Imdad Ali and the aggression of Muhammad

Submitted by Jan Janssen (Austria), Jan 24, 2008 at 16:49

Dear Imdad,

Thank you for your detailed answer.

1. My first question is the following: from which biography did you get your account of events. You can choose between Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Ibn Sa'd or Waqidi. All other biographies are biased with interpretations represented as facts.

2. Can you give more specifics about the conspiracies of the idol worshippers of Mecca BEFORE Badr. And how they incited locals of Medina including Jews, who made agreements with Muslims to expel them from Medina. Please specify the page of your source where this is written.

3. you wrote that

"In the early days in Medina, the Muslims had to be vigilant every night to defend against the enemy raid."

Can you explain how the Meccans made raids inside Medina at night? Please give specifics and refer to your source.

4. you wrote that

"Abu Jahl's intentions were still murderous. He kept attacking any isolated parties of Muslims, which could be ambushed, damaged crops and gardens."

Do you have any clue about he economics of the first muslims?

They were very poor and had nothing. Muhammad and Abu Bakr who were wealthy at one point in time had spent most of their money to support the poorer muslims and when they arrived in Medina they were nearly broke. The muslims were received and fed by the Medinan muslims, the so-called ansar. They had no crops or gardens whatsoever to be damaged. They had no goods to trade so there were no isolated parties of muslim business men around Medina to be attacked. The Medinans were a mix of craftsmen and farmers. They were idolaters, Jews or muslims. There are no reports on any attacks by Meccans on Medina before Badr.

5. I will give a summary of what Ibn Ishaq writes:

- from page 221, the story of the hijra starts. When Muhammad wanted to move out of Mecca, the Quraysh were afraid because they felt threatened. On page 131 Ibn Ishaq writes that Muhammad told: "I bring you slaughter". A clear threat. So when Muhammad was going to leave Mecca, they assumed that he would find allies there and attack Mecca as he had clearly told. So they wanted to get rid of him, but Muhammad left to Medina anyway.
- page 221 to 280 describes the settling down of the muslim community in Medina. There are no accounts of any actions by the Meccans.
- at the bottom of page 280, it says that Allah gave the order to attack his ennemies.
- from page 281 the description of the so-called raids or Ghazwa against the Meccans starts.
- Raid one was in Waddan, but no fighting occured
- Raid two: Muhammad sent out 60 to 80 people to attack the Quraysh, no fighting took place.
- Raid three: Hamza's expedition to the sea-shore: 30 people
- Raid four: Buwat, no fighting
- Raid five: Al-Ushayra: no fighting
- Raid six: raid of Sa'd B Abu Waqqas

In all cases, Muhammad sent armed people out to check what the Meccans were doing. There is no report about Meccans coming to Medina to attack. Muhammad sent only muhajireen (so as not to compromise the relationship between the native Medinans and the Meccans);

The first successful attack was at Nakhla. Described page 286 to 289.

It was a scandal at that time because it occured during one of the sacred months in which fighting was forbidden. One Meccan was killed and the others were taken captive. The Meccans had to pay ransom to free them. Muhammad hesitated to accept the booty from the raiders that he had sent. But he changed his mind and produced an ayah to support his change of mind. Muhammad and the Muhajireen needed the money so the booty was divided.

The ayah is 2.217 : "They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: "Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members." Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein."

Since that time tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. The tumult and oppression that they talk about is the fact that the Meccans didn't accept Islam voluntarily and when Muhammad became verbally aggressive and insulted their religion and Gods, they made life difficult for him until he left.

If you insult Allah and Muhammad in Mecca in 2008, you will be killed. In his time Muhammad got away with it because people were very tolerant then. Not one single muslim was killed at that time in Mecca, though there was abuse of muslims of lower classes or slaves. In 2008, no non-muslims are even allowed to enter Mecca, because Islam is an intolerant religion and the Saudis apply islam correctly.

We see the same tumult and oppression thing in the West now. People are criticizing Islam because they see the terrorism and oppression of women inspired by islam. This criticism is seen as tumult and oppression and again a reason for even peaceful muslims to go in an attack mode or to change peaceful muslims into suicide bombers.

Back to our story. Before Nakhla, there was no hostile activity whatsoever between the Meccans and Muhammad. Did you know that when Muhammad fled Mecca, he left his wife Sauda in Mecca and one of his daughters with her idol worshipping husband as well. In 2008, the sisters of the Hamas ex-prime minister Haniyeh are living in ... right, Israel and they are perfectly safe. the reason is that the Israelis can be trusted. Can you imagine the daughter of Sharon living at ease in Gaza benefitting from the excellent healthcare system in Khan Younis? Who wants to exterminate the other?

- After that, there was the Badr war in which Muhammad attacked a Caravan like a highway robber. The Meccans were traders and the allegation that they were transporting weapons to attack Medina is baseless. What is your source? Muhammad as usual came out of Medina to attack and the Meccans called for help, so armed men came to protect the caravan. And not the other way round as you suggested.

6. you wrote:
"Banu Qurayza betrayed their agreement with Holy prophet and had been allied with Quresh against Muslims. They had given asylum to the leaders of Banu Nadir, like Huyay ibn Akhtab, who had been expelled from Medina and never refrained from conspiracies against Muslims."

The Banu Qurayza did not take any offensive action.

"After resistance, they surrender, agreeing the term that they should submit to the Judgment of Sad ibn Muadh, who decreed according to the Torah."
"Death toll figure is exaggerated and fictious."

All sources indicate between 600 and 800. What do you base yourself to say it is exaggerated?

"Even in the war, anybody accepts Islam, he is freed."

convert or die

Yesterday Hamas broke the wall between Gaza and Egypt and the Egyptian government did not stop the flood of Palestinians into Egypt. Futhermore Egypt has contacts with Hamas. There is an agreement between Egypt and Israel that Egypt controls the border. Egypt broke the agreement. Would you agree that Israel attacks Egypt and kills all males? Or better, they nuke Egypt. And this in accordance with Islam based on the ayah that was revealed on the Banu Qurayza after which the massacre took place: 8.58 "If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for Allah loveth not the treacherous."

Of course you wouldn't. Neither would I. But why then do you accept it from the perfect man, your prophet. Why do you feel you have to justify his attrocities? Why a whole tribe is exterminated because Muhammad thought some people conspired? Did the americans kill all Germans after WWII? Or only some generals? Do you think that the americans behaved more humanely than your Prophet?

7. you wrote:
"Concept of Jihad is misunderstood term in the West."

I completely agree. In the West they say it is a spiritual struggle and war in self-defense. This is false. My shariah book of the Shafi'i school and certified by al-Azhar in Egypt flatly states that Jihad is Qital al kuffar (war against non-muslims) to establish the religion. It is an offensive war to spread Islam amongst the ones who deny Allah and Muhammad. And this is the worst imaginable crime.

Jihad is mentioned one time in the Quran if I remember well and it means war. Please do not come with the jahada = striving nonsense.

Jihad is rather a hadith concept. You will agree with me that Bukhari and Muslims are the right sahih hadith. Well both collections contain a chapter on hadith with hundreds of hadith in each chapter. All except one deal with war to spread Islam. The one that deals with something else than war says that the best jihad for women is the perfect hadj. So if there are no hadith explaining this spiritual struggle, then the peaceful personal concept of jihad does not exist.

I am looking forward to your response, dear brother Imdad,
Jan

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".