Yanzu ku kalli yadda malaman Kiristanci suka danganta zuriyar zina da ta lalata daga Tsohon Alkawari ga Ubangijinsu kuma Mai Cetonsu, Yesu Almasihu, a cikin Sabon Alkawari. Ga mutumin da babu asalin zuriya a gare shi, sun ƙirƙiro masa ta. Kuma wace zuriya! An ɗora wa wannan mutumin Allah mai tsarki mata shida masu zina da 'ya'yan lalata. Mazaje da mata waɗanda suka cancanci a yi musu rijum har su mutu bisa dokar Allah ta kansa, kamar yadda aka saukar da ita ta hannun Musa, kuma a kori zuriyarsu daga al'umma a kuma hana su shiga Gidan Allah tsawon tsararraki.

Watch now how the Christian fathers have foisted the incestuous progenies of the Old Testament upon their Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, in the New Testament. For a man who had no genealogy, they have manufactured one for him. And what a genealogy! Six adulterers and offsprings of incest are imposed upon this holy man of God. Men and women deserving to be stoned to death according to God's own law, as revealed through Moses, and further to be ostracised and debarred from the House of God for generations. 1

"Dan haram ba zai shiga taron Ubangiji ba, har zuwa tsara ta goma." (Kubawar Doka 23:2 — AV). "Shaidun Jehovah" sun kasance masu matukar kula da wannan kalma. Suna haɗiye raƙumi, suna kuma tace sauro!

1. "The bastard shall not enter the congregation of the Lord even unto the tenth generation." (Deut. 23:2 — AV). The "Witnesses" have been hyper sensitive to this word. Swallowing the camel and straining at the gnat!

Me ya sa Allah zai ba "uba" (Yusuf) ga "ɗansa" (Yesu)? Kuma me ya sa irin wannan asalin mara daraja? "Wannan ne dukkan kyawun lamarin" in ji mai ɓata tunanin. "Allah ya so masu zunubi har haka, ba ya wulakanta kansa da ba wa 'ɗansa' irin waɗannan magabata."

Why should God give a "father" (Joseph) to His "son" (Jesus)? And why such an ignoble ancestry? "This is the whole beauty of it" says the pervert. "God loved the sinners so much that he disdaineth not to give such progenitors for His 'son. "

Daga cikin marubutan Linjila huɗu, Allah ya "yi wahayi" ga biyu kawai daga cikinsu su rubuta zuriyar "ɗansa." Domin sauƙaƙa muku kwatanta "ubanni da kakannin" Yesu Almasihu a cikin jerin sunayen biyu "da aka yi wahayi" a cikinsu, na fitar da sunayen kawai, ba tare da kalmomin da ba su wajaba ba. Ga su nan a ƙasa. Tsakanin Dawuda da Yesu, Allah ya "yi wahayi" ga Matta ya rubuta kakanni 26 kawai ga "ɗansa." Amma Luka, shi ma "da aka yi wahayi" a gare shi, ya tattara kakanni 41 ga Yesu. Sunan kawai da ke cikin jerin biyu tsakanin Dawuda da Yesu shi ne YUSUF, kuma shi ma uba "wanda ake zato" ne bisa ga Luka 3:23 (AV). Wannan suna ya bayyana sosai. Ba sai an bincika da kyau ba kafin a gan shi. Shi ne Yusuf mai aikin katako. Haka nan kuma za ku ga cewa jerin sunayen biyu sun saɓa wa juna ƙwarai. Shin jerin sunayen biyu sun fito ne daga tushe ɗaya, wato Allah?

Of the four Gospel writers, God "inspired" only two of them to record the genealogy of His "son." To make it easy for you to compare the "fathers and grandfathers" of Jesus Christ in both the "inspired" lists, I have culled the names only, minus the verbiage. See below. Between David and Jesus, God "inspired" Matthew to record only 26 ancestors for His "son." But Luke, also "inspired," gathered up 41 forefathers for Jesus. The only name common to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH and that, too, a "supposed" father according to Luke 3:23 (AV). This one name is glaring. You need no fine-tooth comb to catch him. It is Joseph the carpenter. You will also easily observe that the lists are grossly contradictory. Could both the lists have emanated from the same source, i.e. God?

Matthew da Luka suna matuƙar himma wajen sanya DAUDA ya zama Sarki, babban kakan Yesu, saboda wancan tunani na ƙarya cewa Yesu zai zauna a kan "KURSIYIN UBANSA DAUDA" (Ayyukan Manzanni 2:30). Linjila sun karyata wannan annabci, domin sun gaya mana cewa maimakon Yesu ya zauna a kan kursiyin ubansa (Dauda), sai Bilatus Pontiyus, Gwamnan Roma, mushriki, ya zauna a kan wannan kursiyin, ya kuma yanke wa magajinsa na gaskiya (?) hukuncin kisa. "Ba komai," in ji marubucin Linjila, "idan ba a zuwansa na farko ba, to a zuwansa na biyu zai cika wannan annabci da wasu ɗari uku". Amma saboda wannan himma mai yawa ta bin diddigin asalin Yesu zuwa ga Dauda ta jiki, (gama wannan shi ne abin da Baibul ya ce a zahiri — "NA 'YAN CIKIN CINYARSA (ta Dauda), BISA GA NAMAN JIKI" (a zahiri, ba a alamance ba, Ayyukan Manzanni 2:30)), dukan marubutan "ƙarƙashin wahayi" sun yi tuntuɓe kuma sun fāɗi a kan mataki na farko.

Matthew and Luke are over-zealous in making DAVID the King, the prime ancestor of Jesus, because of that false notion that Jesus was to sit on the "THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID" (Acts 2:30). The Gospels belie this prophecy, for they tell us that instead of Jesus sitting on his father's (David's) throne, it was Pontious Pilate, a Roman Governor, a pagan who sat on that very throne and condemned its rightful (?) heir (Jesus) to death. "Never mind,'' says the evangelist, "if not in his first coming, then in his second coming he will fulfill this prophecy and three hundred others beside" But with their extravagant enthusiasm to trace the ancestry of Jesus physically to David, (for this is actually what the Bible says — THAT OF THE FRUIT OF HIS (David's) LOINS, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH" (literally, not metaphorically Acts 2:30), both the "inspired" authors trip and fall on the very first step.

Ga Matta 1:6 yana cewa Yesu ɗan Dawuda ne ta wurin Sulaiman, amma Luka 3:31 yana cewa shi (Yesu) ɗan Dawuda ne ta wurin Natan. Ba sai mutum ya zama likitan mata ba zai gane cewa babu yadda za a yi zuriyar Dawuda ta isa ga mahaifiyar Yesu ta wurin Sulaiman da Natan a lokaci guda! Mun sani cewa dukan marubutan biyu maƙaryata ne, domin an haifi Yesu ta hanyar mu'ujiza, ba tare da wani shigar namiji ba. Ko da mun yarda da zuriyar Dawuda ta jiki, marubutan biyu za su ci gaba da zama maƙaryata saboda wannan dalili bayyananne.

Matthew 1:6 says that Jesus was the son of David through SOLOMON, but Luke 3:31 says that he (Jesus) was the son of David through NATHAN. One need not be a gynecologist to tell that by no stretch of the imagination could the seed of David reach the mother of Jesus both through Solomon and Nathan at the same time! We know that both the authors are confounded liars, because Jesus was conceived miraculously, without any male intervention. Even if we concede a physical ancestry through David, both authors would still be proved liars for the obvious reason.

Kamar yadda wannan hujja take da sauƙi, Kirista yana cikin motsin zuciya sosai har ba zai shiga zuciyarsa mai nuna son kai ba. Bari mu ba shi misali iri ɗaya, amma wanda zai iya zama mai nuna gaskiya ba tare da son zuciya ba.

As simple as the above logic is, the Christian is so emotionally involved that it will not penetrate his prejudiced mind. Let us give him an identical example, but one where he can afford to be objective.

Mun sani daga tarihi cewa Muhammad Annabin Musulunci, ɗan Ibrahim ne ta wurin Isma'il, don haka idan wani marubuci "mai karɓar wahayi" ya zo yana ƙoƙarin sayar da "wahayinsa" cewa Muhammad ɗan Ibrahim ne ta wurin Ishaƙ, ba tare da wata shakka ba za mu kira irin wannan marubucin maƙaryaci, domin zuriyar Ibrahim ba za ta iya kaiwa ga Amina (mahaifiyar Muhammad) ta wurin Isma'il da ta Ishaƙ a lokaci guda ba! Bambancin asali tsakanin waɗannan 'ya'yan Ibrahim biyu shi ne bambanci tsakanin YAHUDAWA da LARABAWA.

We know from history that Muhammed the Prophet of Islam, was the son of Abraham through ISHMAEL, so if some "inspired" writer came along and tried to palm off his "revelation" to the effect that Muhummed was the son of Abraham through ISAAC, we would, without any hesitation, brand such a writer as a liar, because the seed of Abraham could never reach Amina (Muhummed's mother) through Ishmael and through Isaac at the same time! The differences of lineage between these two sons of Abraham is the difference between the JEWS and the ARABS.

In yanayin Muhammadu, to za mu sani cewa duk wanda ya ce Ishaku ne kakansa, maƙaryaci ne. Amma a yanayin Isa, duka Matta da Luka suna da tambaya a kansu. Har sai Kiristoci sun yanke shawara kan wane layi na kakanni suke so ga "allahnsu," sai a ƙi dukan Linjilu biyu. Kiristanci ya kwashe shekaru 2000 yana fafatawa da waɗannan nasabobi, yana ƙoƙarin warware asirin. Har yanzu ba su daina ba. Muna sha'awar jajircewarsu. Suna ci gaba da yin imani cewa "LOKACI ZAI WARWARE MATSALAR." Watakila wasu shekaru 2000 kuma?! "AKWAI SABANI DA AKE DA'AWA DA BA SU WARWARE WA KOWANE MAI KORE ALLAH GAMSARWA BA. AKWAI MATSALOLIN RUBUTU DA MALAMAI HAR YANZU SUKE KOKAWA DA SU. SAI WANDA BAI SAN LITTAFIN BAIBUL BA ZAI ƘI YARDA DA WADANNAN DA SAURAN MATSALOLI" "The Plain Truth," Yulin 1975.

In the case of Muhummed, we would know then that anyone who says that Isaac is his progenitor, was a liar. But in the case of Jesus both Matthew and Luke are suspect. Until the Christians decide which line of ancestors they prefer for their "god," both Gospels will have to be rejected. Christendom has been battling tooth and nail with these genealogies for the past 2000 years, trying to unravel the mystery. They have not given up yet. We admire their perseverance. They still believe that "TIME WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM." Perhaps another 2000 years?! "THERE ARE CLAIMED CONTRADICTIONS THAT THEOLOGIANS HAVE NOT RESOLVED TO EVERY ATHEIST'S SATISFACTION. THERE ARE TEXTUAL DIFFICULTIES WITH WHICH SCHOLARS ARE STILL WRESTLING. ONLY A BIBLE ILLITERATE WOULD DENY THESE AND OTHER PROBLEMS" "The Plain Truth," July 1975.

Yanzu bari mu bar Luka ya gaya mana wanda ya "yi wahayi" zuwa gare shi don ya ba "mafi kyawun Theophilus" (Luka 1:3) labarin Yesu. Ga gabatarwar Luka ga "Linjilarsa" a ƙasa. Ya faɗa a sarari cewa yana bin sawun wasu waɗanda ba su da cancanta kamar tasa ba, waɗanda suka yi ƙarfin halin rubuta labarin jarumin nasa (Yesu). A matsayinsa na likita, idan aka kwatanta da masunta da masu karɓar haraji, babu shakka ya fi shirya don ƙirƙirar aikin adabi mai daraja. Wannan ya yi, domin "YA YI KAMAR DAI DAI NE A WURINA SHI MA" ya "SANYA A TSARI." Waɗannan su ne manyan dalilan da ya bayar game da magabatansa.

We have already nailed 85% of Matthew and Luke to Mark or that "mysterious 'Q''’. 1 Let us now allow Luke to tell us who "inspired" him to tell his "most excellent Theophilus" (Luke 1:3) the story of Jesus. See below for Luke's preamble to his "Gospel." He tells us plainly that he was only following in the footsteps of others who were less qualified than himself, others who had the temerity to write accounts of his hero (Jesus). As a physician, as against fishermen and tax collectors, he was no doubt better equipped to create a literary masterpiece. This he did, because "IT SEEMED GOOD TO ME ALSO" to "PUT IN ORDER." These are his prominent Justifications over his predecessors.

Cikin gabatarwar fassararsa ta "Bisharar Luka", wani malamin Kirista, J. B. Phillips, ya ce: "A bisa ikirarin Luka da kansa, ya kwatanta kuma ya gyara kayan da ke akwai, amma da alama yana da damar samun wasu kayan da yawa, kuma za mu iya yin hasashe da ma'ana game da wasu daga cikin tushen da ya dauka." Sannan kuna ce da wannan Kalmar Allah ce?! Ku sami "The Gospels in Modern English" a cikin murfi mai laushi daga wallafe-wallafen 'FONTANA'. Bugu ne mai arha. Ku sayi shi da sauri kafin Kiristoci su yanke shawarar goge bayanan Phillips masu muhimmanci daga fassararsa! Kada ku yi mamaki idan marubutan RSV su ma sun yanke shawarar cire "Gabatarwar" daga fassararsu. Al'ada ce tsohuwa, tsohuwa. Da zaran wadanda ke da muradin kiristanci sun gane cewa sun bar cat ya fito daga cikin jaka ba da gangan ba, sai su gaggauta gyara. Za su mayar da nassoshi na yanzu na "baya" cikin tarihi cikin dare daya! 1. Duba Babi na Shida.

In the introduction to his translation of the "Gospel of St Luke" A Christian scholar, J. B. Phillips, has this to say — "ON HIS OWN ADMISSION LUKE HAS CAREFULLY COMPARED AND EDITED EXISTING MATERIAL, BUT IT WOULD SEEM THAT HE HAD ACCESS TO A GOOD DEAL OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL, AND WE CAN REASONABLY GUESS AT SOME OF THE SOURCES FROM WHICH HE DREW." And yet you call this the Word of God?! Obtain "The Gospels in Modern English" in soft cover by 'FONTANA' publications. It is a cheap edition. Get it quickly before the Christians decide to have Phillips' invaluable notes expunged from his translation! And do not be surprised if the authors of the RSV also decide to eliminate the "Preface" 2 2 from their translation. It is an old, old habit. As soon as those who have vested interests in Christianity realize that they have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag, they quickly make amends. They make my current references "past" history overnight! 1. Refer to Chapter Six.

2. Duba Babi na Uku.

2. Refer to Chapter Three.

Wane ne marubucin "Bisharar Yahaya Mai Tsarki"? Ba Allah ba, ba kuma Yahaya Mai Tsarki ba! Duba abin da "shi" (?) ya ce game da kansa a shafi na 58 — Yahaya 19:35 da 21:24-25. Su wane ne "shi" dinsa, "nasa" da "wannan"? Kuma "mun sani" dinsa da "ina ganin" dinsa? Shin zai iya zama wannan mutum mai sauyin ra'ayi wanda ya bar shi a cikin wahala a lambu, lokacin da ya fi bukatar taimako, ko kuma mutum na goma sha hudu a teburin, a "Abincin Karshe," wanda "Yesu ya so"? Dukkansu sunan Yahaya ne. Sunan Yahaya ya shahara a tsakanin Yahudawa a zamanin Yesu, kuma har yanzu yana shahara a tsakanin Kiristoci. Ba ko daya daga cikin wadannan biyu ne ya rubuta wannan Bishara ba. Abin bayyane yake cewa wani hannu ba a san shi ba ne ya rubuta ta.

Who is the author of "The Gospel of St. John?" Neither God nor St. John! See what "he" (?) says about it "himself" (?) on page 58 — John 19:35 and 21:24-25. Who is his "HE" and "HIS" and "THIS?" A-N-D, his "WE KNOW" and "I SUPPOSE." Could it be the fickle one who left him in the lurch in the garden, when he was most in need, or the fourteenth man at the table, at the "last Super," the one that "Jesus loved?" Both were Johns. It was a popular name among the Jews in the times of Jesus, and among Christians even now. Neither of these two was the author of this Gospel. That it was the product of an anonymous hand, is crystal clear.

Bari in kammala wannan binciken "marubuci" da hukuncin malamai 32, waɗanda ƙungiyoyin addini 50 ke goyon bayansu. Allah tun dā an cire shi daga wannan tseren marubuta. A cikin RSV ta "Collins", za a sami bayanai masu muhimmanci game da "Littattafan Baibul" a bayan bugunsu. Ina kwafin wani ɓangare kawai na wannan bayani a ƙasa. Mu fara da "FARKO" — littafi na farko na Baibul. Malaman sun ce game da "MARUBUCINSA": "Ɗaya daga cikin 'littattafai biyar na Musa'." Ka lura cewa kalmomin "littattafai biyar na Musa" an rubuta su cikin alamun zance — " " Wannan hanya ce ta ɓoye ta yarda cewa wannan abin da mutane ke faɗi ne — cewa littafin Musa ne, cewa Musa ne marubucinsa, amma mu (malaman 32), waɗanda suka fi sanin gaskiya, ba mu yarda da wannan jita-jita ba.

Let me conclude this "authorship" search with the verdict of those 32 scholars, backed by their 50 co-operating denominations. God had been eliminated from this authorship race long ago. In the RSV by "Collins," invaluable notes on "The Books of the Bible" are to be found at the back of their production. I am reproducing only a bit of that information on below. We start with "GENESIS" — the first book of the Bible. The scholars say about its "AUTHOR": "One of the 'five books of Moses'." Note the words "five books of Moses" are written in inverted commas — " " This is a subtle way of admitting that this is what people say — that it is the book of Moses, that Moses was its author, but we (the 32 scholars) who are better informed, do not subscribe to that tittle-tattel.

Littattafai na gaba huɗu, "EXODUS, LEVITICUS, NUMBERS da DEUTERONOMY": MARUBUCI? "Galibi ana danganta su ga Musa." Wannan rukuni ɗaya ne da littafin Farawa.

The next four books, "EXODUS, LEVITICUS, NUMBERS and DEUTERONOMY": AUTHOR? "Generally credited to Moses." This is the same category as the book of Genesis.

Wane ne marubucin littafin "JUDGES"? Amsa: "Wataƙila Sama'ila." Wane ne marubucin littafin "JOSHUA"? Amsa: "Mafi yawan sashinsa an danganta shi ga Yoshuwa." Wane ne marubucin "RUTH"? Amsa: "Ba a sani ba tabbatacce." Wane ne marubucin:

Who is the author of the book of "JUDGES?" Answer: "Possibly Samuel." Who is the author of the book of "JOSHUA?" Answer: "Major part credited to Joshua." Who is the author of "RUTH?" Answer: "Not definitely known" AND Who is the author of:

1 SAMUEL?............ Amsa: Marubuci "Ba a sani ba".

1ST SAMUEL?............ Answer: Author "Unknown".

2ND SAMUEL........... Amsa: Marubuci "Ba a sani ba".

2ND SAMUEL........... Answer: Author "Unknown".

Haka dai labarin ya ke. Marubutan waɗannan littattafai marasa suna ko dai "BA A SANI BA" ne, ko kuma "WATAKILA", ko "MAI YIWUWA", ko kuma asalinsu "ABIN SHAKKA" ne. To me za a zargi Allah game da wannan rikici? Allah, Mai haƙuri kuma Mai jin ƙai, bai jira shekara dubu biyu ba domin malaman Littafi Mai Tsarki su gaya mana cewa Shi ba Marubucin rashin kamun kai, girman kai da son zuciya na Yahudawa ba ne; na sha'awoyinsu, faɗace-faɗacensu, kishe-kishensu da munanan ayyukansu. Ya faɗa a fili abin da suke yi:-

And so the story goes. The authors of these anonymous books are either "UNKNOWN" or are "PROBABLY" or "LIKELY" or are of "DOUBTFUL" origin. Why blame God for this fiasco? The Long-suffering and Merciful God did not wait for two thousand years for Bible scholars to tell us that He was not the Author of Jewish peccadilloes, prides and prejudices; of their lusts, wranglings, jealousies and enormities. He said it openly what they do:-

Za mu iya fara babin wannan littafi da ayar Alkur'ani da ke sama, mu kuma kammala da ita, tare da gamsuwa cewa Allah Maɗaukakin Sarki da kansa ya yanke hukunci a kan wannan batu — "Shin Littafi Mai Tsarki Maganar Allah ne?" — amma mun so mu ba 'yan'uwanmu Kiristoci damar yin nazarin wannan batu cikin gaskiya da adalci yadda suke so. 2Ta haka za a bar Kiristocin da suka yi imani, Kiristocin "da aka sake haifa", da kuma Littafinsu Mai Tsarki, wato Littafi Mai Tsarki, su yi shaida a kan hukuncin "mafi kyau" da nasu hankali ya yanke.

We could have started the thesis of this book with the above Qur'anic verse and ended with it, with the satisfaction that God Almighty had Himself delivered His verdict on the subject — "Is the Bible God's Word?", but we wished to afford our Christian brethern an opportunity to study the subject as objectively as they wished.2Allowing believing Christians, "reborn" Christians, and their own Holy Book the Bible to testify against their "better" judgement.

Me ga Alƙur'ani Mai Tsarki? Shin Alƙur'ani Maganar Allah ce? Marubucin wannan ƙaramin littafi ya yi ƙoƙari ya amsa wannan tambaya ta hanya mafi kimiyya a littafinsa mai suna "AL'QUR'AN — Mu'ujizar Mu'ujizai", wanda ake samu kyauta gaba ɗaya daga "Cibiyar" idan an nema.

What about the Holy Qur’ân? Is the Qur’ân the Word of God? The author of this humble publication has endeavoured to answer this question in a most scientific manner in his book "AL'QUR'AN — The Miracle of Miracles" available absolutely free of charge from the "Centre" on request.

1. "LITAFIN" - "Littafi Mafi Sayarwa a Duniya!" Masu bugawa na RSV sun samu riba mai tsafta ta dala 15,000,000 a bugu na farko kadai. "Wane ƙaramin farashi ne a madadin har abada!" 2. Duba roƙon Dr Scroggie a babi na 5.

1. "THE BIBLE" - "The World's Best Seller!" the Publishers of the RSV made a net profit of 15 000 000 dollars on the first edition alone' "What a miserable price in exchange for eternity!" 2. See Dr Scroggie's plea in chapter 5.

Mai karatu dole ya kasance yanzu ya gamsu, idan yana da zuciya a buɗe, cewa Littafi Mai Tsarki ba shi ne abin da masu kare Kiristanci suke iƙirarin cewa shi ba ne.

The reader must by now be convinced, that is if he has an open mind, that the Bible is not what it is claimed to be by the protagonists of Christianity.

Tsawon kusan shekaru arba'in mutane suna tambayata yadda na samu irin wannan ilimi "mai zurfi" game da Littafi Mai Tsarki da Kiristanci.

For nearly four decades people have asked me as to how I have such an "in depth" knowledge of the Bible and Christianity.

Ina gaskiya, matsayina na yanzu a matsayin "ƙwararre" a kan Yahudanci da Kiristanci musulmi ba da ra'ayina na kaina ba ne. An tilasta ni in zama abin da nake.

Frankly speaking my present position as a Muslim "expert" on Judaism and Christianity is not of my own volition. I have been forced into being what I am.

A cikin shekarar 1939 ne, a lokacin da nake aiki a matsayin mataimakin ma'aikaci a shagon Adams Mission kusa da wata makarantar koyar da addinin Kiristanci mai wannan suna, wadda ke horar da malaman wa'azi da firistoci, ni da abokan aikina Musulmai muka zama manufar matasan da ke neman zama malaman addini. Babu ranar da ba su yi min ko 'yan'uwana Musulmi wahala ba, ta hanyar zagi da suke tarawa a kan Musulunci, da Annabi ﷺ mai tsarki, da Alkur'ani.

It was in 1939 when I was working as a shop assistant at Adams Mission near a Christian seminary by that name; producing preachers and priests, that I and my fellow Muslim workers were the target of young aspiring men of the cloth. Not a day passed when these young Christians did not harass me or my brothers-in-faith, through insults which they piled on Islam, the Holy Prophet and the Qur’ân.

Ina cikin damuwa mai zurfi, na yi dare da yawa ba barci, ina kuka saboda rashin iya kare wanda yake mini ƙaunatacce fiye da ranata, wannan rahamar ga dukan ɗan adam ﷺ — Muhammad ﷺ.

Being a sensitive young man of 20, I spent sleepless nights in tears for not being able to defend the one dearer to me than my own life, that mercy unto all mankind— Muhummed P.B.U.H.

Na yanke shawarar yin nazari a kan Alƙur'ani, da Littafi Mai Tsarki, da sauran adabi. Binciken da na yi na littafin "IZHARUL HAQ" ya zama juyin rayuwata. Bayan ɗan lokaci kaɗan na iya gayyatar ɗalibai masu horon zama mishan na Kwalejin Mishan ta Adams, na sa su yi gumi a ƙarƙashin abin wuyansu har suka fara girmama Musulunci da Manzonsa Mai Tsarki ﷺ.

I resolved to study the Qur’ân, the Bible and other literature. My discovery of the book — "IZHARUL HAQ" was the turning point in my life. After a short while I was able to invite the trainee missionaries of Adams Mission College and cause them to perspire under the collar until they developed a respect for Islam and its Holy Apostle.

Ya sa ni yin tunani game da yadda Musulmai marasa lura da yawa suke ci gaba da fuskantar hare-hare daga masu wa'azin Kiristanci waɗanda ke yin yawo gida-gida, kuma Musulmin da ke da karimci kamar yadda ake faɗa yana gayyatarsu shiga gida. Na yi tunanin yadda wannan mishan mara tausayi ya ci samosas, sannan ya murƙushe ruhin Musulmin da kalaman izgili game da imaninsa.

It made me ponder as to how so many unwary Muslims are being constantly assaulted by Christian evangelists who carry out a door to door campaign, and being invited in by the proverbially hospitable Muslim, I thought of how the merciless missionary munched the samoosas and punched the wind out of the Muslim with snide remarks against his beliefs.

Da yake da niyyar isar da wannan a zuciyar Musulmai, cewa suna da hakkin kare kansu, da kuma ba su isasshen ilimi don su tunkari mai wa'azin Kiristanci mai zafin rai, da mai yawo kofa-kofa yana yada Kiristanci, da wanda ba ya jin kunyar zagin Musulunci da Manzonsa Mai Tsarki ﷺ, na dauki alkawarin gabatar da laccoci don nuna wa talakawan Musulmai cewa babu abin da za su ji tsoro daga hare-haren Kiristoci.

Determined to bring home to the Muslims their right to defend themselves and to arm them with enough knowledge to counter the hot gospeller, the door to door pedlar of Christianity and the shameless insulter of Islam and its Holy Apostle; I humbly undertook to deliver lectures to show the Muslim masses that they had nothing to fear from the assaults of the Christians.

Laccoci na sun kasance kuma gayyata ce ga Kiristoci su shaida gaskiyar Musulunci da ƙagen da suka shiga cikin koyarwar gaskiya ta Annabi Isa (AS).

My lectures were also an invitation to the Christians to witness the truth of Islam and the fabrications which had penetrated the true teachings of Jesus (P.B.U.H).

Kiristoci masu wa'azi a cikin shekaru ɗari da fiye da haka sun ƙalubalanci Musulmi a fannoni da dama, kuma yawancin waɗannan ƙalubale, a gwargwadon sani na, ba a amsa su ba ko kuma an amsa su a wani ɓangare. Ko da yake Allah ya yarda, gudummawata a wannan fage ma na iya zama amsa ko wani ɓangare na amsa ga ƙalubalen masu sukar Musulunci. Yana da matuƙar muhimmanci mu guji barin al'amura su wuce ba tare da bincike ba.

Christian Missionaries in the past hundred years and more have challenged Muslims on many aspects and quite a number of these challenges have, to my knowledge, gone answered or have been partly answered. Perhaps by the will of Allah my contribution in this field can also be answers or part answers to the challenges of the detractors of Islam. It is of supreme importance that we do not go by default.

Ɗaya daga cikin ƙalubalen da ya zo a rai shi ne na Geo G. Harris, marubucin "How to lead Muslims to Christ". Wannan mishan da ya yi ƙoƙarin mayar da Musulmin ƙasar Sin zuwa Kiristanci, ya faɗa a shafi na 19, ƙarƙashin taken — "THE THEORY OR CHARGE OF CORRUPTION," cikin salon girman kai da wulakanci da aka saba gani daga Bature, cewa: "WE NOW COME TO THE MOST SERIOUS CHARGE BY THE MOSLEM WORLD, AGAINST OUR CHRISIIAN SCRIPTURES. THERE ARE THREE ASPECTS OF THIS CHARGE."

One such challenge comes to mind viz. Geo G. Harris the author of "How to lead Muslims to Christ". This missionary who tried to convert the Muslims of China says in the usual arrogant and condecending manner of the Westerner on page 19 under the heading — "THE THEORY OR CHARGE OF CORRUPTION." "WE NOW COME TO THE MOST SERIOUS CHARGE BY THE MOSLEM WORLD, AGAINST OUR CHRISIIAN SCRIPTURES. THERE ARE THREE ASPECTS OF THIS CHARGE.

1. Cewa littattafan Kiristoci sun canja kuma an gyara su har suka yi kama da mai yawa, idan ma ba su yi kama da Injil mai daraja da Alkur'ani ya yabe ba. Ana iya amsa wannan da tambayoyi ɗaya daga cikin waɗannan: A ina aka canja waɗannan ko aka gyara su haka? Za ka iya samun kwafin Injil ta gaskiya ka nuna mini in kwatanta da nawa? A wane lokaci a tarihin baya Injil wadda ba a canja ba take yawo?

1. That the Christian scriptures have been so changed and altered that they bear little, if any, resemblance to the glorious Injil praised in the Qur’ân. This can be answered by the asking of one of the following questions: Wherein have these been so changed or altered? Can you obtain a copy of a true Injil and show it that I may compare it with mine? At what date in past history was the unaltered Injil in circulation?

2. Cewa Injilolinmu sun sha gurbacewa. Tambayoyi biyar masu zuwa tabbatattu ne, kuma muna da cikakken hakkin mu yi su: (a) Shin wannan gurbacewa ko canji an yi shi ne da gangan?

Shin, ba mu da amsoshi ga waɗannan tambayoyi? Idan kai, mai karatu mai hankali, ka karanta wannan littafi, za ka yarda cewa Ceo G. Harris ba shi da ƙafafun da zai tsaya a kansu. Na iya ba da shafukan Littafi Mai Tsarki na zahiri don karyata maganganunsa.

Have we as Muslims no answers for these questions? If you, gentle reader have read this book you will admit that Ceo G. Harris has no feet to stand on. I have been able to give actual pages from the Bible to disprove his assertions.

A kan shafi na 16 na littafin Geo G. Harris, ya koyar da abokan aikinsa wata ka'ida ta asali ta masu wa'azin Kiristanci domin su kama mai neman Musulunci a kusurwa:

On page 16 of Geo G. Harris' book he teaches his comrades a basic missionary rule in order to corner the Muslim prospective:

A cikin wannan babi an ɗauka cewa Musulmi ya tayar da tambayar ingancin da sahihancin littattafanmu masu tsarki. Idan haka ne, kafin mu fara kare matsayinmu, ya kamata mu tuna da ƙa'ida ta asali. HAƘƘIN TABBATAR DA HUJJA YANA KAN MUSULMI.

"In this chapter it is assumed that the question of the authenticity and genuineness of our scriptures has been raised by the Mohammedan. When this is the case, before we undertake defense of our position we should bear in mind a basic rule. THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS WITH THE MOSLEM." 1

Godiya ta tabbata ga Allah cewa a cikin shekaru 40 da na yi ina karyata sahihancin Littafi Mai Tsarki wanda Kiristoci suka nema da ƙarfin hali, na sami nasara a kai.

Praise be to Allah that in my 40 years of disproving the authenticity of the Bible which the Christians have so boldly asked for, I have been able to win the day.

Ku tuna cewa mu Musulmai ba ma zagayawa gida-gida muna talla da addininmu ba. Sabanin haka, Kiristoci na darikoki daban-daban suna shiga sirrinmu da zaman lafiyarmu, suna amfani da karimcinmu suna cutar da Musulmi marar hankali.

Remember, we Muslims do not go door to door peddling our religion. Whereas Christians of different denominations encroach upon our privacy and peace and take advantage of our hospitality to harass the unwary Musalman.

Waɗanda suke tsoron bayyana gaskiya idan waɗannan Kiristoci suka tsokane su, har ma suka kai ga zagin Annabinmu ƙaunataccen Muhummed ﷺ, ya kamata su sake duba imaninsu.

Those who are afraid to project the truth when they are provoked by these Christians, who even go to the extent of insulting our beloved Nabee Muhummed (S.A.W.) should re-examine their Eemaan.

Laccoci da nake gabatarwa su ne don fallasa waɗannan masu wa'azin ɓoye da ke "kai hari" ga gidan musulmi marar laifi wanda ke tafiyar da harkokinsa cikin nutsuwa.

The lectures I hold are to sound out these slinking missionaries who "attack" the home and hearth of the unsuspecting Muslim who goes about minding his own business.

Ana kuma nufin laccocin nan su mayar da martabar Musulmi da ta lalace, wanda hare-haren ƙasƙantattu na mai yada addinin Kiristanci ya ɓata. Ku tambayi talakawan Musulmi na Chatsworth, Hanover Park ko Riverlea2 yadda ake azabtar da su da zalunci na wasu mishan-mishan.