Islamic Laws

Islamic Laws9%

Islamic Laws Author:
Publisher: World Federation of KSI Muslim Communities
Category: Jurisprudence Science

Islamic Laws
  • Start
  • Previous
  • 59 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 42931 / Download: 5442
Size Size Size
Islamic Laws

Islamic Laws

Author:
Publisher: World Federation of KSI Muslim Communities
English

1

Wudhu

Issue 242: In Wudhu, it is obligatory to wash the face and hands, and to wipe the front portion of the head and the upper part of two feet.

Issue 243: * The length of the face should be washed from the upper part of the forehead, where hair grow, up to the farthest end of the chin, and its breadth should be washed to the part covered between the thumb and the middle finger. If even a small part of this area is left out, Wudhu will be void. Thus, in order to ensure that the prescribed part has been fully washed, one should also wash a bit of the adjacent parts.

Issue 244: If the hands or the face of a person are larger or smaller than normal, he should observe how people normally wash their faces, and follow accordingly. Also, if he has hair on part of his forehead, or the frontal part of his head is bald, he should wash his forehead as is usually washed by the people.

Issue 245: If a person suspects that there is dirt or something else in the eyebrows, and corners of his eyes, and on his lips, which does not permit water to reach them, and if that suspicion is reasonable, he should examine it before performing Wudhu, and re move any such thing if it is there.

Issue 246: If the skin of the face is visible from under the hair, one should make the water reach the skin, but if it is not visible, it is sufficient to wash the hair, and it is not necessary to make the water reach beneath the hair.

Issue 247: If a person doubts whether his skin is visible from under the hair of the face or not, he should, as an obligatory precaution, wash his hair, and also make the water reach the skin.

Issue 248: * While performing Wudhu, it is not obligatory that one should wash the inner parts of the nose, nor of the lips and eyes which cannot be seen when they close. However, in order to ensure that all parts have been washed, it is obligatory that some portion of these parts (i.e. inner parts of nose, lips and eyes) are also included. And if a person did not know how much of the face should be washed, and does not remember whether he has washed his face thoroughly in Wudhu already performed, his prayer s will be valid, and there will be no need to do fresh Wudhu for the ensuing prayers.

Issue 249: * The face and hands should be washed from above downwards, and if one washes the opposite way, his Wudhu will be void.

Issue 250: * If a person makes his hand wet, and passes it over his face and hands, and if the moisture in the hand is enough to cover both thoroughly, it will be sufficient. It is not necessary that water flows on the face or the hands.

Issue 251: * After washing the face, one should first wash the right hand and then the left hand, from the elbows to the tips of the fingers.

Issue 252: * In order to ensure that each elbow has been washed thoroughly, one should include some portion above the elbow in washing.

Issue 253: If before washing his face, a person has washed his hands up to the wrist, he should, while performing Wudhu, wash them up to the tips of the fingers, and if he washes them only up to the wrist, his Wudhu is void.

Issue 254: * While performing Wudhu, it is obligatory to wash the face and the hands once, and it is recommended to wash them twice. Washing them three or more times is haraam. As regards to which washing should be treated as the first, it will depend upon wa shing the face and hand thoroughly, leaving no room for precaution, with the niyyat of Wudhu. So, if he pours water on his face ten times with the intention of the first washing, there is no harm, but when he will then wash with the niyyat of Wudhu, it wi ll be called the first time. Thus, he can go on pouring water on his face several times, and in the final wash, make the niyyat of Wudhu. But if he follows this procedure, then the face and the hands should be washed once only, as an obligatory precaution.

Issue 255: After washing both the hands, one performing Wudhu should wipe the front part of his head with the wetness which is in his hand; the recommended precaution is that he should wipe it with the palm of his right hand, from the upper part, downwards.

Issue 256: The part on which wiping should be performed, is one fourth frontal part of the head. It is sufficient to wipe as much at any place in this part of the head, although the recommended precaution is that the length should be equal to one finger, and i ts breadth should be equal to three joined fingers.

Issue 257: It is not necessary that the wiping of the head should be performed on its skin. It is also in order if a man wipes the hair on the front of his head. However, if the hair are so long that when combed they fall on his face, or on other parts of his head, he should wipe his hand on the roots of his hair, or part the hair and wipe the skin. If a person collects his hair on the front side of his head, or on other parts of his head and wipes them, or if he wipes the hair of other places, such a wiping w ould be void.

Issue 258: * After wiping the head, one should wipe with the moisture present in one's hands, one's feet from any toe of the foot up to the joint. As a recommended precaution, the right foot should be wiped with the right hand, and the left foot with the left hand.

Issue 259: Wiping of the feet can have any breadth, but it is better that the breadth of the wiping should be equal to three joined fingers, and it is still better that the wiping of the entire foot is done with the entire hand.

Issue 260: * As a precaution, at the time of wiping the foot, one should place one's hand on the toes and then draw it to the joint, or that one should place the hand on the joint and draw it to the toes. One should not simply place the whole hand on the foot, and pull it a little.

Issue 261: * While wiping one's hand and feet, it is necessary to move one's hand on them, and if the feet and head are moved leaving the hand stationary, Wudhu would be void. However, there is no harm if the head and feet move slightly, while the hand is be ing moved for wiping.

Issue 262: * The parts of wiping should be dry, and if they are so wet that the wetness of the palm of the hand has no effect on them, the wiping will be void. However, there is no harm if the wetness on those part is so insignificant, that the moisture of th e palm overcomes it.

Issue 263: If wetness disappears in the palm, it cannot be made wet with fresh water. In that situation, the person performing Wudhu should obtain

moisture from his beard. If he obtains moisture from any part other than the beard, it would be improper, and is a matter ofIshkal .

Issue 264: * If the wetness of palm is just enough for wiping the head, then as an obligatory precaution, one should wipe the head first, and for the wiping of feet, the wetness should be obtained from the beard.

Issue 265: * Wiping performed on socks or shoes is void. But if one is unable to remove his socks or shoes because of severe cold, or fear of life, or a robber, the obligatory precaution is that he will wipe on the socks or shoes, and then perform tayammum al so. And if a person is under Taqayya (hiding one's faith), he can perform wiping on his socks and shoes.

Issue 266: If the upper part of his feet is najis, and it cannot also be washed for wiping, one should perform tayammum.

Wudhu By Immersion (Wudhu Irtimasi)

Issue 267: * Wudhu by immersion means that one should dip one's face and hands into water, with the intention of performing Wudhu. And there can be no problem in performing wiping with the moisture thus acquired, though it is against precaution.

Issue 268: Even while performing Wudhu by immersion, one should wash one's face and hand downwards from above. Hence, when a person dips his face and hands in water, with the intention of Wudhu, he should dip his face in water from the forehead and his hands f rom elbows.

Issue 269: There is no harm in performing Wudhu of some parts by immersion, and of others in the usual way.

Recommended Supplications

Issue 270: It has been recommended that a person performingWudhu should recite the following supplication when his eyes fall on water:Bismillahi wa billahi wal hamdu lil lahil lazi ja'alal ma'a tahura wa lam yaj alhu najisa . (I begin my ablution in the Name of Allah. All praise is due to Allah, Who made water purifying, and not najis).

While washing the hands before performing Wudhu, one should say:Alla hummaj alni minat tawwabina waj alni minal mutatah hirin . (O Lord! Make me of those who repent and purify themselves).

While rinsing the mouth one should say:Alla Humma laq qini hujjati yawma alqaka wa atliq lisani bizikrika. (O Lord! Dictate to me the principles of faith on the Day I meet You, and make my tongue fluent with Your remembrance).

While washing the nose one should say:Alla humma la tuharrim 'alaya rihal jannati waj 'alni mim man yashummu riha ha wa rawha ha wa tiba ha . (O Lord! Do not deprive me of the fragrance of Paradise, and make me of those who smell its fragrance and perfume).

While washing the face, one should say:Alla humma bayyiz wajhi yawma taswaddufihil wujuh wala tusawwid waj hi yawma tabyazzul wujuh. (O Lord! Make my face bright on the Day when the faces will turn dark. Do not darken my face on the Day when the faces are bright).

While pouring water over the right elbow, one should say: Alla humma a'tini kitabi bi yamini wal khulda fil jinani bi yasari wa hasibni hisaban

yasira . (O Lord! Give my book of deeds in my right hand, and a permanent stay in Paradise on my left, and m ake my reckoning an easy one).

While pouring water over the left elbow, one should say:Alla humma la tutini kitabi bishimali wala min wara'i zahri wala taj alha maghlu latan ila unuqi wa a'uzu bika min muqat ta'atin niran. (O Lord! Do not give my book of deeds in my left hand, n or from behind my back, nor chain it to my neck. I seek refuge in You from the Hell-fire).

While performing the wiping of the head, one should say:Alla humma ghashshini bi rahmatika wa barakatika wa 'afwika. (O Lord! Cover me with Your Mercy, Blessings and Forgiveness).

While performing the wiping of the feet, one should say:Alla humma thabbitni alas sirati yawma tazillu fihil aqdam. Waj'al sa'yi fi ma yurzika 'anni ya zal jalali wal ikram. (O Lord! Keep me firm on the Bridge (to Paradise) on the Day when the feet will slip, and help me in my efforts to do things which will please You, O' Glorious and Mighty!).

Condition for the Validity of Wudhu

Following are the conditions for a correct Wudhu:

• The first condition is that the water should be Clean (tahir/pak ), and clean, not sullied with dirt, even if that dirt is Clean (tahir/pak ).

• The second condition is that the water should be pure, and not mixed.

Issue 271: Wudhu performed with najis or mixed water is void,even if one may not be aware of its being najis, or mixed, or may have forgotten about it. And if one has offered prayers with that Wudhu, one should repeat that prayers with a valid Wudhu.

Issue 272: * If a person does not have any water to perform Wudhu, except that which is murky with clay, he should perform tayammum if only a short time is left for prayers; and if he has enough time at his disposal, he should wait till the water becomes lim pid, and then perform Wudhu with it.

• The third condition is that the water should be Mubah (permissible for use).

Issue 273: * To perform Wudhu with usurped water, or with water about which one does not know whether the owner would allow its use, is haraam, and Wudhu will be void. Furthermore, if the water of Wudhu used for washing face and hands, falls on usurped land, or if the space in which he performs Wudhu is usurped, his obligation will be to do tayammum, if he has no other place to go for Wudhu. And if another lawful place is available, he should go there for Wudhu. And if he does Wudhu at the first place, his Wu dhu will be valid, but he will have committed a sin.

Issue 274: * If a person does not know whether the pool or tank of water of a madressah has been dedicated to the general public, or exclusively to the students of madressah, there is no harm in doing Wudhu there, provided that people usually do so at that pl ace without prohibition.

Issue 275: * If a person who does not wish to offer prayers in a particular mosque, is not aware whether its pool has been dedicated to the general public, or specifically to those who offer prayers in that mosque, he cannot perform Wudhu with the water of th e pool of that mosque. However, if people who do not pray in that mosque, usually perform Wudhu there, without any prohibition, he can perform Wudhu from that pool.

Issue 276: * Performing Wudhu from the pools of the inns and hotels etc. by persons who are not residing there, is valid if the other persons who are not staying there usually perform Wudhu with that water, without being prohibited.

Issue 277: * There is no harm if a person performs Wudhu in the water flowing in big canals, even if he does not know whether the owner of that canal would allow. But, if the owner of the canal prohibits performing Wudhu with that water, or if he is a minor, or an insane person, then as a recommended precaution, one should refrain from doing Wudhu in it.

Issue 278: * If a person forgets that the water has been usurped, and performs Wudhu with it, his Wudhu is in order. But, if a person has usurped the water himself, and then forgets about it, his Wudhu with that water will be void.

• The fourth condition is that the container of the water, used by the person concerned for Wudhu, should be Mubah (permissible for use by him).

• The fifth condition is that, as an obligatory precaution, the container of the water used for Wudhu should not be made of gold or silver. The details of these two rules will follow later.

Issue 279: * If the water for Wudhu is in a usurped container or is in the vessels of gold and silver, and there is no other water available, he should transfer that water lawfully into another container, and then do Wudhu. If he cannot possibly do that, he s hould perform tayammum. However, if he has other water, he should use that for Wudhu. And in either case, if he acts against the rule and performs Wudhu with the water which is either in a usurped container, or is made of gold or silver, his wudhu will be in order.

Issue 280: A pool of water which has a usurped stone or brick in it, can be used for Wudhu, if drawing water from it would not in any way amount to using that brick or stone. If it amounts to that, then drawing water will be haraam, but Wudhu will be valid.

Issue 281: If a pool or a canal is dug in the courtyards of the Shrines of Imams, or their descendents, which was previously a grave-yard, there is no harm in performing Wudhu with water of that pool or canal, if he did not know that land was previously dedica ted as a graveyard.

• The sixth condition is that parts of the body on which Wudhu is performed, should be Clean (tahir/pak ), at the time of washing and wiping.

Issue 282: If the place which has been already washed or wiped in Wudhu becomes najis, before the completion of the Wudhu, it will be deemed valid.

Issue 283: If any other part of the body other than the parts of Wudhu is najis, the Wudhu will be in order. However, if the outlet of urine or excretion have not been made Clean (tahir/pak ), the recommended precaution is that one should make them Clean (tahir/pak ) first, and then perfor m Wudhu.

Issue 284: * If any one part of Wudhu was najis, and after performing Wudhu one doubts whether he washed it before Wudhu or not, his Wudhu will be valid. But he should wash the part which was najis.

Issue 285: If a person has a cut or wound on his face, or hands, and the blood from it does not stop, and if water is not harmful for him, he should, after washing the healthy parts of that limb in proper sequence, put the place of wound or cut in Kurr-water o r running water, and press it a little so that the blood may stop. Then he should pass his finger on the wound or cut, within the water, from above downwards, so that water may flow on it. This way his Wudhu will be in order.

• The seventh condition is that the person doing Wudhu should have sufficient time at his disposal for Wudhu and Salat.

Issue 286: If the time is so short that by doing Wudhu, the entire prayers or a part of it will have to be offered after its time, he should perform tayammum. But if he feels that the time required for tayammum and Wudhu is equal, then he should do Wudhu.

Issue 287: * If a person who should have performed tayammum owing to little time for Salat at his disposal, performs Wudhu with the niyyat of Qurbat, or for anyMustahab act, like, reading the holy Qur'an, his Wudhu is in order. Similarly, his Wudhu will be v alid if he did it for that Salat, as long as it was not devoid of niyyat of Qurbat.

• The eighth condition is that one should perform Wudhu with the niyyat of Qurbat i.e. to obey the orders of Allah. If, a person performs Wudhu, for the purpose of cooling himself or for some other purpose, the Wudhu would be void.

Issue 288: It is not necessary that one should utter the niyyat of Wudhu in words, or think about it in his mind. It is sufficient that all the acts relating to Wudhu are performed in compliance with the order of Almighty Allah.

• The ninth condition is that Wudhu should be performed in the prescribed sequence, that is, he should first wash his face, then his right hand and then his left hand, and thereafter, he should wipe his head and then the feet. As a recommended precaut ion, he should not wipe both the feet together. He should wipe the right foot first and then the left.

• The tenth condition is that the acts of Wudhu should be done one after the other, without time gap in between.

Issue 289: * If there is so much gap between the acts of Wudhu, that it can not be said that it is being performed in normal succession, Wudhu will be void. But if there is a justifiable excuse, like water being exhausted or forgetting, at the time of washing or wiping, he should first ensure that all the preceding parts which he had washed or wiped have not dried up. If they have all dried up, his Wudhu will be void. But if all the parts have not dried up, then his Wudhu will be in order. For example, while washing his left arm, he finds that his right arm has dried up, but his face is still wet, his Wudhu will be valid.

Issue 290: If a person performs acts of Wudhu consecutively, but the moisture of the previous parts dries up owing to hot weather, or excessive heat of the body or any other similar cause, his Wudhu is in order.

Issue 291: * There is no harm in walking while performing Wudhu. Hence, if after washing his face and hands, a person walks a few steps and then wipes his head and feet, his Wudhu is valid.

• The eleventh condition is that a person doing Wudhu should wash his hands and face and wipe his head and feet himself. Hence, if another person makes him perform Wudhu, or helps him in pouring water over his face, or hands, or in wiping his head, or feet, his Wudhu is void.

Issue 292: * If a person cannot perform Wudhu himself, he should appoint someone to assist him, even if it means washing and wiping jointly. And if that person demands any payment for that, he should be paid, provided one can afford, and one does not sustain a ny loss. But he should make niyyat of Wudhu himself, and should wipe using his own hands. If the person himself cannot participate in actually doing Wudhu, and if he must be assisted by another person, then an obligatory precaution is that both should mak e the niyyat of Wudhu. Then his assistant will hold his hand, and help him do the wiping. And if that is not possible, he will take some moisture from his hands, and with that moisture wipe his hand and feet.

Issue 293: * One should not obtain assistance in performing those acts of Wudhu, which one can perform alone.

• * The twelfth condition is that there should be no constraint for using water.

Issue 294: If a person fears that he will fall ill if he performs Wudhu, or, if water is used up for Wudhu, no water will be left for drinking, he does not have to do Wudhu. If he was unaware that water was harmful to him, and he performed Wudhu, and later on, it turned out to be harmful, his Wudhu will be void.

Issue 295: If one finds that using minimum quantity for washing the face and the hands properly, will not be harmful, he should do Wudhu by restricting himself to that quantity of water.

• The thirteenth condition is that there should be no impediment in the way of water reaching the parts of Wudhu.

Issue 296: * If a person finds that something has stuck to any part of Wudhu, but doubts whether it will prevent water from reaching there, he should remove that thing, or pour water under it.

Issue 297: * Dirt under the fingernails would not affect Wudhu. However, when the nails are cut, and there remains dirt which prevents water from reaching the skin, then that dirt must be removed. Moreover, if the nails are unusually long, the dirt collected beneath the unusual part, ought to be cleansed.

Issue 298: If swelling takes place on the face, or hands, or the front part of the head, or the feet because of being burns or other reason, it will be sufficient to wash and wipe over the swelling. If there is an opening or hole in it, it will not be necessar y to reach water under the skin. In fact, if a part of its skin gets peeled off, it is not at all necessary to pour water under the unpeeled part. However, at times there is skin which hangs loose after having peeled off, it should be cut off, or water sh ould be poured underneath.

Issue 299: If a person doubts whether something has remained stuck to the parts of Wudhu, and if it is a doubt which is deemed sensible by the people, like, a potter doubting whether clay is stuck to his hands after his

work, he should examine and clean his ha nds by scrubbing etc, till he is sure that there are no remnants, and that water will reach there.

Issue 300: If there is dirt on the part of Wudhu which will not prevent water reaching the body while washing or wiping, the Wudhu will be in order. Similarly, if some white lime splashed from the whitewash stays on the body, not obstructing water from reachin g it, Wudhu will be valid. And if one doubts whether it may obstruct, then one should remove the splashed particles.

Issue 301: * If a person was aware before performing Wudhu, that on some parts of Wudhu, there is something which could prevent water from reaching them, but if he doubts after performing Wudhu whether water reached those parts or not, his Wudhu will be valid.

Issue 302: * If on some part of Wudhu, there is an obstruction which at times allows water to reach the skin and at times does not, and if he doubts after having performed Wudhu about water having reached the skin, as a recommended precaution, he should repeat the Wudhu, particularly if he had not been mindful about ensuring that water reaches.

Issue 303: * If after Wudhu a person finds something on the parts of Wudhu which prevents water from reaching the skin, not knowing whether it was present at the time of Wudhu, or it appeared later, his Wudhu would be in order. But if he knows that at the ti me of Wudhu he was not bothered about that obstruction, then the recommended precaution is that he should repeat Wudhu.

Issue 304: * If a person doubts after Wudhu whether any obstruction was there or not, his Wudhu will be valid.

Rules Regarding Wudhu

Issue 305: If a person doubts too often about the acts of Wudhu and its conditions, like, about water being Clean (tahir/pak ), or its not being usurped, he should not pay any heed to such doubt.

Issue 306: If a person doubts whether his Wudhu has become void, he should treat it as valid. But, if he did not perform Istibra (rule no. 73) after urinating, and performed Wudhu, and thereafter some fluid was discharged about which he was not sure whether it was urine or something else, his Wudhu will be void.

Issue 307: If a person doubts whether he has performed Wudhu or not, he should perform Wudhu.

Issue 308: * If a person is sure that he has performed Wudhu, and has also committed an act which invalidates Wudhu (e.g. urinating), but does not remember which happened first, he should act as follows:

• If this situation arises before his Salat, he should perform Wudhu.

• If it arises during Salat, he should break it and perform Wudhu.

• If it arises after Salat, that Salat will be valid, but for the next prayers, however, he should perform Wudhu.

Issue 309: If after or during Wudhu, a person becomes sure that he has not washed certain parts or has not wiped them, and if the moisture of the parts preceding them has dried up due to lapse of time, he should perform Wudhu again. And if the moisture has not dried up, or has dried up owing to hot weather, or other similar causes, he should wash or wipe the forgotten

part as well as the parts which follow. Similarly, if during Wudhu he doubts whether he has washed or wiped a part or not, he should follow the same rule as above.

Issue 310: * If a person doubts after Salat, whether he performed Wudhu or not, the prayers offered by him would be in order. As far the next prayers, he should perform Wudhu.

Issue 311: If a person doubts during Salat whether he has performed Wudhu, his prayers is void, and he should perform Wudhu and then pray.

Issue 312: If a person realises after offering prayers, that his Wudhu became void, but doubts whether it became void before Salat or after, the prayers offered by him will be deemed in order.

Issue 313: If a person suffers from an incontinence, due to which drops of urine come out continuously, or he is not in a position to control his bowels, he should act as follows:

• If he is sure that at some time during the prayer time, there will be a respite during which there will be a restraint, then he should perform Wudhu and Salat at such time.

• If during the restraint, he can control his urine or excretion only for performingWajib acts of Salat, then he should perform only obligatory acts, and abandon theMustahab acts (e.g. Adhan, Iqamah, Qunut etc).

Issue 314: * If the time of restraint is just enough to allow Wudhu and a part of Salat, and if he discharges urine or excretion once, or several times during Salat, then as an obligatory precaution, he should do Wudhu in those moments of respite and pray. It will not be necessary for him to renew the Wudhu during Salat because of discharging urine or excretion, though as a recommended precaution, he should keep a container by his side, make Wudhu everytime he discharges, and continue praying. But this last p recaution would not apply, if due to prolonged discharge or renewal of Wudhu, the mode of prayers changes.

Issue 315: * If there is a continued incontinence, allowing no period of restraint for Wudhu, or even a part of Salat, then one Wudhu for every Salat will undoubtedly be enough. In fact, one Wudhu will be enough for several Salat, except when one commits any extraneous act, invalidating the Wudhu. However, it is recommended that he should do a fresh Wudhu for every Salat. But a fresh Wudhu is not necessary for the Qadha of a forgotten Sajdah, or Tashahhud, nor for the prayers ofIhtiyat .

Issue 316: It is not necessary for a person suffering from continued incontinence, to pray immediately after Wudhu, although it is better that he should be quick in offering prayers.

Issue 317: It is permissible for a person suffering incontinence to touch the script of the Qur'an, after Wudhu, even if he is not in the state of Salat.

Issue 318: A person who cannot control urine, should use a bag filled with cotton or some similar device, to protect oneself, and to prevent urine from reaching other places, and the obligatory precaution is that before every Salat, he should wash the outlet o f urine which has become najis. Moreover, a person who cannot control excretion should, if possible, prevent it from reaching other parts, at least during the time required for

Salat. And the obligatory precaution is that if no hardship is involved, he sh ould wash the anus for every prayers.

Issue 319: A person who suffers from incontinence should, if possible, try to restrain himself at least for the duration of Salat, even if may be difficult. In fact, if his ailment can be treated easily, he should get the necessary treatment.

Issue 320: * If a person who suffered incontinence, recovers from the ailment, it is not necessary for him to repeat those prayers which he offered according to his religious duty, during the period of his ailment. However, if he recovers during Salat, he sho uld repeat that prayers, as an obligatory precaution.

Issue 321: If a person suffers from an incontinence, which renders him unable to control passing the wind, he will act according to the rules applicable to the incontinent persons described in the foregoing.

Things for which Wudhu is Obligatory

Issue 322: * It is obligatory to perform Wudhu for the following six things:

• For all obligatory prayers, except Salat al-Mayyit. As regardsMustahab prayers, Wudhu is a condition for their validity.

• For the Sajdah and Tashahhud which a person forgot to perform during the prayers, provided that he invalidated his Wudhu after Salat, and before performing those forgotten acts. It is not obligatory to perform Wudhu for Sajdatus sahw.

• For the obligatory Tawaf of the holy Ka'bah.

• If a person has made a Nadhr, or a solemn pledge, or taken an oath for Wudhu.

• If a person has made a Nadhr, for example, that he would kiss the Holy Qur'an.

• For washing and making Clean (tahir/pak ) the holy Qur'an which has become najis, or for taking it out from lavatory etc. in which it has fallen, when he becomes obliged to touch the script of the holy Qur'an with his hand, or some other part of his body. But if t he delay by making Wudhu causes further desecration of the holy Qur'an, one should take it out from lavatory etc., or make it Clean (tahir/pak ), without performing Wudhu.

Issue 323: It is haraam to touch the script of the holy Qur'an with any part of one's body, without performing Wudhu. However, there is no harm in touching the translation of the holy Qur'an, in any language, without Wudhu.

Issue 324: It is not obligatory to prevent a child or an insane person from touching the script of the holy Qur'an. However, if their touching the holy Qur'an violates its sanctity, they should be prevented from touching it.

Issue 325: It is haraam, as an obligatory precaution, to touch the Name of Allah or His special Attributes without Wudhu, in whichever language they may have been written. And it is also better not to touch, without Wudhu, the names of the holy Prophet of Isla m, the holy Imams and Janabe Fatima Zahra (peace be upon them).

Issue 326: If a person performs Wudhu or Ghusl before the time for prayers, in order to be in state of purity, they will be deemed valid. And

even if he performs Wudhu near the time of Salat, with the niyyat of preparing himself for Salat, there is no objectio n.

Issue 327: If a person believes that the time for prayers has set in, and makes the niyyat ofWajib Wudhu, and then realises after performing the Wudhu that the time for the prayers had not set in, his Wudhu is in order.

Issue 328: * Wudhu isMustahab for the following purposes:

• Salat al-Mayyit.

• Visiting the graves.

• Entering a mosque.

• Entering the Shrines of the holy Prophets and Imams (A.S.).

• For reading, writing, or touching the margin or border of the holy Qur'an, or for keeping it with oneself.

• Before going to bed for sleep. It is alsoMustahab that a person already in Wudhu, should perform a fresh Wudhu for every Salat.

If he has performed Wudhu for any one of the above purposes, he can commit all acts which require Wudhu. For example, he can even pray with that Wudhu.

Things which Invalidate Wudhu

Issue 329: Wudhu becomes void on account of the following seven things:

• Passing of urine.

• Excretion.

• Passing wind from the rear.

• A sleep, deep enough to restrict sight and hearing. However, if the eyes do not see anything, but the ears can hear, Wudhu does not become void.

• Things on account of which a person loses his sensibility, like insanity, intoxication or unconsciousness.

• Istihaza – which will be dealt with later.

• Janabat, and, as a recommended precaution, every state which requires Ghusl.

Jabira Wudhu

The splint with which a wound or a fractured bone is bandaged or held tight and the medication applied to a wound etc. is called jabira.

Issue 330: If there is a wound, or sore, or a fractured bone in the parts on which Wudhu is performed, and if it is not bandaged, then one should perform Wudhu in the usual manner, if the use of water is not harmful.

Issue 331: If there is an unbandaged wound, sore, or broken bone in one's face or hands, and if the use of water is harmful for it, one should wash the parts adjoining the wound from above downwards, in the usual manner of Wudhu. And it is better to pass wet h and on it, if it is not harmful to do so. Therefore, he should place a Clean (tahir/pak ) piece of cloth on it, and pass a wet hand over that cloth. But in the case of a fracture, tayammum must be performed.

Issue 332: * If there is an unbandaged wound, or sore or fractured bone on the front part of the head, or on the feet, and he cannot wipe it, because the wound has covered the entire part of wiping, or if he cannot wipe even the healthy parts, then it is nece ssary for him to do tayammum. And as a

recommended precaution, he should also perform Wudhu, keeping a piece of Clean (tahir/pak ) cloth on the wound etc. and wipe that cloth with the moisture of Wudhu in his hands.

Issue 333: * If the sore, or wound, or fractured bone is bandaged, and if it is possible to undo it, and if water is not harmful for it, one should untie it and then do Wudhu, regardless of whether the wound etc. is on his face and hands, or on the front part of his head or on his feet.

Issue 334: If the wound, or sore, or the fractured bone which has been tied with a splint or a bandage is on the face or the hands of a person, and if undoing it and pouring water on it is harmful, he should wash the adjacent parts which is possible to wash, a nd then wipe the Jabira.

Issue 335: If it is not possible to untie the bandage of the wound, but the wound and the bandage on it are Clean (tahir/pak ), and if it is possible to make water reach the wound without any harm, water should be made to reach the wound by pouring from above downward. And i f the wound or its bandage is najis, but it is possible to wash it, and to make water reach the wound, then he should wash it and should make water reach the wound at the time of Wudhu. And if water is not harmful for the wound, but it is not possible to make water reach it, or the wound is najis and cannot be washed, he should perform tayammum.

Issue 336: * If the jabira covers some of the parts of Wudhu, then Wudhu prescribed for Jabira is enough. But if all the parts of Wudhu are totally covered in Jabira, then, as a precaution, one should do tayammum, and also do Wudhu as per rules of Jabira.

Issue 337: It is not necessary that jabira should be made of things which are permissible in Salat. For example, if it is of silk, or even of the parts of an animal whose meat is haraam to eat, it is permissible to perform wiping on it.

Issue 338: If a person has jabira on his palm and fingers, and he passes a wet hand on it while performing Wudhu, he can do the wiping of his head and feet with the same wetness.

Issue 339: If the jabira has covered the entire surface of the foot, but a part from the side of the fingers, and a part from the upper side of the foot is open, one should do wiping on the foot at the open places, and also on the surface of the jabira.

Issue 340: If a person has several jabiras on his face or hands, he should wash the places between them, and if the jabiras are on the head or on the feet, he should wipe the places between them. And as for the places where there are jabiras, he should act acc ordingly to the rules of jabira.

Issue 341: * If the jabira has covered unusually more space than the size of the wound, and it is difficult to remove it, then one should perform tayammum, except when the jabira is at the places of tayammum itself, in which case, it is necessary that he shou ld perform both Wudhu and tayammum. And in both the cases, if it is possible to remove the jabira he should remove it. Then, if the wound is on the face and hands, he should wash its sides, and if they are on the head or the feet, he should wipe its corne rs. As for the wounds themselves, he will act according to the rules of jabira.

Issue 342: If there is no wound or fractured bone in the parts of Wudhu, but the use of water is harmful for some other reason, one should perform tayammum.

Issue 343: * If a person has got his vein opened on any one of the parts of Wudhu, and he cannot wash it, he must perform tayammum. But if water is harmful for it, then he should act as rules of jabira.

Issue 344: * If something is stuck on the part of Wudhu or Ghusl, and it is not possible to remove it, or its removal involves unbearable pain, then one should perform tayammum. But, if the thing which is stuck is a medicine, then rules relating to jabira wi ll apply to it.

Issue 345: * In all kinds of Ghusls, except the Ghusl of Mayyit, the jabira Ghusl is like jabira Wudhu. However, in such cases one should resort to Ghusl al-tartibi.

If there is a wound, or a sore on the body, then a person has a choice between Ghusl and tayammum. If he decides to do Ghusl, and if there is no jabira on the place, the recommended precaution is that he should place a Clean (tahir/pak ) piece of cloth on the unbandage d wound, or sore, and wipe over that cloth. However, if there is fractured bone in the body, he should do Ghusl and should, as a precautionary measure, also perform wiping on the jabira. And if it is not possible to wipe on the jabira, or if the fractured bone is not in splint, it is necessary for him to perform tayammum.

Issue 346: If the obligation of a person is to do tayammum, and if at some of the places of tayammum he has wound, sore, or fractured bone, he should perform jabira tayammum according to the rules of jabira Wudhu.

Issue 347: * If a person who has to pray with jabira wudhu or jabira Ghusl, knows that his excuse will not be removed till the end of time for Salat, he can offer prayers in the prime time. But if he hopes that his excuse will be removed before the end of nam az time, it is better for him to wait, and if his excuse is not removed by then, he should offer prayers with jabira Wudhu or jabira Ghusl. And if, however, he prayed in the prime time, and his excuse was removed before the end of Salat time, the recommen ded precaution is he should do Wudhu or Ghusl, and repeat the prayers.

Issue 348: If a person has to keep his eye lashes stuck together because of some eye disease, he should perform tayammum.

Issue 349: If a person cannot decide whether he should perform tayammum or jabira Wudhu, the obligatory precaution is that he should perform both.

Issue 350: * The prayers offered with jabira Wudhu are valid, and that Wudhu can be valid for later prayers also.

Chapter 6: The History of the New Testament

Christian scholars believe that Jesus Christ has not left behind any divine book; rather, it was his disciples who, some time after his death, decided to do this job. At last they wrote treatises concerning the deeds and words of Christ. But unfortunately from the very beginning these writings became for a period of 100 years subject to alterations, omissions and additions by the blood-thirsty Roman emperors, who had no other aim but destroy the very foundations of Christianity and encourage superstition and idolatry.

During the long period, the policy of the emperors left a deep impression on the foundations of real Christianity:

Religious leaders were either killed or detained; religious books were burned; heretics infiltrated into seminaries beginning to spread false teachings in the Church of that time; religious societies were disbanded; cloisters and convents were destroyed and razed to the ground.

Through their activities during that long 300-year period, the emperors had in effect ruined the basic foundations of Christianity, inflicting irreparable damages upon it. As a result, considering these events, no one can trustfully be optimistic towards the Bible including the Gospels.

To make our point more clear, we shall presently offer the case histories of some these emperors; Trajanus After he came to power in 98 AD, his policy dictated him to remove Christianity in a systematic program. He fabricated and instituted some regulations concerning Christianity. These laws were in force for a long time.

The judge generally tried to encourage Christians to deny Jesus Christ and worship non-Christian gods. Had Christians remained faithful to their belief, they would be killed.

The situation reached a point when in 155 A.D Polycarpe, who was one of the most famous founding members of the Church, was burnt at the stake in the city of Izmir.16 Marcus Aurelius He decided to exterminate Christianity by inflicting cruelty and violence. To this end, he killed many Christians in Africa and in many other provinces of the Empire. Tempest, plague, famine, foreign invasion and other calamities, which came to afflict the people during the reign of this emperor, instigated them more and more against Christians.

Each day a group of Christians were arrested. As a result, the best people of the churches of Lyon and Vienna and other church founders were arrested. Metellus, son of Attalos, who was in fact a great champion in the theological affairs and reinforcing aspects of the Church, was subjected to torture and persecution and finally died a tragic death.17

Decius

According to Miller, the Christian scholar, the measures taken by Decius to destroy the Christian Church was more effective than those carried out by previous Roman Emperors. Since he launched his cruel and aggressive campaign quite unexpectedly, many Christians who were caught by surprise, generally disowned their faith.18

Valerianus

After he succeeded Decius as the emperor, he threatened to kill all the archbishops who did not agree with him. He beheaded the archbishop of Carthage, Cyprian. During the second year of his rule, he ordered that all priests to be killed, Christian nobles to be dispossessed of their properties and positions and be killed if they persisted in their faith.19

Deuclocian

When he came to throne, paganism had been revived. Pagan writers had roused the general public against the Christians. Galerius who had nearly come to succeed the emperor, encouraged Deuclocian to issue an order to remove any trace of the Church. To this effect, all cloisters were destroyed, Christian books were set afire, and all those Christians who did not offer sacrificial tokens to the emperor were either tortured or killed.

Although this oppression did not last l9ng on the Western part of the Empire, it continued for nine years in the Eastern Empire, and was the severest persecution and harassment that the Christians had so far suffered from.20 Considering these disasters, how could one believe that the New Testament had not been destroyed or subject to alterations during those epochs?

Constantine the Wicked

Following all these crimes and aggressions committed against the very basis of Christianity, in 312 AD, Constantine became the Emperor of Rome. He put an end to the Roman persecution and oppression, but through his constant interference into religious affairs, adoption of the title of the head of the Church, and establishment of the Oecumenical Council of Nicea, he dealt a mortal blow at the already injured Christianity.21

Apart from being a wicked man and committing a number of abhorrent and disgraceful acts, he did not totally sever ties with polytheism and even forced Christians to conform to him in both thought and practice. He did not pay any attention to objections and criticism of archbishops who had gathered in Oecumenical Council of Nicea from all parts of the Roman Empire (an item of their criticism has likely been the problem of the New Testament textual confusions). Instead of studying them, he ordered to burn their notes of criticism.22

Did the rule and supervision of such a wicked man, whose faith was a matter of doubt, help to settle the problems of Christianity or had otherwise landed more credence to the arguments and evidence pointing to the lack of credit of what has remained?

In order to achieve his political objective, Constantine would force the Christians into a compulsory unity and prevent them from expressing their thoughts and opinions.

He was emphatic on whatever he had in mind. Thus it is unclear what he had done to the New Testament including the Gospels.

Did this wicked man of dubious faith, who had no goal other than furthering his own ambitions, instituted the heresies and alterations of the Roman polytheists or destroyed them? There is no room for doubt that as far as his relation with polytheism was concerned, he could not have kept Christianity unsoiled by them. At any rate,

all current versions of the New Testament available to Christians belong to the early or middle fourth century (325-350 AD) and there is no trace of the complete manuscripts belonging to the pre- Constantine era. Nor is it clear what has occurred to them through various upheavals and political games.23

Considering this situation, could the veracity of the Gospels and tenets of Christianity be trusted and should what is known currently as the Holy Bible be recognized as the original works of the Disciples or should their veracity and authenticity be doubted by any fair-minded person?

A living witness to the fact that whatever is known today as the New Testament is not trustworthy and authentic is that portions of the discovered manuscripts belonging to the early days of Christianity are wholly different from some of present Gospels. Dr. John Alder, the famous American missionary in Iran, has written in his book called "Archaeology of the Holy Scripture": "In the ruins of Exir Hincus, two papyrus scrolls have been discovered consisting of words attributed to Jesus

Christ, but most of them differ from what we read in the New Testament." The discovery of the scrolls containing Gospels' old text clearly demonstrates that the present Gospels are altered and have taken the present forms later in the hands of the Popes and a number of holy fathers.

In short, it must be said that the New Testament that has been constantly at the mercy of events and mysterious manipulations is in no way reliable and trustworthy and could not be considered the work of the Disciples of Jesus.

Chapter 7: The Prophecies of the Gospels

There may be few people who could imagine that there are sentences in the Holy Scripture of the Christians that is the New Testament, which clearly and expressly prophesy the advent of the Holy Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (P.B.U.H).24 Although the holy fathers had made their best to either omit or revise the sentences dealing with the prophet of Islam, yet in the pages of the present Gospels one can come across sentences whose implicit meanings clearly attest to the coming of the great prophet of Islam.

Here are but few examples of such prophecies:

Prophet of Islam, the Comforter The Gospel of John says: "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever." (John 14:16) "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send to you from the Father, even the spirit of truth, which proceeded from the Father, he shall testify for me." (John 15:26)

"Nevertheless I tell you the Truth. It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart, I will send him unto you." (John 16:7)

The Comforter is not the Holy Spirit

Should it be said that by the Comforter it is meant the Holy Spirit' one must say that there are evidences contrary to this notion, some of which are briefly outlined here.

The sections quoted above give the prophecy of the advent of an individual after Christ and state that his coming depends on the departure of Jesus. His great spiritual personality is so much superior to that of Jesus that Christ's departure in order to make possible the coming of that glaring sun is a very great advantage to humanity.

These descriptions do not fit the Holy Spirit, for he is an angel carrying the divine revelation to the prophets. He used to come to prophets during their divine appointment inspiring them with heavenly messages and verses and his coming down did not depend on Christ's departure. Furthermore, the existence of the Holy Spirit is no more beneficial to humanity than that of Jesus and his going away is more beneficial.

In the "Presentation of Truth", there is a quotation made from the "Quintessence of Histories" written by a Christian. It says: At the time of Muhammad, both Jews and Christians were awaiting the promised messenger. This favorable background was of great advantage to Muhammad to claim that "25 Of course the declaration of the prophet of Islam was thoroughly based on facts, for the signs given both in Torah and the Gospels describing the last of prophets, Muhammad, completely fitted him and hence a large number of fair and truth-seeking Jews and Christians come to profess faith in Muhammad.

Nejashi, the Abyssinian King, upon receiving the letter of the prophet of Islam, said: "By God, he is the same prophet whom the followers of the Book are awaiting."

All of what have been noted so far is based upon the Persian version of the Gospel, but studying the various Gospel translations and comparing them with the Hebrew version of the Bible make the fact clear that the Persian and the Arabic versions of the Gospel were not translated from the original text. The Hebrew version of Elz Evir Gospel had been translated from the Latin version belonging to 1624 AD,

wherein it had used Pericles meaning Ahmad - the Illustrious or Praiseworthy instead of Paraclete which means the comforter. The Christian priests and holy fathers made alterations in the Greek version and changed Pericles into Paraclete, which in turn has been translated as the Comforter in the Arabic and Persian versions, 50 that the people would not find out that this promise is about the great prophet of Islam.

But truth shall always prevail at the end, and it would eventually become known that the one who, was promised by Jesus, to come, was Ahmad - the most praiseworthy -that is, the prophet of Islam. The Holy Qur'an says: "And then Jesus, son of Mary, said: O Children of Israel, surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of Torah and giving good news of a messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad." (The Holy Qur'an 61:6)

The Prophet of Islam is the Spirit of Truth

The Gospel of John says: "I have got many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak, and he will show you things to come." (John 16:12-13)

The "Spirit of Truth" is an epithet given to him, which indicates to the Comforter, who, as we have already come to know, is the prophet of Islam, Muhammad. Another point learnt from the quoted section, is the incompleteness of the religion of Jesus, for he says: "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you to all truth..."

This show that Jesus had not brought all the truth and had left the task to the Prophet, who would succeed him and whose Holy Religion is complete and all laws therein conform to the requirements of mankind.

Who is the Prince of the World?

"Hereafter I will not talk much with you, for the prince of this world cometh, and has nothing in me." (John 14:30)

The Prince of the world is the prophet who comes after Jesus, for the humanity is religiously and spiritually led by great divine prophets, who are God's appointed guardians and representatives upon earth. Moreover, the prince of the world is not Lord himself, for in the afore-mentioned quotation Jesus prophesies that the prince of the world will come later.

Priest Fender, a German clergyman, who has failed to identify the term "Prince of the World" with the Holy Spirit or even Christ himself, has succumbed to idle talk saying: "The Gospel commentators (that is, those who have altered the original Gospel) unanimously say that the Prince of the world is the Devil, who is the Prince of the Sinners and the Misguided."

One does not need to think long to conclude that this very justified is the work of Satan himself who through the narrow - mindedness of the Gospel commentators has called himself the prince of the world and made the pretence of being the Periclete promised by the Gospel. The fact is that the Prince of the world is a divine agent. The verse 8, chapter 16 of the Gospel according to John has called him a divine agent who would force the world towards righteousness and judgment.

From what has been said so far we would clearly understand that the prophecies of the Bible deal with a Prophet whose status is higher than that of Christ and who would complete his religious law, hold the spiritual and eternal leadership over humanity and would bring majesty and greatness to Christ. That person is none other than Muhammad (P.B.U.H.), the Prophet of Islam.

Chapter 8: What the holy fathers have done

A youth who is in touch with Christians and constantly reads their missionary books, has made some points on Christianity, some of which you have already read in Chapter 5. Now, here are the rest of his observations:

"It is convenient here to point out to the abhorrent acts of a group of holy fathers who have toyed with the destiny of many scientists, so that all those who have never had the opportunity to read about the details of those crimes, may know what sort of crimes these holy fathers have committed in the name of Jesus Christ, the innocent prophet of God."

"Yes! It was these holy fathers who killed Ramus the Philosopher. It was the holy fathers who first cut off the tongue of the Italian philosopher, Vanini, then choked him to death and later burned his body at the stake."26

"Were the perpetrators of these inhuman tragic crimes other than the holy fathers, these shepherds and sheep of God? It was they who sold forgiveness in order to squeeze money out of people, who in return for money would forgive all the sins of a person and give him, a signed deed of ownership over a section of paradise. In your opinion, what could these acts be termed except demagogy?"

"Even if someone raised his voice in protest, he would immediately be executed. Even those who way of thinking was in opposition to this ominous method were tortured under Inquisition and after making confessions were sentenced to severest punishments. It is impossible for me to understand why these churchmen who have committed such crimes still insist on introducing themselves as patrons of science and humanitarians.

"In 'Two Faiths' written by Marcel Cauchon we read:

During this period, five million people were either hanged or kept in dark and damp dungeons because of freethinking and violation of Papal order. Only between 1481 and 1499, i.e. a period of 18 years, 10220 people were burned at the stake; 6810 were slaughtered and 97023 died under torture upon the orders of the Inquisition."

"Were these the result of Jesus Christ's teachings or the whim of the holy fathers who under the disguise of faith and in order to achieve both power and wealth had committed all these murders, and who nonetheless are offering sympathy towards or shedding crocodile tears for the people in Africa and Asia?"

"The clergy and holy fathers prescribe celibacy, and apparently practice it themselves. But they are unaware that this is not right and that it would have grave consequences. The facts show the tragic effects of their shameful sexual relations."

"A typical description of these practices is to be found in Boccaccio's' "Decameron" or in Jean Jacques Rousseau's "Confessions". Nothing is wrong with satisfying sexual desires in a natural and legitimate way enjoined by Islam. Then what has made these people deviate from it and commit these obscene Epicurean sexual acts?"

The young man continued: "Let us leave this subject and return to the subject "God" presented by the clergy. Well, is it not ridiculous in the space - age and the epoch of science and knowledge that their transformed Bible should declare that God is composed of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and that God sent 'His only Son' to live among us? In the Gospel of John we read: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God...

And the word was made Flesh, and dwelt among us. And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Fathers! (John 1:1 - 14). 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son...' (John 3:16)."

"These holy fathers," continued the young man, "have gone so far as to make everyday new revisions in the Gospels to suit their own desires or the expediencies of the time. Nevertheless, through Western governments, they charge people with 'Church tax' to translate and print these Gospels into every language without pausing for a moment to think about the consequences thereof or at least make a revision in the concept of the Trinity."

"I have recently read in a periodical that new manuscripts have been discovered which somewhat differ from the existing texts of the Bible, but that the holy fathers have ignored them."

"According to a London Times report from Tel Aviv: "Researchers at Hebrew University in Jerusalem have asked for a new scientific review and reassessment to be carried out concerning the advent of Christianity in. the light of new written scrolls, belonging to a Christian sect,

dating from 1500 years ago. This sect believed that they were the successors of the very Disciples of Christ. These scrolls show the life - style of the early Christians who lived in Jerusalem, who considered Jesus the messenger (and not the Son) of God and who were strict in observing the injunctions of Torah…"

"These manuscripts have inconsistencies with the New Testament and according to Times' report, they would seriously confirm that Judas of Iscariot may have carefully selected someone to be crucified in place of Jesus.'27 The young man also said: "It is not clear why the Christian authorities did not act in accordance with the advice of Hebrew University and refused to carry out a review of the Christian teachings in the light of these newly - discovered manuscripts."

"However, whether or not the Christian authorities and holy fathers accept to scrutinize the newly - discovered manuscripts, one thing has become clear for the researches: the teachings of Jesus Christ have been altered by his followers and we could never be confident of the authenticity of the present Bible and the teachings thereof, since the numerous Bible versions available along with the inconsistencies therein prevent us from gaining any such confidence at all." In conclusion the youth added: "O great Lord! Guide the misguided wherever and whoever they are. Show them the correct and right path, so that they, too, may find salvation."

Chapter 9: Forgiving of Sins & Heaven sold off!?

All divine religions and faiths try to prevent their followers from committing sins. But unfortunately, the religious teachings and books of the Christians, which are the inventions of the Church, unlike those of other religions, draw people towards committing sins.

The reason for the departure of Christianity from the rest of the divine religions in this respect is that Christian bishops and cardinals, though apparently associated with Jesus Christ, in effect bear no such relationship whatsoever,

and are not aware of his behavior and deeds, having thus miscomprehended his real goal. Christ had but One God; his so-called followers have "created" three gods to worship. Jesus forbade people from evil deeds; these persons encourage people to commit them through their letters of forgiveness and forgive committed sins in exchange for money!28 Judging from history it becomes obvious that the root of all these deviations and fallacies could be traced back to a certain man called "Paul."

Formerly a Jew, Paul was instrumental in altering the truth of the original Gospel revealed to Jesus by God, replacing it by the superstition and delusions of the Roman and Greek polytheists.

Paul's writings are available today under the name "The Epistles of Paul the Apostle" and are considered one of the religious books of the Christians. Paul has written in his Epistles: "Jesus is the Son of God and has inherited the Divinity from His Father! And the Son was ordered by His Father to come upon the earth to live among people and know the human condition.

But later the Jewish servants rose against the Son of God and crucified him in the worst manner. The Lord, because of the hardship and sufferings inflicted upon and occurred to His Son, showed mercy and forgave the sins of all His servants and abolished all the obligations of His servants, and people were only obliged to have faith in Jesus, the Son of God, and love him, for whoever loveth Jesus with his whole heart would have all his sins forgiven." (1)

Where did the thoughts of Paul originate from? The idea that a person could wash away the guilt's of his people through his death or by his blood is an ancient belief existing since the time immemorial. The peoples of Egypt, Asia Minor and Greece believed for a long time in gods such as Osiris, Athena and Dionysos, who came in human shape down to the earth to save humanity and who died in order to have the sins of people forgiven.29

A group of Buddhists believe the same thing about Buddha. In their opinion, God descended upon the earth for the ninth time and took the guise of Buddha to save mankind from errors and sins.30

Adopting the ideas of Roman and Greek polytheists, Paul transformed the monotheism of Jesus and Moses into polytheism and introduced God as the Father, and Jesus, who was simply a Prophet of God, as the one borne out of the Essence of God. The people of that time, who were already familiar with polytheistic ideas, accepted these superstitious concepts and really came to believe in Jesus as the Son of God and as the one who had been crucified in order to absolve the sins of people.

In fact one should say that following the Crucifixion of God's only begotten Son, there is no need to observe the Divine precepts mentioned in Torah, for a Christian is absolved of all responsibilities since the blood of Christ is the ransom paid for the sins of Christians!

All of us, however, know that God never had a son, for having a son is confined to those who are finite and possess physical bodies, so that a part of their bodies may be detached from them to grow into a child. On the other hand, the infinite Lord, who is free and pure from any restriction and incarnation, could never be imagined to have a son. Thus the Holy Qur'an considers God a truth not born and not likely to bear a child: "He begets none, nor is He begotten".

Christians and their followers had never given a moment of thought that if God had wanted to forgive His servants, He would not have needed to resort to such an absurd act of putting an immaculate person into trouble or on the Cross for a few days as a sacrificial ransom for recompensing the human sins.

Instead, out of His boundless mercy, He would have ignored the wrong- doings of some evil4oers and forgiven them, and would, owing to an act of justice, have punished others since their sins would afflict their very own selves.31

The Buying and selling of Paradise and the Letters of Forgiveness

The paying of ransom for crimes committed, while being a relevantly simple and straightforward issue during Paul's time, later on gained a new aspect under the Church authorities and Holy Fathers.

In Paul's creed, only the Father and the Son were recognized. The Holy Fathers, however, added yet another god -Holy Spirit- and thus made them three. Also according to Paul, with Jesus being crucified, all sins of mankind were automatically forgiven, but the Holy Fathers fabricated new rules governing the absolution from sins. According to these rules, it was necessary for a sinner to first confess to his sins to the priest, then offer some cash or credit to His Holiness the Pope so as to have his sins forgiven. It was thought that when the priest utters the words: "I forgive thee", God will have no alternative but forgive and absolve.32

Some church authorities have not insisted on penance, confession and supplication and left the purchaser free to interpret the letter of forgiveness as the certificate of exemption from anything -penance, confession, forgiveness and paying ransom for sins- and let them consider it related merely to the amount of money he pays.

About 1450, the Dean of Oxford University, Thomas Gascagne complained: "Today the sinners say: 'I have no fear of God on the account of sins and misdeeds I commit, for I would be absolved of all guilt's and sins when confessing and asking forgiveness from the priest and buying papal letter of forgiveness'…"33

We read in the book "Exposition of Christian Teachings": "Only the Catholic Church has the power to forgive sins and no outside means of absolution from sins could be found beyond this power." It adds: "It is necessary for us sinners to confess to all our sins before the priest,

for one who withholds even one Sin from the priest will not be cleared from other sins, because he has also committed a great sin of hypocrisy. It is also incumbent upon us to confess to the number of sins committed and say, for instance, that we have committed such and such a sin ten times."34

By fabricating such superstitions, Christianity has prevented many people from achieving moral perfection and spiritual virtues and caused them to plunge into crimes and backwardness. However, based upon nature, the Holy Qur'an forbids mankind from committing evil deeds and calls them towards spiritual perfection. Without resorting to superstition, it encourages the wrongdoers to repent, and thus gives them the hope that whoever "does evil or wrongs his soul, and then asks forgiveness of Allah, he will find Allah forgiving and merciful" (Holy Qur'an, 5:110).

The Qur'an considers the forgiveness of sins the sole right of the Almighty Lord: "To Allah belongs the kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth. He forgives whom He pleases and cherishes whom He pleases. And Allah is forgiving and merciful." (Holy Qur'an 48:17).

Chapter 10: The Authors of the New Testament

Why should we know The Authors?

Everyday you are confronted with various reports and hear various news. But among them, you only find one that is reliable and noteworthy, one, which has been said by a reliable and virtuous person. For, if the announcer or the writer is not correct and truthful, his words will not be convincing and trustworthy. Thus whenever we ask for correct news, we must call on truthful speakers or authors to inform us of the real conducts and attitudes of people who have lived before us.

In order to find out about the attitude and pleasing words of Jesus Christ, who lived many centuries before us, any interested person is inevitably forced to consider the reliability of the authors of the New Testament, in order to see whether or not they were qualified for such a thing, for one cannot blindly accept anything written or said as being the attitude and words of Christ himself.

Unfortunately when we embark on a sound, scientific investigation to know the writers of the Scriptures, we discover that they were either unknown or unbelieving, deviant and sinful elements, who could not generally be trusted. For more explanation and in order to see what has just been stated is an irrefutable truth, let us quote a few words about the writers of the New Testament from their very own writings which are currently available.

The biography of the Authors of the New Testament The New Testament is made up of twenty-seven books by eight writers: Peter, John, Matthew, Judas (who were apostles of Christ), Mark, Luke, Jacob and Paul.

Peter

He is the author of two books in the New Testament, who furnishes a source for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. According to the Bible Dictionary, it is highly suspected that in writing his own Gospel, Mark has relied on information furnished by Peter. Matthew and Luke have referred to Gospel of Mark and some other texts as their information source.35

Peter is the same person to whom Jesus had expressed his dislike. As we read in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 16, when Jesus was prophesying his own death to his disciples, Peter, taking hold of him, began to reproach him, saying:

"Be it far from thee, lord. This shall not be unto thee." Turning to Peter, Jesus said: "Get thee behind me, Satan. Thou art an offence unto me. For thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (Matt. 16:21- 23). Thus is it possible to say that Peter has deserved to be followed by Matthew, Mark and Luke and that his words should constitute an information source for these writers?

The Disobedience of Peter and John

The evening on which Jesus was succumbing to exceeding sorrow, and was betrayed to his enemies, he told his disciples:

"Tarry ye here, and watch with me." But the disciples, instead of taking care of Christ in such a time, abandoned him and went to bed. When Jesus saw them sleeping, he admonished them and said to Peter: "What, could you not watch with me one hour?" He went the second time and prayed, saying unto the disciples to be with him. But again he found them in sleep, obviously having placed their own comfort above obeying his command. (Extracts from Matt. 26, and Mark 14).

Would the people who did not attach any importance to Jesus' simple request in those critical hours, have respected and valued his injunctions in other times? As a result, how could one rely and trust the Gospel, Revelations, books of John or other writings belonging to Peter or to others influenced by him?

How the Disciples Abandoned Jesus and Fled?

The night on which Jesus was to be captured by his enemies, he told his disciples: "All of you shall be offended because of me this night." All his disciples expressed their dislikes of this offence and Peter said: "Although all shall be offended, yet will not I.

" Suddenly Judas, one of the twelve ones, appeared and with him a great multitude carrying swords and sticks. They had been sent by chief Jewish priests and elders. Coming forward they put hands on Jesus and took him away. It was then that all his disciples forsook him and fled.36 What saddened Jesus more than their escape was the arrival of Peter among the enemies!

As Miller, the famous Christian missionary, writes: "How distressed and sad Jesus must have been upon looking at the crowd, seeing Peter warming himself beside fire with other people! Such a negligence and lapse on the part of his most outstanding disciple must have been upsetting.37 Were such irresolute persons firm in face of the bitter events of the early Christian era and the whim of the Roman emperors?

Author's Lack of Faith

Although during his lifetime Jesus had told his disciples that he would "… be

killed, and be raised again the third day",38 whoever told the disciples on that day that 'Jesus has risen', they would not believe him, until Jesus himself appeared to them and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart."39 When the disciples of Jesus act like this, what is to be expected from the writers who had followed them?

Mark

Mark was Barnabas' cousin40 and was a friend to Paul, Barnabas and Peter. Quite possibly he had been taught Christian beliefs by Peter; for Peter addresses him as his son. His association with and devotion to Paul and Peter who were both dishonest is a living witness that he was misled; for in order to know people, the best means is to know their masters and friends. Furthermore, Floyd Philson writes:

"Peter imagined that Mark was not firm in serving Jesus."41 Hence it becomes clear that Mark was not even trusted by Peter.

Luke

He is an unknown man who was in the same footing with misled and misguided Paul. The Persian Bible Dictionary writes: "His personal history, before and after meeting Paul, is either unknown or based upon ambiguous unidentifiable stories."

Jacob, the Brother of Jesus

He was the same person who in response to the people's inclination hatched a conspiracy aimed at instilling the necessity of rejecting the Mosaic Law and openly declared: "…My sentence is that we should trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God." By this statement, he trampled all but few of the Torah's injunctions. Although Jesus had said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heavens and earth pass, one jot or one tottle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt. 5:17-18)

Paul

There is no evidence available for knowing him except the writings of his friend and colleague, Mark. Moreover, he has committed certain acts each of which is enough by itself as an adequate proof and concrete evidence of his deviations, such as the conspiracy he staged for abolishing the need of observing the Torah; for Paul was one of the supporters of such action and a member of that Cabal. What has been said so far clearly demonstrates that should we ignore the events that had taken place in the early Christian era, we still cannot be optimistic about the New Testament and consider it as being reliable, for the authors thereof had not been qualified and trustworthy.

More startling is the fact that despite their contradictory and superstitious statements, the Christians introduce these authors as inspired by the divine revelation and the Holy Spirit, even though they have no proof supporting this idea except the assertions of these pretty unknown or notorious authors themselves.

Let us hope for the day when the Christian intellectuals would turn back against all these superstitious beliefs, and become unanimous with us so that together, and under the prospering standard of Islam, we would achieve real truths. Amen!

Chapter 11: What is The Eucharist?

Fighting for its very own survival, and since it lacks correct and encompassing teachings that would attract intellectuals, Christianity tries to keep for itself, through "False" rituals, the gullible and fanatic people, whose number, unfortunately, is not few. The thought and deeds which the holy fathers teach for this purpose are generally unsubstantiated and the product of their own delusions.

Unconscious of this fact, the church followers do not ask for proof and blindly follow the fathers. Now the holy fathers discuss the concept of The Trinity, then they stage a Eucharist ceremony, imagining that thus they create a thrill of excitement in the hearts of Christians. They are unaware that these rites would deliver yet another blow to the foundations of Christianity. They (the holy fathers) say that it would be good to kill two birds with one stone, by mixing fun and revelry, with a so-called religious action.

Presently we would explain the fact behind this "holy deed" to you, dear reader:

The Eucharist, or the Wine and Breed Ritual On Christmas Eve, the Christians make the following ceremony in the churches:

The Archbishop orders his acolytes to make dough from good flour, bake a loaf of unlived bread and bring it to him. Then the Holy Father takes the loaf of bread and wine to the church and after tolling the bell, prepares the Christians for performing the great ceremony. They all file in one rank and the priest pours the wine into a silver bowl and wraps the bread in a beautiful kerchief. Then he passes the rank of Christians and faces the East, reciting incantations and prayers while holding the loaf of bread. Following the supplication, he prostrates before the bread, then all those present would do the same for they believe that after the supplication, the dough of the bread transforms into the flesh of Jesus.42

The Wine Grail

The Holy Father then holds the cup of wine and addresses the congregation saying: "Our (lord and savior) Jesus, before death took the Grail of wine and gave it to his disciples saying: "this is my blood." (Mark 14:24) Having said this, the priest himself bows before the cup and those in attendance must also follow suit.

Then, while saying prayers, he breaks the bread and holds it in his hand, while another priest brings the Grail of wine. Then one by one, those present come forward; and the holy father still reciting prayers places in their mouths a piece of that bread which they swallow immediately without biting into it, for if they bite into it the flesh of Jesus would be harmed. One must ask why the flesh of Jesus, i.e. the unlived bread, is not harmed when they tear it to pieces. Then all take a sip of wine, and by eating bread and drinking wine, all of them become the Father and the Son. And all their sins are forgiven. Whoever wants to repent must do this, and this is currently the standard practice in all Roman Catholic Churches.

This is but a sample of the ideas and deeds of Christianity, a faith whose practitioners believe that beatitude solely lies in the light of its teachings. Moreover, as a part of the ceremony, all unanimously call Jesus the Lord, the only Son of God and begotten by The Father; and confess that he is not a creature but sharing the same essence with the Father.

Unlivened Bread and the Flesh of Jesus

Now in order to better explain this decadent idea and this act, take note of the following:

1) How then Jesus, who according to these gentlemen had been crucified about two millennia ago, can be turn to pieces in thousands of churches, and up in the bellies of millions of Christians and thereby make them all Gods? What sort of scientific discipline proves that this bread and this wine are transformed into the flesh and blood of Jesus and what sort of connection exists between Christ and this physical food?

2) If each of those pieces of bread that a Christian eats were a whole Jesus, then it would be necessary for the Lord to create each year several million Jesus in the form of unlivened bread so as to feed the Christians. Moreover, during his lifetime, each Christian, depending upon his age must have eaten 50, 60, 80 or even 100 whole Jesus... Is such a statement believable?

And if they say that they tear Jesus to pieces and eat him, no doubt the crime of the holy fathers would be no less severe than that of Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus to the Jews, for they tear Jesus to pieces every year.

Strange Statement

By saying the unlivened bread is digested, the Christians have made a great insult to Jesus, for they are forced to say that it goes through the same stages as other foods, but if they say that it is not digested and absorbed then one must say that every Christian, who has lived for hundred years, must harbor hundred Jesus in his stomach. Truly how much space is there in one's stomach to take in hundred Jesus with earthly bodies?

The superstitious nature of The Eucharist became such a widely spoken topic among Europeans and other people, that in 1551 AD the Roman Catholic Church was forced to make a revision in it but still it could not thoroughly abandon the Eucharist superstitions.

By what stated so far, the superstitious nature of The Eucharist comes into light, for it does not conform to any laws of natural or rational sciences; rather it directly opposes them. In this ritual, drinking of wine, which by the assertion of medical scientists and The Holy Bible itself, is a dangerous fluid that disrupts both mind and body, has been incorporated into the Christian faith as a sacred act by which the Christians become both the Father and the Son.

More specifically, if it is said that unlivened bread is not digested and remains in body forever, this foolish statement make not only the natural scientist, but also even any child, to laugh at it. Furthermore, the present gospels do not approve this act. John Alder, a Christian scholar writes:

"Protestants dispute with Catholics about two subjects:

I-That the Eucharist and other sacred rites have been taught by Jesus, for there are many arguments against it, but none to support it. II-That these holy rituals are means and modes of salvation, Whereas the New Testament strongly emphasizes that we are saved through faith "and not by performing rituals. (Therefore there is no salvation in the acts, rites and ceremonies of the Eucharist). May God guide all of us to the right path?"

Chapter 6: The History of the New Testament

Christian scholars believe that Jesus Christ has not left behind any divine book; rather, it was his disciples who, some time after his death, decided to do this job. At last they wrote treatises concerning the deeds and words of Christ. But unfortunately from the very beginning these writings became for a period of 100 years subject to alterations, omissions and additions by the blood-thirsty Roman emperors, who had no other aim but destroy the very foundations of Christianity and encourage superstition and idolatry.

During the long period, the policy of the emperors left a deep impression on the foundations of real Christianity:

Religious leaders were either killed or detained; religious books were burned; heretics infiltrated into seminaries beginning to spread false teachings in the Church of that time; religious societies were disbanded; cloisters and convents were destroyed and razed to the ground.

Through their activities during that long 300-year period, the emperors had in effect ruined the basic foundations of Christianity, inflicting irreparable damages upon it. As a result, considering these events, no one can trustfully be optimistic towards the Bible including the Gospels.

To make our point more clear, we shall presently offer the case histories of some these emperors; Trajanus After he came to power in 98 AD, his policy dictated him to remove Christianity in a systematic program. He fabricated and instituted some regulations concerning Christianity. These laws were in force for a long time.

The judge generally tried to encourage Christians to deny Jesus Christ and worship non-Christian gods. Had Christians remained faithful to their belief, they would be killed.

The situation reached a point when in 155 A.D Polycarpe, who was one of the most famous founding members of the Church, was burnt at the stake in the city of Izmir.16 Marcus Aurelius He decided to exterminate Christianity by inflicting cruelty and violence. To this end, he killed many Christians in Africa and in many other provinces of the Empire. Tempest, plague, famine, foreign invasion and other calamities, which came to afflict the people during the reign of this emperor, instigated them more and more against Christians.

Each day a group of Christians were arrested. As a result, the best people of the churches of Lyon and Vienna and other church founders were arrested. Metellus, son of Attalos, who was in fact a great champion in the theological affairs and reinforcing aspects of the Church, was subjected to torture and persecution and finally died a tragic death.17

Decius

According to Miller, the Christian scholar, the measures taken by Decius to destroy the Christian Church was more effective than those carried out by previous Roman Emperors. Since he launched his cruel and aggressive campaign quite unexpectedly, many Christians who were caught by surprise, generally disowned their faith.18

Valerianus

After he succeeded Decius as the emperor, he threatened to kill all the archbishops who did not agree with him. He beheaded the archbishop of Carthage, Cyprian. During the second year of his rule, he ordered that all priests to be killed, Christian nobles to be dispossessed of their properties and positions and be killed if they persisted in their faith.19

Deuclocian

When he came to throne, paganism had been revived. Pagan writers had roused the general public against the Christians. Galerius who had nearly come to succeed the emperor, encouraged Deuclocian to issue an order to remove any trace of the Church. To this effect, all cloisters were destroyed, Christian books were set afire, and all those Christians who did not offer sacrificial tokens to the emperor were either tortured or killed.

Although this oppression did not last l9ng on the Western part of the Empire, it continued for nine years in the Eastern Empire, and was the severest persecution and harassment that the Christians had so far suffered from.20 Considering these disasters, how could one believe that the New Testament had not been destroyed or subject to alterations during those epochs?

Constantine the Wicked

Following all these crimes and aggressions committed against the very basis of Christianity, in 312 AD, Constantine became the Emperor of Rome. He put an end to the Roman persecution and oppression, but through his constant interference into religious affairs, adoption of the title of the head of the Church, and establishment of the Oecumenical Council of Nicea, he dealt a mortal blow at the already injured Christianity.21

Apart from being a wicked man and committing a number of abhorrent and disgraceful acts, he did not totally sever ties with polytheism and even forced Christians to conform to him in both thought and practice. He did not pay any attention to objections and criticism of archbishops who had gathered in Oecumenical Council of Nicea from all parts of the Roman Empire (an item of their criticism has likely been the problem of the New Testament textual confusions). Instead of studying them, he ordered to burn their notes of criticism.22

Did the rule and supervision of such a wicked man, whose faith was a matter of doubt, help to settle the problems of Christianity or had otherwise landed more credence to the arguments and evidence pointing to the lack of credit of what has remained?

In order to achieve his political objective, Constantine would force the Christians into a compulsory unity and prevent them from expressing their thoughts and opinions.

He was emphatic on whatever he had in mind. Thus it is unclear what he had done to the New Testament including the Gospels.

Did this wicked man of dubious faith, who had no goal other than furthering his own ambitions, instituted the heresies and alterations of the Roman polytheists or destroyed them? There is no room for doubt that as far as his relation with polytheism was concerned, he could not have kept Christianity unsoiled by them. At any rate,

all current versions of the New Testament available to Christians belong to the early or middle fourth century (325-350 AD) and there is no trace of the complete manuscripts belonging to the pre- Constantine era. Nor is it clear what has occurred to them through various upheavals and political games.23

Considering this situation, could the veracity of the Gospels and tenets of Christianity be trusted and should what is known currently as the Holy Bible be recognized as the original works of the Disciples or should their veracity and authenticity be doubted by any fair-minded person?

A living witness to the fact that whatever is known today as the New Testament is not trustworthy and authentic is that portions of the discovered manuscripts belonging to the early days of Christianity are wholly different from some of present Gospels. Dr. John Alder, the famous American missionary in Iran, has written in his book called "Archaeology of the Holy Scripture": "In the ruins of Exir Hincus, two papyrus scrolls have been discovered consisting of words attributed to Jesus

Christ, but most of them differ from what we read in the New Testament." The discovery of the scrolls containing Gospels' old text clearly demonstrates that the present Gospels are altered and have taken the present forms later in the hands of the Popes and a number of holy fathers.

In short, it must be said that the New Testament that has been constantly at the mercy of events and mysterious manipulations is in no way reliable and trustworthy and could not be considered the work of the Disciples of Jesus.

Chapter 7: The Prophecies of the Gospels

There may be few people who could imagine that there are sentences in the Holy Scripture of the Christians that is the New Testament, which clearly and expressly prophesy the advent of the Holy Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (P.B.U.H).24 Although the holy fathers had made their best to either omit or revise the sentences dealing with the prophet of Islam, yet in the pages of the present Gospels one can come across sentences whose implicit meanings clearly attest to the coming of the great prophet of Islam.

Here are but few examples of such prophecies:

Prophet of Islam, the Comforter The Gospel of John says: "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever." (John 14:16) "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send to you from the Father, even the spirit of truth, which proceeded from the Father, he shall testify for me." (John 15:26)

"Nevertheless I tell you the Truth. It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart, I will send him unto you." (John 16:7)

The Comforter is not the Holy Spirit

Should it be said that by the Comforter it is meant the Holy Spirit' one must say that there are evidences contrary to this notion, some of which are briefly outlined here.

The sections quoted above give the prophecy of the advent of an individual after Christ and state that his coming depends on the departure of Jesus. His great spiritual personality is so much superior to that of Jesus that Christ's departure in order to make possible the coming of that glaring sun is a very great advantage to humanity.

These descriptions do not fit the Holy Spirit, for he is an angel carrying the divine revelation to the prophets. He used to come to prophets during their divine appointment inspiring them with heavenly messages and verses and his coming down did not depend on Christ's departure. Furthermore, the existence of the Holy Spirit is no more beneficial to humanity than that of Jesus and his going away is more beneficial.

In the "Presentation of Truth", there is a quotation made from the "Quintessence of Histories" written by a Christian. It says: At the time of Muhammad, both Jews and Christians were awaiting the promised messenger. This favorable background was of great advantage to Muhammad to claim that "25 Of course the declaration of the prophet of Islam was thoroughly based on facts, for the signs given both in Torah and the Gospels describing the last of prophets, Muhammad, completely fitted him and hence a large number of fair and truth-seeking Jews and Christians come to profess faith in Muhammad.

Nejashi, the Abyssinian King, upon receiving the letter of the prophet of Islam, said: "By God, he is the same prophet whom the followers of the Book are awaiting."

All of what have been noted so far is based upon the Persian version of the Gospel, but studying the various Gospel translations and comparing them with the Hebrew version of the Bible make the fact clear that the Persian and the Arabic versions of the Gospel were not translated from the original text. The Hebrew version of Elz Evir Gospel had been translated from the Latin version belonging to 1624 AD,

wherein it had used Pericles meaning Ahmad - the Illustrious or Praiseworthy instead of Paraclete which means the comforter. The Christian priests and holy fathers made alterations in the Greek version and changed Pericles into Paraclete, which in turn has been translated as the Comforter in the Arabic and Persian versions, 50 that the people would not find out that this promise is about the great prophet of Islam.

But truth shall always prevail at the end, and it would eventually become known that the one who, was promised by Jesus, to come, was Ahmad - the most praiseworthy -that is, the prophet of Islam. The Holy Qur'an says: "And then Jesus, son of Mary, said: O Children of Israel, surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of Torah and giving good news of a messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad." (The Holy Qur'an 61:6)

The Prophet of Islam is the Spirit of Truth

The Gospel of John says: "I have got many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak, and he will show you things to come." (John 16:12-13)

The "Spirit of Truth" is an epithet given to him, which indicates to the Comforter, who, as we have already come to know, is the prophet of Islam, Muhammad. Another point learnt from the quoted section, is the incompleteness of the religion of Jesus, for he says: "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you to all truth..."

This show that Jesus had not brought all the truth and had left the task to the Prophet, who would succeed him and whose Holy Religion is complete and all laws therein conform to the requirements of mankind.

Who is the Prince of the World?

"Hereafter I will not talk much with you, for the prince of this world cometh, and has nothing in me." (John 14:30)

The Prince of the world is the prophet who comes after Jesus, for the humanity is religiously and spiritually led by great divine prophets, who are God's appointed guardians and representatives upon earth. Moreover, the prince of the world is not Lord himself, for in the afore-mentioned quotation Jesus prophesies that the prince of the world will come later.

Priest Fender, a German clergyman, who has failed to identify the term "Prince of the World" with the Holy Spirit or even Christ himself, has succumbed to idle talk saying: "The Gospel commentators (that is, those who have altered the original Gospel) unanimously say that the Prince of the world is the Devil, who is the Prince of the Sinners and the Misguided."

One does not need to think long to conclude that this very justified is the work of Satan himself who through the narrow - mindedness of the Gospel commentators has called himself the prince of the world and made the pretence of being the Periclete promised by the Gospel. The fact is that the Prince of the world is a divine agent. The verse 8, chapter 16 of the Gospel according to John has called him a divine agent who would force the world towards righteousness and judgment.

From what has been said so far we would clearly understand that the prophecies of the Bible deal with a Prophet whose status is higher than that of Christ and who would complete his religious law, hold the spiritual and eternal leadership over humanity and would bring majesty and greatness to Christ. That person is none other than Muhammad (P.B.U.H.), the Prophet of Islam.

Chapter 8: What the holy fathers have done

A youth who is in touch with Christians and constantly reads their missionary books, has made some points on Christianity, some of which you have already read in Chapter 5. Now, here are the rest of his observations:

"It is convenient here to point out to the abhorrent acts of a group of holy fathers who have toyed with the destiny of many scientists, so that all those who have never had the opportunity to read about the details of those crimes, may know what sort of crimes these holy fathers have committed in the name of Jesus Christ, the innocent prophet of God."

"Yes! It was these holy fathers who killed Ramus the Philosopher. It was the holy fathers who first cut off the tongue of the Italian philosopher, Vanini, then choked him to death and later burned his body at the stake."26

"Were the perpetrators of these inhuman tragic crimes other than the holy fathers, these shepherds and sheep of God? It was they who sold forgiveness in order to squeeze money out of people, who in return for money would forgive all the sins of a person and give him, a signed deed of ownership over a section of paradise. In your opinion, what could these acts be termed except demagogy?"

"Even if someone raised his voice in protest, he would immediately be executed. Even those who way of thinking was in opposition to this ominous method were tortured under Inquisition and after making confessions were sentenced to severest punishments. It is impossible for me to understand why these churchmen who have committed such crimes still insist on introducing themselves as patrons of science and humanitarians.

"In 'Two Faiths' written by Marcel Cauchon we read:

During this period, five million people were either hanged or kept in dark and damp dungeons because of freethinking and violation of Papal order. Only between 1481 and 1499, i.e. a period of 18 years, 10220 people were burned at the stake; 6810 were slaughtered and 97023 died under torture upon the orders of the Inquisition."

"Were these the result of Jesus Christ's teachings or the whim of the holy fathers who under the disguise of faith and in order to achieve both power and wealth had committed all these murders, and who nonetheless are offering sympathy towards or shedding crocodile tears for the people in Africa and Asia?"

"The clergy and holy fathers prescribe celibacy, and apparently practice it themselves. But they are unaware that this is not right and that it would have grave consequences. The facts show the tragic effects of their shameful sexual relations."

"A typical description of these practices is to be found in Boccaccio's' "Decameron" or in Jean Jacques Rousseau's "Confessions". Nothing is wrong with satisfying sexual desires in a natural and legitimate way enjoined by Islam. Then what has made these people deviate from it and commit these obscene Epicurean sexual acts?"

The young man continued: "Let us leave this subject and return to the subject "God" presented by the clergy. Well, is it not ridiculous in the space - age and the epoch of science and knowledge that their transformed Bible should declare that God is composed of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and that God sent 'His only Son' to live among us? In the Gospel of John we read: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God...

And the word was made Flesh, and dwelt among us. And we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Fathers! (John 1:1 - 14). 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son...' (John 3:16)."

"These holy fathers," continued the young man, "have gone so far as to make everyday new revisions in the Gospels to suit their own desires or the expediencies of the time. Nevertheless, through Western governments, they charge people with 'Church tax' to translate and print these Gospels into every language without pausing for a moment to think about the consequences thereof or at least make a revision in the concept of the Trinity."

"I have recently read in a periodical that new manuscripts have been discovered which somewhat differ from the existing texts of the Bible, but that the holy fathers have ignored them."

"According to a London Times report from Tel Aviv: "Researchers at Hebrew University in Jerusalem have asked for a new scientific review and reassessment to be carried out concerning the advent of Christianity in. the light of new written scrolls, belonging to a Christian sect,

dating from 1500 years ago. This sect believed that they were the successors of the very Disciples of Christ. These scrolls show the life - style of the early Christians who lived in Jerusalem, who considered Jesus the messenger (and not the Son) of God and who were strict in observing the injunctions of Torah…"

"These manuscripts have inconsistencies with the New Testament and according to Times' report, they would seriously confirm that Judas of Iscariot may have carefully selected someone to be crucified in place of Jesus.'27 The young man also said: "It is not clear why the Christian authorities did not act in accordance with the advice of Hebrew University and refused to carry out a review of the Christian teachings in the light of these newly - discovered manuscripts."

"However, whether or not the Christian authorities and holy fathers accept to scrutinize the newly - discovered manuscripts, one thing has become clear for the researches: the teachings of Jesus Christ have been altered by his followers and we could never be confident of the authenticity of the present Bible and the teachings thereof, since the numerous Bible versions available along with the inconsistencies therein prevent us from gaining any such confidence at all." In conclusion the youth added: "O great Lord! Guide the misguided wherever and whoever they are. Show them the correct and right path, so that they, too, may find salvation."

Chapter 9: Forgiving of Sins & Heaven sold off!?

All divine religions and faiths try to prevent their followers from committing sins. But unfortunately, the religious teachings and books of the Christians, which are the inventions of the Church, unlike those of other religions, draw people towards committing sins.

The reason for the departure of Christianity from the rest of the divine religions in this respect is that Christian bishops and cardinals, though apparently associated with Jesus Christ, in effect bear no such relationship whatsoever,

and are not aware of his behavior and deeds, having thus miscomprehended his real goal. Christ had but One God; his so-called followers have "created" three gods to worship. Jesus forbade people from evil deeds; these persons encourage people to commit them through their letters of forgiveness and forgive committed sins in exchange for money!28 Judging from history it becomes obvious that the root of all these deviations and fallacies could be traced back to a certain man called "Paul."

Formerly a Jew, Paul was instrumental in altering the truth of the original Gospel revealed to Jesus by God, replacing it by the superstition and delusions of the Roman and Greek polytheists.

Paul's writings are available today under the name "The Epistles of Paul the Apostle" and are considered one of the religious books of the Christians. Paul has written in his Epistles: "Jesus is the Son of God and has inherited the Divinity from His Father! And the Son was ordered by His Father to come upon the earth to live among people and know the human condition.

But later the Jewish servants rose against the Son of God and crucified him in the worst manner. The Lord, because of the hardship and sufferings inflicted upon and occurred to His Son, showed mercy and forgave the sins of all His servants and abolished all the obligations of His servants, and people were only obliged to have faith in Jesus, the Son of God, and love him, for whoever loveth Jesus with his whole heart would have all his sins forgiven." (1)

Where did the thoughts of Paul originate from? The idea that a person could wash away the guilt's of his people through his death or by his blood is an ancient belief existing since the time immemorial. The peoples of Egypt, Asia Minor and Greece believed for a long time in gods such as Osiris, Athena and Dionysos, who came in human shape down to the earth to save humanity and who died in order to have the sins of people forgiven.29

A group of Buddhists believe the same thing about Buddha. In their opinion, God descended upon the earth for the ninth time and took the guise of Buddha to save mankind from errors and sins.30

Adopting the ideas of Roman and Greek polytheists, Paul transformed the monotheism of Jesus and Moses into polytheism and introduced God as the Father, and Jesus, who was simply a Prophet of God, as the one borne out of the Essence of God. The people of that time, who were already familiar with polytheistic ideas, accepted these superstitious concepts and really came to believe in Jesus as the Son of God and as the one who had been crucified in order to absolve the sins of people.

In fact one should say that following the Crucifixion of God's only begotten Son, there is no need to observe the Divine precepts mentioned in Torah, for a Christian is absolved of all responsibilities since the blood of Christ is the ransom paid for the sins of Christians!

All of us, however, know that God never had a son, for having a son is confined to those who are finite and possess physical bodies, so that a part of their bodies may be detached from them to grow into a child. On the other hand, the infinite Lord, who is free and pure from any restriction and incarnation, could never be imagined to have a son. Thus the Holy Qur'an considers God a truth not born and not likely to bear a child: "He begets none, nor is He begotten".

Christians and their followers had never given a moment of thought that if God had wanted to forgive His servants, He would not have needed to resort to such an absurd act of putting an immaculate person into trouble or on the Cross for a few days as a sacrificial ransom for recompensing the human sins.

Instead, out of His boundless mercy, He would have ignored the wrong- doings of some evil4oers and forgiven them, and would, owing to an act of justice, have punished others since their sins would afflict their very own selves.31

The Buying and selling of Paradise and the Letters of Forgiveness

The paying of ransom for crimes committed, while being a relevantly simple and straightforward issue during Paul's time, later on gained a new aspect under the Church authorities and Holy Fathers.

In Paul's creed, only the Father and the Son were recognized. The Holy Fathers, however, added yet another god -Holy Spirit- and thus made them three. Also according to Paul, with Jesus being crucified, all sins of mankind were automatically forgiven, but the Holy Fathers fabricated new rules governing the absolution from sins. According to these rules, it was necessary for a sinner to first confess to his sins to the priest, then offer some cash or credit to His Holiness the Pope so as to have his sins forgiven. It was thought that when the priest utters the words: "I forgive thee", God will have no alternative but forgive and absolve.32

Some church authorities have not insisted on penance, confession and supplication and left the purchaser free to interpret the letter of forgiveness as the certificate of exemption from anything -penance, confession, forgiveness and paying ransom for sins- and let them consider it related merely to the amount of money he pays.

About 1450, the Dean of Oxford University, Thomas Gascagne complained: "Today the sinners say: 'I have no fear of God on the account of sins and misdeeds I commit, for I would be absolved of all guilt's and sins when confessing and asking forgiveness from the priest and buying papal letter of forgiveness'…"33

We read in the book "Exposition of Christian Teachings": "Only the Catholic Church has the power to forgive sins and no outside means of absolution from sins could be found beyond this power." It adds: "It is necessary for us sinners to confess to all our sins before the priest,

for one who withholds even one Sin from the priest will not be cleared from other sins, because he has also committed a great sin of hypocrisy. It is also incumbent upon us to confess to the number of sins committed and say, for instance, that we have committed such and such a sin ten times."34

By fabricating such superstitions, Christianity has prevented many people from achieving moral perfection and spiritual virtues and caused them to plunge into crimes and backwardness. However, based upon nature, the Holy Qur'an forbids mankind from committing evil deeds and calls them towards spiritual perfection. Without resorting to superstition, it encourages the wrongdoers to repent, and thus gives them the hope that whoever "does evil or wrongs his soul, and then asks forgiveness of Allah, he will find Allah forgiving and merciful" (Holy Qur'an, 5:110).

The Qur'an considers the forgiveness of sins the sole right of the Almighty Lord: "To Allah belongs the kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth. He forgives whom He pleases and cherishes whom He pleases. And Allah is forgiving and merciful." (Holy Qur'an 48:17).

Chapter 10: The Authors of the New Testament

Why should we know The Authors?

Everyday you are confronted with various reports and hear various news. But among them, you only find one that is reliable and noteworthy, one, which has been said by a reliable and virtuous person. For, if the announcer or the writer is not correct and truthful, his words will not be convincing and trustworthy. Thus whenever we ask for correct news, we must call on truthful speakers or authors to inform us of the real conducts and attitudes of people who have lived before us.

In order to find out about the attitude and pleasing words of Jesus Christ, who lived many centuries before us, any interested person is inevitably forced to consider the reliability of the authors of the New Testament, in order to see whether or not they were qualified for such a thing, for one cannot blindly accept anything written or said as being the attitude and words of Christ himself.

Unfortunately when we embark on a sound, scientific investigation to know the writers of the Scriptures, we discover that they were either unknown or unbelieving, deviant and sinful elements, who could not generally be trusted. For more explanation and in order to see what has just been stated is an irrefutable truth, let us quote a few words about the writers of the New Testament from their very own writings which are currently available.

The biography of the Authors of the New Testament The New Testament is made up of twenty-seven books by eight writers: Peter, John, Matthew, Judas (who were apostles of Christ), Mark, Luke, Jacob and Paul.

Peter

He is the author of two books in the New Testament, who furnishes a source for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. According to the Bible Dictionary, it is highly suspected that in writing his own Gospel, Mark has relied on information furnished by Peter. Matthew and Luke have referred to Gospel of Mark and some other texts as their information source.35

Peter is the same person to whom Jesus had expressed his dislike. As we read in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 16, when Jesus was prophesying his own death to his disciples, Peter, taking hold of him, began to reproach him, saying:

"Be it far from thee, lord. This shall not be unto thee." Turning to Peter, Jesus said: "Get thee behind me, Satan. Thou art an offence unto me. For thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." (Matt. 16:21- 23). Thus is it possible to say that Peter has deserved to be followed by Matthew, Mark and Luke and that his words should constitute an information source for these writers?

The Disobedience of Peter and John

The evening on which Jesus was succumbing to exceeding sorrow, and was betrayed to his enemies, he told his disciples:

"Tarry ye here, and watch with me." But the disciples, instead of taking care of Christ in such a time, abandoned him and went to bed. When Jesus saw them sleeping, he admonished them and said to Peter: "What, could you not watch with me one hour?" He went the second time and prayed, saying unto the disciples to be with him. But again he found them in sleep, obviously having placed their own comfort above obeying his command. (Extracts from Matt. 26, and Mark 14).

Would the people who did not attach any importance to Jesus' simple request in those critical hours, have respected and valued his injunctions in other times? As a result, how could one rely and trust the Gospel, Revelations, books of John or other writings belonging to Peter or to others influenced by him?

How the Disciples Abandoned Jesus and Fled?

The night on which Jesus was to be captured by his enemies, he told his disciples: "All of you shall be offended because of me this night." All his disciples expressed their dislikes of this offence and Peter said: "Although all shall be offended, yet will not I.

" Suddenly Judas, one of the twelve ones, appeared and with him a great multitude carrying swords and sticks. They had been sent by chief Jewish priests and elders. Coming forward they put hands on Jesus and took him away. It was then that all his disciples forsook him and fled.36 What saddened Jesus more than their escape was the arrival of Peter among the enemies!

As Miller, the famous Christian missionary, writes: "How distressed and sad Jesus must have been upon looking at the crowd, seeing Peter warming himself beside fire with other people! Such a negligence and lapse on the part of his most outstanding disciple must have been upsetting.37 Were such irresolute persons firm in face of the bitter events of the early Christian era and the whim of the Roman emperors?

Author's Lack of Faith

Although during his lifetime Jesus had told his disciples that he would "… be

killed, and be raised again the third day",38 whoever told the disciples on that day that 'Jesus has risen', they would not believe him, until Jesus himself appeared to them and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart."39 When the disciples of Jesus act like this, what is to be expected from the writers who had followed them?

Mark

Mark was Barnabas' cousin40 and was a friend to Paul, Barnabas and Peter. Quite possibly he had been taught Christian beliefs by Peter; for Peter addresses him as his son. His association with and devotion to Paul and Peter who were both dishonest is a living witness that he was misled; for in order to know people, the best means is to know their masters and friends. Furthermore, Floyd Philson writes:

"Peter imagined that Mark was not firm in serving Jesus."41 Hence it becomes clear that Mark was not even trusted by Peter.

Luke

He is an unknown man who was in the same footing with misled and misguided Paul. The Persian Bible Dictionary writes: "His personal history, before and after meeting Paul, is either unknown or based upon ambiguous unidentifiable stories."

Jacob, the Brother of Jesus

He was the same person who in response to the people's inclination hatched a conspiracy aimed at instilling the necessity of rejecting the Mosaic Law and openly declared: "…My sentence is that we should trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God." By this statement, he trampled all but few of the Torah's injunctions. Although Jesus had said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heavens and earth pass, one jot or one tottle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt. 5:17-18)

Paul

There is no evidence available for knowing him except the writings of his friend and colleague, Mark. Moreover, he has committed certain acts each of which is enough by itself as an adequate proof and concrete evidence of his deviations, such as the conspiracy he staged for abolishing the need of observing the Torah; for Paul was one of the supporters of such action and a member of that Cabal. What has been said so far clearly demonstrates that should we ignore the events that had taken place in the early Christian era, we still cannot be optimistic about the New Testament and consider it as being reliable, for the authors thereof had not been qualified and trustworthy.

More startling is the fact that despite their contradictory and superstitious statements, the Christians introduce these authors as inspired by the divine revelation and the Holy Spirit, even though they have no proof supporting this idea except the assertions of these pretty unknown or notorious authors themselves.

Let us hope for the day when the Christian intellectuals would turn back against all these superstitious beliefs, and become unanimous with us so that together, and under the prospering standard of Islam, we would achieve real truths. Amen!

Chapter 11: What is The Eucharist?

Fighting for its very own survival, and since it lacks correct and encompassing teachings that would attract intellectuals, Christianity tries to keep for itself, through "False" rituals, the gullible and fanatic people, whose number, unfortunately, is not few. The thought and deeds which the holy fathers teach for this purpose are generally unsubstantiated and the product of their own delusions.

Unconscious of this fact, the church followers do not ask for proof and blindly follow the fathers. Now the holy fathers discuss the concept of The Trinity, then they stage a Eucharist ceremony, imagining that thus they create a thrill of excitement in the hearts of Christians. They are unaware that these rites would deliver yet another blow to the foundations of Christianity. They (the holy fathers) say that it would be good to kill two birds with one stone, by mixing fun and revelry, with a so-called religious action.

Presently we would explain the fact behind this "holy deed" to you, dear reader:

The Eucharist, or the Wine and Breed Ritual On Christmas Eve, the Christians make the following ceremony in the churches:

The Archbishop orders his acolytes to make dough from good flour, bake a loaf of unlived bread and bring it to him. Then the Holy Father takes the loaf of bread and wine to the church and after tolling the bell, prepares the Christians for performing the great ceremony. They all file in one rank and the priest pours the wine into a silver bowl and wraps the bread in a beautiful kerchief. Then he passes the rank of Christians and faces the East, reciting incantations and prayers while holding the loaf of bread. Following the supplication, he prostrates before the bread, then all those present would do the same for they believe that after the supplication, the dough of the bread transforms into the flesh of Jesus.42

The Wine Grail

The Holy Father then holds the cup of wine and addresses the congregation saying: "Our (lord and savior) Jesus, before death took the Grail of wine and gave it to his disciples saying: "this is my blood." (Mark 14:24) Having said this, the priest himself bows before the cup and those in attendance must also follow suit.

Then, while saying prayers, he breaks the bread and holds it in his hand, while another priest brings the Grail of wine. Then one by one, those present come forward; and the holy father still reciting prayers places in their mouths a piece of that bread which they swallow immediately without biting into it, for if they bite into it the flesh of Jesus would be harmed. One must ask why the flesh of Jesus, i.e. the unlived bread, is not harmed when they tear it to pieces. Then all take a sip of wine, and by eating bread and drinking wine, all of them become the Father and the Son. And all their sins are forgiven. Whoever wants to repent must do this, and this is currently the standard practice in all Roman Catholic Churches.

This is but a sample of the ideas and deeds of Christianity, a faith whose practitioners believe that beatitude solely lies in the light of its teachings. Moreover, as a part of the ceremony, all unanimously call Jesus the Lord, the only Son of God and begotten by The Father; and confess that he is not a creature but sharing the same essence with the Father.

Unlivened Bread and the Flesh of Jesus

Now in order to better explain this decadent idea and this act, take note of the following:

1) How then Jesus, who according to these gentlemen had been crucified about two millennia ago, can be turn to pieces in thousands of churches, and up in the bellies of millions of Christians and thereby make them all Gods? What sort of scientific discipline proves that this bread and this wine are transformed into the flesh and blood of Jesus and what sort of connection exists between Christ and this physical food?

2) If each of those pieces of bread that a Christian eats were a whole Jesus, then it would be necessary for the Lord to create each year several million Jesus in the form of unlivened bread so as to feed the Christians. Moreover, during his lifetime, each Christian, depending upon his age must have eaten 50, 60, 80 or even 100 whole Jesus... Is such a statement believable?

And if they say that they tear Jesus to pieces and eat him, no doubt the crime of the holy fathers would be no less severe than that of Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus to the Jews, for they tear Jesus to pieces every year.

Strange Statement

By saying the unlivened bread is digested, the Christians have made a great insult to Jesus, for they are forced to say that it goes through the same stages as other foods, but if they say that it is not digested and absorbed then one must say that every Christian, who has lived for hundred years, must harbor hundred Jesus in his stomach. Truly how much space is there in one's stomach to take in hundred Jesus with earthly bodies?

The superstitious nature of The Eucharist became such a widely spoken topic among Europeans and other people, that in 1551 AD the Roman Catholic Church was forced to make a revision in it but still it could not thoroughly abandon the Eucharist superstitions.

By what stated so far, the superstitious nature of The Eucharist comes into light, for it does not conform to any laws of natural or rational sciences; rather it directly opposes them. In this ritual, drinking of wine, which by the assertion of medical scientists and The Holy Bible itself, is a dangerous fluid that disrupts both mind and body, has been incorporated into the Christian faith as a sacred act by which the Christians become both the Father and the Son.

More specifically, if it is said that unlivened bread is not digested and remains in body forever, this foolish statement make not only the natural scientist, but also even any child, to laugh at it. Furthermore, the present gospels do not approve this act. John Alder, a Christian scholar writes:

"Protestants dispute with Catholics about two subjects:

I-That the Eucharist and other sacred rites have been taught by Jesus, for there are many arguments against it, but none to support it. II-That these holy rituals are means and modes of salvation, Whereas the New Testament strongly emphasizes that we are saved through faith "and not by performing rituals. (Therefore there is no salvation in the acts, rites and ceremonies of the Eucharist). May God guide all of us to the right path?"


5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32