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.
COPTIC CHRISTIANS IN EGYPT
1. Nonie Darwish opines in her book Now They Call Me Infidel: “Historically speaking, Copts (Coptic Christians) could be considered more authentically Egyptian than Muslims, because they were the ones who resisted forced conversion when the Arabs invaded Egypt in the seventh century. Nevertheless, Copts endured a second-class citizenship and derogative names.” And that Egyptian Muslims are “describing Christian Egyptian Copts” as nagass “meaning “filthy” or “dirty.”(pp. 38; 135-136).
Who are the Copts (Coptic Christians) also known as Jacobites? The Copts is a group of Christians that believed in Jesus as being “Monophysite,” i.e. “the doctrine that Christ is not “in two natures” (human and divine), but is “one nature out of two natures.”” The Copts are called Jacobites because “Jacob Baradaeus, bishop of Edessa (died 578), was instrumental in organizing their community; hence, they have been termed Jacobites.”1
1. Nagass: That Egyptian Muslims are calling Copts “nagass,” “filthy” or “dirty.” There are three kinds of uncleanness:
(1) ceremonial uncleanness, such as having bodily matters (urine and feces) on the skin and clothes, which Muslims are to avoid; and are to tissue and wash (if water is available) after a bladder and bowel movement;
(2) moral uncleanness, such as illicit relations, theft and robbery (whether in business matters or otherwise), etc;
(3) spiritual uncleanness, such as teaching or attributing to God doctrines which God did not reveal.
Perhaps in calling Copts “nagass” Egyptian Muslims are referring to ceremonial uncleanness because they are aware that Copts tissue only; that they are unwashed.
Or perhaps Egyptian Muslims are referring to spiritual uncleanness:
-to say that God loaded Adam’s/Eve’s sin onto every person (even the babe that just came out the womb) and then loads everyone’s sins onto Jesus is to attribute injustice to God (inherited sin);
-to say that God had Jesus killed (as a scape-goat) for everyone’s sins is to make God complicit in murder (vicarious atonement), giving God a son –which is an “abominable assertion,” attributing to His Eternal Grace the function of sexual intercourse, as fatherhood/begetting requires the union of sperm and ovum, and as Jesus is said to “begotten” son of God which is such a heinous sin that “The heavens may almost be rent thereat, and the earth cleave asunder, and the mountains fall down to pieces, that they ascribe a son to the Beneficent”–(Qur’an 19:88-90)
-to put God in the womb of a woman and bring Him out her vagina (trinity) are falsehood and blasphemies; and as such are spiritual uncleanness.
(Don’t Christians consider the “heathen” –one that does not accept the Biblical God– to be spiritually unclean? Don’t Christians consider as “infidel” one who does not follow the Christian religion?
In fact according to the Bible, and as Christians say Jesus is God, then Jesus commands that those who worship others than the God of the Bible are to be killed:
Those who “secretly” entice another to follow an unknown God are to be stoned to death: “And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt….If thy brother…entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers…thou shalt surely kill him”–Deut; 13:5-16. “If there be found among you…man or woman….And hath gone and served other gods, and worshiped them, either the sun or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded …Then thou shalt bring forth that man or that woman…and shalt stone them with stones, till they die”–Deut; 17:2-5).
Allāh the Omniscient revealed–(Qur’an 9:30) and research has proven that the Christian’s doctrine of ‘son of God’ is paganism. As Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din states in his revealing work The Sources Of Christianity: “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!” (pp. 14-25).
Thus, in calling Christian Copts “nagass” perhaps the Egyptian Muslims are referring to either or both instances of uncleanness –ceremonial or/and spiritual. Ask them. Incidentally, it is said that cleanliness is next to Godliness.
2. About Nonie Darwish’s claim that Coptic Christians resisted “forced” conversion is nonsensical on the face of it.
How could Coptic Christians have “resisted” “forced” conversion and yet be in Egypt? They would have been banished or put to the sword, as Christian conquerors put to the sword those who refused to be subservient to the useless and unGodly crucifix; or in the case of the Viennese Jews of the 1400’s, fed to the fire.
Christians suffered and also lived under security and prospered under Muslim rule: “Living under this security of life and property and such toleration of religious thought, the Christian community –especially in the towns– enjoyed a flourishing prosperi-ty in the early days of the Caliphate.”2
Christians held public offices including in the “department of finance;” “the Christians frequently amassed great wealth and were much honoured in the house of the great;” Muslims also “permitted the Copts to erect churches in the new capital of Cairo.” The “non-Muslim communities enjoyed an almost com-plete autonomy.” In fact, Muslims were so tolerant of Christians that Muslims even prevented Christians from persecuting one another.
“In the fifth century, Barsauma, a NESTORIAN BISHOP, had persuaded the Persian king to set on foot a FIERCE PERSECUTION OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH, by represent-ing Nestorius as a friend of the Persians and his doc-trines as approximating to their own: as many as 7,800 of the orthodox clergy, with an enormous number of laymen, are said to have been BUTCHERED DURING THIS PERSECUTION. Another PERSECUTION was instituted against the ORTHODOX by Khusrau II, after the invasion of Persia by Heraclius, at the instigation of a JACOBITE, who persuaded the King that the Orthodox would always be favourably inclined towards the Byzantines. But the principle of Muslim toleration forbade such acts of injustice as these: on the contrary, it seems to have been their endeavour to deal fairly by all their Christian subjects; e.g. after the conquest of Egypt, the JACOBITES TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE EXPULSION OF THE BYZAN-TINE TO ROB THE ORTHODOX OF THEIR CHURCHES, but later they were RESTORED BY THE MUHAMMADANS TO THEIR RIGHTFUL OWNERS when these had made good their claim to possess them.In view of the toleration thus extended to their subjects in the early period of the Muslim rule, THE COMMON HYPOTHESIS OF THE SWORD AS THE FACTOR OF CONVERSION SEEMS HARDLY SATISFACTORY, and we are compelled to seek for other motives than that of persecution.”3
Christian suffering seemed to have been the result of their intrigue against the State. Decrees to exclude non-Muslims from public offices depended on the prevailing situation. Mr. Arnold notes: “The last of these was prompted by the discovery of an attempt on the part of the CHRISTIANS TO BURN THE CITY OF CAIRO.”4 Regarding the harsh rule of Harun al-Rashid, as Mr. Arnold points out
“these decrees were the outcome, not so much of any purely religious feeling, as of the political circumstances of the time. The Christians under Muhammadan rule have often had to suffer for the BAD FAITH KEPT BY FOREIGN CHRISTIAN POWERS in their relations with Muhammadan princes, and on this occasion it was the TREACHERY OF THE BYZANTINE EMPEROR, NICEPHORUS, that caused the CHRISTIAN NAME TO STINK in the nostrils of Harun. Many of the persecutions of the Christians in Muslim countries can be traced either to DISTRUST OF THEIR LOYALTY, EXCITED BY THE INTRIGUES AND INTERFERENCE OF CHRISTIAN FOREIGNERS AND THE ENEMIES OF ISLAM, OR TO THE BAD FEELING STIRRED UP BY THE TREACHEROUS OR BRUTAL BEHAVIOUR OF THE LATTER TOWARDS THE MUSALMANS.”5 (This is perhaps true today also).
Some persecutions of Christians were due to “the alleged abuse” of their position to “plunder and annoy the faithful, treating them with great harshness and rudeness and despoiling them of their lands and money;” and for “acting as the spies of the Abbasid dynasty and hunting down the adherents of the displaced Umayyad family;” and later, “were accused of treasonable correspondence with the Crusaders.”Thus, far from being forced to convert to Islam, Christians “brought on themselves severe restrictive measures which cannot justly be described as religious persecution.”6
Contrary to Nonie Darwish’s claim that Copts were forced to convert to Islam. Christians were the ones decimating Christians:
“The JACOBITES, who formed the majority of the Chris-tian population, had been very roughly handled BY THE ORTHODOX adherents of the court and subjected to indignities that have not been forgotten by their children even to the present day –“Justinian is said to have had 200,000 Copts put to death in the city of Alexandria, and the persecutions of his successors drove many to take refuge in the desert.”Some were tortured and then thrown into the sea; many followed their Patriarch into exile to escape from the hands of their persecutors, while a large number disguised their real opinions under a pretended acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon.To these Copts, as the Jacobite Christians of Egypt are called, the MUHAMMADAN CONQUEST BROUGHT A FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS LIFE SUCH AS THEY HAD NOT ENJOYED FOR A CENTURY…In the early days of the Muhammadan rule then, the condition of the Copts seems to have been fairly tolerable, and there is no evidence of their widespread apostasy to Islam being due to persecution or unjust pressure on the part of their new rulers. Even before the conquest was complete, while the capital, Alexandria, still held out, many of them went over to Islam, and a few years later the example these had set was followed by many others.”7
Muslims also made donation to Christian Churches, as Muhammad Ali notes: “Muir, after admiring the leniency of the Arab conquerors towards the conquered and their justice and integrity, quotes a Nestorian Bishop of the time: “These Arabs to whom God has accorded in our days the dominion are become our masters; but they do not combat the Christian religion; much rather they protect our faith; they respect our priests and our holy men, and make gifts to our churches and our convents” (p. 128 [The Caliphate])””(The Early Caliphate, p. 86).
There is a common misunderstanding that Muslim soldiers went to battle with the sword in one hand and the Qur’an in the other to spread Islam by the sword. Every Muslim is required to be a preacher of Islam. The Muslim soldier taking the Qur’an on expeditions was not to force religion. The sword was for defense and the Qur’an was for preaching the Divine truth as the opportunity arose. Thomas W. Arnold has stated in his The Preaching of Islam that:
“of any organised attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of any systematic persecution intended to stamp out the Christian religion, we hear nothing. Had the caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made Protestantism penal in France, or the Jews were kept out of England for 350 years. The Eastern Churches in Asia were entirely cut off from communion with the rest of Christendom, throughout which no one would have been found to lift a finger on their behalf, as heretical communions. So that THE VERY SURVIVAL OF THESE CHURCHES TO THE PRESENT DAY IS A STRONG PROOF OF THE GENERALLY TOLERANT ATTITUDE OF THE MUHAMMADAN GOVERNMENTS TOWARDS THEM.” “Of forced conversion or anything like persecution in the early days of the Arab conquest, we hear NOTHING.” (pp. 80,136. Emphasis added).
Coptic Christians in Egypt owe their heads to the benevolence of Islam which prohibits compulsion and the Right-Honorable Caliphs observing this sublime doctrine–(Qur’an 2:256; 6:105; 9:6; 10:99-100; 17:7; 18:6, 29; 50:45; 76:3; 109:1-6).
Contrast this majestic ideal of Islam of religious freedom to the Christian’s God and son of God, Jesus, commanding: “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should rule over them, bring hither, and slay them before me”–(Luke 19:27; Jesus advocates murder); which statement along with the equally preposterous, “He that is not with me is against me”–(Matt. 12:30), must be the ones that gave birth to the murderous Crusades. (Please note: this is the Christians’ Jesus; for the Muslims’ Jesus read the Qur’an).
That, “Historically speaking, Copts (Coptic Christians) could be considered more authentically Egyptian than Muslims.” So the pre-Islamic Egyptians who converted to Islam are less “authentically Egyptian” because their belief changed? (And you want Arabs/Palestinians/Muslims who have more than 4000 years of history in Palestine to give Jews, who had a mere two thousand years history and only “sixty-years” of ownership, more than half of Palestine for their homeland?)
(Not that it is condonable but) So Copts “endured a second-class citizenship and derogative names” (though “nagass,” in the spiritual sense at least, is not derogatory but factual) what about the Palestinians who are “second-class” citizens, and in their own country (and whose second-class status is the result of “Christian”/American meddling that stole Palestine from them)?
“Derek Tozer, a British correspondent, writing in The American Mercury, stated: The official policy of the Government (of Israel) is unequivocal. Arabs, like the Jews in Nazi Germany, are officially ‘Class B’ citizens, a fact which is recorded on their identity cards.”8
And while Copts endured “derogative names” Palestinians are subjected to despicably-degrading treatment at the hands of their occupiers: “These included regular exercises of humiliation, such as forcing Araboushim to urinate and excrete on one another and crawl on the ground while they call out “Long Live the State of Israel” or lick the earth; or on Holocaust day, to write numbers on their own hands “in memory of Jews in the extermination camps.”” 9 (Where is your mouth [and pen] on these? “muzzled by the food it eats?”)
On Muslim’s triumph at Jerusalem by ‘Umar, the third Caliph of Islam, in 638. Karen Armstrong states that ‘Umar “presided over the most peaceful and bloodless conquest that the city had yet seen in its long and often tragic history. Once the Christians had surrendered, there was no killing, no destruction of property, no burning of rival religious symbols, no expulsions or expro-priations, and no attempt to force the inhabitants to embrace Islam.” And that Salahuddin Ayube (Saladin), upon his triumph at Jerusalem (Ms.) Armstrong wrote: “The sultan kept his word. Not a single Christian was killed.” And, “Saladin also invited the Jews to come back to Jerusalem, from which they had been almost entirely excluded by the Crusaders.”10
And Thomas Arnold notes in his The Preaching of Islam (p.54):
“Michael the Elder, Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch, writing in the latter half of the twelfth century…writes: “This is why the God of vengeance…beholding the wickedness of the Romans who, throughout their dominions, cruelly plundered our churches and our monasteries and condemned us without pity –brought from the region of the south the sons of Ishmael, to deliver us through them from the hands of the Romans.”
And as Ahmed Deedat has noted that “after eight centuries in Spain the Muslims were totally eliminated from that country… One can blame the Muslim for exploitation if you like but one cannot charge them with using the sword to convert the Spaniards to the Islamic religion.” “The Muslims were also the masters of India for a thousand years, but eventually when the sub-continent received independence in 1947, the Hindus obtained three-quarters of the country and the Muslims the balance of the one-quarter. Why? Because the Muslims did not force Islam down the Hindus’ throat! In Spain and in India, the Mus-lims were no paragons of virtue, yet they obeyed the Qur’anic injunction to the letter–LET THERE BE NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION: FOR TRUTH STANDS OUT DISTINCT FROM ERROR: (Holy Qur’an 2:256)”
“The Muslim conquerors understood from this command that “compulsion” was incompatible with true religion: because (as Yusuf Ali has noted in his Qur’anic commentary) “Religion depends on faith and will, and these would be meaningless if induced by force. Force can conquer but cannot convert.”
Except for some eccentrics here and there, the Muslims as a whole adhered to the commandment of God in the lands over which they held sway. But what can the enemy say about countries where no single Muslim soldier had set foot?
(i) INDONESIA: It is a fact that over a hundred million Indonesians are Muslims, yet no conquering Muslim army ever landed on any of its over two thousand islands.
(ii) MALAYSIA: The overwhelming number of its people in this country are Muslims yet no Muslim soldier had landed there either.
(iii) AFRICA: The majority of the people on the East coast of Africa as far down as Mozambique, as well as the bulk of the inhabitants on the West coast of the continent are Muslims, but history has not record any invading hoards of Muslims from anywhere. What sword? Where was the sword? The Muslim trader did the job. His good conduct and moral rectitude achieved the miracle of conversion.” (Muhummed The Greatest, pp. 29-31)
Further: “History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.”11
“Islam has taken nothing by the sword”!
“Muslims’ conquests were never motivated by the will to colonize. The Prophet left the kings of Arabia and her princes on their thrones with their territories, economies, and political structures virtually untouched. In conquering, the Muslims sought the freedom to preach the faith.”12
In the indelible words of Pandit Gyanandra Dev Sharma Shastri:
“THEY (Muhummed’s critics) SEE FIRE INSTEAD OF LIGHT, UGLINESS INSTEAD OF GOOD. THEY DISTORT AND PRESENT EVERY GOOD QUALITY AS A GREAT VICE. IT REFLECTS THEIR OWN DEPRAVITY…..THE CRITICS ARE BLIND. THEY CANNOT SEE THAT THE ONLY ‘SWORD’ MUHAMMAD WIELDED WAS THE SWORD OF MERCY, COMPASSION, FRIENDSHIP AND FORGIVENESS –THE SWORD THAT CONQUERS ENEMIES AND PURIFIES THEIR HEARTS. HIS SWORD WAS SHARPER THAN THE SWORD OF STEEL.”13
It is Christianity, as her history and Scripture attest, that is the religion of the sword. From her pagan birth to the Twentieth century. Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din points out in his revealing book The Sources of Christianity writing about Mithraism, that
“had it not been suppressed in Rome and Alexandria by the Christians 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,and the Church lore fully saturated with Mithraic colours, 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 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.”(pp. 30-31).
And in his revealing work The Life Of Muhammad, p. 213, Muhammad Husayn Haykal summed up the Christian’s world-wide carnage:
“From the dawn of Christianity until today every country of the world has been soaked with blood in the name of Jesus Christ. The Romans and the Byzantines of old as well as the European peoples of modern times are guilty of shedding blood in religious causes. The Crusades were launched and their fires fanned by Christians, not by Muslims. For hundreds of years, one army after another rolled out of Europe in the direction of the Muslim Orient to fight, to destroy, and to shed blood. In every case, the popes who claimed to be the vicars of Jesus Christ, blessed and encouraged these armies and hurried them to Jerusalem and other destinations….The (Christian) missionaries rejoin, “Those were the Middle Ages, ages of darkness, unfit as evidence against Christianity.” If this is an argument on which they pin some hope, let us then turn to the twentieth century in which we now live and which they call “the century of the highest human civilization.” This century has indeed seen the same darkness as did the Middle Ages. Lord Allenby, representing the allied forces of England, France, Italy, Rumania, and America, stopped in Jerusalem in 1918 after his conquest of that city toward the end of the first World War and said: “Today the Crusades have come to an end.””
The first Crusade against Muslims was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II. If the Christian Middle-Ages were the “ages of darkness,” then the preceding ages were even “darker.” Why then crab at Mohammad (570-632) who preceded these Crusading “ages of darkness” by more than four centuries, and who was supposed to be a “barbarian” as Ibn Warraq charged? For a comment on Ibn Warraq’s fanciful book see Why I am Not a Muslim).
Even recently, we had Serbians massacring Muslims (and raping thousands of women, including young girls) in Bosnia and giving the three-finger (trinity) salute.
Unlike nations that are transgressors, oppressors, occupiers and aggressors and yet seek to crush their victims, Mohammad was no transgressor; no oppressor; no occupier; no aggressor.
Whatever measures Mohammad took to safeguard his people from extermination Mohammad was fully justified. No honest critic or individual would state otherwise. The only sword that Islam wields is the sword of truth and justice.
Islam is not only “simple” truths; Islam is blessed with the Divine allure of reason. Again, Mr. Arnold, from Caetani and Canon Taylor, respectively:
“Similarly, Caetani sees in the spread of Islam, among the Christians of the eastern Churches, a revulsion of feeling from the dogmatic subtleties introduced into Christian theology by the Hellenistic spirit. “For the East, with its love of clear and simplest concepts, Hellenic culture was, from the religious point of view, a misfortune, because it changed the sublime and simple teachings of Christ into a creed bristling with incomprehensible dogmas, full of doubts and uncertainties; these ended with producing a feeling of deep dismay and shook the very foundations of religious belief; so that when at last there appeared, coming out suddenly from the desert, the news of the new revelation, this bastard oriental Christianity, torn asunder by internal discords, wavering in its fundamental dogmas, dismayed by such incertitudes, could no longer resist the temptations of a new faith, which swept away at one single stroke all the miserable doubts, and offered, along with simple, clear and undisputed doctrines, great material advantages also. The East then abandoned Christ* and threw itself into the arms of the Prophet of Arabia.”(p.71). *(Notably, the east did not “abandon Christ:” it abandoned falsehood and blasphemy taught under the name of Christ).
“It is easy to understand why this reformed Judaism* spread so swiftly over Africa and Asia. The African and Syrian doctors had substituted abstruse metaphysical dogmas for the religion of Christ: they tried to combat the licentiousness of the age by setting forth the celestial merit of celibacy and the angelic excellence of virginity –seclusion from the world was the road of holiness, dirt was the characteristic of monkish sanctity– the people were practically polytheists, worshipping a crowd of martyrs, saints and angels; the upper classes were effeminate and corrupt, the middle classes oppressed by taxation, the slaves without hope for the present or the future. As with the besom of God, Islam swept away this mass of corruption and superstition. It was a revolt against empty theological polemics; it was a masculine protest against the exaltation of celibacy as a crown of piety. It brought out the fundamental dogmas of religion –the unity and greatness of God, that He is merciful and righteous, that He claims obedience to His will, resignation and faith. It proclaimed the responsibility of man, a future life, a day of judgment, and stern retribution to fall upon the wicked; and enforced the duties of prayer, almsgiving, fasting and benevolence. It thrust aside the artificial virtues, the religious frauds and follies, the perverted moral sentiments, and the verbal subtleties of theological disputants. It replaced monkishness by manliness. It gave hope to the slave, brotherhood to mankind, and recognition to the fundamental facts of human nature.” (pp. 71-72. Emphasis added) *(Islam is not “reformed Judaism”).
Significantly, since Muslims can live under non-Muslim rule (or leave if they do not like it) where is the problem with Christians (and other non-Muslims) living under Islamic rule; (though Islam allows non-Muslims to govern up to a certain degree, by their own Book); and there is no system on the face of this earth that is more equitable and just than Shari’ah.
While Islam forbids persecution. Christians being persecuted in Egypt is like a dewdrop in Hell compared to Christians atrocities against Muslims.
To restate Mr. Thomas Arnold: “Many of the persecutions of the Christians in Muslim countries can be traced either to DISTRUST OF THEIR LOYALTY, EXCITED BY THE INTRIGUES AND INTERFERENCE OF CHRISTIAN FOREIGNERS AND THE ENEMIES OF ISLAM, OR TO THE BAD FEELING STIRRED UP BY THE TREACHEROUS OR BRUTAL BEHAVIOUR OF THE LATTER TOWARDS THE MUSALMANS.”
-After the fall of the Ottomans, “Christian” Britain and France (and Russia) dissected the Middle-east. They carved Kuwait out of Iraq; and Lebanon out of Syria and put it under Christian leadership.
-“Christian” America meddling and arrogance “pressured” Sudan to dismember (which was the obvious projected outcome of the referendum on secession. Muslims are to reclaim this land. Why did America not pressure Britain to give the Irish their own homeland? Why does America not pressure India to have the Kashmiris exercise their right to self-determination? Why does America not pressure India to give Sikhs the Punjab for their homeland –Khalistan? Why does America not pressure Britain and the rest of Europe to give the Roma a homeland?)
-“Christian” America (coveting Muslim’s oil) spear-headed the aggression and devastation of Iraq
-“Christian” America and Britain (coveting Muslim’s oil) overthrew Iran’s Mossadegh government so Britain can control Iran’s oil. (As noted on the Internet, the U.S. has overthrown governments of some fourteen countries –Hawaii; Cuba; Philippines; Puerto Rico; Nicaragua; Honduras; Iran; Guatemala; South Vietnam; Chile; Gre-nada; Panama; Afghanistan; Iraq– and since the end of World War II has assassinated or involved in plots to assassinate some forty individuals.
-“Christian” Britain and France (and “Israel”) (coveting Muslim’s land) attacked Egypt so Britain could lord over the Suez Canal.
-“Christians” (under Jewish watch) massacred Palestinian/Muslims refugees in Sabra and Shatila.
-“Christian” America is now in Afghanistan obviously to share in Afghanistan’s some trillion dollars worth of yet-to-be tapped riches and to secure her gas pipeline “interest.”
-“Christian” Serbia (giving the three-finger trinity salute) massacred thousands of Muslims in Bosnia, and raped thousands of females –women and young girls.
-“Christian” America, Britain, and France and others are arrogantly and hypocritically bullying Iran from exercising his inalienable and Sovereign right to enrich uranium for whatever reason.
-“Christian” America meddling and arrogance stole Palestine through diplomatic thuggery at the U.N. and gave it to Jews and for more than six torturous decades now is aiding this monumental and grotesque obscenity against the hapless Palestinians; which, as already noted, reduced them to “second-class” citizens in their country: Shortly “after 1945” the American Government, under President Harry Truman, took the lead in the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine. To acquire the two-thirds majority of votes in the UN needed to partition Palestine, “Sumner Welles affirmed: “By direct order of the White House, every form of pressure, direct or indirect, was brought to bear by American officials upon those countries outside the Moslem world, that were known to be either uncertain or opposed to Partition.”” And “James Forrestal, then U.S. Secretary of Defense, wrote: “The methods that had been used to bring coercion and duress on other nations in the General Assembly bordered closely on scandal.””14
(No Court of Justice would view as one’s legal property an item acquired through “pressure” and/or “coercion and duress.” Where are the Muslim, and other just individuals, legal brains to challenge this illegally created Zionist entity in the World Court?).
And this “Christian” theft of Palestine saw Palestinians bombed, dispossessed, mined, and the massacre of even the newly born. Jews undertook against Palestinians/ Muslims “large-scale intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding villages and population centres; setting fire to homes, properties and goods; expulsion; demolition; and finally, planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled inhabitants from returning;” and at the end of their “mission” which took “six months” to complete: “more than half of Palestine’s native population, close to 800,000 people, had been uprooted, 531 villages had been destroyed, and eleven urban neighborhoods emptied of their inhabitants.”15
And: “On 9th April 1948, the Irgun Zwei Leumi led by Menachem Beigin (who later became a Prime Minister of Occupied Palestine)…attacked the small Arab village of Deir Yassin near Jerusalem. An account of this barbaric massacre was given by Jacques de Reynier, the Chief Delegate of the International Red Cross, who was able to reach the village and witness the aftermath of the massacre: “Three hundred persons” he said, “were massacred….without any military reason or provocation of any kind; old men, women, children, newly-born were savagely murdered with grenades and knives by Jewish troops of the Irgun, entirely under the control of their chiefs. Dov Joseph, one time Governor of the Israeli sector of Jerusalem and later Minister of Justice, called the Deir Yassin massacre “deliberate and unprovoked attack.” Arnold Toynbee described it as comparable to crimes committed against the Jews by Nazis. But “Menachem Beigin said “The massacre was not only jus-tified, but there would not have been a state of Israel without the victory at Deir Yassin.”16 (Massacring defenseless old men, women, children and newly-born a “victory”?).
(Notably. Regarding this massacre at Deir Yassin, Ismail Zayid here quotes from the 1951 publication of Menachem Beigin’s book The Revolt, Story of the Irgun: “Menachem Beigin said “The massacre was not only justified, but there would not have been a state of Israel without the victory at Deir Yassin.” However, the “Revised Edition” titled The Revolt and published 1983 by W.H. Allen, London, does not have these words by Beigin: “The massacre was not only justified, but there would not have been a state of Israel without the victory at Deir Yassin.” Page 164 of this Revised Edition says in its footnote that this massacre at Deir Yassin was an “Arab…propaganda to smear the Irgun.…The “Dir Yassin Massacre” lie is still propagated by Jew-haters all over the world.” But the Deir Yassin massacre could not be “a lie” when:
(i) Beigin, the leader of the Irgun, himself is said to have declared that there was a massacre: “The massacre was not only justified, but there would not have been a state of Israel without the victory at Deir Yassin.”
(ii) there was an eyewitness to the aftermath of this massacre: “An account of this barbaric massacre was given by Jacques de Reynier, the Chief Delegate of the International Red Cross, who was able to reach the village and witness the aftermath of the massacre.”
(iii) There is a historical account of this massacre: Britannica, probably the world’s most recognized source of reference and accurate recorder of history states that there was a massacre: “The Irgun stormed and captured the village of Deir Yassin and massacred much of the population.”
(iv) Dov Joseph, a prominent Israeli, called the Deir Yassin massacre “deliberate and unprovoked attack.” (Reflectively, when anyone denies the “holocaust” or speak against it they are hauled before the judge; labeled “Jew hater” and “anti-Semite.” But there was no outcry against the deniers of the Deir Yassin massacre: no one was hauled into court, or labeled “Arab hater” or “anti-Arab.” Perhaps when discussion(s) about the Revisionist(s) of history are conducted, Beigin’s statement on this massacre at Deir Yassin should be on the agenda).
Where is your mouth (and pen) on these, Ms. Darwish? “muzzled by the food it eats”? Patriotism and friendship must not compromise truth and justice.
Rather than moan over Coptic Christians in Egypt being persecuted –and which persecution may be due to the “INTRIGUES AND INTERFERENCE OF CHRISTIAN FOREIGNERS AND THE ENEMIES OF ISLAM, OR TO THE BAD FEELING STIRRED UP BY THE TREACHEROUS OR BRUTAL BEHAVIOUR” of the Copts towards Muslims– Nonie Darwish and other critics need to first put their dignity (if they have) where their mouths are and redress the monumental and grotesque obscenities perpetrated by “Christians” against Muslims; beginning with the return of Palestine and compensating the Palestinians for their more than six tor-turous decades of loss and suffering; and the return of south Sudan to Muslims; and to stop coveting Muslims’ lands and oil and striving to control/exploit them.
In replanting the gardens of the world to suit their parasitic designs the Emperors sow the venomous seeds of hatred that grow into towering trees of conflict whose bitter fruits are tasted long after the sordid wretches are gone.
3. Nonie Darwish also lamented over the Prophet Mohammad’s conquering the lands of the Middle-East. We do not know why. Nonie Darwish needs to voice her pain to her God of the Bible (as she does not believe in Allāh).
Her God decrees that Muslims are to subjugate all the lands of the Middle-East. Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud B.D. –“the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani, B.D., a Roman Catholic priest of the Uniate-Chaldean sect”– explains in his Muhummed in the Bible:
“There are three distinct points which every true believer in God must accept as truths. The first point is that Ishmael is the legitimate son of Abraham, his first-born, and therefore his claim to birthright is quite just and legal. The second point is that the Covenant was made between God and Abraham as well as his only son Ishmael before Isaac was born. The Covenant and the institution of the Circumcision would have no value or signification unless the repeated promise contained in the divine words, “Throughout thee all the nations of the earth shall be blessed,” and especially the expression, the Seed “that shall come out from the bowels, he will inherit thee” (Gen. xv. 4). This promise was fulfilled when Ishmael was born (Gen. xvi.), and Abraham had the consolation that his chief servant Eliezer would no longer be his heir. Consequently we must admit that Ishmael was the real and legitimate heir of Abraham’s spiritual dignity and privileges. The prerogative that “by Abraham all the generations of the earth shall be blessed,” so often repeated–though in different forms–was the heritage by birthright, and was the patrimony of Ishmael. The inheritance to which Ishmael was entitled by birthright was not the tent in which Abraham lived or a certain camel upon which he used to ride, but to subjugate and occupy forever all the territories extending from the Nile to the Euphrates, which were inhabited by some ten different nations (Gen. xvii. 18-21). These lands have never been subdued by the descendants of Isaac, but by those of Ishmael. This is an actual and literal fulfilment of one of the conditions contained in the Covenant.
The third point is that Isaac was also born miraculously and specially blessed by the Almighty, that for his people the land of Canaan was promised and actually occupied under Joshua. ….
….The Jews have always been jealous of Ishmael because they know very well that in him the Covenant was made and with his circumcision it was concluded and sealed, and it is out of this rancour that their scribes or doctors of law have corrupted and inter-polated many passages in their Scriptures. To efface the name “Ishmael” from the second, sixth, and seventh verses of the twenty-second chapter of the Book of Genesis and to insert in its place “Isaac,” and to leave the descriptive epithet “thy only begotten son” is to deny the existence of the former and to violate the Covenant made between God and Ishmael. It is expressly said in this chapter by God: “Because thou didst not spare thy only begotten son, I will increase and multiply thy posterity like the stars and the sands on the seashore,” which word “multiply” was used by the Angel to Hagar in the wilderness: I will multiply thy offspring to an innumerable multitude, and that Ishmael “shall become a fruitful man” (Gen. xvi. 12. It is Muslims whose numbers are “like the stars and the sands on the seashore”–(Gen. 22:17). Now the Christians have translated the same Hebrew word, which means “fruitful” or “plentiful” from the verb para–identical with the Arabic wefera –in their versions “a wild ass”! Is it not a shame and impiety to call Ishmael “a wild ass” whom God styles “Fruitful” or “Plentiful”?”(pp. 30-32. Emphasis added).
(That God giving the Children of Israel the Holy Land was only temporary is cemented not only in the verses noted in the above presentation but from the fact that Jews were/are required to follow the Prophet Mohammad;17 in which event they would have been Muslims and part of the Brotherhood of Islam, and thus a beneficiary in this decree of God for Muslims to own all the lands of the Middle-East.
Significantly, God’s covenant was made with Abraham NOT with Isaac. And Ishmael was not only Abraham’s son but also his firstborn, the inheritor of his father, and the one through whom “the Covenant was made and with his circumcision it was concluded and sealed.” Thus Arabs/Muslims are the inheritors of all the lands of the Middle-east).
Awe-spiring, isn’t it, Ms. Darwish, that backward Arabs/Muslims with second and third rate armaments defeated the mighty and sophisticated Persian, Byzantine and Roman Empires?
But the stage was set at Badr where a meager three hundred ill-equipped Muslims vanquished a thousand well-armed opponents. It’s all by the “Hands of Allāh,” Ms. Darwish. Just as in the case of David over Goliath and Moses over Pharaoh.
And now Nonie Darwish wants Arabs/Muslims to contravene this decree of God for Muslims to have all of the Middle-east and let Jews have/own Palestine; and moreover, in the face of Jews violating their covenant with God. She has even started a support group for Jews to this effect, (Wait till you read her absurdity in her Arabs For Israel proposal).
If Jews only wanted a homeland they would have taken it in Uganda where the British government was giving them. But Jews covet Palestinians/Arabs/ Muslims land. (There are Jews that are loyal to truth and justice).
Vive le Palestine libre!
Azad Philistine Zindabad!
Ashat Philistine Hurra!
Long live free Palestine!
Who will be the next Salahhuddin Ayyube (Saladin)?
(Allāh [and His noble Messenger] admonishes us to not ‘sectify’ ourselves: He, Allāh, will show us the truth of the matter in which we differ–Qur’an 4:92; 21:92; 30:31-32; 49:10; Bokhari Vol. 9, #’s 7, 83, 539; Qur’an 16:92; 39:46; 42:10. We must be the biggest maroons in creation if we believe we can defy Allāh [and His noble Messenger] and polarize ourselves and yet expect Allāh to give us Jannah. We are to uproot and incinerate the unGodly and disgraceful cancer of sectism among Muslims and unite in all matters from economics to military. We are the best nation–Qur’an 2:143; 3:110; we are the people of hope–Qur’an 4:104; the Qur’an gives success–Qur’an 20:1-2; and “Allāh has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will surely make them rulers”–Qur’an 24:55. When we obey Allāh and His noble Messenger we Muslims’ are destined to be successful, victorious and triumphant).
That Islam forced religion onto the Copts of Egypt.
Lois and Lamya Al-Faruqui notes: “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, Persians, Egyptians, Cyrenaicans, Berbers, Cypriots, and Caucasians.”18
And O’Leary De Lacy: “History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.”19
Whereas Nonie Darwish tries to denigrate Muslims use of the sword against transgressors and whereas the Christian ridicules Mohammad for using the sword. As shown above but for her sword against the Pagans and her absorbing of pagan doctrines Christianity would have perished in her infancy. And:
-This is the same “sword” that Jesus sent to earth “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword”–(Matt. 10:34). And which sword has been swung against Muslims and others “From the dawn of Christianity until today,” as noted above.
-This is same “sword” that Jesus told his followers to sell their coats and buy: “and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one”–(Luke 22:36);
-The same sword that Jesus’ disciple used to cut off the soldiers ear: “they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and CUT OFF his right ear”–(Luke 22:49-50).
-The same sword that God (and as Christians say that Jesus is God, then the same sword that Jesus) gave to his chosen people to kill all the men and little boys and matron women so they can possess their lands, have loot, and corral all the prepubescent “virgin” girls as Sex Slaves:
“Then the Lord spake unto Moses, saying…And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses, and they slew ALL THE MALES….And they brought the CAPTIVES and the prey and the spoil to Moses, and Eleazar… And Moses said unto them…Now therefore kill every MALE among the LITTLE ONES (of the captives), and kill EVERY WOMAN who hath known man by lying with him, but ALL THE WOMEN CHILDREN, that have not known a man by lying with him (virgin girls) KEEP ALIVE FOR YOURSELVES….And the Lord spake unto to Moses, saying, Take the sum of the PREY (BOOTY) that was taken, both of MAN and of beast, thou and Eleazar…And divide the PREY into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation And LEVY A TRIBUTE UNTO THE LORD….And the BOOTY, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, and 61,000 asses, and of WOMENthat had not known man by lying with him (virgin girls), were 32,000. And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was 337,500 sheep; 36,000 cattle, 30,500 asses, and 16,000 persons (virgin girls. And of the congregation’s half portion of these 16.000 virgin girls, 320 were given to the Levite priests, as “the Lord commanded Moses.” And the LORD’S TRIBUTE(of the (booty) was 675 sheep; 72 cattle; 61 donkeys; and 32 persons ….the men of war had taken SPOIL (BOOTY), EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF.” –(Numbers 31:1-53).
After all, the Christians’ God “Jesus” “is a man of war”: “The Lord is a MAN OF WAR: the Lord is his name”–(Ex. 15:3).
Though Jesus did not fight directly in a war, compared to the five or so defensive wars Mohammad fought to end persecution and the conservative number of casualties of these wars, Jesus, according to Christians that he is God, and as Biblical prophets obeyed the dictates of God, Jesus was instrumental in the bloodiest episodes in Scriptural history: Jesus was complicit in all the wars and killings –from Moses, Joshua, Saul, Gideon, David, to Solomon– where not even the “ox, and sheep, and ass” were spared the “edge of the sword”–(Deut; 7:1-2; Josh. 10:40, 12:6).
As Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud B.D. –“the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani, B.D., a Roman Catholic priest of the Uniate-Chaldean sect”– points out in his revealing book Muhammad in the Bible:
“all the blood shed in the wars of Badr, Ohud, and other campaigns led personally by the Prophet Muhammad, could not exceed one-hundredth of the blood shed by Joshua. Yet not a single instance of cruelty or injustice can be proved against the Apostle of Allāh. He was clement, noble, magnanimous, and forgiving.”
In contrast to the “sword of Christianity” which is the “sword of subjugation;” the “sword of Islam” is the “sword of liberation.” (See Islam-Religion of sword).
It was said to me that there is an Arab TV channel that features Christians posing as Muslim-converts to Christianity to entice Muslims to convert to Christianity.
I have also heard of Christians giving money to a poor Muslim [improving his condition] to convert, so as to influence other Muslims in his area to convert to Christianity.
And aforetime there was what was known as “rice” Christians –using food as weapon to convert the hungry to Christianity.
And many years ago, during an in-house presentation, it was stated that in India Christians are giving apples to poor children and telling them that Jesus sent it. What a maroon!
Jesus could not find figs for himself on earth to eat and he is sending apples from heaven to others –this Christian’s God/son of God was not only ignorant of the season for figs; he was so disappointed and despondent at his lack of fore-knowledge that fig was not in season and so frustrated at his powerlessness to produce fruit he cursed the helpless and blameless fig tree to death–(Mark 11:11-14, 20-21. Please note: this is the Christians’ Jesus; for the Muslims’ Jesus read the Qur’an).
And Ahmed Deedat has shown in his booklet Is the Bible God’s Word? that whereas the word “VIRGIN” in Isaiah 7:14 has been replaced with the phrase “a young woman” in the RSV Bible; the word “BEGOTTEN” of “begotten son” of John 3:16, has been “excised;” the verse of 1-John 5:7 which speaks of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost [the Trinity] “has also been scrapped from the RSV” Bible; and the verses of Mark 16:19 and Luke 24:51 which refer to the Ascension of Jesus were “expunged” but later “restored to the text,” Deedat notes that while these terms have been “unceremoniously excised” from English Bibles, they are retained in the Bible’s nearly 1500 other non-English languages.
Such is Christian’s desperation and deception to snare the innocent natives into eating the “body” and drinking the mythical “blood” of Jesus Christ (spiritual cannibalism). This must be the lowest depths of spiritual depravity. Utterly disgraceful and unGodly.
But this is hardly surprising. People who would adulterate their Bible/Book of God –the very God from Whom they seek their daily bread, and on Whose “right hand” they want to sit– would probably do anything else. And considering that Paul who not only forged his own “gospel” but as he confessed caught people through “lie,” “crafty”ness, and “guile,” Christians seem to be imitating Paul in their mission of propagating falsehood and blasphemy.
Recently, the Egyptian government was reported to have charged some seven individuals living abroad over the Mohammad Movie (Innocence of Muslims) that charges the Prophet Mohammad as being “a fraud, a womanizer and a madman.”
Prophets of God are ambassadors/ representatives of God on earth. And denigrating a prophet of God is tantamount to denigrating God. Though Islam does not require prosecuting denigrators –Muslims are to invite them to prove their charges; and for certain they cannot prove any charges against Allāh, the Prophet, Islam. and the Qur’an– it is rather amusing that one would denigrate a prophet of God and seek human protection from reprisal (though as stated Islam does not require any reprisal). The question is who would protect such denigrator(s) from God?
1. Ency. Brit. 15th Ed. Vol. IX, art; Syrian Orthodox Church, p. 747.
2. T.W. Arnold, The Preaching of Islam, p. 63.
3. Ibid. pp. 64-69. Mr. Arnold also notes from other sources. Emphasis added.
4. Ibid. p. 76. f/n. Emphasis added.
5. Ibid. pp. 76-77. Mr. Arnold also notes from Muir. Emphasis added.
6. Ibid. pp. 78, 79. Mr. Arnold also notes from other source(s).
7. Ibid. pp. 103-104. Mr. Arnold also notes from other source(s). Emphasis added.
8. Ismail Zayid, Palestine–A Stolen Heritage, p. 15.
9. Prof. Noam Chomsky, Pirates and Emperors, Old And New, International Terrorism in the Real World, p. 9.
10. Karen Armstrong, Jerusalem One City Three Faiths, pp. 228, 293, 298.
11. De Lacy O’Leary, Islam at the Crossroads, Quoted in Prof. K.S. Ramakrishna Rao, Muhammed The Prophet of Islam, p. 32.
12. Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 588.
13. Pandit Gyanandra Dev Sharma Shastri, at a meeting in Gorakhpur [India]. 1928. Quoted in A. Deedat, Muhummed The Greatest, p. 37.
14. Ismail Zayid, Palestine, A Stolen Heritage, pp. 10, 11. (or 19?)
15. Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, pp. xii, xiii.
16. Ismail Zayid, Palestine–A Stolen Heritage, pp. 11-12.
17. The Bible/Christ is for Jews only until the coming of the Comforter at which time Jews are to follow this Comforter who will guide them into “all truth”–(John 14:16; 16:13).
Previous to this teaching of Jesus, God had decreed that kingship and prophethood would depart from the Jewish people at the advent of Shiloh–(Gen. 49:10); Moses foretold that God will raise up a prophet like him (Moses) whom the Israelites are to follow–(Deut. 18:15, 18-19); and Jesus further said that the kingdom of God shall be taken from the Israelites and given to another people–(Matt. 21:43).
And this Shiloh, prophet like Moses and the Comforter have been shown to be the Prophet Mohammad. (See Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud –the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani– Muhammad in the Bible, and Abdul Haque Vidyarthi, Muhammad in World Scriptures, Vol. 1).
In Deut. 18:18-19 of the Bible Moses made it clear that God says all those who do not follow this prophet like him that, “whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him” (i.e. they will have to answer to God for not following this prophet–Mohammad). And in what seems to be a reflection of this decree of God, the Prophet Mohammad is reported as having said: “he who amongst the community of Jews or Christians hears about me, but does not affirm his belief in that which I have been sent and dies in this state (of disbelief), he shall be but one of the denizens of Hell”–(Muslim Vol. 1, #284).
While all prophets of God taught Islam –peace and submission to God– Islam was perfected only through the Prophet Mohammad: “This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favour to you and chosen for you Islam as a religion–(Qur’an 5:3). Thus, as Islam (as taught by the Prophet Mohammad) is superior to all religions, whoever needs another religion it will not be accepted: Surely the (true) religion with Allāh is Islam;” “Seek they then other than Allāh’s religion? And to Him submits whoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly, and to Him they will be returned.” “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers”–(Qur’an 3:19, 83, 85).
The Qur’an comprises of the best teachings given to other prophets as well as teachings not given to other prophets: “We narrate to thee the best of narratives, in that We have revealed to thee this Qur’an, though before this thou wast of those unaware;” “And certainly We have set forth for men in this Qur’an similitudes of every sort that they may mind;” “We have not neglected anything in the Book;” “A Messenger from Allāh, reciting pure pages, Wherein are (all) right books”–(Qur’an (12:3; 39:27; 6:38; 98:2-3).
Thus, the Qur’an comprises of, exceeds, and supersedes all other Scriptures.There is no wisdom in following a man who did not give ‘all truth” or in following a Book that is devoid of “all truth.”
18. Ismail and Lois Lamya Faruqui, The Cultural Atlas Of Islam. pp. 197-198.
19. De Lacy O’Leary, Islam at the Crossroads, London 1923, p. 8. Quoted in Prof. K.S. Ramakrishna Rao, Muhammed The Prophet of Islam, p. 32.