Posted on 04/16/2004 3:38:37 PM PDT by NYer
ROMA – That Aramaic was the lingua franca of a vast area of the ancient Middle East is a notion that is by now amply noted by a vast public, thanks to Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion of the Christ,” which everyone watches in that language.
But that Syro-Aramaic was also the root of the Koran, and of the Koran of a primitive Christian system, is a more specialized notion, an almost clandestine one. And it’s more than a little dangerous. The author of the most important book on the subject – a German professor of ancient Semitic and Arabic languages – preferred, out of prudence, to write under the pseudonym of Christoph Luxenberg. A few years ago, one of his colleagues at the University of Nablus in Palestine, Suliman Bashear, was thrown out of the window by his scandalized Muslim students.
In the Europe of the 16th and 17th centuries, mangled by the wars of religion, scholars of the Bible also used to keep a safe distance with pseudonyms. But if, now, the ones doing so are the scholars of the Koran, this is a sign that, for the Muslim holy book as well, the era of historical, linguistic, and philological re-readings has begun.
This is a promising beginning for many reasons. Gerd-Rüdiger Puin, a professor at Saarland University in Germany and another Koran scholar on the philological level, maintains that this type of approach to Islam’s holy book can help to defeat its fundamentalist and Manichean readings, and to bring into a better light its ties with Judaism and Christianity.
The book by “Christoph Luxenberg” came out in 2000 in Germany with the title “Die Syro-Aramäische Lesart des Koran” (“A Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran”), published in Berlin by Das Arabische Buch. It is out of print, and there are no translations in other languages. But a new, updated edition (again in German) is about to arrive in bookstores.
Here follows an interview with the author, published in Germany in the newspaper “Süddeutsche Zeitung” and in Italy in “L’espresso,” no. 11, March 12-18, 2004:
From the Gospel to Islam
An interview with “Christoph Luxenberg” by Alfred Hackensberger
Q. – Professor, why did you think it useful to conduct this re-reading of the Koran?
A. – “Because, in the Koran, there are many obscure points that, from the beginning, even the Arab commentators were not able to explain. Of these passages it is said that only God can comprehend them. Western research on the Koran, which has been conducted in a systematic manner only since about the middle of the 19th century, has always taken as its base the commentaries of the Arab scholars. But these have never gone beyond the etymological explanation of some terms of foreign origin.”
Q. – What makes your method different?
A. – “I began from the idea that the language of the Koran must be studied from an historical-linguistic point of view. When the Koran was composed, Arabic did not exist as a written language; thus it seemed evident to me that it was necessary to take into consideration, above all, Aramaic, which at the time, between the 4th and 7th centuries, was not only the language of written communication, but also the lingua franca of that area of Western Asia.”
Q. – Tell us how you proceeded.
A. – “At first I conducted a ‘synchronous’ reading. In other words, I kept in mind both Arabic and Aramaic. Thanks to this procedure, I was able to discover the extent of the previously unsuspected influence of Aramaic upon the language of the Koran: in point of fact, much of what now passes under the name of ‘classical Arabic’ is of Aramaic derivation.”
Q. – What do you say, then, about the idea, accepted until now, that the Koran was the first book written in Arabic?
A. – “According to Islamic tradition, the Koran dates back to the 7th century, while the first examples of Arabic literature in the full sense of the phrase are found only two centuries later, at the time of the ‘Biography of the Prophet’; that is, of the life of Mohammed as written by Ibn Hisham, who died in 828. We may thus establish that post-Koranic Arabic literature developed by degrees, in the period following the work of al-Khalil bin Ahmad, who died in 786, the founder of Arabic lexicography (kitab al-ayn), and of Sibawwayh, who died in 796, to whom the grammar of classical Arabic is due. Now, if we assume that the composition of the Koran was brought to an end in the year of the Prophet Mohammed’s death, in 632, we find before us an interval of 150 years, during which there is no trace of Arabic literature worthy of note.”
Q. – So at the time of Mohammed Arabic did not have precise rules, and was not used for written communication. Then how did the Koran come to be written?
A. – “At that time, there were no Arab schools – except, perhaps, for the Christian centers of al-Anbar and al-Hira, in southern Mesopotamia, or what is now Iraq. The Arabs of that region had been Christianized and instructed by Syrian Christians. Their liturgical language was Syro-Aramaic. And this was the vehicle of their culture, and more generally the language of written communication.”
Q. – What is the relationship between this language of culture and the origin of the Koran?
A. – “Beginning in the third century, the Syrian Christians did not limit themselves to bringing their evangelical mission to nearby countries, like Armenia or Persia. They pressed on toward distant territories, all the way to the borders of China and the western coast of India, in addition to the entire Arabian peninsula all the way to Yemen and Ethiopia. It is thus rather probable that, in order to proclaim the Christian message to the Arabic peoples, they would have used (among others) the language of the Bedouins, or Arabic. In order to spread the Gospel, they necessarily made use of a mishmash of languages. But in an era in which Arabic was just an assembly of dialects and had no written form, the missionaries had no choice but to resort to their own literary language and their own culture; that is, to Syro-Aramaic. The result was that the language of the Koran was born as a written Arabic language, but one of Arab-Aramaic derivation.”
Q. – Do you mean that anyone who does not keep the Syro-Aramaic language in mind cannot translate and interpret the Koran correctly?
A. – “Yes. Anyone who wants to make a thorough study of the Koran must have a background in the Syro-Aramaic grammar and literature of that period, the 7th century. Only thus can he identify the original meaning of Arabic expressions whose semantic interpretation can be established definitively only by retranslating them into Syro-Aramaic.”
Q. – Let’s come to the misunderstandings. One of the most glaring errors you cite is that of the virgins promised, in the Islamic paradise, to the suicide bombers.
A. – “We begin from the term ‘huri,’ for which the Arabic commentators could not find any meaning other than those heavenly virgins. But if one keeps in mind the derivations from Syro-Aramaic, that expression indicated ‘white grapes,’ which is one of the symbolic elements of the Christian paradise, recalled in the Last Supper of Jesus. There’s another Koranic expression, falsely interpreted as ‘the children’ or ‘the youths’ of paradise: in Aramaic: it designates the fruit of the vine, which in the Koran is compared to pearls. As for the symbols of paradise, these interpretive errors are probably connected to the male monopoly in Koranic commentary and interpretation.”
Q. – By the way, what do you think about the Islamic veil?
A. – “There is a passage in Sura 24, verse 31, which in Arabic reads, ‘That they should beat their khumurs against their bags.’ It is an incomprehensible phrase, for which the following interpretation has been sought: ‘That they should extend their kerchiefs from their heads to their breasts.’ But if this passage is read in the light of Syro-Aramaic, it simply means: ‘They should fasten their belts around their waists.’”
Q. – Does this mean the veil is really a chastity belt?
A. – “Not exactly. It is true that, in the Christian tradition, the belt is associated with chastity: Mary is depicted with a belt fastened around her waist. But in the gospel account of the Last Supper, Christ also ties an apron around his waist before washing the Apostles’ feet. There are clearly many parallels with the Christian faith.”
Q. – You have discovered that Sura 97 of the Koran mentions the Nativity. And in your translation of the famous Sura of Mary, her “birthgiving” is “made legitimate by the Lord.” Moreover, the text contains the invitation to come to the sacred liturgy, to the Mass. Would the Koran, then, be nothing other than an Arabic version of the Christian Bible?
A. – “In its origin, the Koran is a Syro-Aramaic liturgical book, with hymns and extracts from Scriptures which might have been used in sacred Christian services. In the second place, one may see in the Koran the beginning of a preaching directed toward transmitting the belief in the Sacred Scriptures to the pagans of Mecca, in the Arabic language. Its socio-political sections, which are not especially related to the original Koran, were added later in Medina. At its beginning, the Koran was not conceived as the foundation of a new religion. It presupposes belief in the Scriptures, and thus functioned merely as an inroad into Arabic society.”
Q. – To many Muslim believers, for whom the Koran is the holy book and the only truth, your conclusions could seem blasphemous. What reactions have you noticed up until now?
A. – “In Pakistan, the sale of the edition of ‘Newsweek’ that contained an article on my book was banned. Otherwise, I must say that, in my encounters with Muslims, I have not noticed any hostile attitudes. On the contrary, they have appreciated the commitment of a non-Muslim to studies aimed at an objective comprehension of their sacred text. My work could be judged as blasphemous only by those who decide to cling to errors in the interpretation of the word of God. But in the Koran it is written, ‘No one can bring to the right way those whom God induces to error.’”
Q. – Aren’t you afraid of a fatwa, a death sentence like the one pronounced against Salman Rushdie?
A. – “I am not a Muslim, so I don’t run that risk. Besides, I haven’t offended against the Koran”
Q. – But you still preferred to use a pseudonym.
A. – “I did that on the advice of Muslim friends who were afraid that some enthusiastic fundamentalist would act of his own initiative, without waiting for a fatwa.”
__________
Divine Verses
Koran, in Arabic Qur’an, means recitation or reading. It is an essential element of the Islamic faith that it was always with God and “descended” in its fullness to Mohammed at the moment of his call as a prophet, called the “night of destiny.” It is in Arabic, and it may be ritually recited only in this language. It is divided into 114 Suras, or chapters, and each Sura is divided into verses. The first Sura, called “the unstopping,” is a brief prayer that plays an important role in worship and everyday life. The following Suras are ordered according to length, from longest to shortest. According to the tradition, Mohammed gradually communicated to his faithful the parts of the Koran revealed to him. The oldest Suras are called those “of Mecca”; that later ones, “of Medina.” The most ancient Suras are of a markedly theological character, while the Suras of Medina are more juridical, dictating the ordering of the community. For Sunni Islam,.the Koran may not be put to criticism, given its divine nature: in any case, the “door of interpretation” of the Koran has been closed since the 11th century.
A link to the full text of the Koran, in an English translation:
> The Sacred Koran
__________
An elaborated guide to the new historical-linguistic readings of the Koran, on a page of the blog parapundit.com:
> “Newsweek” Article About Christoph Luxenberg On Koran Banned In Pakistan
And an investigation by Alexander Stille in the “New York Times,” March 4, 2002:
> Scholars Scrutinize the Koran's Origin
__________
The commentary of professor Gian Maria Vian on the interview with “Christoph Luxenberg,” printed on Sunday, March 14 in the newspaper of the Italian bishops’ conference, “Avvenire”:
> I filologi e il Corano
Gian Maria Vian, a professor of patristic philology at Rome’s “La Sapienza” university, is the author of an important essay on twenty centuries of Christian texts, beginning with Sacred Scripture:
> Quella scrittura che comincia in Galilea (29.8.2001)
__________
In the Muslim world, the view of the Koran peculiar to the Ismailis, open to multiple interpretations and to a positive relationship with the Jewish and Christian faiths:
> The Other Islam. The Peaceful Revolution of the Ismaili Shiites (3.11.2003)
__________
Any thoughtful person who knows history and religion would be anti-Islam. Along with Communism, Naziism, and the Black Death, Islam has been responsible for more death and destruction on the face of the planet than just about anything else since the last asteroid impact. Islam was started by predators. It has spread by predation. It has lived off the decaying corpses of the civilizations it has destroyed. It is a vast, ancient sea of corruption, oppression, fanaticism, and ignorance lapping up against the shores of the present, kept alive by the fortuitous accident of living above huge reserves of petroleum.
Abraham was Ishmael's father .. I think that would be a genealogical connection ..??
'Abdu'l-Muttalib [Muhammad's grandfather] before his decease [when Muhammad was about 8 years old] appointed his son Abu Talib as guardian of his grandson. Abu Talib executed his office kindly and well. It is recorded that, 'on account of the great love he bore for Muhammad, he could not allow him to be absent from him for a single moment. During the night he made him sleep by his side, and in the day he fed him with delicious food.' When twelve years of age Muhammad went with his uncle on a mercantile journey to Syria."I think I've seen this guy quite often on the covers of bodice-rippers in WalMart.
"The Traditions give a very full account of Muhammad's personal appearance, his habits, his dress, his food, and the details of his daily life. From them we gather that in the primer of manhood he was handsome, rather above the middle height, with a broad and open chest. His head was large with a lofty brow, his jet black hair was slightly curly and fell down to his shoulders. His eyebrows were long and finely arched, and the heavy eyelashes covered large black piercing eyes. The nose was aquiline, the teeth white and regular, and a long black beard added dignity to his appearance. His skin was clear and soft. He walked with a firm but hasty step. As a rule he was taciturn and reserved, but in congenial company he could unbend and enter into the social pleasures of his friends. He was simple in his habits and in the matter of dress and food. He abhorred strong drinks but loved perfumes.
I question the accuracy of this author's work.
For example: "At its beginning, the Koran was not conceived as the foundation of a new religion."
The 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia, states that Mohammed was the "prophet of Islam and the founder of Mohammedanism. . . ." It goes on to say: "The principal tents (sic) of Mohammedanism are laid down in the Koran."
All that is ancient in Arabian tradition derived from the Jews
Beyond these periods, Mahometan tradition is entirely worthless. It is not original, but taken at second hand from the Jews. Mahomet having claimed to be of the seed of Ishmael, the Jewish Rabbins who were gained over to his cause endeavoured to confirm the claim from the genealogies of the Old Testament and of rabbinical tradition. In the attempt to reconcile these with the received notions of the Arabs, Joktan (whom they found in Scripture to be an early immigrant into Arabia) became identified with Cahtan, the great ancestor of the southern tribes; while Mahomet's paternal line (which he himself declared could not be followed beyond Adnan, that is, about a century before the Christian era) was nevertheless traced up by fabricated steps, eighteen centuries farther, to Ishmael2. Both the legends and the ethnological assumptions or Mahometans regarding events prior to the Christian era, being thus derived directly from the Jews, possess no value of their own, and as evidence must be entirely rejected. They consist either of simple plagiarism, or they refer to Arabian personages and events of a very modern date, confounded in a rude and even ludicrous manner with the patriarchal characters and stories of the Old Testament2.
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Books/Muir/Life1/chapter2.htm
"...Do you think there's any truth to that imam's claim who recently said that thousands of Muslim every day are converting to Christianity?"
you may find this site of interest:
http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/islamgrows.html
example:
How many Muslims have been lost to Islam in the last fifty years here ? Tens of thousands have been lost. The only reason Islam is still growing here, by large, is because of a steady stream of immigration. But when that dries up, the assimilation will dwindle our community down to nothing. It's like we have a bucket with a hole in the bottom. We keep pouring new immigrants in, but so many are leaking out are lost forever.
gilding the lily somewhat I imagine.
According to the "Taboo Numismatics" site, this early Islamic coin -- a gold dinar issued during the reign of the caliph Abd al-Malik in 693 A.D. -- most likely depicts Mohammed himself. The author of the site makes a strong case that the central figure is Mohammed and that the figures on either side of him are Abu-Bakr (Mohammed's companion) on his left and Aisha (his young wife) on his right. Also suggesting that these now-extremely-rare coins (all now housed in the British Museum) depict Mohammed is the fact that they were all ordered to be destroyed shortly after being minted, which may have been the first instance of an image of Mohammed being seen as inappropriate. The coin was made only 67 years after Mohammed's death (the year 77 of the Islamic era, which dates to his arrival in Medina from Mecca), which would make it far and away the earliest depiction of Mohammed ever made, and possibly even modeled after memories of people who knew him during his lifetime. (Hat tip: Ted K.) The large head and wide mustache of Mohammed in this portait may have been modelled after this coin of Byzantine Emperor Constans II (seen on the right) which was struck decades earlier. The Islamic coin also seems to be emulating Byzantine coin designs of the same era which show Jesus on the obverse, in the place where the male figure is on the Islamic coin. To follow the full argument, start at the first image in the series and click through to read the full captions for each coin. http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/
Mohammed's intention was the unification of the Arab tribes and their expansion. The very word Islam means submission. Islam is seen as a political organization, which has no boundaries. The intent of Mohammed in the establishment of the Umma, the community or brotherhood. Western culture perceives this to be their statement of equality for mankind, but it must be remembered; if you are not Moslem you are not equal.
In the Islamic societies where Jews and Christians were allowed to exist they did not and do not have the same rights as a Moslem, and they were required to pay a special tax.
Not only are Christians and Jews not equal in Islamic lands and pay a special tax, but have also been known to have to wear special clothing, live in special areas and denied employment in certain crafts and employment.
At one time in - I think it was Morocco - Jews were made to go barefoot.
That's what moslems consider "equal."
(Coming to a neighborhood near you.)
Muhammad's Epilepsy & Creation of Islam
Abbas Sadeghian
Religious prophet Muhammad suffered from epileptic seizures, according to a book recently released by a Tehran- native and Muslim-raised neuropsychologist. Abbas Sadeghian delivers these findings in the book Sword & Seizure, which is based on historical text, including the Koran. Sadeghian was inspired by a comparable paper he presented in 2001 at New York University's Fielding Institute. He says Muhammad had suffered from "complex partial seizures," which are displayed through "excessive sweating and light trembling, olfactory, auditory and visual hallucinations, epigastric sensations (bad taste), excessive perspiration and hyper-religiosity." He says evidence of these is recounted throughout the Koran.
Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D has been practicing neuropsychology for nearly 20 years and is a longstanding faculty member at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine.
The Status of Non-Muslims Under Muslim Rule
After the rapid expansion of the Muslim dominion in the 7th century, Muslims leaders were required to work out a way of dealing with Non-Muslims, who remained in the majority in many areas for centuries. The solution was to develop the notion of the "dhimma", or "protected person". The Dhimmi were required to pay an extra tax, but usually they were unmolested. This compares well with the treatment meted out to non-Christians in Christian Europe. The Pact of Umar is supposed to have been the peace accord offered by the Caliph Umar to the Christians of Syria, a "pact" which formed the patter of later interaction.
We heard from 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanam [died 78/697] as follows: When Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, accorded a peace to the Christians of Syria, we wrote to him as follows:
In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:
We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.
We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
We shall not sell fermented drinks.
We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
We shall not take slaves who have beenallotted to Muslims.
We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")
We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.
If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.
Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."
from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.
[This was a from hand out at an Islamic History Class at the University of Edinburgh in 1979. Source of translation not given.]
------
This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html
That may be so but it did not begin that way. If you have ever been exposed to linguistic dialects, you can then appreciate the subtle nuances that shape a language. I experienced this in Italy where from one small village to the next, the dialect changed dramatically, even to the point of incomprehension by the neighboring villagers. These dialects evolved over the course of many centuries, as a result of isolation. Today, Italian is the official language but in each family, their 'dialect' is still spoken and passed down from one generation to another. As family members leave their villages for northern cities, they initially take the dialect with them but their descendants eventually 'adopt' the dialect of the new community, if any. There was a movement in Italy at one time, to study and preserve many of these dialects. I don't know where that stands now, especially with the influx of middle eastern immigrants into the country.
That said, imagine the nomadic life of wandering tribes, in the Middle East. Amongst themselves, they spoke their 'native' dialect. If the Italian dialects can be so different from one village to another, how much more so in that large expanse of Syria and other Eastern lands. Christians seeking to evangelize these nomads, would have attempted to communicate with them in a common language, like Aramaic. This may well have been synthesized into the local dialect. Then when one tribe met up with another, a shared conversation on this topic would have been 'interpreted' into their dialect, thus 'distorting' the original words. Eventually, Mohammed pulled these scraps together into one book and wrote it in Arabic. As its author, he had free reign over its contents and chose what to accept and reject. That Jesus and Mary both appear in the Koran indicates, IMHO, clear evidence for some influence by christian evangelists. I may very well be wrong, but it makes perfect sense to me. Compound this with the outright refusal of Imams to explore the source material and original language of the Koran. They fear the Truth. We know the source languages of the Bible - Koine Greek and Aramaic. The Bible is an inspired book; the Koran is not. How much easier to keep people in the dark than to invite them into the Light of Truth!
Prophet of Terror and the Religion of Peace--Part III
In the Third Part of this series on Mohammed's life, I will be focusing on three events that define the nature of Islam's foundations. At this stage, Mohammed had gained power through his assassinations, looting, massacares and raping. The Jewish Tribes of Medinah had been inhabitants of that city for centuries before the Prophet decided to make it the headquarters of his criminal activities. All the Jews were becoming increasingly dissatisfied and angered at the deeds of the Muslims. The Jewish Tribes were peace-loving, hard working tradespeople, whose purpose in life was to earn a decent living through honest means and hard effort. They were perfectly content with the religion of their forefathers and had never anticipated that the man to whom they had given shelter so graciously, would turn into the power crazed monster who was now turning around to attack them. Mohammed was in the position to carry out his hidden ambitions, which became clear soon enough.
With the utmost disregard for all human morality, ethics, or respect for human life, the Prophet of Islam systematically targeted and slaughtered the very Jews of Medinah who had helped him when everyone else in Arabia was kicking him like a dog. He was motivated by these primary reasons
His fanatic greed for all the wealth that had been created by the blood, sweat and toil of the Jews
His maniacal craving for power at any cost. The Jews were the biggest obstacle in his plan to subjugate all of Medinah, so they had to be removed, by any means possible
His fear of all other religions. Mohammed was a delusional Megalomaniac, meaning he believed that he was the Supreme Ruler of the world. Anything that threatened this sick fantasy of his, had to be exterminated. Since, the religion of the Jews rejected his pathetic claims to Divine rule, they were the targeted victims in Medinah, just as the Polytheistic Arabs had been his victims in Mecca.
The incidents narrated below demonstrate the horrific depth of Mohammed's atrocities. Keep in mind that Mohammed is the Model of Good Islamic behaviour and you will realise how Islam advocates genocide in the name of religion...
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/mohwar3.html
Written arabic did not exist in the lifetime of mohammad. The various 'verses' of the koran were orally transmitted and not written down (in aramaic) until more than a century after the death of the 'prophet'
Those who maintain that the koran is the word of allah transmitted to mohammad through the archangel Gabriel conveniently forget that the arabic koran is itself a translation.
For example: "At its beginning, the Koran was not conceived as the foundation of a new religion."
The author is quite correct making that statement. mohammad's intention was to take the mantle (so to speak) of the coming messiah he heard about from the hebrews he plagiarized from. When they wouldn't accept him as their prophet/messiah he turned on them...and slaughtered the very people who had given him and his followers sanctuary.
This is the 'verse' transmitted to him by 'allah' that gave him permission to carry out this evil deed:
“Oh prophet! We allow thee thy wives whom thou hast dowered, and the slaves whom thy right hand possesseth out of the booty which God hath granted thee. And he caused those of the people of the Book who had aided the confederates to come down out of their fortresses, and cast dismay into their hearts: some ye slew, others ye took prisoners. And he gave you their land, and their dwellings and their wealth for an heritage.”
And he gave you their land, and their dwellings and their wealth for an heritage.”
allah wanted them to have it all, obviously, sarc.
‘According to the biography of Prophet Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq, Prophet Muhammad himself sanctioned the massacre of the Qurayza, a vanquished Jewish tribe mercilessly. Thus some 600 to 900 men from the Qurayza were lead on Muhammad’s order to the Market of Medina. Trenches were dug and the men were beheaded, and their decapitated corpses buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched in attendance. Women and children were sold into slavery, a number of them being distributed as gifts among Muhammad’s companions, and Muhammad chose one of the Qurayza women (Rayhana) for himself. The Qurayza’s property and other possessions (including weapons) were also divided up as additional "booty" among the Muslims, to support further jihad campaigns.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/SKM40715.htm
(Hell hath no fury greater than a false prophet spurned.)
And .. what is your proof of that ..??
Let me get one thing perfectly clear. I base all my statements on the Bible. I don't read other ancient texts, or study ancient people. I read the Bible - AND I BELIEVE WHAT IT SAYS.
I'm not forcing anybody to agree with me, nor do I require everyone to believe as I do. You are free to believe whatever you choose .. But .. please don't waste your time and mine with your ancient stories seeming to counter everything in the Bible.
Since the Bible was written more than 2000 years ago .. I truly believe they had more info at that time than we do today about what was going on in that day.
That would put too much chance upon something that seems contrived by an intelligent being. The Koran as psychotic as it sounds is perfectly made under the guise of a religion to circumnavigate tolerant kingdoms that have in the past that gave asylum to those that practice it. It is Satan's perfect weapon as not only does it enslave and demand absolute obedience and will destroy all those who oppose it but also demotes Jesus' importance to a minor prophet as well, making his sacrifice nonexistent, anything to mock or defile the gospel is a victory or exaltation for Satan. Unlike secular humanism which is another vehicle for his will, Islam allows those with religious tendencies to vent them without worshiping Satan directly, which is still mostly taboo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.