Authenticity of Religious Books

[Tao_Equus]

Muslimwoman, I would like to ask you one question. How do you reconcile the historical accounts of Muhammads lack of mercy to captives, and his cold blooded murder of them with this idea that he was a good man?

Regards TE

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Muslimwoman, I would like to ask you one question. How do you reconcile the historical accounts of Muhammads lack of mercy to captives, and his cold blooded murder of them with this idea that he was a good man?

Regards TE

Hi TE

Good question. I can of course only give you my personal thoughts and ramblings but for what they are worth here we go.

I reconcile them by considering the historical factors of the time. The Quran only allows for defensive wars and I believe the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) would have followed the Quran. So in my view we are only dealing with defensive actions (I accept that some later Muslims did not stick to this principle). Is anyone in our modern world allowed to torture and kill prisoners of war? No but that doesn't stop it, even by western countries in 2007.

I think it is so easy to look at modern morality and say what an awful person he must have been but the world was a very different place then. So may we take a quick look at a historical timeline:

1492 - Columbus discovered America
1483 - Start of the Spanish Inquisition (they just asked polite questions?)
1095 - Start of the Crusades (killing how many Muslims and Jews?)

Let's jump back 500 years to speed things up

What were my ancestors doing all this time? Ah yes being raped and murdered by Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Normans (to name but a few).

600AD saw the end of the Dark Ages. The Romans had lost their grip on western europe but still controlled everything from Rome to Morocco (right through the Med, Palestine, Egypt and Lybia). Would anyone believe they did this by handing out chocolates and flowers in the market places or do we know they did it by murdering, raping and terrorising populations? Britain had a feudal system and numerous Kings, all raping and murdering to gain power and land.

Do you get where I am going with this? At the time of the Prophet you lived by the sword or you certainly died by someone elses, no matter where you lived or what religion you followed.

Yes the Prophet fought defensive wars and it is true War is Hell. People die in war, horrible things are done to people as an example of what will happen if you attack their tribe. That is just reality. However, when you get past the stories of war you see the gentle, merciful side of the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). I could tell you so many stories of the good things he did, of the wars he stopped by diplomacy, of the wives he married to create peace between certain tribes, of the rights he afforded women,etc, etc.

That is how I reconcile it, he did what he had to do to defend the Muslims and I read the stories of his great wisdom and mercy. So often people only read one side of the story and then judge it against modern morality, that is unfair.

Salaam

[Tao_Equus]

Thanks for your reply Muslimwoman.

You say that you reconcile my question by consideration of the historical context, that it was live by or die by the sword enviroment. I would agree that historical context is important and hope I made it clear in my previous posts that my whole approach to the Q'uran is that it is an historical document. One written by the victors. Of course.

On other threads I have cited the many attrocities you allude to in your historical reminder of what Christians did in the name of God. I am under no illusions to what men and women can do if given a taste of power over another. And of the mechanisms of self-justification they will employ in the doing. This is the key, IMHO, to reading between the lines.

We cant trust our books on history. When a history book states 100 were killed it may have been 10 or 1000 dependent on the egocentricity of the writer or his paymaster. And so we must seek out independent non-aligned sources. Unfortunately the further we go back the more difficult they become to authenticate.

The vast majority of people who would tick the box Christian have ever even heard the word Gnostic or of the Book of Judas. Tho the Gnostics gave rise to Christianity and the book of Judas is integral to understanding the development of Christianity in Europe. Its a strange situaton that the state of Isreal, Jewish, is in possesion of the documents to crumble the foundations of the mainstream Christian "story". But the Jews are not idealogical expansionists. To them its convenient to have Christianity having broadly the same ideas. And I think they feel the same toward an Islam that respects them. Its all power games to control the soul to control the politics to control economics.

Muhammad, and his cronies, were no different. The written legacy of the times may in terms of casualties be over or understated. Its irrelevant to my contention that Muhammad was a Warlord that would employ any means to further his aims. His aim is clear to define...supremecy of the region. And by the very words of his followers, that you -not me- state to be from Gabrial via Mohammad rape of the captured wives of his enemies is sanctioned. And this is something that persists into the modern day. For this alone, yes just this alone, how can any woman sanction Islam?

You go on to state that your belief that they were defensive wars. Well I will say one thing...this is what they called the invasion of Iraq. Veitnam too was sold as a 'defensive' war. They are nothing of the kind. The defence of a religious conviction is not worth the taking one single solitary life. As Ghandi said "I would die for my cause...but never would I kill for it".

To my mind Islam will always deliver to us extremists because it is a supremicist, leader based ideaology that is the legacy of a power hungry political elite that wished to control not just the minds, but the souls (in that sense they are inseperable), of a battleforce to expand its base. I do not doubt that you amd millions of others can find sections of the Q'uran to support the idea that Islam is peaceable, compassionate and tolerant. But as long as there is one line that glorifies rape and murder then that is exactly what will happen. Would you knowingly accept one cell of the HIV virus into your bloodstream? A sensationalist line you may think but thats just how it is.

So I ask what rights to say NO did he afford the women who's husbands he butchered when he went on to rape them? And in saying this was right and 'just' he gave sanction to it to this day!!

I know you try to bring rationality to Islam. I know you are good in your thoughts and intentions. The sad truth though is Islam as it stands is indefensible in terms of global harmony. Because it fosters hate in testosterone fueled power hungry men. I chose the word 'fosters' with care. Its not mere acceptance. Or even sanction. Islam actively seeks division and violence. It's throughout the Q'uran. Any religion that does that is anathema to the God I feel.

TE

[Muslimwoman]

Hi TE

Do me a favour and check out this book review, then nip down the library and grab a copy.

Karen Armstrong's "Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet" book review

Karen Armstrong was a cloistered nun and has since written many great books on numerous religions. I like her because she tends to be fair and seems unbiased, trying to just state the historical knowledge. Her book Muhammad: A biography of the Prophet is well worth a read. It doesn't leave out the bloody stuff but does put it into context with the era.

Salaam