The long shadow of Muhammad stretches across centuries of strife to the present. Today an estimated 1.4 billion Muslims around the globe follow his teachings—the word of God as revealed to Muhammad and set down in the Koran—making Islam the world's second-largest religion behind Christianity. But despite Muhammad's remarkable accomplishments, there is no modern account of his life that examines his role as Islam's first great general and the leader of a successful insurgency. Had Muhammad not succeeded as a commander, however, Islam might have been relegated to a geographic backwater—and the conquest of the Byzantine and Persian empires by Arab armies might never have occurred.
The idea of Muhammad as a military man will be new to many. Yet he was a truly great general. In the space of a single decade he fought eight major battles, led eighteen raids, and planned another thirty-eight military operations where others were in command but operating under his orders and strategic direction. Wounded twice, he also twice experienced having his positions overrun by superior forces before he managed to turn the tables on his enemies and rally his men to victory. More than a great field general and tactician, he was also a military theorist, organizational reformer, strategic thinker, operational-level combat commander, political-military leader, heroic soldier, and revolutionary. The inventor of insurgency warfare and history's first successful practitioner, Muhammad had no military training before he commanded an army in the field.
Subscribe Today
Muhammad's intelligence service eventually rivaled that of Byzantium and Persia, especially when it came to political information. He reportedly spent hours devising tactical and political stratagems, and once remarked that "all war is cunning," reminding modern analysts of Sun Tzu's dictum, "all war is deception." In his thinking and application of force Muhammad was a combination of Karl von Clausewitz and Niccolo Machiavelli, for he always employed force in the service of political goals. An astute grand strategist, he used nonmilitary methods (alliance building, political assassination, bribery, religious appeals, mercy, and calculated butchery) to strengthen his long-term position, sometimes even at the expense of short-term military considerations.
Muhammad's belief in Islam and his own role as the "Messenger of God" revolutionized Arabian warfare and resulted in the creation of the ancient world's first army motivated by a coherent system of ideological belief. The ideology of holy war (jihad) and martyrdom (shahada) for the faith was transmitted to the West during the wars between Muslims and Christians in Spain and France, where it changed traditional Christian pacifistic thinking on war, brought into being a coterie of Christian warrior saints, and provided the Catholic Church with its ideological justification for the Crusades. Ideology—whether religious or secular—has remained a primary component of military ventures ever since.
Muhammad forged the military instrument of the Arab conquests that began within two years of his death by bringing into being a completely new kind of army not seen before in Arabia. He introduced no fewer than eight major military reforms that transformed the armies and conduct of war in Arabia. Just as Philip of Macedon transformed the armies of Greece so his successor, Alexander, could employ them as instruments of conquest and empire, Muhammad transformed the armies of Arabia so his successors could use them to defeat the armies of Persia and Byzantium and establish the heartland of the empire of Islam.
Muhammad was first and foremost a revolutionary, a fiery religious guerrilla leader who created and led the first genuine national insurgency in antiquity that is comprehensible in modern terms, a fact not lost on the jihadis of the present day, who often cite the Koran and Muhammad's use of violence as justification for their own insurgencies. Unlike conventional generals, Muhammad did not seek the defeat of a foreign enemy or invader; rather, he sought to replace the existing Arabian social order with a new one based upon a radically different ideological worldview. To achieve his revolutionary goals Muhammad utilized all the means recognized by modern analysts as characteristic of a successful insurgency in today's world.
Although Muhammad began his struggle for a new order with a small guerrilla cadre capable of undertaking only limited hit-and-run raids, by the time he was ready to attack Mecca a decade later that small guerrilla force had grown into a large conventional army with integrated cavalry and infantry units capable of conducting large-scale combat operations. It was the first truly national military force in Arab history, and it was this conventional military instrument that Muhammad's successors used to forge a great empire.
Muhammad's rise to power was a textbook example of a successful insurgency, in all likelihood the first such example in antiquity. The West has been accustomed to thinking of the Arab conquests that followed Muhammad in purely conventional military terms. But the armies that achieved those conquests did not exist in Arabia before Muhammad. It was Muhammad's successful unconventional guerrilla operations, his successful insurgency, that brought those armies into existence. The later Arab conquests, as regards both strategic concept and the new armies as instruments of military method, were the consequences of Muhammad's prior military success as the leader of an insurgency.
This aspect of Muhammad's military life as a guerrilla insurgent is likely to strike the reader as curious. But if the means and methods used by modern military analysts to characterize insurgency warfare are employed as categories of analysis, it is clear that Muhammad's campaign to spread Islam throughout Arabia fulfilled all of the criteria. One requirement for an insurgency is a determined leader whose followers regard him as special in some way and worthy of their following him. In Muhammad's case his own charismatic personality was enhanced by his deeply held belief that he was God's Messenger, and that to follow Muhammad was to obey the dictates of God himself.
Insurgencies also require a messianic ideology, one that espouses a coherent creed or plan to replace the existing social, political, and economic order with a new order that is better, more just, or ordained by history or even by God himself. Muhammad used the new religious creed of Islam to challenge basic traditional Arab social institutions and values as oppressive and unholy and worthy of replacement. To this end he created the ummah, or community of believers, God's community on earth, to serve as a messianic replacement for the clans and tribes that were the basis of traditional Arab society. One of Muhammad's most important achievements was the establishment of new social institutions that greatly altered and in some cases completely replaced those of the old Arab social order.
Successful insurgencies also require a disciplined cadre of true believers to do the work of organizing and recruiting new members. Muhammad's revolutionary cadre consisted of the small group of original converts he attracted in Mecca and took with him to Medina. These were the muhajirun, or emigrants. The first converts among the clans of Medina, the ansar, or helpers, also filled the ranks of the cadre. Within this revolutionary cadre was an inner circle of talented men, some of them later converts. Some, like Abdullah Ibn Ubay and Khalid al-Walid, were experienced field commanders and provided a much-needed source of military expertise. Muhammad's inner circle advised him and saw to it that his directives were carried out. These advisers held key positions during the Prophet's lifetime and fought among themselves for power after his death.
Once Muhammad had created his cadre of revolutionaries, he established a base from which to conduct military operations against his adversaries. These operations initially took the form of ambushes and raids aimed at isolating Mecca, the enemy's main city, and other trading towns that opposed him. Only one in six Arabs lived in a city or town at this time; the others resided in the desert, living as pastoral nomads. Muhammad chose Medina as his base of operations because of its strategic location. Medina was close to the main caravan route from Mecca to Syria that constituted the economic lifeline of Mecca and other oases and towns dependent upon the caravan trade for their economic survival. Medina was also sufficiently distant from Mecca to permit Muhammad a relatively free hand in his efforts to convert the bedouin clans living along the caravan route. Muhammad understood that conversions and political alliances with the bedouins, not military engagements with the Meccans, were the keys to success.
Insurgencies require an armed force and the manpower to sustain them. It was from the original small cadre of guerrillas that the larger conventional army could be grown that would ultimately permit the insurgency to engage its enemies in set-piece battles when the time and political conditions were right. Muhammad may have been the first commander in history to understand and implement the doctrine later espoused by General Vo Nguyen Giap of North Vietnam as "people's war, people's army." Muhammad established the belief among his followers that God had commandeered all Muslims' purposes and property for His efforts and that all Muslims had a responsibility to fight for the faith. Everyone—men, women, and even children—had an obligation for military service in defense of the faith and the ummah that was the community of God's chosen people on earth. It is essential to understand that the attraction of the Islamic ideology more than anything else produced the manpower that permitted Muhammad's small revolutionary cadre to evolve into a conventional armed force capable of large-scale engagements.
The rapid growth of Muhammad's insurgent army is evident from the following figures. At the Battle of Badr (624 ce), Muhammad could only put 314 men in the field. Two years later at Second Badr, 1,500 Muslims took the field. By the 628 battle at Kheibar, the Muslim army had grown to 2,000 combatants. When Muhammad mounted his assault on Mecca (630) he did so with 10,000 men. And at the Battle of Hunayn a few months later the army numbered 12,000 men. Some sources record that Muhammad's expedition to Tabuk later the same year was composed of 30,000 men and 10,000 cavalry, but this is probably an exaggeration. What is evident from the figures, however, is that his insurgency grew very quickly in terms of its ability to recruit military manpower.
Like all insurgent armies, Muhammad's forces initially acquired weapons by stripping them from prisoners and enemy dead. Weapons, helmets, and armor were expensive items in relatively impoverished Arabia, and the early Muslim converts, drawn mostly from among the poor, orphaned, widowed, and otherwise socially marginal, could ill afford them. At the Battle of Badr, the first major engagement with an enemy army, the dead were stripped of their swords and other military equipment, setting a precedent that became common. Muhammad also established the practice of requiring prisoners to provide weapons and equipment instead of money to purchase their freedom. One prisoner taken at Badr, an arms merchant, was forced to provide the insurgents with a thousand spears to obtain his freedom. Muhammad eventually had enough weapons, helmets, shields, and armor to supply an army of 10,000 for his march on Mecca.
Muhammad's ability to obtain sufficient weapons and equipment had an important political advantage. Many of the insurgency's converts came from the poorest elements of the bedouin clans, people too impoverished to afford weapons and armor. By supplying these converts with expensive military equipment, Muhammad immediately raised their status within the clan and guaranteed their loyalty to him, if not always to the creed of Islam. In negotiations with bedouin chiefs he made them gifts of expensive weaponry. Horses and camels were equally important military assets, for without them raids and the conduct of operations over great distances were not possible. Muhammad obtained his animals in much the same manner as he did his weapons and with equal success. At Badr the insurgents had only two horses. Six years later at Hunayn Muhammad's cavalry squadrons numbered 800 horse and cavalrymen.
An insurgency must be able to sustain the popular base that supports the fighting elements. To accomplish this, Muhammad changed the ancient customs regarding the sharing of booty taken in raids. The chief of an Arab clan or tribe traditionally took one-fourth of the booty for himself. Muhammad decreed that he receive only one-fifth, and even this the chief took not for himself but in the name of the ummah. Under the old ways individuals kept whatever booty they had captured. Muhammad required that all booty be turned in to a common pool where it was shared equally among all combatants who had participated in the raid. Most important, Muhammad established that the first claimants on the booty that had been taken in the name of the ummah were the poor and the widows and orphans of the soldiers killed in battle. He also used the promise of a larger share of booty to strike alliances with bedouin clans, some of whom remained both loyal and pagan to the end, fighting for loot rather than for Islam.
The leader of an insurgency must take great care to guard his authority from challenges, including those that come from within the movement itself. Muhammad had many enemies, and he was always on guard against an attempt upon his life. Like other leaders, Muhammad surrounded himself with a loyal group of followers who acted as his bodyguard and carried out his orders without question. For this purpose he created the suffah, a small cadre of loyal followers who lived in the mosque next to Muhammad's house. Recruited from among the most pious, enthusiastic, and fanatical followers, they came from impoverished backgrounds. The suffah members spent much of their time studying Islam. They were devoted to Muhammad and served not only as his life guard but also as a secret police that could be called upon at a moment's notice to carry out whatever task Muhammad set for them, including assassination and terror.
No insurgency can survive without an effective intelligence apparatus. As early as when Muhammad left Mecca in 622, he left behind a trusted agent, his uncle Abbas, who continued to send him reports on the situation there. Abbas served as an agent-in-place for more than a decade, until Mecca itself fell to Muhammad.
In the beginning Muhammad's operations suffered from a lack of tactical intelligence. His followers were mostly townspeople with no experience in desert travel. On some of the early operations Muhammad had to hire bedouin guides. As the insurgency grew, however, his intelligence service became more organized and sophisticated, using agents-in-place, commercial spies, debriefing of prisoners, combat patrols, and reconnaissance in force as methods of intelligence collection.
Muhammad himself seems to have possessed a detailed knowledge of clan loyalties and politics within the insurgency's area of operations and used this knowledge to good effect when negotiating alliances with the bedouins. He often conducted advance reconnaissance of the battlefields upon which he fought. In most cases his intelligence service provided him with sufficient information as to the enemy's location and intentions in advance of any military engagement. We have no knowledge of exactly how the intelligence service was organized or where it was located. That it was part of the suffah, however, seems a reasonable guess.
Insurgencies succeed or fail to the degree that they are able to win the allegiance of great numbers of uncommitted citizens to support the insurgency's goals. Muhammad understood the role of propaganda and went to great lengths to make his message public and widely known. In a largely illiterate Arab society, the poet served as the major conveyor of political propaganda. Muhammad hired the best poets money could buy to sing his praises and denigrate his opponents. He issued proclamations regarding the revelations he received as the Messenger of God, and remained in public view to keep the vision of the new order and the promise of a heavenly paradise constantly before the public. He also sent missionaries to other clans and tribes to instruct the "pagans" in the new faith, sometimes teaching those groups to read and write in the process. Muhammad understood that the conflict was between the existing social order with its manifest injustices and his vision of the future, and he surpassed his adversaries in spreading his vision to win the struggle for the hearts and minds of the Arab population.
Terrorism seems to be an indispensable element of a successful insurgency, and it was no less so in Muhammad's case. He used terrorism in two basic ways: First, he ensured discipline among his followers by making public examples of traitors and backsliders. In Muhammad's day the penalty for apostasy in Islam was death. He also ordered some of his political enemies assassinated, including poets and singers who had publicly ridiculed him. When his armies marched into Mecca, for example, Muhammad's suffah set about hunting down a list of old enemies marked for execution. Second, Muhammad used terrorism to strike fear in the hearts of his enemies on a large scale. In the case of the Jewish tribes of Medina, Muhammad seems to have ordered the death of the entire Beni Qaynuqa tribe and the selling of their women and children into slavery, though he was later talked out of it by the chief of one of his allies. On another occasion, again against a Jewish tribe of Medina, he ordered all the tribe's adult males, some nine hundred, beheaded in the city square, the women and children sold into slavery, and their property distributed among his Muslim followers. Shortly after the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad declared "war to the knife" against all those who remained idolaters, instructing his followers to kill any pagans they encountered on the spot. His ruthlessness and brutality served to strengthen his hand with opponents and allies alike.
Muhammad's use of terrorism does not detract from Islam as a religion any more than the history of the Israelite military campaign to conquer Canaan detracts from Judaism. Over time the violent origins of religions are forgotten and only the faith itself remains, so the founders of the creeds come to be remembered as untouched by the violence of the historical record. In Muhammad's case the result has been to deemphasize the military aspects of his life and his considerable military accomplishments as Islam's first great general and the inventor of the theory and practice of insurgency.
Muhammad also managed to bring about a revolution in the way Arabs fought wars, transforming their armies into instruments capable of large-scale combat operations that could achieve strategic objectives instead of only small-scale clan, tribal, or personal objectives. In so doing he created both the means and historical circumstances that transformed the fragmented Arab clans into a national military entity conscious of its own unique identity. As a result, the greatest commanders of the early Arab conquests were developed by Muhammad himself.
Had he not brought about a military revolution in Arab warfare, it is possible that Islam might not have survived in Arabia. Within a year of Muhammad's death many of the clans that had sworn allegiance to Islam recanted, resulting in the War of the Apostates, or Riddah. The brilliance of Muhammad's generals and the superior fighting skills of his new army made it possible for Islam to defeat the apostates and force them back into the religious fold. Commanding the Arab armies, those same generals carried out the Arab conquests of Persia and Byzantium. The old Arab way of war would have had no chance of success against the armies of either of those empires.
Muhammad transformed the social composition of Arab armies from a collection of clans, tribes, and blood kin loyal only to themselves into a national army loyal to a national social entity, the ummah. The ummah was not a nation or a state in the modern sense, but a body of religious believers under the unified command and governance of Muhammad. The ummah transcended the clans and tribes and permitted Muhammad to forge a common identity, national in scope, among the Arabs for the first time. It was leadership of this national entity that Muhammad claimed, not of any clan or tribe. Loyalty to the ummah permitted the national army to unify the two traditional combat arms of infantry and cavalry into a genuine combined arms force. Bedouins and town dwellers had historically viewed one another with suspicion. Arab infantry had traditionally been drawn from the people living in the towns, settlements, and oases of Arabia. Arab cavalry was traditionally drawn from bedouin clans, whose nomadic warriors excelled at speedy raids, surprise attacks, and elusive retreats, skills honed to a fine edge over generations of raiding.
These two different types of combatants possessed only limited experience in fighting alongside one another. Bound by clan loyalties and living in settlements, Arab infantry was steadfast and cohesive and could usually be relied upon to hold its ground, especially in the defense. Arab cavalry, on the other hand, was unreliable in a battle against infantry, often breaking off the fight to keep their precious mounts from being hurt or make off with whatever booty they had seized. Bedouin cavalry was, however, proficient at reconnaissance, surprise attack, protecting the flanks, and pursuing ill-disciplined infantry. Muhammad was the first Arab commander to successfully join both combat arms into a national army and use them in concert in battle. Thanks to the larger religious community of believers, the ummah, he could combine the two primary elements of traditional Arab society, town dwellers and bedouin tribes, into a single Arab national identity. That change was actually preceded by a shift in the social composition of Arab society.
Before Muhammad, Arab military contingents fought under the command of clan or tribal leaders, sometimes assembled in coalition with other clans or tribes. While the authority of these clan chiefs was recognized by their own clan, every chief considered himself the equal of any other, so there was no overall commander whose authority could compel the obedience or tactical direction of the army as a whole. Clan warriors fought for their own interests, often only for loot, and did not feel obligated to pursue the larger objectives of the army as a whole. They often failed to report to the battlefield, arrived late, or simply left the fight once they had captured sufficient loot. Warriors and horses were precious, and clan leaders resisted any higher tactical direction that might place their men and animals in danger. As a result, Arab battles were often little more than brief, disorganized brawls that seldom produced a decisive outcome.
To correct these deficiencies Muhammad established a unified command for his armies centered on himself. Within the ummah there was no distinction between the citizen and the soldier. All members of the community had an obligation to defend the clan and participate in its battles. The community of believers was truly a nation in arms, and all believers followed the commands of Muhammad, God's Messenger. As commander in chief Muhammad established the principle of unified command by appointing a single commander with overall authority to carry out military operations. Sometimes he also appointed a second-in-command. Muhammad often personally commanded his troops in the field. He also appointed all the other commanders, who operated under his authority. As Muslims, all members of the army were equally bound by the same laws, and all clan members and their chiefs were subject to the same discipline and punishments. When operating with clans whose members were not Muslims, Muhammad always extracted an honor oath from their chiefs to obey his orders during the battle.
The establishment of a unified military command gave Muhammad's armies greater reliability in planning and in battle. Unified command also permitted a greater degree of coordination among the various combat elements of the army and the use of more sophisticated tactical designs that could be implemented with more certainty, thereby greatly increasing the army's offensive power.
Traditional Arab warfare emphasized the courageous performance of individual warriors in battle, not the clan's ability to fight as a unit. The Arab warrior fought for his own honor and social prestige within the kin group, not for the clan per se. One consequence was that Arab armies and the clan units within them did not usually reflect a high degree of combat unit cohesion, the ability of the group to remain intact and fight together under the stress of battle.
Muhammad's armies, by contrast, were highly cohesive, holding together even when they fought outnumbered or were overrun. The ummah served as a higher locus of the soldier's loyalty that transcended the clan. Many of Muhammad's early converts had left their families and clans to follow the Prophet. There were many instances where members of the same clan or even families fought on opposite sides during his early battles. Religion turned out to be a greater source of unit cohesion than blood and clan ties, the obligations of faith replacing and overriding those of tradition and even family. His soldiers cared for each other as brothers, which under the precepts of Islam they were, and quickly gained a reputation for their discipline and ferocity in battle.
Muhammad's armies demonstrated a higher degree of military motivation than traditional Arab armies. Being a good warrior had always been at the center of Arab values, but Muhammad enhanced the warrior's status. His soldiers were always guaranteed a share in the booty. It became a common saying among Muslims that "the soldier is not only the noblest and most pleasing profession in the sight of Allah, but also the most profitable." Muhammad's soldiers were usually paid better than Persian or Byzantine soldiers.
But better pay was only a small part of the new Islamic warriors' motivation. One of Muhammad's most important innovations was convincing his troops that they were doing God's work on earth. There were of course soldiers of other faiths who fought on religious grounds. But no army before Muhammad's ever placed religion at the center of military motivation and defined the soldier primarily as an instrument of God's will on earth. The soldiers of Islam came to see themselves as fighting under God's instructions. The result, still evident in Islamic societies today, was a soldier who enjoyed much higher social status and respect than soldiers in Western armies.
A central element to an Islamic soldier's motivation in Muhammad's day was the idea that death was not something to be feared but rather embraced. Muhammad's pronouncement that those killed in battle would be welcomed immediately into a paradise of pleasure and eternal life was a powerful inducement to perform well in combat. To die fighting in defense of the faith was to fulfill God's will and become a martyr. Life itself was subordinate to the needs of the faith. Muslim soldiers killed in battle were accorded the highest respect on the Arab scale of values. While those who died in battle had formerly been celebrated as examples of courage and selflessness, before Muhammad it was never suggested that death was to be welcomed or required to be a good soldier. Muhammad's teachings changed the traditional Arab view of military sacrifice and produced a far more dedicated soldier than Arab armies had ever witnessed before.
Arab warfare prior to Muhammad's reforms involved clans and tribes fighting for honor or loot. No commander aimed at the enslavement or extermination of the enemy, nor the occupation of his lands. Arab warfare had been tactical warfare, nothing more. There was no sense of strategic war in which long-term, grand strategic objectives were sought and toward which the tactical application of force was directed. Muhammad was the first to introduce to the Arabs the notion of war for strategic goals. His ultimate goal, the transformation of Arab society through the spread of a new religion, was strategic in concept. Muhammad's application of force and violence, whether unconventional or conventional, was always directed at this strategic goal. Although he began as the founder of an insurgency, he was always Clausewitzian in his view that the use of force was a tactical means to the achievement of larger strategic objectives. Had Muhammad not introduced this new way of thinking to Arab warfare, the use of later Arab armies to forge a world empire would not only have been impossible, it would have been unthinkable.
Once war was harnessed to strategic objectives, it became possible to expand its application to introduce tactical dimensions that were completely new to Arab warfare. Muhammad attacked tribes, towns, and garrisons before they could form hostile coalitions; he isolated his enemies by severing their economic lifelines and disrupting their lines of communication; he was a master at political negotiation, forming alliances with pagan tribes when it served his interests; and he laid siege to cities and towns. He also introduced the new dimension of psychological warfare, employing terror and massacre as means to weaken the will of his enemies. Various texts also mention Muhammad's use of catapults (manjaniq) and movable covered cars (dabbabah) in siege warfare. Most likely these siege devices were acquired in Yemen, where Persian garrisons had been located on and off over the centuries. Muhammad seems to have been the first Arab commander to use them in the north. Where once Arab warfare had been a completely tactical affair, Muhammad's introduction of strategic war permitted the use of tactics in the proper manner, as a means to greater strategic ends. War, after all, is never an end in itself. It is, as Clausewitz reminds us, always a method, never a goal.
As an orphan, Muhammad had lacked even the most rudimentary military training typically provided by an Arab father. To compensate for this deficiency, he surrounded himself with experienced warriors and constantly sought their advice. In fact, he frequently appointed the best warriors of his former enemies to positions of command once they converted to Islam. He sought good officers wherever he found them, appointing young men to carry out small-scale raids to give them combat experience, and sometimes selecting an officer from a town to command a bedouin raid, to broaden his experience with cavalry. He always chose his military commanders on the basis of their proven experience and ability, never for their asceticism or religious devotion. He was the first to institutionalize military excellence in the development of a professional Arab officer corps. From that corps of trained and experienced field commanders came the generals who commanded the armies of the Arab conquests.
We have little information on how Muhammad trained his soldiers, but it is almost certain he did so. There are clear references to training in swimming, running, and wrestling. The early soldiers of Islam had left their clan and family loyalties behind to join the ummah. Converts had to be socialized to a new basis of military loyalty—the faith—and new military units created with soldiers from many clans. References in various texts suggest that Muhammad trained these units in rank and drill, sometimes personally formed them up and addressed them before a battle, and deployed them to fight in disciplined units, not as individuals as was the common practice. These disciplined units could then be trained to carry out a wider array of tactical designs than had previously been possible. Muhammad's use of cavalry and archers in concert with his infantry was one result. While Arab fathers continued to train their sons in warfare long after Muhammad's death, the armies of the Arab conquests and later those of the Arab empire instituted formal military training for recruits.
Muhammad had been an organizer of caravans for twenty-five years before he began his insurgency, and he showed the caravaner's concern for logistics and planning. His expertise in those areas permitted him to project force and conduct military operations over long distances across inhospitable terrain. During that time he made several trips to the north along the spice road, for example, and gained a reputation for honesty and as an excellent administrator and organizer. Such expeditions required extensive attention to detail and knowledge of routes, rates ofMuhammad had been an organizer of caravans for twenty-five years before he began his insurgency, and he showed the caravaner's concern for logistics and planning. His expertise in those areas permitted him to project force and conduct military operations over long distances across inhospitable terrain. During that time he made several trips to the north along the spice road, for example, and gained a repu?tation for honesty and as an excellent administrator and organizer. Such expeditions required extensive attention to detail and knowledge of routes, rates of march, distances between stops, water and feeding of animals, location of wells, weather, places of ambush, etc.?knowledge that served him well as a military commander. In 630 he led an army of twenty to thirty thousand men (sources disagree on the exact numbers) on a 250-mile march across the desert from Medina to Tabuk lasting eighteen to twenty days during the hottest season of the year. By traditional Arab standards, that trek was nothing short of astounding.
Muhammad's transformation of Arab warfare was preceded by a revolution in the way Arabs thought about war, what might be called the moral basis of war. The old chivalric code that limited bloodletting was abandoned and replaced with an ethos less conducive to restraint, the blood feud. Extending that ethos beyond the ties of kin and blood to include members of the new community of Muslim believers inevitably made Arab warfare more encompassing and bloody than it had ever been.
Within two hundred years after the Muslim conquests of Byzantium and Persia, Muhammad's reform influence on the conventional Arab armies had disappeared, displaced by the more powerful influence of Byzantine, Persian, and Turkic military practices. Muhammad's military legacy is most clearly evident in the modern methodology of insurgency and in the powerful idea of jihad. In the years following his death, Islamic scholars developed an account of the Islamic law of war. This body of law, essentially complete by 850, ultimately rests on two foundations: the example and teaching of Muham?mad and the word of God as expressed in the Koran. At the heart of the Islamic law of war is the concept of jihad, meaning ?to endeavor, to strive, to struggle,? but in the West commonly understood to mean ?holy war.?
According to classical Sunni doctrine, jihad can refer generically to any worthy endeavor, but in Islamic law it means primarily armed struggle for Islam against infidels and apostates. The central element of the doctrine of jihad is that the Islamic community (ummah) as a whole, under the leadership of the caliph (successor to Muhammad), has the duty to expand Islamic rule until the whole world is governed by Islamic law. Expansionist jihad is thus a collective duty of all Muslims. Land occupied by Muslims is known as the dar al-Islam, while all other territory is known as the dar al-harb, ?the land of war.? Islamic law posits the inalienability of Islamic territory. If infidels attack the dar al-Islam, it becomes the duty of all Muslims to resist and of all other Muslims to assist them. Thus jihad can be defensive as well as offensive.
In the waging of jihad, all adult males, except for slaves and monks, are considered legitimate military targets and no distinction is made between military and civilians. Women and children may not be targeted directly, unless they act as combatants by supporting the enemy in some manner. The enemy may be attacked without regard for indiscriminate damage, and it is permissible to kill women in night raids when Muslim fighters cannot easily distinguish them from men.
Islamic law prohibits mutilation of the dead and torture of captives, although the definition of torture is problematic, since Muhammad himself imposed punishments that would easily qualify as torture today. Following Mu?hammad's own practice, a jihadi may execute, enslave, ransom, or release enemy captives. Although captured women and children were not supposed to be killed, they could be enslaved, and Muslim men could have sexual relations with female slaves acquired by jihad (any marriage was deemed annulled by their capture).
Shiites, some ten to fifteen percent of Muslims, subscribe to a somewhat different doctrine of jihad, believing that it can only be waged under the command of the rightful leader of the Muslim community, whom they call imam. Shiites believe that the last imam went into hiding in 874 and that the collective duty to wage expansionist jihad is suspended until his return in the apocalyptic future. But Shiite scholars do affirm a duty to wage defensive jihad against infidel invaders.
Classical Islamic law is less tolerant of non-Muslims. Apostates from Islam, pagans, atheists, agnostics, and ?pseudo-scriptuaries,? that is, members of cults that have appeared since Muhammad's day?for example, Sikhs, Bahais, Mormons, and Qadianis?are only offered the option of conversion to Islam or death.
By the beginning of the nineteenth century, Sunni Islamic modernists began to modify the classical law of war. The Indian Muslim thinker Sayyid Ahmad Khan argued that jihad was obligatory for Muslims only when they were prevented from exercising their faith, thus restricting jihad to defensive purposes. Mahmud Shaltut, an Egyptian scholar, likewise argued only for defensive jihad.
Conservative Sunnis, such as the Wahhabis of Arabia, and modern militant jihadis in Iraq and Pakistan still adhere to the traditional doctrine. It is among these militant conservative Muslims that the military legacy of Muhammad is most alive today.
Richard A. Gabriel, a military historian and adjunct professor at the Royal Military College of Canada, has authored forty-one books. His latest is Muhammad: Islam's First Great General (Oklahoma University Press, 2007).
This article by Richard A. Gabriel was originally published in the Summer 2007 issue of MHQ Magazine. For more great articles, subscribe to MHQ magazine today!
Loading ...
1-Muhammad himself was under siege by 10,000 arabian soldiers in his Madina and he had onlyt 3,000 soldiers!
2-Muhammad in the 1st 6 years in Madina was attacked 3 times each time by a massive force more than his army at least 3 time and he won!
"Deffensive wares"
3-All the dead soldiers from both sides in Muhaammad's camaign was 270 soldiers and no 1 single Civilian !
4-"offence" Muhammad orderd an attack and Assasination of only 2 leadders later after being attacked to stop the danger comming from the arbian and Jewsh tribes after the 6th year in Madina and after bieng attacked from these tribes for a continious 6 years and by massive forces.
Great. Very informative my friend. The muslims had such a huge empire. No other religion had such an empire. The muslims defeated all the greeks, romans and the mongols when they were asians. Then the muslims took over the mongol empire, from Arghun Khans childern.
Most people do not know though. But 15 000 muslims fought 600 000 Romans. ZafarKhan, who was a very blessed general of the delhi sultan reign, he was truly blessed by the Great Allah. He defeated both Kublai Khan, and Chingiizz Khan again and again. Google mongol conquests of india. The mongols ran from the muslims so many times. THIS WAS BEFORE THE MONGOLS CONVERTED TO ISLAM. The muslims conquered more then anyone else had ever had. The ottomans, and the mongols. Great respect to MY MUSLIM BROTHERS. MAD RESPECT!!!
sikh is full of it
Creek is right.
mohammadism is a Satantically inspired belief, and mohammad was nothing but a bandit who was chosen by Satan to conduct the last attack on the True Faith of Christ. All of his success is due to the support of Satan. And now the muhamadins kill each other over the importance of the man's brother-in-law! Get a grip.
well said
Shankar,
It would be wise to get a mind of your own.
Dear Stewart,
If you think our beloved Muhammad was inspired by satan, then you cleary don't understand satan's agenda (to steer mankind from religion, lead them to a secular, religion-free way of life). That's exactly what's happening to the world now, where the law is twisted and turned to suit the needs of the powerful and corrupt.
Muhammad – may God grant him peace and blessings – confirmed the teachings of those before him, namely Moses and Jesus. He brought unity, where there was division. He brought peace, where there was war among the Arabian tribes of the time. He brought order, where there was chaos. All this could not be done by a man, without the grace of God.
You are right, and it is a sad fact, that Muslims now fight one another over petty, worldly matters, THIS, is satan's doing. He brings division among the people. I ask refuge in God from the work of satan.
Hello friends,
Glad to address myself to knowledgeable ones.
Could you gear me toward a source on the above quotes Jewish tribes in arabia who fought against the Prophet?
And something about the "Khans".I believe they left footprints in the Levant: do you think they intermarried with Mohammed's family?
anyone with a sane mind will immediately know that the great messenger of ALLAH never killed or attacked any kind of people except by rightous causes …. he accepted peace and offered it …. but the real problem is in the other side the west … you curse the messenger of GOD and you through charges as you like all because he defended whats right and banished what is wrong … you fight a man only because he says i worship ALLAH the all mighty god where there is no god but him … THE GOD of every thing … you accuse Mohamed of being satanic … if braying to god giving charity to the poor and protecting the weak from the strong .. ordering people to do whats right and leave whats wrong is satanic then you are crazy hard minded people with great envy on this region and its followers … notice that every single technology the Christians ever made was because their separation of science and Christianity which they missed up badly … and every single failure of Muslims made was because leaving the Islamic way of live …. and you are the last people to talk about the bandits because you annihilated complete civilizations with your ignorance and Christianity and stealing complete continents … and you never noticed that until you abandoned your sick satanic remodeling of the true Christianity given to you by GOD who has no partners ….
muhammad as is fact, was a very practical man who used the foolishness of people to gain power and satisfy his lust for women and power. Jesus as per history is about forgiving and humanity…
Muhammad could rape safiyah and many more women after killing their men and he could kill people for hating him or mocking at him like he killed asma bint marwan in her sleep.. Jesus allowed the ignorant mass to inflict pain on him and still he asked god to forgive them…
It is clear the muhammad is not a prophet but a blood thirsty arab who cheated people
plus he made a fortune in the slave trade
what a man Muhammad was he married 20 women and use them for his own pleasure and they call it support..way to go…
. . . karim, you prove my point better than I ever could. Your ignorance and thinly veiled hatred of everything you can't understand, and mindless denial of the truth is what makes mohammadans like yourself a plague to mankind.
well said
Jesus never ordered the killing of anyone. People, having free will, have killed in His name, but He spoke of love, peace and respecting everyone. Including women. He never married either.
Mohammad had eleven wives – one nine years old! He ordered people killed if they did not convert to Islam. Very respectful.
The crusades were an eye opener to the muslims. A rag tag army from europa crushed muslim resistance each and every step of the way and conquered the ancient world's biggest prize, Jerusalem. Amazing! It was just a prelude to the global dominance of the western world that was to come. Segno della croce invictus!
to me prophet mohammad is indeed a bandit,adulterer and a murderer.he killed and rapped many people.it is a undeniable history truth.if he was really a prophet he should had shown love but not sexual addictions.he indeed inherited satanic characteristics.but the doloress lord jesus died for us to go to heaven.this is what we call a messiah or the son of god.he did not order people killing nor raping.BLESS THE LORD GOD.IN JESUS NAME I PRAY.
Islam is big lie and so is christianity becouse they spread the religion by the sword. either you beleive or die. People choose life and they had to choose a certain religion. which ever religion is in power they had to obey or they were going to get there head cut off. I have seen alot of cruel stuff in islam becouse they love to cut off heads and hands… I dont know of any god that want you to suffer and die.
I would prefer to live in a world where a thief's hand is cut off, a world where a murderer is punished for his actions, instead of live in one where he lives in a big, white house, and people address him as Mr. President.
It used to be people waged war in the name of God, when needed: a noble act.
As opposed to now, when wars are waged for economic power, to spread McDonald's' fast food chains all over the world.
How many times has it happened, that a person is killed, in the U.S. and the killer roams free, leaving the victim's family lost, giving up on the justice system?
Islamic laws stand to protect the powerless victims. The punishment is harsh, to set an example among the people.
God is fair. He is just. All-wise.
I think people comment on prophet mohammed without knowing his actual way of life. He was the one who stopped female infanticide and declared women are equal to men in every status,and he taught people brotherhood and unity.If he had thought he would had led a life of luxury but still he led a life in a house which have nothing except his sleeping cot and few cooking vessels.
Its true that islam has severe punishments like cutting off hands for theft and taking life for life but one should understand if the world follows this policy the whole world would become free of theft and murder
And u Jesuservent come out of the world of ignorence.Shame on you for writing false and nonsense comments
maybe he stopped female infanticide coz he wanted to see how the girl would be after she is born.. if she looks good, he can marry the baby and enjoy
Omer it's clear you don't know anything about mohammed or mohammedism (islam) at all! Female equality among muslims? What a sick joke.
Crusade anyone!!!!!???
To me muhammed is the killer and father of all terorist in this world,shem to call him a prophet.
It saddens me deeply, to read your comment.
I hope you will be able to see things differently someday.
Not for my sake…
Quran has been mis-quoted many times. if someone can prove to me that no other religious book allowed killing (whether self-defence or in a war) then i shall convert to it. Every religion (that is god sent) has talked about war and killing (self-defense or punishment) if it hasn't touched that issue then the god of that religion doesn't understand HUMAN NATURE and therefore is not a GOD.
Please watch this video by the speaker Dr. Zakir Naik called islam and terrorism. also he has a good sppech on islam and women right. both can be found on youtube. He even goes as far as calling muslims to be terrorists. A must watch by all.
in the modern world with internet it is easy to spread news whether it is true or not and that is the main problem facing islam plus the radical acts of a few muslims that assist the west in making islam look bad.
Try buddhism or jainism… they are strictly against voilence… so when r u converting?
If you like to analyse the details, most religions prohibit violence. Except when necessary.
The people of Tibet, a Buddhist community, went to war. No need to read the history books, just watch the movie "Seven years in Tibet".
Not really your day, is it Shankar?
Muhammad was not a prophet of God but a genius who knew how to unite the people in a common cause. This article clearly shows his mastery of creating then using a religion to unite people.
I believe in God but of no religion created by man. I understand the spiritual need to live my lives until my soul is again part of God. I do not believe in Christianity, Buhdism, Islam, Judaism or any other religion. They all have merit but each one claims to be better than the other. That tells me that religion is not of God but of man.
Dear "Common Sense",
I really like your comment. There are a lot of good truths in it.
About Muhammed may peace and blessings be upon him, being a genius, I totally agree. Narrations of those who lived in his time, and knew him, tell of how complete his intelligence was. They speak of his wisdom, his patience, compassion, kindness, mercy, determination, and faith.
Apart from all this, he was physically a very handsome person, they say.
Also, the fact that there is only one God, is completely true. Now, would it not be logical that, if God created the universe, with us in it, to dwell on this earth, for a finite period of time, until we return to Him, to assume that He would also guide us in the path towards Him?
I think it is. Now, the best way, a human being learns, (this is how children are raised) is through example.
As time passes, people stray from the right path.
Thus, God, all-knowing, all-wise sent mankind Messengers every now and then, to remind us why we're here.
These Messengers were chosen. They had to be the best among their people. If we are all given gifts, the chosen Prophets were given more.
They had different gifts, the extent of their mission was different, while some were sent to a few, others became heads of state.
A lot depended on the people they were sent to and the state of the world at the time.
They all, however, had these in common: if their people were good at something, they were better at it. Their message was of unity: God is One. They led, through example, their people on the path of righteousness. To submit ourselves to the will of God. There is a word for that in Arabic. It is, Islam.
Most, if not all, could not read, nor write.
The one true faith is therefore, not man-made. Only delivered though men.
The Realist, how can you consider the crusaders to be a band of rag tags? They came from a continent with the centuries of experiences in war, and every part of that continent witnessed invasion by one group of people or the other: the Romans, then the Barbarians, the Saxons, the Vikings, Muslim conquests of Iberia… Every man who joined the crusade to Jerusalem was a battle-hardened man.
Add to that the Muslim world had in a relative state of peace before the crusades, and a victory by united European nations becomes imminent. Conversely, much later, Muslims were at a much higher state of preparedness when fought to recapture Jerusalem.
Stewart, all you saying emits from religious fanaticism and Islamophobia. Please, find someplace else to dump all your meaningless hatred. Just look at your own history before criticizing others using lies and falsities as your basis. Take Charlemagne for example. He executed swathes of Germans and Saxons in the name of the Cross and forcibly converted masses of them into Christianity by the sword, and this he did this in numerous campaigns over many years. This man kept his daughters always close at hand so that they would satisfy his disgusting sexual desires (he engaged in incest with his daughters, who lived with him till his death, see David Levering Lewis's book). He prevented his daughters from being married, yet permitted them to engage in extra-marital sexual relationships and cherished the bastard sons they gave birth to. This same man would be crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope himself?!?!?!?!
Give me one scenario where an entire people were both mass murdered and force converted into Islam by a person or a group of persons with such popularity in the Muslim world similar to that of Charlemagne in Europe and the Christian world.
Part of what karim said is right. Europeans colonised most of the globe, taking the resources of the regions they colonised to their own benefit and to finance their wars, when these resources should have benefited the natives. Look at what happened to the natives in the Americas or Australia. Look at the many African countries- all previous European colonies -that today suffer from poverty and/or civil war.
As for the Sunni/Shia violence in Iraq which you have alluded to, that was primarily a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Now things have settled and that violence is abating. But then look at your own history, full of rivalries between sects of Christianity and years of devastating war (Thirty Years' War, for example).
My advice Stewart, do some serious reading and learn before you speak.
You dumbs.first read your tampered bible consisting of scientific as well as mathematical errors.its a challenge to all christendom to point out single contradiction in the holy quran. The whole of humanity cant point out single error in the quran on any ground.
jesussservant7,Ally,common sense couple with those of that says rubish persist what you did not withness nor any of your generation,! It's better you has for forgiveness from Almighty Allah on all what you have said over the prophet Mohammed (S.W.S).
Come to talk of it; If Prophet Mohammed is not a good prophet then who else is the prophet? tell me. You talk as if you are out of your mind or your brain in intursicated.
anyone with a sane mind will immediately know that the great messenger of ALLAH never killed or attacked any kind of people except by rightous causes …. he accepted peace and offered it …. but the real problem is in the other side the west … you curse the messenger of GOD and you through charges as you like all because he defended whats right and banished what is wrong … you fight a man only because he says i worship ALLAH the all mighty god where there is no god but him … THE GOD of every thing … you accuse Mohamed of being satanic … if braying to god giving charity to the poor and protecting the weak from the strong .. ordering people to do whats right and leave whats wrong is satanic then you are lunatic hard minded people with great envy on this region and its followers … notice that every single technology the Christians ever made was because their separation of science and Christianity which they missed up badly … and every single failure of Muslims made was because leaving the Islamic way of live …. and you are the last people to talk about the bandits because you annihilated complete civilizations with your ignorance and Christianity and stealing complete continents … and you never noticed that until you abandoned your sick satanic remodeling of the true Christianity given to you by GOD who has no partners…….Many of you are indeed a bandit,adulterer,sinner and a murderer.
Sheriff your ignorance of history is almost as amazing as your ignorance of religion.
If you want evidence of just one example of muzzy atrocities, look up the sack of Antioch.
The Americans started the shia and sunni hating each other??! LOL you are too much.
brothers do not taint your tongues with words of hatred and insults. I ask that if you wish to respond to the claims brought against the Prophet (SAW) do so in a manner that would please him, for he would not wish for a crusade in his name.
Mr. Stewart,
your earlier comments on Islam, calling it "Mohammadism" proves to me that you have either been reading the wrong the material or simply just not reading. It is an Arabic term "Islam" and Muslim if you wish to refer to one who is of Islam. If you see mistakes such as getting the name wrong I can absolutely guarantee you that the information is wrong: calling Islam "Mohamadism", calling Muslims "Islamists", and quotes from the Quran that are taken out of context. If you take something out of context they you loose the meaning of that something that was removed. My suggestion is to get yourself a copy of the Quran in English, make sure you ask a Muslim religious leader which authors are better for translations. I hope you will take my suggestions and not be angered by me.
Mr. Willard,
Sorry to disappoint you but Capital Punishment is clearly laid out in the Old Testament, Which Jesus (A) adhered to, for he was indeed a Rabi. Although I do agree Jesus never did order a killing of any one. But then again, he was never confronted with such political problems as Muhammad (SAW) was.
Mr. jesussservant7, Just as I told Mr. Willard above I tell you. And I must also ask you like I asked Mr. Stuart to revise your research.
Mr. Realist is it?
The Crusades were a massive force that were raised for a single purpose. A religious purpose. And they massacred All Jews, Muslims and even some Christians both along the way and in Jerusalem. Although I was not aware of them being hardened soldiers (maybe they were, maybe they weren't) a force as large as theirs cannot be considered ragtag, unless you just think they were dirty. Not to mention the fact that They fled the city of Jerusalem as soon as Salahoudin approached the walls of Jerusalem.
Mr. Ally,
It seems to me that you have been scarred by something in your past, I'm no psychologist but I'd recommended you calm yourself down.
Mr. Common Sense,
The Quran states clearly "There is no compulsion in religon" and the Quran also states that those who have not realized that the Quran is the true message of God and are righteous human beings will achieve paradise. Alhumdulillah, I respect your calmness and your willingness to be open minded. Peace be with you.
I pray that you all can find common ground to stand on and dismiss the earlier confrontation for it was naught more than a vicious circle. Salam, Peace be with you all.
Dear Muzzy4life,
Sorry to disappoint you but Mohammadism is a legitimate term. You may not prefer it but it is legitimate and puts the focus correctly on the fact that your false religion is based on the lies of a satanically inspired human.
As impressive as your attempt to be "above" the fray may seem to you, unfortunately your ignorance is what shows through.
May you be blessed with the realization that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the one true light of the world and leave your satanic cult.
Stewart.you donno any thing and always write some non sense..
its better u try to learn some thing and then comment
Kafeel – Your spelling and grammer are certainly pathetic. I have forgotten more about this subject that your pea brain could ever hold.
oh really.i give a s***…..
If you want to know the subject! Especially religion and to get the required knowledge correctly without prejudice, Open you’re minded and heart.
to all of relegion is definetly man made look at the way you all basing each other.relegion removes GOD and spiritualiy and war ,hatred replaces it.we all GOD's children we will be on earth ,in the earth and if there is a heaven or hell we "ll meet ther again ,so humankind please practise the only principle that is inherent to human LOVE
Stewart:
The first crusade was raised when 3000,000 Christians were massacred by Moslems outside of Jerusalem. Even then, Islam had already taken over parts of the Middle East–Syria, the Holy Land, Lebanon, the list goes on. zThere are still areas in many of these countries where a fair-sized Christian population exists. If these populations are now in deline, it is because radical Islam has taking over to the point that they fear they will be the next. At any rate, no Christian country has ever committed jihad.
Where are your sources?!
Mary..you should review the history..When barbaric first crusaders attacked muslim lands and defeated them they killed unarmed population in several thousands ,looted cities,destroyed mosques,raped women and commited many brutal crimes they even roasted children and ate their flesh they were uncontrollable madmen.But all these things didnt lasted long during second and third crusades they had to face warriors like Baibars and Saladin who crushed their barbaric armies but once they were defeated they didnt killed the christian inhabitants like crusaders did instead they allowed them to return to their countries and even allowed them to stay in muslim land after collecting ransom from them as per the policy of quran
many comments have been made on islam and our beloved prophet as much as i understand that people have the right to their own opinion but i do believe that when a person is stating their opinion that they should be more considerate as some of the comments on this site i found very upsetting and im sure many other muslims have felt the same. so please talk about islam with more respect, if not then do not talk about it at all. thank you
youre all nuts in my opinion. UH OH! did i say the "O" word?! thats all religion is kids, opinion. stop your bickering and start thinking your half assed doctrines through and you might come to realize how truly destructive religion is… particularly Christianity and Islam. OKAY BYE!!! :D
All what i can say to those who mislead the majority of readers, is just refer you all to the following sites for more reading about Muhammed ( P.B U.H) & other Islamic teaching :
http://www.islamonline.com
http://www.islamhouse.com
http://www.Q&A islam.com
http://www.islamhouse.com/gp/165689
Why should Islam be given 'respect' ?? No religion deserves respect because religion is dogma – nothing more. People who believe in a religion can earn and be given respect. A religion can neither earn nor be given respect
Ranjit Singh in about seventeen years acquired a larger empire than Muhammad ever did in his life. He won in most of his 'religious wars' by treachery. If circumbulation around the Hajre Aswad, a symbol of the human birth canal, is an iconoclastic religion; what is paganism? Most mosques have minarettes and domes on the top, and you know whwt they represent. If you don't, please have your eyes checked by a psychiatrist and brain washed by an atheist.
oh my dear friends!!!!
Plz read reliable neutral explanatory Islamic books & think twice before make comments .
LOL, Both sides were posting their own propaganda as an answer to the other person's propaganda.
Lies on top of lies and all of you are too brainwashed to realize that you have been brainwashed. You are all pathetic!
Religion is power! Power corrupts and religious power is the ultimate corruption!
Just keep fighting and lying and dieing because religion causes hate and violence, it always has and it always will.
mahasin, there is no such thing neutral Islamic books, that is a contradiction in terms. If you want to know about that period in history, read history not fiction.
[...] and install a societal framework in the spirit of that designed by the Warrior Prophet or the General of Islam to provide greater justice, fair play and equality? Oh I see, democracy no, their terms, YES! [...]
[...] Instead it makes one a realist about Mohammed, the warrior prophet who was the Founding General of Islam and the motives of those serving as foot soldiers and leaders in the multi headed fronts for its [...]
[...] of human history and ought not to be defended in the name of religious tolerance. Mohammed was a warrior prophet, general and pedophile (see also: Yes. Mohammed was undoubtedly a pedophile) not a spiritual [...]
What proves the greatness and truthfulness of Mohammad ( Peace Be Upon Him ) is that till today researchers find amazing facts about his life exactly as we see in this article.
For those who have doubts I'd like to tell them to try to read and understand the Holy Quraan and notice the miracles it included. ONCE THEY FINISH READING IT THEY SHOULD KNOW THAT MOHAMMAD WAS AN ILLITERATE MAN.
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.
Here's how it works.
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States — Muslim 0.6%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims.
They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply.
This is occurring in:
France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings.
Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim
sections, in:
Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 15%
After reaching 20% , nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
At 40% , nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
From 60% , nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic
cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%*
After 80% , expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' — the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel.' —
Leon Uris, 'The Haj'
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos,within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large.
The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's
population by the end of this century.
—————————–…
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book:
'Slavery, Terrorism and Islam:
The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat'
[...] "she was hotter than his first 6 year old bride". Satan, Hitler, Mussolini and the Warrior Prophet partied until dawn and held a vigil for Rapist(s) Roman Polanksi and Charles Manson to join [...]
[...] Mullah reads me my last rites, asks me to accept Mohammed as my savior so that I may some day find myself in the land of 72 virgins. I chuckle, some where [...]
[...] the Prince of Darkness will be none other than the spirit of the warrior prophet and pedophile Mohammed himself. "Frankly, I never thought I would see the day when hell would [...]
[...] the Prince of Darkness will be none other than the spirit of the warrior prophet and pedophile Mohammed himself. "Frankly, I never thought I would see the day when hell would [...]
[...] practitioner, Muhammad had no military training before he commanded an army in the field. history net [...]
all those who speak ill against the prophet of Allah. fear for your souls at the day of judgment. you a pitiful.
just read the Quran. it explains itself.
Muhammad was the most perfect of all humans.
he did not love war but rather thought of it as a last resort.
Muslims believe in Jesus as well. he was a prophet of Allah. but he was not a god neither was he a son of god. god has no sons of fathers or mothers. he is one
[...] http://www.historynet.com/muhammad-the-warrior-prophet.htm Share: [...]
Everything I ever needed to know about ISLAM I learned on 9/11
It looks like the religion of peace has struck again in Russia.
if muhammad still alive he will become united states president ha ha ha
Although Muhammad began his struggle for a new order with a small guerrilla cadre capable of undertaking only limited hit-and-run raids, by the time he was ready to attack Mecca a decade later that small guerrilla force had grown into a large conventional army with integrated cavalry and infantry units capable of conducting large-scale combat operations.
Don't even make Muhammed start bringing down the house.;
His followers were mostly townspeople with no experience in desert travel.
Typical western fiction. Many of the accounts, description and conclusions of the author are wrong. Deliberately avoided many fact to paint a negative picture about Prophet Muhammad. I would classify this as complete rubbish.
what ever you guys think I dont care
important thing is that islam and Muslims are increasing in the world its not that Muslims force others to convert but the converters see some thing in islam that they did not find any where
quite enjoyed this piece of fiction…..was shocked by the comments….so much hatred and intolerance….basically the west needs an enemy…germans then japs then russians and now muslims…..would advice shankar, stewart, ann etc to please read a bit more………muhammed may not have been perfect but to simply blanket a whole population as evil is simply ridiculous………christians, muslims, jews and yes shankar even hindus have done a lot of terrible things in the name of religion yet one cant start hating everyone……read history and learn from it!!!
This article was a military assessment, not a religious assessment. Too many of the comments took as religiously offensive those portions of the article or other's comments which they felt demeaned Islam. If we are to understand history and culture, is it not appropriate to examine evidence from all sides, whether we agree with them or not and whether our own religious preference is offended or not? Critically thinking through what aspects of success Muhammad had in the spread of Islam is by no means a diminution of who he was, but rather, in a much broader sense, it gives context to Arab and Muslim history. The same would be true for the study of Jesus or Siddhartha Gautama or Confucius. Merely studying a religious figure from the perspective of one who subscribes to the religious belief is much the same as listening to a chef explain why his restaurant is the best one in the whole nation. Being naturally curious as humans, we would want more evidence. Personally, I would argue that Gabriel brought up some interesting points in his article that are worth further exploration, and it would be good if more Arab/Islamic historians (not merely religious interpreters) commented on these aspects.
whoever he is…named as Abdalla Osman…..i seriously salute you……..you are such a true Muslim and believe me if you alone will also stand you can change this world……………………………………………………… the problem is that Muslim don't tell others what there religion is…they hesitate to tell it…..the question is why..??…why they hesitate telling that..??….the answer is because they are in dept of other religions which simply leads us to wrong path……..
keep it up Abdalla Osman..i really appreciate you….!!!