Having addressed the question about the distribution of plunder from the battle of Badr in v. 41 (one-fifth is reserved for Muhammad and the next-of-kin of those who fought on the Muslims' side, and for charitable gifts), Muhammad next describes the victory and his impression of its theological significance.
He begins with a couple of slight rebukes: it was a good thing that the Muslim army had not known, when they left Medina, that they were going to face a battle against the Quraish (they had thought they were going to plunder Abu Sufyans caravan as it was returning from Syria), because, the text claims, Allah knew that they would have refrained from going forth if Muhammad had plainly said that that was the plan. And, in v. 43, it was a good thing that Allah had depicted the Quraish as few in number, in a dream that Muhammad had had -- otherwise they would have argued about Muhammads decision to fight the Quraish. This implies that Muhammad had told his army that he had had a dream in which it was revealed to him that the Quraish army was small.
In the Tafsir Ibn Hathir, though, theres an account of Badr (at www.tafsir.com/default.as...&tid=20236 ) that clearly indicates that Muhammad had gotten a pretty good idea of the size of the Quraish army when he interrogated a couple of captured Quraish scouts. Putting two and two together, it looks like Muhammad deceived his army about the size of the Quraish army but he could cover his tracks by saying that Allah had deceived him in the dream. And furthermore, the Muslim army, rather than objecting to the deception, should be glad it occurred, since without it they would not have fought, and thus not won, the battle. (Apparently the alternative of returning peacefully to Medina without casualties on either side was not as attractive.)
Compare 8:44 with 3:13. In the Hilali-Khan translation, 8:44 says that He showed them to you as few in your eyes and He made you appear as few in their eyes, and 3:13 says that at Badr, They (the believers) saw them (the disbelievers) with their own eyes twice their number (although they were thrice their number). Rodwell treats the pronouns similarly in 3:13, To their own eyesight, the infidels saw you twice as many as themselves. There is a problem: 8:44 says that each side saw the other side as few, but 3:13, no matter how you slice it, says that one side saw the other side as twice their number. One way that some Muslims wiggle out of this is to insist that once the battle was underway, angels appeared on the scene, and it was at that point that the Islamic forces appeared to outnumber the Quraish.
After a few words of advice about calling on Allah in battle, obeying orders, and avoiding dissension in the ranks, v. 48 describes the role that Satan played in the Battle of Badr. It is possible to take this verse as a vivid metaphor about the overconfidence of the Meccans. However, the predominant traditional interpretation is that Satan appeared incarnate to the Quraish, in the form of a chieftain named Suraqah Ibn Malik bin Jushum, and led the Quraish to the battle and then scampered off. The same story says that after the battle, the defeated Meccans questioned Suraqah about his cowardice, and he insisted that he had never accompanied them at all. It seems feasible to me that Suraqah did indeed lead the Meccans to the battle, saw the lay of the land and each sides preparations, and deduced that the Muslims, despite being outnumbered, would probably win, and so he abandoned the Meccans, guessing correctly that if he later denied being on the scene that the superstitious Meccans would figure that their companion had been a demon.
Verse 49 seems to describe a scene that occurred in Medina as Muhammad led his army out to attack Abu Sufyans caravan. The term hypocrites refers specifically to Muhammads half-hearted allies in the city. It is not hard to see why the Medinans said, These people are deceived by their religion when one considers that Muhammad had previously advocated tolerance, quiet living, and honesty, and was now mustering an army to plunder a caravan. (Another interpretation is that hypocrites refers not to those in Medina but to some Meccans who had, up to the beginning of the battle, been sympathetic to Muhammad and had thought about becoming Muslims).
Verses 50-56, after mentioning how the angels fought at Badr (the description can be generalized to apply to angels actions at the death of any unbeliever), describe the actions of the Quraish as similar to the actions of the people of Pharaoh. Muhammad is again interpreting events to reinforce the idea that he is a prophet like Moses; at this time, the person he likened to Pharaoh was the recently decapitated Abu Jahl. Verse 55 illuminates the metaphor in v. 22.
The subject turns to future strategy in verses 57-63. The text instructs Muhammad to implement a four-part policy:
First, Muhammad is to severely punish those whom he gains mastery over, to teach a lesson to others.
Second, Muhammad is to cancel any treaties if he has evidence that those who made those treaties are guilty of duplicity. (Muslim interpreters tend to agree that this should not be done on a whim; however, Muhammad later had to say that a warning from Allah was sufficient reason for starting hostilities when he took up arms against the Nadir tribe in Medina.)
Third, Muhammad is to prepare an arsenal of weapons, including a cavalry (something the Muslims did not have at Badr), in order to threaten and intimidate enemies known and unknown. (The Hilali-Khan translation features an interpretive parenthetical phrase here: (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery).)
Fourth, stop fighting when the enemy surrenders, even if you suspect that they are not sincere. (This is difficult to interlock with the execution of Al-Nadr Ibn Harith and Uqba bin Abi Mu'ayt.)
Then the text states that Allah has united their hearts, thus affirming that unity in the Islamic community is militarily advantageous.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
He begins with a couple of slight rebukes: it was a good thing that the Muslim army had not known, when they left Medina, that they were going to face a battle against the Quraish (they had thought they were going to plunder Abu Sufyans caravan as it was returning from Syria), because, the text claims, Allah knew that they would have refrained from going forth if Muhammad had plainly said that that was the plan. And, in v. 43, it was a good thing that Allah had depicted the Quraish as few in number, in a dream that Muhammad had had -- otherwise they would have argued about Muhammads decision to fight the Quraish. This implies that Muhammad had told his army that he had had a dream in which it was revealed to him that the Quraish army was small.
In the Tafsir Ibn Hathir, though, theres an account of Badr (at www.tafsir.com/default.as...&tid=20236 ) that clearly indicates that Muhammad had gotten a pretty good idea of the size of the Quraish army when he interrogated a couple of captured Quraish scouts. Putting two and two together, it looks like Muhammad deceived his army about the size of the Quraish army but he could cover his tracks by saying that Allah had deceived him in the dream. And furthermore, the Muslim army, rather than objecting to the deception, should be glad it occurred, since without it they would not have fought, and thus not won, the battle. (Apparently the alternative of returning peacefully to Medina without casualties on either side was not as attractive.)
Compare 8:44 with 3:13. In the Hilali-Khan translation, 8:44 says that He showed them to you as few in your eyes and He made you appear as few in their eyes, and 3:13 says that at Badr, They (the believers) saw them (the disbelievers) with their own eyes twice their number (although they were thrice their number). Rodwell treats the pronouns similarly in 3:13, To their own eyesight, the infidels saw you twice as many as themselves. There is a problem: 8:44 says that each side saw the other side as few, but 3:13, no matter how you slice it, says that one side saw the other side as twice their number. One way that some Muslims wiggle out of this is to insist that once the battle was underway, angels appeared on the scene, and it was at that point that the Islamic forces appeared to outnumber the Quraish.
After a few words of advice about calling on Allah in battle, obeying orders, and avoiding dissension in the ranks, v. 48 describes the role that Satan played in the Battle of Badr. It is possible to take this verse as a vivid metaphor about the overconfidence of the Meccans. However, the predominant traditional interpretation is that Satan appeared incarnate to the Quraish, in the form of a chieftain named Suraqah Ibn Malik bin Jushum, and led the Quraish to the battle and then scampered off. The same story says that after the battle, the defeated Meccans questioned Suraqah about his cowardice, and he insisted that he had never accompanied them at all. It seems feasible to me that Suraqah did indeed lead the Meccans to the battle, saw the lay of the land and each sides preparations, and deduced that the Muslims, despite being outnumbered, would probably win, and so he abandoned the Meccans, guessing correctly that if he later denied being on the scene that the superstitious Meccans would figure that their companion had been a demon.
Verse 49 seems to describe a scene that occurred in Medina as Muhammad led his army out to attack Abu Sufyans caravan. The term hypocrites refers specifically to Muhammads half-hearted allies in the city. It is not hard to see why the Medinans said, These people are deceived by their religion when one considers that Muhammad had previously advocated tolerance, quiet living, and honesty, and was now mustering an army to plunder a caravan. (Another interpretation is that hypocrites refers not to those in Medina but to some Meccans who had, up to the beginning of the battle, been sympathetic to Muhammad and had thought about becoming Muslims).
Verses 50-56, after mentioning how the angels fought at Badr (the description can be generalized to apply to angels actions at the death of any unbeliever), describe the actions of the Quraish as similar to the actions of the people of Pharaoh. Muhammad is again interpreting events to reinforce the idea that he is a prophet like Moses; at this time, the person he likened to Pharaoh was the recently decapitated Abu Jahl. Verse 55 illuminates the metaphor in v. 22.
The subject turns to future strategy in verses 57-63. The text instructs Muhammad to implement a four-part policy:
First, Muhammad is to severely punish those whom he gains mastery over, to teach a lesson to others.
Second, Muhammad is to cancel any treaties if he has evidence that those who made those treaties are guilty of duplicity. (Muslim interpreters tend to agree that this should not be done on a whim; however, Muhammad later had to say that a warning from Allah was sufficient reason for starting hostilities when he took up arms against the Nadir tribe in Medina.)
Third, Muhammad is to prepare an arsenal of weapons, including a cavalry (something the Muslims did not have at Badr), in order to threaten and intimidate enemies known and unknown. (The Hilali-Khan translation features an interpretive parenthetical phrase here: (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery).)
Fourth, stop fighting when the enemy surrenders, even if you suspect that they are not sincere. (This is difficult to interlock with the execution of Al-Nadr Ibn Harith and Uqba bin Abi Mu'ayt.)
Then the text states that Allah has united their hearts, thus affirming that unity in the Islamic community is militarily advantageous.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
