Allah the Almighty, glory be to Him, says in the Surat al-Imran (3:19):

The Deen with Allah is Islam.
Those given the Book only differed
after knowledge had come to them,
envying one another.
As for those who reject Allah’s Signs,
Allah is swift at reckoning.

In his Tafsir, Ibn ‘Atiyyah comments:

‘‘Deen’ in this ayat refers to Ta’ah – that is, obedience and millat. Islam in this ayat means Iman and Ta’ah – obedience, according to Abu ‘Aliyya and the majority of the Mutakallimin. What is meant by Islam and A’mal is found in the Hadith of Jibril, alayhi salam, where he questioned the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, when he came to teach the people the Deen. The explanation of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was that Islam is based on the five things.’

So it is that our Commentator tells us that Allah has appointed Islam as the only acceptable religion with Him. He then explains, once that is established, how Allah views all the others. He continues:

‘Then Allah informs us about differences of those given the Book. They received knowledge but desired the dunya. This is according to Ibn ‘Umar and others. ‘Those given the Book’ means the jews and the christians.’

In the next ayat Allah commands:

Surat al-Imran (3:20):

‘…Say to those given the Book and those who have no Book,
‘Have you become Muslim?’
If they had become Muslim, they have been guided.
If they turn away, you are only responsible for transmission.
Allah sees His slaves.

From ibn ‘Atiyyah:

‘Those given the Book’: all agree that this ayat refers to the jews and christians.

‘…those who have no Book’: those who do not write, i.e. the arabs at that time. This could also refer to both Umm or Ummah, mother or Ummah. The coming out of a man from his mother, or the condition of a primitive, guileless ummah prior to learning or becoming intelligent.

‘‘Have you become Muslim?’’: At-Tabari said that they had been guided to the Deen. Az-Zujaj said that this means to intimidate them.

‘…they have been guided’: this expression is in the past tense since it carries news of their guidance and attainment.’

In order to arrive at a profound understanding of this important ayat we have to take two further steps. Firstly we apply the principle of ‘the Qur’an from the Qur’an’. This in turn will lead us to an incontrovertible judgment following the principle of the Nasikh and the Mansukh.

‘…you are only responsible for transmission:’ About this Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi the faqih, states:

‘And about this ayat there is no argument because it is ABROGATED by the fighting.’

This is clarified in Surat Ar-Rad. In this Sura is stated:

Surat ar-Rad (13:40):

‘…your responsibility is transmission.
And the reckoning is Ours.’

Qadi Abu Bakr explains: ‘This negation of action was ABROGATED by the Ayat as-Sayf. This indicates first transmission, and then the taking up of the sword.’

Allah the Exalted clarifies this matter further so that there can be no illusion of any intellectual intercourse with the kafirun, that is to say there is no dialogue with them. It is categorically forbidden.

Surat al-Imran (3:28):

The muminun should not take kafirun as friends
rather than muminun.
Anyone who does that
has nothing to do with Allah at all –
unless it is because you are afraid of them.
Allah advises you to be afraid of Him.
Allah is the final destination.

Ibn ‘Atiyyah comments:

‘The prohibition refers to kindness to the kafirun and a leaning towards and being influenced by them. This ayat refers to all times and is applicable to all.’

‘Unless it is that you are afraid of them’: The majority of the Mufassirin say that the ayat refers to taqiyah. Taqiyah depends on the Fiqh: (Fiqh Al-Hal), fear of imprisonment, intimidation, being overpowered and conquered. Al-Hassan said about a man who was told to prostrate to an idol under threat of death that if the idol was in the direction of the Qibla then he could prostrate with the intention purely to Allah. If the idol was not in the direction of the Qibla then he should not, even if they were to kill him. Ibn Habib from al-Hassan.’

Based on Ibn ‘Atiyyah’s reference to al-Hassan we can note a clear Hukm. In the celebration of the so-called Sacrament, Archbishop Lanfranc of England around the 11th Century introduced into the ritual what later became known as the Elevation of the Host, that is the ritual raising up and inclining before the sanctified wafer. This categorically represents prostration before an idol. For a Muslim to be present at the celebration of the catholic Mass, since it implies a submission to the elevation of the idol, is categorically forbidden. It is all the more criminal if it is done openly and cannot come under the distinction of taqiyah stemming from: ‘unless it is you are afraid of them’.

‘Allah advises you to be afraid of Him. Allah is the final destination.’ Ibn ‘Atiyyah says this is a threat, a clarification, a reminder and a remembrance of the Next World. Ibn Abbas and al-Hassan said that Allah addresses us directly.

This significant distinction is found reiterated in Surat al-Ma’idah (5:51):

You who have Iman! Do not take the Jews and Christians
As your friends;
They are the friends of one another.
Any of you who takes them as friends is one of them.
Allah does not guide wrongdoing people.

Ibn ‘Atiyyah comments:

‘Allah has prohibited the Muminin from taking the jews and christians as friends, that is helping them and mixing with them. This Hukm remains. This distinction (of helping them and mixing with them) is strengthened by Allah saying: ‘They are friends of one another.’ Abdullah ibn Abi Salwala and Ubadah ibn Samit were allies of a jewish tribe. When Ubadah saw how the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was treated by the jews he went to him and said, ‘I free myself from the alliance with the jews and their allies, and I ally myself to Allah and His Messenger.’ Abdallah ibn Abi also said, ‘I free myself from alliance to the jews. I fear that I will be overcome by my destiny.’
‘Any of you who takes them as friends is one of them’: he who allies himself with them in their deen and in kufr is destined for the Fire.’

In Surat al-Ma’idah (5:55) we find:

‘Your friend is only Allah and His Messenger
And those who have Iman:
Those who establish Salat
And pay Zakat, and bow.’

‘Your friend is only Allah and His Messenger’ – our Commentator says that this is addressed to a people who have been commanded not to take jews and christians as their friends.
Ibn Mas’ud said: ‘Your friend is Allah. ‘Those who have Iman’ – they are few. They have no nifaq and they establish the fard Salat with all its conditions and pay the fard Zakat, and have right action.’
What Ibn ‘Atiyyah is emphasizing in his commentary is the social, moral and spiritual superiority of the Muminin over the disastrous condition of the kafirun. They are not a people with whom we are permitted to have dialogue due to Allah’s separation of us from them, and also because of the terrible suffering on humanity brought about by their defiance of Allah, glory be to Him.

In Surat al-Ma’idah (5:65-66):

If only the People of the Book had had Iman and taqwa,
We would have erased their evil deeds from them
And admitted them into Gardens of Delight.
If only they had implemented the Torah and the Injil
And what was sent down to them from their Lord,
They would have been fed from above their heads
And beneath their feet.
Among them there is a moderate group
But what most of them do is evil.

Ibn ‘Atiyyah says that this refers to the contemporaries of the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. If they had believed in Allah and His Book, He would have forgiven them and let them into the Garden. The reference to the Torah and the Injil confirms that both the jews and the christians are included.
An-Naqqash said: ‘They would partake above them from the food of the Garden and beneath them from the bounty of the earth.’
At-Tabari said: ‘Among the Bani Isra’il was a group which was moderate towards ‘Isa, may Allah bless him. They said he was a slave of Allah, a Messenger and His spirit. However, most of them were slanderers and some of them said he was a god. From this claim Rome emerged and those who followed its Millat. Both groups are kafir.’
Al-Mujahid said: ‘It refers to ancient and modern People of the Book.’
Later in Surat al-Ma’idah, Allah the Exalted declares (5:72-73): 

Those who say that the Messiah, son of Maryam, is Allah
Are kafirun.
The Messiah said, ‘Tribe of Israel! Worship Allah,
My Lord and your Lord.
If anyone associates anything with Allah,
Allah has forbidden him the Garden
And his refuge will be the Fire.’
The wrongdoers will have no helpers.
Those who say that Allah is the third of three
Are kafirun.
There is no god but One God.
If they do not stop saying what they say,
A painful punishment will afflict
Those among them who are kafir.

These tremendous ayats place an impenetrable barrier between the Muslims and the kafirun. It is significant that this barrier is spiritual, moral and rational. It must be noted that Allah, the Creator of the universe, informs us in these ayats that the source of the condemned doctrine attributing divinity to Sayyiduna ‘Isa, ‘alayhi salam, is a deviation that stems from the religion of the jews. The false christian religion is something that has its inception within the spiritual practice, or rather malpractice of the jewish people. Right at the birth of christianity we can see clearly what a clever deception was projected on the pagan world. A jewish ritual that was celebrated to bind together a people in worship of God was transferred from its racial State so that it became universalised by the magical enthronement of the Apostles, or immediate disciples, of the Messenger ‘Isa, Allah bless him.
The binding ritual of the jewish people was the celebration of the Passover, which was a memorial re-enactment of how they were saved from the intended slaughter of Pharaon. Ordered by the Angel to remain in their houses till the killing was over, they had to eat unleavened bread. Saint Paul, himself a jew, took this ritual and connected it to the Gospel event of ‘the Last Supper’. He took from the Gospel version of what happened the incident on which he built his invented religion. According to him, Jesus took the bread and said, ‘This is my body’. This became the notorious ‘hic est corpus!’ The Passover Biscuit of the jews was transformed into the Holy Biscuit of the christian Sacrament. The unleavened bread which celebrated the saving of a people became magically transformed into a ritual act which saved the individual, and all the religion’s believers, from the punishment of God. Notice however, that in order for this magical salvation to take place there has to be a prior belief that this bread was transmuted, and that wine, into the flesh and blood of Sayyiduna ‘Isa, ‘alayhi salam. Since this for Muslims, and all thinking people, is a hard proposition you must not fail to see that what Saint Paul was selling to people was what in modern language is called ‘a package deal.’ The prior necessity of belief is that the ritualised narration of the Last Supper becomes the re-enactment of it in which bread and wine become the flesh and blood of the Prophet. Since that transformation must be given authenticity it also means that the christian has to believe that a transmission, an initiary transmission, was passed to the Apostles so that their dispensing of the re-enacted Supper, through their mediation, could turn the physical elements of bread and wine into the physical elements of the flesh and blood of the one who, by serving up this meal, becomes their Saviour.
Do recognize both the cleverness and the outrageousness of the fundamental proposition. Without an Apostolic Succession the transubstantiation could not take place. The new religion is founded on ‘outside the Church there is no salvation.’ Yet the heart of the matter remains that its central claim to save its members is based on the belief that bread and wine become the flesh and blood of their ‘Saviour’. This is actual anthropophagy. It is not a dualist celebration suggesting physical elements in the material world and a spiritual presence in the Unseen World. Those who claimed that, in the Middle Ages, were enthusiastically burned with papal authority, and when in the Reformation later generations tried to claim there was no change in the physical elements and that it was only a memorial service, many of these unfortunates were burned at the stake with equal enthusiasm in the Counter-Reformation. The Catholic Church is inescapably bound to the doctrine of transubstantiation and has rejected the reformist doctrine of consubstantiation as well as the final Protestant one of nonsubstantiation. One incident illustrates very well how utterly catholics were convinced that this wafer, the Host, was, after its blessing, transformed into the actual body. In France during the reign of Louis XIV his son, the Dauphin, therefore heir to the King of France was travelling through the countryside in his carriage with his soldiers. They came upon a village priest on foot, but visibly carrying in front of him the Holy Sacraments. It was unthinkable to the King’s son that he could ride by and ignore what to him was, did not only represent, but was, the body and blood of Jesus. He got out of his carriage and knelt before the village priest and asked to partake of the Sacrament. The priest explained that he had come from the house of a man dying of cholera, but the Dauphin could not refuse the Sacrament. Resignedly he took it. He climbed back into his carriage. He declared, ‘I am dead, but I am saved!’ A couple of days later he died.
This sacrificial magic is what the last Pope was offering as he flew round the world, touting this transaction to nations whose millions were already dying and starving due to that one system of capitalism, into which the Vatican’s wealth, so securely embedded in sound investment, was safe at last. To those millions of illiterate and uneducated people this deception could easily be sold. However, in Europe, the home not only of the Vatican but of the Reformation, it was another matter. In Europe since the French Revolution another false religion had taken root. Intertwining itself with the growth of scientism and the emerging doctrines of republicanism, Europe had almost totally taken on the religion of Atheism. Atheism advanced on two doctrines. One, the power of the state is secular, that is to say, it does not permit its dictates to be conditioned by the evaluations of any religion. Two, it declares, since it pretends to grant the masses freedom, that all religions are equal and tolerated. The logic of this second is, of course, that if all religions are equal, none of them is true. This new religion has a third doctrine, absolute, yet not readily admitted. That is, that it grants its people unconditional adult sexual liberty, without punishments or inhibitions, while at the same time, in exchange as it were for that freedom, it forbids its believers to partake of any currency of their choosing and forces them to submit to the state currencies decreed by their Banks. In place of salvation in the Next World being dependent on a sanctified wafer it now offers salvation in This World by a sanctified piece of paper – the Host is now the dollar, the Euro, and so on. In place of the catholic universal church we have the Universal Banking System.
In 1958, Paul Morand, one of the century’s finest French writers, wrote a story entitled ‘The Prisoner of Cintra’. In it he describes a young man sitting at home fiddling with a long-wave radio and picking up signals from China, India and America. The tale continues:
“…He turned the black plastic buttons which opened their windows on the dark universe of sound.
‘What are these crackling noises?’ asked the astonished old lady.
‘These are frontiers cracking: mother, our old world is unravelling.’”
This surely is the message for Pope Benedict XVI.
The most vital task facing Pope Benedict XVI is twofold. Firstly, he must take a long hard look at the dubious history of both the papacy and the Roman Church. Secondly, he must without illusion grasp the reality of the present Atheist World Order. This dual understanding is what the polish peasant who preceded him singularly failed to do. His inability to resolve the contradiction between these two historical realities was exacerbated by his disastrous solution, his enthroning of the Doctrine of Mariology. A historical survey of the Roman Church demonstrates that its survival over centuries was due to the Church’s power over people and Princes. Disobedience was punished with execution, torture and burning at the stake, as well as war. Its historical record is positively genocidal. The Crusades and the Inquisition were the Church’s necessary instruments of control and intimidation. These were the only means to force intelligent men and women to believe that God was three, and that somehow three equalled one, let alone that some men, the bishops, could initiate other men into the capacity to turn fresh bread and wine into thousand year old morsels of Jesus’s flesh and blood. The Doctrine of the Sacrament asked the reasoning mind to accept that millions of people over hundreds of years could continue to feast off one poor human body.
It is important to spell this out because the Roman Church is uncomfortably silent nowadays on this issue, yet it was that doctrine, allowing people, as I have demonstrated, to accept a belief in an initiate priesthood, that is to say the Church itself, which led to the Reformation. It would be most unjust to accuse me of attacking the Roman Church, but we are forced to defend ourselves against it. To define the christian church as a centuries long machine of terror is a simple statement of fact. I speak with authority on the matter since an ancestor of mine as local Laird of Cantray in his role as deputy Sheriff of Forres, sentenced Issobell Goudie, spouse to John Gilbert, to be burned at the stake for witchcraft and heresy on the 13th April 1662. In the famous phrase of Alexandre Dumas, ‘At this game, whoever does not kill is killed.’ The bitter truth is that the false doctrines, the lies, of the Roman Church, and its Reformed but not rescued Protestant inheritors made Europe, for all these centuries, a killing field.
The continental holocaust of the Thirty Years War was the earthquake that saw christianity in both its Roman and Reformed condition overwhelmed by the new forces of a money economy.
To grasp the contemporary situation fully it is very important to understand the nature and implications of the Reformation. Firstly, we should recognize what the principle of Reformation is. If something is re-formed it follows that its original form is obliterated. The result of Luther and Calvin’s work was not a revitalised Catholic Church. It represented the end of the Catholic Church. Since we have established that the Roman Church is based on an initiatory priesthood stemming from Papal authority permitting the ritual of transubstantiation, then the abolishing of Papal authority and transubstantiation means the end of the Roman Church.
Today the Atheist World Banking System is stridently calling for Islam to reform itself. Under the Imperialism of the last century the most important ‘reform’ was accomplished. This was the abolition of Zakat as an obligatory tax, imposed by an Amir and collected from the Muminun by appointed Zakat Collectors. When the atheist Imperialist reduced Zakat to a voluntary charity they had effectively destroyed the Dar al-Islam, yet what they could not do was wipe out the Muslim peoples. Rasul, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said in a renowned Hadith, ‘My people cannot go entirely wrong.’ That is why the current revival of Islam is motored by, and dependent on, a return to gold and silver currency in order that the Zakat may be paid according to the Shari’at. The restoration of this pillar of Islam will by its spiritual power along with Allah’s Decree cause the destruction of the world banking system. By this, we do not imply Divine intervention, for that is not an Islamic doctrine, but rather we understand it by the principle of Rububiyyat: in the words of Muhyiddin ibn al-‘Arabi, ‘Allah governs the universe from within the universe.’
Once the Protestants had denied Papal authority and a priesthood invested with magical powers it still required a priesthood to form the infrastructure of a Church. They declared a new doctrine – ‘the priesthood of all believers.’ It is not what happened. Where once the priests had been recruited from the monasteries, after Luther the priests were recruited from the Universities. Simultaneously, with the reformation of transubstantiation into nonsubstantiation, the intellectual foundation of worship moved from transcendental mystery to the function of reason. It follows from this that Protestantism was simply a Way Station on the road to Atheism.
Calvin’s new religion was based on two new doctrines. Firstly, the Doctrine of Authority. Authority equalled representation. In this way Protestantism stood not only for the abolition of Papal Authority but more disastrously, for the abolition of monarchic authority. The calvinist churches elected their own chiefs, who in turn decided doctrines and disciplines. However, once elected they ruled their electors. So was born the myth of modern democracy. Its deception was its pretence that the representative is identical to the represented.
Secondly, the Doctrine of Wealth. In Calvin’s new religion a man’s value is connected to the power to accumulate wealth, that is to say, he abolished the Catholic commendation of poverty as a spiritual power. In place of saving one’s soul came saving one’s money. His father had been charged with the embezzlement of church funds and this stands at least psychologically at the root of his viewing finance as the rescuing factor in life. From Calvinism arose Huguenots, and from them in turn, the Jansenism of the 17th and 18th centuries. All these were movements activated by the doctrine of predestination. Calvin licensed usury. Just as belief in the sacrament is against reason, so belief in usury is against freedom, since the endebted is fated never to repay his debt in full, and so is predetermined to slavery. In modern atheist society, with usury as the norm of bankism, it required psychoanalysis to make the endebted one resigned to his endebtment.
After Jansenism the Catholic Church was forced to come to terms with, that means through doctrines, the new mercantile capitalism.
On the 18th of August, 1830 Pope Pius VIII finally was forced to give approval to the taking of interest and by extension the full set of usury systems. This was the turning point. After that came a whole series of decrees extending the licence to usury, or one could say surrendering the doctrines of the Catholic Church to the new doctrines of the World Banking Order. Further decrees were issued on the 31st of August 1831, 17th of January 1838, 26th of January 1840, 28th of February 1871, and that of the Sacred Penitentiary of 11th February 1852. In the 1917 Code of Canon Law came the authorisation for religious orders to keep their assets on deposit in interest bearing accounts. In addition, the new Catechism makes no mention of usury.
By mid-twentieth century the devastating effects of the new doctrines licensing usury began to produce a crisis inside the Catholic Church, for the legalisation of usury meant the de facto recognition of the new ‘World Princes’ of the Banking System. Over the centuries the Europe of the Holy Roman Empire, as a Christendom governed by the Pope, had slowly disintegrated. In the end it was Mussolini who rescued the Papacy from disappearing completely when, in the Lateran Agreements he invested the tiny Vatican territory and the Castel Gandolfo with the status of a self-governing entity.
The intellectual wing of the church had always been headed by the Jesuit Order. As if to counter the Protestant extremist with his abject submission to capitalism, they found themselves emerging as the militant opponents of it. The emergence of what came to be known as Liberation Theology was quickly seen to be nothing other than a sanctified communism. The Worker Priests, who emerged in South America not only as defenders of the poor but as heroic enemies of the land owning class, led to an awakening of faith among the enslaved masses but also a ferocious backlash against the Atheist World Order of Bankism.
At this time emerged another internal movement inside catholicism, and that was Opus Dei. If liberation theology offered the world a Holy Catholic communist church the new movement tried to incorporate Protestantism in the same way that the jesuits had tried to incorporate communism. Such was its audacity, that nobody inside the Church, with the exception of a few intellectuals and the upper echelons of the Jesuit Order, seemed to notice that it was a protestant institution. It was a Papally licensed Order but few of the Brotherhood of Opus Dei were ordained priests, and added to that they were freed from the unnatural discipline of celibacy. So at the one extreme a Holy Communism was arousing the oppressed masses in the Third World, at the same time the Holy Capitalism, like a new freemasonry, was infiltrating into the power elite of the World Banking System.
By the end of the 20th century the noise of the old order cracking had become deafening. The collapse of communism showed the mono-culture of atheism as taking on absolute power. Yet the end of communism was more a theatrical than an historical reality. With an atheist power system controlling the world’s wealth, the world’s masses found themselves lost and abandoned. The christian masses, denied a Papacy with political and financial power, scraped among the rubbish and detritus of protestant doctrines to find some remnant of the christian religion. Slowly, over the second half of the century emerged a third and final corrupted version of the christian heresy. It was called evangelical christianity, but it had little to do with the simple evangelism of the 19th century. It was some kind of a solution for the christians. In place of the Sacred Sacrifice was introduced the Sacred Baptism. Ironically, christianity had abandoned Rome and returned to the River Jordan. While there were pagan versions of baptism, clearly this new cult of baptism traced itself back to its judaic source, tracing back to Ezekiel and the sprinkling of water for purification. The Essenes bathed ritually. The Sacrament granted you a new life in the Next World. The Baptism granted you a new life in this material world – you were born again. While the catholic position is based on the autonomy of the Church as a worshipping body, the modern Evangelical Church’s position is based on the autonomy of the individual believer, washed clean of his sins. Christian intellectuals have themselves defined this third religion as ‘relativism, subjectivism, and theological chaos.’ With the baptismal evangelicals, christianity had folded back into its jewish source, to the ecstatic cries of ‘Hallelujah!’
So it was that the Roman Catholic Church at the beginning of the 21st century found itself under the guiding philosophy of Opus Dei, as defenders of the world capitalist system, while at the same time the world’s masses, disenfranchised from all political and economic power, were turning to the swooning ecstasies of the evangelical movement. When asked about the evangelicals, one Brazilian bishop declared, ‘It is simply an escape!’ The interviewer retorted, ‘If you were a poor Brazilian, you would want to escape too!’ The solution to this double dilemma in the policy of the last Pope implied a further plunge into superstition, and fatally for the Church, with it came the looming accusation of dualism. The last resort of the Catholic Church was to elevate a Doctrine of Mariology. In the dark labyrinths of Papal thinking, Mariology had been lurking for over a hundred years. Bodily assumption had been established doctrinally but it still was not enough. Admittedly, the whole ghastly doctrine could be traced back to Saint Augustine, but the horrific defining term emerged in the 2nd Vatican Council which stated that Mary was not only – and we ask Allah’s forgiveness for repeating such a blasphemous and foolish phrase – Mother of God, but was also co-redemptrix! The Counsel defined it thus: ‘She co-operated in the work of the Saviour…to restore supernatural life to souls.’ In the words of the recently deceased Pope, opening the door to the very Manichean heresy the Church had once practiced extensive genocide to obliterate, ‘Christ sacrificed his flesh, Mary her soul.’ The new doctrine now put forward the final astonishing concept – ‘Mary, the new Eve.’
Allah, the Majestic and Exalted says in Surat al-Ma’ida (5:75-77):

The Messiah, the son of Maryam, was only a Messenger,
Before whom other Messengers came and went.
His mother was a woman of truth.
Both of them ate food.
See how We make the Signs clear to them!
Then see how they are perverted!
Say: ‘Do you worship, besides Allah,
Something which has no power to harm or help you
When Allah is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing?’
Say: ‘People of the Book! Do not go to extremes in your deen,
Asserting other than the truth,
And do not follow the whims and desires of people
Who were misguided previously
And have misguided many others,
And are far from the right way.’

It is in Surat al-Ma’ida that we find a whole set of ayats which in their clarity and power leave negation of them impossible. We find it ironic that the English House of Hanover which seized the throne of Britain from the legitimate Stuart and Catholic monarchs, and held it only on the avowed promise that they would never be Roman Catholics, yet turned up in the Vatican for the late Pope’s funeral. The presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Vatican, however, indicates the supreme disdain in which history has been held, both by the Papacy and the British Constitution.
In al-Ma’ida (5:116):

And when Allah says, ‘‘Isa son of Maryam!
Did you say to people, ‘“Take me and my mother
As gods besides Allah?”’
he will say, ‘Glory be to You!
It is not for me to say what I have no right to say!
If I had said it, then You would have known it.
You know what is in my self
But I do not know what is in Your Self.
You are the Knower of all unseen things.

Of this ibn ‘Atiyyah said:
‘The Mufassirun differ as to the timing of this statement. As-Suddi and others have said: as Allah raised up ‘Isa to Him the christians uttered this, and ‘Isa said, ‘Glory be to You!’ Others say it will still occur, like ibn ‘Abbas Qatada and the majority of people who have said: this will be the statement of Allah on the Last Day. When Allah says this to them the kuffar will see their error and they will know that they are people in the wrong – batil.’
Surat Al-Ma’ida (5:14):

We also made a covenant with those who say,
‘We are Christians,’
and they too forgot a good portion
of what they were reminded of.
So We stirred up enmity and hatred between them
Until the Day of Rising
When Allah will inform them about what they did.

During the tribute on TV to the late Pope an English Muslim claiming he belonged to a Muslim Judicial Council, one of those spurious organizations that is allowed to exist due to its abject collaboration with the kafir State boasted that he had handed the Pope a copy of the Qur’an who grinned and said, ‘Ah, the Qur’an!’ before passing it on to one of his priests. This was a case of ignorance compounding ignorance. Ibn ‘Atiyyah states clearly the following:
‘Here the christians are reminded of the covenant and the treacherous statements that they uttered. There is no connection between what they say and what they do. This is said to remind the christians of their errors, and from their going astray from the Deen of Allah. ‘So We stirred up enmity and hatred between them’: this refers to the mutual enmity and hatred that exists between christians and jews. This will continue. Some say that this refers to the christians only. They will fight and have dissension until the Last Day. Allah reminds them of the punishment that awaits them in the Next World.’
Today, this permits us to add in commentary the evidence of the centuries in proving the truth of Allah’s words. Proofs of this ayat are embedded in the Reformation, the Counter- Reformation, the Thirty Years War, the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, the genocide of the Inquisition, and the Witch Hunts.
The next two ayats continue, al-Ma’ida (5:15-16):

People of the Book! Our Messenger has come to you,
Making clear to you much of the Book
That you have kept concealed,
And passing over a lot.
A Light has come to you from Allah
And a Clear Book.
By it, Allah guides
Those who follow what pleases Him
To the ways of Peace.
He will bring them from the darkness to the light
By His permission,
And guide them to a straight path.

In the first ayat ibn ‘Atiyyah confirms that ‘Our Messenger’ indicates the strength of the Nubuwwah of the Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and that he is a Light from Allah, and that the Qur’an is a Clear Book, so that legal matters in it can not be obscured. ‘That you have kept concealed, and passing over a lot’ on this ibn Atiyyah says:
‘Allah has revealed on the tongue of His Prophet what the jews had tried to hide. They had tried to change the description of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in the Torah. ‘…and passing over a lot’ they have left out a significant amount of what went against them. They lied against the millat of Islam.’
It follows from ibn ‘Atiyyah that the present day Catholic view of Islam as being a faith among faiths, or ‘one valid way to God,’ as they put it, is unacceptable to our Muslim Community. Their position is based on an open negation of the Divine Revelation of Qur’an. The Divine Event of “Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, Message that is the Noble Qur’an, and Deen itself” declares the necessary historical end of every form of the christian religion, while at the same time opening the doors of the House of Islam to those who enter it with a contrite heart and a genuine love of ‘Isa, ‘alayhi salam. This last matter is what is referred to in the second ayat. Ibn Atiyyah says of this:
‘‘Peace’ – Salam in this ayat refers to Allah by one of His Beautiful Names. It means the way to Allah and following His Shari’at. It can also mean safety – salamat from the Fire. ‘…from the darkness to the light’ is the path from christianity to Islam.’
And we say that ‘and guide them to a straight path’ means that the former christians will then live under Allah’s Shari’at sanctioned by His Messenger thus restoring the former christian peoples to living in harmony with Allah’s Laws in Nature and Morality, after the disastrous centuries of living without right guidance.
In al-Ma’ida (5:17-18):

Those who say, ‘Allah is the Messiah, son of Maryam,’
Are kafir.
Say: ‘Who possesses any power at all over Allah
If He desires to destroy the Messiah, son of Maryam,
And his mother, and everyone else on earth?’
The kingdom of the heavens and the earth
And everything between them
Belongs to Allah.
He creates whatever He wills.
Allah has power over all things.
The Jews and the Christians say, ‘We are Allah’s children
And His loved ones.’
Say: ‘Why, then, does He punish you for your wrong actions?
No, you are merely human beings
Among those He has created.
He forgives whoever He wills and He punishes whoever He wills.
The kingdom of the heavens and the earth
And everything between them
Belongs to Allah.
He is our final destination.’

Here Allah makes clear, in a way that all rational minds can comprehend, that the Messiah and Maryam are in-time creatures. And as He gave Maryam a son while she remained pure, and as He raised up the Messiah to Himself, yet but for these special blessings they remained on earth as in-time creatures while Allah the Majestic and Powerful remains exalted above all that could be associated with Him.
Ibn ‘Atiyyah says:
‘‘Allah has power over all things’. Its meaning has a general application. It is specifically related to His Attributes (Sifat) and Essence (Dhat).’
Allah, glory be to Him, says in Surat an-Nisa’ (4:156):

And on account of their kufr,
And their utterance of a monstrous slander against Maryam.

Ibn Atiyyah comments:
‘‘And on account of their kufr’: that refers to the matter of ‘Isa, ‘alayhi salam, and the claim of divinity for him.
‘…monstrous slander against Maryam.’: the contemporaries of ‘Isa, ‘alayhi salam, blamed and accused Maryam, may Allah bless her, of adultery in order to explain the birth of ‘Isa, ‘alayhi salam. The proof is that they were punished and humiliated.’
The clarity of this ayat permits us also to relate it to the Doctrine of Mariology which suggests that the wife of Adam, ‘alayhi salam, Hawa, plunged mankind into a fallen state and that Maryam, as a second Eve somehow undid the crime of Eve. This doctrine of course extends the false redemptive doctrine of the Cross to the Mother of the ‘Crucified One’.
Surat an-Nisa’ (4:157):

and their saying, ‘We killed the Messiah,
‘Isa son of Maryam, Messenger of Allah.’
They did not kill him and they did not crucify him
But it was made to seem so to them.
Those who argue about him are in doubt about it.
They have no real knowledge of it, just conjecture.
But they certainly did not kill him.

Here is the defining ayat. It is this ayat which sets an abyss between the Deen of the Truth and the quite abominable lie of the christian invention. The Papacy should not be mistaken into thinking that the Heads of State and their representatives’ presence at the recent funeral in Rome represents in some way any sort of success for an adherence by the Muslims to their doctrine of Islam as ‘one valid way among others’. These Muslims who attended the funeral and these other Muslims who dutifully said their tributes to the late Pope, talking of him as a worker for peace and as one concerned for the poor, are to us the most despicable of the Munafiqun (the hypocrites). The Papacy has shown itself as an abject supporter of corporate capitalism and has been powerless to halt the ruthless Bankers’ Wars in the acquisition of oil territories. It follows from this, that just as the Papacy cannot pretend to friendship with a religion that is itself an uncompromising abolition of christianity, in the same way neither Muslim Ulama nor State Representatives can adopt a public position in relation to the christian church since that legally would imply a de jure recognition of the catholic doctrines, and at the same time a denial of these blessed ayats contained in this Hukm.
Surat an-Nisa’ (4:158):

Allah raised him up to Himself.
Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.

In this clear ayat Allah has first established that there was no crucifixion. This incidentally, as well as putting an end to the christian church as constituted around the Cross, is surely also good news for the jewish people, since it removes the justification that the christians have for their long historical and ongoing persecution of them. In surat an-Nisa’ (4:171):

People of the Book! Do not go to excess in your deen.
Say nothing but the truth about Allah.
The Messiah, ‘Isa son of Maryam, was only the Messenger of Allah
And His Word, which He cast into Maryam,
And a Spirit from Him.
So have Iman in Allah and His Messengers,
Do not say, ‘Three.’
It is better that you stop.
Allah is only One God.
He is too Glorious to have a son!
Everything in the heavens and in the earth belongs to Him.
Allah suffices as a Guardian.

It is this ayat’s message that the christians have to face up to, and its truth, before which they must submit. As for the hypocrisy of both the Pope and the Curia, we have no choice but quietly to reject it. If their idea is that christians and Muslims could work together, perhaps the new Pope could explain to us why the bishop of Granada and the Spanish cardinals over a whole decade did everything in their power to prevent the building and completion of the Great Mosque of Granada. We know their duplicity in detail as we now have in Spain the ongoing slanders of the Spanish bishops who daily write articles turning the Spanish people against the Muslims, and outrageously implying that they are all aligned to a terrorism which is partly of their own creation. Neither the people of the Muslim religion, nor the shi’a religion will soon forget the annual Papal greeting sent to Saddam Hussein hailing him as a bulwark of christianity in a Muslim land. The technocratic elite of the Saddamite regime was made up almost uniquely of christians and atheist-socialists.
 It is now well known, but only grudgingly admitted, that the Deen of Islam is already dominant over all religions. Its population has not even been calculated since many of the Asian countries have never in fact had a census taken. Two paths now stretch before both Pope and people in the christian religion. One leads to the Fire, and the other leads to the Garden. We, the Muslims, are the people of the Truth today, and we are the people of tomorrow, inviting to a Straight Path in This World leading with certainty to the Garden in the Next World. There can be no dialogue with the christians, no dialogue with the Roman Church. If people come to you, christians, presenting themselves as Muslims claiming tolerance and dialogue, just remember that ‘Tolerance’ is an atheist doctrine as bent on destroying you as it is bent on destroying us, and therefore you are holding discourse with our Munafiqun.
There is no dialogue – only da’wa. Here is the message for the new Pope, Pope Benedict XVI. And here is the message for all the christians.
Allah glory be to Him declares in Surat al-Bayyina (98:6-8):

The People of the Book who are kafir and the mushrikun
Will be in the Fire of Hell,
Remaining in it timelessly, for ever.
They are the worst of creatures.
But those who have Iman and do right actions –
They are the best creatures.
Their reward is with their Lord:
Gardens of Eden with rivers flowing under them,
Remaining in them timelessly, for ever and ever.
Allah is pleased with them
And they are pleased with Him.
That is for those who fear their Lord.