Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Of course Mohammad (pbuh) has been criticised ever since he began preaching the
message of Islam, this criticism began with his non-Muslim contemporaries in 7th
century Arabia and extends to the modern day. The early criticism stemmed from
Pagan Arabs who opposed the message that Muhammad (pbuh) preached this
criticism follows a ubiquitous trait through the dark ages, middle ages, industrial
revolution and all the way to modern times as well as post-modern times. The
common trait being the origination of the critique of Mohammad (pbuh) was
enveloped in a bias born out of the authors of the critique coming from an opposing
religious stance and in many cases coming from an opposing evangelical background.
Thus throwing the critique into the arena of prejudice, therefore, from an objective
stance this criticism is tinged with a bias and in the case of that which flows from the
evangelical side we must say it is far from neutral.
Of course both the early non-Muslim Arabs and the evangelical Christians of the past
and modern times have pursued a policy of open defamation of the Prophet (pbuh)
and indeed they still are doing this through websites and books dedicated to attacking
Islam. The same dedication to attack other religions by the evangelical Christians
does not exist. This observation is supported by the following quote from the
orientalist W. Montgomery Watt ’ of the world’s great men none has been so much
maligned as Mohammad’. This could well be due to the copious number of converts
to Islam from Christianity in the modern Western world today. If this is the case then
we must realise that their focus on Islam is coming from an ideological and
theological battlefield. This, indeed, is my belief and the adage ‘ the first casualty of
war is the truth’ comes to mind as their charges against Mohammad are bathed in
falsehoods and deceptive quoting motivated by none other than attempting to
discredit Islam.
Before delving into refuting the charge of paedophilia against the Mohammad (pbuh)
lets look at a brief overview of the insults and charges thrown in the direction of
Mohammad (pbuh)
In the Middle Ages Mohammad (pbuh) was referred to via the derogatory term
Maometics (the number of the beast, 666),
Martin Luther described him as "a devil and first-born child of Satan" (1) Christian
pastor Jerry Vines called him a "demon-possessed paedophile". (2)
That said lets move onto dissecting their claim of paedophilia. Of course their claim is
based on Lady Aisha’s early marriage to Mohammad (pbuh). From my experiences in
discussing this issue with those who advocate the claims I notice as a matter of fact
that their objection to the marriage in question is fractured into a few claims:
1. The primary charge they bring is that of outright paedophilia, i.e. ‘sex with a pre-
pubescent girl’
The primary charge they bring is that of outright paedophilia, i.e. ‘sex with a pre-
pubescent girl’
Dealing with the first claim that Lady Aisha was ‘pre-pubescent’ when she
consummated her marriage with Mohammed (pbuh). Their argument comes from the
4 narrations (hadiths) in Al-Bukhari and 3 hadiths in Al-Muslim stating her age to
being 9 when the marriage was consummated. It must be stated that the age is
disputed, reports regarding the age vary from 9 to age 20. The argument regarding
whether the age was 9 or not shall be discussed later on in this article. It is imperative
that we maintain a methodical approach in dealing with the accusations.
This claim of ’pre-pubescence’ is not that common as it is widely accepted by most of
the accusers of Muhammad (pbuh) that she had reached puberty at the time of
consummation, to be fair the minority who do claim ‘pre-pubescence’ are the
extremely ignorant and hateful ones amongst the accusers. So the vast majority of
them, to their credit, are honest enough to admit or concede that she had reached
puberty before any sexual contact. Having said that, the claim must still be refuted.
First off, let us be clear, Lady Aisha had reached puberty. Obviously if that was not
the case then the Pagan Arabs who vehemently opposed Muhammad (pbuh) would
have brought this complaint up, no records of any such claims exist. Islamic law
does not allow sex with a pre-pubescent girl, therefore, as Islamic Law is based on the
Quran and the teachings of Muhammad, it is known through this fact that Aisha had
reached puberty. Aisha saw this union as an honour and looked back at the marriage
and her great life with Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) with great fondness and joy (3)this
obviously shows that she was in full agreement with the marriage. We must also state
that the parents of Lady Aisha were in full agreement of the marriage to take place
and most crucially in this regard they were in full agreement for consummation to
take place at the time it did, obviously no parent would send their daughter for
consummation in a pre-pubescent stage in her life. Colin Turner (4) highlights the fact
that 7th century Arabian girls reached adulthood at an earlier age. The Cambridge
World History of Food (5) agrees with Turner and states girls in the southerly regions
of Asia where the climate is warmer were marriageable in their eighth year and gave
birth in their ninth or tenth year.
The period of 3 years between the engagement and consummation was clearly for
Lady Aisha to reach maturity, both physically and mentally. Both physical and mental
maturation must be reached if a marriage is to be consummated, this is Islamic law
which is based upon the teachings of Muhammad (pbuh) and the Quran, this shows
that Aisha would have been physically mature as well as mentally mature for
consummation, i.e. she would have attained puberty. Lady Aisha even confirmed
having reached puberty (6) but many people are unaware of this as the claim they
make of ‘pre-pubescence‘ is not a common claim hence the proof to show their claims
to be false is not widely publicised. Karen Armstrong also confirms that Lady Aisha
had reached puberty at the time of consummation in her ‘Muhammad: A Biography
of the Prophet’ (7), this ’reaching of puberty’ is confirmed by great scholars such as
Dawudi, Abu Hanifa etc (8) These are facts that Christian missionaries tend to
ignore to further their agenda of maligning the character of Mohammad (pbuh), this
practice of the Christians is dishonest and intended to deceive. Lady Aisha was
betrothed to Mohammad at the age of 6 and then the marriage consummated at 9
according to the hadith mentioned earlier. The betrothal at an early age (6 years old)
was in concordance with the custom at the time, this is proven by the fact that Lady
Aisha was previously engaged for marriage to a man named Jubair ibn Mut`am (9).
We must also state that the parents of Lady Aisha were in full agreement of the
marriage to take place and most crucially in this regard they were in full agreement
for consummation to take place at the time it did, obviously no parent would send
their daughter for consummation in a pre-pubescent stage in her life. We must also
remember that the marriage was not the idea of Muhammad (pbuh) but was
suggested to Mohammad by Khawalh bint Hakim (10). Also, the consummation of
the marriage was suggested to Mohammad (pbuh) by Lady Aisha’s father, this is
further proof that she had reached puberty but also shows that there was no sexual
motive within the blessed heart of Mohammad (pbuh) as neither the idea of marriage
or consummation were initiated by him.(11) As a side note which is important, the
Islamophobe brings a new element to his claim of ‘pre-pubescence’ and brings forth
Hadith that state that Aisha played with dolls and the Islamophobe infers from this
that Aisha was below the age of puberty. This is an unscholarly conflation of events as
the traditions that tell us that Aisha played with dolls do not specify when she played
with the dolls therefore it would be inaccurate to state that she played with dolls after
or at the time of the consummation of the marriage. The dishonest Islamophobe tries
to paint the picture of a girl playing with dolls and being forced into sex. This is not
the case historically. The traditions of Aisha playing with dolls do not mention what
age she was when she played with the dolls, therefore to make the Islamophobe’s
judgement would be unscholarly and deceptive. The Islamophobe also uses a tradition
that teaches us that Lady Aisha, when moving into live with Muhammad (pbuh), had
took her dolls with her to her new home. People in the West (including myself) can
relate to this as many girls on leaving their parents homes (whether to university
accommodation or to live with their partner) take items of emotional value, dolls and
teddy bears (from their childhood) are amongst these items. So, Aisha, was no
different in this regard. There is no tradition stating that she was playing with the dolls
at the time of consummation nor after this time. It would be extremely unfair and even
deceptive to make that claims of the Islamophobe as there is NO evidence to support
their claim that Aisha was playing with dolls at the time of consummation. All we
know is that she was married at the age of six, she had a waiting period of three years
in order to attain maturity and then she consummated the marriage after puberty; these
are the facts, to imply otherwise would be conjecture. I will also append an online
article that deals with this subject to further your understanding (see reference number
22)
Now that the claim of ‘sex with a pre-pubescent girl’ has been refuted the accuser
goes on to change their accusation to ‘paedophilia involving a young girl’
Interestingly enough, here the Christian missionary displays his/her own lack of
knowledge of the Bible as the Bible gives its own age of consent/marriage as being
puberty! The reference is Ezekiel 16:4-14 (12),therefore the Christian age of consent
is between 8-13 years old (general age-range of puberty around the world), the word
“hypocrisy” springs to mind when Christians attack Mohammad (pbuh) for using
puberty as a minimum standard for consummation of a marriage. This highlights the
double standards, dishonesty and lack of scholarly pursuit amongst the Christian
missionaries. However the accusation must still be refuted and is refuted in the course
of this article in the interest of thoroughness and academic integrity and most
importantly out of respect and veneration for the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) as well
as the truth.
Of course, this accusation uses modern day ages of consent as its yard stick. Modern
day standards here in the UK would be age 16. In Oregon, America it would be 18,
Spain and south Korea have it set at 13 and the Philippines are at 12 years of age(13).
By applying American (Oregon) standards on people residing in the UK, Spain,
Bolivia, France etc they would be deemed to have committed a sexual crime with a
minor. This shows the inconsistencies that arise from using one particular cultural
norm as a standard to judge another. Now, if comparing modern day ‘age of consent’
laws with the counterparts of other countries/cultures bring about charges of
‘paedophilia’ then it would be hardly surprising when the same occurs when cultural
norms and standards of the past are scrutinised by modern day standards. I am sure
the reader sees the inherent difficulties and inequities that this would bring about.
Hardly a fair and scholarly way of doing things. In fact it’s a hypocritical argument as
well as a smoke screen in order to deceive by attempting to inspire emotion to over-
rule rationality.
It was a cultural norm at the time for both boys and girls to get married shortly after
puberty, it was not a practice just for females(14) . As shown earlier ‘The
Cambridge World History of Food’ (4) shows that early marriage was the
cultural norm in other geographical locations and it was not just an
Arabian thing. In fact South America and Africa, Asia and Eastern
Europe still have cultural norms that allow if not encourage marrying
shortly after the onset of puberty. It must also be stated this cultural
norm extended to the rest of the Semitic civilizations (as confirmed
by the Baptist minister, Jim West,(15) and was in clear display in the
betrothal of Mary (Mother of Jesus, peace be upon both of them) to
Joseph early on in the life of Lady Mary. This does gazump the
Christian accuser.
Roughly 100 years ago in the 1880 the age of consent was as low
as 7 in Delaware, while many other states in America were at 10
years old, including Alabama, California and Florida. Russia was at
10 while Scotland was at 12 and England 13.(16) therefore the Christian
missionaries must believe EVERYBODY in the past to be paedophiles or advocates
of paedophilia.
Judaism to this day teaches the Jews to use puberty as the minimum age for marriage
(17).Also in Hinduism a man of 30 years can marry a girl of 12 years and a man of
24 can marry a girl of 8 years (Manu 9.94). We must not forget the Bible is also still
using puberty as the age of consent (Ezekiel 16) Therefore Christianity, Hinduism and
Judaism is allowing Paedophilia according to the Christian missionaries. To further
highlight that the Jewish and Christian ages of consent were puberty we can refer to
the well-renowned scholar, Geza Vermes, he teaches us (concerning Jewish customs,
which were the customs early Christians adopted too) that betrothing the girl prior to
puberty and waiting for the ‘ right biological moment’ to consummate the marriage
(ie full wife status) was standard practice. (23) This is exactly what Muhammad
(pbuh) did, this is what was the norm in Jewish and early Christian cultures (including
the culture of Jesus, Mary and Joseph).
So going by the logic of the accuser of Muhammad (pbuh) then the accuser must be
consistent and believe America and all modern countries were founded upon
paedophilia, they must also believe that their own forefathers were paedophiles too
whilst also accusing Abraham (a prophet, pbuh) and Joseph the stepfather of Jesus as
being a paedophile. Another thing they must believe in order to be consistent is that
Jesus (pbuh) gave approval of marriages like Aisha’s, therefore they must believe
their own god approves of paedophilia especially considering the Bible gives the age
of consent as puberty. Also being Christian they must also believe that their god
(Jesus, pbuh) entered the world through the privates of a 12 year old girl, of course
they are not consistent, if they were they would have to give up Christianity and admit
that they are the progeny of paedophilia and that their god (Jesus, pbuh) approved of
paedophilia as well as stating that the mother of their god was subjected to
paedophilic abuse.
Obviously this is an illogical and unfair way of analyzing happenings of the old
civilizations and it is far from scholarly and only adopted by hypocritical/over-zealous
Christians who have a missionary agenda. While the rational person is scientific and
methodical and realises imposing today’s cultural norm as a standard for peoples of
the past is just ludicrous and unjust. Therefore any accusation of paedophilia levelled
at Mohammad (pbuh) is an insult to fair scholarship, logic and the intelligence of
anybody who cares for the truth.
I believe that this is a comprehensive and logical way in which to refute and disprove
the ‘paedophilia with a young girl’ claims of the Christian missionaries, my sincere
hope is that they will remove the clouds of bigotry and hatred from their eyes and see
the lack of fairness, integrity and truth in their claims and realise that they are being
hypocritical as their own faith has the same standard. I must also praise the atheists
and other secularists in their open-minded and logical manner in analyzing claims of
this nature regarding Mohammad (pbuh)as I, from personal experience, have realised
that they readily dismiss the ‘paedophile’ claims as false and brand it as an unfair
character assassination as they recognise the different cultural norms and the lack of
logic within the claims. This does reflect poorly on ‘religious’ folk especially the
evangelical Christians who peddle these slurs against Mohammad (pbuh) relentlessly
without conceding that they have no substance to them and ironically insulting their
own Bible in the process as the Bible supports Muhammad’s (pbuh) marriage to
Aisha, this is a humiliating exposure/exposition of their lack of reading of the Bible. I
guess this is one of the contributing factors in the mass exodus from Christianity to
atheism/secularism in America, so Christian missionaries who couple dishonesty and
hypocrisy of this nature with their preaching are counterproductive to their aims and
are harming Christianity and the reputation of religious Christians, an already much
maligned reputation.
Also to further highlight the Muslim position we must accept that there is alternative
credible sources indicating the age of Lady Aisha to be greater than 9, of course the
Christian missionaries never mention this in their propaganda pieces against Islam.
There has been a book by Mohammed Ali (‘The Prophet of Islam‘) making the case
that the age of betrothal was not 6 and Aisha was at least 14-15 at the time of
consummation. This is the view of other scholars and historians and is best shown by
a snippet of an article by a scholar that I respect hugely (Dr Jamal Badawi), it does
outline reasons why he does not believe the age to be nine, this can be viewed in the
reference section (18)
3. Finally after showing claim 2 as being unfair and lacking basis they claim that the
age difference between Lady Aisha and Mohammad (pbuh) is far too vast and claim it
to be repulsive
Their argument is, once again, extremely basic and superficial. The
argument they level is ‘a form of sexual perversion’ as the Prophet
(pbuh) was much older than Lady Aisha. Of course it is true that
Mohammad (pbuh) was older, this is not disputed by any historian
or scholar, be they Muslim or non-Muslim. We must point out that
there is no law against a bride marrying a groom who is older than
her and vice versa. As there is no law in the modern world or even
past communities condemning this, one must ask why they see
such an objection in this kind of union, especially considering both
parties were willing to go ahead and the relationship was a great
success. Here, I am of the belief that the secularist (generally)
would ‘free’ Mohammad of any ‘charge’ as there is nothing to go
against secular law here. The objective Christian (i.e. no missionary
agenda) would also recognise that there is nothing wrong here and
they would also point to Biblical figures being involved in similar
marriages. If the christian missionary or hater of Islam sees
objection in an older man marrying a younger lady then you would
expect the marriage of a younger man (Mohammad, pbuh) to an
older lady (khadija) to be objectionable to them, here they remain
silent. They remain silent because it is their will to deceive people
into thinking bad of Mohammad (pbuh). They also remain silent
regarding the fact that the ideas for the marriage and
consummation of the marriage to Lady Aisha were not initiated by
Mohammad (pbuh), this scuppers their sexual perversion argument
before it even gets off the ground
“Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an
Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; so she said to Abram, ‘The Lord
has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant;
perhaps I can build a family through her.’ Abram agreed to what Sarai
said. So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife
took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be
his wife. He slept with Hagar, and she conceived. … So Hagar bore Abram
a son, and Abram gave the name Ishmael to the son she had borne. Abram
was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.” (Genesis, chapter
16, verses 1–4, and 15–16, New International Version.)
Also David (pbuh) according to the Bible did have a young virgin to tend to him,
being fair and scholarly I must mention that it is not believed any sexual relations
took place (mentioned below), however the reasons why I include this is to illustrate
honesty on my part and to show that age difference did not matter an iota back in
those days:
“When King David was old and well advanced in years, he could not keep warm
even when they put covers over him. So his servants said to him, ‘Let us look for
a young virgin to attend the king and take care of him. She can lie beside him so
that our lord the king may keep warm.’ Then they searched throughout Israel
for a beautiful girl and found Abishag, a Shunammite, and brought her to the
king. The girl was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him,
but the king had no intimate relations with her.” (1 Kings, chapter 1, verses 1–4,
New International Version. Bolding is mine.)
Also Joseph is said to have been 90 when he married the 12-14 year old Mary (mother
of Jesus, peace be upon both of them)(20), thus it must be extremely hypocritical and
inconsistent for christian missionaries to attack Mohammad (pbuh) for having a
marital relationship with a younger woman when Joseph (who was much older than
Muhammad,pbuh) did the same with Mary (peace be on her). The irony is immense
and it is compounded by the fact that the lady that the Christian missionaries believe
to be the ‘mother’ of their ‘god’ was involved in a similar relationship. Naturally, if
the Christian missionary is entirely consistent and honest (something that history
shows that they are not) they will believe that the ‘mother‘ of their ’god’ was
subjected to ’paedophilia’ or some other ’sexual perversion’ and was wilfully
involved in a ’sexually perverse relationship’, moreover they will believe that the
stepfather of their ‘god’ was a pervert (either ‘paedophile‘ or ‘a man motivated by
lust’):
Of course their relationship was the norm at the time, just like that of Abraham’s
(pbuh) relationship with Hagar. We must also note that the belief of sincere Muslims
and Christians would be that neither Mohammed, Abraham, Joseph, Jesus or Mary
(peace be on them all) did anything wrong concerning their support and/or partaking
in age-gap marriages. Again the Christian missionary ends up with egg on his/her face
and winds up looking unscholarly, lacking sound reasoning and full of hypocrisy and
deception.
Summary
~ Claiming an age difference as being objectionable is being unscholarly and
dishonest as the context is missing as age differences in marriage were not seen
as objectionable in the Arabian culture and were the norm.
~Modern day law does not object to an age-gap marriage and nor did any great
civilization of the past object to this, in fact they partook in age-gap marriages
and were the norm in many past communities and still are the norm in some
modern-day communities
~ Secular, Christian, Hindu, Jewish law do not object to an older male marrying
a younger female, therefore it is hypocritical to attack Islam for allowing it
without attacking the others
~ Well known Biblical figures such as Abraham (pbuh) and Joseph (the step
father of Jesus, peace be upon them) were involved in similar relationships yet
the missionaries tend to ignore this or not know it
~ This claim is unjust and holds no water at all and only highlights a lack of
knowledge on the part of the claimant as well as their desperation to besmirch
the last Prophet of God, Mohammed (pbuh)
The Christian missionaries clearly have an agenda against Islam, their ‘fight’ against
Islam and massive efforts in order to get these ‘paedophile’ claims to stick is shown to
be inconsistent as the same accusations (if using dubious Christian missionary ’logic‘)
could be levelled at their faith (Christianity) and Hinduism (manu 9.94) as well as
Judaism (Sanhedrin 55b). The ‘tactics of dishonesty’ employed by these missionaries
backfire and result in their dishonesty being revealed to all and moves the thoughtful
people away from Christianity rather than bringing them closer to it. These Christian
missionaries are not faithful in speaking about other faiths, what makes us believe
they are truthful when speaking about other topics?
Jesus outlined a principle of reliability at Luke 16:10, "He who is faithful in a very
little thing is faithful also in much: and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is
unrighteous also in much."
These propaganda artists masquerading as ‘religious’ Christians are defying logic and
should contemplate the following sayings rather than looking for opportunities to
twist the truth and slander the last Prophet of Almighty God.
"It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great
Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything
but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the
Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may
be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of
admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher." – Annie
Besant, THE LIFE AND TEACHINGS OF MUHAMMAD, Madras, 1932, p. 4.
"I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion far from
being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity. I believe
that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern
world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would
bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about
the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of
tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today."
George Bernard Shaw, THE GENUINE ISLAM, Vol. 1, No. 81936.
1. Islam has a logical belief concerning God, i.e. God is ONE while the Christians
have an illogical belief concerning God, i.e. they believe in the trinity, which
Christians themselves do not even understand and this lack of logical sense is further
highlighted by the following quote:
"One may say with one's lips: 'I believe that God is one, and also three'--but no
one can believe it, because the words have no sense." (‘What is Religion’ by Leo
Tolstoy). One must ask themselves “would God send down a core belief(i.e. the
trinity) that is incomprehensible by the recipients or would it be logical and rational
(like the Islamic belief)?” I must also add that NO prophet (including Jesus, pbuh)
ever taught the trinity but they did teach the Islamic form of monotheism. Logic and
history argues against Christianity here!
2. The Bible (through its genealogies) incorrectly teaches us that the Earth is about
6000 years old, science shows the Bible to be far off the mark here and scientists
believe the age of the solar system to be closer to 4.5 billion years and the appearance
of human beings on the earth is estimated to be in the tens of thousands of years! A
vocal group of Christians (Young Earth Creationists) still argue for the Biblical
version today.
The Quran makes no such inaccurate assertions and is fully compatible with modern
day science and even has scientific miracles within it, I must also state that there are
further scientific problems in the Bible for further reading concerning the comparison
of the Bible and Quran with science please read ‘The Bible, The Quran and Science
by Dr. Maurice Bucaille. I also append an excerpt from Gary Miller concerning
science and Islam from his article ‘An Introduction to the way of Life known as
Islam’ in the reference section that makes interesting reading and gives a good feel of
how science agrees with Islam (21). I feel compelled to put forward the rhetorical
question, ‘ would God not know the age of the earth?’ Science argues against
Christianity here
For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose
issue is like the issue of horses. (Ezekiel 23:20)
The Quran remains a Book of great eloquence and has nothing that can compare to
Ezekiel 23:20. Surely the Book of God would be free from lewdness and full of
eloquence? Rationale argues against Christianity here!
4. The Christians claim that Jesus (pbuh) is God but there is no such claim in the
Bible from Jesus (pbuh), in fact Jesus (pbuh) claims to be a man and claims God is
One and the Gospel of Luke states he is a prophet. The Quran also teaches that God is
One and Jesus is the prophet of Allah (Quran,19:30). However Trinitarian Christians
try to make Jesus (pbuh) out to be part of God even though their own Bible disagrees
with them. This kind of inconsistency is never found in the Quran. In summary the
Christians have an unclear Book (the Bible) while the Muslims have a Book full of
clarity and consistency (the Quran). Surely God would send a message of clarity
concerning the core belief? Sound reasoning argues against Christianity.
5. The Christians accept the belief of ‘sacrifice’ of an innocent man (Jesus, pbuh) in
order for the world to gain forgiveness for sins, Muslims have no such belief and
believe God forgives out of His Mercy. Surely God is Just and would not condemn an
innocent man in order to forgive sins, surely God can forgive sins through His own
Mercy. Why would God kill an innocent man for the sins of others? If the Christian
belief makes no sense now then the lack of logic is further compounded by adding in
the other Christian belief that the man sacrificed/killed for the sins of mankind was
‘God’, therefore the Christians believe that God killed himself or part of Himself in
order to forgive sins. All forms of rationality argue against Christianity here!
The Christian missionaries know the above points yet they adhere to their policy of
spouting propaganda in order to keep Christians away from Islam, this reminds me of
the Pagan Arabs who opposed Islam, these Pagans would lie about Mohammad
(pbuh) in order to keep people away from Islam, despite their efforts more and more
people accepted Islam, interestingly enough more and more people from the Christian
communities are accepting Islam today! One of the reasons behind this is that the
Bible only makes sense through Muslim understanding, i.e. the New and Old
Testaments are corrupted texts, hence the contradictions and problems (some of which
have been outlined above).
My sincere advice to the honest truth-seeker would be put away the Christian
missionary propaganda and research Islam objectively and see for yourself the truth
and logic within it.
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:32)
Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Messenger of Allah
(PBUH) said, "Allah makes the way to Jannah (paradise) easy for him who treads the
path in search of knowledge.''
[Muslim].
Jesus outlined a principle of reliability at Luke 16:10, "He who is faithful in a very
little thing is faithful also in much: and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is
unrighteous also in much."
REFERENCES