Islam-Religion of love and mercy


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.


The Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said that Allāh said: I loved that I should be known, so I created man.1 Allāh tells us that He made us into different colors and languages and tribes that we may know one another–(Qur’an 30:22; 49:13); that He raised messengers among all people and gave them rites and ceremonies (or acts of devotion)–(Qur’an 10:47; 16:36 22:67); that He has ordained mercy on Himself–(Qur’an 6:12, 54; and over His Throne is written My Mercy precedes My anger); that His mercy encompasses all things–(Qur’an 7:156); and He invites us in loving, compassionate terms to forgive us our sins: “Say: O My servants who have sinned against their souls, despair not of the mercy of Allah, surely, Allah forgives all sins. Verily, He is Most Forgiving, Ever Merciful”–(Qur’an 39:53; 14:10). This alone is sufficient to establish Islam as the Religion of Love above all religions. (See also Allah devoid of love; Allah devoid of mercy).

Jesus says, “Love your enemies”–(Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:27), and “Love thy neighbour as thyself”–(Mark 12:31). But it was the Prophet Mohammad who has “given us a practical suggestion in this respect,” notes Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din.

“The Religion of Love should begin with man’s love of God. The Book of Islam –the Holy Qur’an– makes this the real basis of Islam; and teaches that it should be stronger than all other love and friendship. Love of God is the main and ever-recurring theme of every religion, and yet we are in the dark as to how to express our love for Him. We are not anthropomorphists, nor is our God clothed with human passions. He is above being adored in the manner we adore our sweethearts……The Holy Prophet Muhammad has, however, given us a practical suggestion in this respect. “Love His creatures,” he says “if you wish to love your God.”                                             

“What is Islam?” someone asked Muhammad. “Reverence and respect for the commandments of God, and compassion to His creatures,” was the reply, which explains “Love of God and love of man” in its real practical shape.”

Muhammad “gave the only practical illustrations of “Love thine enemy.” “For fully thirteen years he remained a helpless victim to various kinds of persecution; he and his followers were subjected to every kind of torture and oppression that the human mind can conceive of.” Yet, upon his conquest of Makkah, Makkah “fell without the shedding of a drop of blood.” “When his enemies were awaiting their fate at the hand of the conqueror, they found him the most generous man that the world had ever seen. He not only forgave them to a man, but they received many favours and positions at his hands on the very day of the victory.” “Love thine enemy” was thus put into practice once for all, and the world can refer to no such event in its history.”

(Khwaja gave) “a few quotations from the Qur’an, which, strictly observed, will establish the Religion of Love on the earth, of God and His will “as it is in Heaven.” (Such quotations that show that): “Love of God and love of man” requires us to:

-“serve Allah and associate naught with Him, and be good to the parents and to the near of kin and the orphan and the needy and the neighbour of (your) kin and the alien neighbour, and the companion in a journey and the wayfarer and those whom your right hand possess”–(Qur’an 4:36; also 2:177);
-to free a slave, or feed the hungry–(Qur’an 90:12-18);

-to “turn not thy face away from people in contempt, nor go about in the land exultingly. Surely Allah loves not any self-conceited boaster. And pursue the right course in thy going about and lower thy voice. Surely the most hateful of voices is braying of asses”–(Qur’an 31:18:19);

-to spend in times of plenty as well as in adversity, to restrain anger and pardon–(Qur’an 3:133; also 7:199-200). (Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, The Sources of Christianity, pp. 91-104).

Christians’ claim that Jesus-loves us is a colossal crock. Jesus loved his people, Jews Jesus’ “love thine enemies” refers to Jewish mutual enmity; ditto for giving the “other cheek. It is not love, mercy, and forgiveness to slay enemies opposed to rule, to view others as “dogs” and “swine,” and to speak in parables so they would not understand and be forgiven.

It is Mohammad, a Divine mercy to all, as he demonstrated, who loves us; and he gave God’s message clearly to all. There is none in history to equal Mohammad’s love, mercy, tolerance, and forgiveness. There never will be.

Whereas Allāh revealed His Words to all mankind giving them every opportunity to repent and ask forgiveness, the Christians’ God/son of God, Jesus, demonstrably, is not only a tribal God but also a selfish and devious “God,” and son of God; Jesus told the Samaritan woman: “Ye worship ye know not what: we (Jews) know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews”–(John 4:21); and after relating the parable of the sower to the people Jesus said to them: “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear;” and, afterwards, when he (Jesus) was alone with the Israelite they asked him about the meaning of the parable:
“And he said unto them, Unto you (who have God) it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them (non-Jews) that are without (God), all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them”–(Mark 4:9-12).
The Good News Bible put it even more clearly: “You have been given the secret of the Kingdom of God,” Jesus answered. “But the others, who are on the outside, hear all things by means of parables, so that, ‘They may look and look, yet not see; they may listen and listen, yet not understand. For if they did, they would turn to God, and he would forgive them.’      

In other words though the non-Jews (who may be sincere seekers of God) have the faculties of sight and hearing and can see and hear, he (Jesus) spoke in parables so that they would not understand his words because he did not want them to accept God and have their sins forgiven. What a ghastly horribly sickening thing to do.

(As prophet, Jesus could not turn away anyone; this is why he indulged non-Jews; but he could avoid them, which he did, as is evident from his admonition to his disciples not to preach to non-Jews, and from his speaking in parables so that they would not understand). This statement by Jesus also proves that Jesus did not come to save sinners).

Contrast this pastor’s and Christians’ “God” and son of God, Jesus, to Mohammad who gave the Word of Allāh clearly and to all inviting them to forgiveness, and agonizing over the rejecters, and even praying for the forgiveness of the rejecters of Allāh.
Also, this saying of Jesus crowns the list of refutation that Jesus is God and that he came to die for the world is a monumental myth and a lie: it is a myth in that there are no such Divine expressions; it is a lie in that it is known that the verses of Mark 16:9-20 and Matthew 28:19, speaking of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost and to baptize all nations are “forgeries.”
It also proves that Jesus’ speaking of “nations” refers to the Jewish nations: confirming that Jesus’ mission was wholly and solely to the Jews.

We often hear such musical Christian claims as “universal” brotherhood, love, spirit, values, teachings, tolerance, mercy, forgiveness and egalitarianism. Belief is not to be confused with facts.
The religion that stamps others as dogs and swine, enslaves heathen, views woman as transgressor and defiler of man, subjugates wife and sees her as an object of carnal release, relegate daughters into bondage, vilifies opposers as enemies, commands that enemies be slain, and prevents others from knowing God lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them” is on no moral or spiritual throne to make such lofty claims–Matt. 7:6; 15:26; Lev. 25:44; 1 Tim 2:11-14; Rev; 14:4; Gen. 3:16 & 1Cor, 7:1-2; Ex. 21:7.; Luke 19:27; Matt. 12:30; Mark 4:9-12).
Whatever fruits of bliss the Christian woman is enjoying did not come from any tree planted by Christ, but from the crops of modern culture.
Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din wrote in his Open Letters To The Bishops of Salisbury & London, commenting on Christian’s claim that Jesus “
has given to the world the grand doctrine of universal brotherhood”:

“The quotation reminds me of the oft-repeated phrases –“Christian spirit,” “Christian morals,” “Christian teachings,” etc.– which always come to the aid of the adherents of Christianity when they seek to claim such of these things for themselves as appeal to them for the time being, though they fail to find them in their Scriptures. Jesus was a Prophet, and can be believed to have possessed good and noble qualities and to have taught those things. But it is, after all, a belief, and should not be confused with facts. His teachings, as narrated in the Bible, cannot be taken as supplying a complete religion. Moreover, he himself admits that he did not give the whole truth–(St John xvi). On the other hand, if the Christian spirit is that which can be inferred from the spirit of Christ’s Church, it is not such as to do credit to that Church’s founder. The beautiful of yesterday is the ugly of to-day; which things being so, it is hard to define the Christian spirit. The phrase, as used from time to time, seems to be sufficiently plastic to accord with any and every condition. Whatever appears to be desir­able for the time being is at once claimed under one or other of these convenient phrases. The spirit of Christ may be taken to comprehend everything: but his own Church, though filled with the Holy Ghost, as they believe, has ever remained too dense to appreciate it. Her spirit has, throughout the ages, been anything but meekness, mercy and long-suffering. For about seventeen centuries the Creed of Saint Athanasius has been sung and said on the Holy Feasts, under the authority of the Church. Does that Creed reflect the spirit of Christ, when it evinces a universal, damnatory spirit at its very outset, where it says: “without doubt he shall perish everlastingly”? Today the laity come forward to denounce it and demand its elimination from the Book of Common Prayer. The new house of laity of the Church of England met recently at Church House, Westminster, to conclude its deliberations on the proposed measure for the revision of the Prayer Book. Among other things­–

­“Mr. C. Marston moved an amendment to leave out the words ‘which faith, except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly,’ from the Athanasian Creed. He said he did not propose to eliminate the Creed altogether, but he wanted to take out of it the most terrible sentence which he believed had ever appeared in all history–and this in a book which pretended to supply the gospel of salvation of sinners. The Athanasian Creed was com­posed in an age that was comparatively reckless of human life; and it was put into our Prayer Book in its present form at a time when recklessness of human life was still very much to the front.

   “Sir George King said he thought most of the members in charge considered that it was no business of the House to alter the creeds. There was a great deal to be said by way of explanation on matters which apparently were misunderstood by some people.

“Sir Edward Clarke said the Athanasian Creed. had spoiled the happiness of services for him on the great festivals of the Church for years and years. ‘I have never said it,’ he added, ‘and would never dream of saying it. It has been a distress to me to hear choirs singing at the top of their voices these awful words, which I do not believe, and which I am sure ought not to be in our service.’

“Sir Robert Williams said he thought it was quite time the laity ­made their protest against the use of these damnatory clauses.

“Mr. Marston’s amendment was carried. The question, however, remains open, and will come up before the House for final approval.”

The damnatory clause is doomed now, seeing that the protest against it comes from influential quarters among the laity. Similar protests got rid of a certain notorious psalm in the days of the war. But is it the spirit of Christ, or the spirit of modern civilization, that cries out against such cruel expressions? If it is the former, it has remained dormant for centuries, and its revival is simply to pamper the spirit of all-sufficiency. Candidly speaking, there is very little in the teachings of Jesus to meet the ups and downs of life. To make it elastic to suit everything and anything is simply to fish out authority for our deeds, no matter what their merits may be. But for such free interpretations the world would have been saved from the countless cruelties committed by the Church in the name of Jesus.

In fact, nothing could in decency be claimed as Christian verity if it be not laid down in clear terms in the sayings of Jesus. If the offending phrase in the Athanasian Creed has been allowed to remain for centuries in the Book of Common Prayer, is not a man of independent views justified in classing the spirit of Christ as identical with that of indifference to human life? (pp. 78-86).  


1. Muhammad Ali, Qur’anic comm. 2770 (Qur’an 96:2).