Mormonism and Islam. Peas of the same pod?

[grumpy old fart]

It seems to me, at least on the surface, that Joseph Smith and Muhammad had something in common. Both came forth with their teachings from hidden locations, claiming divine intervention. Smith from under his cloak with his secret golden tablets and Muhammad from out of his cave after discussions with an angel. Both brought forth teachings which aggrandized and/or enriched their author.

It's a real simple minded thought, I know. Let me have your more enlightened ones please.

[HuffleClaw]

1. well, if yer gonna say that

you should be including moses and for that matter jesus, who orchestrated some events (such as riding on the donkey) to fulfill prophecy.

[grumpy old fart]

5. Neither Moses nor Jesus wrote the texts. They are a different story.

Those Bible stories are transcriptions of oral legends, not something written by the participants (i.e. Moses & Jesus) for their own glory etc.

[GatoLover]

7. In the case of Moses 1,000,000+ people were watching

It's not the same as the "in camera" revelations of Joseph Smith, Mohammed, or, for that matter, Jesus.

[grumpy old fart]

11. Missing the point. See #9 below.

[GatoLover]

13. Sorry, I don't see the connection to post #9

My point was that the revelation to Moses took place in public, the "revelation" to the others was private and therefore unverifiable.

[grumpy old fart]

14. I guess My post is about starting religions for personal gain, not so much

about the veracity of stories circulated after the fact.

[GatoLover]

16. Agreed!

:hug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Even the biblical story has Moses producing the tablets hidden away

and that's assuming you accept that Moses was an actual person, not a myth. Smith and Mohammed definitely existed.

The lead in, in Exodus 19, to the '10 commandments' (the well-known ones about adultery, stealing etc.) is:

16 On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled. 17 Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. 18 Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, the whole mountain trembled violently, 19 and the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder. Then Moses spoke and the voice of God answered him.

20 The LORD descended to the top of Mount Sinai and called Moses to the top of the mountain. So Moses went up 21 and the LORD said to him, "Go down and warn the people so they do not force their way through to see the LORD and many of them perish. 22 Even the priests, who approach the LORD, must consecrate themselves, or the LORD will break out against them."

23 Moses said to the LORD, "The people cannot come up Mount Sinai, because you yourself warned us, 'Put limits around the mountain and set it apart as holy.' "

24 The LORD replied, "Go down and bring Aaron up with you. But the priests and the people must not force their way through to come up to the LORD, or he will break out against them."

25 So Moses went down to the people and told them.

And then after the commandments:

18 When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance 19 and said to Moses, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die."

20 Moses said to the people, "Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning."

21 The people remained at a distance, while Moses approached the thick darkness where God was.

See? It's still a secret revelation.

[grumpy old fart]

19. I hear you, but the commandments did not directly benefit Moses....

Again, taking the myth as true, Moses would not have benefited directly from writing the Commandments. They were rather generic, and Moses had already been through a lot (to say the least) by this point in the story.

[GatoLover]

20. Reread verses 16-20. Some secret!

In fact, the Jewish tradition is that the people actually heard the divine voice utter the first two commandments. It was more than they could tolerate, so Moses acted as the intercedent for the remainder of the revelation.

[waiting for hope]

2. Moses came down

from the mountain with the Big Ten - all religion has an aura of mysticism to some degree.

[Nimrod2005]

3. And both do not allow sex before marriage and no alcohol

Have extremely similar roles for women too...Yes, very similar.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

40. Roles for women not similar

I have known LDS folks since childhood, and I assure you that the position of women in that church is not the same as the position of women in Islam. For one thing, a Muslim woman does not need to marry in order to get into heaven, as an LDS woman is required to do. There are shaykhas and Murshidas in Islam, and the Qur'an teaches us to treat men and women equally. I don't believe the LDS church believes in divorce, and Islam gives both a man and a woman the right to a divorce. To find out more about women's rights in Islam, please visit the Islam DU group-lots of good information there.

[LiviaOlivia]

63. I disagree.

Divorce is allowed in the Mormon Church. I know this personally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Egyptian Women See Divorce as Religious Right
Run Date: 01/09/05
By Charles Levinson
WeNews correspondent

Women's struggle to change Egypt's divorce law shows how women's rights advocates here are relying increasingly on Islam to advance their arguments for gender equality.

CAIRO (WOMENSENEWS)--As Egyptian women push to eliminate gender bias in divorce laws here, they find themselves entering a struggle over competing visions of Islam. "We always use Islam now," says Iman Bibars, director of the Cairo-based Association for the Development and Enhancement of Women, which has long struggled to amend Egypt's divorce laws.

To make their case, many advocates are advancing a vision of Islam in which men and women enjoy equal rights in all matters, including divorce. "Men control the subject in a backwards way," contends Dr. Zeinab Abdel Meguid Radwan, a member of the National Council for Women and a scholar of Islamic philosophy. "This is why there is a big difference between true Islamic Sharia, and what happens in reality." Sharia is the Islam-derived legal code whose meaning and interpretation vary according to different theological schools. Egypt's constitution states that Islamic Sharia is the principle source for legislation.

Radwan says the Islamic Sharia reflected in divorce law resulted from men picking those aspects of Sharia that fit their world view.

Under Egyptian law, men have an absolute and unilateral right to divorce. Women, by contrast, must turn to the courts, where they must provide exacting proof of abuse. The decision is left to Egypt's male-dominated judiciary and decisions can be appealed by
husbands wishing to prolong the process. With approximately 8,000 judges and 14 million pending cases in Egypt, a divorce settlement can take years. While the case slogs through the legal system the woman is left in legal limbo, her husband oftentimes no longer supporting her, and unable to remarry until the case is decided.

~snip~

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2139/context/archive

That's tragic.

[grumpy old fart]

65. The very reason that creeping theocracy in America must be checked...n/t

[trotsky]

4. Interesting parallels.

Hadn't even really thought of it much, but the similarities are there. Right down to the multiple wives thing. Wonder if there is any historical record of Smith being familiar with Islam?

[9119495]

6. I think Islam and Protestantism have some parallels too, but don't

most religions.

For example
* Luther was basically saying everyman was a priest (Muhammed does too).
* Luther said it was essential to give to the poor (M does too).
* Neither were wild about Jews but M urged tolerance of them unlike Luther.
* Both also urged writing in the vernacular.

and on...

[grumpy old fart]

9. Not my point. Smith and Mohammad consciously started their own faiths...

Sure, there are always parallels between faith systems. My point is that it appears Smith and Mohammad STARTED their religions through texts THEY wrote for their own IMMEDIATE benefit.

[trotsky]

12. Very true.

Luther (as despicable a creature as he was) didn't set up a new religion and himself as its prophet. He simply viewed the Catholic Church as having deviated from "true" Christianity. I grew up Lutheran, and we didn't idolize the man or even give him that much thought.

[9119495]

15. I can't believe I'm going to say this...

but I think Smith and Muhammed (and I'm more sure about Muhammed) truly believed in their message.

Muhammed's views sought to expand protections for the poor and women (who had things quite well in early Islam--it was Islam spreading to Persia and Greece that led to a decline in the status of women). There wasn't much to gain from arguing those points.

I'm an athiest, but I do think people feel that sense of a calling sincerely...thus, I don't think in Muhammed's case it was to advance his own wealth. If he felt he had the right answer, THEN got followers, I guess I could see how he could see himself as a prophet.

[grumpy old fart]

18. The thing is, Mohammad's "inspired" text directly benefited him...

The koran speaks repeatedly concerning Mohammad himself, not just about God. For instance:

8:1 They ask thee (O Muhammad) of the spoils of war. Say: The spoils of war belong to Allah and the messenger, so keep your duty to Allah, and adjust the matter of your difference, and obey Allah and His messenger, if ye are (true) believers.

4:14 And whoso disobeyeth Allah and His messenger and transgresseth His limits, He will make him enter Fire, where he will dwell for ever; his will be a shameful doom.

Most everything is obey Allah AND HIS MESSENGER. Mohammad sets himself up very nicely in this book he wrote.

Maybe it's just the cynic in me.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

42. Let's look at these verses in detail

Do you know the circumstances behind them-that is, when they came through to the Prophet, and what scholars have maintained they mean? I ask only because it is easy to quote any portion of any book out of context to bolster one's argument. For that reason, I would like to give some scholarly background to these lines of text, so that they be better understood in context. My translation and commentary come from "The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an" -Abdullah Yusuf Ali is the one quoted in the notes:

From "Introduction to Sura 8:
"In this chapter we have the lessons of the Battle of Badr enforced in their larger aspercts: 1) the question of war booty...As regards booty taken in battle, the first point to note is that that should never be our aim in war. It is only an adventitious circumstance, a sort of windfall. Secondly, no soldier or tropp has any inherent right to it. A righteous war is a commuinty affair, and any accession resu8lting from it belong to Allah, or the community or Cause. Thirdly, a cetain equitable pricneles of dividsion should be laid down to check human greed and seflishness. A fifth share goes to the Commander, and he can use it at his discretion; for his own expenses, and for the relief of the poor and suffering, and the orphans and widows (8:41). The remainder was divided, according to the Prophet's practice, not only among those who were actually in the fight physically, but all who were in the eneterprise, young and old, provided they loyally did some duty assigned to them. Fouthely there should be no disputes, as they intervere with internal discipline and harmony."

And here's a commentary on Sura 4 Section 2 (11-14) The principles of inheritance law are laid down in broad outline in the Aur'an; the precise details have been worked out on the basis of the Prophet's practice and of his Companions, and by interpretation and analogy.(Italics mine). The Prophet gave, though his life, the best example of how to live. His actions and words have been collected into groups of sayings (hadith) that are used to help Muslims better understand how to live their lives. I find it interesting that, in this entire secion of the sura, it is nver mentions that any portion of an inheritance be given directly to the Prophet or even to the mosque. It would seem to me if Mohammed were out to "set himslf up nicely" he would have included such things-for don't the TV preachers of today often ask people to give the preachers all their goods, etc?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

41. Mohammed did not start his own faith

as Islam is the continuation of the faith started by Abraham-Jews, Christians, and Muslims are all "People of the Book".

[Dorian Gray]

33. The Catholic Church

acknoledges the priesthood of every person, as well. It's something that isn't well known, but it's there, in the Catechism.

[PetraPooh]

8. My kneejerk was NO! Mormons are peaceful, but

then I realized that means I am lumping all islamists as violent/terrorists which is highly unfair. However I am surrounded by Mormons literally (being an old style atheist witch myself) and I find them to be generally delightful folks. Being a smallish woman who is trying to keep things going on a large plot, they are so willing to lend me a husband to help lift, move, and fix things even though they fully know my lack of religiousnes. The gals sometimes even take "refuge" at my house or front settee when they need a break from each other.

That being said, I agree with those above who say that all religions are essentially similar.

[grumpy old fart]

10. Not my point. See my post # 9

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

43. In the beginning the Mormons weren't peaceful`

A group of settlers set out from Northwest Arkansas to Oregon, and they were set upon by Mormons and Native Americans in Utah, and all but the children were killed, some quite gruesomely. It was called the Mountain Meadows Massacre and several years later some Mormons were tried for the atrocity. There is a monument for the victims on the courthouse square in Harrison AR.

[LiviaOlivia]

62. I disagree. Mormons were peaceful in the beginning

The Mormon Church was founded in 1830. Mt. Meadows occurred in 1857. What else are you talking about?

It is a sad, tragic and complicated history. Years of persecution lead up to insanity of Mt. Meadows.

May I suggest some reading:

"The Mountain Meadows Massacre" by Juanita Brooks
University of Oklahoma Press
(still the best book on the subject)

"John Doyle Lee: Zealot, Pioneer Builder, Scapegoat" by Juanita Brooks
Utah State University Press
(He was found guilty and executed for Mt. Meadows)

And of course the great Fawn Brodie's
"No Man Knows My History: The Life Of Joseph Smith"
Knopf

[leftyladyfrommo]

60. I lived in Salt Lake City

Mormons are not necessarily peaceful. But that was years ago. Then, if you caused enough trouble about the Church, you could end up dead in an alley somewhere.

But, send out suicide bombers and blow up people. I don't think so.

Now, the more than one wife part -

[greyl]

21. All salvationist religions are peas of the same pod.

Prophets and received wisdom are central to Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam et al, in contrast with so-called "nature" religions.

Mormonism and Islam may be closer in the pod than Hinduism and Christianity are, yet they are all born of the same general culture. Ours.

[grumpy old fart]

23. Not my point, see #9 & 14, but thanks.............n/t

[greyl]

51. You asked for more enlightened ideas, so...

Maybe your point is too pointy? ;)

[katejones]

22. Joseph Smith was not

aggrandized actually. He was killed brutally. And endured beatings, poverty and humiliation for what he taught. Some of his children died and the people he led were mistreated.
He never led war parties to spread his faith, either.
He was not enriched with wealth or popularity, but his legacy does live on, perhaps that is what you mean.

[grumpy old fart]

24. Just because his scheme didn't work for him, doesn't change the facts.....

His original intent seems clear from all the secrecy, his earlier history, etc. IMHO Many a scam artist wound up in jail, or worse. It didn't make them any less a fraud.

[katejones]

25. I didn't comment on the

fraud part but on the aggrandizement portion. What you implied was that he gained from his fraud. Was he a fraud? I certainly don't think so. All that I am saying that if you think he was, it could not be because he gained from it monetarily.

[The Magistrate]

26. He Gained, Ma'am

Power of a group of human beings, that he certainly would not have had in any other manner....

[grumpy old fart]

27. I didn't mean he gained anything in actuality, but that was his aim....

Gain in either prestige or monetarily. Why else go through this whole charade?

[katejones]

29. Maybe because he

was telling the truth.

[grumpy old fart]

30. Yeah, and I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell

Golden Plates no one ever sees, "translations" that he can't reproduce, etc. I guess Lucian of Samosata was right when he said of Christians in the 2nd century: "anyone who knows the world can get rich tricking these simple souls".

[trotsky]

31. Martyrs abound in nearly every religion.

Many, many people have died for their beliefs. Surely they couldn't ALL be right, so how could dying for one's religion make it true?

[katejones]

32. His question was why

go through the charade if he didn't gain monetarily or in power, hence my response.

[grumpy old fart]

34. Money is not the only motivation for fraud. Though many Mormons do seem

to be all about the money. Many cults have come and gone over the years simply because someone wants to be revered, liked, followed, talked about, etc. Smith held himself out as something of a seer for hire before "finding" the golden plates (which no one ever saw), so his story could have been an attempt to justify himself. In any case, the story is just so bogus on it's face as to be laughable.

[trotsky]

35. Yes.

And my response pointed out there have been many people throughout history, in just about every faith, that have died for it without gaining money or power.

So your response doesn't really yield any sort of useful information.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

44. He was murdered by a mob at the Carthage IL jail

I've been there, and I've heard the chilling account of his death. It was after his decease that the LDS church split, with Brigham Young taking a majority of the Saints west to Utah, while Smith's children and their followers went back to MO, where they founded the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints.

[grumpy old fart]

28. Would love to hear from some Muslims here....Smith is too easy a case.....

[onager]

36. Well, I'm in a Muslim country...

Egypt, which is 95% Muslim. I'm writing this on Xmas Eve, so Happy Holidays! :hi:

I also lived in Saudi Arabia for a little over 2 years. Based on what I've heard, Muslims have an "official story" about Mohammed and stick to it. Which of course, is true of all religions.

On the subject of the Prophet's "self-aggrandizement," here's something I recently read that tickled me. I'm spending most of my time in Alexandria, Egypt, and a couple of weeks ago I found a copy of E.M. Forster's wonderful (and sadly neglected) book, Alexandria: A History and a Guide.

Now I'm an atheist myself. But if I could consider anything a "sin," then a lunkhead like me trying to paraphrase the delightful prose of E.M. Forster would be high on Sin List.

So here it is, in his own words. Forster is writing of the Seventh Century, when the Roman emperor Heraclius has just thrown the Persian army out of Alexandria and Egypt:

It is unlikely that in the hour of his triumph he paid any attention to the envoys of an obscure Arab Sheikh named Mohammed, who came to congratulate him on his victory and to suggest that he should adopt a new religion called "Peace" or "Islam." But he is said to have dismissed them politely.

The same Sheikh also sent envoys to the Imperial Viceroy at Alexandria.

He too was polite and sent back a present that included an ass, a mule, a bag of money, some butter and honey, and two Coptic maidens.

One of the latter, Mary, became the Sheikh's favorite concubine.

Amidst such amenities did our intercourse with Mohammedanism begin.

:rofl:

"Coptic" refers to Coptic Xians, who are still here in Egypt. (The word "Copt" literally means "Egyptian.") Those of you familiar with the baffling and complex arguments over the nature of the Xian God are probably familiar with their split from the "orthodox" Xians. If not, I sure can't explain it briefly.

[grumpy old fart]

37. Does the "official story" conflict with history?

I mean, I thought Mohammad's bloody battles were pretty much settled history.

[PsychoDad]

50. Muhammad's Battles

After being thrown out of Mecca the Muslims found refuge in Yatrib, later to be called Medina. The people of Mecca did not give up their desire to eradicate the early Muslims.

The early battles of Islam are quite well documented. They consist of:

The Battle Of Badr
January 624 A.D. The first battle between thc Muslims and the Quraish of Mecca took place at Badr sixty miles from Madina on the trade route to Syria.

The Muslim army consisted of 313 men. They had only two horses and 70 camels. The Quraish army consisted of a thousand persons, and they had a cavalry of 200 horsemen and 100 camels. The Muslims were poorly equipped, but the Quraish were well armed.

Against the odds, the small Muslim contengent won the day.

[PsychoDad]

52. Sorry, I was called away from the computer...

And didn't finish the last post, there were a few more battles. If interested I can post them here.

Peace.

[grumpy old fart]

53. Is this "raiding" stuff all propaganda then?

In Medina, Mohammed commissioned his lieutenants to raid passing caravans. Over a ten-year period he planned sixty-five campaigns and raids, and personally led twenty-seven of these himself. One fifth of the booty was to be allocated directly to him. Any of the raiders who died while plundering the caravans, Mohammed said, would automatically enter heaven.

In 623 Mohammed organized a band of 300 armed thieves to waylay a rich caravan bound for Mecca from Syria. A force of 900 men from Mecca hurried to defend the caravan. Mohammed personally led his followers to victory, took many prisoners, and put some of them to death.

http://www.markriebling.com/archives/00000162.html

Doesn't the Koran explicitly authorize Mohammad himself to profit from war?

8:1 They ask thee (O Muhammad) of the spoils of war. Say: The spoils of war belong to Allah and the messenger, so keep your duty to Allah, and adjust the matter of your difference, and obey Allah and His messenger, if ye are (true) believers.

[PsychoDad]

56. Over the 10 year period in Medina

The Muslims did harass Meccan trading, the objective was to close the Syrian route for the Quraish Clan of Mecca (Muhammad's former clan which led the persecution). Adverse criticism interprets these actions as designed to train the early Muslims in loot and plunder. Firstly, Islam declares loot and plunder to be a heinous crime. Moreover, facts tell their own tale. There is not a single report on record to say that the Muslims ever seized the merchandise of the caravan, nor spilled blood. Thirdly, if loot had been the object, the Meccan caravans should not have been the only target.

Some background history

In 612 Muhammad (pbuh) began teaching his revelation in his home city of Mecca, by 615 the persecution of the small band of Muslims became so bad, including the killing of a number of Muslims for their belief, that a small group of 80 were sent to Abyssinia to seek refuge. By 616 persecution in Mecca had risen to the point where Meccans were forbidden to trade with any Muslim, causing food shortages and other hardship.

In 620 a diplomatic envoy from Yatrib approached Muhammad, converted to Islam and invited the Muslims to relocate to Yatrib, latter to be called Madina To Nabi, or simply Medina. After the death of Muhammad's influential uncle the Meccans plot to assassinate Muhammad in his sleep but fail and Muhammad and the remaining Muslims in Mecca flee to Medina in 622. The Meccans see this flight as defection and vow revenge on the Muslims and Medina.

The Quraish had started preparations for an attack on Medina immediately after the Prophet (pbuh) had left Mecca. Small parties of the Quraish hovered around Medina, and Kurz Fihri (one of the chiefs of Mecca) had been bold enough to make off with some live-stock from the pasture-lands of the city.

Events began to change when Kurz Ibn Jabir Fihri attacked the pasture lands of Medina and stole some some cattle belonging to the Muslims. Three months later a party of the Quraish returning from Syria with some mechandise passed nearby. Abdullah Ibn Jahash, a Muslim, attacked them. One of the Meccans was killed and two others captured with some booty. On return to Medina Abdullah Ibn Jahash related the story to the Prophet and presented the booty. The Prophet reminded him that he had not been permitted to act like that and refused to accept the booty. The Companions were outraged and said, to Abdulah, "You did something for which you had no orders, and fought during the Prohibited month, which you were not permitted to do"

The first thing necessary for an attack by Mecca was enough money to bear the expenses of the expedition. Consequently, the trade caravan that left Mecca that spring was liberally financed, each Meccan investing whatever he had in cash.

The caravan had not yet left Syria for it's homeward journey, when Hadrami was slain. For the angry Quraish it added fuel to the fire. In the mean time a rumour went round in Mecca that the Muslims were coming out of Medina to plunder the caravan.

When the Prophet came to hear of this, he called the Muslims together and informed them of the situation. The Ansar, the Median Muslims, when they had first pledged their support had promised to unsheathe their swords only when the enemy fell upon Medina. After being appraised of the situation they vowed to join Muhammad in meeting the Meccan army at Badr.

In short, on 12 Ramadan, 2nd year of the Hijra, the Prophet left Medina with three hundred followers. They had gone about a mile, when the Prophet reviewed the Muslim army. Those who were young were sent back.

The quraish had set out from Mecca a thousand strong in addition to 100 cavalry men. All the chiefs of the Quraish were present except Abu Lahab, who was absent but had sent sent a substitute. Supplies were so abundant that the chiefs of the quraish, as, 'Abbas Ibn 'Abd al-Muttalib, 'Utba Ibn Rabi'a, Harith Ibn 'Amir, Abu Jahl, 'Umayya and others slaughtered, each by turn, ten camels a day to feed the army. 'Uthba Ibn Rabi'a, the most honoured among them held the chief command.

On reaching Badr the Quraish learned that the caravan under Abu Sufyan had passed and was then out of danger. The men from the tribes of Zahra and 'Adi suggested that it was then needless to resort to fighting. But Abu Jahl would not agree. The Zahra and Bani 'Adi turned back, and the rest of the Meccan army moved on.

The battle of Badr was one of family member against family member. When the two armies met, warriors saw their own near and dear ones under the flash of their steel. Abu Bakr steped forward, to engage his own son who had not come to Islam . When 'Utba came ot, his Muslim son Hudhaifa advance to meet him, and the sword of 'Umar was red with the blood of his maternal uncle.

With these odds against them, 1000 footmen and 100 horsemen against 300 footmen, the Muslims found at the end of the battle, that they had lost only fourteen. On the other hand, the Quraish were crushed and almost all the Meccans who had led the tribes were lost. About seventy Meccan men were killed and as many taken prisoners. Out of the seventy prisoners, two, 'Uqbh and Nadr Ibn Harith, were put to death and the rest brought to Medina as captives.

The prisoners of war were distributed in twos and fours among the Companions, with instructions to look to their comfort. The Companions carried out the Prophet's wishes so faithfully that they offered their food to the prisoners, while they themselves had to be content with mere dates. Abu 'Aziz, the brother of Mus'ab Ibn 'Umair, was one of the prisoners. He says that the Ansaris, the Median Meccans, who had charge of him used to place bread before him while they themselves took date. He felt ashamed and forced it into their hands, but they would not even touch it and returned it to him. This was because the Prophet had ordered the Muslims to treat the prisoners well.

One of the captives was Suhail Ibn 'Amir, an eloquent speaker, who used to harangue against the Prophet in public. 'Umar suggested to the Prophet to have two of his lower teeth pulled out to rob im of his fine delivery. "If I disable him", replied the Prophet, "God may disable my limbs in return, though I am His Messenger."

Reaching Medina the Prophet consulted the Companions concerning the fate of the prisoners of war. Abu Bakr was in favour of setting them free for ransom as all of them happened to be their own kith and kin. But in the opinion of 'Umar Islam knew no kinship and they all deserved to be put death ,each to be slain by his own Muslim kinsman. The Holy Prophet approved the suggestion of Abu Bakr and the prisoners were set free on payment of ransom. Each prisoner was charged 4,000 Dirhams. Those who were poor to pay were set free without any ransom, and those who knew haw to write were asked to teach it to ten Muslims children in lieu of their ransom.

In addition to the battle of Badr, I'm aware of the following military campaings before the treaty of Hudaybiyyah.

625 - The Battle of Uhud, outside Medina. Mecca defeats the Muslims in retaliation for Badr
627 - The Battle of the Trench. 3000 Muslims defend Medina from 10,000 Meccans.

628 - Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. the treaty insures 10 years of peace between Mecca and Medina along with the right of Muslims to attend pilgramage the following year.

630 - Meccans violate the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. Muhammad marches on Mecca with a large army of Muslims and allies. Mecca concedes defeat without a fight. Muhammad takes the city without bloodshed. There is no retaliation , nor is anyone forced to convert to Islam.

There is a great deal of information on each of the battles.


Doesn't the Koran explicitly authorize Mohammad himself to profit from war?

8:1 They ask thee (O Muhammad) of the spoils of war. Say: The spoils of war belong to Allah and the messenger, so keep your duty to Allah, and adjust the matter of your difference, and obey Allah and His messenger, if ye are (true) believers.


If I recall correctly, spoils were divided up equally among the troops with 1/5th going to Muhammad and the companions to be dipersed to the poor.

After a short illness, Muhammad died around noon on Monday 8 June 632, in the city of Medina at the age of sixty-three.

Muhammad had established Islam as a social and political force and had unified most of Arabia.
If Muhammad were to have profited from his military campaings and short rule, it is sad that when he died he only owned a few possessions, including his bed mat and pillow made of reed fiber, a shield and sword.


Peace

[grumpy old fart]

58. Assuming the early antipathy toward the early Muslims was because.........

Muhammad's teachings went against the status quo, why was it that his leaving for Mecca was seen as "defection" and why and who would "vow revenge on the Muslims and Medina"? Moreover, if he is to be viewed as a religious leader and/or prophet, why does he establish that he is to receive shares of the "spoils of war"?

Sounds more like a military leader/warrior to me, albeit with religious pretensions.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

39. I will add that the Coptic Church split from the Catholic Church

long before the Eastern and Western church split. The Copts are an interesting people.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

38. Mohammed did not write down the Qu'ran

he couldn't; he was illiterate. It was his followers who wrote down what Gibril (Gabrial) brought to him from God.

Please also realize that Mohammed was around 40 when he received his first revelation. He was very reulctant to share it, as I understand, and was encouraged by his wife, Khadija. Mohammed had, though his wife and his own efforts, become a wealthy merchant with some status within the pagan Arab world. He gave all this up and was driven from his home in Mecca to Medina, and there were times when it was questionable if he and his followers would survive. Note, please, that even when persecuted, he directed his followers to treat the adversaries of Islam with mercy and compassion; no scorched earth policy for them. He taught mostly through example of how he lived his life, and was known to be very kind to his wives, treating them with great respect and as equals. Some he married to give them protection after their husbands were killed fighting for Islam.

He did not put on airs, and was considered very wise and fair. Once a mother came to him saying that her son doted on dates, and was spending all their money buying the fruits to eat. She asked the Prophet to tell her son to stop. The Prophet said for her to bring her son back in two weeks, which she did. The Prophet told the lad to stop eating dates. The mother asked why he waited two weeks, and Mohammed replied, "I had to make sure I could stop eating dates first before I asked him to stop."

Psycho Dad can tell you much more about Islam than I can, as he is much better versed in Islam and its history.

I have known Mormons and have been by their shrine in Nauvoo IL, where I have talked with them. Although the LDS (and not the Reformed LDS) believed in polygamy, as is allowed in Islam, I believe Mormonism also believes that the individual should follow the lead of ministers and elders of the church; in Islam, the seeker only need seek God-scholars and such are an aid, but one is not to follow an imam blindly as some follow some ministers. As I recall, the Moromons were great ones for images, such as golden calves around their baptismal fonts and goldern angels; figures such as this are not found in mosques, for graven imagaes are haram (forbidden). The Mormons also have a quaint practice of baptising dead people into their faith, without permission of the family. This is NOT done in Islam, for afte the Day of Judgement one's soul is either in Paradise or not; intervention in this world will not help after death. I also feel that women are given a more equal place in Islam, but I will leave it to my brothers and sisters to acquaint you more with that. Or you may wish to do to the Islam group here at DU to read postings there.

[grumpy old fart]

45. Thank you for correcting me on the authorship issue.

It has led me to look more closely at what I thought I knew in this regard. From what I see now, the Koran is a compilation of sayings Mohammad told his followers were from Allah (through Gabrial). I found the following site very helpful regarding the always interesting issue of origins of writings of revealed knowledge, in this instance the Koran.

http://www.secularislam.org/research/origins.htm

As for the historical Muhommad, it still seems pretty settled that his days in Medina were filled with bloody caravan raids, no?

[onager]

48. Great! Now teach us about the Wahhabi branch of Islam!

(Sound of crickets chirping...)

[PsychoDad]

49. Plenty of info on the net about the Wahabbi

Not sure how this fits into the discussion, but there is a lot of info about Wahabbism for any who seek.

A good site to start with would be one with their own views about themelves.
http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/

Then one could explore outward from there, then arrive at an educated opinion based upon several viewpoints..

Peace

[smirkymonkey]

61. It seems like Qutbism is a radical, militant fringe group loosely

associated with Wahhibbism. Kind of like militant fundy Christians are to everyday Protestants/Catholics.

In discourse about the connection between Islam and Terrorism, it seems as though these distinctions are rarely made. I think it would make a difference if more people were aware of it.

[grumpy old fart]

64. Make a difference to whom? Radical, violent religious beliefs are peas of

a pod. If a religion is not primarily teaching peace, love and the golden rule, there is really no reason to give it give it a place at the table. Superstitions can be tolerated only so long as they do not visit negative consequences on others. IMHO.

[CarbonDate]

46. Cast a wide enough net, and all fish will get caught in it.

Except for us evil atheists. We always fall between the cracks.

[onager]

47. Yep, CD. We always spoil the party.

:hi:

Here's another pungent little discourse from Mr. Forster that kinda makes you suspect he was on our side. Written in 1922:

The third century BC is (from this point of view) the greatest period that civilization has ever known--greater even than the nineteenth century AD.

It did not bring happiness or wisdom: science never does. But it explored the physical universe and harnessed many powers for our use. Mathematics, Geography, Astronomy, Medicine all grew to maturity...and if we had any sense of the fitting, some memorial to them would rise on the spot today.

...(Erastothenes of Alexandria) arrived at 250,000 miles for the complete circumference (of the Earth), and 7,850 for the diameter: in the latter calculation he is only 50 miles out.

It is strange that when science had once gained such triumphs mankind should ever have slipped back again into fairy tales and barbarism.

[grumpy old fart]

54. Well, a little off immediate subject, looking to history not theology here

Looking more at the historical figures and their context here, to decipher possible motives. Picking apart the actual theology is just shooting fish in a barrel. Belief Requires a suspension of disbelief. Hopefully, historical fact, though requiring a discerning mind, does not require credulity.

[grumpy old fart]

55. Anyone else who can help on posts #52 & 53?

I know PsychoDad is the resident Islam expert, but are there any others here who can lend a hand?

[PsychoDad]

57. I'm not an expert...

Nor a scholar. But I thank you and others for your confidence. :)

I like the subject of this post, a very interesting question that I find intriguing. I know a little about Mormonism. but I'm looking a little more in depth at Mormonism and their prophet Joseph Smith in contrast to Islam.

I should be able to reply with the similarities and contrasts soon.

I'm sorry for not replying more, but life outside DU has been a bit more demanding and chaotic- the last few days.

Happy Holidays everyone, and I hope the Hanukkah/Yule/Christmas season to be a pleasant one for everyone.

Peace.

[grumpy old fart]

59. Thank you for your insights. The differences I see at this point are.....

significant with regard to scope and purpose.

Smith appears nothing more than an opportunist, creating a hoax for the credulous to swallow whole. His goal, an egotistical attempt to gain fame and followers.

Mohammad's aims appear much bigger. As you said, by the end of his life, "Muhammad had established Islam as a social and political force and had unified most of Arabia". While this makes him an infinitely more important figure on the world stage, I'm still unclear as to where his "teachings" fit in. Did he begin as a simple prophet, then grow into a military and political leader as events unfolded? Or did he use his "teachings" as a way to unify his people to achieve personal, political and/or military goals?

The statement "If Muhammad were to have profited from his military campaigns and short rule, it is sad that when he died he only owned a few possessions" does not really answer the latter question, of course, as many a man comes to a bad end no matter his intention.

That both Smith and Mohammad wound up as founding figures of large religions appears rather ironic.