Muhammed

[APeacefulWarrior]

Broadly speaking, I agree - that's the aspect of the Quran I have the most trouble with as well. But then again, in context, it was fighting an ideological "war" of sorts on multiple fronts: Simultaneously trying to combat the polytheistic melange of various tribal/house gods who basically just served as justifications for their tribes' behaviors, as well as the corruption Mohammed (presumably) saw in Christianity and Judaism which had led them away from higher truths.

Plus, of course, while some devout Muslims don't like talking about this aspect, there are many elements of the Quran which can realistically only be seen as political compromises. He couldn't get the tribes to give up their slaves entirely, so he put strict rules on the treatment of slaves. Warlords wouldn't give up their harems, so he limited the size of their harem while giving their wives more rights. The (pagan) Kabaa was the most popular worship site -and tourist trap- in the entire Arabian peninsula, so he appropriates it as a symbol of Islam rather than tearing it down. Etc.

More or less, I ask myself if there's a way the Quran could have been composed without self-righteously taking the moral high ground and still be effective as a unifying document, and I'm really not seeing another solution to the problem. It's a document that's very much a product of the time and place in which it was written, and it's trying to carry out a VERY difficult balancing act between earthly and spiritual needs.

So whenever I'm browsing it, I tend to try to focus on its spiritual advice, without worrying too much about stuff that's clearly the product of 7th Century Arabian politics.