....Cont.

Rayhana:
“Her first husband was one of the 600-900 Qurayza men whom Muhammad beheaded in April 627. He enslaved all the women and selected Rayhana for himself because she was the most beautiful. When she refused to marry him, he kept her as a concubine instead. She died shortly before Muhammad in 632.”

Juwayriyah:
“The daughter of an Arab chief, she was taken prisoner when Muhammad attacked her tribe. Muhammad did not make a habit of marrying his war-captives, but Aisha claimed that Juwayriyah was so beautiful that men always fell in love with her at first sight.”

Safiyah:
“She was the beautiful daughter of a Jewish chief, Huyayy ibn Akhtab. Muhammad married her on the day he defeated the last Jewish tribe in Arabia, only hours after he had supervised the slaying of Kinana her second husband. His earlier victims had included her father, brother, first husband, three uncles and several cousins. This marriage was of no benefit to Safiyah's defeated tribe, who were banished from Arabia a few years later; its real political significance was that Safiyah's presence in Muhammad's household was an open demonstration that he had defeated the Jews.”

In the afterlife - Mary, mother of Jesus:
“Muhammad said that Allah had wedded him in Heaven to the Virgin Mary, who was one of the four perfect women. The Qur'an refers several times to Mary, praising her chastity and affirming the virgin birth of Jesus. Muhammad said she lived in a beautiful jewelled palace in Paradise next to Khadijah's.”

And they call Islam a religion?

What other religious figure compares?

When Muslims speak of peace it is only when all Non Muslims have been subjugated, I’m afraid.

There's obviously a LOT of Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones fans here.

May Mat said;
There's obviously a LOT of Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones fans here.

Now this is not an unusual tactic. It serves the left well, it ties everyone
who opposes them to someone they all hate.
This simplifies their argument and means they do not have to use argument.
It is actually quite a dishonest way to participate on here.
It overlooks any chance that maybe Jones & Bolt are right !

So it is not only dishonest but cowardly.
Now to more honest comment.
Yuyutsu; I have had no problem with those links.
Mind you I am using Linux so that may be the reason.
If you are right makes a good case to dump Windows.

Hey Bazz baby, I LOVE Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones. Alan is a gay icon, and Andrew is so good looking, especially in a pair of budgie smugglers.

Oh that was a quick response !
Well because such a statement is what you hear from the lefties I had
presumed, wrongly it appears, you were one of their haters.
I had heard all this criticism of them and started to read Bolt's column
looking for distortions and lies but never found any.
When he made a mistake he was quick to apologise.
I think Alan Jones has the pollies frightened and that is a good thing.
Don't agree with everything he says, but my disageements are based
are based on the implications of his positions not so much the facts.

Dear May,

Did Jesus seek power and domination?

No, he didn't!

What you describe are social issues - not religious issues.

And in the same manner I put forward the theory that Muhammad did not condone any of this violence and terror either, that just as so-called "Christians" do not follow the teachings of Jesus, so do so-called "Muslims" who resort to terror and cruelty to others, especially women, fail to follow the teachings of Muhammad.

Dear Constance,

The immediate page you pointed at was OK, but once I clicked on one of the links there, I nearly got a virus or something: I immediately killed my browser and wanted to warn others too. No doubt that so-called "Muslims" do horrible and scary things, but I contest that any of that has anything to do with religion.

What you relate is the "official" press, laundered by Abu Bakr. I doubt how much of this is historically true.

You ask:

<<And they call Islam a religion?>>

The package is definitely not. There seems to be a good religion therein, which some take seriously and benefit immensely from, especially Sufis, but it's packaged as a social movement and that package is rotten and violent.

<<What other religious figure compares?>>

Here is a contemporary example how a disciple took control of their preceptor's new religion and turned it into something ugly without the preceptor's knowledge: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNCJlc7afC8

In that case, it took Osho 3.5 years to discover the plot and start repairing the damage. In the case of Muhammad, I suspect that Abu Bakr and his gang had the last say and re-wrote history to please and justify their corruption. That is unless we help the real Muhammad to have the last say by urging Muslims to discriminate, to excavate the spiritual wealth within their literature and discard the fake and violent shell around it.