Response to 'An African Asks Some Disturbing
Questions of Islam'
Source: http://thetruereligion.org/african.htm
This is a response to one of the tracts distributed by the "Pharisee" Joseph Smith "al-Kadhaab": "An African Asks Some Disturbing Questions of Islam."
This pamphlet is just one example of the hypocrisy, lies and falsehood of the Christian missionaries, and in particular the infidel Smith, whose papers are rampant with such falsehoods. We pray that Allah allows us to expose every single one of their lies to the world, and especially to those who innocently trust their slanderous writings, so the truth of the reality of these worst of created beings can be known.
The Bible says a lot of nice things, but it also contains some horrifyingly brutal and racist comments as well. The fact is that Western Christianity has often used the Bible to support its racist ideals. Indeed the God of the Old Testament often seems to be portrayed as an exclusive God of the Israelites:
"There is no god in all the earth, but in Israel." (2 Kings 5:15)
"You (children of Israel) are a holy people unto the Lord your God, The Lord has chosen you to be a special people that are upon the face of the earth." (Deuteronomy 7:6)
Some of the sayings attributed to Jesus seem to reflect this attitude. When a non-Jew Samaritan asks him for help he refers to them as dogs. Jesus also stated that he was only sent to the lost sheep of the Children of Israel. Interestingly, the passage where he is supposed to have told his disciples to "go unto the nations" is not to be found in any of the most ancient manuscripts and is now considered spurious.
Furthermore, the concept that Jesus was the acclaimed "Son of God", and so-called "manifestation of God" does have some racist overtones, i.e. that God made flesh was a Jew. Now concerning the Cushite wife of Moses mentioned in Numbers, without trying to dismiss entirely the proposition that "the God of the Bible hates racism", the context seems to be more suggestive that God's anger was for their upsetting Moses than any hatred of racism. Not that I believe the Bible is inherently racist (God's favour to the Israelites has other acceptable explanations), but there has been a history of racism associated with Christianity that has caused many to flee, and often in great numbers, to Islam.
What follows in: "A Disturbing Question Concerning the Muslim Qur'an" is illustrative of the idiotic type of polemic these monkeys use in their desperate attempts to slander God's final revelation, the Quran. The verse quoted (3:106-107) clearly has nothing to do with skin colour or race. If a white man was thrown into a fire, what colour would he become? And if a dark-skinned person were to be put under an intense light, his skin would shine with that light. What's racist about that? Interesting enough there is another passage in the Quran which the Black Nationalist "Nation of Islam", another group of perverters of the true meanings of God's word, use to support their racist ideals that all white men are dammed. This verse describes the unbelievers on the Day of Judgement as being blue eyed! In fact the words are only common Arabic idiomatic usage to describe terror, as in the English term "green with envy". Only misguided fools would use such passages to support claims of racism.
It becomes all the more incredible in the light of the clear verse of Quran that states:
"We made you into tribes and nations that you may get to know one another. (no that you may despise one another) And the best of you in the sight of God are the most God conscious."
And the well known authenticated statement of the Prophet: "There is no difference between the white and black, the Arab and non-Arab, except in taqwa (God-consciousness)." Also, the verses of the Quran that clearly state that it is a revelation for all mankind, that all mankind is descended from Adam and Eve, and Adam was made from dust, are more than sufficient proof to dispel concerns of racism in the Quran or the religion of Islam. Furthermore , the lack of racism is something found practically manifested amongst the Muslim nations, as epitomized in the Hajj, where pilgrims from all over the world join together in the worship of the One True God, Allah, dressed in the same two pieces of seamless white cloth. This sight was enough to change Malcom X from a racist Black Nationalist to a true Sunni Muslim. (see his autobiography). How could this Christian be blind to these facts, when even the scholars amongst his co-religionists have recognised the distinctive non-racial quality of Islam?
"The extinction of race consciousness as between Muslims is one of the outstanding achievements of Islam, and in the contemporary world there is a crying need for the propagation of this Islamic virtue." Civilisation on Trial. Professor A. J. Toynbee.
"No other society has such a record of success in uniting in an equality of status, of opportunity and endeavour so many and so varied races of mankind. The great Muslim communities of Africa, India and Indonesia, perhaps also the small community in Japan, show that Islam has still the power to reconcile apparently irreconcilable elements of race and tradition." H.A.R. Gibb, Whither Islam.
It seems to me that Banda is either wilfully blind, or merely trying to slander Islam with anything he can lay his hands on, and if he can't find anything he'll happily lie and invent it! We need to ask if this is truly the way of one who claims to be a follower of the "Prince of Peace", the one who praised meekness, humility, honesty and Justice, and condemned the lying hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees? This Christian writer reeks of that very same type of lying hypocrisy that Jesus was so vocal in condemning.
In the light of what we have discovered so far, can we trust those comments that follow? In the next section "A disturbing Question Concerning African HISTORY", Banda is puzzled about the lack of unbiased historical research by Muslims concerning the African peoples. We have already witnessed how "unbiased" Banda has proved to be, and his own complete lack of objectivity will become even more apparent when we further examine his claims. The fist lie we find is in his accusation that Islam destroyed the African churches. If he means by that that Islam destroyed them because when Islam came people voluntarily left Christianity in droves and embraced Islam through their realisation that it is indeed the true religion, then emphatically "YES!" - and no Muslim would fail to be proud of that. But this is not what Banda means, as he clearly shows further on when he gives his reasons for the disappearance of the Christian Church as forced conversion and slaughter at the hand of the Muslims. This, you guessed it, is another complete lie. De Lacy O'Leary wrote in his book on Islam: "History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated."
The Quranic verses Banda quotes are, of course, quoted out of context, and the correct understanding is established by reference to other Quranic verses and the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed. Without a doubt Islam calls upon Muslims to fight against the forces of disbelief, oppression and tyranny. This is nothing new. In fact Banda could find some even more brutal verses in his own book if only he had eyes to see:
"And the Lord said, "Go through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have you pity. Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children, and women." (Ezekiel 9:5)
And as for not taking as friends those who have insulted Allah by saying that He has a "Son" and committed the crime of ascribing divinity to His creation, the ultimate evil, then does not Paul say something similar:
"Do not be yoked together with the unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:17)
What becomes almost laughable is when he quotes the names of so-called "African" Christians, such as Augustine of Hippo (who mother's name was Monica and father Patricius), Tertullian, Clement and Athanasius. Now do they sound like African names to you? A little "unbiased" historical research will show the origins of these names and the racial origins of these "great thinkers". They are Greek and Roman colonialists, which is rather like quoting Pit Bota, or Cecil Rhodes as founders of "African" civilisation. Now for a real "African" church we might turn our attention to Ethiopia, but the Christian would rather ignore that, since Negus, the King of Abyssinia at the time of Mohammed, peace be upon him, and a good number of his bishops, as well as many of the Abyssinians became Muslims, voluntarily, having recognised Mohammed as a true Prophet. Indeed large numbers of the Muslim armies that liberated North Africa from the tyranny of the Christian Byzantine Empire were Abyssinian. The very same Roman colonialist stock that Banda quotes as examples of "African" Christianity actually complained to the Muslim 'Ameer about the large numbers of blacks in his army and asked him to keep them well away because they were frightening them. "Take away that black man, I can have no discussion with him", exclaimed the Christian Archbishop Cyrus when the Arab conquerors had sent a deputation of their ablest men to discuss terms of surrender of the capital of Egypt, headed by Negro Ubadah as the ablest of the all. To the sacred archbishop's astonishment, he was told that this man was commissioned by General 'Amr; that the Muslims held Negroes and white men in equal respect - judging a man by his character and not by his colour. "Well, if the Negro must lead, he must speak gently," ordered the prelate, "so as not to frighten his white auditors." (S. S. Leeder, Veiled Mysteries of Egypt.)
Furthermore Banda and his Evangelical brethren must be walking around with blinders on their eyes and cotton wool in their ears when he asks: "so why do we not here of this African Church, and why do we not see any remnants of it today?" I lived in Egypt for ten years. One third of the population, after one thousand four hundred years of Muslim rule, is still Coptic which is one of the oldest Christian Churches. I passed their Churches many times and visited their monasteries in the dessert. The Ethiopian church is still existing, as are the Catholic, Orthodox, Syriac, Maronite and numerous other churches still existing all over the lands liberated by the Muslims. Historical records show that Christian churches actually wrote to the Muslims inviting them to come and liberate them from the tyranny of their Christian brethren - the Byzantines!
Banda goes so far as to expose himself with a blatant contradiction when he mentions the three Christian mini-states of Sudan having their own written language, centres of learning etc. . . from 300 AD to 1500 AD, yet claims that it was all destroyed by Muslim invaders in 1275 AD? As for the present war, we ask all inquiring minds to ponder what peace-loving, turn-the-other-cheek, resist-not-your-enemies Christians are doing fighting a civil war against the legitimate government of Sudan, and what the peace-loving, turn-the-other-cheek, resist-not-your-enemies European and American Evangelical Christians are doing funding these rebels. It is also note worthy that over half deaths in that civil war, and much of the destruction, has been caused by rival Christian groups fighting each other! I suggest anyone who is interested in reading a truly unbiased account of the treatment of Christians by the Muslims get hold of The Preaching of Islam by T. W. Arnold. Alexander Powell says in his book: The Struggle for Power in Muslim Asia: "In their wars of conquest, however, the Muslims exhibited a degree of toleration which puts many Christian nations to shame."
Through my reading of J. Smith's papers I have developed a method for predicting Evangelical Christian lies about Islam. When you read "The Muslims say . . . " or "the Muslims believe . . . " or something similar, then there is about an eighty-five percent chance that what will follow will either be a complete lie or a gross distortion. The section on Slavery is an excellent example. In the second line he states that, concerning slavery - wait for it - "Muslims say it was only a Christian phenomena." Do they? Which Muslims is he talking about? I don't think that there is any Muslim that says it was only a Christian phenomena, since slavery existed before Christianity came along. The facts are that the Bible, both the Old and the New Testaments, approve of slavery and there is not one single Biblical verse condemning it. The only verse that comes within a hundred miles is Paul's recommendation to Christians to try and free themselves if they are slaves because they should be slaves to Christ alone.
In fact Biblical teachings approve of slavery and even enjoin it. If the hypocrite Banda condemns Islam because of slavery then he also condemns his own Book. Lets browse through a few examples:
"And the Lord said unto Moses, "Avenge the children of the Mid'an-ites . . . They warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses, and they slay the males . . . And they took all women as captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles with fire . . . Moses said, "Have you saved all the women alive? . . . Now kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that has known a man by lying with him, but all the young girls keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:1-18)
"When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all people who are found in it shall do forced labour for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, then you shall besiege it . . . you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle and everything else in the city all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies." (Deuteronomy 20:10-17)
Oh no! That's the Old Testament cries the Christian! The New Testaments has replaced all that! Not so. Paul actually instructs the flock on how to behave as slaves: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would Christ . . . Serve wholeheartedly...And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them . . ." (Ephesians 6:5). Nota Bene: Paul does not order Christian masters to release their Christian slaves, just to be nice to them!
What reeks even more of hypocrisy is that Banda tries to use the secular Western nations condemnation of slavery to show how "Christianity" condemned slavery. Yet this very liberal, non-literal, non-Biblical based form of "Christianity" - followed by the likes of Livingstone and Wilberforce - is the very type of Christianity these evangelicals, like Banda and his bunch, so vehemently attack for their understandable refusal to believe the Bible is the Word of God, and their readiness to accept the modern scientific criticisms of the Biblical texts. When one shows the short comings and corruption of Imperialism and the Western consumer societies they cry "this is not Christianity and they are not true Christians." But when, as in this article, they wish to condemn Islam or any other religion, they produce statistics to show how much better the "Christian" Europe is. They want to keep their cake and eat it too. Now let's not all forget that the U. S. A. fought a civil war against the Southern "Bible Belt" States just over one hundred years ago, and partly over the issue of slavery (Southern white Christians approved of it, and found support in the Bible).
Islam does not encourage slavery, nor does it forbid it. It does however, encourage the freeing and kind treatment of slaves. A slave in Islam is treated as a member of the household, and must be fed with the same food and clothed with the same clothes as the master or mistress. It is forbidden to overwork a slave and the slave has the right to buy his or her freedom and the owner does not have the right under law to refuse. In fact, the way slaves have been treated in Islam, as one European writer commented, was better than the way servants were treated in Europe. Slavery in Islam has never been a racial issue. In fact, the North African black Muslims, as well as the Turks and Mongols, had Caucasian slaves. Those are the facts.
As for slavery being a means of people coming to the true religion, then I swear by Allah, on the Day of Judgement Banda himself will wish he had been enslaved and become Muslim, than meet Allah as a Christian.
Culture and Conclusion
Banda's "Truth Tract" proudly points out that Moses was married to a Cushite "African", according to the Bible. Muslims also believe in Moses, and in fact the Prophet Mohammed described Moses as being "black with curly hair". Furthermore, this same "Truth Tract" completely fails to point out that Abraham was also married to an "African", Haggar, who's son is Ishmael, from whom the Ishmaelites, i.e. the Arabs, and thus the Prophet Mohammed himself, is descended. J. Smith, one of the Evangelicals responsible for other "truth tracts", is in love with a book called The Haggarienes, which was another name for the Arabs - who are therefore named after an African. This title "Haggarienes" was used by the Christians as a derogatory term against the descendants of a son and daughter of Africa, as was the term "Saracens" (the term that the Crusaders used for Muslims), which means "rejected by Sara".
Now a close look at Christian/Pauline theology concerning Abraham and Haggar and Ishmael, would leave one wondering why Sara's racism went unpunished? Islam teaches the true history, corrupted by the Jews and Christians, of Abraham and Ishmael. It was Ishmael, the half African, who was the first son of Abraham. It was both Abraham and his half African son Ishmael that were tested and favoured by Allah. It was Abraham, the "Friend of God", and his half African son Ishmael that raised the foundations and built the first house, the Ka'abah, for the worship of the One True God, Allah. Mohammed, descendant of Ishmael, returned the Ka'abah and the world to the pure monotheism of Abraham. It is in this same city, Mecca, whenever anyone visits they must circumabulate the Ka'abah, and make "sai'ee", that is running between the two hills of Saafa' and Marwah in remembrance of Haggar, daughter of Africa, who ran form one hill to the other looking for help, as Ishmael lay crying in the sand. It is from the well of Zamzam that every pilgrim drinks, where none other that the Angel Gabriel dug with his wing and the water started to flow, and Haggar and Ishmael drank. What better reason can one think of for the sons of Africa to turn there to pray?
As for the "Arab dress" which Banda complains that has to be worn (another lie!) is no different from that which was worn by Jesus, and most of the people of North Africa and Ethiopia. In fact, Nigerian and East African Muslims have their own, immediately identifiable, African dress.
As for Banda's other idiotic statements, then the Quran is also translated into many languages, and no Muslim doubts that Allah can speak and understand every language also, but Allah, in His infinite Wisdom, chose to reveal His final revelation in the Arabic tongue, and He has preserved that language. Banda talks about his Bible, but compare some of these translations with their "most ancient manuscripts" which are in Greek (not an African language I think) which itself was not the original language of Jesus and the Prophets, you will see how they have fulfilled exactly God's accusation in the Quran of changing and perverting God's word. Now if Banda and his like have so little regard for God that they feel free to pervert his message, then do you think they will feel shy to lie to you and me? Banda and his Evangelical bunch do not love the truth, nor do they love you. They love only their father, the father of lies, the Devil, who wants to mislead you from the true religion, the pure monotheism of Abraham and Ishmael and Mohammed.
As for Banda's final question, I will let some unbiased non-Muslims answer:
"Truly, if the question must be put, whether it is Muhammadan or Christian nations that have done most for Africa, the answer must be that it is not the Christian . . . Christian travellers, with every wish to think otherwise have remarked that the Negro who accepts Mohammadanism acquires at once a sense of dignity of human nature not commonly found even among those who have been brought to accept Christianity. Here we find in Central Africa, the use of decent clothing and the arts of reading and agriculture attributed to Islam. A religion which indisputedly has made cannibalism and human sacrifice impossible, which has introduced reading and writing and, what is more, which had forbidden and to a great extent, has abolished immodest dancing and gambling and drinking, which inculcated upon the whole a pure morality, and sets forth a sublime and at the same time a simple theology, is surely deserving of other feelings than the hatred and the contempt which some portions of our religion's press habitually pour on it." From Mohammed and Mohammedanism, by Rev. Bossworth Smith.
"As a religion the Mohammedan religion, it must be confessed, is more suited to Africa than is the Christian religion; indeed, I would even say that it is suited to the world as a whole." From The Sphere, by Lancelot Lawton.
Wa al-Hamdulillahi Rabbil al-Aameen - And all Praise is due to Allah, Lord of all the Worlds.
