In the name of Allāh,
the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Peace and Blessings of Allāh on Mohammad.
Allāh–the Glorious and the High,
Lord of the worlds
Mohammad–who brought the world
to our feet and eternity to our arms.
MOHAMMAD MOVIE & MUSLIM OUTRAGE
We’ve had the imbecilic Danish Cartoonss, French cartoons , Lars Vilks Mohammad a dog, and a fictitious account of ‘Aisha-Jewel of Medina (plus anti-Islamic verbiage ruminated by so-called Christian authorities, as noted in Danish Cartoons) masquerading under the banner of “freedom of expression” and intelligence.
And now we have the ‘Mohammad movie,’ titled Innocence of Muslims, by an “anti-Muslim Egyptian Christian” in the U.S., “ridiculing” the Prophet Mohammad as “a fraud, a womanizer and a madman”1 (which will be addressed shortly).
Opposition to the Prophet Mohammad is not novel. They date back 1400 years to the advent of the Prophet:
-The idolatrous Arabs, unable to advance their beliefs through intelligent discourse –and there is nothing intelligent about worshipping objects of nature, and objects fashioned by your own hands, things can confer no benefit and effect no harm; and afraid to disturb the status quo– and not finding any flaw against the wisdom of the Prophet’s teachings of the futility and degradation of idolatry and the irrationality of polytheism, and superstition, they, for twenty-three grueling years, engaged in all manner of tactics to annihilate the Prophet and Muslims. (Until they saw the Divine Light brought by the Prophet Mohammad which led them from the darkness of the desert dungeons into the resplendency of the palaces of Caesars, which lasted for nearly a thousand years until they turned their backs to this Celestial Effulgence).
-The Jews, who not only knew that Mohammad was/is the Divine Messenger,2 and unable to advance their beliefs through intelligent discourse –and while their belief in Godhead reflects that of Islam, there is nothing intelligent in adulterating the Book of God effacing the name of Ishmael and inserting Isaac to glorify the Isaaic branch of Abraham,3 and nothing intelligent about God choosing people on the basis of their race/nationality, factors in which we have no choice, factors He gave us; and wanting to uphold their claim of “chosen people” to Divine dispensation– and not having any arguments against the lofty and sublime doctrines preached by Mohammad, Jews not only joined the pagan Arabs in war against the Prophet, they feigned conversion to Islam then apostatizing so as to influence the Arabs to leave their new faith.4
In fact, Jews were so inimical towards the Prophet that they even denied the existence of God in order to oppose the Prophet/Islam.5 And as M. H. Haykal points out their opposition was never in the open6 (perhaps this is true today also).
-As for Christians, they are the worst of the lot. Christians not only adulterated their Bible Christians follow doctrines that have no Divine foundation, no prophetic foundation, no logical foundation, and are repugnant to reason. Doctrines that are assumed and propagated as Divine truths. Moreover, their religion is evil, intolerant, backward, naked hate, and brutally and rabidly misogynistic; Christians lie on God they lie on Jesus, they blame the Devil; and their human-penned Gospels (“according to” Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; not “according to” God or Jesus) portray Jesus as liar, hypocrite, and fraud (see Christianity-lies, evil, hate; Jesus-hypocrite, liar, fraud; Jesus-absurd doctrines; Christianity-Women of).
Christians not only fought against Muslims; Christian’s history of intrigue against Muslims is well-known. More than a hundred years ago Thomas W. Arnold notes in his The Preaching of Islam what may very well be a timeless observation: “Many of the persecutions of the Christians in Muslim countries can be traced either to distrust of their loyalty, excited by the intrigues and interference of Christian foreigners and the enemies of Islam, or to the bad feeling stirred up by the treacherous or brutal behaviour of the latter towards the Musalmans.”(p.77. See Answering Nonie Darwish for more).
Unable to advance their beliefs through intelligent discourse –and there is nothing intelligent about God shifting sins around from Adam/Eve to everyone then loading everyone’s sins onto Jesus and making him everyone’s scapegoat into heaven; and of God, entering as a sperm into the womb of a woman He created and growing to human form and emerging from her vagina (and calling her “Mother of God;” God, the First and the Creator of all have a “Mother”? and is the son of Mary? which end are the Christians using to “reason” with)– and not finding any argument against the lofty doctrines of Islam –as the Divine System is perfect; and the only thing Christianity has to offer mankind is the mythical blood and body of Jesus Christ (spiritual cannibalism) and a seat in the pew of Paul's paganism– Christians resorted to their disgraceful practice of yesteryear: cloaking the Prophet Mohammad in the garb of terrorist and hedonist and attempting to demonize Islam.
Christians denigrating Mohammad is hardly surprising, considering that Christians denigrate God –attributing injustice to Him and making Him complicit in murder (Jesus-inherited sin to ascension); giving Him a son (and a pagan one at that); and putting His Holy Highness of Purity and Perfection into the body of a woman and drawing Him out her vagina, making God son of Mary and calling her “Mother of God” (trinity/Mariolatry).
(These intellectually unpalatable morsels Christians digest as Divine delicacies). Even though Christ warned them that whoever blasphemes against God is in danger of eternal damnation and that on the Day of Judgment he will disown those who work evil; and making false attributions to God is perhaps the worst blasphemy and evil. (Mark 3:29; Matt. 7:22-23).
-The Hindus also, even though they were inspired by Islam to hate and break images,7 took (and is till taking) pot-shots at Islam/ Mohammad. In late nineteenth century India, as Muhammad Ali points out:
“The preaching of the Christian missionary until a short time ago was of quite a different character from what it is today. In those days, the Christian missionary was under the impression that the darker the picture he drew of the Prophet of Islam, the greater would be his success in winning over converts from among the Muslims (and some ignorant ones were snared)…Some of the Christian controversial books of those days must indeed be ranked as the filthiest literature that has ever been produced, apart from the fact that the founder of the Arya Samaj and some of his blind votaries imitated the Christian missionary, and, later on, the Arya Samajist preacher even surpassed the Christian missionary in the art of vituperation.…To call the Holy Prophet an impostor, Dajjal or Anti-Christ, a deceiver, a dacoit, the slave of his sensual passions whose lust knew no bounds, and to attribute every conceivable crime to him became a habit with these Christian controversialists.”8
(In fact, as MA notes further, some of the materials were so “scurrilous” “even Christians began to complain of them”).
Unable to advance their beliefs through intelligent discourse –and there is no intelligence in feeding milk to statues; following Books that are “mythological works;” submitting to doctrines (Karma & Reincarnation) whose origins are not only unknown but are not conducive to reason; and bowing to Gods that grow in status; guilty of seducing the wife of another; and pursuing his daughter; and have women steeped in genital worship9 (this is the crud over which Hindus are killing Muslims in India and to enthrone above Islam)– today we have the Canadian Hindu Advocacy Group group rabble-rousing, under the guise of secularism, against Muslim students being allowed to offer their Friday Jum’a prayer in their public school (and making hilariously-stupid statements against Islam).
And yet Hinduism is singing to the extent of her lungs “Eshwar Allāh tere naam” (Eshwar and Allāh are your names), and her Lord Krishna tells them in the Bhagavad Gita (4:6-8): “I still appear in every millennium…. Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice…To deliver the pious.” And as there was a “decline in religious practice” in Seventh-century Arabia, Krishna must have come as Mohammad to the Arabs; and such is the Hindu belief.
Thus, in opposing Muslims praying in the school and denigrating Islam (and destroying Mosques, the most notable being the 500-year old Babri Masjid these woefully misguided and misled Hindus are denigrating the system of their own God and trying to prevent His devotees from serving Him in their school (and are desecrating/destroying the shrine of God to build Him another shrine just because they ignorantly hate His name, Allah). And these Hindus probably expect Lord Krishna to grant them Moksa –liberation from Hinduism's non-existent cycle of rebirths and deaths.
And whereas Muslims have not tampered with the Holy Book of any people, the rabid enemies of Allāh/Muslims are said to have published “A FAKE AMERICAN QUR-AAN”having “over 366 pages and is in both the Arabic and English languages…it is being distributed to our children in Kuwait in the private English schools!” (See Christians-Internet. Muslims should investigate who was/is behind this if they do not already know).
This is how terrified Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism are of Islam. Jews, Christians, and Hindus were, are, and will be terrified of Islam to the Resurrection. Blessed with the Divine allure of reason, Islam is the only Great Religion. In fact, the only Divinely-revealed religion is Islam.
(That Muslims kill apostates. Muslims kill apostates not because they are terrified of Judaism and Christianity but because they ERRONEOUSLY believe that Islam requires this. There is no 'honor killing,' death for adultery, apostasy and blasphemy in Islam. These are the Jewish and Christian law. Islam abrogated these laws. See Islam-Shari’ah; Qur’an-abrogation & collecting).
Mohammad movie and Muslims
Regarding the denigrating of the Prophet Mohammad Muslims have responded with violence, destruction and death. And Muslims are ridiculed and condemned as being over-sensitive and of over-reacting. But why criticize and condemn Muslims when the Biblical God (and as Christians say that Jesus is God when Jesus) sent bears to maul forty-two (42) children just for teasing a man about his BALD HEAD, and savaging Jeshurun’s people, even the suckling, for false worship?:
-“And he (Elisha) went up from thence to Bethel…there came forth LITTLE CHILDREN…and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up thou BALD HEAD…And he (Elisha) turned back, and looked at them, and cursed them in the NAME OF THE LORD. And there came forth TWO SHE BEARS out of the wood, and TARE FORTY AND TWO CHILDREN of them”–(2 Kings 2:22-24).
–“But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked …THEY PROVOKED HIM (GOD) TO JEALOUSY WITH STRANGE GODS…And when the Lord saw it, HE ABHORRED THEM, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters. And he (God) said…I will heap MISCHIEFS upon them; I will spend my ARROWS upon them….I will also send the TEETH OF BEASTS upon them, with the POISON OF SERPENTS of the dust. The SWORD without, and TERROR within, shall destroy both the YOUNG MAN and the VIRGIN, the SUCKLING also with the MAN OF GRAY HAIRS”–(Deut. 32:15-25. This must be the “Mother” of all terrorism!)
Whereas Muslims are criticized and condemned for their physical expression of their outrage at the denigrating of our Prophet, the question is how would you react if someone, even if he speaks the truth, calls your mother a “whore” and “bitch” and other derogatory names and makes obscene gestures to her? or if the person calls your father a “faggot” and “prick” and other derogatory names and makes obscene gestures to him? (People have rioted over hockey and soccer).
A mother and father may have a dozen sons/children and eleven may not say or do anything to a denigrator of his parent(s) but for certain one child, out of parental love, will.
Consider then that a Muslim’s love for his Prophet is greater than his love for his parents and even for himself. As Muhammad Ali has stated: “The Muslim is never so offended as when his Prophet is abused. He can submit to the greatest insult, but the one thing to which he will not submit is the abuse of the Holy Prophet Muhammad….Nobody can gauge the depth of the love of a Muslim for his Prophet. It is a fact that the sting of the Prophet’s abuse affects the Muslim’s heart so deeply that he gets excited beyond all measure.”10
Only Muslims can know this depth of love for our beloved Prophet. However, regardless of our “religious sensibilities” and love for our Prophet Islam does not allow us to respond to any kind of denigration with violence destruction and death (least of all against people who are not connected with such denigration). Allāh informs us in His Qur’an:
-“And indeed He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allāh’s messages disbelieved in and mocked at, sit not with them until they enter into some other discourse, for then indeed you would be like them. Surely Allāh will gather together the hypocrites and the disbelievers all in hell–(4:140)
-“And when thou seest those who talk nonsense about Our messages, withdraw from them until they enter into some other discourse. And if the devil cause thee to forget, then sit not after recollection with the unjust people.And those who keep their duty are not accountable for them in aught but (theirs) is only to remind; haply they may guard against evil”–(6:68-69)
-“And abuse not those whom they call upon besides Allāh, lest, exceeding the limits, they abuse Allāh through ignorance. Thus to every people have We made their deeds fair-seeming; then to their Lord is their return so He will inform them of what they did”–(6:108).
-“And the servants of the Beneficent are they who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, Peace!”–(25:63)
-“Surely those who annoy Allāh and His Messenger, Allāh has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter, and He has prepared for them an abasing chastisement. And those who annoy believing men and believing women undeservedly, they bear the guilt of slander and manifest sin–(33:57-58).
-“And you will certainly hear from those who have been given the Book before you and from the idolaters much abuse. And if you are patient and keep your duty, surely this is an affair of great resolution”–(3:186), Muhammad Ali comments:
“This verse speaks of the sufferings which were yet in store for the Muslims. They had certainly been tried respecting their property and their persons at Makkah. They had been deprived of their property and turned out of their homes; they had been severely persecuted and even put to death for professing Islam. But this verse, revealed undoubtedly after the battle of Uhud in the year 3 A.H., speaks of sufferings which were yet to come. It plainly speaks of the future, rather of the distant future, because Islam was now being firmly established in Arabia….The abuses which have been heaped on Islam in the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries are indeed without a parallel, not only in the history of Islam but in the whole history of religion. The abusive language of the Christian, political, as well as missionary, press and the vituperations of their imitators in the Hindu press have outstepped all bounds. Thus both the People of the Book and the idolaters have joined hands in hurling the worst abuses at Islam and its Founder. But we are here told that the Muslims shall, in addition to the abuse of their religion, be made to suffer both respecting their property and their persons. If they have so often been turned out of their houses in the past century in Europe, and Muslim States have been wiped out of existence in many parts of the world, the twentieth century presents a yet ghastlier scene of their woes in India. In a country in which they have been living for over a thousand years, and where their population was no less than a hundred millions, they have been turned out of their homes mercilessly and the cruellest tortures known to human history have been inflicted on them in broad daylight and the civilized world has not yet raised a finger against this genocide and the perpetration of these brutalities. It is these calamities which are spoken of in this verse. The concluding words of the verse are the only hope of Islam in the present tribulations — to be steadfast and keep their duty to Islam.” (Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an can be viewed online: www.muslim.org).
Islam is civility, intelligence, and Democracy.
Islam, the religion of reason, arguments, and examples does not seek to silence voices: Islam seeks to enhance mentality: “Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner”–(Qur’an 16:125).
And the Magnificent Messenger of Allāh illuminates us: ‘The superiority of the learned scholar over the pious worshipper is as the superiority of the (full) moon over the stars.’
Regarding the “anti-Muslim Egyptian Christian” movie Innocence of Muslims “ridiculing” the Prophet Mohammad as “a fraud, a womanizer and a madman.”
That Mohammad was a fraud: Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1976) states under “fraud”: “intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right;” “an act of deceiving or misrepresenting;” “one who is not what he pretends to be;” “one who defrauds.”
Can Christians prove that Mohammad intentionally, or not, perverted truth “in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right”? Can Christians prove that Mohammad deceived or misrepresented himself? Can Christians prove that Mohammad pretended to be what he was not? Can Christians prove that Mohammad defrauded anyone? If Christians cannot prove these –and for certain they cannot prove them– then Christians are guilty of slander!
If Mohammad was a “fraud” this “fraud” has made unerring prophecies and given scientific truths that are in keeping with modern discovery. Prophecies and scientific truths that are nowhere to be found in the Bible or in any other Scripture; and which not even Jesus, the Christian’s God and son of God, gave. (In fact, according to the Gospels the Christians’ God and son of God, Jesus, was himself a “fraud.” See Christianity-lies, evil, hate; Jesus-hypocrite, liar, fraud).
-Mohammad stresses the fulfilling of covenants, keeping of oaths and not to be deceptive (16:91-92); to speak justly (6:153); to be righteous (Qur’an 2:277-278; 6:152-154); to not let hatred for a people incite you to transgress (5:2); to render back trusts to whom they are due, and to judge justly (4:58); because Allāh, God, loves those who judge in equity (5:45-47);
-Mohammad admonishes against dealing unjustly with men (2:279, 5:8); and not to rob them of their dues (26:183); to give justice even if it be against one’s self or parents or kins or whether he be poor or rich (4:135), encourages the feeding of the needy and the poor, to free the captives, to help those in debt, to care for the orphans, the wayfarer, and to free the slaves (9:60, 2:177), not to act corruptly in the earth or to make mischief (26:183); not to be transgressors (2:190), not to help one another in sin and aggression (5:2), to restrain our anger and forgive others (3:133), to fight on behalf of the oppressed (4:75); because Allāh, God, loves those who are just, and because He commands justice and the doing of good, and He forbids injustice (60:8, 16:90);
-Mohammad forbids against helping one another in sin, and to not counsel one another in sin, but in goodness (5:2; 60:8-9); to avoid letting hatred of a people incite transgression (5:2); not to take a greater recompense than the injury suffered (2:194; 16:126; 42:40); that instead of retaliation, to make reconciliation, and to show patience and forgiveness (16:126; 42:39-43); to be merciful and forgiving (3:133); to fight only as long as there is persecution and oppression (2:193), and to make peace when the enemy desires peace (4:90, 8:61); because Allāh, God, loves the doer of good, and the dutiful (2:195, 3:75);
-Mohammad taught that all men are created equal (95:4), that we are made into different tribes and nations that we may know one another (49:13), that we are to be judged not by our race, color or nationality but by our deeds (6:133), that angels ask forgiveness for all mankind (42:5), that the noblest ones are those who are righteous (49:13, 98:7), not to let hatred of a people incite you to transgress, and to help one another in righteousness and help not each other in sin and aggression (5:2), to return evil with that which is better (23:96), to give justice (4:58; 5:8); because Allāh, God, loves those who judge in equity, and because Allah God is aware of what you do (5:45, 4:135);
-Mohammad liberated women from the bog of servitude and degradation in which Judaism, Hinduism, and Christianity had her mired and gave her rights alongside man from the cradle all the way to Paradise. Mohammad freed the slaves and put the scepter of regality in his grasp. Mohammad ennobled the orphan.
Extremely impressive for a “fraud.” Whether gracefully or grudgingly one has to admit that such sublime teachings by this “fraud” have no equal in any “genuine” claimant to Divine Dispensation. Not even from the Christians’ God and son of God, Jesus.
That Mohammad was a womanizer: Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1976) defines womanizer as: “a man who pursues or associates illicitly with women.”
Can Christians prove that Mohammad pursued or associated illicitly with women? If Christians cannot prove this –and for certain they cannot prove this– then Christians are guilty of slander!
Instead of submerging himself in a sea of vestal nubiles (which lusty men relish). For twenty-five years Mohammad lived a life of celibacy; married a widow fifteen years his senior, and lived a monogamous marriage for some twenty-nine years till her death. Then he married mostly elderly widows and with children; his only virgin wife was ‘Aisha (which marriage Christians and other critics salivate to comment on, as well as to comment on Mohammad’s marriage to Zainab, ex-wife of Mohammad’s adopted son, Zaid; as well as what they call the Hafsa Scandal).
Mohammad was subjected to persecution, siege, assassination attempt, exile, hounded (pursued to Madinah), fought wars, preached and build a community in the day and spent half his night in worship of God. Some “womanizer,” huh?
Contrasted to the Christian’s God (and as Christians say that Jesus is God):
-“Jesus” allowed Solomon and his son, Rehoboam, to have between the two of them seven hundred and eighteen (718) wives and four hundred and ten (410) concubines–(1 Kings 11:3; 2 Chr. 11:21. Let the cassanovas count them again and weep); then there is David dallying with Bathsheba, wife of Uriah; and God (“Jesus”) giving David “his master’s wives;” and giving David’s wives to David’s neighbor to have sex with them–(2 Samuel 11:4-5; 12:7-8; 12:11. This is how the Christian’s God, “Jesus,” punishes David, by having his wives violated. Notably, Jesus was of the “seed of David” who committed this adultery with Bathsheba).
-“Jesus” allowed his “chosen people” to corral the virginal Prepubescent Girls of their enemy as sex slaves: “And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses, and they slew ALL THE MALES…And Moses said unto them …Now therefore kill every MALE among the LITTLE ONES (of the captives), and kill EVERY WOMAN who hath known man by lying with him, but ALL THE WOMEN CHILDREN, that have not known a man by lying with him (virgin girls) KEEP ALIVE FOR YOUR-SELVES….And the Lord spake unto to Moses, saying, Take the sum of the PREY (BOOTY) that was taken, both of MAN and of beast, thou and Eleazar…And the BOOTY….of WOMEN that had not known man by lying with him (virgin girls), were 32,000. And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was….16,000 persons (virgin girls). And of the congregation’s half portion of these 16.000 virgin girls, 320 were given to the Levite priests, as “the Lord commanded Moses.” And the LORD’S TRIBUTE (of the (booty) was…32 persons….the men of war had taken SPOIL (BOOTY), EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF” –(Numbers 31:1-53).
-“Jesus” allowed Abraham polygamy/concubinage with Sarah and Hagar–(Gen. 16:1-4. And not only allowed concubinage with Hagar but to impregnate her and, as Christians believe, abandoned her and her son, Ishmael).
-“Jesus” allowed Jacob –a grandfather of Jesus (the Christians’ God and son of God)– to bed Bilhah and Zilpah, handmaids of his wives Rachel and Leah, respectively, and to build Twelve Tribes with them–(Gen. 30:1-13. Rev. 7:5-8).
-“Jesus” allowed Lot to build two tribes –the Moabites and the Ammonites– with his two daughters–(Gen. 19:30-38).
-“Jesus” allowed Judah –another grandfather of Jesus (the Christians’ God and son of God)– to play hide-and-seek with his daughter-in-law, Tamar, thinking she was a “harlot” and fathering twins, Pharez and Zerah, with her–(38:11-30).
But for Mohammad’s trees of righteous marriages Christians cannot see their Biblical Fathers forest of sexploits. (Regarding Nonie Darwish’s claim that Mohammad did not marry all his wives see Nonie Darwish-Now They Call Me Infidel items #18 and 46).
(Notably, Krishna, “He married the princess Rukmini and took other wives as well.”a And “He had illicit relations with Radha, wife of his maternal uncle, in addition to a number of milk-maids, although he had a large number of wives” which are said to be “sixteen thousand one hundred and eight and his children numbered one hundred and eighty thousand”b).11
That Mohammad was a madman: Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1976) defines madman as: “a man who is or acts as if insane.”
Can Christians give examples of Mohammad acting “as if insane”? If Christians cannot give examples –and for certain they cannot give examples– then Christians are guilty of slander!
If Mohammad was a “madman” this “madman” not only make unerring prophecies and pronouncements on science this “madman” produced the inimitable Qur’an–(Qur’an 2:23; 10:38; 11:13; 17:88; 52:33). If Mohammad was a “madman” this “madman” freed us of our moral, social, and mental cankers –from drunkenness, gambling, profligacy; female infanticide; the irrationality of polytheism and the futility and degradation of idolatry; and superstition– and elevated woman from the unceremonious cot of concubinage onto the honorable bed of wifehood.
If Mohammad was a “madman” this “madman” produced the best Book in the history of religions, which propelled man from ignorance and backwardness to knowledge, and brought the world to our feet and eternity to our arms. Which no “sane” man, including the Christians’ God and son of God, Jesus, has done. And will never be able to do. If Mohammad was a “madman,” I say give me this “madman” any day!
If Mohammad was “a fraud, a womanizer and a madman,” it cannot be honestly denied that the world can certainly benefit from a massive dose of Mohammad’s ‘fraud,’ ‘womanizing’ and ‘madness.’
Rather than try to find non-existent flaws in Allāh, Mohammad, Islam, and the Qur’an these woefully misguided, misled, and myopic Christians are to be “wailing and gnashing” their teeth (or gums) at the absurdities to which they have bondaged their souls –the lies and falsehood and blasphemy against God in which they are mired.
We Muslims are to help save these Jews and Christians and Hindus from an eternity of “wailing and gnashing” their teeth and squirming and squealing in Hell; so that they also should have a life in Heaven/Paradise –an endless panorama of everlasting beauty of gardens full of varieties, with rivers and springs and fountains and palms and fruits; an eternity in garments of silk and bracelets of gold and pearls; beds of silk brocade; and of laze and lax on green cushions and beautiful carpets; eating precious delicacies and drinking delightful beverages from goblets of silver and gold and in the presence of pure, rubious, magnificent companions. A promise from Allāh to Believers and their wives, and to men and women who keep their duty to Allāh–(Qur’an 36:55-56; 43:70; 33:35).
The intelligent will have no option but to accept the Divinely revealed Islam –the Religion of Reason!
No absurdity can appeal to or hold sway over the wise. In the words of Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, “Compulsion is of no avail when logic begins to rule the world”–(Introduction to the Study of the Holy Qur’an, p. 68).
Muslims are to know that there is no charge against Allāh, the Prophet Mohammad, Islam, and the Qur’an that is not refutable. Even many charges against Muslims are refutable.
Muslims are to solidify ourselves with knowledge –material and spiritual. And also of comparative religion.
After the denigrators of Islam are through with their cow dance we are to invite them to put their dignity (if they have) where their mouths are to prove their charge(s) against the Islamic Value System and to prove that their religion is superior to Islam: let the world decide who is truthful and who is liar. But
THEY WILL NEVER COME!
THEY CANNOT COME!
THEY CANNOT PROVE THEIR CHARGES AND CLAIMS!–ISLAM IS PERFECT!–
The Divinely-crafted System can not be less!
Islam is superior to all other religions
Regarding the much ballyhooed right to “free speech” or right to “freedom of expression,” veteran Star columnist, Haroon Siddiqui listed many instances of the hypocrisy of this claim. In his column “Unequal fallout of free speech,” Toronto Star, Thursday, October 4, 2012, p. A27 (if you missed it you can perhaps contact the Star’s archives online); Mr. Siddiqui, notes that whereas the Mohammad movie is defended as “free speech” or “freedom of expression” that:
-Queen Elizabeth received an apology from the BBC over the latter’s disclosure that “Her Majesty” was much upset over the presence of a “radical” Muslim cleric in London.
-A court in France ruled against a magazine for publicizing “bare-breasted” pictures of Kate Middleton; and imposed a daily fine for refusal to remove the pictures from its website.
-The Sun, a British tabloid, was censured for showing a nude Prince Harry.
-The French government blocked Muslim’s demonstration against the Charlie Hebdo magazine’s “30 cartoons” of the Prophet Mohammad.
-A Toronto Blue Jays player was pounded by management and media for wearing the word “maricon (faggot)” on his face.
-A U.S. television channel canceled airing the “Jesus had a wife” program (based on a papyrus fragment discovery) for lack of authentication of the material. Though no verification of the Mohammad Movie material was necessary.
-In India, the so-called “largest democracy” in the world, a cartoonist was jailed for depicting the Indian parliament as a “fly-infested bathroom.” And this case is not unusual.
-Whereas Muslim nations –Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, and Yemen– attempt to curb hate-mongering that might erode good relations between nations were “derided as alien;” yet we have laws criminalizing denial of the Holocaust or the spreading of hate.
Evidently, Muslims are not beneficiaries but victims of so-called “free speech” or “freedom of expression.”
Muslims need to uproot and incinerate the cancer of sectism that is ravaging the Ummah of Mohammad. Had Muslims adhered to the wisdom and admonishing of Allāh and His Majestic Messenger to not sectify ourselves and cut each other’s necks and to unify in all matters from economic to military there would not now be the question of Palestine; the Middle-east would not have been, treacherously or not, dissected; Sudan would not have been “pressured” to dismember herself; Iraq, Libya, Kashmir, and Bosnia would not have been devastated and ravaged; Chechnya-Ingushetia and Dagestan would not be bleeding under Russian jackboots; and Iran would not be bullied from exercising his inalienable and Sovereign right to enrich uranium for whatever reason(s).
We Muslims must be the biggest morons in creation if we believe that we can defy Allāh and sectify ourselves and even slaughter one another and yet expect that Allāh will give us Jannah! However, this throne of excellence is ever present for Muslims to ascend. See Islam-Muslims’ destiny.
1. Toronto Star, Art; Film sparks attacks on U.S. facilities, by Maggie Michael, The Associated Press, Wednesday, September 12, 2012; p. A21.
2.“And surely this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. The Faithful Spirit has brought it. On thy (Mohammad’s) heart that thou mayest be a warner, In plain Arabic language. And surely the same is in the Scriptures of the ancients. Is it not a sign to them that the learned men of the Children of Israel know it?” “Say: See you if it is from Allåh, and you disbelieve in it, and a witness from among the Children of Israel (Moses, Deut. 18:18) has borne witness of one like him, so he believed, while you are big with pride. Surely Allåh guides not the iniquitous people”–(Qur’an 26:192-197; 46:10). See Muhammad Ali’s comm. Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an can be viewed online: www.muslim.org.
3. God decrees that Muslims are to subjugate all the lands of the Middle-East. Prof. Dawud explains in his Muhummed in the Bible:
“There are three distinct points which every true believer in God must accept as truths. The first point is that Ishmael is the legitimate son of Abraham, his firstborn, and therefore his claim to birthright is quite just and legal. The second point is that the Covenant was made between God and Abraham as well as his only son Ishmael before Isaac was born. The Covenant and the institution of the Circumcision would have no value or signification unless the repeated promise contained in the divine words, “Throughout thee all the nations of the earth shall be blessed,” and especially the expression, the Seed “that shall come out from the bowels, he will inherit thee” (Gen. xv. 4). This promise was fulfilled when Ishmael was born(Gen. xvi.), and Abraham had the consolation that his chief servant Eliezer would no longer be his heir. Consequently we must admit that Ishmael was the real and legitimate heir of Abraham’s spiritual dignity and privileges. The prerogative that “by Abraham all the generations of the earth shall be blessed,” so often repeated–though in different forms–was the heritage by birthright, and was the patrimony of Ishmael. The inheritance to which Ishmael was entitled by birthright was not the tent in which Abraham lived or a certain camel upon which he used to ride, but to subjugate and occupy forever all the territories extending from the Nile to the Euphrates,which were inhabited by some ten different nations (Gen. xvii. 18-21). These lands have never been subdued by the descendants of Isaac, but by those of Ishmael. This is an actual and literal fulfilment of one of the conditions contained in the Covenant.
The third point is that Isaac was also born miraculously and specially blessed by the Almighty, that for his people the land of Canaan was promised and actually occupied under Joshua.
….The Jews have always been jealous of Ishmael because they know very well that in him the Covenant was made and with his circumcision it was concluded and sealed, and it is out of this rancour that their scribes or doctors of law have corrupted and interpolated many passages in their Scriptures. To efface the name “Ishmael” from the second, sixth, and seventh verses of the twenty-second chapter of the Book of Genesis and to insert in its place “Isaac,” and to leave the descriptive epithet “thy only begotten son” is to deny the existence of the former and to violate the Covenant made between God and Ishmael. It is expressly said in this chapter by God: “Because thou didst not spare thy only begotten son, I will increase and multiply thy posterity like the stars and the sands on the seashore,” which word “multiply” was used by the Angel to Hagar in the wilderness: I will multiply thy offspring to an innumerable multitude, and that Ishmael “shall become a fruitful man” (Gen. xvi. 12. It is Muslims whose numbers are “like the stars and the sands on the seashore”–(Gen. 22:17). Now the Christians have translated the same Hebrew word, which means “fruitful” or “plentiful” from the verb para–identical with the Arabic wefera–in their versions “a wild ass”! Is it not a shame and impiety to call Ishmael “a wild ass” whom God styles “Fruitful” or “Plentiful”?” (pp. 30-32). (That God giving the Children of Israel the Holy Land was only temporary is cemented not only in the verses noted in the above presentation but from the fact that Jews were/are required to follow the Prophet Mohammad; in which event they would have been Muslims and part of the Brotherhood of Islam, and thus a beneficiary in this decree of God for Muslims to own all the lands of the Middle-East. Significantly, God’s covenant was made with Abraham NOT with Isaac. And Ishmael was not only Abraham’s son but also his firstborn, the inheritor of his father, and the one through whom “the Covenant was made and with his circumcision it was concluded and sealed.” Thus Arabs/Muslims are the inheritors of all the lands of the Middle-east).
As stated, Jews were/are required to follow the Prophet Mohammad.The Bible/Christ is for Jews only until the coming of the Comforter at which time Jews are to follow this Comforter who will guide them into “all truth”–(John 14:16; 16:13). Previous to this teaching of Jesus, God had decreed that kingship and prophethood would depart from the Jewish people at the advent of Shiloh–(Gen. 49:10); Moses foretold that God will raise up a prophet like him (Moses) whom the Israelites are to follow–(Deut. 18:15, 18-19); and Jesus further said that the kingdom of God shall be taken from the Israelites and given to another people–(Matt. 21:43). And this Shiloh, prophet like Moses and the Comforter have been shown to be the Prophet Mohammad. (See Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud –the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani– Muhammad in the Bible, and Abdul Haque Vidyarthi, Muhammad in World Scriptures, Vol. 1). In Deut. 18:18-19 of the Bible Moses made it clear that God says all those who do not follow this prophet like him that, “whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him” (i.e. they will have to answer to God for not following this prophet–Mohammad). And in what seems to be a reflection of this decree of God, the Prophet Mohammad is reported as having said: “he who amongst the community of Jews or Christians hears about me, but does not affirm his belief in that which I have been sent and dies in this state (of disbelief), he shall be but one of the denizens of Hell”–(Muslim Vol. 1, #284). While all prophets of God taught Islam –peace and submission to God– Islam was perfected only through the Prophet Mohammad: “This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favour to you and chosen for you Islam as a religion–(Qur’an 5:3). Thus, as Islam (as taught by the Prophet Mohammad) is superior to all religions, whoever needs another religion it will not be accepted: Surely the (true) religion with Allāh is Islam;” “Seek they then other than Allāh’s religion? And to Him submits whoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly, and to Him they will be returned.” “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers”–(Qur’an 3:19, 83, 85). The Qur’an comprises of the best teachings given to other prophets as well as teachings not given to other prophets: “We narrate to thee the best of narratives, in that We have revealed to thee this Qur’an, though before this thou wast of those unaware;” “And certainly We have set forth for men in this Qur’an similitudes of every sort that they may mind;” “We have not neglected anything in the Book;” “A Messenger from Allāh, reciting pure pages, Wherein are (all) right books”–(Qur’an (12:3; 39:27; 6:38; 98:2-3). Thus, the Qur’an comprises of, exceeds, and supersedes all other Scriptures.There is no wisdom in following a man who did not give ‘all truth” or in following a Book that is devoid of “all truth.”
4. Allāh revealed in His Qur’an 3:72: “And a party of the People of the Book say: Avow belief in that which has been revealed to those who believe, in the first part of the day, and disbelieve in the latter part of it, perhaps they may turn back.” Muhammad Ali comments: “The words would bear two different significances…The meaning in the first case is that a belief may be avowed in the earlier part of the revelation, while denying the latter portion, with the object of creating doubts as to the sincerity of the Prophet. They would say, for instance, that the earlier revelation was no doubt true, but that the Prophet aimed at personal aggrandizement in later revelation, a position which is to this day adopted by some of the Christian writers. If we adopt the other significance, the meaning would be that they should avow a belief in the truth of Islåm in the morning and deny it in the evening, and thus perturb the minds of those who had accepted Islåm, creating the impression that the religion of Islåm was a false religion. It was a distinguishing characteristic of Islåm that people who once accepted it did not yield to any temptation under the severest trials. When Heraclius asked Abu Sufyån, the Quraish leader, if those who accepted Islåm recanted it, the reply was, No (B. 1:1). The Jews therefore wanted to shake this strong position of the truth of Islåm by making hypocritical avowal and then apostatizing in large numbers.”
And, as Muhammad Husayn Haykal noted in his The Life of Muhammad: “The Jews sent some of their rabbis to feign conversion to Islam in order to enter Muslim ranks and councils. While showing all piety, these rabbis were commissioned to disseminate doubt and suspicion of Muhammad among his own people…A number of hypocrites from al Aws and al Khazraj tribes joined Islam for the same purpose.” (p. 191).
5. Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, pp. 301-302. (Not certain whether Mohammad was telling the truth about Godhead)
“The Quraysh therefore asked the Jews to tell them, since they were the first People of the Book and held the keys of knowledge in the matters in which the Quraysh disagreed with Muhammad, whether or not Muhammad’s religion was better than Makkan religion. The Jews answered by giving preference to Makkan religion over Islam and to Makkan rights over Muhammad’s. It was to this that the Qur’an referred when it said, “Would you consider those who were given part of the scripture, that they believe in evil and injustice and commend to the unbelievers their own unbelief as guidance superior to the true faith of those who believed? Such men are accursed of God. And whosoever God curses, will never prevail. Nor will anyone ever come to his rescue”–(Qur’an 4:51-52). This attitude of the Jews toward Quraysh and their favoring of the latter’s paganism over the monotheism of Muhammad was the subject of a severe rebuke by Dr. Israel Wolfenson, in his The Jews in Arabia: “It was the duty of the Jews not to allow themselves to get involved in such a scandalous mistake. They should never have declared to the leaders of the Quraysh that the worship of idols was better than Islamic monotheism even if this were to imply frustration of their requests. The Jews, who have for centuries raised the banner of monotheism in the world among the pagan nations, who have remained true to the monotheistic traditions of the fathers, and who have suffered throughout history the greatest misfortunes, murders, and persecutions for the sake of their faith in the One God should, in loyalty to this tradition, have sacrificed every interest –nay their very lives– to bring about the downfall of paganism. Furthermore, by allying themselves with the pagans they were in fact fighting themselves and contradicting the teachings of the Torah which commands them to avoid, repudiate –indeed to fight– the pagans.”
6. M.H. Haykal notes in his The Life of Muhammad that “upon Muhammad’s arrival at Madinah” the Jews, “after befriending him and pledging to honor his freedom to practice and preach the new religion, they had begun to oppose and plot against him. In fact, no sooner had Muhammad settled down and the prospects of Islam had begun to improve, than the Jews, for their part, began their undeclared war against him. Their opposition and hostility were never open.” (p. 207. That Jewish opposition and hostility to Islam were never in the open is perhaps true today also. An investigation can be conducted to know).
7. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, responding to mis-statements by Christian missionaries on Islam, notes in his Open Letters To The Bishops Of Salisbury & London, (1926):
“The whole world was a world of fetish worshippers at the appearance of Islam. From an eggshell to the man-worship of Christianity and Hinduism, the adoration that should go to God went to His creatures. India was the home of rank idolatry. But to-day, the worship of the stone is a back number there. The Brahmins and the Aryas, the two prominent off-shoots of Hinduism in India, hate idolatry and break images. Brahma’s creed, the earlier of the two, was started by Raja Ram Mohan Rai, who received his monotheistic inspirations from the Qur’an, as he admits himself in his writings. Arya Samaj did the same. Even the staunch advocates of stone-worship now seek apologies for it. They take pains to make it quite plain that “they are not polytheistic in reality.” They worship One God, but to concentrate their mind on the Great Unseen and Unknown they need something perceivable; hence the image. What influence else than Islam can claim the credit for this wonderful change in Hindu theology? There was nothing in the Vedas–the Hindu Bible–a Book of Element-worship, as it at present stands–to inspire faith in One God. Traditional Christianity –the so-called historic– herself benighted in such matters, could not guide others to these lofty ideas. To-day, the worship of more than one god is on the wane and Muslim monotheism hailed everywhere.” (pp. 17-18. KK’s book may be had from www.muslim.org).
8. Muhammad Ali, The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement pp. 78-80.
–“Rudra developed into the Hindu god Siva, and his prestige increased steadily with time. The same is true of Visnu, a minor solar deity in the Rgveda, who later became one of the most important and popular divinities of Hinduism”–(Ency. Brit; 15th ed; Vol; 8, p. 910).
–“Visnu is punished for seducing the wife of Jalandhara”–(Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, Siva The Erotic Ascetic, p. 274).
–“Brahma desired his daughter and took the form of a stag to pursue her as a doe”–(Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, Siva The Erotic Ascetic, p. 126).
-Regarding “genital” worship. Linga or ling is the male phallus/penis and yoni is the female’s vagina; puja means worship, and ling-puja or linga-puja means ling-worship. According to Hindu teachings: “The sages cursed Siva’s linga to fall on earth, and it burnt everything before it like a fire. Never still, it went to the underworld and to heaven and everywhere on earth. All creatures were troubled, and the sages went in desperation to Brahma, who said to them, ‘As long as the linga is not still, there will be nothing auspicious in the universe. You must propiate Devi so that she will take the form of the yoni, and then the linga will become still.’ They honoured Siva, and he appeared and said, ‘If my linga is held in the yoni, then all will be well. Only Parvati can hold the linga, and then it will become calm.’ They propiated him, and thus linga-worship was established”–(Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, Siva The Erotic Ascetic, p.257).
This worship or ling-puja is observed through a cylindrical shaped object, representing Shiva’s erect penis, standing vertically inside a saucer shaped base, representing Parvati’s vagina. This worship is said to be a reminder that “the male and female principles are forever inseparable and that together they represent the totality of all existence.” Hindus dress this genital worship as “sign” or “symbol” worship. Of course it is symbolic; there is no actual phallus and vagina. But what does it symbolizes? Do the stone figures not represent Siva’s linga/penis and Parvati’s yoni/vagina? Don’t the statues of Ganesh and Krishna etc; represents the actual individuals? “Worship of the linga is performed with fresh flowers, pure water, young sprouts of grass, fruit, leaves, and sun-dried rice”–(Ency. Brit. 15th edn; Vol. VI, art linga, pp. 239-240).
Why worship image of the genitals that that represents the “totality of all existence”? Isn’t it more intelligent to worship God Who created this existence directly?
10. Muhammad Ali, The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement pp. 81-82.
11.aEncy. Brit. 15th Edn. Vol. V, p. 922; Art. Krsna. b Murtahin Billah Fazlie, Hinduism and Islam, A Comparative Study, p. 23. Fazlie quotes Ambedkar, Riddle of Rama and Krishna, (1988), p. 25.