MUHAMMAD DID NOT PERMIT POLYGAMY

Well, Micky, as I said, the key here is 'the independent investigation of truth'. You can't believe anything any mortal human says, not even me.

As has been the case in other cultures, pre-Islamic Arabia was a tribal culture of warring tribes. Muhammad united the trlibes, but from the fighting there were many widows, and so rules allowing men to have several wives made sense. Women also were given many independent rights to property and inheritence. When Islam spread to other cultures, many of these legal rights for women were changed , in part because of the influence of other cultures. The Muslims generally retained the administration and institutions of the different countries which they conquered.

First, American pharmacists have been refusing to fill morning after pills for years now all over the US. So the cab drivers are not doing anything new in this country. They're doing what Americans are already doing.

Secondly, Muslims of this type don't have a monopoly on the cab driving business. So, when one of them refuses service to an individual, then that driver loses business and loses money, while a driver who will pick up the patron will get the extra fare. Seems like free market economics, which is all about personal choices of the consumer and supplier, to me.

They seem to be adapting quite well to the culture that already exists.

Micky: I am a twelfth generation American. This is my country as much as it is yours... and no more. This is a country of all the people, not just one or two, not just "white" Americans or "cowboy" Americans. I changed my religious choice from Christian some years ago (56 to be exact) and that is my right. But I also think that we patriots have an obligation to correct things which have been socially accepted if they are not right or good for the country. We are not a static people with a "frozen" brain.

As to Islam and polygamy, Thomas is absolutely right. It is just as bad to judge Islam based on the actions of Muslims as it is bad to judge Christians based on the actions of Christians. Neither of them have a clue what religion is all about.

micky d. I have no argument with anything you said. The purpose of my article was to show that Moslems, like others, are not necessarily following what their Prophet taught.

People seem unable to distinguish between 'religion' as it was taught by the Founder, from 'religion' as it has become after centuries of contamination by its followers. We must honor and revere God's Holy Messengers and His teachings, but to bow down to outworn and outdated religious customs is ridiculous and unnecessary.

For one a true account of historical mohammed or his teachings are not available to us. The traditional records of the quran,sirat & hadith are far far too late to establish any degree of reliability concerning history.

Early 7th century non islamic records appear to present us with a picture that suggests that mohammed united both saracens & arab jews under common decendants of abraham and that archealogical & documentary evidence also suggests(but does not conclusively prove) he started his new movement as a distinguished jewish(judea-christian) offshoot with a focul point centered away from arabia/mecca (jerusalem rather than mecca & its kaaba). It appears, Later traditional ilamic records appear as a consequence of revisionist possibly making changes to history.

In any case traditional islamic records concerning "traditional" mohammed neither imply that mohammed himself was monogamous or that he intended such a practice for jis followers. He had many far too many wives & even when carefully examining the quranic revalations on muslim wives, it suggests numbers two,three & four. Even though four is normally interpreted as a limit, there is nothing that suggests that this was meant to be the limit.Besides mohammad himself had many so that is precedent enough.

On the issue of equitable treatment, i dont believe traditional mohammed should be the one to preach on this. After his treatment of only one of his wife Sawda bint Zama & his stance on wife beating, i dont considerable traditional mohammed a prime candidate for moral behaviour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawda_bint_Zama

Yes its true a substantial number of muslims do not follow mohammed teahings, nor are many aware of what islam teahes & are actually very good people.

Mohammed was not an idiot, Thomas. If he had intended to proscribe polygamy he would have done so. When it comes to the "good books" people are always manipulating words to make them say what they want them to say. I am not a student of the Koran but would be inclined to take this prescription at face value- that is, if it is an accurate translation from the original Aribic into modern English.

In any case the whole question is in some ways irrelevant. It is not scripture that provides the nature of marriage but rather societal norms, differing through time and from culture to culture. Think about Joseph Smith and the early history of those good people, the Mormons, or the current and growing acceptance of gay marriage in much of the western world. The purpose of religion is to sanctify whatever arrangements society lays down; to give the weight of God and society to commitment, the one to the other. Sadly, because people are always trying to get God on their side, they put words into His mouth instead of trying to find the underlying truth in scripture. In the case of marriage such a distortion may trivialize the union. And God.

John S: No, certainly Mohammad was no idiot. He was far wiser than you or I or anyone else up to His time. After all He was God's representative on earth for His time. He spoke the word of God. He proscribed polygamy, and He did it His way, and His way was for a purpose. He certainly was well aware of what the outcome would be of His words. He had his reasons. Don't forget He also knew that there would come after Him another who would set things straight. Baha'u'llah, like Mohammad before Him, said than a man could have more than one wife provided that he treated them all equally. Abdu'l-Baha, the son of Baha'u'llah and His interpreter, said that to treat all wives equally was impossible, therefore polygamy was forbidden. This is an example of how religion is evolutionary, not static.

The contemporary distortions and delusions of the Semitic religions- Judaism, Christiianity and Islam - are being challlenged in the Middle East now, partly for socio- poitical reasons, partly as one expression of the worldwide pressures of globalization and nations seeking te natural resources. As for the future of contemporary religions , all are divided within themselves and seeking reform.

History shows that Jews living in Islamic countries fared well; in Europe and Russia they did not, for many centuries. The Jews were the largest single plurality in Iraq , about 30%, prior to the creation of Israel. The majority of Palestinians were Christians until Israel became a state. In Iraq, before the US invasion, there were many Christians. The earliest Christian churches, some dating from the 3rd century, exist in Iraq , Iran , Syria, Egypt and other countries.

The United States was the first to stricitly separet religion from the state. There were many different sects who had come form Europe and England . (In fact , it was a matter of serious debate among the founders whether German should be the official language of the new Republic, instead of English.) But few Americans were churchgoers, prehaps 15%. The general view was that all religions in the Old World were corrupt. Founders like Franklin, Madison and Jefferson were clearly Deists, but not accept Christian dogma.

Yes i'd agree that "traditional" mohammad was no idiot as well. The sirat/hadith display his genius on several occasions, one of them being the incident concerning the Banu Qurayza . On that particular occassion, the jewish tribe had taken no action that would appeared to breach their peace treaty nor did they ally with or support the enemies of the mohammedians when they had arrived earlier. Infact the only access to the mohammed & his followers could be provided by Banu Qurayza & some sources state that they denied such access. Despite this fact mohammed decided to raid the jewish tribe & it was only because angel gabriel told him to do so.

On arrival they besieged the area (& cutting the a long story short) Banu Qurayza finally agreed to surrender, but despite this fact his men feared what might become of them(knowing fully well what mohammed intended to do with the earlier 2 jewish tribes but never got the chance to do so again due to the intervention by his men and was therefore instead forced to send them into exile). In light of this fact(the fact that they knew what he was thinking & he knew what they were thinking), he played one his smartest moves ever. He asked if they would accept judgement by one of their own(instead of mohammed proclaiming his own judgement) & feeling at ease they said yes.

(What they didnt realise is that ) On this suggestion mohammed would appoint, Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, a close friend of his, who prior to the battle of the trench made it absolutely clear he wanted to see Banu Qurayza destroyed and mohammed was fully aware of his intentions when he appointed him to pass judgement on Banu Qurayza. What happened next is that sa'd proclaimed all adult males should be beheaded & the children & women were to be spared(not to mention that women in war were taken as booty/property as used accodingly.). The number of males recorded as killed range between 600-900(which i indicative of the number of families present since they were all adults). It is also noteworthy that prior to the beheadings & just after sa'ds judgement, mohammed praised sa'd for his judgement & stated that it was the right one in the eyes of god. Below is just a brief article on this story(although not covering many of the key points ive stated here)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza

The bottomline again, was "traditional" mohammed an idiot? No doubt he wasn't, the above is just one situation that proves it.

On whether mohammed prescribed polygamy, it appears that mohammed did no such thing either by his actions or words. As stated in my earlier comment, he set no precedent for such action, he himself having at the very least 14(if i remember well am a bit rusty) wives & countless number of concumbines & women from the spoil of war (booty/property;women whose previous marriages were considered void after capture under mohammadian laws regarding wars). Moreover there is no evidence from the quran that mohammed set a limit on wife at 4 despite the koran suggestion of these numbers being 2,3,4. There is nothing that implies it wasnt meant to be 2,3,4.....& so on. Also as stated earlier, the suggestion that there should be no more than one wife unless all wives can be treated equally, does not apply. Traditional Mohammed did actually have more than one wife & he did also discriminate between them. When there are records that clearly suggests that mohammed did both of these, it would seem like a mistake if one were to suggest that mohammed taught things that were quite the opposite of his own actions(unless he clearly specified it, which he didnt).

Another piece of information that clearly indicates that mohammed would allow his men pleasures beyond their own wives is presented in the documentaion of an incident when mohammed led a campaign against Banu Mustaliq. According to the sources, when after the attack & defeat of the tribe, the women were taken as booty as usual. The men were away from home & their wives and were experiencing sexual urges and they had women booty to take care of this problem.

However a new problem had arisen in that previous mohammedian laws stated that if a woman in booty were to become pregnant after sexual intercource, they would have to marry them. If however they were to marry them then these women would acquire the status of wives instead of of their previous positions as property(property which they could sell as well). However, even though these men desired sexual intercourse they did not want to loose out on their opportunity to sell their women as property so they thought up the idea of practicing Coitus interruptus in achieving both objectives. Nevetheless, they needed mohammads permission before defying any laws & so they asked him. Mohammed then granted them such permission for this action.


The bottomline again, No there is little or no evidence suggesting that "traditional"mohammed (as opposed to a historical mohammed) ever taught monogamy. All documentation states just the opposite. If muslims of today choose to have one wife, it would not be because of anything written in any of the mohammedian documents such as the quran,sirat or the hadith. At the very least it would amount to their own decision to do so or a misinterementation of mohammeds teaching.

My limited reading agrees with the historical facts that Clarke M has laid out. Unlike for Jesus, there is a historical Muhammed (however you wish to spell his name) who definitely did not conform to modern social norms with respect to marrriage. Nor did Joseph Smith. We leave it to our own consciences, law and social pressures to decide the rightness of polygamy. We must leave the judgement of Joseph Smith and Muhammed to God. I think there may be a bit of wishful thinking in your statement on the Prophet, Thomas. I do not disagree that Christianity, then Islam, then Bahá'í, progressed from the same Abrahamic Israeli roots but perhaps it is a mistake to think that the older religions do not have progressive elements that march with the times, in accordance with humankind's ability to understand (as Don Hawley has pointed out) and have bi-passed the step by step progression beloved of Bahá'ís.

Some neat slightly off topic stuff there Dar R. Incidentally watch that "presribe" and "proscribe". They are opposites as I'm sure you know.

Yes,my bad. Please note the following correction to my above comment:

"On whether mohammed prescribed polygamy"

I actually meant this to be:

"On whether mohammed prescribed monogamy"

"Even though four is normally interpreted as a limit, there is nothing that suggests that this was meant to be the limit."

If a limit were to be granted higher, or if there were no limit, then that is what the Quran would have said. Instead, it clearly permitted only up to four. That is the way that hundreds of thousands of ulema' have interpreted the verse for more than 1400 years. Just because it doesn't seem to suit your view doesn't mean it's inaccurate. You have no qualifications to change a well established law.

"He had many far too many wives"

A very poor argument. Muhammad had roles that were very distinct from the common man's roles in life. Muhammad was set to unite the Arabs and that would require marrying many women in order to unite various tribes. If you look at the ages of those women (generally very old) and the age of Muhammad during most of those marriages (52 years old or greater), you can see that it wasn't for the typical marriage that Westerners think of, but more like a partnership.

Since most people won't be marrying nor will have the need to marry well into their 50's, Muhammad's case of marrying multiple women is irrelevant as it was based on very specific circumstances.

"When there are records that clearly suggests that mohammed did both of these, it would seem like a mistake if one were to suggest that mohammed taught things that were quite the opposite of his own actions(unless he clearly specified it, which he didnt)."

And you're 100% certain that these records are true and have not been made up in order for Caliphs and Sultans later in history to abuse their power?

"The traditional records of the quran,sirat & hadith are far far too late to establish any degree of reliability concerning history."

"When there are records..." What records are those? Hadith and Sira, of course.
"According to the sources..." Sources like the sira and hadith?

So at the beginning you say we cannot use the hadith and sira as reliable sources because they are unreliable and written far after the death of Muhammad (which is true, but the Quran was written shortly after the death), yet then you constantly use the hadith and sira for your argument. Hmm...

So who gave you such power to make such ridiculous claims of polygamy in Islam? Does Sheikh come at the front of your name?

Dar and John: I think it is easy to confuse which came first the chicken or the egg when we talk about advances in evolutional development "led" by the phenomenon of religion and the natural acceptance and understanding of ordinary men in being able to first comprehend and secondly actually adopt these socially evolutionarily occuring changes. I also think that we are perhaps closer to each other's understanding than we think because of (and only because of) our nuances of differing views of the concept of God and religion (which is understandable when you consider that both of these are far more complex than most people think).

One difference between the Baha'i view and that of other, older presentations of religion (i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is in moderizing clarifications on this whole phenomenon brought (as part of that religious phenomenon) by Baha'u'llah. In the Baha'i writings it is pointed out that a "prophet" (or Rasul) never is under His own code of laws (true in His own case where He had more than one wife). Thus, Muhammad was not under His own laws presented in the Koran (actually not "His own" but those of God for that time hence forward). Muhammad was not a Muslim, just as Jesus was not a Christian but a Jew Who worshipped in the synagog. The message that a rasul (messenger of the word) brings from God is for mankind and not for the rasul per se. It is wrong to think that Muhammad (or Jesus for that matter) was just a "smart leader of mankind" or some kind of benevolent philosopher. It is not for man to judge God but for God to judge man. And it is not for us to judge Jesus or Muhammad or Baha'u'llah but for Them to judge us. By the same token, while we were created in the "image" of God, God was not created in our image, as most Christians seems to think. In fact, God was not created at all.

Historically, I think that the banu qurash were actually Jews who pretended to be loyal but who worked behind the scenes to destroy Muhammad. And in fact, God (not His representatives such as Moses, Jesus, Muhammad or Baha'u'llah) was Himself directly responsible for many massacres of disobedient people throughout religious history. You can look at it as a loving act to weed out the "bad genes" of the species to allow those with the "good genes" to progress without being held back by the disobedient "sluggards" in their midst.

As to polygamy, Thomas is absolutely right. I do not think that God (being all wise and knowing the future as well as the past) phrased the Koran as He did (incidentally the Koran was not written by Muhammad, who was totally illiterate) because He expected that polygamy would come to an end. God is no dummy and knows exactly what will happen in the future. It was to lay the ground work for future developments as men fought over the centuries with their own atavistic tendencies.

One of the problems here is that we are now (you and I) still struggling with our atavistic natures and trying like "all get out" to be half way decent in an indecent socio-political environment. We are just now evolving from a "baboon troop" mentality with respect to wives, sex, and so forth. Polygamy was the general practice in Jesus's time and there is no mention in the Bible of the number of wives a man may or may not have or the number of men a wife may or may not have. Muhammad was the first to limit the number of wives. He was monogomous while Katirah lived and became polygamous only after she died, mostly for political reasons (gift from Egyptian rulers).

This is not very comprehensible to those with a more simplistic view that mixes up concepts of how a "leader" should be or act as if that is what a RASUL is. Wake up, folks. God is not a creation of our minds but we are a creation of "His". We're not talking "leaders" or "philosophers" or "wise men" or "professors" or "Popes" or any part of our normal everyday lives. We are talking about a very, very sophisticated phenomenon that we must learn to understand as it is and not as we would like it to be. Every single part of religious history has been designed to bring us to where we are right now, including the wars resulting from misunderstandings between "religions" (what's going on right now with terrorism). It is all part of a "learning curve" for man and the "lessons" are designed by God.

Thank you, Don, for your further insights and clarifications.

"So at the beginning you say we cannot use the hadith and sira as reliable sources because they are unreliable and written far after the death of Muhammad (which is true, but the Quran was written shortly after the death), yet then you constantly use the hadith and sira for your argument. Hmm...

So who gave you such power to make such ridiculous claims of polygamy in Islam? Does Sheikh come at the front of your name?"

Just a quick response and a to this and i response to the rest is i get the time later. For one, i've stated what i have myself seen in islamic sources & if you noticed i havent comentated on any moral implications of what ive presented above, cause that isnt my job. But if you are offended by what you hear, perhaps you should point a finger at the sources & not me.

Anyway, i believe you seem to have brought to our attention what appears to be a contradiction regarding the use & reliability of the quran & hadith & sirat. Yes i did state that islamic documents are far too late in being considered as credible. The earliest source is the sirat(by ibn ishaq) around 750 AD +, (120 yrs after mohammeds death) & ishaqs work itself do not exist but are found in Ibn hisham's work (around 50 yrs after ishaqs work). The hadiths(including the sahih ones) area hundred yrs after the sirat and the quran there are 2 or 3 ancient ones, none of which precede 790AD. Two of the most common quranic manuscripts are in khufic scripts which was a text adopted in later centuries when esablihing the religion in foreign lands. The earliest known one so far is in the british library and is written in ma'il script. Since the last 20 yrs or so there had been a new development in that there were some manuscripts found in san'a, yemen. However the government out there have kept the study a low profile & for some reason not been willing or eager to publish the findings of the study of those manuscripts. There has been some information made public & statements by those studying the texts over a period of time & these have revealed several things including the date of the quranic texts which again place these around 790AD+(Of course placing these among the earliest possible qurans). There is therefore no islamic material that can is early enough to fall within the first cenury of islam. Nor is there any evidence of this.

As to why i chose to address mohammads story using the sirats & the hadiths, here are the reasons in short:
1) The quran concerns revalations & does not appear in a narrative form providing a context within which certian revelations were said to have been made or provide backdrop which tell us more about the story of mohammeds life & his teachings(these are found in the sirat/hadith).
2) In doing so I didn't suggest that I was a firm believer in the events as stated in those sources, which is specifically why I repeatedly used the words "traditional mohammad" (& not a historical mohammed based on early information which is not available). Mohammad's story is built upon existing traditionally accepted late documents namely the quran,sirat & the hadith which is why I chose to addressed the above in those same terms.
3)There are earlier non Islamic sources but those mostly document events outside the quranic stated environment, barely tell us much about mohammed but do give us a picture about the early Saracen movement.
4)Also the sirat/hadiths are themselves accepted by muslims in representing the ways of the mohammed(sunnah).


"And you're 100% certain that these records are true and have not been made up in order for Caliphs and Sultans later in history to abuse their power?"
No I'm not certain of that, in fact taking into consideration the nature of the information (including manuscripts amongst others) I'm inclined to(& its not just me) be skeptical to a significant degree about a substantial bit documented in there (which includes the quran as well). This shouldn't be so surprising to the objective however, when considering 1st century sources such as Mathew, Mark & Luke for instance, many scholars aren't too hesitant in suggesting the existence hypothetical Q that may have been written even before those. What would scholars make of the historical Christ if there were no such 1st century writings in existence & instead we only had later writings such as the Gnostic gospels which were written in the following century/centuries. This situation is pretty much plain & simple, there arent any early mohammedian records in existence.


"but the Quran was written shortly after the death"

Acutally there is barely any evidence that the quran was a 7th century compilation or that in its entirely (complete form as it is today) can be traced back to that period.

"If you look at the ages of those women (generally very old)"
Well it depends on how you look at there, there were quite a few of them so the age ranged from old to young. For example, Hafsah the daughter of Umar & Aisha the daughter of Abu baker were young brides. Aisha was engaged at six & married to mohammed(then aged 52) at the age of 9 when he consummated the marriage with her.

"you can see that it wasn't for the typical marriage that Westerners think of, but more like a partnership."
This is what we typically hear most of the time, however for the sake of argument we may be consider in cases such as that of aisha, hafsha & a few more but we certainly can not suggest this reason for all his wives. If this were the case what kind of partnership would one suggest when mohammed wedded a jewish woman Safiyya bint Huyayy (whose father he had killed) & who he married after having her husband killed(I believe he married her the same day;she was booty). Raihanah bint Zaid, Zaynab bint Jahsh & Juwayriya bint al-Harith were booty as well.

"Since most people won't be marrying nor will have the need to marry well into their 50's, Muhammad's case of marrying multiple women is irrelevant as it was based on very specific circumstances."
I don't seem to understand the weight in this argument. How can we use this argument to justify why mohammed married & when he married. What we do know for certain about traditional mohammed from the hadiths/sirat however is that he was sexually active even after 50 (even with his 9 year old bride). The rest is not for me to judge.

Coming back to the issue concerning the number of wives:
"Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that…."

These appear in a sequence, if the concerned person meant to go on I don't suppose he would have carried on & on with the numbers, he would have simply meant you to understand this from his expressions( which we do not know of). Moreover if the verse implied that followers should not go beyond four that it could have very easily stated this fact. I for one do not dispute the possibility of a suggestion that the verse implied a limit on four, but the verse is nevertheless at the very least inconclusive open to interpretation. Furthermore, we are provided with sources documenting arab culture of those times & mohammeds life as well and these do not appear to conform to any such standards.

Finally, even the suggestion of this upper limit does not in any way imply that the quran was suggesting monogamy if it was it would have clearly said so. And again the argument of equal treatment seems flawed when considering that mohammed (islam's greatest prophet) himself was on occasions unfair with all his wives & discriminated between them. The argument that justice is difficult between wives is a reasonable one & reasonable enough to undermine the other suggestion of taking more wives. But the basis of this argument is the level of difficulty in providing justice between & not on its impossibility. If the quranic authors(not me) felt it were impossible, they could have straight away knocked away the other option of multiple wives. And even applying such standards to mohammed in deciding whether his other marriages were justified, we notice that he fails to meet them considerably. I already mentioned earlier that Sawda_bint_Zama(one of mohammeds wives) was not treated well, this was particularly apparent after mohammed married aisha, she basically only stuck around & even offered her nights to mohammeds other wives so that he would not divorce her(knowing that she was old & that he was going to do this earlier). What more is that Swada's case isn't an isolated one, there are other examples as well.

"Historically, I think that the banu qurash were actually Jews who pretended to be loyal but who worked behind the scenes to destroy Muhammad."

Donald, it is quite apparent from the sources that there was a history in the relations between the muslims & the banu quyayza and It is evident that these were not the best of relations, no wonder there was a peace treaty between them. Now i have actually heard on a number of occassions that the jews were the ones to break the treaty or were working towards it. Despite these suggestions i have found no evidence of this. Its possible that there may have been rumors of them conspiring against mohammed, but no where have i found any evidence that the jews were either actively involved in attempting to breach the treaty or that they did actually do so at any point thus deserving the consequences were forthcoming. On the contrary it seems that mohammed instead appears to be the one to have breached the treaty on the instructions of angel gabriel. Furthermore it must be noted that the whole tribe did in fact surrender prior to them facing their deaths.

But in any case if you do actually find any evidence that the jews were the ones to breach the treaty I'd really like to know, i dont mind taking it into consideration.


"And in fact, God (not His representatives such as Moses, Jesus, Muhammad or Baha'u'llah) was Himself directly responsible for many massacres of disobedient people throughout religious history. You can look at it as a loving act to weed out the "bad genes" of the species to allow those with the "good genes" to progress without being held back by the disobedient "sluggards" in their midst."
I guess that's true in that it is difficult when inserting god into the equation. Questioning gods intentions, his wrath & judgment may change the scope of thing a bit. Nevertheless what we must consider if at all god had any valid reason for his judgements & whether or not these were disclosed prior to such judgements being carried out. Let's take for instance sodomy & sexual pervasions in Sodom & Gomorrah, the Moabites and Midianites who seduced gods people to idolatery and adultery, the same for the Canaanites (who were known to exist during Abraham's time & received gods judgement during the time of Joshua).

Right or wrong a different matter but in Banu Qurayza's case one must ask, what were the reason for them being killed:
1) Was it because there is any evidence that they breached the terms of the treaty?
2) Was it because Angel Gabriel said so (without he himself(i.e gabriel) offering any reason for such instructions? Or
3) Was it because mohammed himself had intentions to get rid of the jewish tribes living there?

Sorry, Dar R., but I see your approach as very convoluted and questionable. You seem to say repeatedly that there is "no evidence..." What does this come from? You question the accuracy of Ibn Ishaq's "Kitab'i Rasul Allah" in that it was written years after. So what does this mean or matter? The historical records of Islam are much closer in written form to the events than Christian writings were to the time of Jesus. Even the Hadith was carefully collected from eye witnesses and through memory passed on down meticulously to preserve them. We have no "Hadith" of Jesus. None, nil, zip. When one considers the conditions under which all the major religions originated (conditions in which writing was not wide spread, printing non-existent and social conditions chaotic at best) it is a wonder that anything survived for Christianity or Islam. From what I see in your comments above I doubt that you would be satisfied if you received a letter from Muhammad or Jesus that was signed and sealed with some kind of royal seal. You can't seem to live with the idea that religion may just not be simply an extension of the mundane material environment we are submerged in.

While Gabriel did give the Koran to Muhammad at the start and repeated three times, "Read" when Muhammad protested that He could not read, there is no indication to me that all future revelations were hand delivered by Gabriel. I do not understand why you go to lengths to question (your last three questions above) things which are apparent in Ibn Ishaq's book and record. Hey, and I'm no Sheykh or Mullah or other scoundrel. I don't even give much credence to Hadith, especially anything other than first line of passage of Hadith. Remember that marriage was the only option other than prostitution for an unmarried woman in Muhammad's society time. Women were not as valuable as a camel or donkey.

"You question the accuracy of Ibn Ishaq's "Kitab'i Rasul Allah" in that it was written years after. So what does this mean or matter? The historical records of Islam are much closer in written form to the events than Christian writings were to the time of Jesus."

Firstly Donald, disputing the text of the bible would not make the quranic text any more credible than they already are. I know though that I did mention the gospels earlier, but that was in regards to how scholars study & date ancient texts. Besides I'm not sure as to which angle you've taken on this but even when considering Christian writings I do not agree that Islamic documents can be placed closer to their corresponding events than those recorded by say for instance the gospel writings. There are several reasons why I've suggested this. When I mentioned the sirats(the earliest known Islamic material that can be reliably dated & roughly date around 750AD+) for instance, I was talking about the dates of composition & not the manuscript dates (similarly the earliest hadiths were compiled around a hundred yrs after this) .

Similarly, the synoptic gospels (particularly matthew mark & luke) are considered by many including a substantial number of scholars to have been written within the 1st century AD. Moreover amongst the oldest of many manuscripts is a text from John (P52) which dates the around 125AD. This is perhaps one of the indications that this gospel was written earlier. Moreover, we also find attestations for early christian leaders (in the second century) of these writings as well as early/mid second century non scriptural writings that quote from the gospels & new testaments.

What I am actually implying by this is that, given the above situation, it would not be beyond rational in expecting to have a reasonable level documentation to work with or to substantiate the content & integrity of texts that exist in our midst today.


"Even the Hadith was carefully collected from eye witnesses and through memory passed on down meticulously to preserve them"

If that were truly known & well established, then perhaps there would be no a problem. However, the first limitation again is that the compiltions themselves (for instance the Hadith Bukhari: 850AD) are late to begin with. All chain of narrations that took place (called isnad) were included at the time of compilation. Whats more is that these are not as accurate or unbiased as you seem to have suggested. It is not as though scholars(particularly non secular ones) are alone in disputing the reliability of these chain of narration. These are at time inconsistent within themselves at times but more importantly muslims themselves dispute these on several grounds, the consequences of which are fairly obvious the muslim community. For instance, Shias & sunnis wouldn't follow different hadiths if they found each others hadiths to be reliable.


"We have no "Hadith" of Jesus. None, nil, zip."

Again, Jesus is of little or no consequence to the compilation of Islamic documents. Nevertheless, in taking luke alone we see that the material out there appears common with Mathew & mark and that he may have used those references (although it is possible that it was the other way around or that they shared a source). Furthermore from reading his gospel account & the Acts we notice that his introduction also states that he compiled different eyewitness accounts & possibly may have also verified these against other available gospel accounts at that time. So it would be another issue if one were to dispute the integrity & content of the gospel accounts for instance, but the information in question nevertheless are still early accounts & these accounts are documented in nature. An oral (unwritten) tradition does not automatically disqualify credibility, but the longer these remain undocumented the greater the chances that these might result in variants & the greater the difficulty would be in tracing the origins of these or in attempting to verify the assertion that such have remained substantially unchanged ever since they first originated (since there is virtually no trail left behind in this regard). If early gospels accounts aren't oral traditions but the written kind, how much would this really matter? Written texts are generally preferred over oral statement in evidence.


"When one considers the conditions under which all the major religions originated (conditions in which writing was not wide spread, printing non-existent and social conditions chaotic at best) it is a wonder that anything survived for Christianity or Islam."

Yes that is true, first of all it would be highly improbable that we would ever be able to find the original of any documents, this is not a fact that scholars seem to have ignored. But the existence of something written is nevertheless very helpful. From this & other information we may be able roughly trace the original text & its date of composition. In the case of Islamic documents, there is also one more questionable factor. It may be considered that in ancient times, writings took place on stone tablets & so it was difficult to readily make copies of texts & these were not easy to move around with. Nevertheless with the arrival of new methods such as papyrus, writing was no more problem. We find such texts written on such mediums even before the first century AD (in other words BC) so it would be a difficult suggestion to sell in accounting for the absence of early Islamic material.

Furthermore, when reading the sirat and the hadith we encounter a rather significantly revealing incident of in regards to the possible ability & expectance of early record. These records document how the quran was compiled beginning at the time of abu bakar & continuing right through to Usman time. However during Usmans reign it is stated that there emerged many variant texts & Usman sought to settle this issue by collecting all available variants & burning them. He then appointed Zaid to compile standard Collection, much to the disappointment of a number of the prophets companions who disputed zaids version & were angered by the fact that their versions were not approved. This is a pretty telling story whichever way you look at it, particularly since there may be a number of considerations involved here. The one thing I would like to point out here is the fact that the later documents themselves claim that quranic records had been collected in the early periods after mohammeds death. If this were true, this is further reason (aside from the fact that the sources also state burning of unofficial versions) as to why we would expect to see more documented texts or evidence of early documentation outside the (late) internal sources.


"From what I see in your comments above I doubt that you would be satisfied if you received a letter from Muhammad or Jesus that was signed and sealed with some kind of royal seal."

But I haven't received any such letter from either of the two so why shouldn't I question? I haven't been discussing rights & wrongs here; I think others should be able to make moral decision on their own. What i have discussed for the most part concerns the nature & integrity of the information involved. I am not trying to twist information around, the fact remains that all Islamic material available are rather late (and can not be traced back to the 7th century, in the form as it exists with us today or even in the form as it begins to appear to us for the very first time in the following centuries), the compilations of eyewitness chain of narrations (isnad) are disputed not only by scholars but also by those within the muslim community itself. Islam also appears to encounter significant problems when further considering variant writings observed in earlier writings (islam first century) such as the inscriptions those on the dome of the rock as well as some other early non Islamic historic material which appear to conflict with the conventional later islamic ones.


"I do not understand why you go to lengths to question (your last three questions above) things which are apparent in Ibn Ishaq's book and record."

Its fairly simple, firstly the questions concern the reasons for the banu qurayza being killed. These were also in response to the suggestion that God at times has been known for massacres to which I replied that even in those cases it has been observed that god always provided a reason for such massacres as well. What I was implying here from this was that if god were the one responsible for killing the banu qurayza we ought to expect him to provide us with a reason as well.


"I don't even give much credence to Hadith, especially anything other than first line of passage of Hadith."

I don't either, but traditional islam & the traditional mohammad's story are largely built upon these sources and in addressing islamic issues the use these sources seem necessary.


"Remember that marriage was the only option other than prostitution for an unmarried woman in Muhammad's society time."

We have seen that marriage for partnerships do not seem to account for a number of mohammed's marriages and as far as marrying to protect the status of women, this may be considered as a possibility in application to the arab society at large but yet again fails to account for mohammeds marriages. From the earlier cases already mentioned above, we can not easily assume that the status of mohammeds wives were threatened prior to his marriage to them. We notice this with the women whom he married after capturing in booty. For example Safiyya bint Huyayy, the jewish woman, was already married before her husband & her father were killed by him (& to whom he was married after her husband was killed). It wouldn't be safe to assume that, even after her husband's death, she would necessarily be unable to find another husband amongst existing jewish tribes or would be forced into prostitution after this.

Moreover if we were to consider "husbandlessness" such a threat then we would certainly have to question the integrity (purity status) of mohammeds wives who were forced by (mohammed's) law not to marry any other after his death. Aisha became a widow at the age of just 18 & never married again (she couldn't). And again if the status of women were actually held in high regard when it came to the question of maintaining marital status in arab society(as you seem to have suggested), what would one make of the women who were captured at banu mustaliq, women who already married & whose marriage were deemed void on capture and who were desired for their sexual utility & were actually used for those purposes while mohammads men later being given permission by him to dispose(sell) them off later?

If protection of status was the criteria used as justification for multiple marriages during mohammeds time, such must be reflected in the historical content documenting that period and Mohammeds actions should well meet such criteria. Justifying historical cases of multiple marriages by historical speculation just doesn't amount to sound reasoning.

Dar R.: How can I comment differently on such a rational presentation? The problem is that I see our rational nature as being simply a thinking process based on our environment (we think as we "see"). Much of our success as a species has been due to non-rational "thinking" (ie more "perception" than "thinking"). Many of our most significant discoveries have been not through rational processes but by "inspiration". As Paul Davies, the physicist, states in one of his books, most of the answers to a query on how leading mathematicians got their big break in ideas that made them famous were, "in a dream." It is a fact that Kekuli got his idea for the shape of a benzene molecule (a hexagon--the first shape found) was in a dream. Dar R., I propose that you might free yourself from the philosophical rigor of step by step proving and needing "documentation" or "evidence" or "whatever" to allow you to visualize a solution to an enigma that may be otherwise elusive.

First, God--the Ultimate Enigma--does not need to explain Himself to His creation. Second, it is very VERY presumptuous--to say the least--for an insignificant creature like ourselves--to question the motives of God or judge by our myoptic standards (which, by the way, change from year to year if not day to day). Third, I think it would be a wise stance for us (that is, you and I, for instance) to try to disassociate ourselves from our subjective position in time and place and try to view this issue from a more universal, objective position in time and place. If even a hard core scientist can divorce himself (or herself) from "the microsope" long enough to see the truth through the haze of "proof and evidence" (as with Kekuli), then perhaps we can see the truth through the haze of "show me the evidence".

If you step back and look at human history in toto in objective perspective, I think you will perhaps see that the history of Christianity and Islam (and yes, the history of Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, etc.) has produced great advances in man's maturation. Oh yes, certainly there were "set backs" from religious wars, etc., but we must remember that God had to deal with the reality of a "free will" creation that allows for the developing sensitivity of that "free will" exercising. For instance, Baha'u'llah explains that while God's actions may seem arbitrary and even "unjust" to us as we see it, that is not because it is not in fact "just" or "non-arbitrary" but because we--being ignorant of the facts (not being omniscient), see it in a very limited perspective. It is our arrogance that allows us to judge God.

For instance, with or without "evidence," do you think that had God not destroyed Sodom and Gomora, not ordered the killing of 5000 men, women and children (all Jews) when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai or had not ordered Muhammad to kill 600 disruptive people, that human history would have been better in the long run?

False or true, good or bad, evil or good, Muhammad (an illiterate desert Arab) was responsible (along with a host of other "illiterate desert Arabs") for emmense progress in human history, including medicine, mathematics, astronomy, literature, government, arts, and even music. The Muslims in Alhambra Spain were performing brain surgery when Christian Kings of Europe were barely able to shave their faces without killing themselves. The Muslim world knew that the Earth was round and not the center of the solar system when Galileo was being persecuted by the Christian Church for trying to suggest such a radical thing. Algebra gets its name from the Muslim who developed it. You and I see the killing of 600 people (Jews or whatever) as wrong because God ordered us not to do it. But God did not say, "I shalt not kill." He said, "Thou Shalt not kill."

You seem to demand "evidence" that God ordered Muhammad to kill those Jews. But who are you to demand of God that He give you evidence? If you don't want to accept it, don't. If you, like a blind man, does not want to believe that there is a burning fire called a Sun way up in the sky that gives you warmth, then don't. Who will lose by this, the Sun or you?

I think that we have the same situation with respect to Christianity. All of Judaism still does not accept Jesus as the Messiah, saying that they have insufficient "evidence". That's a lot of people. Even in science there are skeptics who do not accept any amount of evidence. To me, evidence is never "hard." It is never beyond doubt.

"Dar R., I propose that you might free yourself from the philosophical rigor of step by step proving and needing "documentation" or "evidence" or "whatever" to allow you to visualize a solution to an enigma that may be otherwise elusive."

Donald, I realize the limitations of documentation, but these are not philosophical discussions about whether or not god exists, a kind of debate that can never be resolved by any other means other than by faith alone (faith in god or a belief that there isn't one). But faith as well does not deny reason and my faith tells me certain things ought to be substantiated (I'm not suggesting that we should expect a 100% evidence in regards to the physical aspects to religion because I don't believe that not possible)

"False or true, good or bad, evil or good, Muhammad (an illiterate desert Arab) was responsible … Muslim who developed it."

That is true to a degree but actually I believe the key word is arabs & not muslims. For instance, during their corresponding periods, the arabs were far ahead of the Europeans in stuff like mathematics & astrology & in some cases even architecture. But this was both before & after mohammed and he did not have much to do with it. The flat earth concept did truly exist & but these were neither universal views nor such views held by everyone in the prior to islam as well. Although muslims often claim that they were responsible for discover the idea of a Spherical Earth, this really isn't true. The Greeks were well known for astronomy & other sciences (a lot of which also later influenced arabs) and they knew about a spherical earth well before the arabs did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

"For instance, with or without "evidence," do you think that had God not destroyed Sodom and Gomora, not ordered the killing of 5000 men, women and children (all Jews) when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai or had not ordered Muhammad to kill 600 disruptive people, that human history would have been better in the long run?......

God ordered us not to do it. But God did not say, "I shalt not kill." He said, "Thou Shalt not kill."…

…You seem to demand "evidence" that God ordered Muhammad to kill those Jews. But who are you to demand of God that He give you evidence?"

I believe you missed my point (actually I did state it quite clearly) but first may I suggest that your questions appear to have answers as well. I could be wrong but It appears that you are implying that human history did improved because god killed people in Sodom and Gomora and in the desert as well (lets ignore the muhammads case with the jews for now). But that would only be the case if these people were a menace to the human race, had done something wrong and god knew about this fact & took action against them and god made it known that he was taking action because of a particular behaviour. Your line of questioning appears to acknowledge these factors.

I did not suggest that god would not kill, but if indeed he is a righteous god he will disclose his reasons such taking such actions; actions that should prove that he his righteous. Only then can you judge for yourself whether or not you are following a righteous god or not. If there were a god & he wanted you to see that he was doing the right thing, he would have to allow you room for judgement, but for that we would require transparency. That said, its not for me to comment on whether biblical god was right or wrong when he caused the floods, caused the deaths of people in Sodom & Gomorrah, Moabites, Midianites and the Canaanites, but in each of these cases, biblical god makes known the reason for such destruction. Do note that even when Abraham is told to slaughter his son, there is a reason given, except in that case he was told of it once the angel stopped him from doing his son any harm. So now knowing the reasons for gods actions in the bible, don't you think you are in a better position to judge for yourself, if you weren't I suppose you wouldn't be framing your question the way you did earlier.

Given these conditions, there is no harm in comparing such a situation where god has taken in the past & comparing it with mohammeds situation with the banu qurayza, but in doing so such comparisons can not be done haphazardly. If god was responsible for the tribe's death, then he would have to provide a reason (i.e. WHY??? and not who) or else such comparisons would be rendered useless (at least as far as the biblical god goes).

No donald, I did not demand "evidence" that God ordered Muhammad to kill those Jews. My question was always "why" to begin with and it was you who first brought god into the picture. But even then that changed nothing, I stated even if god were really the one to do this we could expect that he would at least give us a reason for their deaths. I did not say who was responsible for the tribe's demise, I have my own opinions on that with regards to the information laid out by the Islamic sources. I did however state that there was an existing peace treaty in place & that to my knowledge I found no evidence of a breach of this contract by the jews prior to their besiege by the muslims. There is no evidence that the banu qurayza conspired with the meccans, on the contrary there are a few sources that show that they denied meccans any access to mohammed & therefore did not conspire with them. And since it is evident that the treaty was no more in place once the tribe had been besieged it is obvious that the treaty was no more in place & therefore had been breached ultimately. So if anyone is to be accused of breaching the agreement it appears it would not be the jews. So then what exactly was the reason for the jews being killed? Is such a reason stated in the sources? And what would the validity of such an argument be within the framework of other information already available? All we see are some instruction form Gabriel to get this job done.

I hope you wouldn't suggest who am I to demand such a reason or an explanation? An explanation as to such events has always been the least we've come to expect even if control of these were ultimately out of our hands. There is nothing unreasonable about it.

"All of Judaism still does not accept Jesus as the Messiah, saying that they have insufficient "evidence"."

Actually Donald, the Jesus is not denied on the basis of evidence but on differences in opinions or interpretations of the Old testament regarding their views on how each expected the messiah to be. Since Jesus appears to fit the old testament prophecies according to Christians, he is recognized as the messiah & his story (the gospels & the NT) appears as a continuation of the old testament accounts, whereas everything stops right there for the jews who do not recognize jesus as the messiah (even though many hold him in high regard).

Dar R.: How nice to see your comments. We are on a mutual search for the truth apparently.

I am surprised that you think that the Arabs were advanced in mathematics and astronomy prior to Muhammad. Until Muhammad came, they were a very uncivilized, brutish clan vs clan set of tribal factions. They buried their daughters alive, treated women worse than animals, had no law and order other than family vengence and had nothing to add to civilization outside other than their poetry and beauty of language. In fact, it was Muhammad Who enriched their language even though He was illiterate. And even after Muhammad, it was mostly Persian Muslims who enriched the world with mathematics, astronomy, medicine and science. Omar Khayam, for instance, is known in Persian (Iran) more as a mathemetician than as a poet.

You want evidence that the various killings ordered by God advanced man's march to civilization. What would this mean? You would have to imagine what might have happened had God not killed on some instance. The fact is that we need God and God does not need us. We owe God and God does not owe us anything. This is one of the most significant advances in religion that Muhammad brought to mankind, that God wills and we follow, that God orders and we obey. You seem to visutualize God as some kind of mortal partner Who needs to explain Himself to us and justify His actions. You say that a righteous God will disclose to us His reasons. Why? God is the definition and definer of "righteous". Besides which, how can God disclose His reasons when we (the recipient or communicatee) cannot understand or appreciate those reasons without knowing the future should He not order the death of a people or other? You want evidence where none is possible at the time. And if God were to disclose his reasons and you did not like it, what would you do about it? It is not for us to judge God but for God to judge us. As to the killing of the 600 Jews, you say, "all we see are some instructions from Gariel to get this job done." I mean, Dar R., who do you think this Gabriel was? Another desert Arab? Gabriel was the angelic messenger from God to Muhammad. It was God ordering Muhammad to order the killing. And it was not the first time that God ordered the killing of people and specifically Jews. God destroyed Sodom and Gamorah and God ordered the killing of 5000 men, women and children (all Jews) when Moses came down from Mt. Carmel and found the people worshipping a calf of Gold. The fact is that being the "chosen people" of God carried with it the responsibility to obey God or face the consequences. We see death as something significant but God does not. As I recall the story of Gideon, God ordered Gideon to kill the four elder leaders captured after Gideon's remarkable defeat of the enemy. Gideon refused because he was in love with the daughter of one of them. God said that He would punish the Jewish people for a thousand years because of Gideon's refusal. Is this justice? Is this for the advancement of the people? Of course it was. God knew that the leaders, if left alive, would cause dissention and eventually destroy all the advantages that Gideon's victory had brought to the people. And He could not explain it to Gideon, who was not that bright in the first place. The Jews would suffer for a thousand years because they questioned God's judgement and did not obey.

You say, "Actually, Donald, the Jesus is not denied on the basis of evidence but on differences of opinions or interpretations of the Old testament regarding their views on how each expected the messiah to be." Not so. This difference of opinion and interpretation was directly concerning the "evidence" in scriptural prophecies, as to whether Jesus was the "king of the Jews," etc. Evidence is, unfortunately, not self evident. All evidence is open to interpretation. There is evidence to all I have said but you might not consider it evidence. As I might not consider any evidence you thought was evidence as "evidence" to support your conclusion. In the last analysis, we must each make value judgements and interpret things in the context of both other individual things and the whole of "the picture."

"I am surprised that you think that the Arabs were advanced in mathematics and astronomy prior to Muhammad……"

Oh yes I believe were well aware of the such knowledge, particularly astronomy. Archeological Inscriptions, epigraphs & other records of preislamic Arabia give us an idea of a civilization that lived before the 7th century. The Koran, sirat & hadiths also give us several glimpses of such elements of this civilization that lived prior & during mohammeds time. When we consider the verses in the quran (the background story of which appears in the sirat as well) which appear immediately before the ones that have in recent times come to be referred as the satanic verses (which by the way have nothing to do with salman rusdie), we notice the names allat, al-uzza, & manat, the 3 goddesses who were worshiped by the meccans. These were also worshiped by the Nabataeans who lived in earlier periods.

Consequently, as the traditions record, these & other gods, around 360 of them were housed in the kaaba & the number of the corresponded with the number of days in the year. Apart from just being aware of days & years & time in general, they were well aware of astronomical occurances & the rotation of planets. In fact in the case of the nabataeans, many of their deities were based on evolutionary mythology, but a whole lot of these were (also evolutionary) variants based on astrological deities. For instance Allat (Al-Lat; the goddess) was the chief goddess sometimes associated with the moon and Al-Uzza was another variant of venus. The nabatatians were known to worship such gods (including other well known ones such as Dusares) for whom they made sanctuaries in the form of cubical stones & some of which they worshipped by circumambulating around them which have understood by some scholars to be a symbolic representation of planetary revolutions. Then there were also the additional mytical powers of meteorites. Although, a lot of their beliefs were based on mythology, they seemed to have a very good sense of the planetary system beyond the earth even before mohammad arrived back then. Other areas of intellect are also apparently visible in their other works which have been evidenced by archeological findings.

Donald, I did not suggest that the arabs were civilized at an point, the Greeks weren't either in many aspects & did not uphold the highest values or ethical & moral standards either. But they were familiar with area areas of knowledge that were far superior to other civilizations of their times.


"This difference of opinion and interpretation was directly concerning the "evidence" in scriptural prophecies, as to whether Jesus was the "king of the Jews," etc. Evidence is, unfortunately, not self evident. All evidence is open to interpretation."

I can agree with this here, it appears we've both expressed the same thing in more or less different terms.


"You want evidence that the various killings ordered by God advanced man's march to civilization. What would this mean?"

No Donald you got it wrong again, this is not what I was concerned with. I believe you still haven't got my point.

"I mean, Dar R., who do you think this Gabriel was? Another desert Arab? Gabriel was the angelic messenger from God to Muhammad. It was God ordering Muhammad to order the killing."

No I did not raise this point either. Who ordered the deaths does not explain what prompted the need for judgment in the first place.

"And it was not the first time that God ordered the killing of people and specifically Jews. God destroyed Sodom and Gamorah and God …… and FOUND THE PEOPLE WORSHIPPING A CALF OF GOLD."

Let me just quickly mention something (an update) for anyone just joining in on this thread; my introduction of the banu qurayza case here initially primarily focused on the Mohammads appointment of Sa'd in regards to the qurayaza incident. This was followed by a suggestion describing the entire incident in relation to others where god may have been responsible for the deaths of many. Since then our discussion has largely discussed this issue.

Ok so here goes:
1) If you've looked at any of the above cases that I've stated earlier, you will probably have noticed that I never questioned the judgments (punishment/sentence) themselves in relation to their outcomes (i.e. the moral aspects of it or why was it that these forms of punishments were prescribed in each case).
2) When I mentioned the word "why" or the "reason" for such judgements I'm not talking about the judgments themselves but the events that prompted the need for them, namely the charges brought against the people, or the things they may have done wrong or were accused of. For instance, here's some thing I wrote earlier (instead of typing it again), "Let's take for instance sodomy & sexual pervasions in Sodom & Gomorrah, the Moabites and Midianites who seduced gods people to idolatery and adultery, the same for the Canaanites (who were known to exist during Abraham's time & received gods judgement during the time of Joshua)." Also you seem to mention gods reason (what I've typed in uppercase above) for taking action against the Israelites. This was what I was talking about in regards to the Banu qurayza. What was the charge that prompted the need for action? If the sources themselves show that they did not allow the meccans aid in providing them access/passage/entrance to reach & attack mohammed & were forced to leave and return to where they came from, then there surely this can not be the reason why the banu qurayza were attacked. My point is pretty simple, there has to be something they were charged with or accused of (on valid grounds), and even if it were the bibilical god who's killed many before (in no matter how many number of gruesome ways), he has actually stated his reasons for doing so in those cases (be it absolute corruption causing the floods, the later cases of idolatry, adultery, sodomy, inappropriate sexual behavior etc whatever). The point is there has to have been a valid charge brought against the banu qurayza for such a case to be comparible against those mentioned in the bible. This is the kind of reason I'm look for here (why was there need for action? & not who did it? or was it right/wrong or a harsh sentence?).

" God ordered Gideon to kill the four elder leaders captured after Gideon's remarkable defeat of the enemy. Gideon refused because he was in love with the daughter of one of them. ………God said that He would punish the Jewish people for a thousand years BECAUSE OF GIDEON'S REFUSAL. Is this justice? Is this for the advancement of the people? Of course it was. God knew that the leaders, if left alive, would cause dissention and eventually destroy all the advantages that Gideon's victory had brought to the people. And He could not explain it to Gideon, who was not that bright in the first place. The Jews would suffer for a thousand years because they questioned God's judgement and did not obey."

O well I don't know if ill remember all the things that went through my head just now or whether ill remember to write it all just now. Do note however the words in uppercase in reference to what I stated earlier. Secondly I may be a little rusty or perhaps I'm just lousy in trying to find this story or even remember it. You seem to explain the justice of god so well & in such an insightful manner, but I'm beginning to wonder is this the "god of the bible" or the "god of a play" you're talking about? Let me explain

I tried looking for the incident itself (in the entire 3 chapters) but could not seem to find it or perhaps missed it, the following Link (the first one is gideons story from the bible)

http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Judges+6-8&version1=9

And here is the story from a play

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,939335,00.html

The play seems to mention the incident you mentioned earlier but even in that case the play seems to suggest that Gideon was asked to kill some "idolatrous Hebrew tribal chiefs"

Also the interesting thing about Gideon is that he is a man of doubt and does ask god for a sign when god chooses him and does give him one (link below). Such expression of doubt & responsorial gestures/signs of assurance not uncommon in the bible, for instance, mary at her announcement of the virgin birth (by Gabriel), the doubting Thomas, sarah on the news of her having a son and Zacharias on the news of him having a son (john the Baptist)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_%28Bible%29

"And if God were to disclose his reasons and you did not like it, what would you do about it?"

If I could that might be a different matter. But here's the thing, if god did not disclose his reasons (i.e not for his conclusions on his judgment or justifications for it but) for requiring the need to pass judgment, then that might as well amount to a situation where a man is hanged without being charged.

The right to judge the accused belongs to the person who is in a position to do so & is best capable of it, but the right to stand accused of something belongs to the recipient of any such judgments. Without a charge a judgment is invalid or void of any justification and hence such a judgment would not and can not be the actions of a righteous judge.

Dear Dar R.: Thanks for the continued insightful discussion on this important subject.

I am afraid that I find the point regarding the multiplicity of gods in the Kaaba prior to Muhammad as not revealing to me that the Arabs knew much more about astronomy than anyone else at the time. And even then, they certainly did not view any of it in any objective way. It was the Persians later who actually added this knowledge to the "library of man". And they did it when converted to Islam. It was the Persians in Spain who did most of the decorative architecture of the Moors (Sevilla, etc.), not the Arabs. I also do not see much of an indication in asteroids, which plunge to the Earth in fireballs spectacularly on a regular basis. It does not take much of a genius to recognize that they dropped from "the heavens." In any event, historians agree in general that Islam brought a new rennaissance to the world and in fact were responsible for the European Rennaissance. It was Christians who burned and sacked the library at Alexandria and not the Muslims as charge by "politically correct" historians. The Greeks were advanced in thinking but not the Arabs. And even the Greeks got much of their inspiriation from Egypt and studied in Egypt.

You say, "who ordered the deaths does not explain what prompted the need for judgement in the first place." No, but who ordered the deaths is critical in that God's judgement (by definition) is faultless. God was the "Who" we are speaking of. God (as the Koran and Islam states) is not owing to man for an explanation. As I said, in many of these cases no explanation would be satisfactory to man anyway since man was not (and is not) in a position to appreciate that explanation. Man was (and is) absorbed in his limited sphere of time and space. God is not. God's reasons are or might be inexplicable to man simply for that fact.

As to the Banu Qurayza, I said that the "need for the judgement in the first place" was that this group of people were acting in a rebellious nature to God. They made a pretence of being acquiescent but were secretly working behind Muhammad's back to foment discord and disunity. The future of man (the Rennaissance both in the rest of the world and in Europe) required that they be removed from "the equation." And I believe, based on the history of civilization which followed (bloody as it was), that the sacrifice of 600 souls (who were doomed to die eventually anyway) was well justified. In fact, it would have been a great disservice to the future of man to not have done it. Thank you, God. Thank you, Muhammad.

Actually, I took my Gideon example from "the play" or rather I assume so. I also had difficulty finding it in the Bible as stated. It was from a TV show starring Peter Ustinov as Gideon and Jose Ferrer as God. A very good show, incidentally.

As to doubt in Mary and others, I think that doubt is intrisinc to human nature. The most fundamental covenant between God and man is establishing "free will." There can be no "free will" if there is no doubt or room for doubt. In fact, I believe that many things God does is specifically to ensure the door is open for doubt. Did you ever wonder that Moses was a murderer and Jesus a "bastard"--in the eyes of the Jews, who did not recognize decendency from a woman alone. Everything in lineage (even in the Bible's lineage of Jesus) is male to male. Jesus's lineage always starts with Joseph, and it forces theologian appologists to inevitably ascribe to this Joseph some one other than Mary's future husband. Interesting... don't you think?

You say, "without a charge a judgement is invalid or void of any justification and hence such a judgement would not and can not be the action of a righteous judge." You also say, "man being hanged without being charged" is not justice. Really, Dar R.? I am surprised at you. Why do you equate God with a human judge or God's justice with human justice? Should we judge God on the basis of whether or not He follows the Constitution of the United States? or some other "constitution"? Dar, my friend, we are talking here about God and God's justice, not about human justice which is not even uniform on the planet Earth or even between states of the United States. Human justice is justice meted out by humans on humans for human crimes. God's justice is that which deals with overall humanity as designed and directed by a Divine Power not beholding to human judgement.

Incidentally, I own a copy of Ibn Ishaq's SIRAT RASUL ALLAH. I have read it from cover to cover but not for many years. And I am away from my home these days for another month or so and have no access to it. I think that it is the best source on Muhammad and the rise of Islam, at least that I have seen or know about. I think you will find the justification for God's judgement on the Banu Quraysh in this book.

Technically speaking, you might probably be right in that the Islamic culture did add value to the already pre-existing Arab culture. But besides the visible influence of islam, there is an inherent limitation in that very little literature available (outside Islamic texts) on the pre islamic arab culture (and is almost invisible during mohammeds time; almost nothing available during his time) and therefore there is a degree of difficulty in gauging such influence. Islamic literature itself appears quite late, but the emergence of arab written literature is believed to have arrived around about the final decades of the 6th century. The Mu'allaqat and the Mufaddaliyat are such examples two known poetic expressions from this early period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27allaqat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mufaddaliyat

We see also observe a number of astral deities and outside written texts inscriptions & epigraphs also indicate astronomical connections. Nevertheless your point is taken, there is almost no arab literature available during the Islamic period anyway and nothing of significance that could add to the visible influence of the Islamic era.


In regards to the banu qurayza, I am aware of Ibn Ishaq work(In fact what you have is most likely Ibn Hisham; ishaqs work does not exist anymore but do to the extent that they have been edited hisham) and am not familiar with any charge in particular as being suggested (i.e.) the cause of the tribe demise (without the need for speculation)leave alone the validity of it. Nevertheless that could be a possibility.

Furthermore, if the cause of the deaths had anything to do with the final events that took place between the meccans & the qurayza prior to their own siege (later by mohammed), it is important to note that the information itself reveals that they did not give in, despite being warned by Banu Nadir's chiefs that if they didn't mohammed would make an end of them (which apparently did happen). Also considering the pressures that were laid upon them, they do not seem to have acted in any way that that was not naturally expected of them.

On one hand were the pressures of negotiations with the meccans, on the other was the consideration that they had a treaty with mohammed and a third aspect being very very likely case that they still feared mohammed because they were aware of what had earlier happened to the other 2 jewish tribes (Like I stated earlier, in the case with one of the other 2 tribes mohammed had other intentions for them other than exiling them& taking their property. If it werent for one of his own men who held him by the collar & threatened him to take a different course of action the situation may have been different for that tribe too) It is NO surprise then that Banu Nadir chief warns Qurayza's leader of the consequences of not aiding the meccans (something that it apparently appears he was right about).

In addition, the possible & yet unspecified link (via the sources) asserting a connection between a potential charge that qurayza were "secretly working behind Muhammad's back to foment discord" is met by an exact same but equally more apparent case where mohammed actions to spread discord between his enemies appears to manifest itself not in rumors or accusations but by his instructions to send Nuaym of the Ghatafan tribe, a recent convert to islam, to the banu qurayza to spread discord between his enemies.
To sum up a few things:

1) The relations between the tribe & mohammad was clearly not the best. This by no means suggests that there qurayza were inciting discord behind mohammads back and in the absence of any action taken by qurayza, such only amounts to speculation particularly since there is neither any divine authority that seems to indicate that qurayza were doing the same.
2)Further suggesting this as a reason for the attack in itself amounts to speculation unless the links between the two can be reasonable established.
3) Mohammad himself takes action that (in sending a spy to qurayza) to create disagreements between his enemies.
4) With the departure of the meccans and a treaty in place, qurayza maintained their terms of the agreement. With the besiege & eventually the deaths of the tribe, it was mohammad who breached the treaty.
5) Even Gabriel did not suggest that mohammad should slay the tribe even though he suggested that mohammad (who was in his armor having arrived from Trench) should not put down his weapons & should head to Qurayza. It is also note worthy that a battle does not necessarily by itself imply deaths, particularly if one side surrenders, which the tribe did (there was no explicit instruction to kill). It is also worth noting that a significant number of parties (who had neither been in contact with god/Gabriel or instructed by mohammad)already knew the fate of banu qurayza. Mohammads companions, who accompanied him in besieging the tribe, knew what mohammed wanted & therefore suggested that the outcome of this tribe should be the same as the previous two and therefore aked for a different solution. Lubaba who was personally sent in to speak to speak with the tribe prior to their surrender, was asked what would happen to them, to which he felt sorry for them & responded by sliding his hand across his neck indicating slaughter (He knew too). Then there was sa'd whom mohammad (stepped down as judge &) appointed when his (mohammads) companions suggested that a just treatment be given to the tribe. Sa'd knew of their fate once mohammad appointed him since he was the one who had first said he wanted the tribe dead, even before Gabriel sent mohammad after qurayza. And finally mohammad always knew of their fate, since it was either him or S'ad who would decide.

Besides the fact that there appears to be no explicit instruction to mohammad from god/Gabriel to kill all the jews, there appears to be no apparent wrong doing that they were charged with prior to this cause of action by mohammad. Also the absence of an accusation/charge is certainly indicative (clear disclosure) of one thing & is the fact that god acts against wrongful acts or evil & not "against good" or without reason. Killing 600-900 is a different matter, but if at all god was the one who authorized this action, what wrong was he acting against. Like I said, this wrong is a sign of gods righteousness & his plan for redemption (say instance from the evils of sodomy in the case of Sodom & Gomorrah) as well as a reminder of the evil that men should stay away from.

"In fact, it would have been a great disservice to the future of man to not have done it. Thank you, God. Thank you, Muhammad."

Apart from you apparent right to be thankful to them, how could you have been sure of this future disservice, on what grounds do you make this suggestion? This is not like other cases above such as Sodom & Gomorrah where it is clear as to why god punished those people and so we are aware of their "disservice" to humanity. Moreover, the predictions of future actions by tribal chiefs in a play are difficult enough, as you may have already discovered, how can we any such predictions in regards to past events unless there is sufficient evidence/information in this regard. Or is it that, since these are perhaps assumed to be the actions of god (a god we can not easily assume to be the same as that of the biblical god), they would have to have had implied that this was in response to a current or prospective disservice to humanity by the qurayza, since anything done in gods name is unquestionable. By those standards, it wouldn't matter what mohammad did, how he did it as long as he is said to have acted in gods name, he would never be questioned nor could he be accused of any wrongdoing since that burden has been transferred to the particular god by he claims his actions have been authorized.

Dar R.: Thanks again for your detailed response.

Again, as I see it, God (by definition) needs no justification. And Muhammad, as a Rasul (Spokesman for God) needs no justification. Additionally... 1) I need no justification because I accept that it was the Will of Allah. 2) the historical results as evidenced by the impact of Islam on world civilization justifies whatever happened to bring it about. 3) I prefer to learn about God and religion by examing how God's rasuls achieved what they achieved rather than try to reduce the divine process to human values, which are in the process of evolving and changing anyway.

How do I forsee the future to be thankful for what happened? I don't. I see the past (i.e. the history of Islam and its impact on mankind). Would I have been thankful at the time of the action had I been alive then? I hope so. It is called Faith. As I have said a number of times, I aim to obey God even if I don't understand the reasons for some command. I don't think the Jews knew about triconnosis in pork when God forbade them to eat it. They just obeyed and lived without dying of that disease. There are those today (the Episcopal Church, for instance--I was once Episcopalian myself) who think that God's laws and advice regarding homosexuality are something they can change in their modern and "enlightened view") but millions are dying all over the world from AIDS caused by this perversion. The point again is that GOD ORDERS AND WE OBEY... OR ELSE.

Donald, the first part of your response appears quite revealing and it now seems your reasoning of such events is based on faith rather than speculation on facts which it appeared it was when you earlier made certain connections between certain gods actions in the bible & god or mohammeds actions in the sirat (regarding the qurayza). While I do not necessarily agree with all faith based opinions, I can understand and accept them as long as they do not lead to any speculate on facts. Nor do I wish to comment on the moral aspects of certain views based on faith.

There is however something I did want to mention earlier, but couldn't since there was a power failure here and I lost some of what I had already typed. Here are a few deductions from the qurayza incident:

1) As indicated earlier, there appears to be no apparent case against qurayza that eventually lead to their deaths
2) This is a defining factor when considering links between gods destructive actions against evil in the bible & those that are apparent in the case of qurayza. A comparison between these cases needs to reveal a reasonable degree of consistency if any such links are to be established. One can not automatically assume that 2 different books written several hundred years apart by different peoples in different lands, document & refer to the same god & represent the same teachings unless there is evidence that they are the same or there exists some consistency in their teaching & actions (including disclosure). If this isn't the case then Gnostics and kabbalistics (& even those after islam) would apparently have easily made such claims on similar grounds (citing such links between religions).
3) In the absence of a reason for a judgment (in the name of god; whether by his explicit instructions or not) that results in the deaths of many, there exists the possibility that one can not distinguish such incidents from others situations where the facts of the case & its outcome appears to be the same. Gods have called for the deaths of many in the past as well. There may be several cases I might cite but for instance the romans would ritually strangle their captured enemy leaders in front their war god, Mars, after a victorious general's triumph. For what reason? I dont know or rather wouldn't want to say, but if divine authority is all that is required or if something done in the name of such an authority can be easily justified without there being any disclosure, then are many such cases in history. Moreover the right not to question any one such event immediately takes away the right of such a person to question another similar case. If one such action is justified by the mere mention of a divine authority, then so are all.


"GOD ORDERS AND WE OBEY"

Even if that were true, the question is which god, there have been many. If there is a one true god, then he should be identifiable & distinguishable from others that have been presented to us through out history. His authority may be unquestionable, but his actions must not be vague enough so as not to be able tell him apart from any other historic diety.

Dear Dar R.: I understand your reasoning and approach. However, in the particular case of the Banu Quraysh, I do recall that there was specific need for such action in the way I described previously. I do not think that God or Muhammad can be reasonably assumed to be arbitrary in such decisions or without a specific needful purpose. Muhammad, barbaric and lawless as His people were, was known for His leniency and personal wisdom as well as fairness. Recall the time that the Kaaba needed to be rebuilt and four tribes argued over who would have the honor of placing the black, sacred corner stone (actually white originally) back into place. It was Muhammad (and previous to His appointment as a rasul of God) who came up with the fair solution that had the stone (which He had placed on a robe) be lifted by all four tribal representatives, each one on a corner of the robe or cloth. In fact, Muhammad was often referred to before His "prophethood" status to settle matters of disagreemet between others. It was Muhammad Who had the Meccan believers and the host tribe in Medina each one choose one of the other as a "brother" and treat him as such from thence forward.

Given the awful social climate of lawlessness and tribal feuding that was rampant at the time among His people it is a real miracle that He was able to cement them into a cohesive whole and conquer much of the known world at the time. It may be true that there is no recorded "evidence" satisfactory to you (or indeed anyone) but that does not mean that there was no true justification for the killing of those "rebel" disunifiers. When you consider the turmoil of the times and the primitive nature of the society in which this occurred, it is a wonder that anything has survived as "evidence" of what actually went on. And in fact, I think this is almost equally applicable to the situation of Jesus and the apostles. The Bible (and the New Testament itself in particular) suffers from the same ignominity of origin and uncertainty of authorship. Christians (the Catholic Church in particular) has argued over the authenticity of books (i.e. the evidence) of the New Testament ever since its inception and still does so.

I think that questioning the validity of the claims of Jesus, Muhammad or any such historical figure, is not only a right of man (remembering God's prime covenant giving man "free will") but a duty and obligation. Yet the process is so designed (as I view it) that the final judgement of any individual must be based not on evidence (which is often scanty, to say the least, argumentative, or missing to some degree) but on the assessment of what evidence there is, however vague or argumentative. That is, the final decision is designed not to be "beyond reasonable question" in the form of "air tight evidence" but to require a degree of courage and spiritual insight in the person making the decision based on his or her state of spiritual perspicacity and sensitivity. Otherwise there would be no "free will" and no merit to the individual in making the personal decision to accept that authority. Which is, after all, what the phenomenon of religion is all about... leading mankind to develop a finer spiritual sensitivity and apply it to his interactions with his fellow man.

Thank you donald, its been a pleasure having this discussion with you. I may disagree with you on many issues, but i live by the principal that "evertything is in the truth" as opposed to this politically correct world who instead pretend that "the truth is is everything". I do not believe that theres is word called "perfection" or "conclusive" in regards to phisical evidence relating to the physical aspects of religion, i do believe in substantiallity & in the word "reason" in relation to such matters.

It is with this in mind that i have attempted to research several matters and in regards to muhammed & islam as well, i have based my opinions on several factors regarding the faith included various aspect of his life. I do however feel that for the most part, people the world over(muslims the world over; and i can say this with confidence since i'm no alien to such a culture) are very selective with their knowledge of mohammed's life (to a large extent his public image unconciously being based on society's selective knowledge of mohammad & islam) and that there are a whole lot of unverified assertions that live as associations with the faith. For instance, idea that muslims discovered that the world was round and a claim that has somehow been closely associated with religion.

Of course there are many such cases, but the point is that we can not live by society's perception of religion, for it is not our duty (not even to a god) to live as political instruments of this world. Faith is ultimately based on acknowledging a god that we can not see, but it can not live without reason nor can it without acknowledging elements that are clearly visible to us, of course without resorting to speculation.


I wish you the best the truth has to offer, it is the only thing that has ever made sense to me.

An excellent summary and conclusion to this discussion. There is always more to be said on this or any topic. Look at archeology - the further we go ahead in time the more we know about the past. Each new revelation from God reveals more about the past ones. Christ and Christianity threw more light on the Old Testament prophets; Muhammad and Islam opened new doors to the reality of Christ's revelation. Today we are learning more about Muhammad and Islam from a new perspective than was ever known by those 'on the scene'.

I agree Dar R. Reason is (as perhaps the highest quality of man) God's creation. I would only suggest as a codicil that there is probably more to "reason" than simply "putting two and two together." Man has an inexplicable (to the mind of "science") ability to somehow gain knowledge through means other than rational progression. Kekule's discovery of the shape of the benzene molecule through a dream is just one example. I suggest that we consider seriously that man (not homosapien, the higher animal but that plus some ethereal "soul" or non-material and timeless aspect) has a dual nature, that tied or bound inextricably to the natural universe and that aspect which is extra-natural and unbounded by time, distance, and substance.

Go read the Qur'an and then post a retraction - the Qur'an clearly states that multiple wives is fine. The Hadiths also present the idea that it was fine for Muslim soldiers to have sex with women taken in war. I think the men would have to accept these women as wives - not 100 % on that.

S: Multiple wives comes with a condition, a condition that cannot be met. Go figure.

You said:

"An excellent summary and conclusion to this discussion. There is always more to be said on this or any topic. Look at archeology - the further we go ahead in time the more we know about the past. Each new revelation from God reveals more about the past ones. Christ and Christianity threw more light on the Old Testament prophets; Muhammad and Islam opened new doors to the reality of Christ's revelation. Today we are learning more about Muhammad and Islam from a new perspective than was ever known by those 'on the scene'. "

Here is another way to look at it:
Religions before Judaism understood the idea of sacrifice - they sacrificed to the gods in order to win their favor. Abraham came from that tradition. God tells Abe to sacrifice Isaac on mount Horeb (I think thats the right mountain). In the last minute before Abe was going to bring down the knife God tells him to stop. Why?

Why?
Because God wanted to tell Abe that He was not a god like all the others, but that this God provides - He doesn't demand more than we can give and He doesn't ask for things like our children. God provided a Ram for Abe to sacrifice - why?

Why?
Because God wanted Abraham to feel that he could give something back, so Abe could celebrate that this God wasn't like the others - this God provides. Ritual sacrifice was something Abe was used to, so God let him continue in it. God didn't require sacrifice - God wanted the hearts of his people. People like ritual and ceremony - those things are for us, but something toxic can happen in religion when we make religion the thing we worship. Instead of seeking to honor God, we go through the motions of religion in order to get Him off of our backs until the next time (which doesn't actually work, because God cannot be appeased - He isn't angry at us). He doesn't need to be paid off. We've had it in our heads that the sacrifice was for Him, but it wasn't, the sacrifice, ritual and ceremony are for us, so we can find a way to return to Him, turn our hearts back to Him.

Still, no matter how clear its been made, people still want to feel that they can earn their way with God, so they load on the ceremony, ritual and duty of rigorous religion, thinking that it can provide them with a way to get God on their side.

Israel was God's only people. The other nations were alone in the world - God was exclusively the God of Israel.

At the time that Jesus emerged prominent sects of Judaism were toxic - they were all about having power and control over others, leading them into poisonous religion, telling them that God would be happy if only _______ and if only ___________.

Jesus turned Judaism inside out, fulfilling the law and shutting down the need for ritual animal sacrifice. Jesus was the last sacrifice.

Jesus did not come with a sword, to kill and carve His way into history. Jesus refused to operate that way. That way is not the way of God. Jesus opened up the promise of God to all people. So that anyone could become His.

It was no longer exclusive and separate - God was available to anyone and everyone.

the way to have peace was not through domination and control of others - the way to have peace was to love and forgive and bless - to walk with God in bringing all people together under the name of Jesus.

600 years later Mohammed came and met with an angel in a cave - the angel claimed to be Gabriel... Some believe that this angelic figure was a fulfilment of unrealized prophecy offered by Paul in the New Testament in 2Corinthians 11:14: "...for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." Paul was warning the church in Corinth about how Satan operates and that Satan's "servants masquerade as servants of righteousness." I think it is possible that Mohammed honestly believed the angel and honestly spread Islam thinking it was God's truth. When someone is masquerading does it also mean that they know that they are just dressing up to appear like God's people? I think Muslims put on the appearance of righteousness out of sincerity and they are masquerading, but they don't know it - the trick is on them just as much as those they share their faith with.

Why would I believe that Islam is not from God?
The Bible doesn't call for anyone else to come after Jesus - Jesus is considered the final authority in the Bible.

The movement from the covenant between Israel and God to the relationship offered through Jesus is one of OBLIGATION to SINCERITY or RULES to RESPECT... to phrase it another way, Jesus opened the way for humanity to be able to return to the connection with God they were created to have in the garden of Eden. Jesus ushered in an age where the Holy Spirit dwells in each follower of the Way (the Holy Spirit is not separate from God - it is the presence or power of God). Israel attempted to fulfill their religious duty through religion. Jesus "fulfilled the law" and revealed that it is not what we do that pleases God - God wants our hearts, not our stupid human tricks (religion). Jesus opened the way and taught the way to be free and have intimacy with God. Islam argues against the freedom that Jesus offers - Islam attempts to turn people back to a law based religion instead of a relationship where in people can find connection with the real God (through Jesus).

Reading the Qur'an is a great place to start. The Qur'an encourages violence and fear based thinking. "Keep your weapon near you when you pray so that..." Jesus doesn't advocate this kind of thinking. He points us to a way that leads us beyond violence. Islam attempts to return people to a corrupt and violent way of thinking. Multiple wives, violence, slavery - these things are all advocated in the Qur'an.

So much of the Qur'an is reflective of the specific time and place in which Mohammed lived - it is supposed to be the perfect revelation from God, and is said to have existed long before Mohammed. It doesn't seem to be focused on eternal truths so much as specific things of the time of Mohammed. For claiming to be a text delivered directly to Mohammed from an angel, it does not seem to have much timelessness about it.

Claiming that it is a revelation directly from the mouth of an angel also means that there is not much room for it to be interpreted. It says that murder and killing are ok in specific instances. It says that it is ok to enslave others. It says it is ok to take the women of conquered people on as wives (though they may not want to be used as wives - in most cases this would be true... the hadiths also shine some knowledge on this scenario - Mohammed was leading his men around conquering people and on multiple occassions he was asked about the practice of coitus interuptus when engaging in sex with women captured in war - Mohammed didn't approve of coitus interuptus. The idea is that the women were taken, raped, impregnated and Mohammed was all for it.

Mohammed did not come as a prophet or holy man that we can read about in the Bible. He is very different. He did not operate under the trust that God was going to make a way for Him. Mohammed used fear and religious zeal to motivate people and to draw people away from other religions present at the time. He used fear, violence and oppressive behaviours (rape for example). The Qur'an is not a holy book - if Satan were to write a book to draw people away from God's way, the Qur'an would be great at doing that.

If we look at the practice of Islam, it is very focused on how a person dresses, ritual, and ceremony. The problem of lust is addressed by having women wear hijab/head scarves. Does this solve the problem of lust? No, the scarf covers up a woman's shape, but it does not confront the real problem - the problem is not the woman - the problem is the man who cannot control his desires. For him, lust continues to be a problem. The next time he sees a woman who is not covered up, he may be over come with lust. It is not right to punish the victim of lust and ignore the person who is lusting - that is generally the solution style of Islam. Ignore the real problem - put a fence around the tree that the person fell out of and ignore the broken bone. I saw a Muslim woman the other day who was wearing a headscarf and had a tight fitting shirt on underneath - upon first seeing her, her breasts were visually unavoidable. Does the solution work? No. Are Muslim women free? I don't believe they are - they look like prisoners to me. Islam says there is no obligation in religion - but there is - If you are a Muslim, then you are obligated to fulfill the obligations of dress, ceremony/ritual and diet. One of the messages of Jesus is that these things are not the things that impress God. God doesn't care about whether we follow specific rules - God cares about our hearts and whether we do what we do out of sincere love for Him and that we desire to come more and more instep with Him. The only religion that God approves of is taking care of the widow and the poor and keeping YOURSELF from being polluted by the world (James); God wants people to take care of people who are in need and do our best to keep from falling into a pattern of living like that of the rest of the world around us.

The most common attempt at gaining power is to oppress and dominate others into believing what you want them to believe. This is seen all through history and in our present day among all nations. Jesus did not advocate this kind of living. Jesus did not oppress and dominate others. Jesus liberated and brought unexpected freedom to people. The freedom Jesus brought was not at the expense of others - His freedom was a blessing to everyone he encountered even if they disagreed with Him. This cannot be said for Islam. Islam is a religion that operates based on oppression and domination.

Islam is Satan's attempt to undo what God did through the life, teachings, death and ressurection of Jesus.

Islam is not a progression - it is an attempt to reverse what God is leading His people into.

Islam cannot teach us anything new about God - it can only confuse and misguide us.

Hey Thomas:
You said: "S: Multiple wives comes with a condition, a condition that cannot be met. Go figure."

- What are you talking about? If a man can afford to have up to four free wives - the Qur'an says it is ok.

"In Islam, polygamy is allowed for men, with the specific limitation that they can only have up to four wives at any one time. The Qur'an also states that men who choose this route must deal with their wives as fairly as possible, doing everything that they can to spend equal amounts of time and money on each one of them. If the husband cannot deal with his wives fairly, one is enough." Sura 4:3

Maududi is a traditional Qur'an Commentator. He says, "If you need more than one [wife] but are afraid that you might not be able to do justice to your wives from among the free people, you may turn to slave girls because in that case you will be burdened with less responsibilities" (note 6). This is not surprising, since the slave-girl was sexual property (see Sura 4:24). This means that the limit of four wives is artificial. Men could have sex with as many women as they wanted from among their slaves.

It may be true that Muhammad was curtailing the polygamous custom of Arabs who lived around him, but he did not go far enough. A man may "marry" four wives, but have sex with his slave-girls, and the number of these latter is not limited. According to the timeless and universal Quran, therefore, Muslims today have the right to practice polygamy. Wherever Islam engages in the slave trade or captures women prisoners of war, Muslims may have sex with them."
(http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/women_polygamy.htm)

Just look at the stats about polygamy and Muslim countries - most Muslim countries are fine with polygamy.