Battle of Mu'tah.... Doing some reading on it. Quite a fascinating battle by the Muslims. 3000 Muslims going against a Roman army of up to 200 000, and walking away with all but 12 Muslims. Anyway, back on topic... The Roman's and their Arab allies had a truce with Muhammad PBUH. They broke this truce by killing Al-Haarith ibn Umayr Al-'Azdi. This not only broke the truce, but apparently in this time this killing messengers was one of the worst crimes commitable. And an act of war. So, as a result of the murder, Muhammad PBUH sent an army of Muslims to "teach them a lesson" if you will. Had the Romans/Arabs not broken the truce by killing the envoy, this entire battle would of been avoided. Since it was an act of war, would the retaliation be considered revenge or self-defence or neither or both? That might differ between person. I personally consider it self-defence, since it wasn't Muhammad who started the war. Now, if it wasn't an act of war, I would consider it revenge. Would this still happen today? I don't see why not. First off, there has been wars for very little things, such as speculation or the acts of a few people (I'm sure you know to what I'm referring to ). And these days, attacking an embassy building or an ambassador is considered an act of war by some countries. Now, I don't know what the exact international law regarding the murder of ambassadors/diplomats and damaging of embassy building. Keep that in mind. Why do you expect Muslims feel any different than a Christian or Jew or Hindu or Buddhist or anybody else when killing a diplomat of another country, Muslim or not?
Some say yes, some say no. Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad I got this quote from here: http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm It explains it much better and I recommend reading it. Aisha PBUH might of even been older.
