Let’s notice the discrimination by which the author or authors showed the reaction of both groups: the maximum that Christians would do to the priest if he chose the Prophet Muhammed is that they would attack him. The reader should pay attention to the words: “they would attack him”, that’s all without specifying the kind of such attack. That may mean they would try to attack him but not necessarily execute it . this is what comes to mind when we hear the words “they would attack him”. As for when he described the reaction of Muslims for his assumed preference of the Christ. He specifically said:“If I said that Mohamed is the greatest, a Muslim would attack me and break my neck out of fury for whoever insult or offend Mohammed is deemed by some Muslims an atheist who deserves death.” The difference is quite clear even for the blind. This means that the author(s) describes Muslims of being cruel and brutal contrary to Christians. The worst that may be expected form their criminals who have no conscience is that they would attack him, but without anyone at all breaking his neck. In addition, at the same time as he stipulates that death awaits who offends Muhammed, the Christians do not think by any means about such a thing. Why not, while they are civilized even if they were prisoners, criminals with no conscience?
Above all, how does the author of the story be convinced that such these immoral criminals (as they are called) can have their minds be busy in jail (hotbed of crime and corruption all) with such entertaining issues which would only visit the minds of those who have risen in their belief of religion and covered in this far distances? Furthermore, prior to this, how would the authorities of a country allow a preacher of some religion to enter the cell of all prisoners belonging to all religions without sorting believers of his religion separately so that he would take liberty at talking to them concerning the affairs of their religion without disturbing others with whatever they are saying, rather with what may cause a dissension in the cells which God alone knows the extent of its damage? Rather, how can reason accept the Muslim authorities letting at the prison a Christian preacher entering to Muslim prisoners preaching his religion with members of his community? Indeed, the mind cannot digest such kind of talk just as it cannot digest the reverse of this situation if authorities in a Christian country allow a Muslim preacher to enter to Christian prisoners offering his religion and trying to make them convert to it. Finally, since when unscrupulous criminals can be so eloquent to utter such well-expressed words: " we do not expect from you secrets of stars, nor magic ways, but we ask you as a religious man a final definite answer for the question discussed among us: who is the greatest, Mohamed or the Christ"? I wonder whether Muslims will be persuaded by what a Christian preacher would say about a preference for Christ. How would they get to know that he is truthful or lying concerning his judgment? What is the standard of truth and lying here? It is, for the questioners in our story, that Muhammad is the best; except for this nothing would be considered by them as truth.
We conclude to the final statement which reveals that the whole story as I have mentioned before is an invented one. Here is the preacher saying that he would leave Quran and Hadith provide us with a convincing answer, i.e. this speech is addressed at Muslims alone. Therefore, he does not want to offer them evidence other than the Quran and Prophetic traditions which they believe in nothing other than them, then where did the Christians go? Why were not they among those who discussed that issue and asked for an answer about it, and he himself feared their attack if he supplied them with an unexpected and undesirable answer? Then his saying:” if I said Mohamed is the greatest, the Christian prisoners would attack me” is additional evidence that the story is an invented alleged one. As how could he imagine that he could convince us judgment can be made by him for Muhammed while he believes that the Messiah is a god or son of God and Muhammed for the best appreciation of him would be a mere prophet? Then I wonder who would place the human prophet before the god? Unless he wished to tell us that he was an abstract preacher who belongs to no religion, but calling for absolute virtue without attaching to a certain faith or worship. However, this assumption is greatly refuted by his naming “slave of Mesiah”. Moreover, the Christian preacher declares that he would acquire his standard from Quran and prophetic traditions, would he actually fulfill his promise and stick to God’s book and the his prophet’s Hadith or would he forget this promise and restore to the New Testaments even occasionally in addition to his interpretation of the t e x ts of Quran and prophetic traditions in an unacceptable explanation? We will not hurry to answer now and soon we will see what the servant of God would do to himself.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks