Originally Posted by HeiGou
The original claim does not say that he never killed anyone. It says:
during the prophet time (sallahu alhee wa salem many ppl made fun of him and hurt him and he never ever thought of killing them or even hurting them...
And that is correct.
Someone who orchestrates attacks yes.
Good. I'm glad we're agreed on this. Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf was not a nobody who went to Makkah to just compose some poetry; if he was, the Prophet pbuh would not waste his time with him. But the reality is, Ka'b was a well-known leader and politician. The news was widespread that Ka'b had travelled to Makkah and had not left until he had united the Quraysh in a new campaign of war against the Muslims. He was successful and the Makkans began to mobilize for another attack. I quoted you a statement which shows that his wife knew that he was a warrior engaged in combat.
I have asked for exactly what he said - presumable the Sirah records it. So what did he specifically say?
We don't have narrations on every exact word he said in his poetry. What we know is that he succeeded in mobilizing the Makkans for another attack.
Except for the slave girls and we have both established just that.
If you read back on what was written you will see that they had done far more than simply insulting the Prophet pbuh.
You have asserted there were terrorist attacks in Arabia back then - you tell me what your definition is. Which attacks are you thinking of?
Many actions of the Makkans and their allies in war would be considered terrorist attacks. The Makkans terrorized the Muslims by torturing them, hunting them, mutilating their dead, and launching attacks on their homes.
A peace treaty means exactly that - peace. Obviously inciting and supporting enemies in war efforts is a violation of the peace treaty.
Does that also apply to Muhammed during the period after the treaty with the Meccans when he built up a coalition against the Quraysh?
Gathering more followers is not the same as building up a coalition against
the Quraysh. Never did the Prophet pbuh incite attacks or support those who carried attacks against those whom he had a peace treaty with.
This is the same Ibn Kathir who was born in 1301 and was a teacher of Ibn Taymiyya is it? That is a very late source. How about we stick with Ibn Ishaq?
1. The words are not Ibn Kathir's, the narrations are simply compiled by Ibn Kathir.
2. These narrations include those from Musa b. Uqbah and Ibn Ishaq
3. Authenticity is more important that chronological order. eg. the Musnad of Ahmad was earlier that the Sahih of Bukhari, yet the former contains many weak narrations, while the latter is known to be authentic.
4. Ibn Kathir's research was certainly not limited. He was Al-Hafidh, meaning he had memorized over 100 000 narrations.
5. Ibn Kathir was the student of Ibn Taymiyyah, not the teacher.
So for the record can we agree that Muhammed did not execute anyone who did anything violent against any Muslims when he took Mecca, but he did execute people who had merely spoken some words he did not like?
To say that it was simply because he didn't 'like' their words should be obviously false to anyone, including yourself. This phrasing implies that he killed many people for no particular reason or justification at all.
So he did not play a major role in the war because it was already on-going?
He didn't initiate
hostilities between Makkans and Muslims, but he instigated
another military campaign after the battel of Badr. So your description applies perfectly to him, and therefore, according to your own personal criteria, his execution was justified.
Originally I mentioned Al-Nadr bin al-Harith, Uqba bin Abu Muayt, Asma bint Marwan, Abu Afak, Kab bin al-Ashraf, Abdullah bin Katal, and his two singing girls, and a bedouin Amr bin Umayya met.
That is not five.
We can assume coertion as they were slave girls and hence coerced every day all the time. Or they would have run for it.
Why would they have run for it? If they did not have support elsewhere and knew they would be caught if they tried to escape, then they mosty likely would not have 'run for it'. But that still doesn't justify your assumption that they were coerced in every thing they did. Influenced? perhaps. But coerced? It's personal conjecture without basis.