Category Archives: Refuting False Allegations on The Prophet

Refuting the Rubbish about The Death of Our Holy Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam)

image
An Islamophobe Using his deceptive Craft

by Saif min Suyufillah

Well, There is a verse and a hadith which are usually inter related to claim that the death of Our Holy Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was a penalty, which is definitely wrong.

See the verses.

We would have seized him by the right hand;

Then We would have cut from him the aorta (The word used here is Wateen).

And there is no one of you who could prevent [Us] from him.   [Qur’an 69:45-47]

See the hadith

Narrated Aisha (radhiyallahu anha):

The Prophet (ﷺ) in his ailment in which he died, used to say,

“O ‘Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta (the word used here is  abhari) is being cut from that poison. [Sahih Bukhari 4428]

Now note the following points:

1.The penalty had to start with hand, right hand.

Gripping or seizing the right hand means there must be some sort of paralysis or severe injury, continuing up to death which never occurred.

According to the verses, the punishment had to start from right hand but The right hand remained well till death. Nothing of such type had ever occurred.

There was no such punishment by Allah because there was no changing of Quran.

2. Nothing could have prevented Us (69:47), means not even the time could have prevented the punishment, there would be instantaneous seizing together with the cutting of aorta, without any delay.

Again, there was no such scene.

The Holy Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) died many years after the incident of Khyber 629-632 A.D.

3. Note the tone of these verses and the intensity of Wrath.

Could you imagine a slow death afterwards, without seizing the hands?

No, because it was never the case.

Not at all.

4. The Holy Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was stable at the moment, stable afterwards. According to another hadith, He (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) called the woman and asked her about the poison.

His condition was well, He remained well later on.

There were no acute symptoms (sudden deteriorating condition), nor was there any case of chronic poisoning (long term slow poisoning).

The Holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), leaded, organized and managed about 41 expeditions later on.

He was not only managing a city but a whole developing Muslim empire.

He traveled many times,even in extreme conditions

How could you ever imagine a person with cut aorta, travelling and leading so many expeditions?

Use some brains.

5. Coming towards the aorta, The words are totally different. According to google translate, the translation of word aorta in Arabic is Wateen or Shryaan. There is nothing like abhariSee Here

The translation of Abhari  is given as aortic or breathing. So it would be like cutting breathing, not the cutting aorta.

Advertisements

Refuting the Allegation that Qur’an 9:29 Encourages Forced Conversion & Violence

9:29 (at tauba) OF QURAN DOES’NT ENCOURAGE MUSLIMS TO TERRORISM

With valuable inputs from brother Sami Zaatari of answering-christianity team

You may also be interested in the following:-

Verse 9:29 of Surah at-tauba is probably the intentionally most misinterpreted verse of the Quran. This is what it says: –

“Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth , (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” [S. 9:29 Y. Ali]

Dear brother mansour, I totally understand you when you say that this verse promotes violence on a cursory glance. But if you read it carefully you’ll find that it doesn’t. I hope you will be patient enough to be with me throughout the end of this article.

The verse says “Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth”.

My question to you brother. Does this verse stop here? No it doesnt. It continues and gives the actual reason as to the fighting. This is the continuation: – “until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”.

1. PAYING JIZYA IS THE CONDITION FOR FIGHTING. THIS STATEMENT IS TOTALLY IGNORED OR OVERLOOKED WHEN LEVYING THIS ALLEGATION OF VIOLENCE ON MUSLIMS.

This verse doesn’t ask the Muslims to do mindless slaughter as the media portrays or deceives. It gives the Muslims the permission to fight only those non-Muslims who do not pay jizya – the state tax. And we all know that jizya is applicable only in an Islamic governed region. Neither India, nor US or Britain are Islamic states. So to put this verse as an excuse for what happened there only shows how biased, unknowledgable and unfair the media is and it hurts us deeply.

I can show whole verses from other scriptures that are truly inhuman, yet no one questions them. Do you want a sample? Ill give it to you at the end. I promise.

2. THE VERSE DOES NOT ASK THE MUSLIMS TO DO FORCEFUL CONVERSIONS.

Again, the verse permits the muslims to fight the non –muslims in an islamic nation ONLY and ONLY  if they refuse to pay the jizya – Willingly . Re-read the verse from ANY translation if you are not sure. But once they pay the jizya tax they can continue to believe in their atheistic pagan beliefs, but it will be under an Islamic region. You can still forgive them by not forcing them into Islam, nor oppressing them or being bad to them because of their wrong beliefs.

3. QUR’AN NEVER SAYS TO KILL THE DISBELIEVERS JUST BECAUSE THEY DISBELIEVE.

This is not to you brother coz I consider you as a truly respectable friend. To others who read this article – I openly challenge you to show me ONE verse from the Quran which says to kill the disbelievers just because they are disbelievers. There are verses which permit the Muslims to fight and kill non-Muslims. But every time sensible and reasonable conditions are laid. I can show you all verses from other religious scriptures where slaughtering is done for reasons that are as silly and stupid as honor, glory and greatness. Sometimes for fun too.  Wait till the end of the article to have a sample.

4. JIZYA ISN’T A RANSOM OR A BAD THING

Coming back to the verse, now people might say isn’t it unfair that they have to pay the jizya tax? Not really. Since when is punishment for refusal to pay lawful taxes considered as terrorism? Also, the jizya tax is very cheap and affordable, and it grants the non-Muslim’s many benefits, benefits which even the Muslims don’t get! For instance, the non-Muslims who are paying jizya in an Islamic state are not obliged to take part in any battle or war, unless they themselves choose tothe Muslims do not have this choice. Muslims have to actually burn their asses out to protect both Muslims and non-Muslims living in their lands. Also if the Islamic state cannot grant protection to the non-Muslims then the non-Muslims are not obliged to pay the jizya tax, since Muslims themselves must meet expectations for the jizya tax to be implemented. Also, Society today has no problem in paying taxes (Property Tax, Income Tax, Service Tax, Sales & Goods Tax, Road Tax, Entertainment Tax, Vehicle Tax, etc etc) to the government, so therefore they should have no problem in paying a tax in an Islamic Shariah governed state either.

There you go my friend, verse 9:29 doesn’t encourage the muslims to do terrorism. It is a perfectly fair and just verse. Just throw this article on the face of anybody who tries to misrepresent islam to you in the future.

5. EVERY AUTHENTIC TRANSLATION OF THE QURAN HAS THE WORD “UNTIL” OR “TILL” IN THE VERSE 9:29
I could lay my hands on 7 different english translations of the quran and ALL OF THEM HAVE THE CONDITION:-

1. “[And] fight against those who – despite having been vouchsafed revelation [aforetime] – do not [truly] believe either in God or the last Day, and do not consider forbidden that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and do not follow the religion of truth [which God has enjoined upon the], till they [agree to] pay the exemption tax with a willing hand, after having been humbled [in war]” 9:29  Asad’s Translation

2. “Fight those people of the Book (Jews and Christians) who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, do not refrain from what has been prohibited by Allah and His Rasool and do not embrace the religion of truth (Al-Islam), until they pay Jizya (protection tax) with their own handsand feel themselves subdued.” 9:29 Malik’s Translation

3. “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” 9:29 Yusuf Ali’s Translation

4. “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.” 9:29 Pickthall’s Translation

5. “Fight against those who believe not in Allâh, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” 9:29 Muhsin Khan’s Translation

6. “Fight those People of the Book who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Last Day, and do not take as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared as unlawful, and do not profess the Faith of Truth; (fight them) until they pay jizyah with their own hands while they are subdued.” 9:29 Mufti Taqi Usmani’s Translation

7. “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.” 9:29  Sahih International Translation

6. FIGHTING NEED NOT ALWAYS BE PHYSICAL, IT CAN ALSO BE INTELLECTUAL

Finally, people might now say well isn’t Islam violent because Muslims are commanded to fight those who do not believe in God and so on etc etc. Not really, because fighting in this verse does not explicitly mean physical violence.  Observe the words in the above verses like “willingly”, “willing submission”, “readily” etc. Here it is spoken about bringing a change from within the hearts of people which is brought about intellectually. There are many ways in which you fight against somebody that does not involve a physical aspect. You can fight someone with the tongue, using your wisdom and telling him about the truth, you are fighting against the lies that person is propagating and eventually with your tongue you will speak the truth and crush his lies leading him to the truth. So fighting does not have to only be physical.

But alas! We totally over look these things when we mindlessly base allegations on the Quran. I never comment on any religion until I have read and understood ALL their scriptures. I don’t just google out some anti-religious sites to come up with instant allegations. This is so unfair.

7. Quick Noble Verses that refute the terrorism LIE in Islam:

“Fight in the cause of God those who fight you,but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. (The Noble Quran, 2:190)“

“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).(The Noble Quran, 8:61)“

“If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear God, the cherisher of the worlds. (The Noble Quran, 5:28)“

God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers. (The Noble Quran, 60:8)“

“And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God.  But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers.(The Noble Quran 2:193)“

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error:  whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks.  And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (The Noble Quran, 2:256)“

“Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God’s will) in Islam.  Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them). (The Noble Quran, 15:2-3)“

“Say, ‘The truth is from your Lord’: Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it):……(The Noble Quran, 18:29)“

“If it had been thy Lord’s will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then COMPEL mankind, against their will, to believe!(The Noble Quran, 10:99)“

“Say: ‘Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you.   If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance.  The Messenger’s duty is only to preach the clear (Message). (The Noble Quran, 24:54)“

“Say : O ye that reject Faith!  I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship.  And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship.  To you be your Way, and to me mine. (The Noble Quran, 109:1-6)“

I can spend my entire life showing you verses such as these that are littered throughout the Quran which throw the lie of terrorism out of the window.

You said “the alleged terrorizing verses” of the quran are everywhere. i ask you brother to point out EVERY such verse from the Quran so that i can clear up the matter with you. Google them out if you want. I don’t care. But don’t forget to compare them with what i am going to show you next.

Refuting the False Allegation that Prophet Muhammad Fabricated Things against God

Some pathetic non-Muslims use unreliable quotes from unreliable books. They quote the following from Al-Tabari’s book:

“I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken.”
~MUHAMMAD (Al-Tabari 6:111)

Response:

This is in fact such a weak and stupid argument made by some Christians and they desperately and shamelessly use it to disprove the prophethood of Muhammed.

For starter, who is Tabari ?! Tabari was an exegete (mufassir) & an HISTORIAN (for understanding the scholars rules on historical reports read: Difference between Ahadith Narrations & Historical Reports ), so he does not verify the narrations as we will read in the introduction of his history book.

Anyway, Islamic historians would simply compile all the known narrations about a certain event, regardless of how authentic or reliable each of those narrations were. They would copy the Isnads (chains of transmitters) into their books, in order that the Muhadditheen (scholars of Hadith) could determine which narration was Sahih/Hasan (authentic/good) and which was Dhaeef (weak) or even Mawdoo (fabricated). In other words, the historians compiled the narrations, and the Muhadditheen authenticated them. Therefore, based on the above,we find that Tarikh at-Tabari is simply a COLLECTION OF NARRATIONS on certain events; some of these narrations are ACCURATE, whereas others are NOT. The authenticity of each narration depends on the Isnad (chain of transmitters): if the narration was transmitted by reliable narrators, then it would be accepted as valid, but if it was transmitted by unreliable people, then the narration was to be disregarded. Tabari says in a disclaimer in the introduction of his book:

“I shall likewise mention those (narrators) who came after them, giving additional information about them. I do this so that it can be clarified whose transmission (of traditions) is praised and whose information is transmitted, whose transmission is to be rejected and whose transmission is to be disregarded…The reader should know that with respect to all I have mentioned and made it a condition to set down in this book of mine, I rely upon traditions and reports which have been transmitted and which I attribute to their transmitters. I rely only very rarely upon (my own) rationality and internal thought processes. For no knowledge of the history of men of the past and of recent men and events is attainable by those who were not able to observe them and did not live in their time, except through information and transmission produced by informants and transmitters. This knowledge cannot be brought out by reason or produced by internal thought processes. This book of mine may contain some information mentioned by me on the authority of certain men of the past, which the reader may disapprove of and the listener may find detestable, because he can find nothing sound and no real meaning in it. In such cases, he should know that it is not my fault that such information comes to him, but the fault of someone who transmitted it to me. I HAVE MERELY REPORTED IT as it was reported to me. (Tareekh at-Tabari, Vol.1, Introduction)”  [http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/islam/tabari]    

So this quote is a LIE against Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), not just that, but there were many lies invented by the hypocrites from among the Jews in order to REJECT prophet Muhammed. The people were certain that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the awaited one and to defend themselves, the hypocrites from the Jews invented such lies.

Inventing lies is not a big problem for the liars, this is their job. For example, the Prophet once recited some Surahs (verses from Qur’an) to the pagans in Makkah and prostrated to God Almighty at the end. The pagans who were speechless at the beauty of the recitation also prostrated. When the news spread to the leaders of the pagans, they were upset and were looking to take action against those pagans who had prostrated. In order to defend themselves, those pagans lied that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had said good things about their false gods. The lie was made to defend themselves.

If these Christians feel that the hypocrites were telling the truth and he really praised the pagan gods, then he must also accept the hypocrites around Prophet Jesus (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) who claimed the same for Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him).

Just like the hypocrites invented lies against the Prophets of the Old Testament (sinners, rapists, killers, incest performers, idol worshippers, nudists etc), they invented lies against Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) but the difference is that Muslims have rejected these hypocrites and have thrown them of their books .

Another thing, Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was SINCERE, and he was called ”The Trustworthy” and “Truthful” before his prophethood, so how can he fabricate things on God, doesn’t make any sense, does it ?!

Christians’ conclusion that Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had Satan behind him just reminds one of the story of Lazarus when Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) raised him from death by the permission of God Almighty. The hypocrites around him stated that “the devil was behind him”. Such allegations have been labeled at Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as well and it is no surprise at all.

So this argument that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) openly said that he lied is just PATHETIC and CHILDISH as can be seen. Making use of the weakest of weak narrations is the job of the HYPOCRITES.

I bear witness there’s no god but Allah, and Muhammed is his final messenger..

And Allah knows the best..

With some additions from myself to the original article: https://norasensation.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/i-have-fabricated-things-against-god-is-a-lie-against-prophet-muhammed-peace-be-upon-him/

The Killing Of Umm Qirfa and the False Propaganda of a Christian Liar

image

The moron (in the pic) has cut the context and tried to portray the early Muslims as ‘thugs’, this is the typical ‘art of deceiving’ the Anti-Islam morons apply to deceive unwary masses and create in their hearts the hatred aginst Islam. Here we will rebut his falsehood and expose his lie on this issue with solid proofs.

A brother has answered this nonsense propaganda in a detailed manner:

The way the story of killing of Umm Qirfa is presented by anti-Islamic polemicists is a perfect example of how they twist the facts.

The twisted story:

They (the Islam-haters like the one in the pic – islamreigns) give an impression as if she was a noble lady of great character and Muslims for no valid reason attacked her tribe and her killing in that specific manner, of tying her legs to two camels and driving them away and thus tearing her apart, was carried out on by the command of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) himself. They also allege that her head was brought to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and he ordered it to be paraded in Medina. Then they try to make an issue about her daughter who was taken as a prisoner and later gave birth to a child of Hazn bin Abu Wahb. They tend to convey as if she was raped. Indeed nothing can be far from truth then this.

Some issues with the narration:

First of all let me say that there is some confusion as to when was Umm Qirfa killed and who lead the campaign against her violent tribe. According to Baihiqi’s Sunan al-Kubra 8/204 and Sunan Darqutni (H.3249) she was killed during the caliphate of Abu Bakr (RA) while most of the books on Sirah (life and times of the Holy Prophet PBUH) put it somewhere in 6th year A.H. Further according to Sahih Muslim (H.3299) Abu Bakr (RA) led the campaign during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). But accounts in the books of Sirah give the notion as if Zaid bin Harith (RA) was the leader. Polemicists, mostly Christians, generally refer to the books of Sirah so we shall reply considering those particular narrations.

5- Further we learn that Umm Qirfa in her capacity of being the tribal leader plotted to harm the Holy Prophet (PBUH) in person (Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtum p.457). In Sirat Halabiyya it is stated that;

“Zaid bin Harith ordered the killing of Umm Qirfa for she used to revile the Prophet, on whom be peace and blessings of Allah, and because she had prepared thirty riders from amongst her children and grand children and had asked them to attack Medina and kill Muhammad (PBUH).” (Sirat Halabaiyya 3/251)

Facts and the Lies!

Now this clarifies certain points.

1- It was the Tribe of Fazara, which was headed by Umm Qirfa, who first attacked Muslims who were merely on trading journey.

2- They killed Muslims and took their merchandise.

3- Muslims made a counter attack to punish the trigger-happy tribe.

4- There is no authentic report whether Holy Prophet (PBUH) ordered her killing specifically. Infact it was Zaid bin Harith (RA) who ordered her killing as she was, being the leader of the tribe, responsible for all that happened. And we just read Zaid himself had seen their aggression and merely survived it.

5- Her killing was perfectly justified as she led her tribe to commit violence against Muslims. She was no innocent a woman and was rather a hostile enemy.

6- The manner she was killed was not ordained by the Prophet (PBUH) but was carried on by the people who had undergone the terror practiced by her men. It was a reaction by such people; nevertheless it goes against the mannerism taught by Islam. And though such a behavior is deplorable, it is Umm Qirfa herself who is to be held responsible for such a reaction.

7- No authentic report makes any mention of her head being brought to the Prophet (PBUH) and then paraded in the streets of Medina. This is a myth and a lie! The books these slanderers produce as a reference are no authority as they are not written by trustworthy people and no authentic report in any of the classical books gives even a hint to such a happening.

The Daughter of Umm Qirfa:

8- Now coming to the daughter of Umm Qirfa. There are two reports and these liars refer to both of them. According to Sahih Muslim, she was given to Salama bin al-Akwa’ and then Holy Prophet (PBUH) took her from Salama and she was given as a ransom for Muslim captives in Makkah. While according to Sirat Ibn Hisham etc she was taken from Salama and then given to Hazn bin Abu Wahb and later bore him a son, Abdul Rahman.

9. She was not raped: According to Sahih Muslim she was first given to Salama (RA) and he himself reports:

“…we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) met me in the street and said: ‘Give me that girl, O Salama!’ I said: ‘Messenger of Allah, she has fascinated me. I had not yet disrobed her.’ The next day, the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) again met me in the street, he said: ‘O Salama, give me that girl, May God bless your father.’ I said: ‘She is for you. Messenger of Allah! By Allah! I have not yet disrobed her.’ The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) sent her to the people of Makkah, and surrendered her as ransom for a number of Muslims who had been kept as prisoners at Makkah.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 3299)

Now one can observe that Salama (RA) said that he had not disrobed her when they reached Medina and again when the Holy Prophet (PBUH) met him in the street he told that he had not disrobed her. And even the next day, after the night having passed, when he was again asked for the girl, he testified that he had yet not disrobed her though she fascinated him.

This is enough proof that Salama didn’t forcefully lay with her as it was against the teachings of Islam. Islam does not allow a man to forcefully have sexual intercourse with his slave woman, otherwise no could stop Salama from sleeping with a slave girl who fascinated him. And if she later gave birth bore Hazn bin Abu Wahb (RA) a son then it must have been by her own consent. We have seen the conduct of pious companion Salama (RA) and there is no reason to say that another pious companion Hazn (RA) would have violated the Islamic injunction and forced the daughter of Umm Qirfa into the intimate relation.

LET ME TURN THE TABLES NOW!

Indiscriminate killing of women and children:

“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” (1 Samuel 15:3)

Agreed that the Amalekites were accused of being violent to the Israel on their way out of Egypt but did Fazara, the tribe lead by Umm Qirfa, not do the same to Muslims who were merely on trading journey? But still there is difference. Muslims killed only those who fought and plotted against Muslims and even Holy Prophet (PBUH) in person, but why did the ‘loving Father’ in the Heavens above order the indiscriminate killing of men and women and even infants? Why infant and the suckling? No devil or saint can help the Christians come up with a justification for such cruelty.

Keep virgin women ‘for yourselves’!

Bible puts the following words into the mouth of Moses (PBUH) alleging that he was inspired by God:

“Therefore kill all that are of the male sex, even of the children: and put to death the women, that have carnally known men. But the girls, and all the women that are virgins save for yourselves:” (Numbers 31:17-18)

Again why kill children? Were they also accused of deceiving the people of Israel? Why kill even the little ones for your weakness of Faith? Even the learned men of Christianity find no way to justify this barbarism attributed to holy men. Adam Clarke in his commentary to this verse says:“The little ones were safely lodged; they were taken to heaven and saved from the evil to come.” What a justification! Reasoning and rationality can only mourn at it.

But ‘all the girls and all the women that are virgins save for yourselves!’ says the Bible attributing it to Moses (PBUH). What for? Were the virgin women not accused of deceiving the Israel while even the children were? I need not say that as you, the reader, can easily sense what the reason can be. And I urge you to give a verdict if it suits these slandering Christians to speak about Islam?

Kill the men, capture the women, and take the spoils!

“When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.” (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

These verses are a slap on the face of all those evil mongers among the Christians who speak against the Islamic idea of Jihad, taking women as captives (remember, Islam allows this under some special circumstances governed by rules that guarantee rights of those taken as captives) and capturing spoils of war.It does not suit a person who dwells in a house made of delicate glass to throw stones at others!

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

Refuting the Anti-Islamist Allegation that The Qur’an Allows Torture

Can Muslims torture prisoners of war??

For the Captives of war, absolutely not! But for the enemy who has treacherous designs against the Muslims, there is a PUNISHMENT that he must face as shown below. Don’t get it twisted with torture.

Those “treacherous designs” are the tricky and deceiving evil actions such as causing a war between the Muslims and other non-Muslim tribes by using tricks and deceptions. Another example is when some of the hypocrites during Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) times used to falsely embrace Islam to be accepted among the Muslims, and then later try to create conflicts among Muslim men and cause them to revenge from each others, because they belonged to tribes that had bloody wars with each others before they embraced Islam. The punishment for such enemy is Noble Verses 5:33-34 as shown below.

Let us look what Allah Almighty Said regarding the captives or the prisoners of wars:

“O Prophet! say to those who are captives in your hands: ‘If Allah findeth any good in your hearts, He will Give you something better than what has been taken from you, and He will Forgive you: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. But if they have treacherous designs against thee, (O Messenger!), they have already been in treason against Allah, and so hath He given (thee) power over them. And Allah is He who hath (Full) knowledge and wisdom. (The Noble Quran, 8:70-71)”

The following explanation of Noble Verses 8:70-71 was taken from the commentary of  Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s English translation:

“This is a consolation to the prisoners of war. Inspite of their previous hostility, Allah will forgive them in His mercy if there was any good in their hearts, and confer upon them a far higher gift than anything they have ever lost. This gift in its highest sense would be the blessing of Islam, but even in a material sense, there was great good fortune awaiting them, e.g., in the case of Al-Abbas (who was among the unbelievers and was taken as a prisoner of war).

Note how comprehensive is Allah’s care. He encourages and strengthens the Muslims, at the same time condemning any baser motives that may have entered their minds. He consoles the prisoners of war and promises them better things if there is any good in them at all. And He offers comfort to those who have left their homes in His Cause, and knits them into closer fellowship with those who have helped them and sympathized with them.

If the kindness shown to them is abused by the prisoners of war when they are released, it is not a matter of discouragement to those who showed the kindness. Such persons have in their treachery shown already their treason to Allah, in that they took up arms against Allah’s Prophet, and sought to blot out the pure worship of Allah.The punishment of defeat, which opened the eyes of some of their comrades, evidently did not open their eyes. But Allah knows all, and in His wisdom will order all things for the best. The Believers have done their duty in showing such clemency as they could in the circumstances of war. For them “Allah sufficeth” (Noble Verse 8:62)”].

Note: For the captives, paying money is not always the way to freedom. It is true that they would lose their weapons and other equipment such as their carts, horses, camels, etc…, but to gain their way out of captivity doesn’t always have to be through paying money.

When the Muslims won the first battle of Islam against the Pagans, the battle of Badr, our Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) told his captives that whoever wants to earn his freedom he must teach 10 illiterate Muslims how to read and write, and he will then be set free.

Did Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ever abuse or kill any of his Captives or take personal revenges from them??

Absolutely not! Killing captives is forbidden in Islam, except for those who deserve it such as war criminals as clearly proven below

Narrated Salim’s father: “The Prophet sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, “Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam),” but they started saying “Saba’na! Saba’na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another).” Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of) them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive, I said, “By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive.” When we reached the Prophet, we mentioned to him the whole story. On that, the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) raised both his hands and said twice, “O Allah! I am free (or innocent or not responsible for) from what Khalid has done.” (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 628)”

“They perform (their) vows, and they fear a Day Whose evil flies far and wide. And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive — (Saying), ‘We feed you For the sake of Allah alone: No reward do we desire from you, nor thanks.’ (The Noble Quran, 76:7-9)”

Muslims not only can’t kill their captives, but they also must feed them for the “love of Allah”.

Our Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) forgave the enemies of Islam. When the Muslims liberated Makkah from the Pagan Arabs, and the Pagans’ army gave up, because they were widely out numbered by the Muslims, our Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said his very famous word that was taught to us in schools:
“Go, you are free.”

Muslims are commanded by Allah Almighty to treat their Captives with kindness and to feed them!

Let us look what Allah Almighty said in the Noble Qur’an:

“They perform (their) vows, and they fear a Day Whose evil flies far and wide. And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive — (Saying), ‘We feed you For the sake of Allah alone: No reward do we desire from you, nor thanks.’ (The Noble Quran, 76:7-9)”

In these Noble Verses, we clearly see how Allah Almighty orders the Muslims to treat their captives with kindness and to not expect anything back in return. Muslims must do it for the love of Allah Almighty, hence they have to feed their captives in kindness and love.

Notice here how Allah Almighty is so Great, Merciful and Gracious, that even the captives are given His Love. Allah Almighty’s door for Mercy and Forgiveness is always open.

When the captured enemy must not be considered a “Captive” or “Prisoner of War”?? And how can Muslims punish them?? Is Ethnic Cleansing allowed in Islam??
What power did Allah Almighty give to Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) over the enemies who had treacherous designs against Islam; “….and so hath He given (thee) power over them…..(The Noble Quran, 8:71)”?

The captured enemy can not be considered a captive or prisoner of war if he had treacherous designs against the Muslims.

This would never apply to ordinary soldiers!

It would rather apply to people like war criminal leaders and commanders. There is a punishment that such enemy must face as shown below in Noble Verses 5:33-34. Those “treacherous designs” are the evil actions such as for instance causing a war between the Muslims and other non-Muslim tribes by using tricks and deceptions. Another example is when some of the hypocrites during Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) times used to falsely embrace Islam to be accepted among the Muslims, and then later try to create conflicts among Muslim men and cause them to revenge from each others, because they belonged to tribes that had bloody wars with each others before they embraced Islam, and the tribal mentality might still remained in them. The punishment for such enemy is Noble Verses 5:33-34 as shown below

Let us look at what Allah Almighty Said in the Noble Qur’an:

“The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 5:33-34)”

There are times when Muslims must accept no captives. This is the time when the Muslims are ordered to punish the enemy severely. Its not torture, torture can be defined as:

Torture is the intentional and systematic infliction of physical or psychological pain and suffering in order to punish, intimidate or gather information

What the Qur’an gives the option of is simply to impose a punishment on the most dangerous of the enemy. Punishment can be defined as:

Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive on a person in response to an unwanted or disobedient behavior.

So its clear, you can impose a punishment on the enemy, The enemy is a specific person who has plans and designs to do you great harm – bearing in mind he would do the same or much worse to you, the punishments are justified. There are options to choose one, or the person can simply be exiled and sent to another land. This is reasonable bearing in mind he is a threat to peace and stability, and as such no state would want someone like that causing upheavel in society.

So what are those times where Muslims must not accept any captive??

When they had been betrayed by the enemy. Let us look at some incidents where Noble Verse 5:33 had been applied to the enemy:

The first incident is when the Muslims were just starting Islam in Madinah. Along with the Muslims there, there were some Christians and three big Jewish tribes: Bani Al-natheer, Bani Qaynuqaa, and Bani Qurayza. When the Pagans of Makkah wanted to end Islam once and for all, they finally agreed along with several other Pagan tribes out side Makkah to attack the Muslims in Madinah.

Prior to this, the Muslims had already signed a treaty of united defense of Madinah with the Jews. When the Pagans of Makkah and their allies finally started marching to Madina, the Muslims became aware of it. One of our beloved Prophet’s close companions, Salman Al-Farisi (radhiyallahu anhu), suggested that the Muslims should dig a big trench to along all of the plain areas of Madina to disable the Pagans from attacking the Muslims.

The Jews’ tribes were stationed in the North side of Madinah. They didn’t need to dig any trench because they had such high mountains that they could easily defend by stationing their troops on top of the mountains, which would then disable the Pagans from entering Madinah from the North. But the Jews will always remain Jews no matter what. They betrayed our Prophet and told the Pagans that they could attack them from the North along with the Jewish army. Allah Almighty had blessed the Muslims with a big victory after long battles and Allah Almighty’s blessings of the winds that blocked the eye sights of the enemies of Islam.

After the Pagans withdrew back to Makkah, our Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) executed Noble Verse 5:33 and exiled Bani Qurayza, the first Jewish tribe to betray the Muslims, from Madinah. Later on, the other two Jewish tribes were exiled too.

The second incident is in the following narration about our Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), which further explains in details when the Muslims need to apply Noble Verse 5:33 to the enemy:

Narrated Abu Qilaba: “Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “Some people of ‘Ukl or ‘Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in ‘Al-Harra’ and when they asked for water, no water was given to them.” Abu Qilaba said, “Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle. (Sahih Bukhari, Ablutions (Wudu’), Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234)”

Notice in the above incidents that the enemy had betrayed the Muslims. In the first incident, the Jews betrayed the Muslims by breaking up the treaty and fighting along side with the Pagans. In the second incident, the Pagans killed the Shepherd and and stole all of the Camels after they gained the Muslims’ trust by embracing Islam. These are the only times where Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ever applied Noble Verse 5:33 to anyone.

Please browse “Did Prophet Muhammad prescribe Camel Urine as Medicine??” See from Medical proofs that several of our medicines today are indeed extracted from animal urines.

The point is that Muslims are not allowed to kill ordinary “Prisoners of War” as it is clearly stated in Noble Verses 8:70-71. The sever punishment for the enemy and the refusal to accept any captives is when the Muslims had been betrayed by the enemy (Noble Verse 5:33).

Note: Notice also in Noble Verse 5:34 that the door for mercy and forgiveness for the sincere enemy is open. The Muslims can not do any harm to the enemy if the enemy repents.

Further explanations from Abdullah Yusuf Ali:

The following explanation of Noble Verse 5:33 comes from the Noble Qur’an that I used, which was translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali:

“For the double crime of treason against the State, combined with treason against Allah, as shown by overt crimes, four alternative punishments are mentioned, any one of which is to be applied according to circumstances, viz., execution (cutting off of the head), crucifixion, maiming, or exile.”

Definitions of crucifixtion:

Crucifixion is an ancient method of execution, where the victim was tied or nailed to a large wooden cross and left to hang there until death.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixtion

Death by being nailed to a cross – http://www.yourdictionary.com

Its a punishment allowed for the most dangerous in society, in an Islamic Governing state carried out by an Islamic governing state. The aim is to punish, not to satisfy sadistic needs. You seem to want to create the impression that this is something that is permissible at all times to anyone. Its not a general rule, it refers to specific dangerous individuals who are a threat to society.

By anti-islamist logic, anything is torture. If you shoot someone, and they suffer pain and anguish during the period of being shot and when they eventually die – that would also be torture. So basically unless someone does instantly, its torture.

Allah is Merciful, and just. In order to maintain justice in society, there have to be rules. Rules that are broken require remedy, the remedy can be punishment for the rule breaker. Allah can’t be just and merciful if he allows a criminal to go unpunished. The rules legislate for all situations.

Conclusion: The verse is not about torture, its a punishment – for a specific danger to society. Only can be carried by an Islamic Governing State.

Does Islam allow wife-beating?? A response to Anti-Islamists

Regarding an allegation made by anti-islamists, that in Islam, wife beating is permissible

Wife beating anytime and for any reason is never allowed in Islam.

What Muslims may or may not do is another discussion altogether. The teachings of Islam are however clear, and that is the basis upon which Islam has to be judged.

Wife beating is not allowed in Islam!

Before we start, I’d like to first say that because Arabic is a complex language, and because Allah Almighty purposely and carefully chose certain words to be placed in certain Noble Verses, I strongly believe that Allah Almighty allowed for the interpretation of NOT beating wives to be valid. In other words, a Muslim man would not be going against Allah Almighty’s Divine Will if he doesn’t beat his wife, and instead, deserts her by leaving the house and living for instance with his parents for a period of time until the disobedient wife comes back to her senses, which would be as equivalent as the first interpretation, since the end result is the same, which is to discipline the bad wife and to get her back on the Right Path of what makes GOD Almighty satisfied with her.

Let us look at Noble Verses 4:34-36

“(34). Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
(35). If ye fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family, and the other from hers; if they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation: For Allah hath full knowledge, and is acquainted with all things.
(36). Serve Allah, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess: For Allah loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious;”

The Arabic word used in Noble Verse 4:34 above is “idribuhunna”, which is derived from “daraba” which means “beat”. The thing with all of the Arabic words that are derived from the word “daraba” is that they don’t necessarily mean “hit”. The word “idribuhunna” for instance, could very well mean to “leave” them. It is exactly like telling someone to “beat it” or “drop it” in English. It has a similar meaning to tap, and not BATTER as Anti-Muslim evil devils allege.

Allah Almighty used the word “daraba” in Noble Verse 14:24

“Seest thou not how Allah sets (daraba) forth a parable? — A goodly Word Like a goodly tree, Whose root is firmly fixed, And its branches (reach) To the heavens”. “daraba” here meant “give an example”. If I say in Arabic “daraba laka mathal”, it means “give you an example”.

Allah Almighty also used the word “darabtum”, which is derived from the word “daraba” in Noble Verse 4:94, which mean to “go abroad” in the sake of Allah Almighty:

“O ye who believe! When ye go abroad (darabtum) In the cause of Allah, Investigate carefully, And say not to anyone Who offers you a salutation: ‘Thou art none of a Believer!’ Coveting the perishable good Of this life: with Allah Are profits and spoils abundant. Even thus were ye yourselves Before, till Allah conferred On you His favours: therefore Carefully investigate. For Allah is well aware Of all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:94)”

So “daraba” literally means “beat”, or “go abroad”, or “give” but not in the sense to give something by hand, but rather to give or provide an example.

Important Note: Notice how Allah Almighty in Noble Chapter (Surah)  He used “daraba (4:34″ and “darabtum (4:94)”, which are both derived from the same root. He used both words in the same Chapter, which tells me that “daraba” in Noble Verse 4:34 means to desert or leave, since that’s what its derived word meant in Noble Verse 4:94. The next section below will further prove my point.

I am sure there are more Noble Verses that used words derived from “daraba” in the Noble Quran, but these are the only ones I know of so far. In the case of Noble Verse 4:34 where Allah Almighty seems to allow men to hit their wives after the two warnings for ill-conduct and disloyalty, it could very well be that Allah Almighty meant to command the Muslims to “leave” the home all together and desert their wives for a long time in a hope that the wives would then come back to their senses and repent.

So it is not the brutal thrashing proposed by non muslims. The word used in the Quran has many meanings which are equally viable.

If we take the meaning of beat for example, it will be as to tap someone or to give them a sign that what they are doing is wrong. It is not to BEAT them up. Its like tapping someone on the shoulder and saying STOP. This is not beating.

If we take the other meanings, it means to remove oneself from their presence. The best example of the teachings of the Quran is Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Any tom dick or harry cant come along and practice Islam how they think it is, and intepret verses how they want – especially not non-muslims who have an anti islamic agenda. If we look at the conduct of the prophet, he NEVER mistreated his wives, which clearly shows the Qur’an does not allow wife beating. He had problems with them just as anyone would, but he did not beat them. If the Quran allows for it, then why wouldnt the prophet of Islam do it??

Noble Verses and Sayings that support the prohibition of any type of wife-beating:

The following Noble Verses and Sayings from the Noble Quran and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) respectively seem to very well support the above interpretation:

“…Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them…(The Noble Quran, 2:231)”

“If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men’s souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:128)”

Narrated Mu’awiyah al-Qushayri radhiyallahu anhu): “I went to the Apostle of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)”

Narrated Mu’awiyah ibn Haydah: “I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2138)”

Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) reported Allah’s Apostle (sallallaahu alayhi wasallan) as saying: “He who believes in Allah and the Hereafter, if he witnesses any matter he should talk in good terms about it or keep quiet. Act kindly towards woman, for woman is created from a rib, and the most crooked part of the rib is its top. If you attempt to straighten it, you will break it, and if you leave it, its crookedness will remain there. So act kindly towards women. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 008, Number 3468)”

“O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (The Noble Quran, 4:19)”

“And among God’s signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect. (The Noble Quran 30:21)”

“Women impure for men impure. And women of purity for men of purity. These are not affected by what people say. For them is forgiveness and an honorable provision. (The Noble Quran 24:26)”

Narrated Abu Huraira (radhiyallahu anhu): “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The strong is not the one who overcomes the people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself while in anger. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab), Volume 8, Book 73, Number 135)”

Narrated Abu Huraira (radhiyallahu anhu): “A man said to the Prophet , ‘Advise me! ‘The Prophet said, ‘Do not become angry and furious.’ The man asked (the same) again and again, and the Prophet said in each case, ‘Do not become angry and furious.’ (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab), Volume 8, Book 73, Number 137)”

Abu Huraira (radhiyallahu anhu) reported: “I heard Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as saying: One is not strong because of one’s wrestling skillfully. They said: Allah’s Messenger, then who is strong? He said: He who controls his anger when he is in a fit of rage. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Virtue, Good Manners and Joining of the Ties of Relationship (Kitab Al-Birr was-Salat-I-wa’l-Adab), Book 032, Number 6314)”

Allah Almighty loves those who restrain anger: “Those who spend (freely), whether in prosperity, or in adversity; who restrain anger, and pardon (all) men; for Allah loves those who do good. (The Noble Quran, 3:134)”

Linguistic element

The key to the problem is the mistranslation of the two key words nushuz and adriboo. Some of the possible meanings for both the words are given below. Again, the appropriate meaning will depend on the context of the verse.

Nushuz: Animosity, hostility, rebellion, ill-treatment, discord; violation of marital duties on the part of either husband or wife.

Adriboo (root: daraba): to beat, to strike, to hit, to separate, to part.

In the context of the above verse the most appropriate meaning for nushuz is ‘marital discord’ (ill-will, animosity etc), and for adriboo is ‘to separate’ or ‘to part’.

Otherwise, it is inviting the likelihood of a divorce without any reconciliation procedure. Such a step would blatantly contravene the Qur’anic guidance shown in verse 4:35 below. Therefore, a more accurate and consistent translation of the above verse would be:

(4:34) […]as for those women whose animosity or ill-will you have reason to fear, then leave them alone in bed, and then separate; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek a way against them.

The separation could be temporary or permanent depending on the reconciliation procedure. Such as construction is legitimate within the terms of the language and fits in very well with the divorce procedure outlined in the Qur’an (see 8:5).

The verse following the above verse gives further weight to the above translation.

(4:35) And if ye fear a breach between them twain (the man and the wife), appoint an arbiter from his folk and an arbiter from her folk. If they desire amendment Allah will make them of one mind. Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Aware.

Added weight to the meanings outlined above is given by verse 4:128 quoted below. Here, in the case of a man, the same word nushuz is used, but it is rendered as ‘ill-treatment’ as against ‘rebellion’ in the case of a woman as shown earlier in the traditional translation of verse 4:34. One find oneself asking whether since the ill-treatment is on the part of the husband, a process of reconciliation is here to be encouraged!

(4:128) If a wife fears ill-treatment (nushuz) or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best[…]

This, obviously, is a double standard and the only way to reconcile the meanings of the two verses, in the contexts they are being used, is to accept the meaning of adriboo as: ‘to separate’ or to ‘part’. In this connection I would like to refer the reader to an excellent article by Rachael Tibbet from which I quote:

(a) Qur’anic commentators and translators experience problems with the term Adribu in the Qur’an not just in this verse but in others, as it is used in different contexts in ways which appear ambiguous and open to widely different translations into English. ‘Daraba’ can be translated in more than a hundred different ways.

(b) The translation of adribu as ‘to strike’ in this particular verse (4:34) is founded upon nothing more than:

(i) The authority of hadiths (Abu Dawud 2141 and Mishkat Al-Masabih 0276) that this is what Adribu means in this context.

(ii) The prejudices and environment of the early commentators of the Qur’an which led them to assume that ‘to strike’, given the overall context of the verse, was the most likely interpretation of the many possible interpretations of adribu.

Conclusion: Wife beating is not prescribed in the Qur’an

“Jesus Loves All” is a Christian Missionary Deception

Anti-Muslim demagoguery relies on the demonization of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), who is characterized by Islam-hating liars as being especially violent and warlike. This propaganda has certainly gained currency in the “Judeo-Zionist-Freemasonic-Christian West”. When it is pointed out that the Biblical prophets–including Moses, Joshua, Samson , Saul , David , among many others–were far more violent and warlike (and even engaged in religiously sanctioned genocide ), anti-Muslim pro-Christian ideologues will respond by disregarding or downplaying the Old Testament and will instead focus on the personality of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) in the New Testament.

Didn’t Jesus preach nonviolence and “loving one’s enemies”? The anti-Muslim ideologues use this idea to assault the religion of Islam with. For example, the Catholic apologist shaitaan Robert Spencer compares Islam to Christianity by juxtaposing carefully selected quotes from Jesus to Islamic texts. In his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) , Spencer includes a “Muhammad vs Jesus” section. He cites the following sayings of Jesus in the Bible:

“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”

“If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”

“Blessed are the peacemakers”

“Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy”

“But love your enemies, and do good”

These so-called “peaceful” verses of the Bible are compared to select battle revealed-Quranic verses. The violent verses of the Bible “don’t count” and are craftily excluded from the comparison (“that’s just the Old Testament!”). To tighten the noose, peaceful verses of the Glorious Qur’an are also excluded from the heavily biased analysis, the shaitaan  gives his evil reason for that: these “don’t count” since they are supposedly from when Muhammad was still in Mecca.

To understand the last point, one needs to have a basic understanding of the Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) biography: he first declared his prophethood in the city of Makkah. Only a very small segment of society accepted him (mostly the weak and poor), whereas the masses–especially the powerful leaders of the city–not only rejected him but actively persecuted him. The chapters of the Qur’an that were revealed during this period are known as the Makkan chapters. Eventually, Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) was commanded by God to fled to the city of Madinah, whose people accepted him as their ruler. He went from persecuted prophet to ruler and commander-in-chief of a fledgling city-state.

The anti-Muslim ideologues claim that the peaceful and tolerant verses of the Qur’an come from when Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) was weak and persecuted in Mekkah. According to this islamophobe Baboon, These verses are “cancelled”, they argue, by the violent-sounding verses in the Medinan chapters.
Robert Spencer writes in his book:

Islamic theology divides the Qur’an into “Meccan” and “Medinan” suras [chapters]. The Meccan ones come from the first segment of Muhammad’s career as a prophet, when he simply called the Meccans to Islam. Later, after he fled to Medina, his positions hardened. The Medinan suras [are]…filled with matters of law and ritual–and exhortations to jihad warfare against unbelievers. The relatively tolerant verses quoted above and others like them generally date from the Meccan period, while those with a more violent and intolerant edge are mostly from Medina.

The Islamophobe deceivers portray Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) as opportunistic:

when he was weak and under the rule of the pagans, he called for peace. Without being in a position of authority, Muhammad was hardly in a position to do otherwise. As soon as he came to power, however, he waged “jihad warfare” (what a strange phrase!) against them. This is why, they argue, the peaceful verses of the Quran simply “don’t count”.

For now, however, we will demonstrate that, using such logic, it is equally possible to invalidate the “peaceful” sayings of Jesus. While he was a persecuted prophet, Jesus advocated nonviolence and peaceful resistance. He was hardly in a position to do otherwise, right? Once in power, however, this changes dramatically and violent warfare becomes the new
modus operandi .

The Messiah

Just as Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) biography can be divided into a Mekkan and Medinan period, so too can Jesus’s (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) lifestory be divided into a First and Second Coming. (Likewise can Moses’ (Musa alaihissalaam) lifestory be divided into pre- and post-Exodus: prior to Exodus, Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) was largely peaceful, but after Exodus, Moses became the leader of the emerging Jewish state–and subsequently engaged in holy wars and even genocide against other nations.)

In the First Coming of Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam), only a small segment of society (mostly from the weak and poor) accepted Jesus, whereas the leaders and authorities persecuted him. During this time period, Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) advised his followers to engage in nonviolent resistance only, perhaps even pacifism. Jesus advised his followers to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” According to the Bible, this didn’t stop his Jewish and Roman persecutors from making an attempt to kill him.

Yet, the Second Coming of Jesus (‘Eesa maseeh alaihissalaam) is a central theological belief of Christianity as well as Islam. When Jesus (‘Eesa alaihissalaam) returns to earth, the gloves will be off: no longer will he practice non-violence or pacifism. Enemies will be mercilessly killed, not loved. In this manner, Jesus will fulfill the messianic prophecies found in the Bible–both in the Old and New Testaments. To Christians, Jesus is the Messiah (the Greek word “Christ” has the same meaning as the Hebrew word “Messiah”)–the same Messiah that the Jews had been in anticipation of.

It is important to understand how the concept of Messiah developed. According to the Bible, Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) and his followers fled persecution in Egypt to find refuge in the land of Canaan. They believed that God had bequeathed this land to them, which would come to be known as Israel. Unfortunately, there were already peoples who lived in Canaan, a problem that Moses (Musa alaihissalaam) and his followers rectified via military might. The native Canaanites were subsequently occupied, exterminated, or run off their ancestral lands. When the natives fought back, the Israelites attributed this to their innate and infernal hatred of the Jewish people.

After ruling the “promised land” for a time, the Israelites were themselves conquered by outsiders. The Babylonian Empire captured the Kingdom of Judah and expelled the Jews. Though the Israelites felt no remorse over occupying, slaughtering, and running off the native inhabitants of Canaan, they were mortified when they received similar (albeit milder) treatment. In exile, the Jews prayed for vengeance, as recorded in a divine prayer in the Bible:

Psalm 137:8 O Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back for what you have done to us.

137:9 Blessed is the one who grabs your babies and smashes them against a rock.

(We can hardly imagine the glee that an Islamophobe devil would feel had such a violent passage, one that blesses those who smash infidel babies against rocks, been found in the Qur’an instead of the Bible.)

It was during the time of exile that the Jewish concept of Messiah was first born. Dutch historian Jona Lendering writes:

It was believed that the Messiah (the Anointed One) would receive God’s personal help against the enemies of Israel; the Messiah would defeat the Babylonians and reestablish the Jewish state of Israel. Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, fulfilled this role by conquering Babylon and releasing the Jews from exile. Israel Smith Clare writes:

Prof. Martin Bernal of Cornell University writes:

The first Messiah in the Bible was Cyrus, the king of Persia who released the Jews–at least those who wanted to leave–from Exile in Babylon.

As for this passage in the Bible:

Psalm 137:8 O Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back for what you have done to us.

137:9 Blessed is the one who grabs your babies and smashes them against a rock.

Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible comments on this verse:

The Jews thereby returned to the promised land and rebuilt their nation. According to Jewish tradition, however, this did not last long: the Roman Empire conquered the land, destroyed the Temple, and exiled the Jews once again. As a result, as Lendering puts it, “the old prophecies [about Messiah] became relevant again.” Although in Jewish tradition there is a messiah for each generation, there is also the Messiah, which is what is commonly thought of when we hear the word. The Messiah would fulfill the task of destroying all of Israel’s enemies.

JewFaq.org says of the Messiah, which they spell as mashiach (emphasis is ours):

KosherJudaism.org states:

The Second Coming of Christ
Around 4 B.C., a prophet by the name of Jesus was born. He claimed to be the Messiah, and some Jews followed him. The followers of Christ eventually split into numerous sects, and eventually one triumphed over all others. These became what are today known as Christians. As for the majority of Jews, they rejected Jesus. Why? The Jews rejected (and continue to reject) Jesus because he did not fulfill the prophecies pertaining to the Messiah. How could Jesus be the Messiah when he not only did not defeat or conquer Israel’s enemies, but he never even led an army into a single war? On the contrary, didn’t Jesus preach nonviolence and “loving one’s enemies”?

Instead of rejecting these militaristic aspects of the Messiah, Christians attribute them to Jesus during his Second Coming. No longer will Jesus be a weak and persecuted prophet. Instead, he will hold governmental authority, and is depicted as powerful and mighty. This Jesus will certainly not love his enemies or turn the other cheek to them. In fact, the Bible tells us that Jesus will wage violent warfare against his enemies, and he will mercilessly kill them all.

Many Christians talk about how Jesus Christ will bring peace to the world, once and for all. But they often neglect to mention how this world “peace” is obtained. It is only after slaughtering his opponents and subduing “the nations” (the entire world?) under the foot of the global Christian empire that the world will have “peace”. Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible explains:

In other words, there will be peace for the simple reason that there will be nobody left to fight, all opponents having been slaughtered or subdued. This world “peace” is the same “peace” that any conqueror dreams of: after utterly defeating and conquering all of one’s neighbors and enemies, what is there left but “peace”, insofar as the non-existence of violence? In the accidentally insightful words of the Evangelist Wayne Blank : “Put another way, humans aren’t going to have anything left to fight about.”

Following conquest, a foreign occupier would obviously want the occupied peoples to be peaceful, as this would eliminate the nuisance of having to fight off freedom-fighters. The absence of violence would allow the conquering force to effortlessly sustain its occupation.

The events of the Second Coming of Christ are found in the Bible, including the Book of Revelation–which is the last book in the New Testament. Jesus will “judge and wage war” (Rev. 19:11), his robe will be “dipped in blood” (19:13), and he will be accompanied by “armies” (19:14) with which he will “strike down the nations” (19:15), . Furthermore: “ including “the Gentiles” in general and “the nations that were opposed to him” in specific. This will result in the “utter destruction of all his enemies” In his second coming[,] he will complete their destruction, when he shall put down all opposing rule, principality, and power.”

Once he conquers the infidels, Jesus “will rule them with an iron rod” (19:15). Wayne Blank writes:
Jesus will “will release the fierce wrath of God” (19:15) on them, and “he shall execute the severest judgment on the opposers of his truth” . Because of this, “every tribe on earth will mourn because of him” (Rev. 1:7), and they will “express the inward terror and horror of their minds, at his appearing; they will fear his resentment” . Just as the people of Canaan were terrified by the Israelite war machine , so too would the unbelievers “look with trembling upon [Jesus]” . This is repeated in the Gospels, that “the Son of man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn” (Matthew 24:30).

“All the nations of the world shall wail when he comes to judgment” and the enemies of Jesus “shall mourn at the great calamities coming upon them” .

Far from the meek prophet of the First Coming, Jesus on his return will command a very strong military force that will “destroy[] every ruler, authority, and power”. Not only is this consistent with the legacy of conquests by the Biblical prophets, it is actually a fulfillment or completion of the task that Moses initiated: holy war and conquest in the name of God. In First Corinthians (part of the New Testament) it is prophesied that instead of loving his enemies, Christ will subdue and humble them under his feet:

1 Corinthians 15:24 [Jesus] will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having destroyed every ruler and authority and power.

15:25 For Christ must reign until he humbles all his enemies beneath his feet.

Pastor and Biblical scholar Ron Teed explains that Jesus Christ brought “comfort and salvation at His first coming” but will bring “vengeance on God’s enemies” during his Second Coming. There are thus “two comings of Christ, the first to save, the second to judge”–yet in debates with Muslims it seems that Christians play up the First Coming and completely ignore the Second. The popular Teed Commentaries explains how “vengeance” is for Christ’s enemies (the “unbelievers”) and “comfort” only for his followers (the believers):

The Messiah will bring both comfort and
vengeance. He will take vengeance on God’s enemies and bring comfort to His people. This is a summary of the mission of Christ. He brought comfort and salvation at His first coming during His earthly ministry according to Luke…

However, He said nothing of taking vengeance on God’s enemies at that time, for that part of his mission will not be fulfilled till He returns triumphant…

[There are] two comings of Christ, the first to save, the second to judge.

In His First coming He did the things mentioned in Isaiah 61:1-2; in His Second Coming He will do the things in verses 2-3. When He returns He will bring judgment on unbelievers. This will be the day of God’s “vengeance.”

The ever popular Evangelical site GotQuestions.org sums it up nicely:

Jesus’ second coming will be exceedingly violent.
Revelation 19:11-21 describes the ultimate war with Christ, the conquering commander who judges and makes war “with justice” (v. 11). It’s going to be bloody (v. 13) and gory. The birds will eat the flesh of all those who oppose Him (v. 17-18). He has no compassion upon His enemies, whom He will conquer completely and consign to a “fiery lake of burning sulfur” (v. 20).

It is an error to say that God never supports a war. Jesus is not a pacifist.

Will the Real Messiah Please Stand Up?

Whereas the Second Coming of Christ is curiously forgotten in debates with Muslims, it is conveniently remembered during debates with Jews. One of the primary (if not the
primary) functions of the promised messiah in the Judeo-Christian tradition is, after all, vengeance against Israel’s enemies and global dominance. Indeed, the entire concept of Messiah emerged following the conquest of Jewish lands with the subjugation and exile of its inhabitants. The Messiah stood as hope for the redemption of Israel as well as revenge against her enemies.
Jewish polemical tracts against Christians reveal to us how militarism is a fundamental characteristic of the Messiah. The Christian response in turn reveal how Jesus Christ will indeed be militaristic (during his Second Coming). David Klinghoffer, an Orthodox Jewish author, writes in his book Why the Jews Rejected Jesus :

There were certainly those among [Jesus’] followers who saw him as the promised Messiah. This was natural. The first century produced messiahs the way our own time produces movie stars. There was always a hot new candidate for the role emerging from obscurity, whose glory faded either as he was slaughtered by the Romans or as his followers lost interest when he failed to produce the goods promised by the prophets.

“The goods” refer to the military conquest of Israel’s enemies and world domination. The fact that Jesus failed to produce these “goods” proves that he is not the promised messiah. Klinghoffer continues:

Let him do what the “son of man,” the promised Messiah, had been advertised as being destined to do from Daniel back through Ezekiel and Isaiah and the rest of the prophets. Let him rule as a monarch, his kingship extending over “all peoples, nations, and languages.” Let him return the exiles and build the Temple and defeat the oppressors and establish universal peace, as the prophets also said…

Let Jesus come up with the real messianic goods–visible to all rather than requiring us to accept someone’s assurance that, for example, he was born in Bethlehem–and then we’ll take him seriously

This point is reiterated in his book numerous times:

Hearing Jesus preach, a Jew might reasonably have crossed his arms upon his chest and muttered, “Hm, intriguing, but let’s see what happens.” After all, the scriptures themselves common-sensically defined a false prophet as someone whose prophecies fail to come true. According to Deuteronomy, this was the chief test of a prophet.

Klinghoffer writes elsewhere:

The Hebrew prophets describe the elements of a messianic scenario that could not easily be overlooked: an ingathering of the Jewish exiles, the reign of a messianic king, a new covenant with the Jews based on a restored commitment to observance of the commandments, a new Temple, the recognition of God by the world’s peoples. The future Davidic king was expected to radically change the world.

The “radical change” involves the “subjugation” of the nations:

The Messiah would be a military and political leader. Philo, whose views have sometimes been taken as foreshadowing Christian teachings, is clear on this: “For ‘there shall come forth a man’ (Num. 24:7), says the oracle, and leading his host of war he will subdue great and populous nations.”

The Gospel writers thus faced the challenge that Jesus never raised an army, fought the Romans, returned any Jewish exiles, ruled over any population, or did anything else a king messiah would do.

The subjugated nations would then “prostrate” themselves to the Messiah and “serve” him (perpetual servitude?):

The promised royal scion of David, the Messiah, would surely inspire veneration and awe beyond that accorded even to David himself…The nations will “prostrate” themselves before God, says one psalm; but so will they “prostrate” themselves (same Hebrew verb) before the Davidic king , says another psalm…As Daniel puts it…“[The Messiah] was given dominion, honor, kingship, so that all peoples, nations, and languages would serve him.”

Klinghoffer defines the Messiah as he “who conquers and rules the nations and liberates the Jews” and describes him as
“ a mighty warrior”. He rhetorically asks:

Was there in Jewish tradition any room for a dead Messiah? Didn’t Jesus’s death tend to cast doubt on his ability to accomplish all the world-transforming things the Messiah was supposed to do?

Again, the “world-transforming things” include violent holy war against the heathen nations and their subjugation under his rule. Klinghoffer answers his own question:

But was Jesus a ruler over Israel? On the contrary, the younger Kimchi pointed out, “He did not govern Israel but they governed him.”

Christians reply by arguing that Jesus will fulfill these prophecies, just during his Second Coming. The Good News, a Christian magazine with a readership of nearly half a million subscribers, responds to the Jewish criticism by arguing that Jesus returns “a second time” as a “conquering King” who will “slay the great armies of those who opposed Him”.  Jesus will be “the promised Messiah whom the prophets claimed would rule all nations ‘with a rod of iron’” and “all nations would come under His rule”.

Klinghoffer, the Orthodox Jewish interlocutor, cries foul:

Christians respond by saying that “the famously unfulfilled prophecies (for instance, that the messianic era will be one of peace) apply to the second and final act in Jesus’s career, when he returns to earth. This is a convenient and necessary dodge: The Bible itself never speaks of a two-act messianic drama.

The interesting dynamic is thus established: Jews accuse Jesus of not being militaristic enough, and Christian apologists respond by eagerly proving the militaristic nature of Jesus during his Second Coming.

Christians Affirm Militant Old Testament Prophecies

Far from saying “it’s just the Old Testament!”, Christians routinely–and as a matter of accepted fundamental theology–use the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah to validate their belief in Jesus–prophecies that have militaristic overtones. The Book of Isaiah, for example, has numerous prophecies in it that Christians routinely attribute to Jesus Christ. For example:

Isaiah 35:4 Say to those with fearful hearts, “Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with vengeance; with divine retribution he will come to save you.”

Matthew Henry’s commentary of this verse says:

This will be “a day of vengeance, a year of retribution, to uphold Zion’s cause” (34:8) against the “nations at enmity with the church” and “those found opposing the church of Christ”, which will result in “the destruction of [the church’s] enemies.” Likewise do Christians claim that the Book of Micah foretells the Second Coming of Christ:

Micah 15:5 I will execute vengeance in anger and fury on the heathen, such as they have not heard.

One Biblical commentary helpfully explains this verse:

Christ will give his Son either the hearts or necks of his enemies, and make them either his friends or his footstool.

[NassirH, a reader of our website, astutely commented: I suppose this is what JihadWatch writer Roland Shirk meant when he said “Islam is a religion of fear and force, and its adherents can only be at your feet or at your throat.”]

Another Biblical commentary notes: “Here no mention is made of Mercy, but only of executing vengeance; and that, with wrath and fury.” Yet another states that this is “a prophecy of the final overthrow of all the enemies of pure and undefiled religion” and that this is “a threatening of vengeance to the Heathens” .

When we published articles comparing the Judeo-Christian prophets of the Hebrew Bible to the Prophet Muhammad, an anti-Muslim bigot by the name of Percey (formerly known as Cassidy) claimed that the genocides of the Old Testament were “not supported by Christ’s teachings.” This hardly seems the case, however, when we consider that Jesus will bring to a climax the holy war first initiated by Moses against the enemies of Israel. Jesus will fulfill , not repudiate, Old Testament holy wars against Israel’s foes. In fact, the war will be expanded to heathen nations in general, or at least those that reject Jesus.

Conclusion

We could reproduce violent Christian texts ad nauseum …What is clear is that the Christian conception of Jesus can very easily be characterized as violent. Prof. Melancthon W. Jacobus writes in A Standard Bible Dictionary:

[Jesus] excluded from the Messiah’s character the main elements of the popular ideal, i.e. that of a conquering hero, who would exalt Israel above the heathen, and through such exclusion He seemed to fail to realize the older Scriptural conception. The failure, however, was only apparent and temporary. For in the second coming in glory He was to achieve this work.
Accordingly, His disciples recognized a twofoldness in His Messiahship: (1) They saw realized in His past life the ideal Servant of Jehovah, the spiritual Messiah, the Christ who teaches and suffers for the people, and (2) they looked forward to the realization of the Davidic and conquering Messiah in His second coming in power and glory to conquer the nations and reign over them

How then do we reconcile the seemingly peaceful and pacifist sayings of Jesus with the violent and warlike Second Coming of Christ? There are numerous ways to do this, but perhaps the most convincing is that Jesus’ peaceful and pacifist sayings were directed towards a resident’s personal and local enemies–usually (but not always) referring to fellow co-religionists. It did not refer to a government’s foreign adversaries, certainly not to heathen nations. Prof. Richard A. Horsley of the University of Massachusetts argues:

The cluster of sayings keynoted by “love your enemies” pertains neither to external, political enemies nor to the question of nonviolence or nonresistance…The content of nearly all the sayings indicates a context of local interaction with personal enemies, not of relations with foreign or political foes…

“Love your enemies” and the related sayings apparently were understood by [Jesus’] followers…to refer to local social-economic relations, largely within the village community, which was still probably coextensive with the religious community in most cases…[although sometimes referring] to persecutors outside the religious community but still in the local residential community—and certainly not the national or political enemies.

This is consistent with the ruling given by the Evangelical site
GotQuestions.org , which permits governments to wage war whilst forbidding individuals from “personal vendettas”:

God has allowed for just wars throughout the history of His people. From Abraham to Deborah to David, God’s people have fought as instruments of judgment from a righteous and holy God. Romans 13:1-4 tells us to submit ourselves to government authorities and that nations have the right to bear the sword against evildoers, both foreign and domestic.

Violence occurs, but we must recognize the difference between holy judgment on sin and our own personal vendettas against those we dislike, which is the inevitable outcome of pride

As for the “turning the other cheek” passage, it is known that the slap on the cheek that was being referred to here was in that particular culture understood as an insult, not as assault. The passage itself has to do with a person responding to a personal insult, and has nothing to do with pacifism. In any case, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary clarifies: “Of course, He applied this to personal insults, not to groups or nations.”

Some Christians maintain that fighting the enemies on the battlefield does not exclude loving them. This begs the question: how absolutely irrelevant is this strange form of “love” for enemies that does not proscribe killing them?

Whatever the reason for the contradiction between loving enemies on the one hand and killing them on the other, the point is that the comparison between a supposedly peaceful Jesus and “violent” Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) is not just a vapid oversimplification but pure falsity. It is only through a very selective and biased analysis–a carefully crafted comparison between the most peaceful sounding verses of the New Testament (a handful of quotes from Jesus that constitute a small fraction of the Bible overall) with the most violent sounding verses of the Quran.

Anything that doesn’t fit this agenda simply “doesn’t count” (and indeed, the anti-Muslim pro-Christian readers will furiously rack their brains to figure out ways to make the violent Jesus verses “not count”). The Islamophobic logic is thus: If we exclude all violent verses from the Bible and all the peaceful verses from the Quran, then aha! See how much more violent the Quran is compared to the Bible! Anti-Muslim Christians scoff at Islam and exalt their religion by informing Muslims of how Jesus, unlike Muhammad, loved his enemies. Let the Muslims reply back ever so wryly: Jesus loved them so much that he kills them.

Addendum I:

Anti-Muslim Christians often chant “Muhammad was a prophet of war, whereas Jesus was the Prince of Peace”. A few points about this are worthy of being mentioned: First, Muhammad never used the title “prophet of war” nor is this mentioned in the Quran or anywhere else. In fact, one of the most common epithets used for Muhammad, one found in the Quran no less, was “A Mercy to All Humanity”.

Jesus, on the other hand, will be a “Warrior King” and a “Conquering King.” Should it then be “Muhammad is A Mercy to All Humanity, whereas Jesus is the Warrior King”?

As for Jesus being the Prince of Peace, this epithet comes from Isaiah 9:6:

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

9:7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace. He will rule with fairness and justice from the throne of his ancestor David for all eternity.

The passionate commitment of the LORD of Heaven’s Armies will make this happen.

One Christian website paraphrases this succinctly: “Israel’s enemies will be destroyed. Peace will flow to the four corners of the earth, as the Prince of Peace rules and reigns.” Again, this is the “peace” that conquerers dream of. Jesus is the Prince of Peace because he declares war, slaughters and subjugates all possible enemies to the point where nobody is left to fight, and voila! there is peace!
This brings us to the commonly quoted (and oft-debated) verse of the Bible, in which Jesus says:

Matthew 10:34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Most debates focus on whether or not the word “sword” here is metaphorical or not. Leaving aside the fact that even if this is a metaphor it is certainly a very violent sounding one, it would actually behoove us to focus on the word “peace” in this verse. Jesus told the Jews: “do not think I have come to bring peace on earth” as a way to explain his failure to produce “the goods”: “ the Jews believed that when the Messiah comes, there would be a time of world peace. ” Naturally, this world “peace” would be brought about through war. Of course, in his Second Coming will Jesus bring this “peace on earth” (and by “peace”, what is meant is war, slaughter, and subjugation). As we can see, this verse confirms the militant nature of the Messiah (and thus Jesus), regardless of if it is metaphorical or not.

Addendum II:

Here is another hotly debated verse, in which Jesus says:

Luke 19:27 But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence.

Robert Spencer dismisses this verse, saying: “These are the words of a king in a parable.” Yes, this was a parable that Jesus told his disciples. But what was his intention in narrating this parable? Gill’s Explanation to the Entire Bible explains that it was to explain what will happen to the Jews “when Christ shall come a second time”: Jesus will “destroy the Jewish nation” for rejecting him “and then all other enemies will be slain and destroyed” as well.

Death and destruction will be the fate of whoever does not accept Jesus’ reign as Warrior King.
This was hardly an innocuous story. It reminds us of a scene in the movie Gladiator when the evil Roman emperor Commodus tells his nephew a story about an “emperor” who was betrayed by his sister (“his own blood”) and how he “struck down” her son as revenge. (Watch it here.) The story was a thinly veiled threat, as was Jesus’ parable.

One can only hardly imagine how Islamophobes like Robert Spencer would react had it been the Prophet Muhammad who had used such a violent parable, threatening to return to earth in order to “slay” anyone who “did not want me to reign over them”! This would certainly “count” since all violence in the Quran “counts” whereas whatever is peaceful in the Quran “doesn’t count”, and whatever is violent in the Bible “doesn’t count” and whatever is peaceful in the Bible “counts”. Heads I win, tails you lose.