Nozzi: It is time to discard your dishonest claim that Muhammad was not the aggressor against the Quraish.

Submitted by Plato (India), May 4, 2009 at 07:21

Nozzi, you write:

>>The following are the extracts from Rodinson (2002), p.164 as well as, Watt, The Cambridge History of Islam, p. 45:

In March of 624, the Muslims set an ambursh for Meccan at Badr. Aware of the plan, the Meccan caravan eluded the Muslims. Meanwhile, a force from Mecca was sent to protect the caravan, continuing forward to confront the Muslims upon hearing that the caravan was safe <<

The first sentence itself tells you the Muslims were the ones who chose to fight the Meccans by trying to loot their caravan. Nozzi, why do you have no comment on this hostile act of Muhammad? You keep saying that Muhammad was fighting back when all the while he was the clear aggressor. Remove the mental filter your Islamic instructors placed in your mind.

>> The Battle of Badr began in March 624. Though outnumbered more than three to one, the Muslims won the battle, killing at least forty five Mecans with only fourteen Muslims dead. They also succeeded in killing many Meccan leaders, including Abu Jahl.<<

If you have prepared the battleground to your advantage and you have the motivation of booty if you win and paradise if you die then half the battle is already won. The prophet was a great tactician and strategist (courtesy of Allah no doubt).

Let me quote from Ibn Ishaq, page 296-97 (Guillaume translation, Pakistan printing, Oxford University Press): God sent rain which did not hinder the apostle's movements, but gravely affected the movements of the Quraish. The apostle went forth to hasten his men to the water and when he got to the nearest water of Badr he halted……..

….he pointed out that it was not the place to stop but that they should go on to the water nearest to the enemy and halt there, stop up the wells up the wells beyond it, and construct a cistern so they would have plenty of water; then they would fight the enemy who would have nothing to drink."

>>From the above statement, it is obvious that muslims could win the battle with non-pagans even if the number of his opponents might be greater than them. Remember it is mentioned above that at least forty-five Meccans with only fourteen muslims dead. Such a great victory. Despite the number of opponents were great, he could win the battle even though his followers that fought with him was comparatively lower. He was not coward to fight or else he would escape the fighting realising that his opponents were in large number as compared to his followers.<<

It is not just the Muslims who could win such victories. The Greeks did it with smaller forces than the Persians. Genghis Khan also defeated much larger forces than his.

>>Bear in mind! Prophet Muhammad did not start fighting with the pagans during the first three years. He fought against the Meccan due to they were those that start to fight with them.<<

You seem to have forgotten that the historian you have yourself quoted says it was the Muslims who went out to loot the Quraish caravan: "In March of 624, the Muslims set an ambursh for Meccan at Badr"

Can you explain this bit of deception/taqia on your part (i.e claiming the Muslims were under attack when your own historians tells you otherwise)

Now like other Muslims you will tell me either that he started his career of looting of caravans as vengeance for being ejected from Mecca. Or you will say that Allah permitted Muhammad to do so just as He allowed His Prophet so many other freedoms like marrying as many women as he wished 33:50, discarding his solemn oaths 66:1-2, tearing up covenants with his opponents 9:1-5, allowing him to marry his adopted son's wife, and so on.

Regards

Plato

---

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".