Violence has a very different place in Islam and Christianity’s theological frameworks. The final marching order of Islam is jihad. The final marching orders of Christians are grace and love. I will turn to those orders now.
Question 16
Question 16, What Does Jesus Teach About Violence?
ISLAM APPEARS TO ENVISION MOSES as a prefiguring of Muhammad, and there are parallels between the two men. Both proclaimed monotheism in polytheistic contexts, both led their people out of physical oppression, both guided their people in times of battle, and both brought intricate laws to their followers.
Yet Jesus did none of these things. In the four accounts of Jesus’ life that we have in the Gospels, Jesus never led an army, never struck a man, and never even wielded a sword. In fact, his teaching on violence was clearly the opposite. The only place in the Gospels where we might expect Jesus to fight, during his arrest in the garden of Gethsemane when his disciples were willing to fight for him, Jesus gave them this command: “Put your sword back in its place … for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).
If Islam’s final and most succinct commands on peace and violence can be found in surah 9 of the Quran, Jesus’ final and most succinct commands on peace and violence can be found in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7). This sermon encapsulates Jesus’ teachings and forms a basis for Christian ethics. Nowhere in the Sermon on the Mount do we find an allowance for Christian violence, even for self-defense: “I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles” (Matthew 5:39–41).
This teaching works in tandem with Jesus’ command to love one’s enemies. Christians are not supposed to fight their enemies, because they are supposed to love them.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:43–48)
In the Christian worldview, the exemplar for followers of God is no mere man but God himself. Since God cares for those who are his enemies, even blessing them with rain, Christians ought to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them, so that they can follow God’s example.
This contrasts with the teaching of the Quran, where Allah tells Muslims, “O you who believe! Do not take my enemies or your enemies as allies, offering them your friendship when they do not believe” (60:1). Of course, that is not to condemn the Quran, as it is counterintuitive to love one’s enemy. The Christian command may make little earthly sense, but it is the explicit teaching of Jesus.
There are no teachings in the Gospels that contradict this categorical command, none that abrogate the mandate for peace and replace it with violence or hate. Jesus’ command is for grace and love, unconditional and unadulterated.
Jesus the Zealot?
In his 2013 book Zealot, author Reza Aslan argued that Jesus actually did have violent aspirations. Aslan, a professor of creative writing at the University of California, Riverside, seemed to borrow heavily in his book from the 1967 arguments of S. G. F. Brandon that Jesus was a revolutionary figure seeking political upheaval and not opposed to violence. Arguments such as these, heavily criticized by the scholarly communities of both the 1960s and the 2010s, generally refer to a few verses to make their points.
One of the verses is Matthew 10:34, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Those who quote this verse to demonstrate that Jesus was violent are either deceiving or deceived, as it is taken suspiciously out of context. The very next verse clarifies that Jesus is not talking about physical violence: “For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’”
Jesus is talking about division within families, not actual warfare. No honest and careful study could conclude that Matthew 10:34 promotes violence.
Another verse that can cause confusion if context is ignored is Luke 19:27, in which Jesus says, “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.” Yet reading the whole passage makes the statement clear. Jesus is telling a parable, sharing a teaching about a king. He is not demanding that his enemies be brought before him and killed. Throughout the gospel of Luke, Jesus tells many parables, including ones about an evil judge who ignores a woman (Luke 18), a farmer who sows seeds (Luke 8), a vineyard owner who orders a tree to be cut down (Luke 13), and a woman who searches for a lost coin (Luke 15). These parables are not meant to imply that he is an evil judge who ignores women, that he is a farmer who sows seeds, that he is a vineyard owner who orders trees to be cut down, or that he is a woman looking for a coin. Similarly, his parable in Luke 19:27 is not meant to imply that he is a king who wishes to kill people. Rather, Jesus uses stories to provide memorable illustrations, and his parable in Luke 19:27 prefigures the outcome of those who have rejected God on the final day of judgment.
Perhaps more understandably, people sometimes turn to Luke 22:36 to suggest that Jesus considers violence acceptable. In this verse, Jesus says, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” It is sometimes assumed, since Jesus told his companions to purchase a sword, that he wanted them to fight.
Context is again critical, and a closer look reveals the problem with this understanding. Jesus in this verse is telling his disciples to prepare for a journey, and he suggests they purchase a sword among the list of items they will need for their journey.
The English word sword is also misleading here, as English speakers are prone to imagine a weapon used primarily for battle. The Greek word for sword that evokes such imagery is rhomphaia, but it is not the word for sword that Jesus used. Instead, he used the word machaira. Like a machete, a machaira was a long knife designed as a multi-purpose tool, useful for cutting meat or cleaning fish. Like a machete, a machaira could be used for fighting, but that was not its only or primary purpose. It would certainly have been useful as a traveling tool.
There appears to be confirmation of this interpretation within the text. As if to ensure that his disciples would not use the machaira for fighting, he tells them two are enough (Luke 22:38). Two swords could not be sufficient among twelve disciples for fighting, but they could be sufficient as traveling tools. Either way, the verse says nothing about actually committing violence.
The only remaining account in the Gospels that might suggest Jesus’ approval of violence is his cleansing of the temple. Of all four accounts in the Gospels, the most apparently violent is the account in the gospel of John, which says,
When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” (John 2:13–17)
This passage describes Jesus at his most zealous. He sees cattle and sheep sellers, dove sellers, and money changers, and he makes a whip for driving them all out of the temple. Some who read this passage might
picture Jesus violently attacking people, but a careful reading shows that Jesus expelled all three of the groups differently, and none with violence toward people. First, the Greek syntax shows that he struck only sheep and oxen: “[He] drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle.” The sheep and cattle having been driven out, their sellers followed. Jesus then turned over the tables of the money changers, causing them to leave. Finally, Jesus did not release the doves as that would amount to stealing them, but he ordered their sellers to depart. So Jesus purged the temple of all three groups of people, yet struck no person.
Conclusion
For anyone who wishes to strictly follow the teachings of Jesus, there is no room for violence. Not only does Jesus never allow offensive violence, he explicitly teaches against self-defensive violence, living out this difficult teaching in the garden of Gethsemane.
This is a difficult teaching for Christians to grapple with, as it would otherwise seem self-evident that violence is permissible for just causes, such as self-defense or protecting the oppressed. I’m personally unsure where I stand in terms of pacifism versus justified fighting, but if hard-pressed, I would say that Jesus did not give us any exceptions. His commands were categorically peaceful.
Jesus’ radical stance against violence coheres with the life he lived and the message he preached. The very crux of Christian theology is that Jesus, the example for all mankind, was willing to die for others, including his enemies. He came to serve those who killed him, even to die on their behalf. His commands to his followers are consistent with his example. He tells them to love their enemies, to pray for them, and to self-sacrificially serve them, and in this way to be like God. Reading Jesus’ words carefully leaves no doubt: Jesus commanded total love and grace.
This degree of peace was so radical that Christians struggled even with the notion of self-defense, and for 300 years after Jesus Christians never fought a single battle.
Question 17
Question 11, How Does Jihad Compare With the Crusades?
I WOKE UP RECENTLY to a tweet in which a disgruntled individual accused me of criticizing Islam inconsistently. If Christians fought in the Crusades, does that not show that Christianity is violent? If it doesn’t, then how can I accuse Islam of being violent?
Of course, this individual did not have the advantage of reading the previous 16 chapters in this book before asking his question. By now it should be clear there is a great difference between jihad and the Crusades. Jihad was commanded by Muhammad and the Quran, both in principle and in reality, whereas Jesus commanded no such thing as the Crusades, neither in principle nor in reality. Therefore, jihad reflects the religion of Islam, whereas the Crusades do not reflect the Christian faith. There is a significant difference between the two.
Holy War
As I mentioned at the end of the last chapter, Jesus’ teachings on peace and violence were so clear that no Christian force entered into battle until after Christianity was assimilated into the Roman Empire in the fourth century. At that time, much that was culturally Roman coalesced with the Christian faith, and warfare began to gradually enter the Christian perspective.
By the turn of the fifth century, the question had become a serious one: Were Christians prohibited from all warfare, or might they engage in battle under certain circumstances? It was at this time that the Christian theologian Augustine began formulating a framework that would allow Christians to fight a just war. Providing stringent conditions, Augustine argued that fighting could fall within the will of God, but only as a necessary evil, an act that required penance. Many Christians adopted Augustine’s view, and for the next few centuries some fought under the banner of their faith with the understanding that they would have to repent as a result.
So it was approximately four centuries after Jesus that Christians formulated a theology of acceptable warfare, but it took another seven centuries before Christians developed a concept of holy war. Just after the First Crusade was launched, the contemporary historian Guibert of Nogent remarked in his work, On the First Crusade, “God has instituted in our time holy wars, so that the order of knights and the crowd running in their wake … might find a new way of gaining salvation.” No longer did warriors see themselves as committing sin when they fought; instead they saw their actions as meritorious, even salvific.
By contrast, Muhammad himself taught his warriors that fighting was salvific. According to Sahih al-Bukhari, “the first army amongst my followers who will invade Caesar’s city will be forgiven their sins” (Sahih al-Bukhari 4.56.2924). As I demonstrated in the answer to Question 4, Allah essentially made a bargain with Muslims. Death in battle would secure a mujahid’s station in heaven (9:111).
So it was not until Christians were a thousand years removed from Jesus that they developed a theology of holy war, whereas Muhammad and the Quran themselves taught Muslims that fighting could be salvific. Holy war is in the very foundations of the Islamic faith.
The Nature of the Crusades
Some records of the Crusades depict Christians committing abominable acts. An example is Count Emicho’s slaughter of Jews in the Rhineland. A rogue Christian leader, Count Emicho systematically slaughtered and plundered innocent Jews against the behest of multiple Christian bishops. He asserted that his zeal was on account of the Jews’ mistreatment of Jesus, ignoring the fact that Jesus himself was a Jew.
Also jarring is the description of what crusaders did to Muslims after scaling the outer fortifications of Jerusalem, as recounted here in a translation of the Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hiero-solimitanoruin collected in R. G. D. Laffan’s Select Documents of European History:
Our men followed and pursued them, killing and hacking, as far as the temple of Solomon, and there was such a slaughter that our men were up to their ankles in the enemy’s blood…. Entering the city, our pilgrims pursued and killed the Saracens [Muslims] up to the temple of Solomon. There the Saracens [Muslims] assembled and resisted fiercely all day, so that the whole temple flowed with their blood. At last the pagans were overcome and our men seized many men and women in the temple, killing them or keeping them alive as they saw fit…. Then the crusaders scattered throughout the city, seizing gold and silver, horses and mules, and houses full of all sorts of goods. Afterwards our men went rejoicing and weeping for joy to adore the sepulchre of our Savior Jesus and there discharged their debt to Him.
At the end of the fighting, the archbishop of Pisa and the count of St. Gilles wrote a letter to the Pope, an English translation of which has been produced by the University of Pennsylvania, boastfully describing their victory: “If you desire to know what was done with the enemy who were found there, know that in Solomon’s Porch and in his temple our men rode in the blood of the Saracens [Muslims] up to the knees of their horses.”
Please allow me to be clear: I denounce these atrocities unequivocally. I am utterly against the courses of action that the crusaders took, as they demonstrated a disregard for the value of human life, a demonization of Jews and Muslims, and no grounding whatsoever in the teachings of Jesus.
That said, the descriptions in these accounts are clearly exaggerations, as there were not enough people in the entire world to create a knee-deep lake of blood in Jerusalem. We should not view this florid language as a precise fact.
We should also be careful to be accurate about the historical context of the battle. John Esposito, professor of Islamic studies at Georgetown University, has denounced the First Crusade in his book, Islam: The Straight Path, using these terms: “Five centuries of peaceful coexistence elapsed before political events and an imperial-papal power play led to centuries-long series of so-called holy wars that pitted Christendom against Islam and left an enduring legacy of misunderstanding and distrust.” Professor Esposito’s sentiments may be admirable, but they’re based on fiction, a fiction that has taken hold of the popular understanding of the Crusades.
The reality is that Muhammad proclaimed war against Byzantine Christians, an
d his companions undertook the work of conquering Christian lands. Muslims had been subjugating Christian lands ever since the inception of Islam, just as the Quran commanded them. According to Crusade scholar Thomas Madden, in an article he wrote for the National Review shortly after September 11, 2001, “The crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West’s belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world.”
This may bear repeating: Muslims had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world before the First Crusade. Islamic conquests were also often brutal. I shared one account of Muhammad’s companion ordering his soldiers to slaughter defenseless women and children in my answer to Question 4; here is another example from the Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu as Muslims were conquering the Bishop’s people:
[W]hen with great toil and exertion [the Muslims] had cast down the walls of the city, they forthwith made themselves masters of it, and put to the sword thousands of its inhabitants and soldiers, and they gained an enormous booty, and took the women and children captive and divided them amongst themselves, and they made that city a desolation.
This slaughter of men and enslavement of women and children follows Muhammad’s example in his treatment of the Qurayza Jews. Let us also not forget that Muslims often enlisted the captured boys in their slave armies, starting with the ghilman in the middle of the 800s and later the mamluks. This practice became so deeply rooted in Islamic custom that, according to Daniel Pipes, sixteen of the seventeen preeminent Muslim dynasties in history systematically used slave-warriors.
Answering Jihad Page 11