Thread by @DrJavadTHashmi

This is why WikiIslam is *not* a reliable source to use. Here again, we see the gullible & credulous approach to the historical sources, especially when it can be weaponized to make the Prophet look bad. 1/

https://twitter.com/ExmuslimsOrg/status/1388177593434791936

Contrast this gullible & credulous approach to the sources with the highly critical & skeptical approach taken by these same people towards the Qur'an, which is actually considered our most reliable extant source from the Prophet's life! 2/

You should know that these stories about battles are taken from the sīra-maghāzī literature, which is itself inspired by the Battle Days of the pre-Islamic Arabs (ayyām al-ʿArab), a genre known for exaggeration, especially when it comes to numbers. 3/

Those who study ancient warfare know the general rule that you should divide by 10 whenever you see numbers of casualties in reported battles, & we should also be doubtful about the numbers of conflicts as well. 4/

Specifically, secular historians should look at such lists of battles with a great deal of caution & suspicion. Interestingly, the first comment under this thread mentioned that these "number of battles"/"100 expeditions" took place in 13 years. 5/

This should actually have triggered a response of suspicion in the minds of these "free thinkers" & genius "rationalists," but instead they remain credulous when it benefits their rancid propaganda. If the sources had said 1,000,000 battles, maybe they would accept that too! 6/

Although I intend to take a deeper look at this in my dissertation on the topic, for now I refer you to the excellent work of Prof. @AhmedAlDawoody, "The Islamic Law of War." He points out that the problem is that the sources use the same term to refer to multiple things... 7/

"Biographers used the word ghazwah to denote all the Prophet's travels as well as many of his encounters with non-Muslims...Different names are also given to the same incident... [However,] they almost all agree that the Prophet was engaged in nine incidents of fighting." (22) 8/

Al-Dawoody notes that even peace delegations & preaching missions were called ghazwas, even going on pilgrimage was called by this term: "Guillaume noticed that Ibn Isḥāq included the ʿumrah performed by the Prophet in 7/629 among the Prophet's twenty-seven ghazawāt" (22). 9/

Al-Dawoody concludes: "Thus, the word ghazwah can mean a journey and does not necessarily mean a raid or a razzia" (23). As mentioned above, he puts the number of battles at 9, which is much more reasonable & realistic than 100, as this person is trying to claim. 10/

In addition to what I stated above, we need to keep in mind that secular scholars consider the sīra-maghāzī literature to be based on story-telling, & detailing battles was the best of story-telling! To just list off these battles from the sources is highly uncritical. 11/

Additionally, it is absurd to list every single hostile encounter when they fall under the same general conflict. If you counted every single sortie in any modern war, you would get an incredibly high number! It is already taken for granted that the Prophet & his believers... 12/

were at war with their pagan enemies. This was an ongoing war & wars are made up of small conflicts. That doesn't mean that the Prophet launched 100 different wars of aggression. On that note, my own research reinforces the idea that the Qur'an only sanctions defensive war, 13/

either in response to killing (qiṣāṣ) or religious persecution (fitna). Al-Dawoody has investigated the causes of these conflicts, & makes the wise point that we should concentrate "on the circumstances that led to these incidences rather than on the theories developed by.. 14/

"later generations [of Muslim theorists]" (32). Al-Dawoody reasonably lists the 9 credible battles as "Badr, Uḥud, The Ditch, Qurayẓah, al-Musṭaliq, Khaybar, fatḥ Mecca, Ḥunayn, and al-Ṭāʾif" (38). After analyzing these incidents, he concludes.... 15/

that "all these hostilities during the Prophet's lifetime were defensive" (39). This is, of course, a contested view in the secular academy, & I hope my own dissertation will help in reinforcing the view that--AT LEAST in the Qur'an's perspective--the conflicts were seen as.. 16/

being defensive in nature, since the Qur'an itself declares that aggression is wrong & never justified. Anti-Muslim ideologues superimpose & back-project later theories of imperial, holy, & offensive jihād onto the Prophet & Qur'an, which is wrong. Meanwhile...17/

They downplay the religious persecution of the early believers, which reached the level of an existential threat to the very existence of this fledgling community, forcing the believers to flee for their lives THREE times from their homeland. 18/

Al-Dawoody asks insightfully, "Would there have been *any* outbreaks of hostility in early Islam if the Prophet & the Muslims had not been persecuted & had been permitted to practice their new religion in Mecca?" (37) 19/

Please listen to my IQSA presentation in 2017, in which I outline the Qur'anic theory of jihād, a corrective to Prof. Reuven Firestone's work on the topic (he was in attendance & magnanimous):
20/

And my guest lecture on jihad, part 1:

And part 2:
21/

You should also check out the work of Prof. @jricole, & buy his wonderful book, Muhammad: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires: amazon.com/Muhammad-Proph… 22/

If you want to look at a counter-view, I recommend Prof. Reuven Firestone's "Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam." It will certainly be more fair & balanced than WikiIslam, although, like I said, my dissertation is being written as a corrective to Firestone's work. 23/

None of this, of course, exonerates the early/medieval Muslims for militarizing the Qur'an & Prophet's life story, a fact which Islamic extremists exploit today (although they add their own craziness to it) & anti-Muslim ideologues use as a club to beat us over the head with. 24/