Pope Benedict XVI-Mohammad brought only evil and inhuman


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.


In September 2006, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a lecture at the University of Regensburg, Germany. In which he notes a dialogue between Fourteenth-century Christian “Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian (a Muslim) on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.”

(1) POPE BENEDICT notes that whereas emperor Manuel II Paleologus, “must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”” “the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war…..such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” (i.e. Jews and Christians) and the “infidels”.”

ANSWER: “Interestingly, the emperor (or the Pope) did not quote the end portion of the verse of Qur’an 2:256:, here is the verse in full:
“Let there be no compulsion in religion: FOR TRUTH STANDS OUT DISTINCT FROM ERROR.”
That “truth stands out distinct from error”, this alone gives the lie to the charge that the Qur’an sanctions “holy war” to spread Islam. Muslims do not need force to spread Islam: Unlike Christianity, Islam is blessed with the Divine allure of “reason.”

   There is no “holy war” in Islam. There is Jihad, which means to “strive” in the path of Allāh against evil –perhaps it is because of this that some have dubbed Jihad “holy war.” (See Jihad). This “holy war” is also to be undertaken on behalf of non-Muslims:
   -“Permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed. And surely Allāh is Able to assist them— Those who are driven from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And if Allah did not repel some people by others, cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which Allāh’s name is much remembered, would have been pulled down. And surely Allāh will help him who helps Him. Surely Allah is Strong, Mighty”–(Qur’an 22:39-40).

   Muslims also placed their lives to death to liberate the Pope’s earlier brothers and sisters. Thomas W. Arnold notes in his The Preaching of Islam the gallant sword of Islam:
“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.” (p. 54)  
“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])””–(Muhammad Ali, The Early Caliphate, p. 86).

   Early revelation (Surah 2:256) on freedom of faith was not abrogated or changed to “holy war” to compel belief in Islam.  Islam allows fighting only in self-defense: “And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is only for Allah. But if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors”–(Qur’an 2:190-193).
   Killing unbelievers refer only to those who first take up arms to kill Muslims against Muslims; and even then Muslims are urged to take prisoners and to set them free–(Qur’an 47:4).
   In fact Islam is such a “Religion of peace” that Muslims are to make peace even in the face of possible deception by the enemy: “And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it….And if they intend to deceive thee, then surely Allāh is sufficient for thee….”–(Qur’an 8:61-62).

   While there is no injunction in the Qur’an or in the Tradition of the Prophet to spread religion by force, there are clear teachings to propagate religion by instruction:
   -“So obey not the disbelievers, and strive against them a mighty striving with it (the Qur’an)”–(Qur’an 25:52);
-“thou art not one to compel them. So remind by means of the Qur’an him who fears My warning”–(Qur’an 50:45).  

In compliment to the above exhortations to teach with the Qur’an there are clear verses prohibiting the use of force –that the Prophet’s (and Muslims’) duty is only to deliver the Message of Islam, not to enforce it:
   -“Thy duty is only to deliver the message”–(3:19); 
   -“And if thy Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Wilt thou then force men till they are believers?”–(10:99);
   -“And say: Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve”–(Qur’an 18:29).
   Had the pagan Arabs left Mohammad to his peaceful preaching and not force him and his followers into physical defense there would be no “holy war.”

   In contrast to Islam. It is Christianity, after imbibing everything pagan into Jesus’ pure teaching –that god sent him only to Jews, that God is One and eternal life lies in observing the Mosaic Law until the arrival of the Comforter who will guide into “all truth” and “abide for ever”– Christians massacred the pagans into extinction: 

“Mithraism came from Persia, where it seems to have been flourishing for about six hundred years, the cult reaching Rome about 70 B.C. It spread through the Empire, and extended to Great Britain. Remains of Mithraic monuments have been discovered at York, Chester and other places. Mithra was believed to be a great Mediator between God and man. His birth took place in a cave on December 25th.  He was born of a virgin. He traveled far and wide; he had twelve  disciples; he died in the service of humanity. He was  buried, but rose   again   from  the tomb. His resurrection was celebrated with great rejoicing. His great festivals were the Winter Solstice and the Vernal Equinox–Christmas and Easter. He was called Saviour, and sometimes figured as a Lamb. People were initiated into his cult through baptism. Sacramental feasts were held in his remembrance. These statements may excite surprise in the mind of the reader of to-day; he may be disposed to doubt their genuineness, as while on one side he reads the story of the Jesus of the Church, in the legend of Mithra on the other Mithraism has left no traces in the world, although it was so powerful in the third century A.D. 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.”–(Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din, The Sources of Christianity, p. 30).

   That the Qur’an has difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”: I wish the pope had elaborated on this so an answer could be given.  In contrast to Islamic religious tolerance, Christianity is the culprit in intolerance and “compulsion.”

   Christianity/Jesus regards non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine” (which are regarded as the lowest of creatures) and preached in parables to keep these metaphorical “dogs” and “swine” out of heaven. The Bible calls for the enslavement of “heathens” (“infidels”, which is of Christian origin) and for death to those who worship an other than the God of the Bible:
   -“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 com-manded…..Then thou shalt bring forth that man or that woman …and shalt stone them with stones, till they die”–(Deut; 17:2-5). 
   And Jesus came to fulfill the Law even to the passing away of heaven and earth but not “one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”–(Matthew 5:17-18).

  (2). POPE BENEDICT notes emperor Manuel II saying to the Persian Muslim:  “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”….Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God’s nature.”

ANSWER: (Pity, the Pope did not mention the Muslim’s reply to the emperor).

   (a) That God “”is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God’s nature.” is laughable.
   Do you Christians not claim God sent Jesus to be killed for your sins? How then “Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul”? How then is God not “pleased by blood”? Is this unjust killing “acting reasonably”?

   Is Jesus (your God) commanding that enemies opposed to his rule be slaughtered (even though the enemies might not militate against him) How then ”Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul”? How then is God not “pleased by blood”? Is this indiscriminate killing “acting reasonably”?

   Is putting God in then belly of  a woman He created and having Him feed on the woman’s blood then pull God out the woman’s vagina (making God less “clean” than Adam and Eve–Job 4:17; 25:4) and slap God on the backside to make certain God is alive and can cry and pin God in diapers; and have God suck the woman’s “paps” and circumcise His foreskin and have God urinate and defecate like animals and in need to be cleaned; and have God eat butter and honey so that He may know to choose between good and evil. (Astaghferullah!)  Is this “acting reasonably”? Is this what your intelligence dictates?

   Is having God load Adam’s sin onto innocent, helpless, and morally and mentally non-competent babies; and making God complicit in the murder of blameless Jesus as scapegoat for Adam’s sin, is this “acting reasonably”?. Is this what your intelligence dictates?

“Reason” dictates that since no one can take medication to relive me of my suffering and no one can take food and drink to alleviate my hunger and thirst and no one can take laxative to relieve my constipation then no one can die for my sin.
   “Sin is an acquisition, and not a heritage.”  Sin is not a physical factor or a biological/genetic factor (as some diseases are) that can be transmitted from one person to another. Sin is a defect in the spirit acquired through committing an unGodly act.
   If sin is a voluntary transgression of a known law of God by a morally responsible person, where is the voluntary transgression of the new-born for sin to be loaded onto his and her head?
To say we are born with sin is to say we are criminal by nature: that we come into the world with two little horns on our forehead and a barbed tail on our behind (devil!)

   And, given that to suffer/punish someone else for your satisfaction is sadism, the doctrine of original/inherited sin and vicarious atonement is, arguably, sadistic and the God needing the satisfaction of blood to forgive sins is a sadist.
   (Notably, the God of Moses and of Jesus Who revealed Divine Unity and self-responsibility for sin(s) is NOT the God of Christians. The Christians’ God, Whoever He is, is the God of Trinity, original/ inherited sin and vicarious atonement).

   (b) Regarding the emperor’s challenge to the Muslim: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
   Islam “spread by the sword.” As shown above there is no “holy war” and “command (to Mohammad) to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

“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.1
Ahmed Deedat
“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 Muslims 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)”

Thomas W. Arnold
“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.” (The Preaching of Islam, p. 80). 
“Of forced conversion or anything like persecution in the early days of the Arab conquest, we hear nothing.” And that: “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.” (Ibid. pp.136, 77.This may be a timeless observation).

   “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman.”
   Apart from what has been appended to in Jesus is not the answer and Mohammad-the greatest which proves the superiority of Mohammad  over Jesus, and the teachings of the Qur’an on science, here are some more of the things new that Prophet Mohammad brought:

Mohammad teaches:
   -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), 
   -return evil with that which is better–(23:96).
Let the Pope and all Christendom show the “evil and inhuman” in these things Mohammad brought.

Mohammad teaches:
   -to 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);
   -return evil with better (23:96).
Let the Pope and all Christendom show the “evil and inhuman” in these things Mohammad brought.

Mohammad teaches:
   -to feed 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),   -to fight on behalf of the oppressed (4:75; 22:39-40).
Let the Pope and all Christendom show the “evil and inhuman” in these things Mohammad brought.

   -liberates 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);
   -makes her a garment to man and he is her garment–(2:187);
  -gives her rights similar to those against her–(2:228);
  -makes her a protector of man as he is her protector–(9:71);
   -establishes her as a source of peace, comfort, love and compassion–(7:189; 30: 21).
Let the Pope and all Christendom show the “evil and inhuman” in these things Mohammad brought.
Let the pope and his supporters detail the “evil and inhuman” things that Mohammad brought.

   In contrast to Mohammad/Islam, it is Jesus/Christianity (“according to” the Gospels) that brought things evil and requires spreading Christianity by the sword.
   Jesus delineates. “He that is not with me is against me” and commands the murder of enemies against his “reign over them”–(Matthew 12:30; Luke 19:27) which gave birth to the murderous Crusades that ravaged Jerusalem –leaving a river of Jewish and Muslim blood– and the rest of the globe that: “From the dawn of Christianity until today (20th century)every country of the world has been soaked with blood in the name of Jesus Christ.” (The Life of Muham-mad, p.213).
And even ripping Indigenous children from the bosoms of their parents to force down their throats the mythical blood and body of Jesus Christ–spiritual cannibalism.
   Jesus (the pope’s God) bequeathed a blazing legacy of “fire” “sword” and division in the family to the Resurrection. The only reason the Church  does not swing the steel is because the Church has no sway in the land. (Non-Christians need to go down on their hands and knees and foreheads and thank God that Christianity is not lording their land or any other land). 

   Islam does not need the sword to spread religion. Islam is blessed with the Divine allure of reason.
   (Notably, Jesus saying to love enemies and bless them that curse you are only for Jews –as he came only to Jews and prayed only for them–to reform them. Though he himself did not practice them (See Jesus-hypocrite, liar, fraud).

   (3). POPE BENEDICT notes that according to the emperor: “not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature ….But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent.” and the pope notes “French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.”

   ANSWER: While in the Bible God calls to “reason”: “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool”–(Bible, Book of Isaiah 1:18). To repeat, that Christians/ Christianity govern by “reason” is a myth.

   In contrast to Christianity, Allāh exhorts us: “Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in thebest manner–(Qur’an 16:125).
    And the Qur’an is full of exhortations to the utility of reason: “Do you not reflect?” “Have you no sense?” “There are signs in this for a people who reflect;” “There are signs in this for a people who understand;” and so on. Those who do not use their reasoning faculty are compared to animals, and spoken of as being deaf, dumb and blind.” (Qur’an 2:171; 7:179; 8:22); 25:44).

And in the Tradition of Prophet Mohammad we have:
“On being appointed Governor of Yaman, Mu’adh was asked by the Prophet as to the rule by which he would abide. He replied, ‘By the law of the Qur’an.’ ‘But if you do not find direction therein,’ asked the Prophet. ‘Then I will act according to the practice (Sunnah) of the Prophet,’ was the reply. ‘But if you do not find any direction therein,’ he was again asked. ‘Then I will exercise my judgment (ajtahidu) and act on that,’ came the reply. The Prophet raised his hands and said: ‘Praise   be to Allah who guides the messenger of His Apostle as he pleases,” (Abu Dawud, 23:11).
This tradition shows not only that the Prophet approved of the exercise of judgment, but also that his Companions were well aware of the principle, and that reasoning or exercise of judgment by others was freely resorted to when necessary, even in the Prophet’s lifetime.”-(Muhammad Ali, The Religion Of Islam,p.99).

   That “God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us.”
   Whether we call God Eli, Ishwar or Allāh, God is the ultimate in power and authority. Whereas Allāh/God would not fail in His word/promise, that “God is not bound even by his own word,” simply means that if God was to not keep His word what recourse would we have; to whom will we take our case?

   That “Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.” This is a similar argument the Idolaters gave to Prophet Mohammad: “Those who are polytheists say: If Allah pleased we would not have set up (aught with Him) nor our fathers, nor would we have made anything unlawful”–(Qur’an 6:148-149).
Whereas Allāh is without constraints, Allāh Who created man to have mercy on him would not have man “practise idolatry.” This is why He sent messengers to guide us.

Though the Pope and Christians bowing before the crucifix is “idolatry.”:
“Thou shalt NOT make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of ANY THING that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt NOT BOW DOWN THYSELF to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God”–(Exodus 20:4-5).

   (4) POPE BENEDICT states: “Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis…John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: “In the beginning was the λόγος”. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word….John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God…In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist.”

“In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist.” This is what the “Evangelist” says, what does God or Jesus say?
   Why “Modify” the “Word of God” to conform to your belief? You are to “Modify” your belief to conform to the “Word of God.”

   First problem. Apart from the fact that no one knows who this “John”/”Evangelist” is that wrote the Gospel of John. This verse of the Gospel of John are NOT the words of God or of Jesus; they are John’s or whoever wrote this Gospel; and absorbed from the ink of Philo who “lived and wrote all this one hundred years before” this John.

  Second problem. The Gospel of John 1:1-5 says: “In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” There is NO mention of the third party of the Trinity, the “Holy Ghost”, which is the bed-rock of Trinitarian Christianity.
   That the Word was “with God” and the Word “was God” is the same as saying God was with God –this is senseless.  The word could not be with God and yet be God. Small wonder some Christians view the trinity to be a “senseless God-dishonoring doctrine…If you ask a clergy-man 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 could have originated only in one mind, and that the mind of Satan the Devil.”–(Noted in  A.H. Vidyarthi, Muhammad in World Scriptures, Vol. 1, pp. 312-313)..

Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din notes in his revealing book The Sources of Christianity:
“The term word, used in St. John, which stands for the Greek word Logos, is an in-adequate rendering. In all his writings Philo speaks of Logos,–a philosophic conception of later growth and a development of the “Idea of Plato,” in his theory of Emanation. It does not mean Word; it conveys “Thought as well as expression.” Plato, when dealing with the subject, spoke of something –as the first thing in creation that may be styled “Reason or Wisdom”– the first product of Herbert Spencer’s “First Intelligent Cause.” Notably, Philo “lived and wrote all this one hundred years before the writers, whosoever they may be, of that Gospel.” (pp. 76-77).

Equally pressing. There could not be Trinity before creation. 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 Muhammed in the Bible: “The Christians….make the Creator a divine father and    His word a divine son; and also, because He breathed   life into His creatures, He is surnamed a divine Spirit,   forgetting that logically, He could not be father before    creation, nor “son” before He spoke, and neither “Holy Ghost” before He gave life”–(p. 15)
Professor Dawud also notes:
More than sixteen Ecumenical Councils have been summoned to define the religion of Christianity, only to be discovered by the Synod of the Vatican in the nineteenth century that the mysteries of the “Infallibility” and the “Immaculate Conception” were two of the principal dogmas, both unknown to the Apostle Peter and the Blessed Virgin Mary! Any faith or religion dependent upon the deliberations and decisions of General Synods –holy or heretical– is artificial and human. The religion of Islam is the belief in one Allāh and absolute resignation to His will, and this faith is professed by the angels in heaven and by the Muslims on earth. It is the religion of sanctification and of enlightenment, and an impregnable bulwark against idolatry.”–(Ibid, pp.191-192)
 “Reason” would dictate that human invention and assumption cannot give life in heaven.

Pope Benedict XVI also notes that “Israel (is) now deprived of its land and worship”.
   Pope Benedict needs to take this up with his God, Jesus. Israel is not “deprived” of any land. The Pope’s God, Jesus, decreed that Jerusalem will be trodden down–(Luke 21:24) and Jewish house left desolate–(Matthew 23:37-38) and the kingdom of God shall be taken from Jews and given to another people–(Matthew 21:43). And way before this God decreed that Ishmael’s descendants will inherit all the lands in the Middle-east; this Divine decree came to fruition through Ishmael’s illustrious great- grandson, Prophet Mohammad:
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 revealing book Muhammad 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 firstborn, 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 interpolated 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”–(Genesis 22:17–NGBA). 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.  Italics/Emphasis added).
Man can alter Scripture(s), man cannot alter decree of God.

(5) POPE BENEDICT: “the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, “transcends” knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph  3:19)…. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul – “λογικη λατρεία”, worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).”

   ANSWER: That Jesus is part of Godhead –logos– is, as already shown, belied by Jesus and by “reason.”
   That Christian worship with “reason” is, as shown, laughable..
   While God loves and mercy is His preponderating attribute, as Islam teaches. The Pope and Paul can preach their lips off that Christianity is the religion of “love” but their Bible/God/Son of God belies them:

   -it is not “love” to load Adam’s sin onto innocent, helpless and morally and mentally non-competent babies, and to consign the still-born babe to be buried in unconsecrated grounds (destined for hell).
   -it is not “love” to have innocent Jesus savagely beaten and killed for the sins of man/Adam; it is the ultimate in injustice and cruelty.
   -it is not “love” to refer to people as “dogs” and “swine” and preach in parables so they would not understand to keep them out of heaven;
   -it is not “love” to kill enemies opposed to your rule (though the enemy might no militate against you)
   -it is not “love” to enslave heathen,
   -it is not “love” to view woman as transgress-or, defiler of man, to subjugate wife and sees her as an object of carnal release,
   -it is not “love” to relegate daughters into bondage.
   -it is not “love” to bequeath to the world a legacy of “fire” and “sword,” and division in the family.
    Contrary to Christian trumpeting, Christianity can never be the religion of “universal” values and brotherhood, egalitarianism and “love.”

   The Christian spirit, as its history testifies, is the opposite of “love.” The Christian “love” is/ was a zealous and merciless rampage of the sword  to force the body and mythical blood of Christ –spiritual cannibalism– into the stomachs of the heathens that  “From the dawn of Christianity until today (20th century) every country of the world has been soaked with blood in the name of Jesus Christ”–(M. H. Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, p. 213).
   Jesus saying to love enemies and bless them that curse you are only for Jews –as he came only to Jews and prayed only for them– to reform them. Though Jesus did not practice these teachings but proved to be hypocritical as already noted. (Please note: This is the Christian’s Jesus. For Muslim’s Jesus read the Qur’an).

   (6) POPE BENEDICT: “Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God.”

Jesus unambiguously declares that GOD is ONE; that GOD SENT him to JEWS only and he prayed ONLY FOR JEWS; that children are SINLESS (as the kingdom of God) and that eternal life lies in following the Mosaic Law (until the arrival of the Comforter who will then guide into all truth and abide forever); and he regarded non-Jews as dogs and swine (which includes the Pope and his predecessor, emperor Manuel II Paleologus, unless they are Jewish) and he preached in parables to keep these metaphorical “dogs” and ‘swine” out of heaven)..

  But the pope and Christians put this Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Ever-living, Self-subsisting God into the belly of a woman He created, feeding on the woman’s blood for nine months growing from “leech-like” to babe-hood then the pope and Christians pulled God out the woman’s vagina (making God less “clean” than Adam and Eve–Job 4:17; 25:4) and slapped God on the backside to make certain God is alive and can cry and pinned God in diapers; the pope and Christians had God suck the woman’s “paps” and circumcised His foreskin and had God urinate and defecate like animals and in need to be cleaned; then the pope and Christians put God in need to eat butter and honey so God can choose between good and evil. (Astaghferullah!
   The pope and the emperor consider this to be acting “reasonably” and not “contrary to the nature of God”.

   Christians have God commit the injustices of loading Adam’s sin onto innocent, helpless, and morally and mentally non-competent babies; and make God complicit in the murder of blameless Jesus as scapegoat for Adam’s sin.
   The pope and the emperor consider this to be acting “reason-ably” and not “contrary to the nature of God”.
  Christians attribute these gruesome monstrosities to His Holy Highness and yet expect for God to give them a “mansion” or “bungalow” in His House. These gruesome monstrosities are the sure-way to Hell.

   Trinity was invented by the Church three hundred years after Christ and original/inherited sin and vicarious atonement were devised by Paul whom the Church crowned with sainthood. (He subverted Jesus’ teachings and he gets a crown).
  One is hard-pressed to comprehend that, given his theological status, Pope Benedict XVI is not cognisant of these facts.
   Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and the pope’s “Christian understanding of God” is of Falsehood and Blasphemy.

   Incidentally, given that Trinity, original/inherited sin and vicarious atonement are not Divine doctrines but are the Church’s inventions/ assumptions, the pope and those who call themselves “Christians” are not “Christians”, they are, factually, CHURCHIANS and their religion is CHURCHIANITY. JESUS CHRIST IS ONLY A FIGURE-HEAD IN THE CHURCH.
(Given that to suffer/punish someone else for your satisfaction is sadism, the doctrine of original/inherited sin and vicarious atonement is, arguably, sadistic and the God needing the satisfaction of blood to forgive sins is a sadist. (Notably, the God of Moses and of Jesus Who revealed Divine Unity and self-responsibility for sin(s) is NOT the God of Christians. The Christians’ God, Whoever He is, is the God of Trinity, original/inherited sin and vicarious atonement).

Strangely. Christians sing in their hymn/carol “come let us adore him (Jesus Christ).” As shown, Christ regards non-Jews as “dogs” and ‘swine” and preached in parables to keep them out of heaven; he views outsiders as being against him (and a person can be neutral) and commands that enemies against his rule be murdered (though they might not militate against him); and he sends to the earth “fire” and ‘sword”, and division in thee family.
Who would “adore” or would want to “adore” such a man?

   Christians also worship Jesus as God/Son of God but Paul –who knows more than the pope and Christians as these follow Paul– says that Jesus was made a “curse” and made “lower” than the angels?–(Galatians 3:13; Hebrews 2:9).
So God made Himself into a “curse” and “lower” than angels so He can be killed in order to forgive sins?

   Again. Jesus did not give “all truth” so he gave his followers the most sublime commandment: for them to follow the Comforter who will “guide you into all truth” and will “abide with you for ever” (in which event Jesus will become redundant)–(John 14:15-16; 16:13).
Who then will follow a man who did not give “all truth” (and is redundant) over the man who brought “all truth” –Mohammad? 

  Christians can reject Mohammad but Christians cannot refute Mohammad’s claim to Divine Dispensation. In fact, of all the claimants to Divine Dispensation, Jesus included, Mohammad is the only one who can substantiate his claim –the Qur’an with its prophecies that have already manifested, teachings on science that have been verified and the inimitability of the Qur’an is Mohammad’s proof.
   But for Mohammad, Jesus who gave sermons (which the educated with oratory skills can also do); mostly absurd doctrines; and performed miracles (that cannot be verified, but for their mention in the Qur’an; and which “false Christs and false prophets” can also perform–Matthew 24: 24),  Jesus may have long since been relegated to bin of myths and legends.

   It is Mohammad who, through Divine Revelation, that is keeping Jesus alive and has secured for Jesus today the unflagging allegiance of some one-and-one-half billion Muslims. And counting; as Islam spirits on inexorably, invincibly and impregnably, as Divinely decreed by Allāh to prevail over all religions though the polytheists are averse to it–(Qur’an 9:33; 48:28; 61:9).. And Trinitarians are polytheists.

   Incidentally, Paul, who knows more than the pope and Christians and was nearer in Time to Jesus, taught that Jesus had a human father: Jesus was born through sexual intercourse, he was NOT of virgin birth:
   -“Therefore (David) being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the FRUIT OF HIS LOINS, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne”–(Acts 2:30);
   -“Concerning his Son Jesus Christ…which was made of the SEED OF DAVID ACCORDING TO THE FLESH”–(Romans 1:3);
  -“Remember that Jesus Christ of the SEED OF DAVID”–(2 Timothy 2:8).
 “Seed” is sperm; “according to the flesh” is sexual intercourse.
   Why then is the pope flogging the non-existent horse of “virgin” birth? (Virgin birth is a “forgery”. See Jesus birth in Bible & Qur’an).

Also, As Khwaja Kamal-d-Din exposes in Open Letters to the Bishops of Salisbury& London (in the 1900’s):
“The concluding eleven verses of St. Mark-(16:9-20) and the well-known verse of St. Matthew-(28:19), speaking of the Son and the Father and the Holy Ghost, are forgeries, an admitted addition to the ancient MSS (manuscripts). The fact was discovered by the first translator of the Bible into English and they made a marginal note in their version of the Bible which continued for some time. But we do not find the said note in any of the copies now published by the said society (Foreign Mission Society). Is it fair and honest to keep others in darkness as to the true value of the contents of the Bible?”

   Unless the pope is ignorant of these “forgeries” (and it is doubtful that he is ignorant) why is he preaching to non-Jews which is against the express teaching of his God/Son of God?
Incidentally, in Mark !6:16-18 Jesus is alleged to have said that those who are baptized, “They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them.”
Would the pope take up (un-milked) serpents” or “drink any deadly thing”?
If the pope and Christians truly believe that Jesus is God and Son of God and the Bible is “all” “Word of God” they will have no reluctance or hesitancy to drink this “deadly thing.”  Surely to demonstrate their “Word of God” and trust in their God and “Son of God” is the highest of beliefs.

(If these verses of Mark 16:16-18 are metaphorical as one Christian apologist tried to wiggle out of, then the “baptized”, the “new tongues” Christian will speak in; and their “hands” and the “sick” on whom they will lay their hands on and their “recover(y)” are all metaphorical.
What is a metaphorical “deadly thing” that one drinks?

CHRISTIANITY–ENEMY TO KNOWLEDGE: Belief is not fact. Wonder how many of the “Eminences,” “Magnificences,” “Excellencies,” “Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen” in the pope’s audience swallowed the pope’s victuals that Christianity is a religion of “reason” and “science”.
   The religion that teaches people to not worry about their next day, that God will send as He provides for the birds and flowers and urges people to abandon industry and become fishers of men, instead of bringing man material progress, such teachings will have man mired in the bog of material stagnation –if America and Europe were to follow such a doctrine, instead of them being on the pinnacle of progress they would regress into the black-hole of backwardness. Instead of flying jumbo-jet from Italy to Germany, Pope Benedict XVI would have had to row-boat the Atlantic.”–(Matthew 6:25-34).

   As her history shows, the Church is an enemy to knowledge, “the words of Holy Writ, which was regarded as infallible, and everything spoken against it as tantamount to heresy.”
These are some of the Church’s “love” and “universality” for man:

   -“pillaged and destroyed” “The valuable library of Alexandria”;
   -sent “Galileo to prison”
   -murder of Hypatia, the renowned commentator on Plato”;
   -“the geometry of Euclid and Appolonius was held to be of no use, the geography of Ptolemy a blunder”:
   -“Cecco d’Ascoli, a noted astronomer, was compelled to vacate his professional chair at Bologna, and was burned alive at Florence, 1327”;.
  -“found Vanini guilty (because he believed in the theory of evolution) and sentenced him to have his tongue torn out from his mouth and to be burnt alive;”

   -“Among the many poor victims of the Church, who took up the Copernican theory and advanced it, was Giordano Bruno ….He was hunt-ed from country to country. From Italy, his native land, to Switzerland, France, England, Ger-many, his persecutors ever on his trail. Upon his return to Venice, he was apprehended, and imprisoned in the Piombo for six years …..Bruno was transferred from Venice to Rome on the demand of the spiritual authorities and handed over to Cardinal San Severino. He was arraigned before sixteen cardinals, who put him several questions and demanded a recantation. Bruno re-plied, “I neither ought nor wish to recant.”..…. They declared this magnificent character to be an “impenitent and obstinate heretic” and sentenced him to death in 1600 by a fire made slow, to increase the torture.”
   -“Galileo Galilei, who adorns the list of the Church victims, was another well-known martyr to the cause of science. His crime was that he had demonstrated the truth of the Copernican theory;”
  -The Church’s “hatred of learning was such that, in the words of Draper, “every manuscript which could be seized was burnt””;

  -“But to ascertain the truth of our statement, we need not go so far back.  We can always expect the Church to live up to its historic past. It is in our own living memory that Francisco Ferrar was murdered in 1909, in Spain, for the sole offence that he wanted to educate the people. And the Church hated education, as it has always hated it. It is said he was stood against the prison wall, and before the shots were fired he said in a clear and fearless voice: “Aim straight, my brothers. Long live the modern school!” No regretting, no cringing, no recanting ever escaped his lips. And the fact that only very recently one of the Italian cities has decided to remove the street name of Francisco Ferrar from one of its thoroughfares, intensifies the truth of this statement that the Church is the same to-day, yesterday and for ever. The only condition is opportunity.

   There is one thing that is remarkable in the history of material science in relation to Christianity and Islam. In the case of the former, as long as religion kept its hold on its adherents, Europe made no progress in any way, but when the Western mind became emancipated from canonical rule and Church thralldom, civilization came in leaps and bounds in every form. On the other hand, Islam, at its very advent, gave a tremendous impetus to science and culture. In its various departments, modern civilization owes its salient factors to Islam, but unfortunately, in modern days–notably in the last two centuries– our mundane prosperity and success began to prove too intoxicating to keep our steps sober and steady; we ceased from treading in the foot-prints of our ancestors, and turned our backs on Muslim principles of life.”
   “The Western nations made their present progress when they liberated themselves from the hold of Church religion and began to think in-dependently for themselves on Islamic lines.”
   “It was to the Muslim universities in Spain that Columbus learned that the earth was spheroid, for one of the Muslim educational appliances was the globe. Columbus was convinced of the spheroidicity of the earth.” (Khwaja Kamal-ud Din in his Open Letters to the Bishops Of Salisbury & London in the early 1900’s, pp. 45-56, 147).  
   As late as 2008, the Pope is accused of being “hostile to science”–(Toronto Star, Sat; Jan; 19, 2008, p. A21).

   In contrast to the Christian “blight” Allāh tells us that everything in the heavens and earth were created for our benefit and urges us to seek knowledge. It is Islam, as is clearly expressed in the Qur’an, that is the religion of “reason” and “science.”
   Whether in science or theology Pope Benedict XVI should know better than to try and foist Christianity above Islam. Or even make it equal with Islam.
  Here is the link if you would like to view Pope Benedict XVI’s lingual masquerade as he dances about to Divinize Jesus and to legitimize Trinity, and promote over Islam, the colossal crockery and profanity he calls Christianity:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/september/ documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg.html

1. 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.