F0uad and 1robin Koran and Bible

[Bismillah]

Salaam alaikum,

1. I do not have a problem with this

2. I have no problem reading sources from non-Muslims, I will contest those sources whose authenticity is in doubt however.

For the sake of brevity and a more structured debate I will respond to one claim at a time until either side dismisses or forfeits and moves on to the next one.

To start with is your claim: The Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, suffered from epilepsy.

Since you are making the positive claim I will leave it to you to quote both the conditions and symptoms of epilepsy as well as provide evidence documenting that the Prophet suffered from it.

After you do so I will reply to your points and if you do not have any evidence I will provide the reasoning as to why you claim is illogical inshallah.

 

[1robin]

Salaam alaikum,

1. I do not have a problem with this
2. I have no problem reading sources from non-Muslims; I will contest those sources whose authenticity is in doubt however.

How would that effect say a scientific diagnosis of a trait Muhammad displayed or a scientific claim that challenges a scientific claim in the Quran. I am unclear how authenticity would be evaluated. If I said 2 + 2 = 4, would that be said to be false because I am not authenticated even though it is true? Were you thinking strictly along the lines of historical sources alone.

For the sake of brevity and a more structured debate I will respond to one claim at a time until either side dismisses or forfeits and moves on to the next one.

That is very logical and agreeable.

To start with is your claim: The Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, suffered from epilepsy.

No, I was saying that it is a possibility that some suggest and that certain issues concerning his life are very consistent with. What I personally believe is far more offensive unfortunately. I do not suggest it because it is offensive, it just happens to be. I believe he was periodically tormented by what the Bible calls demons or demonic influence. His symptoms are an exact match for a Biblical story concerning Jesus casting out a demon from a boy and I supplied the story I believe in my post. I believe the Quran is the product of demonic influence, stuff Muhammad made up for convenience and couched in theological language, distorted Biblical claims that were held by heretical Jews in Arabia at the time, and much older Gnostic and other heretical teachings popular in Arabia during Muhammad's time. But we will stick to his revelations for now.

Since you are making the positive claim I will leave it to you to quote both the conditions and symptoms of epilepsy as well as provide evidence documenting that the Prophet suffered from it.

They do line up with epilepsy but that is not really my claim. I claim an evil or demonic influence is responsible or appears to be. If you will compare the symptoms associated with what is said concerning Muhammad and compare them to what the Bible records as concerning the boy who had a demon, you will find an exact match. Before I submit this I will verify that I included that story in my post. It is there and is bolded.

After you do so I will reply to your points and if you do not have any evidence I will provide the reasoning as to why you claim is illogical inshallah.

Good to hear from you I thought I lost you. You sound like an experienced debater and hope I can finally get someone to competently discuss the issues instead of avoiding them. By the way what does "inshallah" mean?

If you have extensive experience with debate I wonder if you would concur with my views that:

1. Ahmed Deedat is a very likeable man and very knowledgeable in some respects but makes trivial and unsophisticated points and has a tendency to use double standards.

2. Shabir Alli is the most competent Islamic debater I have seen. He is respectful, knowledgeable, and logical. He has almost no flaws other than a slight double standard issue that is only minor.

I have not seen another Islamic debater that is even anywhere near either of these. Do you know of any?

 

[Bismillah]

Salaam alaikum,

How would that effect say a scientific diagnosis of a trait Muhammad displayed or a scientific claim that challenges a scientific claim in the Quran. I am unclear how authenticity would be evaluated. If I said 2 + 2 = 4, would that be said to be false because I am not authenticated even though it is true? Were you thinking strictly along the lines of historical sources alone.

Authenticity in the sense that the sources of Islam that you use are authentic. For example if you are claiming that a verse of the Qur'an is one thing however you are using an unusual translation from dubious origins then that will not be a convincing case. Similarly if you are using a hadith that is classified as weak your argument will also be weakened.

No, I was saying that it is a possibility that some suggest and that certain issues concerning his life are very consistent with. What I personally believe is far more offensive unfortunately

Sure but if you list various possibilities it is my obligation to refute them, even if they are not the center of your own personal argument. To be neutral I will tackle them in chronological order. So, in light of this, I will start with the claim that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, suffered from Epilepsy and after moving on from this your next claim is that he suffered from possession which I will address then.

To begin with the claim that the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, suffered from Epilepsy are quite strange indeed. He lived in a urban town at the crossroads of trade and religious pilgrimage. The idea that he suffered from a mental affliction unnoticed and unrecorded is in this light ridiculous, especially considering that his opponents would have used it to disparage him and secondly all accounts narrate that throughout his youth and till his death he was a man in good health.

Furthermore it is even more ridiculous to think that the Prophet only suffered from seizures/convulsions during revelatory periods of the Qur'an. If a man is suffering from Epilepsy the consequent symptoms will show and there is no such documentation of the Prophet suffering from such things in his person life.

Given the symptoms of epilepsy it is further ludicrous to suggest that a victim of epilepsy who suffered from incomprehensible hallucinations, amnesia, and epileptic seizure created an immensely coherent, rhythmically compound set of work that established the foundation and standard for Arabic, as we know of it today, and the pinnacle of literature in a society famed for it. And it is smiling in the face of incredulity to suggest that it was during the moment of involuntary seizures, wherein the patients are rendered unconscious and unaware of their surrounding, that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, created that which he is best known for. The deep literary tradition of the Qur'an. It is to suggest that Napoleon's pinnacle of military strategy, the invasion of Italy, was compiled during a fit of seizure and every further piece of military genius was also always during epileptic convulsions!

 

[Bismillah]

By the way what does "inshallah" mean?

It is a phrase in Arabic "in sha allah" meaning God willing. It is spoken because of the realization that one can only succeed or fail through God's own will and to begin and align our action and intention with that of God to the best of our ability. A hadith that is related to and explains this concept better than my ability states

Be mindful of Allah, and Allah will protect you. Be mindful of Allah, and you will find Him in front of you. If you ask, ask of Allah; if you seek help, seek help of Allah. Know that if the Nation were to gather together to benefit you with anything, it would benefit you only with something that Allah had already prescribed for you, and that if they gather together to harm you with anything, they would harm you only with something Allah had already prescribed for you. The pens have been lifted and the pages have dried.

1. Ahmed Deedat is a very likeable man and very knowledgeable in some respects but makes trivial and unsophisticated points and has a tendency to use double standards.

2. Shabir Alli is the most competent Islamic debater I have seen. He is respectful, knowledgeable, and logical. He has almost no flaws other than a slight double standard issue that is only minor.

Both of these are daees or those who give dawah which in some ways is similar to prosleytization. They both have memorized Islamic and Christian texts and use it to target primarily a Christian demographic in understanding Islam with the goal of converting them to it.

I haven't seen much of Deedat so I would not like to speak out of ignorance but I have seen parts that are at times insulting, vulgar, and misogynistic.

Other daees including

Zakir Naik
Hamza tzortzis
Nouman Ali Khan (though he mostly concentrates instead on the Muslim community)

They have a tendency to be self-taught rather than pursuing religious education through established institutions, at least originally. I myself don't spend too much time with them because often their topics and themes are a little basic, in accordance with their audience (unfamiliar Christians).

Out of them I like Hamza and Shabbir Ali with the latter I think being the most respectful and comprehensive in his dialogues. I do not approve of Naik at all and I frown upon the disparaging attitude of Deedat.

 

[1robin]

Salaam alaikum, Authenticity in the sense that the sources of Islam that you use are authentic. For example if you are claiming that a verse of the Qur'an is one thing however you are using an unusual translation from dubious origins then that will not be a convincing case. Similarly if you are using a hadith that is classified as weak your argument will also be weakened.

That sounds logical. Maybe I will learn more about the respective strengths of Islamic sources along the way. Can you list the top five or so in order of reliability?

Sure but if you list various possibilities it is my obligation to refute them, even if they are not the center of your own personal argument. To be neutral I will tackle them in chronological order. So, in light of this, I will start with the claim that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, suffered from Epilepsy and after moving on from this your next claim is that he suffered from possession which I will address then.

That is fine but I will not defend epilepsy as it does not fit all the data.

To begin with the claim that the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, suffered from Epilepsy are quite strange indeed. He lived in a urban town at the crossroads of trade and religious pilgrimage. The idea that he suffered from a mental affliction unnoticed and unrecorded is in this light ridiculous, especially considering that his opponents would have used it to disparage him and secondly all accounts narrate that throughout his youth and till his death he was a man in good health.

Actually I find a mountain of evidence that he had periodic bouts of a mysterious illness but as I do not subscribe to the epilepsy claim I will not comment further.

Furthermore it is even more ridiculous to think that the Prophet only suffered from seizures/convulsions during revelatory periods of the Qur'an. If a man is suffering from Epilepsy the consequent symptoms will show and there is no such documentation of the Prophet suffering from such things in his person life.

I will resist further comment.

Given the symptoms of epilepsy it is further ludicrous to suggest that a victim of epilepsy who suffered from incomprehensible hallucinations, amnesia, and epileptic seizure created an immensely coherent, rhythmically compound set of work that established the foundation and standard for Arabic, as we know of it today, and the pinnacle of literature in a society famed for it.

I will comment on the literary value of the Quran. Islamic scholars of course claim it's brilliant literary style. Secular scholars range from literary train wreck to competent theological text. I find it confusing, often simplistic, and contradictory, and lacking the supernatural tone and demeanor I find in the Bible. It sounds to me like a person casually familiar with theological language putting his own desires in that style. All of this is subjective and so unresolvable but I thought I would add my take on it.

And it is smiling in the face of incredulity to suggest that it was during the moment of involuntary seizures, wherein the patients are rendered unconscious and unaware of their surrounding, that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, created that which he is best known for. The deep literary tradition of the Qur'an. It is to suggest that Napoleon's pinnacle of military strategy, the invasion of Italy, was compiled during a fit of seizure and every further piece of military genius was also always during epileptic convulsions!

As I said I will not spend much time defending a claim I have not adopted but I will say that I nor the sources were saying that he composed the Quran in fits of epilepsy. The theory goes that epilepsy has been proven to produce vivid religious experiences. He had these experiences and at a time when epilepsy was not understood well at all, mistook them for revelations. He later memorized them and added in detail from his own mind, as well as filling in areas with distorted Biblical stories and claims known to be popular among heretics and Gnostics during his time. I think the idea is that epilepsy produced his many of his visions but most of the Quran was written to fill in the gaps and create a universal whole. As I said I do not buy this but wanted to only clarify what the claim was. I am waiting primarily for the response concerning the demonic influence. Good job reasoning, in the above post though. I think maybe I have found someone who can competently debate these issues.

 

[1robin]

It is a phrase in Arabic "in sha allah" meaning God willing. It is spoken because of the realization that one can only succeed or fail through God's own will and to begin and align our action and intention with that of God to the best of our ability. A hadith that is related to and explains this concept better than my ability states

Thanks.

Both of these are daees or those who give dawah which in some ways is similar to proselytization. They both have memorized Islamic and Christian texts and use it to target primarily a Christian demographic in understanding Islam with the goal of converting them to it.

I am not sure their goals are primarily conversion. I think they are more interested in defending what they believe are false claims against Islam and generally educating people about the issues involved with both religions.

I haven't seen much of Deedat so I would not like to speak out of ignorance but I have seen parts that are at times insulting, vulgar, and misogynistic.

I like him as a person but always found his arguments trivial and contrived. I think he died recently.

Other daees including
Zakir Naik

I have seen this man but I never found anything in the few seconds or minutes I viewed him to justify further research. Perhaps next time I will give him more time.

Hamza tzortzis

I have seen this man as well but have at times seen him lose his demeanor and sarcastically attack his opponent. I can understand his frustration but it makes for a bad debate. I also find his rationality rooted in emotionalism.

Nouman Ali Khan (though he mostly concentrates instead on the Muslim community)

I am completely unfamiliar with this man.

They have a tendency to be self-taught rather than pursuing religious education through established institutions, at least originally. I myself don't spend too much time with them because often their topics and themes are a little basic, in accordance with their audience (unfamiliar Christians).

Very well.

Out of them I like Hamza and Shabbir Ali with the latter I think being the most respectful and comprehensive in his dialogues. I do not approve of Naik at all and I frown upon the disparaging attitude of Deedat.

I agree with your assessment of Ali. I would like to meet him one day. He does not have that fundamentalist emotional undertone and is very knowledgeable and competent and seems like a genuinely nice guy. If you haven't seen them his debates with Dr James White are very instructional but James points out Shabbir's only fault over and over, his use of redactionist authors that condemn the Quran as well and do not believe revelation is possible. They mutually respect each other and have rational, meaningful, civil debates. I look forward to your response concerning Muhammad's possible contact with demonic forces concerning revelation.

 

[1robin]

Muhammad at BADR​

I have been avoiding this as it will take forever to evaluate Muhammad’s violent behavior but unfortunately I promised to do it, so I must.
My argument is based on three claims.

1. There is far too much violence perpetrated by Muhammad and his companions and associates than any kind of “defense only” or “in the service of God defense will explain”.
2. The motivation for much of what Muhammad did is obviously in some cases, and more likely than not in others, his own idea and personal motives not Allah’s.
3. That much of the violence Muhammad had a hand in has no significant similarities in the Bible’s OT violent events.

I will list some of his countless violent acts and where possible give a Muslim source and any details that are important. Muslims keep in mind I do not claim omniscience but I do claim sincerity. There may be some of these claims that are debatable but even if I conceded every one there is still so many left that have no reasonable explanation my claims above still stand. I am not bounded by any Islamic Hadiths or accepted scholars. I am only bound by what I find credible.

First I find it very strange the Muhammad only received permission to fight when he was strong. He was quite peaceful and never had to defend himself by killing hundreds of people when he was week. The God of the Bible was able to give VICTORY even when his human resources were very weak. David drove of an entire army off by killing a giant. Gideon was told to send 99% of the army home and the rest drove away a massive army because God was actually with them. However with Muhammad, as in many other instances, he is not acting in the same way.

If you asked many scholars what the Quran says, many would ask, which one? They actually speak of a Meccan Quran and a Medina Quran. Most of the peaceful verses are from the Medina timeframe when he was weak. The terribly violent ones come from the later Medina period when Muhammad was strong. BTW the later violent verses abrogate (over turn) the earlier peaceful ones so many of those verses used in defense of Islam and its peacefulness are actually invalidated by the violent verses.

As scholars and Islamic Jurisprudence experts well know:
Rather than explain away inconsistencies in passages regulating the Muslim community, many jurists acknowledge the differences but accept that latter verses trump earlier verses. Most scholars divide the Qur'an into verses revealed by Muhammad in Mecca when his community of followers was weak and more inclined to compromise, and those revealed in Medina, where Muhammad's strength grew.
Peace or Jihad? Abrogation in Islam :: Middle East Quarterly


Now would any unbiased person think that Muhammad was told by an almighty God to get along until he was strong and then he was told to assassinate, oppress, invade, and retaliate in battle after battle. This looks exactly like a man trying to unite a bunch of separated tribes under a single unifying theology that he invented. God does not need Muhammad’s henchmen to accomplish what he wishes. He could destroy Muhammad’s enemies in a nano-second even if Muhammad was on vacation and had no followers. The biblical God accomplished tasks vastly grander with no army at all. Again this looks like a man not a God writing this stuff. It will not work to suggest that he did not have any offenses to defend against until he got to Medina either. He was resented in both places and he started many of the fights in Medina as I will shortly demonstrate.

I guess Chronology is the way to go, although the Quran’s writers thought mixing everything up a better way.

The context of Muhammad’s followers immediately before his career of violence began was he had moved to Mecca because a tribe there had offered him their fighters in trade for him becoming their leader. Up until this time he had been resented by most of Medina and he had few followers. (BTW I am sure there were wrongs on both sides in Medina). He and his men were poor, hungry, apparently frustrated with some wrongs suffered in Medina at the hands of the Quraysh, and looking for revenge. The significant tribes and families of Yathrib wished him to unite them and bring peace to the feuding there. They got the exact opposite. This is a good place to include the fact that for the first peaceful 13 years of Islam, Muhammad had around 150 followers and over the next 10 violent years that increased to around 100,000. It seems Islam thrives on violence.

I will post these chronologically but not exhaustively.

1. The first significant action was the AL IS Caravan raid. Muhammad set out to attack and plunder a caravan led by Abu Jahl. Apparently the 300 people with the caravan were too many for the Muslims as a third party talked both sides out of fighting.
Source: Indian Muslim author Saif ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri
Comments: Now if Allah had ordered this raid what are the Muslims doing giving up? If not then why were they attacking to begin with? Most sources say loot and pleasure.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

2. The next important one is Battle of Badr. However there were between 5 and 11 Islamic raids on caravans in between the first one and this one. At this point Muhammad and the Qurayash had been skirmishing back and forth for years.

In late 623 and early 624, the Muslim ghazawāt grew increasingly brazen and commonplace. In September 623, Muhammad himself led a force of 200 in an unsuccessful raid against a large caravan. Shortly thereafter, the Meccan’s launched their own "raid" against Medina, although its purpose was just to steal some livestock which belonged to the Muslims. In January 624, the Muslims ambushed a Meccan caravan near Nakhlah, only forty kilometers outside of Mecca, killing one of the guards and formally inaugurating a blood feud with the Meccans. Worse, from a Meccan standpoint, the raid occurred in the month of Rajab, a truce month sacred to the Meccans in which fighting was prohibited and a clear affront to their pagan traditions. and neither side knew who started what by this time.
Hodgson, pp.174–175.

Muhammad had heard that this year’s caravans were filled with many goods and much revenue. He set out to attack them at a well site.

By this time Muhammad's companions were approaching the wells where he planned to either waylay the caravan, or to fight the Meccan army at Badr, along the Syrian trade route where the caravan would be expected to stop or the Meccan army to come for its protection. However, several Muslim scouts were discovered by scouts from the caravan and Abu Sufyan made a hasty turn towards Yanbu.
Ibn Ishaq

Hubab ibn al-Mundhir, however, asked him if this choice was divine instruction or Muhammad's own opinion. When Muhammad responded in the latter, Hubab suggested that the Muslims occupy the well closest to the Quraishi army, and block off the other ones. Muhammad accepted this decision and moved right away.

According to Muslim scholar "Saifur Rahman al Mubarakpuri", a Quran verse was revealed ordering the execution of one of the captives, Nadr bin Harith. After this revelation, Nadr bin Harith was subsequently beheaded by Ali.
Later the command to kill Uqba bin Abu Muayt was given, and he was subsequently beheaded by Asim Bin Thabit Ansari (some sources say Ali beheaded him).

This is also (I believe) the first of the "Islam or suffer (or die)" demands from Muhammad:
Having returned to Medina after the battle, Muhammad admonished the resident Jewish tribe of Qaynuqa to accept Islam or face a similar fate as the Quraish (3:12-13)

Muhammad apparently decided to even the scores with many folks when he returned victorious and could now kill who he wished. I will cover these later but they can be found at the link. Many were simply poets who wrote poems that were not flattering to Muhammad or people who complained about his brutality.
Islam 101 by Gregory M. Davis - Jihad Watch

Comments: According to Hodgson (on of Americas greatest secular Islamic scholars) illustrated that Muhammad had been raiding constantly and had made an already bad situation much worse before this event. In fact raiding caravans was an almost universal practice among Bedouin Arabians, Muhammad simply made theft Holy (or tried to). What part does Allah have in raiding caravans to get loot and stirring up all this bad blood? Why is Muhammad raiding based on how rich the caravans are instead of by divine command? It is obvious Allah had not authorized this because Muhammad was deciding why, when, and where war was to be fought independent of Allah. Why did Allah tell Muhammad to execute unarmed combatants long after the battle and after they were a threat to anyone. The closest thing in the Bible to this is the instructions to kill everyone within the context of a battle. It even says specifically why and if God exists it was perfectly justified. Allah on the other hand seems to send commands as soon as Muhammad wants to do something. My God gave the loot from battles but never justified battles to get the loot. As we go along these difference become far more severe and numerous.


I will do this a little at a time. I have over a hundred more to go if I list them all and this will become unmanageable very fast. I will wait a bit for any contentions and address them before going on. There is at least 10 times the info on this one battle that I need to post but this is getting out of hand quickly. Please forgive any Medina v/s Mecca mistakes I made. It is difficult to always get them right. For an in-depth analysis on this battle see also original article by Anwar Shaikh a renowned Indian Islamic scholar and historian

 

[F0uad]

I will respond to this tomorrow and only reply about the things Mohammed(saws) is mentioned since we are discussing Mohammed(saws) and not different opinions or what other Muslims did after him. I will reply this in the context of war since both sides were on war and i will clarify some points you raised and put context were it is missing.

 

[1robin]

I will respond to this tomorrow and only reply about the things Mohammed(saws) is mentioned since we are discussing Mohammed(saws) and not different opinions or what other Muslims did after him. I will reply this in the context of war since both sides were on war and i will clarify some points you raised and put context were it is missing.

Ok. I am very hung up today as well.

 

[F0uad]

I would like to start from one event to the other event until we have finished the two arguments/questions you brought for before going into details about other things and sorry for the late reply.

1 The first significant action was the AL IS Caravan raid. Muhammad set out to attack and plunder a caravan led by Abu Jahl. Apparently the 300 people with the caravan were too many for the Muslims as a third party talked both sides out of fighting.
Source: Indian Muslim author Saif ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri
Comments: Now if Allah had ordered this raid what are the Muslims doing giving up? If not then why were they attacking to begin with? Most sources say loot and pleasure.

Allah(swt)'s command was not specific about the raids if that was a part of your question but he did say to fight back.

The raids were generally offensive and carried out to gather intelligence or seize the trade goods of caravans financed by the Quraysh. The raids were intended to weaken the economic and in turn the offensive capabilities of Mecca by Muhammad(saws). The Meccans had sold Muslim property (which they left behind after Hijra) and invested it on their caravans. In Medina's opinion, this was against Arab custom. The Muslims felt that the raids were justified and that God gave them permission to defend against the Meccans' persecution of Muslims.

Source: Gabriel, Richard A. (2008), Muhammad, Islam's first great general, University of Oklahoma Press, p. 73,


As for your second question, i did not get it what was the question or argument? You just copied/pasted allot of text without raising a question.

I would like to end my post with this hadith:

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 288 :
Narrated by Ibn Masud
I witnessed Al-Miqdad bin Al-Aswad in a scene which would have been dearer to me than anything had I been the hero of that scene. He (i.e. Al-Miqdad) came to the Prophet while the Prophet was urging the Muslims to fight with the pagans. Al-Miqdad said, "We will not say as the People of Moses said: Go you and your Lord and fight you two. (5.27). But we shall fight on your right and on your left and in front of you and behind you." I saw the face of the Prophet getting bright with happiness, for that saying delighted him.

 

[1robin]

I would like to start from one event to the other event until we have finished the two arguments/questions you brought for before going into details about other things and sorry for the late reply.


Allah(swt)'s command was not specific about the raids if that was a part of your question but he did say to fight back.

The raids were generally offensive and carried out to gather intelligence or seize the trade goods of caravans financed by the Quraysh. The raids were intended to weaken the economic and in turn the offensive capabilities of Mecca by Muhammad(saws). The Meccans had sold Muslim property (which they left behind after Hijra) and invested it on their caravans. In Medina's opinion, this was against Arab custom. The Muslims felt that the raids were justified and that God gave them permission to defend against the Meccans' persecution of Muslims.

Source: Gabriel, Richard A. (2008), Muhammad, Islam's first great general, University of Oklahoma Press, p. 73,


As for your second question, i did not get it what was the question or argument? You just copied/pasted allot of text without raising a question.

I would like to end my post with this hadith:

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 288 :
Narrated by Ibn Masud
I witnessed Al-Miqdad bin Al-Aswad in a scene which would have been dearer to me than anything had I been the hero of that scene. He (i.e. Al-Miqdad) came to the Prophet while the Prophet was urging the Muslims to fight with the pagans. Al-Miqdad said, "We will not say as the People of Moses said: Go you and your Lord and fight you two. (5.27). But we shall fight on your right and on your left and in front of you and behind you." I saw the face of the Prophet getting bright with happiness, for that saying delighted him.

Before I respond to this let me figure out what is going on first. In the Muhammad thread we were discussing my original posts on Badr which it appears I had posted here months ago. Now I think you are replying in this thread at this point in response to my claims in the other thread. If I am understanding all this correctly then we can move on. Am I?

 

[1robin]

I would like to start from one event to the other event until we have finished the two arguments/questions you brought for before going into details about other things and sorry for the late reply.

That will be fine.

Allah(swt)'s command was not specific about the raids if that was a part of your question but he did say to fight back.

Raiding foreign caravans is not fighting back it is theft and murder. As my exhaustive explanation of he circumstances involving Muhammad's first raid at Badr demonstrated. The motivation as recorded in many sources (Islamic and historical) was the fact that years caravans carried an unusual amount of goods.

The raids were generally offensive and carried out to gather intelligence or seize the trade goods of caravans financed by the Quraysh. The raids were intended to weaken the economic and in turn the offensive capabilities of Mecca by Muhammad(saws). The Meccans had sold Muslim property (which they left behind after Hijra) and invested it on their caravans. In Medina's opinion, this was against Arab custom. The Muslims felt that the raids were justified and that God gave them permission to defend against the Meccans' persecution of Muslims.

That is certainly logical if we were discussing a simple warlord but we are discussing a man who is claimed to be protected by Allah. He did not need to systematically weaken another culture. If Allah wished him to fight the instructions would have been similar to all the Biblical instructions regarding warfare. They were all designed to reveal the fact God was fighting the battles not Israel. An example was God instructing Gideon to send back 27, 700 of his 30,000 soldiers and it was by God's hand they defeated an enemy that vastly outnumbered them. God did not really on a generals craftiness and plans to do what he wished and made sure it was he who was glorified for the victory. The way Muhammad fought is typically what men do without God. He might have been a very competent man but the evidence for him being a prophet is sorely lacking.

You wish to start at the beginning and here is the part of my post on the first two raids.

I will post these chronologically but not exhaustively.

1. The first significant action was the AL IS Caravan raid. Muhammad set out to attack and plunder a caravan led by Abu Jahl. Apparently the 300 people with the caravan were too many for the Muslims as a third party talked both sides out of fighting.
Source: Indian Muslim author Saif ur-Rahman Mubarakpuri
Comments: Now if Allah had ordered this raid what are the Muslims doing giving up? If not then why were they attacking to begin with? Most sources say loot and pleasure.

2. The next important one is Battle of Badr. However there were between 5 and 11 Islamic raids on caravans in between the first one and this one. At this point Muhammad and the Qurayash had been skirmishing back and forth for years.

In late 623 and early 624, the Muslim ghazawāt grew increasingly brazen and commonplace. In September 623, Muhammad himself led a force of 200 in an unsuccessful raid against a large caravan. Shortly thereafter, the Meccan’s launched their own "raid" against Medina, although its purpose was just to steal some livestock which belonged to the Muslims. In January 624, the Muslims ambushed a Meccan caravan near Nakhlah, only forty kilometers outside of Mecca, killing one of the guards and formally inaugurating a blood feud with the Meccans. Worse, from a Meccan standpoint, the raid occurred in the month of Rajab, a truce month sacred to the Meccans in which fighting was prohibited and a clear affront to their pagan traditions. and neither side knew who started what by this time.
Hodgson, pp.174–175.

Muhammad had heard that this year’s caravans were filled with many goods and much revenue. He set out to attack them at a well site.

By this time Muhammad's companions were approaching the wells where he planned to either waylay the caravan, or to fight the Meccan army at Badr, along the Syrian trade route where the caravan would be expected to stop or the Meccan army to come for its protection. However, several Muslim scouts were discovered by scouts from the caravan and Abu Sufyan made a hasty turn towards Yanbu.
Ibn Ishaq

Hubab ibn al-Mundhir, however, asked him if this choice was divine instruction or Muhammad's own opinion. When Muhammad responded in the latter, Hubab suggested that the Muslims occupy the well closest to the Quraishi army, and block off the other ones. Muhammad accepted this decision and moved right away.

According to Muslim scholar "Saifur Rahman al Mubarakpuri", a Quran verse was revealed ordering the execution of one of the captives, Nadr bin Harith. After this revelation, Nadr bin Harith was subsequently beheaded by Ali.
Later the command to kill Uqba bin Abu Muayt was given, and he was subsequently beheaded by Asim Bin Thabit Ansari (some sources say Ali beheaded him).

This is also (I believe) the first of the "Islam or suffer (or die)" demands from Muhammad:
Having returned to Medina after the battle, Muhammad admonished the resident Jewish tribe of Qaynuqa to accept Islam or face a similar fate as the Quraish (3:12-13)

Muhammad apparently decided to even the scores with many folks when he returned victorious and could now kill who he wished. I will cover these later but they can be found at the link. Many were simply poets who wrote poems that were not flattering to Muhammad or people who complained about his brutality.
Islam 101 by Gregory M. Davis - Jihad Watch

Source: Gabriel, Richard A. (2008), Muhammad, Islam's first great general, University of Oklahoma Press, p. 73,


As for your second question, i did not get it what was the question or argument? You just copied/pasted allot of text without raising a question.

I would like to end my post with this hadith:

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 288 :
Narrated by Ibn Masud
I witnessed Al-Miqdad bin Al-Aswad in a scene which would have been dearer to me than anything had I been the hero of that scene. He (i.e. Al-Miqdad) came to the Prophet while the Prophet was urging the Muslims to fight with the pagans. Al-Miqdad said, "We will not say as the People of Moses said: Go you and your Lord and fight you two. (5.27). But we shall fight on your right and on your left and in front of you and behind you." I saw the face of the Prophet getting bright with happiness, for that saying delighted him.

I am unsure of what you were intending to show with this information.


I am also what second question you are referring to. I regard any line of debate concerning Muhammad's first few battles and Moses actions valid for discussion. I do not know which specific question you are referring to.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

"Al-Soundos" is an Indian word means" the thin curtain" as in The Smoke chapter (Surat Ad-Dukhan) 53[/FONT][/B]
[/INDENT][/LEFT]

I don't mean to butt in, but that seems a bit odd. I'm Indian and I've never seen this word "alsoundos," the closest thing (in terms of sounding) that I can think of is सान्द्र (sāndra), which means concentrated or thick and सुन्दर (sundara), which means beautiful (as in, "ati-sundar[a]"), but that's really it. The only Arabic word that I can think of that sounds similar to an Indian word is probably समीर samīra and سمير (samīr), except they mean totally different things [the former means a strong wind or breeze whereas the latter means a nightly companion] as well as साधक (sādhaka) and صادق (ṣādiq), which while sounding somewhat similar and having similar meanings have different etymological origins (ṣādiq comes from the proto-Semitic root ṣ-d-q meaning righteous whereas sādhaka comes from proposed proto-Indo-European word h₂sondʰókas meaning truthful cf. Latin "fidas"). I don't know if that helps...

 

[1robin]

I don't mean to butt in, but that seems a bit odd. I'm Indian and I've never seen this word "alsoundos," the closest thing (in terms of sounding) that I can think of is सान्द्र (sāndra), which means concentrated or thick and सुन्दर (sundara), which means beautiful (as in, "ati-sundar[a]"), but that's really it. The only Arabic word that I can think of that sounds similar to an Indian word is probably समीर samīra and سمير (samīr), except they mean totally different things [the former means a strong wind or breeze whereas the latter means a nightly companion] as well as साधक (sādhaka) and صادق (ṣādiq), which while sounding somewhat similar and having similar meanings have different etymological origins (ṣādiq comes from the proto-Semitic root ṣ-d-q meaning righteous whereas sādhaka comes from proposed proto-Indo-European word h₂sondʰókas meaning truthful cf. Latin "fidas"). I don't know if that helps...

I do not know the claims history. I just know it came from a respected linguist.