Danish Cartoons & Christian Critics

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

DANISH CARTOONS
& CHRISTIAN CRITICS

Mohammad a terrorist 1: Mohammad slaying enemies to end persecution and aggression could hardly be terrorism; even without measuring it against the Biblical slaying of “both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass,” to occupy their lands–(Joshua 6:21; Deut; 7:1-2; Josh. 10:40; 12:6). Significantly, Joshua and the Israelites were not persecuted by these Canaanites, etc; nor forced into exile as Mohammad and his followers were. From the inception Mohammad and his followers were victims of persecution and aggression. There is hardly a person, be he victim or villain, that would not take the upper hand against his enemy when the opportunity arises. To wield the blade against perpetrators of injustice is not terrorism.

   Unlike Jesus who prayed that his enemies be forgiven, Mohammad actually forgave his enemies, as evidenced upon his triumph at Makkah. He forgave even the horrid Hind, the woman of stark hatred, who cut open the body of his loving uncle, Hamza, as he lay martyred on the battlefield of Uhud, pulled out “his liver” and “began to chew” it.    

   Mohammad who taught/practiced dealing justly (Qur’an 2:279, 5:8); not to rob men their dues (26:183); to give justice even if it be against one’s self, parents, kins, or whether he be poor or rich (4:135; 4:58; 5:8), encourages feeding the needy and the poor, free the captives, help those in debt, care for the orphans, the wayfarer, and to free slaves (9:60, 2:177), not to act corruptly in the earth or make mischief (26:183); not to transgress, or aid in sin and aggression (2:190; 5:2), to restrain anger and forgive (3:133), to fight on behalf of the oppressed (4:75); because Allāh loves the just, and because He commands justice and the doing of good, and forbids injustice (60:8, 16:90)–could not be a “terrorist” or “devil.”

   Mohammad who liberated woman–(2:187; 4:19-22); exalts her–(4:1; 9:71-72); gives her equality with man in financial, property, moral and spiritual matters–(4:32, 7-10, 176-177; 3:195; 33:35; 4:124; 16:97; 43:70); honors her–(4:1); made her a gar-ment to man and he is her garment–(2:187); given her rights similar to those against her–(2:228); made her a protector of man as he is her protector–(9:71); and established her as a source of peace, comfort,   love and compassion–(7:189; 30: 21)–could not be a “terrorist” and “devil.”

   If Mohammad was a “terrorist” and “devil” the world can greatly benefit from his ‘terrorism” and ‘evil.’

Mohammad’s example of love opposite to that of Jesus and Moses 2While all prophets were righteous, and taught according to their time and circumstances. (Biblically). Moses’ “eye for an eye,” relegating woman and daughter to servility and bondage, and enslaving heathens; and Jesus’ selling garments to buy swords; ordering that his enemies be slain; viewing non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine” and speaking in parables to keep them in darkness and destruction are hardly examples (or religions) of “love” but rather examples (and religions) of naked hate. (Gen. 3:16; Ex. 21:7; Lev. 25:44; Matt. 5:39; Luke. 22:36; Matt. 5:44, 18:22; Luke 19:27; Matt. 10:34; Matt. 7:6; 15:26; Mark 4:10-12).

   Unlike Jesus who prayed for forgiveness for his enemies, Mohammad not only prayed for but forgave his enemies; and gave liberty, justice and God’s Message clearly to all.

 That Mohammad’s example was “opposite” of love is not borne out by his precepts and practice (already noted above).

Mohammad forgave his captive enemies!
Jesus ordered that his enemies
be brought and slain!

   There is none that can equal Mohammad’s “example of love,” peace, and forgiveness. Mohammad who brought to mankind truth, knowledge, wisdom, and reason; peace, love, hope, and mercy; and moral, spiritual, and intellectual ascendancy is man’s Benefactor, as Allāh, God, instructed him to inform us in His Qur’an 7:158:

“Say: O mankind, surely I (Mohammad) am
the Messenger of Allah to you all,
of Him, Whose is   the kingdom of the heavens
and the earth.
There is no god but He;
He gives life and causes death.
So believe in Allah and His Messenger (Mohammad),
the Ummi (unschooled) Prophet who believes
in Allah and His words, and
follow him so that you may be guided aright.”

   Mohammad (as noted elsewhere) is the Benefactor of Jesus also, having cleared him and his mother of the “calumnies” against them.

(Jews and Christians who consider Ishmael as being of tarnished birth, because his mother, Hagar, is viewed as a “bondswoman,” must [as noted under ISHMAEL] consider the lineage of the prophets and son of God, respectively, which they follow. The Bible says that Jesus came through David who came through Judah who came through Jacob who came through Isaac who came from Abraham and Sarah; and as the Bible says, David committed adultery with Bathsheba; Judah committed adultery with his daughter-in-law, Tamarr; Jacob “went in unto” his wife’s handmaids, Bilhah and Zilpah; and Isaac’s mother, Sarah, was also his father’s step-sister; and according to the Bible such a union as that between Abraham and Sarah, through which Isaac was born, is an unholy union).  

   That the Bible/Christianity is the religion of love is fanciful. 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. As noted, the religion that stamps others “dogs” and “swine,” enslaves “heathen,” views woman as transgressor and defiler of man, subjugates wife and views her as an object of carnal release, relegate daughters into bondage, commands enemies be brought and slain, vilifies opposers as enemies, 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 and 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 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.

(Commenting on Christian claim that Jesus “has given to the world the grand doctrine of universal brotherhood,” Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din notes in his Open Letters To The Bishops of Salisbury & London:

“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 ever-lastingly”? 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 recent-ly 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 remain-ed 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 every-thing 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 Athana-sian Creed has been allowed to remain for centuries in the Book of Common Prayer, is not a man of indepen-dent views justified in classing the spirit of Christ as identical with that of indifference to human life? (pp.78-86).

   Jesus says “Love thine enemies”–(Matt. 5:44), but it was Mohammad who gave shape to “love thine enemies.” After decades of persecution he forgave his rabid enemies on his triumph at Makkah. Jesus was in no commanding position to forgive–he called on God to forgive–(Luke 23:34). Love also has a stern face. Forgiveness to incorrigible offenders is not love and mercy: it is stupidity. If governments were to turn the other cheek society would be over-run by criminals. Wise people know there are times to give the other cheek and times to take an eye.

(Regarding the adulteress–(John 8:3-11)–Jesus did not forgive her: she did not do any wrong to Jesus to need his forgiveness. All he said was he did not “condemn” her. As Jesus was the one “without sin” he “first” should have “cast a stone at her.” In letting her go Jesus violated the law that adulteress be stoned, See JESUS-& THE ADULTERSS).

   That Jesus loves “us” is a stretch, marathon-long. Jesus loved his people, Jews. It is not love, mercy, and forgiveness to slay enemies opposed to rule, view others as “dogs” and “swine,” and to speak in parables so they would not understand and be forgiven.

It is Mohammad, being mercy to all creatures/nations, as he demonstrated, is the one who loves “us.” Mohammad forgave thousands of his captives upon his victory at Makkah; Jesus had no captives to forgive. Jesus never prayed for the forgiveness of the deceased: he tells people to let their dead bury the dead–(Matt; 8:22. Jesus raising Lazarus is not “praying” for him–John 11:41-44). Mohammad not only prayed for the deceased Muslim, but prayed for the idolater; saying : “if I knew that if I asked forgiveness for him more than seventy times, he would be forgiven, I would ask it for more times than that”–(Qur’an 9:84, 113. Bokhari Vol. 6, # 193, 194). Such is the expanse of the mercy and magnanimity of this wonderful man Mohammad.

   There is none in history to equal Mohammad’s love, mercy, tolerance, and forgiveness. There never will be.

   The expanse of Allāh’s love, mercy, and compassion is molded in one compact statement:

“Say: O My servants who have sinned
against their souls,
despair not of the mercy of Allāh;
surely Allāh forgives sins altogether.
He is indeed the Forgiving, the Merciful”
(Qur’an 14:10; 39:53).

It is Islam that is the “Religion of Love”

Mohammad and the Beauty Contestant3: (Regarding the Miss World Beauty Pageant of December 2002, one Nigerian paper is reported to have “speculated” that the Prophet Mohammad “would likely” have taken one of the beauty contestants as “his wife.” Wonder if the writer had thought that perhaps Jesus, or Moses, or Solomon “would likely” have taken one of the contestants as “his wife.” Seems that after more than 1400 years, Christians are ever obsessed with Mohammad’s “particularly active sex life”).

   “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”4.

   Islam extricated Woman from the pit of degradation in which Paganism, Hinduism, Judaism, and Christian had her mired in and sat her aloft on the pinnacle of honor.

   The teachings of Islam that Woman is of the same essence as man, is his garment as he is hers, has the same rights on him as he has on her, that she has three degrees of excellence over man, and is the symbol of purity and the gateway to Paradise, is the most highly decorated crown Woman can have.

   If Mohammad would have married a World Beauty Contestant

Mohammad would not only have
been capable enough to husband
a World Beauty Contestant,
he would have rendered to her
the supreme and invaluable service
of robing her a Muslim.

(That the Bible/Christianity ameliorates the lot of woman is fanciful. Whereas Allāh says that He created women to be our mates and has put love and compassion between us, and that men and women are friends and protectors of the other, Christianity says that man was not created for the woman but that woman was created for the man: “Neither was the man created for the woman; BUT THE WOMAN FOR THE MAN–(1 Cor. 11:9). And that woman is an object for sex: “It is GOOD for a MAN NOT TO TOUCH A WOMAN. Nevertheless, TO AVOID FORNICATION, let every man have his own wife”–(1 Cor 7:1-2).

Christianity condemns Woman to a life of subjection to her husband: “Unto the woman He (God) said ….thy desire shall be to THY HUSBAND, and HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE”–(Gen. 3:16).

Christianity condemns woman as the transgressor: “And Adam was not deceived BUT THE WOMAN BEING DECEIVED WAS IN THE TRANSGRESSION”–(1 Tim. 2:14. Allāh tells us that both Adam and Eve were deceived; and that they were forgiven–Qur’an 2:36-37; 20:115-122).

Christianity sells woman into bondage: “And if a man SELL HIS DAUGHTER to be a maidservant”–(Exod. 21:7)

Christianity says that only man is the glory of God: “he is the IMAGE AND GLORY OF GOD: but the WOMAN IS THE GLORY OF THE MAN. For the man is NOT of the woman; but the WOMAN OF THE MAN”; “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”–(1 Cor. 11:7-9). But Allāh tells us man and woman were created from the same essence and for the other–Qur’an 4:1; 30:21; has estab-lished marriage between them–25:54; 16:72; 24:32; has put love and compassion between them, and that she is a source of peace and comfort–7:189; 30:21; that they are friends and garments to the other (to protect, comfort, beautify, and conceal faults)–9:71; 2:187; and that they have mutual rights on the other–2:228).

Christianity demands that wives submit to their hus-bands, and reverence their husbands as they reverence God: “WIVES, SUBMIT YOURSELVES UNTO YOUR OWN HUSBANDS, AS UNTO THE LORD” “As the Church is subject unto Christ, SO LET THE WIVES BE TO THEIR OWN HUSBANDS IN EVERY THING” – “And the wife see that SHE REVERENCE HER HUSBAND”–(Ephesians 5:22-23, 33).

Christianity mandates that servants obey their masters as they obey Christ (there are no provisions for their emancipation): “Servants, be OBEDIENT to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with FEAR AND TREMBLING, in singleness of your heart, AS UNTO CHRIST”– “Servants OBEY IN ALL THINGS your masters, according to the flesh, not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God” –(Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22).

Christianity demands that wives learn in silence and subjection: “Let the woman learn in SILENCE with ALL SUBJECTION. But I suffer not a woman TO TEACH, NOR TO USURP AUTHORITY OVER THE MAN but to be IN SILENCE–(1 Tim. 2:11-12);

And here is the classic woman-hater. Christianity condemns woman as the “DEFILER” of men. Speaking about the 144, 000 who will sit with Jesus (who will be JEWS–non-Jews note well–and will all be MEN) the Bible says: “but the hundred and forty and four thou-sand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were NOT DEFILED WITH WOMEN; for they are VIRGINS”–(Rev: 14:3-4. This is the lunacy Christians are clamoring to enthrone above Islam; and praying for Muslims and the world to accept. God created man and woman to “fill the earth” and instilled in them passions for companionship to effect this; but Christians view this Divine scheme as sacrilege.).

Surely, to place women in subjection and bondage, to view her as an object of sex, as the transgressor and as ‘defiler of men’ are not expressions of “love.” And Christ as he declared, came NOT TO CHANGE THE LAW but TO FULFIL IT–(Matt. 5:17). (See Christianity-women).

As stated, Christianity which relegates woman and daughter to servility and bondage, enslaves heathens, views non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine,” establishes woman as “transgressor’ and “defiler” of man, and speaks in parables to keep non-Jews in darkness and destruction is not a religion of “love” but a religion of naked hatred of women and non-Jews.

As stated, whatever lofty status the Christian Woman is enjoying is due only to the dictates of modern culture. Whereas, as already pointed out, Islam has ennobled Woman, liberated her, and given her rights unparalleled in the history of religions. She has nothing more for which to strive.

Islam is the Great Liberator of Woman!
Islam is the only Liberator Woman has known!

Allāh–a different God from the God of Christians 5: That Allāh is not the same God as that of Christians, in one respect this is an accurate view. Allāh is the God Who was not in the womb and came out the vagina; Allāh is the God Who does not need “some satisfaction” to forgive sins; Allāh is the God Who does not use a scapegoat (Jesus) to give sinners a free ride into Paradise. The Christian’s God is not only incomparable to the Merciful God of Muslims, the Christian’s God is even mercy-less than the Hindu God. Whereas the God of karma and reincarnation gives one exactly what his deeds merit: ‘an equal and opposite reaction;’ the God of inherited sin and vicarious atonement is doubly unjust: loading the sin of one man (Adam) onto the backs of all men (even onto the still-born) then shifting the sins of all men onto the head of one innocent and sinless man (Jesus). A devilish, despicable scheme.  

That Allāh is the same God of the (original) Bible, ‘Abdul Ahad Dawud (the former Rev. David Benjamin Keldani) ex-plains in his Muhammad In The Bible: “If the Christian priests and theologians knew their Scriptures in the original Hebrew instead of in translations as the Muslims read their Qur’an in its Arabic text, they would clearly see that Allāh is the same ancient Semitic name of the Supreme Being who revealed and spoke to Adam and all the prophets”–(pp. 12-13). The Qur’an speaks of hundreds of prophets–seeing that Allāh raised up prophets among all peoples–(4:164; 10:47; 16:36)–though only a few are named.

   As Christians believe Jesus is God, it is Christians that do not worship the God of Abraham. Christians and Jews use the same Old Testament. If Allāh is a different God from that of Christians because Muslims do not accept Jesus as God or son of God, Christians may as well throw their Bibles into the fire, because Jews not only reject Jesus as God, son of God, and prophet of God but regard him as “bastard,” and regard his mother, Mary–the Christian’s Mother of God–as “adulteress.” (The Prophet Mohammad repudiated these “Jewish calumnies”).

Islam–“a very evil and wicked” religion6. If violent acts by some Muslims make Islam a “very evil” and “wicked” religion, then, for its followers who were Crusaders, Colonialists, and Fascists Christianity is the most violent, “very evil” and “wick-ed” religion: having colored Jerusalem red with the blood of Jews and Muslims; instituted Inquisitions; “massacred” Ethiopia; savaged Libya; slaughtered one another in World War II; killed “six million” Jews; decimated the natives; enslaved the Africans; slaughtered Bosnians and Kosovars; massacred Protestants on St. Bartholomew’s Day; ravaged the intellectuals–Galileo, Bruno, Hypatia and Vanini–and committed “sexual abuse” of children.

   Islam which teaches that all men are created equal (Qur’an 95:4), we are made into different tribes and nations that we may know one another (49:13), we are to be judged not by our race, color or nationality but by our deeds (6:133), the noblest ones are those who are righteous (49:13, 98:7), to return evil with that which is better–(23:96), because Allāh God loves the just, and because Allāh is aware of what you do (5:45, 4:135)–could not be a “very evil and wicked religion.”

   Islam, the religion that stands on the firmament of peace and goodness, could not be a very “evil and wicked religion.” In fact, Jesus’ teaching can be shown to be very “evil and wicked;” only a few of his teachings need mentioning:

   (1) Jesus demands: “those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me”–(Luke 19:27). If such a decree was to be implemented, given that about eighty percent of the world does not believe Jesus to be God, Son of God, and vicarious atoner, and presumably would oppose his rule under such dictates, some four billion people today would have to be slain.

   (2) Jesus instructs: “Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison” –(Matt. 5:25). So if a Christian’s adversary has the option of sending him to prison, threatens him to agree with him to frame an innocent person for murder, the Christian is to “agree” with his adversary “quickly” and send this innocent person to the gallows. Those Christian nations that feared Hitler and even supported the Germans, were only following Jesus’ precept to “agree” with their “adversary”. And those Christian individuals that handed over the Jews to be exterminated, should be honored for obeying Jesus’ instructions to “agree” with their adversary “quickly”. (A doctrine that encourages supporting evil for self-protection could not be one of truth and justice).

   (3) Jesus regarded Gentiles as “dogs” and “swine”–(Matt. 7:6, 15:26); and he says: “He that is not with me is against me” (sounds familiar today?)–(Matt. 12:30)–here we have people, who are the “image” of God, some of whom may be God-fearing and otherwise humanitarian, are insulted because of their nationality. Jesus excludes them from his circle as being “dogs” and “swine,” then he expects them to be with him; and when they are not with him, not by choice but by rejection, they are further castigated as being “against” him–they are forced to be against him and are then charged as being “against” him (talk about being victim of a vicious circle: a real “catch 22”). That a person “is not” with Jesus does not necessarily mean that that person is “against” him. There are perhaps millions–atheists, for example–who do not believe in Jesus as a man from God, yet they are not against him (in the sense that they would ridicule him). A person or country can be neutral. As noted above, Jesus required that his enemies be brought to him and slain–(Luke 19:27). If such a view – “He that is not with me is against me”–was to be implemented, the Jews, of whom the majority do not believe in him, as well as the atheists who do not believe in him, and are not allowing his rule, these would logically be considered as being “against” him and thus, his “enemies;” and since Jesus directed that all his “enemies” be slain, the Jews and atheists would all have to be slain. Add Muslims, who would not submit to his rule as God/son of God, to this bizarre list and the earth will be rivers of blood of some two billion people, or more.

   (4) Devils about to be exorcised by Jesus request that they be cast into “an herd of many swine feeding;” Jesus obliged the devils, “and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters”–(Matt. 8:28-33)–here, Jesus not only showed disregard for the property (the swine) of the swine herders, but caused the death of dumb, innocent animals. (Not to mention the wholesale slaughtering in the Old Testament, which is an inheritance of Christians, where not even the “ass” was spared from “the edge of the sword”–Joshua 6:21. And as Jesus is claimed to be “God,” Jesus could hardly then be eulogized as Prince of Peace, a “ransom” for sins and meek and mild.

(The above is not to deride Jesus; but to dispel myths and misconceptions about Islam, and, seemingly, bigotry).

   It is Christianity that is the “evil and wicked religion.” Christianity -Trinity, inherited sin and vicarious atonement- has no Divine foundation, no prophetic foundation, no logical foundation, and are repugnant to reason; Christianity is evil, intolerant, and backward; Christians lie on God, lie on Jesus, they blame the Devil. (See Christianity-a fakeChristianity-lies, evil, hateJesus-inherited sin to ascension).

Islam–can become theologically evil 7: ““Islam becomes theologically evil when its leaders do not give those they control the liberty to explore for themselves the truth about God.””

(It is doubtful that Christian shepherds give the flocks they control “the liberty to explore for themselves the truth about God,” but rather require their sheep to follow Church dogmas without question.

   Significantly, Pope Benedict XVI, to appease Jewish objection, “ordered” Bishop Richard Williamson to recant his anti-holocaust statement: the Bishop is reported as saying, ““I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against –is hugely against– 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolph Hitler…I believe there were no gas chambers.””a [Notably, the Bishop believes “historical evidence” is against the popular view on the holocaust”]. The Bishop is also reported as saying that “only 200,000 to 300,000 Jews were killed during the war and that none had been gassed.”b

   If Christians are not allowed to have (and voice) their views on secular matters consider how much more they would be restricted in Divine matters (especially those that oppose Christian teachings).

   On a secular note, rather than the Pope trying to shut the Bishop up, the civilized and intelligent (and democratic) approach would be to have the Bishop substantiate his views; as well as those who claim that “6 million Jews” were gassed to provide their proof and let the public decide who is truthful and who is liar).

That “Islam becomes theologically evil when its leaders do not give those they control the liberty to explore for themselves the truth about God.”

   Muslims have the Qur’an and Sunnah of the Prophet “to explore for themselves the truth about God.” Leaders can bondage the body of the people but not the mind. Islam which teaches not to rob men of their dues (Qur’an 26:183); to deal justly (2:279, 5:8); give justice against self, parents, kins, poor or rich (4:135; 4:58; 5:8); not to act corruptly or make mischief (26:183); not to help in sin, nor incite transgression (5:2); instead of retaliation reconcile, be patient and forgive (42:39-43; 24:22; 3:133); men are created equal, the noblest being the righteous (4:1; 95:4; 49:13, 98:7); return evil with better (23:96); for Allāh loves the doer of good and the dutiful (2:195; 3:75)–cannot become “theologically evil.”

   But Christianity that destines woman to servility–(Gen. 3:16; 1Tim. 2:11); frames her as transgressor and defiler of man–(1 Tim. 2:14; Rev. 14:4); makes her wife “to avoid fornication”–(1 Cor. 7:2); enslaves “heathen”–(Lev.25:44); bondage daughters –(Ex. 21:7); regards disagreers as enemies–(Matt. 12:30); slay opposers to rulership–(Luke 19:27); and speak in parables lest Gentiles be forgiven and saved–(Mark 4:11-12), is “theologically evil.”    

   Regarding the First World War, Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din points out:

“Though the war was engrossing enough to claim all at-tention, yet the general slaughter and sanguinary devastations of humanity aroused, in many a mind, feelings of hatred and contempt towards certain portions of the Church service. This human slaughter was, after all, only a materialization of some of the Psalms which are sung in the Church, and which form a part of the Book of Common Prayer. It aroused a spirit of revolt in many quarters against the inclusion of such Psalms in the Prayer Book; clergy and laity alike made strenuous demands that these Psalms be expunged from the Prayer Book. …The committee lately formed for that purpose, in order to bring it up to modern requirements, have proposed the introduction of some new prayers–one for industrial peace, one for election time, one for troubled consciences, one for good weather; in addition to which six of the Ten Commandments have been shortened. And what is the process by which these revisions and additions are to become part and parcel of Christianity? They have to pass through the House of the Bishops, the House of Clergy, the House of Laity, and finally to receive Parliamentary sanction, when they will attain full-fledged religious sanctity. This is how religion is coined in the West. Manufactured in the human mint, it is stamped with Divine authority. Such has been the history of Christianity all along. A thing of human origin, it has failed to stand the test of time and experience, and has, of necessity, had to change its form from time to time, to readjust itself to changed conditions.” 8                    

It is Christianity that can, and did, become “theologically evil.”          

Islam–a violent religion 9: Islam, rooted in peace and submission to God, and which teaches not to take a greater recompense than the injury suffered (Qur’an 2:194; 16:126; 42: 40); instead of retaliation reconcile, be patient and forgive (42:39-43; 24: 22; 3:133); to return evil with better (23:96); to be merciful and forgiving (3:133); to fight only as long as there is persecution (2:193), and to make peace when the enemy desires (4:90; 8:61); for Allāh loves the doer of good, and the dutiful (2:195, 3:75)–could not be a “violent” religion.

   But Christianity that declares it came “not to send peace, but a sword”–(Matt. 10:34); instruct followers to sell garments and buy swords–(Luke 22:36); view opposers as enemies–(Matt. 12:30); and orders that enemies be slain–(Luke 19:27)–is a “violent” religion.

   Can Christians be “loyal” to God (to truth and justice?) In Matthew 5:25 Jesus taught his followers to: “Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.” It is doubtful that one who would “agree” with his “adversary” in unjust act(s) or situation(s) to save himself from being impri-soned could be “loyal” to truth and justice.

   God commands in the Bible: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”–(Exodus 20:16); and Jesus says to “agree with thine adversary quickly” (which may include bearing false witness against your neighbor) lest “thou be cast into prison.”   Christians would then be in a dilemma in such a situation with an adversary, whether to abide by Jesus’ teaching to “agree with thine adversary” and bear false witness, or to obey God’s com-mand and be “loyal” to truth and justice (not to bear false witness). (If Jesus is God, as some Christians believe, God/Jesus is giving contradictory instructions).

   A Christian’s Confession (of murder) to his priest is held to be confidential; yet God says that the killer is to be executed–(Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:12). This confidentiality is not in keeping with God’s decree that the killer be executed.

   Can Christian then be loyal to God? Clearly not.          

   The religion whose followers cannot be loyal to God is the religion that can be a “violent religion.”

Allāh requires Muslims to send their sons “to die” for Him, whereas the God of Christianity sends His son to die for you10:

   Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din notes in his excellent book Open Letters To The Bishops Of Salisbury & London:

“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. 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 the Immaculate Conception elevate motherhood.” (p. 71).

   (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/her behind).     

   Allāh is Omnipotent, Omniscient and Owner of the heavens and earth and everything within. There is nothing man can do to benefit God. Muslims give their lives in the service of Allāh, God. Allāh does not need the sons of Islam to die for Him; only that these sons are to be fearless Davids of honor against the cowardly Goliaths of injustice. Allāh does not need human blood (or animal’s) in order to forgive sins as Christianity does. That Jesus died for sins is, as shown, a colossal myth.

   The God that would “send” an innocent person “to die” –to be scape-goat– for sinners is a cruel and unjust God. Allāh, God, is “gracious and merciful” (expressed at least 113 times in the Qur’an, at the beginning of every chapter, except the ninth).   It is the nature of Allāh, God, to be merciful: He has ordained mercy on Himself–(Qur’an 6:12); His mercy encompasses all things–(Qur’an 7:156); and He instructs His last and final Prophet, Mohammad to inform all men–(Qur’an 39:53):

“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”

   Allāh, the God –the Creator, Nourisher and Sustainer of all– Who addresses His servants in such noble, loving and com-passionate words hardly needs any reflecting on to grasp the expanse of His love and mercy and compassion. Allāh is the God of mercy and forgiveness, the God Who forgives without the need for any “satisfaction.” Allāh is so merciful that instead of punishing man (or an innocent one) for his sins, He invites man to forgive him those sins–(Qur’an 14:10) and rewards him for every good deed up to seven hundredfold–(Bokhari, Vol. 1, ch. 32; and # 40).

   Compare Allāh to the God that requires some “satisfaction”–the crucifying of an innocent man–in order to forgive sins. Such a God is devoid of mercy and forgiveness. In fact, the God of vicarious atonement is poorer in mercy than the God of karma, Who gives to sinners an equal and opposite reaction–though devoid of mercy and forgiveness, He does not need to be ap-peased, nor yet punish the innocent for the sinners. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din points out in his Open Letters To The Bishops Of Salisbury & London:

“Jesus was the last of the series, brought on the pagan altar to popularize Christianity amongst the pagan world.  The period of God-Incarnate is over. Christianity has proved the last chapter in the history of the Mystery cult. But a very poor one. The former cults had the beauty of originality in conception, the nicety of the flight of imagination. But the Church aped the old cult most slavishly and boorishly. She went so far as to steal word by word the whole pagan terminology. Almost all the names given to Jesus in the Church theology have been taken from the same source(Khwaja has noted in his book The Sources of Christianity some of these names, such as “God’s First Begotten Son, the Intermediary between God and man;” “The Good Shepherd;” “The Bread of Life;” “Seated next to God;” etc, p. 78). The Alpha and Omega of Bacchus was put into the mouth of Jesus to suit the theory of Logos–another piece of literary larceny from Philo and others of the Alexandrian philosophy. The Qur’an exposed it at a time when no other suspected it. It said: “The Christian says the Messiah is the son of God; these are the words of their mouth; they imitate the sayings of those who were pagan before; Allah destroyed them, now they are turned away” (Qur’an 9:30). Yes, God destroyed paganism through His Messengers, of whom Jesus was one, but it lived again through his followers; and lo! those who gave the name “heathens” to others became the same themselves.” (pp. 25-26).

Mary was not the consort of God
so that her son, Jesus, should be son of God.

   To beget is to procreate. Those who ascribe the act of begetting to God–(John 3:16)–are ascribing the act of procreation to God. To ascribe the act of procreation to God –moreover with a mortal whom He created– is blasphemy. Jesus says in Mark 3:29:

“he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost
hath never forgiveness,
but is in danger of eternal damnation”

   Allah, the God Who is so just and merciful as to invite us to forgive us our sins without need for any “satisfaction” would not punish an innocent man for the sins of others; much less would He require human blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Abdul Haque Vidyarthi notes:            

“The doctrine of the trinity was first introduced into the Christian church by a clergyman of Antioch named Theophilus. The doctrine so taught by that clergyman, and which since has been followed by others, is in brief, that there are three gods in one, to wit, God the Father, God the son, and God the holy ghost, all three in power, substance and eternity.”

“The clergy have ever held to this senseless God-dishonouring doctrine. … If you ask a clergyman what is meant by the trinity he says: “That is mystery.” He does not know, and no one else knows, because it is false. Never was there a more deceptive doctrine advanced than that of the trinity.”

“It is a noticeable fact that in the church system the name of Jesus has been made more prominent than that of Jehovah God. The clergy have induced the people to pray to Mary the mother of Jesus and to worship her, thus giving woman honour equal with God. The names of Mary and Jesus are more often mentioned in the ecclesiastical systems than that of Jehovah God.”11

   Catholics say Jesus is God but Jehovah’s Witnesses say Jesus is only the son of God. Most Christians say that Jesus died for inherited sin but the Mormons say Jesus died only for committed sin. Yet Christians want everyone to follow Jesus. How can people follow Jesus when his followers themselves do not know whether he is God or only son of God, and whether he died for inherited sin or for committed sin? How can anyone follow such doctrines that has no Divine foundation, no prophetic foundation, no logical foundation, and are repugnant to reason? How can any one follow a man/religion of such vague status? Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din points out in his revealing book, The Sources of Christianity:

“the religion now passing under the name of Jesus was never taught by him. Even the words of Jesus reported in the Gospel conform to this Qur’anic truth (that Jesus would deny any claim to Divinity, Qur’an 5:116-117, shown further on). He never claimed to be God. He would not allow his followers to be called after his name –the name “Christian” was taken in the third century in the Council at Nice. He observed all the laws given through Moses and the patriarch of the house of Jacob.

If we study the Gospel without reference to the writings of St. Paul, the words of Jesus do not substantiate the teaching of his Church to-day.”

“The deliberators of the Cambridge Conference of 1918 came to the same conclusion. They could not see the hand of Jesus in the superstructure of the Church so erected by St. Paul and his followers.”(pp. 15, 16).

   Allāh, God, admonishes Christians in the Qur’an 4:171:

“O People of the Book, exceed not the limits
in your religion nor speak anything about
Allah, but the truth.
The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is only
a messenger of Allah and His word which
He communicated to Mary and a mercy
from Him. So believe in Allah and
His messengers.
And say not, Three (Trinity).
Desist, it is better for you.
Allah is only one God.
Far be it from His glory to have a son.
To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens
and whatever is in the earth.
And sufficient is Allah as having charge
of affairs”

   Christians are entombing the God Incarnate. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din wrote:

“According to Modernism “we must absolutely jettison the traditional doctrine that Christ’s personality was not human, but Divine…” Elsewhere we are told that Jesus believed in the Divinity of all men. The proposition here propounded appears to be that all men are Divine; Jesus is a man, therefore Jesus is Divine. He shares the Divinity of the race because he is human.”

   “Imbue yourselves with Divine attributes,” said the Last Teacher of Islam, and he made this dictum the watchword for moulding our lives on Islamic lines. We Muslims, no doubt, avoid words like “Incarnation” in our theology, inasmuch as they are misleading and tend to encourage polytheistic tendencies, but we believe in the infusion of moral influence by the Deity into men. We look to every man as a potential manifestation of God. The Divine influence is a universal dispensation! Every human being can become its recipient. …. Thus it will appear that the Modernists are casting their belief in the Islamic mould.”

   “Modernism has acquired a remarkable ascendancy in Germany. It has claimed the pick of the culture and ability of the Anglican Church. America is welcoming it, and in no long time it will rule Christendom. The traditional Christianity then will stand corrected of its biggest blunder. But the credit of the correction will go to Islam. To-day it is an established verity that Church theology was only an assimilation of Paganism; what an irony of fate, that those who called others heathens should have turned out to be heathens themselves in their beliefs! But the Qur’an was the first to point it out to the world, when it said: “…and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; Allah destroyed them; how they are turned away”–(Qur’an 9:30).”                                                                          

   “To-day, the Christian world has begun to realize that Jesus was only a man and one of the Chosen Ones of God who, from time to time have exhibited the Divine influence in the mould of their character; and the Qur’an said the same some thirteen hundred years ago: “The Messiah, son of Mary, is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away”–(Qur’an 5:75).”

   “The last Conference of Modernism (August, 1925) has dealt its final blow to the Church dogmas in rejecting the theory of “sin in nature,” inasmuch as the doctrine of “sin by heritage” is the very bed-rock of the Church faith, and if it is rejected, its sequel–the Doctrine of Atonement, the Grace of the Blood, the Divinity of Jesus –must, ipso facto, go too. And in this respect….here again Islam was the first to deny the Christian doctrine, when it said that every child, when born, comes into the world with a pure and untainted nature.

   They must be on a fool’s errand who seek to induce us to accept things rejected by their best men, and to reject those doctrines now accepted by their intellectually ad-vanced people.

This all reminds me of Canon Gairdner’s remark: “Islam is the only one (religion) that definitely claimed to correct, complete and supersede Christianity.””12

   Jesus commanded his followers to follow the Comforter, the one to give “all truth.” The Qur’an is the indisputable proof that Mohammad is the Comforter. The Good News of Jesus is the coming of the Prophet Mohammad, who will guide mankind into “all truth.”

     “Praise be to Allah! Who revealed the
Book (Qur’an) to His servant (Mohammad),
and allowed not therein any crookedness,
Rightly directing to give warning of severe
Punishment from Him and to give good news
to the believers who do good that theirs
is a goodly reward, Staying in it for ever;
And to warn those who say:
Allah has taken to Himself a son.
They have no knowledge of it, nor had their fathers.
Grievous is the word that comes out of their mouths.
They speak nothing but a lie.”
(Qur’an 18:1-5).

   Jesus prophesied and Allāh, God, confirms:

“Many will say to me (Jesus) in that day,
Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?
and in thy name have cast out devils?
And in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then I (Jesus) will profess unto them,
I never knew you:
depart from me, ye that work iniquity
(Matt. 7:22-23)

“And when Allah will say: O Jesus, son of Mary,
didst thou say to men, Take me and my mother
for two gods besides Allah?
He (Jesus) will say: Glory be to Thee!
It was not for me to say what I had no right to (say).
If I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it.
Thou knowest what is in my mind,
and I know not what is in Thy mind.
Surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen.
I said to them naught save as Thou didst command me:
Serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord;
(see Mark 12:29)
and I was a witness of them so long as I was among
them, but when Thou didst cause me to die
Thou wast the Watcher over them.
And Thou art Witness of all things”
(Qur’an 5:116-117)

“The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a
messenger; messengers before him had indeed
passed away.
And his mother was a truthful woman.
They both used to eat food.
See how We make the messages clear to them!
then behold, how they are turned away”
(Qur’an 5:75)

“Surely whoever associates (others) with Allāh,
Allāh has forbidden to him the Garden
and his abode is the Fire.
And for the wrongdoers there will be
no helpers”
(Qur’an 5:72)

(As they make the difference between Hell and Heaven, doctrines such as karma, reincarnation, Divine sonship, inherited sin and vicarious atonement that are articles of faith are to be clearly expressed, they are not to be left to the function of interpretations).

~

Danish cartoons: The Prophet Mohammad is cartooned in a Danish paper–Jyllands-Posten–as terrorist; devil; etc; (noted below), and at heaven’s gate telling “suicide bombers”: “Stop. Stop. We have run out of virgins.”

Bomb-shaped turban13: Mohammad unleashed the bomb 1400 years ago: the bomb of Knowledge, Truth, Wisdom, Reason, Peace, Love, Hope, Mercy, and Justice. And its “cloud” of intellect is spreading inexorably across the globe. With the wise of all colors and on various rung of the economic ladder rushing for refuge under its glorious and eternal shade.

Wielding sword 14: The only sword Mohammad wielded was the sword of defense and justice. Contrast Mohammad’s “sword” with those of Biblical Fathers, and present-day nations that take up swords for aggression, occupation, and exploitation.

Crazed knife-wielder 15: This “crazed” Bedouin has presented the world with a Book–the Qur’an–unrivaled in the history of religions and demonstrated the highest act of mercy to enemies that is yet to be equaled by the most sane cartoonist and states-man. The world sorely needs this “crazed” Bedouin.

Heaven out of virgins 16: (This might have been a chuckler if it wasn’t inane). As Allāh is Omniscient and Creator of what He wills heaven can never be out of “virgins.” In response to this cartoon one may have reposted: URGENT! MARTYRS SORELY NEEDED! 1000’s OF VIRGINS WAITING! 

Mohammad–sprouting horns17: There is nothing in Islam glorifying evil. Mohammad who informs us that Allāh has cursed the devil–(Qur’an 4:117-118; 15:32-35); the devil is our enemy–(35:6); and to seek Allāh’s protection from the devil–(16:98), could not be a “devil.” To depict Mohammad as “devil” is infantile.

What would Mohammad drive? 18. One cartoonist depicted the Prophet as driving a Ryder rental truck similar to the one used by Timothy McVeigh, the convicted Oklahoma City bomber, under the headline: “What would Muhammad Drive?”

   Allāh created everything for our use; and for Muslims to fight injustice. In his battle against the perpetrators of injustice Mohammad, likely, would have driven whatever was available. Mohammad was no terrorist!

   “In America we don’t apologize for opinions,” the paper notes this cartoonist as saying. Whereas one should not apologize for speaking the truth or buckle under bullying, opinions are to be grounded on facts and reason.

   The paper also notes this cartoonist as having received “threats” (from Muslims) and “death threats” (probably for anti-Christian cartoon[s]). Wonder if this cartoonist would consider himself a terrorist, or agree with others ‘opinion’ that he was a terrorist, for vanquishing those who threatened him before they could carry out their “threats” and “death threats?” (His leader would probably call his acts ‘pre-emptive’ strikes).

   In the Middle East, Muslim newspapers may lampoon Jews and Christians; but don’t Christian and Jewish publications lampoon Muslims and Arabs?

   Middle-eastern newspapers may carry cartoons about Christians and Jews; but can anyone show of any such Middle-eastern newspapers lampooning Moses and Jesus or any other Biblical figures?

   The umbrella of “freedom of speech” and “satire” does not cover libel. Satire and freedom of speech must be grounded on facts.

*

NOTES

1. Jerry Falwell, The Tor; Star Tuesday; October 8, 2002, Kashmir shelling kills four, by Pawel Kopczynski and Terry Friel, p. A10.

2. Ibid;

3. Regarding the Miss World Beauty Pageant of December 2002, a Nigerian newspaper “speculated” that the  Prophet Mohammad “would likely” have taken one of the beauty contestants as “his wife.”

4. Open Letters to the Bishops of Salisbury & London, p. 71.

5. Rev. Franklin Graham, The Toronto Star Thursday, Nov; 29, 2001, Christian Allies Attack Islam, p. A21.

6. Ibid.

7. Marvin Olasky, The Toronto Star Thursday, November 29, 2001, Christian Allies Attack Islam, p. A21.

          a Toronto Star, Saturday, February 14, 2009. Stuart Laidlaw,  Priest cites, ‘misunderstanding,’ p. A 23.

           b Toronto Star, Thursday February 5, 2009, Nicole Winfield, Bishop ordered to recant Holocaust denials, p. A 10.

8. The Sources Of Christianity, pp.7-8. Italics/Emphasis added.  

9. Robertson, Pat, The Tor; Star, Thurs; Oct; 10, 2002;  World still wary of Bush….; Haroon Siddiqui, p. A31.

10. John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney-General, Ibid.

11. Abdul Haque Vidyarthi, Muhammad in World Scriptures,  Three quotes, pp. 312, 313, 314. AHV quotes from “J.F. Rutherford, the Founder of the Watch Tower Society,”  “The creed of the Church of England” and what seems to be Ency. Brit. 11th Edn.  

12. Open Letters to the Bishops of Salisbury & London, Five quotes pp. 13 footnote, 14, 15, 16.      

13. Toronto Star, Thursday, Feb; 2, 2006; Denmark embroiled in….; Haroon Siddiqui; p. A17.

14. Ibid,

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. Toronto Star, Friday, Feb; 3, 2006, Rights, religion clash….; Stuart Laidlaw; p. A1.

18. Toronto Star, Friday, February 3, 2006; Cartoonist:  We don’t apologize for opinions, by Francine Kopun, p.A4.