Were Muhammed's wars all self-defence?

Question

I have read in history that the first war ever between prophet Muhammed and infidels (called Badr) was initiated by Muhammed's attempt to raid a caravan owned by Koraish (the infidels) and therefore Koraish had to defend their caravan.

Does not this clearly show that the infidels had nothing to do with Muhammed until he raided their caravan?
Can this be described as self-defence?

Taimur
Are you sure you read my question? Also, the history shows that the PURE and ONLY reason for that battle was to take over camels and goods owned by Koraish. Is not this a PIRACY?

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=5895

Also see this link (in Arabic)

http://sirah.al-islam.com/SearchDisp.asp?Offset=0&SearchText=???&SearchType=root&SearchLevel=QBE&Scope=all&f=hes1672.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badr#The_march_to_Badr

Taimur
Thanks for your clarification. Honestly, I am still not quite convinced with what you said. It is shown in all Sira books that most of those immigrants were slaves and therfore they had no property or money. Other more wealthy people who had money took over all what they owned when they immigrated. This includes Abu Bakr, Osman, and Omar. You can cheack this link (in Arabic) to reinforce your background about this particular issue:

http://sirah.al-islam.com/display.asp?f=hes1526.htm

goodnews
I welcome any discussiona s long as it is solely for the purpose of the knowledge, but when you start to insult other participants I have to report you for bausing Yahoo rules.

goodnews
Despite your insult, which has been reported, can you cite the reference that Koraish infidels "tortured Muslims, burned their homes, and all other (facts) that you mentioned"?

Answer 1

almost all muslim wars are in offence, NOT defence, a poster talked about mecca and medina however those two cities were stolen (attacked) by muslims. In one of the cities all the jews who refused to convert to islam were killed. The religion of "peace" has never been peacefull..

Answer 2

What you should have read before this incident is the in-explainable sufferings Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) and his followers received at the hands of the Makkan Idolaters. Many poor Muslims were beaten. Those who were slaves were persecuted by placing them on the blazing sand bare-chested. One of the companion was made to lie on burning coal. The blood from his body cooled the coal. During this period, it was not permissible to fight. Even in self-defence. This period is called as the period of hardships for the muslims. And under the Supreme knowledge of Almighty GOD (ALLAH) it was to make the faith strong enough to meet any challenge coming their way.

Before the caravan incident, all of the property that belonged to the muslims was taken away by the Idolaters, as the muslims had migrated to Madinah leaving everything behind.

So when the permission was given to fight against any oppressor, the muslims had the opportunity to get back what they had lost in makkah.

Any more questions, feel free to ask me. I must say you have a keen observation.

Answer 3

I agree with Taimur, this is the explanation, and this is the answer,and Taimur had read the question so well ,and came up with the answer that you don't want to hear because it is the truth

how come you say that the infidels had nothing to do with Muslims ?
those infidels tortured Muslims back in Mekka, took their money ,destroyed their homes, so who are the pirates here, don't you have any brain ?.
,

Answer 4

I'm not certain what history you read, but it was the other way around. After the muslims migrated to Medina, the Meccan Quraish would constantly attack their caravans trying to force the Muslims to fight. The Quraish had a much larger army and were confident they would win whatever battle took place, thereby getting rid of Islam once and for all

Answer 5

I believe that the Ottoman Empire is a good source of real history as to how the Muslims treated others in conquest.

www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0860176.html

Answer 6

whats up! please do not underestimate the Prophet as a real warrior. Mohammad replaced into an quite large regularly occurring. in the gap of a unmarried decade he fought 8 important battles, led eighteen raids, and planned yet another thirty-8 armed forces operations the position others were in command yet operating lower than his orders and strategic route. Wounded two times, he also two times experienced having his positions overrun by ability of better forces in the previous he managed to illustrate the tables on his enemies and rally his adult men to victory. better than an excellent field regularly occurring and tactician, he replaced into also a armed forces theorist, organizational reformer, strategic philosopher, operational-element wrestle commander, political-armed forces chief, heroic soldier, and innovative. The inventor of insurgency conflict and heritage’s first effective practitioner, Muhammad had no armed forces preparation in the previous he commanded a armed forces in the sector. Muhammad’s intelligence service ultimately rivaled that of Byzantium and Persia, really at the same time as it got here to political ideas. He reportedly spent hours devising tactical and political stratagems, and once remarked that “all conflict is crafty,” reminding present day analysts of solar Tzu’s dictum, “all conflict is deception.” In his wondering and alertness of stress Muhammad replaced right into a blend of Karl von Clause­witz and Niccolo Machiavelli, for he continuously employed stress in the service of political aims. An astute grand strategist, he used non­mili­tary strategies (alliance progression, politi­cal assassination, bribery, non secular appeals, mercy, and calculated butchery) to bolster his lengthy-time period position, now and again even on the rate of short-time period armed forces issues.

Answer 7

The Quraishis drove Muhammed (peace be upon him) and his companions from Makkah and looted their properties. They planned to go to Syria to sell the looted properties to raise funds to wage war against Muhammed (peace be upon him) and his companions. That is why Muhammed (peace be upon him) and his companions attacked the caravan to get back their properties and prevent the quraishis from staring a war.

Answer 8

first of all he didn't stop the caravan but quraish felt threat for them if they came to only defend caravan why they attack on MEDINA as soon as they knew now caravan is out of threat they shouldn't have attacked the MEDINA they prepared an army of 1000 mens with all best weapons against 323 men's of Muhammad (PBUH)secondly when MUHAMMAD attack on quraish he spared all men women and children's even so they waged-on him wars several times u can look the name of MUHAMMED in gospel of barnabas in detail http://numerical19.tripod.com/chapter_barnabas_muhammad.htm

Answer 9

Christianity single hand-idly brought down their empire, as they did to the roman empire. So they have a reason to be angry.
My advice is to see what you did wrong and correct that, not overtaken by revenge.

Answer 10

War is war...and its not pretty. What difference would it make how they start, or even who keeps them going? It is an abuse of power to allow religion (or any other philosophy) to be the cause of war.