The Battle of Badr-- my perspective.
I was looking a the thread started by our dear fellow whose name I'll omit in observance of Ramadan, though this is but a mere reply-- If the thread is indeed found, a mod may merge it, if they should so desire.
our member points some of his dislikes about the battle of Badr with a sardonic bitter undertone (which is alright)-- one being the number of casualties on the 'enemy side' compared to the handful of Muslims who according to him 'supposedly had 10,000 angels to aid them.. he says his sources can verify it, I'll be kind as to leave with media link with suret Al-Anfal with transliteration for all to see at the bottom of this thread asserting the number as 1000, not ten. The reader may contrast the authentic unchanged Quran to our dear member' sources-- further will go so far and say.. let's forget about the angels all together. There is NO POINT in meeting each other at some abstract perpendicular angel, when we can take it better from a historical consideration!
1-Muslim side. One horse -- side of the enemy 1000 horses
2-Muslim side 300 individuals --- enemy side 1000 on horses
3-Muslims side many a beaten and not so well fed newly freed slaves the likes of Bilal RA-- enemy side armor, horses, plenty of food..
4- Enemy had two caravans one which was filled with goods, foods, gold, etc allowed safe passage and not raided by 'Muslim bandits'-- I say this since one of our other banned members 'Ruggedtouch' was so keen on mentioning how the prophet and companion raided caravans.. in fact the only incident recorded though a digression from this topic, was during the first 'houdna' covenant between the prophet P and the enemies.. where they had laid down the ground rules for the allowance to Muslims to make pilgrimage on their terms.. and the Qureyshis had originally looted the goods that the Muslims left behind when they immigrated seeking refuge in 7abasha and Medina, and later those who escaped simply got their goods back!
one of the terms was, all apostates to be returned to them untouched.. to which the prophet P agreed.. and 2nd, was that any on the enemy side who converts to Islam are also to be returned.. though the Muslims were begrudging handing off their fellow converts to the enemy, the prophet P also agreed and signed..
The irony is, the son of the covenant leader who laid out the ground rules decided to embrace Islam, he asked the prophet P to take him along, but Mohammed P, couldn't as he gave his word per Houdna.. however he informed the young man 'asber 3asa Allah ann yaj3al laka makhrajan'-- as in, be patient-- Allah surely will find you a way out' and left...
The young man was captured to be returned to his father, on his way home he freed himself using the sword of his captor while he was in a stupor--the young man escaped away from both the prophet' side in Medina and his father' side in Mecca.. he was later joined by fellow converts who refused to be returned as per houdna, formed a group of bandits and were attacking caravans.. of course the Meccans were furious, thus they themseleves were forced to breech their own contract, so that the lawless bandits would be governed by the laws of Islam..
I hope this takes care of the 'raiding Caravans and looting'? which I imagine he wrote as result of an over active imagination? since nothing in history can verify his opinion!..
Frankly if there was something to loot, it would have been the Caravan that was allowed safe passage and not the army of one thousand armed men with heavy artillery and horses.
5- he asks why 70 men? hardly seems like a victory.. well I guess it depends on how one defines victory, is it in the number of casualties or is it in the attainment of goals? Is war about looting, pillaging, plundering and killing? Well I am only left to draw the conclusion that, that is indeed how things are conducted in England (our fellows home land) but these aren't the laws of Islam! In the battle of Badr, the enemy did retreat and a promise was filled..as per Allah's pledge and authority... ... there were however those on the enemy' side who'd seen and participated in this battle and later became Muslims!
Ikrimah was on the enemy side.. 3amro ibn il3as who opened Egypt, Abou soufinane, ibn abbi jahal. 3omar ibn ilkhtab, ibn abou Bakr, to name a few, not to mention Khalid Ibn ilwaleed, whose military Genius and warfare is unparalleled to this day he defeated the Persians, then the Romans.. of course I could never do him justice in two lines.. I am sure anyone can do a simple search and read about how a handful of men managed to defeat armies of well armed thousands.
The battle of Yarmouk alone is volumes of tactics and genius all its own, would beat the best Machiavellian plan, MUSLIMS HOWEVER HAD WAR ETHICS. where the end didn't justify the means, but following in the guidance of Allah... I hope in it too, is a lesson to the Muslims?.. that victory isn't counted by just zeal but an intelligent thought, preparations and military Genius and ultimately 'purpose'. What are we trying to establish?
:w: