Religious Research & Its Products:

[iris89]

Religious Research and Its Products

INTRODUCTION:

First, the purpose of research can be any of the following four and/or a combination of them:

[1] To Explain or Instruct, i.e., requires providing further information to make a matter clear.

[2] To Convince, i.e., calls for giving reasons showing why a thing is so along with evidence presentation.

[3] To Refute or Show Error, i.e., involves a knowledge of both sides of the issue along with a careful analysis of evidence.

[4] To Motivate. i.e., involves moving others to action and/or an attempt to do so.

Usually the purpose of research is a combination of these.

Usually religious research involves first examining the context such as what do the items put forth or statement put forth conjure up, and the development of a hypothesis to be either proven correct and/or incorrect.

A STATEMENT IS MADE BY ANOTHER AND WILL BE TESTED:

In this case one member of Islam quotes Sura 19:33 which is per three different versions/translations of the Quran is as follows;

017.033 AL-ISRA (ISRA', THE NIGHT JOURNEY, CHILDREN OF ISRAEL)

Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law). [YUSUFALI]

PICKTHAL: And slay not the life which Allah hath forbidden save with right. Whoso is slain wrongfully, We have given power unto his heir, but let him not commit excess in slaying. Lo! he will be helped. [PICKTHAL]

And do not kill any one whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause, and whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying; surely he is aided. [SHAKIR]

He also said, from a Hadith [he failed to mention which Hadith, but was from Muslim b. al-Hajjaj] as follows:

Book 019, Number 4294: [ Muslim b. al-Hajjaj]
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them.

Now let's examine both of these with respect their intent or purpose:
First, the Quran is saying in effect that wrongful slaying is wrong, and the heir has the right to go kill the one committing the slaying.

Second, The Muslim b. al-Hajjaj [Hadith] is saying when boiled down to its essence, that a military commander [Muslim] should be good to those with him, and fight against those who do not believe in Allah. Also, to make 'holy war' and to pillage, but not to mutilate or break pledges or to kill children. But to take spoil.

NOW WHAT IS TO BE TESTED? THE HYPOTHESIS:

First, The validity of the two sources, i.e., the Quran and the concept of Hadith.

Second, Adherence of Muhammad (pbuh) and members of Islam to either and/or both of these.

VALIDITY OF THE QURAN AND THE VARIOUS HADITHS:

First, Let's check the real source of much of the Quran and not the legend that it came from an Angel. The Bible which is NOT the product of one committee or strongman is the source of much of the data used by Muhammad (pbuh) in writing the Quran.

The Bible has over 40 individual writers who wrote under divine inspiration/guidance putting the thoughts of God (YHWH) into the words of men much as transcribing secretaries today taking transcription and then later typing it out. In other words one real author, God (YHWH), and many scribes each of whom wrote in his own style over a period of approximately 1,600 years. All of what people call or consider inconsistencies are really not such, but most often just a problem of translation and/or understanding, i.e., lack of understanding of what the original writer writing in his own language and culture meant/said in his original writing. What is remarkable, is the writers over such a period of time all wrote in harmony when even most posters on threads on this forum can not even stay on track or subject over a period of a few days and/or weeks at most with the original subject of the thread. This fact of harmony over a period so great as to almost stagger the imagination shows that it had one guiding force or author who divinely inspired its writers as humans of their own volition can not keep on track over short periods of time.

To wit, the Bible is the ONLY book God (YHWH) ever inspired men to write as his scribes. In other words, God is its author and men only put his thoughts given to them by divine inspiration into their own words, the words of men. Not only that, all the other writers of later so called religious guidance books borrowed from it and made changes in accord with their strong man or so called prophet. Take the example of Joseph Smith who borrowed from it to write the Book of Mormon, but failed to give credit or source to the Bible and twisted some borrowed things into bizarre distortions. Other examples are of course the bizarre writings of David Koresh the Prophet of the Branch Dividians of Waco, Texas; and the Quran, etc.

So as can be seen, the Quran is nothing but a distorted knockoff of the Bible and can only be correct when its author, Muhammad (pbuh) correctly copied which in many cases he failed to do so.

Second, Let's consider the Hadith, or more correctly the many Hadith's, and what it is. An encyclopedia says, <<" Hadith (Arabic: ??????? ? translit: al-h?adith) are traditions relating to the words and deeds of the prophet Muhammad. Hadith collections are regarded as important tools for determining the Sunnah, or Muslim way of life, by all traditional schools of jurisprudence.
The Arabic plural is ah?adith (Arabic: ??????? ?). In English academic usage, hadith is often both singular and plural.
Muslim scholars classify hadith relating to Muhammad as follows:
* What Muhammad said (???) (qawl)
* What Muhammad did (???) (fi'l)
* What Muhammad approved (?????) (taqrir) in others' actions
There are also hadith relating to the words and deeds of the companions, but they may not have the same weight as those about Muhammad.
Western scholars note that there is a great overlap between the records of early Islamic traditions. Accounts of early Islam are also to be found in:
* sira (stories, especially biographies of Muhammad)
* tafsir (commentary on the Qur'an)
* fiqh (juristic reasoning)
Some of these accounts are also found as hadith; some aren't. For a Western historian, these are all simply historical sources; for the Muslim scholar, hadith have a special status. They cite sura 7:157:
Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the Law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper. (Yusuf Ali translation)
They take this and other Qur'anic verses to require Muslims to follow authentic hadith. However, a small number of "Quran-only" Muslims disagree with this view and interpret these verses differently; they argue that the hadith are of human creation and have no authority." [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]>>.

So we can see the Hadith consist of tradition and the purported words of Muhammad (pbuh), and lack fact. This is further shown by the fact that there is NOT one Hadith, but many used by various flavors of Islam. Let's look at the principle ones in brief:

Sunni's use the following:

Six major Hadith collections, used by Sunni's includes:
[1] Sahih Bukhari, collected by al-Bukhari (d. 870), included 7275 hadiths
[2] Sahih Muslim, collected by Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 875), included 9200
[3] Sunan Abi Da'ud, collected by Abu Da'ud (d. 888)
[4] Sunan al-Tirmidhi, collected by al-Tirmidhi (d. 892)
[5] Sunan al-Sughra, collected by al-Nasa'i (d. 915)
[6] Sunan Ibn Maja, collected by Ibn Maja (d. 886).

Shia's use the following:

[1] Usul al-Kafi
[2] Al-Istibsaar
[3] Al-Tahzeeb
[4] Mun La YahDuruHu al-Faqeeh

Ibadi Islam uses the following:

Ibadi Islam (found mainly in the Arabian kingdom of Oman) accepts many Sunni hadith, while rejecting others, and accepts some hadith not accepted by Sunnis.

Ibadis is al-Jami'i al-Sahih, also called Musnad al-Rabi ibn Habib, as rearranged by Abu Ya'qub Yusuf b. Ibrahim al-Warijlani. A large proportion of its narrations are via Jabir ibn Zaid or Abu Yaqub; most are reported by Sunnis, while several are not. [resource - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].

Now the validity of the various Hadiths which are completely different writings and NOT mere versions/ translations must be questioned. Why?
[1] The various Hadiths are NOT in agreement with each other, and the various flavors of Islam recognize different ones as being valid. For example, the Shi'a Hadiths actually contradict much contained in the Hadiths recognized by the Sunni so how can any reasonable person believe these writings that sometimes contradict each other and which various flavors of Islam recognize different ones?

[2] The Bible clearly shows that the traditions of man stand in the way of true godly devotion. Let's look at some scriptural evidence:

Mark 7:8-13, "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. 9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." (Authorized King James Bible; AV).

Colossians 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (AV).

Matthew 15:2, "Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. Mt 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? Mt 15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.(AV).

From these scriptures and Hadith contradictions, Hadith to Hadith, we can see tradition is NOT a reason to transgress the word of the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael, and of course should not be relied on. We all know men over time do NOT accurately remember what was originally said, so anything in any Hadith is of course NOT an accurate reproduction.

So the two sources used have been shown to lack validity and NOT to even have harmony within. Now let's deal with the other hypothesis, the adherence of Muhammad (pbuh) and members of Islam to either and/or both of these.

See Page 2

[iris89]

Page 2:

THE ADHERENCE OF MUHAMMAD (pbuh) AND MEMBERS OF ISLAM TO EITHER AND/OR BOTH OF THESE:

As previously stated with respect to the Sura 19:33 and Book 19, Number 4294: of the Muslim b. al-Hajjah (Hadith).

Now let's examine both of these with respect their intent or purpose:
First, the Quran is saying in effect that wrongful slaying is wrong, and the heir has the right to go kill the one committing the slaying.

Second, The Muslim b. al-Hajjaj [Hadith] is saying when boiled down to its essence, that a military commander [Muslim] should be good to those with him, and fight against those who do not believe in Allah. Also, to make 'holy war' and to pillage, but not to mutilate or break pledges or to kill children. But to take spoil.

First proposition, did Muhammad (pbuh) violate either and/or both of these? Let's look at history that clearly shows he raided a camel caravan.

<<" The Battle of Badr (Arabic: ???? ????), fought March 17, 624 CE (17 Ramadan 2 AH in the Islamic calendar) in the Hejaz of western Arabia (present-day Saudi Arabia), was a key battle in the early days of Islam and a turning point in Muhammad's struggle with the Meccan Quraish[1]. The battle has been passed down in Islamic history as a decisive victory attributable to divine intervention or the genius of Muhammad. Although it is one of the few battles specifically mentioned in the Muslim holy book, the Qur'an, virtually all contemporary knowledge of the battle at Badr comes from traditional Islamic accounts, both hadiths and biographies of Muhammad, written decades after the battle.

Prior to the battle, the Muslims and Meccans had been engaging in several smaller skirmishes and by late 623 and early 624 the Muslim ghazawat had become more frequent. Badr, however was the first large-scale engagement between the two forces. Muhammad was leading a raiding party against a caravan when he was surprised by a much larger Quraishi army. Advancing to a strong defensive position, Muhammad's well-disciplined men managed to shatter the Meccan lines, killing several important Quraishi leaders including Muhammad's chief antagonist, Amr ibn Hisham. For the early Muslims the battle was extremely significant because it was the first sign that they might eventually overcome their persecutors in Mecca. Mecca at this time was one of the richest and most powerful pagan cities in Arabia, fielding an army three times larger than that of the Muslims.

Following the hijra, tensions between Mecca and Medina escalated and hostilities broke out in 623 when the Muslims began a series of raids (called ghazawat in Arabic) on Quraishi caravans. Ghazawat (s. ghazw) were plundering raids organized by nomadic Bedouin warriors against either rival tribes or wealthier, sedentary neighbors. Since Medina was located just off Mecca's main trade route, the Muslims were in an ideal position to do this. Even though many Muslims were Quraish themselves, they believed that they were entitled to steal from them because the Meccans had expelled them from their homes and tribes, a serious offense in hospitality-oriented Arabia.[3] Also, there was a tradition in Arabia of poor tribes raiding richer tribes. It also provided a means for the Muslim community to carve out an independent economic position at Medina, where their political position was far from secure. The Meccans obviously took a different view, seeing the Muslim raids as banditry at best, as well as a potential threat to their livelihood and prestige.[4]

In late 623 and early 624, the Muslim ghazawat grew increasingly brazen and commonplace. In September 623, Muhammad himself led a force of 200 in an unsuccessful raid against a large caravan. Shortly thereafter, the Meccans launched their own "raid" against Medina, although its purpose was just to steal some Muslim livestock.[5] In January 624, the Muslims ambushed a Meccan caravan near Nakhlah, only forty kilometers outside of Mecca, killing one of the guards and formally inaugurating a blood feud with the Meccans.[6] Worse, from a Meccan standpoint, the raid occurred in the month of Rajab, a truce month sacred to the Meccans in which fighting was prohibited and a clear affront to their pagan traditions.[4] It was in this context that the Battle of Badr took place." [source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia].

Second, with respect that Muslims shall not mutilate, let's look at recent occurrences, <<" The New York Times published an article titled New Violence, Old Problem. By Neil MacFarquhar. (June 6, 2004)
He wrote:

"KHOBAR, Saudi Arabia - A recent fatwa posted on a popular Islamic Web site in Saudi Arabia explains when a Muslim may mutilate the corpse of an infidel.

The ruling, written by a Saudi religious sheik named Omar Abdullah Hassan al-Shehabi, decrees that the dead can be mutilated as a reciprocal act when the enemy is disfiguring Muslim corpses, or when it otherwise serves the Islamic nation. In the second category, the reasons include "to terrorize the enemy" or to gladden the heart of a Muslim warrior.

The religious ruling was evidently posted to address questions about the conflict in Iraq , but is not limited by geography. In fact, in each of two gruesome attacks in Saudi Arabia last month that left 25 foreigners and 5 Saudis dead, a Western corpse was dragged for some distance behind a car. One was the body of an American engineer in Yanbu on May 1, the other a British businessman in Khobar last weekend."

The above was posted by a cleric, which explains how the most radical interpretations of the Quran flourish in Saudi Arabia .
With ruling such as "To terrorize the enemy or to gladden the heart of a Muslim warrior" it is hard to imagine when mutilation can not be justified.
In the "Ask the Scholar" section of the popular Islamic site (www.islamonline.net) it was asked: - "How Islam views the issue of mutilating dead bodies of enemies." Sheik Faysal Mawlawi, the deputy chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research answered by declaring that mutilation is "not allowable" under Islam. But then came the loophole:

"It is possible to mutilate the dead only in case of retaliation. . . . If he inflicts any physical damage on anyone, he should be retaliated against in the same manner. In case of war, Muslims are allowed to take vengeance for their mutilated dead mujahids (fighters) in the same way it was done to them." This, then he explained, is the teaching of the Koran (16:126), which recommends patience but authorizes revenge.
June 19 2004 Saudi Arabia: Paul Johnson an American Engineer was behead and the gory picture of his severed head was posted on the Internet.
May 2004, Iraq: Nicholas Berg an American citizen in Iraq was caught and beheaded. The gruesome act was shown in Arab television Al Jazeerah.

February 2002, Pakistan: Daniel Pearls suffered the same end. His assassins, video taped their grim crime proudly and showed to the world the level of savagery to which they can stoop.

Mutilations, decapitations and other horrendous acts of barbarity have become the hallmark of Islamic terrorism. But where these Muslims "fighters" get their inspiration from?

To answer this question we have to look into the history of Islam and more importantly the examples set by Muhammad, the founder of Islam who repeatedly urged his cohorts to follow his examples and do as he did. "
[source - "A World Apart" by Ali Sina www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sinaawa40621.htm ]>>. Really says it all with respect the fact that members of Islam do not act in accordance with the Quran which they claim to believe, nor with the Hadiths.

Third, more ancient wrongs in violation of Quran 19:33 and Book 19, Number 4294: of the Muslim b. al-Hajjah,
<<" THE FRUITS OF PLUNDER: WEALTH AND WOMEN
By now, though Muhammad had two women in his harem, he was not yet content. From his new base in Medina he began a series of forays in which he ambushed passing caravans. In one successful raid he gained possession of stolen commodities valued at more than one hundred thousand dirhams (the unit of money in Arabia in those days). He took one-fifth of the booty for himself, according to Allah's ordinance in the Koran, and divided the rest among his followers: "... whatever ye take as spoils of war, lo! a fifth thereof is for Allah, and for the messenger...." (Koran 8: 41)

As chief of this marauding band Muhammad suddenly found himself financially in a better position. From the wealth of the plunder, he was able to acquire another wife. 'Umar, his close friend and companion, had a proud widowed daughter, Hafsa, a charming but temperamental eighteen-year-old woman. 'Umar was delighted to hear that Allah's apostle was interested in her; therefore, the marriage contract was drawn up between the father and the bridegroom, who once again was some years older than his father-in-law. The wedding was not elaborate, but he spent three nights on a honeymoon with his new wife.

In the fourth year after his emigration to Medina, Muhammad found a poor excuse to raid a Jewish tribe in the same town, known as the Banu Nadir. He besieged their quarters and let no water or food reach them. Then he set their crops on fire and ordered their fruit trees to be cut down, which was against all the prevailing customs of the Arabs at that time. When his followers objected and reminded him that felling trees and burning crops in that part of the world, where only a few inches of rain fall each year, is an unforgivable crime, he immediately invented the following passage: "Whatsoever palm trees ye cut down or left standing on their roots, it was by Allah's leave, in order that He might confound the evil-doers (the Jews)." (Koran 59: 5)

The Jews of the besieged tribe sent someone to negotiate peace, but Muhammad would not accept unless they left all their property behind and moved out. Each family or household was permitted to take along only a camel-load of their necessities excluding silver or gold wares. After they were forcibly banished from Medina, the Muslims, on direct order of Muhammad, took over the homes, farms, orchards, and gardens of the ill-fated people, plus their goats, sheep, camels, mules, and whatever was left in their homes.

This may be the first time in history that a man claiming to be a prophet, saint, and teacher of ethics was also a lawless marauder.

As a result of such a quick and easy victory, Muhammad was no longer willing to divide the rich booty among his followers; he therefore revealed the following verse: "That which Allah gave as spoil unto His messenger from the people of the townships, it is for Allah and his messenger and for the next of kin." (Koran 59: 7) By this simple device of revelation he was able to deny all of his followers the benefit of the foray and keep as much booty for himself and his relatives as he wished.
The rich fortune of the Jewish people of Banu Nadir provided Muhammad with enough means to contemplate expanding his harem once more. In less than six months after this episode, he married two women from his clan, the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, both of them younger than thirty years old. His harem now included five young women.
In the fifth year after the Hegira, Muhammad decided to destroy the remaining Jewish population of the town (known as the Banu Qurayza) and take over their property. He therefore surrounded their quarters and began a siege that continued for some time until the elderly people of the tribe finally decided to surrender in order to save their lives from his dreadful vengeance. Muhammad, however, did not want them to go unpunished. He therefore demanded that they be judged by an arbitrator, a man whom he knew, deep in his heart, was not very amiable to the Jews. The man who was nominated by Muhammad to act as an arbitrator was Sa'd ibn Mu'az, who happened to be suffering from a wound inflicted by the enemy's arrow in a previous battle and was really on the verge of dying. Aware of the enmity between the man and the ill-fated tribe of the Banu Qurayza, Muhammad could easily guess what the sentence of the dying man would be, especially since Sa'd ibn Mu'az was led to believe by some Muslims that his fatal wound was the result of the Jews, who had been secretly in touch with the enemy.
Muhammad ordered the dying man to be carried over in a stretcher from his house to a meeting in which the representatives of the besieged tribe were present. The arbitrator, Sa'd, gave his verdict as follows:
1. All the adult males of the defeated Jewish tribe must be slain.
2. Their women and children must be sold as slaves to the highest bidder.
3. All their property (camels, goats, horses, farms, orchards, household furniture, etc.) must be divided among the Muslims.

After Muhammad heard this barbaric verdict, he cried out in jubilant words: "You have judged according to the very sentence of Allah above the seven skies."
According to the above statement, which has been affirmed by the early biographers and chronologists, Muhammad's Allah is seemingly as cruel and ferocious as his Prophet. "The women and children, torn from their protectors, were placed under the charge of renegade Jews."
The arbitrator did not live long enough to see the outcome of his judgment; he died that very day. Muhammad ordered his men to dig deep trenches in the marketplace of the town, to be used as "common graves" for the slain Jews. The captured Jews, with their hands tied behind their backs, were led to the edge of the trench in groups of ten.They were forced to kneel down and, with unprecedented savagery, were beheaded one by one while their kinfolk watched in horror and wailed in agony.

The dreadful show continued the whole day in the presence of Allah's apostle, who seemed to be delighted. His close male relatives,' Ali, Zubayr, and others, acted as executioners in this barbaric pageantry. The butchery started in the morning and continued until the evening under torchlight.
The number of murdered men, according to various accounts, was between six hundred fifty and nine hundred; most Islamic sources agree on seven hundred and fifty. Among the captured was a young smiling woman who had thrown a stone from the roof of her home onto the Muslim soldiers. Muhammad ordered his followers to bring the woman to the trench and decapitate her, which they did. The chivalry of the pre-Islamic Arabs was lost forever after the advent of Islam.

After the trenches were filled with the heads and bodies of the victims, he instructed his men to fill them. The ditches were quickly smoothed over the remains and the carnage was thus trampled underfoot by the steps of the devotees. The captive women and children were paraded before Allah's apostle, who with the vainglory of a victorious bedouin chieftain, reviewed them with contempt. To him they were merely the booty of war.
There was a charming young girl among them by the name of Rayhana, who had lost her husband and all of her male relatives in the massacre. As soon as Muhammad's eyes caught sight of the wretched Jewess in the long line of women and children, an irresistible passion to possess her came over him. He signaled his soldiers to bring her as his share of the booty. "As they passed before the conqueror, his eyes marked the lovely Raihana, and he destined her for himself."

The girl is reported to have been around nineteen and as she refused to embrace Islam, she was sent to his harem as a concubine: the honeymoon started the very night of the massacre and lasted three days.

The women and children were distributed among the male believers and some were sold in the slave market. The property of the ill-fated people consisted of camels, goats, sheep, armor, clothes, and household furniture.

The massacre of the Banu Qurayza tribe proved that Allah's apostle was a bandit, a vengeful political leader, a merciless executioner, and a slave merchant. It also cast a long shadow over Islam. If this new religion was dedicated to advancing the cause of one god, as its founder claimed, against the idolatry and polytheism of the desert Arabs, why did Muhammad so relentlessly persecute first Judaism and later on Christianity and Zoroastrianism, all of which were monotheistic religions? With his increase in power, the real character of Allah's messenger began to manifest itself. One suspects that his underlying motive was power, not religion. As the leader o***ang of robbers, he sent his followers on numerous expeditions to raid caravans, ambush the different tribes of the desert, slay innocent people, seize their property, and enslave their women and children. The booty in these forays was enough motive for the greedy desert Arabs to join him.

In order to become a shareholder in the spoils bestowed by Allah, one needed only to affirm that Allah is the only deity and Muhammad is his messenger. By this simple formula the robber chief of Medina was able to gather more men around him and keep his little force in high spirits by giving them more share of the booty. He promised them both paradise after death and wealth and women in this world. With these incentives the desert Arabs who followed him had nothing to lose.

Gradually, as he got more powerful in his new headquarters of Medina, the peace-loving preacher of Mecca disappeared and in his stead the party leader and authoritarian ruler of Medina came to light. His former themes of mercy and compassion are replaced with the unyielding decrees of the tyrant. Among the deeds of the great founders of religions, such as Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha, Moses, and Christ, one can find nothing comparable with Muhammad's plundering of caravans, ambushing of tribes, massacring of prisoners of wars, and enslaving of the women and children. Nor did any of these religious leaders have as many wives as Muhammad. In these and similar performances, Muhammad is unique and unparalleled. No man of God was changed so much in so few years and in such a barbaric way. " [source - "Women and the Koran: The Status of Women in Islam. Contributors" by Anwar Hekmat, published by Prometheus Books, 1997] >>.

Hypothesis has been proved correct that neither Muhammad (pbuh) nor his present day followers are in compliance with either Quran 19:33 and Book 19, Number 4294: of the Muslim b. al-Hajjah,.

CONCLUSION:

Both hypothesis,

First, The validity of the two sources, i.e., the Quran and the concept of Hadith.

Second, Adherence of Muhammad (pbuh) and members of Islam to either and/or both of these.

Have been researched and the findings were:

[1] Neither the Quran nor the Hadiths have validity.

[2] Neither Muhammad (pbuh) nor his modern day followers has adhered to either Quran 19:33 and Book 19, Number 4294: of the Muslim b. al-Hajjah,. Or as 'Fruits of Plunder' put it, <<" Among the deeds of the great founders of religions, such as Zoroaster, Confucius, Buddha, Moses, and Christ, one can find nothing comparable with Muhammad's plundering of caravans, ambushing of tribes, massacring of prisoners of wars, and enslaving of the women and children. Nor did any of these religious leaders have as many wives as Muhammad. In these and similar performances, Muhammad is unique and unparalleled.[source - "Fruits of Plunder" pnews.org/PhpWiki/index.php/FruitsOfPlunder]>>.

Why such a lack of regard for others? Because Muhammad (pbuh) and his modern day followers failed to head something written over 500 years before Muhammad (pbuh); to with, Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (AV). But were led away from truth by vain deceit and traditions of men per Colossians 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (AV).

Your Friend in Christ Iris89