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.
ISLAM & THE POPE
(Time Magazine, Canadian Edition, November 27, 2006,
The Pope Confronts Islam, by David Van Biema
and Jeff Israely/Rome notes comments on Islam
by Pope Benedict XVI).
1. On Faith and reason, the Pope is reported as saying: “The decisive statement…against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.” (Time p. 27).
Islam does not sanction “violent conversion”–the Prophet’s duty was only to deliver the Message of the Qur’an, not enforce it–(Qur’an 2:256; 3:20; 10:99-100; 16:125; 24:54; 50:45; 76:3; 109:1-6).
Since, truly, “not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature”–(See Isaiah 1:18)–let the Pope “reason”:
-how could God have a son when He has no consort?
-how could Mary be the mother of God when God is the First and Creator of all, and Mary was created by God?
-how could 1+1+1=1 (as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are said to be one? To institute such a premise would be mathematical homicide).
-how could he (the Pope) chopping off his head cure Christians of their headaches (as Jesus being killed can cure others of their sins).
-how could it be justice for a baby to be jailed for a crime committed by his/her father (as children are said to have inherited sin from Adam. Your father having accumulated a million does not make you a millionaire; you might not inherit any either: he might squander it or leave it to his pet cat or dog).
The claim that “reason” is “part of Christianity’s very essence” is hilarious (Time, p. 31). As they delineate between Heaven and Hell, cardinal doctrines of a religion are to clearly stated and not left to the function of interpretation. The cardinal doctrines of Christianity –Trinity, Sonship of God, inherited sin and vicarious atonement– have no Divine foundation, no prophetic foundation, no logical foundation; and are repugnant to reason. Allāh reveals, and research has uncovered, that Son of God belief is paganism–(Qur’an 9:30. See Christianity-a fake).
“God’s anger is revealed from heaven
against all the sin and evil of the people whose
evil ways prevent the truth from being known”
“Let them bear, on the Day of Judgment,
their own burdens in full,
And also (part) of the burdens of those
without knowledge, whom they misled.
Alas, how grievous the burdens they will bear”
2. In support of the Pope: “Says Helen Hull Hitchcock, a St. Louis, Missouri, lay leader who heads the conservative Catholic organization Women for Faith and Family:“ He has said what needed to be said.””(Time, p. 28).
What “needed to be said” is, not only “From the dawn of Christianity until today (20th century) every country of the world has been soaked with blood in the name of Jesus Christ”*, but that Christianity stands on the very foundation of blood and blasphemy–of vicarious atonement, Trinity, and sonship of God–is misogynistic; and an enemy to knowledge and to the “Other.”
When viewed under the lens of investigation, the Pope’s ranting against Islam is exposed for what it is: ignorance of Islam or Papal anti-Islamic twaddle. (*M.H. Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, (p. 213).
There is no “possible intrinsic connection between Islam and violence.”(Time, p.28) (See JIHAD ). There is “intrinsic connec-tion” between Christianity and violence: the religion that sanc-tions enslaving “heathen(s);” came not to send peace but a sword; commands followers to sell garments and buy swords; views opposers as enemies; slays enemies against its rule is the religion of “violence,” not love.
Equally, “what needed to be said” is that Christianity (not to be confused with Christ) is lies, falsehood, and blasphemy; the cardinal doctrines of Christianity –Trinity, Divine sonship, inherited sin, and vicarious atonement– have no Divine foundation, no prophetic foundation, no logical foundation, and are repugnant to reason; Christianity is evil, intolerant, and backward; Christians lie on God, they lie on Jesus, they blame the devil; according to the Bible to the Bible Jesus was a hypocrite a liar and a fraud (See CHRISTIANITY).
Only the peripheral Muslim and the unthinking would embrace the useless and unGodly crucifix.
3. On “compatibility of Christianity and Islam.”(Time, p.29).
Jesus may be the common thread that embroiders the quilt of Islam and Christianity, but that is where the weave begins and ends. Whereas Islam rightly spotlights Jesus in the celestial light as a prophet of Allāh sent to minister to the Children of Israel, Christianity cloaks Jesus in the blasphemous coat of son of God, Trinity, and vicarious atoner, (teachings alien to Jesus).
There is no “compatibility” between Islam and Christianity–there is no mixing Truth with Falsehood: “And mix not up truth with falsehood, nor hide the truth while you know”–(Qur’an 2:42).
4. Pope Benedict XVI quotes 15th century Christian Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus who “criticized Muslims for “spreading [their faith] by the sword,” both because “God is not pleased by blood” and because true conversion depended on rea-son;” and that the only things “new” Mohammad brought were things ““evil and inhuman.”” (Time, p. 31).
As “God is not pleased by blood” then let the Pope explain the many instances of “blood” in the Bible where not even the “ass” was spared the “edge of the sword” to occupy their lands–(Josh. 6:21; 10:8-43; 12:6-24. Deut. 7:1-2).
It is not Islam; it is Christianity that sanctions violence. It is classical hypocrisy for Christians to claim “God is not pleased by blood”and yet pour the blood of the “crucified” Christ into the hands of God.
Instead of straining to link the noble jihad to violence, the Pope should lament that the religion he heads stands on the very foundation of “violence”–killing innocent Jesus for the sins of others.
The “sword” of Islam, as the Qur’an teaches, and as the Pro-phet and his early followers have demonstrated, is the glorious sword against occupation, oppression, aggression, exploitation and usurpation. There is no other sword in history, be it religious or secular, ancient or modern that can equal the magnificent sword of Islam. It cannot be shown that the Prophet Mohammad or the first four Caliphs of Islam forced Islam at the point of the sword on anyone. Isma’il and Lois Lamya ‘al Faruqi have noted in their Cultural Atlas Of Islam:
“And yet, if the Muslims were so tolerant, the Christian persistently asks, why did their co-religionists flock to Islam by the millions? Of these co-religionists the Arabs were the smallest minority. The rest were Hellenes, Per-sians, Egyptians, Cyrenaicans, Berbers, Cypriots, and Caucasians.” (pp. 197-198).
While There is no injunction in the Qur’an or in the Tradition of the Prophet to spread religion by force, there are clear teachings to propagate religion by instruction: “So obey not the disbelievers, and strive against them a mighty striving with it (the Qur’an)”–(Qur’an 25:52); “And from among you there should be a party who invite to good and enjoin the right and for-bid the wrong. And these are they who are successful”–(Qur’an 3:103); “…thou art not one to compel them. So remind by means of the Qur’an him who fears My warning”–(Qur’an 50:45). In compliment to the above exhortations to teach with the Qur’an there are clear verses prohibiting the use of force–that the Prophet’s (and Muslims’) duty is only to deliver the Message of Islam, not to enforce it: “There is no compulsion in religion”–(2:256); “Thy duty is only to deliver the message”–(3:19); “And if thy Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Wilt thou then force men till they are believers?”–(10:99); “And say: Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve”–(Qur’an 18:29).
Islam comes from the root salm, which means peace. The religion that is rooted in peace, and which teaches justice without distinction, cannot be a religion of terror. In fact, Islam is such a peaceful religion that Muslims are required to make peace even in the face of possible deception by the enemy: “And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it…. And if they intend to deceive, then surely Allah is sufficient for thee”–(Qur’an 8:61-62. See also 4:90). To emphasize the point further that Islam is the religion of peace and forgiveness, Muslims are urged to limit their injury only to the degree suffered and in some cases to forgive: “Whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you…”–(Qur’an 2:194); “And if you take your turn, then punish with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you show patience, it is certainly best for the patient”–(Qur’an 16:126); “And the recompense of evil is punishment like it; but whoever forgives and amends, his reward is with Allāh. Surely He loves not the wrong-doers”–(Qur’an 42:40). Further, Muslims are commanded: “And wrong not men of their dues, and act not corruptly in the earth”–(Qur’an 26:183).
Taking up arms against oppression and occupation and aggression could hardly be viewed as “Violence.” Islam does not seek to advance religion through “violence” or “coercion.” Allah calls on man to accept religion through reason, arguments and examples. The doctrines of Islam as well as history have debunked this age-old charge. Islam is the “abode of peace”–(Qur’an 10:25).
It was Jesus who advocated the use of the blade; declared the “Prince of Peace”: “he that hath no sword, let him sell his gar-ment and buy one” and “Those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (and these enemies may not necessarily be militant against him, only that they were against him being ruler)–(Luke 22:36; 19:27).
That the only things “new” Mohammad brought were “evil and inhuman”:
-Mohammad removed the shroud of “bastard” and “adulteress” from Jesus and his mother, Mary, and appareled them in rubious robes or righteousness;
-Mohammad took man from the isle of “dogs” and “swine” and sat him aloft on the mount of Universalism–that Allāh is the God of all men; and gave the bread and kingdom of God equally to all;
-Mohammad unshackled the slave from the oars of hopelessness and put in his grasp the scepter of regality;
-Mohammad extricated Woman from the bog of bondage and subservience in which Paganism, Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity had mired her, and enthroned her on the pinnacle of dignity and gave her rights and honor unparalleled in the history of religions;
-Mohammad lifted the orphan from the dust of despair and sat him on the chair of hope and dignity;
-Mohammad gave us the Book of unerring scientific pronouncements, and catapulted backward camel riders into ‘thrones of Caesars.’
And what “new” thing has the Church brought? Whereas Islam gave us the Divine and noble jihad. Christianity brought the man-made and unGodly crusade–derived from a blend of the French croisade and Spanish cruzada; and which crucifix is pagan in origin, dating to the “Mithraic cult”–whose goal was to rid the Holy land of Muslims and Jews; so much so that in the first crusade “All Muslims, men, women, and children, as well as Jews, perished in the general slaughter that followed” the surrender of the city;3 and the 800-year Inquisitions–Medieval, Roman and Spanish–from 1000-1834 (crudely now-a-days, western media demonize the noble jihad and promote the igno-ble crusade to symbolize honorable pursuits). She has regressed from the pure monotheism of Moses and Jesus into paganism–as son of God is paganism–and is striving to drown the world in the mythical blood of Jesus Christ.
The Church has always been an enemy to knowledge and the “Other;” history is testimony to this –from the slaughter and forced conversions in the Holy Land and Spain to the Americas– and on the intellectual front: (Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, responding to the Bishops of Salisbury & London in the early 1900’s about mis-statements on Islam wrote):
“It is all very well for your missionaries to point to the great charitable institutions, hospitals, schools, etc., for suffering humanity run on Christian lines. “But one fails to see why these charitable institutions should be ascribed to a religion which could not give birth to them for more than seventeen hundred years. They are the growth of modern culture and owe their origin to quite different external causes, the greatest among them being Islam in Spain. Islam speaks highly of these charities in its teachings, and brought them into existence in all Muslim countries within two centuries after its birth. Islam can claim superiority to modern culture in one respect–Muslim Universities opened their doors at Baghdad in the days of Nizam-ul-Mulk, and in Granada in the days of Abdul Rahman to students without distinction of caste, colour or creed, where they were looked after, boarded and lodged at the public expense.”a
….the greatest opposition that the rise of culture received in the West, at each stage, came from the Church camp. Perhaps you will say that it was an outcome of the mediaeval savagery and ignorance. But such is not the case. The teaching of the Bible, I am afraid fanned the fires of opposition. The Church saw the justification of their hostility to science in the sacred writ.
The Christians, who were the inheritors of the civilization of the ancients, pace the teachings of Holy Writ, not only did not continue the researches of their predecessors, but destroyed them, so that, as Draper points out in his book, A History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,b nearly two thousand years had to intervene between Archimedes and Newton, nearly seventeen hundred years between Hipparchus and Kepler, nearly twenty centuries between Hero, whose steam-engine revolved in the Serapion, and James Watt who revolutionized the industry of the world. What a fearful blank!
Dogmatized Christianity placed an embargo on freedom of thought. The Church destroyed all that it believed it could not turn to its own advantage. History can multiply in support of this characteristic of the Church, but I would content myself with quoting one–the destruction of the invaluable library of Serapis, at Alexandria in 389, by the Archbishop Theophilus of Alexandria. Gibbon says, in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empirec: “The valuable library of Alexandria was pillag-ed and destroyed, and nearly twenty years afterwards the appearance of empty shelves excited the indignation of every spectator whose mind was not totally darkened by religious prejudice.”
Exaggerated miracles and superstitions–those mental cankers–together with persecution and suppression, represented the sum total of what was offered as a substitute for the learning and scholarship of the ancients –and full one thousand years had to pass before Europe once more attempted to scale the same heights from which mankind had been pushed back down into the deepest abyss of mental depravity.
Instead of turning the mind of the people towards intellectual development and thought, the Church –the pious intolerance of the Church– on the contrary, penned it in, within very close, narrow boundaries, to transgress which was nothing less than a sacrilegious crime against the sanctity and holiness of the words of Holy Writ, which was regarded as infallible, and everything spoken against it as tantamount to heresy.
Now let us search the pages of Holy Writ and we would see that it is in them that lie embedded the baneful seeds of pious persecution, of the branding of learning as magic to be punished like treason, of a justification for sending Galileo to prison, Bruno to the stake, and of the murder of Hypatia, the renowned commentator on Plato.
Neither the theory of evolution, nor geography, nor geometry, nor mathematics, nor astronomy, nor the science of education–in fact, nothing that could be classed as knowledge and which we in the twentieth century are proud of–escaped the ravaging hands of the Fathers of the Church, who found a fertile field for persecution in the words of Holy Writ.
There are two conflicting descriptions of the Creation as contained in the first and second chapters of Genesis, and they have led some to believe in the six-day theory, and others in the instantaneous idea. Luther declared, “the world, with all creatures, was created in six days,” but he also believed that it was done in an instantaneous way. Calvin preached the six-day idea. The Church presented the Bible as infallible, and all ideas regarded as against the cosmogony of the Bible were punished severely. A certain Vanini had the misfortune to believe in the theory of evolution. He was at once branded as atheist; and on the evidence of De Francon, the Judge de Catel in the tribunal of Toulouse, found Vanini guilty and sentenced him to have his tongue torn out from his mouth and to be burnt alive. …..
The spheroidicity of the earth is denied by the Bible. There are many passages which uphold the geocentric theory, i.e. that the earth is the centre of the solar system and that the sun and the stars revolve around it.
“The world also shall be stable, that it be not moved” (1 Chron. 16:30).
“Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed forever” (Psalm 104).
“And after these things, I saw four angels, standing on the four corners of the earth” (Rev. 7:1).
“The Devil taketh him (Christ) up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world” (Matt. 4:8).
The Christian Fathers taught that Jerusalem was the centre of the world, and quoted Ezekiel 5:5, which reads: “Thus saith the Lord God: This is Jerusalem, I have set it in the midst of the nations and countries that are round about her.”
“St. Paul taught that the Gospel had been preached to all nations, and that, therefore, there were no more nations to be discovered. This teaching discouraged any attempt at geographical investigation and the finding of new continents. It was to the Muslim universities in Spain that Columbus learned that the earth was spheroid, for one of the Muslim educational appliances was the globe. Columbus was convinced of the spheroidicity of the earth, but the Bishop of Ceuta showed him his error by quoting from the Bible, and a Bull was issued by Pope Alexander VI, in 1493, to the same effect, but he was not deterred from his aim. The idea that there were people on the opposite side of the earth had long before been taught by Cicero and Pliny, and believed by many in Greece and Rome, but when it was taught in Christendom, it was met with the severest criticism. Lactantius, speaking with reference to the heretical doctrine of the globular form of the earth, said: “Is there anyone so senseless as to believe that the crops and the trees on the other side of the earth hand downward and that men have their feet lighter than their heads? If you ask them how they defend these monstrosities, how things do not fall away from the earth on that side, they reply, The nature of things is such that heavy bodies tend towards the centre, like the spokes of a wheel, while light bodies, such as clouds, smoke and fire, tend from the centre, to the heavens, on all sides. Now, I am at a loss what to say of those, who, when they have once gone wrong, steadily persevere in their folly and defend one absurd opinion by another.”
St. Augustine quoted the Scriptures to prove that there could be no Antipodes. He said that the Almighty would not allow men to live on the opposite side of the earth because they would not be able to see Christ at his second coming. He said, “Scripture speaks of no such descendants of Adam.” He quotes the 19th Psalm and St. Paul’s saying that Gospel has been carried “to the ends of the world,” and contended that as the teachers had not gone to the opposite sides of the earth, there was no such place. He quotes Job 26:11 about “the pillars of heaven” in support of his argument.
The new ideas were denounced as “empty and false.” “The miserable fiction of Eusebius had subverted the chronology of Manetho and Eratosthenes, the geometry of Euclid and Appolonius was held to be of no use, the geography of Ptolemy a blunder. …” (Draper). In 1316 an Italian physician, named Peter of Abano, was called to account for the new heresy of the spheroidicity of the earth by the Inquisition; he fortunately escaped the torture by the intervention of a natural death. Cecco d’Ascoli, a noted astronomer, was compelled to vacate his professional chair at Bologna, and was burned alive at Florence, 1327.
Cosmas said: “The earth is a parallelogram, flat and surrounded by four great seas. At the edges of these seas rise immense walls, closing in the whole structure. These walls support the vault of the heavens, whose edges are cemented to the walls; walls and vault shut in the earth and all the heavenly bodies.” He supports his description by many passages from Holy Writ, e.g. “It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,…that stretcheth out the heavens like a curtain, and spreadeth them out like a tent to dwell in” (Isaiah 40:22).
Passages in the Bible, as, “The earth standeth fast for ever,” “Sun, stand thou still upon Gideon, and thou moon, in the valley of Ajalen,” made the Fathers of the Church uphold that the earth was in the centre of the solar system. Pythagoras, the Greek philosopher (580-500 B.C.), taught what is known as the heliocentric system of astronomy. His system placed the sun in the centre and around it in circular orbits the planets revolved in the following order: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. Philolaus and Aristarchus followed with the same theory, but it was not heard of again till the fifth century A.D. when Martianus Capella resuscitated it. Then it disappeared for another thousand years, till it was rediscovered and established by Nicholas Copernicus. Its sporadic appearance and disappearance as due to no other cause but Holy Writ. Copernicus’s book, The Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies (The Qur’an 21:33; 36:40 inform us about this truth in the 7th century), was first published in 1543, when the author was on his deathbed. The great astronomer had not dared to publish it for thirty solid years, for the bloodthirsty vengeance of the Church loomed large before his eyes. He sent it to a friend, Osiander, who wrote a soporific preface to the book, whereby he sought to camouflage the views of the author by saying that they were to be taken rather as fiction than as fact. The book, when published, was placed in the feeble hands of the astronomer, who smiled and died in peace. But in spite of the lulling precautions taken by Osiander, it was seized and condemned and excited furious comments. Fromundus, from the Cathedral of Antwerp, said: The Copernican theory cannot be true, because the wind would constantly blow from the east; we should with great difficulty hear sounds against such a wind; buildings and the earth itself would fly off with such a motion.” Martin Luther wrote: “People gave ear to an upstart astrologer, who tried to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens, or the firmament, the sun and the sun….this fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy, but Sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand and not the earth.” Calvin was equally loud in his denunciation of the Copernican theory.
Among the many poor victims of the Church, who took up the Copernican theory and advanced it, was Giordano Bruno. He was hunted from country to country. From Italy, his native land, to Switzerland, France, England, Germany, his persecutors ever on his trail. Upon his return to Venice, he was apprehended, and imprisoned in the Piombo for six years. During his travels, he had delivered lectures in England and written many books, and had criticized the teachings of the Bible. He said: “The Bible teaches that the earth is a flat surface supported by pillars; that the sky is a firmament –the floor of heaven. But the truth is that the universe is infinite, and that it is filled with self-luminous and opaque worlds, many of them inhabited; (Allāh says there are beings in the earth as well as in the heavens–Qur’an 19:93-95; 42:29);that there is nothing above and around us but space and stars.” Bruno was transferred from Venice to Rome on the demand of the spiritual authorities and handed over to Cardinal San Severino. He was arraigned before sixteen cardinals, who put him several questions and demanded a recantation. Bruno replied, “I neither ought nor wish to recant.” They tried to exact a recantation through torture, but they failed, for mental strength cannot be broken by material weapons. They declared this magnificent character to be an “impenitent and obstinate heretic” and sentenced him to death in 1600 by a fire made slow, to increase the torture. How time has mocked at the Church is shown by a splendid statue of Bruno, unveiled by the Rationalists in 1899, on the very spot where he was burned alive.
Galileo Galilei, who adorns the list of the Church victims, was another well-known martyr to the cause of science. His crime was that he had demonstrated the truth of the Copernican theory. The Church was set, also, against mathematics, and had denounced the geometry of Euclid. Caccini was promoted by the Church for his brilliant denunciation of geometry and Mathematics, such as “geometry is of the devil” and “mathematicians should be banished as the authors of heresies.” Pope Paul V, fortified by his archbishops and cardinals, condemned Galileo and his teachings. They said: “If there are other planets, since God makes nothing in vain, they must be inhabited; but how can their inhabitants be des-cended from Adam? How can they trace back their origin to Noah’s ark, and how can they have been redeemed by the Saviour?” (As noted above, Allāh says there are beings in the earth as well as in the heavens–Qur’an 19:93-95; 42:29).
Galileo was summoned to Rome by Pope Paul V in 1616, where he tried to convince them by requesting the Fathers of the Church to look through the little telescope which he had invented. Many declined, and those who did “denounced the satellites as illusions of the devil.” Father Clavius declared that “to see the satellites of Jupiter, men had to make an instrument which would create them.” Another bold statement made by Galileo was that the moon shines by reflected light. (Allāh tells us this in Qur’an 91:1-2; 25:61; 71:15-16). The wrath of the Church knew no bounds, for this statement of his contradicted the “truth” of Genesis that the moon ‘is a great light.” He was tried by the Holy Inquisition and his opinions condemned. In defence Galileo said that the Bible was not intended to serve as a book science. But it seems this is what they wanted the Bible to pass for. And should we blame them for this, in view of the fact that they did nothing else but give their due to the infallible words of Holy Writ? Pope Paul V issued a decree in the following words: “The doctrine of the double motion of the earth about its axis and about the sun is false and entirely contrary to Holy Scripture.” But again, in 1652, Galileo published his book, the Dialogo, thinking that the new Pope Urban VIII would be more tolerant than his predecessor, but he was just as bigoted. He placed Galileo and his book, the first edition of which had been exhausted and had found great favour with thinking minds, in the hands of the Holy Inquisition. Galileo had a friend, named Castelli, who had to forfeit his benefice for trying to save his friend Galileo. The aged Galileo as thrown into a dungeon, and forced to recant in the following words: “I, Galileo, being in my seventieth year, being a prisoner and on my knees before your Eminences, having before my eyes the Holy Gospel, which I touch with my hands, and abjure, curse and detest the error and the heresy of the movements of the earth.”
What else could the broken-hearted, aged Galileo do under the circumstances? He recalled to memory how the Church had burned Bruno alive, and that if he would not recant the same fate awaited him. What the Inquisition was he knew well!
Nevertheless the Holy Inquisition was not content with a mere recantation. It sent him into exile for the rest of his life, persecuted his friends, suppressed his writings, and went so far as to torture those, like Campanella, who had the temerity to write in defence of Galileo.
Now let us see what it was which the Church wanted the people to believe instead. Cardinal Barberi says: “Animals which move have limbs and muscles; the earth has no limbs or muscles, therefore it does not move. It is angels who make Saturn, Jupiter, the Sun, etc; turn round. If the earth revolves, it must also have a centre to set it in motion, but only devils live there; it would therefore be a devil who would impart motion to the earth.”
The Bible dabbles in anthropology as well! The Bible contains a so-called chronology, childish as it is, by which it is claimed we can trace the antiquity of man and his pedigree. The Christian Fathers were generally agreed that man had his beginning about six thousand years ago, and would not tolerate any other view but that Adam was the first man. The advancing of any other view was looked upon as a contradiction of the apparent chronology of the Bible, and its criticism a crime. When La Peyrère, about the middle of the seventeenth century, published his work, Pre-Adamites, in which he claimed that men existed be-fore Adam, the Parliament of Paris burned his book. La Peyrère was imprisoned by the Grand Vicar of the Archdiocese of Mechlin until he retracted the statement.
(Pre-Adamites: Allāh tells us that there was a long time over man when nothing was known of him–Qur’an 76:1. And Muslim scholars are of the view that there were many Adams before our Adam. That this Adam was not the first man seems to be borne out by the fact that after Cain killed Abel, Cain is said to have gone to the land of Nod where he knew his wife who conceived–(Genesis 4:16-17). Since Cain and Abel were the only two children, and there is no mention of any other children so that Cain could be said to have taken a sister as wife, where then did Cain find this woman for wife if there were no other human beings on the earth? As noted, the verses of the Qur’an are either of basic or allegorical in meanings–Qur’an 3:6).
The pagan world of the Greeks and Romans had made a beginning in geological knowledge, but when Christianity appeared on the world’s stage all such beginnings were nipped in the bud. In the middle of the eighteenth century Buffon published the results of his studies in geology. The faculty of Sorbonne compelled him to make and publish a recantation, which ended with these words: “I abandon everything in my book respecting the formation of the earth, and generally all which may be contrary to the narration of Moses.” But a century later the tables were turned, and the power of the Church had waned in 1830, for by this time science had made so much progress, and people had begun so far to recover from the Christian blight, that Charles Lyell, the author of Antiquity of Man (1863) and Principles of Geology (1830), was not made to suffer from the Holy Inquisition.
Gregory I–who has won the attribute of the Great– distinguished himself by his rage for destruction, for his enmity towards all higher education. This “Slave of the Slaves of God” had one principle in view: “Ignorance is the mother of devotion”; and with this standpoint not only did he commit to the flames all the mathematical studies of Rome, but also burned the precious Palatine Library, which was founded by the Emperor Augustus. He destroyed the greater part of the writings of Livy; he forbade the study of the classics; he maimed and muti-lated the architectural remains of the ancient days–(Draper, vol. 1, p. 357).
The schools of philosophy were closed, the last of them in 529. The renowned commentator on Plato, Hypatia, was cruelly put to death by St. Cyril, in 414, in the open market of Alexandria, Draper says: “She was assaulted by Cyril and a mob of many monks, stripped naked in the street, she was dragged into a church and killed by the club of Peter the Reader. The corpse was cut in pieces, the flesh was scraped from the bones with shells, and the remnants cast into the fire. For this frightful crime Cyril was never called to account–(Draper, vol. 1, p. 324).
The hatred of learning was such that, in the words of Draper, “every manuscript which could be seized was burnt.” Throughout the east, men in terror, destroyed the libraries for the fear that some unfortunate sentence contained in any of the books should involve them and their families in destruction.”
But to ascertain the truth of our statement, we need not go so far back. We can always expect the Church to live up to its historic past. It is in our own living mem-ory that Francisco Ferrar was murdered in 1909, in Spain, for the sole offence that he wanted to educate the people. And the Church hated education, as it has always hated it. It is said he was stood against the prison wall, and before the shots were fired he said in a clear and fearless voice: “Aim straight, my brothers. Long live the modern school!” No regretting, no cringing, no recanting ever escaped his lips. And the fact that only very recently one of the Italian cities has decided to remove the street name of Francisco Ferrar from one of its thoroughfares, intensifies the truth of this state-ment that the Church is the same to-day, yesterday and for ever. The only condition is opportunity.
There is one thing that is remarkable in the history of material science in relation to Christianity and Islam. In the case of the former, as long as religion kept its hold on its adherents, Europe made no progress in any way, but when the Western mind became emancipated from canonical rule and Church thralldom, civilization came in leaps and bounds in every form. On the other hand, Islam, at its very advent, gave a tremendous impetus to science and culture. In its various departments, modern civilization owes its salient factors to Islam, but unfortu-nately, in modern days–notably in the last two centuries– our mundane prosperity and success began to prove too intoxicating to keep our steps sober and steady; we ceased from treading in the footprints of our ancestors, and turned our backs on Muslim principles of life.”4 (a- b- c)
“The Western nations made their present progress when they liberated themselves from the hold of Church religion and began to think independently for themselves on Islamic lines.”5 As late as 2008, the Pope is accused of being “hostile to science.”6
Rather than bemoan Muslim presence in Europe, Pope Benedict XVI should be singing praises to Allāh. But for Muslims “Christian” Europe may yet be waltzing around with flint tools and torches.
Blind faith may be blissful, but it is no passport to heaven.
(Why non-Muslims are not allowed worship in Arabia, see Arabia & non-Muslims Worship).
5. The Pope has “replaced an ongoing study of Christian violence during the Crusades with one on Islamic violence today. And he has stepped up the Vatican’s insistence on reciprocity–demanding the same rights for Christians in Muslim-majority countries that Muslims enjoy in the West.”(Time p. 31)
There is no “violence” in Islam. (See JIHAD).
The view that Muslim religious freedom in the West is due to Christian tolerance is a grand illusion. This tolerance is the result of the disempowerment of the Church and the empowerment of secularism–Europe may be the offspring of Christianity but she is not an adherent of the Church. As shown above (in note 4), the Church has always been an enemy to knowledge and to the “Other.” Her history is testimony to this. The only reason the Church does not now wield the sword is because it has no authority in the land.
Whereas people should be free to practice their beliefs, Pope Benedict bemoaning the plight of Christians and “demanding the same rights for Christians in Muslim-majority countries that Muslims enjoy in the West” is Papal grandstanding if not hypocrisy: the Church would not tolerate other religions. In her zeal to force the “body” and mythical blood of Jesus into the stomachs of the ‘heathens’ the Church has never turned the “other cheek” but has readily wielded the blade. Jesus himself advocated use of the blade against those opposed (though not necessarily militant) to his rule.
As shown in note # 4, the Church has always been an enemy to knowledge and to the “Other.” Her history is testimony to this.
6. An admirer of the Pope: “Says a high-ranking Western diplomat in Rome: “It was time to let the rabbit out of the can, and he (the Pope) did it. I admire his courage. Part of the Koran lends itself to being shanghaied by terrorists.” (Time, p. 31).
Wonder what this “high-ranking Western diplomat in Rome” would have to say about the Bible allowing the enslavement of “heathen” neighbors; slaughtering men and women, young and old and animals and even everything that breathes to occupy their lands; label as enemies those whose views are opposite to that of the leadership; slay enemies that are opposed to leadership; sees non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine,” condemns woman as transgressor, and relegates her to a life of servility; sells daughters into bondage; views woman as “defiler” of man, and uses her as an object of sex–she is made wife only as protection against fornication; advocate that it came not to send peace but a sword–this religion must be the “mother” of all ‘shanghais’. The Bible “lends itself to being shanghaied by terrorists” of all stripes and from all rungs of the theological ladder.–(Lev; 25:44-46;
Josh. 6:21; 10:8-43; 12:6-24. Deut. 7:1-2; Matt. 12:30; Luke 19:27; Matt. 7:6; 15:26; Gen. 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:11-14; Exod. 21:7; Rev. 14:4; 1 Cor. 7:1-2; Matt. 10:34).
Materials on this site have debunked the charge that the Qur’an whether in whole or “part” “lends itself to being shanghaied by terrorists.”
It is either politics or bigotry or ignorance of the teachings of Islam (or all of these) that would lead this “high-ranking Western diplomat in Rome” (or any other) to opine that a portion of the Qur’an affords itself to being “shanghaied by terrorists.”
7. Francis of Assisi: Francis was a thirteenth century Christian founder of the “Franciscan orders of men and women”–(Ency; Brit; 15th Edn).
Time magazine notes “according to Christian traditions” an exchange between St Francis of Assisi and the Sultan of the “Holy Land” in the thirteenth century; whereby Francis challen-ged the Sultan to provide him a Muslim volunteer who will walk through fire with him (Francis) so as “to test whose faith was stronger.” The Sultan responded that he was unsure that he could “locate a volunteer.” (Time, p. 32).
The Sultan should have informed Francis that Allāh does not require Muslims to challenge His laws as a means of test of their “faith;” but that we are to pray for the curse of God on the liars whose belief is false: “But whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: Come! let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women, and our people and your people, then let us be earnest in prayer and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars”– (Qur’an 3:61).*
Whereupon the Sultan should have affirmed: “I bear witness that there is no God but Allah; He is One and Only; The Eternal, Absolute; He has no son or partner or associate; He begets not nor is begotten; and there is none like Him; Jesus is no more than a messenger of Allāh–this is the truth; if this is not the truth I pray for the curse of Allāh to be upon me.”
Then, according to the teachings of Christianity which says: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved….and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them…”–(Mark 16:16-18), the Sultan should have had Francis of Assisi affirm his belief: “I bear witness that Jesus is God/one in a Trinity with God is son of God–as fatherhood requires joining of sperm and ovum; mankind inherited sin from Adam/Eve, and God sent Jesus to die for the sins of the world–this is the truth; if this is not the truth let me be “hurt” from this “deadly thing.”” Whereupon, the Sultan would have handed Francis of Assisi the lethal dose of “deadly” poison to drink.
*(Regarding this verse Muhammad Ali notes:
“This chapter starts with a discussion of the Christian doctrines in particular. The persons addressed in particular in this verse are the members of the Christian deputation from Najran that came in 10 A.H. This deputation, consisting of sixty men, was headed by ‘Abd al-Masih, the chief of the Najran Christians (AH), and the members of the deputation were lodged in the Prophet’s mosque. Thus did the Prophet set an example of freedom of religious thought which remains without parallel to this day. The Prophet related to them arguments showing that Jesus Christ was not God, but a man and a prophet (see concluding paragraph of note 422). After having argued the question fully, and finding them still insisting in their false belief in the deity of Jesus, they were invited as a last resort to pray earnestly that the curse of Allāh might overtake the party that insisted on false-hood. At first they showed readiness to enter this contest, but after some deliberation they decided against it and told the Prophet that they had decided not to pray against him as suggested (Bokhari, 64:74). Thereupon they were given a pledge by which they were free to practise their religion: “Their authority and rights shall not be interfered with, nor anything that is customary amongst them, so long as they conduct themselves peaceably and uprightly” (Muir).
It is strange to find Christian writers referring to this as “a strange mode of settling the dispute”. But evidently their Arabian co-religionists did not think so 1,300 years ago. They believed in the efficacy of prayer, for such was the teaching of Jesus. They saw the righteousness of the Prophet, and they were convinced of their own false beliefs and dared not invoke curses upon themselves with their own tongues, while they knew that the Prophet was too generous to curse them. Therefore they adopted the wise course of not calling for destruction to overtake them. Had they considered the Prophet as an imposter and Antichrist, as their descendants do today, they would not have had the least fear in accepting the challenge”). (For details of this discussion see Christians of Najran & Prophet Mohammad).
8. Slavery: Pope Benedict XVI before becoming Pope states: “Nor must we forget that Islam was at the head of the slave traffic and by no means displayed any great regard for the blacks. (This is Cardinal claptrap! Muslims may have been involved in slave traffic; not Islam! Christians were at the head). And, above all, Islam doesn’t make any sort of concessions to inculturation. Islam is Arab, and anyone who becomes Islamic takes on this form of life. There is no inculturation here. For this reason Islam has the problem, as does the Church, for that matter, that one layer of life is Islamic, while underneath the old pagan layer of life continues to exist, so that Islam is, so to speak, only a thin covering over what is the actual way of life.”7
Islam abolished slavery. Islam requires public funds be used for the emancipation of slaves–(Qur’an 9:60); righteousness includes freeing slaves–(2:177; 90:13); to free a slave in expiation of a certain oath–(58:3); slave-masters to assist their industrious slaves to earn their freedom–(24:33); that we are judged not by our color but by our belief in Allah and our deeds–(Qur’an 6:133; 49:13, 98:7). And the Prophet says: “The man shall have a double reward who has a slave-girl and he trains her in the best manner and he gives her the best education, then he sets her free and marries her”–(Bokhari Vol 3, # 720; Vol. 4 # 655). Is the Pope ignorant of these teachings of Islam or is he trying to mislead?
And what is Christianity’s stand on slavery? The Bible allocates nothing for the emancipation of slaves, nor institutes any precepts for their freedom. Christianity which regards non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine” is the religion that displays no “regard for the blacks,” “great” or small. ”–(Matt. 7:6).
In contrast to Islam there is slavery in Judaism and Christianity –one can enslave “heathen” neighbors and sell daughters into bondage (Lev; 25:44; Ex. 21:7).
One would expect the Pope to be able to differentiate between the teachings of Islam and the actions of Muslims. Muslims may have (and perhaps some still do) engaged in slavery but, unlike Christianity which finds support in the Bible for this banal institution, Muslims have no assent from Islam.
Islam does not extol the servitude
of man to man.
Islam champions the liberation of man from man!
(For a full treatment on slavery see Islam-slaves/slavery).
That Islam doesn’t make any sort of concessions to inculturation: While Islam accepts culture that is not against its teachings there is no mixing truth with falsehood–(Qur’an 2:42; 2:256). It is this “Christian” openness to “inculturation” that has the Church standing on the foundation of paganism–(Qur’an 9:30); and faction(s) ordaining homosexuals to stand on the podium of Christ–(Lev; 20:13). (See CHRISTIANITY-PAGAN SOURCES)
That Islam is Arab and anyone who becomes Islamic takes on this form of life: This is patent nonsense! Mohammad was Arab but, unlike Christianity which is tribal–Jesus came only to Jews–Islam is universal. Mohammad came not only to Arabs but to the world. People who accept Islam are Muslims not “Islamic”–the religion is Islam; followers of Islam are Muslims.
Pre-Islamic Arabs were idolaters, polytheists, drunks, lewd, and superstitious. Post-Islamic Arabs became Unitarians, sober, chaste and masters of knowledge. Thus everyone should take on this “Arab” “form of life.”
That Islam has the problem, as does the Church, for that matter, that one layer of life is Islamic, while underneath the old pagan layer of life continues to exist, so that Islam is, so to speak, only a thin covering over what is the actual way of life: The Church has this problem; Islam does not. As shown in the topic JESUS OR MOHAMMAD, it is Christianity –Christ’s name–that is “only a thin covering over what is the actual (pagan) way of life” (belief). Islam uprooted not only slavery but paganism and many over abominations such as idolatry, female infanticide, drunkenness and superstition.
Ironically, the Pope stated: “The idea that all religions are equal is already disproved by the simple fact of the history of religion.” (p. 23). Amen! Yet, in spite of overwhelming evidence that Christianity is paganism wrapped in the robe of Christ, the Pope continues unrelentlessly to peddle it to the world as Divine truth. (That Hajj is “pagan” in origin; See HAJJ).
On Christianity’s pagan roots Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din reveals:
“Mithraism came from Persia, where it seems to have been flourishing for about six hundred years, the cult reaching Rome about 70 B.C. It spread through the Empire, and extended to Great Britain. Remains of Mith-raic monuments have been discovered at York, Chester and other places. Mithra was believed to be a great Mediator between God and man. His birth took place in a cave on December 25th. He was born of a virgin. He traveled far and wide; he had twelve disciples; he died in the service of humanity. He was buried, but rose again from the tomb. His resurrection was celebrated with great rejoicing a. His great festivals were the Winter Solstice and the Vernal Equinox–Christmas and Easter. He was called Saviour, and sometimes figured as a Lamb. People were initiated into his cult through bap-tism. Sacramental feasts were held in his remembrance. These statements may excite surprise in the mind of the reader of to-day; he may be disposed to doubt their genuineness, as while on one side he reads the story of the Jesus of the Church, in the legend of Mithra on the other Mithraism has left no traces in the world, though it was so powerful in the third century A.D. that, had it not been suppressed in Rome and Alexandria by the Chris-tians with physical force, as has been admitted by St. Jerome, it would have left no chance for the flourishing of Christianity; and that it died only when most of its legends became incorporated in the simple faith of Jesus so much so that Tertullian had to admit the fact, though in a way befitting his position. He says that the learned in his days considered , and the Church lore fully saturated with Mithraic colours,Mithraism and Christianity identical in all but name. St. Jerome and other Early Fathers became puzzled at the similarity existing between the two faiths, but their ingenuity ascribed it to the machinations of the Devil to mock their faith”–[K.K notes, Justin Martyr, writing to the Emperor Adrian (Hadrian?), to strengthen his beliefs that Jesus is Son of God, blames the Devil for the Pagan Sons of Jove; he says: “It having reached the Devil’s ears that the prophets had foretold the coming of Christ (the Son of God), he set the heathen poets to bring forward a great many who should be called the sons of Jove. The Devil laying his scheme in this, to get men to imagine that the true history of Christ was of the same character as the prodigious fables related of the sons of Jove*…By declaring the Logos, the first begotten of God, Our Master Jesus, to be born of a virgin, without any human mixture, we (Christians) say no more in this than what you (Pagans) say of those whom you style the sons of Jove. For you need not be told what a parcel of sons the writers most in vogue among you assign to Jove… As to the Son of God, called Jesus, should we allow him to be no more than man, yet the title of the Son of God is very justifiable, upon account of his wis-dom, considering that you (Pagans) have your Mercury in worship under the title of the Word, a messenger of God ….As to his (Jesus) being born of a virgin, you have your Perseus to balance that….if Jupiter could send a parcel of sons out of virgin mothers; the Father in heaven assuredly could do the same at least in our case.” 8
*(If this is how easy it is for the Devil to “shanghai” God’s purpose, the Devil must be doing the “tan-go” throwing “a” voice around, giving visions of the non-existent “Virgin,” and having Christians speak in yet-to-be identified “tongues.”
Christians lie on God; they lie on Jesus, they blame the Devil:
-Christians lie on God–that God incarnated Himself as Jesus; God gives everyone to Judgment Day Adam’s sin then loads everyone’s sins on Jesus’ head and ascribed the murder of Jesus to Him; forged His Book and say it is God’s Word.
-Christians lie on Jesus–making forgeries in the Bible and feeding them into Jesus’ mouth.
-Christians blame the Devil–that the Devil pre-empted the prophets by having the pagans copied the manner of Jesus’ birth and the Passion Play centuries before Jesus’ birth; (as noted in CHRISTIANITY the Passion Play of Jesus is a carbon copy of the Passion Play of Baal).
Christians concoct one crock to prop up the other crock–dreaming up one story after the other to explain the inexplicable and “senseless God-dishonouring” Trinity–likening Trinity to CO2; “man;” and the “tango;” and trying to explain “begotten” son of God. (See JESUS OR MOHAMMAD).
In trying to explain Trinity Christians are trying to explain not only the inexplicable but trying to explain the non-existent; and in trying to solemnize Trinity Christians are trying to legitimize ‘blasphemy’–(Qur’an 5:76). After the camouflages are peeled away Trinitarians are exposed for what they are: polytheists.
Even if Trinity was like H2O, tango, and man this would not make it truth, as there is no such teaching by Jesus or any other prophet of God.
Divine messenger or Devil’s disciple?: (In his dealing with Islam), Pope Benedict XVI is reputed to have “a taste for blunt talk and interreligious confrontation.” (Time, p.27).
As shown in various presentations, regardless of the topic, Islam is unimpeachable.
On Christianity and the Pope here’s “blunt talk” and self-religious “confrontation”: As noted in CHRISTIANITY under the headings crucifixion and Jesus–Only for Jews, respectively, a letter was sent to the Vatican that the “so-called execution was legally not complete,” and Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:9-20–about Jesus ordering his disciples to preach to the world and baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost– are “forgeries.”It is doubtful that the Pope is unawares of these two findings; the Pope must refute these findings or acknow-ledge their accuracy and that he is propagating falsehood–Is the Pope Divine messenger or Devil’s disciple?
Truth stands by itself. Falsehood needs to be propped up!
Islam–Uniform religion: Before becoming Pope Benedict XVI) states: “Islam is not a uniform thing. In fact, there is no single authority for all Muslims…No one can speak for Islam as a whole…There is a noble Islam …and there is also the extremist, terrorist Islam.”9
Whereas the Unity of Allāh, God, and the Messengership of Mohammad are universally accepted by Muslims, and Muslims follow the same Qur’an. Christians are hopelessly divided whether Jesus is God or only son of God, whether Trinity is truth or falsehood, whether Jesus died for inherited sin or committed sin, and divided on the Bible–some having expunged several books as “apocryphal.” That Christianity is “uniform” and is spoken for as “a whole” is patent myth.
If Islam is to be blamed because some of its followers commit acts of terrorism, the Pope seems to be implying that Christ and the Church are to be blamed for those Christian priests–vicars of Christ–“sexual abuse” of children.
There is no “extremist, terrorist” Islam. Islam and “terrorism” are contradictions. It is not terrorism or violence to battle injus-tice and occupation/usurpation. It is heroism!
9. Islam and Woman: Pope Benedict XVI states: (In Islam) “There is a very marked subordination of woman to man; there is a very tightly knit criminal law, indeed, a law regulating all areas of life, that is opposed to our modern ideas about society….When one represents the situation in those terms, as often happens to-day, Islam is defined according to the Christian model and is not seen as it really is in itself.”10
Unlike Christianity and other religions, Islam is a way of life for all people and for all time: Islam is not “opposed to our modern ideas about society.” Allāh instructs the Prophet (and us) to pray: “My Lord, increase me in knowledge”–(Qur’an 20:114). And the Traditions of the Prophet Mohammad are pregnant with exhortations for Muslims to educate ourselves, so much so that we are required to go even to China in search of knowledge. Clearly, Allāh Who increases His servants in knowledge, Islam which advocates the pursuit of knowledge, and the Qur’an that contains guidance for our social, moral, intellectual and spiritual upliftment could not be “opposed to our modern ideas about society.”
“Never has a people been led more rapidly to civilization, such as it was, than were the Arabs through Islam.” “The Qur’an is unapproachable as regards convincing power, eloquence, and even composition.” “And to it was also indirectly due the marvellous development of all branches of science in the Moslem world.”11
It is Christianity, as shown above in item 4, which is “opposed to our modern ideas about society”–the religion that is enemy to knowledge is the religion that is “opposed” to progress.
What Christian model? There is nothing in Christianity to foster material progress and universal brotherhood. It was only when the Christian mind was freed from his Scripture he was able to make material progress. What is touted as “Christianity” or “Christian” progress is merely the fruits of those who called themselves Christians reaped from the trees of “secularism.” For fourteen hundred years after Moses and six hundred years after Jesus mankind was yet groping in the wilderness of darkness. Two centuries after the Qur’an Muslims were leading the world.
There is a very marked subordination of woman to man: Whereas a divorce is the last resort in Islam–it is better for the couple to part in friendship than live in misery–Christianity teaches, “whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery”–(Matt. 5:32. So the woman that puts away the man causes him to commit adultery; and the woman that marries him that is divorced is guilty of adultery). According to Christianity, it is better that the couple should go to their graves in marital misery than have bliss with another; and that the divorced woman should spend her remaining (fifty years or more) of life denying her God-instilled feminine desires. This is what the Pope is comparing to Islam.
And Christianity’s view on Woman? Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din points out:
“The contact of the West with the culture of Islam, especially in the days of the Crusades, brought to the Western world its ideals of chivalry. Honestly speaking, I fail to see anything in Christian teaching which ahs any bearing at all on the betterment of woman. By Christian teachings, I do not mean what comes from the Christian pulpit to-day. The leading Christian thought of the twentieth century is radically different from the Christian thought of early centuries. They are not on the same intellectual level. “What the religious person calls Christianity to-day–a religion of the individual, a personal healing principle–would have seemed folly to the early Christians.”a No. By Christian teaching I mean the teachings of Jesus himself or what may be inferred reasonably from his words and actions. But if he himself remains absolutely silent on a subject, anything said on it in our days by Christian writers cannot be styled Christian teaching. Woman, as the history of Christendom shows, has ever been the most maltreated person, and yet I read in Dean Farrar’s famous Life that Christianity ennobled man, elevated woman, and lent a halo of innocence to the life of the child.” When and where did Christianity accomplish these things before the modern times? Modern ideas and ideals have come from sources other than Christianity. A religion that teaches that every child is born in sin rather robs him of innocence than lends him a halo. (It may be submitted that instead of lending the child a “halo of innocence,” the doctrine of inherited sin has fastened onto the child two little horns on his forehead and a barbed tail on his behind). These writers should know better and respect history more. They should think twice on the implications of the doctrines of their own religion before making such assertions. The Christian tenet of original sin involves an assumption which ennobles neither man nor child, neither can the principle of he Immaculate Conception elevate motherhood.
Before Islam, Woman was treated as a chattel. No religion or civilization had as yet raised her to the status that should have been her birthright. She was regarded as an evil but necessary appendage, and she received the worst treatment of all from Christianity. The story of the Temptation in the Book of Genesis, and the basic principle of the Church creed taken therefrom, damaged her position tremendously.
In dealing with the status of Woman, Islam and Christianity stand poles apart. The one has raised her from the lowest possible depths to a level equal to that of man, at a time when her degradation knew no limit; the other thrust her back to thraldom at a time when she was beginning to emerge from it under Roman civilization. This civiliza-tion was struggling to raise her status when Christianity came like an icy blast and nipped the efforts on the very bud. This statement, though historically accurate, will surprise many amongst those who are accustomed to listen to the very different story told by Christian writers. But if even Jesus does not seem to concern himself about the female sex, and if those who immediately followed him –and have since been looked upon as the builders of the Church, and filled with the Holy Ghost– did nothing to improve her conditions, while their words and actions brought every odium on her; and if Christian States have continued this treatment for centuries, and, indeed, until recent days, when Woman began to assert herself, how can they declare that Christianity brought an honourable position to Woman?
The Hebrew Law was unfavourable to her. The Divine command, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee,” had the effect of reducing her to the position of a chattel in the house, and so she was, in Judaic society. On the other hand, it must be remembered that Jesus did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it. Whenever something appeared to him as an abuse of the Law, he expressed his disapproval of it, and tried to reform it. But in the case of Woman his silence shows that the idea of ameliorating her lot never occurred to him, though the self-indulgence of his tribe was pecu-liarly damaging to womankind.
If Paganism supplied the idea of a suffering Deity and of a crucified Saviour, and the sad event in the life of Jesus favoured their incorporation with Christianity, the legends of the Temptation in Genesis served as a beautiful connecting link between the two. It inspired the story of the Fall of Adam, and through him, the fall of the human race–a theory absolutely, and now admittedly, unknown to the Jews, but initiated by the writers of the Pauline literature to strengthen and explain the Pagan theory of redemption through blood. To that extent it acted well, but it was of no service to Woman. The whole blame of human perdition, by reason of this first sin, was laid at her door: “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, was in the transgression.” Woman consequently could not be in the good books of those who took these expressions as the Word of God and believed in the theory of the Fall of Adam. This explains the cruel attitude which the Early Fathers and the real builders of the Church adopted towards Woman, following, as they did, in the footsteps of Paul. In fact, her disgrace at the hands of these Fathers was the true and logical sequel to the Christian beliefs, of which the following is an illustration: “Do you know,” says Tertullian, when addressing Women, “that you are each Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age; the guilt, of necessity, must live too. You are the devil’s gateway; you are the unsealer of that tree; you are the first deserter of the Divine Law; you destroyed as easily God’s image.”
The Christian apologist of modern culture, while he sees in it mediaeval savagery and wantonness, cannot rationally deny that “the pious aspersions” of the Father was not without justification. The logic was simple and true. If it was believed that sin was a heritage and eternal condemnation its price–and so it is believed till today–then eternal condemnation has come through Woman; she opened the door of all human sufferings. She is “the organ of the devil,” “a scorpion ever ready to sting,” “the poisonous asp,” “the malice of the dragon.” These are some of the blessings that Woman received from persons of exalted position in the Church, such as St. Bernard, St. Anthony, St. Jerome, St. Cyprian, and St. Paul, who seem to me to be at the bottom of it. His personalb grudge against the sex, in consequence of his suit being rejected by a young Jewish woman, the high priest’s daughter, perhaps was responsible for it. Say what you will, if “sin in nature” is the foundation of the sacramental religion, which Christianity has become–the principle of atone-ment and of the divinity of Christ are mere corollaries of it, and then Woman deserves all that has been said by these Fathers. Present-day culture may not tolerate it, but her real redemption lies only in exposing the falsity in these beliefs. And was not the Holy Prophet (Mohammad), even on this very point, the real benefactor of Woman, seeing that he gave the lie to this crude theology, and took exemption to the theory of sin in nature? He declared that every child was born sinless, and that in the case of the Temptation, man and woman were not respectively the tempted and the tempter, but both of them equally suffered and were equally deceived by the evil agency.
Just at the time when the Christian Church was so outrageously trampling on womanhood, and the rest of the world was treating her no less cruelly, Muhammad came to save the situation. He raised Woman to such a height as she had never dreamed of before–a height which leaves her nothing higher for which to strive.
While the Christian Fathers were harping on the slogan that woman was made for man and not man for woman, Muhammad told the world that woman was the twin-half of man, in commenting upon the Qur-anic verse, that revealed in the following words the great truth that man and woman had come from the same essence and were one and the same in that respect: “O people! be careful of (your duty to) your Lord, Who created you from a single being and created its mate of the same (kind) and spread from these two, many men and women; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, by whom you demand one of another (your rights), and (to) the ties of relationship; surely Allah ever watches over you.” The Qur-an gave the name of mohsina to Woman, which meant that she was neither the “organ of the devil” nor his gateway, but a rocky fortress against Satan; a lighthouse of virtue and continence that alone can save man from shipwreck while tossing among the stormy waves of passion. The Bible says: “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee,” but Muham-mad says: “Woman is the sovereign of your house.” St. Paul may say: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection, for I suffer not a woman to (teach nor to) usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence”; but the Qur-an contradicts him when it says: “Woman has like rights with those of man, –the same is due to her as is due from her.” She is not “a scorpion ever ready to sting,” but “a garment of man as he is her garment;”c she is not the “instrument of iniquity,” as these Christian Fathers call her, but, in the words of the Qur-an,d a fountain of love and affection. Let Jesus say to his mother: “Woman, what have I to do with thee?”–put whatever construction you like on these words and come with any explanation you please, people in Christendom even to-day reflect this utterance of their Master in their actions–the affluence of sons go hand in hand with the indigence of mothers in the West–mothers are discarded and disre-garded–but a Muslim leaves no effort undone to pay all respect and reverence to his mother, because his Prophet Muhammad tells him: “Paradise lies at the feet of a mother.” Happy marriage may be a lottery in the West, as some assert, but it makes a wife, in a Muslim house, the dearest of friends, a counterpart of man susceptible to all healthy and salutary influences. It could not well be otherwise, seeing that we are bound to obey the Master who says: “The best of you are they who behave best to their wives.” Again he says: “The best of you before God and His creation are those who are best in their own families, and I am the best to my family.”
“One of the disciples inquired of the Prophet as to what treatment should be meted out to a wife. He answered: ‘“Give her to eat when you eat yourself, and clothe her when you clothe yourself; and do not slap her on the face nor abuse her, nor separate yourself from her in displeasure.’”
“Give your wife good counsel, and do not beat your noble wife like a slave.”
“Admonish your wives with kindness.”
“A Muslim must not hate his wife; and if he be displeased with one bad quality in her, then let him be pleased with another which is good.”
Just a quarter of a century after the time when the council of Christian Fathers at Nicaea were discussing whether any female could enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, and with great difficulty they had come to the conclusion that she might enter into Paradise, but that she would have to be sexless, the Qur-an brought the gospel to her in the following words:–
“Enter into Paradise, ye and your wives delighted.”
“But whoso doeth the things that are right, whether the male or female, and is a believer, whether male or female, they shall enter into Paradise.”
“Whoso doth that which is right, whether male or female, him or her will we quicken to happy life:” –(Qur’an 43:70; 4:124; 16:97).
When the world was doubtful whether any spiritual advancement was open to Woman at all, the Qur-an taught the following: “Surely the men who submit and the women who submit, and the believing men and the believing women, and the obeying men and the obeying women, and the truthful men and the truthful women, and the patient men and the patient women, and the humble men and the humble women, and the almsgiving men and the almsgiving women, and the fasting men and the fasting women, and the men who guard their private parts and the women who guard, and the men who remember Allah much and the women who remember –Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and a mighty reward”–(Qur’an, xxxiii. 35). It is only utter ignorance of Islam and blind prejudice against it that comes to the surface when our adverse critics assert that Woman, under Islam, does not possess a soul. It hardly needs any elaborate discussion to refute this piece of foolhardiness. If a Man possesses a soul, Woman must possess one also, seeing that both are, according to the teaching of the Qur-an, of the same essence.
…In the case of Woman you will find that Christianity did not do anything to better her condition, and Jesus left it to Muhammad to do what was necessary.”12
The Woman of Islam is not of “lower birth” as Hinduism tea-ches–(Gita 9:32); nor of servility as Judaism and Christianity teach–(Gen. 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:11); nor guilty of ‘transgression’ or defiler of man–(1 Tim. 2:14; Rev. 14:4); nor wife just “to avoid fornication”–(1 Cor. 7:2). Allāh tells us both man and woman were created from the same medium–(Qur’an 4:1); both were deceived by the Devil–(2:36; 7:20-22); and has established mar-riage between man and woman–(25:54; 16:72; 24:32. That mar-riage is a sacred contract; that all avenues of reconciliation are to be explored before dissolution of a marriage; and that a divorce is the most shameful deed are proofs that there is no “easy” divorce in Islam). Man and woman, created from the same es-sence–(Qur’an 4:1) and instilled with the same laws–such as the five senses, and susceptibilities to hunger and diseases–one can-not be superior to the other; both have the same faculties and potentials. Whoever develops himself will be superior to the other. This verse shows that from the beginning man and woman are equal.
Man is to give reverence to the womb that bore him–(Qur’an 4:1)–not to the loins that emitted him. Reverence to the womb is not discrimination, but honor. Allāh has listed honor to parents, especially mothers, after worship of Him–(6:152; 17:23; 31:14). The Prophet Mohammad says Paradise lies at the feet of mothers –not at the feet of fathers. And that after worship of Allāh, next in line for our service is our mother; and three times over before service to our father: thus women have three degrees of ex-cellence over men. Such esteem is not discrimination.
Men and women are garments to the other–(Qur’an 2:187)–to protect, beautify, comfort and conceal flaws; such considerations for the other is not oppression. Men and women are friends of the other–(9:71); friendship does not allow oppression. Women have rights similar to those against her–(2:228); people with mutual rights cannot oppress. Allāh has put love and compassion between man and woman; that man may find peace of mind in her–(7:189; 30:21). It is not love and compassion and comfort to oppress. (That woman is a source of peace and comfort condemns marital rape. The man who forces himself upon his wife, abuses her, causes her distress or puts her under duress cannot find love, compassion, comfort and peace in her).
Muslim woman can earn, inherit and own property–(4:32, 7, 177). Whereas woman has exclusive right to utilize her earnings how-ever she pleases–(4:4, 32), it is incumbent on man to maintain her–(4:34). As every group requires a head, husbands, being the maintainers, are given a degree of superiority over wives–(2:228); but this superiority is no license to subjugate her: she has rights similar to those against her–(2:228). Woman has moral and spiritual equality with man–(3:194; 4:124; 16:97; 33:35; 40: 40). No religion has done anything remotely close to that which Islam has done for Woman.
(We often hear such musical Christian claims as “universal” brotherhood,* love, spirit, values, teachings, tol-erance, 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 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.
Jesus had nothing to say on behalf of the Slave, the Woman and the Orphan. That, he left for the Comforter, Mohammad the magnanimous, to do. Mohammad extri-cated Woman from the bog of degradation and sat her aloft on the throne of honor and left her nothing for which to strive; Mohammad liberated the Slave from the shackles of servitude and placed in his grasp the scepter of regality; Mohammad raised the Orphan from the dust of despair and sat him on the cushion of hope. Mohammad is the only Benefactor Woman, Slave, and Orphan have known.
The “Christian” spirit, as its history shows, has been the opposite of meekness and mercy. It was a zealous, merciless rampage of the sword to force the body and mythical blood of Christ into the stomachs of the heathens; so much so that “From the dawn of Christianity until today (20th century) every country of the world has been soaked with blood in the name of Jesus Christ”–(M. H. Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 213).
Instead of being the religion of “love,” Christianity is the religion of rank hatred (of women and non-Jews).
And in general, Christianity is the religion of rank hatred of women, non-Jews, and knowledge.
*(Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din 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 com-plete 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, through-out 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”? To-day 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 ex-pressions? If it is the former, it has remained dormant for centuries, and its revival is simply to pamper the spirit of all-sufficiency. Candidly spea-king, 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).
Jesus loved his people, Jews–Jesus’ “love thine enemies” re-fers to Jewish mutual enmity; ditto for giving the “other cheek. As noted, 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.
Conversely, Mohammad gave practical shape to this “love.” Mohammad extricated Woman from the bog of degradation and sat her aloft on the throne of honor and left her nothing for which to strive; Mohammad liberated the Slave from the shackles of servitude and placed in his grasp the scepter of regality; Mohammad raised the Orphan from the dust of despair and sat him on the cushion of hope. Mohammad is the only Benefactor Woman, Slave, and Orphan have known.
It is Mohammad, a Divine mercy to all, as he demonstrated, is the one 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.
3. Ency. Brit; 15th Ed; Vol; 5, Crusades; p. 300.
4. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, Open Letters To The Bishops Of Salisbury & London, pp. 45-56. a Three Great Prophets of the World, by Lord Headley, p. 14. b Vol, I, p. 387. c Chap. xxviii, p. 132. London Dent’s). Emphasis/color added.
5. Kamal-ud-Din, Khwaja, Open Letters to the Bishops of Salisbury & London, pp. 45-55; 147. K.K also notes from Draper, Vol 1, p. 357. Italics/emphasis added.
6. Toronto Star, Sat; Jan; 19, 2008, Sandra Contenta, Pope turns tables on critics, p. A21. It notes: “Opposition to Benedict’s visit began with a letter, signed by 60 professors, accusing the Pope of being hostile to science. Later, about 50 students occupied the rector’s office in protest, vowing more demonstrations when the Pope arrived.”
7. Salt Of The Earth, interview with Peter Sewald, p. 151.
8. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, The Sources of Christianity, pp. 30, 37. Italics/emphasis added. a Robertson, Pagan Christs, p. 338. bIbid; p. 350. Italics/emphasis added.
9. Salt Of The Earth, interview with Peter Seewald, p. 244).
10. Ibid; pp. 244-245.
11. Muhammad Ali, Introductory notes to his translation of the Qur’an, World’s greatest spiritual force, p. viii. Quotes are from H. Hirschfeld, New Researches, , pp. 5, 8, 9.
12. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, Open Letters to the Bishops of Salisbury & London, pp. 70-77. (Emphasis added). a Rise of Christianity, by Kalhoff. b Epiph. Hae., xxx. 16, p. 14. Islamic Review, vol. xii, p. 232. c-d Qur’an 2:187; 30:21.