I am not under mining the neccessity of training and equipment, specially the hitech ones in todays warfares but its the Iman of a muslim soldiers which proves most important factor during combatting the "Big or Super Powers" e.g. Omar Mukhtar against Italian Imperialists, Salah-hud-din against the Crusaders, Tariq Bin Ziyad against the Spanish on their own soil with the means of returns (Ships) burnt so that muslim army must think about the victory or martyrdom nothing else. Imam Shamil against the Mighty Russians, Tipu Sultan against the British, Khalid Bin Walid aginst the Roman and Iranin Empires the two Super Powers of the time and lastly Afghan Mujahids against the Russians. These are a few example of wars which were really the tests of Imans of muslim warriors. There was no match in all of these wars fo the two armies.
I am also a muslim and believe in Iman; implying absolute certainty that one's faith is True. No doubt this helps "esprit de corps' and also a source of courage; but using the examples in this thread gives a false impression as if all you need is Iman which is the deciding factor.
It is the generalization in the extreme. I will be brutal and analyze what is quoted in the above post.
Salahuddin was never able to defeat the Third Crusade. Richard re-captured Acre in 1191 and consolidated the Crusader states founded after the first crusade. Salahuddin failed to take back Acre, Antioch and Tripoli. All the three Crusader States were finally captured by the Mumlukes of Egypt nearly 100 years after Salahuddin. This does not in any way diminish Salahuddin's capability as a war leader. But one must understand that Muslim forces, mostly consisting of lightly armed cavalry, despite being larger in number, ware not in a position to force decisive victory on the heavily armed Crusader Knights and foot soldiers especially when fortified and able to receive supplies from the sea. It was a battle between mobility and brute force. Occasionally at places such as at Hattin in 1187; when thru his superior generalship; Salahuddin managed to lure Christian forces out of their stronghold. Salahuddin was able to prevail. Eventually a stalemate and finally a truce resulted which gave free access of Jerusalem to the Christians.
Tariq bin Ziad crossed over to Spain in 711 with some 10 -12,000 Berbers and defeated the Visigoth King Roderic at the battle of Guadalete was, due to his superior generalship. Muslim conquest of spain was only possible when Musa bin Nasir himself arrived a year later with another 25-30,000 troops. If Iman was the only ingredient, how come infidel Christians were able to slowly recapture all the Spain (albeit it took them 700 years) .
Khalid bin Walid was a general 'par excellence'. He was responsible for the disaster that befell muslims at the battle of Uhad. After conversion to Islam, he used the same ability to defeat the Romans. But the tactics were always the same, " Surprize". Besides, it is wrong to compare Muslim army of 636 AD with today's Muslims. There were 100 veterans of the Battle of Badar in that force. The purification of self which took place due to the companionship of the holy Prophet ( PBUH) is no longer possible.
Tipu Sultan is a bad example to give. No doubt very brave, he never defeated the English and was himself defeated and his state destroyed. It was his father Haider Ali, who was a far better general. Tipu did well in the second Mysore war which was commanded by Haider Ali. The wars fought by Tipu himself, the third and 4th Mysore wars were disasters. Besides, both Haider Ali and Tipu were very secular in their outlook and their armies consisted of a lot of non muslim soldiers. It was a battle between natives and foreigner, Iman or relgion had very little to do.
Afghan Mujahids were no where until such time that they were supplied by Stingers to counter the Soviet gunships. If their Iman was so great, how come they needed the great Satan ( US) help and why they were at each others throats as soon as Soviets left. More Afghans were killed and attrocities committed by the mujahideen groups when fighting with each other. Kabul suffered more devastation when bombarded by Hikmatyar's Jamaat Islami than during soviet occupation. Doesnt Iman forbid killing other muslims.
Purpose of all this is that it is about time we woke up and ignore the propaganda by the mullah that Iman is all that is required. It is not; it is no doubt an essential ingredient but battles are won and lost because of conditions on the battlfield. Hard work, training, military equipment and most of all quality of leadership are the prime factors. If Iman alone was enough, how come Aurangzeb - most puritanical of all of the great Moghals, with tremondous resources at his disposal was unable to eliminate Shivaji, despite being at it for 15 years. Whereas Mughals under wine drinking Babur could beat a far larger muslim army of Ibrahim Lodhi at Panipat. Does any one doubt the Iman of last Abbassid Caliph Al Mustasim, why were the Muslim annihilated by the infidel Halaku in 1258 and Baghdad sacked?? The same happened to Baghdad again in March 1917 when Ottoman Caliph's army was defeated by the British infidel Sir Frederick Maude.
It is living in a fool's paradise to quote examples where Muslims did well but ignore hundreds of other cases where Muslims forces were defeated. It is a naive notion in the extreme that even though we ban Polio drops as unislamic, our Iman alone will defeat the rest of the world.
Such nonsense is brainwashing today's muslims. We have to achieve SCIENTIFIC and TECHNOLOGICAL excellence. Only then and armed with Iman we can defeat the world, else we will forever be whinning about conspiracies and blaming rest of the world for our misfortunes.
