In 1996, Hillary Rodham Clinton hosted an end of Ramadan celebration in the White House, the first of what has become an annual affair, which has been interpreted by one Muslim spokesman as setting “the seal of the officialness of Islam as a full-fledged religion in America.” Until a few decades ago, Islam was a scarcely noticeable feature of this country's religious landscape. It now lays claim to being the fastest growing religion in America, citing membership figures between four and six million, ahead of Episcopalians and Jews. While a more accurate estimate would bring the numbers down closer to two million, [see Richard John Neuhaus, “Islamic Encounters,” in First Things, Feb 1998] the growth rate is still significant.

With its increasing numbers, the Islamic community has begun to assert itself in the public arena, seeking and gaining accommodations for its religious practices in schools, on college campuses and in the workplace. Muslim schools and mosques are cropping up in cities from New York to LA. As this Muslim presence makes itself known here in America, we should ask ourselves what we know about this religion, a religion that historically has shown itself inimical towards Christianity, producing scores of Orthodox martyrs — even today, as current events in Serbia and elsewhere tragically demonstrate.

Islam's founder, the prophet Muhammad (also Mohammed or Mahomet), was born c. 570 AD, in Mecca, an oasis town in western Arabia, located on a caravan route between the Persian and Byzantine Empires. His father Abdallah, of the ruling Quraysh tribe, died soon after Muhammad's birth, and the child was raised by his uncle Abu Talib. As a young man, Muhammad went to work in the caravan trade, in the employ of a wealthy widow, Kadifah, whom he married when he was twenty-four. They had several children, only one of whom, a daughter Fatima, survived. Now a man of means, Muhammad used his leisure for contemplation, sometimes withdrawing for this purpose into the mountains. Mecca was a religious center for the polytheistic Arabians, and Muhammad, who had also been exposed to Jewish and Christian traditions in his travels as a camel driver, may have been trying to make sense of the conflicting beliefs. In view of later developments this is at least a credible surmise.

Muhammad was about forty when he felt called to be God's prophet. According to the traditional Muslim biography, he was sleeping on Mount Hira when he had a vision of the Archangel Gabriel, who commanded him, “Recite!” For the next twenty-two years Muhammad continued to receive revelations, which were recorded by his followers and comprise the Muslim holy scriptures, called the Qur'an (Koran), meaning “the reading” or “the recitation.”

Foremost among Muhammad's teachings was that there is but one god, Allah (possibly from al illah, which means the god — Boa, p. 49). His first converts were his wife and a young cousin Ali, but he was otherwise slow in gaining adherents. His teaching angered the Meccan merchants, whose revenues depended on the town's numerous shrines to various deities. Muhammad escaped a plan to murder him by fleeing to Yathrib, two hundred and eighty miles north of Mecca. The traditional date of the flight, the Hijrah or Hegira, July 16, 622, was adopted as the beginning of the Muslim era, and the name of the town was changed to Medina, the “City of the Prophet.” There, Muhammad was more successful in attracting converts, and he soon established himself as the head of a model theocratic state, extending his teachings to cover many legal and political, as well as social and religious matters.

The new religion's basic tenet was surrender to the will of Allah, islam, and those who professed to do so were called Muslims. Muhammad himself claimed to be the last in a series of prophets that included the Jewish Old Testament prophets as well as Jesus Christ. He expected to attract followers among Medina's considerable Jewish population. When they rejected him, he stopped praying towards Jerusalem, turning instead towards Mecca, and began persecuting the Jews, confiscating their properties. Among his followers Muhammad inculcated a strong bond of brotherhood, while those outside the faith, like the Jews, were subject to official discrimination, including special taxes.

For all his moral preaching, Muhammad sanctioned the plundering of caravans, and, with their treasury thereby enriched, the Medinese waged a successful war against the Meccans, taking the city in 630. By this time Muhammad's renown had grown, and even when he tore down the idols he encountered no serious opposition. He rebuilt the most important shrine, a temple called the “Kaaba,” which housed the Black Stone, thought to have been given by the Archangel Gabriel to Abraham, and, by continuing the ancient tradition of pilgrimage to the Kaaba, ensured Mecca's distinction as the religious center of the Islamic world.

This world expanded rapidly after the death of Muhammad in 632. He had left his followers with a commission from Allah to spread the faith to the rest of the world through the jihad. Within a century, this “holy war” had brought lands from Seville to Samarkand into a new Arab Muslim empire. By the early ninth century, the wave of Muslim expansion had swept India and had brushed the borders of China. Arab political supremacy waned, but Islam held sway in the conquered lands, with the exception of Spain and Portugal, which reverted to Christianity. In the fourteenth century the Ottoman Turks resumed the jihad with renewed vigor, extending their rule into Europe almost as far as Vienna and establishing themselves as the new champions of the Islamic world. They maintained their power with the same bloody sword, until internal crises combined with military reversals, beginning with the famous naval battle of Lepanto in 1571, to initiate the gradual decline of their empire. It was 1830 before Greece achieved its independence, and 1912 before the rest of the Balkans and their predominantly Orthodox Christian populations were free of their Muslim oppressors.

The teachings of Islam are set forth in the Qur'an (Koran), which is divided into 114 chapters or surahs. These are supplemented by hadith, “sayings,” a record of the actions and utterances of Muhammad, which at first were transmitted by oral tradition and later written down. The Qur'an and hadith form the basis of the shari'a, the Holy Law, which lies at the foundation of the Islamic state, and which constitutes a rich body of legislation covering all aspects of public and private life. Less clearly defined is the ijam, which may roughly be described as “consensus” and refers to the common opinion of the believers regarding particular interpretations of Islamic teaching. This in turn is guided by the Sunna, or accepted “tradition.” In the eighth century, the Sunna was more rigorously defined, and this later gave rise to some debate between those who continued to adhere to this strict definition, the Sunnis, and those who restored a greater role to opinion. In both cases, innovation was and is considered to be equivalent to the Christian concept of heresy.

Briefly summarized, Islam teaches that there is one God, Allah, omnipotent and omniscient, creator of heaven and earth, and that Mohammad is his last and greatest prophet; that when the world falls away from Islam the end will come and there will be a resurrection of bodies and a day of universal judgment; at that time each man's deeds will be weighed to determine his destiny in heaven or hell.

In order to attain heaven, the Muslim is to submit to the will of Allah in all aspects of his life. A fundamental, and required, expression of this submission is the fulfillment of five basic duties, regarded as “the five pillars” of Islam. 1) Profession of faith: “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet.” Anyone who confesses this may be considered a Muslim. 2) Prayer. There is a set of prescribed prayers that are to be offered five times a day : at sunrise, midday, afternoon, evening, and before retiring. The worshipper must be in a state of ritual purity and prays facing Mecca, the “prophet's” birthplace. 3) Fasting. During the month of Ramadan, the ninth month of the Muslim year, all adult Muslims, with the exception of the aged and infirm, abstain from dawn until dusk from all food, drink and sexual relations. 4) Pilgrimage. All Muslims are expected, at least once in their lifetime, to make a pilgrimage to Mecca. This is a great unifying force in the Islamic world, each year bringing together vast numbers of people from different races, nationalities, and cultures in a single, collective act of devotion. 5) Charity. The Muslim pays a certain tribute, which goes to the community or the Islamic state, and he is expected to give generous alms beyond that. A sixth pillar is sometimes added: jihad, or “holy war.” Anyone who dies fighting for the advance of Islam is assured of going to heaven.

Islam has no equivalent to the Church, nor does it have an ordained priesthood or any sacraments. Muslims gather on Friday in a mosque for communal prayer, in which they are led by an imam, who can be anyone from the community who knows the ritual prayers. Friday is not, however, the Muslim equivalent of the Jewish or Christian Sabbath; there is nothing in the Qur'an that prescribes a day of rest. Nor is the mosque a place of holiness; it has no altar, no sanctuary, and it is open not only for prayer but for study and for business. In earlier times it served as a social center, a hall of justice, and a pulpit for public proclamations and important news.

Islam has many recognizable elements taken from Judaism and Christianity, and Muslims like to stress the similarities: they believe in one god, creator of heaven and earth; they believe that all human beings belong to a single family that originated with Adam and Eve; they follow the Ten Commandments; they honor Jesus Christ and the prophets of the Old Testament; they regard the Pentateuch, the Psalms and the Gospels to be inspired writings; they believe in a day of judgment, a resurrection, a heaven and a hell. In fact, any perceived similarities are superficial — and deceptive.

Islam is rigorously monotheistic. Allah is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Who is revealed in Genesis to be a plurality of Persons: And God said, Let us make man in our image (Gen. 1:26; cf also Gen. 3:22, 11:6-7). In the New Testament this plurality is more explicitly revealed to be a Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, One in Essence, Every-existing, Undivided and Indivisible. Muslims do not accept this mystery and accuse Christians of being polytheists. (Some compound this error, believing that Christians worship God, Jesus and Mary). This mystery of the Trinity, which is a fundamental dogma of the Christian faith, has been described by the Church fathers as a Trinity in Unity, the perfect expression of perfect love. This love is not only an attribute of God; God is love (I John 4:8,16). Although Muslims believe Allah to be loving, merciful, and just, he is more frequently revealed in Muslim scriptures to be stern, demanding and retributive: “Those that disobey Allah and His Apostle shall abide forever in the fire of hell” (Sura 72).

Muslims say that they regard the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the Gospels to be inspired writings. And they honor many Old Testament prophets. However, they consider Muhammad to be the last prophet, whose message supersedes the revelations of earlier prophets. Any scripture that contradicts their beliefs they regard as having been corrupted. They believe that Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, that He was sinless, and that He did great things, but they believe that before the crucifixion God took Him away, leaving a shadow in His place, and that Jesus will return at the end of the world to fight Antichrist.

One of Islam's appeals is that it is egalitarian, and Muslims claim to champion the brotherhood of man, but Islam officially discriminates against non-Muslims. The fourteenth-century Muslim theologian, Ibn Taymiyya, wrote: “Nothing in the law of Muhammad states that the blood of the unbeliever is equal to the blood of the Muslim, because faith is necessary for equality.” (Almahdy). Therefore, the killing of a non-Muslim is not a capital crime. In the period of Islamic conquest, pagans were required to convert to Islam — on penalty of death. Jews and Christians, as “people of the Book,” were allowed religious autonomy but were required to pay a special tax and were subject to certain social and legal restrictions. This dhimmis status is still enforced today. In many Islamic countries non-Muslims are forbidden any public expression of their faith, proselytizing is punishable by death, and any Muslim who embraces Christianity may be killed by another Muslim without penalty to the killer (Almahdy). This is a far cry from the Christian teaching illustrated by Christ's parable of the Good Samaritan. I will strike terror into the hearts of unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips off them. (Sura 8:13-17)

Muslims would have others believe that Islam is a religion of peace, but this is problematic both in view of its past history and its current policies and practices. Under the Ottoman Turks, scores of Orthodox Christians accepted martyrdom rather than convert to Islam. In 1821, at the outbreak of the Greek War for Independence, the Ecumenical Patriarch, Gregory V, was hung from the gates of the patriarchate. The fierce and even brutal persecution of Christians in Islamic countries today is well documented — if shamefully ignored (see Paul Marshall's Their Blood Cries Out). It has been pointed out that certain aspects of Islam — the shari'a in particular — have been politicized under Western influence, and that the extremist brand of Islam that has developed in response to the challenge of Western culture is a significant departure from traditional Islam. Muslims in this country would distance themselves from the stereotypical profile of the militant Muslim “fundamentalist,” inspired by such incendiary leaders as the Ayatollah Khomeini, Louis Farrakhan, and their terrorist protégés. However, Muslims cannot close their eyes to the fact that there are these extremists in their midst, and these often have the voice in the Muslim community. This admission comes from the Islamic Supreme Council, a Muslim education group that is criticizing Islamic leaders here in the US for too often “equivocating between implicit support for extremists and general condemnation of terrorism.” It says that Islamic extremist organizations often operate in the US under “assumed identities as non-profit organizations or corporate businesses, hiding their origins and affiliations” (Religion Watch). The KLA's ties with Muslim terrorist Usama bin Laden and the support it receives from the militantly Islamic state of Iran were widely reported until this became embarrassing to US policy in Kosovo.

Perhaps because Islam admits no Church/State dichotomy — in Islam, God is Caesar — it is prone to politicization. Certainly we must not judge all Muslims by a vocal militant minority. However, inasmuch as this militancy carries the threat of religious coercion, it should be of no small concern to us as we watch Islam make inroads not only into the heart of Serbia, but also here at home.

One can admire Muslims who take seriously their religion as a way of life and who breast the strong current of secularism in order to follow the precepts and obligations of their faith. As a religion, however, Islam is deficient in many ways. It does not admit the concept of grace and makes no provision for sin. Heavily based upon works, it is legalistic, prone to empty ritualism, and pervaded by a sense of fatalism (kismet). Muhammad himself inspires little confidence in his claim to be a divinely chosen prophet. When he was still young, he was subject to fits, leading his foster mother to suspect that he was possessed by demons. His later visions were accompanied by similar manifestations, terrifying Muhammad himself. Although some of his followers persist in believing Muhammad to have been sinless, his behavior in Medina was in many ways disgraceful — he plundered caravans and persecuted Jews. When Kadijah died, he took several wives, sanctioning polygamy (he himself exceeded the “proper” limit of four). His sexual indulgences translated into his conception of heaven as a place of sensual gratification.

Islam's fatal flaw, of course, is that it worships a false god. Ecumenists would have us believe that all religions are basically the same, and that if we would only lay aside the interpretations, traditions, and other human accretions that create our differences, we could all stand on common ground. This, certainly, is the vision of proponents of the New World Order. As Christians, however, we cannot subscribe to such a monstrous proposition, for it would be tantamount to denying Christ. Holy Scripture says plainly: Christ and the Father are One (John 10:30), and Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father (I John 2:23). Christ Himself is the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father except by Him (John 14:6). In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9). Our faith in Christ and His words is supported by numerous prophecies, by the evidence of miracles, by His divine Incarnation of a virgin, His Resurrection and ascension, and by countless manifestations of His love for mankind. Islam has no comparable testimony to offer. It is a composite religion based on one man's alleged revelations about a strange god, a god who has done nothing for man's redemption and salvation. Worldwide, Islam currently claims some two billion souls, each of whom is conscious of his obligation to wage jihad. Would that we, as Christians, could be more conscious of our commission — to spread abroad the love of Christ, that others might be drawn out of darkness into His marvelous light (I Peter 2:9).

Sources:

Dr Saleem Almahdy, “A Look Behind the Veil: How do Christians Live Under the Islamic Regime?” in Voice of the Martyrs, February 1998.

Sister Anastasia, “Orthodoxy and Islam” in Orthodox Life, May-June 1993.

Kenneth Boa, Cults, World Religions and You, Victor Books, 1977.

Bernard Lewis, ed., Islam and the Arab World, Alfred Knopf, 1976.

William L. Langer, ed., An Encycopedia of World History, Houghton Mifflin, 1968.

Richard John Neuhaus, “Islamic Encounters” in First Things, February 1998. Daniel Pipes, “The Western Mind of Radical Islam” in First Things, December 1995.

Father Basile Sakkas, “Do We Have the Same God that Non-Christians Have?” in Foi Transmise April 5, 1970; English translation in Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future by Fr. Seraphim Rose, St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1983.

“American Muslim Leaders Silent on Terrorism?” in Religion Watch, February 1999.

Recommended: James Jatras, “The Muslim Advance and American Collaboration” in The Christian Activist, Winter/Spring 1999.

1. The Muslim Advance and American Collaboration.

by James George Jatras.

In addressing the cultural schism between the western and eastern halves of European, Christian civilization, marked principally by their respective religious traditions, Roman Catholic/Protestant in the West and Orthodox in the East, one issue stands above all others in determining whether that millennium-old division shall eventually prove fatal: the Islamic resurgence that has rapidly come to mark the post-Cold War era. For the East, which borders on the Muslim world, the problem continues to be, as it has been since Islam first appeared in the 7th century, primarily one of direct, violent confrontation, which today stretches from the Balkans to the Caucasus and through Central Asia. For the West, on the other hand, the problem today is primarily internal, both in terms of ideological confusion (which in many instances leads to active collaboration), coupled with demographic infiltration.

The latter factor, largely a consequence of the West's policy of more-or-less open immigration, is typified in the following example. A few months ago, the county board of Loudoun County, Virginia, just a few miles down the road from the federal capital, granted a zoning variance to facilitate construction of a new Islamic academy over vigorous local opposition. The institution, one of a number being constructed nationwide, will cover some 100 acres, will include elementary, middle, and high schools, will feature an 800-bed dormitory, and will grace the rolling hills of the Virginia horse country with a 65-foot mosque dome and an 85-foot minaret.

County residents opposed the academy on a variety of grounds, notably the loss of tax revenue on land that was otherwise zoned for business uses and the security threat posed by the school, either from Muslims that would be attracted to the county or from the possibility that anti-Saudi Islamic groups might see the academy as a tempting target. But the critics' central issue and the one that highlights western incomprehension of the phenomenon in question was the character of the Saudi regime which, according to the school's bylaws (specifying even that the Saudi ambassador is ex officio chairman), exercises total control, to the extent that it is part of the structure of the Saudi Ministry of Education: an establishment of a foreign sovereign on American soil.

Predictably, as soon as Saudi Arabia and Islam became the issues, the only response from progressive opinion had to be that rejection of the school would be intolerance of “diversity.” Characteristic of this viewpoint is one county resident who symbolically displayed a crescent and star in the window of her home to show that “Islam is welcome here.” The ever-vigilant Washington Post weighed in with an editorial blasting opposition to the school as “religious intolerance” and “the worst kind of bigotry” on the part of retrograde denizens of the Old Dominion. “Ugly statements that have been made in public meetings on the issue have run the range of mean-spiritedness,” sniffed the Post , “with some residents asserting that the school should be rejected because 'the Saudis execute their own people who convert from Islam.'“

In point of correction to the Post's sarcastic quotation marks, the 1997 U.S. Department of State Report on Human Rights Practices states the following about Saudi Arabia: “Freedom of religion does not exist. Islam is the official religion and all [Saudi] citizens must be MuslimsŠConversion by a Muslim to another religion is considered apostasy. Public apostasy is considered a crime under Shari'a law and punishable by death.” So which is more “ugly” and “mean-spirited” the fact that the Saudis do indeed behead those who abandon Islam or that Loudoun citizens had been so tactless to take note of that fact? One witness before the county board testified to the fact that her daughters, who are U.S. citizens, have been kept from leaving Saudi Arabia for over thirteen years because, as women, they may not travel, even though the elder one is now an adult, without their Saudi father's permission. The girls have been forcibly converted to Islam and can only look forward to their eventual marriage, for which their consent is at best a formality.

Fawning by county authorities extended even to a blatant disregard of the county's own laws. A Loudoun ordinance defines a private institution as one that is neither funded nor controlled by any government, on both of which counts the Loudoun Islamic academy fails. Yet the county board even rejected testimony to that effect by a former board member, who himself was the author of the relevant ordinance, that the academy was not a private institution. No matter. Today, neither Loudoun County, nor the Commonwealth of Virginia, nor the United States would be able to create and run an educational institution based on any religious doctrine. But a foreign government, a government that is every bit as bigoted, intolerant, and ugly as the Post wrongly tagged the school's critics not only may do so but is seen as having a positive right to do so.

Especially illuminating in the Loudoun controversy was the position of local Christian social conservatives, who stayed neutral or even supported the academy. In the dimmer recesses of the American Christian mind, the only circuits activated were those questioning what precedent denying the variance might set for private Christian schools, the availability of public voucher funds, and so forth. The importation of Shari'a into a once-Christian commonwealth seemingly registered not at all in evangelical minds blissfully unaware of Islamic aims:

“The Islamist movement makes no secret of its intentions to convert the West. Its propaganda, published in booklets sold in all European Islamic centers for the last thirty years, sets out its aim and the methods to achieve them. They include proselytism, conversion, marriage with local women, and, above all, immigration. Remembering that Muslims always began as a minority in the conquered countries ('liberated,' in Islamic terminology) before becoming a majority, the ideologists of this movement regard Islamic settlement in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere as a chance for Islam.” [Bat Ye'or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, p. 217, emphasis added].

The element of willful blindness in western perspectives on Islam cannot be overestimated. So deeply imbedded is the notion that all religions are in their fundamentals the same, evidence to the contrary is simply wished out of existence. When the Ayatollah Khomeini states that –

“...Muslims have no alternative...to armed holy war against profane governments,...the conquest of all non-Muslim territories...It will be the duty of every able-bodied adult male to volunteer for this war of conquest, the final aim of which is to put Koranic law in power from one end of the earth to the other...”

...and so on in the same vein, such utterances are as little heeded as were similar statements by Lenin during the Cold War. After all, Khomeini is a known “fundamentalist.” Surely, his statements can't be held against the moderates, the “mainstream,” who represent “ real Islam,” whose beliefs and values are not so different from ours, right? The contention that Khomeini and his ilk are in fact Islam's historical “mainstream” not only is dismissed but is itself considered evidence of a dangerous “Christian fundamentalism,” which is every bit as bad as the Muslim variety, probably worse. Together with the growing number of Muslims in America (who, according to some claims, already have overtaken Judaism as the nation's largest non-Christian religion), the irrebuttable presumption of Muslim peaceableness has set the stage for Islam to become both a social and political force. Particularly under the Clinton Administration, Islam has made major strides to join denatured, humanized Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism in their semi-established status as kindred denominations of a single American civic creed, symbolized by Hillary Rodham Clinton's recent sponsorship of the Eid al-Fitr end-of-Ramadan celebration at the White House.

Likewise, the idea that Islam shares with Christianity and Judaism an Abrahamic pedigree, that we are all, in the Islamic phrase, “peoples of the book,” is now almost universally accepted. To see how flimsy this idea is, suppose that during the early Christian era a pagan philosopher from Athens had claimed to have received a vision from a divine messenger ( angelos ) to the effect that Zeus/Jupiter ( diu pater), the Greco-Roman “father god,” was the one and only God and in fact was the same God the Father preached by the Christians; that the Christians had corrupted their own Scriptures to hide the fact that Jupiter had been worshiped by Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, while only the self-proclaimed prophet's recitation of his own vision was authoritative; that the rites and sacred places of the Olympian gods (the Eleusinian Mysteries, the Delphic Oracle) had always pertained to Jupiter alone and indeed had been established by earlier Abrahamic prophets; and that those who had surrendered their will to Jupiter were commanded to wage holy war under his thunderbolt symbol on “infidels” who resisted the divine will. Is there any doubt that Christians then would have rejected the supposed kinship of the new teaching to their own faith as unanimously as today's Christians rush to accommodate Islam?

There is little doubt that Islam's “God” is none other than the former chief deity of the polytheistic Arab pantheon — a variation on the moon god common throughout the ancient Middle East, among the Babylonians known as Sin (the Sinai peninsula is probably named after him) and among the Sumerians as Nanna — stripped of his consorts and offspring. Among the pagan Arabs he was usually called simply “the god,” al-ilah: Allah. The moon god Allah, whose crescent symbol today caps mosques the world over, headed a pantheon of over 300 lesser divinities, including three daughters called Lat, Uzza, and Manat; in fact, the controversy over The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie centers upon an embarrassing (and historically documented) episode during Muhammad's evolving “revelation” (after his death collected as his Qur'an, “recitation”) in which he admitted the possibility of retaining under his new dispensation the three daughter-goddesses but later rescinded it as having been of false, “satanic,” inspiration. Muhammad (the son of Abdallah, “slave of Allah,” a further attestation of the god's pre-Islamic origin) was of the Quraysh tribe, the custodians of the Meccan shrine to the pantheon known as the Ka'bah (“cube”), which then as now houses a black stone, probably a meteorite, which Muslim pilgrims today continue to venerate, along with performance of other pre-Islamic pagan rites such as stoning the devil at Wadi Mina and partaking of the waters of the Zamzam well.

In short, Islam is a self-evident outgrowth not of the Old and New Covenants but of the darkness of heathen Araby. Beside ludicrous historical suggestions to the contrary (such as the idea that the Ka'bah was built by Abraham, which would have been big news to him), Muslim apologists have strained to find in the Bible evidence that a new prophet would arise after Jesus, seeing Muhammad in obvious prophecies of the Holy Spirit (that were fulfilled on Pentecost) or of the Second Coming of Christ. One could find no better refutation of Islam's efforts to appropriate Christian Scriptures (here, Matthew 24:27) than that of the 14th-century Byzantine saint, Gregory Palamas, to his Turkish captors:

“It is true that Muhammad started from the east and came to the west, as the sun travels from east to west. Nevertheless he came with war, knives, pillaging, forced enslavement, murders, and acts that are not from the good God but instigated by the chief manslayer, the devil.”

St. Gregory's answer is no less devastating to Islam's fraudulent self-depiction as a pacific creed. Islam was born in violence, from Muhammad's sanction of raids of pillage and plunder (starting with attacks against his own Quraysh tribe, which initially rejected his revelation) to his savage execution of hundreds of men of the Qurayzah clan (which professed Judaism) and the enslavement and forced concubinage of their women and children. (Muhammad himself took as his unwilling consort the Jewish 17-year-old Safiya on the very day of the murder of her menfolk.) From its inception, first within Arabia and then against all unbelievers, Islam has been unthinkable without its mandate for violence, war, terror — in a word, jihad — itself codified in Muhammad's Qur'an (notably Sura 9:29). Today, Islamic apologists in America have been quick to latch onto the vocabulary of grievance, denouncing as “stereotyping,” “bigotry,” and “ignorance” association of Islam with its violent past and present. Even American elementary school texts have been rewritten to suggest that once-Christian Egypt, Syria, and Palestine became Muslim because their conquerors were “invited” in; Muslims are quick to remind Christians of the Crusaders' later “aggression,” but they don't consider as aggression their own unprovoked seizure of the Christian Middle East.

In the application of jihad, as documented by Bat Ye'or and others, Islam understands the world in terms of two domains, or “houses”: the House of Islam ( Dar al-Islam ), where Islam rules and Shari'a , the law of Allah, has been realized; and the House of War (Dar al-Harb), where the rebellious unbelievers persist in their (or rather, our) lawlessness. (The parallels are unavoidable to the similarly Manichaean communist concepts of the “socialist camp” as the zone of peace and the “capitalist camp” as the zone of war. I will leave it to the specialists to calculate which — Islam or communism — can claim the greater achievement as gigantic Christian-killing machines.) In Islamic terms, we unsubdued Christians are harbi , and as such we have no legitimate right to our lands, our property, or even our lives, which by right belong not to us but to the Muslims; that which we now have we enjoy only as long as Islam has not (yet) become strong enough to impose Shari'a . As the highly respected and influential 14th century authority Ibn Taymiyya explained:

“These possessions [i.e., the things taken away from the non-Muslims upon their conquest] received the name of fay [war booty] since Allah had taken them away from the infidels in order to restore (afa'a, radda) them to the Muslims. In principle, Allah has created the things of this world only in order that they may contribute to serving Him, since He created man only in order to be ministered to. Consequently, the infidels forfeit their persons and their belongings which they do not use in Allah's service to the faithful believers who serve Allah and unto whom Allah restitutes what is theirs; thus is restored to a man the inheritance of which he was deprived, even if he had never before gained possession.”

It is worthy of note that this Ibn Taymiyya is particularly revered by the Wahabi sect, which is the ruling doctrine of Saudi Arabia; students at the Saudi-controlled Loudoun Islamic Academy will no doubt receive benefit of such wisdom. But it should not be thought that Ibn Taymiyya's sentiments are unique to him. On the contrary, Bat Ye'or multiplies comparable passages from Islamic sages of many times and locales, from the time of Muhammad to the present day.

In the sweep of the long history of the Islamic assault on the Christian world, it is sobering to consider how close the latter has come to annihilation on more than one occasion. In the initial offensive during the first decade after Muhammad's demise, Christendom lost its birthplace in the Levant, with the front of the East Roman Empire only being stabilized at the approaches to Asia Minor. Meanwhile, the Arab armies swept west from conquered Egypt, subduing the whole north coast of Africa and crossing into Visigothic Spain in 711. They were finally stopped by the Franks under Karl the Hammer at Poitiers in 732, the centenary of the pseudo-Prophet's death. The conversion of the Turkish tribes to Islam in the 9th century lent jihad renewed impetus; the erosion and final collapse of East Roman power opened the eastern door to Europe in the 14th century, and the Ottomans were turned back only at the gates of Vienna in 1683. The site of the first high water mark at Poitiers and the later one at Vienna are only some 700 miles apart — so narrow has been Christendom's brush with extinction!

The Turkish defeat at Vienna marked the beginning of two centuries of remission during which European technology, particularly military technology, seemed to have resolved the contest between the Cross and Crescent decisively in favor of the former. During the 19th century, the Christian nations of the Balkans — the only conquered Christian lands since the Spanish reconquista in which the Muslims had not yet reduced the indigenous population to a minority, as they had in Egypt and Syria, or eliminated them utterly, as in the Maghreb — cast off their Muslim masters, and by the end of the First World War, most of the Muslim world (with the exceptions of the Arabian heartland itself and of a truncated Turkey which had assumed the guise of the modernizing, secular ideology of Kemalism) was subject to European rule. But at the same time as Europe achieved its military and geopolitical advantage, the moral and religious decline that culminated in the autogenocides of 1914 and 1939 had become evident. Having found in their grasp places their Crusader predecessors had only dreamed of reclaiming — Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople — effete and demoralized European governments made no effort to reChristianize them and within a few decades meekly abandoned them.

The moral disarmament of contemporary post-Christian Europe in its relations with Islam that began in the late 19th century has now become near-universal. If in the more remote past Bourbon France had made common cause with the Sublime Porte (the scandalous “union of the Lily and the Crescent”) against Habsburg Austria, the arrangement at least had the virtue of cynical self-interest: Catholic France was hardly expected to praise the sultan's benevolence as part of the bargain. But by the 1870s, Disraeli's obsession with thwarting Russian ambitions in the Balkans prompted the Tories' unprecedented depiction of Turkey as tolerant and humane even in the face of the Bulgarian atrocities; even so, Britain's Christian conscience, prodded by Gladstone's passionate words, was still sufficient to bring down Lord Beaconsfield's government in 1880.

After World War I, with the installation of nominally “pro-Western” governments in many Muslim countries fashioned from the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire, the West seems to have definitively convinced itself of the existence of benign Islam. Indeed, the promotion of “moderate” Muslim regimes, especially those willing to make peace with Israel, and, even better, those that have a lot of petroleum, has become a linchpin of U.S. global policy. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Morocco, the Gulf States, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Nigeria, Indonesia and a few others have become the darlings of U.S. policy, valued as supposed bulwarks against “fundamentalism” of the Iranian variety (Iran itself having lately been a member of the favored assembly).

Operationally, this means not only overlooking the radical activities of the supposedly “moderate” Muslim states, for example, Saudi Arabia's and Pakistan's support for the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (whom even the Iranians denounce as dangerous fanatics), and assistance by virtually the entire club to the thinly-disguised radical regime in Sarajevo, but a consistent American bias in favor of the Muslim party in virtually every conflict with a Christian nation. The most prominent exception to date has been a pro-Armenian tilt in the Nagorno-Karabakh question, a function of Armenian-Americans' early cultivation of Congress, but it can be expected that this anomaly will soon shift to Azerbaijan's favor under the combined pressure of the Turkey/Israel lobby, of residual Cold War antipathy for Russia (seen as Armenia's main protector), and of American oil companies fixated on an energy El Dorado in the Caspian Basin.

It is hardly a surprise that business executives who would sell their grandmothers to Abdul Abulbul Amir for oil drilling rights would see the world as a reflection of their balance sheets. Neither is the parallel inclination of secular, socially progressive opinion, which is viscerally anti-Christian. What is not so expected is that so many western Christians, Americans in particular, are willing to believe the worst about their eastern Christian cousins, who, only lately freed from Islamic (and later, in most cases, communist) servitude, are desperately attempting to avoid a repeat of the experience. Today, when all of the Russian North Caucasus is subject to plunder and hostage-taking razzias staged from Shari'a-ruled Chechnya, when not just Nagorno-Karabakh but Armenia proper is in danger of a repeat of 1915, when Cyprus and Greece receive unvarnished threats to their territorial integrity on a weekly basis for the offense of purchasing defensive weapons, and when the borders of Serbia are rapidly approaching those of the pashaluk of Belgrade to suit America's new-found friends in Bosnia and Kosovo, organized Roman Catholic and Protestant sentiment in America overwhelmingly sides with non- and anti-Christian elite opinion in its pro-Muslim, anti-Orthodox tendency.

For example, in 1993 statements were issued by a number of Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Anglican spokesmen in the United States urging military intervention on behalf of the Islamic regime in Sarajevo. “We are convinced that there is just cause to use force to defend largely helpless people in Bosnia against aggression and barbarism that are destroying the very foundations of society and threaten large numbers of people,” wrote the chairman of the U.S. Catholic Conference, at a time when the Muslim beneficiaries of the called-for intervention were not only roasting alive Serb POWs impaled on spits but were slaughtering Roman Catholic Croats by the hundreds in an offensive in central Bosnia. “What is going on in Bosnia is genocide by any other name,” observed a prominent Baptist spokesman: “The ghosts of Auschwitz and Dachau have come back to haunt us. If we do nothing we are morally culpable.” “Those of us who opposed the Gulf War believed that war was not the answer,” opined the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, “but today we find ourselves confronted with an evil war, the sure elimination of which may be possible only by means of armed intervention.” Thus did high-minded guardians of the West's Christian integrity give their blessing for NATO to assist the resumption of jihad in Europe. Granted, they were themselves to some extent victims of the melodramatic media coverage that has characterized the Balkan war, but that's not much of an excuse. Who told them to believe everything dished up by CNN?

On a previous occasion, I have noted that western anti-Orthodox bias, which I have dubbed Pravoslavophobia, rarely means antipathy for Orthodoxy as such. Most serious Protestants and Roman Catholic often have a fairly positive attitude toward Orthodox Christianity as a morally conservative and, especially, liturgically traditional bulwark within the spectrum of Christian opinion. (In fact, one leading Roman Catholic moral conservative who has called for Christianity to unite with not only Judaism but Islam in an “ecumenical jihad” against secularism, a common front in “spiritual warfare,” is explicit in his favorable attitude toward Orthodoxy. But it is beyond me what spiritual values any Christian has in common with someone whose idea of beatific bliss is boinking an endless parade of the well-rounded houris said to inhabit the Muslim paradise.) Perhaps it has been so long since western Christians have had to physically defend themselves as Christians (as opposed to Americans, Englishmen, Germans, etc.) that they just don't understand those for whom it is a current concern.

On the other hand, there are Westerners for whom antipathy is based precisely on the traditional Orthodox character of the front-line states bordering on Islam. Indeed, from this viewpoint, the desire of these countries to not only avoid Islamization but Westernization as well is a major count against them. For example, one columnist, who has made something of a specialty of painting the Orthodox as the villains in the conflicts with Islam (and who has even made the bizarre accusation that poor, helpless Islamic Turkey is threatened in Cyprus by the “burgeoning expansion” of an “Orthodox Axis”!), has cast it as follows:

“The purposes of the Orthodox Church in Russia today reflect most of its history. It wants to keep total power and exclude from its midst any other belief systems or reflections of conscience that might in any way threaten it. 'Through the Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church came to terms with the modern world,' the Denver-born Archbishop J. Francis Stafford, president of the Pontifical Council for the Laity, mused with me. 'We finally came to a willingness to test the waters of the Enlightenment culture against the ancient traditions of faith. The pope today is preoccupied with the relationship between freedom and truth, which is one of the primary issues raised by the Enlightenment.' That noble preoccupation unfortunately has not yet traveled eastward and, indeed, there are no indicators that it will do so. Meanwhile, it would be good for other Westerners who still dream of rapid change in Russia to study the Catholic-Orthodox case. It might instill in their hope a touch of reality and also remind them that the historical Russian propensity to protect power by remaining isolated and to keep out all those 'foreigners' is hardly a thing of the past.”

I defer to others as to what extent today's Roman Catholic Church, as well as modern Protestantism, has indeed made its peace with the Enlightenment's standard of what constitutes “freedom,” which has largely translated into freedom from Christianity altogether. (Indeed, the fruits of that kind of freedom will be evident when the muezzin's call to prayer is heard five times a day across Loudoun County.) But what is amazing about this passage is that it is evidently “remaining isolated” that constitutes the offense: Russia (and the same could be said for Greece, Serbia, etc.) is wrong not because she wants to force her faith on the West but because she does not want to adopt the West's “enlightened” version of Christianity.

Though differing in the specifics, the overall attitude displayed here is strongly reminiscent of that of the West toward the East during the last great Islamic offensive in Europe as the dying Byzantine, Bulgarian, and Serbian states faced Ottoman conquest in the 15th century. The West then was explicit: we will help you only if you renounce Orthodoxy in favor of Roman Catholicism. In today's geopolitical context, when western churchmen join in calls for military action by western governments against Orthodox countries to help Muslims, Pope John Paul's calls for ecumenical dialogue and eventual reunion of East and West, the topic of his encyclicals Ut Unam Sint and Slavorum Apostoli , look suspiciously familiar to eastern eyes. While this perception is somewhat simplistic if only because the West today is no longer the Roman Catholic monolith it once was, the larger question should not be so easily dismissed: the Orthodox East is being told today that unless they unquestioningly submit to the West's tutelage in political, social, moral, and economic matters — the collective “religion” of the Enlightenment heritage — they again will be thrown to the wolves. In fact, the West will even help the wolves to devour them.

The immorality, not to mention the stupidity, of this should be obvious. Maybe Christians will never come to agreement on doctrinal matters, maybe the East will insist on retaining its distinctive religious and cultural heritage. But even if, broadly speaking, East and West are never able to share a common Eucharistic chalice, does that mean they must be enemies? Some seem to suggest: yes. Instead, I submit that the survival of Christian Orthodox civilization in the East should be hardly less important to the West than to the Orthodox themselves, and indeed over the long term the West's own fate may depend on it. The fact that the West cannot recognize this reality is part of the same inability to recognize its own internal vulnerability, with the forest of minarets going up mainly in Western Europe but also now in North America.

Some Christians see the Muslim influx primarily as an opportunity for evangelization, and indeed we should never neglect to share the Gospel, the only real liberation, with Muslims, who should not, as individuals, be held responsible for the violent system into which they were born and of which they are perhaps more than anyone else victims. At the same time, in light of the growing volume of Muslim immigration, western Christians will soon find out — maybe sooner than they think, given western birthrates — that confronting the Islamic advance has become, as it has always been for eastern Christians, a simple matter of physical survival. But by that time it may be too late for the West as well.

The Cristian Activist, vol 13

James Buchfuehrer, Publisher /Frank Schaeffer, Editor

P.O. Box 740, Mt. Hermon CA 95041, Telephone: 408-353-3240 (voice and fax)

2. Are Allah and the God of the Bible the Same?

by Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon

Islam teaches that the true God is a being called Allah, and that all other views of God are false. The Koran emphasizes of Allah: “There is no God but he, the Living, the everlasting.” 1

But who is Allah? Is he anything like the God of Christian faith?

No. Allah lacks such attributes as holiness, grace and love. If we compare the Muslim God with the biblical God, we can see that Islam and Christianity have entirely different views of God. First, Allah is a distant God with whom no one can have a personal relationship in the manner described biblically. But the God of the Bible desires men and women to have a personal relationship with Him (John 1:1,11-14; 15:9-15; 16:27; 17:20-26).

Second, the Muslim God has a different nature and character from the biblical God. For example, Allah is not ultimately a God of love, but the Bible teaches “God is love” (1 Jn. 4:16).

Throughout the Koran it is stressed that Allah only “loves” (is merciful to) those who do good, but that he is not merciful to those who are bad. Allah repeatedly emphasizes that he does not love the sinner. 2 Thus the “love” of Allah is not the love of the God of the Bible. The biblical God does love the sinner; in fact, He loves all sinners (John 3:16; Romans 5:1-10).

Third, Allah is considered the author of evil. But the biblical God is not the author of evil. Rather He is infinitely holy and righteous (1 Samuel 2:2; Psalm 77:13; 99:9; Revelation 15:4). His “eyes are too pure to look on evil” (Habakkuk 1:13).

Fourth, Muslims deny the triune nature of God as revealed in the Bible. The Koran emphasizes that Christians are unbelievers and infidels because they believe in the historic Christian doctrine of the trinity. 3 (The Koran distorts the orthodox view of the Trinity as tritheism—three gods.) But the Bible tells us that God has revealed Himself as a triune Being, as one God eternally existing in three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (John 1:1,14; Acts 5:3,4). 4

What does all this mean? It means that the Muslim God and the biblical God constitute two distinct and opposing concepts of God. Because Muslims teach that Allah alone is the one true God, they claim that Christians worship a false god, a pagan idol. But perhaps Muslims have forgotten that it was “Allah” who was originally the pagan god. Scholars agree that before Muhammad, “Allah” was only one of the pagan deities of the pre-Islamic Arabic pantheon (collection of gods)—and not even the central deity. It was thus Muhammad who transformed and elevated this pagan deity into the supreme God of Islam. 5

Notes:

1. A. J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted (New York: MacMillan, 1976), p. 65.

2. Ibid., pp. 81, 90, 142, 178, 204.

3. Ibid., pp. 139-40.

4. For a good study, see E. Calvin Beisner, God in Three Persons (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1984), and Edward Bickersteth, The Trinity (Grand Rapids: Kregel).

5. G. D. Newby in Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religions, p. 23.

Comparison grid between

Christianity and Islamic doctrine.

Term	Christianity	Islam
Afterlife	Christians will be with the Lord in heaven (Phil. 1:21-24), in our resurrected bodies (1 Cor. 15:50-58). Non-Christians will be cast into hell forever (Matt. 25:46).	There is an afterlife (75:12) experienced as either an ideal life of Paradise (29:64), for faithful Muslims or Hell for those who are not.
Angels	Created beings, non-human, some of which, fell into sin and became evil. They are very powerful. The unfallen angels carry out the will of God.	Created beings without free will that serve God. Angels were created from light.
Atonement	The sacrifice of Christ on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) whereby His blood becomes the sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God (1 John 2:2) from the sinner when the sinner receives (John 1:12), by faith (Rom. 5:1), the work of Christ on the cross.	There is no atonement work in Islam other than a sincere confession of sin and repentance by the sinner.
Bible	The inspired and inerrant word of God in the original manuscripts (2 Tim. 3:16).	Respected word of the prophets but the Bible has been corrupted through the centuries and is only correct in so far as it agrees with the Koran.
Crucifixion	The place where Jesus atoned for the sins of the world. It is only through this sacrifice that anyone can be saved from the wrath of God (1 Pet. 2:24).	Jesus did not die on the cross. Instead, God allowed Judas to look like Jesus and he was crucified instead.
Devil	A fallen Angel who opposes God in all ways. He also seeks to destroy humanity (Isaiah 14:12-15; Ezek. 28:13-15).	Iblis, a fallen jinn. Jinn are not angels nor men, but created beings with free wills. Jinn were created from fire, (2:268; 114:1-6).
God	God is a trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not three gods in one god, nor is it one person who took three forms. Trinitarianism is strictly monotheistic. There is no other God in existence.	God is known as Allah. Allah is one person, a strict unity. There is no other God in existence. He is the creator of the universe (3:191), sovereign over all (6:61-62).
Heaven (Paradise)	The place where God dwells. Heaven is the eventual home of the Christians who are saved by God's grace. It is heaven because it is where God is and Christians will enjoy eternal Fellowship with Him.	Paradise to Muslims, a place of unimaginable bliss (32:17), a garden with trees and food (13:35;15:45-48) where the desires of faithful Muslims are met, (3:133; 9:38; 13:35; 39:34; 43:71; 53:13-15).
Hell	A place of torment in fire out of the presence of God. There is no escape from Hell (Matt. 25:46).	Hell is a place of eternal punishment and torment (14:17; 25:65; 39:26), in fire (104:6-7) for those who are not Muslims (3:131) as well as those who were and whose works and faith were not sufficient (14:17; 25:65; 104:6-7).
Holy Spirit	Third person of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is fully God in nature.	The arch-angel Gabriel who delivered the words of the Koran to Muhammad.
Jesus	Second person of the Trinity. He is the word who became flesh (John 1:1, 14). He is both God and man (Col. 2:9).	A very great prophet, second only to Muhammad. Jesus is not the son of God (9:30) and certainly is not divine (5:17, 75)) and he was not crucified (4:157).
Judgment Day	Occurs on the day of resurrection (John 12;48) where God will judge all people. Christians go to heaven. All others to hell (Matt. 25:46).	Occurs on the day of resurrection where God will judge all people. Muslims go to paradise. All others to hell (10:53-56; 34:28). Judgment is based on a person's deeds (14:47-52; 45:21-22).
Koran, The	The work of Muhammad. It is not inspired, nor is it scripture. There is no verification for its accurate transmission from the originals.	The final revelation of God to all of mankind given through the archangel Gabriel to Muhammad over a 23 year period. It is without error and guarded from error by Allah.
Man	Made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). This does not mean that God has a body, but that man is made like God in abilities (reason, faith, love, etc.).	Not made in the image of God (42:11). Man is made out of the dust of the earth (23:12) and Allah breathed life into man (32:9; 15:29).
Muhammad	A non-inspired man born in 570 in Mecca who started the Islamic religion.	The last and greatest of all prophets of Allah whose Qur'an is the greatest of all inspired books.
Original Sin	This is a term used to describe the effect of Adam's sin on his descendants (Rom. 5:12-23). Specifically, it is our inheritance of a sinful nature from Adam. The sinful nature originated with Adam and is passed down from parent to child. We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3).	There is no original sin. All people are sinless until they rebel against God. They do not have sinful natures.
Resurrection	Bodily resurrection of all people, non-Christians to damnation and Christians are resurrected to eternal life (1 Cor. 15:50-58).	Bodily resurrection, some to heaven, some to hell (3:77; 15:25;75:36-40; 22:6).
Salvation	A free gift of God (Eph. 2:8-9) to the person who trusts in Christ and His sacrifice on the cross. He is our mediator (1 Tim. 2:5). No works are sufficient in any way to merit salvation since our works are all unacceptable to God (Isaiah 64:6).	Forgiveness of sins is obtained by Allah's grace without a mediator. The Muslim must believe Allah exists, believe in the fundamental doctrines of Islam, believe that Muhammad is his prophet, and follow the commands of Allah given in the Koran.
Son of God	A term used to designate that Jesus is divine though he is not the literal son of God in a physical sense (John 5:18).	A literal son of God. Therefore, Jesus cannot be the son of Allah.
Word, The	“In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God...and the word became flesh and dwelt among us...” (John 1:1, 14).	Allah's command of existence which resulted in Jesus being formed in the womb of Mary.

Muhammad and Idolatry.

Sam Shamoun

One thing that sticks out in Islam is that most of the rites and practices adopted into the religion are actually pagan customs that Muhammad claimed were sanctioned by God. In fact, we find that Muhammad before, during, and after his mission continued to perform rites that from a biblical perspective are nothing more than idolatry. For instance, we are told that prior to his calling, Muhammad made sacrifices to the pagan idols: Narrated 'Abdullah: “Allah's Apostle said that he met Zaid bin 'Amr Nufail at a place near Baldah and this had happened before Allah's Apostle received the Divine Inspiration. Allah's Apostle presented a dish of meat (that had been offered to him by the pagans) to Zaid bin 'Amr, but Zaid refused to eat of it and then said (to the pagans), “I do not eat of what you slaughter on your stone altars (Ansabs) nor do I eat except that on which Allah's Name has been mentioned on slaughtering” (Sahi Bukhari 7:407).

Despite the fact that the parenthetical statement “to the pagans” is not part of the Arabic text, the point is still clear that Muhammad ate food sacrificed to idols that Zaid refused to partake.

In fact, Muhammad's indulgence in idolatrous practices continued right into his alleged prophetic calling. For instance, after Muhammad encountered “Gabriel” Ibn Ishaq states: “And when the apostle of God had finished his period of seclusion and returned (to Mecca), in the first place he performed the circumabulation of the Ka'ba, as was his wont. While he was doing it, Waraqa met him and said, ‘O son of my brother, tell me what thou hast seen and heard.'“ (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad [Oxford University Press, Karachi], p. 107).

We must keep in mind that at this time in Muhammad's life, there was no revelation confirming that the Kaba was originally built by Abraham and Ishmael. That came later in his life. As far as Muhammad was concerned, the Kaba was nothing more than a pagan shrine erected in honor of pagan deities.

The Quran itself commanded Muslims to continue practicing the pagan rites as part of the religion: “Behold! Safa and Marwa are among the Symbols of Allah. So if those who visit the House in the Season or at other times, should compass them round, it is no sin in them. And if any one obeyeth his own impulse to good, — be sure that Allah is He Who recogniseth and knoweth.” S. 2:158

Yusuf Ali states: “The virtue of patient perseverance in faith leads to the mention of two symbolic monuments of that virtue. These are two little hills of Safa and Marwa, now absorbed in the city of Mecca and close to the well of Zam-zam. Here, according to tradition, the lady Hajar, the mother of the infant Isma'il, prayed for water in the parched desert, and in her eager quest round these hills, she found here prayer answered and saw the Zam-zam spring. Unfortunately, the Pagan Arabs had placed a male and female idol here, and their gross superstitious rites caused offense to the early Muslims. They felt some hesitation in going round these places during the Pilgrimage. As a matter of fact they should have known that the Ka'ba (the House of God) had been itself defiled with idols, and was sanctified again by the purity of Muhammad's life and teaching. The lesson is that the most sacred things may be turned to the basest uses; that we are not therefore necessarily to ban a thing misused; that if our intentions and life are pure, God will recognize them even if the world cast stones at us because of some evil associations which they join with what we do, or with the people we associate with, or with the places which claim our reverence” (Ali, Holy Quran, f. 160, p. 62).

Despite the fact that there is not a single shred of evidence to support that Hagar was in Mecca or that Zam-zam was the well that sprung forth miraculously by the angel, Ali admits that the hills of Safa and Marwa originally housed two pagan idols. The Hadith concurs that the Muslims were hesitant to run between these two hills due to the connection with Arab paganism: I said to 'Aisha, the wife of the Prophet, and I was at that time a young boy, “How do you interpret the Statement of Allah: “Verily, Safa and Marwa (i.e. two mountains at Mecca) are among the Symbols of Allah.” So it is not harmful of those who perform the Hajj to the House of Allah) or perform the Umra, to ambulate (Tawaf) between them. In my opinion it is not sinful for one not to ambulate (Tawaf) between them.” 'Aisha said, “Your interpretation is wrong for as you say, the Verse should have been: “So it is not harmful of those who perform the Hajj or Umra to the House, not to ambulate (Tawaf) between them.' This Verse was revealed in connection with the Ansar who (during the Pre-Islamic Period) used to visit Manat (i.e. an idol) after assuming their Ihram, and it was situated near Qudaid (i.e. a place at Mecca), and they used to regard it sinful to ambulate between Safa and Marwa after embracing Islam. When Islam came, they asked Allah's Apostle about it, whereupon Allah revealed:-- “Verily, Safa and Marwa (i.e. two mountains at Mecca) are among the Symbols of Allah. So it is not harmful of those who perform the Hajj of the House (of Allah) or perform the Umra, to ambulate (Tawaf) between them” (2.158) (Sahi Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 22).

Other practices that were adopted into Islam include: And complete the Hajj or 'umra in the service of Allah. But if ye are prevented (From completing it), send an offering for sacrifice, such as ye may find, and do not shave your heads until the offering reaches the place of sacrifice. And if any of you is ill, or has an ailment in his scalp, (Necessitating shaving), (He should) in compensation either fast, or feed the poor, or offer sacrifice; and when ye are in peaceful conditions (again), if any one wishes to continue the 'umra on to the hajj, He must make an offering, such as he can afford, but if he cannot afford it, He should fast three days during the hajj and seven days on his return, Making ten days in all. This is for those whose household is not in (the precincts of) the Sacred Mosque. And fear Allah, and know that Allah Is strict in punishment. S. 2:196

Sheikh Sha'rawi says: “The kissing of the meteorite is a firm practice in Islamic law because Muhammad did it. You must not ask about the wisdom behind that because this rite is (an expression) of worship in spite of the obscurity of its wisdom” (Sha'rawi, Legal Opinions, pt. 3, p. 167 as cited in Behind the Veil, p. 287).

Muslim practices such as gathering on Friday and the four sacred months of Islam were also pre-Islamic customs: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. S. 9:5 Pickthall.

Interestingly, Muhammad abrogates the command forbidding fighting in the sacred months in order to allow Muslims the right to wage war against the unbelievers: The prohibited month for the prohibited month,- and so for all things prohibited,- there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him. But fear God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves. S. 2:194

They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein. S. 2:217 Pickthall

The fact is that even the Muslim prayers were not something unique, but something stemming from paganism! Muslim writer Muhammad Shukri al-Alusi in his Bulugh al-'Arab fi Ahwal al-'Arab states that, “The Sabeans have five prayers similar to the five prayers of the Muslims. Others say they have seven prayers, five of which are comparable to the prayers of the Muslims with regard to time [that is, morning, noon, afternoon, evening and night; the sixth is at midnight and the seventh is at forenoon]. It is their practice to pray over the dead without kneeling down or even bending the knee. They also fast for one lunar month of thirty days; they start their fast at the last watch of the night and continue till the setting of the sun. Some of their sects fast during the month of Ramadan, face Ka'ba when they pray, venerate Mecca, and believe in making the pilgrimage to it. They consider dead bodies, blood and the flesh of pigs as unlawful. They also forbid marriage for the same reasons as do Muslims” (Ibid., pp. 121-122).

Muhammad ibn 'Abdalkarim al-Sharastani in his Al-Milal wa al-Nihil, admits that most of the practices of Islam were actually rites performed by the pagans: “The Arabs during the pre-Islamic period used to practice certain things that were included in the Islamic Sharia. They, for example, did not marry both a mother and her daughter. They considered marrying two sisters simultaneously to be a most heinous crime. They also censured anyone who married his stepmother, and called him dhaizan. They made the major [hajj] and the minor [umra] pilgrimage to the Ka'ba, performed the circumambulation around the Ka'ba [tawaf], ran seven times between Mounts Safa and Marwa [sa'y], threw rocks and washed themselves after intercourse. They also gargled, sniffed water up into their noses, clipped their fingernails, plucked their hair from their armpits, shaved their pubic hair and performed the rite of circumcision. Likewise, they cut off th right hand of a thief” (Ibid., vol. 2 chapter on the opinions of the pre-Islamic Arabs as cited in al-Fadi, Is the Qur'an Infallible?, p. 122).

To further complicate matters, the pagans, much like the Muslims, ran around the Kaba seven times. The number of circumambulation seemingly corresponded to the number of planets which the pagans venerated as deities. That number totaled seven! Yusuf Ali, commenting on the paganism of Arabia, states: “But the moving 'stars', or planets, each with a motion and therefore will or influence of its own. As they knew and understood them, they were seven in number, viz.: (1) and (2) the moon and the sun, the two objects which most closely and indubitably influence the tides, the temperatures, and the life in our planet; (3) and (4) the two inner planets, Mercury and Venus, which are morning and evening stars, and never travel far from the sun; and (5), (6) and (7) Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, the outer planets whose elongations from the sun on the ecliptic can be as wide as possible. The number seven itself is a mystic number, as explained in n. 5526 to lxv. 12... It will be noticed that the sun and the moon and the five planets got identified each with a living deity, god or goddess, with characteristics and qualities of its own.” (Ali, Holy Quran, Appendix XIII, p. 1621).

Finally, after Muhammad had attacked Mecca and won over the Quraysh tribes, he entered the Kaba and destroyed every icon or sculptured idol. According to some reports, Muhammad found Christian icons of Jesus, Mary and Abraham that he did not destroy but left intact. [After the conquest of Mecca] “Apart from the icon of the Virgin Mary and the child Jesus, and a painting of an old man, said to be Abraham, the walls inside [Kaaba] had been covered with pictures of pagan deities. Placing his hand protectively over the icon, the Prophet told 'Uthman to see that all other paintings, except that of Abraham, were effaced” (Martin Lings, Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, p.300; ref.- al-Waqidi, Kitab al-Maghazi 834, and Azraqi, Akhbar Makkah vol. 1, p. 107. Martin Lings is a practicing Muslim.).

In conclusion, we must say that Muhammad began and ended up with a pagan religion with the only difference being that he repackaged it in a monotheistic context.

3. Jihad.

Jihad has been interpreted by Muslims in different ways. The Muslim sect of the Kharijites has elevated Jihad to one of the Five Pillars of Islam — making it Six Pillars. This kind of belief is seen in the extremist Muslim groups we call terrorists. They use the concept of Jihad as a justification for killing anyone who isn't a Muslim. However, most Muslims disagree with this extremist position of some Muslims and advocate peace. These Muslims view Jihad as a spiritual struggle against evil in a metaphorical sense.¹

Islamic scholar Jamal Badawi, chairman of the Islamic Information Foundation in Halifax, insists that a jihad is `permitted only in self-defense or against tyranny and oppression -- not as a tool to promote Islam.'' But, experts added, the ancient Islamic empires were built as much by force as by persuasion. Islam's founder, Mohammed, frequently used force, or the threat of it, to unify the nomadic tribes of the Arabian peninsula. The caliphs, who succeeded Mohammed as leaders of the Arab world, successfully took up arms against the Christian Byzantine Empire in Egypt and the Holy Land. By the end of the ninth century, Arabian armies had extended Islamic power from Spain to the borders of India.²

Anyone who has studied Islamic history must surely notice how frequently the Muslims were involved in battle after battle. Within 200 years after its inception, Islam had spread through a huge geographical area and many converts were made by the sword.

What does the Qur'an say about Jihad?

The Qur'an is the single most important authority in all of Islam. It is the scripture given from Allah through the angel Gabriel. Does the Qur'an teach Jihad? Absolutely yes. As you will see in the following quotes from the Qur'an, Holy War is definitely taught and encouraged.

“Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure” (Surah 61:4).

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress limits... ¹⁹¹And slay them wherever ye catch them. and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution is worse than slaughter; But fight them not at the sacred Mosque unless they (first) fight you there; But if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. ¹⁹² But if they cease, Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. ¹⁹³And fight them on until there is no more persecution. And the religion becomes Allah's. But if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression” (The Qur'an, Surah 2:190-193).

“O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things,” (Surah 9:38-39).

What does the Hadith say about Jihad?

The Hadith are the recorded sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad. It is second in authority only to the Qur'an and is often used to clarify things not specified in the Qur'an. What did Muhammad say about Jihad as recorded in the Hadith?

“The Prophet said, “The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause.”Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35, Narrated Abu Huraira

“Allah's Apostle said, “A pious slave gets a double reward.” Abu Huraira added: By Him in Whose Hands my soul is but for Jihad (i.e. holy battles), Hajj, and my duty to serve my mother, I would have loved to die as a slave. Volume 3, Book 46, Number 724: Narrated Abu Huraira

“Allah's Apostle said, “Allah guarantees (the person who carries out Jihad in His Cause and nothing compelled him to go out but Jihad in His Cause and the belief in His Word) that He will either admit him into Paradise (Martyrdom) or return him with reward or booty he has earned to his residence from where he went out.” Volume 9, Book 93, Number 555: Narrated Abu Huraira.

Obviously Muhammad taught that Holy War was an acceptable and good thing to do. To clarify, he even stated that if a Muslim were to die in battle, fighting for the cause of Allah, that he would be guaranteed to go to Paradise.

Why is this important?

Why is understanding the Islamic position of Jihad important? Simple. People act according to their beliefs. If a large group of people believes that war against “unbelievers” is a holy thing, that it is a thing sanctioned from God, then those who are not Muslims should be concerned. Of course, at this point, most Muslims might accuse me of being sensationalistic and pointing to only a few extremists and out-of-context verses to make Islam look bad. First, let me say that by far the majority of Muslims I have encountered here in the United States have been polite and peace loving. Second, in other parts of the world, Jihad is taken to extremes not simply by terrorists, but by Islamic led governments.

In Egypt, a Muslim country, Christians have been persecuted heavily for their faith and only recently are things beginning to change.³

“Roman Catholic Bishop John Joseph of Pakistan shot himself to death on May 6 to highlight the case of Ayub Massih, a Christian sentenced to death for supposedly making blasphemous remarks against the Prophet Muhammad and thus against Islam. In a letter sent to a local newspaper just before his death, the bishop stated that he hoped his suicide would galvanize his fellow bishops and others to work for the repeal of sections 295 B and Cot the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), which make any blasphemy against Islam a serious crime and blasphemy against Muhammad punishable by death.”⁴

“Farag Foda, an Egyptian intellectual who expressed scorn for the Islamist program, was shot and murdered. And Naguib Mahfouz, the elderly and much-celebrated Nobel Prize laureate for literature, was seriously injured in Cairo when an assailant knifed him in the neck, presumably in revenge for an allegorical novel written decades earlier.”⁵

“Hundreds of thousands of Muslims assembled in Jakarta and declared a holy war against Indonesian Christians shortly after dawn Friday to avenge the deaths of Muslims in religious clashes in the Maluku Islands (the Spice Islands). Assembled in central Jakarta, the Muslims shouted “Jihad (Holy War)! Jihad!” Most of those gathered wore white robes and white bandannas marked with quotes from the Koran about the “Holy War.” It is time for us to do a jihad against Christians,” said Husen al-Habsyi, a former political prisoner, who was jailed for masterminding an explosion in the Borobudur Buddhist Temple in the early 1980s.⁶

This Christmas season, Pastor Rod Parsley is taking a lead in an effort to help free the tens of thousands of Sudanese women and children held in captivity in the Sudan, many of which are Christians. This great effort will help stem the horrific tide of genocide and enslavement of Christians in the African nation. Bridge of Hope, the missions outreach of Breakthrough is located in Columbus, Ohio...The Government of Sudan, a fundamentalist regime that represents only 10% of the population in Sudan, has declared a holy war (jihad) against Christians and animists in their own country. Since 1985, this reign of terror is responsible for the murder of over 2 million Sudanese ... and over 4 million have been displaced. The Government of Sudan will not stop short of total annihilation of all Christians and all others that do not believe in this totalitarian regime...During Government sponsored raids in peaceful villages, men are killed; village elders are hacked with machetes and left for dead; the village is burned and devastated; and women and children are captured as slaves. Slaves are subjected by their masters to systematic physical and psychological torture, including gang rape, beatings, death threats, genital mutilation and forcible conversion to Islam.⁷

Anyone can make any group look bad through selective quotes. Each religious group has elements of its history it wish it could ignore. The Muslims could cite the Crusades or the Inquisition as examples of “Christian behavior.” In response, the Crusades, right or wrong, were a retaliation against the Islamic Jihad that was sweeping through Europe. The Inquisition, on the other hand, is a perfect example of what happens when a religious group (the Roman Catholic Church) gets in power and tries to root out heretics and blasphemers. Islam is no different.

The Islamic run country of Pakistan (No. 9 above) has anti blasphemy laws where the punishment for speaking blasphemy against Muhammad and the Qur'an is death. Islamic run Sudan has already killed, and still is killing, millions of people, mainly Christians, in its own country in addition to making many of them slaves. (No. 12 above). It is these kinds of facts that cannot be ignored and should not be ignored. Muslim and Christian alike should be very concerned.

I do not know if other Muslim countries are condemning the actions of these Islamic nations that so easily violate human rights. I do not know if Muslims outside of those countries are even aware of the problems going on within their theologically diverse ranks of other nations. But, when a Holy Book like the Qur'an advocates Holy War, when the very sayings and deeds of their beloved Prophet Muhammad advocate Jihad, and when we see some Islamic nations killing non Muslims — because they are not Muslims, how can we not be worried about what they would do if they had control of the world....as is their goal.

Here in the States, Muslims enjoy freedom of religion and expression. Such freedoms for Christians are basically non existent in many Islamic nations. Is that right?

____________________

Sukhvinder Stubbs, The New Stateman, LTD, “The hooded hordes of prejudice: to typecast all Muslims as fanatical militants is unfair and offensive,” Feb 28, 1997.

James Deacon and Diane Brady, “The will to fight--and die,” Maclean's, 2/11/91, Vol. 104 Issue 6, p 39.

Saad Michael Saad, The Christian Century, “A Christian appeal to Islam. Treatment of Copts in Egypt,” by Feb 23, 2000.

Cris E. Toffolo, The Christian Century, “Christians in Pakistan confront charges of blasphemy,” July 29, 1998.

Daniel Pipes, The American Jewish Community, “How Dare You Defame Islam,.” Nov, 1999.

Asian Political News, Jan 10, 2000

(PR Newswire, “Breakthrough Bridge of Hope Missions to Partner With Christian Solidarity International to Free Slaves in Sudan.” Issue: Nov 30, 2000.

Quotes from the Hadith on Jihad

Jihad means striving. It is used to describe the inner struggle against sin as well as the outer struggle against those who would oppose Islam. Did Muhammad teach Holy War upon those who reject Islam? Yes he did.

Following are various quotes from the Hadith dealing with killing people.

The second best deed is to participate in Jihad

Allah's Apostle was asked, “What is the best deed?” He replied, “To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, “What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, “To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause.” The questioner again asked, “What is the next (in goodness)?” He replied, “To perform Hajj (Pilgrim age to Mecca) 'Mubrur, (which is accepted by Allah and is performed with the intention of seeking Allah's pleasure only and not to show off and without committing a sin and in accordance with the traditions of the Prophet).” Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25, Narrated Abu Huraira:

Muhammad said if someone leaves Islam, to kill him

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'“ Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260, Narrated Ikrima. Also, see Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64, Narrated 'Ali.

Muhammad approves of killing someone who hurt him and having the killer lie

“Allah's Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.” Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, “That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you.” On that, Kab said, “By Allah, you will get tired of him!” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. ..” Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369, Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah.

Paradise was guaranteed to the first to take part in a naval battle

That 'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi told him that he went to 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was staying in his house at the sea-shore of Him with (his wife) Um Haram. 'Umair said. Um Haram informed us that she heard the Prophet saying, “Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition.” Um Haram added, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Will I be amongst them?' He replied, 'You are amongst them.' The Prophet then said, 'The first army amongst' my followers who will invade Caesar's City will be forgiven their sins.' I asked, 'Will I be one of them, O Allah's Apostle?' He replied in the negative.” Volume 4, Book 52, Number 175 Narrated Khalid bin Madan:

Those who fight in Jihad have the right to the spoils of the conquered or Paradise if he dies

The Prophet said, “The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause.” Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35, Narrated Abu Huraira.

.” . . “This is the Will of Allah, “After the people returned, the Prophet sat and said, “Anyone who has killed an enemy and has a proof of that, will posses his spoils.” I got up and said, “Who will be a witness for me?” and then sat down. The Prophet again said, “Anyone who has killed an enemy and has proof of that, will possess his spoils.” I (again) got up and said, “Who will be a witness for me?” and sat down. Then the Prophet said the same for the third time. I again got up, and Allah's Apostle said, “O Abu Qatada! What is your story?” Then I narrated the whole story to him. A man (got up and) said, “O Allah's Apostle! He is speaking the truth, and the spoils of the killed man are with me. So please compensate him on my behalf.” On that Abu Bakr As-Siddiq said, “No, by Allah, he (i.e. Allah's Apostle ) will not agree to give you the spoils gained by one of Allah's Lions who fights on the behalf of Allah and His Apostle.” The Prophet said, “Abu Bakr has spoken the truth.” So, Allah's Apostle gave the spoils to me. I sold that armor (i.e. the spoils) and with its price I bought a garden at Bani Salima, and this was my first property which I gained after my conversion to Islam.” Volume 4, Book 53, Number 370, Narrated Abu Qatada.

.” . . . While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.” (Al-Mughira, then blamed An-Numan for delaying the attack and) An-Nu' man said to Al-Mughira, “If you had participated in a similar battle, in the company of Allah's Apostle he would not have blamed you for waiting, nor would he have disgraced you. But I accompanied Allah's Apostle in many battles and it was his custom that if he did not fight early by daytime, he would wait till the wind had started blowing and the time for the prayer was due (i.e. after midday).” Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386, Narrated Jubair bin Haiya.

Allah's Apostle said, “Allah guarantees (the person who carries out Jihad in His Cause and nothing compelled him to go out but Jihad in His Cause and the belief in His Word) that He will either admit him into Paradise (Martyrdom) or return him with reward or booty he has earned to his residence from where he went out.” Volume 9, Book 93, Number 555, Narrated Abu Huraira:

The preceding Hadith are translated by Sahih Bukhari and are quoted from and online source found at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/.

To Kill and to Die in the Name of Allah.

The following are news items quoted from newspapers in the last few years.

October 19, 1994

“A powerful bomb, apparently placed by Islamic militants opposed to the Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, blew up a crowded bus during the morning rush hour in the heart of Tel Aviv, Israel, killing 22 people and wounding 48.”

July 18, 1995

“A huge bomb exploded destroying a seven-story downtown building housing two Jewish groups in Buenos Aires, Argentina. At least 26 people were killed and 127 injured.”

February 26, 1993

“A tremendous underground explosion believed to be caused by a bomb, shook the 110 story twin towers of Manhattan’s World Trade Center, in New York, killing at least five people, injuring more than 1000, and sending tens of thousands of workers fleeing for their lives down crowded smoke-filled stairs.”

May 4, 1992

“13 Egyptian Christians were shot dead by Muslim fundamentalists in Mansheit Nasser, Egypt. Ten Christian farmers were ambushed and murdered while working in their fields. A Christian teacher was shot in the local school while teaching a class of ten-year olds. A Christian doctor was shot dead outside his home.”

These are just a few samples out of thousands of terrorist attacks, which all have one element in common: They were all committed by Muslim fundamentalists. While there are extremists in other groups, who are capable of committing acts of violence, it seems that violence committed by Muslim extremists exceeds the violence of all other groups combined.

Why do Muslim Fundamentalists Act this Way?

Are Muslim fundamentalists inherently inhumane, savage and evil? Of course not. Muslims are ordinary people, just like anybody else. They are fathers, brothers and sons. They could be doctors, engineers and lawyers. They are your co-workers, and your next door neighbors.

So what goes on in their minds when they act violently? To understand this one must understand an important and dangerous Islamic teaching called “Jihad”, ( or Holy War).

It is important to understand that not every Arab is a Muslim, not every Muslim is an Arab, and not every Muslim is a fundamentalist. We are not trying to attack a religion. We are only exposing a teaching in a religion that could have a serious effect on all society.

It is also important to know that in exercising Jihad, Muslim fundamentalists may not think they are trying to maliciously hurt others, but rather they are only obeying God’s commandments. And in doing so, they are assuring themselves a place in Paradise.

JIHAD ( Holy War)

Jihad is one of the most sacred duties Muslims perform. The word “Jihad”, is an Arabic word which means “struggle.” In this sense Jihad is the struggle for the cause of spreading Islam, using all means available to Muslims, including violence. This kind of Jihad is often referred to as “ Holy War”.

In resorting to violence, Muslims will not have any problem finding passages in the Quran ( believed by Muslims to be Allah’s word), and the Hadith (Mohammed’s sayings as recorded by Al Bukhari), that will not only condone violence, but will also demand it.

Jihad in the “Quran”.

Allah orders Muslims in the Quran to terrorize non-Muslims on His behalf.

”Strike terror (into the hearts of) the enemies of God and your enemies.”

Surah 8:60

Fight (kill) them (non-Muslims), and God will punish, (torment) them by your hands, cover them with shame.” Surah 9:14

“I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them. It is not ye who slew them; it was God.”

Surah 8:13-17.

Jihad in the “Hadith”.

In the Hadith Mohammed also urges Muslims to practice Jihad.

Mohammed was once asked: what is the best deed for the Muslim next to believing in Allah and His Apostle? His answer was : “ To participate in Jihad in Allah’s cause. “ Al Bukhari vol 1:25.

Mohammed was quoted as saying: “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah.”

Al Bukhari vol 4:196.

Mohammed also said: “The person who participates in (Holy Battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him do so except belief in Allah and His Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty ( if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise ( if he is killed). Al Bukhari vol 1:35

Mohammed: an Example.

When the prophet of Islam started preaching his new religion in Mecca, he was conciliatory to Christians and Jews. He told them, “We believe in what has been sent down to us and sent down to you, our God is the same as your God. “Surah 29:45. This attitude changed completely after he gained strength. Allah then tells him to

“Fight People of the Book (Christians and Jews), who do not accept the religion of the truth (Islam), until they pay tribute (penalty tax) by hand, being inferior.” Surah 9:29.

Regarding Christians and Jews, it seems that Mohammed hated the Jews more. During his lifetime, Mohammed devoted much of his efforts to get rid of the Jews: “You (Jews) should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His apostle, and I want to expel from this land ( the Arabian Peninsula), so, if anyone owns property, he is permitted to sell it.” Mohammed was quoted.

At that time there were in Medina three Jewish tribes. Two of them, the Qaynqa and the Bani-al-Nudair tribes, were besieged by Mohammed’s men, blocking their access to food supplies, until they surrendered on Mohammed’s terms, which were that their lives would be spared, that they must emigrate from Medina, and that they must deposit all their belongings at a certain place for distribution among Muslims.

The third tribe, Bani Quayza, was not as lucky. After the war of the trench, in which Mohammed was besieged by the Qurayshites led, by Abu Sofyan, it was alleged that Bani Qurayza agreed to provide help from within to Abu Sofyan’s forces. Although the alleged help did not materialize and the siege eventually ended, nevertheless, Mohammed never forgave them for their willingness to help his enemies.

Muslims turned against Bani Qurayza and blocked their streets for twenty five days.

The Jewish tribe expressed readiness to accept the surrender terms which had been conceded to the other two Jewish tribes, namely cession of their belongings and departure with safe conduct.

Mohammed, however, would not consent to this, and instead appointed as an arbiter Saad iben Moaz, a man who was known to be on bad terms with Bani Qurayza. Saad ruled that all Bani Qurayza’s men should be beheaded, that the women and children should be sold as slaves, and that all their property should be divided among the Muslims.

Trenches were dug in the bazaar of Medina for disposal of the nine hundred Jewish bodies whom Mohammed had spent the night slaughtering. (See Ibn Hisham: The Propeht’s Biography: vol 2 pages 40&41.)

Dear Friends:

These are historical facts that happened 14 centuries ago, they represent a dangerous tendency for violence in the Islamic mentality. More serious is that Muslim fundamentalists are trying to repeat these acts of violence in this 21st century.

Guard our freedom and democracy. Let Jesus’ message of tolerance and non-violence rule our land. “Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. “

4. The Image of Woman in the Modern World:

The beliefs of the Muslims compared with the beliefs of the Christians.

By Elizabeth-Maria Hanson.

When one searches the Internet regarding the image of the woman in the modern world, he encounteres many essays written by Muslims defending their treatment of women.^1,2 In these essays Muslims ask why, within the last 200 years, the Christians have recently abandoned modest dress that protects women from the gaze of lustful men.² Both moderate and fundamentalist Muslims ascribe that men normally enjoy lustful thoughts, and that women must be appropriately dressed so as not to arouse those passions in men. However, Muslims assume that women do not normally have such lustful thoughts as the following quote from a Muslim teacher demonstrates: “[The man] ... is by nature aggressive. If a thing appeals to him, he is urged from within to acquire it. On the other hand, the woman's nature is one of inhibition and escape. Unless her nature is totally corrupted, she can never become so aggressive, bold, and fearless, as to make the first advances toward the male who has attracted her. In view of this distinction, the Legislator (the Prophet) does not regard a woman's looking at other men to be as harmful as a man's looking at other women” (Woman in Society 5). Therefore the Muslim man is considered modestly dressed in public as long as the area from his navel to his knees is covered, but the woman according to Islamic law must be covered in public from head to foot with only her face and hands exposed.³

Christianity, on the other hand, teaches that our bodies (both men and women) are temples of the Holy Spirit (cf. I Cor. 6:19), and that both men and women must dress modestly (even though most Christians do not dress modestly today). However, in the late 1950's, I can still remember the Catholic nuns telling us that it was sinful for Christian men to go around in public bare-chested (i.e., when mowing the lawn), yet this is permitted for Muslim men.

Interestingly, the nuns also instructed us that it was not considered ladylike for women to have their heads uncovered in public (Cf. I Cor. 11:3-15). However, I Cor. 11: 6-7 is greatly misunderstood by many persons: “For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.” (NKJV) This passage simply teaches the obvious: it is shameful for a woman to have her head shorn, as she is beautiful with long hair and men glory in this, therefore she is the glory of man, and should cover herself. Yet, man is the glory of God because Christ-God became man. However, both men and women are created in the image and likeness of God.

Therefore the Muslim woman, Kim Parker, is not correct when she writes, “Ironically, the representation of veiling in the Bible is much more problematic than those in the Qur'an or the Hadith, because the Judeo-Christian sources imply that women should be covered because of their inherent inferiority.” (Woman, Islam, and Hijab 1) Indeed, according to the Koran, Islam teaches that women are inferior to men: “...And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable, but men have a degree over them...” (Surah 2:228). The Koran also teaches that men are superior witnesses in a court of law: “...And get two witnesses out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women such as ye choose, for witness...” (Surah 2:282). Finally, a woman’s inheritance is half that of a man: “...To the male a portion equal to that of two females...” (Surah 4:11).⁴

I Corinthians 11: 8-10 refers to Genesis. Man was created out of clay, but God fashioned woman from man's rib to be a helpmate for man. “For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him. But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.” (I Cor. 11:12-15 NKJV) In the ancient Jewish world, women covered their heads in modesty, especially when praying. The Blessed Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, wore a veil as a sign that she had dedicated herself as a virgin to God. Not to wear the veil implied that a woman was a harlot.

Even before the Taliban mandated that every Afghan woman must wear the restrictive sack called the burka outdoors,⁵ the topic of women’s veils had been hotly debated in the media, especially over the Internet. Part of the problem is that there are three different types of Muslims: secularists, moderates and fundamentalists. The secularists usually do not know the Koran; neither do they observe the tenets of Islam. Secularist Muslim women, therefore, have adopted western fashions and are Muslim in name only. The moderate Muslims observe the Koran’s less rigid tenets, preferring those passages that tolerate Christians and Jews. However, the Muslim fundamentalists rigidly obey the more extreme verses of the Koran, including those that call for Jihad against all non-Muslims.⁶ According to the Koran, Muslim women must wear a heavy outer cloak plus a veil in public. The fundamentalist Muslims, such as the Taliban and Iranians, also require a face veil to be worn.

The Hijab,⁷ is a scarf or head covering commonly worn by Muslim women in the United States of America. Mary Ali states the reason: “As a chaste, modest, pure woman, she does not want her sexuality to enter into interactions with men in the smallest degree. A woman who covers herself is concealing her sexuality but allowing her femininity to be brought out.” (Hijab 1)

Whereas a Muslim man is forbidden to stare or to look twice at a woman, women can look at other men as long as they don’t sit with men and/or stare at them.⁸ However, Christianity, from which the Islamic religion came, teaches that both men and women must guard all their senses, as Christians are to be pure in thought, word and deed. If a person fails to guard his senses of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch, evil sinful thoughts can follow which can lead to shameful words and deeds. Thus, Christ condemns lustful thoughts as equal to the sin of adultery. (Cf. Matt. 5:27-29) Yes, even within marriage, a Christian is still expected to be modest and should not defile the marriage bed. This is not easy, and the true Christian must struggle inwardly to be pure until the day he or she dies.

This is the essential difference between Islam and Christianity. A true Christian should behave well because Jesus Christ lives within his/her soul, consequently, the law of kindness and love is within him/her as a guide, unless he/she falls into mortal sin. Unfortunately, Muslims do not appear to have the same high standards, because God does not dwell within them, therefore their religion has to be more external. Sadly, the Koran fails to mention that women can enter Paradise, besides, only martyrs seem guaranteed a place in the Muslim Paradise.⁹

Another significant difference in the treatment of women is the Islamic belief that a husband has the right to discipline or beat his wife into submission;¹⁰ he can even kill her in an Islamic country without fear of governmental prosecution.

Islam still believes in capital punishment, as did the ancient Judeo-Christian world. According to Islamic law, if a Muslim man or woman dares to convert to Christianity, then their relatives have a right to kill them.¹¹ On the contrary, many Christians today no longer believe in the death penalty because Christ refused to condemn or to stone the woman caught in adultery (cf. John 8:3-11). Indeed, Christ taught us to love and to forgive our enemies. Therefore, it is a pity that there are psuedo-Christians such as the “Arian Nations” who hate and advocate the death of Jews, Blacks, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians. Truly, it is sad that these cults have separated themselves from Christ and His Church and have become heterodox.

A Muslim woman must obey her husband in everything, and must obtain his permission before she leaves the house to go shopping, or before she receives a visit from her parents.¹² Furthermore, she can neither object to his taking another wife nor can she contest a divorce (unless she has a prenuptial agreement).¹³

However, the Orthodox Christian Church today still follows the ancient teaching of St. Paul (cf. Eph. 5:18-33) which states that husbands and wives are to submit to each other, but that husbands are to love their own wives, even dying for them. Wives are also to respect their husbands. Since God joins the couple together during the wedding (Service of Crowning) which occurs at church, a Christian husband cannot take another wife, and the spouses may not divorce except for adultery. This guarantees stability for the wife and for her children. If a marriage is destroyed with no hope of reconciliation, then the Church may give a special blessing for a second marriage.

Today, as in ancient Christian times, women come to church with or without their husbands to participate in the Divine Liturgy and to commune with Christ through the Mystery of Holy Communion. However, in the Islamic religion, women are either forbidden or discouraged from going to the mosques to pray, but are encouraged to pray only at home.¹⁴ Whereas in ancient times, women were not always allowed to chant or to sing in the Christian churches so as not to distract men, today women are encouraged to sing as long as they do so with moderation.

Anyone with an open mind, who has studied history from the time of Christ, must realize that Islam is filled with contradictory teachings.¹³ Indeed, Islam’s sole objective is to forcefully spread its heretical religion throughout the world and to subjugate all people of other faiths.Thus the Koran encourages terrorism: “Kill the Mushrikun (polytheists, Christians and non-Muslims), wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But, if they repent and perform As-salat (public prayer with Muslims) and give Zakat (Islamic alms), then leave their way free. Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful.” (Surat At-Taubah 9:5 as quoted in Understanding Islam 3)

Witness the struggle in the Holy Land, in the Middle East, in Egypt against the Christian Copts, in the Balkans, in Indonesia, in the Philippines, in Algeria, in Somalia, in the Sudan, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and now in the United States. If Islam prevails, because we are afraid to call a spade a spade, women's rights might be banished, and we of the fairer sex may be exiled to harems for men's pleasure, and our families could be forced to convert or face death as the Koran dictates. Freedom may end, but not for ever. According to the Sacred Scriptures, Christians believe that Christ will come again in triumph to judge the living and the dead (cf. John 5: 19-47), and that His reign will last forever.

Contrary to what Islam teaches, the image of women today within Christianity is one of respect and this viewpoint has always been held. Woman’s place in the Church has been elevated ever since the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, gave birth to Christ, the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, who assumed His humanity from her humanity, and who was incarnated of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. Through her Son, Jesus Christ, men and women are both truly liberated through the waters of Baptism, since Satan's power over us has been destroyed.

Christ even honored women in a special way. Mary Magdalene was one of the myrrh-bearing women who came boldly to the tomb where Christ was laid early in the morning to anoint the dead body of Christ. She was blessed to be the first disciple to see Christ rise from the dead, not the Apostles who were hiding in fear (cf. Matt. 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-14; Luke 24: 1-12; John 20:1-18). Every year the Orthodox Christian Church solemnly celebrates the Sunday of the Myrrh-bearing Women, honoring Saint Mary Magdalene and the other brave women who loved Christ so much that they risked a confrontation with the Roman soldiers guarding the tomb of Christ.

There are many other accounts of brave and heroic women in both the Old and the New Testaments: Sarah, Esther, Ruth, Deborah, Elizabeth, The Blessed Virgin Mary, and Saint Mary Magdalene, to name only a few. These saintly Judeo-Christian women are still remembered with honor since they paved the way for women to be respected in our Judeo-Christian society today.

Today we still witness the holiness in the Church as Christ has promised. An example of modern holiness was Mother Teresa of India. Another modern day saint was Abbess Taisiia of blessed memory, who lived in pre-revolutionary Russia and who died on January 2, 1915. In her autobiography, Mother Taisiia, a highly educated woman of noble birth, truthfully shared very candidly and humbly her moments of anger and frustration, and her visions and triumphs, doing so to help others along the path of salvation. She was not afraid of ridicule and hard labor, as she built schools for peasant girls and orphans, monasteries and temples¹⁶.

Today, the vision continues as countless women serve in the military to keep our country free. Others boldly proclaim the truth as journalists or newscasters, many teach our children, or teach at the college level; still others serve in hospitals as doctors and nurses. We cannot forget the most important vocations in which women serve as dedicated mothers or devout nuns. The rest serve in countless other professions that keep our country strong and free. May God continue to bless our Judeo-Christian heritage, and God Bless America!

End Notes

¹ Kim Parker, “Women, Islam and Hijab.” 1996

http:www.cc.emory.edu/ENGLISH/Bahri/Veil.html

² Sherif Abel Azim, “Women in Islam versus Women in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition: The Myth and the Reality.” 11/9/01

http://www.islam.org/mosque/w_islam/intro.html

³Abdur Raman I. Doi, “Women in Society: Modesty.” 11/9/01, 2-4. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/womeninislam/womeninsociety.html

⁴Abdullah Al-Araby, “The Issues of Life According to the “Quran.” 11/27/01, 1. http://www/islamreview.com/articles/issues_of_life.html

⁵“Interpreting veils.” Seattle Times Company. 11/10/01, 1.

http:seattletimes.nwsource.com.news/lifestyles/links/veils_05.html

⁶ Dr. Labib Mikhail, Islam Review, 12/1/01. 1-2.

http://www.islamreview.com/articles/understanding.html

⁷“Interpreting veils.” 2

⁸”Women in Society: Lowering the Eyes” 4-5

⁹Abdullah Al-Araby, “The Issues of Life According to the “Quran.” 11/27/01, 6. http://www/islamreview.com/articles/issues_of_life.html

¹⁰“Women in Society: The Family” 2

¹¹ “Understanding Islam: The Attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.” 3

¹²“Women in Society: The Family” 2

¹³ “Women in Society: The Family” 2

¹⁴“Women in Society: The Mosque” 12-14

¹⁵ “Understanding Islam: The Attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.” 1-4.

¹⁶Brenda Meehan, Holy Women of Russia: The Lives of Five Orthodox Women Offer Spiritual Guidance for Today. (San Francisco, Harper 1993) 95-151

References Cited

Al-Araby, Abdullah, “The Issues of Life According to the “Quran.” 11/27/01,1. http://www/islamreview.com/articles/issues_of_life.html

Ali, Mary C., “Hijab.” Institute of Islamic Information and Education. 11/9/01 http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/womeninislam/whatishijab.html

Azim, Sherif Abel, “Women in Islam versus Women in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition: The Myth and the Reality.” 11/9/01 http://www.islam.org/mosque/w_islam/intro.html

Coniaris, Anthony M., Orthodoxy: A Creed for Today: Plain talks on the Orthodox Faith based on the Nicene Creed. Minneapolis: Light and Life, 1972.

Doi, Abdur Rahman I.,”Women in Society,” Center for Islamic Legal Studies 11/9/01. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/womeninislam/womeninsociety.html

Harakas, Stanley S., Living the Faith: The Praxis of Eastern Orthodox Ethics. Minneapolis: Light and Life, 1992.

“Interpreting veils.” Seattle Times, 2001

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/lifestyles/links/veils_05.html

Macaila, Dumitru, The Right to Life: The Eastern Orthodox Christian Perspective on Abortion. Regina Orthodox Press: Salisbury, 2001.

Meehan, Brenda, Holy Women of Russia: The Lives of Five Orthodox Women Offer Spiritual Guidance for Today. Harper: San Francisco, 1993.

Meyendorff, John, Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective. 3rd Rev. Ed. St. Vladimir’s Seminary: Crestwood, 1984.

Mikhail, Labib. “Understanding Islam: The Attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.” Islam Review, 12/1/01. 3.

http://www.islamreview.com/articles/understanding.html

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, New King James Version, Ed. by J. Allen, M. Najim, J. Sparks and T. Stylianopoulos. Thomas Nelson: Nashville, 1993.

Parker, Kim, “Women, Islam and Hijab.” 1996

http://www.cc.emory.edu/ENGLISH/Bahri/Veil.html

“The Plight of the Afghan Woman: Muslim Women’s Perspective on Women’s Plight in Afghanistan” Afghanistan Online, 2001.

http://www.afghanweb.com/woman/talibanwomen.html.

“Saudi Arabia culture” ArabNet – Saudi, Culture, Clothing. 2001. http:www.arab.net/saudi/culture/sa_clothing.html

Schmemann, Alexander, The Presence of Mary. Ed. Fr. Jack N. Sparks. Ben Lomond: Conciliar Press, 1988.

Quotes about women from the Qur'an.

It can be said that a religion is judged by what it says about its women. The Qur'an says much of them. All quotes from the Qur'an are from Yusuf Ali and can be found at the Qur'an online.

Men have more rights regarding divorce than do women.

Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise,” (2:28)

Muslim men may marry up to four women, but no such provision is made for Muslim women.

“If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice,” (4:3).

A man's inheritance should be a portion of two females.

Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half,” (4:11).

It is okay to beat wives.

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all),” (4:34).

In Paradise, voluptuous women await men for sensual gratification.

“ In them will be (Maidens), chaste, restraining their glances, whom no man or Jinn before them has touched,” (55:56).

“We have created (their Companions) of special creation. And made them virgin — pure (and undefiled), — Beloved (by nature), equal in age,- For the Companions of the Right Hand,” (56:35-38)

“Verily for the Righteous there will be a fulfillment of (the heart's) desires; Gardens enclosed, and grapevines, And voluptuous women of equal age,” (78:31-33).

5. Quotes from the Hadith about Muhammad.

Muhammad was a white man.

While we were sitting with the Prophet in the mosque, a man came riding on a camel. He made his camel kneel down in the mosque, tied its foreleg and then said: “Who amongst you is Muhammad?” At that time the Prophet was sitting amongst us (his companions) leaning on his arm. We replied, “This white man reclining on his arm.” The an then addressed him, “O Son of 'Abdul Muttalib.” Volume 1, Book 3, Number 63. Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Muhammad owned a black slave.

I came and behold, Allah's Apostle was staying on a Mashroba (attic room) and a black slave of Allah's Apostle was at the top if its stairs. I said to him, “(Tell the Prophet) that here is 'Umar bin Al-Khattab (asking for permission to enter).” Then he admitted me. Volume 9, Book 91, Number 368. Narrated 'Umar:

Muhammad had people killed.

Allah's Apostle entered Mecca in the year of its Conquest wearing an Arabian helmet on his head and when the Prophet took it off, a person came and said, “Ibn Khatal is holding the covering of the Ka'ba (taking refuge in the Ka'ba).” The Prophet said, “Kill him.” Volume 3, Book 29, Number 72. Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Muhammad said to die in battle for Allah grants you Paradise.

Muhammad was a sinner.

Allah's Apostle used to keep silent between the Takbir and the recitation of Qur'an and that interval of silence used to be a short one. I said to the Prophet “May my parents be sacrificed for you! What do you say in the pause between Takbir and recitation?” The Prophet said, “I say, 'Allahumma, ba'id baini wa baina khatayaya kama ba'adta baina-l-mashriqi wa-l-maghrib. Allahumma, naqqim min khatayaya kama yunaqqa-ththawbu-l-abyadu mina-ddanas. Allahumma, ighsil khatayaya bil-ma'i wa-th-thalji wal-barad (O Allah! Set me apart from my sins (faults) as the East and West are set apart from each other and clean me from sins as a white garment is cleaned of dirt (after thorough washing). O Allah! Wash off my sins with water, snow and hail.)” Volume 1, Book 12, Number 711. Narrated Abu Huraira:

I heard Allah's Apostle saying.” By Allah! I ask for forgiveness from Allah and turn to Him in repentance more than seventy times a day.” Volume 8, Book 75, Number 319, Narrated Abu Huraira:

Muhammad said more women were in hell than men and that women lacked intelligence.

Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.” Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301, Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

Muhammad had some people drink camel urine as medicine.

Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die. Volume 8, Book 82, Number 794, Narrated Anas.

Muhammad has his chest opened and washed by the angel Gabriel.

Allah's Apostle said, “While I was at Mecca the roof of my house was opened and Gabriel descended, opened my chest, and washed it with Zam-zam water. Then he brought a golden tray full of wisdom and faith and having poured its contents into my chest, he closed it. Then he took my hand and ascended with me to the nearest heaven, when I reached the nearest heaven, Gabriel said to the gatekeeper of the heaven, 'Open (the gate).' The gatekeeper asked, 'Who is it?' Gabriel answered: 'Gabriel.' He asked, 'Is there anyone with you?' Gabriel replied, 'Yes, Muhammad is with me.' He asked, 'Has he been called?' Gabriel said, 'Yes.' So the gate was opened and we went over the nearest heaven and there we saw a man sitting with some people on his right and some on his left. When he looked towards his right, he laughed and when he looked toward his left he wept. Then he said, 'Welcome! O pious Prophet and pious son.' I asked Gabriel, 'Who is he?' He replied, 'He is Adam and the people on his right and left are the souls of his offspring. Those on his right are the people of Paradise and those on his left are the people of Hell and when he looks towards his right he laughs and when he looks towards his left he weeps.' Volume 1, Book 8, Number 345, Narrated Abu Dhar:

The preceding Hadith are translated by Sahih Bukhari and are quoted from and online source found at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/.

_______________

Note: I am indebted to Morey, Robert, The Islamic Invasion, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene Oregon, 1992, pages 177-208, for many references in the Hadith concerning Muhammad.

Muhammad's False Prophecies.

Sam Shamoun.

The Holy Bible gives us a test to determine a true prophet from a false one:

“But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death. You may say to yourselves, 'How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?' If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him” (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).

In light of what God says in the preceding passage, we will examine several predictions made by Muhammad in the Quran and Islamic traditions to see if whether he passes God's test.

On the Roman Conquest of Persia

S. 30:2-4:

“The Roman Empire has been defeated — in a land close by: But they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious — within a few years.”

As the prophecy stated the Byzantines did become victorious over the Persians who had at first defeated them. Yet there are fundamental problems with this alleged prophecy:

According to Yusuf Ali the Arabic word for “a few years,” Bidh'un, signifies a period of three to nine years; yet according to some scholars the victory did not come until nearly twelve years later. The Persians defeated the Byzantines and captured Jerusalem at about A.D. 614 or 615. The Byzantine counter-offensive did not begin until A.D. 622 and the victory was not complete until A.D. 625, making it a period between ten to eleven years, not “a few years” alluded to in the Quran.

The original Quranic text had no vowel marks. Thus, the Arabic word Sayaghlibuna, “they shall defeat,” could easily have been rendered, with the change of two vowels, Sayughlabuna, “they (i.e. Romans) shall be defeated.” Since vowel points were not added until some time after this event, it could have been quite possible for a scribe to deliberately tamper with the text, forcing it to become a prophetic statement.

This fact is solidified by Muslim commentator al-Baidawi. C.G. Pfander mentions Baidawi's comments on the variant readings surrounding this passage:

“But Al Baizawi shatters the whole argument of the Muslims by informing us of certain varied readings in these verses of Suratu'r Rum. He tells us that some read (Arabic text appears here) instead of the usual (Arabic text appears here) and (Arabic text appears here) instead of (Arabic text appears here). The rendering will then be: 'The Byzantines have conquered in the nearest part of the land, and they shall be defeated in a small number of years'. If this be the correct reading, the whole story about Abu Bakr's bet with Ubai must be a fable, since Ubai was dead long before the Muslims began to defeat the Byzantines, and even long before the victories which Heraclius won over the Persians. This shows how unreliable such Traditions are. The explanation which Al Baizawi gives is, that the Byzantines became conquerors of 'the well-watered land of Syria' (Arabic text appears here) and that the passage predicted that the Muslims would soon overcome them. If this is the meaning, the Tradition which records the 'descent' of the verses about six years before the Hijrah must be wrong, and the passage must belong to A.H. 6 at earliest. It is clear that, as the vowel points were not used when the Qur-an was first written down in Cufic letters, no one can be certain which of the two readings is right. We have seen that there is so much uncertainty about (1) the date at which the verses were 'sent down', (2) the correct reading, and (3) the meaning, that it is quite impossible to show that the passage contains a prophecy which was fulfilled. Hence, it cannot be considered to be a proof of Muhammad's prophetic office” (C.G. Pfander, Mizan-ul-Haqq — The Balance of Truth, revised and enlarged by W. St. Clair Tisdall [Light of Life P.O. Box 18, A-9503, Villach Austria] 279-280) [emphasis ours]

This being the case, a Muslim cannot confidently tell us what the true reading of the text is and hence cannot insure us that this verse originally predicted the Byzantine victory over the Persians. Yet either rendering leaves us with a false prophecy within the Quran.

It amazes us that a prophecy from God would not specify the exact time of the victory, seeing that God is all-knowing and all-wise, declaring the end from the beginning. When God specifies a time frame as an important part of a prophecy we would expect that it be precise, not a mere guess. For God to guess that the Byzantines would win at some time within “a few years” as opposed to specifying the exact year, is inconsistent with the belief in an Omniscient, Omnipotent Being. Hence, it is unlikely that the true God would actually make such a prophecy.

Interestingly, the phrase “a few years” serves to further discredit this alleged prophecy. Abu Bakr believed the term “a few years” meant that the Byzantines were going to win in three years:

“This passage refers to the defeat of the Byzantines in Syria by the Persians under Khusran Parvis. (A.D. 615 — 6 years before the Hegira). However, the defeat of the Persians should take place soon 'in a small number of years'. In the light of this prediction, Abu-Bakr undertook a bet with Ubai-ibn-Khalaf that this prediction would be fulfilled within three years, but he was corrected by Mohammed who stated that the 'small number' is between three and nine years (Al-Baizawi). Muslims tell us that the Byzantines overcame their enemies within seven years. The fact, however, is that the Byzantines defeated Persia in A.D. 628 (Al-Baizawi commentary). That was twelve years after the prediction of Mohammed. Consequently this passage does not qualify as a prophecy, particularly as the time between prophecy and fulfilment was far too short, and in addition the event was easily predictable.” (Gerhard Nehls, Christians Ask Muslims [Life Challenge, SIM International; Africa, 1992], pp. 70-71)

On Entering Mecca.

Sura 48:27 makes the following promise:

“Truly did Allah fulfill the vision for His Messenger. Ye shall enter the Sacred Mosque, IF ALLAH WILLS, with minds secure, heads shaved, hair cut short, and without fear. For He knew what ye knew not, and He granted, besides this, a speedy victory.”

This verse was revealed in conjunction with the Muslims' failed attempt of entering Mecca to perform Tawaf (the ritual during Hajj of running between two mountains that was supposed to commemorate Hagar's fetching of water for Ishmael).

On their way to the Ka'bah, they were met with a Meccan deputation headed by Suhail b. Amr who forbade the Muslims from completing their journey. This meeting then led to the signing of the treaty of Hudaibiya.

Several problems arise from this whole incident. First, at the signing of the Hudaibiya treaty Muhammad agreed with the pagan Meccans to return to them those who had converted to Islam. At the same time Muhammad also bowed to their demands of replacing his signature of 'Muhammad, Messenger of God' with 'Muhammad, son of Abdullah' so that he might be allowed to make pilgrimage to Mecca the following year. The following is taken from Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891:

“When Suhail bin Amr came, the Prophet said, ‘Now the matter has become easy.' Suhail said to the Prophet 'Please conclude a peace treaty with us.' So, the Prophet called the clerk and said to him, 'Write: By the Name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.” Suhail said, 'As for “Beneficent,” by Allah, I do not know what it means. So write: By Your Name O Allah, as you used to write previously.' The Muslims said, 'By Allah, we will not write except: By the Name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.' The Prophet said, 'Write: By Your Name O Allah.' Then he dictated, 'This is the peace treaty which Muhammad, Allah's Apostle has concluded.' Suhail said, 'By Allah, if we knew that you are Allah's Apostle we would not prevent you from visiting the Kaba, and would not fight with you. So, write: 'Muhammad bin Abdullah.' The Prophet said, 'By Allah! I am Apostle of Allah even if you people do not believe me. Write: Muhammad bin Abdullah.' (Az-Zuhri said, 'The Prophet accepted all those things, as he had already said that he would accept everything they would demand if it respects the ordinance of Allah, (i.e. by letting him and his companions perform 'Umra.)') The Prophet said to Suhail, 'On the condition that you allow us to visit the House (i.e. Ka'ba) so that we may perform Tawaf around it.' Suhail said, 'By Allah, we will not (allow you this year) so as not to give chance to the Arabs to say that we have yielded to you, but we will allow you next year.' SO, THE PROPHET GOT THAT WRITTEN.

“Then Suhail said, 'We also stipulate that you should return to us whoever comes to you from us, even if he embraced your religion.' The Muslims said, 'Glorified be Allah! How will such a person be returned to the pagans after he has become a Muslim?'“ (bold emphasis ours)

One of those forced to return to Mecca with the pagans was Abu Jandal. In Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasulullah (The Life of Muhammad, trans. Alfred Guillaume, Oxford University Press), p. 505 we are told:

'When Suhayl (the Meccan representative and the treaty's compiler) saw Abu Jandal he got up and hit him in the face and took hold of his collar, saying, 'Muhammad, the agreement between us was concluded before this man came to you.' He replied, 'you are right.' He began to pull him roughly by his collar and to drag him away to return him to Quraysh, while Abu Jandal shrieked at the top of his voice, 'Am I to be returned to the polytheists that they may entice me from my religion O Muslims?' and that increased the people's dejection'“ (bold and italic emphasis ours)

And:

'While they were in this state Abu- Jandal bin Suhail bin 'Amr came from the valley of Mecca staggering with his fetters and fell down amongst the Muslims. Suhail said, 'O Muhammad! This is the very first term with which we make peace with you, i.e. you shall return Abu Jandal to me.' The Prophet said, 'The peace treaty has not been written yet.' Suhail said, 'I will never allow you to keep him.' The Prophet said, 'Yes, do.' He said, 'I won't do: Mikraz said, 'We allow you (to keep him).' Abu Jandal said, 'O Muslims! Will I be returned to the pagans though I have come as a Muslim? Don't you see how much I have suffered?'

Abu Jandal had been [previously] tortured severely for the cause of Allah' (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891)

We need to ask did Moses ever return a convert (especially one who was an Egyptian) back to the pagan Pharaoh in order to please the latter in obtaining what he wanted? Did Jesus ever compromise the truth of God by agreeing with the Pharisees in turning back all gentile seekers in order to be accepted by the Jewish ruling council? Would either Moses or Jesus go so far as to deny their apostleship in order to please the demands of pagans'? Would these men refuse to glorify the true God in the manner commanded by the Creator and acquiesce to the request of addressing God in a manner pleasing to the unbelievers, much like Muhammad did?

As one would expect the Muslims were enraged, especially Umar b. al-Khattab who rebuked Muhammad:

' Umar bin al-Khattab said, 'I went to the Prophet and said, “Aren't you truly the messenger of Allah?” The Prophet said, “Yes, indeed.” I said, “Isn't our cause just and the cause of the enemy unjust?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Then why should we be humble in our religion?” He said, “I am Allah's messenger and I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious”'“ (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891)

The anger of the Muslims is justifiable when we realize that Muhammad promised that his followers would have access to Mecca that very same year. When that did not occur, Muhammad attempted to justify his statement by stating, “Yes, did I tell you that we would go to Ka'ba this year?” (Ibid)

In other words, since he did not specify when they would enter Mecca this cannot be considered a false prophecy! This is simply erroneous since the Muslim contingent was on their way to Mecca when a deputation from the pagan Arabs stopped them. In fact, one of Muhammad's demands in signing the treaty was that the pagans permit the Muslims to complete their journey to Mecca in order to perform Tawaf. Suhail denied Muhammad's request and instead made an agreement that the Muslims could enter Mecca the following year. Ibn Kathir further supports this in his commentary on S. 48:27:

“In a dream, the Messenger of Allah saw himself entering Makkah and performing Tawaf around the House. He told his Companions about this dream when he was still in Al-Madinah. When they went to Makkah in the year of Al-Hudaybiyyah, none of them doubted that the Prophet's vision WOULD COME TRUE THAT YEAR. When the treaty of peace was conducted and they had to return to Al-Madinah that year, being allowed to return to Makkah the next year, SOME OF THE COMPANIONS DISLIKED WHAT HAPPENED. 'Umar bin Al-Khattab asked about THIS, saying, 'Haven't you told us that we will go to the House and perform Tawaf around it?'“ (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 9, Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun, Abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, London, Lahore; first edition, September 2000], p. 171; bold and capital emphasis ours)

This proves that Muhammad actually believed he was going to enter into Mecca, a plan that never materialized. In order to save face he had to deny admitting that he actually implied that the Muslims would enter Mecca that same year.

Second, to make matters worse Muhammad broke the treaty with the Meccans by refusing to return a Muslim convert from the Quraysh. This refusal was in clear violation of things expressly stipulated in the very document that Muhammad had agreed to sign:

“Umm Kulthum Uqba b. Mu'ayt migrated to the apostle during this period. Her two brothers 'Umara and Walid sons of 'Uqba came and asked the apostle to return her to them in accordance with the agreement between him and Quraysh at Hudaybiyya, but he would not. God forbade it.” (Sirat Rasulullah, p. 509; italic emphasis ours)

Hence, Muhammad justified the breaking of his oath by claiming that it was God's will to do so. Unfortunately for Muslims, this would prove that Muhammad's God is not the God of the Holy Bible since breaking one's oath is strictly forbidden. (Cf. Numbers 30:1-2)

In light of all these considerations we are again compelled to ask the following questions. Did Moses ever bow down to Pharaoh's requests in order to bring Israel out of bondage from Egypt? Did Jesus ever deny his Messiahship to gain access to the Temple? Did any true prophet of God ever compromise with the unbelievers in order to fulfill the will of God? Did these men proceed to break their oaths and promises in order to gain an unfair advantage over the unbelievers?

One final problem with all this is that Muslims claim that every single word in the Quran was revealed directly by God to Muhammad through Gabriel. Based on this assumption Muslims further reason that one will not find Muhammad's words intermingled with the words of God. This being the case, how do Muslims explain the fact that S. 48:27 has Allah saying insha' Allah, i.e. “If Allah wills”? Does God not know what his will is? If so, is he uncertain whether his purpose shall come to pass necessitating him to then qualify his statement with the phrase, insha' Allah?

One can understand how fallible humans who are unaware of God's purpose can qualify their statements with the expression “If God wills” (Cf. James 4:13-15). But for God to make such a qualification is beyond reasoning.

Furthermore, if God is in fact speaking then whom is he referring to when he says “If Allah wills”? Is he addressing himself or someone else? If he is addressing someone else, than how many Gods are there? Or perhaps Allah is also a multi-personal Being seeing that there are more than one Person that make up the unity of Allah?

This leads us to conclude that Muhammad's prediction not only failed to materialize, but that his motives in concocting revelation were power, money and fame. This verse also proves that God cannot be the author of the Quran.

On the Appearance of the Antichrist and the End of the World.

Muhammad allegedly claimed that the Antichrist (called the Dajjal) was to appear shortly after the Muslim conquest of Constantinople. The following traditions are taken from the Sunan Abu Dawud:

Book 37, Number 4281:

Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The flourishing state of Jerusalem will be when Yathrib is in ruins, the ruined state of Yathrib will be when the great war comes, the outbreak of the great war will be at the conquest of Constantinople and the conquest of Constantinople when the Dajjal (Antichrist) comes forth. He (the Prophet) struck his thigh or his shoulder with his hand and said: This is as true as you are here or as you are sitting (meaning Mu'adh ibn Jabal).

Book 37, Number 4282:

Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The greatest war, the conquest of Constantinople and the coming forth of the Dajjal (Antichrist) will take place within a period of seven months.

Book 37, Number 4283:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Busr:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The time between the great war and the conquest of the city (Constantinople) will be six years, and the Dajjal (Antichrist) will come forth in the seventh.

Accordingly, Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 636 AD. Constantinople was taken over by Muslims in May 1453 AD. Yet the prophecy regarding Yathrib (Medina) being in ruins and Antichrist's advent to take place seven months after the conquest of Constantinople did not materialize. Based on the preceding traditions Antichrist was to appear in November 1453.

Some may wish to argue that these events refer to future conquests. For instance some may wish to say that Constantinople is used as a synonym for the Roman Christian Empire. This would therefore be predicting that Muslims are to takeover Rome before Antichrist appears.

The problem with this is that if Muhammad was speaking of Rome he could have simply used the word Romans (Arabic: Ar-Rum). In fact, Romans/Ar-Rum is the name given to chapter 30 of the Quran. To call Rome either Constantinople or even Byzantium would be rather anachronistic. See above.

Hence, in light of the preceding factors we are forced to conclude that Muhammad's predictions failed to materialize, thus disqualifying him regarding his claim to prophethood.

Muhammad also believed in a young earth and that the world was about to end shortly after his advent. The following citations are taken from The History of al-Tabari, Volume 1 — General Introduction and from the Creation to the Flood (trans. Franz Rosenthal, State University of New York Press, Albany 1989), with all bold emphasis being ours:

“According to Ibn Humayd- Yahya b. Wadih- Yahya b. Ya'qub- Hammad- Sa'id b. Jubayr- Ibn Abbas: This world is one of the weeks of the other world- seven thousand years. Six thousand two hundred years have already passed. (The world) will surely experience hundreds of years, during which there will be no believer in the oneness of God there. Others said that the total extent of time is six thousand years.” (Tabari, pp. 172-173; emphasis ours)

“According to Abu Hisham- Mu'awiyah b. Hisham- Sufyan- al-A'mash- Abu Salih- Ka'b: This world is six thousand years.” (Ibid.)

“According to Muhammad b. Sahl b. 'Askar- Isma'il b. 'Abd al-Karim- 'Abd al-Samad b. Ma'qil I- Wahb: Five thousand six hundred years of this world have elapsed. I do not know which kings and prophets lived in every period (zaman) of those years. I aksed Wahb b. Munabbih: How long is (the total duration of) this world? He replied: Six thousand years.” (Tabari, pp. 173-174; emphasis ours)

According to at-Tabari Muhammad believe that the end of the world was to occur 500 years after his coming:

“According to Hannad b. al-Sari and Abu Hisham al-Rifa'i- Abu Bakr b. 'Ayyash- Abu Hasin- Abu Salih- Abu Hurayrah: The Messenger of God said: When I was sent (to transmit the divine message), I and the Hour were like these two, pointing at his index and middle fingers.” (Tabari, p. 176; emphasis ours, see also pp. 175-181)

At-Tabari comments on the meaning of the Hour being as close as Muhammad's index and middle fingers:

“Thus, (the evidence permitting) a conclusion is as follows: The beginning of the day is the rise of the dawn, and its end is the setting of the sun. Further, the reported tradition on the authority of the Prophet is sound. As we have mentioned earlier, he said after having prayed the afternoon prayer: What remains of this world as compared to what has passed of it is just like what remains of this day as compared to what has passed of it. He also said: When I was sent, I and the Hour were like these two- holding index finger and middle finger together; I preceded it to the same extent as this one- meaning the middle finger- preceded that one- meaning the index finger. Further, the extent (of time) between the mean time of the afternoon prayer- that is, when the shadow of everything is twice its size, according to the best assumption ('ala al-taharri)- (to sunset) is the extent of time of one-half of one-seventh of the day, give or take a little. Likewise, the excess of the length of the middle finger over the index finger is something about that or close to it. There is also a sound tradition on the authority of the Messenger of God, as I was told by Ahmad b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. Wahb- his paternal uncle 'Abd-allah b. Wahb- Mu'awiyah b. Salih- 'Abd al-Rahman b. Jubayr b. Nufayr- his father Jubayr b. Nufayr- the companion of the Prophet, Abu Tha'labah al-Khushani: The Messenger of God said: Indeed, God will not make this nation incapable of (lasting) half a day- referring to the day of a thousand years.

“All these facts taken together make it clear that of the two statements I have mentioned concerning the total extent of time, the one from Ibn Abbas, and the other from Ka'b, the one more likely to be correct in accordance with the information coming from the Messenger of God is that of Ibn 'Abbas transmitted here by us on his authority: The world is one of the weeks of the other world- seven thousand years.

“Consequently, because this is so and the report on the authority of the Messenger of God is sound — namely, that he reported that what remained of the time of this world during his lifetime was half a day, or five hundred years, since five hundred years are half a day of the days, of which one is a thousand years — the conclusion is that the time of this world that had elapsed to the moment of the Prophet's statement corresponds to what we have transmitted on the authority of Abu Tha'labah al-Khushani from the Prophet, and is 6,500 years or approximately 6,500 years. God knows best!” (Tabari, pp. 182-183, bold emphasis ours)

Hence, according to these traditions Muhammad believed that not only was the world less than 7,000 years old but it was to end on the seventh day, or seven thousand years from the time it was created.

Accordingly, the world should have ended sometime between 1070-1132 AD, approximately 500 years after the birth and death of Muhammad. This is based on the fact that according to at-Tabari and others, the advent of Muhammad took place approximately 6,500 years from the time of creation. This is clearly a false prophecy.

Yet this date contradicts the one approximated by Abu Dawood in his Sunan. There, we saw that Antichrist was to appear seven months after the conquest of Constantinople, an event that took place in 1453 AD. This being the case, how could Muhammad have claimed elsewhere that the world was to end 500 years after his own birth and death? To make matters worse, the Islamic traditions claim that Antichrist was actually present during Muhammad's lifetime. In fact, according to the traditions Antichrist was a man named Ibn Saiyad:

Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 437:

Conclusion.

We have examined both the Quran and the Islamic traditions and found that both sources contain false predictions. In light of the prophetic criteria given by God in Deuteronomy 18 we discover that Muhammad fails this test. This means that Muhammad is neither a true prophet nor is he the prophet like Moses.

Muhammad and his Personal Enemies.

One of the most telling observations about the character of people is how they deal with their enemies. When we are put under pressure by being challenged and questioned, then our real character and personality is revealed that might easily be hidden when everything is under control.

The following are names of people whose execution was suggested, requested or ordered by Muhammad. Many of them were assassinated, some got away for reasons of unforeseen circumstances. But deeds are judged by intention and the intention or request for assassination is serious in itself.

Ka`b bin al-Ashraf, Sallam Ibn Abu'l-Huqayq (Abu Rafi)., Al-Nadr bin al-Harith, `Uqba bin Abi Mu`ayt, `Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul al-`Aufi, Umaiya bin Khalaf Abi Safwan, `Amr b. Jihash, An anonymous man, Ibn Sunayna, Abd Allah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh, Abu `Afak, `Asma' Bint Marwan, The Meccan Ten:, Ikrimah Ibn Abi Jahl, Habbar Ibn al-Aswad, Miqyas Ibn Sababah al-Laythi, Abd Allah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh (more detail in the above article)., Al-Huwayrith Ibn Nuqaydh, Abd Abbah Ibn Hilal Ibn Khatal al-Adrami, Hind Bint Utbah, Sarah the mawlat of `Amr Ibn Hashim, Fartana, Qaribah, Al-Yusayr b. Rizam and Khalid b. Sufyan b. Nubayh, http://answering-islam.org./Ibn Sunayna.

Here is the text of the message the Prophet Mohammad sent to the Julanda brothers through the intermediary of his Messengers, 'Amr bin al-'As al-Sahmi and Abu Zaid al-Ansari. “Peace be upon the one who follows the right path! I call you to Islam. Accept my call, and you shall be unharmed. I am God's Messenger to mankind, and the word shall be carried out upon the miscreants. If, therefore, you recognize Islam, I shall bestow power upon you. But if you refuse to accept Islam, your power shall vanish, my horses shall camp on the expanse of your territory and my prophecy shall prevail in your kingdom.”

Muhammed's Suicide Attempts.

Few people are aware of Muhammad's suicide attempts. Following his initial visitation by a spiritual being, that claimed to be Gabriel, Muhammad was frantic with fear and attempted suicide. He walked up to the top of a mountain and intended to throw himself off a cliff. This same being that caused his fear then intervened. Later, over the course of up to the next three years, the visitations by this spirit became rare, and Muhammad would then again attempt suicide in a like manner. Again, it was only due to the intervention of this being that Muhammad did not kill himself.

Few Islamic leaders will teach this to their fellow Muslims because it casts a stain upon Muhammad; it brings doubt to his credibility and the credibility of his assumed “prophetic” experience. Some Muslims deny the sources the story comes from. Other, more intelligent Muslims, knowledgeable about the sources, respond by saying that the shock of the experience caused him to attempt suicide; it was a natural thing to do.

However, the shock of the initial experience would have worn off over the next few days, if not weeks, hardly cause for Muhammad's continued suicide attempts over the next years.

It is undeniable that something distressing happened to Muhammad. He returns back to his wife bewildered, terrorized, “What's wrong with me?,” he asks his wife. Just as children hide under the covers when they are afraid of monsters in the dark, so Muhammad had his wife wrap him in a blanket; he did not want to see the cause of terror again.

Not satisfied with her comfort, he goes to the mountain instinctively knowing that something evil had happened to him. The only way he knows how to deal with it is the final solution: commit suicide.

But on top of the mountain this spirit intervenes, consoles him, strokes his ego, “O Muhammad, you are God's apostle.” Muhammad returns.

But it's not over. The terror, depression, and doubt Muhammad experienced were too real, too persistent to shake. Soothing words are eroded by the inward torments, doubts, and fears, “Woe is me poet or possessed...I will of the mountain and throw myself down that I may kill myself and gain rest.”

As time goes on, this spirit visits Muhammad less often, the torments and depression return, and gain strength. He again goes to kill himself. And, just in time, the spirit intervenes, telling him, stroking his ego again and again, he is an apostle of god. Muhammad begins to believe he is a messenger of god. A messenger of a god who's influence caused him to attempt suicide.

Muhammad’s Demonic Experiences.

In the Quran, [7], there are references that people believed that Muhammad was possessed or influenced by demons. Sura 81:22-25 says, “No, your compatriot [Muhammad] is not mad. He saw him [Gabriel] on the clear horizon. He does not grudge the secrets of the unseen, nor is this the utterance of an accursed devil.”

Sura 69:41, 42 say, “It [the Quran] is no poet's speech: scant is your faith! It is no soothsayer's divination: how little you reflect! It is revelation from the Lord of the Universe.

Here Muhammad is saying to his critics that he really saw an angel, and his words are not from a devil, or from his own imagination. No doubt the people living at that time thought he was inspired by a devil, so Muhammad spoke these words, as the Quran, in self-defense.

An experience Muhammad had as a child.

When Muhammad was a child a Bedouin woman nursed him. During this time he had an experience with “two men in white raiment.” Here is W. M. Watt's translation of Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad, page 36:

“...two men in white clothes came to me with a golden basin full of snow. They took me and split open my body, then they took my heart and split it open and took out from it a black clot which they flung away. Then they washed my heart and my body with that snow until they made them pure.”

This event deeply disturbed the Bedouins and they returned Muhammad to his mother. Here is the story told by Muhammad's wet-nurse, related in Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq, page 72:

“His [Muhammad's friend's] father said to me, “I am afraid that this child has had a stroke, so take him back to his family before the result appears. ..... She [Muhammad's mother] asked me what happened and gave me no peace until I told her. When she asked if I feared a demon had possessed him, I replied that I did.”

Even in his childhood, some people thought he was demon possessed. Note that even Muhammad's wet-nurse believed he had been demon possessed. One would expect some degree of attachment between the two, since she cared for him and nursed him. And note that even Muhammad's mother brought up the possibility of her son being demon possessed. So it is peculiar that both the mother would suggest it and the wet nurse would return Muhammad in those circumstances: something very troubling actually occurred.

6. Contradictions in the Qur'an.

The Qur'an states that it is a perfect book preserved on tablets in heaven (Surah 85:21-22). If the Qur'an is a perfect book from Allah, then there shouldn't be any contradictions in it. Of course, the Muslims will deny any contradictions exist in the Qur'an, but they do. Some of the contradictions below could be debated, but some of them are clearly contradictions.

A contradiction occurs when one statement on a subject excludes the possibility of another. The first one here is a good example. In Surah 19:67, it states that man was created out of nothing. In 15:26, man is created from clay. Since clay is something, we have a contradiction since “nothing” excludes the possibility of “clay.” Both cannot be true.

All quotes from the Qur'an, unless otherwise specified, are from Yusuf Ali and can be found at the Qur'an online.

What was man created from, blood, clay, dust, or nothing?

“Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood,” (96:2).

“We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).

“The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be.” And he was,” (3:59).

“But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?” (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35).

“He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4).

Is there or is there not compulsion in religion according to the Qur'an?

“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things,” (2:256).

“And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith,” (9:3).

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful,” (9:5).

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued,” (9:29).

The first Muslim was Muhammad? Abraham? Jacob? Moses?

“And I [Muhammad] am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah in Islam,” (39:12).

“When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: “O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee.” Allah said: “By no means canst thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me.” When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: “Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe.” (7:143).

“And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; “Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam,” (2:132).

Does Allah forgive or not forgive those who worship false gods?

Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed,” (4:48). Also 4:116

The people of the Book ask thee to cause a book to descend to them from heaven: Indeed they asked Moses for an even greater (miracle), for they said: “Show us Allah in public,” but they were dazed for their presumption, with thunder and lightning. Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority,” (4:153).

Are Allah's decrees changed or not?

“Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers,” (6:34).

“The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all, (6:115).

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?” (2:106).

When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not,” (16:101).

Is wine consumption good or bad?

O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination, of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper,” (5:90).

(Here is) a Parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised: in it are rivers of water incorruptible; rivers of milk of which the taste never changes; rivers of wine, a joy to those who drink; and rivers of honey pure and clear. In it there are for them all kinds of fruits; and Grace from their Lord. (Can those in such Bliss) be compared to such as shall dwell for ever in the Fire, and be given, to drink, boiling water, so that it cuts up their bowels (to pieces)?” (47:15).

Truly the Righteous will be in Bliss: On Thrones (of Dignity) will they command a sight (of all things): Thou wilt recognize in their faces the beaming brightness of Bliss. Their thirst will be slaked with Pure Wine sealed” (83:22-25).

This list was compiled from resources found on the web at Answering Islam, a List of problems in the Quran. and Errors in the Qur'an as well as my own research.

More Quotes from the Qur'an.

The Qur'an is the sacred book of Islam. It is supposed to be a perfect book, inspired, and flawless. Would you expect the following quotes from an inspired and flawless book?

All quotes from the Qur'an, unless otherwise specified, are from Yusuf Ali and can be found at the Qur'an online.

It is not good to enter a house from the back.

“They ask thee concerning the New Moons. Say: They are but signs to mark fixed periods of time in (the affairs of) men, and for Pilgrimage. It is no virtue if ye enter your houses from the back: It is virtue if ye fear Allah. Enter houses through the proper doors: And fear Allah: That ye may prosper,” (2:189).

Cities (Sodom and Gomorrah) are turned upside down — literally!

“(The Messengers) said: “O Lut! We are Messengers from thy Lord! By no means shall they reach thee! now travel with thy family while yet a part of the night remains, and let not any of you look back: but thy wife (will remain behind): To her will happen what happens to the people. Morning is their time appointed: Is not the morning nigh?...When Our Decree issued, We turned (the cities) upside down, and rained down on them brimstones hard as baked clay, spread, layer on layer,” (11:81-82)

“And We turned (the cities) upside down, and rained down on them brimstones hard as baked clay” (15:74).

A boy and his dog sleep for 309 years in a cave.

“Such (being their state), we raised them up (from sleep), that they might question each other. Said one of them, “How long have ye stayed (here)?” They said, “We have stayed (perhaps) a day, or part of a day.” (At length) they (all) said, “Allah (alone) knows best how long ye have stayed here...So they stayed in their Cave three hundred years, and (some) add nine (more)” (18:19,25).

The sun set in a pool of murky water

“Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: “O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness” (18:86, Yusuf Ali, translation).

Jesus spoke while in the cradle

“ But she pointed to the babe. They said: “How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?” ³⁰He said: “I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet” (19:29-30).

King Solomon learned the speech of birds

“And Solomon was David's heir. He said: “O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)” (27:16).

“And Solomon was David's heir. And he said: O mankind! Lo! we have been taught the language of birds, and have been given (abundance) of all things. This surely is evident favour” (27:16, Pickthall, trans.).

Ants can speak

“At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: “O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it” (27:18).

“Till, when they reached the Valley of the Ants, an ant exclaimed: O ants! Enter your dwellings lest Solomon and his armies crush you, unperceiving,” (27:18, Pickthal, trans.).

Allah made seven heavens and seven earths

“Allah is He Who created seven Firmaments and of the earth a similar number. Through the midst of them (all) descends His Command: that ye may know that Allah has power over all things, and that Allah comprehends, all things in (His) Knowledge” (65:12)

Shooting stars are for driving away evil spirits

And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire, (67:5).

The soul exits through the collar-bone when leaving the body.

“Yea, when (the soul) reaches to the collar-bone (in its exit), ²⁷And there will be a cry, “Who is a magician (to restore him)?” ²⁸And he will conclude that it was (the Time) of Parting,: (75:26-28).

7. Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State.

By Samuel Shahid

Foreword..

Recently a few books have been written about the rights of non-Muslims who are subjugated to the rule of the Islamic law. Most of these books presented the Islamic view in a favorable fashion, without unveiling the negative facet inherited in these laws. This brief study attempts to examine these laws as they are stated by the Four Schools of the Fiqh (jurisprudence). It aims at revealing to the reader the negative implications of these laws without ignoring the more tolerant views of modern reformers. Our ardent hope that this study will reveal to our readers the bare truth in its both positive and negative facets.

S.S.

Concept of “Islamic State.”

“An Islamic state is essentially an ideological state, and is thus radically different from a national state.” This statement made by Mawdudi lays the basic foundation for the political, economical, social, and religious system of all Islamic countries which impose the Islamic law. This ideological system intentionally discriminates between people according to their religious affiliations. Mawdudi, a prominent Pakistani Muslim scholar, summarizes the basic differences between Islamic and secular states as follows:

1. An Islamic state is ideological. People who reside in it are divided into Muslims, who believe in its ideology and non-Muslims who do not believe.

2. Responsibility for policy and administration of such a state “should rest primarily with those who believe in the Islamic ideology.” Non-Muslims, therefore, cannot be asked to undertake or be entrusted with the responsibility of policymaking.

3. An Islamic state is bound to distinguish (i.e. discriminates) between Muslims and non-Muslims. However the Islamic law “Shari`a” guarantees to non-Muslims “certain specifically stated rights beyond which they are not permitted to meddle in the affairs of the state because they do not subscribe to its ideology.” Once they embrace the Islamic faith, they “become equal participants in all matters concerning the state and the government.”

The above view is the representative of the Hanifites, one of the four Islamic schools of jurisprudence. The other three schools are the Malikites, the Hanbilites (the strictest and the most fundamentalist of all), and the Shafi`ites. All four schools agree dogmatically on the basic creeds of Islam but differ in their interpretations of Islamic law which is derived from four sources:

· Qur'an (read or recite): The sacred book of Muslim community containing direct quotes from Allah as allegedly dictated by Gabriel.

· Hadith (narrative): The collections of Islamic traditions including sayings and deeds of Muhammad as heard by his contemporaries, first, second, and third hand.

· Al-Qiyas (analogy or comparison): The legal decision drawn by Islamic Jurists based on precedent cases.

· Ijma' (consensus): The interpretations of Islamic laws handed down by the consensus of reputed Muslim scholars in a certain country.

Textual laws prescribed in the Qur'an are few. The door is left wide open for prominent scholars versed in the Qur'an, the Hadith, and other Islamic discipline to present their Fatwa (legal opinion) as we shall see later.

Classification of Non-Muslims:

In his article, “The Ordinances of the People of the Covenant and the Minorities in an Islamic State,” Sheikh Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdullah remarks that legists classify non-Muslims or infidels into two categories: Dar-ul-Harb or the household of War, which refers to non-Muslims who are not bound by a peace treaty, or covenant, and whose blood and property are not protected by the law of vendetta or retaliation; and Dar-us-Salam or the household of Peace, which refers to those who fall into three classifications:

Zimmis (those in custody) are non-Muslim subjects who live in Muslim countries and agree to pay the Jizya (tribute) in exchange for protection and safety, and to be subject to Islamic law. These enjoy a permanent covenant.

People of the Hudna (truce) are those who sign a peace treaty with Muslims after being defeated in war. They agree to reside in their own land, yet to be subject to the legal jurisprudence of Islam like Zimmis, provided they do not wage war against Muslims.

Musta'min (protected one) are persons who come to an Islamic country as messengers, merchants, visitors, or student wanting to learn about Islam. A Musta'min should not wage war against Muslims and he is not obliged to pay Jizya, but he would be urged to embrace Islam. If a Musta'min does not accept Islam, he is allowed to return safely to his own country. Muslims are forbidden to hurt him in any way. When he is back in his own homeland, he is treated as one who belongs to the Household of War.

This study will focus on the laws pertaining to Zimmis.

Islamic Law and Zimmis

Muslim Muftis (legal authorities) agree that the contract of the Zimmis should be offered primarily to the People of the Book, that is, Christians and Jews, then to the Magis or Zoroastrians. However, they disagree on whether any contract should be signed with other groups such as communists or atheists. The Hanbalites and the Shafi`ites believe that no contract should be made with the ungodly or those who do not believe in the supreme God. Hanifites and Malikites affirm that the Jizya may be accepted from all infidels regardless of their beliefs and faith in God. Abu Hanifa, however, did not want pagan Arabs to have this option because they are the people of the Prophet. They. must be given only two options: accept Islam or be killed.

The Jizya (tribute)

Jizya literally means penalty. It is a protection tax levied on non-Muslims living under Islamic regimes, confirming their legal status. Mawdudi states that “the acceptance of the Jizya establishes the sanctity of their lives and property, and thereafter neither the Islamic state, nor the Muslim public have any right to violate their property, honor or liberty.” Paying the Jizya is a symbol of humiliation and submission because Zimmis are not regarded as citizens of the Islamic state although they are, in most cases, natives to the country.

Such an attitude alienates the Zimmis from being an essential part of the community. How can a Zimmi feel at home in his own land, among his own people, and with his own government, when he knows that the Jizya, which he pays, is a symbol of humiliation and submission? In his book The Islamic Law Pertaining to non-Muslims, Sheikh `Abdulla Mustafa Al-Muraghi indicates that the. Jizya can only be exempted from the Zimmi who becomes a Muslim or dies. The Shafi`i reiterates that the Jizya is not automatically put aside when the Zimmi embraces Islam. Exemption from the Jizya has become an incentive to encourage Zimmis to relinquish their faith and embrace Islam.

Sheik Najih Ibrahim Ibn Abdulla summarizes the purpose of the Jizya. He says, quoting Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, that the Jizya is enacted:

“...to spare the blood (of the Zimmis), to be a symbol of humiliation of the infidels and as an insult and punishment to them, and as the Shafi`ites indicate, the Jizya is offered in exchange for residing in an Islamic country.” Thus Ibn Qayyim adds, “Since the entire religion belongs to God, it aims at humiliating ungodliness and its followers, and insulting them. Imposing the Jizya on the followers of ungodliness and oppressing them is required by God's religion. The Qur'anic text hints at this meaning when it says: `until they give the tribute by force with humiliation.' (Qur'an 9:29). What contradicts this is leaving the infidels to enjoy their might and practice their religion as they wish so that they would have power and authority.”

Zimmis and Religious Practices

Muslims believe that the Zimmis are Mushrikun (polytheists) for they see the belief in the Trinity as belief in three gods. Islam is the only true religion, they claim. Therefore, to protect Muslims from corruption, especially against the unforgivable sin of shirk (polytheism), its practice is forbidden among Muslims, because it is considered the greatest abomination. When Christians practice it publicly, it becomes an enticement and exhortation to apostasy. It is significant here to notice that according to Muraghi, Zimmis and infidels are polytheists and therefore, must have the same treatment.

According to Muslim jurists, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on Zimmis (Christians and Jews alike) who reside among Muslims:

· Zimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They are allowed to renovate old churches or houses of worship provided they do not allow to add any new construction. “Old churches” are those which existed prior to Islamic conquests and are included in a peace accord by Muslims. Construction of any church, temple, or synagogue in the Arab Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) is prohibited. It is the land of the Prophet and only Islam should prevail there. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, are permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.

· Zimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, lest Muslims hear their prayers.

· Zimmis are not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets. They are allowed to publish and sell them among their own people, in their churches and temples.

· Zimmis are not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches since it is a symbol of infidelity.

· Zimmis are not permitted to broadcast or display their ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or to use the media or to publish any picture of their religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines.

· Zimmis are not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.

· Zimmis are not allowed to join the army unless there is indispensable need for them in which case they are not allowed to assume leadership positions but are considered mercenaries.

Mawdudi, who is a Hanifite, expresses a more generous opinion toward Christians. He said:

“In their own towns and cities they are allowed to do so (practice their religion) with the fullest freedom. In purely Muslim areas, however, an Islamic government has full discretion to put such restrictions on their practices as it deems necessary.”

Apostasy in Islam.

Apostasy means rejection of the religion of Islam either by action or the word of the mouth. “The act of apostasy, thus, put an end to one's adherence to Islam.” when one rejects the fundamental creeds of Islam, he rejects the faith, and this is an act of apostasy such an act is a grave sin in Islam. The Qur'an indicates,

“How shall Allah guide those who reject faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Apostle was true and the clear sign had come unto them. But Allah guides not the people of unjust of such the reward is that on them rests the curse of Allah, of His angels and of all mankind in that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be their lot, except for those that repent after that and make amends; for verily Allah is Oft-forging, Most Merciful (Qur'an 3:86-89).

Officially, Islamic law requires Muslims not to force Zimmis to embrace Islam. It is the duty of every Muslim, they hold, to manifest the virtues of Islam so that those who are non-Muslims will convert willingly after discovering its greatness and truth. Once a person becomes a Muslim, he cannot recant. If he does, he will be warned first, then he will be given three days to reconsider and repent. If he persists in his apostasy, his wife is required to divorce him, his property is confiscated, and his children are taken away from him. He is not allowed to remarry. Instead, he should be taken to court and sentenced to death. If he repents, he may return to his wife and children or remarry. According to the Hanifites an apostate female is not allowed to get married. She must spend time in meditation in order to return to Islam. If she does not repent or recant, she will not be sentenced to death, but she is to be persecuted, beaten and jailed until she dies. Other schools of Shari`a demand her death. The above punishment is prescribed in a Hadith recorded by the Bukhari: “It is reported by `Abaas ... that the messenger of Allah ... said, `Whosoever changes his religion (from Islam to any other faith), kill him.”

In his book Shari`ah: The Islamic Law, Doi remarks, “The punishment by death in the case of Apostasy has been unanimously agreed upon by all the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence.”

A non-Muslim wishing to become a Muslim is encouraged to do so and anyone, even a father or a mother, who attempts to stop him, may be punished. However, anyone who makes an effort to proselytize a Muslim to any other faith may face punishment.

Civic Laws

Zimmis and Muslims are subject to the same civic laws. They are to be treated alike in matters of honor, theft, adultery, murder, and damaging property. They have to be punished in accordance with the Islamic law regardless of their religious affiliation. Zimmis and Muslims alike are subject to Islamic laws in matters of civic business, financial transactions such as sales, leases, firms, establishment of companies, farms, securities, mortgages, and contracts. For instance, theft is punishable by cutting off the thief's hand whether he is a Muslim or a Christian. But when it comes to privileges, the Zimmis do not enjoy the same treatment. For instance, Zimmis are not issued licenses to carry weapons.

Marriage and Children

A Muslim male can marry a Zimmi girl, but a Zimmi man is not allowed to marry a Muslim girl. If a woman embraces Islam and wants to get married, her non-Muslim father does not have the authority to give her away to her bridegroom. She must be given away by a Muslim guardian.

If one parent is a Muslim, children must be raised as Muslims. If the father is a Zimmi and his wife converts to Islam, she must get a divorce; then she will have the right of custody of her child. Some fundamentalist schools indicate that a Muslim husband has the right to confine his Zimmi wife to her home and restrain her from going to her own house of worship.

Capital Punishment

The Hanifites believe that both Zimmis and Muslims must suffer the same Penalty for similar crimes. If a Muslim kills a Zimmi intentionally, he must be killed in return. The same applies to a Christian who kills a Muslim. But other schools of Law have different interpretations of Islamic law. The Shafi`ites declare that a Muslim who assassinates a Zimmi must not be killed, because it is not reasonable to equate a Muslim with a polytheist (Mushrik). In such a case, blood price must be paid. The penalty depends on the school of law adopted by the particular Islamic country where the crime or offense is committed. This illustrates the implication of different interpretations of the Islamic law based on the Hadith.

Each school attempts to document its legal opinion by referring to the Hadith or to an incident experienced by the Prophet or the “rightly guided” Caliphs.

The Witness of Zimmis

Zimmis cannot testify against Muslims. They can only testify against other Zimmis or Musta'min. Their oaths are not considered valid in an Islamic court. According to the Shari`a, a Zimmi is not even qualified to be under oath. Muraghi states bluntly, “The testimony of a Zimmi is not accepted because Allah — may He be exalted — said: `God will not let the infidels (kafir) have an upper hand over the believers'.” A Zimmi, regarded as an infidel, cannot testify against any Muslim regardless of his moral credibility. If a Zimmi has falsely accused another Zimmi and was once punished, his credibility and integrity is tarnished and his testimony is no longer acceptable. One serious implication of this is that if one Muslim has committed a serious offense against another, witnessed by Zimmis only, the court will have difficulty deciding the case since the testimonies of Zimmis are not acceptable. Yet, this same Zimmi whose integrity is blemished, if he converts to Islam, will have his testimony accepted against the Zimmis and Muslims alike, because according to the Shari`a, “By embracing Islam he has gained a new credibility which would enable him to witness...” All he has to do is to utter the Islamic confession of faith before witnesses, and that will elevate him from being an outcast to being a respected Muslim enjoying all the privileges of a devout Muslim.

Personal Law

On personal matters of marriages, divorces, and inheritance, Zimmis are allowed to appeal to their own religious courts. Each Christian denomination has the right and authority to determine the outcome of each case. Zimmis are free to practice their own social and religious rites at home and in church without interference from the state, even in such matters as drinking wine, rearing pigs, and eating pork, as long as they do not sell them to Muslims. Zimmis are generally denied the right to appeal to an Islamic court in family matters, marriage, divorce, and inheritance. However, in the event a Muslim judge agrees to take such a case, the court must apply Islamic law.

Political Rights and Duties

The Islamic state is an ideological state, thus the head of the state inevitably must be a Muslim, because he is bound by the Shari`a to conduct and administer the state in accordance with the Qur'an and the Sunna. The function of his advisory council is to assist him in implementing the Islamic principles and adhering to them. Anyone who does not embrace Islamic ideology cannot be the head of state or a member of the council.

Mawdudi, aware of the requirements of modern society, seems to be more tolerant toward Zimmis. He says,

“In regard to a parliament or a legislature of the modern type which is considerably different from the advisory council in its traditional sense, this rule could be relaxed to allow non-Muslims to be members provided that it has been fully ensured in the constitution that no law which is repugnant to the Qur'an and the Sunna should be enacted, that the Qur'an and the Sunna should be the chief source of public law, and that the head of the state should necessarily be a Muslim.”

Under these circumstances, the sphere of influence of non-Muslim minorities would be limited to matters relating to general problems of the country or to the interest of the minorities. Their participation should not damage the fundamental requirement of Islam. Mawdudi adds,

“It is possible to form a separate representative assembly for all non-Muslim groups in tbe capacity of a central agency. The membership and the voting rights of such an assembly will be confined to non-Muslims and they would be given the fullest freedom within its frame-work.”

These views do not receive the approval of most other schools of the Shari`a which hold that non-Muslims are not allowed to assume any position which might bestow on them any authority over any Muslim. A position of sovereignty demands the implementation of Islamic ideology. It is alleged that a non-Muslim (regardless of his ability, sincerity, and loyalty to his country) cannot and would not work faithfully to achieve the ideological and political goals of Islam.

Business World

The political arena and the official public sectors are not the only area in which non-Muslims are not allowed to assume a position of authority. A Muslim employee who works in a company inquires in a letter “if it is permissible for a Muslim owner (of a company) to confer authority on a Christian over other Muslims? (Al-Muslim Weekly; Vol. 8; issue No. 418; Friday 2, 5, 1993).

In response to this inquiry three eminent Muslim scholars issued their legal opinions:

Sheikh Manna` K. Al-Qubtan, professor of Higher studies at the School of Islamic Law in Riyadh, indicates that:

Basically, the command of non-Muslims over Muslims in not admissible, because God Almighty said: 'Allah will not give access to the infidels (i.e. Christians) to have authority over believers (Muslims) {Qur'an 4:141}. For God — Glory be to Him — has elevated Muslims to the highest rank (over all men) and foreordained to them the might, by virtue of the Qurtanic text in which God the Almighty said: 'Might and strength be to Allah, the Prophet (Muhammad) and the believers (Muslims) {Qur'an 63:8}.

Thus, the authority of non-Muslim over a Muslim is incompatible with these two verses, since the Muslim has to submit to and obey whoever is in charge over him. The Muslim, therefore becomes inferior to him, and this should not be the case with the Muslim.

Dr. Salih Al-Sadlan, professor of Shari`a at the School of Islamic Law, Riyadh, cites the same verses and asserts that it is not permissible for a infidel (in this case is a Christian) to be in charge over Muslims whether in the private or public sector. Such an act:

“entails the humiliaton of the Muslim and the exaltation of the infidel (Christian). This infidel may exploit his position to humiliate and insult the Muslims who work under his administration. It is advisable to the company owner to fear God Almighty and to authorize only a Muslim over the Muslims. Also, the injunctions issued by the ruler, provides that an infidel should not be in charge when there is a Muslim available to assume the command. Our advice to the company owner is to remove this infidel and to replace him with a Muslim.”

In his response Dr. Fahd Al-`Usaymi, professor of Islamic studies at the Teachers' College in Riyadh, remarks that the Muslim owner of the company should seek a Muslim employee who is better than the Christian (manager), or equal to him or even less qualified but has the ability to be trained to obtain the same skill enjoyed by the Christian. It is not permissible for a Christian to be in charge of Muslims by the virtue of the general evidences which denote the superiority of the Muslim over others. Then he quotes (Qur'an 63:8) and also cites verse 22 of Chapter 58:

Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Apostle, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred.

`Usaymi claims that being under the authority of a Christian may force Muslims to flatter him and humiliate themselves to this infidel on the hope to obtain some of what he has. This is against the confirmed evidences. Then he alludes to the story of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab the second Caliph, who was displeased with one of his governors who appointed a Zimmi as a treasurer, and remarked: “Have the wombs of women become sterile that they gave birth only to this man?” Then `Usaymi adds:

Muslims should fear God in their Muslim brothers and train them... for honesty and fear of God are, originally, in the Muslim, contrary to the infidel (the Christian) who, originally, is dishonest and does not fear God.

Does this mean that a Christian who owns a business cannot employ a Muslim to work for him? Even worse, does this mean that a Zimmi, regardless of his unequal qualification, cannot be appointed to the right position where he would serve his country the best? This question demands an answer.

Freedom of Expression

Mawdudi, who is more lenient than most Muslim scholars, presents a revolutionary opinion when he emphasizes that in an Islamic state:

“all non-Muslims will have thc freedom of conscience, opinion, expression, and association as the one enjoyed by Muslims themselves, subject to the same limitations as are imposed by law on Muslims.”

Mawdudi's views are not accepted by most Islamic schools of law, especially in regard to freedom of expression like criticism of Islam and the government. Even in a country like Pakistan, the homeland of Mawdudi, it is illegal to criticize the government or the head of state. Many political prisoners are confined to jails in Pakistan and most other Islamic countries. Through the course of history. except in rare cases, not even Muslims have been given freedom to criticize Islam without being persecuted or sentenced to death. It is far less likely for a Zimmi to get away with criticizing Islam.

In Mawdudi's statement, the term “limitations” is vaguely defined. If it were explicitly defined, you would find, in the final analysis, that it curbs any type of criticism against the Islamic faith and government.

Moreover, how can the Zimmis express the positive aspects of their religion when they are not allowed to use the media or advertise them on radio or TV? Perhaps Mawdudi meant by his proposals to allow such freedom to Zimmis only among themselves. Otherwise, they would be subject to penalty. Yet, Muslims are allowed, according to the Shari`a (law) to propagate their faith among all religious sects without any limitations.

Muslims and Zimmis

Relationships between Muslims and Zimmis are classified in two categories: what is forbidden and what is allowable.

I. The Forbidden:

A Muslim is not allowed to:

emulate the Zimmis in their dress or behavior.
attend Zimmi festivals or support them in any way which may give them any power over Muslims.
lease his house or sell his land for the construction of a church, temple, liquor store, or anything that may benefit the Zimmi's faith.
work for Zimmis in any job that might promote their faith such as constructing a church.
make any endowment to churches or temples.
carry any vessel that contains wine, work in wine production, or transport pigs.
address Zimmis with any title such as: “my master” or “my lord.”

II. The Allowable

A Muslim is allowed to:

financially assist the Zimmis, provided the money is not used in violation of Islamic law like buying wine or pork.
give the right of pre-emption (priority in buying property) to his Zimmi neighbor. The Hanbilites disapprove of this.
eat food prepared by the People of the Book.
console the Zimmis in an illness or in the loss of a loved one. It is also permissible for a Muslims to escort a funeral to the cemetery, but he has to walk in front of the coffin, not behind it, and he must depart before the deceased is buried.
congratulate the Zimmis for a wedding, birth of a child, return from a long trip, or recovery from illness. However, Muslims are warned not to utter any word which may suggest approval of the Zimmis' faith, such as: “May Allah exalt you,” “May Allah honor you,” or “May Allah give your religion victory.”

Conclusion

This study shows us that non-Muslims are not regarded as citizens by any Islamic state, even if they are original natives of the land. To say otherwise is to conceal the truth. Justice and equality require that any Christian Pakistani, Melanesian, Turk, or Arab be treated as any other citizen of his own country. He deserves to enjoy the same privileges of citizenship regardless of religious affiliation. To claim that Islam is the true religion and to accuse other religions of infidelity is a social, religious and legal offense against the People of the Book.

Christians believe that their religion is the true religion of God and Islam is not. Does that mean that Great Britain, which is headed by a Queen, the head of the Anglican Church, should treat its Muslim subjects as a second class? Moreover, why do Muslims in the West enjoy all freedoms allotted to all citizens of these lands, while Muslim countries do not allow native Christians the same freedom? Muslims in the West build mosques, schools, and educational centers and have access to the media without any restriction. They publicly advertise their activities and are allowed to distribute their Islamic materials freely, while native Christians of any Islamic country are not allowed to do so. Why are Christians in the West allowed to embrace any religion they wish without persecution while a person who chooses to convert to another religion in any Islamic country, is considered an apostate and must be killed if he persists in his apostasy? These questions and others are left for readers to ponder.

References

Abdullah, Najih Ibrahim Bin, The Ordinances of the People of the Covenant and the Minorities in an Islamic State, Balagh Magazine, Cairo, Egypt, Volume 944, May 29, 1988; Volume 945, June 5, 1988.
Al Muslimun, Vol. 8; issue No, 418; Friday 2, 5, 1993.
Doi, `Abdur Rahman I.; Shari`a: The Islamic Law; Taha Publishers; London UK; 1984.
Mawdudi, S. Abul `Ala', The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islamic State, Islamic Publications, LTD. Lahore, Pakistan. 1982
Muraghi, Abdullah Mustapha, Islamic Law Pertaining to Non-Muslims, Library of Letters. Egypt. Undated

Conclusion.

By Jerjis T. Alajaji

A casual reader of history will not fail to note the great and ferocious animosity of Islam to Christianity. One would ask why is this so, since both religions are supposed to worship the same God? The crux of the matter lies in focusing on the originators of these two religions, since followers of one or the other religion have a wide range of virtues or vices, resulting in complex and inscrutable historical developments.

Therefore let us concentrate on the two leaders, Jesus Christ and Muhammad. Let us look at their lives, what they both said and more importantly what they did. Which one of the two was forgiving, a peacemaker, kind, magnanimous? Which one would you trust more to be your friend? Which one was self-serving? Which one gave of himself and even his life for others? It is a relatively simple comparison, and the differences are obvious from their respective biographies. Which one of the two was interested in earthly power, a legalistic worldly empire, many wives and concubines? (in the Quran, Muhammad blesses the union of a man with four wives, except for himself, where he is blessed to have eight). Did Muhammad love his enemies or kill them?

We have many historically well documented witnesses who testify who Jesus is, who recorded His life, teachings, and deeds in the Gospels and Epistles, and who died martyrs' deaths for Him, without gaining any material benefits in return from a worldly point of view. There are also secular historians who are outsiders to the Christian tradition, such as the Jews Josephus and Philo, and the pagans Tacitus, Pliny, and Suetoneus, who have recorded corroborating facts about Jesus and his followers. In fact, during the first three centuries of the rise of Christianity, being a follower of Christ usually resulted in great hardship, persecution, and often martyrdom. All the apostles died as martyrs except St. John the Evangelist. A great many of the early Church leaders died as martyrs. Why would any of these intelligent and eloquent people, many highly educated, be ready to die for the cause of Christ if they were not convinced that He is True? On the other hand, we know that Islam from the outset was very militaristic and conquered by the sword, bestowing great earthly benefits on Muhammad himself and his entourage, granting power, wealth, and all the prestige that empire building reaps. His followers were ready to die for him, with a sword in hand, a very different situation than the early followers of Christ, who were peaceful subjects falsely accused and tortured by pagan Rome. Mohammad is the only source of the Quran. There is no other source of information to validate what he claims to be. He did not perform any miracles. His claim is that the beauty of the Quran is a sufficient miracle, but may I suggest that his cousin Ali's writings are sometimes equally or more eloquent? If Islam is true, why is it that Muslims are encouraged to kill other Muslims who leave Islam? Why is the Bible, a cross, or any Christian literature prohibited from entering Saudi Arabia? If Islam is true, it should welcome any fair challenge from other faiths, since the Truth always triumphs when compared to non-truths.

As for Muhammad, he is a false prophet, whose coming was predicted by Christ. Jesus foretold in the Gospels the apparition of many false prophets after Him, one of the most successful of which turned out to be Muhammad. If you study carefully Muhammad's life, you will realize that he is of great religious, political, and military genius. He composed his own scriptures (the Quran) based on the Torah, the canonical Gospels, gnostic gospels (also called pseudepigrapha), and Arabian pagan customs. I, as a follower of Christ, do love Muslims, some of whom have great piety and love for God, surpassing the nominalism of many modern Christian peoples born under Islam are victims of their environment and have great difficulties breaking away from Islam because of many social pressures and the threat of being killed for the supposed crime of apostasy from Islam, even if they lose faith in their native inherited religion. The light they have received is a small fractional glimpse of the revealed full brightness of the True God, and their vision of God is shadowy and blurred. Their responsibility in front of God may not be as great as many Christians who are born in a free society and apostatize from Christ. Loving all Muslims, I, however, reject the teachings of Muhammad and Islam because they are misleading, discriminating, and often cruel, contradicting divine revelation in Christ, and mixing some of the revealed truths of Christianity (the fulfillment of Judaism) with falsehood and lies. Make no mistake about it: Islam is not compatible with Christianity and is not another path to God revealed by a late-coming prophet. What prophet does God need to send after He Himself came to show us the Royal Path to salvation in His Church, the Ark of salvation? The God depicted by Muhammad is very different than the God revealed in Christ, although the name of the deity and few of His attributes might be held in common. If one of these two religions is true, the other is false by simple deduction. Both can of course be considered false by non-believers, but both cannot be true. Orthodox Christianity teaches that God, the All-Merciful and Compassionate, will judge everyone according to what they have received and according to their deeds. Those who have received more will be accountable for more. Every human being is created and loved by God, and is given free will to chose good from evil, truth from falsehood, abundant Life from perdition, some according to the Truth revealed by the Son of God in Christianity, and others, who have not yet received Christ's illumination, according to the natural law inscribed in their heart and conscience by their Creator. The more one receives from God, the more one is accountable for on the Last Day. Ultimately, some non-Christians will be saved, and, on the other hand, some Christians will not be saved. God is All-Loving, Just, and Compassionate, and does not wish the death of a sinner, but patiently awaits his return. The height and breadth of His love was shown to us by the birth, death, and resurrection of His Only-Begotten Son.

[John 3:16] For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. [John 8:57].

Addendum

Other Inconsistencies in Islam.

Let us look at what Muhammad says in the Quran on his own terms. Since the Quran is allegedly verbatim the word of God, let us hereafter examine what God has to say about Jesus (called Issa in the Quran).

We will demonstrate enormous inconsistencies in the Quran about who Jesus is.

[Maryam 19:20] She (Mary) said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste? [Maryam 19:21] He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained. [Maryam 19:22] And she conceived him (Jesus), and she withdrew with him to a far place.

Muhammad here acknowledges that Jesus' birth was miraculously done without human seed and was announced to the Virgin Mary by an angel. [Maryam 19:27] Then she brought him to her own folk, carrying him. They said: O Mary! Thou hast come with an amazing thing. [Maryam 19:28] O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a wicked man nor was thy mother a harlot. [Maryam 19:29] Then she pointed to him. They said: How can we talk to one who is in the cradle, a young boy ? [Maryam 19:30] He (Jesus) spake: Lo! I am the slave of Allah. He hath given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a Prophet, [Maryam 19:31] And hath made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and hath enjoined upon me prayer and almsgiving so long as I remain alive, [Maryam 19:32] And (hath made me) dutiful toward her who bore me, and hath not made me arrogant, unblest. [Maryam 19:33] Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive! [Maryam 19:34] Such was Jesus, son of Mary: (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt. Here Muhammad records the first miracle of Jesus, who being still a baby, spoke as an adult to the kins of Mary who were accusing her of unchastity, since she had a child without being married to a man. Jesus defends her innocence and declares that he is the slave of Allah, who blessed him and appointed him to be a prophet. Then he prophesied about his own life saying : “ Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!” Therefore, Jesus was to die and to be raised alive.

[an-Nisa' 4:157] And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger — they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. [an-Nisa' 4:158] But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.

[Al-Imran 3:55] (And remember) when Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me, and am cleansing thee of those who disbelieve and am setting those who follow thee above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection.

Muhammad here contradicts what he said previously by denying that Jesus was crucified, died, and was raised alive from the dead! He alleges that Jesus was rather taken up to heaven, “but it appeared so unto them” (the disciples) that Jesus was crucified. [al-Baqarah 2:87] And verily We gave unto Moses the Scripture and We caused a train of messengers to follow after him, and We gave unto Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty), and We supported him with the Holy Spirit.

[al-Baqarah 2:253] Of those messengers, some of whom We have caused to excel others, and of whom there are some unto whom Allah spake, while some of them He exalted (above others) in degree; and We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty) and We supported him with the Holy Spirit.

[an-Nisa' 4:171] O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not “Three” — Cease! (it is) better for you! — Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a Son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.

[al-Ma'idah 5:17] They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. [al-Ma'idah 5:72] They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire.

[Maryam 19:35] It befitteth not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.

[at-Taubah 9:30] And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! Muhammad here says that God bestowed on Jesus the Holy Spirit, exalted him above other prophets in degrees, and gave him clear proofs of Allah's sovereignty (i.e. miracles), but Muhammad denies the Holy Trinity and denies that Jesus is the Son of God. [al-Baqarah 2:53] And when We gave unto Moses the Scripture and the criterion (of right and wrong), that ye might be led aright.

[an-Nisa' 4:163] Lo! We inspire thee as We inspired Noah and the prophets after him, as We inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and as We imparted unto David the Psalms;

[al-Ma'idah 5:46] And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah — a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil).

[al-Hadid 57:27] Then We caused Our messengers to follow in their footsteps; and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him. Muhammad says that he follows the line of revelation of all the previous prophets, including Moses, Job, Jonah, David, Solomon, and Jesus. However, Islam rejects the authority of the Hebrew and Christian Holy Scriptures. This gratuitous debunking of the Bible is based on the allegations that it has been corrupted from the original and deviated from the truth. This is the reason why God finally sent his last and ceal of all prophets, Muhammad, to bring humanity back to the straight path. Islam, in a self-serving manner, totally ignores any archeological or historical scholarship that proves that the Bible is authentic and unaltered. [Al-Imran 3:45] (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah). [Al-Imran 3:46] He will speak unto mankind in his cradle and in his manhood, and he is of the righteous. [Al-Imran 3:47] She said: My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal hath touched me ? He said: So (it will be). Allah createth what He will. If He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is. [Al-Imran 3:48] And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel, [Al-Imran 3:49] And will make him a messenger unto the Children of Israel, (saying): Lo! I come unto you with a sign from your Lord. Lo! I fashion for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and I breathe into it and it is a bird, by Allah's leave. I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead, by Allah's leave. And I announce unto you what ye eat and what ye store up in your houses. Lo! herein verily is a portent for you, if ye are to be believers.

[al-Ma'idah 5:110] When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favour unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee with the Holy Spirit, so that thou spakest unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity; and how I taught thee the Scripture and Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and how thou didst shape of clay as it were the likeness of a bird by My permission, and didst blow upon it and it was a bird by My permission, and thou didst heal him who was born blind and the leper by My permission; and how thou didst raise the dead by My permission; and how I restrained the Children of Israel from (harming) thee when thou camest unto them with clear proofs, and those of them who disbelieved exclaimed: This is naught else than mere magic;

[al-Ma'idah 5:114] Jesus, son of Mary, said: O Allah, Lord of us! Send down for us a table spread with food from heaven, that it may be a feast for us, for the first of us and for the last of us, and a sign from Thee. Give us sustenance, for Thou art the Best of Sustainers. [al-Ma'idah 5:115] Allah said: Lo! I send it down for you. And whoso disbelieveth of you afterward, him surely will I punish with a punishment wherewith I have not punished any of (My) creatures.

[az-Zukhruf 43:63] When Jesus came with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), he said: I have come unto you with wisdom, and to make plain some of that concerning which ye differ. So keep your duty to Allah, and obey me. Here Muhammad describes the miraculous virgin birth of Jesus, how he spoke from his cradle as in maturity, fashioned a bird of clay and breathed on it to give it life (this is reminiscent of the Genesis account of the creation of Adam! Is not Jesus the Word of God by whom all things were made?), brought food down from heaven to feed the multitudes, healed the blind and the lepers, and raised the dead! Who can do these things other than God Incarnate? No other prophet before or after Jesus has done anything close to this. [Al-Imran 3:37] And her Lord accepted her (Mary) with full acceptance and vouchsafed to her a goodly growth; and made Zachariah her guardian. Whenever Zachariah went into the sanctuary where she was, he found that she had food. He said: O Mary! Whence cometh unto thee this (food) ? She answered: It is from Allah. Allah giveth without stint to whom He will.

[Al-Imran 3:42] And when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah hath chosen thee and made thee pure, and hath preferred thee above (all) the women of creation.

[at-Tahrim 66:12] And Mary, daughter of 'Imran, whose body was chaste, therefore We breathed therein something of Our Spirit. And she put faith in the words of her Lord and His scriptures, and was of the obedient. Muhammad here believes that Mary, as a child, was sent angels from God to feed her in the temple's sanctuary, that she was pure and chaste, and that God has preferred her above all the women of creation and has given her of “Our Spirit” (meaning the Holy Spirit). Muhammad never claims anything remotely close to Mary's virtues for his mother. [as-Saff 61:6] And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is the Praised One. Yet when he hath come unto them with clear proofs, they say: This is mere magic. The Holy Scriptures and Sacred Tradition of the Christian Church has never even remotely taught that Jesus predicted the coming of a prophet after Him. On the contrary, Jesus taught that false prophets and wolves will come after Him to tear apart the flock of His sheep. These contradictions, taken verbatim from the Quran, are very dramatic. They point to conflicting accounts about who Jesus is and what He did. The most overwhelming inconsistency is the affirmation that Jesus was to die and to be raised alive in one verse, and the denial that he ever was crucified in another remote verse, but was rather taken up to heaven. Could the word of God, which was dictated to Muhammad directly by the angel Gabriel, be in error? Would God make mistakes and change His mind? On the other hand, all four Gospels, written by four different witnesses, concur on the events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. Could it be that Muhammad started out earlier in his public life by accepting part of the Christian Gospel, when he himself had few followers, was persecuted, and fled to Medinah, but later reversed his opinions when he sensed an opportunity for establishing his own religion and kingdom, after his first successful battles at defeating his enemies and returning as victor to Mecca? Is it unthinkable or impossible for the All-Mighty God to enter His creation and become incarnate, the Maker of this vast universe? God can do all things and is absolutely sovereign, even according to Islam. Muhammad, as a mortal man like many others before and after him, was interested in all the usual enticements that appeal to ambitious leaders: power, fame, authority, women, wealth. On the other hand Jesus is unparalleled in all humanity on account of his birth, life, death, and resurrection, being disinterested in common pursuits, keeping His eyes on the eternal kingdom which He promised to establish and which He is capable of delivering, having shown clear proofs in His life on earth of His sovereignty over the elements of nature, sickness, life, and death. His life and deeds were prophesied with great accuracy centuries before His birth. Is it not plausible that He is the author and fulfillment of all these prophesies? As for me, I confess, after many careful years of learning from life and books, and after continuous and honest soul-searching, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the Only-Begotten of the Father before all ages, eternally reigning and co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, the God-man, the Incarnate Word of God, uniting divine nature and human nature in one Person, the Logos, the Second Person of the All-Holy, Consubstantial, Tri-Personal, Triune, and Undivided Trinity. He took on human flesh and made it His own, without change, confusion, or separation of the divine and human natures, both operating simultaneously without diminution or alteration in the One Person, the Logos (this is the Orthodox Christian Faith of the Apostles, confirmed and defined at the fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, Asia Minor, 451 A.D).

|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||

|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || D evotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||

|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes

|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||

|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium