I was reading the biography of the Prophet Muhammad SAWS in the front of the Pickthall Qur'an translation. In it it talked about the Prophet's SAWS intention to capture the caravan led by Abu Sufyan returning from Syria. I have also read in other books about Islam that the Prophet SAWS used to raid caravans. This seems to me like nothing more than highway robbery, and that is very dishonest. I know that the Prophet SAWS was called Al-Amin, meaning "The trustworthy", so it seems completely out of character for him to lead raids on caravans.
Can anyone explain this for me? Plus the book also talks about the Prophet SAWS leading armies into battle, and the context that it seems to be in doesn't seem defensive, as I have been told fighting is permitted in.
I think you are not familiar with those named as Quryaish of Mecca. Try exploring more, instead of relying on one source. In that era, the tribes didn't have the luxury of keeping a separate fighting force for the battles. Those who used to fight, had to work also to earn their livelihood and merchants of Mecca were no different.
I keep looking and keep ending up with no real information that would bring me to any confortable conclusion.
I would love to find something that showed the caravan owners were the bad guys.
It demonstrates the character of the Prophet (saws), something that is being questioned here with "raiding caravans" inquiry.
I'm not questioning his character.
I'm looking for information about the topic of the thread.
Every thing I find says the fighting started because of the raiding not visa versa.
So I'm trying to find justification for that.
(But I'm not buying that it was the caravan owners that caused the 12 long years of suffering and forced migration)
I keep looking and keep ending up with no real information that would bring me to any confortable conclusion.
I would love to find something that showed the caravan owners were the bad guys.
We have sufficiently proved that tribes of those era didn't have exclusive armies to fight. Infact fighting was considered an obligation for Arabs, irrespective of the fact whether someone was a carpenter, a farmer or a merchant. Contrary to their customs and traditions, how can you conlude that the merchants of the caravan belonging to Qurayaish of Mecca were not amongst those, responsible for the atrocities and forced migration of the Muslims.
And why not ask you to show us that the merchants were good guys having soft and tender hearts towards the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions.
We have sufficiently proved that tribes of those era didn't have exclusive armies to fight. Infact fighting was considered an obligation for Arabs, irrespective of the fact whether someone was a carpenter, a farmer or a merchant. Contrary to their customs and traditions, .
You have proved nothing. But none of that has anything to do with the discussion.
how can you conlude that the merchants of the caravan belonging to Qurayaish of Mecca were not amongst those, responsible for the atrocities and forced migration of the Muslims.
I would assume that some of the caravan owners were among the "bad guys".
But I would never assume that all the caravan owners were "bad guys".
So quite rapidly we enter the realm of “Collective Punishment”.
[
B]And why not ask you to show us that the merchants were good guys having soft and tender hearts towards the Prophet (pbuh) and his companions[/B].
I never said they were so I have nothing to show.
I’m not the one making unsupportable statements.
I’m only asking questions.
So what it really comes down to is I keep asking for evidence to show that I am wrong and all I get are links that don’t address the issue and personal opinions.
This all ends up making me look like the bad Muslim hater.
Well that not the case and I not going to go back and forth in pointless debates that will only leave that negative opinion.
I would assume that some of the caravan owners were among the "bad guys".
But I would never assume that all the caravan owners were "bad guys".
So quite rapidly we enter the realm of “Collective Punishment”.
You can even assume that all were good guys, we don't mind. The purpose was to convey, not to convince
The thread starter was not asking about who started what. The thread starter was questioning how the conduct he read about was consistent with the Prophet (SAW)'s character.
Check it out:
I was reading the biography of the Prophet Muhammad SAWS in the front of the Pickthall Qur'an translation. In it it talked about the Prophet's SAWS intention to capture the caravan led by Abu Sufyan returning from Syria. I have also read in other books about Islam that the Prophet SAWS used to raid caravans. This seems to me like nothing more than highway robbery, and that is very dishonest. I know that the Prophet SAWS was called Al-Amin, meaning "The trustworthy", so it seems completely out of character for him to lead raids on caravans.
Can anyone explain this for me? Plus the book also talks about the Prophet SAWS leading armies into battle, and the context that it seems to be in doesn't seem defensive, as I have been told fighting is permitted in.
Of course, this was all answered in the first reply in the thread, but hey, what are forums for if not crazy bickering?
Are you saying that it was the caravan owners that caused the 12 long years of suffering and forced migration?
Actually, yes. The caravan was lead by Abu Sufyan, one of the leaders of Quraish who was involved in anti-Muslim activities when they lived in Makkah.
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
I keep looking and keep ending up with no real information that would bring me to any confortable conclusion.
I would love to find something that showed the caravan owners were the bad guys.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks