CATHOLIC - What Catholics Need to Known about Mohammadanism, a.k.a. Islam

We humbly offer this Pastoral Letter for the Greater Honor and Glory of God and the Salvation of Souls and for those who humbly and sincerely desire to see the Truth, no matter what the Truth may be, because, as Pascal teaches, there is... sufficient light for those who wish to see and sufficient obscurity for those who do not wish to see (Blaise Pascal [1623 - 1662], PENSÉES SUR LA RELIGION, Section VII, Morality and Doctrine, ¶ 430, 1660 A.D.).

But first, proper preparation is necessary because, as St. John Chrysostom, the Patriarch of Constantinople and a Father of the Catholic Church teaches, unless the Holy Ghost prepares the minds and hearts of those who write and of those who read, the writer writes in vain and the reader reads in vain.

PRAYERS

In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Prayer to God the Holy Ghost

Come, O Holy Ghost, fill the hearts of Thy faithful and kindle in them the fire of Thy love. Send forth Thy Spirit, and they shall be created. And Thou shalt renew the face of the earth. Let us pray. O God, Who didst instruct the hearts of Thy faithful by the light of Thy Holy Spirit, grant us in the same Spirit to relish what is right and ever to rejoice in His consolation. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.
St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.

Because the Devil, as a roaring lion, goes around seeking whom he may devour with his false accusations, blatant lies, half-truths, subtle errors, confusion, equivocation, ambiguity, hypocrisy, bitter zeal and emotionalism with which he attacks many souls, it is necessary to say the full EXORCISM prayer daily. Here is the concluding Prayer.

Prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel

Come, O Holy Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. Rebuke him, O God, we humbly beseech Thee; and do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Hosts, by the Power of God, thrust into Hell Satan and all of the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Contents

Part 1 - Preliminary Data

Proper Preparation
Prayers
Introduction
Condolences
Condemnation of Terrorism
Commendation of Americans Who Are Mohammadans
Islamics

Part 2 - God in Our Lives

Faith, Hope, Trust and Confidence in God

Part 3 - The Roots of the Enemy

Know Your Enemy
Satanic Terrorists
Abraham and His Children

Part 4 - Biographical Data About Mohammad, the Cult Founder

Mohammad
Khadijah, the First Wife of Mohammad
Hanifs
Mohammad the Hanif
Mohammad the Cult-Founder

Part 5 - Mohammad and His “Wives” and Children

Mohammad and His Harem
Details of the “Wives” of Mohammad
Children of Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah and Khadijah Bint Khuwaylid
General Information
Commentary

Part 6 - Additional Data About Mohammad

More Biograhical Data About Mohammad
From The Life of Muhammad
Commentary
Early Terrorist Acts of Mohammad
Mohammad’s Terrorist Acts 1-13 with Commentaries
Summary of Mohammad’s Terrorist Acts

Part 7 - Islamic-Arabian School of Philosophy

General Data
Avicenna
Averroes
Refutation of the Islamic-Arabian Errors of Philosophy

Part 8 - Cultic Terrorism

Terrorism in the Qur’an, a.k.a. Koran, with Commentaries

Part 9 - Mohammad and Christ

Compare Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah with Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ, the Promised Messias of the Prophecies of the Old Testament Prophets

Part 10 - Data on Islam

Islamic Doctrine and Religion
Some Islamic Sects
Major Shiite Sub-Sects or Schismatic Denominations
Variances in Koran, a.k.a. Qur’an
A Brief History of Islam
Islam, A Peaceful Religion?
Commentary

Part 11 - Recent Moslem Terrorist Activities

Brief Recent History of Moslem Terrorists/Terrorism Before 9-11-2001 A.D.
Terrorist fundraising in the United States
List of Terrorist Groups
Chronology of Significant Moslem Terrorist Incidents

Part 12 - Spiritual Warfare

Spiritual Warfare
Spiritual Warfare Declared by Moslem Leaders
Commentary

Appendices

Appendix One- Transcript of Usama Bin Laden Videotape
Appendix Two - Reaction to Bin Laden Videotape

Introduction

Today it has become necessary to try to help to vanquish the insecurity, fear, anxiety, frustration and anger running throughout America and Western Europe. In addition, it is also necessary, now more than ever before, to try to clear away the confusion, exasterbated by gross misinformation, and perhaps by even some deliberate disinformation?, of what Islam really is as well as some biographical data about its founder and a brief historical examination of this organization and an even more brief doctrinal examination of its beliefs and teachings. Perhaps most of these things are as foreign to most of you as much of it had been to Us?

These are the various purposes of this Pastoral Letter which one of Our Archbishops had requested that We write just a few days after the attack against America, Tuesday, September 11, 2001 A.D. After listening to various cogent reasons, We agreed to do it. Please keep in mind that We are not an Orientalist. Therefore, with a few exceptions, We have had to rely upon non-Catholic sources which We have had to take at face value due to lack of other resources.

As you well know, on September 11, 2001 A.D., there was an attack against the United States of America. What you may not know is that before this day, there had already been many attacks against the United States of America on American soil!

Condolences

First, We extend Our deepest condolences and sympathies to all of the families and friends of those who lost loved ones, family members, friends, and co-workers on September 11, 2001. On the First Friday of November, the Feast Day of All Souls, November 2, 2001, We will offer a Pontifical Requiem Mass in which We will include each of the over 6,000 deceased victims.

We mourn with every one of the families and friends of:

1) Each of the passengers and crew on hijacked American Airlines Flight 11 which, with malice of forethought, was deliberately flown into the North Tower of the World Trade Center located in lower Manhattan in New York City by devil-possessed killers who now burn in the eternal fires of Hell forever and ever for their mortal sins of the murder of all of the victims of the passengers and crew of this airplane as well as the thousands of the other innocent victims in, under and around this and the other buildings which were also destroyed or damaged as a result of their part in the Satanic plot against America.

2) Each of the passengers and crew on hijacked United Airlines Flight 175 which, with malice of forethought, was deliberately flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Center located in lower Manhattan in New York City by devil-possessed killers who now burn in the eternal fires of Hell forever and ever for their mortal sins of the murder of all of the victims of the passengers and crew of this airplane as well as the thousands of the other innocent victims in, under and around this and the other buildings which were also destroyed or damaged as a result of their part in the Satanic plot against America.

3) The 65 passengers and crew on hijacked American Airlines Flight 77, which, with malice of forethought, was deliberately flown into the west wall of the Pentagon at an altitude of about 6 feet above ground level, by devil-possessed killers who now burn in the eternal fires of Hell forever and ever for their mortal sins of the murder of all of the victims of the passengers and crew of this airplane as well as the over 100 innocent victims in the building as a result of their part in the Satanic plot against America.

4) The 44 passengers and crew on hijacked United Flight 93 which crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, about 80 miles from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, when, after voting and reciting the “Our Father”, some of the passengers fought with the hijackers to overcome the terrorists on board to try to gain control of the airplane in order to prevent those devil-possessed killers, who now burn in the eternal fires of Hell forever and ever for their mortal sins of the murder of all of the innocent victims who were the passengers and crew of this airplane, from deliberately flying into either the White House or the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. and, in effect, from carrying out their part in the Satanic plot against America.

Condemnation of Terrorism

We unequivocally condemn all acts of terrorism and all supporters and instigators and backers of terrorism, but most especially the cowardly acts of terrorism in the Satanic attack against the United States of America on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 by devil-possessed, hate-filled despots who now burn in the eternal fires of Hell forever and ever for their cold-blooded and ruthless murder of thousands of innocent people, as a result of their part in the Satanic plot against America.

Such evil men have sown the wind, but they shall “reap the whirlwind” (Osee 8:7) for “behold the Lord is mighty and strong, as a storm of hail: a destroying whirlwind” (Isaias 28:2) to His enemies whom He has “cast into the pool of fire, burning with brimstone” (Apocalypse 19:20).
We remind everyone of this Divine warning of God the Son, Jesus Christ, the Just Judge:

“He that hurteth, let him hurt still: and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is just, let him be justified still: and he that is holy, let him be sanctified still. BEHOLD, I COME QUICKLY; and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to his works. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (Apocalypse 22:11-13).

There will be those who will try to hide “themselves in the dens and in the rocks of mountains: And they [will] say to the mountains and the rocks: Fall upon us, and hide us from the face of Him [God the Father] that sitteth upon the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb [God the Son, Jesus Christ]: For the great day of THEIR [i.e. the Holy Trinity] wrath is come, and who shall be able to stand?” (Apocalypse 6:15-17) for no one shall be able to hide from the Wrath of the Lamb of God, the Eternal Divine Logos, the Word of God, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ!
.
In that day, let no one excuse himself saying he was not warned! On the contrary, God the Holy Ghost, through the pen of the inspired writer, Saint Paul, clearly teaches: “For all the law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if you bite and devour one another; take heed you be not consumed one of another. I say then, walk in the spirit, and you shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would. But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, THAT THEY WHO DO SUCH THINGS SHALL NOT OBTAIN THE KINGDOM OF GOD. But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity. Against such there is no law. And they that are Christ’s, have crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit” (Galatians 5:14-25).

Commendation of Americans Who Are Mohammadans

We commend all Americans who are Mohammadans for their patience and understanding of what are hopefully only a very few of their fellow Americans who, from fear, act in an irrational way, or even, God-forbid, a violent way, against them. Recently, someone explained that to condemn all Islamics, especially all of those who are Americans, for the attack against America on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 by loose-knits groups of hate-filled despots, would be like condemning all of the members of all Protestant churches for the acts of those relatively few hate-filled despots who are members of the Klu-Klux-Klan, the KKK, of whom some also claim to be members of various Protestant groups.

Fear can cause some “normal” people to behave in an abnormal way, especially those people who are not spiritual, but who are instead materialistic and worldly. Please know that We include you in Our Holy Masses so that there will be no more hate-crimes against any Mohammadans, especially those of you who are Americans and who have left behind repressive cultures to enjoy the peace and opportunities which the democratic system of the United States of America has shared with you.

We likewise commend you for opening your Mosques to non-Mohammadans. Recently on the radio We heard a Jewish Rabbi make a comment, while inside of a Mosque, in which the Rabbi said how the terrorists would be surprised to learn how a Jewish Rabbi, and his Jewish congregation, was made to feel very safe in a Mohammadan Mosque!

This is the kind of thing which helps to make America strong and helps to overcome centuries of hatred and prejudice of one tribe or race or nationality or group against another! It was so refreshing to know how the Mohammadans here in the United States of America are making an effort to try to help their fellow Americans to better understand them and their religion and that, like various organizations, they also have some extremist “leaders” who have groups of “followers”!

We have noted with interest the staunch support which King Abdullah of Jordan has given to the United States, standing shoulder to shoulder with America. Queen Rania of Jordan, his wife, appearing on a recent televised news program, supported her husband’s policies. Both have condemned the terrorists. When Queen Rania was asked if she was fearful for herself, her husband and their children (they have three children), she stated that it would be a sad situation indeed people could not freely speak their own mind on the subject of terrorism. The courage of the King and Queen of Jordan is a shining example to all other world leaders, most especially those in the Islamic world (Jordan is an Islamic country), whose example was perhaps inspired by the courage of President and Mrs. Bush?

Islamics

Based upon the limited time and resources at Our disposal since 9-11-2001, or, as some now call it, 911, there seems to be a pattern emerging of sharp contrasts within the Islamic world from whence the terrorists and their terrorists organizations have come and in which they have trained to a large extent. But, dear Reader, as you read what follows, it should become self-evident to you that there are in fact some major differences. We respectfully disagree with Queen Rania who stated that there is only “one” Islam. We give below some schismatic groups within Islam who do in fact have basic differences in regard to “doctrine” and its practice.

On the contrary, the sharp pattern which seems to present itself at this time is that there are de facto a group of people who try to imitate their leader Mohammad. This is both logical and natural. But there are other groups which do not seem to do this.

Therefore, in order to try to clear up the confusion in the minds of many loyal and patriotic Americans, especially, We will attempt to be more precise in trying to identify those who believe and teach the “doctrines” and/or practices of terrorism, which general group We will call Moslems and those who catagorically reject, to varying degrees, such “doctrines” and/or practices, which general group We will call Mohammadans, despite the fact that some writers use these terms interchangeably and sometimes use yet another term, Islamics, a term We will use to include both Moslems and Mohammadans, especially if research has not clearly indicated if the subject under discussion on a particular point or issue refers totally, or 100%, to either Moslems or Mohammadans. There will be some instances when We will need to use the term Mohammadan to indicate a teaching or a policy or a practice of Mohammad himself. Since the singular term Mohammadan will always be used in these latter situations, the possibility of confusion should be greatly minimized. But these distinctions do not apply to direct quotations because they are from other writers.

Differences between these two generally classified Islamic groups were also brought out of late by others. Recently appearing on a different televised program, two other “leaders”, namely, the son of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (his father had been the Shah of Iran until 1979), and Benazir Bhutto (the former Prime Minister of Pakistan from December, 1988 to August 1990 and again from October, 1993 to November 1996), have both indicated how there has been a wide rift which has been developing in Islamic countries.

This rift between the fanatical Moslems who, following the teachings of Mohammad, want a theocracy and the moderate Mohammadans who, in de facto rejecting at least some of the teachings of Mohammad, want a democracy. This has meant internal unrest and domestic instability and has led to a lack of control by the various governments of certain Islamic countries over the fanatical Moslem terrorists within their respective borders.

They claimed that the catalyst to this supposedly happened when the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was deposed as the Shah during a revolt led by the Moslem terrorist religious leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, in February, 1979, in Iran. The situation worsened in October, 1979, when President Carter allowed the deposed Shah to enter the United States for medical treatment. The next month, November, 1979, Iranian Moslem terrorists took over the United States Embassy in Teheran, the capital of Iran.

Upon what basis did the November, 1979, Iranian Moslem terrorists take over the United States Embassy in Teheran and take American citizens as hostages? Was it based upon the pagan and Satanic philosophy of the notorious Nazi who has been quoted as saying that “the best political weapon is the weapon of terror. Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us. But, we don’t ask for their love; only for their fear” (Heinrich Himmler [1900 A.D - 1945 A.D.], head of the German police, including the infamous Gestapo? He ordered the deaths of large numbers of people, especially Jews). Or, was it based upon some kind of obscure Mohammadan teaching, whether accurately or inaccurately interpreted? We shall examine this latter point below.

When the November, 1979, Iranian Moslem terrorists took over the United States Embassy in Teheran, the group of American citizens they took as hostages were mostly embassy employees. The November, 1979, Moslem terrorists demanded that the United States return the Shah to Iran for trial in exchange for the prisoners. President Carter denounced the action of the Moslem terrorists as a violation of international law, and he refused to meet their demands. Despite the fact that the former Shah died in July, 1980, in Egypt, the Iranian Moslem terrorists continued to hold the hostages to protest American policies toward their country. They finally released the Americans on Tuesday, January 20, 1981, the day President Carter left office. This was the same day that Ronald Wilson Reagan took the Oath of Office as the new President of the United States.

Despite the taking of American hostages by Iranian Moslem terrorists, the United States, to the best of Our knowledge, has never blocked Mohammadans from coming to its shores, whether on student, business or visitor visas or seeking citizenship in the United States. Such has been the great charity of the United States government and its citizens towards all peoples, including Mohammadans.

Part 2 - God in Our Lives

Faith, Hope, Trust and Confidence in God

Let us go therefore with confidence to the Throne of Grace:
that we may obtain mercy, and find Grace in seasonable aid.
(Hebrews 4:16)

In various polls which have been taken since Tuesday, September 11, 2001, the claim has been made that about 28% of all Americans have a great deal of fear. This 28% figure has remained steady since that day, seemingly oblivious to whatever good or bad news comes forth from the media. These polls also indicated that the other 72% were actually doing fairly well on the subject of fear.

Fear is from the Devil and his human agents. Those of you who have different fears or who feel fearful or uncomfortable with a certain person or group of persons, or just with the fields of carnage in general or with those who are responsible for them, or fearful of new threats of attacks, be they chemical or biological or military or anything else, or who are feeling insecure or stressed or anxious about the future for yourself and your loved ones, We remind you how the Prince of Peace, Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the Eternal Divine Logos, the Divine Word of God, has told all of us through His Apostles: “Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid” (John 14:27).

Also, remember how God protected the three young men in the fiery furnace as it is written: “...be it known to thee, O king, that we will not worship thy gods, nor adore the golden statue which thou hast set up. Then was Nabuchodonosor filled with fury: and the countenance of his face was changed against Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, and he commanded that the furnace should be heated seven times more than it had been accustomed to be heated. And he commanded the strongest men that were in his army, to bind the feet of Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, and to cast them into the furnace of burning fire. And immediately these men were bound, and were cast into the furnace of burning fire, with their coats, and their caps, and their shoes, and their garments. For the king’s commandment was urgent, and the furnace was heated exceedingly. And the flame of the fire slew those men that had cast in Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago. But these three men, that is, Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, fell down bound in the midst of the furnace of burning fire. And they walked in the midst of the flame, praising God, and blessing the Lord...”

“Now the king’s servants that had cast them in, ceased not to heat the furnace with brimstone and tow, and pitch, and dry sticks, And the flame mounted up above the furnace nine and forth cubits: And it broke forth, and burnt such of the Chaldeans as it found near the furnace. But the angel of the Lord went down with Azarias and his companions into the furnace: and he drove the flame of the fire out of the furnace, And made the midst of the furnace like the blowing of a wind bringing dew, and the fire touched them not at all, nor troubled them, nor did them any harm. Then these three, as with one mouth, praised and glorified and blessed God, in the furnace...”

“Then Nabuchodonosor, the king, was astonished, and rose up in haste, and said to his nobles: Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered the king, and said: True, O king. He answered, and said: Behold, I see four men loose, and walking in the midst of the fire, and there is no hurt in them, and the form of the fourth is like the son of God. Then Nabuchodonosor came to the door of the burning fiery furnace, and said: Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, ye servants of the most high God, go ye forth, and come. And immediately Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, went out from the midst of the fire. And the nobles, and the magistrates, and the judges, and the great men of the king, being gathered together, considered these men, that the fire had no power on their bodies, and that not a hair of their head had been singed, nor their garments altered, nor the smell of the fire had passed on them. Then Nabuchodonosor breaking forth, said: Blessed be the God of them, to wit, of Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that believed in him: and they changed the king’s word, and delivered up their bodies, that they might not serve nor adore any god except their own God” (Daniel 3:18-24; 46-51; 91-95).

Those who are at peace will not let the terrorists’ fear tactics force them to jump into the quicksand of fear, but rather, those Catholics who have validly received the Sacrament of Confirmation according to the pre-Vatican 2 PONTIFICALE ROMANUM, administered by a valid Bishop of the Catholic Church, will fight against these uniform-less tyrants as soldiers of Jesus Christ with SPIRITUAL weapons!

Therefore, wearing the SPIRITUAL armor of your Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel and holding the SPIRITUAL shield of your Five First Saturdays in front of you, with the SPIRITUAL sword of your Rosary, do not permit evil or even negative people to sabotage your peace of soul, whether they are distant threats from terrorists or close warnings from confidants.

Usually, the distant threats from terrorists are easily recognizable and you should (hopefully) know how to deal with them to regain your peace of soul. But what can be more easily overlooked is who is closer to you. This is why IF you should happen to find yourself with a relative, for example, who tries to steal your peace from you with a continuous fusillade of fear, fired by the smoking canon of hypocrisy, whether explicit in cold, steeled words or implicit from the profundity of their pejorative negativity, you need to try to make an objective evaluation about whichever person or situation or issue is under discussion!

Sometimes this fear is engendered by those who are not sufficiently busy or who otherwise have too much time on their hands. This explains why an idle mind is the Devil’s workshop in which the fire of idle gossip heats the steel of an absent person’s character which is then beaten into whichever grotesque shape the blabing tongue of the scandalmonger hammers it. On the contrary, We recommend that everyone follow the Rule of Saint Benedict in this regard: “Idleness is the enemy of the soul” (Op. Cit., Rule # 48), even if it means that the scandal-seeker seek full, or at least parti-time, employment, thus eliminating the occasion of sin.

In some cases, a scandalmonger, bereft of integrity, moral values and sound character, could try to impute to you their own exaggerated fears, doubts, anxiety and stress about a particular person, a misinterpreted situation or a misconstrued issue. Thank them for their concern, but in a charitable manner point out to them their shortcomings in this regard.

On the other hand, if it seems as if there is a credible basis that the warning might be real and not imagined, not exaggerated, and not misinterpreted, prudence still requires that you ask for proof and, if possible documentary proof, or at least some objective evidence and also, if possible, even one or more witnesses, before you even consider the possibility of even considering their position, not to mention taking at least several days or even weeks to pray about it.

Some of these people are so emotional and hyper that you feel physically and emotionally drained and exhausted as the result of such an episode with such a depressed, energy-draining “vampire” who seems to continually complain that no one shows up for their “self-pity parties”, despite the engraved invitations, soaked with the excess foam falling from their rabid tongues, specially concocted for the morose occasion.

On the contrary, if a person thinks he is “religious, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his own heart, this man’s religion is vain” (James 1:25). Again on this subject one reads that “the tongue no man can tame, an unquiet evil, full of deadly poison. By it we bless God and the Father: and by it we curse men, who are made after the likeness of God. Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. Doth a fountain send forth, out of the same hole, sweet and bitter water? Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear grapes; or the vine, figs? So neither can the salt water yield sweet. Who is a wise man, and endued with knowledge among you? Let him shew, by a good conversation, his work in the meekness of wisdom.. But if you have bitter zeal, and there be contentions in your hearts; glory not, and be not liars against the truth. For this is not wisdom, descending from above: but earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and contention is, there is inconstancy, and every evil work” (James 3:8-16).

So, then, let us all remember how Christ rebuked the winds and the waves commanding them: “Peace, be still” (Mark 4:39). Then came a great calm. The Prince of Peace tells you, today: “Peace, be still.” Do you not feel the calm of your soul? Again does Christ speak down through the centuries to you today: “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, do I give unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be afraid” (John 14:27).

Meditate upon the solace which can be found in these words of Christ: “Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith?” (Matthew 8:26). Christ tells us, through the Apostles, that there is no reason for any of us to be fearful because, despite the storm-tossed boat on the sea of anxiety, stress and dread, so long as we are with Christ, it is irrational, not to mention a lack of faith, to give in to fear and to terror. The only persons who should have any fear are those in the state of Mortal Sin and thus in fear of losing their immortal souls in the eternal fires of Hell for all eternity! Such as these have good reason to have fear, but not those in the state of Sanctifying Grace!

This was brought out in the excellent English play by that famous British playwright and motion-picture scriptwriter Robert Bolt [born in Manchester, England in 1924 - 1995], A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS [1960]. It is about the life of Saint Thomas More [born in London, England, c. 1477 A.D. - martyred by beheading at Tower Hill, London, England, Saturday, July 6, 1535 A.D.]. It was later turned into a movie with the same title in which Saint Thomas More was so admirably portrayed by Paul Scofield for which he received an Academy Award for best actor in 1966. Robert Bolt received an Academy Award for his movie script for this illustrious movie in 1967.

There is a scene in which the tyrant, Thomas Cromwell [c. 1485 A.D. - 1540 A.D.], summoned the saint to his office. There, secluded from the eyes and ears of the world, Cromwell, in a fit of anger, attempted to terrorize the saint, with certain dire death threats. Perhaps Cromwell, a man of the world, might have been thinking about this line which a Roman writer had penned many centuries before then: “Even the bravest men are frightened by sudden terror!” (Tacitus, 55 A.D. - 117 A.D.). While this may be true of those of the world, it is not necessarily true for those who are not of this world, which explains why Saint Thomas More checkmated Cromwell with: “Master Cromwell, terror is for children!” One must wonder if Cromwell had those words ringing in his own ears a few seconds before he, too, was beheaded about five years later? But, unlike Saint Thomas More, Cromwell did not receive the crown and palm of martyrdom!

In a number of different places in the Gospels one reads these familiar words of Christ: “Fear not” as in this example: “Fear not, little flock, for it hath pleased your Father to give you a kingdom” (Luke 12:32).

In trying to rally the United States from the cesspool of that terror a previous American generation called the “Great Depression”, which began in October, 1929, when stock values dropped sharply, the President uttered these words which are so applicable for today: “Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance” (President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, First Inaugural Address, Saturday, March 4, 1933).

In summary of the subject of fear, We cite two thoughts about it.

“We must not fear fear” (Saint Francis DeSales, Letters to Persons in the World, 4, 13).

“Fear is a greater evil than the evil itself” (Saint Francis DeSales, Letters to Persons in the World, 6, 12).

Part 3 - The Roots of the Enemy

Know Your Enemy

Know your enemy is an axiom of importance for every soldier of Jesus Christ in the war against Satan and his human followers. You can not hope to win a war unless you can first identify your enemy, know exactly who your enemy is, what tactics the enemy uses, the history of your enemy, and as many other things as you can learn about your enemy which you can use to your advantage.

In the movie Patton [1970], an unforgettable portrayal of the American 4-Star General, George Smith Patton, Jr. [ [born in San Gabriel, California on Wednesday, November 11, 1885 A.D. 1885 - assassinated? in a hospital in Heidelberg, Germany on Friday, December 21, 1945 A.D.], by George Campbell Scott [1927 A.D. - 1999 A.D.] (who won the 1970 Academy Award as best actor for Patton), there is the portrayal of General Patton being awakened in the morning by his personal aide.

Lying face down in an open position on the top of his blanket is a book written by his counterpart, the German Field Marshal, Erwin Rommel [born at Heidenheim an der Brentz on Sunday, November 15, 1891 A.D. - committed suicide at Ulm, on Saturday, October 14, 1944 A.D.], a.k.a., The Desert Fox, on his philosophy of military attacks. This is an example of how a military genius was humble enough to do his homework by reading the book of another military genius. By doing this, General Patton knew what tactics to expect from General Rommel based upon his military philosophy and thus how to avoid becoming another notch on General Rommel’s tank gun, so to speak. As a matter of fact, when General Patton won the tank battle against General Rommel, he is reported by bystanders to have exclaimed with great excitement at this victory: “Rommel, you magnificent *******, I read you book!!!” For the record, Rommel’s book, Infanterie Greift An (“Infantry Attacks”), was based on his experiences during World War I.

To the best of Our research, General Patton won all of his battles. This fact helped America and its allies to win World War II. Because it is worth while to get an inside look into the mind of a battle-winning, war-winning, field commander, here are a few random quotations ascribed to him:

1) “Do not take counsel of your fears.”
2) “There is only one type of discipline, perfect discipline.”
3) “Moral courage is the most valuable and usually the most absent characteristic in men.”
4) “Say what you mean and mean what you say.”
5) “You shouldn’t underestimate an enemy, but it is just as fatal to overestimate him.”
6) “It is only by doing things others have not that one can advance.”
7) “God deliver us from our friends, we can handle the enemy.”

So here is an actual example of a military genius who wanted to defeat the enemy so much that he was not only willing to read the book his enemy had written, but also to learn and to apply tactics to effectively counter them and thereby triumph over him.

We should all follow the example of General Patton and learn as much as we can concerning all of our enemies. From a practical standpoint, the first book we need to read is the Bible, especially the New Testament. Christ and His Apostles give us invaluable insights into the Spiritual Life as well as how to deal with our spiritual enemies.

One quick example is that as soldiers of Jesus Christ, all of us must be on our guard against Satan and his devils as well as his human agents: “Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour. Whom resist ye, strong in faith: knowing that the same affliction befalls your brethren who are in the world” (1 Peter 5:8-9).

Satanic Terrorists

Everyone, especially the front-line soldiers of Jesus Christ, are in a spiritual battle today, not only against Satan and his devils, but also his human agents, most especially since Tuesday, September 11, 2001. Some of these human agents of Satan are various groups of terrorists. It is a known fact, reported by the secular news media in the United States of America after September 11, 2001 that most, if not all, of the September 11, 2001 terrorists were in fact Moslems.

But were the September 11, 2001 terrorists in fact terrorists because they were Moslems, which would then tend to indicate that there is something intrinsically evil in Islamism, despite the portestations to the contrary by various respected Mohammadans, especially in the United States, or is it merely a coincidence that some, or possibly all, of the September 11, 2001 terrorists were also Moslems?

Of further interest is the fact that most of the terrorists were also Arabs. Although a small minority of Arabs are Christians, a large percentage of Arabs are Islamics. But before examining what Islamism is, let us first examine who the Arabs are. One is able to quickly determine who the Arabs are by reading the Old Testament of the Bible.

Abraham and His Children
Ismael, Isaac, Zamram, Jecsan, Madan, Madian, Jesboc, and Sue

Ismael and Isaac

“Now Sarai, the wife of Abram, had brought forth no children: but having a handmaid, an Egyptian, named Agar, She said to her husband: Behold, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: go in unto my handmaid, it may be I may have children of her at least. And when he agreed to her request, She took Agar the Egyptian her handmaid, ten years after they first dwelt in the land of Chanaan, and gave her to her husband to wife. And he went in to her. But she perceiving that she was with child, despised her mistress. And Sarai said to Abram: Thou dost unjustly with me: I gave my handmaid into thy bosom, and she perceiving herself to be with child, despiseth me. The Lord judge between me and thee. And Abram made answer, and said to her: Behold thy handmaid is in thy own hand, use her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai afflicted her, she ran away. And the angel of the Lord having found her, by a fountain of water in the wilderness, which is in the way to Sur in the desert, He said to her: Agar, handmaid of Sarai, whence comest thou? and whither goest thou? And she answered: I flee from the face of Sarai, my mistress. And the angel of the Lord said to her: Return to thy mistress, and humble thyself under her hand. And again he said: I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, and it shall not be numbered for multitude. And again: Behold, said he, thou art with child, and thou shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Ismael, because the Lord hath heard thy affliction. He shall be a wild man: his hand will be against all men, and all men’s hands against him: and he shall pitch his tents over against all his brethren. And she called the name of the Lord that spoke unto her: Thou the God who hast seen me. For she said: Verily, here have I seen the hinder parts of him that seeth me. Therefore she called that well, the well of him that liveth and seeth me. The same is between Cades and Barad. And Agar brought forth a son to Abram: who called his name Ismael. Abram was four score and six years old [i.e. 66 years old] when Agar brought him forth Ismael” (Genesis 16:1-16).

“And after he began to be ninety and nine years old, the Lord appeared to him: and said unto him: I am the Almighty God: walk before me, and be perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee: and I will multiply thee exceedingly. Abram fell flat on his face. And God said to him: I am, and my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name be called any more Abram: but thou shalt be called Abraham: because I have made thee a father of many nations. And I will make thee increase exceedingly, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and between thy seed after thee in their generations, by a perpetual covenant: to be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give to thee, and to thy seed, the land of thy sojournment, all the land of Chanaan, for a perpetual possession, and I will be their God. Again God said to Abraham: And thou therefore shalt keep my covenant, and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant which you shall observe between me and you, and thy seed after thee: All the male kind of you shall be circumcised.... God said also to Abraham: Sarai thy wife thou shalt not call Sarai, but Sara. And I will bless her, and of her I will give thee a son, whom I will bless, and he shall become nations, and kings of people shall spring from him. Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, saying in his heart: Shall a son, thinkest thou, be born to him that is a hundred years old? and shall Sara that is ninety years old bring forth? And he said to God: O that Ismael may live before thee. And God said to Abraham: Sara thy wife shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name Isaac, and I will establish my covenant with him for a perpetual covenant, and with his seed after him. And as for Ismael I have also heard thee. Behold, I will bless him, and increase, and multiply him exceedingly: he shall beget twelve chiefs, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sara shall bring forth to thee at this time in the next year. And when he had left off speaking with him, God went up from Abraham... And Ismael his son was full thirteen years old at the time of his circumcision. The selfsame day was Abraham circumcised and Ismael his son. And all the men of his house, as well they that were born in his house, as the bought servants and strangers, were circumcised with him” (Genesis 17:1-10; 15-22; 25-27).

“And the Lord appeared to him in the vale of Mambre as he was sitting at the door of his tent, in the very heat of the day. And when he had lifted up his eyes, there appeared to him three men standing near to him: and as soon as he saw them, he ran to meet them from the door of his tent, and adored down to the ground. And he said: Lord, if I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away from thy servant. But I will fetch a little water, and wash ye your feet, and rest ye under the tree. And I will set a morsel of bread, and strengthen ye your heart, afterwards you shall pass on: for therefore are you come aside to your servant. And they said: Do as thou hast spoken. Abraham made haste into the tent to Sara, and said to her: Make haste, temper together three measures of flour, and make cakes upon the hearth. And he himself ran to the herd, and took from thence a calf, very tender and very good, and gave it to a young man, who made haste and boiled it. He took also butter and milk, and the calf which he had boiled, and set before them: but he stood by them under the tree. And when they had eaten, they said to him: Where is Sara thy wife? He answered: Lo she is in the tent. And he said to him: I will return and come to thee at this time, life accompanying, and Sara, thy wife, shall have a son. Which when Sara heard, she laughed behind the door of the tent. Now they were both old, and far advanced in years, and it had ceased to be with Sara after the manner of women. And she laughed secretly, saying: After I am grown old, and my lord is an old man, shall I give myself to pleasure? And the Lord said to Abraham: Why did Sara laugh, saying: Shall I, who am an old woman, bear a child indeed? Is there any thing hard to God? According to appointment I will return to thee at this same time, life accompanying, and Sara shall have a son. Sara denied, saying: I did not laugh: for she was afraid. But the Lord said: Nay; but thou didst laugh. And when the men rose up from thence, they turned their eyes towards Sodom: and Abraham walked with them, bringing them on the way” (Genesis 18:1-16).

“And the Lord visited Sara, as he had promised: and fulfilled what he had spoken. And she conceived and bore a son in her old age, at the time that God had foretold her. And Abraham called the name of his son, whom Sara bore him, Isaac. And he circumcised him the eighth day, as God had commanded him, When he was a hundred years old: for at this age of his father, was Isaac born. And Sara said: God hath made a laughter for me: whosoever shall hear of it will laugh with me. And again she said: Who would believe that Abraham should hear that Sara gave suck to a son, whom she bore to him in his old age? And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast on the day of his weaning. And when Sara had seen the son of Agar, the Egyptian, playing with Isaac, her son, she said to Abraham: Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with my son Isaac. Abraham took this grievously for his son. And God said to him: Let it not seem grievous to thee for the boy, and for thy bondwoman: in all that Sara hath said to thee, hearken to her voice: for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. But I will make the son also of the bondwoman a great nation, because he is thy seed. So Abraham rose up in the morning, and taking bread and a bottle of water, put it upon her shoulder, and delivered the boy, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Bersabee. And when the water in the bottle was spent, she cast the boy under one of the trees that were there. And she went her way, and sat overagainst him a great way off, as far as a bow can carry, for she said: I will not see the boy die: and sitting overagainst, she lifted up her voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the boy: and an angel of God called to Agar from heaven, saying: What art thou doing, Agar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the boy, from the place wherein he is. Arise, take up the boy, and hold him by the hand, for I will make him a great nation. And God opened her eyes: and she saw a well of water, and went and filled the bottle, and gave the boy to drink. And God was with him: and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became a young man, an archer. And he dwelt in the wilderness of Pharan, and his mother took a wife for him out of the land of Egypt” (Genesis 21:1-21).

Zamram, Jecsan, Madan, Madian, Jesboc, and Sue

“And Abraham married another wife named Cetura: Who bore him Zamram, and Jecsan, and Madan, and Madian, and Jesboc, and Sue. Jecsan also begot Saba, and Dadan. The children of Dadan were Assurim, and Latusim, and Loomim. But of Madian was born Epha, and Opher, and Henoch, and Abida, and Eldaa: all these were the children [and grandchildren] of Cetura” (Genesis 25:1-4).

“And the sons of Cetura, Abraham’s concubine [Note: Both Hagar and Cetura were Abraham’s concubines. In those days, a concubine was a lawful wife, but of an inferior degree.], whom she bore: Zamran, Jecsan, Madan, Madian, Jesboc, and Sue. And the sons of Jecsan, Saba, and Dadan. And the sons of Dadan: Assurim, and Latussim, and Laomin. And the sons of Madian: Epha, and Epher, and Henoch, and Abida, and Eldaa. All these are the sons [and grandsons] of Cetura” (1 Paralipomenon 1:32-33).

Therefore, the twelve tribes of Israel, the Jews, come from Abraham and Sara through their son Isaac. Twelve tribes of the Arabs come from Abraham and Agar through their son Ismael. The additional tribes of the Arabs come from Abraham and Cetura through their children Zamram, Jecsan, Madan, Madian, Jesboc, and Sue.

Part 4 - Biographical Data
About Mohammad, the Cult Founder

Mohammad

In order to understand Islamism, one must first begin at the beginning. Therefore, We begin with the founder of Islamism, namely Mohammad. Because most Westerners, especially Americans, know pitifully very little about Mohammad, here is some information which Our research has culled from various sources. Primary sources include almost all of the Catholic sources We have used. Primary sources also include some Mohammadan sources We have found at various Web Sites on the Internet. Secondary sources include the remainder of the Internet sources which are mostly Mohammadan.

Although We prefer to use only primary sources, since We have no direct access to Islamic works of various kinds, and are unable to read or to translate the various Arabic languages, We have had to rely upon primary and secondary sources, mostly on the Internet, for that data.

Please keep in mind that in translating from Arabic, which uses characters other than the Roman characters which are used for English, various writers have different ways of spelling the same word. There is seldom any uniformity as to any exact spelling of any one particular word translated from Arabic, especially proper names, e.g. Mohammad. This can lead to confusion; however, We hope this warning will pre-empt most of that in what follows.

According to Oriental writers, Mohammad, whose name is also spelled Mahomet, Mohammed, and Muhammad, and who is also called Mohammad Mustafa ibn Abdullah, a.k.a. Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah, of the clan of Bani Hashim [born at Mecca, Saturday, April 20, 571. A.D. - died at Madina, March, 632 A.D. or 633 A.D. One source claims he had been poisoned by an old Jewish woman a short time before this.], was a direct descendant of Ismael, a.k.a. Ishmael, through one of the first twelves tribes of the Arabs and consequently of Abraham and Agar. His father was Abdullah and his mother was Amina. One of his grandfather’s was Abdul-Muttalib who was the the Chieftan of the tribe of Bani Hashim. In those days, Arabia was prey to gross polytheism.. Mohammad is the acknowledged founder of Mohammadanism which Mohammad called Islam, a term which means “submission to God”. This explains why some writers refer to the followers of Mohammad as Moslems, Moslims, Muslims or Mussulmans, which are terms which mean “dedicated to God”.

It is ironic how the terms Moslim and Moslem, which are alternate spellings for the word Muslim, are frequently pronounced “mawzlem”. When Moslim and Moslem are pronounced “mawzlem”, they sound like the Arabic word which means “oppressor”.

Some writers prefer to call the followers of Mohammad, Mohammadans, also spelled Mahometans, Mohammedans, and Muhammadans, just as the followers of Christ are frequently called Christians. Mohammadans are also called Saracens and in Northern Africa they are called Berbers. We have already explained above that when We normally use the term Moslems, We thereby identify those who believe and teach the “doctrines” and implement the practices of terrorism. We use the term Mohammadans to identify those who catagorically reject, to varying degrees, the “doctrines” and practices of terrorism. We use the term Islamics to include both Moslems and Mohammadans. Please note that this does not necessarily hold true for direct quotations from other sources.

When Mohammad was born, Mecca, which is in western Arabia, was the most important city of Arabia because, enclosed within its walls was the national sanctuary, the famous Kaaba, a.k.a. Kabah, a.k.a. Caaba, a.k.a. Ka’aba, which was a cubical stone building. This building contained the fabled “black stone” which supposedly had come down from Paradise whiter than milk, but was changed to black by the sins of the children of Adam who have touched it.

The Kaaba was originally dedicated to the one Supreme Being. But, with the passage of time, it became a veritable pagan Pantheon which contained at least 360 pagan idols of all shapes and forms. Pilgrims would come year after year in vast number to the Kaaba from every part of the Arabian peninsula. The citizens of Mecca and, most especially, the Kuraish clan, to whom the guardianship of the Kaaba had been entrusted, profited greatly from these pilgrimages and the great fairs which were held in connection with them. Despite all of this, the parents of Mohammad were very poor.

When he was still young, Mohammad was sent into the desert to be raised by a foster family. By today’s standards, this is very strange, but in those days this was supposedly a common practice. When he was a young child, he worked as a shepherd. When he was six years old, his parents died. His parents belonged to the distinguished clan or tribe of Kuraish, a.k.a., Koraish, the hereditary guardians of the sanctuary of the Kaaba.

After his parents died, he was raised by his uncle Abu Taleb, a.k.a. Abd Manaf Ibin Shaybah Al-Hashim, who instructed him in commercial business. One of his grandmother’s, namely, the mother of his uncle Abu Taleb was Fatimah, a.k.a. Fatima. The wife of Abu Taleb was Fatimah (a.k.a. Fatima) Bint Assad. This may explain in part why Mohammad himself named his youngest daughter Fatima, whom he had with his first wife Khadijah Bint Khuwaylid? Abu Taleb apparently had three brothers, namely, Hamza, Abu Lahab and Abbass.

When he was either 9 or 12 years old, his uncle took him with him on a caravan to Syria. After Abu Taleb had finished his trading in Syria, he returned to Mecca with his nephew, who continued his solitary life as he had done before. But his uncle saw to it that Mohammad, along with his own brothers, Abbass and Hamzah, were given had some training in the use of weapons of war. The implication is that they were taught as adults since the weapons of war would be those used by adults, e.g. swords. Exactly how a 9 or 12 year old could be taught as an adult remains to be explained, not to mention how he could hold the large adult-size sword?

At least one story claims that Abu Taleb disliked and spoke out against any kind of persecution. He also supposedly championed the unfortunate and persecuted against their aggressors. Mohammad, it is further claimed, as this little boy of around 9 or 12 years of age, loved his uncle because his uncle had integrity and certain principles.

The story continues how one day, a battle took place between the defending tribe of Kinana and the agressing tribe of Qais. The chief from the tribe of Kinana came to Abu Taleb for help and, addressing him as the “son of the bird feeder and pilgrim water giver”, asked him for help, which Abu Taleb promised to give. As a result, the Kinana chief clansman easily agreed to the terms which Abu Taleb required for his help. Thus, the Hashimite chieftian joined them in battle with Mohammad at his side.

It is also related that Abu Taleb founded the Alliance of Fodhool. This alliance was an agreement which was signed by all the Meccan chieftians whom today would probably be called war lords. The terms of this agreement stated that they would help and protect any pilgrim was was attacked or robbed at Mecca. It then so happened, goes the story, that one day a pilgrim, who was from the Khathaam tribe, was paying homage to the Kaaba cube in Mecca with his daughter. The daughter was kidnapped by terrorists while the father was beaten for trying to rescue his daughter.

The Khathaamian father screamed for help. As a result, the bystanders, who did nothing to rescue his daughter from the terrorists, suggested that he go to Abu Taleb, who was the founder of the Fodhool Alliance. When the destraught father finally arrived where Abu Taleb was, the father pleaded his case. Abu Taleb immediately directed some men, who were armed with adult-sized swords, to go look for the girl who had been kidnapped by the terrorists and bring the terrorists to justice. The story also relates that Mohammad was also a part of the Fodhool Alliance and that he also went along with the swordsmen. Here the mental picture is verbally painted of a 9 or 12 year old child trying to carry an adult-sized sword. It must have been rather akward for a child to try to carry such a large sword? In addition, one is given the impression that the 9 or 12 year-old Mohammad was probably in the way? After all, how does one rationally expect a 9 or 12 year old child to effectively fight an adult fighting him with an adult-sized sword?!

Other than a suicide mission, this sounds somewhat like the fairy tale of the 101 Arabian Nights fiction! Eventually, the adult swordsmen found, whether with or without little Mohammad is curiously not mentioned, the terrorists who had kidnapped the girl as well as the girl. Omitting all of the details of the fight, the story continues that the kidnapped girl was returned to her father. The terrorists were brought before the Meccan Elders, presumably Abu Taleb, and the other members of the alliance, not for a trial, but rather only for some kind of punishment which the story fails to relate.

Upon analyzing this story, there seems to be a contradiction between the claim that after Mohammad returned to Mecca with his uncle, that Mohammad continued to lead his solitary life as he had done before on the one hand and, on the other hand, the claim that Mohammad was also a part of the Fodhool Alliance and went along with the swordsmen whom his uncle had immediately sent out to find the terrorists and the kidnapped girl. This variance seems to indicate that the part which Mohammmad took in this episode is possibly fictitious, especially since he was apparently only about 9 or 12 years old at that time, as is even quite possibly the whole story.

Another source claims that some years later Mohammad got a job as a camel driver on the trade routes between Syria and Arabia. Still later, he managed camel caravans on behalf of merchants. During his mercantile trips to Syria and other countries, he became somewhat familiar with Jews, the heretical Nestorian Christians, and the local pagans of those regions.

Some of the pagans of Arabia were blood-thirsty savages because, before Islamism, Arabia did not have any kind of political organization, nor did it have any kind of organized moral and legal structure. This meant that there were no judicial courts because there was no organized system of justice, and certainly not any kind of police force as is familiar to Westerners of today. This meant that there was no device which could control crime or to curb criminal and terrorists acts. So, then, if a male Arab committed a crime, he had no reason to feel sorrow or remorse at his heinous act. Rather, he boasted that he could do whatever he felt like doing, and if what he felt like doing was considered to be sinful or evil in other countries, he could care less.

Arab society in those days was dominated by men, especially by the war lords. It seems that some women, even today, who live in such societies, still feel the same way, because, except for Turkey, which is under secular control and making an attempt to be a democracy, it appears that in actual practice in much of the rest of the Islamic world, women do not have much real legal or social status, despite what one may find written to the contrary. At best, at least from the outside looking in, many Islamic women look as if they are second-class citizens.

In the days of Mohammad, and perhaps even today, many Arab men, consider that women bring bad luck. This is why, generally speaking, they still apparently treat women more like chattel than like individuals. For example, before the time of Mohammmad, a man could marry as many women as he wanted to marry. When he died, his eldest son would inherit all of his wives, except his own mother. In other words, the oldest son would marry all of his step-mothers. Obviously, there was an absence of a moral code of ethics as well as a legal code to restrain him.

In the Wild-Wild-East, research indicates that pre-Islamic Arabs were savages. Pagan Arabs, giving into their base passions as the result of the effects of Original Sin, would spend their entire lives in an endless cycle of lawless warfare. This explains why the favorite profession of a pagan Arab was being a terrorist who plundered and killed without mercy. These pagan terrorists tortured to death their prisoners of war. One of their favorite hobbies was to torture to death helpless animals. These cruel and hate-filled terrorists had a perverse sense of “honor” which led them to kill their own infant daughters. When the wife of an Arab terrorist gave birth to a daughter, he was unable to conceal his anguish and displeasure.

In many cases, so it is claimed, Arab terrorists killed their daughters for sundry specious reasons, frequently burying them alive! It has been claimed that Islamic law made the killing of children a capital offence: “Kill not your children for fear of want: we shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin” (Qur’an Majid. Chapter 17: verse 31).

Some of the Arabs who did not kill their daughters deprived them of all their rights. Why? According to their convoluted mentality, once their daughters got married, because they would live in the homes of other men, they (these Arab fathers who permitted their daughters to live) should not spend any money on them by caring for their material wants and needs over and above what was necessary to keep them alive.

Khadijah, the First Wife of Mohammad

And so it happened that Khadijah Bint Khuwaylid, a.k.a., Khadija, a.k.a., Chadija, the first of the many wives of Mohammad, was born, grew up and lived in this kind of misogynistic society. Such a depraved “society” proves the level to which a soul can sink without God in one’s life, especially without the valid reception of the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, and a real living of the spiritual life and everything that implies.

Khadijah controlled an ever-expanding home-based-business from Mecca which spread into the neighboring countries. Some would consider her achievements astonishing in any age, but for her to be so successful in that woman-hating society, was really remarkable! Her contemporaries call her the princess of the Quraysh and the princess of Mecca.

This is also why she received many marriage proposals from Arab nobles and princes. Although she tried to ignore all of them, many of them were persistent. Yet she rejected the whole lot of them. Such rejection gave rise to speculation as to what kind of man she would marry.

At the age of twenty-five, the poor, but ambitious, Mohammad, married this rich Meccan widow, Khadijah, for whom he then worked as a business agent. This advantageous alliance enabled him to live at his ease and gratify his taste for religious seclusion.

Hanifs

Towards the end of the 6th Century, various men from Mecca, Medina and Taif, who were searching for a more pure religion than the dominant polytheism so rampant in Arabia, especially at Mecca, borrowed various doctrines and practices which appealed to them from the Jews, the heretical Nestorian Christians, and sundry pagans. This hodge-podge mixture of cafeteria-styled dogmatism became the basis upon which they claimed to have made up a “pure” religion. According to them, their home-grown cult was based upon their ancestor Ismael, a.k.a. Ishmael. The members of this diverse cult are known to history as Hanifs.

The Hanifs were strict monotheists, they believed in a future life, with its eternal punishments and eternal rewards, they abstained from wine and they practiced other austerities. Mecca had some Hanifs and some of them were from the lineage of Khadijah, the very first wife of the many wives of Mohammad. One of them was her first cousin, Waraqa bin Naufal, a.k.a. Waraka. It was through Waraqa bin Naufal, a first cousin of his first wife, that Mohammad came under the influence of this cult and thus Mohammad himself became a Hanif.

Waraqa bin Naufal teamed up with Ubaydullah bin Jahsh, Uthman bin al-Huwayrith and Zayd bin ‘Amr. These four men were of the opinion that their people had corrupted the religion of their father Abraham and that the stone cube they went around in a pagan ritual was insignificant because it could neither hear nor see nor could it do anything, as is true of all other pagan idols. So it came about that these four monotheists did not believe in the pagan ritual of circumabulating the Kaaba. It is interesting to note that it is ironic that this pagan ritual was later embraced by the Islamics and is still in use today, despite the Islamic claim that their religion is not pagan!

Waraqa bin Naufal was one of the very few people in Mecca who were educated. He is to have translated the Bible from Hebrew into Arabic. He had also read other books written by Jewish and Christian theologians. He was searching for the truth. It is not surprising, therefore, that Khadijah, the very first of the many wives of Mohammad, would be very strongly influenced by the opinions of Waraqa, her first cousin. She shared his contempt for pagan idols and pagan idolaters. Just like Waraqa and various other members of her family, she also was a follower of Abraham and Ismael.

Mohammad the Hanif

The Hanif, Mohammad, began to spend more and more time in the hill caves near Mecca. It was during one of these periods of solitary contemplation, when he was about forty years old, that he claims he received his prophetic mission.

Sometime before 611 A.D., Mohammad began to have epileptic seizures. When Mohammad was 40 years old [611 A.D.], he had apparently refined the teachings of the first cousin of his first wife (Khadijah), namely, Waraqa bin Naufal, a co-founder of the cult of the Hanifs in Mecca. Just as the Hanifs, he also wanted to restore his country to the purity of primitive monotheism. To this end, he formed the scheme of establishing a cult, or, as he expressed it, a new religion which would abolish the gross idolatry into which his countrymen had fallen and of replanting the only true and ancient religion professed by Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and all the prophets, which consisted chiefly in the worship of only one God.

Mohammad the Cult-Founder

He claimed to be the “Prophet of God.” He claimed that his spasmodic convulsions, which were happening more and more frequently, were nothing more than heavenly visions in which, he alleged, that Saint Gabriel (Jibreel) the Archangel appeared to him and commanded him to restore what he termed the religion of Abraham. Mohammad named this new cult, which he considered to be a religion, Islam, that is, “submission to God,” whence his followers are called “Moslems,” or “Mussulmans”, that is, “dedicated to God.” Mohammed maintained that a great number of prophets had been divinely commissioned at various times, chief among whom were Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, but that he was superior to all of them. Mohammad pretended that his divine mission was clearly foretold in the writings of both Jews and Christians, whom he charged with having corrupted the Scriptures and suppressed the prophecies bearing witness to himself.

In reality, the actual basis for such pretensions was a combination of things. Some of his teachings he claimed to have found in the Old and New Testament editions which had apparently been translated into Arabic by Waraqa bin Naufal. From this questionable translation, he had collected lofty maxims which he mingled with the pagan folklore of his country and with his own schizophrenic hallucinations and imaginings.

It was from this cacophony of mutual contradictions that he made up his own sundry doctrines. Their moral application is summed up in Islam, that is, in abandonment, in submission to an almighty God, placed very high above the world. At the outset, the character of the self-proclaimed “prophet” appeared gentle and calm. Yet strange phenomena and convulsive crises became more frequent as his fame began to spread.

But his man-made “doctrines” lost their earlier simplicity. In his suras, or maxims, the collection of which forms that unequal and incongruous book known as the Qur’an, a.k.a. Koran (Reading), he taught the oneness and omnipotence of God, sanctioned polygamy, and offered, as a reward to the faithful of Islam, the eternal joys of a promised land where, far from all sin, under the cool shade of trees, they would enjoy delicious drinks in silver goblets and would eat exquisite fruit in a paradise overflowing with sexual delights. He prescribed prayers, fasting, ablutions, pilgrimages to Mecca with processional encircling of the Kaaba. He recommended union and solidarity among the believers of Islam.

He said: “O believers, give alms from the best things you have acquired, from the fruits which you have made the earth bring forth...You will attain perfect piety only when you have given alms of what you cherish most.”

Regarding non-believers, his teachings varied. At times he counseled tolerance, saying: “Listen not to the infidels or the hypocrites; but do them no ill.” But more frequently, he ordered a war to the death. “Make war on those who do not believe in God or in the last day.” He says: “When you meet any infidels, kill them, to the point of making a great carnage, and you will tighten the shackles.”

Why is there such a variance in the teachings of Mohammad? Did he have two totally different personalities? Besides suffering from more and more frequent epileptic seizures, he was apparently also suffering from advanced schizophrenia, far beyond dementia praecox.

Was there anything which could have triggered such advanced schizophrenia? It seems reasonable to take the position that most probably the suras which recommended tolerance and mildness date from the early days of Mohammad?s preaching. But it is self-evident to those who study his character, that it definitely changed after he had begun to attract followers in Mecca, and most especially after the two rival armed tribes in Medina joined his cult.

There seems to be an unanimity with all of the historical data to which We have had access, to wit, that when Mohammad first began to preach his own man-made-up hybrid religion, he was not a violent person. If anything, he seems to have been humble and meek like Christ. Assuredly, today there seem to be various Moslem leaders who are like this. Perhaps this explains why President Bush and other have said that Islam is a religion of peace?

During this first preaching tour in Mecca, he was persecuted for preaching his home-made religion, Islamism, and also for denigrating the pagan religions of the inhabitants of Mecca. Some of the followers of Mohammad were tortured. Things became so bad for him and his handful of followers, that he apparently sent most of them to Abyssinia, a.k.a. Ethiopia, for a safe place of refuge. Eventually the persecutions forced him and the rest of his followers to move north to Yathrib, a.k.a. Medina, where a few members of two Arab tribes wanted Mohammad to be their prophet.

However, shortly before Mohammad and the remainder of his group left to go to Medina, he had another epileptic seizure. He used this seizure as his basis upon which to claim that he had received
a “revelation” which permitted him and his group to fight the people of Mecca. He knew that in Medina there was an armed group of men who would not only support him, but fight on his behalf. He was also aware that if he and the remainder of his small group now in Mecca went to Medina that geographically they would farther away from their pagan persecutors in Mecca whom he felt might try to kill him.

Part 5 - Mohammad and His “Wives” and Children

Mohammad and His Harem

Summary of the “Wives” of Mohammad
and Their Ages When “Married”

1st wife:   Khadijah Bint.Khuwaylid a.k.a. Khadeejah Bint Khuwali. He was 25 and she was 40.
2nd wife: Ayesha Bint Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq. He was 49 and she was only 6!
3rd wife:   Sawda Bint Zam’ah, a.k.a. Saudah Bint Zama. He was 49 and she was 50.
4th wife:   Hafsah Bint Umar. He was 51 and she was 20.
5th wife:   Umm Salamah, a.k.a. Umm Salam Hind Bint.Abi Umayya. He was 55 and she was 29.
6th wife:   Zaynab Bint Jahsh. He was 56 and she was 35.
7th wife:   Juwayriyyah Bint Harith, a.k.a. Juwairiah Bint.Al-Harith. He was 56 and she was 20 and Jewish.
8th wife:   Zaynab Bint Khuzaymah, a.k.a. Zainab Bint Khuzaima. He was was 56 and she was 30.
9th wife:   Umm Habibah Bint Abu Suffayan, a.k.a. Umm Habibah Ramla Bint Abu Sufyan Ibn Sakhr.
                  He was 60 and she was 35.
10th wife: Safiyyah Bint Huyayy, a.k.a. Safiyah Bint Huyay. He was 60 and she was only 17 and Jewish.
11th wife: Rayhanah Banu Qurayzah. He was 60. Her age is not known.
12th wife: Maryah, a.k.a. Mariyah Al-Qibtiyaa.   He was 60 and she was 20.
13th wife: Rayhana. He was 60. She was only a girl, but her exact age is not known. She was Jewish.
14th wife: Duba Bint Amr. He was 60. Her age is not known.
15th wife: Fatima Bint Al-Dahhak. He was probably 60. Her age is not known.
16th wife: Hend. He was probably 60. Her age is not known.
17th wife: Asma of Saba. He was probably 60. Her age is not known.
18th wife: Habla. He was probably 60. Her age is not known.
19th wife: Asma of Noman, a.k.a. Asma Bint Al-Numan. He was 60. Her age is not known.
20th wife: Omm Sharik. He was probably 60. Her age is not known.
21st wife: Maymuna, a.k.a. Maimunah (not of Hareth). He was probably 60 and she was 36.
22nd wife: Zaynab (his third wife name “Zaynab” after wives # 6 and # 8). He was probably 60.
                  Her age is not known.
23rd wife: Khawla.He was probably 60. Her age is not known.
24th wife: Amrah Bint Yazeed. He was 60. Her age is not known.
25th wife: Leila Bint Al-Khatim. He was probably 60. Her age is not known.
26th wife: Mulaika Bint Kaab. He was probably 60. Her age is not known.

Details of the “Wives” of Mohammad

1st wife: Khadijah Bint.Khuwaylid [born 554 A.D. or 556 A.D. died December, 619 A.D.]. In 596 A.D., when he was 25 years old, Mohammad married Khadijah Bint Khuwaylid, a.k.a. Khadeejah Bint Khuwali, who was 40 years old, as We have already explained above. Khadijah employed Mohammad in her business. Her father was killed in a battle. She was a very successful and wealthy business lady. Khadijah Bint Khuwaylid had been married twice before she married Mohammad, thus making Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah her third husband. After their marriage, Mohammad no longer had to work. Mohammad could wander around the caves in the local area and meditate. Mohammad had his first “revelation”, which was really an epileptic seizure, when he was 40 years old. This means that Khadijah Bint Khuwaylid was 55 years old at that time.

They were married for about 25 years during which time Khadijah Bint Khuwaylid bore Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah almost all of his children. Different sources give various information about their children. For example, one source claims that the couple had two sons and four daughters and yet another source gives three sons and three daughters. Our research has uncovered the following data on their children.

Children of Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah
and Khadijah Bint Khuwaylid

1. Qassim Mohammad, a.k.a. Qassem Mohammad, a.k.a. Abul Qassim (a son). He was their eldest child and, because of this fact, he was known as Abul Qassim. The boy died before his second birthday.

2. Zaynab, a.k.a. Zainab, the Heroine of Karbala, was the eldest daughter.

3. Ruqayyah, a daughter, was the third child.

4. Umm Al-Kulthoum, a.k.a. Umkalthoum, a daughter, was the fourth child.

5. Fatima Al-Zahra, a.k.a. Fatimah, [born at Mecca c.605 A.D. - died at Madina in 633 A.D.), was the youngest daughter and the fifth child. Fatima married Ali who was the son of Abu Talib. Fatima was the mother of sons Hassan, a.k.a. the Imam Hassan, and Husayn, a.ka. the Imam Husayn [Hussain]. According to Shiite legend, there was also a third son, Muhassin, a.k.a. Sayyed Muhassin [Mohsen], who died when only a child. Fatima is considered to be the ancestral mother of the Imams of the Shiite Muslims. She is also considered to be the ancestral mother of everyone who claims to be a direct descendant of Mohammad because supposedly none of Mohammad’s other children had children. The cause of death of Fatima Al-Zahra was severe internal hemoraging from a punctured lung caused by a broken rib that she suffered from what one source described as “a cowardly attack on her home”.

6. Ta’hir, a son, was also their last child.

7. Other sources give an additional name: Abdullah, a son. However, since their first son, Qassim Mohammad, was called Abul Qassim, is it possible that this first son was also called Abdullah by some writers, or was he a son from another marriage as was Ibraheem, his alleged son from his 12th wife, Maryah?

One source says that Khadijah died in December of 619 A.D. at the age of 65. As long as Khadijah was alive, Mohammad did not have to work.

This verse in Koran Majid may refer to her: “... and there are some who are, by god’s leave, foremost in good deeds; that is the highest grace” (Chapter 35; verse 32).

She had what Koran Majid has called Qalb Saleem (“the sound heart”) in verse 89 of its 26th chapter. Qalb Saleem or the sound heart, has been defined by A. Yusuf Ali, the translator and commentator of Qur’an Majid, as follows: “A heart that is pure, and unaffected by the diseases that afflict others. As the heart in Arabic is taken to be not only the seat of feelings and affections, but also of intelligence and resulting action, it implies the whole character.”

2nd wife: Ayesha Bint Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq [born 614 A.D. - died 671 A.D.]. In 620 A.D. Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah “married” Ayesha Bint Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq, the daughter of Abu Bakir, when he was 49 years old and she was only 6 years old! He consummated the “marriage” with her when she turned 9 years of age in 623 A.D. This explains in part why they had no children together, although it does not explain it during her later teen years. She was the only virgin woman in Mohammad’s life. She transmitted 2000 hadiths. When Mohammad died in 632 A.D., she was 18 years old. She died at the age of 57 in 671 A.D., 100 years after Mohammad was born.

3rd wife: Sawda Bint Zam’ah, a.k.a. Saudah Bint. Zama. [born 570 A.D. - died about 638 A.D.]. In 620 A.D. Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah married the widow, Sawda Bint Zam’ah, when he was 49 years old and she was 50 years old. They had no children together. Although she was neither young nor beautiful, she was the right woman to take care of Mohammad’s young children after Khadijah died in 619 A.D. They got “married” in 620 A.D. She was middle aged, fat, funny and kind. It is stated that Sawda “gave” her “nights” to Ayesha to have him for sex. This means that old Sawda was nothing more than a maid servant while young Ayesha was for sex,

4th wife: Hafsah Bint Umar [born 602 A.D. - died 668 A.D.]. In 622 A.D., when he was 51 years old, Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah “married” the 20 year old widow Hafsah Bint Umar who was the daughter of Umar Ibin Khataab, a.k.a. Caliph Umor. They had no children together. She had first “married” Khunais Ibn Al-Khataab and then became a widow at the age of 18 in 620 A.D. She lived with Mohammad for 8 years and died in 668 A.D. when she was 66 years old.

5th wife: Umm Salamah, a.k.a. Umm Salam Hind Bint.Abi Umayya [born 597 A.D. - died 681 A.D.]. In 626 A.D., when he was 55 years old, Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah “married” Umm Salamah, who was 29 years old. They had no children together. Her first husband was Abdullah Bin Abdul Asad with whom she had 4 children, Salama, Umar, Zaynab, Darra. She outlived all of the other “wives” of Mohammad and died when she was 84 years old in 681 A.D.

6th wife: Zaynab Bint Jahsh [born 592 A.D. - died 641 A.D.]. In 627 A.D., when he was 56 years old, Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah “married” Zaynab Bint Jahsh, who was 35 years old. They had no children together. Her original name was Barra. She was originally married to Zayed Bin Harith, who was Mohammad’s adopted son. Mohammad himself had arranged that marriage. She was the first cousin of Mohammad. Zaynab’s mother Umayma was the daughter of Abdul Muttalib, Mohammad's grandfather. One day Mohammmad saw Zaynab “in a loose undress” and, seeing her beautiful body, he “wanted to have her”. The grateful adopted son, Zayed Bin Harith, then divorced Zaynab to clear the way for Mohammad to marry her. Special “revelations” were made to Mohammad in order to sanctify the “marriage” (33:37,53) which permits Islamic men to marry an adopted son’s wife. However, this is absurd when on considers that Islam forbids the adoption of children (33:4,5,37). Mohammad claimed that “his” Allah himself performed his nikah with her. She was 35 when Mohammad “married” her. Ayat of hijab (33:53-56) was also revealed after the feast of their “marriage”. Zaynab was a very independent lady. For example, she had her own leather products business. Hence, she did not need Mohammad’s money. By marrying Zaynab Bint Jahsh, Mohammad set the precedent for Islamic men that it is permissible for them to marry their first cousin. She died in 641 A.D., the first wife of Mohammad to die after Mohammad’s death.

7th wife: Juwayriyyah Bint Harith, a.k.a. Juwairiah Bint.Al-Harith [born 607 A.D. - died 672 A.D.]. In 627 A.D., when he was 56 years old, Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah “married” Juwayriyyah Bint Harith, who was 20 years old, the daughter of a great Jewish Chieftain, Harith. They had no children together. She had been taken prisoner during a raid which means that she was part of the spoils of war in the battle against Banu Mustaliq. Her father was the chief of Banu Mustaliq. She was taken as a captive by a soldier named Thabit Ibn Qais. It is claimed that she was extremely beautiful. This “marriage” took place after Mohammad’s “marriage” to Zaynab Bint Jahsh, also in 627 A.D. She was “married” to Mohammad until he died in 632 A.D.. She died in 672 A.D. at the age of 65. Since she was Jewish, this shows how Mohammad set a precedent that enabled all Arab men to marry Jewish women.

8th wife: Zaynab Bint Khuzaymah, a.k.a. Zainab Bint Khuzaima [born 597 A.D. - died about 627 A.D.]. In 627 A.D., when he was 56 years old, Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah “married” Zaynab Bint Khuzaymah, who was 30 years old. They had no children. Her first husband, Abdullah Bin Jahsh died in the battle of Uhud. She died very soon after the marriage, probably of a broken heart for her dead husband Abdullah Bin Jahsh.

9th wife: Umm Habibah Bint Abu Suffayan, a.k.a. Umm Habibah Ramla Bint Abu Sufyan Ibn Sakhr [born 596 A.D. - died 668 A.D.]. In 631 A.D., when he was 60 years old, Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah “married” Umm Habibah Bint Abu Suffayan, who was 35 years old. They had no children together. She had been sent to Ethiopia during the migration of the first handful of Islamics to Ethiopia. The King of Ethiopia, Negas, presented her to Mohammad as a wife. She was “married” to him in a proxy “ceremony” by King Negas. Her first husband was Ubaydullah Ibn Jahsh who was the brother of Zaynab Bint Jahsh, the 6th wife of Mohammad. Ubaydullah became a Christian while in Ethiopia. So she got a divorce from him. Mu’awiya was her brother. She died at the age of 72 in 668 A.D.

10th wife: Safiyyah Bint Huyayy, a.k.a. Safiyah Bint Huyay [born 614 A.D. - died 674 A.D.]. In 631 A.D., when he was 60 years old, Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah “married” Safiyyah Bint Huyayy, who was only 17 years old. She was the widow of the chieftian Kinanah of Bani Nadir. They had no children together. She was war booty. She was taken prisoner after the slaughter in Khybar. In that battle, she lost her father, her recently married husband and all of her other close relatives. This captured Jewish woman was given to a Moslem soldier called Dahia. However, when Mohammad saw her exquisite beauty, he immediately bought her from Dahia and proposed marriage to her. She was in a state of shock when she was brought to Mohammad. Safiyyah’s cousin’s was also brought along with Safiyyah, but Mohammad was not interested in her cousin because she was not that pretty. Safiyyah had no choice but to marry Mohammad to save her own life. She was with Mohammad until he died in 632 A.D. She lived as a widow until she died in 674 A.D. when she was 60 years old.

11th wife: Rayhanah Banu Qurayzah [born ? - died ?]. In 631 A.D., when he was 60 years old, Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah “married” Rayhanah Banu Qurayzah. They had no children together.

12th wife: Maryah, a.k.a. Mariyah Al-Qibtiyaa [born 611 A.D. - died ?]. In 631 A.D., when he was 60 years old, Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah “married” Maryah, who was 20 years old. Once source claims that they had no children together, while another source claims they had a son by the name of Ibraheem. She was a Coptic sex slave. The King of Egypt gave her to Mohammad as a slave whom he then “married”. She was extremely beautiful and gave birth to a son whom Mohammad named Ibrahim. Ibrahim died at infancy at an age of 18 months. Other sources say 10 months. Mariyah lived with Mohammad until he died in 632 A.D.

13th wife: Rayhana [born ? - died ?]. In 631 A.D., when he was 60 years old, Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah “married” the Jewish girl Rayhana. She, too, was booty from a battle. She was a Jewish girl of extreme beauty which is why Mohammad “married” her. But one source indicates that she refused to covert to Islam and refused to marry Mohammad and that, as a result, he made her his sex slave instead of his wife-apparently but little difference, if any?!

14th wife: Duba Bint Amr [born ? - died ?]. In 631 A.D., when he was 60 years old, Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah “married” Duba Bint Amr. She was a very beautiful Arab woman. Her long hair covered her entire body (Ibn Saad, al-Tabaqat, p 153). Mohammad was physically attracted to her. According to one source, Mohammad asked her son’s permission to marry her. This same source claims that Mohammad backed out of the marriage proposal when he heard that although she was very beautiful, she looked very old. This is an obvious contradiction!

15th wife: Fatima Bint Al-Dahhak. She divorced Mohammad immediately after their “marriage” by saying to him: “I take refuge in Allah from thee”.

16th wife: Hend. (The only information We have found about her thus far is her name.)

17th wife: Asma of Saba. (The only information We have found about her thus far is her name.)

18th wife: Habla. (The only information We have found about her thus far is her name.)

19th wife: Asma of Noman, a.k.a. Asma Bint Al-Numan. [born ? - died ?]. In 631 A.D., when he was 60 years old, Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah “married” Asma of Noman. When Mohammad discovered that she was suffering from leprosy, he did not consummate the marriage. She divorced Mohammad immediately after their “marriage” by saying to him: “I take refuge in Allah from thee”.

20th wife: Omm Sharik. (The only information We have found about her thus far is her name.)

21st wife: Maymuna, a.k.a. Maimunah (not of Hareth). He was probably 60 and she was 36.

22nd wife: Zaynab (his third wife name “Zaynab” after wives # 6 and # 8). (The only information We have found about her thus far is her name.)

23rd wife: Khawla. (The only information We have found about her thus far is her name.)

24th wife: Amrah Bint Yazeed [born ? - died ?]. In 631 A.D., when he was 60 years old, Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah “married” Amrah Bint Yazeed. She had become an Islamic just a very short time before her marriage to Mohammad. When she arrived at Medina and took a look at Mohammad in person, she appealed to Allah for refuge from Mohammad. Shortly aftwards they were “married” after which time Mohammad sent her back to her people, apparently without consummating the “marriage”.

25th wife: Leila Bint Al-Khatim. Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah “married” Leila Bint Al-Khatim despite the fact that she was discouraged by her tribe to wed him.

26th wife: Mulaika Bint Kaab. He was probably 60. Her age is not known. She divorced Mohammad immediately after their “marriage” by saying to him: “I take refuge in Allah from thee”.

General Information

Besides his 26, or possibly even more, “wives”, one source claims that Mohammad also had at least 8 concubines in addition to an unknown number of sex slaves. If you add his 26 wives to at least 8 concubines, realizing that the actual number most probably was larger than 8, the total is 34. Then you also need to add the unknown number of female sex slaves! One might very conservatively estimate that the total actual number of women in Mohammad’s life was more than 40 women! The actual number could have been as high as 50 or even more?!

Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah’s “Allah” justified additional “marriages” for Mohammad who not only went further then the average Arab concerning his relationship with women, but who always tried to defend his acts by his “revelations” from his “Allah”.

The Koran of Mohammmad grants Islamic men up to four wives. But this excludes concubines and slave women. In contradistinction to ordinary Islamic men, Mohammad “married” at least 24 wives. Again, this does not include all of his concubines and sex slaves. The “Allah” of Mohammad made certain he would have plenty of women to save him from the horrors of celibacy, as Mohammad “revealed”:

“Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave-girls whom Allah has given you as booty; the daughters of your paternal and maternal uncles and of your paternal and maternal aunts who fled with you; and any believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet and whom the Prophet wishes to take in marriage. The privilege is yours alone, being granted to no other believer”(Koran 33:50-51).

How convenient! This “revelation” came after Mohammad had “married” more than four “wives”. Mohammad did not ask the permission of his “Allah”, he simply followed his lustful desires and very conveniently had his “revelations” to justify his harem.

Here is yet another “revelation”: “It shall be unlawful to you [Mohammad] to take more wives or to change your present wives for other women, though their beauty pleases you, except where slave-girls are concerned. Allah takes cognisance of all things” (Koran 33:52).

It would seem that in verse 52, his “Allah” voided verses 50-51, and prohibited Mohammad from taking any more wives or changing his present wives for new ones. This sura was “revealed” in Medina in AH 5. At that time, he was only “married” to a handful of women, but later he “married” several more, in a complete violation of verse 52. He apparently suffered from an acute case of selective amnesia?

His “Allah” had prohibited Islamic men from following Mohammad’s precedent-setting example about harems. This seems strange if Islamic men are supposed to follow Mohammad’s sunna in ALL things!? However, after looking at Mohammad’s relationships with women, one begins to understand why this questionable side of the “prophet” was not to be imitated. When referring to Mohammad’s relationships with women, one has to mention the fact that he had, it is believed, a happy marriage with his first wife, Khadijah. We have already pointed out that Mohammad was monogamous until after her death. But then he ended up in gathering a harem around him of many additional “wives”, not to mention an unknown number of concubines and sex slaves. According to legend, Mohammad stated the following: “Three things of your world have been made desirable to me: perfume, women, and my delight in prayer” (Farah, Marriage and Sexuality, p. 66).

It is not surprising that Nabia Abbot described him as “the prayerful and perfumed prophet of Islam, [who] was avowedly a great lover of ladies...” (Nabia Abbot, Aishah, p. vii).

Mohammad even visualized “his” perfect “Paradise” in the next world, saying: “The statement of Allah, Beautiful women restrained [i.e. chained] in pavilions. Allah’s Apostle said, ‘In Paradise there is a pavilion made of a single hallow pearl sixty miles wide, in each corner there are wives [of others] who will not see those in the other corners, and the [male] believers will visit and enjoy them.’” (Cited in Morey, Islamic Invasion, 203).

You will notice that not one word is said about GOD here! No mention is made of God in this “paradise of Islamic lust” which consists of visiting and have sex with women who are “restrained in pavilions”! Either some, perhaps all, of these women are the wives of other men!

In the lust-filled mind of Mohammad, this might have been “paradise”, but the “paradise of Islamic lust” would have been a Hell-hole of continual rape and victimization for all of the women who were restrained [i.e. chained] in pavilions and all of the wives of other men who will be frequently or continually raped by Mohammmad and his huge armies of male believers/followers for all eternity!

No wonder the Moslem terrorists - ALL MEN - were so “enthusiastic” about doing their terrorist work on Tuesday, September 11, 2001!!!! As every last one of them now burns in the eternal fires of Hell, how many of them are cursing Mohammad as the false prophet and false teacher and the teacher of lies!!!???

Instead of innumerable pavilions in which beautiful women are chained so that these faithful followers of Mohammad - the terrorists - can rape them for all eternity, these and all other murderous Moslem terrorists have found that it is THEY who are chained for all eternity so that the devils in Hell can terrorize them with an eternity of punishment by fire!

IF the Moslem terrorists had known the truth, while they were still in this world, how many of them would have so freely condemned their immortal souls to the eternal fires of Hell on Tuesday, September 11, 2001???!!!

Mohammad and other Meccans had been accustomed to practise a strict monogamy, but one has to wonder how his lust for sex with women was quenched? Thus far, no evidence has been found revealing whether Mohammad had any concubines or sex slaves during his marriage with Khadijah. Neither is it known to what extent he was engaged in the qiyan promiscuity in Mecca, if at all. Some assume that he did play the field, so to speak, as other Meccans of noble birth would have done, despite his “great” marriage to business woman Khadijah.

Mohammad had an unusual sexual appetite, as the hadith says: “Narrated Qatada: Anas bin Malik said: ‘The Prophet [Mohammad] used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and the night and they were eleven in number.’ I asked Anas: ‘Had the prophet strength for it?’ Anas replied: ‘We used to say that the Prophet [Mohammad] was given the strength of thirty [men]’” (Cited in Morey, Islamic Invasion, p. 190).

From all of this it is easy to understand that in order to quench his lust, he “married” frequently, and enjoyed several concubines and sex slaves afterwards as the dessert. The most likely explanation for Mohammad’s change from monogamy to polygamy is that Meccan customs denounced polygamy. Mohammad did not marry more than one woman until after he had become a politician in Medina. Polygamy was not really common in Mecca and Medina.

The best data on marriage in pre-Islamic Mecca is Ibn Saad’s eight volume Book of Great Classes. This standard biographical source of the early Islamic community, and their ancestors, includes a whole volume of the biographies of early Islamic women. In the first section, it discusses Mohammad’s wives and female relatives, while the later portion gives data on 574 early Islamic women.

A methodical analysis of Ibn Saad’s book was performed by Gertrude Stern in her book Marriage in Early Islam [1939]. She discovered and proved beyond doubt that “there was no fixed institution of marriage at all” in pre-Islamic Arabia.

Fatima Mernissi wrote: “According to Ibn Saad’s biographical data, polygamy existed neither in Mecca, a sophisticated urban centre with trading relations reaching deep into the Byzantine world, nor in Medina, the basically agrarian community to which the Prophet [Mohammad] emigrated” (Fatima Mernissi, Beyond the Veil, pp. 67-68).

The question then arises as to why Mohammad introduced polygamy into both Medina and Mecca? What changes in gender relations happened with the advent of Islam? Fatima Mernissi tells all of us that: “According to my reading of the historical evidence, Islam banished all practices in which the sexual self-determination of women was asserted” (Fatima Mernissi, Beyond the Veil, pp. 66-67).

So here is yet another example of the victimization of women by Mohammad and his male followers! The gross victimization of woman, which has been flashing on the TV screen via news reports from Taliban atrocities against defenseless women in Afghanistan, is simply consistent with the victimization of women mentality of Mohammad and his Moslem terrorists!

This would have also included the mu’ta marriage, which was intended to be short-lived. This farce was an attempt to legalize extra-marital sex. In effect, Islam denounced free sex in Mecca and Medina which meant that the qiyan harlots of Mecca and Medina lost some of their best clients. Mohammad’s great-grandmother, Salma, who was from Medina, practised mu’ta, and “she would only marry on condition that she should retain control of her own affairs. If she disliked a man, she left him”(Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, page 59).

One of the first commandments given to an Islamic convert was to denounce zina. This concept indicates an illicit sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Mernissi states once more: “Before Islam, zina was not considered a sin, a crime against religion. With Islam, it became a crime against God, His laws, and the established order” (Fatima Mernissi, Beyond the Veil, p. 58).

So, then, how did it come about that Mohammad introduced massive polygamy into Mecca and Medina while at the same time he abolished extra-marital sex? By process of elimination, the answer seems to be that Mohammad introduced polygamy into Islam in order to try to legally satisfy his own lust and sexual desires and of those Islamic men who had become habituated under jahiliya to practise zina and to enjoy the services of the qiyan prostitutes.

But with such a large harem, there were bound to be problems, such as jealousies and cat-fights among the “wives”. There was even some kind of a “conspiracy” by Mohammad’s youngest and one of his much younger “wives”, namely Ayesha Bint Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq, who was only 6 years old when Mohammad “married” her and Hafsah Bint Umar who was 20 years old when Mohammad “married” her. Apparently, they were trying to unite and organize some, or perhaps all, of the other “wives” of Mohammad to form some kind of unite opposition against Mohammad.

Thus one finds this “convenient” “revelation” of Mohammad which attempts to “fix” this problem of these two “rebellious wives”: “If you, two wives of Mohammad [Ayesha and Hafash], return to God (as you are already inclined to do so) to ask forgiveness from your Lord for ‘conspiracy’ behind your husband, it will be the best for you. If you, on the contrary, back up each other against your husband, then you are against God, angel Gabriel, the righteous believers and the angles who help the messenger of God” (Qur’an, Chapter 66, Prohibition, # 4).

There were also divorces from Mohammad as well. For example, at least three of his “wives”, to wit, Asma Bint Al-Numan, Mulaika Bint Kaab and Fatima Bint Al-Dahhak, each divorced Mohammad immediately after their “marriage” by saying to him: “I take refuge in Allah from thee”. Fatima Mernissi discusses the historical fact that during the days of Mohammad, women could get a divorce very easily. She writes: “Hiba....was outlawed after the Prophet [Mohammad[ died. If he was the last Arab man to be chosen freely, he was also probably the last to be repudiated by them” (Fatima Mernissi, Beyond the Veil, pages 51-52).

Mohammad “married” for various reasons. Some of his wives had belonged to clans he had conquered by force. Others were women after whom he had lusted and “married” with pleasure. The beautiful women whom Mohammad had “married” became an object of jealousy to Ayesha Bint Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq and some of his earlier wives who were either too young or too old to be able to satisfy Mohammad’s sexual needs. Realistically, with over three dozen women, one wonders how he could have satisfied each one of them and yet managed to maintain equality, not only among them, but also among the reputedly many other women, outside of his personal harem, to whom, it has been alleged, he also had access?!

It is interesting to note that as Mohammad began to age, he desired more and more young women. For example, his second “wife”, Ayesha Bint Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq, was only 6 years old when the 49 year old Mohammad, the pedophile, “married” her! Mohammad’s lust for young girls is clearly stated in hadith. Here is one example:

“Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: When I got married, Allah’s apostle [Mohammad] said to me, ‘What type of lady have you married?’ I replied, ‘I have married a matron’ He said, ‘Why, don’t you have a liking for the young virgins and for fondling them?’ Jabir also said: Allah’s apostle [Mohammad] said, ‘Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you? [like I did with Ayesha Bint Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq]’ ( Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 17).

Commentary

Where does one begin? First of all, suffice it to say that if perfidious pedophile Mohammad was alive today, he would have been arrested, tried and convicted and sentenced to a long prison term which he would have to serve before his long prison sentence began for his egregious crimes of polygamy!

The Roman Catholic Church forbids polygamy: “The essential properties of Marriage are unity [monogamy] and indissolubility, which obtains a special firmness or stability in Christian Marriage by reason of its being a Sacrament” (Codex Iuris Canonici, 1013, §2). It was against Martin Luther, who, invoking the examples found in the Old Testament, recognized the double marriage of the Landgraf Philip of Hessen, that the Synod of Trent declared that Christians are forbidden by Divine law to have several wives at the one same time: “Canon II. If any one saith, that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by any Divine law; let him be anathema” (Synod of Trent, Session 24, Monday, November 11, 1563, Canon 2).

This Canon of Trent was directed against the usual form of simultaneous polygamy, namely, polygyny, having several wives at one time. Polyandry, in which a woman has several husbands at one time, is prohibited by the natural law because it hinders the primary purpose of marriage. (Cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 124).

Almighty God instituted marriage in the Garden of Paradise, as a monogamous institution: “And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth” (Genesis 1:28).

For the record, the term, increase and multiply, is not a precept, as some Protestants mis-interpret it, but rather it is a blessing, rendering them fruitful, because God had spoken the same words to the fishes, and birds in verse 22 who were incapable of receiving a precept.

But mankind soon lapsed from the original ideal of monogamy: “Mathusael begot Lamech who took two wives: the name of the one was Ada, and the name of the other Sella” (Genesis 4:18-19).

Polygamy was widely extended in the Old Covenant, as for example with Saul and David. It was even recognized in the Jewish Law: “If a man have two wives, one beloved, and the other hated, and they have had children by him, and the son of the hated be the firstborn, and he meaneth to divide his substance among his sons: he may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn, and prefer him before the son of the hated. But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, and shall give him a double portion of all he hath: for this is the first of his children, and to him are due the first birthrights” (Deuteronomy 21:15) This law implies a Divine dispensation.

But God the Son, the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, the Word of God, the Divine Logos, Jesus Christ, restored marriage to its original purity by making it a Sacrament. The Gospel of Saint Matthew records how Christ invoked Genesis 2:24: “And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder” (Matthew 19:3-6).

Jesus Christ declared that the putting away of a wife and the entering into a new marriage to be adultery: “They [the Pharisees] say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery” (Matthew 19:7-9).

This is why in the early days of the Catholic Church one read that “among them wise self-control is found, abstinence is practised, monogamy is observed and chastity is preserved” (Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autol., III, 15).

Speculatively, the rectitude of monogamy is established, by this in that it alone guarantees the fulfilling of all the purposes of marriage, and is a faithful image of Christ’s union with the Catholic Church. (Cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, 65, 1; Summa Contra Gentiles, IV, 78).

Therefore, IF Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah really and truly was a “prophet”, as he self-proclaimed, then “his” god would have known the Scriptures, both of the Old and the New Testaments, and would have known what the true God the Son, the promised Messias of the Old Testament genuine Prophets, had taught concerning monogamy!

In reality, Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah’s ignorance of these things proves that he was a false prophet! He simply set up his own cult, based in large part upon the Hanif cult which he seems to have merely updated so that his updated version would coincide with his own personal whims and lusts, while all the time denying the truths which Jesus Christ, Who said of Himself: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by Me” (John 14:6), taught, especially this Scripture: “He that is not with Me, is against Me: and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth” (Matthew 12:30).

Truth is consistent and does not contradict itself. Mohammad contradicted the teachings of Christ and thus was not WITH Christ, but AGAINST Christ. Mohammad did NOT gather WITH Christ, Mohammad SCATTERED! Mohammad, for example, NEVER cited the Gospel of Saint John in which Christ clearly teaches that “No man cometh to the Father, but by Me [Christ]”. While Mohammad gave mere lip service to Christ, Mohammad ignored the teachings of Christ, thus proving himself to be a false prophet and having the spirit, not only of division, but of anti-Christ, by his failure to teach the SAME truths which Christ had taught.

Truly, truth IS consistent with itself, just as truth does not contradict itself, just as Jesus Christ IS the Truth because He IS God, a truth which Mohammad denied.

Mohammad obviously did not believe God when He said: “I am the Lord and I change not” (Malachias 2:6) because Mohammad changed some of the teachings of Christ, e.g. on monogamy.

Mohammad ignored the Sacred Apostolic Tradition which comes down to us from Jesus Christ and His Apostles, thereby ignoring God the Holy Ghost Who, through the pen of Saint Paul, teaches everyone-including rebellious Mohammad-to “hold the traditions” (2 Thessalonians 2:14).

Once again, pedophile Mohammad, conveniently ignored this Scripture, again from God the Holy Ghost through the pen of Saint Paul: “Be not led away with various and strange doctrines. Jesus Christ yesterday, and today, and the same forever” (Hebrews 13:8-9). On the contrary, Mohammad immersed himself “with various and strange doctrines” on the one hand, while Satanically ignoring “Jesus Christ yesterday, and today, and the same forever”.

On the contrary, “God is truth” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, l16, 5 and II-II, 93, 2 reply to objection 2; Summa Contra Gentiles I, 60) and “Truth cannot be truth's contrary” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles IV, 8) because “Every truth without exception-and whoever may utter it-is from the Holy Ghost” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I-II, 109, 1, Reply Objection 1).

This explains why “the formal motive and object of Faith is first truth as manifested in Holy Scripture and the doctrine of the [Catholic] Church. A person who does not commit himself to the doctrine of the Church, as to a Divine and unerring rule proceeding from the first truth as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, is without the Virtue of Faith; he assents to the truths of Faith in some other manner. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, 53, 3).

But sex pervert Mohammad never assented to the Divine and unerring rule proceeding from the first truth as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and therefore was totally without the Virtue of Faith and, by his Satanic rebellion against the Truth, and especially against Jesus Christ, God the Son, he failed to assent to the truths of the Catholic Faith in any manner whatsoever!

Therefore, the rebellion of Mohammad becomes more sharply defined as you, Dear Reader, better understand the correct application of the above truths about truth which so briefly but so totally and completely prove the falsity of the teachings of Mohammad on this one basic point-the point of Truth, the Immutable Truth of the Immutable God, as it is written: “God is immutable” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, 9, 1), the God Who is Truth: “God is truth” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, l16, 5 and II-II, 93, 2 reply to objection 2; Summa Contra Gentiles I, 60). By the way, it is Our understanding that Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote his Summa Contra Gentiles to confound the errors of Islam!

The bottom line in all of this was clearly asserted in this declaration of the Roman Catholic Church: “Moreover, since one truth cannot contradict another truth, every assertion contrary to the truth of [the Catholic] Faith, We define to be altogether false” (Fifth Lateran Council, [1512-1517], Session 1, Friday, December 19, 1513). In practical terms, this means that ALL assertions by Mohammad and his Islamic followers which “are contrary to the truth of [the Catholic] Faith, We define to be altogether false”! In plain English this simply means that most of the teachings of Islam have been declared “to be altogether false” by the Roman Catholic Church on Friday, December 19, 1513 A.D.! This certainly includes the polygamy of Mohammad with his 34 “wives” (and still counting), not to mention the polygamy he teaches through his cult of Islam in which Islamic men can have up to four wives!

Part 6 - Additional Data About Mohammad

More Biograhical Data About Mohammad

The following gives all of us some additional details about Mohammad. It is taken from the English biography of Mohammad by Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, pages 212-213, which is itself an English translation of the recension of Ibn Hisham which is a re-written biography of the early Islamic scholar, Muhammad Ibn Ishaq Ibn Yasar Ibn Khiyar, a.k.a. Ibn Ishaq [born in Medina in 704 A.D. - 767 A.D.], entitled Sirat Rasul Allah. For the record, Alfred Guillaume [1888-1965] was a British Orientalist. He had been a Professor of Arabic at the School of Oriental and African Studies and had also been the head of the Department of the Near and Middle East at the University of London.

Muhammad Ibn Ishaq Ibn Yasar Ibn Khiyar was the earliest person to write the most comprehensive and most important biography of Muhammad, Sirat Rasullullah, a.k.a. Sirat Rasul Allah. What is available today is really the recension of Ibn Hisham who died 60 years after Ibn Ishaq. Ibn Hisham said that he edited this biography and omitted certain details which he thought were too offensive to Islamics! Alfred Guillaume [1888-1965] translated this edition into The Life of Muhammad and tried to reconstruct Ibn Ishaq’s manuscript by using quotations from other Islamic scholars. This biography provides one of the most important sources of Mohammad’s life.
From The Life of Muhammad

The Apostle [Mohammad] Receives the Order to Fight

“The apostle [i.e. Mohammad] had not been given permission to fight or allowed to shed blood before the second Aqaba [a place where a pledge was made between Mohammad and his group of followers who were from Medina]. He had simply been ordered to call men to God and to endure insult and forgive the ignorant. The Quraysh [a group of leaders of the people of Mecca], had persecuted his followers, seducing some from their religion and exiling others from their country. They had to choose whether to give up their religion, be maltreated at home, or to flee the country, some to Abyssinia [Ethiopia], others to Medina.”

“When Quraysh became insolent towards God and rejected His gracious purpose, accused His prophet [Mohammad] of lying, and ill treated and exiled those who served Him and proclaimed His unity, believed in His prophet and held fast to His religion, He gave permission to His apostle [Mohammad] to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them and treated them badly.”

“[a] The meaning is ‘I have allowed them to fight only because they have been unjustly treated while their sole offense against men has been that they worship God. When they are in the ascendant they will establish prayer, pay the poor-tax, enjoin kindness, and forbid iniquity, i.e., the prophet and his companions all of them.” The God sent down to him: “Fight them so that there be no more seduction,’ [b] i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s,’, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.”

“Note: two passages from the Qur’an are referenced: [a] Sura 22:39-41, which I did not quote, and [b] Sura 2:193.” (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, pages 212-213.)

Commentary
Please note two critical points.

1. The first point is that while he was still in Mecca, where he, i.e. Mohammad was weak, he attacked no one. He only preached his religion and insulted the various pagan religions of the people of Mecca. But it was just before he left for Medina, where he had a small number of armed men to support him, that he received this “revelation” and began to use violence to further his goals. Islamic history shows that as the Moslems grew in power their forms of violence changed from criminal terrorism to outright warfare.

2. At the end of the quotation, it says that Moslems are to fight those that do not worship their “Allah” (god). When reading this passage from Ibn Ishaq, Mohammad is made to appear to be long suffering and primarily fighting in self defense, and that up until just before Mohammad’s departure to Medina, the Meccan persecution was tolerable, but that it became so bad that Mohammad was finally given permission to fight back.

But there is a big problem with this scenario. Why? Because before this: 1) Mohammad had been severely persecuted; and, 2) Islamics had been abused long before their departure to various places. In other words, the quoted passage is an apologetic work on the part of Ibn Ishaq. Earlier, long before the Treaty of Aqaba, things were going so bad for Mohammad that he went to a town called Taif to seek the help and protection of those people [per Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, page 192].

But the Taifians rejected Mohammad and reviled him. As a matter of fact, things went so bad for Mohammad that when he was still in Mecca, Mohammad had to beg three men for their protection [per Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, page 194]!

In Mecca, Mohammad continued to proclaim himself as a prophet. As a result, he was abused all the more by the people and city fathers of Mecca. It is interesting to not that Mohammad never received any “revelations” to flee Mecca at that time. But, just as in the case of Adolph Hitler, Mohammad’s persistence paid off. A group of feuding Arabs who lived in Medina accepted him as their prophet. They hoped he could help them to maintain peace. They eventually made a pledge to support Mohammad in a war against the Quraysh [per Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, page 205]. When Mohammad received this pledge of support, for the first time he had a group of followers who were both able-bodied and well-armed.

It is critically important to realize that 1) it was not until Mohammad had followers who were able-bodied and well-armed and who could defend themselves, and, 2) it was not until the remainder of the followers of Mohammad from Mecca were migrating north to Medina, and, 3) it was not until Mohammad knew that he himself was going to leave Mecca; that 4) suddenly his “Allah” gave Mohammad a “revelation” (which just “happened” to coincide with a major epileptic seizure which Mohammad had) to fight those who opposed Mohammad. In reality, Mohammad’s circumstances had changed and so it is not surprising to see that Muhammad’s “Allah” had changed with them! Thus it came about that Mohammad went from being a humble, meek, placid teacher to being a blood-thirsty aggressor.

Early Terrorist Acts of Mohammad

After Mohammad moved to Medina, aggresive Mohammad began to have conflicts with the Jews and the pagans in that area. Below are several episodes, not necessarily in chronological order, which illustrate that Mohammad acted as a terrorist by approving of certain acts which others committed on his behalf, sometimes on his direct orders or command, and which terrorists he later congratulated and then put the seal of his approval on their acts of terrorism!. One terrorist incident involved Mohammad’s command to his followers to “kill any Jew that comes under your power”.

Mohammad’s Terrorist Act # 1

Mohammad Commanded Mohammadan Terrorist Muhayyisa Bin Masud to Kill Jews
So Terrorist Muhayyisa Bin Masud Killed Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish Merchant

“The apostle [i.e. Mohammad] said, ‘Kill any Jew that comes under your power’. Thereupon Muhayyisa Bin Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, ‘You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?’ Muhayyisa answered, ‘Had the one [Mohammad] who ordered me to kill him [Ibn Sunavna] ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off’” (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, page 369).

This account is also substantiated by this Islamic source: “Narrated Muhayyisah: The Apostle [Mohammad] of Allah said: ‘If you gain a victory over the men of the Jews, kill them.’ So Muhayyisah jumped over Shubaybah, a man of the Jewish merchants. He had close relations with them. He then killed him. At that time Huwayyisah (a brother of Muhayyisah) had not embraced Islam. He was older than Muhayyisah. When he killed him, Huwayyisah beat him and said: ‘O enemy of Allah, I swear by Allah, you have a good deal of fat in your belly from his property’ (Sunan of Abu Dawud, Book 19, Number 2996).

Commentary

Moslem terrorist Muhayyisa Bin Masud killed Ibn Sunayna, a Jew, because: 1) Mohammad had commanded his Moslem terrorists to kill Jews: “If you gain a victory over the men of the Jews, kill them” (Sunan of Abu Dawud, Book 19, Number 2996); 2) Ibn Sunayna was a Jew and therefore, Muhayyisa Bin Masud, who was “just following Mohammad’s orders”, killed this Jew.

This murder was committed as the result of an explicit order by Mohammad. To put this into perspective, it would be as if on Monday, September 10, 2001, if Mohammad were alive, he would had instructed a group of Moslem suicide-bombers to hijack four airplanes the next day, Tuesday, September 11, 2001, and fly one into the north tower of the World Trade Building and fly another one into the south tower of the World Trade Building and fly another into the Pentegon and fly another either into the White House or the U.S. Capitol Building!

Certainly there are many Mohammadans who have chosen to disobey the founder of their cult and have chosen not to kill anyone. On the other hand, historically some Moslems have in fact obeyed this command of Mohammad to kill Jews.

Also, please note that Moslem Terrorist Muhayyisa Bin Masud would have killed his own brother, Huwayyisa, a.k.a. Huwayyisah, who was an Arab, IF Mohammad would have commanded Muhayyisa Bin Masud to kill his very own Arab brother!

The above quotations from Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, page 369, and from the Sunan of Abu Dawud, Book 19, Number 2996, seem to portray Mohammad as an organized crime boss who ran an organized crime family of terrorists under the guise of a religious cult! He ordered his armed terrorists to wantonly murder not just Jewish people, but whoever Mohammad would tell them to kill, even a family member who was not a Jew but an Arab! Contemporary butchers Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin both imitated at least the spirit of Mohammad. Hitler imitated Mohammad by ordering millions of people killed, especially Jews. Stalin, who de facto killed over 8 million Catholic Ukrainians, not to mention large numbers of others, including Jews, also imitated Mohammad in this regard!

But Jesus Christ, Who is greater than any prophet, because He IS the promised Messias of the Old Testament prophecies, and He IS “the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in contradistinction to teaching and otherwise approving of unrestrained murder like Mohammad, teaches instead that “from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. These are the things that defile a man” (Matthew 15:19-20).

“And behold one came and said to Him [Christ]: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? Who said to him: Why asketh thou Me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into [eternal] life, keep the Commandments. He said to Him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness” (Matthew 19:16-18).

WHERE is it to be found that Mohammad taught each one of HIS followers if thou wilt enter into [eternal] life, keep the Commandments???

WHERE is it to be found that Mohammad taught his followers: Thou shalt do no murder???, especially when he taught the contrary, namely, Kill any Jew that comes under your power (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, page 369) and If you gain a victory over the men of the Jews, kill them (Sunan of Abu Dawud, Book 19, Number 2996). Here are two different sources which relate basically the same thing.

Either these sources are in error or they are not. If they are in error, they need to be corrected. If they are not in error, then Mohammad DID teach his followers to kill, especially Jews! In order to try to ascertain the veracity of the above direct quotations, let us now consider more examples in order to try to ascertain if the said sources are in error, or if Mohammad actually did these things which these sources claim he did.

Mohammad’s Terrorist Acts # 2, 3 and 4

2) The siege of Qaynuqa
3) Killing of Kab Ashraf
4) Attack upon Qurayzah

Some of you may wish to downplay Mohammad’s Terrorist Act # 1 by claiming that Moslem terrorist Muhayyisa Bin Masud, who killed the Jew, Ibn Sunayna, misunderstood the command of Mohammad to “Kill any Jew that comes under your power”?

To those who may wish to downplay this murder of Ibn Sunayna as a mere “misunderstanding”, or, at worse, a random act of violence, and not really the official policy of Mohammad, We present the following quotation from an Islamic scholar: “It is remarkable that tradition attributes Muhammad’s most cruel acts to divine order, namely the siege of Qaynuqa, the murder of Kab, and the attack upon Qurayzah. Allah’s conscience seems to be more elastic than that of his creatures”...Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi report that the prophet [Mohammad] said the morning after the murder [of Kab Ashraf], ‘Kill any Jew you can lay your hands on’” (Wensinck, “Muhammad and the Jews of Medina”, page 113).

Commentary

This same incident is also documented in Tabari’s History, page 97 of volume 7. This shows that Mohammad had unsuspecting people, even those who had good relations with Islamics, murdered in cold blood because they were Jewish . There was no justification to murder these Jews other than they were not Mohammad’s followers. These actions were the work of Mohammad’s family of Moslem terrorists whose stock-in-trade consisted of committing murder. One is left to wonder how many people were murdered by Mohammad’s Moslem terrorists at their siege of Qaynuqa and their attack upon Qurayzah.

Once again, We bring forth the testimony of the New and Eternal Testament concerning the teachings of Christ concerning the Jews wanting to kill Him within the context of the claim of Christ to be the Son of God:

“I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill Me, because My word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with My Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father. They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not. You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God. Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of Myself, but He sent Me: Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. But if I say the truth, you believe Me not. Which of you shall convince [convict] Me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me? He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God. The Jews therefore answered, and said to him: Do not we say well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? Jesus answered: I have not a devil: but I honour My Father, and you have dishonoured Me. But I seek not My own glory: there is One that seeketh and judgeth. Amen, amen I say to you: If any man keep My word, he shall not see death for ever. The Jews therefore said: Now we know that Thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and Thou sayest: If any man keep My word, he shall not taste death for ever. Art Thou greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? and the prophets are dead. Whom dost thou make Thyself? Jesus answered: If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing. It is My Father that glorifieth Me, of whom you say that He is your God. And you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I shall say that I know Mim not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know him, and do keep his word. Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see My day: he saw it, and was glad. The Jews therefore said to Him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple” (John 8:37-59).

WHERE do you find anywhere that Mohammad claimed to be God the Son? Nowhere, because this implies belief in the Blessed Trinity, something which Mohammad rejected! Therefore, you will never find Mohammad saying, as did Christ:

I speak that which I have seen with My Father. Mohammad never claimed to speak of the things which he had seen with God the Father because Mohammad had never seen or been with God the Father. Mohammad could not even use the term the context clearly indicates, namely MY Father, because Mohammad never claimed to be the Son of God the Father!

For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of Myself, but He sent Me. “Proceeded” is a technical term which means “to be begotten”. Mohammad never claimed that he “proceeded” or was “begotten” from God the Father.

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. Mohammad, to the best of Our knowledge, did not tell the Jews or anyone else who contended with him or who mocked him, that they were of their father the devil.

Mohammad, the ace-pro cafeteria pick and choose scriptures, doctrines and other beliefs according to your own personal prejudices and whims chooser, certainly would never have chosen to include in his teachings how the devil was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. This would have undermined his own orders to his gangs of terrorists and other followers to kill and to murder innocent people. The diabolical nature of murder would be too strong and too clear for Mohammad to overcome if he were to have chosen this particular Scripture to teach his gangs of terrorist murderers! The false prophet Mohammad would have ironically and de facto imputed to himself what Christ had said about the devil being a liar if Mohammad had chosen that particular Scripture!

Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. Using the expression I AM, Christ clearly claimed to be God because, when Moses asked God what His Name was, God replied “I AM”! This is why the reaction of the Jews was so violent because they all realized that Christ was telling them that He was in fact God! They took up stones therefore to cast at him. Of course Mohammad, who claimed only to be a prophet, and not God, could never utter these same words as had Jesus Christ!

Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see My day: he saw it, and was glad. But Mohammad could never say this in truth because IF what you and We read in these various sources about Mohammad are true, namely that he was in fact a murderer and that he did in fact command his terrorist members to commit murder, then, instead, Mohammad would have had to say in all truth to the Arabs: Abraham your father was horrified when he saw the day on which I was born: he saw it, and was horribly saddened, angered and enraged. Why was this? Because, among other cogent reasons, Mohammad attributed his most cruel acts to God!

Mohammad’s Terrorist Acts # 5 and 6

5) Terrorist Mohammad Killed al-Harith Bin Suwayd Bin Samit

6) Moslem Terrorist Salim Bin Umayr Killed Abu Afak at the Instigation of Mohammad
Another terrorist incident involves another one of Mohammad’s commands. This was for one his
terrorists, Salim Bin Umayr, to murder an old Jewish man by the name of name of Abu Afak. Abu Afak was 120 years old at this time. Afak had urged his fellow Medinans to question Mohammad after Mohammad had killed al-Harith Bin Suwayd Bin Samit.

“Abu Afak had displayed disaffection when Mohammad killed al-Harith Bin.Suwayd Bin Samit by saying: ‘Long have I lived but never have I seen an assembly or collection of people more faithful to their undertaking and their allies when called upon than the sons of Qayla when they assembled, men who overthrew mountains and never submitted, a rider who came to them split them in two (saying) “Permitted”, “Forbidden”, of all sorts of things. Had you believed in glory or kingship You would have followed Tubba’ [a ruler from Yemen who invaded what is currently Saudi Arabia; the Qaylites resisted him]. The apostle [Mohammad] said: ‘Who will deal with this rascal [Abu Afak] for me?’ Whereupon Salim Bin Umayr, the brother of B. Amr b. Auf, one of the weepers, went forth and killed him. Umama b. Muzayriya said concerning that: ‘You gave the lie to God’s religion and the man Ahmad! [Mohammad]. By him who was your father, evil is the son he produced! A Hanif gave you a thrust in the night saying ‘Take that Abu Afak in spite of your age!’ Though I knew whether it was man or jinn who slew you in the dead of night (I would say naught)” (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, page 675). This established the immoral precedent that anyone who would dare to question Mohammad would be killed!

Additional information about the killing of Abu Afak by the Moslem terrorist, Salim Bin Umayr, is to be found in this source: “Then occurred the ‘sariyyah’ [raid] of Salim Bin Umayr, a.k.a. Salim Ibn Umayr al-Amri, against Abu Afak the Jew, in [the month of] Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijrah [immigration from Mecca to Medina in 622 AD], of the Apostle [Mohammad] of Allah. Abu Afak, was from Banu Amr Ibn Awf and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle [Mohammad] of [his] Allah, and composed (satirical) verses [about Mohammad]. Salim Ibn Umayr who was one of the great weepers and who had participated in Badr, said, ‘I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu Afak or die before him.’ He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people who were his followers, rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him” (Ibn Sa’d, “Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir” [Book of the Major Classes], Volume 2, page 32).

A contemporary Islamic scholar writes: “Abu Afak, a man of great age (reputedly 120 years) was killed because he had lampooned Mohammad. The deed was done by Salem b. Omayr at the behest of the Prophet [Mohammad], who had asked, ‘Who will deal with this rascal for me?’ The killing of such an old man moved a poetess, Asma b. Marwan, to compose disrespectful verses about the Prophet [Mohammad], and she too was assassinated” (Ali Dashti, “23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad”, page 100).

Prior to listing all of the assassinations which the terrorist Mohammad had ordered, Ali Dashti writes: “Thus Islam was gradually transformed from a purely spiritual mission into a militant and punitive organization whose progress depended on booty from raids and revenue from the zakat tax”(Ali Dashti, “23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad”, page 97).

Commentary

Here is yet another man was murdered because of a command of Mohammad. The murdered man was 120 years old and was obviously no physical threat to Mohammad. Neither had he urged the people to commit violent acts against Mohammad in particular or the Islamics in general. There was no discussion with Jewish leaders, there was no interrogation of Abu Afak. The act was cold-blooded murder of but another one of Mohammad’s growing list of critics by a sneaky Moslem terrorist.

Afak had urged the people who lived in Medina to question and then to leave Mohammad and his made-up cult. Afak discovered that Mohammad’s sayings were strange and dictatorial. He chided the Arabs that put their faith in Mohammad. Mohammad heard about this and considered this 120 year old man to be a threat to his credibility, not to his personal life, but the life of his Satanic cult of butchers. Nowhere does it say that Afak urged his fellow Arabs to attack or to harm Mohammad or his followers. Yet, for speaking his mind for the benefit of his friends, this old man was murdered by the command of the first Moslem terrorist, Mohammad!

You will recall that the last statement in Umama b. Muzayriya’s verse reveals something else of interest: “Take that Abu Afak in spite of your age! Though I knew whether it was man or jinn who slew you in the dead of night (I would say naught)” (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, page 675). This statement proves that Moslem Terrorist Salim Bin Umayr knew exactly what he was doing. He knew it was cold-blooded murder that he committed as the result of Mohammad’s command. His bother killers wanted to keep this secret because they desired to conceal their evil deeds from the public. That’s why Umama said he wouldn’t reveal who murdered Afak.

If We were to ask you, “What kind of person do you think orders his followers to commit cold-blooded murder?”, you would most probably think of an organized crime boss giving orders to the members of his terrorist crime family? Perhaps the movie The Godfather comes to mind? Or, perhaps the leader of a country comes to mind, like Saddam Hussein?

Ask yourself: “How would an Iraqi be treated if he spoke out against Saddam or against Mohammmad?” Amnesty International recently reported that over 1500 political prisoners were executed in Iraq in one year. Consider another despot like the late Ayatollah Khomenni of Iran. This Moslem terrorist, who was the head of a fundamentalist Moslem regime, had other dissident Iranians murdered all over the world, not to mention the American hostages who were held in captivity until the last day President Carter was President.

Ask yourself: “How would an Iranian be treated if he spoke out against Ayatollah Khomenni or against Mohammad?” “How would any other Islamic, living in any other country, e.g. Saudi Arabia, be treated if he or she spoke out against Mohammad or questioned the teachings of Islamism?”

Even more basic than this, which Islamic country is a true democracy? Turkey, of course, is trying to be a democracy, but Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc. are in no way democracies! Their mentality seems to be stuck in a Moslem time warp and can’t seem to extricate itself from the days of Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah. Or, to put it in another less glamorous way, to cite Rush Limbaugh on one of his recently syndicated radio programs, referring to the Moslem terrorists in Afghanistan, “We are not bombing them back into the Stone Age; we are bombing them forward into the Stone Age!”

And, of course, because of the attack against America on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 A.D., there is Moslem Terrorist Number One, Mujahid Usamah Bin Ladin, a.k.a. Osamah Bin Ladin, a.k.a. USAma Bin Ladin, a.k.a. Osama Bin Ladin.

Such blood-thirsty, murderous Moslems as Mujahid Usamah Bin Ladin, represent exactly what the first Moslem terrorist, Mohammad, was all about! As you read here about the many murders for which Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah is directly responsible, because of his direct commands to his terrorist murdering agents, or, those for which he is indirectly responsible because of his general policy of murder, killing and other mahem, you will no doubt see that the murderous terrorist spirit of Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah is alive and well, although perhaps not for very much longer, in the person of Mujahid Usamah Bin Ladin! Both men seem to be possessed by a Satanic spirit. When one considers the “fruits” of these two terrorists, there can be no question that both of them are murderous terrorists!

Thus, all of the present-day Moslem terrorists follow Mohammad’s methodology: Kill those who are a threat to your credibility and power over others, not to mention those whom you consider to be your enemies. So, as Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah looks up from the depths of the fiery furnace in which his soul is eternally tormented in Hell, without one second of respite, he must be real proud of his Satanic Moslem “son”, Mujahid Usamah Bin Ladin, whose place of eternal punishment in Hell Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah is keeping “nice and warm for him”, because it is right next to his own Hellish hole!

The incident cited above involves Mohammad’s demand for his gang of terrorists to murder a women by the name of Asma Bint Marwan. You will discover that Alfred Guillaume writes about her below under Our section entitled: Mohammad’s Terrorist Act # 7, Mohammad’s Command to Kill Asma Bint Marwan.

But before We go to Mohammad’s Terrorist Act # 7, it is first necessary to explain what the zakat tax is. To refresh your memory, here is the source with his quotation which We gave above: “Thus Islam was gradually transformed from a purely spiritual mission into a militant and punitive organization whose progress depended on booty from raids and revenue from the zakat tax”(Ali Dashti, “23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad”, page 97).

So what is the zakat tax? We have been given to understand that one of the five pillars of Islamism is the requirement that every Islamic must contribute to the Islamic charity which some seem to classify as nothing more than an “alms”

One Islamic source on the Internet seems to give the impression that they are embarrassed to have to explain what the zakat is. This is the convoluted definition they give of zakat without explaining anything to which they make reference in their definition thus leading not only to an unanswered questioned, but additional questions based upon their seemingly deliberately ambiguous and incriminating answer: “Zakat, alms. This is a prescription which is practiced in very different ways in Islam today.”

Please note that no explanation is given of why and what makes the zakat “a prescription” nor do they bother to explain what exactly their sibylline statement really means when they verbally dance around their self-made straw-man of deliberate ambiguity by saying something which really says nothing, to wit: “which is practiced in very different ways in Islam today.” Does this latter mean that there is a uniform way in which it is practiced today in the Islamic world which is totally different from the way it was practiced during the days of Mohammad? Or, does it mean that there are many divergent ways in which it is practiced today by different groups of Islamics, which may or may not coincide with the one way it was originally practiced in the days of Mohammad? Also, how was it historically practiced during the days of Mohammad? Since the zakat is claimed to be one of the “five pillars” of Islamism, it is obviously very important. IF it really is important, than why did the source in which We found the above quotation not take it seriously and give a much more precise definition of it?

However, another Islamic source on the Internet is more forthcoming. Because the context in which it is found also refers to the “five pillars”, We cite the context to both get a more precise understanding of what zakat is and what the “five pillars” are, one of which is the zakat. Here is what this source states about the “five pillars”, one of which includes the all-important zakat. By the way, the zakat is all-important or it would not be one of the “five pillars”!

Here is the quotation:

Islamic beliefs and practices: Muslims follow a lunar calendar which started with the hegira, a 300 mile trek in 622 CE when Muhammad (pbuh) relocated from Mecca to Medina. A Muslim’s duties as described in the Five Pillars of Islam are:

1. To recite at least once during their lifetime the shahadah (the creed: “There is no God but God and Muhammad is his Prophet”). Most Muslims repeat it at least daily.

2. To perform the salat (prayer) 5 times a day, if possible. This is recited while orienting one’s body towards Mecca. It is done in the morning, at noon, mid-afternoon, after sunset and just before sleeping.

3. To donate regularly to charity through zakat. This is a 2.5% charity tax on the income and property of middle and upper class Muslims. Believers are urged to make additional donations to the needy as they feel moved.

4. To fast during the month of Ramadan. This is believed to be the month that Muhammad (pbuh) received the first revelation of the Qur’an from God.

5. If economically and physically able, to make at least one hajj (pilgrimage) to Mecca .

So the zakat is a charity tax. But number 3 above makes it sound like it is not necessarily obligatory but discretionary by the use of the term “donate”. Yet such is NOT the case as you will soon discover!

We understand that according to the Qur’an, the obligatory Zakat tax money MUST be used for the following purposes:

1. For the Fuqara poor. These are poor people who do not beg for financial support.
2. For the Masakin poor. These are poor people who do beg for financial support.
3. For those who administer the collection and distribution of the zakat tax money.
4. For those who may be enticed to Islamism as well as new converts who need financial support.
5. For those Islamic slaves who may have their freedom purchased.
6. For those Islamics who are fighting in the “Cause of Allah”, e.g., the Mujahideen.
7. For Islamic travelers who need assistance while on a journey.

Purpose number six of the obligatory zakat tax money is to support those who fight for the “Cause of Allah” Exactly what the “Cause of Allah” happens to be is found in the Qur’an which states that “Allah’s Cause” entails supporting Mujahideen or those who are fighting in the battles and wars of Allah. Therefore, it is no wonder that ALL Islamic charitable organizations ARE REQUIRED by Islamic law to send part of the obligatory zakat tax money to Islamic organizations who fight in the “Cause of Allah” because if there were some Islamic charitable organizations which did NOT do this, they would sin against or otherwise violate their sacred duty as Islamics as found in part of their “bible”, i.e. the Qur’an, a.k.a. Koran.

The problem is that the “Cause of Allah” entails supporting the Mujahideen. But the Mujahideen are militant military organizations, and at least some of these militant organizations are Moslem terrorist organizations, such as the al-Qaida organization headed by the FBI’s Most Wanted Criminal, the Mohammmandan, Usama Bin Laden. In reality, what this means that, whether knowingly or unknowingly, AMERICAN Islamics who pay the zakat tax money are partly financing terrorist Usama Bin Laden and his al-Qaida organization!

This explains WHY the United States government is in the process of investigating at least some, and hopefully ALL, of the Islamic charitable organizations based here in the United States! How much zakat tax money from the Islamics in the United States actually financed the Moslem terrorists in their attack against America and their declaration of war against the United States of America on Tuesday, September 11, 2001?

It seems to Us that ALL Islamic charitable organizations need to be investigated around the world to see how much money they have actually given, in virtue of the zakat tax, to ALL Islamic militant military organizations, including Moslem terrorists!

The hadith of al-Bukhari in its section on Zakat informs us that Khalid did not have to pay the Zakat tax money because he kept his armor dedicated to the “Cause of Allah”. Armor is used for battle and not for charitable purposes as normally understood by non-Islamics.

“Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle (p.b.u.h) ordered (a person) to collect Zakat, and that person returned and told him that Ibn Jamil, Khalid bin Al-Walid, and Abbas bin ‘Abdul Muttalib had refused to give Zakat.” The Prophet said, “What made Ibn Jamll refuse to give Zakat though he was a poor man, and was made wealthy by Allah and His Apostle? But you are unfair in asking Zakat from Khalid as he is keeping his armor for Allah’s Cause (for Jihad). As for Abbas bin ‘Abdul Muttalib, he is the uncle of Allah’s Apostle (p.b.u.h) and Zakat is compulsory on him and he should pay it double” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Obligatory Charity Tax - Zakat, Volume 2, Book 24, Number 547

The Qur’an (Koran) indicates that a portion of the obligatory Zakat tax must be used for militant Moslem terrorist objectives. An article in the New York Times states:

“Terrorist groups rely on contributions from wealthy religious conservatives in the Persian Gulf as well as from money diverted from the zakat -- the mosque collection plate -- on several continents. Money is often funneled through reputable charities into the hands of operatives. For instance, the World Trade Center bombing [of 1993] was financed through money coming from the Alkifah Refugee Center in Brooklyn. And the system of funneling money through charities has improved greatly since then” (Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, The New Face of Terrorism, New York Times, January 4, 2000).

Mohammad’s Terrorist Act # 7

Mohammad’s Command to Kill Asma Bint Marwan

“She was of B. Umayyya b. Zayd. When Abu Afak had been killed she displayed disaffection. Abdullah b. al-Harith b. Al-Fudayl from his father said that she was married to a man of B. Khatma called Yazid b. Zayd. Blaming Islam and its followers she said:”

“‘I despise B. Malik and al-Nabit and Auf and B. Al-Khazraj. You obey a stranger who is none of yours, One not of Murad or Madhhij. Do you expect good from him after the killing of your chiefs Like a hungry man waiting for a cook’s broth? Is there no man of pride who would attack him by surprise and cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him?’”

“Hassan b. Thabit answered her: ‘Banu Wa’il and B. Waqif and Khatma are inferior to B. Al-Khazraj. When she called for folly woe to her in her weeping, For death is coming. She stirred up a man of glorious origin, Noble in his going out and in his coming in. Before midnight he dyed her in her blood And incurred no guilt thereby.”

When the apostle [Mohammad] heard what she had said he said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle [Mohammad] and told him what he had done and he [Mohammad] said, ‘You have helped God and His apostle [me], O Umayr!’ When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle [Mohammad] said, ‘Two goats won’t butt their heads about her’, so Umayr went back to his people.”

“Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [girl] Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle [Mohmmmad] he said, ‘I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don’t keep me waiting.’ That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was Umayr b. Adiy who was called the ‘Reader’, and Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam” (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, pages 675 and 676.).

The Sariyyah (Raid) of the Moslem Terrorist
Umayr Ibn Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi
Against Asma Bint Marwan

“Then (occurred) the sariyyah [raid] of Umayr ibn adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against Asma Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle [Mohammad] of [his] Allah. Asma was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet [Mohammad] at al-Medina. The apostle [Mohammmad] of [his] Allah said to him: ‘Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?’ He said: ‘Yes. Is there something more for me to do?’ He [Mohammad] said: ‘No two goats will butt together about her.’ This was the word that was first heard from the apostle [Mohammad] of [his] Allah. The apostle [Mohammad] of [his] Allah called him Umayr, ‘basir’ (the seeing).” (Ibn Sa’d, “Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir” [Book of the Major Classes], Volume 2, page 31).

Commentary

Mohammad had al-Harith Bin Suwayd Bin Samit killed. This terrorist murder upset Abu Afak, so much so that he spoke out against it. Therefore, Mohammad had Abu Afak murdered by one of his Moslem terrorists. This offended Asma Bint Marwan and she spoke out against that terrorist murder. She encouraged her fellow tribesmen to take action against the terrorist killer Mohammad. When Mohammad heard what she had said, he ordered another one of his Moslem terrorists to kill her also! Although at first glance, some might take the position that Mohammad’s order to kill Asma might be justifiable since Asma was calling for someone to kill the Moslem terrorist Mohammad. It is understandable for Mohammad to be concerned that someone would want HIM killed-but, of course, it was OK for terrorist Mohammad to order the murder of anyone HE wanted killed!

However, we all need to look deeper at the murder of Asma Bint Marwan and also to examine the actual context of Asma Bint Marwan’s relationship to her tribe.

1. Asma Bint Marwan has seen murderer Mohammad in action. She had seen him for what he was, a cold blooded terrorist murderer. Of course she spoke out against such a butcher! Would you not also do the same thing (unless you happen to be repressed and live in a non-democratic Moselm country)?

2. Her tribe was not under the rule of Mohammad. Perhaps they had a treaty with Mohammad, but perhaps not? Either way, this women was free to speak her mind. If a treaty existed, and if Mohammad thought that she was out of line, Mohammad could have complained to her tribe’s leaders, and they could have commanded her to be silent or to otherwise deal with the situation.

3. What is more noteworthy about her cold-blooded murder is that after she was murdered, Muhammad said “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her”. This means that no one will care about her death, except for her children and her family. In addition, there were already people from her own tribe who had become Islamics. Certainly these people were not going to listen to her. So the issue here is that if no one really cared about her being savagely murdered by a Moslem terrorist, then no one really cared about what she had to say. Plus, her people also knew that Mohammad had Abu Afak assasinated by one of his gang of terrorists, and they didn’t care about that either. So then in such light no one would have taken her seriously enough to listen to her urgings to kill Mohammad the murderer who was the leader of a powerful gang of armed terrorists. None of her people were willing to put their lives on the line for her words. So then, the bottom line is that Asma Bint Marwan was not a legitimate threat to Mohammad. She didn’t scare him because she was not the leader of her tribe and she had little or no influence with her own people. She was nothing more than a mere nuisance to him. Also, one might wonder why murderous Mohammad didn’t kill her himself? But, of course, it was always easier for terrorist killer Mohammad to have someone else do his killing for him.

Looking at this in a contemporary situation, consider how throughout the Middle East there are radical Moslems who call the United States of America the Great Satan.. These fanatic Moslems have called for the violent destruction of the United States of America. Frequently great crowds have gathered to chant “Death to America!”, or, “Death to President Bush!” At times these Moslem terrorists have even murdered Americans, especially the 6,000 or so Americans who were killed by the Moslem terrorist attack against American on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 A.D.!

Now, if the United States of America, or President Bush, or Tony Blair of Great Britain, were to use Mohammad’s standards, they would engage in the killing every Islamic they could track down, be it in the United States, Great Britain, Western Europe, the Middle East, the Far East, or anyplace else on planet earth, simply because Islamics had criticized America and therefore America could justify its action by appealing to Mohammad’s standards of how to treat those who criticized him.

But we all should realize that the mantras chanted by a crowd of hot-heads does not necessitate the use of violence against them. There are better ways to deal with critics and criticisms. Frequently, in the passion of youth, people do and say things they don’t intend to act out, or are not able to carry out. Given time, people can change, and pursue peaceful dialog. But the point is that if one applied Mohammad’s standards, American would be justified in using nuclear bombs to totally destroy Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc., etc.!!!

But now that America has not only been verbally criticized, but actually attacked by a cowardly bunch of Moslem terrorists, America, using the identical standards established by the first Moslem terrorist, Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah, would need to totally destroy all Islamic countries and kill every Islamic on the face of the earth by any and all means, using any and all weapons!

But America has wisely chosen NOT to use and apply the identical standards for terrorism established by the first Satanic Moslem terrorist, MAD-man Mohammad.

Returning now to the cold-blooded murder of Asma Bint Marwan at the orders of Mohammad, the only conclusion is that this lady troubled Mohammad and he wanted her silenced. Again, like Abu Afak, she was murdered in the night while she slept. What type of person murders those that sleep? Criminal terrorists! Perhaps the cowardly butcher of Tuesday, September 11, 2001 A.D., Mujahid Usamah Bin Ladin, will be killed while HE sleeps?

The irony is that, just like his mentor, Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah, terrorist Mujahid Usamah Bin Ladin and his own gangs of international terrorists, try to exculpate their murderous rampages by claiming that such is the will of God! In this way do they attempt to “legalize” both their disposition to violence and their use of indiscriminate terrorist-type violence, frequently resulting in the murder of innocent people. They have devalued the life of each human being to such an extent that they place little, if any, value even on their own lives!

We would remind such savage beasts that Almighty God forbids cold-blooded murder, the kind at which they are the experts with a long history of personal experience! The Fifth Commandment does not make a request, on the contrary it commands: “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17). It should be self-evident that picky cafeteriaholic Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah, who did pick and choose whatever appealed to his schizoid whims, would conveniently ignore the Ten Commandments, especially this one which forbids murder, not to mention lots of other things in both the Old Testament and the New Testament!

But Almighty God commands that each one of us must obey His God-given Ten Commandments. For example, He commands: “Keep My Commandments...I am the Lord Thy God” (Leviticus 18:30). God the Holy Ghost reminds all of us that “whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (James 2:10).

Consider Umayr who is a perfect example of this proclivity towards terroristic murders. He is a Moslem, a friend of Mohammad and obeying a command of Mohammad by becoming a burglar who surreptitiously enters a woman’s home under the cover of darkness. This terrorist finds the woman who is sleeping in her bed with her child and, with no thought of the consequences, namely that he is committing a mortal sin for which he will burn in the eternal fires of Hell, he kills her by thrusting his sword through her body.

Afterwards, Mohammad tells this terrorist, who has just committed the mortal sin of murder, that he has “helped God and his apostle”. If his “Allah” was really threatened by this woman, his “Allah” could have killed her himself! Or, is his “Allah” so weak that he needs to rely on a sword-brandishing pervert to sneak around in the darkness of the night to murder a helpless, sleeping women?!

By their own works you can see for yourself what kind of organized crime cult Moslemism itself really is! Soon after Umayr murdered Asma, he went to her family and mocked them! This jackal laughed in their faces that he had murdered their mother and that they were powerless to do anything about it! Here is the quote again:

“She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle [Mohammad] he said: ‘I have killed Bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand [fight] me if you can; don’t keep me waiting.’”

Moslemism claims it is a powerful force. Here is the quote: “That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma...The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.”

So then, based upon this, would you not certainly get the idea that the power of Moslemism is to go around murdering defenseless, sleeping women in the dark of night, and get away with it? It sounds as if for the Moslem terrorists, the end justifies the means? Apparently Moslem terrorists believe that whoever has the biggest sword or gun or airplane is from “his” Allah?

The only people in a civilized society who admire that kind of sadistic power are criminals. Criminals who go out in the night and murder people while they sleep. And the source for such a bloody precedent is the actual founder of Islamism himself, Mohammad! You yourself have already read how the various sources have alleged that he had a number of people, including a sleeping woman, murdered in cold-blood, a woman killed just because she spoke out against the Satanic butcher of Medina for whom she was a mere annoyance.

Consider how Christ taught against this kind of murder-mania-madness: “For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. If therefore thou offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember that thy brother hath any thing against thee; Leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift” (Matthew 5:20-24).

This should make it very clear to everyone that whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment and that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. Already, Mohammad has flunked, because Mohammad, so the sources allege, commanded that his gangs of murdering terrorists go forth killing! But here, even if a person is angry, he shall be in danger of the judgment.

But Christ goes even further, teaching that whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. So those who go to Hell shall be not only murderers, but those who call others “fools”, if they do not end up going to Hell, shall be at least in danger of hell fire.

Mohammad and his Moslem terrorists, because they kill, shall be in danger of the judgment. Yet, even BEFORE they kill anyone, when they call others “fools”, they are automatically in danger of hell fire! Whom do the Moslem terrorists consider to be “fools”? All those who are not Islamics! Thus it was that on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, the Moslem terrorists who attacked America did so in part because they consider most Americans to be “fools” and, even if these terrorists had never killed anyone, which, of course, they did, these Moslem terrorists would still have been in danger of hell fire as shall those who follow them!

Mohammad’s Terrorist Act # 8

Mohammad’s Approval of the Moslem Terrrorist
Who Killed His Own Wife
Another episode involves a Moslem man who murdered his own slave:

“Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet [Mohammad] and to abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet [Mohammad] was informed about it.”

“He [Mohammad] assembled the people and said: ‘I adjure by [my] “Allah” the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up.’ Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.”

“He sat before the Prophet [Mohammad] and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her. Thereupon the Prophet [Mohammad] said: ‘Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood’” (From the Hadith of Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4348).

Commentary

This disgusting episode is recounted in this horrible Hadith in which YOU can see for yourselves that Mohammad allowed people to murder others just for insulting him! Here is the case of a slave women who was used as a concubine by her Moslem master who paid for her criticism of Mohammad with her life! Note here that one man murdered his own slave who was the mother of two of his own children! This slave lady had made fun of Mohammad and was brutally murdered for it! Not only that but Mohammad himself approved of this murder!

Realistically, was that slave any real threat to Mohammad? Were any Islamics going to leave Islam because of a slave woman’s criticisms? Of course not! But thin-skinned Mohammad, who had a chip on each shoulder, refused to tolerate any personal criticism. But this is typical of tyrants who do not want their credibility undermined. Thus, Mohammad allowed his followers to murder anyone who expressed different views.

“This shows that even if a Jew of any non-Muslim abuses the Prophet [Mohammad], he [she] will be killed. This is held by al-Laith, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, and Ishaq” (Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4348, note #3800).

Compare these actions of cult-founder, Mohammad, with Christ. Remember how in the Gospel it is written: “Master, which is the Great Commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:36-40).

Mohammad tried to claim he was the best and the last of all of the prophets. But Mohammad contradicts Christ by commanding his fellow Islamics to kill people in cold-blood-just as did his Satanic progeny on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 when, during their attack against America, over 5,000 innocent people [at last count] were killed!

Jesus Christ did NOT contradict the prophets who had come before Him, but Mohammad has contradicted every one of them and has no right to self-appoint himself as any kind of “prophet”! Remember, truth does not contradict itself! On the contrary, “Truth cannot be truth’s contrary” (St. Thomas Aquinas, SUMMA CONTRA GENTILES IV, 8) because “every knowledge of truth is a kind of reflection and participation of the eternal law, which is the unchangeable truth” (St. Thomas Aquinas SUMMA THEOLOGICA I-II, 93,2) since “God is truth” (St. Thomas Aquinas, SUMMA THEOLOGICA I, l16, 5 and II-II, 93, 2 reply to objection 2; SUMMA CONTRA GENTILES I, 60).

Let everyone of us harken to the teachings of He Who is “ the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6): “You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thy enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: That you may be the children of your Father Who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and he unjust. For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:43-48).

Since Mohammad teaches the members of his man-made cult to not only hate, but to kill, their enemies, they obviously become the children of their father who is in Hell! They conspicuously become imperfect, as also their Satanic father is imperfect and thus become as the heathens, only moreso!

Christ taught all of us to “Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death” (Matthew 15:4). What then of those Islamics who obey Mohammad who allowed his followers to even murder the members of their own families?! If one shall “die the death” in all eternity in Hell for cursing father or mother, what of those who kill them? Nowhere have We found that Mohammad quotes Christ in this regard! Why not? Does Mohammad thereby teach that it is ok for Islamics to not only curse, but to kill, their fathers and/or mothers?

All of this focus on killing betrays how evil Mohammad was and how evil his teachings are. God the Holy Ghost, through the pen of the Beloved Apostle, writes in part that “He that commmitteth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God, commmitteth not sin: for his seed abideth in him, and he can not sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil. Whosoever is not just, is not of God, nor he that loveth not his brother. For this is the declaration, which you have heard from the beginning, that you should love one another. Not as Cain, who was of the wicked one, and killed his brother. And wherefore did he kill him? Because his own works were wicked: and his brother’s just. Wonder not, brethren, if the world hate you. We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not, abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. And you know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in himself. In this we have known the charity of God, because he hath laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren” (1 John 3:8-16).

WHERE, therefore, does Mohammad, who teaches his Moslem gangs of terrorists and killers, ever teach his Islamic followers that whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. And you know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in himself???

WHERE, therefore, does Mohammad ever teach his Islamic followers that He that commmitteth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil???

Research indicates that most of Mohammad’s teachings to his gangs of Moslem terrorists to kill, kill, kill, kill and kill!!!! This is NOT charity, but death because He that loveth not, abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer and thus, in this way, is Mohammad and his gangs of terrorists, murderers. Mohammad has imitated Cain who killed his brother Abel. Mohammad is in the spiritual blood line of Cain, the murderer.

Mohammad’s Terrorist Act # 9

Mohammad Commanded Moslem Terrorist Amr Umayya
to Kill His [Mohammad’s] Enemy, Abu Sufyan
Failing in That, the Terrorist Killed a One-Eyed Man
And Received the Approval of Mohammad for the Cold-Blooded Killing

“Another Moslem man by the name of Amr Umayya was sent out by Mohammad to murder Mohammad’s enemy, Abu Sufyan” (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, page 673.).

However, Amr Umayya failed to murder Abu Sufyan. As Amr Umayya returned home, he met a one-eyed shepherd. The shepherd and the Moslem wanna-be-murderer, Amr Umayya, both identified themselves as members of the same Arab clan. They camped out together that night. But before he fell asleep, the shepherd told Amr Umayya that he would never become a Moslem. Amr Umayya waited for the shepherd to fall asleep, and thereafter, “as soon as the badu was asleep and snoring I got up and killed him in a more horrible way than any man has been killed. I put the end of my bow in his sound eye, then I bore down on it until I forced it out at the back of his neck” (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, page 674).

Amr Umayya returned and spoke with Mohammad. He relates that “he [Mohammad] asked my news and when I told him what had happened he blessed me” (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, page 675).

Commentary

So here is yet another historical even in which Mohammad blessed one of his terrorists who murdered a one-eyed shepherd while the defenseless man slept. Here is yet another person who didn’t want to follow madman Mohammad and yet another murder, all in the name of Islam and Mohammad. Do you see how Mohammad’s trail of blood continued to grow until is burst forth into a river of blood centuries later?!

Mohammad’s Terrorist Acts # 10 and 11

10) Mohammad Commanded Moslem Terrorists
To Attack the Fazara Tribe

11) The Moslem Leader, Zayd, Commanded Qays to Kill the Prisoner,
Umm Qirfa Fatima, an Old Lady
Moslem Terrorist Qays Killed Her in a Horrible Way
As Part of the Attack Against the Fazara Tribe Ordered by Mohammad

Moslem terrorists were sent out by Mohammad on a raid against the Fazara tribe. The Fazara initially defeated the Islamics. The wounded Moslem leader swore vengeance. After he recovered, he went out and attacked the Fazara again. One very old woman was captured. Here is an account of what happened. If you have a weak stomach after reading the above, you might want to skip this next installment of the anti-human acts of Moslem Murderers Incorporated.

“...and Umm Qirfa Fatima was taken prisoner. She was a very old women, wife of Malik. Her daughter and Abdullah Masada were also taken. Zayd ordered Qays to kill Umm Qirfa and he killed her cruelly [Tabari, by putting a rope to her two legs and to two camels and driving them [the camels] until they rent her in two.] (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, page 665).

Commentary

Here, Mohammad’s terrorists deliberately went out and attacked people. These terrorists took some prisoners and then committed some brutal atrocities against their captives. These terrorists were so destitute of basic human values, that they ripped an old woman in half by using camels! When one reads of the horrible things the Serbs did recently, one is offended. But one must wonder how many Islamics know that Mohammad’s Moslem organized crime organization, did such things? Mohammad was every bit as brutal and sadistic as the worst of the Nazis! Perhaps the Nazis studied the terrorists techniques invented by Mohammad?

Mohammad’s Terrorist Acts # 12 and 13

12) Mohammad Commanded the Moslem Terrorist, Abdullah Khatal
to be Killed for Apostasy

13) Ordered Two Slaves Girls, Who Had Sung Satirical Songs
About Mohammad Several Years Before That, Also Killed With Khatal

“Another was Abdullah Khatal of B. Taym b. Ghalib. He had become a Muslim and the apostle [Mohammad] sent him to collect the poor tax in company with one of the Ansar. He had with him a freed slave who served him. (The slave was Muslim). When they halted he ordered the latter to kill a goat for him and prepare some food, and went to sleep. When he woke up the man had done nothing, so he attacked and killed him and apostatized. He had two singing-girls Fartana and her friend who used to sing satirical songs about the apostle [Mohammad], so he ordered that they should be killed with him” (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, pages 550-551).

Commentary

Mohammad ordered the killing of Moslem Abdullah Khatal, a man who apostatized, along with his two slave girls, not because Abdullah Khatal had killed his male slave, who was also a Mohammadan, but because Abdullah Khatal had apostatized. Islamic law does not allow an Islamic man to be put to death for killing a slave. Mohammad also ordered the killing of the two slave girls of Abdullah Khatal because they sang satirical songs about Mohammad. The satirical songs which they had sung about Muhammad was an incident which had happened probably at least a year or more earlier. But once Mohammad had conquered Mecca, it was his time to pay back those slave girls. They were obviously not a threat to Mohammad or Islamism or to the new Islamic state. They were only slave girls. The reason why they were ordered to be executed was because they had sung a silly song about Mohammad a year or so before then. What happened to them is also recorded.

“As for Ibn Khatal’s two singing girls, one was killed and the other ran away until the apostle [Mohammad], [who had been] asked for immunity [by one of them], gave it to her” (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, page 551).

Of course, if the second slave girl had not asked for “immunity”, Mohammad would have had her killed as well. Not all that long along, the American media was reporting that the Serbs were killing Bosnian and Kosovo women. Yet Mohammad did exactly that - he had women murdered just for making fun of him. So, if an Islamic would try to justify Mohammad’s orders to kill the slave girls, then by the precedent set by their founder, Mohammmad, Islamics today would have to justify what the Serbs did in Kosovo.

Summary of Mohammad’s Terrorist Acts

You have seen above how the various sources have each recounted how Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah had various people murdered. whether at his direct command, or as the result of his public policies or by implication, and also by approval after the killings had already been done. Mohammad had some people killed while they were sleeping. Mohammad’s brand of “laws” was not to have any trials, not to have any judicial rulings, not to have any kind of communication with the damned, most of whom did not even know Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah had ordered their murders! So, irregardless who you were, if you insulted Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah, or, if you doubted his credibility, or if you asked questions about his “teachings”, you were murdered. The examples above include men and women of any age, who were killed because of Mohammad’s hatred against them. Here is a summary of the above terrorist acts committed by, commanded by or approved by Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah.

1) Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah commanded Moslem Terrorist Muhayyisa Bin Masud to Kill Jews. So terrorist Muhayyisa Bin Masud killed Ibn Sunayna, who was a Jewish merchant

2) Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah ordered the siege of Qaynuqa.

3) Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah ordered the murder of Kab.

4) Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah ordered the attack upon Qurayzah.

5) Terrorist Mohammad killed al-Harith Bin Suwayd Bin Samit

6) At the instigation of Mohammad, Moslem Terrorist Salim Bin Umayr killed Abu Afak, a 120 year old man, while he slept

7) Mohammad ordered the killing of Asma Bint Marwan, the mother of 5 children, who was murdered by Moslem terrorist, Umayr Ibn Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi. while she slept.

8) Mohammad approved of the Moslem terrrorist who killed his own wife while she slept. She was a slave women and the mother of his two children

9) Mohammad commanded Moslem terrorist Amr Umayya to kill his [Mohammad’s] enemy, Abu Sufyan. But the terrorist failed to kill Mohammad’s enemy. Instead, this terrorist killed a one-eyed man while he was sleeping and later received the approval of Mohammad for the cold-blooded killing.

10) Mohammad commanded Moslem terrorists to attack the Fazara Tribe

11) The Moslem leader, Zayd, commanded Qays to kill the prisoner, Umm Qirfa Fatima, an old lady, who was physically ripped in half on the orders of Moslem terrorist Qays. She had been captured on a raid of her tribe by Moslem terrorists. This was part of the Moslem attack against the Fazara Tribe ordered by Mohammad.

12) Mohammad ordered the killing of the Moslem terrorist, Abdullah Khatal, for apostasy

13) Mohammad ordered the killing of two slave girls who had sung satirical songs about Mohammad several years before that.

IF the sources herein are accurate, and We accept them at face value because at this point in time We have no rational and logical basis upon which not to accept them at face value, then it would seem logical that these 13 examples are most probably not even the proverbial tip of the iceburg concerning the people who were killed, in some way, because of Mohammad. As a matter of fact, such killing continues, as exampled by the killing of over 5,000 people in the attack against America on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 A.D. which killings were in harmony with the teachings of the false prophet, Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah whom it appears simply updated what the Hanif cult had taught.

Part 7 - Islamic-Arabian School of Philosophy

General Data

Islamic-Arabian School of Philosophy

The Islamics expressed their religious feelings in a somewhat mystic poetry up until the 8th Century. But during this same time period, they failed to express their thoughts about the world around them, except for whatever is set forth in the Qur’an, a.k.a. Koran. It was not until they had contact with other civilizations, notably that of Persia, that their speculative and scientific activities were stimulated into action.

One thing which encouraged the study of letters and philosophy was the accession of the Abassides to the throne in about 750 A.D. The Abassides were an enlightened line of Caliphs who encouraged learning. They also patronized the representatives of foreign cultures, especially the Syrians and Persians.

This introduction of foreign ideas resulted at first in a twofold reaction among the followers of Mohammad. First, there was a movement in the direction of heterodoxy which was a kind of rationalistic questioning of the authority of the Qur’an. Such action led to the rejection of the then current anthropomorphism and fatalism. The members of this movement were called “Motazilites” or “Dissidents”. These people were the first heretics of Islam.

Second, there were those who did not espouse such rationalism. Those who took the contrary position were conformists who emphasized the authority of the Qur’an. But, concurrently, they attempted to accomplish this by the assistance of Greek philosophy and science. The members of this movement were called the “Motacallimin”, i.e. “professors of the word”. Although it is true that the extent to which they made use of Greek philosophy for their metaphysical and physical explanations of phenomena, they were rationalists, it is also true that their goal was to remain within the boundaries of Islamic conventional belief.

Third, there were those who reacted against both the “Motazilites” aud “Motacallimin”. The members of this movement were called the “Sufis”, i.e. “Mystics”. They thrived principally in the Persian area of the Arabian Mohammadan Empire. These Sufis represented the most extreme phase of protest against all philosophical inquiry. For example, they condemned the use of Greek philosophy, even within the limits of Islamic conformism. They also taught that whatever truth there is can be attained by a reverent reading of the Qur’an and by meditating on the words of said text. They placed contemplation above observation and inquiry. They placed more value on ecstatic meditation than on the study of Plato and Aristotle.

From the warfare of these three divergent Islamic forces, sometime in about the 9th Century, there arose the tendency of thought represented by the philosophers of Islam. These philosophers had more in common with the Dissidents and the Theologians than with the Mystics. Such Islamic philosopher made abundant use of Greek philosophy. In their free inquiry into the secrets of nature, in which they soon outstripped the Greeks themselves, they ignored the Qur’an out of necessity because of the poverty of the Qur’an in this area.

Because of this, the Islamic philosophers fell into disrepute with the rulers of Islam in North Africa, Spain, and in various places in the East. There are historical instances of persecution, exile, and even death which were inflicted by the Caliphs on the philosophers of Islam. This was both a common and a frequent occurrence between the 9th Century through to the 13th Century.

The Islamic-Arabian School of Philosophy derived its origin from the neo-Platonic schools of Syria and Persia. Thus, their philosophy at first was Platonic, both in spirit and tendency. They translated the “Timaeus”, the “Republic”, and the “Laws” of Plato. When they were attracted by the medical treatises of Galen, they were led to the study of Aristotle. Thereupon, they translated not only the genuine writings of the Stagirite (a native or inhabitant of Stagira, in ancient Macedonia; specifically, Aristotle), but also the so-called “Theologia Aristotelis” which was merely a compilation from the “Enneads” of Plotinus, as well as the famous “Liber de Causis” which was a compilation from the “Elements of Theology” of Proclus.

Therefore, from the beginning, the Islamic-Arabian School of Philosophy imparted to Aristotelean teaching a neo-Platonic meaning. We find it somewhat ironic how even those who became recognized as the most faithful exponents of Aristoteleanism were not entirely free from the influence of the neo-Platonists.

Plotinus’s view of reality, as a kind of pyramid with God at the apex and material things at the base, and Proclus’s view of hypostatized universals as constituting a hierarchy of “causes”, mediating between God and matter, came to be the recognized views in the philosophical schools of both Eastern and Western Islam.

Among the most famous of the Islamic-Arabian School of Philosophy philosophers of the East were Alkendi or Alkindi [died in about the year 870 A.D.], Alfarabi (died in about 950 A.D.], Avicenna, or Ibn Sina [980 A.D. - 1037 A.D.], the astronomer Alhazen [11th Century), and Algazel, or Gazali [1059 A.D. - 1111 A.D.].

Among the most famous of the Islamic-Arabian School of Philosophy philosophers of the West, by which is meant the Berbers of Northern Africa and the Moors in Spain, the most celebrated philosophers were Avempace, or Ibn Badsha [died in 1138 A.D.], Abubacer, or Abn Bekr, also called Ibn Tofail [1100 A.D. - 1185 A.D.], and Averroes, or Ibn Roshd [1126 A.D. - 1198 A.D.].

Of these Avempace, Avicenna, and Averroes were best known to the Scholastics. Avicebrol, whom the Schoolmen regarded as an Arabian, was in reality a Jewish philosopher and poetic writer named Salomon ben Gabirol. The philosophy of the Islamic-Arabian School of Philosophy is not distinguished by its originality. On the contrary, it is merely an interpretation of Greek philosophy. But, even as an interpretation per se, it really adds little, if anything, to the interpretations which had already been given by Plotinus, Proclus, Simplicius, and the Syrian neo-Platonists.

The Islamic-Arabian School of Philosophy is Islamic-Arabian only insofar as the fact that its members wrote in Arabic characters. Also, the greatest representatives of the Islamic-Arabian School of Philosophy, namely, Avicenna and Averroes, were not even natives of the Arabian peninsula at all. It was only in one respect that the Islamic - Arabians developed Greek philosophy, namely, in its relation to medicine. It was only in this area that they exerted the most far-reaching influence in Western Europe.

Like the neo-Platonists, from whom they borrowed their interpretation of Aristotle, the Islamic - Arabians were pantheists or semi-pantheists. Aristotle had taught that matter is the eternal substratum of movement; in eternity, taught the Arabian commentators, there is no distinction between the actual and the possible, between the substratum, or subject, of movement and the Mover. Therefore, whenever the Islamic - Arabian philosophers had the courage of their convictions, they taught more or less openly that God, the First Mover, is really the subject of movement, that He and the Universe are substantially identical. However, the various teachers of the Islamic-Arabian School of Philosophy make a compromise, more or less successfully, between philosophical pantheism and the monotheism of the Qur’an.

In regard to the government of the universe, the Islamic-Arabian School of Philosophy philosophers taught that Divine Providence is concerned only with the universal, not with the particular. The world, says Averroes, is a city which is governed from the center by a ruler whose immediate authority extends only to his own palace, but who, through his subordinates, rules each and every district of the city subject to his sway.

This doctrine implied the mediation of numberless beings from the Highest Intelligence down to the lowest material creature. From God, Who is indeed the Author, though He cannot be called the Creator, of the Universe, there emanates in the first place, the First Intelligence (akin to the Aoyos of Philo), then the Second Intelligence, and so on, down to the lowest of all the cosmic intelligences, the intelligence which animates and directs the sphere of the moon. Each of these intelligences is incorporated in, or inhabits a heavenly sphere - hence the close dependence of medieval astrology on the Islamic - Arabian philosophers, and on their immediate disciples in astronomy, as, for instance, Roger Bacon.

The lowest intelligence, to which reference has just been made (the intelligence which rules the sphere of the moon), plays an important part in the psychology of the Islamic - Arabian philosophers. In treating of intellectual knowledge, Aristotle taught that in the acquisition of ideas a twofold mental principle is involved, the one active and the other passive. The text of Aristotle being obscure at this point (Aristotle, De Anima, Book III), the commentators were at a loss to know what the Stagirite meant by the “active intellect”.

Here, as elsewhere, the Islamic - Arabian philosophers filled in this apparent void with the mythology of the neo-Platonists. The neo-Platonists had taught that the “active intellect” is something physically distinct from the individual soul; an intelligence, namely, that is, somehow, common to all men. The Islamic - Arabian philosophers adopted this monopsychism and made it part of their psychology. There is, they taught, but one active intellect and that is common to all men. It resides in the sphere of the moon, but, being brought, in some way, into contact with the individual soul (which thereby “participates” in it), it generates there the universal, abstract, immaterial, idea.

It was principally against this doctrine of the unity and separation of the active intellect that the Scholastics directed their rebuttals against the Islamic-Arabian School of Philosophy philosophers. The Scholastics objected to such an erroneous doctrine on two accounts. They denied that it was a tenable doctrine in psychology, and they denied that it was a faithful interpretation of Aristotle. This is the main contention of Saint Albert the Great, O.P. and the Angelic Doctor, Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., both of whom wrote special treatises on the unity of the intellect, and on one point at least the most unsympathetic critic of Scholasticism agrees with them, namely, when they argue that monopsychism is not in keeping with the general tone and spirit of Aristotelean philosophy.

Another aspect of monopsychism to which the Scholastics did not fail to call attention was its bearing on the question of immortality. The passive intellect, the Islamic-Arabian School of Philosophy philosophers taught, is material, and perishes with the body. The active intellect, although it is immaterial and, therefore, imperishable, is not part of the individual soul. According to this, there is nothing, therefore, in man that has the power of resisting death; and to say that man is immortal because the impersonal, universal, intellect is immortal has no more meaning than if one were to say that man is immortal because the laws of nature are immortal!

This erroneous conclusion is frankly admitted by Averroes, who teaches that according to philosophy the human soul is mortal, although according to theology it is immortal. This admission of the principle of two-fold truth, namely, that what is false in philosophy may be true in theology, and vice versa, shows more clearly than anything else the inherent irreconcilability of the Islamic-Arabian School of Philosophy philosophers philosophy with Scholasticism.

The Scholastic movement from beginning to end, whatever may be its deviations and aberrations on other points, held steadfastly to the principle that, since God is the Author of all truth, the truth of reason and the truth of revelation, which is to say, of philosophy and of theology, cannot come to any real conflict. The beginning of the decline of Scholasticism dates from the introduction (from Arabian sources) into the Schools of the principle of twofold truth. In the acquisition of knowledge, the Islamic-Arabian School of Philosophy philosophers taught, there is a contact (copulatio, continuatio) of the impersonal active intellect with the individual passive intellect. The contact, indeed, is only momentary. The passive intellect, however, has a longing for the active intellect, desires it, as matter desires form. Hence the tendency on the part of the individual soul towards a more permanent union with the great Impersonal Intellect, a union that is to be attained by the practice of asceticism and the exercise of the contemplative powers of the mind. In this union man becomes a saint and a seer, a being divine rather than human; in this state of ecstasy all that is base and petty becomes transformed into the sublime and noble, until at last man can exclaim, “I am God”!

Here again one sees how closely the Islamic-Arabian School of Philosophy philosophers reproduce the neo-Platonic doctrine of purification and ecstasy. However, it is only fair to add that some of the more faithful Aristoteleans among the Islamic-Arabian School of Philosophy philosophers, such as Averroes, were content to put scientific knowledge in the place of ecstatic contemplation, and thus succeeded in avoiding the contradictions implied in the erroneous mysticism of the Sufis.

The Islamic-Arabian School of Philosophy philosophers philosophy exercised a profound influence on the Scholastic philosophy of not only the 12th Century, but on succeeding centuries. It is not so well known that, even when Scholasticism was at its height, when Saint Albert the Great and Saint Thomas Aquinas were attracting attention by their brilliant exposition of Aristotelean philosophy, there was in the very heart of the Scholastic stronghold, the University of Paris, a group of philosophers who openly professed adherence to the doctrine of Averroes.

It is in this counter current that Averroism is traceable in the progress of Scholastic philosophy down to the time of the Renaissance. Still, one must not overrate the debt which Scholasticism owes to the Islamic-Arabian School of Philosophy. The Islamic-Arabian philosophers contributed in a very large degree to making Aristotle known in Christian Europe. But, in doing this, they were only transmitting what they themselves had received earlier from Christian sources!

Moreover, the Aristotle who finally gained recognition in Christian Europe was not the Islamic - Arabian Aristotle, but the Greek Aristotle, who came to Western Europe by way of Constantinople. The Islamic - Arabians, in the second place, contributed to medieval medicine, geography, astronomy, arithmetic, and chemistry, but failed to exert any direct influence in philosophy. They provoked discussion, their doctrines were the occasion of disputation and controversy, and thus, indirectly, they contributed to developing the philosophy of the Schools; but, beyond this they cannot be said to have contributed towards shaping the course of Scholastic thought.

Actually, the whole spirit of Islamic - Arabian philosophy, to wit, its tendency towards materialistic pantheism, its doctrine of the unity of the intellect, its hesitation on the problem of individual immortality, and, above all, its doctrine of the twofold truth, must have revealed at every point of possible contact the utter impossibility of a reconciliation between Islamic - Arabian Aristoteleanism and Scholastic Aristoteleanism.

Avicenna

Avicenna, a.k.a. Abn Ali Al Hosain Ibn Abdallah Ibn Sina, called by the Latins Avicenna, was an Arabian physician and an Islamic - Arabian philosopher, born at Kharmaithen, in the province of Bokhara in 980 A.D. He died at Hamadan, in Northern Persia in 1037 A.D. From the autobiographical sketch which has come down to us, we learn that he was a very precocious youth. At the age of ten he knew the Qur’an, a.k.a. Koran by heart. Before he was sixteen years old, he had mastered what was to be learned of physics, mathematics, logic, and metaphysics. At the age of sixteen he began the study and practice of medicine. Before he had completed his twenty-first year, he wrote his famous “Canon” of medical science, which, for several centuries, after his time, remained the principal authority in medical schools both in Europe and in Asia. He served successively several Persian potentates as physician and adviser, travelling with them from place to place, and despite the habits of conviviality for which he was well known, he devoted much time to literary work, as is testified by the hundred volumes which he wrote. Our authority for the foregoing facts is the “Life of Avicenna”, based on his autobiography, written by his disciple Jorjani (Sorsanus), and published in the early Latin editions of his works.

Besides the medical “Canon,” he wrote voluminous commentaries on Arisotle's works and two great encyclopedias entitled “Al Schefa”, or “Al Chifa”, i.e. healing, and “Al Nadja”, i.e. deliverance. The “Canon” and portions of the encyclopedias were translated into Latin as early as the twelfth century, by Gerard of Cremona, Dominicus Gundissalinus, and John Avendeath. They were published at Venice between 1493 A.D. - 1495 A.D. The complete Arabic texts are said to be are said to be in the Bodleian Library. An Arabic text of the “Canon” and the “Nadja” was published in Rome in 1593 A.D.

Avicenna's philosophy, like that of his predecessors among the Islamic - Arabians, is Aristoteleanism mingled with neo-Platonism. It is an exposition of Aristotle’s teaching in the light of the Commentaries of Thomistius, Simplicius, and other neo-Platonists. His Logic is divided into nine parts, of which the first is an introduction after the manner of Porphyry’s “Isagoge”. Thereafter follows the six parts corresponding to the six treatises composing the “Organon”. The eighth and ninth parts consist respectively of treatises on rhetoric and poetry.

Avicenna devoted special attention to defintion, the logic of representation, as he calls it, and also to the classification of the sciences. Philosophy, he says, which is the general name for scientific knowledge, includes speculative and practical philosophy. Speculative philosophy is divided into the inferior science (physics), and middle science (mathematics), and the superior science (metaphysics including theology). Practical philosophy is divided into ethics (which considers man as an individual); economics (which considers man as a member of domestic society); and politics (which considers man as a member of civil society).

These divisions are important on account of their influence on the arrangement of sciences in the schools where the philosophy of Avicenna preceded the introduction of Aristotle's works. A favorite principle of Avicenna, which is quoted not only by Averroes but also by the Schoolmen, and especially by St. Albert the Great, was intellectus in formis agit universalitatem, that is, the universality of our ideas is the result of the activity of the mind itself.

The principle, however, is to be understood in the realistic, not in the nominalistic sense. Avicenna’s meaning is that, while there are differences and resemblances among things independently of the mind, the formal constitution of things in the category of individuality, generic universality, specific universality, and so forth, is the work of the mind.

Avicenna’s physical doctrines show him in the light of a faithful follower of Aristotle, who has nothing of his own to add to the teaching of his master. Similarly, in psychology, he reproduces Aristotle’s doctrines, borrowing occasionally an explanation, or an illustration, from Alfarabi.

On one point, however, he is at pains to set the true meaning, as he understands it, of Aristotle, above all the exposition and elaboration of the Commentators. That point is the question of the Active and Passive Intellect. He teaches that the latter is the individual mind in the state of potency with regard to knowledge, and that the former is the impersonal mind in the state of actual and perennial thought. In order that the mind acquire ideas, the Passive Intellect must come into contact with the Active Intellect. Avicenna, however, insists most emphatically that a contact of that kind does not interfere with the independent substantiality of the Passive Intellect, and does not imply that it is merged with the Active Intellect. He explicitly maintains that the individual mind retains its individuality and that, because it is spiritual and immaterial, it is endowed with personal immortality. At the same time, he is enough of a mystic to maintain that certain choice souls are capable of arriving at a very special kind of union with the Universal, Active, Intellect, and of attaining thereby the gift of prophecy. Metaphysics he defines as the science of supernatural (ultra-physical) being and of God. It is, as Aristotle says, the theological science. It treats of the existence of God, which is proved from the necessity of a First Cause. It treats of the Providence of God, which, as all the Islamic - Arabians taught, is restricted to the universal laws of nature, the Divine Agency being too exalted to deal with singular and contingent events; it treats of the hierarchy of mediators between God and material things, all of which emanated from God, the Source of all sources, the Principle of all principles. The first emanation from God is the world of ideas. This is made up of pure forms, free from change, composition, or imperfection; it is akin to the Intelligible world of Plato, and is, in fact, a Platonic concept. Next to the world of ideas is the world of souls, made up of forms which are, indeed, intelligible, but not entirely separated from matter. It is these souls that animate and energize the heavenly spheres. Next to the world of souls is the world of physical forces, which are more or less completely embedded in terrestrial matter and obey its laws; they are, however, to some extent amenable to the power of intelligence in so far as they may be influenced by magic art. Lastly comes the world of corporeal matter; this, according to the neo-Platonic conception which dominates Avicenna’s thought in this theory of emanation, is of itself wholly inert, not capable of acting but merely of being acted upon (Occasionalism). In this hierarchical arrangement of beings, the Active Intellect, which, as was pointed out above, plays a necessary role in the genesis of human knowledge, belongs to the world of Ideas, and is of the same nature as the spirits which animate the heavenly spheres. From all this it is apparent that Avicenna is no exception to the general description of the Islamic - Arabian Aristoteleans as neo-Platonic interpreters of Aristotle.

There remain two other doctrines of general metaphysical nature which exhibit him in the character of an original, or rather an Islamic - Arabian, and not a neo-Platonic, interpreter. The first is his division of being into three classes: 1. What is merely possible, including all sublunary things; 2. What is itself merely possible but endowed by the First Cause with necessity; such are the ideas that rule the heavenly spheres. 3. What is of its own nature necessary, namely, the First Cause.

This classification is mentioned and refuted by Averroes. The second doctrine, to which also Averroes alludes, is a fairly outspoken system of pantheism which Avicenna is said to have elaborated in a work, now lost, entitled “Philosophia Orientalis”. The Scholastics, apparently, knew nothing of his special work on pantheism. But they were aware of the pantheistic tendencies of Avicenna’s other works on philosophy, and were, accordingly, reluctant to trust his exposition of Aristotle.

Averroes

Averroes, a.k.a. Abul Walid Mahommed Ibn Achmed, Ibn Mahommed Ibn Roschd, was an Islamic- Arabian philosopher, astronomer, and author on jurisprudence. He was born at Cordova in 1126 A.D. and died at Morocco in 1198 A.D. Ibn Roschd, or Averroes, as he was called by the Latins, was educated in his native city, where his father and grandfather had held the office of cadi, i.e. a judge in civil affairs, and had played an important part in the political history of Andalusia.

He devoted himself to jurisprudence, medicine, and mathematics, as well as to philosophy and theology. Under the Califs Abu Jacub Jusuf and his son, Jacub Al Mansur, he enjoyed extraordinary favor at court and was entrusted with several important civil offices at Morocco, Seville, and Cordova. Later, he fell into disfavor and was banished with others like him. Shortly before his death, the edict against philosophers was recalled. Many of his works in logic and metaphysics had been burn which means that he left no school, and thus no real followers. At the end of the dominion of the Islamic Moors in Spain, which happened shortly after this, the current of Averoism was completely turned into Hebrew and Latin channels through which it influenced the thought of Christian Europe down to the dawn of the modern era.

Averoes’ great medical work, “Culliyyat”, of which the Latin title “Colliget” is a corruption, was published as the tenth volume in the Latin edition of Aristotle's works in Venice in 1527 A.D. His “Commentaries” on Aristotle, his original philosophical works, and his treatises on theology have come down to us either in Latin or Hebrew translations. His “Commentaries”, which earned for him the title of the “Commentator”, were of three kinds: 1) a short paraphrase or analysis; 2) a brief exposition of the text; and, 3) a more extended exposition. These are known as the Minor, the Middle, and the Major Commentary, respectively. None of them is of any value for the textual criticisms of Aristotle, since Averroes, being unacquainted with Greek and Syriac, based his exposition on a very imperfect Arabic translation of the Syriac version of the Greek text. They were, however, of great influence in determining the philosophical and scientific interpretation of Aristotle.
His original philosophical treatises include: 1) a work entitled “Tehafot al Tchafot”, or “Destructio Destructiones”, which was a refutation of Algazel’s “Destructio Philosophorum” which was published in the Latin edition in Venice in 1497 A.D. and in 1527 A.D.; 2) two treatises on the union of the Active and Passive intellects, also published in Latin in the Venice edition; 3) logical treatises on the different parts of the “Organon” which were published in the Venice edition under the title “Quaesita in Libros Logicae Aristotelis”; 4) physical treatises based on Aristotle’s “Physics”, which is also in the Venice edition; 5) a treatise in refutation of Avicenna; and, 6) another on the agreement between philosophy and theology. Of the last two, only Hebrew and Arabic texts exist.

Averroes professed the greatest esteem for Aristotle. The word of the Stagirite was for him the highest expression of truth in matters of science and philosophy. In this exaggerated veneration for the philosopher, he went further than any of the Schoolmen. Indeed, in the later stages of Scholastic philosophy, it was the Averroists and not the followers of Saint Thomas Aquinas and John Scotus who, when accused of subservience to the authority of a master, gloried in the title of “Aristotle’s monkey”.

Averroes advocated the principle of twofold truth, maintaining that religion has one sphere and philosophy another. Religion, he said, is for the unlettered multitude; philosophy for the chosen few. Religion teaches by signs and symbols; philosophy presents the truth itself. In the mind, therefore, of the truly enlightened, philosophy supersedes religion. But, though the philosopher sees that what is true in theology is false in philosophy, he should not on that account condemn religious instruction, because he would thereby deprive the multitude of the only means which it has of attaining a (symbolic) knowledge of the truth.

Averroes’ philosophy, like that of all other Islamic - Arabians, is Aristoteleanism with neo-Platonism. In it we find the doctrine of the eternity of matter as a positive principle of being; the concept of a multitude of spirits ranged hierarchically between God and matter and mediating between them, the denial of Divine Providence in the commonly accepted sense, the doctrine that each of the heavenly spheres is animated, the notion of emanation or extraction, as a substitute for creation, and, finally, the glorification of (rational) mystical knowledge as the ultimate aspiration of the human soul - in a word, all the distinctively neo-Platonic elements which Islamic - Arabians added to pure Aristoteleanism.

What is peculiar in Averroes’ interpretation of Aristotle is the meaning he gives to the Aristotelean doctrine of the Active and Passive Intellect. His predecessor, Avicenna, taught that, while the Active Intellect is universal and separate, the Passive Intellect is individual and inherent in the soul. Averroes helds that both the Active and the Passive Intellect are separate from the individual soul and are universal, that is, one in all men. He thought that Alexander of Aphrodisias was wrong in reducing the Passive Intellect to a mere disposition, and that the “other Commentators”, perhaps Themistius and Theophrastus, were wrong in describing it as an individual substance endowed with a disposition. He maintained that it is, rather, a disposition in us, but belonging to an intellect outside us.

The terms Passive, Possible, Material are successively used by Averroes to designate this species of intellect, which, in ultimate analysis, if we prescind from the dispositions of which he speaks, is the Active Intellect itself. In other words, the same intellect which, when in the act of actually abstracting intelligible species is called active, is called passive, possible or material so far as it is acted upon, is potential, and furnishes that out of which ideas are fabricated. Besides, Averroes speaks of the Acquired Intellect (intellectus acquisitus, adeptus), by which he means the individual mind in communication with the Active Intellect. Thus, while the Active Intellect is numerically one, there are as many acquired intellects as there are individual souls with which the Active Intellect has come in contact.

The Scholastics speak of continuatio of the universal with the individual mind, translating literally the Arabic word which here means contiguity rather than union. Averroe’s sun, for instance, while it is and remains one source of light, may be said to be multiplied and to become many sources of light, in so far as it illuminates many bodies from which its light is distributed; so it is with the universal mind and the individual minds which come in contact with it.

The weakness of this doctrine of Averroes, as a psychological explanation of the origin of knowledge, is its failure to take account of the facts of consciousness, which, as the Scholastics were not slow to point out, indicate that not merely an individual disposition but an active individual principle enters into the action which ones expresses by the words “I think”.

Another weakness of Averroes, was his error on the doctrine of monopsychism, or the doctrine that there is but one mind. The Scholastics consider that it leaves unanswered the question of the immortality of the individual soul.. Indeed, Averroes openly admitted his inability to hold on philosophic grounds the doctrine of individual immortality, being content to maintain it as a religious tenet. Averroes’ greatest influence was as a commentator.

His doctrines had a varying fortune in Christian schools. At first they secured a certain amount of adherence, then, gradually, their incompatibility with Christian teaching became apparent, and finally, owing to the revolt of the Renaissance from everything Scholastic, they secured once more a temporary hearing. His commentaries, however, had immediate and lasting success. St. Thomas Aquinas used the "Grand Commentary" of Averroes as his model, being, apparently, the first Scholastic to adopt that style of exposition; and though he refuted the errors of Averroes, and devoted special treatises to that purpose, he always spoke of the Islamic - Arabian commentator as one who had, indeed, perverted the Peripatetic tradition, but whose words, nevertheless, should be treated with respect and consideration. The same may be said of Dante's references to him. It was after the time of St. Thomas and Dante that Averroes came to be represented as “the arch-enemy of the faith”.

Refutation of the Islamic-Arabian
Errors of Philosophy

I. ST. THOMAS AND HIS WRITINGS

St. Thomas Aquinas was born in Italy in the castle of Roccasecca, near Aquino, early in 1225. Until 1239 he remained an oblate in the Benedictine Monastery of Monte Cassino where he had been entered by his parents in 1231. He studied the liberal arts at the newly established University of Naples, and in 1244 decided to become a Dominican. He set out for Paris, arriving there in the summer of 1245. It is uncertain whether he remained in Paris or went on for his studies to Cologne. In 1248 Albert the Great was sent to Cologne to found a House of Studies. Thomas was Albert s pupil in Cologne from 1248 until 1252 when he returned to Paris. After commenting on the Gospels (1252—1254) and on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, he received his license to teach from the University of Paris in 1256. For the next three years he taught in Paris at the Dominican convent of St. James. The years 1259 to 1268 Thomas spent in Italy, lecturing at the Papal Curia. In 1261 to 1265 he was in Orvieto. Here he met his fellow Dominican William of Moerbeke. It was at this time (1263) that Pope Urban IV renewed the efforts of Pope Gregory IX to receive the writings of Aristotle into the Christian world in a manner that would insure a maximum of benefit to Christianity as well as a minimum of harm. William of Moerbeke embarked upon his long and famous series of translations of the writings of Aristotle from the original Greek. Thomas himself undertook his no less famous series of minute commentaries on these translations. At a time when an Arabianized Aristotle was being hardened into an enemy of Christianity in Paris and elsewhere, the work begun by St. Thomas in Orvieto was destined to become a constructive contribution to the emergence of an enduring Christian Aristotelianism. That all St. Thomas contemporaries did not appreciate or understand this contribution is a fact, and a sad one. That contribution remains, however, a great monument in the history of the i3th century.

St. Thomas was back in Paris by 1269. There he entered into the two struggles that were agitating the University, namely, the attack of the secular clergy on the mendicant orders and the emergence of what has been traditionally called Latin Averroism in the Faculty of Arts of the University. In 1272 St. Thomas was given the task of founding a new House of Studies in Naples for his Order. In 1274 he was summoned by Pope Gregory X to the Council of Lyons. He died on the way at the Cistercian Monastery of Fossanuova, March 7, 1274. He was canonized by Pope John XXII on July 18, 1323, and in i 567 Pope Pius V declared him the Angelic Doctor. Both by tradition and by Papal authority St. Thomas holds a unique place as a teacher within the Church.

The writing career of St. Thomas was not very long. But in the short span of twenty years he dictated and wrote an enormous number of works, including theological and philosophical commentaries, many doctrinal discussions commonly known as Disputed Questions, two famous summaries of Christian doctrine, and several short treatises. It is extremely difficult for the historian to determine the chronology of these writings, and even to know how St. Thomas had the time to accomplish as much as he did.

In addition to commentaries on different parts of Scripture, St. Thomas composed a commentary (1254—12 ~6) on the then current textbook in theology, the Four Books of Sentences, written by Peter Lombard in the i 2th century. He wrote commentaries on two theological tracts of Boethius (De Trinitate, De Hebdomadibus, 1257— 1258) on the famous treatise On the Divine Names (De Divinis Nominibus) of the no less famous Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite (about 1261); and on the anonymous and most influential Neoplatonic Book of Causes (Liber de Causis, 1272). But the most important of St. Thomas commentaries are those that he wrote on almost all the works of Aristotle, beginning with the psychological writings and including the Aristotelian treatises in ethics, politics, physics, metaphysics, and logic (1266—1272).

The Disputed Questions of St. Thomas, which are the product of his teaching, cover many problems: On Truth (De Veritate, 1256-1259), On the Power of God (De Potentia Dei, 1265—1267), On Evil (De Malo, 1269-1272), On Spiritual Creatures (De Spiritualibus Creaturis, 1268), On the Soul (De Anima, 1269—1270). To the Disputed Questions are to be added the more infrequent and varied Quodlibetal Questions.

Among the theological treatises we must note in particular three in addition to the Commentary on the Sentences (which, though a commentary in its intention, is yet a highly original theological work). The Summa Contra Gentiles (1259—1264) is a classic manual of Christian doctrine intended for the use of Christian missionaries in Spain. Though St. Thomas himself did not give this work a title, there are sufficient indications in it to justify the old tradition according to which the work is to be called On the Truth of the Catholic Faith (De Veritate Fidei Catholicae). The famous work called by tradition the Summa Theologica, whose correct title is either Summa or Summa Theologiae, belongs to the years 1265 to 1272 and was left unfinished. To these two large theological syntheses we must add the much smaller Compendium of Theology (Compendium Theologiae, 1273).

It has proved difficult for historians to discover the man behind the author of these works. Unlike St. Augustine, who can be seen and felt as a man across the pages of his writings, St. Thomas remains in his work a mind entirely devoted to the intellectual task of being a disciple and a student of the truth contained in the Christian Revelation. One might say that this discipleship is the St. Thomas Aquinas who faces us in his writings with unfailing calmness, with total devotion to the cause of Christian truth, with an unbounded confidence in reason, with a zealous admiration for Aristotle, and yet with an awareness of the errors and failings to which men are subject. In his pages, St. Thomas stands before us as the voice of the Christian reason living and teaching within faith, working to save and to purify the thought of the Greeks and the Arabs in the higher light of the Christian Revelation, confident that all that had been rational in the ancient philosophers and their followers would become more rational within Christianity, just as man himself came to know the secret of his own destiny with certainty and finality from God Himself. In the only personal reflection that St. Thomas Aquinas has ever set down, he has said this of himself in the Summa Contra Gentiles:

"And so, in the name of the divine mercy, I have the confidence to embark upon the work of a wise man, even though this may surpass my powers, and I have set myself the task of making known, as far as my limited powers will allow, the truth that the Catholic faith professes, and of setting aside the errors that are opposed to it. To use the words of Hilary: I am aware that I owe this to God as the chief duty of my life, that my every word and sense may speak of Him."

These words are the spiritual signature of St. Thomas the Dominican monk, dedicating his intelligence to the Truth Who became man for the salvation and perfection of mankind. These words are also a fitting introduction to the SCG, which is not merely the only complete summa of Christian doctrine that St. Thomas has written, but

1. Summa Contra Gentiles, I, ch. 2, 112 (below, p. 62).
The abbreviation SCG will hereafter be used in the present work
to refer to the Summa Contra Gentiles.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 19

also a creative and even revolutionary work of Christian apologetics composed at the precise moment when Christian thought needed to be intellectually creative in order to master and assimilate the intelligence and the wisdom of the Greeks and the Arabs.

II. ARISTOTELIANISM AND THE OCCASION OF THE
Summa Contra Gentiles

The modern student of St. Thomas Aquinas does not always face the task of interpreting his larger treatises as wholes. It is much easier to cite individual texts from the Summa Theologiae on specific problems or points of doctrine than to interpret the Summa as a whole. For the unity of context that the Summa as a whole contains we have tended to substitute the notion of an abstract philosophical system called "Thomism." This Thomism we sometimes imagine, was inspired by St. Thomas Aquinas and transmitted to the modem world by his great commentators. In the process of transmission it has become developed, and especially it has acquired a systematic character and autonomy that it did not have in St. Thomas himself. But the relation of St. Thomas to this general Thomism is often as tenuous as the relation of Plato to the many Platonisms that have been inspired by his writings. Hence, just as the students of Plato have had to return to his writings in order to determine what Plato himself said and thought, so the students of St. Thomas Aquinas need to return to his writings in order to see within the framework of his express intentions the meaning of the many isolated passages of his writings that are frequently quoted out of context. The SCG is a good example of the present issue. This work is one of the great expressions of the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. It is, in many ways, the most personal of his doctrinal writings. Strangely enough, however, the SCG finds no unanimity of opinion among the historians and students of St. Thomas. There is disagreement as to the nature and purpose of the work. There is disagreement as to its general organization and the articulation of its doctrine. Supposing for a moment that the SCG is one of the two or three truly classic expressions of the mind of their author, these disagreements bear on nothing less than the interpretation of the Thomism of St. Thomas himself in its most fundamental aspects. In the presence of the SCG, the issue is not one of maintaining a coherent interpretation of particular texts on a particular problem, but of seeing the SCG in the unity that inspired it.

In the main, the SCG has posed two problems for its interpreters. One concerns the fundamental purpose of the work with reference to the historical situation that occasioned it. The second problem concerns the internal organization of the SCG. This is a far-reaching problem and certainly the more serious of the two. The question asked is this. How are the four books of the SCG related to one another? Are they parts of a theological work? Is the SCG wholly theological or also partly philosophical? In St. Thomas~ own intention, how is the SCG organized and articulated?

As to the occasion and the purpose of the work, there is an old tradition that goes back to the beginning of the i4th century. In an often quoted passage from the chronicle by Peter Marsilio completed in 1313, there occurs the following paragraph on St. Raymond of Penafort and St. Thomas Aquinas:

"Furthermore, strongly desiring the conversion of unbelievers, Raymond asked an outstanding Doctor of Sacred Scripture, a Master in Theology, Brother Thomas of Aquino of the same Order, who among all the clerics of the world was considered in philosophy to be, next to Brother Albert, the greatest, to compose a work against the errors of unbelievers, by which both the cloud of darkness might be dispelled and the teaching of the true Sun might be made manifest to those who refuse to believe. The renowned Master accomplished what the humility of so great a Father asked, and composed a work called the Summa Contra Gentiles, held to be without equal in its field."2

There are no serious historical reasons for refusing to accept this testimony. The objection that the SCG is too intellectual in character to be a manual of apologetics for missionaries is not a very strong one. St. Thomas himself may very well have thought that the SCG was precisely the sort of work needed by Christian missionaries in Spain face to face with the high intellectual culture of the Moslem world. Seen from this point of view, the SCG is a manual of apologetics against the intellectual picture of the universe created for the Western world by the translation of the writings of Aristotle and his followers into Latin in the course of the 12th and i 3th centuries. This is a perfectly understandable objective. In a large sense, therefore, the SCG is part of the Christian intellectual reaction against Arabian intellectual culture, and especially against Arabian Aristotelianism. To the Arabs, and especially to Averroes, Aristotle was philosophy, and therefore the cause of Aristotle was the cause of philosophy itself. To Christian thinkers, consequently, who were reading Aristotle across Arabian commentaries, the cause of Aristotle concentrated within itself the basic conflict between Christianity and the Arabs on the nature of philosophy and the philosophical picture of the universe. To Arabs and Christians alike, Aristotle was the master of those who know. St. Thomas did not create this situation. But the situation did pose for him the great issue of the interpretation of Aristotle, just as it gave him the opportunity to formulate a Christian Aristotelianism that could solve the problem agitating the Christian world since the beginning of the century and especially since the time of Pope Gregory IX.

2. The text is cited in Sancti Thomae Aquinatis . . .
Opera iussu impensaque Leonis XIII P. M. edita
(Romae: ex Typographia Polyglotta), vol. XII, 1918, p. VI.

22 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

St. Thomas’ attitude towards Aristotle is a particular instance of his attitude towards philosophy, and this in turn is one of the major themes in the over-all plan and purpose of the SCG. Two issues merge in this question. One concerns the attitude of 1 3th century Christian theologians and philosophers towards Aristotle and his writings. The other concerns their attitude towards philosophy itself. For Christians thinkers to learn philosophy from Aristotle was, in the circumstances, a dangerous complication. To learn it from Aristotle as commented upon by Averroes was to suppose, as Averroes supposed, that philosophy was exactly what Aristotle had taught in the 4th century before Christ. Now Aristotle had in fact taught many doctrines that were untrue and unacceptable to Christian thinkers. To follow Averroes estimate of Aristotle would consequently lead not only to accepting these errors as philosophically necessary, but also to destroying the very possibility of the unity of truth. How, then, could Christianity assimilate philosophy—the philosophy of Aristotle—without destroying either itself or philosophy?

The situation could not be more complicated or more dangerous. In fact, both the Parisian condemnation of i 277 and the general direction of mediaeval philosophy after it indicate that the Christian thinkers of the Middle Ages were not completely successful in the problem of assimilating Aristotle. As for St. Thomas, from the beginning of his career he took a position on Aristotle and philosophy that, were it followed, would have proved a successful diagnosis of the problem. He did not believe that Aristotle or any other philosopher was errorless; yet he did believe that, within its own domain, philosophy was not necessarily subject to error; in other words, that as the work of the human reason philosophy could be errorless. He believed that truth was one and came from God. He therefore believed that nothing that was philosophically demonstrable could ever contradict or be contradicted by anything taught to man by the Christian Revelation. Even more, he believed that, in the divine plan of creation, reason was a sort of preamble to faith, leading man by its light towards a God Who, out of His infinite love and generosity, had created man in order to raise him to a participation in His life. Not only, therefore, was truth one, but the human reason was at home in revelation as in a transcending truth that answered to its deepest needs and fulfilled it in a way that man could not know or expect. The Christian Aristotelianism of St. Thomas Aquinas, therefore, is a witness to his belief in the unity of truth, in the completion of reason by faith, indeed in the purification and growth of the very rationality of reason through faith, and in the service of reason to faith as its preamble. As for Aristotle, like other men he was fallible and subject to error. But, even so, he was an eminent philosopher whose eminence was recognized by his unique title as the Philosopher. Yet he earned this eminence not because he had spoken, but because what he said contained so much truth within it. As St. Thomas saw him, Aristotle served truth well as a philosopher, so that St. Thomas was often able to speak "according to truth and Aristotle."

These views were present in St. Thomas mind towards the year r 257 when he was commenting on Boethius theological tract On the Trinity. In this commentary, St. Thomas raised many questions, of which two in particular concern us. Were revelation and faith necessary to men? Should faith use philosophical arguments? Since the SCG deals directly with the first of these questions (I, ~), we shall note here only an objection that St. Thomas poses and answers. The objection is a question well known to the ancients. Why should man seek things greater than himself? To this St. Thomas replies in a way that includes a realistic assessment of the accomplishments of the philosophers:

"Whoever is tending to beatitude must know the things in which he is to seek beatitude and how to do it. This cannot take place more easily than through faith, since the inquiry of the reason cannot arrive at such a knowledge except by already knowing many things that it is not easy to know. Nor, likewise, could the reason come to know them with less danger, since human inquiry easily succumbs to error because of the weakness of our intellect. This is also shown from the philosophers themselves who, searching for the end of human life following the way of the reason, and not finding the manner of reaching that end, fell into many and most shameful errors. Moreover, they disagreed among themselves so much that scarcely two or three of them had in all of these questions one doctrine in common, whereas, as against this, we see that through faith even the greatest number of people are united in one common teaching."3

St. Thomas Aquinas has ample evidence for this conclusion throughout the first half of Book Three of the SCG. But the errors of the philosophers, while indicating the appropriateness of the divine revelation, do not lead St. Thomas to sacrifice reason to its fallibility or philosophy to the errors of men. In fact, the following rather lengthy citation is an interesting witness to St. Thomas belief in the unity of truth and in the service of philosophy to revelation. The question at issue, as has been indicated, is whether faith should use philosophical arguments. The answer is as follows.

"The gifts of grace are added to nature in such a manner that they do not remove it but perfect it. So it is with the light of faith that is infused in us gratuitously: it does not destroy the light of natural knowledge with which we are by nature endowed. Now, although the natural light of the human mind does not suffice for the manifestation of the things that are made manifest by faith, yet it is impossible that what is divinely taught to us by faith be contrary to the things with which we are endowed by nature. For one or the other would then have to be false, and, since ~both come to us from God, God would be to

3. In B. de Trinitate, q. III, a. 1, ad 3 (in S. Thomae Aquinatis
Opuscula Omnia, ed. P. Mandonnet
[5 vols., Paris: P. Lethielleux, 19271, vol. III, p. 64).

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 25

us an author of falsehood, which is impossible. Rather, the situation is this. Since within the imperfect there is a certain imitation of what is perfect, though an incomplete one, in what is known through natural knowledge there is a certain likeness of what is taught to us by faith.

"Now just as Sacred Teaching is founded on the light of faith, so philosophy is founded on the natural light of reason. It is therefore impossible that what belongs to philosophy be contrary to what belongs to faith; it rather falls short of it. It contains, however, certain likenesses of what belongs to faith, and certain preambles to it, as nature is a preamble to grace. And if in what the philosophers have said we come upon something that is contrary to faith, this does not belong to philosophy but is rather an abuse of philosophy arising from a defect in reason. It is therefore possible for the principles of philosophy to refute such an error by showing either that it is absolutely impossible or that it is not necessary. For just as what belongs to faith cannot be proved demonstratively, so certain notions contrary to these cannot be shown demonstratively to be wrong but can be shown not to be necessary.

"Thus, therefore, in Sacred Teaching we can use philosophy in a threefold way.

"First, we can use it to demonstrate the preambles of faith, which are necessary in the science of faith as being the things that are proved of God by natural arguments, e.g., that God exists, that God is one, or similar propositions concerning God or creatures that faith proposes as having been proved in philosophy.

"Second, we can use philosophy to make known through certain likenesses what belongs to faith, as Augustine in his book On the Trinity uses many likenesses drawn from the teachings of the philosophers to explain the Trinity.

"Third, we can use philosophy to oppose what is said against faith, either by showing that these things are false or by showing that they are not necessary.

"However, those who use philosophy in Sacred Scripture can err in a twofold way. In one way, by using the things that are contrary to faith, as did Origen, which are not a part of philosophy but are rather an error or an abuse of philosophy. In another way, so as to enclose what belongs to faith under the limits of philosophy, as if one should wish to believe nothing except what can be acquired through philosophy, when, on the contrary, philosophy should be reduced to the limits of faith, according to the words of the Apostle: ‘bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ " (II Corinth. X, 5).4

III. THE PLAN OF THE
Summa Contra Gentiles

The question of the occasion of the SCG is a historical problem that cannot be settled definitively. But the allied question of the internal doctrinal purpose of the work is one that can be submitted to a systematic examination. Indirectly, too, the structure and purpose of the SCG can throw some light on the original destination of the work. To the present writer it seems, on internal grounds, that the SCG did not have a Christian audience in view but rather, through the teaching of Christian missionaries, an intellectual Arab audience. No doubt, even if we accept the testimony of Peter Marsilio and agree on the Penafort inspiration of the SCG, we can still recognize that St. Thomas wrote this work with a full awareness of the development of Arabian Aristotelianism in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Paris.

4. Op. cit., q. II, a. 3; ed. cit., pp. 50-52.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 27

But, however this may be, the internal purpose of the SCG can be determined by examining its structure, organization and development. Here, too, the historians of St. Thomas Aquinas are not in agreement. The controversy precipitated in 1924 by Guy de Broglie, S.J., suggests the necessity of seeing in some detail the unity and order of the SCG according to St. Thomas himself. Those who have had the occasion to read the pages devoted by the Leonine Editors in 1948 to the plan of the SCG will recognize, furthermore, how difficult it can seem to some interpreters of St. Thomas to consider the SCG a unified doctrinal work with a unified purpose.

The SCG, as it is generally known, is a work in four books. The matter that St. Thomas considers in these books he distributes as follows. In Book One he studies God, His existence and perfections, especially His perfect actuality, the autonomy of His knowledge, the independence of His will, the perfection of His life, and the generosity of His love. In Book Two, St. Thomas studies creation, especially God s freedom in creation, the nature of man, and particularly the unity of soul and body within man. In Book Three, St. Thomas studies the order of creation and especially of man to God, the divine providence over all things and especially man. In Book Four, St. Thomas studies the Trinity, the Incarnation and the end of the universe. Moreover, at the beginning of each book St. Thomas sets down a number of rubrics whose purpose is to make clear to the reader the plan of the whole work and the unity and continuity of the four books among themselves.5 Taken together, these rubrics give a clear conception of the plan and purpose of the SCG as seen by its author. A study of this plan offers the surest introduction to the work and to St. Thomas purpose in writing it.

5. These rubrics are, in order, located in the following chapters:
SCG, I, ch. i—p; II, ch. 1—5; III, ch. 1
(see also ch. 64 and 111); iv, ch. 1.

28 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The SCG is a work of wisdom and, in writing it, St. Thomas set himself the task of being a wise man. The absolutely wise man is he who considers the whole universe in its end and beginning. This is the intelligent being that is the source and the author of the universe. Because the good of the universe is the good aimed at by the intellectual being that is its author, that good must be truth. Truth, therefore, as the aim and purpose of the whole universe, is the principal object of the wise man. This truth is God. Divine Wisdom testifies that He has assumed flesh and come into the world in order to make divine truth known to men. And Aristotle himself said that first philosophy is the science of truth, that is, of that truth which is the origin of all truth and all things. In brief, then, the office of the wise n~an is to meditate on divine truth and to communicate his meditation to others. The wise man will also oppose the falsehoods that are contrary to this truth. St. Thomas own purpose is to be a wise man, that is to say, a student of divine truth. He lists four reasons for this purpose. The pursuit of wisdom is the source of true beatitude; it makes man approach to a likeness to God; it is the road to the kingdom of immortality; it is full of joy without any bitterness. St. Thomas, therefore, dedicates his life as a student of the truth professed by the Catholic faith. He makes his own the words of St. Hilary that we have already cited: "I am aware that I owe this to God as the chief duty of my life, that my every word and sense may speak of Him."6

What is the method available to the wise man for the manifestation of divine truth? To answer this question we must consider that in the things that we profess about God there is a twofold truth. Some truths about God exceed the grasp of reason, as does the doctrine of the Trinity, but

6. SCG, I, ch. 2 (below, p. 62).

GENERAL INTRODUCTION 29

some can be reached by reason, for example, the existence and unity of God. The truths accessible to the reason were also proved by the philosophers guided by the light of natural reason. That there are truths about God that exceed the reason can be seen if we consider that our knowledge begins in the world of sensible things and reaches to whatever sensible things enable us to reach. God transcends the world of sense as well as our knowledge of it. Aristotle and Scripture are agreed on this point. To St. Thomas this means that we should not immediately reject as false whatever is said about God even though we cannot investigate it by means of reason. In the presence of a transcending God, reason must be open to many truths that surpass its power.

Given that divine truth is twofold, namely, that which can and that which cannot be investigated by reason, St. Thomas thinks it fitting that both should be proposed to men by a divine revelation for their belief. Consider, first, the truths about God that are accessible to reason. If these truths had not been revealed, three harmful consequences would follow. Few men would come to know God, they would need a long time to reach this knowledge, and they would be subject to many errors and uncertainties in the process of reaching it. Hence the conclusion: "Beneficially, therefore, did the divine mercy provide that it should instruct us to hold by faith even those truths that the human reason is able to investigate. In this way, all men would easily be able to have a share in the knowledge of God, and this without uncertainty and error."7

It was also necessary that men believe even what they could not grasp by means of the reason. Men had to learn to direct their desire towards a divine good that transcends human experience in the present life. To call men to some-

7. SCG, I, ch. 4, 1[6 (below, p. 68) .—For the dependence of St. Thomas on Maimonides in the reasons for revelation, see the study of P. Synave (in Me1anges Mandonnet [2 vols., Paris: Librairie J. Vrin, 1930], vol. II, pp. 327—370).

Part 8 - Cultic Terrorism

Terrorism in the Qur’an, a.k.a. Koran

Also, IF the sources herein are accurate, then this would mean that Mohammad taught his followers to oppress or to kill non-Islamics. Ironically, Jews and Catholics were allowed to live provided that they paid a special tax called the Jizya, a tax revenue given to Islamics to compensate them for whatever revenues they lost from no longer dealing in pagan activities. If the Jews and Christians refused to pay this extortion tax they would have to convert to Islam or be killed. Non-Jews and non-Christians, such as idolaters or pagans, had to convert to Islam or be killed. Generally they didn’t have the option of paying the tax. Here is the verse which teaches Islamics to oppress Jews and Christians:

Here is the Verse in the Qur’an Which Legalized Extortion
It is called the Jizya Tax on Christians and Jews

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle [Mohammad] have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, (which is Islam that abolishes all other religions) of the people of the Book, (meaning the Jews and the Christians ) until they pay the Jizya (the tax imposed upon them) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (with humiliation and submission to the government of Islam) 9:29" (Commentary in parenthesis is from the Tafsir Al-Jalalein. i.e., Al-Jalalein’s Interpretation of the Koran.)

Commentary

The order to subjugate or kill Christians and Jews is in that verse. It is clear that Mohammad ordered his followers to fight those Christians and Jews to convert them or pay the Jizya, and if they didn’t convert or pay, do you think that he told the followers to let them go in peace? It is very clear - convert, pay with submission, or die.

Here is the background data for this: “until they [the Jews and Christians] pay the poll tax [Jizya] out of hand being humbled”, i.e. as a compensation for what you fear to lose by the closing of the markets. God gave them compensation for what He cut off from them in their former polytheism by what He gave them by way of poll tax from the people of scripture” (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, page 620).

Mohammad told his followers to attack the Jews and Christians. If they humble themselves and submit to the Islamics, but choose to remain Christian or Jewish, then they had to pay the Muslims. Again, as Mohammad’s personal circumstances changed, so to did his “Allah” change. So Mohammad was an extortionist. Also note that the tax levied upon the Christians and Jews was not to support the state in general affairs, it was to compensate Islamics. Mohammad was like a Mafia crime boss, making others pay for “protection,” except it was the Christians and Jews who really needed protection from Mohammad and his Moslem gangs of organized terrorist criminals!

Here is the Verse in the Qur’an
Which Teaches Moslems To Attack and To Kill Pagans

“When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters [pagans] wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful” (Sura 9:5).

Commentary

Here is some background data to this order to kill pagans: “A discharge came down, [Mohammad received a supposed revelation from God], permitting the breaking of the agreement between the apostle [Mohammad] and the polytheists [pagans] that none should be kept back from the temple when he came to it, and that none need fear during the sacred months. That there was a general agreement between him and the polytheists [pagans]; meanwhile there were particular agreements between the apostle [Mohammad] and the Arab tribes for specified terms. And there came down about it and about the disaffected who held back from him in the raid on Tabuk, [a Christian town which Mohammad attacked, and, being victorious, then forced them to pay him],...So travel through the land for four months and know that you cannot escape God and that God will put the unbelievers to shame. And a proclamation from God and His apostle [Mohammad] to men on the day of the greater pilgrimage that God and His apostle [Mohammad] are free from obligation to the polytheists [pagans], i.e., after this pilgrimage. So if you repent it will be better for you; and if you turn back know that you cannot escape God. Inform those who disbelieve, about a painful punishment except those polytheists [pagans] with whom you have made a treaty...If one of the polytheists, i.e. one of those whom I have ordered you to kill, asks your protection, give it him so that he may hear the word of God; then convey him to his place of safety” (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, pages 617-619).

Mohammad had an agreement with a number of Arab tribes. Some were peaceful with him, others disliked him. His “Allah” gave Mohammad a “revelation” allowing him to break his word, the “agreement” with the pagan Arabs, and to attack them after the four sacred months were over. Once again, Mohammad had gained power, and things changed. Now Mohammad was permitted to lie, i.e., to break his agreement, and to make war upon the pagans. Here is another example of what happened when Mohammad’s personal circumstances changed, and how it just so “happened” that “Allah” changed “his” mind again, too! Mohammad’s “Allah” is always changing his mind!

You will note that in the last quote, it is supposed to be Mohammad’s “Allah” telling the Islamics to go out and to kill people. Some of these people had gotten along peacefully with the Islamics. But because they didn’t follow Mohammad, they were going to be attacked and killed!

Moslem Terrorism upon Those Who Leave Islam

Mohammad was not content to conquer by force or to kill those who merely opposed him verbally. No, Mohammad also taught that Islamics who leave Islamic cult are to be murdered as well! Here are some quotes from Bukhari’s collection of Hadith. Please keep in mind that, after the Qur’an, a.k.a. Koran, Bukhari’s Hadith is the next most important writing in Islam,.

“Narrated Abdullah: Allah’s Messenger said, ‘The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslim’” (Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17).

“Narrated Ikrima, ‘Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s messenger forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Messenger, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him’” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

“Narrated Ali, ‘Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah’s messenger, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky, then ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you, (not a Hadith), then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah’s messenger saying, “During the last days there will appear some young foolish people, who will say the best words, but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will leave the faith) and will go out from their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection’” (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64).

Commentary

Not only did Mohammad teach that Islamics are to murder those who have left Islam, wherever you find them, kill them, he further taught that an Islamic who commits this type of murder will be doing God’s service and that he will be rewarded, teaching: whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection

Part 9 - Mohammad and Christ

Compare Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah with Jesus Christ

1) Crime Boss Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah, the War Lord

Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah, based upon what is found set forth above and below, murdered people, commanded various members of his Moslem Terrorist Gangs, a.k.a. cult, to murder people whom he, Mohammad, did not like for whatever scurrilously sanctioned reasons, instigated the murders of various innocent people by various members of his Moslem Terrorist Gangs, had apostate Moslems killed, set forth a formal policy in which he stated, in no way which could possibly be misunderstood or mis-interpreted: “Kill any Jew you can lay your hands on” (Wensinck, “Muhammad and the Jews of Medina”, page 113) and set forth an informal policy which established the immoral precedent that anyone who would dare to question Mohammad would be killed!

2) Islamics do not Claim that Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah
was the Promised Messias of the Old Testament Prophets and Prophecies

Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah did not fulfill the prophecies concerning the Messias of the Old Testament Prophets. As a matter of fact, Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah never even claimed to be the Messias of the Old Testament prophecies!

3) Islamics do not Claim that Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah had a Divine Nature

Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah was born of his human father Abdullah and his human mother Amina. No Islamic would ever claim that Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah was born by a divine or a transcendental act called the Incarnation. He had a normal human nature like the rest of humanity.

4) Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah Admitted He Was a Sinner
Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah admitted that he was a sinful man. According to the Qur’an, Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah had to ask his Allah three times to forgive for his sins (Sura al-Ghafir 40:55; Muhammad 47:19 al-Fath 48:2).

Jesus Christ, the Promised Messias
of the Prophecies of the Old Testament Prophets

1) Jesus Christ Is the Prince of Peace and King of Mercy

“You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him. And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two, Give to him that asketh of thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away. You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thy enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and he unjust. For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:38-48).

WHERE do you find that Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah even once taught the members of his man-made cult: Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven???

WHERE do you find that Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah even once taught the members of his man-made cult: Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect???

On the contrary, from Our research, We have discovered that Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah seemed to be very busy teaching the members of his man-made cult, not only to engage in acts of terrorism, but even to make war against all non-Islamics and to kill non-Islamics, as one Islamic scholar has written: “It is remarkable that tradition attributes Muhammad’s most cruel acts to divine order, namely the siege of Qaynuqa, the murder of Kab, and the attack upon Qurayzah. Allah’s conscience seems to be more elastic than that of his creatures”...Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi report that the prophet [Mohammad] said the morning after the murder [of Kab Ashraf], ‘Kill any Jew you can lay your hands on’” (Wensinck, “Muhammad and the Jews of Medina”, page 113). Also, any apostate was to be killed as well as anyone who dared to question or to make fun of Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah was to be killed as you will remember from what We have already cited above!

In contradistinction, unlike what Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah would have done in His place, Jesus Christ did NOT tell Saint Peter to go ahead and kill the apostate, Judas Iscariot, who had led the mob which had come to arrest Him! Nor did Jesus Christ command Saint Peter to demand that all of the other Apostles also draw their swords and, along with him, not only attack the mob, but also kill as many people in the mob as they could in order to defend Him.

Rather, what did Christ do? He commanded Saint Peter to put his sword back into its scabbord. Here is the context of what happened:

“Judas therefore having received a band of soldiers and servants from the chief priests and the Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said to them: Whom seek ye? They answered him: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith to them: I am he. And Judas also, who betrayed him, stood with them. As soon therefore as he had said to them: I am he; they went backward, and fell to the ground. Again therefore he asked them: Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he. If therefore you seek me, let these go their way. That the word might be fulfilled which he said: Of them whom thou hast given me, I have not lost any one. Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. And the name of the servant was Malchus. Jesus therefore said to Peter: Put up thy sword into the scabbard. The chalice which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? Then the band and the tribune, and the servants of the Jews, took Jesus, and bound him” (John 18:3-12).

“Then Jesus came with them into a country place which is called Gethsemani; and he said to his disciples: Sit you here, till I go yonder and pray. And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to grow sorrowful and to be sad. Then he saith to them: My soul is sorrowful even unto death: stay you here, and watch with me. And going a little further, he fell upon his face, praying, and saying: My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. And he cometh to his disciples, and findeth them asleep, and he saith to Peter: What? Could you not watch one hour with me? Watch ye, and pray that ye enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh weak. Again the second time, he went and prayed, saying: My Father, if this chalice may not pass away, but I must drink it, thy will be done. And he cometh again and findeth them sleeping: for their eyes were heavy. And leaving them, he went again: and he prayed the third time, saying the selfsame word. Then he cometh to his disciples, and saith to them: Sleep ye now and take your rest; behold the hour is at hand, and the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us go: behold he is at hand that will betray me. As he yet spoke, behold Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the ancients of the people. And he that betrayed him, gave them a sign, saying: Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he, hold him fast. And forthwith coming to Jesus, he said: Hail, Rabbi. And he kissed him. And Jesus said to him: Friend, whereto art thou come? Then they came up, and laid hands on Jesus, and held him. And behold one of them that were with Jesus, stretching forth his hand, drew out his sword: and striking the servant of the high priest, cut off his ear. Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels? How then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that so it must be done? In that same hour Jesus said to the multitudes: You are come out as it were to a robber with swords and clubs to apprehend me. I sat daily with you, teaching in the temple, and you laid not hands on me. Now all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then the disciples all leaving him, fled” (Matthew 26:36-56).

2) Catholics DO Claim that Jesus Christ
Is the Promised Messias of the Old Testament Prophets and Prophecies

The prophecies of the Old Testament Prophets foretold the coming of the Messias, called Emmanuel. Emmanuel means “God with us”.

This promise God the Father first made to Adam and Eve: “And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel” (Genesis 3:14-15). It is by her seed, i.e. by the Messias, Jesus Christ, that the woman, the Blessed Virgin Mary, was to crush the serpent’s head.

But why was an Infinite Divine Messias necessary? Because finite Adam and Eve had sinned by disobeying God. It was therefore necessary for the Divine Messias, as Infinite God, to repair or to heal the breach between God and man caused by Original Sin which only the Infinite could heal.

Here is what happened as you may remember: “Now the serpent was more subtle tha any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman: Why hath God commanded you, that you should not eat of every tree of paradise? And the woman answered him, saying: Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch it, lest perhaps we die. And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil. And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband, who did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons. And when they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in paradise at the afternoon air, Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of the Lord God, amidst the trees of paradise. And the Lord God called Adam, and said to him: Where art thou? And he said: I heard thy voice in paradise; and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself. And he said to him: And who hath told thee that thou wast naked, but that thou hast eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat? And Adam said: The woman, whom thou gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat. And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee. And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee, that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work: with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return. And Adam called the name of his wife Eve: because she was the mother of all the living. And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife garments of skins, and clothed them. And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of US [i.e. the three Persons in the Blessed Trinity], knowing good and evil: now therefore lest perhaps he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. And the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure, to till the earth from which he was taken. And he cast out Adam: and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life” (Genesis 3:1-24).

Prophets foretold things about the Messias, “Emmanuel”: “Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and His Name shall be called Emmanuel” (Isaias 7:14).

“Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately. But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying, Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary, thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His Name Jesus. For He shall save His people from their sins. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the Prophet, saying: Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and His Name shall be called Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (Matthew 1:19-23).

There are various Old Testament prophecies which refer to specific events in the life of the true Messias. Here are but a few examples along with the testimony of others, including Christ Himself.

“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion, shout for joy, O daughter of Jerusalem: BEHOLD THY KING will come to thee, the just and saviour: he is poor, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass” (Zacharias 9:9).

This prophecy was fulfilled by Christ, as it is written: “And on the next day, a great multitude that was to come to the festival day, when they had heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried: Hosanna, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, the king of Israel. And Jesus found a young ass, and sat upon it, as it is written: Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy king cometh, sitting on an ass’s colt” (John 12:12-15).

“And in those days cometh John the Baptist preaching in the desert of Judea. And saying: Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he that was spoken of by Isaias the prophet, saying: A voice of one crying in the desert, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight his paths” (Matthew 3:1-3).

“And when Jesus had heard that John was delivered up, he retired into Galilee: And leaving the city Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capharnaum on the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim; That it might be fulfilled which was said by Isaias the prophet: Land of Zabulon and land of Nephthalim, the way of the sea beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles: The people that sat in darkness, hath seen great light: and to them that sat in the region of the shadow of death, light is sprung up. From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:12-17).

“And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother lying, and sick of a fever: And he touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she arose and ministered to them. And when evening was come, they brought to him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word: and all that were sick he healed: That it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by the prophet Isaias, saying: He took our infirmities, and bore our diseases” (Matthew 8:14-17).

“And the Pharisees going out made a consultation against him, how they might destroy him. But Jesus knowing it, retired from thence: and many followed him, and he healed them all. And he charged them that they should not make him known. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaias the prophet, saying: Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom my soul hath been well pleased. I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not contend, nor cry out, neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. The bruised reed he shall not break: and smoking flax he shall not extinguish: till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name the Gentiles shall hope” (Matthew 12:14-21).

“And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables? Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given. For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound: but he that hath not, from him shall be taken away that also which he hath. Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear. For, amen, I say to you, many prophets and just men have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them, and to hear the things that you hear and have not heard them” (Matthew 13:10-17).

“And behold one of them that were with Jesus, stretching forth his hand, drew out his sword: and striking the servant of the high priest, cut off his ear. Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels? How then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that so it must be done? In that same hour Jesus said to the multitudes: You are come out as it were to a robber with swords and clubs to apprehend me. I sat daily with you, teaching in the temple, and you laid not hands on me. Now all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then the disciples all leaving him, fled” (Matthew 26:51-56).

“And Zachary his father was filled with the Holy Ghost; and he prophesied, saying: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; because he hath visited and wrought the redemption of his people: And hath raised up an horn of salvation to us, in the house of David his servant: As he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets, who are from the beginning: Salvation from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us: To perform mercy to our fathers, and to remember his holy testament, The oath, which he swore to Abraham our father, that he would grant to us, That being delivered from the hand of our enemies, we may serve him without fear, In holiness and justice before him, all our days. And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways: To give knowledge of salvation to his people, unto the remission of their sins: Through the bowels of the mercy of our God, in which the Orient from on high hath visited us: To enlighten them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death: to direct our feet into the way of peace” (Luke 1:67-79).

“Then Jesus took unto him the twelve, and said to them: Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things shall be accomplished which were written by the prophets concerning the Son of man. For he shall be delivered to the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and scourged, and spit upon: And after they have scourged him, they will put him to death; and the third day he shall rise again” (Luke 18:31-33).

“Then he said to them: O foolish, and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him” (Luke 24:25-27).

“And he said to them: These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then he opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures. And he said to them: Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, the third day: And that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. And I send the promise of my Father upon you: but stay you in the city till you be endued with power from on high. And he led them out as far as Bethania: and lifting up his hands, he blessed them. And it came to pass, whilst he blessed them, he departed from them, and was carried up to heaven” (Luke 24:44-51).

“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day. And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day. The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven? Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me. Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him. And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God” (John 6:32-70).

“Father, glorify thy name. A voice therefore came from heaven: I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. The multitude therefore that stood and heard, said that it thundered. Others said: An angel spoke to him. Jesus answered, and said: This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes. Now is the judgment of the world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself. (Now this he said, signifying what death he should die.) The multitude answered him: We have heard out of the law, that Christ abideth for ever; and how sayest thou: The Son of man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of man? Jesus therefore said to them: Yet a little while, the light is among you. Walk whilst you have the light, that the darkness overtake you not. And he that walketh in darkness, knoweth not whither he goeth. Whilst you have the light, believe in the light, that you may be the children of light. These things Jesus spoke; and he went away, and hid himself from them. And whereas he had done so many miracles before them, they believed not in him: That the saying of Isaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he said: Lord, who hath believed our hearing? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because Isaias said again: He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Isaias, when he saw his glory, and spoke of him” (John 12:28-41).

3) Catholics DO Claim that Jesus Christ has a Divine Nature
With His Human Nature
Called the Hypostatic Union, By Reason of His Incarnation
In other Words, Jesus Christ IS God the Son
the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity

“In the beginning was the Word [the Divine Logos, Jesus Christ] and the Word was with God and the Word was God. And the Word [Jesus Christ] was made flesh and dwelt among us and we saw His glory, the glory as it were of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of Grace and Truth” (John 1:1, 14).

“And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a Son; and thou shalt call His Name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High [God]... And the angel answering, said to her: [God] the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:30-32, 35).

Every age has many a doubting Thomas. Therefore, We shall summarize a number of reasons of why Catholics believe that Jesus Christ really and truly is True God.

1. The miracles of Christ, especially His Resurrection from the dead, were cited by Christ Himself to prove His Divinity.

“When John [the Baptist] had heard in prison the works of Christ, sending two of his disciples, he said to Him: Art Thou He that art to come, or look we for another? And Jesus making answer said to them: Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen. The blind, see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the Gospel preached to them. And blessed is he that shall not be scandalized in Me” (Matthew 11:2-6).

“Jesus answered them... Do you say of Him Whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest, because I said I AM THE SON OF GOD? If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not. But if I do, though you will not believe Me, believe the works [e.g. the Resurrection; curing the sick; feeding the multitudes; raising the dead to life; etc.], that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father” (John 10:34, 36-38).

2. Jesus Christ repeatedly taught that He was God and even took a solemn oath to say that He was God. His claims must be admitted because even the unbelievers recognized His rectitude, wisdom and His other extraordinary virtues.

“Then Jesus was led by the spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterwards he was hungry. And the tempter coming said to him: If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God. Then the devil took him up into the holy city, and set him upon the pinnacle of the temple, And said to him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written: That he hath given his angels charge over thee, and in their hands shall they bear thee up, lest perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said to him: It is written again: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, And said to him: All these will I give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me. Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan: for it is written, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil left him; and behold angels came and ministered to him” (Matthew 4:1-11).

“The Pharisees being gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying: What think you of Christ? Whose Son is He? They say to Him: David’s. He saith to them: How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on My right hand, until I make Thy enemies Thy footstool?’ If David then called Him Lord, how is He his son? And no man was able to answer Him a word; neither durst any man from that day forth ask Him any more questions” (Matthew 22:41-46).

“Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM” (John 8:58).

In saying this Christ was using the same Name that God gave to Moses to use when speaking of God: “Moses said to God: Lo, I shall go to the children of Israel and say to them: The God of your fathers hath sent me to you. If they should say to me: What is His Name? what shall I say to them? God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS hath sent me to you... This is My Name for ever” (Exodus 3:13-15).

“Again the high priest asked Him and said to Him: Art Thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed God? And Jesus said to him: I AM. And you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God and coming with the clouds of Heaven”(Mark 14:61-62).

3. Jesus Christ permitted the Apostles to call Him God while He was yet on earth, to adore Him as God and even commended their faith in His Deity.

“And they that were in the boat came and adored Him, saying: Indeed Thou art the Son of God” (Matthew 14:33).

“Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-John; because flesh and blood hath not revealed this to thee, but My Father Who is in Heaven” (Matthew 16:15-17).

“Then Jesus said to the Twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered Him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God” (John 6:68-70).

4. Others called Christ the Son of God and Lord, taken in the sense of God.

“Nathanael answered Him, and said: Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God” (John 2:49).

“Now the centurion and they that were with him watching Jesus, having seen the earthquake, and the things that were done, were sore afraid, saying: Indeed this was the Son of God” (Matthew 27:54).

“And the centurion who stood over against him, seeing that crying out in this manner he had given up the ghost, said: Indeed this man was the Son of God” (Mark 15:39).

“And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when Thou shalt come into Thy Kingdom. And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise” (Luke 23:42-43).

5. Even devils acknowledged that Jesus Christ IS the Son of God.

“And the unclean spirits, when they saw Him, fell down before Him; and they cried, saying: Thou art the Son of God” (Mark 3:11-12).

“And devils went out from many, crying out and saying: Thou art the Son of God” (Luke 4:41).

6. Christ’s Transfiguration before three of His Apostles proves His Divinity.

“And after six days Jesus taketh unto him Peter and James and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart; and He was transfigured before them. And His face did shine as the sun; and His garments became white as snow. And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elias talking with Him... Behold a bright cloud overshadowed them. And lo, a voice out of the cloud, saying: This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him. And the Disciples hearing, fell upon their face, and were very much afraid” (Matthew 17:1-3, 5-6).

“And after six days Jesus taketh with Him Peter and James and John and leadeth them up into a high mountain, apart by themselves, and was transfigured before them. And His garments became shining and exceeding white as snow, so as no fuller upon earth can make white. And there appeared to them Elias with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus... And there was a cloud overshadowing them; and a voice came out of the cloud, saying: This is My Beloved Son; hear ye Him” (Mark 9:1-3, 6).

7. Christ’s Resurrection from the dead put the stamp of proof on everything He taught as being True, including that He is God and that He is Infinite and Almighty.

“Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said: Peace be to you. Then He saith to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither and see My Hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said to Him: My Lord and my God. Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen Me, Thomas, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen and have believed. Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of His Disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, you may have life in His Name” (John 20:26-31).

8. The inspired writers wrote that Jesus Christ is True God.

The above quotations from the Gospels prove this is true. Some of the Epistles deal with this subject as does the Acts and the Apocalypse. The following are a few examples.

“And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? Who said: Who art Thou, Lord? And He said: I am Jesus Whom thou persecutest... And immediately he [Saul, later St. Paul] preached Jesus in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God” (Acts 9:4-5, 20).

“Indeed He was the Son of God” (Hebrews 5:8).

“He that committeth sin is of the Devil; for the Devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared that He might destroy the works of the Devil” (1 John 3:8).

“We have seen and do testify that the Father hath sent His Son to be the Saviour of the world. WHOSOEVER SHALL CONFESS THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD, God abideth in him, and he in God” (1 John 4:14-15).

“Who is he that over cometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth that Christ is the Truth” (1 John 5:5-6).

“And We know that the Son of God is come and He hath given Us understanding that we may know the True God, and may be in His True Son. This is the True God and life eternal” (1 John 5:20).

“And to the angel of the church of Thyatira write: These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like to a flame of fire, and his feet like to fine brass” (Apocalypse 2:18).

This explains in part why Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is God and why Catholics express this belief in two Creeds: Jesus Christ “was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary” (Apostles’ Creed). He “was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary” (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed).

4) Jesus Christ was NOT a Sinner, But the Spotless Lamb of God

“Let us hasten therefore to enter into that rest; lest any man fall into the same example of unbelief. For the word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two edged sword; and reaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit, of the joints also and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature invisible in his sight: but all things are naked and open to his eyes, to whom our speech is. Having therefore a great high priest that hath passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God: let us hold fast our confession. For we have not a high priest, who can not have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin. Let us go therefore with confidence to the throne of grace: that we may obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid” (Hebrews 4:11-16).

“And you know that He [Christ] appeared to take away our sins, and in Him [Christ] there is no sin. Whosoever abideth in Him, sinneth not; and whosoever sinneth, hath not seen Him, nor known him. Little children, let no man deceive you. He that doth justice is just, even as he is just. He that commmitteth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:5-8).

Summary

There are many other differences between Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah and Jesus Christ. For example, Jesus Christ instituted the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and Seven Sacraments. The Mass is the perfection and completion of the sacrifices of the Old Law temple animal sacrifices.

By comparison, as Our research indicates, Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah did NOT continue with any kind of sacrifice, even within the context of the bloody animal sacrifices of the Old Testament. Yet God the Holy Ghost, through the pen of Saint Paul, reminds all of us that “almost all things, according to the law, are cleansed with blood: and without the shedding of [sacrificial] blood there is no remission [of sins] (Hebrews 9:22).

But cafeteria chooser of what to believe and what not to believe according to his personal whims and prejudices, one Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah, choose, among other things, NOT to teach anything about this basic truth. The real reason, of course, is that the shedding of [sacrificial] blood presupposes a covenant and God NEVER made a blood covenant with Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah - thus a covenant has no meaning for the false prophet Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah! On the surface, it appears that Islamism is nothing more than an updated version of at least a portion of the Hanif cult, perhaps a large portion?

Part 10 - Data on Islam

Islamic Doctrine and Religion
Islam divides its religious cult into two distinct parts:
Iman, i. e., faith, or doctrine, and Din, i. e., religion, or practice.

The Iman, which is the first or doctrinal part, consists of its teachings about:

1. The unity of God.
2. The creation of the world out of nothing.
3. The existence of good and evil spirits.
4. The resurrection and future judgment.
5. A state of retribution hereafter.
6. Fatalism, or God’s absolute predetermination both of good and evil.

As a doctrine, Islam rejects the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Divinity of Jesus Christ. It also rejects Redemption and Justification. The happiness of Heaven, which none but the believers in Mohammad can attain, is described as consisting of the enjoyment of sexual as well as other sensual pleasures. Therefore, contrary to the current mania to try to make Islam a quasi-type of Christianity, the correct understanding of the Iman, or doctrinal part of Islam, this should undeceive everyone of such a gross error! Islam is NOT Christianity!

The Islamic Din, or practice of religion, is like all other heathen and pagan religions because it insists upon external observances, but yet it lays no stress whatsoever upon interior sanctity.

Its moral law enjoins:

1. Prayer five times a day.
2. Repeated purifications.
3. Almsgiving.
4. Fasts and abstinence from wine and spirituous liquors.
5. Pilgrimage to Mecca.
6. War against unbelievers. (This is believed and practiced by Moslems, not by Mohammadans.)
7. The keeping of Friday as a holyday.

Islamism permits its followers to return evil for evil. It also allows polygamy in which each Islamic man can have up to four wives and countless concubines. Mohammad himself, after the death of his first wife, took many wives in addition to a large number of concubines. Islam has no hierarchy or teaching body of religious men. The functions of the Sheiks who preach, of the Kathibes who explain the Koran, of the Kayim, the guardians of the mosques, of the Imans who preside at the daily prayers, and the Muezzins who call to them, may be discharged by any Islamic. The Ulemas are doctors of law, and the Dervishes are a filthy and fanatical sort of quasi-monks.

In general, the sacred writings of the Islamics are the Koran, a.k.a. Qur’an, which is a collection of Mohammad’s pretended revelations which were compiled after his death by Abu-Bekr, and arranged by Othman. The Koran consists of one hundred and fourteen chapters, or Suras, each bearing a title and beginning with the formula “In the name of the most merciful God.” It is the chief authority of the Islamics in civil and military affairs, as well as in matters of faith. The Koran regards Christ with great reverence, but denies that Jesus Christ is God or the Son of God, though it admits His miraculous birth of the Virgin Mary.

Therefore, contrary to the current mania to try to make Islam a quasi-type of Christianity, the correct understanding of the Din, or practice of religion, this should undeceive everyone of such a gross error! Islam is NOT Christianity!

The other writings are the Sonna, a.k.a. Sunnah, or collection of moral traditions of the sayings and doings of Mohammad. Many Islams, for instance the Persians and Hindoos, reject the Sonna, whence they are called Shiites, opponents of tradition, while those acknowledging the authority of the Sonna, such as the Turks, are styled Sunnites, a.k.a. Sonnites, or Traditionists. The Sunnites, as well as Shiites, are subdivided into a number of sects.

Some Islamic Sects

The Sunnites

The sect of the Sunni, a word which is derived from the Arabic word sunna, or sunnah, and which refers to the custom of Mohammad (whose name is also spelled Mohammed, as well as Muhammad), i.e. the way in which Mohammad lived his life. The Sunnah of the Sunni Islamic sect is the second source of Islamic jurisprudence, the first being the Qur’an, a.k.a. Koran. Both sources are claimed to be indispensable in that supposedly no real Islamic man can practice Islam without consulting both the Qur’an and also the Sunnah. It should be noted that the Arabic word hadith (The plural form is ahadith.) is very similar to the Arabic word Sunnah.

Nevertheless, these two words are not identical. A hadith is a narration about the life of Mohammad (the Arabic word for this is saas), i.e. what Mohammad approved, as opposed to the life of Mohammad itself, which is called the Sunnah. Thus the Sunnah is a compilation of what Mohammad practiced himself, while the hadith is what Mohammad approved. As an Islamic sect, these Sunni constitute approximately 90% of the total Islamic population of the Islamic world.

The Shiites

Shiism is a minority branch of Islam. The followers of Shiism are called Shiites and they compose approximately one tenth of the total population of the Islamic world. Shiism dates back to the first decades of the Islamic era when the Shiites formed the party, called shi’a, of Ali, who was the fourth Caliph who directly descended from the Mohammed, against Mu’awiya, the governor of Damascus, who claimed the Caliphate but had no kinship with Mohammed.

The first Shiites, a.k.a. Shias, were Arabs who split from the Sunni mainstream of Islamism in the seventh century AD. The Shiites, which are splintered into various sub-sects or schismatic denominations, constitute an important part of the Islamic population in various Arab countries, especially where they are in the majority.

For example, research has discovered the following data which seems to be the most current:

Iraq - Shiite Twelvers compose over 50% of the Islamics.

Bahrain - Shiite Twelvers compose over 50% of the Islamics.

Lebanon - Shiite Twelvers compose about 25% of the Islamics.

Oman - Shiite Kharidjis compose over 60% of the Islamics.

Yemen - Shiite Zaydis compose over 60% of the Islamics.

Major Shiite Sub-Sects or Schismatic Denominations

The first major Shiite Sub-Sect or Schismatic Denomination is called the Twelvers. This term comes from the Arabic word Ithna which means twelve. The Shiite Twelvers are, without a doubt, the largest group of Shiite Islamics. Within the Arab Islamic world, they form about half of the population of Iraq and there are Shiite Twelver minorities in Lebanon, Bahrain and in the Eastern part of Saudi Arabia. The Shiite Twelvers believe that the line of Ali became extinct with al-Askari, the Twelfth Imam (An Imam is a guide for the sect.), who mysteriously disappeared in 873 A.D. But they refuse to accept that al-Askari died. Rather, they believe he will appear shortly before the end of the world. Such is the wishful thinking of the Shiite Twelvers.

The second largest Shiite Sub-Sect or Schismatic Denomination is called the Ismailites, a.k.a. the Seveners, who are thinly spread around the Islamic world. In the Arab world in particular, they are found primarily in Egypt and in Syria. Their spiritual leader is the Aga Khan. The Shiite Ismailites only recognize the first seven Imams.

A sub-schism within the Shiite Ismailite sect spawned the Shiite Ismailite Alawi sub-sect or sub-schismatic denomination which integrated a number of doctrines from other religions, especially from Christianity. Over one million Syrians are Shiite Ismailite Alawi.

Another sub-schism within the Shiite Ismailite sect produced the Shiite Ismailite Druze who are found in Syria, Lebanon, and Israel. the Shiite Ismailite Druze Islamics are a more heterodox branch of the Shiite Ismailite schismatic sect. As a matter of fact, they are so different in their tenets that they are not considered by some Islamics as Shiites, while other Islamic sects do not even consider them to be Islamics.

Yet another Shiite Schismatic Denomination is called the Zaydites. The Shiite Zaydite Islamics receive their name from Zayd ibn Ali, who was a grandson of Ali. The Shiite Zaydite Islamics, of all of the Shiite schismatic denominations, are the closest to the Sunnis regarding Islamic jurisprudence. Opposing the Sunni Islamics, the Shiite Zaydite Islamics reject any attempt to establish dynasties of rulers. Rather, they take the position that the Imam should be chosen from among the descendents of Ali and can be deposed if he does not prove up to the task. The Shiite Zaydite Islamics live mainly in Yemen.

Another Shiite Schismatic Denomination is called the Kharidjites or the Ibadites. The Shiite Kharidjite Islamics hold that Ali made a mistake in looking for a compromise with Mu’awiya. They feel that the Imam should be elected for his moral qualities. For this reason they are not considered to be Shiites by some. Shiite Kharidjite Islamics are the majority in Oman. In addition, Shiite Kharidjite Islamics have significant minorities in Tunisia where they number about 50,000 in Djerba, and also in Algeria where they number over 100,000 in the Mzab.

Variances in Koran, a.k.a. Qur’an

Some of you may be wondering how it is possible to have so many different sects of Islam? At least part of the answer is that variances exist in the Koran, the major basis of belief for all of the members of Islamism.

Islamic theologians have disagreed on the Bismallah (invocation) in the Qur’an: Bismi Allahi alrrahmani alrraheemi (“In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate”).

Reciters and Sheikhs of the Qur’an in Medina, Basra, and Syria agree that the Bismallah is not the first verse in Sura al-Fatiha, or even in any other Sura.

For that matter, in his appendix to al-Zamakhashri, al-Said said: “The Islamic nation by and large has agreed that the Bismallah in Sura al-Naml (27) is a verse (30) of that Sura which means it is definitely part of the Qur’an.”

Yet, there has been disagreement concerning the Bismallah the comes at the beginning of the Suras. Ibn Mas’ud, Malik, Abu Hanifa ,and his followers said that it is not a part of the Qur’an. No wonder they do not recite it when praying. This means that there are an extraneous 113 verses in the Qur’an.

But sheikhs and reciters of the Qur’an in Mecca and Kufa claimed that it is indeed a Qur’anic verse. That is why it is prayed aloud. Ibn Abbas said: “if anyone leaves it out, he has left out 113 verses of the Qur’an.”

Here are a few examples:

As quoted from Kitab al-Masahif by Abu Bakr al-Sijistani, the following quotations tackle the question of differences in the readings of the Qur’an while exposing the peculiarities in each codex. No two codices are exactly the same:

In Sura al-Fatiha 1:6 show us in the Arabic has two readings: ihdina or arshidna

In al-Fatiha verse 7, not the lost can be read as wala or ghaira.

In Sura al Baqarah 2:1 “that is the book” is read as dsalika or tanzilu.

In verse 7, “set a seal” is read as ghishawatun or gashwatun or ghashiyatun.

In verse 9, “they deceive” is read as yukhadiun or bishayatinihim.

In verse 14, “their evil ones” is read as ila shayatinihim or bishayatinihim.

In verse 17, “when it lighted” is read falamma adaat or fa adaat.

In verse 18, “deaf, dumb, and blind” is read as summun, bukmun, umyun or summan, bukman, umyan.

In verse 20, “snatches away” is read as yakhtafu or yakhtifu; “every time is read as awa kullama or kulla ma; “they walk therein” is read as mashaw fihi or marru fihi or madaw fihi; “take away” is read as lazahaba or laazhaba which changes the following baa to zaida.

In verse 23, “we have revealed to our servant” is read as nazzbalna ala abdina or anzalna ala ibadina.

In verse 24, “prepared for” is read as uiddat or ub’tiddat or uidat.

In verse 25, “pure” is read as mutahharatun or in the plural.

In verse 26 “a mosquito” is read as ma budtatun or va baudtatun, but others say it is read as baudtatun only. “He causes many to stray” and “many he leads astray in the right path” is read as udillu bihi kathiran wa yahdi bihi kathiran or udilla bihi kathirun wa uhda bihi kathirun. “He causes not to stray except those who forsake the path” is read as ma udillu bihi illa al-fasiqina or ma uhdiya bihi illa al-fasiquna.

In verse 23, “he placed them” is read as aradahum or aradahunna.

In verse 36, “make them slip” is read as faadallahuma or fawaswasa lahuma.

Such sources of confusion serve to divide Islam, not unite it. This explains part of the problem with Islam and why there exists today Moslem terrorists and moderate Mohammadans.

A Brief History of Islam

Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.

Above, We have given you the opportunity to read some biographical data about Mohammad, the founder of Islamism as well as some of his teachings. We have compared Mohammad with Jesus Christ. We have also presented additional data about Islamism.

But there may be those who would want to take the position that the killings and cold-blooded murders which Mohammad ordered or of which he approved happened back around the beginning of the 7th Century A.D. But that was 14 centuries ago! Things back then were a lot different than today. As civilization slowly developed, the 7th Century organized crime boss mentality of Mohammad must be excused as a phenomena of its time and certainly became civilized with the march of the centuries down to today! And that the terrorist attack against American on 9-11-2001 A.D. was done by a handful of evil people who do not represent the good people who are members of the Islamic religion.

This Pastoral Letter is already much longer than We would have preferred it to be. Therefore, We shall not double its size now by including a detailed history of this organization from the time of Mohammad to today.

Nevertheless, We cannot totally ignore history either because history can, and has, taught valuable lessons for the present and the future! Hence, We have considered a compromise. A brief history seems to be the best compromise to bring the history of Islamism up to more recent times. Since different historians tend to include or exclude certain things which other historians do not, for various valid reasons, for the sake of being more thorough, although trying to be relatively brief, it seems to Us that in order to strike a balance here, We will cite only four sources on this subject. And, in order to keep this historical data as brief as possible, the best solution seems to Us to simply quote, without any comments, what they have written. In order to avoid confusion, We have not used any quotation marks to identify that these are direct quotations because some of these sources will have some quotations which they use and it can get confusing as to who is quoting whom.

Source # 1

Rev. J.A. Birkhaeuser, History of the Church

258. At first Mohammed found acceptance only with a few of his nearest relations. He was vehemently opposed by the Korasheites of Mecca, who at last drove him to seek an asylum at Medina, July 22, A. D. 622. From this flight, or Hegira, of the prophet begins the Mohammedan era. From Medina, where he assumed supreme spiritual and civil authority over his people, Mohammed, with sword in hand, began to propagate his religion. In 630, he took Mecca and converted the Kaaba, after purifying it from all idols, into the national sanctuary of the true believers, or Moslems. Mohammed now assumed the task of converting all nations. He addressed letters to the Emperor Heraclius, the Persian King Chosroes II., and other princes, calling upon them to embrace Islamism. Before the death of Mohammed, which occurred in 632, just as he was preparing to enter and conquer Syria, nearly the whole of Arabia was subdued to the new religion.

259. Islamism spread with amazing rapidity. It had been founded by the sword, and by the sword it was to be maintained and propagated. The Caliphs, who succeeded to the authority of Mohammed, trod in his footsteps. Abu-Bekr, A. D. 632—634, the first Caliph, began the conquest of Syria and Palestine, which his successor, Omar I, A. D. 634—644, completed. In 635, the Moslems took Damascus and, in 637, Jerusalem, where, on the site of the ancient temple, Omar built the grand Mosque bearing his name. Egypt came under the Moslem domination in 640; Persia in 642, and Northern Africa in 707. Soon, all the islands of the Mediterranean and nearly the whole of Spain were in their hands, whence they invaded Gaul but were defeated in the decisive battle at Tours by Charles Martel, A. D. 732, which put a stop to their progress in Western Europe. (Rev. J.A. Birkhaeuser, History of the Church From its First Establishment to Our Own Times, Designed for the use of Ecclesiastical Seminaries and Colleges, 1888, Chapter III, History of Heresies and Schisms, II Schisms, pp. 224-226).

Source # 2

Rev. Fernand Mourret, S.S., A History of the Catholic Church
Mohammedanism

Growing perils on the frontiers suggested to the Christian nations the idea of a closer union and of a firm and lasting organization for the defense of their faith and their national autonomy.

In the north of Europe the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian pirates, who received a bloody defeat in the sixth century from Theodoric the elder son of Clovis,2 suddenly reappeared in the eighth century on the seacoast of Gaul and in the coastal islands of Great Britain, pillaging, terrible, elusive. The seacoast population was terrified by their savage cries, their wild songs, the mere look of the frightful heraldic animals surmounting the prows of their warships.3

In the south the danger was no less serious. The Saracens, masters of Spain, in 732 had encountered the Frankish army of Charles Martel in a formidable encounter. Their pirates were making numerous raids in Sicily, Italy, and Provence. Says De Hammer, a scholar learned in things Arabic: “Among the Arabs, pillage was looked upon as a lawful method of gain: it was the lot reserved for the valiant.” In the seventh century, however, a religious revolution, the primary purpose of which seems to have been merely purification of the old popular beliefs, gave this race a coherence and a rallying cry and thus made its power more fearful. In less than a hundred years the irresistible enthusiasm aroused by Mohammed had created an empire extending from China to the Pyrenees, twice the size of the Roman Empire, six times as extensive as that of Charlemagne, ten times as large as that later founded by Napoleon.5 The greatness of that empire, the formidable power of its arms, the fierce proselytism of its religion, and the captious prestige of its philosophy constituted the greatest external danger to the Church throughout the Middle Ages. This politico-religious institution was the work of a man whose obscure and complex psychology has not yet been completely analyzed and grasped.

Mohammed (or Mahomet) was born in Mecca, April 20, 571. Arabia was then a prey to gross polytheism. In 611, when he was forty years old, following a pretended apparition of the angel Gabriel to him, Mohammed thought of restoring his country to the purity of primitive monotheism. Such seems to have been his aim at first...His doctrine lost its earlier simplicity...Probably the suras recommending tolerance and mildness date from the early days of Mohammed?s preaching. But his character changed. Obliged to flee from Mecca in consequence of the violent opposition of his countrymen, he withdrew to Yatreb, which became Medina, the city par excellence. There he arrived September 24, 622. This date marks the beginning of the Mohammedan era, which starts with the hegira, that is, Mohammed?s flight.

Mohammedan Conquests

In his exasperation, the prophet completely forgot his teachings about patience and resignation. Henceforth his words were all warlike. Terrible, sanguinary, merciless, he exclaims: “Slay the infidels wherever you find them, hide in ambush against them.” From the ranks of his followers he formed an army. He promised paradise to all his soldiers who would die on the battle-field from a wound received in front. Freely or under compulsion, all Arabia rallied to the fierce prophet. For many, might itself became an argument of truth. Islam is mighty, they said: Islam has its might from the Almighty. Furthermore, in this doctrine of Islam, the whole content, its errors as well as its truths, seemed to favor its spread. By its fundamental dogma of the oneness of God, by the respect it inspired toward the Divinity, Islam corresponded to the deep-rooted religious aspirations in the Arab race. By the absence of any mysteries and of any really supernatural element in its doctrine, by its easy morality, remarkably adapted to the customs of the country and of the period, it was mindful of the pride, sensuality, the warlike and conquering instincts of the race to whom it was addressed.

Islam?s progress was rapid. The prophet died in March, 632. But he said to his disciples: “After I am gone, you will accomplish the conquest of Syria and Persia.” His successor, Abu Bekr, fulfilled his prediction. At one and the same time he attacked the two neighbors of the Arab empire: namely, the Persian Empire and the Byzantine Empire. Mohammed, in whom the foresight of delicate political sense was joined with religious enthusiasm, was aware of the weakness of these two empires and had no need of a revelation to forecast their proximate fall. Persia, since the time of Chosroes, had been given up to political anarchy. The religious anarchy, a result of the numerous issues springing from the Monophysite heresy, had enfeebled the administrative efficiency of the Eastern Empire. Syria, Egypt, and Persia one after the other fell under the blows of the Arab army, which a strict discipline directed and which the memory of the prophet animated in battle. The dynasty of the Ommiads, which in 680 succeeded the dynasty of the Alides, carried forward the conquests of Islam. It invaded Africa, also Spain, where the Visigoth people no longer had any vitality.

After the fall of the Ommiad dynasty, supplanted in the middle of the eighth century by the Abbassides, the Arab empire in Africa and Asia did indeed experience a political and religious crisis which has been compared to the crisis of the Carolingian Empire after the death of Charlemagne. But the Mussulman fanatics tried to make up for this by pillaging the shores of Europe; and, in spite of all difficulties, the caliphates of Bagdad and Cordova were resplendent.6 A brilliant civilization, enriched by contact with Hellenism and with Persia, soon fascinated Europe. The Christian nations, weakened by the crisis of formation which they were experiencing at that moment, had great need to unite and find a leader.

Charlemagne

Divine providence revealed this leader to the world. It was the son and successor of Pepin the Short. He is known to history as Charlemagne. Poetry and art, with their inclination to transfer to the physical qualities of great men the character of their works, have represented Charlemagne as of gigantic stature, with a magnificent beard, a thundering voice, and a terrifying look that miscreants could not face. Quite different is the portrait which Einhard gives us. He says: “Charles was large of body, robust, and tall, but his height did not exceed seven times the length of his foot. He had a short, thick neck, and a protruding stomach; but the proper proportion of the rest of his body concealed these defects. His voice, though penetrating, appeared too thin for so large a body. He walked with a firm step, and all his movements were virile.” 7

Of his work, art and poetry have noted mostly its outward and brilliant aspect; they have viewed him especially as a warrior and conqueror. An impartial study of the historical documents leads to a very different conclusion. Charlemagne was above all a civilizer and a pacifier.8 .......

(Footnotes:)

2 St. Gregory of Tours, III, 3.

3 For a description of the Danish fleet of King Canute, see Cnutionis regis gesta, I, chap. 4; II, chap. 4.

4 J. de Hammer, Mines de l’ Orient, I, 372 ff.

5 In the middle of the eighth century the Arabian empire had reached the limits of its rapid expansion. “On the north it reached the Caucasus, and even penetrated that region; on the east it took in the middle Indus and the best part of the Turanian plain; on the west it encircled Asia Minor, spread over the whole stretch of northern Africa as far as the Sahara and the Atlantic Ocean, and occupied the entire Iberian peninsula.” Wahl, in Lavisse and Rambaud, Histoire generale, I, 478.

6 The caliphate of Bagdad was founded by Abu Bekr in 632; the caliphate of Cordova was established by Abderam in 756; the caliphate of Cairo was established later by the Fatimites in 909. On the life of Mohammed, see H. Lammens, S.J., Fatima et les filles de Mahomet, critical notes for the study of the Sira.

7 Einhard, Vita Karoli, chap. 22; Hist. des Gaules, V, 98; PL, XCVII, 46 ff.

8 “Examine his reign under its different aspects; and you will see that the darling object of his life was to civilize the nations he governed. Let us regard him first as a warrior. He was always in the field, from the south to the north-east, from the Ebro to the Elbe and Weser... (Rev. Fernand Mourret, S.S., translated by Rev. Newton Thompson, S.T.D., A History of the Catholic Church, Volume Three, Period of the Early Middle Ages, 1936, Chapter XII The Carolingian Empire (757-800), from 757 TO 800, pp. 342-346).

Source # 3
Hilaire Belloc, The Great Heresies

By A.D. 630 all Gaul had long been Catholic. The last of the Arian generals and their garrisons in Italy and Spain had become orthodox. The Arian generals and garrisons of Northern Africa had been conquered by the orthodox armies of the Emperor.

It was just at this moment, a moment of apparently universal and permanent Catholicism, that there fell an unexpected blow of overwhelming magnitude and force. Islam arose quite suddenly. It came out of the desert and overwhelmed half our civilization.

Islam, the teaching of Mohammad, conquered immediately in arms. Mohammad’s Arabian converts charged into Syria and won there two great battles, the first upon the Yarmuk to the east of Palestine in the highlands above the Jordan, the second in Mesopotamia. They went on to overrun Egypt; they pushed further and further into the heart of our Christian civilization with all its grandeur of Rome. They established themselves all over Northern Africa; they raided into Asia Minor, though they did not establish themselves there as yet. They could even occasionally threaten Constantinople itself. At last, a long lifetime after their first victories in Syria, they crossed the Straits of Gibraltar into Western Europe and began to flood Spain. They even got as far as the very heart of Northern France, between Poitiers and Tours, less than a hundred years after their first victories in Syria in A.D. 732.

They were ultimately thrust back to the Pyrenees, but they continued to hold all Spain except the mountainous north-western corner. They held all Roman Africa, including Egypt, and all Syria. They dominated the whole Mediterranean west and east: held its islands, raided and left armed settlements even on the shores of Gaul and Italy. They spread mightily throughout Hither Asia, overwhelming the Persian realm. They were an increasing menace to Constantinople. Within a hundred years, a main part of the Roman world had fallen under the power of this new and strange force from the Desert....

Mohammadanism was a heresy: that is the essential point to grasp before going any further. It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. It vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was, not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing. It differed from most (not from all) heresies in this, that it did not arise within the bounds of the Christian Church. The chief heresiarch, Mohammad himself, was not, like most heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth and doctrine to begin with. He sprang from pagans. But that which he taught was in the main Catholic doctrine, oversimplified. It was the great Catholic world, on the frontiers of which he lived, whose influence was all around him and whose territories he had known by travel, which inspired his convictions. He came of, and mixed with, the degraded idolaters of the Arabian wilderness, the conquest of which had never seemed worth the Romans’ while.

He took over very few of those old pagan ideas which might have been native to him from his descent. On the contrary, he preached and insisted upon a whole group of ideas which were peculiar to the Catholic Church and distinguished it from the paganism which it had conquered in the Greek and Roman civilization. Thus the very foundation of his teaching was that prime Catholic doctrine, the unity and omnipotence of God. The attributes of God he also took over in the main from Catholic doctrine: the personal nature, the all-goodness, the timelessness, the providence of God, His creative power as the origin of all things, and His sustenance of all things by His power alone. The world of good spirits and angels and of evil spirits in rebellion against God was a part of the teaching, with a chief evil spirit, such as Christendom had recognized. Mohammad preached with insistence that prime Catholic doctrine, on the human side, the immortality of the soul and its responsibility for actions in this life, coupled with the consequent doctrine of punishment and reward after death.

If anyone sets down those points that orthodox Catholicism has in common with Mohammadanism, and those points only, one might imagine if one went no further that there should have been no cause of quarrel. Mohammad would almost seem in this aspect to be a sort of missionary, preaching and spreading by the energy of his character the chief and fundamental doctrines of the Catholic Church among those who had hitherto been degraded pagans of the Desert. He gave to Our Lord the highest reverence, and to Our Lady also, for that matter. On the day of judgment (another Catholic idea which he taught) it was Our Lord, according to Mohammad, who would be the judge of mankind, not he, Mohammad. The Mother of Christ, Our Lady, “the Lady Miriam” was ever for him the first of womankind. His followers even got from the early fathers some vague hint of her Immaculate Conception.

But the central point where this new heresy struck home with a mortal blow against Catholic tradition was a full denial of the Incarnation.

Mohammad did not merely take the first steps toward that denial, as the Arians and their followers had done; he advanced a clear affirmation, full and complete, against the whole doctrine of an incarnate God. He taught that Our Lord was the greatest of all the prophets, but still only a prophet: a man like other men. He eliminated the Trinity altogether.

With that denial of the Incarnation went the whole sacramental structure. He refused to know anything of the Eucharist, with its Real Presence; he stopped the sacrifice of the Mass, and therefore the institution of a special priesthood. In other words, he, like so many other lesser heresiarchs, founded his heresy on simplification...

There is thus a very great deal in common between the enthusiasm with which Mohammad’s teaching attacked the priesthood, the Mass and the sacraments, and the enthusiasm with which Calvinism, the central motive force of the Reformation, did the same. As we all know, the new teaching relaxed the marriage laws, but in practice this did not affect the mass of his followers who still remained monogamous. It made divorce as easy as possible, for the sacramental idea of marriage disappeared. It insisted upon the equality of men, and it necessarily had that further factor in which it resembled Calvinism, the sense of predestination, the sense of fate; of what the followers of John Knox were always calling “the immutable decrees of God.”

Mohammad’s teaching never developed among the mass of his followers, or in his own mind, a detailed theology. He was content to accept all that appealed to him in the Catholic scheme and to reject all that seemed to him, and to so many others of his time, too complicated or mysterious to be true. Simplicity was the note of the whole affair; and since all heresies draw their strength from some true doctrine, Mohammadanism drew its strength from the true Catholic doctrines which it retained: the equality of all men before God - “All true believers are brothers.” It zealously preached and throve on the paramount claims of justice, social and economic.

Both in the world of Hither Asia and in the Graeco-Roman world of the Mediterranean, but especially in the latter, society had fallen, much as our society has today, into a tangle wherein the bulk of men were disappointed and angry and seeking for a solution to the whole group of social strains. There was indebtedness everywhere; the power of money and consequent usury. There was slavery everywhere. Society reposed upon it, as ours reposes upon wage slavery today. There was weariness and discontent with theological debate, which, for all its intensity, had grown out of touch with the masses. There lay upon the freemen, already tortured with debt, a heavy burden of imperial taxation; and there was the irritant of existing central government interfering with men’s lives; there was the tyranny of the lawyers and their charges.

To all this Islam came as a vast relief and a solution of strain. The slave who admitted that Mohammad was the prophet of God and that the new teaching had, therefore, divine authority, ceased to be a slave. The slave who adopted Islam was henceforward free. The debtor who “accepted” was rid of his debts. Usury was forbidden. The small farmer was relieved not only of his debts but of his crushing taxation. Above all, justice could be had without buying it from lawyers...All this in theory. The practice was not nearly so complete. Many a convert remained a debtor, many were still slaves. But wherever Islam conquered there was a new spirit of freedom and relaxation.

It was the combination of all these things, the attractive simplicity of the doctrine, the sweeping away of clerical and imperial discipline, the huge immediate practical advantage of freedom for the slave and riddance of anxiety for the debtor, the crowning advantage of free justice under few and simple new laws easily understood that formed the driving force behind the astonishing Mohammadan social victory. The courts were everywhere accessible to all without payment and giving verdicts which all could understand. The Mohammadan movement was essentially a “Reformation,” and we can discover numerous affinities between Islam and the Protestant Reformers on Images, on the Mass, on Celibacy, etc...

Islam increased not only in numbers and in the conviction of its followers but in territory and in actual political and armed power until close on the eighteenth century. Less than 100 years before the American War of Independence a Mohammadan army was threatening to overrun and destroy Christian civilization, and would have done so if the Catholic King of Poland had not destroyed that army outside Vienna.

Since then the armed power of Mohammadanism has declined; but neither its numbers nor the conviction of its followers have appreciably declined; and as to the territory annexed by it, though it has lost places in which it ruled over subject Christian majorities, it has gained new adherents to some extent in Asia, and largely in Africa. Indeed in Africa it is still expanding among the negroid populations, and that expansion provides an important future problem for the European Governments who have divided Africa between them.

Not long after the first conquest of Syria and Egypt it looked as though the enthusiastic new heresy, in spite of its dazzling sudden triumph, would fail. The continuity in leadership broke down. So did the political unity of the whole scheme. The original capital of the movement was Damascus and at first Mohammadanism was a Syrian thing (and, by extension, an Egyptian thing); but after quite a short time a break-up was apparent. A new dynasty began ruling from Mesopotamia and no longer from Syria. The Western Districts, that is North Africa and Spain (after the conquest of Spain), formed a separate political government under a separate obedience. But the caliphs at Baghdad began to support themselves by a bodyguard of hired fighters who were Mongols from the steppes of Asia.

The characteristic of these nomadic Mongols (who come after the fifth century over and over again in waves to the assault against our civilization), is that they are indomitable fighters and at the same time almost purely destructive. They massacre by the million; they burn and destroy; they turn fertile districts into desert. They seem incapable of creative effort.

Twice we in the Christian European West have barely escaped final destruction at their hands; once when we defeated the vast Asiatic army of Attila near Chalons in France, in the middle of the fifth century (not before he had committed horrible outrage and left ruin behind him everywhere), and again in the thirteenth century, 800 years later. Then the advancing Asiatic Mongol power was checked, not by our armies but by the death of the man who had united it in his one hand. But it was not checked till it reached north Italy and was approaching Venice.

It was this recruitment of Mongol bodyguards in successive instalments which kept Islam going and prevented its suffering the fate that all other heresies had suffered. It kept Islam thundering like a battering ram from outside the frontiers of Europe, making breaches in our defence and penetrating further and further into what had been Christian lands.

The Mongol invaders readily accepted Islam; the men who served as mercenary soldiers and formed the real power of the Caliphs were quite ready to conform to the simple requirements of Mohammadanism. They had no regular religion of their own strong enough to counteract the effects of those doctrines of Islam which, mutilated as they were, were in the main Christian doctrines, the unity and majesty of God, the immortality of the soul and all the rest of it. The Mongol mercenaries supporting the political power of the Caliphs were attracted to these main doctrines and easily adopted them. They became good Moslems and as soldiers supporting the Caliphs were thus propagators and maintainers of Islam.

When in the heart of the Middle Ages it looked as though again Islam had failed, a new batch of Mongol soldiers, “Turks” by name, came in and saved the fortunes of Mohammadanism again although they began by the most abominable destruction of such civilization as Mohammadanism had preserved. That is why in the struggles of the Crusades Christians regarded the enemy as “The Turk”; a general name common to many of these nomad tribes. The Christian preachers of the Crusades and captains of the soldiers and the Crusaders in their songs speak of “The Turk” as the enemy much more than they do in general of Mohammadanism.

In spite of the advantage of being fed by continual recruitment, the pressure of Mohammadanism upon Christendom might have failed after all, had one supreme attempt to relieve that pressure upon the Christian West succeeded. That supreme attempt was made in the middle of the whole business (A.D. 1095-1200) and is called in history “The Crusades.” Catholic Christendom succeeded in recapturing Spain; it nearly succeeded in pushing back Mohammadanism from Syria, in saving the Christian civilization of Asia, and in cutting off the Asiatic Mohammadan from the African. Had it done so perhaps Mohammadanism would have died.

But the Crusades failed. Their failure is the major tragedy in the history of our struggle against Islam, that is, against Asia against the East...

The success of Mohammadanism had not been due to its offering something more satisfactory in the way of philosophy and morals, but, as I have said, to the opportunity it afforded of freedom to the slave and debtor, and an extreme simplicity which pleased the unintelligent masses who were perplexed by the mysteries inseparable from the profound intellectual life of Catholicism, and from its radical doctrine of the Incarnation. But it was spreading and it looked as though it were bound to win universally, as do all great heresies in their beginnings, because it was the fashionable thing of the time - the conquering thing...

Then came the great reaction and the awakening of Europe. The chivalry which poured out of Gaul into Spain and the native Spanish knights forcing back the Mohammadans began the affair. The Scandinavian pirates and the raiders from Asia had been defeated two generations before. Pilgrimages to Jerusalem, distant, expensive and perilous, but continuous throughout the Dark Ages, were now especially imperilled through a new Mongol wave of Mohammadan soldiers establishing themselves over the East and especially in Palestine; and the cry arose that the Holy Places, the True Cross (which was preserved in Jerusalem) and the remaining Christian communities of Syria and Palestine, and above all the Holy Sepulchre, the site of the Resurrection, the main object of every pilgrimage ought to be saved from the usurping hands of Islam. Enthusiastic men preached the duty of marching eastward and rescuing the Holy Land; the reigning Pope, Urban, put himself at the head of the movement in a famous sermon delivered in France to vast crowds, who cried out: “God wills it.” Irregular bodies began to pour out eastward for the thrusting back of Islam from the Holy Land, and in due time the regular levies of great Christian Princes prepared for an organized effort on a vast scale. Those who vowed themselves to pursue the effort took the badge of the Cross on their clothing, and from this the struggle became to be known as the Crusades.... (Hilaire Belloc, The Great Heresies, Chapter Four, The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammad).

Source # 4
Philip Hughes, A History of the Church
4. Mahomet And The Rise Of Islam

At the time when St. Gregory, still laboriously striving to protect his people from the barbarian Lombards, was finding the great consolation of his life in the first success of the mission in England, a new power was preparing that was to show itself, within fifty years, the greatest scourge the Church had yet known -- the religion of Mahomet, Islam. Not for the next generation merely, but for the next thousand years it was to be an ever present menace, a factor which would influence every aspect of Catholic development and life.

The scene of the new world-religion’s origin was the peninsula of Arabia, a curiously neglected no-man’s-land where the Roman and Persian empires fought through tributary kingdoms and “spheres of influence.” The centre was desert and the bulk of its inhabitants warlike nomad tribes, whose chief source of living was pillage of the caravans that came and went, continually, from Egypt and the west to Persia and India. Along the coast there were towns and a settled, traders’ civilisation; to the south an organised Arab state. The religion of these tribes was polytheistic, and of all the sanctuaries the most famous was at Mecca, the chief of the trading cities and the centre of an annual religious festival to which Arabs came from the whole peninsula. Here was worshipped, with bloody sacrifices, a smooth black stone-the Kaaba. It was a brutal and degrading cult. It was not, however, the only religion known to the Arabs. In all the cities there were Jewish colonies, and the vassal states to the north had many Christians among their subjects. The southern kingdom was for a hundred and fifty years a battle ground between Jewish and Christian influences, and the kings were now Jewish, now Christian, in belief. Along the Persian Gulf there were five bishoprics. Few of these Christians were, however, Catholics. They were mostly exiles, either by compulsion or choice, from the Roman laws against heresy and religious dissent, and they brought to Arabia the fundamentally impaired Christianity of Nestorianism or Monophysitism, according to which Christ Our Lori was not really divine or not really human.

A further source through which the Arabs had some knowledge of Christian ideas was the professional story-teller who wandered from place to place, charming his audience with, for example, picturesque and detailed descriptions of Paradise and Hell. But, of the Christians themselves, it was the solitary ascetics of the desert who most influenced the Arabs -- the hermits, and the strange figures of the column-dwelling saints of whom St. Simon Stylites may serve as the type. There are many traces in Arab poetry of the admiration which these feats of austerity and self-forgetfulness aroused -- admiration, too, for the ideals and beliefs which formed such heroes.

The Arabia of Mahomet was the vast central region where the native paganism dominated. It was strongly “nationalist”, for it had never known foreign domination. On the other hand it had never known unity, for the tribes were continually at war, and in the cities the rivalry of the clans brought about a like continual unrest.

Mahomet was born at Mecca, about 570-580, and educated by his uncle, a wealthy trader and a personage of importance in the life of his clan. The nephew followed the family career, and his business journeyings took him to the West and to Christian Syria. He was already far removed from the primitive Arab cult, when, about 610, he announced to his family the vision that called him to be the herald of Allah -- the supreme God of his native religion, too long overshadowed by the goddesses worshipped conjointly with him. Mahomet was now one of the many “ Hanifs” – Arabs, that is to say, who, in their search for a purer religion, had evolved a belief that there is but one God; they refused to worship the Kaaba, had a certain knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures, and practised the beginnings of a religious morality. It was Mahomet’s first innovation that he was a Hanif who aimed at converting others.

His first teaching was very simple. There is only one God, and Mahomet is his prophet. God will one day judge all men, and according to their conduct will reward or punish them everlastingly. A ritual of prayer and ablutions is prescribed, honest dealing and almsgiving are recommended. More significantly still, the wickedness of the clan which dominates Mecca -- its commercial dishonesty, its oppression of the poor -- is unsparingly denounced.

The first followers were the Prophet’s own kinsfolk, and then a great number of the down-and-outs and the slaves. The natural result followed. There was a persecution of the sect and its members fled. A second revelation to Mahomet now most opportunely made known that the goddess whom his persecutors worshipped had great power with Allah. The Prophet was revealing himself as a political genius too. Soon he was back in Mecca and peace reigned once more. It did not endure for long, and by 620 Mahomet was again an exile. Two years later he had found at Medina not merely a refuge, but, thanks to the political circumstances of the place and to his own genius, honour and acceptance as a civic leader. The bitter rivalry of Jew and Arab, and of the Arabs among themselves, was ended by a compromise which Mahomet proposed. All in Medina were to have equal rights. There was but one enemy -- the wealthy clan which had driven Mahomet from Mecca. They were Allah’s enemies too and to destroy them was a first religious duty.

Mahomet was now Medina’s supreme judge, and the commander-in-chief of its forces. He set himself to organise the temporary alliance and to prepare it for the coming war. The religious reformer disappears for the moment behind the statesman, the organiser, and the warrior. The religious observance is modified. The almsgiving is directed to replenish the war chest, food taboos of a Jewish character are introduced, and Abraham, reverenced hitherto as the Father of all the truly religious, of Mohammadan, Christian and Jew alike, is now discovered to be the father of the Arab alone. He is Mahomet’s precursor, and Mahomet’s mission is to purify Abraham’s religion from its Jewish and Christian accretions. More than ever is it necessary to capture Mecca, for Mecca -- the one common centre for Arab life, with its superstition and idolatry -- is Abraham’s institution. The new religion is now an exclusive, independent thing; and its immediate aim is the capture of Mecca. This it achieves, in alliance with paganism, by the Holy War -- in other words by treachery and massacre, with, in addition to the necessary lure of pillage, the promise of eternal felicity, since the Holy War is of all duties the one most pleasing to Allah. By 630 Mahomet had succeeded. He was master of Mecca and of all central Arabia, strong enough now to disembarrass himself of his allies, pagans and Jews alike. Some he exiled, others he massacred. In 633-the year of the defeat of Edwin of York at Hatfield -- he died.

That Mahomet sincerely believed in his mission to destroy idolatry is certain, and it is equally certain that his idealism declined in proportion to his success. Success, indeed, revealed him as the prince of opportunists, a spirit for whom morality had no meaning. Trickery, pious trickery, theft and murder beyond what even the paganism of his origin allowed -- all these were, when useful, lawful means. His revelations and their teachings are contained in the Koran, a collection made after his death by his secretary and officially published in 660. There is also the sacred book of his sayings -- Hadith – more than a million of them by the ninth century, very few of which go back to the Prophet. The chief sources of the religion are the Old Testament and the Talmud, and there are traces, too, of a considerable knowledge of the apocryphal gospels. The leading doctrines remain what they were originally -- that God is but one, that Mahomet is his prophet, and that there is for all men judgement by Allah, reward or retribution. There have been other messengers of Allah before Mahomet, the greatest of whom is Jesus Christ, Who, for Mahomet, is everything but God and second only to Mahomet himself. As Mahomet expressly rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, so he rejects that of the Redemption, giving the crucifixion a Docetist explanation. His doctrine of the end of creation, of judgement, heaven and hell, is derived from Christian sources, with every metaphorical expression now given its most literal meaning. Heaven is a place of never-ceasing pleasure, where every human desire, even the most lowly, finds limitless opportunity for its fullest satisfaction. A prominent feature of the believer’s religious duty is the Holy War to destroy the infidel. “Kill all pagans wherever found.” It is not a war to convert, or to impose the new religion on others, but, in the event, becomes a simple canonisation of natural bloodthirstiness and the instinct for pillage. It is the most meritorious of good works, death in battle is better than martyrdom; and in this primitive religion where neither asceticism nor mysticism find any encouragement, “The Holy War is Islam’s monasticism.”

Within ten years of Mahomet’s death, his invention had not only overrun the whole of his own country but had conquered the Persian Empire and robbed Rome of Egypt, Palestine and Syria. Something must be said to explain some of the circumstances which made it possible for a system so lacking in any appeal but the most lowly to achieve so surprising a success. Islam, to begin with, had made a nation of the scattered mutually hostile Arab tribes. The strong clan spirit survived, but the clan was now the nation and the aggressiveness directed outside Arabia. All the traditional ideals of vengeance remained at its service, given a higher value, even blessed as a virtue, in the new system. Outside Arabia the prospects for a new military venture were more inviting than for centuries. Rome and Persia, the two neighbours, before whose alternate supremacy the middle east had been so long powerless, were, each of them, at the time of Mahomet’s death, exhausted from a long thirty years’ war. In the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire -- Egypt, Palestine and Syria -- the mass of the population had for nearly two hundred years, ever since the General Council of Chalcedon in 451, been waging an intermittent war on the government for religious reasons. They had long since ceased to be loyal to the sovereigns who stood to them chiefly as persecutors. Finally, in this moment of Arabia’s opportunity, when in Islam the East had at last produced its reply to the Hellenism dominant since Alexander, there was given to the Arabs a military leader of genius, Omar. Omar’s adherence to Mahomet had been one of the turning points of the prophet’s later development. He was the embodiment of the reforming spirit of Islam, a man who lived hardly, and used himself hardly for the cause, the proverbial fighting Puritan. On Mahomet’s death he succeeded to his place.

Palestine and Persia were simultaneously invaded in 634. In each country the Arabs advanced steadily from victory to victory. Persia was conquered in two years, and in 636 the last Roman army in Syria defeated too. After a thousand years of Hellenism and seven hundred years of Roman rule Syria was again in the hands of the East. That same year Damascus fell, in 638 Jerusalem, in 640 Cesarea, Ascalon and the coast. To the Monophysite inhabitants -- who, despite all that they had suffered, did not play the traitor -- the revolution was no tragedy. It was simply “ deliverance from the cruelty of the Romans.” Egypt was invaded in 639. In 640 Heliopolis was taken, to become, as Cairo, one of the greatest centres of Islam. Here, too, the Monophysites went over to the new rulers. Alexandria fell the next year and, to add to the confusion, Heraclius died -- the emperor who, thirty years earlier, had saved the State after a similar catastrophe. The succession was disputed, and meanwhile in 642 the- Romans evacuated Egypt. With the armies and the officials there went, too, the little that remained of the country’s Catholicism.

There, for a space, the movement halted, after annihilating the power of Persia, and reducing the empire of Rome by a good two-thirds. In its richest provinces there was now installed this new, aggressive, hostile thing; and of the native population there were none who wished the Romans back. If the movement halted, it was only because internal troubles, and a civil war, had begun to occupy its leaders. (Philip Hughes, A History of the Church To the Eve of the Reformation, Volume 2: 313-1274).

Islam, A Peaceful Religion?

“Islam must rule the world and,
until Islam does rule the world,
we will continue to sacrifice our lives.”

(Al-Badr, spokesman for Mustaq Aksari,
CNN broadcast on Wednesday, September 19,2001 A.D.)

“Given Islam’s historic penchant for
military aggression (‘Holy War’)
and the modern rise of
Islamic fundamentalism
and international terrorism,
Islam cannot be ignored
by the rest of the world.
Why?
Because the ultimate mission of Islam
is to subjugate the world and
then rule it according to Islamic law”

(Ishak Ibraham, Black Gold and Holy War, p.35)

Introduction

Dear Readers, perhaps you know some people who may think or feel that the personal life of Mohammad, not matter how evil it may or may not have been, is immaterial as to how the “average” Islamic person is expected to live life today? And, further, that therefore, one should be charitable and impute to every Moslem and to every Mohammadan, not only their desire for peace, but, more importantly, that their Islamic religion, in and of itself, is “peaceful” in all areas and in every regard under all circumstances.

A rational mind finds such a position, which is oozing with secular humanistic verisimiltude, to be not only inane, but also totally abhorrent to the faculties of the human soul, not to mention the science of logic, or, to be more precise, as the Scholastics are wont to say, Formal Logic.

But such a secular supercilious humanistic position is NOT logical when 100% - ALL - of the Tuesday, September 11, 2001 A.D. terrorists who attacked the United States of America were young MOSLEM men, most of whom were citizens of Saudi Arabia!

By the way, it is interesting that no Moslem WOMEN were part of the terrorists! Why? Because, as has already been reported above, Mohammad Mustafa Bin Abdullah, considered that the “paradise” (heaven) which awaits all Islamic MEN is an eternity of raping women who are chained down!

Mohammad expressed his visualization of “his” perfect “Paradise” in the next world, saying: “The statement of Allah, Beautiful women restrained [i.e. chained] in pavilions. Allah’s Apostle said, ‘In Paradise there is a pavilion made of a single hallow pearl sixty miles wide, in each corner there are wives [of others] who will not see those in the other corners, and the [male] believers will visit and enjoy them.’” (Cited in Morey, Islamic Invasion, 203).

So, just because the founder of Islam appears to be a sex-crazed, murderous maniac, does that mean that the cult, a.k.a. “religion”, he adapted from the Hanif cult, namely “Islam”, is not peaceful? On the contrary, some people are no doubt thinking, why not give Islam itself the benefit of the doubt and impute to it both peace and peaceful intentions?!

On the contrary, it is self-evident that the statement “Islam must rule the world and, until Islam does rule the world, we will continue to sacrifice our lives” (Al-Badr, spokesman for Mustaq Aksari, CNN broadcast on Wednesday, September 19,2001 A.D.), is not the statement of a cult or “religion” of peace!

But is this a fair assessment of the actual teachings of Islam? Leaving aside individual personalities, and assuredly there seems to always be a handful of people in every organization filled to overflowing with bitter zeal, what does Islam itself actually teach?

From the Qur’an

[Shakir 9:5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [Shakir 5:51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

[Shakir 4:46] Of those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places… Allah has cursed them on account of their unbelief, so they do not believe but a little.

[Shakir 4:160] Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did we disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah’s way.

[Shakir 5:41] …from among those who are Jews; they are listeners for the sake of a lie… Those are they for whom Allah does not desire that He should purify their hearts; they shall have disgrace in this world, and they shall have a grievous chastisement in the hereafter.

[Shakir 5:64] And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say… We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.

[Shakir 2:120] And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah’s guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper.

[Shakir 5:82] Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) the Jews and those who are polytheists, (Christians).”

[Shakir 6:146] And to those who were Jews we made unlawful every animal having claws, and of oxen… this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.

[Shakir 9:30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

[Shakir 16:118] And for those who were Jews We prohibited what We have related to you already, and We did them no injustice, but they were unjust to themselves.

[Shakir 62:6] Say: O you who are Jews, if you think that you are the favorites of Allah to the exclusion of other people, then invoke death if you are truthful. Christian. These are their vain desires. Say: Bring your proof if you are truthful.

[Shakir 3:67] Ibrahim was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was (an) upright (man), a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists. (Christians)

[Shakir 5:33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,

[Please keep in mind that “waging war against Islam” simply means NOT to accept the teachings of cult of Islam!]

[Yusufali 9:29] 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.

[* Jizya - The poll-tax is to be paid by the Christian or the Jew forcibly and submissively. It is to spare their lives; that is, they pay it in lieu of being killed because if they did not pay it, they would be killed unless they intended to become Muslims, then they would be exempted from paying it.]

[Yusufali 4:95] Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,.

[Yusufali 8:65] O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.

[Yusufali 59:11] Hast thou not observed the Hypocrites say to their misbelieving brethren among the People of the Book? (Jews)… But Allah is witness that they are indeed liars.

[Yusufali 4:84] Then fight in Allah’s cause - Thou art held responsible only for thyself - and rouse the believers. It may be that Allah will restrain the fury of the Unbelievers; for Allah is the strongest in might and in punishment.

[Yusufali 9:123] O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

“Given Islam’s historic penchant for military aggression (‘Holy War’) and the modern rise of Islamic fundamentalism and international terrorism, Islam cannot be ignored by the rest of the world. Why? Because the ultimate mission of Islam is to subjugate the world and then rule it according to Islamic law” (Ishak Ibraham, Black Gold and Holy War, p.35)

The Hadith

The 9 volumes of the Hadith are Mohammad’s own saying plus the reports of his teachings and “his” way of life” (Ruqaiyyah Maqsood, World Faiths Islam, p.7)

An Islamic scholar states that: “the custodian and repository of the original teachings of Islam are found above all in the Quran and the Hadith …The Quran and the Hadith are the basis for ALL LAW.” (Dr Muhammad Hamidullah, Introduction to Islam, p.250)

“The teaching of Islam are based primarily on the Quran and the Hadith, and, as we shall presently see, BOTH ARE INSPIRED ON THE DIVINE INSPIRATION.” (Dr Muhammad Hamidullah, Introduction to Islam, p. 23)

“...All articles of faith...are based upon and derived from the teachings of the Quran and then traditions [Hadith] of Muhammad” (Hammudullah Abdalatati, Islam in Focus , The Muslim Convert’s Association of Singapore, 1991).

From the Hadith

Volume 2, Book 23, Number 414: Narrated ‘Urwa: Aisha said, “The Prophet [Mohammad] in his fatal illness said, ‘Allah cursed the Jews and the Christians because they took the graves of their Prophets as places for praying.”’ Aisha added, “Had it not been for that the grave of the Prophet [Mohammad] would have been made prominent but I am afraid it might be taken [as a] place for praying.

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 666: Narrated Ibn Abbas: I heard ‘Umar saying, “May Allah Curse so-and-so! Doesn’t he know that the Prophet said, ‘May Allah curse the Jews for, though they were forbidden (to eat) fat, they liquefied it and sold it. “

Volume 1, Book 8, Number 428: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “May Allah’s curse be on the Jews for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.”

Volume 1, Book 12, Number 749: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “Say Amen’ when the Imam says “Ghair-il-maghdubi ‘alaihim wala-ddal-lin; not the path of those who earn Your Anger (such as Jews) nor of those who go astray (such as Christians); all the past sins of the person whose saying (of Amin) coincides with that of the angels, will be forgiven.

Volume 2, Book 23, Number 457: Narrated Abi Aiyub: Once the Prophet went out after sunset and heard a dreadful voice, and said, “The Jews are being punished in their graves.”

Volume 3, Book 39, Number 531: Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: Umar expelled the Jews and the Christians from Hijaz. When Allah’s Apostle had conquered Khaibar, he wanted to expel the Jews from it as its land became the property of Allah, His Apostle [Mohammad], and the Muslims. Allah’s Apostle [Mohammad] intended to expel the Jews but they requested him to let them stay there on the condition that they would do the labor and get half of the fruits. Allah’s Apostle told them, “We will let you stay on thus condition, as long as we wish.”

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176: Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar: Allah’s Apostle [Mohammad] said, “You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, ‘O ‘Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.’ “

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle [Mohammad] said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”

Volume 4, Book 53, Number 392: Narrated Abu Huraira: While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet [Mohammad] came out and said, “Let us go to the Jews” We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle [Mohammad], and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle [Mohammad] .”

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 662: Narrated Abu Said: The Prophet [Mohammad] said, “You will follow the wrong ways, of your predecessors so completely and literally that if they should go into the hole of a mastigure, you too will go there.” We said, “O Allah’s Apostle [Mohammad]! Do you mean the Jews and the Christians?” He replied, “Whom else?” (Meaning, of course, the Jews and the Christians.)

Book 019, Number 4366: It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger [Mohammad] of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.”

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 611: Narrated Abu Qatada: Allah’s Apostle [Mohammad] said, “Whoever produces a proof that he has killed an infidel, will have the spoils of the killed man.” So I got up to look for an evidence to prove that I had killed an infidel, but I could not find anyone to bear witness for me, so I sat down…Allah’s Apostle [Mohammad] then got up and gave that (spoils) to me, and I bought with it, a garden which was the first property I got after embracing Islam.

Volume 3, Book 29, Number 72: Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s Apostle [Mohammad] entered Mecca in the year of its Conquest wearing an Arabian helmet on his head and when the Prophet [Mohammad] 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 [Mohammad] said, “Kill him.”

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57: Narrated ‘Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle [Mohammad] forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle [Mohammad] , ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”

Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271: Narrated Abu Musa: A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu’adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu’adh asked, “What is wrong with this (man)?” Abu Musa replied, “He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism.” Mu’adh said, “I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle [Mohammad]”.

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 425: Narrated Anas: “We are those who have given the Pledge of allegiances to Muhammad for to observe Jihad [Holy War] as long as we live.”

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle was asked, “What is the best deed?” He replied, “To believe in Allah and His Apostle [Mohammad]. The questioner then asked, “What is the next [in goodness]? He replied, “To participate in Jihad [Holy War] in Allah’s Cause.”

Book 9, Number 9.18.56: Abd ar-Rahman used to say, “Someone who goes to the mosque in the morning or the afternoon with no intention of going anywhere else, either to learn good or teach it, is like someone who does Jihad [Holy War] in the way of Allah and returns with booty.”

Volume 9, Book 93, Number 625: Narrated Ibn Mas’ud: A man asked the Prophet “What deeds are the best?” The Prophet [Mohammad] said: (1) To perform the [daily compulsory] prayers at their [early] stated fixed times, (2) To be good and dutiful to one’s own parents. (3) and to participate in Jihad [Holy War] in Allah’s Cause.”

Volume 9, Book 93, Number 555: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle [Mohammad] said, “Allah guarantees that the person who carries out Jihad [Holy War] in His Cause and that nothing compelled him to go out but Jihad [Holy War] in His Cause and the belief in His Word He will either admit him into Paradise (by “martyrdom” [frequently today it is the Mortal Sin of suicide]) or return him with reward or booty he has earned to his residence from where he went out.”

[It is no wonder that those Islamic men who believe such blatant lies and become terrorists, who usually end up killing themselves and others, are actually eager to kill others. Here is part of the reason why Moslem terrorists are terrorists! This is NOT the act of a “religion of peace” as Islam has been called by certain world leaders who have failed to do their homework!]

Volume 9, Book 93, Number 550: Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and said, “A man fights for pride and haughtiness another fights for bravery, and another fights for showing off; which of these (cases) is in Allah’s Cause?” The Prophet [Mohammad] said, “The one who fights that Allah’s Word (Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah’s Cause.”

Volume 8, Book 73, Number 3: Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr: A man said to the Prophet [Mohammad], “Shall I participate in Jihad [Holy War]?” The Prophet [Mohammad] said [was it from the midst of his harem?], “Are your parents living?” The man said, “Yes.” the Prophet said, “Do Jihad [Holy War] for their benefit.”

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 41: Narrated Abu Wail: Hudhaifa said, “The Verse:-- “And spend (of your wealth) in the Cause of Allah and do not throw yourselves in destruction,” (2.195) was revealed concerning spending in Allah’s Cause (i.e. Jihad).”

Volume 4, Book 53, Number 352: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle [Mohammad] said, “Allah guarantees him who strives in His Cause and whose motivation for going out is nothing but Jihad in His Cause and belief in His Word, that He will admit him into Paradise [if “martyred” by the Mortal Sin of suicide or whatever] or bring him back to his dwelling place, whence he has come out, with what he gains of reward and booty.”

Volume 3, Book 34, Number 427: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “May Allah curse the Jews, because Allah made fat illegal for them but they sold it and ate its price. “

Book 020, Number 4660: It has been reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: God laughs at the two men one of whom kills the other; both of them will enter Paradise. They [the Companions] said: How, Messenger of Allah [Mohammad]? He [Mohammad] said: One is slain [in the way of Allah by Jihad - Holy War] and enters Paradise. Then God forgives the other and guides him to Islam; then he fights in the way of Allah and dies a martyr [as a suicide bomber today!]”

“Islam regulates every aspect of life, to the point of culture, religion and politics in a Muslim country are practically inseperable” (V. Khalil, When Muslims Meet Christians, Christian Herald, June, 1988, p.43).

Commentary

After reading all of this nonsense and pack of lies, it is no wonder that terrorism is beginning to reach its crescendo! But the fall to the decrescendo is coming by the power of Almighty God!

Part 11 - Recent Moslem Terrorist Activities

Brief Recent History of Moslem Terrorists/Terrorism Before 9-11-2001 A.D.

You will recall that above We explained in brief what the obligatory Zakat tax was. We remind you again how the Koran requires that a portion of the obligatory Zakat tax must be used for militant Islamic, objectives. An article in the New York Times states:

With this reminder, We now examine what appears to be a more DIRECT collection of the obligatory Zakat tax from various Islamic organizations by various terrorist organizations!??? In the process, We will also cite a report on the recent history of Moslem terrorists and their Moslem terrorist organizations before Tuesday, September 11, 2001 A.D.

How is this more direct collection of the obligatory Zakat tax done? By speakers coming to the United States and who then go around to various Islamic groups on American soil to collect money for their “speaking engagements”! By individuals who go around to various Islamic groups in the U.S. to solicit money for various Islamic “charities”. And by other such scams, all of which are thinly disguised “fronts” for collecting the obligatory zakat tax, not for the stated purpose or purposes, but in reality for Moslem terrorist organizations. There are also Moslem charitable organizations, even here in the United States of America, which are actually fronts for one or more terrorist organizations.

What follows may shock you, especially if you are an American?!

What follows may anger you, especially if you are an American?!

Below We give a some examples of the direct or indirect collection of the obligatory zakat tax, even if it is under the cover of other reasons, but also some specific data concerning various Moslem terrorists and Moslem terrorist organizations, etc. which data comes directly from the United States House of Representatives!

Rather than separate all of this data into different sections, it seems more logical to present it as an organic whole and in context to better understand the recent history of terrorism. This includes the recruitment and the funding of terrorists ON UNITED STATES SOIL through disguised “charitable” or “educational” organizations or seminars, etc., which are fronts used to collect money mainly for Moslem terrorist organizations!

Again, please keep in mind that as We have done throughout this entire presentation We have had to rely upon other sources for information because, by the Most Holy Will and Grace of God, We are not Islamic!

A Brief Review of Recent Moslem Terrorist History
Before Tuesday, September 11, 2001 A.D.
Including What Seems to be the Disguised Collection
of the Obligatory Zakat Tax in Various Ways
As Well As the Recruitment of American Mohammadans
to Become Terrorists, Financial Supporters, Etc.

The following text is from public testimony given to the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Hearing on International Terrorism and Immigration Policy, on January 25, 2000:

At about the same time that the Mauritanian left Germany for Montreal to rendezvous with the Algerian terrorist cells, several other Islamic militants connected to bin Laden began activating another terrorist plot. Khalil Deek, a Palestinian who became a US citizen in 1991, traveled from Peshawar, Pakistan to Amman, Jordan, where he helped organize a terrorist plot to bomb tourist sites, including the Radisson hotel. In charges made public last week, Jordanian prosecutors alleged that Deek conspired to carry out terrorist attacks in Jordan and had acquired explosives in furtherance of that conspiracy. A dozen Jordanians and an Iraqi and Algerian were arrested by Jordanian authorities in the first week of December as being members of that same conspiracy. Deek had been extradited from Pakistan to Jordan on December 17, 1999. Deek served as facilitator in the underground railroad operated by bin Laden, arranging the transport of terrorists and explosives.

According to intelligence sources, Deek trained in a bin Laden camp near Khost, Afghanistan. An accomplice of Deek in the same bin Laden camp, a person by the name of Idris, was arrested by Pakistani authorities at the same time that Deek had been picked up. Another terrorist colleague of Deek, a Palestinian who goes by the name Abu Zubeida, escaped arrest as did another suspected conspirator in the Jordanian plot, a man named Hejazzi. Hejazzi traveled on an American passport and had previously driven a taxi in the Boston metropolitan area. He had rented a house in Amman where he stored a vast amount of explosives. Hejazzi’s whereabouts are unknown today. US authorities believe that he was connected to other members of terrorist cells still active in the United States. That he was able to acquire a US passport and use of the US as a base of operations only further illustrates the problem we face.

Hejazzi’s accomplice, Deek, who had lived in Anaheim, California, is the focus of a still unraveling US investigation. US authorities acquired his computer disks and are now studying them. Although Deek’s brother told a reporter last week that he (Khalil Deek) had left the United States in March 1997, federal authorities believe that he may have been in the United States as recently as September 1999--although they are not certain at this moment as they try to reconstruct his movements. But authorities have determined that while he lived in the United States, he was involved in wiring transactions of sums totaling tens of thousands of dollars to overseas destinations. Interestingly, Deek made the transactions not from Anaheim, where he lived and worked, but rather from Chicago, where he flew multiple times en route to Pakistan. Deek was also associated with a Californian registered Islamic non-profit charity called Charity Without Borders, whose existence was disclosed last week. As also disclosed, Deek’s brother, Tawfeeq, has been involved with the Islamic Association for Palestine, described by former FBI official Oliver Revell as a “front group” for Hamas, and has allowed his mosque to host fundraisers for the Holy Land Fund for Relief and Development, a non-profit fundraising organization that has been linked to Hamas, with offices in Texas, Illinois and New Jersey.

Although the President’s Executive Order of January 1995--and renewed again several days ago--orders the seizure of assets belonging to terrorist groups, and the 1996 anti-terrorist legislation similarly ordered the freezing of terrorist assets of some 30 groups, very little money has actually been seized. With the primary exception of funds belonging to Musa Marzook, the head of the Hamas politburo who was deported in 1997, the US Government has not designated terrorist affiliates in the United States.

The problem, of course, is that terrorists don’t openly raise funds for explosives or guns but rather for “humanitarian” purposes, such as education or for orphans.

The use of Canada by terrorists: Details of Hezbollah’s modus operandi:

Long before the arrests in Montreal of Algerian terrorists last December, Canada had witnessed its soil being used by foreign based terrorists. As stated by Ward Elock, Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, on January 24, 1998, in testimony delivered to the Special Committee of the Senate on Security and Intelligence, “With perhaps the singular exception of the United States, there are more international terrorist groups active here in than in any country in the world. The Counter-Terrorism Branch is currently investigating over 50 organizational targets and 350 individual terrorist targets...By way of example, the following terrorist groups acting on behalf have been and are active in Canada: Hezbollah and other Shiite Islamic terrorist organizations; several Sunni Islamic Extremist groups, including Hamas, with ties to Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Lebanon and Iran; the Provisional IRA; the Tamil Tigers; the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK); and all of the world’s major Sikh terrorist groups.”

Hezbollah in Canada:

Hezbollah has been particularly active in both Canada and the United States. One of those arrested in Canada was Mohammed Hussein al-Husseini, arrested in March 1997. In seeking to deport al-Husseini, who arrived in Canada in 1991 without travel documents and who was immediately granted refugee status based on his fear of prosecution in Lebanon, Canadian authorities filed an extensive memo in 1993 detailing his involvement with Hezbollah. In interviews conducted by Canadian authorities, al-Husseini admitted that he was a member of Hezbollah and “provided information, which revealed a great deal of knowledge of the inner workings of Hezbollah, including names and positions of Hezbollah officials.” And when asked about the existence of Hezbollah in Montreal, he stated flatly, “Yes Hezbollah has members in Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto--in all of Canada.” Al-Husseini provided extensive material on the modus operandi of Hezbollah, from the tasking of its missions in Iran to the support it has enlisted in specific Canadian Islamic centers. One of the most interesting pieces of information he provided was that video of potential Canadian targets was taken by Hezbollah members in Canada and sent back to Hezbollah headquarters in Lebanon for contingency planning in the event that Hezbollah would want to target Canada.

After being granted refugee status, al-Husseini flew back to Lebanon in August 1993--and returned to Canada in early September 1993, this time with a new Lebanese passport, which revealed a US visa issued to him in Montreal on May 20, 1993. An entry stamp to the United States was dated September 1, 1993.

In 1997, Canada charged two Saudi-born men who had entered Canada the previous year with being members of Islamic terrorist organizations. One of them was Hani Al-Sayegh, accused of being a member of the Saudi branch of Hezbollah and being an active participant in the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia on June 25, 1996 that killed 19 Americans. Al-Sayegh arrived in Canada on August 16, 1996 from Kuwait. But he first traveled to Italy and then to Boston, where according to US intelligence officials, he made contact with members of an Islamic terrorist group. From Boston, he went to Canada. According to documents filed by Canadian authorities, “conducted surveillance at the site of the [Khobar] bombing. On the day of the bombing, he was the driver of the car which signaled the explosives-laden truck to enter the parking lot.” After entering into a plea agreement with the US Department of Justice, Al-Sayegh agreed to be extradited to the United States, where he was to plead guilty to a charge of conspiring to kill US nationals in exchange for a ten-year sentence. But after arriving in the United States, Aal-Sayegh withdrew his plea agreement and in the absence of admissible corroborative evidence, the Department of Justice was forced to withdraw its charges. Al-Sayegh was subsequently deported to Saudi Arabia.

Canadian authorities have been courageously open about the degree to which their country has become a base of operations for terrorists. I think this openness should be lauded for it helps provide the public with the necessary information to evaluate policy decisions. While certain components of Canadian policies, such as the ease in which terrorists have entered Canada in recent years, are glaring in their absence of proper oversight, the willingness of Canadian intelligence and law enforcement to publicly acknowledge the problem on Canadian soil should be applauded.

The most recent report, Terrorism 2000/2001, by the Canadian Intelligence Security Service on December 18, 1999, and which can be read on the Internet makes for very instructive and important reading. I have cited three sections in particular:

34. For a number of reasons, Canada is an attractive venue for terrorists. Long borders and coastlines offer many points of entry, which can facilitate movement to and from various sites around the world, particularly the United States. As a wealthy industrial society, Canada is an excellent location in which to raise money in the name of causes abroad. The nation accepts large numbers of immigrants and refugees, and consequently has significant...communities, which can be a source of haven and support.

35. Many of the world’s terrorist groups have a presence in Canada, where they engage in a variety of activities in support of terrorism, including:

1) logistical support for offshore terrorism through efforts to obtain weapons and equipment to be shipped abroad, such as electrical detonators for explosives, or remote-control devices that can be adapted for use in the remote detonation of bombs. In one case, a Canadian was involved in an attempt to purchase a Stinger missile for PIRA;

2) attempts to establish an operational support base in Canada, to enable groups to send in hit teams for attacks on targets of opportunity;

3) fundraising, advocacy, propaganda. For example, not long ago members of the Kurdish PKK tried to enter Canada illegally to carry out a leadership, propaganda and fundraising role;

4) intimidation and manipulation of Canadian citizens in...communities to support activities for homeland issues;

5) a safe haven for terrorists. The recent case of the Saudi Arabian, Hani al-Sayegh, implicated in the Al Khobar bombing, provides one example of this trend;

6) use of Canada as a base to arrange and direct terrorist activities in other countries. This is a particular problem with some members of Sikh terrorist groups whose leaders continue to endeavor to use Canada as their headquarters; and

7) raising money through illegal activities. Tamil Tiger supporters have been accused of raising money through intimidation and the manufacture and sale of false passports and documentation.

36. Authorities have been reasonably successful in thwarting the growth of right-wing extremism across the North American continent, but the activities of some groups continue to pose a substantial threat. The Militia Movement, for example, while not established in Canada, has endeavored to expand northward--a cache of weapons and equipment belonging to an American group was discovered in British Columbia.

Think tanks as a conduit for visa issuance: A case study of the World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE) and the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR):

The United States is full of educational institutes and think tanks that issue visas to foreign individuals in order to have them work for these institutes. This process has not evaded the sphere of those groups which pursue radical and extremist agendas and that serve as apparatuses for foreign terrorist organizations abroad. The utilization of these institutes allows radicals, terrorists and militant activists from abroad to enter the United States with little or no monitoring by the federal government. Two prime examples of this method are the World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE), a now-defunct Islamic think tank based in Tampa, Florida with alleged ties to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organization; and the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), a fully operational Islamic think tank based in Springfield, Virginia, against which have been levied claims of providing a headquarters for Hamas operatives in the United States.

WISE and ICP

“Yes for Jihad in the name of Allah, yes for Islam, yes for the Intifadah. We’re going toward the future that Allah promised us. Allah is one. Mohammad is the leader. The Koran is our constitution. Jihad is our path. Victory to Islam. Death to Israel.” (Translated from Arabic)

It would be understandable if one assumed that the statements above were taken from a rally or speech in the Middle East; however, this was the conclusion to a speech that took place in the heartland of America: Chicago, Illinois on September 29, 1991. The speaker was Dr. Sami al-Arian, a professor of computer science and engineering at the University of South Florida in Tampa. In addition to his professorial role, al-Arian was the president of a Palestinian charity organization known as the Islamic Committee for Palestine (ICP), the organization that sponsored the Chicago rally, and the incorporating “chairman of the board” of an Islamic research organization known as the World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE). Both of these organizations ceased to exist after 1995 due to the ascension of one of their leadership alumni, Dr. Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, to the role of Secretary General of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad based in Damascus, Syria.

The Islamic Committee for Palestine (ICP) and the World and Islam Studies Enterprise (WISE) were two organizations defined by Special INS Agent William West as “fronts for the purpose of fund-raising activities for the Islamic Jihad and the Hamas terrorist organizations and...also engage in other support-type activities, primarily to allow for the perceptually legitimate entry of foreign nationals, aliens into the United States who are leaders and/or operatives of the Islamic Jihad, Hamas and other terrorist organizations.” WISE was incorporated in Tampa, Florida in 1991. At that time, the institute’s executive director was Dr. Khalil Shikaki, the brother of then-Secretary General of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Dr. Fathi Shikaki. ICP was incorporated in 1988 and was headed by Dr. al-Arian personally.

Under the auspices of WISE, al-Arian arranged for entry visas into the United States for the primary leaders of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organization hierarchy. Among these were Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, the current head of the Islamic Jihad in Damascus; and Dr. Bashir Nafi. In late October 1995, Shallah was appointed the new Secretary General of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad to succeed Dr. Fathi Shikaki, who had been assassinated days earlier in Malta. Nafi, whose visa applications stated that he was Director of Research for WISE, appeared at a conference in Lebanon, in October 1994, of Islamic and opposition leaders opposed to the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, alongside Dr. Fathi Shikaki. Nafi was deported from the United States in 1996, following Shallah’s ascension to the leadership of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and based on his violation of the stipulations of his visa which dictated that he would be working at WISE in Tampa. In 1996, Nafi was working at the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) in Herndon, Virginia. As a side note, a letter written by Ramadan Abdullah Shallah to the University of South Florida indicated that this institute, IIIT, was the primary funder of WISE.

In addition to these individuals, al-Arian’s ICP played host to other radicals from around the world, gathered at conferences sponsored by the ICP in St. Louis, Missouri in 1988 and in Chicago, Illinois from 1989 until 1992. The other radicals appearing at these conferences included Sheikh Abdel Aziz Odeh, the spiritual leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad; Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for his spiritual role in a plot to blow up various landmarks and bridges in the New York City area in 1993; Sheikh Rashhid Ghannoushi, the leader of the Tunisian Al-Nahdah Movement, who was exiled from Tunisia in 1989 after being found guilty of conspiring to carry out violence against the Tunisian regime; Leith Shbeilat, a militant Islamic opposition figure in Jordan, who has been in and out of prison in Jordan for his role in incitement of riots against the Jordanian government and whose name now appears on the website for the Jordanian Association Against Zionism and Racism; Anwar Haddam, spokesperson for the Algerian Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), who is currently appealing a deportation order in the United States for his ties to terrorist activities; and Sheikh Saeed Sha’aban, the leader of Lebanese Tawheed Movement, who passed away in 1999.

In 1992, in a further attempt to legitimize its activities, WISE (represented by Ramadan Abdullah Shallah) signed a cooperative agreement with the Committee for Middle East Studies at the University of South Florida in Tampa. As a joint event with the university, WISE invited Rashhid Ghannoushi, whose radical ties have been discussed earlier, to speak at a roundtable symposium at the university. When the Department of State refused to grant a visa to Ghannoushi, WISE (primarily Sami al-Arian) petitioned the State Department for Ghannoushi’s admission, but was denied. It is clear through these efforts that WISE, through its legitimizing agreement with USF, attempted to, as Special Agent William West stated, “allow for the perceptually legitimate entry of foreign nationals, aliens into the United States who are leaders and/or operatives of the Islamic Jihad, the Hamas and other terrorist organizations.”

Since 1995, WISE and Dr. al-Arian have been the subjects of a federal investigation in Tampa to determine their role as a front for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organization. As stated in West’s November 1995 Affidavit:

Based upon the facts and information that I have set forth in the instant affidavit, I have probable cause to believe that ICP and WISE were utilized by Sami Al-Arian and Ramadan Abdullah Shallah as “fronts” in order to enable individuals to enter the United States, in an apparent lawful fashion, despite the fact that these individuals were international terrorists. Among the unlawful methods employed by these terrorist organizations are the apparent lawful procurement and use of visas and other documents relating to immigration which enables terrorists and other excludable aliens to gain entry into the United States through false statements, misrepresentations, and other forms of fraud.

This statement encapsulates the problems associated with current visa issuance guidelines. By providing an organizational structure to host undesirable individuals, Dr. al-Arian and others at WISE and other similar organizations are able to exploit the law to their advantage to further their illegal goals.

Musa Abu Marzook and UASR

The United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), an Islamic think tank now based in Springfield, Virginia, was founded in 1989 in Chicago, Illinois by a number of prominent Islamic radials living in the US, primary among whom was Musa Abu Marzook.

Musa Abu Marzook, a.k.a. Abu Omar, was the head of the Hamas Political Bureau since 1988, while he was resident in the United States. Hamas (Harakat Al-Muqawama Al-Islamia fi Filastin - The Islamic Resistance Movement in Palestine) is one of the most militant Islamic groups in the world and is included in the United States Department of State’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations that are outlawed pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Hamas has claimed responsibility for numerous suicide bombing attacks within Israel resulting in the deaths of scores of innocent Israelis.

On July 27, 1995, Marzook was arrested at New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport because “he played an important role in supervising the activities of the military wing to Hamas [the wing responsible for the terrorist attacks] and in appointing individuals to important leadership roles in the military wing.” In the United States, Abu Marzook was “responsible for the Muslim Brothers organization in the U.S. and resigned from this job in order to devote his time to activities dedicated to Palestine” following the foundation of the Hamas. Marzook, who was born in the Gaza Strip, was a close associate of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, the Islamic cleric who founded Hamas as an organization distinct from its parent group Muslim Brotherhood.

Marzook first came to the United States in the late 1970s, although immigration records show that he formally began residing in the United States starting in 1981. Marzook and his family lived in a number of locations during their 14 years in the United States, including Colorado, Louisiana and Virginia. He and his family moved to Falls Church, Virginia in 1991.

Between 1993 and 1995, Marzook resided principally in Jordan, which deported him in June 1995 for his involvement and senior position in Hamas. In July 1995, after making trips to Iran and Syria, Abu Marzook attempted to reenter the United States at which time he was arrested by customs and INS officials at the request of the Israeli government which sought to prosecute Abu Marzook for numerous crimes in connection with his leadership role in Hamas. In October 1995, acting at the request of the Israeli government, the United States initiated extradition proceedings against Abu Marzook based on pending Israeli criminal charges that included murder, attempted murder and conspiracy stemming from Hamas-sponsored terrorist acts.

At the time of his arrest, Abu Marzook was a permanent resident alien of the United States. In 1990, he and his family received their Green Cards in an INS lottery that offered “permanent legal residency” to potential immigrants. In affidavits filed by Deputy United States Attorney Shirah Neiman, the role of Abu Marzook in Hamas activities was discussed as follows:

In his role as head of political bureau, Abu Marzook financed certain activities of Hamas, including terrorist activities against soldiers and civilians in the Territories and Israel. In addition, he played an important role in supervising the activities of the military wing to Hamas (the wing responsible for the terrorist attacks) and in appointing individuals to important leadership roles in the military wing. Throughout most of the relevant period, he resided in the United States.

The arrest of Mohamad Salah, Mohamad Jarad and Nasser Hidmi by the Israeli authorities marked an important turning point into the investigation of Hamas. What was revealed as a result of interrogations and confessions of these individuals (Salah and Jarad were both residents of Chicago, Illinois, and Hidmi was a student at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kansas) was the importance of the United States as an operational base for Hamas. Under the leadership of Musa Abu Marzook, the Hamas headquarters in the United States was able to operate virtually unimpeded from the intense scrutiny of authorities.

On January 25, 1993, Salah and Jarad, two high ranking Hamas operatives with United States citizenship, were arrested by the Israeli General Security Services (GSS) with aid of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The Israeli authorities obtained the most significant information against Musa Abu Marzook from Salah, a.k.a “Abu Ahmad.” In these statements, Salah exposed the pivotal role of Musa Abu Marzook in the Hamas organization. Musa Abu Marzook directed the Hamas organization’s activities, the allocation of its resources and the transfer of funds: “Abu Marzook specifically directed funds towards Hamas’ ‘military’ (i.e. terror) activities, encouraged acts of terror, and played an important role in overseeing certain ‘military’ aspects of Hamas’ operations and in making ‘military.’”

On October 10, 1994, Abu Marzook appeared in a television interview broadcast from the “Al Manar” television station in Lebanon. This was only one day after the October 9, 1994 shootings in which two Hamas terrorists killed two and wounded eighteen persons in a suicide attack on pedestrian mall in downtown Jerusalem. In interview Marzook stated as follows:

“Death is the goal to every Muslim and every fighter wants to die on Palestinian land. This is not the first time that the Izz Al-Din Al-Qassem heroes carry out suicide and terrorism actions. “

“The peace process, as described by Arafat more than once, is a failure. By these actions, we do not strive to foil the talks and the negotiations. We are doing them for a much higher aim and they are steps on the way for a full restitution of the rights of the Palestinian people.”

The succeeding passages of the interview put to rest any doubt and made clear that Marzook was providing endorsement for the violent attacks carried out by Hamas:

Q: what about the assessments that one of those killed is a Palestinian policeman?

A: We believe that one day the entire Palestinian police will join the ranks of its people and join the fight against the enemy..

Q: Christopher denounced the action and called to Arafat to denounce it and prevent similar actions in the future. We also saw that Faisal Al-Huseini also denounced the action. What are your expectations as regards Arafat’s reaction to Christopher’s instructions?

A: Arafat promised to stop the attacks since the signing of the Cairo Agreement and he said that they were obliged to do their best to do so.

Arafat has no connection with this kind of activity and he cannot prevent it. the Hamas movement has been expressing its opposition and rejection of the agreement for a long time, and explained that it will continue according to the principle of the Jihad and God’s instructions and will stick to its stand.

On October 18, 1994, Abu Marzook was interviewed by the Lebanese Ad-Dyiar newspaper. At the beginning of the interview, the writer states that “Ad-Dyiar interviewed Dr. Musa Abu Marzook, head of the Political Bureau of the Movement, who arrived in Lebanon in order to take part in the Islamic National Congress and in order to meet with Lebanese leaders.” In the course of this interview, Abu Marzook was asked if he could speak about the operations of the Movement. This was Marzook’s answer:

The operations reflect the Jihad (Holy War) policy of the Movement in confronting the Zionist enemy... We fulfill our hope by way of Shahadah (martyrdom)...