Anyone else think Charlie Hebdo were provocative?

Our prophet went through more punishment and torture that you could ever think of and all he done in response was forgive. Islam condemns murder simple as.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I think you mean the people he conquered went though punishment. I suppose he 'forgave' people by attacking them with his armies and laying siege to their cities, right?

Why would a prophet have to use swords and bloodshed to spread the "divine word"?

Attacking with armies, conquered ahahahah, you clearly have no idea of anything about the history of Islam nor the prophets life. The prophet S.A.W was forced out of Mecca by the quraish tribe (the main leaders of Mecca at the time) and he had to escape to Medina for refuge. His followers followed him to Medina and eventually they got word that the Quraish WERE COMING TO THEM, with 100,000 men. The Muslims were attacked, not only once but twice! All battles fought by the prophet were in self defence. Tbh i don't think I will even show you other examples, you can do the research by yourself. I would recommend that if you wish to actually conduct this research that you look through all nine volumes of Sahih Al Bukhari for reliable information.

How do we know who did this when the terrorists were masked?

We have no choice but to have free will. We should have the right to offend.

"All battles fought by the prophet were in self defence." Err, no. For example, in the Battle of Mu'tah he broke a truce and marched with thousands of soldiers against the Byzantines because they executed a few of his emissaries. A very peaceful response from a 'forgiving' prophet right there. And I suppose all his Military campaigns across the Arabian peninsular were in self defense? Because, as we all know, forcefully acquiring large swathes of territory via militaristic means is "self defense." Look up the Conquest of Arabia.

I think you're being very selective with your interpretation of history and quite jaded.

"All battles fought by the prophet were in self defence." Err, no. For example, in the Battle of Mu'tah he broke a truce and marched with thousands of soldiers against the Byzantines because they executed a few of his emissaries. A very peaceful response from a 'forgiving' prophet right there. And I suppose all his Military campaigns across the Arabian peninsular were in self defense? Because, as we all know, forcefully acquiring large swathes of territory via militaristic means is "self defense." Look up the Conquest of Arabia.

I think you're being very selective with your interpretation of history and quite jaded.

You're speaking to a robot.
Their mind has been formatted

Actually the battle of mu'tah occurred because the Romans and their allies attacked the supply line of Muslim goods coming in from Greater Syria and not to also mention their persecution of muslims that they had under their control. When one of the prophets' messengers was killed, that was pretty much the final straw. So going back to your claim about 'A very peaceful response from a 'forgiving' prophet' do you still believe that the war wasn't in self-defence, that Prophet went on the offensive for no reason whatsoever other than just to claim land for Islam? I suggest that you consult you so called 'Conquest of Arabia' source wherever you got it from.

Giving your sources the benefit of the doubt and assuming this was the case, why would a man of peace, spreading the supposedly infallible, perfect word of God, have to use armies and warfare to retaliate against (and remove) opposition? This is widely accepted history, it just tends to be 'overlooked' by some Muslim apologists that have it in their minds that Muhammad's expansion was somehow a peaceful process.

Why else was he marching his armies across Arabia and the Middle East? The man did have armies. He besieged towns and cities, raided caravans, used intimidation tactics, made war on surrounding tribes, and marched on foreign lands. These are not the actions of a 'peaceful' man or a 'prophet', but a warlord.

Look up the battles of Badr and Khaybar. There are plenty more where he was clearly the aggressor. Also, look up what he did to the Banu Mustaliq. He ordered the men killed and women raped - this is even acknowledged by Muslim scholars.

Of course he clearly provoked it, but that doesn't mean he deserved to be killed.

He didn't deserve it.

Well for the battle of badr, the caravan that was travelling was not being attacked, it was just being intercepted in the hope that the traveller would be caught flat footed. No arrangements were made for fighting, nor were the interceptors sent armed. Not only that but the money that was being transported by that caravan, was going to be used in battle against the prophet by the Quraish tribe anyway in future, hence the reason why it was intercepted, to stop it from being used against them, it wasn't just a typical mugging in the street. And i must stress again no arrangements were made fighting when the caravan was going to be intercepted. And obviously the Quraish didn't like that and so they launched an offensive and so the battle of badr began. In this case the prophet was not the aggressor.

Khayber was a city about 100km away from Medina. Khayber had many Jewish tribes that lived there and they also gave to refuge to many enemies of Islam. The prophet received intelligence that the people of Khaybar were planning an offensive against Medina with a force of 14,000 men, and so the prophet mobilised an army of 1,400 vs the 14,000 Khayber offensive. After weeks of fighting eventually the prophet won and the town of Khayber was captured. Again in this case the prophet was again not the oppressor, he was merely defending himself against a force that attacked first and conspired against him.

Now for Banu Mustaliq again it was a defensive action. Again the prophet was aware that the people of Banu Mustaliq were planning an offensive against the muslims and had already mobilised their units and so the two armies engaged in battle. The muslims were victorious and after that the surviving fighters of Banu Mustaliq were taken as prisoners of war. The only woman in the battle was the daughter of the chief of the Banu Mustaliq, who was released immediately. Afterwards she converted to Islam and married the prophet, and so the prophet released the remaining prisoners, as they were related to her. The prophet also NEVER ordered anyone to be raped or killed if not in combat. Such a thing is impossible as the early followers of Islam were very strong believers and they never would have even have contemplated such actions as Islam strictly forbids the killing of innocent civilians in battle and I don't even need to explain rape.

Perhaps if such a thing happened today, lead by ISIS or the Taliban, the atrocities that you claim happened would've certainly happened no doubt about that. And also who are these scholars that you claim even acknowledged such claim. I mean we all know some Saudi scholars have said some pretty ludicrous things, but not this ludicrous surely!