PDA

View Full Version : Assassinations



HeiGou
02-23-2006, 11:10 AM
Originally Posted by sweetangel16
thats tru there not supposed to kill them
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...
Really? When he was at Mecca he did not have the choice because he was weak. But at the Battle of Badr he captured Al-Nadr bin al-Harith who had mocked his revelations in Mecca. Al-Nadr was not allowed to ransom himself. What happened to him?

There was another man captured at Badr who was not allowed to ransom himself as well. Uqba bin Abu Muayt begged Muhammed for his life and asked "Who would look after my children?" Muhammed said "Hell fire". What happened to him next?

Asma bint Marwan wrote and sang songs that mocked Muhammed. What happened to her?

Abu Afak also mocked Muhammed. What happened to him? What did Salim b. Umayr do?

Kab bin al-Ashraf wrote a poem mourning the Meccan dead at the Battle of Badr. What happened to him?

Abdullah bin Katal had two singing girls who sang songs that mocked Muhammed. After the fall of Mecca all three were ordered killed. One of the girls was but the other plead for her life and was pardoned.

Amr bin Umayya took shelter in a cave and met a one-eyed bedouin. They chatted and ate and then the Arab sang a short poem that seemed to mock Islam. As he slept Amr bin Umayya murdered him in a particularly nasty fashion.

I am all for not killing people merely for a cartoon. Let me support that. But you should not distort the historical record. In the right circumstances and at the right time, Muslims have killed people for less. At least one article here has been deleted for saying what would happen to the cartoonists in Saudi Arabia.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
kadafi
02-23-2006, 01:13 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Really? When he was at Mecca he did not have the choice because he was weak. But at the Battle of Badr he captured Al-Nadr bin al-Harith who had mocked his revelations in Mecca. Al-Nadr was not allowed to ransom himself. What happened to him?
He was killed for his insults, the harm he inflicted on the Muslims, his inciting words that made people rise up and fight against the Muslims. What you have left out is that the Prophet captured 70 prisoners during the Battle of Badr and only 3 of them were put to death for the reason(s) mentioned above.

Why didn't you include the story of Abu 'Azza al-Jumahi who was freed after the same battle on the condition that he would never fight Muslims again.

There was another man captured at Badr who was not allowed to ransom himself as well. Uqba bin Abu Muayt begged Muhammed for his life and asked "Who would look after my children?" Muhammed said "Hell fire". What happened to him next?
Whilst it is true that Uqba bin Abu Muayt was put to death for all the misschief he caused, the narration that he begged is not even found in the authenthic seeras. So I say to you HeiGou instead of CAPing from answering-islam, provide the source for that story including its transmission. If it is in Tabari, or ibn Ishaq, provide the full arabic quote including its isnad.

Asma bint Marwan wrote and sang songs that mocked Muhammed. What happened to her?

Abu Afak also mocked Muhammed. What happened to him? What did Salim b. Umayr do?
Both forgeries. Never happend.

By brother Hesham Azmy
The Killing of Abu 'Afak: Where is The Isnad?

According to Ibn Sa'd and Ibn Ishâq, Abu 'Afak was a 120 years old Jewish man who had abused the Prophet(P) verbally, so the latter launched a raid under the command of Salîm Ibn 'Umaîr to kill him. We do know that Ibn Ishâq lived in the 2nd half of the 2nd century after Hijra, as well as Al-Waqîdî from whom Ibn Sa'd (died 230 A.H.) copied the story of Abu 'Afak.

As explained above, the chain of reporters of the story from eye-witnesses of the event till Ibn Ishâq or Al-Waqîdî must be examined and verified. So, our legitimate question is: where is the isnâd (i.e., chain of reporters)?

Unfortunately, references of the Sîrah do not provide such information. Actually, we are told that this story has no isnâd at all; neither Ibn Ishâq (or his disciple Ibn Hîsham) nor Al-Waqîdî (or his disciple Ibn Sa'd) had provided such a thing! In this case, the story is rated by hadîth scholars as "...of no basis", indicating that it has reached the lowest degree of criticism regarding its isnâd. This is in fact a proper scientific position because we cannot accept such a problematic story without evidence.

In brief, we have no commitment to accept such a baseless story - according to scientific criteria of hadîth criticism - which strangely had appeared in the 2nd half of the 2nd century after Hijra. We are therefore obliged to reject the story of the killing of Abu 'Afak by Salîm Ibn 'Umaîr at the Prophet’s command.
The Killing of Asma': True Story or Forgery?

Basically the charge is that the Prophet(P) had ordered the killing of Asma' when she insulted him with her poetry. As it is usually the case where the history of Islam and the character of the Prophet(P) is concerned, it is left to the Muslims to throw some light on authenticity of the story in which this incident is reported by the sources and educate the missionaries in matters which they have no clue about.

The story of the killing of Asma' bint Marwan is mentioned by Ibn Sa'd in Kitab At-Tabaqat Al-Kabir and by the author of Kinz-ul-'Ummal under number 44131 who attributes it to Ibn Sa'd, Ibn 'Adiyy and Ibn 'Asaker. What is interesting is that Ibn 'Adiyy mentions it in his book Al-Kamel on the authority of Ja'far Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn As-Sabah on authority of Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim Ash-Shami on authority of Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj Al-Lakhmi on authority of Mujalid on authority of Ash-Shu'abi on authority of Ibn 'Abbas, and added that

...this isnâd (chain of reporters) is not narrated on authority of Mujalid but by Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj and they all (other reporters in the chain) accuse Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj of forging it.

It is also reported by Ibn al-Gawzi in Al-'Ilal and is listed among other flawed reports.

So according to its isnâd, the report is forged - because one of its reporters is notorious for fabricating hadîth. Hence, such a story is rejected and is better off being put into the trash can.
In addition, why didn't the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) order the killing of a Jewish Woman who brought him a poisoned cooked sheep?
Narrated Anas bin Malik: A Jewish woman brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allaah's Messenger(Bukharee)
Kab bin al-Ashraf wrote a poem mourning the Meccan dead at the Battle of Badr. What happened to him?
What About The Killing of Ka'ab bin Al-Ashraf?


Abdullah bin Katal had two singing girls who sang songs that mocked Muhammed. After the fall of Mecca all three were ordered killed. One of the girls was but the other plead for her life and was pardoned.

Amr bin Umayya took shelter in a cave and met a one-eyed bedouin. They chatted and ate and then the Arab sang a short poem that seemed to mock Islam. As he slept Amr bin Umayya murdered him in a particularly nasty fashion.
Source + isnad.
Reply

HeiGou
02-23-2006, 02:46 PM
Originally Posted by kadafi
He was killed for his insults, the harm he inflicted on the Muslims, his inciting words that made people rise up and fight against the Muslims. What you have left out is that the Prophet captured 70 prisoners during the Battle of Badr and only 3 of them were put to death for the reason(s) mentioned above.
I do not dispute this. I just do not see the relevance.

Why didn't you include the story of Abu 'Azza al-Jumahi who was freed after the same battle on the condition that he would never fight Muslims again.
What would the relevance be?

Whilst it is true that Uqba bin Abu Muayt was put to death for all the misschief he caused, the narration that he begged is not even found in the authenthic seeras. So I say to you HeiGou instead of CAPing from answering-islam, provide the source for that story including its transmission. If it is in Tabari, or ibn Ishaq, provide the full arabic quote including its isnad.
I confess, some what shamefacedly, to going to that website. It was extremely convenient I have to say.

Both forgeries. Never happend.
Hang on - both forgeries? Neither man was killed?

In addition, why didn't the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) order the killing of a Jewish Woman who brought him a poisoned cooked sheep?
Narrated Anas bin Malik: A Jewish woman brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allaah's Messenger(Bukharee)
Is that a genuine question? Perhaps he thought that God would look after and protect him. That seems to have been the Jewish assumption.

[indent]Volume 4, Book 53, Number 394:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

When Khaibar was conquered, a roasted poisoned sheep was presented to the Prophets as a gift (by the Jews). The Prophet ordered, "Let all the Jews who have been here, be assembled before me." The Jews were collected and the Prophet said (to them), "I am going to ask you a question. Will you tell the truth?'' They said, "Yes.' The Prophet asked, "Who is your father?" They replied, "So-and-so." He said, "You have told a ie; your father is so-and-so." They said, "You are right." He siad, "Will you now tell me the truth, if I ask you about something?" They replied, "Yes, O AbuAl-Qasim; and if we should tell a lie, you can realize our lie as you have done regarding our father." On that he asked, "Who are the people of the (Hell) Fire?" They said, "We shall remain in the (Hell) Fire for a short period, and after that you will replace us." The Prophet said, "You may be cursed and humiliated in it! By Allah, we shall never replace you in it.'' Then he asked, "Will you now tell me the truth if I ask you a question?" They said, "Yes, O Ab Li-AI-Qasim." He asked, "Have you poisoned this sheep?" They said, "Yes." He asked, "What made you do so?" They said, "We wanted to know if you were a liar in which case we would get rid of you, and if you are a prophet then the poison would not harm you." [indent]

Perhaps he thought that the poison had failed. After all that was one really slow acting poison.

Source + isnad.
I would rather not. I have no interest is debating whether or not these people were killed or who gave the order or whatever.

What is clear is that there is a strong tradition in the Muslim histories that Muhammed did have people killed for various reasons. The previous poster was wrong. Anything beyond that would be pointless.
Reply

azim
02-23-2006, 03:29 PM
I confess, some what shamefacedly, to going to that website. It was extremely convenient I have to say.
I admire your honesty.

Perhaps he thought that the poison had failed. After all that was one really slow acting poison.
It wasn't a slow-acting poison as another Companion of the Prophet (pbuh) who had eaten from the roast died very quickly. Rather Allah prolonged the Prophet's life until the message had been delivered (although of course this is not something that would accept, but I was simply explaining the Muslim view on the events).
What is clear is that there is a strong tradition in the Muslim histories that Muhammed did have people killed for various reasons. The previous poster was wrong. Anything beyond that would be pointless.
Yes. But never for a personal grudge, his own personal vendetta or an insult made to him, which is what was implied in your original post.

Peace.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
HeiGou
02-23-2006, 04:39 PM
Originally Posted by kadafi
But at the Battle of Badr he captured Al-Nadr bin al-Harith who had mocked his revelations in Mecca.

Uqba bin Abu Muayt begged Muhammed for his life

Asma bint Marwan wrote and sang songs that mocked Muhammed.

Abu Afak also mocked Muhammed.

Kab bin al-Ashraf wrote a poem mourning the Meccan dead at the Battle of Badr.

Abdullah bin Katal had two singing girls who sang songs that mocked Muhammed.

Amr bin Umayya took shelter in a cave and met a one-eyed bedouin.
As it is usually the case where the history of Islam and the character of the Prophet(P) is concerned, it is left to the Muslims to throw some light on authenticity of the story in which this incident is reported by the sources and educate the missionaries in matters which they have no clue about.
That is very generous of you and it is extremely useful even for those of us who are not missionaries. But I have just noticed - I mentioned seven cases where Ibn Ishaq or others claim that Muhammed had people killed for mocking him. You have accepted that one, Al-Nadr bin al-Harith, was executed for that reason. You deny that there is any strong evidence, in an Islamic sense, to say that Uqba bin Abu Muayt, Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak were killed. But you do not mention the others. In some of these cases the evidence is a little stronger. Kab bin al-Ashraf is mentioned in the aHadith.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 271:

Narrated Jabir:

The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew)." Muhammad bin Maslama replied, "Do you like me to kill him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like." The Prophet replied, "I do (i.e. allow you)."

Sahih Muslim Chapter 41: THE MURDER OF KA'B B. ASHRAF, (THE EVIL GENIUS) OF THE JEWS
Book 019, Number 4436:

It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Who will kill Ka'b b. Ashraf? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger. Muhammad b. Maslama said: Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him? He said: Yes. He said: Permit me to talk (to him in the way I deem fit). He said: Talk (as you like). So, Muhammad b. Maslama came to Ka'b and talked to him, referred to the old friendship between them and said: This man (i. e. the Holy Prophet) has made up his mind to collect charity (from us) and this has put us to a great hardship. When be heard this, Ka'b said: By God, you will be put to more trouble by him. Muhammad b. Maslama said: No doubt, now we have become his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his affairs will take. I want that you should give me a loan. He said: What will you mortgage? He said: What do you want? He said: Pledge me your women. He said: You are the most handsome of the Arabs; should we pledge our women to you? He said: Pledge me your children. He said: The son of one of us may abuse us saying that he was pledged for two wasqs of dates, but we can pledge you (cur) weapons. He said: All right. Then Muhammad b. Maslama promised that he would come to him with Harith, Abu 'Abs b. Jabr and Abbad b. Bishr. So they came and called upon him at night. He came down to them. Sufyan says that all the narrators except 'Amr have stated that his wife said: I hear a voice which sounds like the voice of murder. He said: It is only Muhammad b. Maslama and his foster-brother, Abu Na'ila. When a gentleman is called at night even it to be pierced with a spear, he should respond to the call. Muhammad said to his companions: As he comes down, I will extend my hands towards his head and when I hold him fast, you should do your job. So when he came down and he was holding his cloak under his arm, they said to him: We sense from you a very fine smell. He said: Yes, I have with me a mistress who is the most scented of the women of Arabia. He said: Allow me to smell (the scent on your head). He said: Yes, you may smell. So he caught it and smelt. Then he said: Allow me to do so (once again). He then held his head fast and said to his companions: Do your job. And they killed him.

Would you mind explaining to me what Kab had done that he deserved to die?

You do not mention the singing girls either

Sunun Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2678:

Narrated Sa'id ibn Yarbu' al-Makhzumi:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: on the day of the conquest of Mecca: There are four persons whom I shall not give protection in the sacred and non-sacred territory. He then named them. There were two singing girls of al-Maqis; one of them was killed and the other escaped and embraced Islam.

Would you mind telling me who the other four were?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-23-2006, 05:21 PM
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archi...atrocities-ii/
Reply

HeiGou
02-23-2006, 05:22 PM
Originally Posted by azim
It wasn't a slow-acting poison as another Companion of the Prophet (pbuh) who had eaten from the roast died very quickly. Rather Allah prolonged the Prophet's life until the message had been delivered (although of course this is not something that would accept, but I was simply explaining the Muslim view on the events).
May I ask who the Companion who died was?

Yes. But never for a personal grudge, his own personal vendetta or an insult made to him, which is what was implied in your original post.
I do not know what was in Muhammed's mind. I do know people are said to have mocked him. And then been killed. I hope I did not imply anything else.
Reply

kadafi
02-23-2006, 05:26 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
That is very generous of you and it is extremely useful even for those of us who are not missionaries. But I have just noticed - I mentioned seven cases where Ibn Ishaq or others claim that Muhammed had people killed for mocking him. You have accepted that one, Al-Nadr bin al-Harith, was executed for that reason.
I never rejected all cases save one, rather I rejected the case of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak.

You deny that there is any strong evidence, in an Islamic sense, to say that Uqba bin Abu Muayt, Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak were killed. But you do not mention the others. In some of these cases the evidence is a little stronger. Kab bin al-Ashraf is mentioned in the aHadith.
Not quite. I never denied that Uqba ibn Abu Mauyt was killed. Let's see what I wrote:
Whilst it is true that Uqba bin Abu Muayt was put to death for all the misschief he caused, the narration that he begged is not even found in the authenthic seeras.
Could you please point out where I flat out denied that he was killed for his treason?

Would you mind explaining to me what Kab had done that he deserved to die?
Would you mind reading the article that I posted in my previous post?

He was killed for breaking the covenant signed between the Muslims and his tribe. He defamed the Muslim women.

In the article written by brother menj, it states:


Punishable Treason
As we have stated before, Ka'ab's actions were against a clause in the Madinah Covenant signed between the Muslims and the Jews of Madinah. The relevant stipulation of this covenant is as follows:

Loyalty is a protection against treachery.The freedmen of Thalaba are as themselves. The close friends are as themselves. None of them shall go out to war save with the permission of Muhammad, but he shall not be prevented from taking revenge for a wound. He who slays a man without warning slays himself and his whole household, unless it be one who has wronged him, for God will accept that. The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. A man is not liable for his ally's misdeeds. The wronged must be helped. The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war lasts. Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document. A stranger under protection shall be as his host doing no harm and committing no crime. A woman shall only be given protection with the consent of her family. If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the apostle of God. God accepts what is nearest to piety and goodness in this document. Quraysh and their helpers shall not be given protection.

His acts were openly directed against the Commonwealth, of which he was a member. It is therefore clear that Ka'ab bin Al-Ashraf's antagonism towards the Muslim community was his own undoing, and was no longer protected by the covenant that he himself had violated. Akram Diya' al-Umari remarks:

The killing of Ibn al Ashraf might be seen as an act of treachery, but on further reflection one realizes that Ibn al Ashraf was party to the treaty according to the Document by which the Jews of Banu al Nadir and others were committed. By slandering the Prophet, who was the head of state, and by showing his sympathy for the enemies of the Muslims (lamenting their dead and inciting them against the Muslims), Ibn al Ashraf had broken the treaty and declared war on the Muslims, and his blood could be shed with impunity. As for his being deceived and killed by those he had trusted, such action is legally permissible (ja'iz) in the case of those who have declared war on the Muslims, and it was carried out by order of the Messenger (See al Tahawi, Mushkil al-Athar). The Messenger, however, did not blame Banu al Nadir for Ibn al Ashraf's crime; it was sufficient to have him killed for his treachery. The Prophet, in fact, renewed his treaty with them (Banu al Nadir).

You do not mention the singing girls either

Sunun Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2678:

Narrated Sa'id ibn Yarbu' al-Makhzumi:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: on the day of the conquest of Mecca: There are four persons whom I shall not give protection in the sacred and non-sacred territory. He then named them. There were two singing girls of al-Maqis; one of them was killed and the other escaped and embraced Islam.

Would you mind telling me who the other four were?
I did mention the girls. Firstly, the girls were slave-girls but there is some conflict regarding their owner. Some narratives say that their owner was ibn Khatal and others mention that they were owned by Maquees. The first was killed for her treason whilst the other was pardoned and as a result, she embraced Islaam. al-Maqis was killed for killing a Muslim by deception, inciting hatred, breaking the covenant. Ibn Khatal was killed for inciting hatred, breaking the covenant and killing a Muslim servant for serving the food 'late'. The slave girl was killed for inciting hatred and breaking the covenant. One has to understand that their propaganda and inciting the non-Muslims to fight against the Muslims resulted in wars and loss of life.

The other fours were al-Maqis, Ibn Abu Jahal, Ibn Abu Sarh and ibn Khatal.




Now the question is, do you object against the punishment laid out for their treason?


Peace
Reply

HeiGou
02-23-2006, 05:31 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Interesting link.

That there was a war between Muslims and non-Muslims at the time of the alleged "assassination," in the third year of the Hijrah, is an undeniable fact. The question is whether Ka'b was among the combatants or the non-combatants. If he actually joined hands with the enemies of Islam and placed himself among those who were fighting with the Muslims, and he was killed by the Muslims, can this be called a case of treachery, cruelty or butchery? That Ka'b had openly joined the combatants and become their ally is borne out by all historical accounts; nay, some of them go so far as to say that he had planned to murder the Prophet(P) treacherously.
The problem with this is the constant blurring of lines. It asks if Ka'b placed himself among the combatants or non-combatants. Surely the question ought to be whether he took up arms. But no matter. Some accounts go so far as to say that he planned to murder Muhammed. I take it then, that he did not do so or they all would.

"He went to the Quraish weeping over their killed (at Badr) and inciting them to fight with the Prophet."
Then the obvious question would be, what was this incitement and what did it consist of?

Bukhari himself speaks of the incidents relating to the killing of Ka'b under headings in which the word harb (fighting) occurs, thus showing that he was looked upon as a combatant. Abu Dawud speaks of the incident under the heading, "When the enemy is attacked and he is unprepared," showing that Ka'b was dealt with as an enemy at war with Muslims.
The problem of those blurred lines is still there. We would all agree, I guess, that the Muslims thought of him as an enemy and treated him as such. The question is why - what did he actually do?

And Ibn Sa'd tells us that when the Jews complained to the Holy Prophet that their leader was killed, "he reminded them of his deeds and how he urged and incited (the Quraish) to fight against them,"
Thus it seems that his only crime was to "incite" the Quraysh to fight the Muslims. I still wonder how as we are dealing with hostile sources from Muslim authors. They may have different ideas of what incitement consists of.
Reply

HeiGou
02-23-2006, 05:41 PM
Originally Posted by kadafi
I never rejected all cases save one, rather I rejected the case of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak.
Right. Sorry.

Not quite. I never denied that Uqba ibn Abu Mauyt was killed.
>deletion<
Could you please point out where I flat out denied that he was killed for his treason?
OK I have misunderstood your objection. So you reject the begging. I am not going to argue about it. Do you agree he was killed for mocking Muhammed?

Would you mind reading the article that I posted in my previous post?
I think I have done that now and replied to it or were there two at bis.org?

He was killed for breaking the covenant signed between the Muslims and his tribe. He defamed the Muslim women.

In the article written by brother menj, it states:

Punishable Treason

As we have stated before, Ka'ab's actions were against a clause in the Madinah Covenant signed between the Muslims and the Jews of Madinah. The relevant stipulation of this covenant is as follows:

Loyalty is a protection against treachery.The freedmen of Thalaba are as themselves. The close friends are as themselves. None of them shall go out to war save with the permission of Muhammad, but he shall not be prevented from taking revenge for a wound. He who slays a man without warning slays himself and his whole household, unless it be one who has wronged him, for God will accept that. The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. A man is not liable for his ally's misdeeds. The wronged must be helped. The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war lasts. Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document. A stranger under protection shall be as his host doing no harm and committing no crime. A woman shall only be given protection with the consent of her family. If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the apostle of God. God accepts what is nearest to piety and goodness in this document. Quraysh and their helpers shall not be given protection.
I am sorry but what part of that is relevant? Where does it say you may not make fun of Muslim women or even, come to that, incite the Quraysh?

By slandering the Prophet, who was the head of state, and by showing his sympathy for the enemies of the Muslims (lamenting their dead and inciting them against the Muslims), Ibn al Ashraf had broken the treaty and declared war on the Muslims, and his blood could be shed with impunity.
So all he did was slander Muhammed and show his sympathies for the enemies of the Muslims. I think we are all in agreement here. I make no judgement on what was done. Just that something was done that involved more than forgiveness. This man slandered Muhammed. He was killed. The moral issues are for Muslims to argue about.

I did mention the girls. Firstly, the girls were slave-girls but there is some conflict regarding their owner. Some narratives say that their owner was ibn Khatal and others mention that they were owned by Maquees. The first was killed for her treason whilst the other was pardoned and as a result, she embraced Islaam.
Treason? A slave girl is owned by a man. That man may commit treason. Or not depending on your definition of treason. But how can a slave girl do so?

In any event she clearly did nothing but defame Muhammed. For which she was killed. Are we agreed on that?

The slave girl was killed for inciting hatred and breaking the covenant. One has to understand that their propaganda and inciting the non-Muslims to fight against the Muslims resulted in wars and loss of life.
I understand entirely.

The other fours were al-Maqis, Ibn Abu Jahal, Ibn Abu Sarh and ibn Khatal.
Thank you.

Now the question is, do you object against the punishment laid out for their treason?
Not really. At most I would quibble about the use of the word "treason" but it does not seem inappropriate. And I would object to the killing of the girl who cannot, as a slave, commit treason in this form, but if Islamic law says that slave girls must resist their owners at the cost, potentially, of their lives, that is what it says. Seems a little rough to me.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-23-2006, 08:30 PM
Hello Hei Gou,
I'm going to comment on a number of things you mentioned.
Originally Posted by HeiGou
May I ask who the Companion who died was?
That some of the companions died from the poisoning is mentioned in a number of narrations, for example Abu Dawud relates from Wahb b. Baqiyyah from Khalid from Muhammad b. Amr from ABu Salama who notes that is was Bishr b. al-Bara' b. al-Ma'rur who died immediately from the poisoning. It is also mentioned by Al-Bayhaqi who narrates from Abd al-Razzaq from Ma'mar from Al-Zuhri from Abdur-Rahman b. Ka'b b. Malik that some (pl) of the companions died as a result of the poisoning. Other reports from Ibn Lahia and Ibn Ishaq also mention the death of Bishr b. al-Bara' as a result of the poisoning.

Originally Posted by HeiGou
The problem with this is the constant blurring of lines. It asks if Ka'b placed himself among the combatants or non-combatants. Surely the question ought to be whether he took up arms.
A combatant is someone who rights, and if someone joins the combatants it means that they join the fighters. Musa b. Uqba, Ibn Ishaq and others relate that he incited the enemy troops to attacks the Muslims. If he joined the combatants and incited them, then there is no reason why he shouldn't be targeted. A General of an opposing army may be fought even if he doesn't take up arms himself, simply because he is associated with and instructing the combatants. Or take the case of any of the modern terrorist leaders who are wanted 'dead or alive', many of them for crimes that they have instructed their followers to carry out, even though they may not have personally killed anyone themselves.

I take it then, that he did not do so or they all would.
By what logic? Surely such a statement could only be made if there were contradictory accounts.

Then the obvious question would be, what was this incitement and what did it consist of?
As mentioned by Musa b. Uqba and others, the incitment consisted of his travel to Makkah after Badr and persistently confronting the Makkans, encouraging them to take revenge for their defeat at badr and specifically instigating an attack on the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. In short, he was calling for terrorist attacks, to use the modern language.

Musa b. Uqba, Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Kathir mention, "]He had not left Makkah before he had united them to fight the Messenger of God".

One other point - when Ka'b was leaving his house that night after Abu Naila called out to him, notice what his wife said to him:
But you're a man engaged in combat. Warriors don't go down at such as this!

Clearly, his military efforts against the Prophet Muhammad pbuh were known.
Reply

sweetangel16
02-24-2006, 03:04 AM
HeiGou
i advice u to read trusted sources then talk... dont think that anything u rea dbt islam is true because all u said was false...:D
Reply

HeiGou
02-24-2006, 10:49 AM
Originally Posted by sweetangel16
HeiGou
i advice u to read trusted sources then talk... dont think that anything u rea dbt islam is true because all u said was false...:D
Exactly how was all I said untrue? Everyone seems to be more or less in agreement here. No one is denying that the histories say what they say. There is a rejection of two accounts because of the level of proof demanded. But that still leaves five cases of people who mocked Muhammed. All that Ansar Al-Adl is doing is providing justification. I do not much care about the justification. The only point I am trying to make is the obvious one - you were wrong when you claimed Muhammed never killed people who mocked him and always forgave him. That is not true.
Reply

sargon
02-24-2006, 07:11 PM
Sunun Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2678:

Narrated Sa'id ibn Yarbu' al-Makhzumi:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: on the day of the conquest of Mecca: There are four persons whom I shall not give protection in the sacred and non-sacred territory. He then named them. There were two singing girls of al-Maqis; one of them was killed and the other escaped and embraced Islam.
Is this authentic? What's the story around it?
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-24-2006, 08:30 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
But that still leaves five cases of people who mocked Muhammed.
Which five case are you referring to?

Originally Posted by sargon
Is this authentic? What's the story around it?
This was explained by Br. Kadafi earlier.
Reply

HeiGou
02-26-2006, 05:26 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
That some of the companions died from the poisoning is mentioned in a number of narrations, for example Abu Dawud relates from Wahb b. Baqiyyah from Khalid from Muhammad b. Amr from ABu Salama who notes that is was Bishr b. al-Bara' b. al-Ma'rur who died immediately from the poisoning. It is also mentioned by Al-Bayhaqi who narrates from Abd al-Razzaq from Ma'mar from Al-Zuhri from Abdur-Rahman b. Ka'b b. Malik that some (pl) of the companions died as a result of the poisoning. Other reports from Ibn Lahia and Ibn Ishaq also mention the death of Bishr b. al-Bara' as a result of the poisoning.
Thank you for that.

A combatant is someone who rights, and if someone joins the combatants it means that they join the fighters. Musa b. Uqba, Ibn Ishaq and others relate that he incited the enemy troops to attacks the Muslims. If he joined the combatants and incited them, then there is no reason why he shouldn't be targeted.
Except you are joining together two things there - joining the combatants with arms in hand, and "inciting" them. This incitement also blurs two different things - what Muslims retrospecitively have seen as incitement and what the man at the time (including his culture) saw as incitement.

A General of an opposing army may be fought even if he doesn't take up arms himself, simply because he is associated with and instructing the combatants. Or take the case of any of the modern terrorist leaders who are wanted 'dead or alive', many of them for crimes that they have instructed their followers to carry out, even though they may not have personally killed anyone themselves.
But someone who merely says Osama Bin Laden is a good man is not killed. He is not even guilty of much (although Tony Blair may change that). A General is obviously a different case to someone who merely recites a few poems mourning the dead.

By what logic? Surely such a statement could only be made if there were contradictory accounts.
Well there is no incentive to be nice about this man. There are many good reasons to be nasty about him. The least offensive claim is probably the truest.

As mentioned by Musa b. Uqba and others, the incitment consisted of his travel to Makkah after Badr and persistently confronting the Makkans, encouraging them to take revenge for their defeat at badr and specifically instigating an attack on the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. In short, he was calling for terrorist attacks, to use the modern language.
There were no terrorist attacks back then - except when the odd Jewish man was killed secretly and through lies. He was, surely, "inciting" conventional warfare or what passed for it among Arabs at the time. The website I used included some of his poetry - do you know the precise words he used to incite these attacks?

It is odd that a man who merely "incited" attacks is killed without mercy, but the men who actually led or took part in the attacks were forgiven. The ways of the Lord are mysterious indeed.

In any event, I do not see there is much to argue about here. You clearly think this attack was justified. I see no benefit is disputing it. The previous poster was wrong when she said Muhammed never killed anyone for mocking him and always forgave them.
Reply

kadafi
02-26-2006, 10:21 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
I am sorry but what part of that is relevant? Where does it say you may not make fun of Muslim women or even, come to that, incite the Quraysh?
Greetings

It was an exercept from the full article. See above.

So all he did was slander Muhammed and show his sympathies for the enemies of the Muslims. I think we are all in agreement here. I make no judgement on what was done. Just that something was done that involved more than forgiveness. This man slandered Muhammed. He was killed. The moral issues are for Muslims to argue about
He slandered the Prophet, incited the enemies of Muslims against them and basically broke the covenant. And last time I checked, treason is punishable by capital punishment for most countries.

Treason? A slave girl is owned by a man. That man may commit treason. Or not depending on your definition of treason. But how can a slave girl do so?
Her treachery was not out of coercion. Her hate and actions made her break the covenant or did you expect that slave girls were exempted?

And I would object to the killing of the girl who cannot, as a slave, commit treason in this form, but if Islamic law says that slave girls must resist their owners at the cost, potentially, of their lives, that is what it says. Seems a little rough to me.
Some slaves during the period resisted their oppressing owners by converting to Islaam. Some were subjected to heavy punishment, eg Bilaal, who had to endure the savage torturings inflicted on him. Those slave-girls willingly violated the covenant and thus were not forced. The Prophet could have tried all the inhabitants of Makkah for treason, but he did not, instead he forgave them except the extreme ones which had caused the loss of many lives.
Reply

HeiGou
02-27-2006, 10:33 AM
Originally Posted by kadafi
Her treachery was not out of coercion. Her hate and actions made her break the covenant or did you expect that slave girls were exempted?
Obviously slave girls are subject to coercion. They cannot really consent to much. This is why the law tends to go easy on them in most places. May I ask you why you think the Quran, when it talks about slave girls forced into prostitution, promises them forgiveness? Does it promise forgiveness for free girls who choose to go into prostitution?

Those slave-girls willingly violated the covenant and thus were not forced. The Prophet could have tried all the inhabitants of Makkah for treason, but he did not, instead he forgave them except the extreme ones which had caused the loss of many lives.
Where is the evidence that they willingly did anything?

The extreme ones which had caused the loss of many lives? Just for the record, and I am happy to let this thread die about here, the extreme ones includes several people who sang songs making fun of Muhammed, but not a single person who actually killed any Muslims? That is, those that inflicted loss on the Muslims were forgiven. But those who caused harm through words alone were ordered killed?
Reply

kadafi
02-27-2006, 03:31 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Obviously slave girls are subject to coercion. They cannot really consent to much. This is why the law tends to go easy on them in most places. May I ask you why you think the Quran, when it talks about slave girls forced into prostitution, promises them forgiveness? Does it promise forgiveness for free girls who choose to go into prostitution?
Subjected to coercion in general, yes, but in this particular case, she wasn't. If she was forced, she would have pleaded but didn't. My guess, and it remains a guess is that the second slave girl was forced or she apologised and as a result was forgiven by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). The Prophet would never punish someone who was compelled into doing something. This is evident in the Qur'aan and in the actions of the Prophet. So your claim that she was forced is baseless.



The extreme ones which had caused the loss of many lives? Just for the record, and I am happy to let this thread die about here, the extreme ones includes several people who sang songs making fun of Muhammed, but not a single person who actually killed any Muslims? That is, those that inflicted loss on the Muslims were forgiven. But those who caused harm through words alone were ordered killed?
Maquees deceived a Muslim and killed him. Ibn Khatal killed his Muslim servant for serving the food too late. But then agaom, those extra crimes (murders) had no bearing on their execution since Islaam does not legislate capital punishment when it comes to murder. The main reason for his or their death was treason.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-27-2006, 05:19 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
Thank you for that.
Your welcome. Now are you going to answer Kadafi's original question?
In addition, why didn't the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) order the killing of a Jewish Woman who brought him a poisoned cooked sheep?
Except you are joining together two things there - joining the combatants with arms in hand, and "inciting" them. This incitement also blurs two different things - what Muslims retrospecitively have seen as incitement and what the man at the time (including his culture) saw as incitement.
I explained very clearly that he specifically travelled to Makkah and unified the Makkans to take revenge. The fact that he was involved in combat was also known to his family as I pointed out with the quote from his wife. And when someone 'joins' the combatants it means that they become part of the military personnel, just like any commander, strategist, jet pilot, etc. Only in this case, he was more than just an accomplice or participant - he was the mastermind behind the attacks.

But someone who merely says Osama Bin Laden is a good man is not killed.
What about Osama Bin Laden, himself? Is he not wanted 'dead or alive'? Is there no such thing as hate crimes, where a man in a western democratic nation will be arrested and detained for an indefinite period of time for inciting violence or what about plotting attacks? All of these are criminal offences, as you should know.
A General is obviously a different case to someone who merely recites a few poems mourning the dead.
Can you provide evidence that he did nothing other than recite 'a few poems mourning the dead' ? Are you not following your conjecture in this matter?

Well there is no incentive to be nice about this man. There are many good reasons to be nasty about him. The least offensive claim is probably the truest.
Only if other claims are negated or contradicted by it. Neglecting certain details in narrations does not falsify those details in other narrations, especially when they are found in almost all narrations save a few isolated ones.

There were no terrorist attacks back then
There certainly were. And that was what Kab was inciting.
except when the odd Jewish man was killed secretly and through lies.
No 'odd jewish man' was killed secretly, the one who was killed was a man who was incited the Makkan attacks on Madinah and violated the treaty by instigated conflict between the Muslims and their surrounding neighbors.

The website I used included some of his poetry - do you know the precise words he used to incite these attacks?
I have read some of the narrations, but as for what is established, we know that he proclaimed his enmity and incited people to go to war in Madinah (note, a violation of the treaty) and he had not left Makkah before he had united them to fight the Messenger of God.

It is odd that a man who merely "incited" attacks is killed without mercy, but the men who actually led or took part in the attacks were forgiven.
Is it odd then, that the Nuremburg trials allowed many soldiers who had a direct hand in the war to go free, but the masterminds, strategists, leaders amongst the Nazi party where killed?

The previous poster was wrong when she said Muhammed never killed anyone for mocking him and always forgave them.
Well you did ignore my question:
Which five case are you referring to?
In your post to kadafi you wrote:
Where is the evidence that they willingly did anything?
Where is your evidence that they were coerced?
Reply

HeiGou
02-27-2006, 05:49 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Your welcome. Now are you going to answer Kadafi's original question?
In addition, why didn't the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) order the killing of a Jewish Woman who brought him a poisoned cooked sheep?
I thought I did. I do not know why. I can offer some conjectures but no more. And I have done that once. I would rather not do it twice.

I explained very clearly that he specifically travelled to Makkah and unified the Makkans to take revenge. The fact that he was involved in combat was also known to his family as I pointed out with the quote from his wife. And when someone 'joins' the combatants it means that they become part of the military personnel, just like any commander, strategist, jet pilot, etc. Only in this case, he was more than just an accomplice or participant - he was the mastermind behind the attacks.
He has gone from being someone who incited attacks to someone who was a mastermind behind the attacks? What is the evidence for what he actually did? I do not dispute that your sources describe him as a combatant. It is just that cultures change and perhaps they had a different idea of what that meant. It is important to work out exactly what his deeds consisted of.

What about Osama Bin Laden, himself? Is he not wanted 'dead or alive'? Is there no such thing as hate crimes, where a man in a western democratic nation will be arrested and detained for an indefinite period of time for inciting violence or what about plotting attacks? All of these are criminal offences, as you should know.
OBL does not merely praise, he plans and funds. He chooses the partipants. I doubt that anyone in the West can be arrested and detained for an indefinite time for hate crimes, or even for inciting violence. Plotting attacks is another matter. Where are these all criminal offenses?

Can you provide evidence that he did nothing other than recite 'a few poems mourning the dead' ? Are you not following your conjecture in this matter?
It is the only evidence I have seen. I am working from a low base but I hope to learn more soon.

There certainly were. And that was what Kab was inciting.
What terror attacks took place in Arabia in the 7th century? What is the evidence that Kab was inciting anything like a terror attack?

No 'odd jewish man' was killed secretly, the one who was killed was a man who was incited the Makkan attacks on Madinah and violated the treaty by instigated conflict between the Muslims and their surrounding neighbors.
Odd, here, is a rough number. Where in the Treaty does it say that incitement was forbidden?

I have read some of the narrations, but as for what is established, we know that he proclaimed his enmity and incited people to go to war in Madinah (note, a violation of the treaty) and he had not left Makkah before he had united them to fight the Messenger of God.
"united". An odd choice of words. Which narrations are these?

Is it odd then, that the Nuremburg trials allowed many soldiers who had a direct hand in the war to go free, but the masterminds, strategists, leaders amongst the Nazi party where killed?
Well no, because you misunderstand what people were executed for. Those soldiers who took part in war crimes were executed - Sepp Deitrich for instance. But those that were in positions of power and ordered the war, planned the war, launched the war, they too were held to be guilty. Yet very few of them were executed. Merely providing propaganda for the Germans was not a crime worthy of death unless you were a British national. Even then you had to do it at a time of war.

Well you did ignore my question:
Which five case are you referring to?
No I think I answered that too. I originally brought up seven cases. Two were rejected as they are merely based on Ibn Ishaq - although only in part. Which by my calculation left five.

In your post to kadafi you wrote:

Where is your evidence that they were coerced?
Of all the slave girls in Mecca only these two sang songs about Muhammed? And they were owned by a man who also recited poem about Muhammed? It seems a little coincidental don't you think? They are slaves. Coercion is implicit and it is a reasonable assumption it existed unless proved otherwise.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
02-27-2006, 09:13 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
I thought I did. I do not know why. I can offer some conjectures but no more. And I have done that once.
The conjecture you offered was negated by the fact that another companion died as a result of the poisoning. The point here is that Kadafi is right - the Prophet Muhammad pbuh was inclined to forgiving people whenever possible.

He has gone from being someone who incited attacks to someone who was a mastermind behind the attacks? What is the evidence for what he actually did?
It is quite clear that he was successful in his attempts to instigate, and there seems to be few other people who were as instrumental in motivating the Makkans for revenge as he. Can you name for me someone else who probably had a bigger hand in pushing the Makkans to war?

OBL does not merely praise, he plans and funds. He chooses the partipants.
So we agree that someone who orchestrates attacks bears some guilt, correct?

I doubt that anyone in the West can be arrested and detained for an indefinite time for hate crimes, or even for inciting violence. Plotting attacks is another matter. Where are these all criminal offenses?
Western nations like the United States and Britain.

It is the only evidence I have seen. I am working from a low base but I hope to learn more soon.
The problem here is that you're implying that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh killed people for mocking him or voicing disagreement, etc. But there is no evidence to support such allegations. You said that sweetangel16 was incorrect when she said:
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...
But the fact is that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh never killed anyone for personal reasons, such as mocking or hurting him, as mentioned above. You have not established anything to the contrary.

What terror attacks took place in Arabia in the 7th century? What is the evidence that Kab was inciting anything like a terror attack?
Who defines what a terrorist attack is?

Odd, here, is a rough number.
Then how many people are talking about?
Where in the Treaty does it say that incitement was forbidden?
A peace treaty entails that one does not support, much less incite, enemies to attack those with whom a peace treaty is made.

"united". An odd choice of words. Which narrations are these?
Those quoted in Sirah An-Nabawiyyah by Ibn Kathîr, vol. 3, p. 7.

Those soldiers who took part in war crimes were executed - Sepp Deitrich for instance.
There were a vast number of soldiers who weren't because as they said, 'they were just following orders'.
But those that were in positions of power and ordered the war, planned the war, launched the war, they too were held to be guilty.
Yes, those who orchestrate and plan conflict are punishable.
Merely providing propaganda for the Germans was not a crime worthy of death unless you were a British national. Even then you had to do it at a time of war.
Then you have just demonstrated my point. Ka'b was a member of the Jewish tribe with whom there was a peace treaty and this was also a time of war between the Muslims and the Makkans.

Which by my calculation left five.
So to be clear, which five are we talking about?

Of all the slave girls in Mecca only these two sang songs about Muhammed? And they were owned by a man who also recited poem about Muhammed? It seems a little coincidental don't you think?
Influence is one thing, coercion is another. We can assume influence, but we cannot assume coercion in any case.
Reply

HeiGou
03-11-2006, 05:28 PM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
The conjecture you offered was negated by the fact that another companion died as a result of the poisoning. The point here is that Kadafi is right - the Prophet Muhammad pbuh was inclined to forgiving people whenever possible.
I have never denied that Muhammed was inclined to forgive people who became Muslims. It is just that the original claim - that he never killed anyone - was not true.

It is quite clear that he was successful in his attempts to instigate, and there seems to be few other people who were as instrumental in motivating the Makkans for revenge as he. Can you name for me someone else who probably had a bigger hand in pushing the Makkans to war?
Well I have always thought Muhammed did probably but that is one of those topics that is going to get us nowhere.

So we agree that someone who orchestrates attacks bears some guilt, correct?
Someone who orchestrates attacks yes. Someone who merely recites some poetry that some religious zealots interpret as incitement, well that is a little tricky. I have asked for exactly what he said - presumable the Sirah records it. So what did he specifically say?

The problem here is that you're implying that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh killed people for mocking him or voicing disagreement, etc. But there is no evidence to support such allegations. You said that sweetangel16 was incorrect when she said:
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...
But the fact is that the Prophet Muhammad pbuh never killed anyone for personal reasons, such as mocking or hurting him, as mentioned above. You have not established anything to the contrary.
Except for the slave girls and we have both established just that. You put the term more harshly than I did, but we are in agreement that he killed people merely for what they said. And he thought about killing a fair few more. The other slave girl for instance.

Who defines what a terrorist attack is?
You have asserted there were terrorist attacks in Arabia back then - you tell me what your definition is. Which attacks are you thinking of?

A peace treaty entails that one does not support, much less incite, enemies to attack those with whom a peace treaty is made.
Really? Where does it say that? This is an implicit condition perhaps? Does that also apply to Muhammed during the period after the treaty with the Meccans when he built up a coalition against the Quraysh?

Those quoted in Sirah An-Nabawiyyah by Ibn Kathîr, vol. 3, p. 7.
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?

There were a vast number of soldiers who weren't because as they said, 'they were just following orders'.
And there were too many of them. 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?

Yes, those who orchestrate and plan conflict are punishable.
But not those that merely recite poems.

Then you have just demonstrated my point. Ka'b was a member of the Jewish tribe with whom there was a peace treaty and this was also a time of war between the Muslims and the Makkans.
So he did not play a major role in the war because it was already on-going?

So to be clear, which five are we talking about?
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.

So far, it is clear that they did little except speak out of turn. And were killed.

Influence is one thing, coercion is another. We can assume influence, but we cannot assume coercion in any case.
We can assume coertion as they were slave girls and hence coerced every day all the time. Or they would have run for it.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
03-13-2006, 04:12 AM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
I have never denied that Muhammed was inclined to forgive people who became Muslims. It is just that the original claim - that he never killed anyone - was not true.
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.

Really?
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.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!