Assassinations

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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.

format_quote 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.