MOHAMMAD-rapist, pedophile, looter, cripple

Share

In the name of Allāh,
the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Peace and Blessings of Allāh on Mohammad.
DEDICATED TO
Allāh–the Glorious and the High,
Lord of the worlds
AND TO
Mohammad–who brought the world
to our feet and eternity to our arms.
*

–MOHAMMAD–
RAPIST, PEDOPHILE, LOOTER, CRIPPLE

1. THAT MOHAMMAD WAS A RAPIST: Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines rape as: “to seize and take away by force; an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force; the unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman by a man without her consent and chiefly by force or deception; unlawful carnal knowledge other than of a woman by a man; an outrageous violation.” Thus, a female of any age can be victim of “rape.”

   Unless Christians (and other critics) can prove that Moham-mad was guilty of any of these acts as defined above, then Chris-tians and critics are guilty of slander.

(One critic charged that in today’s society Mohammad’s marriage to ‘Aisha would be viewed as “rape.”
The Bible not only shows that girls as young as seven have reached puberty, the Bible allows the taking of little virgin girls as
 
sex slaves.
And medical report shows that girls of seven years have reached puberty. And reports have been published showing that “nine-year” old engage in prostitution. See 
Aisha & Mohammad

Mohammad was born into a society that engaged in child marriages. Thus it was not uncommon in Seventh century Arabia for nine-year old to be married and have children.
One of Mohammad’s reasons for marrying ‘Aisha (in which he deferred “
CONSUMMATION”) was to effect unity among warring tribes (as Solomon did).
If this critic was living in Seventh century Arabia she may have had her wretched tongue cut off for slandering Mohammad). 

   In contrast to Mohammad who married and “consummated” his marriages. It is evident that the Bible allows people to “rape” and engage in “pedophilia.”
Here is what the Biblical God (and as Christians say that Jesus is God, then here is what Jesus) commanded and allowed:

   -Abraham’s wife, Sarah, was barren; and in order to have children she told Abraham to have sex with her handmaid, Hagar, (whom Christians and Jews regard as a slave woman). Nowhere was Hagar’s consent taken; thus is all likelihood Hagar, by virtue of her lowly position, was forced to not resist. Could this be any other than “rape”?–(Genesis 16:1-6).

   -The “rape” of little virgin girls:
“Then the Lord spake unto Moses, saying…
And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses, and they slew
ALL THE MALES….
And they brought the
CAPTIVES and the prey and the spoil to Moses, and Eleazar…
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 YOURSELVES ….
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Take the sum of the
PREY (BOOTY) that was taken, both of MAN and of beast, thou and Eleazar…And divide the PREY into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation And LEVY A TRIBUTE UNTO THE LORD….
And the
BOOTY, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, and 61,000 asses, and 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 337,500 sheep; 36,000 cattle, 30,500 asses, and 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 675 sheep; 72 cattle; 61 donkeys; and 32 persons ….the men of war had taken SPOIL (BOOTY), EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF”–(Numbers 31:1-53).

   Surely, these 16,000 young “virgin” girls who were “booty’ were taken by the “warriors” not for ploughing fields. And the 320 given to the Levite priests could have hardly been for “altar”-girl service.
And, to repeat, evidently it is the Christian’s God –“Jehovah;” and as Christians claim that Jesus is God, then it is Jesus– Who allows his followers to despoil the land of others, and to loot, and to take their little virgin girls as sex-slaves; and even assigned some for himself.

   -The “rape” of David’s wives: the Christian’s God (and as Christians say Jesus is God, Jesus) gave David’s wives, and even without their consent, to his (David’s) neighbor to be “raped;” and all because David had married Bathsheba, Uriah’s wife, after adulterating with her and sending Uriah to be killed in battle, (the Christian’s God is punishing David by having his wives violated): “because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the Lord, Behold. I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I WILL TAKE THY WIVES BEFORE THINE EYES, AND GIVE THEM UNTO THY NEIGHBOR, AND HE SHALL LIE WITH THY WIVES IN THE SIGHT OF THIS SUN. For thou didst it (adultery) secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun”–(2 Samuel 12:10-12. Though there is no account of the wives being “raped,” the fact is God says He will do it and God does as He says.
Incidentally, the Bible says that Mary will “conceive” through the Holy Ghost coming upon her but there is no record of the Holy Ghost actually coming upon her).

2. THAT MOHAMMAD WAS A PEDOPHILE: Canadian Oxford Dictionary, Second Edition (2004), defines pedophilia as “sexual desire directed towards children.”
Can the critics give proof(s) that Mohammad’s “sexual desire (was) directed towards children”? And as they cannot prove that Mohammad’s “sexual desire (was) directed towards children” Christians and other critics who charge that Mohammad was a “pedophile” are guilty of slander.

   Regarding the many marriages of the Prophet Mohammad Muhammad Ali notes in his commentary to Qur’an 33:50:

“The marriages of the Holy Prophet have furnished his critics with the chief implement of attack on him, and the low-minded missionary has gone so far as to call him a voluptuary on that account, though he dare not apply that word to the husband of a hundred wives. Therefore I give below full particulars regarding the Prophet’s marriages. His life as regards his marriages may be divided into four periods. Briefly these are: (1) A celibate life up to twenty-five. (2) A married state with one wife from 25 to 54. (3) Several marriages from 54 to 60. (4) No further marriage after 60. As regards the first period, the life of a celibate youth living in a warm country till 25, the testimony of a hostile writer like Sir William Muir is that “all authorities agree in ascribing to the youth of Muhammad a modesty of deportment and purity of manners rare among the people of Mecca”. In fact, in Arabia at the time profligacy was the order of the day and it was among people who prided themselves on loose sexual relations that the Prophet led a life of transcendent purity.

Then comes the second period from 25 to 54. His first marriage was contracted while he was twenty-five years of age, and the widow Khadijah whom he married was forty years old, i.e., fifteen years his senior. It was with her, and her alone, that he passed all the years of his youth and manhood until she died three years before the Hijrah, when he was already an old man of fifty. This circumstance alone is sufficient to give the lie to those carpers who call him a voluptuary. After her death, while still at Makkah, he married Saudah, a widow of advanced age. He also married ‘A’ishah, his only virgin wife, while still at Makkah, but her marriage was consummated five years afterwards in the 2nd year of the Hijrah.

Then followed the flight to Madinah, and subsequent to the Flight he had to fight many battles with his enemies, the Quraish, or such tribes as sided with the Quraish. The result of these battles was a great discrepancy between the number of males and females, and as his favourite followers fell in the field of battle fighting with his enemies, the care of their families devolved upon the Prophet and his surviving companions. In the battle of Badr fell Khunais, son of Hudhafah, and the faithful ‘Umar’s daughter Hafsah was left a widow. ‘Umar offered her to ‘Uthman and Abu Bakr in turn, and she was at last married by the Holy Prophet in the third year of the Hijrah. ‘Abd Allāh, son of Jãhsh, fell a martyr at Uhud, and his widow Zainab, daughter of Khuzaimah, was taken in marriage by the Prophet in the same year. In the next year Abu Salamah died, and his widow, Umm Salamah, was taken to wife by the Prophet. The events are narrated in the last section, leading to Zainab’s divorce by Zaid; the Prophet married her in the fifth year of the Hijrah under circumstances already narrated. Umm Habibah was one of his devoted followers who fled to Abyssinia with her husband, ‘Ubaid Allāh, who there became a Christian, and when he died his widow found comfort in being taken as a wife by the Holy Prophet in the seventh year of the Hijrah.

Besides these widows of his faithful followers whom it fell to his lot to take under his protection, the Prophet took three widows of his enemies in marriage, and in each case this step led to the union and pacification of a whole tribe. These three, Juwairiyah, Maimunah and Safiyyah, he married in the years six and seven of the Hijrah. Regarding one of these, it is sufficient to note that, when the Prophet took Juwairiyah for a wife, over a hundred families of the tribe of the Bani Mustaliq, to which tribe she belonged, were at once liberated by the Muslims.

The fourth period is that when war came to an end; a reference to this is contained in v. 52: “It is not allowed to thee to take wives after this”. Thus it will be seen that all the marriages of the Prophet were due either to feelings of compassion for the widows of his faithful followers or to put a stop to bloodshed and ensure union with some tribe. Compare also 4:3a, where it is shown that the permission for polygamy was given under similar circumstances; in fact, many of the companions had to follow the example of the Prophet.”

Would Christians and other critics of Mohammad charge that Moses and the Israelite priests and soldiers were “pedophiles” for taking little “virgin” girls for themselves?

“And they brought the CAPTIVES and the prey and the spoil to Moses, and Eleazar …ALL THE WOMEN CHILDREN, that have not known a man by lying with him (virgin girls) KEEP ALIVE FOR YOURSELVES ….
and 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”–(Numbers 31:1-53).

   Regarding the Israelites taking little “virgin” girls as war booty, one Christian apologist (Answering Islam) on the Internet wrote:

Muslims often point to Numbers 31:17-18 to show how the Holy Bible permits the raping of young girls.” Numbers 17-18 states: “The LORD said to Moses, ‘Avenge the people of Israel on the Mid’ianites;…They war-red against Mid’ian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and slew every male.…Moses said to them (his com-manders), ‘Have you let all the women live? Behold, these caused the people of Israel, by the counsel of Balaam, to act treacherously against the LORD in the matter of Pe’or, and so the plague came among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

The Answering Islam Christian critic states: “God commanded the Israelites to take vengeance on the Midi-anites, as well as the Moabites, for leading Israel into committing idolatry and sexual immorality:” “God spared the young girls as an act of mercy since they didn’t partake of the sins of the other women who lured the Israelites into committing sexual immorality, thereby angering God. Yet the Lord didn’t have to spare them and could have easily demanded that they too be destroyed with the rest. After all, from God’s perspective all flesh is born sinful which means that it is inevitable that all humans turn out to be rebel sinners who will grow up to defy God: Thus, the foregoing conclusively shows that Numbers 31 did not permit the Israelite men to spare the young virgin girls so as to rape them. They were commanded to spare them as an act of mercy since they did not share in the guilt of enticing Israel into committing sexual immorality.” (Highlight added).

Response: This is more Christian verbal gymnastics.
So the little boys and male infants were not deserving of the “act of mercy,” they also were guilty of “leading Israel into committing idolatry and sexual immorality:”(???) Is this how the Christian’s God gives justice?
   These “every male among the little ones” could have been kept and reared as soldiers or laborers (and men were more needed to fight wars).

   And why not keep all the young girls also who had lain with men; why only the virgins? Isn’t it possible that there were mature women who had not lain with men? And how did these men know that some of these young girls had “not known man by lying with him” (they would have had to physically examine these girls and women; or they only assumed and slaughtered left right and centre and even killing innocent girls and women).

   And since “from God’s perspective all flesh is born sinful which means that it is inevitable that all humans turn out to be rebel sinners who will grow up to defy God,” why then fault people when God, as Christians’ claim, loaded Adam’s sin onto them and they were Divinely destined to commit evil? And there was no “blood” of Christ then to free them. In fact, every non-Israelite of the time should have been killed to prevent them from “inevitable” becoming “rebel sinners’ and “defy God.” Evidently, the Christian’s God is not only unjust (loading Adam’s sin onto everyone) but also tyrannical (made people into “inevitable” “rebel sinners” and then killing them for being “sinners”). (Welcome to Allāh the God Who created everyone in a pure nature and forgives all sins).1

That these “virgin” girls were kept for sex is enshrined in the ending words of the verse which clearly says to “keep (them) alive for YOURSELVES.
   And as Christians say Jesus is God, then according to Christians it was Jesus who commanded that these little virgin girls be taken as sex slaves.
(Answering Islam charges against Islam and the Prophet have already been refuted).

If Mohammad was a “rapist” and “pedophile” and “child molester” as critics charge, it is not credible that Mohammad would have married only one young girl when he could have married any number of girls/women (before the number of wives were limited and capped at four).
If Mohammad was a “womanizer” as critics charge, it is not credible that Mohammad would have lived a life of celibacy for twenty-five years; lived in a monogamous marriage for twenty-nine years (from 25-54); and married mostly widows with children, elderly and divorced instead of relish himself with vestal nubiles.
Unless critics can prove that Mohammad was a ”rapist” and “pedophile” and “child molester” –and they cannot prove so–critics need to rein in their tongues and pens. Muslims who have the resource may haul them before the Judiciary to substantiate their charges against Mohammad.  (See Age of sexual consent).  

3. THAT MOHAMMAD WAS A LOOTER: Mohammad received the Divine Call to Prophethood in the year 610 A.C. (After Christ). Subsequently, Mohammad was persecuted, besieged, under the shadow of the assassin; forced into exile, pursued; and forced into war.  

The Muslims who migrated with Mohammad to Madinah were forced to leave behind their property and wealth. Why should they not recoup from the Makkans what they had been forced to abandon? If you were to meet the person who forced you out of your home in a vulnerable position wouldn’t you confront him? Why then fault Mohammad for a legal act that you would commit? Be it Seventh century Arabia or Twentieth century era, the occupier/usurper is not to be left untouched to devour the fruits of his victims in peace.

   However, that Mohammad’s purpose was to make war, and to acquire booty is a myth.
   The number of Muslims on these expeditions were far less than those of the Quraish guarding their trade caravans; and their armaments “was not such as would encourage them to make war.” The “covenant of al ‘Aqabah was a defensive one which both al Aws and al Khazraj had undertaken to protect Muhammad. These tribes of Madinah have never agreed either with Muhammad nor with anyone else to commit aggression on anyone.”
Moreover, the Madinites were not bandits. They, like the Makkans, “had other sources of income” and took part in “agriculture and trade.”
Whereas the Muslim emigrants were “entitled to seize” the goods of the Quraish “in retaliation” for the loss of goods they suffered from migrating, they were unable to retaliate “before the battle of Badr.” Thus, their expeditions could not have been for war and booty. These early expeditions of the Muslims were meant as a message to the Makkans, to let the Message of the Qur’an “take its course freely, without impediment or recourse to war or fighting.”
2

   Regarding the opinion that Mohammad wanted to attack the unarmed caravan of Abu Sufyan–(Qur’an 8:5), which was on its way from Syria to Makkah, Muhammad Ali points out:

“It is true that a caravan was returning from Syria, and an army (which one critic opined was responding to Abu Sufyan’s call for help) had marched forth from Makkah; it is also true that some of the Muslims wished that they should encounter the caravan and not face the Makkan force (which was Allah’s purpose that they should face, in order to “cut off the root of the disbelievers”–Qur’an 8:7). Had the Holy Prophet desired to plunder the caravan, he would have done so long before Abu Sufyan could obtain succour from Makkah. Madinah was situated at a distance of thirteen days journey from Makkah, so that if the Holy Prophet had actually an idea of plundering the caravan, he would have done it long before Abu Sufyan could obtain succour in less than a month, even if he had been apprised of the Holy Prophet’s intentions and had sent for aid from Makkah. And why should the Prophet have waited all this while and not plundered the caravan before help reached Abu Sufyan?

   Badr, where the encounter took place, lies at a distance of three days’ journey from Madinah. Here, marching towards each other, the two armies met. This shows that the Makkan army had long been on its way to Madinah, while the Muslims were as yet quite unprepared. The enemy had marched forth for ten days and the Muslims only for three days when the two forces encountered each other, which shows clearly that the Muslims had turned out to take the defensive against an invading force. The Prophet had never any design of plundering the caravan, for if he had any such design he could have carried it out long before the Makkan force had approached Madinah, and his hands would thus have been strengthened to meet a powerful enemy. It is quite clear that the Holy Prophet only marched forth when the enemy had already travelled over three fourths of the way to Madinah, and the caravan had left Madinah far behind.

   Further, it is clearly stated here (Qur’an 8:5) that a party of the believers were averse to fighting. They could not have been averse if they had to encounter only an unarmed caravan. What is said in the next verse makes it clearer still, they went forth as if they were being driven to death, because they knew that they were going to meet an enemy not only treble in numbers, but also much more powerful and efficient.”

   If Mohammad raided the caravans of his enemies to “nourish” his army, Mohammad was fully justified. These were the very enemies who persecuted him, plotted against him, made attempt to assassinate him, drove him out of his home and confiscated his property, and were bent on annihilating him and his followers.

   Regarding Mohammad and the Jews of Khaibar. Muslims did not “loot” from the Jews. These farms were the spoils of war. These “peasants” were also enemies of war.

Like the previous Jewish tribes –Quraizah, Nadir and Qaynuqa, who proved treacherous and were vanquished by the Prophet– the Jews of Khaybar were also inimical towards the Prophet. They “were anxious for an opportunity to take revenge upon” the Prophet; “their enmity and bitterness surpassed that of the Quraysh,” as noted by Haykal.

   After intense fighting, the Muslims triumphed over the Jews. In despair, the Jews “begged for peace.” The Prophet “accepted their plea and permitted them to stay on their land whose title now passed to him by right of conquest.”

   The Jews were allowed to farm the land. Muhammad Husayn Haykal notes: ‘Abdullah ibn Rawahah, Muhammad’s deputy for the division of the Khaybar crops, dealt justly with the Jews, following in this regard the instructions of the Prophet himself. So honorable was his conduct that he returned to them copies of the Torah seized by the Muslims in the course of the hostilities –(and it is claimed that the Qur’an says to “hate” Jews). This is in direct contrast to the manner in which the Romans treated the Jews when they conquered Jerusalem and burned all the sacred writings they found in the temple and trampled them under foot. It is also far from the Christian persecution of the Jews in Spain where every Torah seized was put to the torch.” (The Life of Muhammad, pp. 366, 370, 371).

   That Mohammad gave sanctuary to those who were a deadly threat to him and his followers and had them benefit from half of their produce is yet another proof of Mohammad’s mercy and tolerance. A tolerance afforded by the sublime spirit of Islam.   These Jews not only received half of their crops from Mohammad; most importantly, they received their lives. They were doubly fortunate. (See Mohammad-Jews & raiding parties).

In contrast to Mohammad who was justified in recouping what he was forced to leave to his enemies, modern man sails and flies to way off lands (and even overthrows governments) to “loot” people of their “vast riches” –as in the Congo by the Colonialist, where the “ruthless exploitation of the Congo’s vast resources was pursued regardless of African suffering;” even chaining African women naked by their necks;2A: and to know Mohammad is said to be “barbarian”– and of their oil and other resources and to safeguard their “interest.”

   They even “loot” people of their lands, as in Palestine, Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia, and East Turkistan (correctly, Uighuristan). And to some degree, Sudan.

4. THAT MOHAMMAD WAS A CRIPPLE: Mohammad was human, and thus a subject to the frailties of human life.For twenty-two grueling years–from the age of about forty to the age of sixty-two– Mohammad was subjected to the hardships of persecution, siege, threat of assassination, exile, pursuit, and four major wars; in addition he preached and physically labored to build a society.

   Thus, if after such a taxing experience Mohammad fell ill in the final days of his life and needed assistance to walk does this make him unworthy of being a prophet of God? According to the Bible and Christians:

   -Abraham not only had unmarried sex with Hagar, he also married his half sister which is a wicked thing in the sight of God, and he was prophet of God: Sarah, Abraham’s wife, was also his sister, from his father’s side–(Gen. 20:11-12). Biblically, such a union is unacceptable: The Bible says, “if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter….and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people”–(Lev. 20:17). Isaac came from such a union –Abraham and Sarah.

   -Lot committed incest with his daughters and built two nations –the Moabites and the Ammonites– with them–(Gen. 19:30-38); and he was prophet of God.

   -Jacob dallied with his two wives handmaids, Bilhah and Zilpah, and fathered four sons with them–(Gen. 30:1-13); and Jacob was prophet of God; and three of these four “illegitimate” sons of Jacob,Gad, Asher,and Naphtali, each became a founder of a tribe (of the Twelve Tribes of Israel)–(Revelation 7: 5-8).

   -Judah, a founder of one of the twelve tribes of Israel, dallied with his daughter-in-law, Tamarr, thinking she was “an harlot” and fathered her child–(Gen. 38:11-18); and Judah was the grandfather of Jesus, the Christian’s son of God and God; and he, Judah, was blessed with kingship and prophethood: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be”–(Genesis 49:10. And this Shiloh as Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud –the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani– shows in his book Muhammad in the Bible is the none other but the Prophet MOHAMMAD). And Jacob was prophet of God.

   -David, from whose seed Jesus sprung –“I (Jesus) am the root and the offspring of David”– committed adultery with Bathsheba –(2 Samuel 11:2-5; Revelation 22:16); and had a “young virgin” to keep him warm because he “gat no heat”–(2 Samuel 11:1-5; 1 Kings 1:1-4), and David was prophet of God (and Christians sing his praise to the extent of their lungs and in beautiful, melodious tones; and they crab at Mohammad).

   -Jesus cursed the helpless and faultless fig tree;3 denigrated non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine;”4 exhorted his people to engage in lie and deception;5 disowned his mother;6 sent division in the family;7 and sent division and sword and fire to the world;8 and he was prophet of God; (and even revered as God and son of God). Moreover, as Christians say Jesus is God then, as noted above, Jesus allowed little “virgin” girls to be taken as sex slaves, and David’s wives to be “raped” by his neighbor.

   Why then can’t Mohammad –who lived a life of moral and social purity, forgave his rabid enemies of twenty turbulent years; prayed for his dead enemy; and gave the world the best guidance in the history of religions– be prophet of God because he once needed help to walk in his old age?

   However, while the Hadith shows that on one occasion during his illness the Prophet was helped by two individuals the Prophet also walked by himself and led the prayer.

The Prophet’s wife, ‘Aisha, said that when the ailment of the Prophet became aggravated he came to her house “walking between two men with his feet dragging on the ground;” and after he had them pour water on him (to cool his fever) the Prophet “went out to the people and led them in prayer and preached to them”–(Bokhari Vol. 5, #727).

   The Prophet could not have “went out” and “led the people in prayer” –which consists of standing, bowing, and prostrating– if he was a “cripple.”

The Prophet even visited his wives during his “fatal illness”–(Bokhari Vol. 5, #118).

   That Mohammad was a “cripple” is another Christian canard; much like the Hafsa scandal and the Zainab scandal.

Unable to advance their beliefs through intelligent discourse –there is nothing intelligent about God shifting sins from Adam to everyone then loading everyone’s sins onto Jesus and making him everyone’s scapegoat into heaven; and of God entering into the womb of a woman He created and growing to human form and emerging from her vagina and calling Him son of Mary and calling her “Mother of God” 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 paganism– Christians resorted to their disgraceful practice of yesteryear, wrapping Mohammad in the cloak of terrorist and hedonist.
Muhammad Ali wrote in late nineteenth century India:

“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.”9
(In fact, as MA notes further, some of the materials were so “scurrilous” “even Christians began to complain of them”).

Even if Mohammad was “rapist” “pedophile” etc; yet this would not make Jesus Divine or vicarious atoner or that man inherited sin.

Christians seem to believe that the blacker they paint the picture of Mohammad the more converts they will snare for Christ. Muslims already believe in Christ; Muslims do not believe in Christianity, which, as shown, has nothing to do with Christ. Christ is just a figurehead in the Church. As Christians follow the Church/Paul they are more correctly Churchians or Paulians and their religion is Churchianity or Paulianity.

Christians denigrating Mohammad is hardly surprising, considering that Christians denigrate God –attributing injustice to Him and making Him complicit in murder (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 Mary “Mother of God” (Trinity) (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).

   Only the peripheral Muslim and the unthinking would embrace the useless and unGodly crucifix.

If there is any man, including Jesus, who can substantiate his claim as prophet of God it is Mohammad.

   While there is no evidence today of the miracles that Jesus and others are said to have performed, the QUR’AN brought by Mohammad is not only evidence of the Best Religious Book it is also the Testament to Mohammad’s claim as Messenger of Allāh.

*

NOTES

1. “Certainly We created man in the best make;” “And no bearer of a burden can bear the burden of another”–(Qur’an 95:4; 17:15); “Say: O My servants who have sinned against their souls, despair not of the mercy of Allāh; surely Allāh forgives all sins. Verily, He is Most Forgiving, Ever Merciful”–Qur’an 39:53).

2. Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, pp. 203-208.

2A. Taylor, A.J.P; Roberts, J.M; Bullock, Alan, 20th Century, p. 4.

3. Mark 11:12-21.

4. Jesus denigrated non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine”: “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine”–(Matt. 7:6; 15:26).

5. Jesus encouraged his people to engage in lies and deception, he instructed his followers: “Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison”–(Matt.5:25). This injunction of Jesus gives Christians a hole so big to accommo-date every conceivable lie and deception and for any situation that the battleships Iowa Jima and Lincoln can sail side by side through it. And with mega space to spare. With this permission Christians can even frame an innocent person all the way to the executioner’s needle just so they would not be thrown in jail. (See ISLAM & LYING).

   Moreover, (as Christian’s say Jesus is God) Jesus had his prophets “lie.” In 1 Kings chapter 22, King Ahab wanted to know if he would be successful in the battle of Ramoth-gilead. Confused, because he is getting conflicting answers from his “prophets,” King Ahab summoned Micaiah, even though he disliked Micaiah because the latter does not give him favorable answers. Micaiah prophesied that king Ahab would be killed and the Israelites defeated–(22:17). This upset King Ahab. He wanted to know how it is that he gets conflicting answers from his prophets and Micaiah. Micaiah replied that he had a vision of the Court of God about God asking which one of his spirits will tell King Ahab that he must go to battle and be killed. The spirits all came up with one story or the other to convince King Ahab. Then one clever spirit elected to do the job by being a “lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets. And he (God) said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth and do so. Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a LYING spirit in the mouth of all these prophets, and the LORD hath spoken EVIL concerning thee”–(22:17-22). Incidentally,Micaiah was sent to prison for his prophecy. King Ahab was killed in accordance with the decree of God as prophesied by Micaiah.

6. Jesus disowned his mother: “Then one said unto him (Jesus), Behold, thy mother and thy brethren….But he answered and said, Who is my mother? And who are my brethren?” (and he gestured to his disciples) “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother”–(Matt. 19:19; 12:46-50). Mary could not have been guilty of neglecting God so that Jesus should dishonor her; Mary was chosen over all women because she was “highly favoured” by God, and “blessed”–(Luke 1:28). In fact, Christians honor Mary as “Mother of God.” And, to this day, as Christians claim, Mary makes appearances and even cure/give power to people so that they are canonized as saints).

7. Jesus sent division in the family: “I am come to send FIRE on the earth…Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth, Nay; but rather DIVISION: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; and the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law”–(Luke 12:49-53).

   -“If any man come to me, and HATE NOT his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple”–(Luke 14:26).What kind of a God and son of God is this? And what manner of “love” is this? (Mohammad forbids us from disobeying parents and exhorts us to have good relations even with our pagan parents– Muslim Vol. 3, #’s 4257, 4260; Bokhari Vol. 3, #789).

8. Jesus sent division, fire, and sword to the world: “I am come to send FIRE on the earth…Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth, Nay; but rather DIVISION;” “Think NOT that I am come to send peace on earth: I came NOT to send peace, but a SWORD”–(Luke 12:49-51; Matt. 10:34).

9. The Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, pp. 78-81.  

Share