Heroes and Villains

A couple. I'm on my phone now so it's too much of a ball-ache to post the names. Does it matter?

 

My knowledge is no better or worse than yours Fan. You may have read more about these events, but they were apparently nearly 14 centuries ago, so whatever you've read, apart from being biased, could easily be very unreliable.

There is no need to discuss different wars. Unless they are wars of defence (as in someone else is invading your land), they are unnecessary and likely to cause innocent casualties.

No, I don't know the incident. Then again, neither do you. How do you know that these accounts were correct? Have they not just been romanticised in the same way that Richard I's exploits were? But as they were classed as aggressive military campaigns, I think it's a fair assumption that innocent people were killed along the way.

One thing I do know about Abu Rafi is that he was assassinated. However you paint it, that's not honourable. The very word "assassinate" implies illegality, dishonesty, underhandedness. I'm sure his murderers had their reasons, just as I'm sure British military personnel who killed civilians in Ireland had their reasons. There can never be a good enough reason to assassinate someone though. If he had committed crimes, why not take him prisoner and try him? As should have happened in Ireland. Unless you're happy to act outside of the law of course, and then you might as well murder him. As for the mosque, yes that was an unfair assumption. I don't think any of my other assumptions are unfair though.

All fair enough

 

What seems to be a recurring point through your post is you knowing more than me. I have no doubt that you've read a lot more than me about the subject. But who knows whether what you have read is true? You are making assumptions based on biased accounts, I am making assumptions based on common sense and experience of human nature. Who is to know whose assumption is correct?

You also keep going back to the statues. Yes, I made an error there. But the list of Muhammad's military actions is as long as your arm so there's no point clinging to the statues being apparently destroyed without bloodshed. Because I reckon they were probably the exception rather than the rule.

And no, the reason behind assassination is not the "be all and end all". The reason is inconsequential, the fact is Abu Rafi was killed illegally, which is one of your major beefs with the British Army. According to the stories, he was murdered without trial. How is this "judicial"?:

(http://answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/sallam.html)

So because he "collected mixed tribes against the apostle" he deserved a grizzly death, in front of his wife, with no trial?

Further down:

How can people be proud of assassinations? And how can you deplore the murders of Irish civilians but claim that these cold-blooded killings are judicial? You've got a severe blind-spot here Fan I'm afraid. While we're talking about religion, have you ever heard of "let he without sin cast the first stone"?

As for Muhammad being bloodthirsty, I have no idea what he was like as a bloke. But according to accounts, 1500 people died in conflicts started by him. That's a fair old number Fan.

I never said that the BA had good reason to kill Irish civilians, just that I'm sure they thought they had good reason to. Just as Abu Rafi's murderers believed they had good reason. The difference is, I don't defend the murder of Irish civvies, but you seem to think Abu's assassination was fine and dandy. I don't blindly defend the actions of Britain, but you do when it comes to Muhammad and his Companions.

 

I know. I've been well and truly sucked into his vortex of madness.

 

I am mortified. I never thought of George. I suppose you get caught up in these trivial little rows and before you know it, you've lost sight of what is really important.

Consider me well and truly admonished ER.

 

FYI I have read about the Army in Armagh, so you are wrong there. Where do you get hatred from? All I have said is that I doubt the reliability of texts from hundreds of years ago, which I think is reasonable. I also doubt the Bible. It's not a Muslim thing, and I don't know where you've got that from. I mentioned that I distrusted the Lionheart stories earlier too, so it's not like I only disbelieve Islamic accounts is it? I think you're possibly being a bit over-sensitive here.

As for "This here is your main mistake IMO, answering Islam. This site is in the main factually incorrect. Do you know what the collecting of mixed tribes against the apostle even means? "
I can only assume, if it's been translated correctly, it means Abu was trying to incite a revolt amongst various tribes against Muhammad? True? If so, it's still not deserving of assassination.

And to "I bet you dont know that his case and punishment was based on precedent and was asked for by a tribe and not simply 'ordered'", yes I do know that the punishment was requested. It says so anywhere you read about the guy. But it also says that Muhammad granted the request. So he sanctioned a murder.

As for Answering Islam being "factually incorrect", how do you know? What's to say that what you believe is true, and what the people who wrote this believes is not? If you rigidly believe what you are expected to as a Muslim, and won't consider any alternative, it's no surprise you get touchy when someone challenges your beliefs.

As for the Abu Rafi/Hitler comparison, I think you're reaching a little there. Hitler was a threat to millions worldwide, AR was an enemy of only one particular group of people.

And 1200-1500 people may not seem very much Fan, but how many people were killed in Ireland? And you're very keen to point them out.