Quote Originally Posted by HitWithThe5 View Post
They conspired against them. The reason this tribe in particular wasn't banished like the other Jewish tribes (Nadir and Qaynuqa') was because the trial was carried out on their terms and they failed.

The last part is not necessarily true. In the context of seventh century Arabia it was justice. They were given freedom over their own judgement and going back on that would have rendered the whole process and city law null.
Yeah - I just don't get it - or rather I do but I don't really buy it.

Seems to me Muhammed won the battle, he could do whatever he wanted. This tribe didn't trust Muhammed - which isn't necessarily unreasonable - and so selected another man to judge between them. This judge proscribed the worst punishment short of extermination.

Muhammed could still have shown them mercy but he chose not to.

Do you blame Jews for the Jewish revolts preceding Christ btw? Judas of Galilee?
You mean the Zealots?

Well, they were around during the time of Christ, Christ even had a former Zealot as a follower, but the Jewish revolt came roughly three decades after Christ's death. If you're asking if I blame the Jews throughout the Empire then no, but I think that those who went to war against Rome are responsible for their own actions just as the Roman legionaries are responsible for destroying the Temple.

As this relates to Muslims, weren't all Muslims more or less part of Muhammed's tribe at this time? Presumably the Muslims were under his command, under arms, and they did the killing.

If you are asking if the Muslims today are responsible then, no, that would be idiotic. However, you clearly endorse the actions of those early Muslims so I have to assume you approve of the punishment.

Moses killed, Joseph broke apart his family, Saul and Solomon waged war. Makes more sense that their main purpose is showing their mistakes that people can learn from. Different methods of enacting God's will.
For my birthday Montmercy sent me an essay on Pharaoh's refusal to let the people go and free will. In the case of Moses, he kills someone, flees into the desert and then becomes a prophet and one of the most visible avatars of God's will, what he does he does at the behest and with the power of the Lord.

Scripture records that both Saul and Solomon failed God - you could interpret their waging of war as a failure because they were unable to find another solution - or perhaps the Temple scribes glossed over things - we know they glossed over early Jewish polytheism.

I think it's safe to say it's allegorical. If they weren't, than the Bible takes the cake in terms of historical fiction.
Well, then one might as well say that Muhammed never existed and it's just a story - that's a popular belief among Atheists.

The Koran is different to the Bible in a number of ways, the Koran is essentially one book, not many, one man's biography supposedly transcribed during his lifetime. There's no reason to believe the narrative is in any way allegorical.

This is what makes him interesting. Muhammad was never the "messiah" or the "prophet," he was always called the messenger of Allah and the grounded culmination of this line. The totally "clean" prophets are always the most bland, except for the messiah Jesus. His politics and personal life weren't immune to criticism. It was already established there was a clear distinction between the man - the messenger and the message itself. This was a man who managed to create a morally superior society while he was alive.

As revolutionaries they all have blood on their hands.
Actually, both the terms "Prophet" (Speaker) and "Messiah" (Anointed) describe Muhammed perfectly. He was, according to the Islamic tradition, the one appointed by God to give people the correct instruction and way of living that most please God.

Note that Jesus is far from unique in being called "Messiah" because that appellation was applied by the Jews to Prophets and Kings they believed to be chosen by God - including the Persian Cyrus the Great.

My point, in any case, is that Muhammed is presumably the model for a Muslim man (correct me if I'm wrong) and, as a Christian, I find little to recommend him compared to other men.