Gun shots outside Parliament: Police shoot assailant following car attack on Westminster Bridge

Well, Terrorism are crimes who's purpose are to spread fear or terror among a populace (hence the name). If someone shoots up a bank and kills several people it's not terrorism, because the goal is not to spread fear, but monetary gain. The D.C sniper attacks were very much terrorist attacks imo. Killing civilians just for the sake of it is terrorism.

No, Terrorism isn't a fixed point thing, but the end goal is to instill a fear greater than the act itself. Remember going to a movie after the theatre shootings? It felt.... uneasy.

The DC sniper was a nutbar. Planned to kill enough people that his wifes murder would be lost in the noise, he would then 'inherit' custody of his kids. The innocents were just collateral.

My point about the Sniper being controversial was that he had a media-advantageous last name. Muhammed. TERRORIST! Oh... ex US Army. Oh... Damaged person. He was nothing like a terrorist by the media definition, despite the fact that he terrorised people.

The term has been bastardised and is almost meaningless now.
 
Are you a Quaranist or a Sunni and believer in the Hadith? Because Muhammed commited massacres of numerous peoples. The Quran does incite violence but not as much as Muhammed's actions.

I don't have anything against Muslims who focus on the none violent aspects of their belief system and use their faith for good. Many are enriched by their face. But their is a darker side to Islam from it's onset. And given it was devised in medieval times in a wartorn era it's hardly suprising.

This is a good example of the ignorant and the internet.

Don't talk about things you don't know about.
 
:lol:

Banning cartoons mocking religions is obviously a spectacularly stupid idea. They should be encouraged if anything. People taking a bunch of fairly tales as gospel so seriously is a bigger problem.
@sammsky1

I don't agree about your restrictions on free speech at all. Look at the clusterfeck in my country (India). This restrictions on freedom of speech are used to stop any portrayal of any religion (even smaller groups like Sikhs and Christians manage to censor things) that isn't positive. A film criticising old customs. A god not depicted in the traditional reverential way. Some random teenager criticising a political leader after his death (and some while they're alive). An author who criticises the misogyny of religions. A book talking about the various interpretations of a religious text. Many of these people were arrested, some were lucky in that the courts soon found the case has no merit. But the law is a tool in the hands of politicians and police to harass and arrest anyone they don't like. Mobs go down the street every time someone manages to get them angry enough about a book or movie. And having seen a previous ban for something offending another religion, they will cry about discrimination if they don't get their way. And each new ban or withdrawal of publication means more incentive for the next mob.

The west isn't perfect, but on the subject of religion they moved from having continent-wide witchhunts and murders a few centuries ago, and reached a point where absolute mockery of Christianity was fine. Not everyone liked it, but it was on national TV. And I've always looked at that in amazement and wonder. And I do believe that people who have chosen to come to the west (in general, I'm sure there are exceptions) need to accept that. And I hope that the world generally moves towards that, I don't see it happening though.

As much as we all want complete freedom of speech, we are just not ready or capable as human beings. We know what would happen if bigots, racists and idiots went around abusing respected religious figures, MP's in places like India. There would be complete anarchy. The bloodshed would be beyond what happened during partition.
 
Few arrest made overnight, might have just prevented something a lot bigger.



 
As much as we all want complete freedom of speech, we are just not ready or capable as human beings. We know what would happen if bigots, racists and idiots went around abusing respected religious figures, MP's in places like India. There would be complete anarchy. The bloodshed would be beyond what happened during partition.

Yes, certainly if we remove those restrictions in today's India that will happen. I'm arguing that we shouldn't add any more restrictions in countries which don't have them.
 
:lol:

Banning cartoons mocking religions is obviously a spectacularly stupid idea. They should be encouraged if anything. People taking a bunch of fairly tales as gospel so seriously is a bigger problem.
No, they shouldn't be encouraged, but in the same way the protest against them needs to be measured and peaceful. If you're a person of faith, someone mocking your religion should lead you to pray for that person, not want to kill them.
 
No, they shouldn't be encouraged, but in the same way the protest against them needs to be measured and peaceful. If you're a person of faith, someone mocking your religion should lead you to pray for that person, not want to kill them.

Yes. I'm not religious but I found some of those cartoons distasteful. Doesn't justify what happened afterwards one bit.
 
Cartoons can be distasteful, but you cannot intimidate people into not exercising their right to satirise.
 
Why would you start from a standpoint of this being something organised and part of a group?

Just as likely to have been a nutty guy doing a terrible thing.

The latter is actually scarier to me.
It is more sensible from an operational point of view: if you start from the assumption that it is a one-off event perpetrated by an individual nutter when in fact it is larger organised terrorism, then chances are you will will be way behind in responding to any other related attacks and catching the co-conspirators.
 
No, they shouldn't be encouraged, but in the same way the protest against them needs to be measured and peaceful. If you're a person of faith, someone mocking your religion should lead you to pray for that person, not want to kill them.
Well said, Penna

This is exactly how religion and people of faith should react. These are the sermons and how we are educated in our religious classes.
 
It's wrong to assume anything, but at the same time I really dislike how people jump on those wary of Islamic terror. It's not like such incidents just fell out of the sky, these people are looking at these attacks in the context of countless others in the name of religion. I don't know why some immediately play it down and pretend to not to know what they're talking about.

To be fair, he could well have been a nutter acting alone. But I don't get the shock at those whose first assumption is towards terrorism.
 
Jo Cox husband is making some beautiful statements. Such dignity despite his loss.

The name of killer doesn't matter. The more important people are those who acted heroicly and assisted the injured. Well worth a listen to his full interview.
 
:lol:

Banning cartoons mocking religions is obviously a spectacularly stupid idea. They should be encouraged if anything. People taking a bunch of fairly tales as gospel so seriously is a bigger problem.

I think mocking other religions and beliefs is also spectacularly stupid


I don’t think freedom of speech can or should be restricted, but people should just use more common sense and be more respectful
 
This is a good example of the ignorant and the internet.

Don't talk about things you don't know about.

Calling some ignorant because they raise points you don't like. I've studied the Quran and life of Muhammad, have you? Which part do you contend? That the Quran incites violence or Muhammad commited massacres and rape?
 
The principle which guarantees the right of cartoonists to satirise what they like is the same as that which guarantees the right to worship as you please. Restricting the former helps to undermine the latter. Which is why religious people should think very carefully about the potential consequences of calling for such restrictions.
 
Calling some ignorant because they raise points you don't like. I've studied the Quran and life of Muhammad, have you? Which part do you contend? That the Quran incites violence or Muhammad commited massacres and rape?

You're embarrassing yourself further.

Nothing you have said is true. This is not the thread to discuss this topic. Start a new thread if you wish and you can be thoroughly refuted there.
 
I think mocking other religions and beliefs is also spectacularly stupid

Just as stupid as people worshipping imaginary or in some cases evil people.

And if it's stupid you call it stupid. You don't call for them to be banned or kill them because they mock your fairy tale.

This is the biggest problem with religion. So many people throwing a strop because they can't handle people making jokes about it. Especially a big problem In Islam these days as illustrated in this very thread.
 
Just as stupid as people worshipping imaginary or in some cases evil people.

And if it's stupid you call it stupid. You don't call for them to be banned or kill them because they mock your fairy tale.

This is the biggest problem with religion. So many people throwing a strop because they can't handle people making jokes about it. Especially a big problem In Islam these days as illustrated in this very thread.
Bingo.

RIP to all the victims. Another horrible tragedy.
 
As much as we all want complete freedom of speech, we are just not ready or capable as human beings. We know what would happen if bigots, racists and idiots went around abusing respected religious figures, MP's in places like India. There would be complete anarchy. The bloodshed would be beyond what happened during partition.

And?

You have to start from somewhere. You can't keep pandering to religious imbeciles who can't take a word against their precious religion.
 
Just as stupid as people worshipping imaginary or in some cases evil people.

And if it's stupid you call it stupid. You don't call for them to be banned or kill them because they mock your fairy tale.

This is the biggest problem with religion. So many people throwing a strop because they can't handle people making jokes about it. Especially a big problem In Islam these days as illustrated in this very thread.
Just your post there, this would clearly annoy a very religious person who dedicates their life to what you describe as a fairytale and stupid. How about just ignoring it and let people believe what the feck they want?
 
Few arrest made overnight, might have just prevented something a lot bigger.
Do you have any solid facts from reliable sources to back your bold claim?

Jo Cox husband is making some beautiful statements. Such dignity despite his loss.
He is a very classy man, indeed. Very similar to the French man who lost his wife in one of the terror attacks in Paris and said that these terrorists would fail to make him hate them.
 
I think they would have struck at the same time if there was to be a coordinated attack. It could be that the suspect is known to police and they have arrested known terror list associates as well.

Yep, its standard procedure to start arresting people who were close to the suspect to see what information they can get out of them.

Doesn't mean the arrested are guilty of anything though or that they are involved in the planning of the attack.

Could very easily be that all 6 are released without charge within 24 hours.
 
You're embarrassing yourself further.

Nothing you have said is true. This is not the thread to discuss this topic. Start a new thread if you wish and you can be thoroughly refuted there.

Unless you're a mod you have no right to tell someone what to do. According to all Islamic Scholars what I said is true, the only basis for my statement not being true is the fact that Muhammed may well be a fictional character or a collection of heresay given he wasn't recorded by Islamic schollars until 200 years after his death. Anyway this is one such story of massacre and rape:

It is difficult to try to be neutral when describing the enslavement and rape of Safiyyah. I generally try to let the ahadith speak for themselves, which is bad enough, but I think that the story of Safiyyah needs to be told in a manner that portrays its repulsive nature. Feel free to cross-reference everything that I say with Islamic sources.

After years of virtual stalemate between himself and the Meccan army, Muhammad decided to plunder the Jewish village of Khaybar, to the north of Madinah. Khaybar was a fertile oasis filled with lush palm trees flourishing vegetation. Furthermore, the Jewish inhabitants, many of whom were expelled from Madinah by Muhammad just a few years earlier, were skilled craftsmen with stores of gold and valuable weaponry. Muhammad gathered his troops on the outskirts of the town. Preparing his armies for a surprise raid at dawn, he shouted “When we descend upon their precincts, terrible indeed shall be the morning of those who had been warned!”

With that, Muhammad’s men descended upon the sleeping town, wreaking havoc, cutting palm trees, killing men, and enslaving women. One of the men that was captured was Kinana. Kinana was rumored to have knowledge of the location of a great treasure. Muhammad had his men torture Kinana to learn the treasure’s location, threatening him with death if he refused to disclose it. After finding the treasure, Muhammad had Kinana killed.

As the village lay in defeat, the bloodied and bruised bodies of the dead scattered about the rode, Muhammad had his men tie up the women and force them into sexual slavery. The women, bounded by rope and completely distraught, were screaming, wailing, pulling at their own hair and rubbing their faces in dust. Walking by, Muhammad referred to them as “she devils.” He gave orders to his companions to “chose whatever women they wanted.”

One of those women was 17 year old Safiyyah Bint Huyay. Safiyyah was the daughter of the tribe’s chief. She was also the wife of Kinana, whom Muhammad had tortured and killed earlier. Once Muhammad learned of her status, and of her striking beauty, he ordered her to be reserved for himself. He threw his cloak over her to show that she was his property.

She was cleaned, beautified, and prepared for the pleasure of the 60 year old self proclaimed prophet—the same man who ordered the raiding of her village, the enslavement of her friends, the murder of her father, and the torture and death of her husband.

Al- Bukhari Narrates:
Narrated Abdul Aziz:
Anas said, "When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there (early in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet. He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, ‘Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.’ He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, ‘Muhammad (has come).’ (Some of our companions added, ‘With his army.’) We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, ‘O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.’ The Prophet said, ‘Go and take any slave girl.’ He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, ‘O Allah's Apostle! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.’ So the Prophet said, ‘Bring him along with her.’ So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, ‘Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.’" Anas added: "The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."
Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet. So the Prophet was a bridegroom and he said, ‘Whoever has anything (food) should bring it.’ He spread out a leather sheet (for the food) and some brought dates and others cooking butter. (I think he (Anas) mentioned As-Sawaq). So they prepared a dish of Hais (a kind of meal). And that was Walima (the marriage banquet) of Allah's Apostle." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367)

Ibn Hisham states:

“Safiyah was born in Medinah. She belonged to the Jewish tribe of Banu 'I-Nadir. When this tribe was expelled from Medinah in the year 4 A.H, Huyaiy was one of those who settled in the fertile colony of Khaibar together with Kinana ibn al-Rabi' to whom Safiyah was married a little before the Muslims attacked Khaibar. She was then seventeen. She had formerly been the wife of Sallam ibn Mishkam, who divorced her. One mile from Khaibar. Here the Prophet married Safiyah. She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of the Prophet the whole night. When, in the early dawn, the Prophet saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: "I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account". The Prophet prayed for Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (Ibn Hisham, p. 766)
 
:lol:

Banning cartoons mocking religions is obviously a spectacularly stupid idea. They should be encouraged if anything. People taking a bunch of fairly tales as gospel so seriously is a bigger problem.
Mocking someone or their beliefs because they do not match yours or make sense to you is childish, regressive and should be discouraged.
 
Including or excluding the right to criticise and satirise religion?

I already said you cannot restrict people right to free speech. I would just prefer people didn’t take the piss out of beliefs that others find very, very important


I certainly wouldn’t, simply because it’s a shitty thing to do IMO
 
Just your post there, this would clearly annoy a very religious person who dedicates their life to what you describe as a fairytale and stupid. How about just ignoring it and let people believe what the feck they want?

Most of the time I do exactly that. But when you have people trying to curb freedom of speech because someone mocked their religion then I see no reason to pander to their sensibilities.

If it annoys them enough to abuse me then so be it. No harm done. If they resort to killing me then we have a problem. And in this case the problem are the people perpetrating the violence.
 
Just your post there, this would clearly annoy a very religious person who dedicates their life to what you describe as a fairytale and stupid. How about just ignoring it and let people believe what the feck they want?

Oh dear, so somebody somewhere gets annoyed. Big deal.
The fact that people get killed over a cartoon is fecking ridiculous. If someone is so so confident that what they believe in is correct and right then people taking the piss out of them for what they believe should be like water off a ducks back. If anything they should be prayed for as Penna says, or pitied. Killed? Shows huge insecurity imo.
 
Just your post there, this would clearly annoy a very religious person who dedicates their life to what you describe as a fairytale and stupid. How about just ignoring it and let people believe what the feck they want?

Deliberately mocking someone is rude and the Mo cartoons held little artistic merit. But the day religion takes power over someone's free speech and dictates laws is a scary one. You say 'let people believe what they want', which is fine until it impedes others. Many muslims aren't religious but are bullied by family and their community to conform to Islam's. Religion should be able to dissected as any set of ideas should be.
 
Mocking someone or their beliefs because they do not match yours or make sense to you is childish, regressive and should be discouraged.

It's meant to be a joke. If people can't take a few jokes aimed at their direction or their religion then we have problems.
 
Absolutely. I just feel if we pretend that religion is the largest part of the issue we're always going to be chasing out tail.

Dunno about largest but it's clearly part of the issue. It frustrates me the way the response to incidents like this is always so polarised and predictable. The left gets outraged about Islamophobia, ask why every muslim who commits an atrocity is a terrorist but every white man is a lone wolf and point the finger at US foreign policy. The right rant and rave about border control, religious extremism and the problems of immigrants that don't integrate fully into their new community. I actually think both sides of the debate raise important issues but so long as people keep refusing to listen to those with opposing political views we'll never come up with a holistic solution.
 
Unless you're a mod you have no right to tell someone what to do. According to all Islamic Scholars what I said is true, the only basis for my statement not being true is the fact that Muhammed may well be a fictional character or a collection of heresay given he wasn't recorded by Islamic schollars until 200 years after his death. Anyway this is one such story of massacre and rape:

It is difficult to try to be neutral when describing the enslavement and rape of Safiyyah. I generally try to let the ahadith speak for themselves, which is bad enough, but I think that the story of Safiyyah needs to be told in a manner that portrays its repulsive nature. Feel free to cross-reference everything that I say with Islamic sources.

After years of virtual stalemate between himself and the Meccan army, Muhammad decided to plunder the Jewish village of Khaybar, to the north of Madinah. Khaybar was a fertile oasis filled with lush palm trees flourishing vegetation. Furthermore, the Jewish inhabitants, many of whom were expelled from Madinah by Muhammad just a few years earlier, were skilled craftsmen with stores of gold and valuable weaponry. Muhammad gathered his troops on the outskirts of the town. Preparing his armies for a surprise raid at dawn, he shouted “When we descend upon their precincts, terrible indeed shall be the morning of those who had been warned!”

With that, Muhammad’s men descended upon the sleeping town, wreaking havoc, cutting palm trees, killing men, and enslaving women. One of the men that was captured was Kinana. Kinana was rumored to have knowledge of the location of a great treasure. Muhammad had his men torture Kinana to learn the treasure’s location, threatening him with death if he refused to disclose it. After finding the treasure, Muhammad had Kinana killed.

As the village lay in defeat, the bloodied and bruised bodies of the dead scattered about the rode, Muhammad had his men tie up the women and force them into sexual slavery. The women, bounded by rope and completely distraught, were screaming, wailing, pulling at their own hair and rubbing their faces in dust. Walking by, Muhammad referred to them as “she devils.” He gave orders to his companions to “chose whatever women they wanted.”

One of those women was 17 year old Safiyyah Bint Huyay. Safiyyah was the daughter of the tribe’s chief. She was also the wife of Kinana, whom Muhammad had tortured and killed earlier. Once Muhammad learned of her status, and of her striking beauty, he ordered her to be reserved for himself. He threw his cloak over her to show that she was his property.

She was cleaned, beautified, and prepared for the pleasure of the 60 year old self proclaimed prophet—the same man who ordered the raiding of her village, the enslavement of her friends, the murder of her father, and the torture and death of her husband.

Al- Bukhari Narrates:
Narrated Abdul Aziz:
Anas said, "When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there (early in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet. He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, ‘Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.’ He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, ‘Muhammad (has come).’ (Some of our companions added, ‘With his army.’) We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, ‘O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.’ The Prophet said, ‘Go and take any slave girl.’ He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, ‘O Allah's Apostle! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.’ So the Prophet said, ‘Bring him along with her.’ So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, ‘Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.’" Anas added: "The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."
Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet. So the Prophet was a bridegroom and he said, ‘Whoever has anything (food) should bring it.’ He spread out a leather sheet (for the food) and some brought dates and others cooking butter. (I think he (Anas) mentioned As-Sawaq). So they prepared a dish of Hais (a kind of meal). And that was Walima (the marriage banquet) of Allah's Apostle." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367)

Ibn Hisham states:

“Safiyah was born in Medinah. She belonged to the Jewish tribe of Banu 'I-Nadir. When this tribe was expelled from Medinah in the year 4 A.H, Huyaiy was one of those who settled in the fertile colony of Khaibar together with Kinana ibn al-Rabi' to whom Safiyah was married a little before the Muslims attacked Khaibar. She was then seventeen. She had formerly been the wife of Sallam ibn Mishkam, who divorced her. One mile from Khaibar. Here the Prophet married Safiyah. She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of the Prophet the whole night. When, in the early dawn, the Prophet saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: "I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account". The Prophet prayed for Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (Ibn Hisham, p. 766)

Nice copy and paste job. Also your claim to have "Studied" anything is laughable. Anyone who actually knows anything on the subject would not have posted that drivel.

Your just copying and pasting garbage from Islamophobic websites which have been refuted ad nauseam.

Once again this is not the thread to spout Your ignorant rambling so Out of respect for the victims of this crime I won't engage in this topic here.

However if you do feel up to starting a separate thread instead of derailing this one then I would be happy to join the debate in it.
 
Unless you're a mod you have no right to tell someone what to do. According to all Islamic Scholars what I said is true, the only basis for my statement not being true is the fact that Muhammed may well be a fictional character or a collection of heresay given he wasn't recorded by Islamic schollars until 200 years after his death. Anyway this is one such story of massacre and rape:

It is difficult to try to be neutral when describing the enslavement and rape of Safiyyah. I generally try to let the ahadith speak for themselves, which is bad enough, but I think that the story of Safiyyah needs to be told in a manner that portrays its repulsive nature. Feel free to cross-reference everything that I say with Islamic sources.

After years of virtual stalemate between himself and the Meccan army, Muhammad decided to plunder the Jewish village of Khaybar, to the north of Madinah. Khaybar was a fertile oasis filled with lush palm trees flourishing vegetation. Furthermore, the Jewish inhabitants, many of whom were expelled from Madinah by Muhammad just a few years earlier, were skilled craftsmen with stores of gold and valuable weaponry. Muhammad gathered his troops on the outskirts of the town. Preparing his armies for a surprise raid at dawn, he shouted “When we descend upon their precincts, terrible indeed shall be the morning of those who had been warned!”

With that, Muhammad’s men descended upon the sleeping town, wreaking havoc, cutting palm trees, killing men, and enslaving women. One of the men that was captured was Kinana. Kinana was rumored to have knowledge of the location of a great treasure. Muhammad had his men torture Kinana to learn the treasure’s location, threatening him with death if he refused to disclose it. After finding the treasure, Muhammad had Kinana killed.

As the village lay in defeat, the bloodied and bruised bodies of the dead scattered about the rode, Muhammad had his men tie up the women and force them into sexual slavery. The women, bounded by rope and completely distraught, were screaming, wailing, pulling at their own hair and rubbing their faces in dust. Walking by, Muhammad referred to them as “she devils.” He gave orders to his companions to “chose whatever women they wanted.”

One of those women was 17 year old Safiyyah Bint Huyay. Safiyyah was the daughter of the tribe’s chief. She was also the wife of Kinana, whom Muhammad had tortured and killed earlier. Once Muhammad learned of her status, and of her striking beauty, he ordered her to be reserved for himself. He threw his cloak over her to show that she was his property.

She was cleaned, beautified, and prepared for the pleasure of the 60 year old self proclaimed prophet—the same man who ordered the raiding of her village, the enslavement of her friends, the murder of her father, and the torture and death of her husband.

Al- Bukhari Narrates:
Narrated Abdul Aziz:
Anas said, "When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there (early in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet. He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, ‘Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.’ He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, ‘Muhammad (has come).’ (Some of our companions added, ‘With his army.’) We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, ‘O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.’ The Prophet said, ‘Go and take any slave girl.’ He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, ‘O Allah's Apostle! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.’ So the Prophet said, ‘Bring him along with her.’ So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, ‘Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.’" Anas added: "The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."
Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet. So the Prophet was a bridegroom and he said, ‘Whoever has anything (food) should bring it.’ He spread out a leather sheet (for the food) and some brought dates and others cooking butter. (I think he (Anas) mentioned As-Sawaq). So they prepared a dish of Hais (a kind of meal). And that was Walima (the marriage banquet) of Allah's Apostle." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367)

Ibn Hisham states:

“Safiyah was born in Medinah. She belonged to the Jewish tribe of Banu 'I-Nadir. When this tribe was expelled from Medinah in the year 4 A.H, Huyaiy was one of those who settled in the fertile colony of Khaibar together with Kinana ibn al-Rabi' to whom Safiyah was married a little before the Muslims attacked Khaibar. She was then seventeen. She had formerly been the wife of Sallam ibn Mishkam, who divorced her. One mile from Khaibar. Here the Prophet married Safiyah. She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of the Prophet the whole night. When, in the early dawn, the Prophet saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: "I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account". The Prophet prayed for Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (Ibn Hisham, p. 766)

So you say Muhammad (s.a.a.w) may well be fictional and then go ahead and post a story to try and prove he was an evil person. So which is it in your mind, did the prophet exist or not?