₦airaland Forum

OBIDIENTNAIJA:
Devil's own religion.

Alkebula:
Islam is the religion of the devil himself . All they do is kill , rape and do drugs

Don't believe most things you read online and advanced as the position of Islam.
Believe me, if something lacks common sense, it's certainly against Islam.

For the avoidance of doubts,

What the man in question has done is against Islam. Simple reason: he has taken the laws into his own hands. Whatever offence the said christian might have committed against Islam or so perceived is only addressable under a properly constituted judicial system and not addressable by a random individual. This is Islam itself. Islam is totally against vigilante justice or jungle justice.

Fujiyama:
^^^
Ok.

But the blood of Deborah Samuels is still calling from the ground.

Jungle justice claimed Deborah Samuel. She was not sentenced by a shariah court. Shariah does not support jungle justice btw.

Thank you SCSN for the measured and intelligent response while separating the issues and calling for a mutual way forward instead of the blatant show of favoritism for christians over other faiths by that Riley and co report aimed at undermining the sovereignty of Nigeria since their prediction for a failed Nigeria didn't come to pass.

Must a dua come from a hadith?

Now you are turning the religion on its head by recommending an obviously after breaking of fast dua for before breaking of fast because of playing with hadith.

Indeed the religion is facing a huge trial. May Allah remove it from the ummah. Ameen.

Jagabanfromcali:
When will I hear this or that road being awarded in the east , just one new road , not even one new road in the past quarter of a century

This is a reconstruction project like the Onitsha-Abakaliki-Enugu road.
Why does it have to be a new route to earn commendations?
Na wa o

This is an absolutely mind blowing breakthrough in developmental advancement for these roads because they have seen decades of neglect.
May Allah bless you PBAT
Nigeria shall be great again

Thank you dear Mr President.

skywalker240:
But a Christian girl was set ablaze in response to the sharia law
Stop confusing yourself

Tenrack:
In all this rubbish you wrote up here. Can you tell me again, why Deborah was burnt to death in Sokoto? I weep for you sentimental lot.

Jungle justice from a mob action did. Not a sentence from a sharia court. Jungle justice is a common problem in Nigeria irrespective of faith or location.

skywalker240:
But a Christian girl was set ablaze in response to the sharia law
Stop confusing yourself

Jungle justice from a mob action did. Not a sentence from a sharia court. Jungle justice is a common problem in Nigeria irrespective of faith or location.

Not a big fan of Gumi for his controversial clerical and tribal excesses and links to compromised people in security matters but he is absolutely spot on on this one. The report went too far. The shariah law does not persecute christians or support their persecution. So why call for it's abolition? It has existed peacefully for a thousand years in Nigeria before incidents of terrorism which are extremes to the shariah laws, one of the reasons for their being called terrorists anyway. So that line in the report is showing favoritism for christians over Muslims, the same problems that you claim you want to solve. The U.S. had better not create a bigger problem for Nigeria than we already have. Since they predicted Nigeria's disintegration during Obj's tenure and it didn't happen, we stood united and we are rebounding today economically even against the USD, now makes you wonder if they practically want to use their own hands to disintegrate it since their prediction failed?

I trust my president, PBAT. He is already taking the right steps to winning the battle against insecurity where everyone shall feel safe where they are domiciled. We shall overcome before the very eyes of the U.S. but not through this their divisive rhetorics. We shall work with their good advice and discard their ulterior motives. We are a smart people.

China is their aim not sharia if you read the prominent parts document. Sharia law predates incidents of terrorisms being witnessed to day and it does not even support persecution of christians. So why demand a repeal of it in an obscure part of the document down below? Well, it's not going to be granted anyway. Next pls

We will establish state police to curb insecurity.
- PBAT

Thank you dear Mr President It's as if you spoke this line to me directly.

This is an example of why morale policing should be institutionalised like does hisbah in the north. No need for any outrage. The institution does its job

Policing remains the best approach to completely curbing insecurities not invitation of foreign powers. They may help but can not be as effective as a people oriented system. That movement of cattle to disguise their intention clearly represents what policing, especially state policy, established with the local people, who know some of the links to these criminals, can achieve in nipping their activities in the bud because they will have the advantage of staying proactive in their own terrain. Establish state policing now!!

SisterAnn:
Was it not with sorrow, tears and blood that Islam spread in northern Nigeria and across most of the world? Which kain question you dey ask me sef? Abi e get something else wey you wan hear from my mouth?

Mummy see oo 😧

No Islam did not spread with sorrow, tears and blood in northern Nigeria. That is wrong. I believe you are referring to the establishment of the Sokoto caliphate where wars were fought but Islam already spread in the north 600 plus years before that time. Similarly too for the rest of the world.

SisterAnn:
They killed them because they refused to join them in the jihad. Can't you understand that? Jihad is also a fundamental duty of Muslims right?

Yes jihad is a fundamental duty of muslims but these people unleash violence and aggression on people or do you count unleashing violence on people as jihad?

SisterAnn:
What they did is part of jihad.

They deceived people to kill them and you call that jihad? Can you tell me how that is jihad? What aspect of Islam teaches this? I am trying to not look at you as one of those gullible nairlanders.

Because the holy prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) categorically states that:
"Whoever deceives us is not one of us"
- Muslim

SisterAnn:
Is Boko Haram ideology not rooted in Islam?

The ones that killed people in Kwara few days ago, wasn't it call to prayer that was used to lure the people out before opening fire on them?

Moderate Muslims are not true Muslims.

Kindly educate me how boko haram ideology is rooted in Islam. Because tricking people to come for prayer and opening fire on them is the hypocritical, among the worst type of sinning against God Almighty, and so does not serve as a point to support the view that boko haram ideologies are rooted in Islam. Except may be you can show us a basis where Islam teaches that you can call people to prayer and then kill them when they gather up.

SpaceX:
that is why the terrorists keep Shouting allah akbar

It is part of the contract.
For the gullibles. Dem full nairaland.

Kukutente23:
I don't even want to go into how he became ruler of Medina but your claim about the caravans passing through Medina is a lie if you read through the incidents I shared with you. Muhammad sent his people to intercept caravans as we see with the Bedouins. If it were inside Mecca how come he wasn't aware of what transpired?

The Banu Damrah tribe was located within the province of Medina, so trades using that route come under the jurisdiction of the rulership of the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) in the new state. Therefore Qureishi's were targeted from that axis as well with state power. Though, the Banu Ghattafan tribe is located outside of Medinan province, their initial open support for and alignment with the Qureishi's in previous battles makes sending a military expedition towards that region a valid strategic defence. Again, the incident with a bedouin in the course of that expedigtion was addressed and corrected even by a divine revelation as already pointed out. Nothing was indiscriminate about the planning of those operations as they were defensive in nature once you understand that there was now a state.

Kukutente23:
As for the greeting, there's nothing divinely inspired about it since you already accepted that it was used before Islam or are you saying Allah gave the pagans the greetings?

If not, what you're simply showing is how much influence pagan customs of the Arabs had on Islam since there's nowhere in the Qur'an where the greeting was prescribed for Islam. The Hebrews who used the form of greeting never claimed it was based on divine injunction.

It was simply a cultural greeting like we have in other customs and tribe who never had any influence from the Hebrews. The English and French say "Good day" in greetings.

So you still have to show us where the divine injunction came from.

The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "When Allah created Adam (ﷺ), He said to him: 'Go and greet that company of angels who are sitting there - and then listen to what they are going to say in reply to your greetings because that will be your greeting and your off-spring's.'

Adam (ﷺ) said to the angels: 'As-Salamu 'Alaikum (May peace be upon you).' They replied: 'As-Salamu 'Alaikum wa Rahmatullah (May peace be upon you and the Mercy of Allah).' Thus adding in reply to him: 'wa Rahmatullah (and the Mercy of Allah)' to his greeting."

[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

Kukutente23:
As for your claim about the Medina constitution being the first known to Mankind, a simple Google search would have cured you of this wilfully false claim

I want you to read the response from your search on the attached image carefully. It says:

"Determining the 'first' constitution depends on definition"....

It was based on this premise that I made the claim that the Charter of Medina is the first (written full) constitution for mankind. And I still stand by that claim. The reasons are obvious:

While the Sumerian, solonian and Hammurabi legal codes you provided were aristocratic or royal rules and regulations used to empower monarchs, kings or elites to surpress the masses, lacks concept of citizenship or statehood and generally an oppressive document designed to enslave a section of the society, the charter of Medina is a written and fully modern constitution that clearly defined the concept of statehood and the legal framework for its sovereignty and governance that everyone is equally subject to including the ruler.

The charter of Medina also preceded the magna carter (by 600 years) which was being propped as the first full constitution for governing a state but when scholars from the muslim world drew the attention of the Western scholars to the Charter of Medina, they were amazed at its comprehensiveness in its design for a modern society. But those of them who can't stomach this truth started looking for old and suppressive rules and regulations used by kings and aristocrats to present in order to simply deny the defining role of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) in ushering the world into modernity. That feat is sealed already and can not be undone. You would do well to provide a legal document that was written before the charter of Medina that is comprehensive enough to stand as a constitution. I await you on that.

For the details of the flaws that render each of your references worthless and for the confirmation of the Charter of Medina as the first written constitution for the modern world, see below:

Sumerian legal codes

Sumerian legal codes, such as the Code of Ur-Nammu, cannot be considered a full constitution because they functioned as specific case-precedents rather than a comprehensive, foundational legal framework. They lacked systematic coverage of all legal areas, were likely intended as propaganda to showcase the king’s justice, and did not limit the ultimate power of the monarch.

Key reasons Sumerian legal codes differ from modern constitutions include:

Case-Specific, Not General: Sumerian laws were structured as "if... then..." scenarios (e.g., if a man breaks a bone, then he pays a specific fine) rather than establishing broad principles, fundamental rights, or a system of government.

Incomplete Legal Coverage: The codes often missed major legal areas (like general prohibitions against murder) because they only addressed specific, sometimes random, disputes rather than creating a comprehensive legal code.

Role of the King: Instead of creating a government structure where a constitution limits the ruler, these codes highlighted the king as a "surrogate for the gods on earth" and the ultimate source of justice.

Purpose as Propaganda: The codes were often meant to immortalize the ruler as a just king rather than to serve as an active, working legal manual for daily court rulings.

Lack of Constitutional Rights: The laws primarily dealt with property, marriage, and fines, lacking the protections for individuals against the state that characterize modern constitutions.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Why+the+sumerian+legal+codes+cannot+be+considered+a+full+constitution%3F&rlz=1C5CHFA_enNG1162NG1164&oq=Why+the+sumerian+legal+codes+cannot+be+considered+a+full+constitution%3F&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTI4MTgyajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


The Solonian constitution of Athens (circa 594 BCE)

The Solonian constitution of Athens (circa 594 BCE) cannot be considered a modern constitution because it was a timocracy based on wealth rather than equal citizenship, it excluded the vast majority of the population, and it lacked the institutional protections—such as individual rights and independent judiciaries—that define modern constitutionalism.

Here are the key reasons why the Solonian constitution is not a modern constitution:

Timocracy: Power Based on Wealth, Not Equality
Instead of treating all citizens equally, Solon reorganized Athenian society into four classes based on agricultural production (wealth).

Political Inequality: High offices (Archons) were reserved strictly for the wealthiest classes (Pentacosiomedimnoi and Hippeis).

Restricted Participation: While the lowest class (thetes) could attend the Assembly (Ecclesia), they could not hold high office, creating a hierarchical system of rights.

Massive Exclusion of the Population
The Solonian system was heavily exclusive, lacking the concept of universal rights or suffrage.

Women and Slaves: Women and enslaved people, who made up a massive portion of the population, were entirely excluded from citizenship and political participation.

Metics (Foreigners): Non-Athenian residents had no political rights.

Property Requirement: Only free male citizens who met specific economic qualifications had full participation rights.

Lack of Individual Rights and Liberties
Modern constitutions are generally focused on protecting the individual from the state. The Solonian constitution focused on the stability of the city-state (eunomia or "good order" rather than individual liberty.

No "Rights" Framework: The constitution did not guarantee fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech or assembly, as recognized in modern legal documents.

No Protection Against Majority Rule: Individual rights were not protected from the will of the Assembly.

Limited Democratic Structure and Roles
While Solon was a step toward democracy, his reforms were designed to balance power between the rich and poor, not to establish a government by the people.

Aristocratic Influence: Although he reduced the power of the old aristocracy, the Areopagus (a council of former archons) retained significant control over the laws.

Assembly Limitation: The Assembly (Ecclesia) was often restricted in its ability to initiate legislation, often only deciding on proposals brought by elite councils.

Absence of Independent Judicial Review
Unlike modern constitutions, which often have supreme or constitutional courts to review the legality of laws, Solon’s system lacked a separate, independent judiciary to check the power of the Assembly or Archons.

The "Non-Representative" Nature
Athenian democracy was direct, not representative. While often seen as "more" democratic, this meant that citizens were expected to personally take part in governing, including military service, rather than electing representatives to make decisions for them.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Key+reasons+why+the+solonian+constitution+of+Athens+can+not+be+considered+a+modern+constitution%3F&rlz=1C5CHFA_enNG1162NG1164&oq=Key+reasons+why+the+solonian+constitution+of+Athens+can+not+be+considered+a+modern+constitution%3F&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDIwMTJqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


The Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1754 BCE)

The Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1754 BCE) is one of the earliest and most comprehensive legal codes in human history, but it cannot be considered a "full constitution" in the modern sense. While it provided standardized, public legal rules, it lacks the foundational principles of a constitution, primarily because it was a product of an absolute monarchy rather than a document defining the limits of government or establishing popular sovereignty.

Here is why the Code of Hammurabi is not a constitution:

Lack of Government Structure: A modern constitution sets out the structure of government, defines the relationship between branches, and outlines how laws are made. The Code of Hammurabi is purely legislation; it does not define the organization of the Babylonian government, its powers, or how the king is accountable to the law.

Absolute Monarchy: Hammurabi was an absolute monarch, not a constitutional one. The laws were his own edicts, and he held total power to amend or abolish them at his whim.

No Rights of Citizens: Constitutions protect individual rights against the state. The Code of Hammurabi was designed to protect the king's order and property, not to guarantee rights for the citizens.

Discriminatory Social Structure: Unlike modern constitutions that typically promise equality before the law, Hammurabi’s code was based on strict social hierarchy. Punishments were unequal, varying significantly based on whether the victim was a nobleman, a commoner, or a slave.

Absence of "Rule of Law": The Code was more about ruler's law (ruling through law) rather than the rule of law (where everyone, including the ruler, is subjected to the law). It did not limit the power of the king, who was the final arbiter and, in his own view, above the statutes.

Not a Comprehensive Legal Code: Historians note that the Code did not cover all aspects of society. It was not an exhaustive legal system, as many areas of life (like those of shepherds) were ignored, and it may not have even been the primary source of law used by judges of that time.

Political Propaganda: Many historians view the code as a "political statement" or a piece of royal propaganda rather than a functional, comprehensive constitution, intended to show Hammurabi as a just ruler to future generations.

In summary, the Code of Hammurabi is an early form of written law and a significant legal advancement, but it lacks the political philosophy and structural requirements of a modern constitution, which is a foundational document defining how a society governs itself.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Why+the+code+of+Hammirabi+cannot+be+considered+as+a+full+constitution&rlz=1C5CHFA_enNG1162NG1164&oq=Why+the+code+of+Hammirabi+cannot+be+considered+as+a+full+constitution&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBggAEEUYOzIGCAAQRRg70gEJNDE5NzRqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The Charter of Medina (Sahifat al-Madinah)

The Charter of Medina (Sahifat al-Madinah), drafted by the Prophet Muhammad in 622 AD, is considered by many historians, jurists, and political scientists—including Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah and Jimly Asshiddiqie—as the world's first written, modern constitution. It is qualified as a modern constitution because it transformed a tribal society into a structured, pluralistic state (Ummah) through a written, social contract that outlined fundamental rights, civic duties, and the rule of law over 600 years before the Magna Carta.

Here is why the Charter of Medina is considered a modern constitution:

It Established a Written, Formal Legal Structure
Before this charter, Arabian society was governed by oral tradition and tribal loyalties. The Charter of Medina was a written (codified) document that served as the supreme law of the land, establishing a "state society" rather than a "tribal society". It introduced a centralized system for justice and administration.

It Recognized Civic Equality and Pluralism
The charter recognized the multi-ethnic and multi-religious nature of Medina.

The Ummah (Community): It brought together Muslims (Muhajirin and Ansar) and Jewish tribes as one unified community (Ummah) for political and defense purposes, while allowing them to maintain their respective religions.

Equal Rights: It granted equal rights and duties to all citizens, regardless of their religion or tribal affiliation.

Minority Rights: It guaranteed the security of non-Muslims, ensuring they would not be oppressed.

It Set Out Fundamental Human Rights
The document contained principles similar to modern "Bill of Rights" clauses, including:

Freedom of Religion: Explicitly stated, "To the Jews their religion and to the Muslims their religion".
Protection of Life and Property: The document guaranteed the safety of citizens and prohibited arbitrary violence.

Rule of Law: It established that all residents were equal before the law, and that justice would be served against oppressors, regardless of their status.

It Defined State Components and Obligations
The Charter functioned as a state constitution by defining the essential elements of a state:

Population and Territory: It defined the inhabitants of Medina as a distinct community (Ummah) and declared Medina a protected, sacred territory (sanctuary).

Sovereign Leadership: It recognized the Prophet Muhammad as the supreme arbitrator and leader.

SCommon Defense: It mandated that all inhabitants must work together to defend the city against external attacks.

It Established Social Contract Principles
The charter was a, "social consensus agreement" between the Ruler and the people. It was not a unilateral decree, but a negotiated agreement (a shahifah) that created a social contract for voluntary, peaceful coexistence and collective security.

It Promoted Peace Politics
The Charter was designed to bring an end to the "chaos of tribalism" and incessant internecine warfare, such as the battles between the Aus and Khazraj tribes. It replaced "might is right" with "the rule of law" and collective security.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Thank+you+for+coming+through+for+me%2C+is+it+ok+for+a+muslim+to+say+that+according+to+the+hanafi+fiqh+in+islam%3F&rlz=1C5CHFA_enNG1162NG1164&oq=Thank+you+for+coming+through+for+me%2C+is+it+ok+for+a+muslim+to+say+that+according+to+the+hanafi+fiqh+in+islam%3F&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRiPAjIHCAIQIRiPAtIBCTMzODY0ajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Kukutente23:
You keep shifting goalpost to the left
Salam alaikum is the Arab way of greeting not the Muslim way except you mean Arab equals Muslim
...

I did not shift the goal post anywhere. Rather it was you doing the shifting of the goal post as you went from khaybar, to caravan, to Mecca, and now to Quraiza and even now taqiyya which is not a surprise because it is the end of every misinformed nairalander's knowledge of Islam.

I kept following up with you. In fact, I let you do the goal shifting so as to not leave any stone unturned. So we shall address each one plus that taqiyya to lay the facts bare.

First Assalamu alaikum is a divinely ordained greeting in Islam. It predates Islam but not because it was ethnic to Arabs but because it was ordained for all prophets. That's why it is similarly constructed in other languages as well, e.g. 'Shalom aleichem' in Hebrew. So all prophets from Adam (a.s.) taught their people. So we are right to claim it as a muslim greeting being followers of the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) because again he taught us this of this knowledge also.

That said.

Kukutente23:
You keep shifting goalpost to the left
...The raid couldn't be termed legitimate since the Bedouin tribes did nothing wrong to Muhammad and his followers. Also, your claim is that every attack by Muhammad was in self-defense. But here we see that he was actively planning an attack on Mecca and didn't want it known which means it was meant to be a surprise attack like that of the ...

Common, an isolated incident was reported involving a team targeting the Qureishi's, as usual, but a bedouin was misjudged and you are terming it like it's a general and recurring attacks on bedouins. How does that fit your narration of using the raid as a diversion from the plan towards Mecca if it is expressed in a sense of a regular occurrence on bedouins? Anyway, again, it was an isolated incident by a detachment and it ended up to restrict the muslims the more as already pointed out above. But the actual aim of raiding the Qureishi's is justified if they must conduct their economies through Medina because there is a new ruler in town who wish to exert economic pressure on them for what they have done to his group. Now he is acting with state power, and this is a point that you have been avoiding. He was unanimously elected their leader by all the tribes of Medina. And he performed this duty very well by producing the first constitution known to Mankind. Thereby teaching humanity especially the modern world how to live under a statehood. I will assume that I did not see the derogatory word you used for this unique personality just to mask this feat he attained not only for muslims but for the entire humanity.

Kukutente23:
You keep shifting goalpost to the left
...
Now we have to interrogate what happened afterwards to the Banu Qurayza and why it did if your claim about the quranic verse is true and not just the usual taqqiya

You haven't said anything meaningful here.

Kukutente23:
You keep shifting goalpost to the left
Salam alaikum is the Arab way of greeting not the Muslim way except you mean Arab equals Muslim
...

I did not shift the goal post anywhere. Rather it was you doing the shifting of the goal post as you went from khaybar, to caravan, to Mecca, and now to Quraiza and even now taqiyya which is not a surprise because it is the end of every misinformed nairalander's knowledge of Islam.

I kept following up with you. In fact, I let you do the goal shifting so as to not leave any stone unturned. So we shall address each one plus that taqiyya to lay the facts bare.

First Assalamu alaikum is a divinely ordained greeting in Islam. It predates Islam but not because it was ethnic to Arabs but because it was ordained for all prophets. That's why it is similarly constructed in other languages as well, e.g. 'Shalom aleichem' in Hebrew. So all prophets from Adam (a.s.) taught their people. So we are right to claim it as a muslim greeting being followers of the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) because again he taught us this of this knowledge also.

That said.

Kukutente23:
You keep shifting goalpost to the left
...The raid couldn't be termed legitimate since the Bedouin tribes did nothing wrong to Muhammad and his followers. Also, your claim is that every attack by Muhammad was in self-defense. But here we see that he was actively planning an attack on Mecca and didn't want it known which means it was meant to be a surprise attack like that of the ...
Now we have to interrogate what happened afterwards to the Banu Qurayza and why it did if your claim about the quranic verse is true and not just the usual taqqiya

Common, an isolated incident was reported involving a team targeting the Qureishi's, as usual, and a bedouin and you are terming it like it's a general and recurring attacks on bedouin. How does that fit your narration of using the raid as a diversion from the plan towards Mecca if it is expressed in a sense of a regular occurrence? Anyway, again, it was an isolated incident by a detachment and it ended up to restrict the muslims the more as already pointed out above. But the actual aim of raiding the Qureishi's is justified if they must conduct their economies through Medina because there is a new ruler in town who wish to exert economic pressure on them for what they have done to his group. Now he is acting with state power, and this is a point that you have been avoiding. He was unanimously elected their leader by all the tribes of Medina. And he performed this duty very well by producing the first constitution known to Mankind. Thereby teaching humanity especially the modern world how to live under a statehood. I will assume that I did not see the derogatory word you used for this unique personality just to mask this feat he attained not only for muslims but for the entire humanity.

Kukutente23:
You keep shifting goalpost to the left
...
Now we have to interrogate what happened afterwards to the Banu Qurayza and why it did if your claim about the quranic verse is true and not just the usual taqqiya

You haven't said anything meaningful here.

The legendary Alvaro Recoba of Inter Milan.
Add him to the list.

Kukutente23:
Does this meet your criteria?

Of course not.

Because, irrespective of how it was narrated here, what is important is that did this action go to form a tenet for violent practice in Islam? You know the answer and you didn't reveal it in your post. Of course No. Because when the incident was narrated to the holy Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.), it caused a Divine revelation to descend disapproving of the wrong doing.

In fact, it was from this point on that it became established that even if a non-muslim is cornered in a legitimate battle by a muslim who had the upper hand at the time and the non-muslim from that point on said the kalimah (or as little as salamu alaikum, which is the muslim 'hello'), it is mandatory for the muslim to leave him alone and not guess if he was being deceptive.

The incident taught the muslims the level of tolerance they should exhibit even when their own safety could be undermined. Think about that.

Kukutente23:
Maybe your AI is misguided. Below is a raid led by Muhammad himself in which they mistook a caravan of the Banu Damrah for a Quraysh caravan and still raided the innocent guys, forcing them to negotiatelike most communities are negotiating with bandits today. Do you dispute this historical fact? While the initial raids were largely unsuccessful, the fact remains that such incessant raids will ultimately lead to the route being deemed unsafe by other users except the quraysh who have no choice.
Making excuses for banditry by a prophet is untenable

What would have been an earth shattering revelation would have been the scenario where the muslims raided a non Quraishi caravan who caused them harm back at Mecca, causing the caravan to incur losses, human or property. But the only evidence you have actually proved that the Muslims were not after people who did not persecute them. It showed that the raid ended in a friendly and mutual undertaking that benefits both sides. Thereby making the wikipedia result correlate the AI response. Everything other thing you wrote there are only to fan your innuendoes.

Kukutente23:
I hope you're aware Mecca route was a major trade route. It was not in use by the Quraysh alone but by all traders coming to Mecca and records had it that the attacks got so bad that traders were beginning to abandon the route just as we have people afraid to use some roads today in Nigeria due to bandits. Also, there's no means of knowing one caravan from the other so the attack would have been carried out before the owner is established

This is a direct response to whether the people of Khaybar attacked first or not. Note that Muhammad met the Jews in Yathrib yet he expelled them and renamed the place Medina just as the bandits are looking to expel indigenes from their lands today under guise of they are infidels and renaming them.

After expelling them, he still accused them of conspiring against him and then declared war on them killing so many of them in the process. It's same way the terrorists accused the people of Woro of reporting them to the security agencies when they came to them in peace, then they attacked them and killed so many of the villagers burning it to the ground. Classic khaybar case

It's hard keeping up with the many lies used to build your points. A case below: the second bulleted point directly debunks one of your claims above as highlighted:

Mubiola360:
The headline is misleading.
It should have been woro Muslims community massacred by terrorist

Sense

Kukutente23:
So how does robbing caravans return their confiscated properties. Also, how are they able to differentiate one caravan from the other? Are there marks or insignia to differentiate the caravans? It's simply a case of robbery because the caravans are not the ones who confiscated their properties

What do you mean by unprovoked? Your claim is that any attack by the Prophet is defensive. You're now changing to provoke. Bullies and oppressors always claim to be provoked. Kindly show us where the people of Khaybar attacked your Prophet. We don't need any justification based on morality. Just show us the people of Khaybar attacking him

If you can prove that the muslims attacked caravans of other tribes indiscriminately besides the caravans belonging to the Quraishi's who persecuted them in Mecca, then you have a point. Anything short of that is mere speculations or lies.

I believe you know the cause of the war of khaybar but here is an open record of it. Prove to the house how this account draws similarity to or justifies the terrorists attack on the innocent community.

Kukutente23:
What about the robbing of caravans. Was that also defensive?
Kindly tell us how the people of Khaybar attacked first. Just tell us how they attacked

What about the robbing of caravans. Was that also defensive?
Yes the raiding (not robbing) of Quraishi caravans (not any caravans) was in pure retaliation because it was the Quraishi who expelled the muslims from Mecca and confiscated their properties. The muslims acted in measure for measure. Robbery, stealing and looting is strictly prohibited.

Kindly tell us how the people of Khaybar attacked first. Just tell us how they attacked
No you need to show us the part of history where the holy Prophet (s.a.w.) attacked the people of Khaybar unprovoked so that it becomes clear that his actions were not defensive. You brought up the accusation. You can't be dodging when it's time to show your proofs after making careless defamatory statements.

Whalis:
The world should come together for a reformation of Islam. Edit Quran and excise every lead of violence in it. Expunge those verses that support violence. I know this will lead to emptying the Quran as the first page to last canvasses violence. If Islam won't allow this then the whole world should ban Islam. Stop Islam.

It is beyond the capabilities of the entire humanity with everything they've got (computer, AI, algorithms, scientists, thinkers, philosophers and every every) to produce a match of the Holy Qur'an. If that was possible they would have done that hundreds of years ago because that has always been the end goal anyway. But they always fall short of meeting up because of the high bar set by the Holy Book. Bar so high for the state of the art, science and technology to reach.

Kukutente23:
Banu khaybar Jews were killed and annihilated for not accepting Muhammad’s wishes for them
Is that not the same thing that happened here?
How's that blaming the victim

You are lying and you know that. And you know that you can only tell these lies on these obscure pages of nairaland. You know that the holy Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.) never fought anyone or group for who they are, let alone initiate an attack. Never!. He was always on the defensive. If you bring peace you receive piece in manifold. If you bring war, you get humiliating defeat as he is backed by the superior angels. If you maintain your lane, that is perfectly fine, and of course, no compulsion would come upon you.

Or, can you back your above claim with any proofs or at least proof that the war of khaybar is not within this counter claim of mine.