Site Meter

Contact Us

For enquiries, questions, or anything else, please contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Newsletter Subscription

Jesus (pbuh) didn't lift the sword, does that make him superior to Muhammad (pbuh)?

Share

 

There are many Christian apologists that often like to say that Jesus, unlike Muhammad (peace be upon them both) never raised the sword, that Jesus unlike Muhammad (pbub) never went into battle, and never participated in wars. And without really elaborating more, they conclude that due to this, this makes Jesus more superior than Muhammad (pbub) and somehow more truthful and worthy of being followed.

Now as mentioned, they don’t really give a coherent reason for coming to such a conclusion, after all, there is no set criteria, that states that if someone is a pacifist and hasn’t taken part in war, is more superior-truthful than someone who has. In fact no set criteria even exists according to the Bible, so Christian apologists have merely invented this themselves, and this alone is enough to ignore their argument.

If we were to follow the set criteria, then their own God Yahweh, and major biblical figures and prophets, such as Moses, David, and so on all stand condemned. Moses and David, under the orders of their God Yahweh (the God these same Christian apologists believe in) went into several battles and wars. In fact their battles and wars were far more extreme and brutal than anything the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his Muslim community took part in. In the biblical wars, entire towns and cities are slaughtered by the sword, with the women, children, and the elderly all being shown no mercy. So if we are to use the standard of these Christian apologists, then their own book stands condemned, and is therefore less true, and less superior to pacifist figures.

Now back to the main point at hand, is someone superior than somebody else because the former hasn’t lifted a sword or taken part in wars and battles? Off course not, again, there is no such set criteria that exists anywhere, Christian apologists have merely invented such a criteria. In the case of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and the early Muslim community, they were fully justified and well within their rights to raise the sword, and to take part in war.

For 13 years, the Muslims and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not lift a sword, they took their oppression with patience, this oppression included having Muslims killed, tortured, abused (physically-verbally), and forced to emigrate because of the oppression against them at the hands of the pagans. Eventually, after 13 years of enduring this oppression, on account of their faith, the Muslims were finally given the right to fight back. How is this wrong? The Muslim community were defending themselves, against their oppressors, who had oppressed the Muslims on account of their faith.

Nobody looks at the oppressed, and then says ‘oh how evil they are for fighting their oppressors’, so this doesn’t in anyway make the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) lesser or less truthful, or less worthy of being followed than Jesus (pbuh).

Now as we had mentioned, when the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did go to war, his methods were nowhere near as brutal or extreme as what we find in the Bible, so how can Christian apologists condemned the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) for his wars, and yet stand and praise/believe in their God who ordered Moses and others to annihilate entire towns and cities, putting everybody (including women and children) to the sword?

To the rational mind, this makes no sense whatsoever, and simply exposes the intellectual bankruptcy of such Christian apologists. They won’t even flinch at the verses in the Bible that talk about putting everybody to the sword, but when the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) finally decides to fight back after 13 years of oppression, and fights in a way that doesn’t even come close to what we find in the Bible, they suddenly lose their minds and act like the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) has committed the most heinous act you can think of.

On to the point of Jesus and violence, while Jesus didn’t lift a sword during his ministry, which only lasted 3 years after it was ended by force, which makes it quite a stretch to try and argue he was a complete pacifist, he was never in a position to raise the sword. But nonetheless, while Jesus didn’t raise the sword during his lifetime, it certainly isn’t going to be that way when he returns, something all Christian apologists believe in, known as Jesus’ second coming. When Jesus does return, coming in the clouds, he will certainly not be a pacifist, and will come with a sword, bringing destruction and death upon those who opposed (i.e. those who aren’t his followers) him.

So Christian apologists are being very deceptive and sly when they only talk about the pacifist Jesus who was preaching for 3 years (and didn’t have the opportunity to raise the sword and fight). That’s not the complete picture or story, it continues with his return, and when he returns, one can say it’s no more Mr. nice guy. So by their own invented standards and criteria, Jesus isn’t worthy of being followed, because he’s going to use acts of violence when he returns, but as we mentioned, these Christian apologists are intellectually bankrupt, so expect to hear them come up with every excuse in the book to try and justify Jesus’ violence during his second coming.

 

Who's Online

We have 78 guests and no members online

Visitors Counter

4674102
Today
Yesterday
All days
3305
2838
4674102

Server Time: 2017-11-18 19:15:26