Valiya, that is a good political question. It's not stated in any interpretation of the Quran I've read that Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf was persuing and armed resistance (but then the writers were more concerned about poetic prose than being specific), but yes, I did research the history around it. Ka'b Ibn al-Ashraf was a Jew who through poetry and song sought to berieve the Quraysh (who had been beaten), and essentially call Muhammed a phony, and make Muslim women sound like prostitutes. But the idea of a pre-emptive attack for security is purely a political goal.

Your example of Bin Laden fails to show case that. He actually succeeded in organizing several terrorist attacks. So we took him out after declaring a retaliatory war. What would be a closer analogy to Muhammed's scenario, would be if we had him assassinated for saying voicing his opposition to US.

But whatever, national security is a hot political issue. How much can you protect before the government meant to serve and protect the people, begins stripping away it's ability to oppose ideas and practice democracy. Muhammed's assassination of a man who had not openly attacked, but merely opposed Muhammed and his professed "truth" is closer to a politically sanctioned assassination than a form of self defense. So can you legitimately argue that Islam believes only in defensive force?

I think your right. If you don't accept Muhammed's message, you are protesting against him. And being sceptical is not a crime. Nor is opposing in peaceful terms a person or his ideology. Having an open forum to discuss and debate the merits of an idea is how morality evolves. In fact, arguably in democracy it is a fundamental right. What your prophet did, was politically motivated murder. The fact that Muslims are threatened with death should they try to deconvert, is terrorism. The mindset that anyone should be forced under shariah law, when it does not allow fair representation of peoples, is tyranny.

I can say this without a second thought. Muhammed killed Ka'b for politically motivated reasons. He feared his otherwise peaceful antics because he feared an uprising of the recently conquered Quraysh. So on top of political assassination of Ka'b, we can toss on top the obvious violence he inflicted on the Quraysh tribe to be fearful of a retaliation. Is this arguement really going to continue?

How much before you realize there is absolutely nothing divine about muhammed or anything he did? He literally was nothing more than a polititian Valiya. And like most politicians, he employed violence. He was a violent man, no matter how you spin it. And I haven't even touched on the fact that after several battles he executed prisoners who had surrendered. Or that he married married a had sex with a ten year old child. I mean... as far as we have advanced morally, he's a despicable person.

Found some change under the couch cushion so I'll throw two cents in on this discussion about violence...

In this, and other strings, there is disagreement about whether islam is a religion of peace or violence. Both Muslims and non-Muslims have cited examples of violence in islam. I've read that, to some, this violence is sanctioned, and in some cases encouraged, by islam because it is protective, meted out as justified punishment, or retaliatory.

The bottom line, however, is that it does occur. Now whether someone thinks it is righteous or not makes no difference. Violence is violence. It's not just war to which I'm referring, it also includes chopping off a head or hand, beatings, etc.

For anyone to say that a religion is not violent, rather is peaceful, but then supports violence in any form in the name of that religion, for any reason, needs to buy a dictionary.

Are there muslims that do not personally engage in violence? I image there are. If, however, they support or agree with others engaging in it, then they are violent by proxy.

I've used the words islam and Muslim above. I could just as easily substitute them for a myriad of other words. So don't get me wrong. I do not think Islam corners the market on violence. What I DO think is that when I hear 'Islam is a religion of peace' I really hear, 'I'm doing my best to lie to you and to myself'.

How are my claims unfounded. Previously you admitted Ka'b Ibn al-Ashraf was killed for writing inciteful poems. Then you tried to dandy it up by saying although it was a defensive action for the greater good. But in the murder was carried out by several armed followers, against what can only be assumed was an unarmed man. In the story, they even lied to get the man alone so the assassination could be carried out. What part of lying, deceitful, assassination is divine action?

Again, the Islamic culture's love for poetry trumped it's desire to fill in the all info. So all were left to do is guess the reasoning. However, no amount of reasoning can really justify the assassination of an unarmed person Valiya. Not in today's world. However, if you wish to say Muhammed was the product of his barbaric time... perhaps the past is where his teachings should be left. Clearly a decent portion are unnescassarily violent and oppressive.

Valiya, my point is violence, is violence, is violence. There are many people who have lived entirely peaceful lives, only a handfull are famous for doing so, such as Mahatma Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr. Men who actually lived and died for the cause of peace and equality. Men who refused to force a change by violence. Men who actually warrant the use of the term "peaceful"

But somewhere in another division, far from what would be considered peaceful, we could place your prophet amongst those who maybe promoted a peaceful philosophy in only their words. I would argue that in the idea of actually perfect, loving, peaceful men, your prophet has been bested. And they didn't even have to talk to talk to god, or seperate their people from other societies, or carry out shady assassinations to defend them. Ironically, through the same tactics Ka'b used, such as speech and song, they changed hearts and minds. And not by a sword to the heart or detaching a mind from its body.

My end analysis, or merely my opinion, is that Muhammed may... MAY... have been a decent leader for his time. But ultimately, I feel too much of his writings are old and failed philosophy.