Muhammad (SAAW) - The Warrior Prophet

[Sarajevo071]

Muhammad: The Warrior Prophet
If Muhammad had not been an innovative and accomplished military leader, Islam might not have survived the seventh century.
by Richard A. Gabriel

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.

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 non*military 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.
...

Full artical here:
http://www.historynet.com/magazines/...tml?page=1&c=y

[goesh]

I think he was more like Sitting Bull, a Hunkpapa Wasacuan (medicine man) who at the time of the Lakota's most famous historical fight, remained in camp having been told by a higher power of the outcome. Lakota's didn't doubt the infallibility of their 'medicine' but others clearly did just as many doubt the attribution of al qu'ran and its infallibility. Religious texts are more notorious IMO than garden variety history books when it comes to bias.

Then there is the matter of this element of the quote provided: "....An astute grand strategist, he used non*military 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." Gabriel doesn't know what he is talking about.

[kehenry1]

Without denigrating the religion, per se, one of the things that we should be aware of is that the story of Muhammad and the creation of Islam bares a resemblance to our modern issues and terrorism. If we do steer clear of the religion in general, but look at the story it presents in context to the historical social structure he was born into, we can deduce some causes that reflect modern development of the so-called "revolutionaries" like Zawahiri, bin Laden and numerous others.

The romanticized version sounds like a mix of the stories of Moses and Jesus (including being "rejected" by his family in order to protect him from a greater ill by sending him first to be a shepherd in the remote hills before an angel picks him out and later being recognized by religiously important people as a "holy" child. IN many regards this is performing the same function as the early stories of Jesus and Moses. This is to eliminate the questions of whether Moses, Jesus or Muhammad, for that matter, invented a religion as an adult or were "ordained" or "anointed" from birth, thus, "chosen by God" when they were young and incapable of complicity in such an act.

In modern times, religious fanatics often try to do something similar, though modern reasoning has made the ability to claim "chosen by God" for a mission much more difficult to accept by modern men. Further, the books of Christianity, Judaism and Islam all have directives to the faithful to reject any such later prophets as charlatan as each religion claims a final "prophet" who has delivered the "final" answer.

Thus, modern cultists and others using religion to interact with the general target populations and gain acceptance are left with a limited yet "reasonable" explanation for their claims to be directed or acting as any god or previous prophet would have directed. That explanation usually equates to either claiming direct lineage to a prophet or historical relationship to a previous religious organization.

Much in the same way that kings claimed to be anointed by God or pagan kings claimed to be descended from a god or claimed to be a god. Even in "enlightened Rome", during the imperial period, Roman emperors either claimed deification in their own life time or their successors had them deified. Generally, those who had their predecessor deified were distantly related and needed the same thing that all of the others before and after them needed: legitimacy.

We can even see that in the Roman Catholic papacy wherein popes claimed to be a descendant from a prophet and later simple anointing as "God's representative on earth".

The rejection of legitimacy based on a deity takes place post enlightenment. The three most notable revolutions that represent the scale of this rejection would be the American Revolution, the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution.

The American Declaration of Independence sought to take the power of the deity away from the king by expressly giving it to "all men" who were "created equal" and given "unalienable rights" by their "Creator". Since religion still played an important part in the life of colonials, total rejection of the deity would have damaged the revolutionary movement.

The French attempted to take God out of the equation totally. This of course was in relation to the church's involvement in oppression, their wealth and position within France and, as massive land owners, the keeping of many people in virtual feudal serfdom. Particularly in rural France. The revolution sought to strip land and wealth from the church. At the same time, as the Reign of Terror began and Robespierre began experimenting with creating his own religion, there was a wave of unease that the rejection of God and faith was lending to the rejection of morality.

Eventually, the deep faith most of the rural French, the fear of deepening anarchy and some savvy negotiation by the Church in France had the church re-instated to some extent, though the laws and the paranoia about it's potential power kept it from enjoying its former power ever again. It did try during the multiple formations of the Republic and the monarchist movements.

The church in Russia suffered the same fate for the same reason, but worse as it could be considered to have been even more complicit in the continuing repression of the lower classes and the support of an increasingly isolated Tsar. The church in Russia was advising the Tsar and the mystic Rasputin, considered a religious monk, provided the basis for deep fear and rejection that allowed the atheist, communist belief to spread, even among a population that was once deeply religious.

[kehenry1]

In some ways, the modern development of the Islamist terrorist movement follows both of these classic concepts. The first is to establish their own legitimacy by establishing their relationship to the originator of Islam (descendants of Mohammud) and their relationship of their organization to later religious scholars or organizations (Al Tamamiya, Sayyid Qutb, the Ikwahn, etc, etc, etc).

The second was delegitimizing rulers who claim the same legitimacy through descent and through position as "protectors of the faith" as well as delegitimizing other religious representatives as either corrupt or takfiri. They claim there is only one true interpretation of Islam. The sixteen schools of jurisprudence as well as the untold numbers of interpretation at secondary and tertiary levels, in their eyes, has weakened Islam and are eminently illegitimate.

Third, in rejection of the current structure, they also reject an Iranian style theocracy since it still puts men above Allah's law. By rejecting any control by a secular or theocratic government, but also insisting that the common man can naturally know the laws of Allah and the right way to worship (Qutb), they seek to give the power to individual Muslims. Also, of course, legitimizing their own revolution against "the establishment" as simple members of the "ummah" that have a divine right as individuals to "defend" Islam and to turn it back to the "right" path.

At the same time, they are seeking to mimic Mohammud or, at least, legitimize their actions by claiming to perform in the same capacity. Mohammud, in establishing Islam, stated that he was re-instituting the true faith, the true manner in which to worship Abraham's (the father's) God in the true manner in which Abraham had once done so. The rejection of the sixteen schools of thought (Sunni and Shia) as well as Judaism and Christianity echoes Mohammud's supposed purpose in returning to the "right" path.

There is both a weakness and a strength in their message, weaknesses that are even more apparent and attackable as they are rejected in Iraq by fellow Sunnis, all be it, largely from the Hanafi school. It's clear that this difference played a major part in separating the Salafists from the rest of the Sunni enclave. Zawahiri specifically wrote Zarqawi directing him to desist in trying to force those of other schools to convert to their Salafist ideology. He rebuked Zarqawi stating that he did not have the education in theology necessary to undertake those activities.

The AQ plan was obviously to first bring in as many followers who would believe the over all message of defending Islam; second to defeat the US and coalition partners; and third, to then begin or build upon a series of discussions to convert the masses to their ideology.

This issue, along with the xenophobic nature of the Iraqi tribes against "foreigners", the fear that the Salafists would take over and reduce or eliminate the traditional tribal leaders' power and the realized fear that the Salafists had taken over a significant portion of their hereditary trade of smuggling served to create a crack in the alliance. The final spike was the killing of many Sunni men, women and children including very influential sheikhs. All because, instead of being real "defenders" of Islam, they had become the oppressors, the imperialists in search of a caliphate with no intent to leave Iraq or allow Iraqis to manage their own state after years of oppression.

All of these issues can play a significant part in crafting a better, more acceptable message to counter the message of the Salafist Islamists among sympathetic middle easterners. We can craft this message and have it stated by western pundits and politicians. However, the best people to deliver this message are Sunni Iraqis themselves. The literal act of rejecting AQ and their ideology in Iraq was the first message. Other statements from the Sunni regarding specific acts by AQ are equally important and need to be pushed out into the international press and regional press.

This message is the message that should be pushed out and more often. People in the region, particularly those who either give direct or tacit support to the extremists. Those who might have sympathetic leanings and/or might be recruited:

"The secret behind our success in Anbar province was the shift in mentality in how people now reject members of al-Qaida," Al-Essawi said. "In the past, people of Anbar provided logistical support for these fighters thinking they were fighting in the name of God. When they realized they were no more than criminals and killers, their mentality shifted."

It's the message that should resonate more clearly as Al Qaida attacks on civilians in Afghanistan and in Pakistan become even more prevalent. The attack that killed 59 children in Afghanistan echoes the horrific attack in In Iraq in 2005 that killed 25 children in a suicide attack and another attack that killed 9 more in a minibus on the way to school.

This message is making its way into the regional press, though somewhat toned down. Al Jazeera reports on the cooperation between former allies:

Recent violence blamed on the group has taken its toll, turning residents against an organisation they now feel has let them down, local officials say.

Last month, Osama bin Laden criticised his followers in Iraq for losing the support of the locals.

Husein al-Zubaidi, a Diyala official, said: "Al-Qaeda cheated people under the name of 'jihad' and their actions were against all principles.

"They hurt all Iraqi sects, this is what pushed the national armed groups to face them strongly and bravely."

What Al Jazeera has not done is post any specifics about exactly "how" al Qaida "let them down" or "cheated" them. It gives the impression that there were a few disagreements that hurt the Iraqis' feelings or sympathies. The question now is how much more this message is being or can be promulgated in the press.

Things like "cheating" and general "lack of principles" can be rejected by the AQ base as the product of actual "criminals" who were posing as AQ. Thus, the pervasiveness, the extensiveness and the extreme cruelty need more exposure. The only way that will happen is if these same Sunni make an effort to appear in the press.

Appearances in the US may help to bolster opinion here, but may also tarnish the image of these speakers back in the middle east where association with Americans, even in the face of evil murderers, is frowned upon. Still, what we need are "legitimate" speakers who have experienced the pleasure of al Qaida style rule and can relay a legitimate message as a member of the Arab community.

[Sarajevo071]

Although, I do not agree with you in some points (especially in the start) I will agree with majority of your analyses. But, when you talking about Iraqis and they shifting alliances, do not forget that many Resistance groups said that they may be against AQ and they wrong ideas and actions, but they will still continue fighting against foreign occupation. Also, when counting dead you should skip dead, maimed and raped by US or they coalition troops. That's also have big influence in people's final decisions and long memories.

[kehenry1]

But, when you talking about Iraqis and they shifting alliances, do not forget that many Resistance groups said that they may be against AQ and they wrong ideas and actions, but they will still continue fighting against foreign occupation.

I don't forget that, but I do believe that there are a myriad of political issues at hand that would break even these forces down into groups that may be negotiated with. Some may still be concerned that we are supporting Shia governance against them and that this means their subjugation, regardless of any representative government. Particularly if they don't feel they are or won't get a fair deal from such a government. That can be largely mitigated through political negotiations and actions.

Which is why US commanders in the field are either circumventing the central government or forcing certain agencies to perform as they should for the Sunni or mixed populations they are working in while the big politicos, like Crocker or Petraeus, are delicately strong arming the Maliki government.

I'm not saying it will be perfect and resolve everything, just noting their are differences. And surely, we would rather be negotiating with indigenous insurgents with a stake in the nation than murderous, non-state actors who, by doctrine, reject any political resolution.

Also, when counting dead you should skip dead, maimed and raped by US or they coalition troops. That's also have big influence in people's final decisions and long memories.

I agree. I have a rather long discussion to post about the application of violence and justice in a counterinsurgency, but the short version goes is basically a reversal of Mao as an insurgent manual and can be summed up in the words: No justice, no peace.

In other words, there was violence and inappropriate acts by coalition forces, but we do adhere to the rule of law and people will be punished for those actions. AQI, not so much. If people are killed during action, it is usually in pursuit of combatants. AQI action, again, not so much.

I believe that the choice comes down to justice and largely controlled violence v. AQI random, arbitrary, brutal and regular attacks on civilians without any recourse for redress by the population and no punishment of the actors. That is a significant reason why they were rejected. And that is a decision the population makes in its best interest.

They may never forget, but it may be more forgivable than AQI's acts.

[SteveMetz]

Just don't name a teddy bear after him.

[Stan]

Just don't name a teddy bear after him.

A beheading would drastically improve the overall appearance of the accused.

Then, there is the current alternative (which, in this case, may turn out to be enjoyable)

Blasphemy punishable in Sudan by 40 lashes...

[Sarajevo071]

Just don't name a teddy bear after him.

Just another stupid thing that people shouldn't be bother about it... Sudan have way to more important things to worry about it. Thankfully, majority of country (like so many Muslims all around the World) knows this is not issue like the West or Sudan making to be.

I see this just like reaction on US and West pressure. It's politics and it should stay in that limits.