I'm not being "Islamophobic" if that's what comes to your mind. Muhammad slaughtered many people in the name of "spreading Islam".
Ever since 9/11, Muslim leaders who have access to the national media have told us that Islam is the religion of peace and that violence does not represent the essence of Muhammad’s religion.
Even President Bush and Britain’s Prime Minister Blair have repeated this assertion, saying that Islam has been "hijacked" by a few violent fanatics. Is this true?
Sadly it is not, for empirical, observable facts demonstrate beyond doubt that Islam at its founding is filled with violence—in the life of Muhammad himself and in the Quran itself.
Hence, these Muslim apologists must stop misleading unsuspecting Westerners, and they must be honest about the heart of their religion, for once and for all.
Here are ten clear, verifiable reasons that explain why Islam is not the religion of peace.
Clear? In order to prevent the standard, reflexive "out of context" defense from Muslim apologists, the context of each verse in the Quran is explained either in this article or in the links provided within each of the ten reasons. No verse is taken out of context, and Muslim translations are used.
Verifiable? The readers are invited to look up each verse in the Quran in multiple translations, by visiting the website www.quranbrowser.com and typing in references, like so: 61:10-12. (61 is the chapter or sura, and 10-12 are the verses).
But first we must answer a Muslim strategy. A Muslim missionary or polemicist who believes that Islam is the best religion in the world and who wants it to spread around the globe attempted to refute this top ten list. But attempting to refute such a list is like reviewing a book only from the last chapter. The reviewer has skipped over the hard work of reading all of the chapters. In the same way, the Muslim polemicist or missionary has skipped over the hard work found in the back-up articles and the links. This top ten list is only a summary of many articles and a lot of strenuous labor from the present author and many other authors. The answers to the Muslim’s criticisms are all found in these articles. So his criticism is hollow, and his scholarship is shallow, since he has not done the hard work. He certainly does not understand the Bible. Plus, he whitewashes Islam in his attempted refutation. The back-up articles will show how. Thus, he whitewashes Islam either deliberately or unknowingly, which means he does not know his own religion or he knows it, but covers it up. Whatever the case, the truth about the real Islam must get out.
10. Muhammad nicknames his weapons.
Tabari (AD 839-923) is an early Muslim historian who is considered largely reliable by scholars today. In fact, the State University of New York Press selected his history to be translated into 38 volumes. (We use The Last Years of the Prophet, trans. Ismail K. Poonawala, 9:153-55.)
In the context of the list of Muhammad’s assets at the end of his life (horses, camels, milch sheep, and so on), Tabari records the nicknames of Muhammad weapons.
Muhammad nicknames three swords that he took from the Jewish tribe Qaynuqa after he banished them from Medina in April 624: "Pluck Out," "Very Sharp," and "Death." Two other swords from elsewhere are named: "Sharp" and "That is wont to sink" (presumably into human flesh). After his Hijrah or Emigration from Mecca to Medina in 622, he owned two swords called "Sharp" and "Having the vertebrae of the back." This last sword he collected as booty after his victory at the Battle of Badr in March 624.
Next, Muhammad took three bows from the Qaynuqa tribe and named them as follows: "Most conducive to ease, or wide," "white," and "of nab wood" (species of tree from which bows are made).
The name of a coat of mail implies "ampleness" or "redundant portions," probably because Muhammad was portly (cf. Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans. Guillaume, p. 383).
Finally, even Muhammad himself has a nickname. After Tabari lists the positive ones, he matter-of-factly provides one that is not so positive: "The obliterator."
Muslim apologists may object that Tabari is not authoritative (except when he shows Muhammad as heroic or victorious) and that he is not on the same level as the Quran and some hadiths (words and deeds of Muhammad outside of the Quran). This is true. But Muslim apologists still must answer why such a tradition of naming weapons developed about Muhammad. After all, later, unauthoritative traditions about Christ developed, but they do not show him even owning weapons, let alone naming them. The answer to this question about Muhammad is found in the next nine reasons.
This article explains Christ’s attitude about swords more thoroughly, as does this one. Certainly he never fondled swords or nicknamed them, displaying them proudly, delighting in them.
Thus, violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in the life of Muhammad. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
9. Muhammad commands in his Quran that adulterers and adulteresses should receive a hundred lashes.
24:2 Strike the adulteress and the adulterer one hundred times. Do not let compassion for them keep you from carrying out God’s law—if you believe in God and the Last Day—and ensure that a group of believers witnesses the punishment. (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Quran, New York: Oxford UP, 2004)
The supposed historical context of this sura occurs during a raid of a tribe in December 627 or January 628, on which Muhammad brought his favorite and youngest wife, Aisha, also the daughter of Abu Bakr, his right-hand lieutenant. After the Muslims’ victory, they journeyed back to Medina, one hundred and fifty miles to the north. On their last halt, Aisha answered the call of nature, but lost her necklace in the dark, just as the army was setting out from their encampment early in the morning. She left her litter, returned to look for the necklace, and found it. Meanwhile, the man leading her camel assumed she was in her curtained litter and led the animal away by the halter. Returning, Aisha saw that she was left behind.
However, a handsome young Muslim named Safwan saw her and accompanied her back to Medina, though both the Muslims and Muhammad’s opposition wagged their tongues at seeing the two youngsters entering the city together. Eventually, revelation came that Aisha was not guilty of any immorality.
Sura 24 thus establishes some ground rules against adultery, of which flogging one hundred times is one of the rules. Amazingly, 24:2 exhorts the accusers and judges not to let compassion keep them from carrying out God’s law.
Moreover, early and reliable traditions depict Muhammad and his Muslims stoning adulterers and adulteresses, as recorded by the two most reliable collectors and editors of the hadith, Bukhari (AD 810-870) and Muslim (c. AD 817-875):
Umar said: God sent Muhammad with the truth and sent down the Book [Quran] to him, and the verse of stoning was included in what God most high sent down. God’s messenger [Muhammad] had people stoned to death, and we have done it also since his death. Stoning is a duty laid down in God’s Book for married men and women who commit fornication when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy, or a confession. (Muslim no. 4194)
Umar was Muhammad’s right-hand lieutenant (along with Abu Bakr), and even shortly after Muhammad’s death he tried very hard to get a verse allowing stoning into the Quran, but he did not succeed (Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans. Guillaume, p. 684). Be that as it may, this and the next hadith are sufficient for many Muslims today to endorse stoning, as seen here: , , , .
Perhaps the most gruesome hadith is the following. A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification (by being punished for her sin). He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted that she was pregnant as a result of fornication. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community and ordered the woman’s death by stoning.
And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her ... (Muslim, no. 4206)
It is true that Muhammad told Khalid to be gentler, but how gentle does one have to be when one throws a rock at a woman buried up to her breasts? Is the rock required to go only 30 miles per hour or 40? Perhaps Muhammad was ordering Khalid not to curse her. In any case, the prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? They should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.
Even if some Muslim apologists today do not accept these hadiths, then they still have to answer why the true God would send down the harsh punishment of lashing in the Quran (Sura 24:2), when the New Testament says nothing about this. Christians should therefore rightly reject this verse, for Christ forgave the woman caught in adultery and told her to go and sin no more (John 8:1-11). He showed us the better way and taught the will of the true God.
For more information on this early punishment and how it is applied today, refer to this article, which also answers Muslim apologists and explains John 8:1-11 more thoroughly.
Thus, cruel violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
8. Muhammad in his Quran permits husbands to beat their wives.
4:34 Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in the husbands’ absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Haleem)
Written in the historical context of the Battle of Uhud (March 625), in which Islam lost 70 holy warriors, this verse belongs to a larger collection of verses that outlines laws for the family, such as how to divide the inheritance and to how to oversee the assets of orphans (vv. 1-35).
Plainly said, Sura 4:34 specifies that husbands may beat their unruly wives if the husbands "fear" highhandedness, quite apart from whether the wives are actually being highhanded. This puts the interpretation of the wives’ behavior squarely in the husbands’ judgment, and this swings the door to abuse wide open. This verse embodies a gigantic cultural and social step backwards and should be rejected by all fair-minded and reasonable people.
The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:
Bukhari reports this incident about the wives in the early Muslim community in the context of marital confusion and an odd remarriage law:
Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" (Bukhari, emphasis added)
This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl-bride, Aisha (see rule no. 1, below), daughter of Abu Bakr, his right-hand Companion:
"He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain." (Muslim no. 2127)
For a more thorough analysis of this hurtful practice, refer to this article, which has many links to modern discussions of this policy (scroll down to the end).
This article, though long, offers a clear analysis of wife-beating, examining the hadith and other early source documents, as well as refuting modern Muslim polemics. This mid-length article answers a Muslim defense. This article is a superb analysis of the subject, giving various translations of 4:34. It cites the hadith and classical commentaries and refutes modern defenses. Finally, this article written by an Arab Christian is thorough in examining the Quran and hadith and Muslim polemics, offering many translations of 4:34.
Thus, domestic violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in the life of Muhammad and his Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
7. Muhammad in his Quran commands that the hands of male or female thieves should be cut off.
5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
Three passages in the hadith interpret Muhammad’s policy and provide its context. This is a quick compilation taken from Bukhari and Muslim:
Aisha [favorite wife of Muhammad] reported the Prophet saying, "A thief’s hand should be cut off for only a quarter of a dinar and upwards." (Bukhari and note two other hadith below this one).
A dinar, a word taken from the Roman denarius, was not a small sum, but not exorbitant either, yet one-fourth of a dinar merits the loss of a hand in Muhammad’s view.
Ibn Umar said the Prophet had a thief’s hand cut off for a shield worth three dirhams. (Bukhari and note the three hadith below this one)
The shield was fairly expensive. The poor in Muhammad’s armies could not afford one. But is a shield equal to a hand?
Abu Huraira reported the Prophet as saying, "God curse a thief who steals an egg and has his hand cut off, and steals a rope and has his hand cut off!" (Bukhari, see this parallel hadith here)
Some commentators are quick to say that an "egg" is really a helmet, and the rope is a ship’s rope, which is sizable and costly. However, the translation above is usually accepted, and this means that the penalty could be imposed for trivial thefts. But even if the more expensive items are in view here, they still do not measure up to a hand.
For more information on this gruesome practice and its historical context, consult this article, which answers Muslim apologists who seek to defend this practice and which also contrasts Christ with Muhammad. Suffice it to say here, Christ never endorsed this. And Paul the Apostle says that thieves should work with their hands in order to share with those in need, not get their hand cut off (Ephesians 4:28). So Paul excels Muhammad.
Thus, harsh and excessive punitive violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
6. Muhammad assassinates poets and poetesses.
These two poets represent others in early Islam.
March 624: Uqba bin Abu Muayt
Uqba mocked Muhammad in Mecca and wrote derogatory verses about him. He was captured during the Battle of Badr, and Muhammad ordered him to be executed. "But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?" Uqba cried with anguish. "Hell," retorted the prophet coldly. Then the sword of one of his followers cut through Uqba’s neck.
March 624: Asma bint Marwan
Asma was a poetess who belonged to a tribe of Medinan pagans, and whose husband was named Yazid b. Zayd. She composed a poem blaming the Medinan pagans for obeying a stranger (Muhammad) and for not taking the initiative to attack him by surprise. When the prophet heard what she had said, he asked, "Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?" A member of her husband’s tribe volunteered and crept into her house that night. She had five children, and the youngest was sleeping at her breast. The assassin gently removed the child, drew his sword, and plunged it into her, killing her in her sleep.
The following morning, the assassin defied anyone to take revenge. No one took him up on his challenge, not even her husband. In fact, Islam became powerful among his tribe. Previously, some members who had kept their conversion secret now became Muslims openly, "because they saw the power of Islam," so conjectures an early Muslim source that reports the assassination.
In addition to the sources that recount these and other assassinations, the Quran also supports harsh punishments for mockers and insulters (Suras 3:186; 33:57; 33:59-61; and 9:61-63).
However, even if Muslims reject the early non-Quranic sources where these assassinations are found, they still must answer these questions: Why would such a tradition grow up around Muhammad in friendly Islamic sources? What was it about Muhammad that produced such reports? Why are these friendly sources eager to present their prophet in a "positive" way?
For an in-depth analysis of Muhammad’s assassinations of poets and how they justify assassinations of artists today, like the one of Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker, refer to this article, which also answers the Muslim apologists who try to justify Muhammad’s deadly policy, and which contrasts early Christianity with early Islam—Jesus assassinated no one, neither did he order this in the Gospels.
Go here, here, here, and here for more information on three of the assassinations of poets, along with other assassinations of non-poets. This page has some links to articles about how Muhammad dealt with his personal enemies.
Thus, bullying and murderous violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
5. Muhammad in his Quran commands death or the cutting off of hands and feet for fighting and corrupting the land.
5:33 Indeed, the punishment of those who fight Allah and His Messenger and who go around corrupting the land is to be killed, crucified, have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, or to be banished from the land. That is a disgrace for them in this life, and in the life to come theirs will be a terrible punishment. 34 Except for those who repent before you overpower them. Know, then, that Allah is All-Forgiving, Merciful. (Majid Fakhry, An Interpretation of the Quran, New York: NYUP, 2000, 2004)
According to the hadith, the historical context of these verses runs as follows and clarifies "fighting" and "corrupting" the land.
Some Arab tribesmen visited the prophet, but fell sick in the uncongenial climate of Medina, so he recommended an old folk belief: drinking the milk and urine of a camel. Subsequently, they are reported to have felt better. However, for some reason, after departing from Medina, they killed some of Muhammad’s shepherds, turned apostate, and drove off the prophet’s camels.
This news reached him, and he ordered them to be hunted down and brought before him. He decreed that their hands and feet should be cut off, their eyes gouged out, and their bodies thrown upon stony ground until they died.
For more information on this policy that punishes people today based on Sura 5:33, even on ambiguous charges like colonialism, racism, and the disintegration of family relationships see here, and for a reply to Muslim apologists, refer to this article, which also contrasts Christ with Muhammad. This shorter article explains the background of these verses and this gruesome law. Muhammad tortured people.
Thus, gruesome violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
4. Muhammad aggressively attacks Meccan caravans.
A year or so after Muhammad’s Hijrah from Mecca to Medina in 622, he attacks Meccan caravans six times, and sent out a punitive expedition three-days away against an Arab tribe that stole some Medinan grazing camels (or cattle), totaling seven raids.
W. Montgomery Watt, a highly reputable Western Islamologist who writes in favor of Muhammad and whose two-volume history of early Islam (Muhammad at Mecca (1953) and Muhammad at Medina (1956)) has won wide acceptance, tells us why geography matters:
The chief point to notice is that the Muslims took the offensive. With one exception the seven expeditions were directed against Meccan caravans. The geographical situation lent itself to this. Caravans from Mecca to Syria had to pass between Medina and the coast. Even if they kept as close to the Red Sea as possible, they had to pass within about eighty miles of Medina, and, while at this distance from the enemy base, would be twice as far from their own base. (Muhammad at Medina, emphasis added, p. 2)
It must be emphatically stated that the Meccans never sent a force up to the doorstep of Medina at this time—they did later on when they were fed up with Muhammad’s aggressions. It is true that the Meccans gathered forces to protect their caravans, but when Muhammad confronted them, they were many days’ journeys away from Medina, often more than eighty miles. (Medina and Mecca are around 200-250 miles from each other, taking seven to eleven days of travel by foot, horse, or camel.)
Hence, two Muslim scholar-apologists are misleading when they assert that the caravans "passed through" Medina, adding that the Muslims haphazardly sought for whatever spoils they could get, whereas the Meccans mobilized for war (Isma’il R. al-Faruqi and Lois Lamya’al Faruqi, The Cultural Atlas of Islam, New York: Macmillan, 1986, 134). Rather, it is more accurate to say that the Muslims were aggressively harassing the Meccans.
To complete the picture of expeditions, raids and wars in Muhammad’s life from 622 to 632, Watt totals up the number that Muhammad either sent out or went out on: seventy-four (Muhammad at Medina, pp. 2; 339-43). They range from negotiations (only a few compared to the violent expeditions), to small assassination hit squads, to the conquest of Mecca with 10,000 jihadists, and to the confrontation of Byzantine Christians (who never showed up), with 30,000 holy warriors to Tabuk (see below).
For a fuller account of these six early aggressive attacks against Meccan caravans, go to this article, which explains more thoroughly why these attacks are not defensive.
Thus, aggressive military violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
3. Muhammad in his Quran promises sensuous Gardens for martyrs dying in a military holy war.
Throughout the Quran, Muhammad promises the men in his fledgling Muslim community that if they die fighting for Allah and for him, Allah will reward them with a "virgin-rich" Garden (Suras 44:51-56; 52:17-29; 55:46-78).
In the following Quranic passage, representing others (Suras 4:74, 9:111; 3:140-143), the Arabic word "jihad" (root is j-h-d) is the means or currency to trade in this life for the life to come in an economic bargain.
61:10 You who believe, shall I show you a bargain that will save you from painful punishment? 11 Have faith in God and His Messenger and struggle [j-h-d] for His cause with your possessions and your persons—that is better for you, if only you knew—12 and He will forgive your sins, admit you into Gardens graced with flowing streams, into pleasant dwellings in the Gardens of Eternity. That is the supreme triumph. (Haleem)
These verses are found in the historical context of the Battle of Uhud (625), in which Muhammad lost 70 of his fighters. Thus, he must make the loss of life appear worth the sacrifice, so he frames their deaths in an economic bargain (note the word in bold print). If his jihadists trade in or sell their lives down here, they will be granted Islamic heaven—it is a done deal.
For an in-depth analysis of Islamic martyrdom and how Biblical martyrdom opposes it, consult this article. Christ’s "Martyrdom" on the cross opens the way to heaven so that Christians do not have to die in a holy war to reach heaven.
Thus, deadly, ‘heavenly violence’ sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
2. Muhammad unjustly executes around 600 male Jews and enslaves the women and children.
After the Battle of the Trench in March 627 (named after a trench that the Muslims dug around parts of Medina) against a large coalition of Meccans and their allies, Muhammad imposed the ultimate penalty on the men in the Jewish clan, Qurayzah, his third and final Jewish rivals (he banished the Qaynuqa tribe in April 624 and the Nadir tribe in August 625). The Qurayzah tribe was supposed to remain neutral in the Battle, but they seem to have intrigued with the Meccans and to have been on the verge of attacking Muhammad from the rear. They were judged guilty by one of their Medinan Muslim allies, though Muhammad could have shown mercy, exiled them (as indeed they requested), or executed only a few.
The sentence: Death by decapitation for around 600 men (some Islamic sources say 900), and enslavement for the women and children (he took a beautiful Jewess as his own prize). Muhammad was wise enough to have six clans execute two Jews each in order to stop any blood-feuds. The rest of the executions were probably carried out by his fellow Emigrants from Mecca and lasted the whole night.
The prophet says the following in Sura 33:25-26 about the Battle of the Trench and his treatment of Qurayzah:
33:25 God sent back the disbelievers along with their rage—they gained no benefit—and spared the believers from fighting. He is strong and mighty. 26 He brought those People of the Book [Qurayza] who supported them down from their strongholds and put terror into their hearts. Some of them you [believers] killed and some you took captive. 27 He passed on to you their land, their homes, their possessions, and a land where you had not set foot. God has power over everything. (Haleem)
Now this atrocity has been enshrined in the eternal word of Allah—and the Quran seems to celebrate it. But these questions must be answered: Is intriguing with the enemy equal to slaughtering 600 men and enslaving the women and children? Who decides? The Arab tribal chief with the most powerful army? Muhammad said around the time of his Hijrah in 622 the following:
16:126 If you [people] have to respond to an attack, make your response proportionate, but it is better to be steadfast. (Haleem)
Any reasonable and fair-minded person would judge that Muhammad was not making his response (execution) proportionate to the breach of the agreement. The Qurayzah tribe never attacked the Muslims, and even if a few were to have done so, the punishment does not fit the crime. Therefore, Muhammad was being excessive and disproportionate because he used an irreversible penalty to express his human wrath.
For a fuller account of this atrocity, refer to this article. This one explores Muhammad’s relations with the Jews, answering the standard replies by Muslims for their prophet’s indefensible atrocity (scroll down to "Politics, Warfare, and Conquests," no. 5). See this series of articles for more information about Muhammad's atrocity against the Banu Qurayza. This online index provides other links.
Thus, anti-Semitic violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.
1. Muhammad launches his own Crusades.
In the following verse, Muhammad uses the Arabic word qital (root is q-t-l), which means warring, fighting, or killing:
9:29 Fight [q-t-l] those among the people of the Book [Christians] who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden and do not profess the true religion, till they pay the poll-tax out of hand and submissively. (Fakhry)
The two most interesting clauses in this violent verse are (1) People of the Book (Christians in this verse late in Muhammad’s life) are to be attacked if they do not profess the true religion: Islam. This leaves the door wide open for terrorists today to attack and fight Christians because they do not adhere to Islam; (2) Christians must pay a tax for the "privilege" of living under the "protection" of Islam—submissively or in humiliation.
The historical context of Sura 9:29 finds Muhammad preparing for a military expedition against the Byzantine Empire in 630, two years before his ordinary death of a fever in 632. Indeed, some scholars regard Sura 9 as the last sura to be revealed from on high. Therefore, it sets many policies for Muslims today, and is often interpreted as abrogating or canceling previous verses, even peaceful ones.
Muhammad heard a rumor that the Byzantines amassed an army some 700 miles to the north in Tabuk (northern Arabia today) in order to attack Islam, so he led an army of 30,000 holy warriors to counter-strike preemptively. However, the Byzantines failed to materialize, so Muhammad’s belief in the false rumor was misguided and his expedition was fruitless, except he managed to extract (extort) agreements from northern Christian Arab tribes that they would not attack him and his community. An army of 30,000 soldiers from the south must have deeply impressed the northern tribes, so they posed no real threat to Islam. They are the ones who paid the "protection" tax mentioned in Sura 9:29 (and so do tribes and cities after Muhammad’s death). Therefore, Muhammad’s forced tax was aggressive and hence unjust, not defensive and hence just.
Muhammad’s military expedition qualifies as an Islamic Crusade long before the European ones. After all, in 638, only six years after Muhammad’s death, Muslim armies conquer Jerusalem. Today, Muslims should never again complain about European Crusades, unless they first come to grips with their own.
For more information on the Muslim Crusades after Muhammad’s death and their atrocities and motives, refer to these articles (one, two).
Thus, crusading violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran—and beyond, even reaching to today’s western world. Islam is therefore not the religion peace.
What the ten reasons mean for us today
These ten aspects of violence that have burrowed into the hemorrhaging heart of early Islam have eight implications for us today. The first three are theological; the rest are practical.
The theological implications are as follows:
First, as each reason in this article has hinted at and the links explain more thoroughly, Christ never, ever engaged in such violence. For example, he never assassinated opponents, whipped adulterers, cut off the hands of thieves, or launched his own Crusades (what the Medieval Europeans did is not foundational to Christianity). Christ expresses the love of God. Therefore, Christians and all fair-minded persons have the right to question whether the true God would reveal the Quran when it contains such violent verses that conveniently support Muhammad’s violence, whereas the New Testament does not have such violence.
Second, Muslims believe that the New Testament is corrupted, whereas the Quran is inerrant. Even if we assume only for the sake of argument that these claims are true (but they actually are not), then why would reasonable seekers of the truth prefer the "pure" but violence-filled Quran over the "corrupted" but peaceful New Testament?
Before Muhammad is allowed to throw around unsubstantiated charges about alleged New Testament corruption, he and his Quran must pass a down-to-earth test regarding his dubious, violent practices. But he and it fail the test badly, as this article demonstrates, whereas Christ and the New Testament pass with a perfect score. Therefore, if Muhammad is so wrong about down-to-earth matters like whipping adulterers and cutting off the hands of thieves and beating wives, then he is likely wrong about unresearched accusations of New Testament corruption—and factually he is wrong.
Please refer to the articles listed on these pages for more information: , .
Third, since Muhammad who claims divine guidance is so wrong about practical matters, why should we believe him about theoretical matters like the deity of Christ and the Trinity, both of which he denies? Clearly, he was not divinely guided in practical matters because the true God would not degrade religion by endorsing such gruesome violence six hundred years after Christ came—the historical span is critical. Christ and the New Testament do not have even one example of such violence. Again, if Muhammad first fails the down-to-earth test, then he likely fails the theological or theoretical test—we have no reason to believe him in such high doctrines, especially since he was no theologian and his revelations are now empirically suspect.
The practical implications of the top ten reasons are as follows:
Fourth, nominal Christians who no longer take their faith seriously, but who are tempted to convert to Islam, must stop to think a second time. Christ the Son of God demonstrates the love of God (Matt. 3:16-17), not the wrath of an ordinary, self-described human messenger (Sura 3:144). Why would they trade in the religion of God’s peace and love for Allah’s human religion of violence?
Fifth, fanatical Muslims today are simply carrying on their prophet’s mission. Why should we be surprised if they want to conquer the West, in order to impose Allah’s will on non-Islamic societies? They are still working out Muhammad’s Crusades and trying to put a halt to the reality embodied in this simple logic:
(1) If A, then B. If Allah endorses Islam, then it should expand endlessly.
(2) Not-B. But it is not expanding endlessly (see this analysis).
(3) Therefore, not-A. Therefore, Allah does not endorse Islam.
This logic eats away at the heart of fanatics, especially premise two, even if they are not conscious of it in this logical form. What is stopping the endless expansion of Islam, according to the fanatics? Their answer: the US and even the very existence of the Jewish State of Israel in the heart of the Middle East. The fanatics have yet to uproot the Jews, despite three wars, which the Arabs lost. This tiny non-Islamic, Jewish State in their neighborhood slaps them in the face every day. How could Allah let this happen? Hence, premise two is the deepest reason that they have been launching attacks on the US and the West and Israel for the last two decades and why Osama bin Laden ignited 9/11. For more information on three Quranic verses that predict the worldwide dominance of Islam and that provide the motives for fanatics, refer to this article. And for more information on bin Laden’s motives specifically, go here.
Sixth, as noted in the introduction to this article, Muslim apologists who have access to the national media and who constantly assert that Islam is the religion of peace must stop misleading unsuspecting Westerners. Factually, Islam is not the religion of peace. True, it had peaceful moments, but not for very long. Muhammad sent out or went out on seventy-four expeditions, raids, and wars in only ten years (622-632), most of which were violent.
Seventh, western civilization must never accept the lie that Muhammad’s life, the Quran, and sharia (the law derived from the hadith and the Quran) are benefits to society. Rather, Islam represents many gigantic steps backwards, culturally and socially. One of the most tragic events in the western world in recent years—and one of the most underreported—is the existence of an Islamic court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce court in Australia, as well. The Canadian government should promptly shut it down, and Australia should never allow one. And such a court must never be allowed to exist here in the US or elsewhere in the West. Sharia does not benefit society, bluntly stated.
Eighth and finally, Islam should never be taught in our public schools, K through 11. Perhaps grade 12 is acceptable, but only on one condition. If school administrators insist on teaching it, Islamic violence must be included in the lesson plans because it is part and parcel of early Islam and Muhammad’s life.
Of course, Muslim apologists assert that Christianity is filled with violence, citing the Roman Emperor Constantine and the Medieval Crusaders. However, to repeat, they are not foundational for Christianity—only Christ and the New Testament are. And he and the New Testament authors never practiced or endorsed such violence.
On the other hand, Muhammad and his Quran are foundational for Islam, and violence fills his life and its pages.
Therefore, for ten clear and verifiable reasons, Islam is not the religion of peace.
Outside your house stand up and say i want to leave Islam. Very next moment you will realize how peaceful Islam is. A fatwa against you to be killed will be raised and you will have to run and hide in some non Muslim country like many former Muslims. Because according to the Quran apostasy is a crime and its punishment is death(more likely by stoning). It encourages the general public to participate in violence.
Without violence, Islam wouldn't have even been invented, and it has used nothing but violence and intimidation to spread across the world since its maniac founder went hysterical. To anyone that reads the Qur'an, it is obvious that Muhammad's teachings lead to violence. It is a book largely based on how to deal harshly with unbelievers, which also includes commands to behead the unbelievers in battle.
Muslims and their apologists like pointing out that the violent passages only apply during times of war, but the Qur'an explicitly sanctions violent warfare with any society that is not governed by a strict Islamic theocracy. Under Islamic law, peace can only be possible once all non-believers have either been converted, or subjugated to a degrading status where they will pay the Islamic tax with willing submission, and when all non-believers have been slaughtered for resisting the first two options.
This is what Muhammad did, and sadly all Muslim have a religious duty to follow his dreadful example. To say that Islam is a religion of peace is embarrassingly ignorant and anyone who makes such an outlandish claim is not supported by scripture, nor the reality on the ground. Islamic terrorists operate from broad Islamic traditions, and the Qur'an explicitly justifies their actions.
Islam is a violent religion because the Q'uran and the Hadiths advocate violence, Muhammed himself performed disgusting acts of violence, Islamic terrorism derives inspiration from Islam, and 'peaceful' Muslims give their tacit approval to violence by the support of Sharia law, an intrinsically barbaric and primitive form of eye for an eye 'justice'. Any truly peaceful person would reject Islam out of hand; it is not the word of God, but the depraved writings of a very sick individual.
Islam isn't a religion of peace, just to those who follow its laws. The penalty for leaving the religion is death; a moderate Muslim may say otherwise, but they would just be cherry picking around their religion. The "real" Muslims, are the ones who follow their religions teachings literally, this is what leads to honor killings etc.
Quran tells people to kill other people. I don't care what context it is used is, killing is wrong no matter what. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Quran was written in 7th century or so, and the barbaric rules at the time is very visible throughout. Anyone who refuse this simple fact, is either scared to speak up, or just don't know how to read, or maybe even hasn't read the quran.
And most of muslims know this. The Quran basically promote violence against the other religions and this is very visible in many verses in Quran. The best examples would be the follow
2:19: ‘Kill them wherever you encounter them.‘
4:95: ‘Allah has granted a grade higher to those who tight with their possessions and bodies compared to those who sit at home.‘
5:33: ... Punished by death, crucifixion or the amputation of an alternate hand and toot‘
8:12; Strike terror into the hearts of the disbelievers. Cut off their heads and
cut off all their fingers.'
9:29: ‘Fight Christians and Jews who do not believe in Allah until they submit..'
9:123: ‘Fight the disbelievers near you and let them find hardness in you.’
9:5; '...Then kill them wherever you find them. And take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait
to them in every ambush‘
41:35: ‘So do not lose heart and cry out for peace.'
47:4; 'When you meet the disbelievers. Strike them in the neck
48:29: ‘Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. Those who follow him are harsh towards the disbelievers and compassionate towards each other’
Although Islam can be considered a religion of peace. Obviously, not everyone who practices Islam is a terrorist, but since a good amount of Islam is radicalized, the whole religion is unsafe. A war zone isn't safe even if only a small portion of people end up dying in the end.
As a parent I cannot think of anything more sickening than killing my own child to appease the will of another. If my tormentor, at the last moment, withdrew the command I would not consider him to be merciful or beautiful. I would see him for what he is: controlling; psychotic; manipulative; and violent.
Subjects or apologists may point the finger at the Old Testament. My view is that Christians submitting to this narrative are equally weak minded.
The prominence still given to this story by muslims is evidence not of love but of domination through fear of violence.
The hold of this ideology should be challenged, not celebrated. It is not noble, it is cult like. It is not peaceful, it is evil.
Not enough people have the free will to call it as it is.
Muslims try to destroy us every day and they need to be stopped. We need to just say to them - STOP - and tell them we do not want them in our country. That will stop all problems and make sure we stop letting them in. WE WILL THEN SAFE FROM THEIR TERROR.
I can't comprehend why people would even think that Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) preached violence. It makes me very irritated to see people write false infomation about our beautiful prophet. He was a magnificent example of a true and proper muslim who detested violence. He was the one, along with many other muslim companions, who was severly tortured and teased just for believing in the One and Only God. The reason why many people would believe that Islam is a violent religion is because of all the muslim extremists they are exposed to on tv. Let me just clarify something. Extremism is a SIN in Islam! Those muslim extremists give the good muslims a bad name. Please do not be ignorant and read the Qur'an and you will truly see what a beautiful religion Islam really is. If people are still afraid of Muslim brotherhood and sisterhood, they have not been educated on what Islam really is.
Islam means peace in Arabic. In Islam peace is promoted, and in the Quran it refers to Christians and Jews as people of the book. There are many verses which state, "...respect the people of the book and treat them well..." Violence is unacceptable in Islam and is not tolerated in any way, but unfortunately many people commit acts of violence using the excuse of religion. This gives an incorrect example of Islam to others.
One cannot point directly at a religion and declare it violent. At its roots, Islam is not a violent religion. Just like other religions as well as other factors that join people together, there are oftentimes explicit minorities that may or may not be violent. Just because a few people who are violent practice Islam does not mean the religion itself is violent. That is like saying Christianity or any other religion is violent due to what some of its followers have done. In conclusion, Islam is not violent. Some of its followers may be, but that does not make the religion itself violent.
I don't believe that Islam is a violent religion for the same reason that I do not believe Christianity is a violent religion although millions of people have died in their names.
The behavior of specific individuals who practice a certain religion should not be used to judge the religion and it doctrines themselves. It's similar to the saying "Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people". There are violent and non-violent people who practice the Islamic faith.
It's not fair to base your views of a religion on a hand full of people. Many of my friends are atheist, and frankly are some of the most generous, incredible people I've ever known, but I can't possible say that all atheists are like this. I'll admit that the Quran may not say much against fighting or war (to my knowledge but it is not just to say that people who follow Islam are, as a general rule violent. Religion doesn't preach violence, it preaches peace, whether or not its followers agree with this is entirely up to them.
Islam, per se, is not an inherently violent religion. The reason this misconception has arisen is due to the excessive attention given to Islamic radicals by the media. Ever since the 9/11 incident, America has developed unnecessary prejudices against the Muslim faith. Of the countless Muslims there are, only a few of them are actually terrorists. Man creates religion not to justify violence but to seek peace and comfort in beliefs in the supernatural.
Religion, specifically Islam, is not violent. They just protect their beliefs and they just don't want to be insulted. Religion, in general, is not for war. "Religious wars" are sometimes not even really for religion. They just carry the name of their religion for their main motives. One example is Spain: Brought Catholicism for the sake of conquering Philippines.
The word Islam means "peace" in Arabic. Islam in essence is about peace. It's as peaceful of a religion as the other traditional western religions i.e. Christianity and Judaism. However, unfortunately Islam is misinterpreted by those who have access to power and privilege for political gain. According to the teachings of Islam, those who commit violent actions will be punished. Causing harm is going against Islam. Those who commit violent actions are NOT Muslims. Christianity, Judaism and Islam have stemmed from the same base. They preach the same fundamental message but in different versions. So if Islam were violent, then Christianity and Judaism are no exceptions.
I've realized that most people who claim that Islam is a violent religion are self-absorbed, arrogant and snobby white people who think that they're always right. Anybody who looks deeply into the study of religion, also known as theology, will come to see that Christianity is the crown of violent religions ever since the dawn of human existence. Christianity has been responsible for the Crusades, Inquisition, witch-hunts, slavery, excommunication of uncountable scientists, philosophers, thinkers, skeptics among other intellectuals and yet all of a sudden Islam is to blame. Christianity wins the contest of violent religions in the past, present and future too. Islam has only become violent with the onset of the 1990's to the present day. Islam is only responsible for terrorist attacks such as suicide bombings, hostage-taking and aircraft hijackings. In the middle ages Islam was more advanced in science, law, education, government and health than any European civilization was. They were more developed than medieval Europe was at the time. Baghdad in Iraq was a cradle of learning in sciences such as physics, astronomy, chemistry and biology. Among other fields of study in Baghdad were medicine, law, politics, economics, art, architecture, philosophy, mathematics and technology. Timbuktu, Mali was another Islamic center of knowledge and is considered one of the oldest libraries in the world. The oldest university in the world is in Fez, Morocco and is called the University of Al Quaraouiyine, established in 859 AD. It contains the world's oldest library to this date. Not to mention this university was founded by an Arab Muslim women. The oldest city in the world is Damascus, Syria which is believed to be over 30,000 years old and is inhabited to this very day.
Islam is a peaceful religion but certain violent people have hijacked the religion for their own purposes. Islam is the religion of Abraham and Moses and the Quran is very clear about how to treat non-Muslims. Unfortunately some people take certain verses out of context because they either haven't read the context themselves or have bad intentions.