Chapter 37

CHAPTER 37

FAITH AND MUHAMMAD'S TEMPTATION

(Part Two)

"But if even ...an angel out of heaven should proclaim
a gospel to you contrary to what we proclaimed you
let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8, author's translation)

Because Jesus never once yielded to the temptation of the Devil, the New Testament says he was without spot or blemish. (I Peter 1:19.)

Among the characters in the Old Testament, King David ranks high in dedication to God. Yet, God denied him the privilege of building a place of worship because he had spilled the blood of his enemies in war. Think of it! David had a blemish big enough that God told him abruptly and clearly: "Thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou has shed much blood upon the earth in my sight." (I Chronicles 22:8, KJV.) Some time later, the prophet Isaiah makes plain the plans of God with regard to war: "They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." (Isaiah 2:4, KJV.) Then again, the same prophet exclaims, "They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea." (Isaiah 11:8, KJV.) This manner of life and teaching, which Isaiah speaks about, was exhibited in Jesus of Nazareth. Because Jesus Christ did God's will and not His own; living to benefit others exclusively and not Himself in the least; making no reputation for Himself through notoriety or war; but emptying Himself of all selfish aspirations; (Refer to Philippians 2:7.) He emerged Spiritually pure, unsullied by the sin of this world, and deserving of people's utmost devotion in every respect. The teachings of Jesus, as well as His manner of life, are both "evil-free". Remarks like these cannot be made of any other religious founder. We see Christ consistently telling those He healed of disease and deformity to tell no one about the good things He had done for them, so that He might finish his work before the wickedness of humankind could warp or thwart his merciful mission. (Mark 1:40-44.) Then in the end, He gave up his life on a torturous cross, trusting completely that God, His Father, would give success to what he had begun in such a brief period of time. No army and no violence compelled people to join his cause. Nothing but a loving, merciful, truthful and wondrous message of hope drew people into His movement. Jesus shed no one's blood except His own, which he willingly gave. No one has ever been able to point out a single sin in the life of the Bethlehem born Messiah. (John 8:46.) Because he was sinless, and totally obedient to God His Father, He was the only one worthy to give His life as an atoning sacrifice for the sin of the whole world. And by doing so, He became the world's only Savior from sin. He loved us and gave Himself for us. (Ephesians 5:2.) Not so with Muhammad.

The prophet from Mecca sinned much, and in many different ways. The fact that Muhammad sinned by organizing and leading the assaults of numerous raids, where much blood was shed, has already received adequate attention. However, up to this point not enough has been said about the other sins of the prophet, which become apparent to anyone reading through the Koran. In the waning years of the prophet's life, it appears that most of his sins gather around his “lust for women,” which goes hand in hand with his “pride of office.” Once the prophet became the perceived ruler of Arabia, he began collecting unto himself much chattel property. The imperial wealth and power of the Islamic founder seemed to have turned him to "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life," which is "not of the Father, but is of the world." (Refer to I John 2:16, KJV.) Muhammad's uncontested authority made it easy for him to exploit the vulnerability of females in whom he took a sexual interest. On one occasion, one of Muhammad's wives, Hafsah, found the prophet having sex with a coptic girl from Egypt whom he impregnated to bear his only male child. Once discovered, the prophet immediately pleaded with Hafsah not to tell his other wife, Ayeshah, of the impassioned tryst. (The Meaning Of The Glorious Koran , p. 405.) In effect, he was saying, “let's keep my sin of adultery covered up.”

While we are on the subject of sexual lust, the beginning of Muhammad's career is worth comparing to the latter years of his career. In the early days, the prophet seemed to hold his lust and pride safely in check. Prudence and humility was his pattern at first. For example, the Koran says, "Muhammad is but a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) have passed away before him." (Surah III, 144.) Again we read, "Thou art but a warner." (Surah XXXV, 23.) Still again we find these words: "Say (unto them, O Muhammad): I am only a warner...." (Surah XXXVIII, 66) Say (unto them Muhammad): The comfort of this world is scant; the hereafter will be better for him who wardeth off (evil)..." (Surah IV, 77.) But Muhammad quickly forgot all that pious talk once he became the imperial ruler. At one time the Koran limited the number of wives that the prophet could have to four. Muhammad was told "marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only)." (Surah IV, 3.) Conveniently, however, the Koran loosened the restriction on Muhammad once he became a head of state. Finally, it is specified in the Koran that Muhammad had no less than ten wives, and maybe as many as fifteen or twenty.

Apparently, Muhammad's lust for women came to consume enough of his thought until the Koran finally gave him free reign with one restriction, saying, "And all married women are forbidden unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Surah IV, 24.) It is for sure that earlier sections of the Koran infer that ten or more wives for Muhammad would be a lustful extravagance. But as already noted, inconsistency is not uncommon in the Koran. For example, the Muslim holy book says, "And all things we have created by pairs, that haply ye may reflect." (Surah LI, 49.) Yet Muhammad did little reflecting as he became more powerful. Scant regard was given to Koranic statements like, "...He createth the two spouses, the male and the female..." (Surah LIII, 45.) and "We...have created you in pairs." (Surah LXXVIII, 8.) Multiples, not pairs, seemed best to Muhammad in his well established years.

Islamic religious leaders have tried to exculpate the prophet from his "lust of the flesh and pride of life" by saying that he took many wives out of compassion for them because they were without husbands and families. I admire the efforts of later Islamic leaders to exonerate their founder. But by the very fact that they attempt to justify their prophet's behavior, they are at once making an unwitting admission, which they know, by Faith; namely, that their religious founder lacked exemplary character. With all due respect to those who try to clean up the life of Muhammad, I must say that the end result remains the same -- more vertigo. It is simply spelled out too plainly in the Koran that some of the women Muhammad took unto himself were "spoils of war" (Surah XXXIII, 50.) Thus, the prophet was not showing compassion however admirably mullahs may try to convince us otherwise. He was showing lust. Had he been genuinely compassionate, he would not have killed off the women's families in the first place. Besides, the Koran itself mocks those who try to clean up the life of their prophet by saying: "The spoils of war belong to Allah and the messenger...." (Surah VIII, 1.)

Further, does not even the Koran itself condemn Muhammad for yielding to lust in his imperial years? For example, one Surah says, "And who goeth further astray than he who followeth his lust without guidance from Allah. Lo! Allah guideth not wrong doing folk." (Surah XXVIII, 50.) Did not Muhammad do these women a great wrong when he had their families slaughtered? Further, did he not do them disservice by depriving them of time and attention that would have been rightfully theirs in a monogamous marriage? There was no way the prophet could be a just, attentive, and dutiful husband to all of his female companions, if in fact he was concerned about treating them justly and honorably. If Muhammad had as few as twelve wives (some say there were more) that would mean each wife could expect to have a husband for about one month out of every year. (Surah XXXIII, 50.)

Now, it has already been said that Muhammad raised the status of women through out Arabia. This is not in dispute when compared with their former state. But he never raised their status to the height of those fortunate enough to live in Christian lands. In Muslim societies, "Men are in charge of women," (Surah IV, 34.) says the prophet. Revealingly, at one point the prophet's own wives felt the heavy weight of male domination when Muhammad separated from them and threatened to divorce them. He told them without equivocation that he could easily divest himself of them and get some new wives who would be more submissive and who would do as Allah's prophet commanded. (Surah LXVI, 5-6.) Furthermore, the women who became the wives of Muhammad were lawfully barred from remarriage after his death. "That in Allah's sight would be an enormity," says the Koran. (Surah XXXIII, 53.) An enormity? I suppose it would be an enormity for all who venerate Muhammad far above what he justly deserves, but I wonder how the women may have felt about it.

There are other temptations that could be mentioned of which Muhammad was powerless to overcome, but the net effect of them all is this: Muhammad and all who would follow his theology will be grossly misled about the Nature of God. The Koran reveals a distant god who takes no interest in the day-to-day lives of people. According to the Koran, Allah is a deity that can never be known personally in the earthly life. Muslims who revere Muhammad and follow the Islamic holy book will have to pray to one who is known primarily for his stern punishment, rather than compassion and love. Even though the New Testament tells us that God prefers being called Father, Muslims will have to call him Allah. Perhaps worst of all, those who follow the teachings of Muhammad will have to continue to seek to atone for their own sins; meanwhile full atonement has been made for all people for all time in Jesus Christ upon Calvary's Cross.

In the final analysis, does not the Koran itself condemn Muhammad for yielding to the many temptations that put so much misinformation within its pages? In Surah XXXIV, 15, the Meccan prophet confesses, "If I err, I err only to my own loss...." In other places there are warnings as in Surah XVIII, 15, saying, "Who doeth greater wrong than he who inventeth a lie concerning Allah and denieth His revelations?" Again we read, "Who doeth greater wrong than he who...denieth the truth when it cometh unto him?" as iterated in Surah XXIX, 68. Consider the warning in Surah VI, 94, which says, "Who is guilty of more wrong than he who forgeth a lie against Allah, or saith; I am inspired, when he is not inspired...." Or consider this, "Lo! Allah guideth not one who is a...liar," says Surah XL, 28. Every Muslim must ask, "Is the Koran disparaging the very prophet who is responsible for its contents?" Surah XXVI, 221-223 says, "Shall I inform you upon whom the devils descend? They descend on every sinful, false one. They listen eagerly, but most of them are liars." Since Muhammad could not read, is it possible that the Koran is including him among those who "listen eagerly," which of course would qualify him, of necessity, as one of the liars? If he is one of the liars -- and by now everybody should know that somebody is lying -- then the Koran may be warning all of its readers of the very thing expressed in Surah XXXIX, 3, which says, "Lo! Allah guideth not him who is a liar."

The Koran documents that those of the seventh century who knew the long established Scriptures of the Old Testament and the New Testament, were cognizant of the errors that Muhammad was promulgating. For instance, when the reciting of the Koran was heard by those who knew the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, they all said in chorus, as is expressed in the following Surahs: "He is only a man who hath invented a lie about Allah," as stated in Surah XXIII, 38. Not a few said, "There is a madness in him," as related in Surah XXIII, 70. Many said to those who revered Muhammad, "Ye are but following a man bewitched," as reported in Surah XXV, 8. Numbers of Muhammad's contemporaries said of him "This is a wizard, a charlatan," as put forth in Surah XXXVIII, 5. Still others who saw no genuine evidence that God was leading Muhammad said, "This is naught but a lie that he hath invented, and other folk have helped him with it (that is the ones supposedly who could read, helped him), so that they have produced a slander and a lie," as preserved in Surah XXV, 4. Then the Koran itself seems to join the ranks of Muhammad's critics by saying for a second time, "Who is guilty of more wrong than he who forgeth a lie against Allah, or saith: I am inspired, when he is not inspired..." (Surah VI, 94.)

With regard to the possibility that the Koran itself may condemn the prophet Muhammad, no Muslim reader who scrutinizes the Islamic holy book will deny that the sacred Arabic script cites the prophet for a number of violations. Could it be that the Koran cites the prophet for more than his followers are prepared to accept? For example, the Koran condemns Muhammad for all the killing that he instigated in his raids? In one place the Koran says, "...Kill not one another.... Whoso doeth that through aggression and injustice, We shall cast him into fire...." (Surah IV, 29-30.) Again, the Koran says, "The good deed and the evil deed is not alike." (Surah XLI, 34.) And I might add it is Faith that knows the difference between the good deed and the evil deed. Still further, the Old Testament and the Koran both speak about one who behaves like an ass. Who could this person be? Let the reader decide while reflecting upon the three following texts. And note that it is not this author making these unglamorous statements. I am merely repeating what the sacred Scriptures actually say. Referring to Ishmael, through whom Muhammad himself traces his connection to Abraham, the Revised Standard Version translates Genesis 16:12 as saying, "He shall be a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man's hand against him...." During the time that Muhammad was leading his raids in the desert, there were some who no doubt thought that this Old Testament text could surely be applied to the prophet. Then the Koran itself says in Surah LXII, 5, "The likeness of those who are entrusted with the Law of Moses, yet apply it not, is as the likeness of the ass carrying books." Remember that Muhammad could carry books, but he could not read them. Again, the Koran says in Surah XXXI, 19, "Be modest in thy bearing and subdue thy voice. Lo! The harshest of all voices is the voice of the ass." Need the reader be reminded that Muhammad was commanded to be "harsh" to all unbelievers, as already noted in this volume.

Finally, not only is there the strong possibility that the Koran condemns Muhammad for his several deviations from its "Truthful" teachings, but does not the Koran also condemn itself as a sacred book, in that Muhammad's mission and message became so warped with temptation until the contents on the whole are made unreliable? Let everyone decide for oneself.

Does not the Koran point its readers away from itself? Indeed, in one place, it clearly says "follow the better (guidance) of that which is revealed unto you from your Lord...." (Surah XXXIV, 55.) In a pamphlet published by the International Bible Society, a Turkish young man tells of his conversion from Islam to Christianity. He was converted as he unwittingly followed the "better (guidance)" as spoken about in the Koran. While working in Libya, he heard a radio broadcast about the Good News of Jesus Christ. He began comparing the words of Jesus with the sayings in the Koran. "Soon," he said, "I began to grow cold toward my own religion." In time he met some Christians as he traveled to Switzerland and for the first time found love in human beings. Let it be remembered that Faith recognizes Love, and naturally orients a person to it. The Christians gave him some New Testament Scriptures to read. In the Scriptures, he found in Jesus the Love for which he had been searching throughout his life. I am reminded that after Bilquis Sheikh, a former Muslim, compared the Koran with the New Testament, she came to the conclusion that, "God couldn't be in both books...because their messages were so different." (Bilquis Sheikh with Richard H. Schneider, I Dared To Call Him Father , (Old Tappan, NJ: Chosen Books, Fleming Revell Company, 1978), p. 46.)

I have often wondered what Muhammad might have become had he, in fact, learned to read the Scriptures for himself as the voice had commanded. What wondrous changes might have come into the Arab world had the Meccan native learned to read. Had he done so, he would have been able to listen for Divine guidance issuing from his own faith, not being a victim of his wife's persuasions and the secondhand evaluations of his cousin. What if he had not been unduly influenced against Christianity by the rabbis? And what if he would have had the literary competence to examine the New Testament for himself, allowing the Holy Spirit to work upon his heart as he read the Gospel? Had he been able to read, he just might have been the Church's greatest theologian to the Arabian world, as was Augustine to the European world. As it is, however, the Islamic people are taught to fear the West. Why? Would one dare say it? The reason is because the Truth is there -- in the Scriptures that are read in the West.

The whole world is now looking with analytical eyes at the phenomenon known as Islam. In time, faith is going to know Islam for what it really is. Whenever religiously sincere people put the revelation of Jesus Christ up against any other religion, Faith can be relied upon to determine, wherein is based the most accurate representation of God.

Return to Chapter Selections