here, Jihad has always meant armed struggle. Probably it was the fact that Islam failed in India, and always was unsure of itself in the entire subcontinent, due to never having converted (by Jihad) a significant enough number of people to Islam to be secure in its own identity. Be that as it may, that still does not excuse the atrocities that were perpetrated.

THREE OPTIONS

Muhammad told those whom he made chiefs of his raiding par-ties: “Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war; do not embezzle the spoils.” He also told them to offer their enemies three options or courses of action: “Invite them to accept Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them. . . . Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of MuhAjirs [i.e., Medina; in the early days of Muhammad’s stay in Medina, living there was a sign of acceptance of Islam and loyalty to Muhammad], and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the MuhAjirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fa’i. . . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the JizyA. . . . . If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them” (4294). Allah, the spoils of war, the jizyA-all beautifully and profitably interwoven.


RAID WITHOUT WARNING

It is not always necessary to give warning or offer options in advance. If need be, this requirement can be waived. Religious con-version is likely to ensue from a military victory followed by pillage and plunder. “The Messenger of Allah made a raid upon BanU Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others” (4292).

All is fair in love and war, particularly a war fought in the Way of Allah. As the Prophet says, “war is a stratagem” (4311), or, as some others have translated it, “cunning.”

To provide you with absolutely clinching evidence that Mohammed's own interpretation of Jihad was an external one, here are the relevant Hadith relating to the division of the spoils of war obtained through Jihad (note that the source is a bit biased, specially in his conclusions, but has given the correct references to prove the factual points he is referring to):

SPOILS OF WAR

The plundering of infidels and polytheists is a central concept in the Muslim religion, and was the linchpin in the economy of the ummah for centuries. Allah made war booty lawful for the Muslims. “Eat ye the spoils of war, it is lawful and pure,” says the QurAn (8:69).

One hadIs tells us that the spoils were made lawful especially for the ummah. “The spoils of war were not lawful for any people before us. This is because Allah saw our weakness and humility and made them lawful for us” (4327).


DIVISION

Essentially, the spoils belong to Allah and His Apostle. “They ask thee concerning the spoils of war. Say: “The spoils of war are for Allah and the Apostle” (QurAn 8:1). But since the mujAhid does not live by Allah alone, and also as a favor and extra incentive, he is given a share in it.

The translator explains: “A mujAhid fights to uphold the cause of righteousness and for the supremacy of Islam, and if in this fight he gets a share in the spoils of war, it is an extra favour to him” (note 2229).

Abdullah Yusuf ’AlI, translator and commentator of the QurAn, in commenting on this verse puts the matter still more eloquently. He says that “booty taken in a lawful and just war does not belong to any individual. If he fought for such accessory rewards, he fought from wrong motives. It belongs to the Cause, in this case the cause of God, as administered by his Apostle. Any portion given out to individuals are accessory gifts, windfalls from the bounty of the Commander.”1

1Abdullah Yusuf ’AlI, trans., Glorious QurAn (Cairo: Daral-Kitab al Masri, 1934).
 
I haven't looked too deeply at the Hadith yet, it's hard enough trying to find references to the Koran or anything like a complete script.

Some Muslims particualrly Sheites would argue that the Hadith is a corruption and that only the Koran is the unquestionable word of God. Therfore Hadith is not relevant, even those who follow the Hadith say that some are more worthy than others. Personally I think alot of material in the Hadiths was written just to justify the Caliphs actions, and it's more of a historical contingency to allow the Caliphs to get away with sidestepping some of the Korans tennants. But I'd probably be hanged for saying that in certain countries.

As to Mohammed I can see where his actions might be considered a good moral guide but to make out that a man born of a woman and a man is somehow unlike any other man before or after his birth is ascribing divinity to Mohammed, a divinity which is not present outside of Islamic belief. Or in historical accounts of his life. This idea sounds inconsistent with reality? Mind you they say the same thing about papal infallibility which I also find hard to justify biblically, ascribing God like characteristics to mortals appears par for the course in organised religion.
 
Sidhe: Upon reviewing the "ask a Muslim" thread, I just now realized that you have continued this debate. Please do not mistake my inattentiveness for apathy, I can assure you that I am just as interested in this discussion as your good self. I promise to make a better effort to remain vigilent on the progress of this thread.

Before I continue with the history of Muhammad, I think it would benefit us both to know exactly where we stand on the subject. I would like to address a few comments that were made on the other thread concerning this discussion that may shed some light on the differences we maintain. There seems to be a misunderstanding or some confusion between you and I that I would like to resolve before we go any further.

You asked Salah-Al-Din to read through this thread where after reading the first post, he replied:
Salah-Al-Din said:
In fact, I agree with his first post, which merely establishes that Jihad of the sword is important in Islam. This is established and agreed upon. However, I find no argument in that post that refutes that there is *another* type of Jihad which is the Greater Jihad and which is Jihad Al-Nufs (struggle over one's ego).
Salah-Al-Din said:
Is there a specific post where he negates the idea that there could be another type of Jihad in addition to Jihad of the sword? Can you point me to that post. The opening post definitely does *not* negate this at all. It simply states that Jihad of the sword exists, which I already agree with.
You replied:
Sidne said:
I tend to agree here, maybe you should post some rebuttals when you have the time.

First and foremost I never claimed that the 'struggle of the sword' negates the 'struggle of the soul' or as Salah-Al-Din describes as Jihad Al-Nufs (struggle over one's ego). I made that very clear early in the discussion:

Mott1 said:
Furthermore one does not negate the other. No matter how one tries to present a benign greater jihad there still exists the verses in the Quran that call for fighting against the unbeliever. They simply don't go away no matter how you look at it.
It is true however, that the word jihad is employed in the Quran and by some Muslim commentators with a double meaning. There are passages in which it refers to the strenuous exertion of the believer to fight the good fight of faith, as regards the conquest of himself and his passions, and the fullfilment of all his religious obligations which involves a considerable struggle with carelessness, indifference, and what we can call the natural disinclination of mankind.
Yet as interesting as all this may be, it is rather away from the point. The question of what jihad is, cannot be settled solely by reference to the etymology of the word jihad. The Quran specifically teaches in many passages the duty of fighting for the Faith or "in the way of Allah." When we ask the question, what is jihad? What are the duties of Muslims with regard to jihad? The real point of the question is, what does the Quran mean when it teaches jihad.
Mott1 said:
The premise you are clinging to, the 'inner' (struggle of the soul) and 'outer' (struggle of the sword) jihad as two separate distinctions, are not employed as such in the Quran. Fighting (outer) is merely a form of jihad "in the way of Allah" that is consistant with the struggle of the soul (inner).
Now that I clarified the misconception of "negation," no rebuttal is necessary being that Salah-Al-Din agrees with me and in turn you argee with him, are we all in accordance?

Sidhe said:
the tennants of Jihad are to struggle against oppression and only use war as a last resort
This is your quote that initiated our discussion on jihad. The "struggle of the sword" is not the last resort being that it is a principle of jihad. There exists no premise in the Quran where Jihad #1 (struggle of the soul) must be fully met before one can commence Jihad #2 (the struggle of the sword).The struggle to advance Islam can be accomplished with or without the sword, they are both equal methods.

The crux of the subject hinges on the struggle against oppression. The idea that Muhammad and the Righteously Guided Caliphs had the divine right to enact the wars against the infidel because the Muslims were "oppressed" is the central factor to this discussion. Whenever the ummah feels oppressed it is their divine right to fight back. Salah-Al-Din believes all the battles fought by Muhammad and The Righteously Guided Caliphs were defensive, they were being oppressed by the infidel therefore jihad was obligatory. Thus jihad is the taking up of arms in defence of Islam when an attack is made on it, and jihad is lawful when such an attack is made. The question then is, What exactly constitutes an attack on Islam and what exactly constitutes oppression? Furthermore if jihad can only be employed in defense of Islam then what is the teaching regarding wars of aggression, is a war for the extension of Islamic rule also jihad? By Examining the history of Muhammad we can clearly see that the Muslims were not at all oppressed or attacked when Muhammad began his campaign of raiding and looting. After Muhammad migrated and settled in Medina, and gained a large base of support from the inhabitants, he began raiding and looting first the merchant caravans and then the surrounding settlements. What was Muhammads idea of oppression? Being mocked, rejection of his prophethood and the breaking of agreements. Is this oppression? are these justifiable reasons to enact "defensive" jihad? According to the messenger of God they are. Is preemptive attacks considered "defensive" jihad? According to the messenger of God it is:
Sahih Bukhari Book #46, Hadith #717
Narrated Ibn Aun:
I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.
Is jihad truly employed for defence of Islam and the ummah? As we continue to examine the scope of Muhammads military campaign we will not only come to understand Muhammads establishment of the Islamic moral standards of self interest but the nature of jihad as well. I will continue when I have more time.
 
Back
Top Bottom