J
jakasaki
Guest
Are you being sarcastic…??? Inquiring minds want to know…!!Sup Reuben?
- Status
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Hi Sister Amy! Thanks. Welcome back to the Forum.Sup Reuben?
Hope to see you here again.
God bless.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
There were some mutual recognition when my path crossed with her and that’s encouraging though there were unmistakable differences too. Sometimes the rhetoric and sarcasm certainly do not help especially in discussing things that are closed to our hearts and when we are faced with opposing views.Are you being sarcastic…??? Inquiring minds want to know…!!
God bless and hey, thanks for that moral support.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Thanks elwill for still being civil in this discussion. I appreciate that.should i repeat all what i said again
broking a treaty ( treaty of peace) is treachery . (when you read this treaty you will understand why broking it considered treachery )
his inciting to Banu Nadir to revolt and make Civil War with muslims to help mekkans agianst muslims after they signed a treaty of peace with muslims is treachery
when he left Madinah and pledged allegiance to Mekkah during the time of official war between mekans and muslims , made himself one of the enemy who deserve to be killed
the fact that Kab went to the prophet Muhammad’s enemy and incited them against him?
that’s the same reason you can find govenments in the world will kill the spys , even if they didn’t kill directly anyone
so let him (Ka’b) do that with any other way but poem , he will deserve the same punishment , the problem was basically his treachery , not his treachery by poems , treachey isn’t accepted by any means
Back in time of mohammed (pbuh) , poem was so powerful that it was used to start wars. So you will find in the History of wars, before any battle, the poets were throwing verses of poems before throwing arrows.
Arabic poetry can be very influential and cannot be thought of in the terms of English poetry or any other forms of poetry in other languages
you have right to believe in what you want , it’s enough for me to represent the facts from islamic prespective
and i thank you for listnning anyway
I agree with you that the poem can be very influential especially in a world where word of mouths was the major mode of communication. However I still maintain that the killing served much more for a bigger military ambition.
As per the Hadith, the only sure motive in the killing is because “He has hurt Allah and Allah’s apostle”. Hurt or malign here is nothing to do with warfare as no military operation was mounted whatsoever against Mohammad.
The official reason for the killing was because of the eulogy in the form of poem that satirizing Mohammad by Ka’b in remembering the ‘notables of Mekkan who were put to death by him’.
Other than this there are conflicting commentaries on the motive for the murder. Among them:
(1) Ka’b also composed a poem that put the Muslim women in a bad light. In the tribal honor of the day this slight is enough reason to kill him.
(2) Ka’b incited the Mekkan to rise against Mohammad thus committing treason. To kill Ka’b for this reason was shrewd military move as it would eliminate an enemy before he could do more damage.
However, there was no real evidence to really support the above two propositions. It was more of an attempt of justification for the killing by not using the reason of being ‘maligned’ by the poem.
There are also conflicting report on the background of Ka’b – especially saying that he was a Jew while another report says that he was of mixed parental origin. Another is saying that he was a Medinan while others say that he was a Mekkan. One commentary says that he was killed before the battle of Uhud while other says that it was after the battle of Badr.
If we look at the alternative report, one side was obviously trying to shore up the contention that the reason for the killing was treason. However, the other side of the commentary obviously implied that treason did not happen.
In any case it is more pertinent to observe the subsequent events that took place after the killing of Ka’b. His tribe was attacked and Mekka was invaded. What is certain is that the killing of Ka’b served a greater military ambition on the part of Mohammad. It also served as a strategic military tactic to intimidate the enemy.
**p/s **
As for categorizing Ka’b as a Jew - sometimes it is easier to get support if one can create a perception that he is the enemy and not one of yours. Propaganda does play a major role in war and getting people to support your ideal.
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Howdy howdy howdy. My life has been busy… I graduated, got married, moved across the country, enrolled in a full-time Arabic program and moved somewhere else. I don’t know how long I’ll stay around, since I’m pretty busy. But lately I’ve needed to take some mental gear shifts so… here I am.Oh My Good God Sister Amy - where have you been…???
Man, oh man, you left ions ago & haven’t returned…!!!
Nice to see you back -are you staying this time…???
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
I wasn’t being sarcastic, no. Just interrupting the thread for a grand howdy-do. Sorry.Are you being sarcastic…??? Inquiring minds want to know…!!
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Unfortunately I left my seerah books back in Washington so I can’t add much new to the discussion that’s authentic (other than my sarcasm which… well, sorry in advance.)
But I wonder why it matters at all whether or not Ka’b was a Jew, a pagan, or anything else? Or, why would it matter if he were Makkan or Madinan? How is it relevant at all to the discussion? People became Muslim from the Jews and from the pagans, just as people became enemies to Islam from the same. People became Muslim from the Makkans and from the Madinans (although I’m never sure in my life I’ve called them “Madinans” before), just as people became enemies of Islam from both.
So it seems trivial to me–why is it relevant?
But I wonder why it matters at all whether or not Ka’b was a Jew, a pagan, or anything else? Or, why would it matter if he were Makkan or Madinan? How is it relevant at all to the discussion? People became Muslim from the Jews and from the pagans, just as people became enemies to Islam from the same. People became Muslim from the Makkans and from the Madinans (although I’m never sure in my life I’ve called them “Madinans” before), just as people became enemies of Islam from both.
So it seems trivial to me–why is it relevant?
M
men0wjv
Guest
You’re right propaganda does play a role in war and de-humanising the ‘enemy’ is part and parcel of that. My point was simply that a Rabbi would define Ka’b as a Jew owing to his mum being Jewish. Its not a big thing as Sister Amy points out, but I just wanted to make explicitly clear that racism had no sway over his assassination… mention of Ka’b as simply ‘Jew’ meant he was part of the Jewish tribe Banu Nadir, which of course is significant. Pretty sure there werent any Mekkan Jewish tribes either.
You can find online version of Ar Raheeq Al Makhtum at: sunnipath.com/library/Books/B0033P0000.aspx just as published
ibn Ishaq: web.archive.org/web/20040625103910/http://www.hraic.org/hadith/ibn_ishaq.html#The%20earliest%20biography%20of%20Muhammad,%20by%20ibn%20Ishaq though not confirmed accuracy of translation
E
elwill
Guest
or may be meant that he followed the judaism as a relegion
someone can’t to be jew and pagan in the same time offcourse
the fact is that he was jew , and he lived in Yathrib ( madinah now ) and was a chief in his tibe (Bani nadir) . being have a pagan father in mekkah dosn’t contradict the fact that he was jew
the point is that their is no problem if the same man is jew and Mekkan and Madinian in the same time
exactly as if their is no problem if i said " i’m egyption (father part) and american (mother part) and muslim (my relegion) "
E
elwill
Guest
i agree with you that the killing served much more but for a safty of his communityThanks elwill for still being civil in this discussion. I appreciate that.
I agree with you that the poem can be very influential especially in a world where word of mouths was the major mode of communication. However I still maintain that the killing served much more for a bigger military ambition.
This poet already lighted the fire of war against my beloved Prophet and Islam, and if left alone was going to poor petrol in that fire. And the entire barbaric Arabs were going to stand against Him and Islam. The only way to put off that fire was to finish him.
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ordered to kill him because his life would have costed many lives of companions as he was inciting Meccan to attack Madina.
It’s normal for a leader to make sure the safety of his community.
The Messenger, 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).
M
men0wjv
Guest
Not really crucial to the discussion, but just because I’m sad
Take the point and this is true if we take Judaism as a religion only. As Dr Rabbi Normon Solomon makes a similie between Judaism and with the definition of a tomato; the botanist calls it a fruit, the chef calls it a vegetable - is Judaism a religion, race or ethnic group? So the definition is difficult anyway, and possibly owing to his Arab father (give Arabs are patriarchal) then he could be considered Arab. But then what is an Arab? Classical definitions are anyone that speaks classical Arabic, which would place him as an Arab definately… and also Jewish??? Difficult! Its been a long time since I studied sirah (the prophetic biography), but I think the words of Ar Raheeq Al Makhtum ‘He belonged to Tai’ tribe but his mother to Banu Nadeer’ was suggesting that by race he was considered Jewish and therefore part of the Jewish tribe. Whether his bowing to the idols in Mekkah showed apostasy or simply allegiance to Mekkah could be up for debate, but it seems more likely that its the latter. Anyway just pure academia
P
PNS2A
Guest
Peace and blessing be upon you all. I have noticed this topic of Ka’b. I myself before looking at anything, believe in using logic. My first understanding of Ka’b is that he was not an innocent man who did not do anything to provoke the muslim, which I am sure most of you will agree with.
The real situation behind this assassination is the fact that Ka’b was trying to go against the muslims. There was a treaty between the muslims and the Arabs, Jews etc. But before we go there lets analyse the situation.
Ka’b was furious about the fact that the Arabs and Jews lost at the battle of Badr hence the reason for this sudden jealousy. Good example is if my country go to war or battle I am 100% behind my country. If they are victorious then I am happy and if they lose I am not happy. Now there is different levels of being a sore loser. Another good example is in sport ie. English Football. When a team loses the supporters tend to react. Some go to the extent of beating people and even stabbing them - Which definately happens in England! So there are levels of reactions.
Secondly Ka’b Firstly broke the treaty but not only that he went to the extent of calling up other tribes both Jews and Arabs to go against Mohammed(pbuh) and assasinate him (He was not the first person in the arab tribes to plan an assasination against Mohammed {pbuh}). Due to this loss in battle (Along with alot of his friends) which was a great shame for him and his followers (Poiltical party/ Tribe) he wanted Mohhammed killed. If some one kills your brother naturally you’d want to avenge their death.
Also due to the loss in battle he started writing these obscene stories of Muslim women etc.
If we really analyse his behaviour. We should firstly look at the stories, he never wrote these things before the battle of Badr. His understanding was the muslims were out numbered by the Jews and Arabs (Muslims 313 and Arabs around 1000 as well as the arabs being far better equiped) so his initial thought is, this is the end of Mohammed. But when they lost you can imagine his anger. He was like a sore loser and was driven by his anger to firstly write these poem that he never wrote before. My question would be why write these obscene materials soon after you lost a battle. This shows me the effect it has over Ka’b. To write about someone because you could not beat them is a bit lame (Childish etc) and secondly it is obvious he wanted to provoke the opposite party.
So just upon reading a Hadith you cannot go and draw a full picture especially if it does not contain most of the vital background information, also it is pointless being bias if you seek knowledge as you will only pick up what you are only looking for and not the full picture. Secondly When the treaty was broken Gibrael was sent to Mohammed(pbuh) telling him of this and the plans of the opposition hense the reason he was given permission for this action. Arabic words as you all may be aware have various meanings so when Mohammed (pbuh) told his follower to get the job done he meant that and didnt say to lie. If I say get the job done the best possible way, does not mean to lie?
Thirdly If Mohammed (pbuh) and the Muslims wanted to kill people why on earth would he want peace or even sign a peace treaty with others??? If he wanted to kill out of jealousy or anger or even from shame he could do that anytime but that is oppression which is forbidden in Islam. Muslims are not allowed to kill anyone unless it is through self defence. After the battle of Badr he could of killed Ka’b regardless of any reason if he was that type of person.
Anyway lastly I just want to mention about the the laws of God. when people say god said do not kill so why do people kill. The phrase do not kill comes from Judaism, Christianity and Islam - Agreed. So here Islam is contradicting Gods word? Common sense would be look at the picture properly. If God gives you the right to protect yourself ie. If a burglar comes in your house you will defend yourself by any means this was the case with Mohammed (pbuh). Finally if this still is not satisfactory lets look at the bigger picture, God is not a killer so how can he ask Mohammed to kill especially over criticism??? If that is the case lets look at the law as a whole. God kills people over not listening to him - can this be our lord??? He killed the poeple of Noah with the flood for not listening to him and mocking him - Not because of anything else! he killed Pharoah a great host for not listening to him and mocking him After he let the people of Israel go he went after them and tried to kill them but that didnt work (Self defence by God). He killed the poeple of sodom and Gomoriah for not listening to him and not following his laws. Surely we need to draw the line and say God does as he wills, he kills who he wills and he guides who he wills. If Gods does not punish people then why on earth would God kill all these nations?
Mohammed killed only on gods permission and not out of anything else or he will never be able to kill anyone. And that verse is only an example of that time, to say that you should not be oppressed by anyone (Democracy) and if they come to kill you then you have a right to defend yourself. Anyway I hope some of it makes sense it is probably not the best of explanations however peace and blessings of God be upon everyone including the Christian and the Jewish brothers and I apologies in advance if it has offended anyone which is not my intention.
The real situation behind this assassination is the fact that Ka’b was trying to go against the muslims. There was a treaty between the muslims and the Arabs, Jews etc. But before we go there lets analyse the situation.
Ka’b was furious about the fact that the Arabs and Jews lost at the battle of Badr hence the reason for this sudden jealousy. Good example is if my country go to war or battle I am 100% behind my country. If they are victorious then I am happy and if they lose I am not happy. Now there is different levels of being a sore loser. Another good example is in sport ie. English Football. When a team loses the supporters tend to react. Some go to the extent of beating people and even stabbing them - Which definately happens in England! So there are levels of reactions.
Secondly Ka’b Firstly broke the treaty but not only that he went to the extent of calling up other tribes both Jews and Arabs to go against Mohammed(pbuh) and assasinate him (He was not the first person in the arab tribes to plan an assasination against Mohammed {pbuh}). Due to this loss in battle (Along with alot of his friends) which was a great shame for him and his followers (Poiltical party/ Tribe) he wanted Mohhammed killed. If some one kills your brother naturally you’d want to avenge their death.
Also due to the loss in battle he started writing these obscene stories of Muslim women etc.
If we really analyse his behaviour. We should firstly look at the stories, he never wrote these things before the battle of Badr. His understanding was the muslims were out numbered by the Jews and Arabs (Muslims 313 and Arabs around 1000 as well as the arabs being far better equiped) so his initial thought is, this is the end of Mohammed. But when they lost you can imagine his anger. He was like a sore loser and was driven by his anger to firstly write these poem that he never wrote before. My question would be why write these obscene materials soon after you lost a battle. This shows me the effect it has over Ka’b. To write about someone because you could not beat them is a bit lame (Childish etc) and secondly it is obvious he wanted to provoke the opposite party.
So just upon reading a Hadith you cannot go and draw a full picture especially if it does not contain most of the vital background information, also it is pointless being bias if you seek knowledge as you will only pick up what you are only looking for and not the full picture. Secondly When the treaty was broken Gibrael was sent to Mohammed(pbuh) telling him of this and the plans of the opposition hense the reason he was given permission for this action. Arabic words as you all may be aware have various meanings so when Mohammed (pbuh) told his follower to get the job done he meant that and didnt say to lie. If I say get the job done the best possible way, does not mean to lie?
Thirdly If Mohammed (pbuh) and the Muslims wanted to kill people why on earth would he want peace or even sign a peace treaty with others??? If he wanted to kill out of jealousy or anger or even from shame he could do that anytime but that is oppression which is forbidden in Islam. Muslims are not allowed to kill anyone unless it is through self defence. After the battle of Badr he could of killed Ka’b regardless of any reason if he was that type of person.
Anyway lastly I just want to mention about the the laws of God. when people say god said do not kill so why do people kill. The phrase do not kill comes from Judaism, Christianity and Islam - Agreed. So here Islam is contradicting Gods word? Common sense would be look at the picture properly. If God gives you the right to protect yourself ie. If a burglar comes in your house you will defend yourself by any means this was the case with Mohammed (pbuh). Finally if this still is not satisfactory lets look at the bigger picture, God is not a killer so how can he ask Mohammed to kill especially over criticism??? If that is the case lets look at the law as a whole. God kills people over not listening to him - can this be our lord??? He killed the poeple of Noah with the flood for not listening to him and mocking him - Not because of anything else! he killed Pharoah a great host for not listening to him and mocking him After he let the people of Israel go he went after them and tried to kill them but that didnt work (Self defence by God). He killed the poeple of sodom and Gomoriah for not listening to him and not following his laws. Surely we need to draw the line and say God does as he wills, he kills who he wills and he guides who he wills. If Gods does not punish people then why on earth would God kill all these nations?
Mohammed killed only on gods permission and not out of anything else or he will never be able to kill anyone. And that verse is only an example of that time, to say that you should not be oppressed by anyone (Democracy) and if they come to kill you then you have a right to defend yourself. Anyway I hope some of it makes sense it is probably not the best of explanations however peace and blessings of God be upon everyone including the Christian and the Jewish brothers and I apologies in advance if it has offended anyone which is not my intention.
P
PNS2A
Guest
Peace and blessing be upon you all. I have noticed this topic of Ka’b. I myself before looking at anything, believe in using logic. My first understanding of Ka’b is that he was not an innocent man who did not do anything to provoke the muslim, which I am sure most of you will agree with.
The real situation behind this assassination is the fact that Ka’b was trying to go against the muslims. There was a treaty between the muslims and the Arabs, Jews etc. But before we go there lets analyse the situation.
Ka’b was furious about the fact that the Arabs and Jews lost at the battle of Badr hence the reason for this sudden jealousy. Good example is if my country go to war or battle I am 100% behind my country. If they are victorious then I am happy and if they lose I am not happy. Now there is different levels of being a sore loser. Another good example is in sport ie. English Football. When a team loses the supporters tend to react. Some go to the extent of beating people and even stabbing them - Which definately happens in England! So there are levels of reactions.
Secondly Ka’b Firstly broke the treaty but not only that he went to the extent of calling up other tribes both Jews and Arabs to go against Mohammed(pbuh) and assasinate him (He was not the first person in the arab tribes to plan an assasination against Mohammed {pbuh}). Due to this loss in battle (Along with alot of his friends) which was a great shame for him and his followers (Poiltical party/ Tribe) he wanted Mohhammed killed. If some one kills your brother naturally you’d want to avenge their death.
Also due to the loss in battle he started writing these obscene stories of Muslim women etc.
If we really analyse his behaviour. We should firstly look at the stories, he never wrote these things before the battle of Badr. His understanding was the muslims were out numbered by the Jews and Arabs (Muslims 313 and Arabs around 1000 as well as the arabs being far better equiped) so his initial thought is, this is the end of Mohammed. But when they lost you can imagine his anger. He was like a sore loser and was driven by his anger to firstly write these poem that he never wrote before. My question would be why write these obscene materials soon after you lost a battle. This shows me the effect it has over Ka’b. To write about someone because you could not beat them is a bit lame (Childish etc) and secondly it is obvious he wanted to provoke the opposite party.
So just upon reading a Hadith you cannot go and draw a full picture especially if it does not contain most of the vital background information, also it is pointless being bias if you seek knowledge as you will only pick up what you are only looking for and not the full picture. Secondly When the treaty was broken Gibrael was sent to Mohammed(pbuh) telling him of this and the plans of the opposition hense the reason he was given permission for this action. Arabic words as you all may be aware have various meanings so when Mohammed (pbuh) told his follower to get the job done he meant that and didnt say to lie. If I say get the job done the best possible way, does not mean to lie?
Thirdly If Mohammed (pbuh) and the Muslims wanted to kill people why on earth would he want peace or even sign a peace treaty with others??? If he wanted to kill out of jealousy or anger or even from shame he could do that anytime but that is oppression which is forbidden in Islam. Muslims are not allowed to kill anyone unless it is through self defence. After the battle of Badr he could of killed Ka’b regardless of any reason if he was that type of person.
Anyway lastly I just want to mention about the the laws of God. when people say god said do not kill so why do people kill. The phrase do not kill comes from Judaism, Christianity and Islam - Agreed. So here Islam is contradicting Gods word? Common sense would be look at the picture properly. If God gives you the right to protect yourself ie. If a burglar comes in your house you will defend yourself by any means this was the case with Mohammed (pbuh). Finally if this still is not satisfactory lets look at the bigger picture, God is not a killer so how can he ask Mohammed to kill especially over criticism??? If that is the case lets look at the law as a whole. God kills people over not listening to him - can this be our lord??? He killed the poeple of Noah with the flood for not listening to him and mocking him - Not because of anything else! he killed Pharoah a great host for not listening to him and mocking him After he let the people of Israel go he went after them and tried to kill them but that didnt work (Self defence by God). He killed the poeple of sodom and Gomoriah for not listening to him and not following his laws. Surely we need to draw the line and say God does as he wills, he kills who he wills and he guides who he wills. If God does not punish people then why on earth would God kill all these nations?
Mohammed killed only on gods permission and not out of anything else or he will never be able to kill anyone. And that verse is only an example of that time, to say that you should not be oppressed by anyone (Democracy) and if they come to kill you then you have a right to defend yourself. Anyway I hope some of it makes sense it is probably not the best of explanations however peace and blessings of God be upon everyone including the Christian and the Jewish brothers and I apologies in advance if it has offended anyone which is not my intention.
The real situation behind this assassination is the fact that Ka’b was trying to go against the muslims. There was a treaty between the muslims and the Arabs, Jews etc. But before we go there lets analyse the situation.
Ka’b was furious about the fact that the Arabs and Jews lost at the battle of Badr hence the reason for this sudden jealousy. Good example is if my country go to war or battle I am 100% behind my country. If they are victorious then I am happy and if they lose I am not happy. Now there is different levels of being a sore loser. Another good example is in sport ie. English Football. When a team loses the supporters tend to react. Some go to the extent of beating people and even stabbing them - Which definately happens in England! So there are levels of reactions.
Secondly Ka’b Firstly broke the treaty but not only that he went to the extent of calling up other tribes both Jews and Arabs to go against Mohammed(pbuh) and assasinate him (He was not the first person in the arab tribes to plan an assasination against Mohammed {pbuh}). Due to this loss in battle (Along with alot of his friends) which was a great shame for him and his followers (Poiltical party/ Tribe) he wanted Mohhammed killed. If some one kills your brother naturally you’d want to avenge their death.
Also due to the loss in battle he started writing these obscene stories of Muslim women etc.
If we really analyse his behaviour. We should firstly look at the stories, he never wrote these things before the battle of Badr. His understanding was the muslims were out numbered by the Jews and Arabs (Muslims 313 and Arabs around 1000 as well as the arabs being far better equiped) so his initial thought is, this is the end of Mohammed. But when they lost you can imagine his anger. He was like a sore loser and was driven by his anger to firstly write these poem that he never wrote before. My question would be why write these obscene materials soon after you lost a battle. This shows me the effect it has over Ka’b. To write about someone because you could not beat them is a bit lame (Childish etc) and secondly it is obvious he wanted to provoke the opposite party.
So just upon reading a Hadith you cannot go and draw a full picture especially if it does not contain most of the vital background information, also it is pointless being bias if you seek knowledge as you will only pick up what you are only looking for and not the full picture. Secondly When the treaty was broken Gibrael was sent to Mohammed(pbuh) telling him of this and the plans of the opposition hense the reason he was given permission for this action. Arabic words as you all may be aware have various meanings so when Mohammed (pbuh) told his follower to get the job done he meant that and didnt say to lie. If I say get the job done the best possible way, does not mean to lie?
Thirdly If Mohammed (pbuh) and the Muslims wanted to kill people why on earth would he want peace or even sign a peace treaty with others??? If he wanted to kill out of jealousy or anger or even from shame he could do that anytime but that is oppression which is forbidden in Islam. Muslims are not allowed to kill anyone unless it is through self defence. After the battle of Badr he could of killed Ka’b regardless of any reason if he was that type of person.
Anyway lastly I just want to mention about the the laws of God. when people say god said do not kill so why do people kill. The phrase do not kill comes from Judaism, Christianity and Islam - Agreed. So here Islam is contradicting Gods word? Common sense would be look at the picture properly. If God gives you the right to protect yourself ie. If a burglar comes in your house you will defend yourself by any means this was the case with Mohammed (pbuh). Finally if this still is not satisfactory lets look at the bigger picture, God is not a killer so how can he ask Mohammed to kill especially over criticism??? If that is the case lets look at the law as a whole. God kills people over not listening to him - can this be our lord??? He killed the poeple of Noah with the flood for not listening to him and mocking him - Not because of anything else! he killed Pharoah a great host for not listening to him and mocking him After he let the people of Israel go he went after them and tried to kill them but that didnt work (Self defence by God). He killed the poeple of sodom and Gomoriah for not listening to him and not following his laws. Surely we need to draw the line and say God does as he wills, he kills who he wills and he guides who he wills. If God does not punish people then why on earth would God kill all these nations?
Mohammed killed only on gods permission and not out of anything else or he will never be able to kill anyone. And that verse is only an example of that time, to say that you should not be oppressed by anyone (Democracy) and if they come to kill you then you have a right to defend yourself. Anyway I hope some of it makes sense it is probably not the best of explanations however peace and blessings of God be upon everyone including the Christian and the Jewish brothers and I apologies in advance if it has offended anyone which is not my intention.
D
dolphinlove
Guest
Why would all’ah order the killing of a man when he gave the commandment thall shall not kill?
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Who is “all’ah” and where can I find his “commandments?”
A
athair_siochain
Guest
A human can hurt another human by insulting the religion of that human,
False WITNESSES with little education. so much hatred being peddled against Muslims.
Seeing is believing, I have been to Jerusalem made friends with Jews, Christians and Muslims they were good people trying to raise families, under Israeli occupation forces, one of my Muslim friends was thrown out of his home, a home that was built by his great grandfather, the land was needed to build new homes for Jewish immigrants,
Having said that, I do realise Threads like this one are started to promote hatred of Muslims. more often than not those spreading the untruths have hearts filled with hatred,“forgive them father they know not what they do”
M
men0wjv
Guest
Thank-you for articulating what I wanted to say, but was too hard hearted to actually do
God bless you.Coming into this discussion, I had high hopes, but as some have lamented it became rather argumentative. Re-reading some of what was said made me realise that I had a big hand in provoking people - for what its worth, I am truly sorry. Whilst logic will take you far, it has its limitations because without a base you cannot really ‘prove’ anything. Our faiths are familiar with the concept of the expression ‘faith and reason.’ Reason is the faculty of the mind and can instruct us, but with a hard heart we will not see; it is the heart that sees and not the eye. Faith is the faculty of the heart and that which we will be judged on. Our perception is governed by the state of our heart. In these discussions, it is perhaps not so much less ‘reason’ but more ‘faith’ that we need? Reason relates to justice and so at times we may feel (rightfully) aggrieved for something another poster has said (I have been guilty of aggrieving others) and so demand justice, but that will only spread discord, if we instead refer to faith which relates to love then we will view our fellow posters with forgiveness and empathy, which will bring better understanding - which I want to remind myself first and foremost.
I want to thank all the posters here for teaching me my religion and I take the blame for all ill feeling, even if by association. I came onto this forum after a lengthy period of absence because I find talking with sincere believers (of any faith) as spiritually uplifting. The Common Word thread I was involved with before went much better, so why not now? Its an outward manifestation of my inner self - desolate.
Over the last 18 months I have been becoming more and more involved in my work. It started taking up my time more and more and so I slowly dismantled the carefully constructed itinerary of ritual worship and replaced it with Worldly concerns. This lead to a hardening of heart and eventually to a diagnosis of stress from my doctor. Thankfully I am coming out of this low patch and I hoped this forum might help… in someways it has because it shows me what a long way I’ve fallen and what a long way I have to go.
Something others may find useful is a couple of mistakes I found myself doing: reading posts quickly and without care, reading with a prejudice and looking too literally and not at the meaning. Perhaps Rumi’s words may summarise my ramblings:
‘Go beyond names and look at the qualities, so that they may show you the way to the essence. The disagreement of people takes place because of names. Peace occurs when they go to the real meaning. Every war and every conflict between human beings has happened because of some disagreement about names. It’s such an unnecessary foolishness, because just beyond the arguing there’s a long table of companionship, set waiting for us to sit down.’
While I sit here with a freshly baked piece of humble pie I wish Peace to you all and eternal happiness
M
men0wjv
Guest
I was wondering why out of all the possible things we could discuss we have centred on this issue. I guess there is a deeper concern amongst us towards Islam? Maybe dolphinlove has summed up that concern? As a Christian it may seem peculiar to look at someone believed to be a Prophet involved in battles and war? The idea of killing is certainly not the theme in the New Testament. So is this ‘violence’ in the formation of Islam the real problem?
Two reflections come to mind if they are helpful? Specifically to your question dolphinlove: logically one can say there are exceptions to the rule. The general rule is that prayer is good, but if in a specific case someone is praying so much that their dependents are suffering then it would become bad. Killing is generally evil, but in specific cases is it always? With the desire for peace and love it may be that you have to pick up the sword to stop a tyrant wielding a sword over everyone else. I think we can agree that it was right for the Allies to stop Hitler because he had one goal total domination - you can’t negotiate with that.
If any of the above was useful, praise God! If any was offensive or unhelpful then please forgive me. Pax
M
men0wjv
Guest
Think we can relate to that
God bless you for traveling to Jerusalem, you are better than me.Perhaps there are some, but I can say that the OP is sincere, truthful and trying his best
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Thank you to all those who have contributed to this thread.
Look like we are trying to sum up our finding as to the OP from information that we already know. There will always be differences in how we see this, I have no problem with that. For me, I am still unconvinced that the real reason for the killing of Ka’b is other than what’s stated in the Hadith.
In the absence of extra-Quranic or Hadith source that can be dated to the Hadith itself, it is difficult to ascertain other information with regards to what actually transpired that led to the killing. Thus we have to rely on the Hadith as the official source with only certainty pertaining to this case, the reason being ‘he had hurt Allah and Allah’s prophet’.
There are conflicting information as to the personal status of Ka’b and the date of his murder as too the reasons that led to it.
I feel the idea of treason as the reason for the killing is still stretching the usage of the word. Question would be asked, what amount to treason and what would be the punishment?
In this instance, Mohammad had too much of a personal score to settle with Ka’b that treason, if that the reason, would be merely a reason to kill him.
As elwill admitted in the earlier post, the killing of Ka’b was done covertly, likened it to the action of spy in covert operation. If Ka’b was Mohammad’s subject, why not just arrest him? After all Ka’b had no military strength of his own. This in itself suggests the killing was illegal.
It is noted too looking at the intrigue surrounding the incident that Mohammad created an ingenious move to make this an issue and to get the support of his followers.
However, the killing would make sense if it is tied to the subsequent events after it. Whatever the reason, Mohammad’s position was definitely enhanced and more established after it. He benefitted from the killing and this is always strong motive. It got rid of a potential opposition and at the same time served to set an example to those who would be foolish enough to ridicule him as the head of Islam and as Allah’s prophet. It was also a prelude to another conquest and the ambition for expansion, as we see later in History.
Look like we are trying to sum up our finding as to the OP from information that we already know. There will always be differences in how we see this, I have no problem with that. For me, I am still unconvinced that the real reason for the killing of Ka’b is other than what’s stated in the Hadith.
In the absence of extra-Quranic or Hadith source that can be dated to the Hadith itself, it is difficult to ascertain other information with regards to what actually transpired that led to the killing. Thus we have to rely on the Hadith as the official source with only certainty pertaining to this case, the reason being ‘he had hurt Allah and Allah’s prophet’.
There are conflicting information as to the personal status of Ka’b and the date of his murder as too the reasons that led to it.
I feel the idea of treason as the reason for the killing is still stretching the usage of the word. Question would be asked, what amount to treason and what would be the punishment?
In this instance, Mohammad had too much of a personal score to settle with Ka’b that treason, if that the reason, would be merely a reason to kill him.
As elwill admitted in the earlier post, the killing of Ka’b was done covertly, likened it to the action of spy in covert operation. If Ka’b was Mohammad’s subject, why not just arrest him? After all Ka’b had no military strength of his own. This in itself suggests the killing was illegal.
It is noted too looking at the intrigue surrounding the incident that Mohammad created an ingenious move to make this an issue and to get the support of his followers.
However, the killing would make sense if it is tied to the subsequent events after it. Whatever the reason, Mohammad’s position was definitely enhanced and more established after it. He benefitted from the killing and this is always strong motive. It got rid of a potential opposition and at the same time served to set an example to those who would be foolish enough to ridicule him as the head of Islam and as Allah’s prophet. It was also a prelude to another conquest and the ambition for expansion, as we see later in History.
- Status