Did Mohammad fight in battle?

[lewisnotmiller]

I suppose you're joking.

Nope. Happy to take feedback though.

 

[SA Huguenot]

True. I've gotten my answer. All on my own practically. Few here really contributed at all in offering new information, but I do thank everyone for pushing me, which in turn, motivated me to do the research. I especially thank @firedragon, who really encouraged me the most to do the research.

Though, I can't forget to thank @SA Huguenot, @Salvador and @dybmh for their actual contributions... Thanks for taking part, guys.

hey pal.
Dont forget.
I learned through you also.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Did Mohammad fight in battle?

Muhammad did participates in battles but he was always surrounded by devoted believers who protected him and fought for him.

Regards

Yeaaaa!
And when Muhammad told them to attack the Jewish tribes in Arabia because they dont want to turn Muslim, they were too happy to follow his instructions when they beheaded the men, raped the women, and sold the children.
Please take note.
Muhammad never defended himself against attacks.
He always coined the term, the Jews are wageing war against Allah!
Now how the hell does one wage war against Allah?
Simple, If you are a Jew and know Muhammad is a liar concerning him being a prophet of God...
You say...
Muhammad, you are a liar!
This is enough to declare Jihad with the sword against nations if one educated person calls you out as a Muslim liar!
Muhammad enjoyed sitting and watching how 800 men and boys had to show their private parts to the Muslim "Fighters."
If they had pubic hair, Muhammad had them executed by beheading.
behind him his other so called "Warriors" were raping the women right there where thy caught them. If the women had pubic hair, they were sex slaves for Muhammads' men.
he sat there with foam gushing out of his mouth with a view on Allah's greatness!
Shouting:
Allah uachbar!
This is the real Muhammad!
This is the historic Muhammad.
This is what Islam promotes, even today.
cameras smuggled into Mosques in Brittain, Germany, USA, Canada and Italy shows how Muslims actually act when they know there is no westerner watching.
They preach the destruction of these Kaffir countries!
taking over to get shariah in the west.
Pledgeing to catch white girls as slaves for Saudi's.
Killing Gays, and apostates!

 

[Augustus]

The history of the battle of badr makes perfect sense in context of the rise of islam.
It explains a lot of things and doesn't require any extra ordinary assumptions. Everything fits with the times and people involved in that area of the world.

There's no real reason to doubt it took place.

There are real reasons to be sceptical about everything from that period. There are no Muslim sources for 2 more centuries, and non-Muslim sources don't say a great deal, and what they do say is often polemical.

The battle makes sense in the rise of Islam because the narrative was written centuries later precisely to explain the rise of Islam. There's nothing remotely contemporary that supports it (save an ambiguous Quranic reference to Badr).

There is a fair amount of early Islamic 'history' that appears to have emerged out of need to explain the Quran, and the later the sources, the greater the details that have been 'discovered'.

Maybe the battle did happen, but it is not remotely comparable to Caesar in Gaul in terms of historicity. Any specific details about what happened during the battle should be taken as sceptically as the same sources telling us about the angels fighting along side the Muslims.

I've given you the official position of the Met Museum in New York, and wikipedia, whose sources (including Islamic scholars and historians) were:

• Abdel-Samad, Hamed (2016). "Der Koran. Botschaft der Liebe. Botschaft des Hasses" (in German). Droemer. ISBN 3426277018.
• Donner, Fred (1981). The Early Islamic Conquests. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691101828.
• Mikaberidze, Alexander (2011). "Badr, Battle of". In Mikaberidze, Alexander (ed.). Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia. ABC–CLIO. pp. 165–166. ISBN 1598843362.
• Pickthall, Muhammad M. (1930). The Quran. Archived from the original on 2018-12-11.
• Rodgers, Russ (2012). The Generalship of Muhammad: Battles and Campaigns of the Prophet of Allah. University Press of Florida. ISBN 9780813042718.
• Watt, Montogomery (1956). Muhammad at Medina. Oxford University Press.
• Watt, Montogomery (1974). Muhammad: prophet and statesman. Oxford University Press.
• al-Mubarakpuri, Saif-ur-Rahman (2002). The Sealed Nectar: Biography of the Noble Prophet. Darussalam. ISBN 1-59144-071-8.

Uncritically taking the Islamic theological narrative as historical fact is the same as uncritically taking the Gospel narrative as historical fact.

Mainstream Western scholarship has generally taken the Islamic theological narrative at face value minus the supernatural bits. So often it is like assuming the Gospels are accurate save the miracles.

I wouldn't put a museum exhibit and an online encyclopaedia at the forefront of modern critical scholarship.