No God but One: Allah or Jesus?: A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam and Christianity

by Nabeel Qureshi

  When launching the Crusades, Christians relied on the arguments of Augustine and other similar perspectives to vindicate their defense of the Byzantines, and they initially did treat their wars as a necessary evil to combat a greater evil. It was during the Crusades, though, that holy war started to be seen positively, itself a means of gaining forgiveness. In this, they were going far further than Augustine.

  This idea gained popularity, as a contemporary historian wrote, “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.”9 So it was not until the Crusades, over a thousand years after Jesus, that Christians saw holy war as a positive endeavor that, instead of being a sin requiring penance, would actually forgive crusaders of their sins.

  COMPARING MUHAMMAD AND JESUS ON VIOLENCE

  By contrast, it was Muhammad himself who taught that fighting in jihad was holy and good. According to hadith, Muhammad taught Muslims that invading the Christian city of Constantinople would purge mujahideen of their sins: “The first army amongst my followers who will invade Caesar’s city will be forgiven their sins.”10 Fighting in jihad was so good in Muhammad’s eyes that there is nothing equal to it in this world.11 When a man asked him if there was any deed in this world equal to jihad, Muhammad responded, “I know of no such deed.”12

  Recapping the chronology: Jesus’ clear words against violence led to over three hundred years of nonresistance among Christians, and then Augustine’s arguments led to six hundred years of war as a justifiable evil. It was not until Christians were a thousand years removed from Jesus that they believed holy war could purge sin, whereas Muhammad himself taught Muslims that fighting in jihad can forgive sin, and indeed is the best thing in the world.

  There is much more to be said about jihad and the Crusades,13 but one matter is beyond dispute: The historical Jesus never sanctioned violence and endorsed absolutely nothing like the Crusades, whereas the historical Muhammad engaged in jihad as the greatest deed a Muslim can perform. Violent jihad is a result of strict adherence to the life and teachings of the historical Muhammad, whereas strict adherence to the life and teachings of the historical Jesus results in pacifism and sacrificial love for one’s enemies.

  CHAPTER 19

  QUESTIONING CHRISTIAN PEACEFULNESS

  A week after David Wood and I went to ISNA’s 2009 national convention, we traveled to London to engage Muslims in public dialogue and debate. Of the twenty or so public debates in which I have participated, my favorite was the one that David and I did together, dialoguing with two former Christians who had converted to Islam. The topic was “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?” and in addition to the interesting subject matter, the two-on-two nature of the debate kept the interaction fast-paced and gripping. An audience member after the debate commented that it was “more exciting than football,” and I would agree, because I assume he meant soccer.

  During the course of the debate, it became clear that the two Muslim debaters were in part arguing that Islam was peaceful when juxtaposed with a certain view of Christian teachings. Focusing on words of Jesus such as, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34 NIV), they argued that Christianity allowed for violence in certain instances, and so does Islam. If Christianity is peaceful though violence is allowed, Islam can be peaceful as well.

  To be fair, Augustine and Christians after him provided justification for war in part by asking questions about passages like these. But my response to Augustine would be the same as our response was to the Muslim debaters: “What is Jesus actually saying in this verse? We should read the context.” In context, it is incontrovertibly clear that Jesus is talking not about war but about division among families: “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 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’ ” (vv. 34–36 NIV). There is nothing here about war.

  This is a common misunderstanding I have encountered among the Muslims I converse with: They challenge the peaceful teachings of Jesus by taking his words out of context. As we saw in part 4, this makes sense given Quranic exegesis and its relative lack of emphasis on context. But in biblical exegesis, the context of a passage is an essential element in determining its meaning. When Jesus says he has come to bring a sword, he tells us exactly what he means by that statement: His advent will divide families.

  An even closer study of Jesus’ words reveals that the “sword” to which Jesus refers is not a rhomphaia, the kind of sword used only for war.1 The sword that Jesus brings is a machaira. Like a machete, a machaira is a long knife or a short sword designed as a multipurpose tool, such as cutting meat or cleaning fish. Also like a machete, a machaira can be used for fighting, but it is not its only or primary purpose. Its primary purpose is to divide, and here Jesus says his coming is as a machaira to divide families.

  This clarification helps us understand another commonly misunderstood passage. In Luke 22:35–38, Jesus tells his disciples to take swords, machaira, with them on their journey.2 Ancient Christians in favor of Just War asked the same question many modern Muslims ask today: “Why would Jesus have told his disciples to bring a sword if not to fight, or at least defend?” Now that we know what a machaira is, the answer is simple: He was telling them to be prepared for a long journey and to take along the appropriate tools. Context is helpful again: Jesus gives them a list of traveling accessories to take with them (money belt, bag, and sandals), and the sword appears in that list. As if to clarify this, Jesus told his disciples that two swords would be enough. If he envisioned a battle, two swords would never have been enough among that many; but they are plenty if envisioned as traveling tools.

  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” (NIV). Reading the whole passage makes the statement clear. Jesus is telling a parable, sharing a teaching about a hypothetical king. He is not actually 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 Jesus himself 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.

  One last matter to consider regarding these verses is a basic axiom of hermeneutics: Always interpret unclear verses in light of clear ones. Jesus’ clear words and teachings remain “love your enemies” and “put away your sword.” Never in the Gospels do we find Jesus carrying a sword, and the only physical altercation in the Gospels results in Jesus castigating his disciple for fighting.3 This, in addition to the context of the verses in question, helps the reader see the consistency of Jesus’ peaceful teachings.

  VIOLENCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

  Another common objection from the Islamic perspective, one which the two debaters raised during the very first minute of our public dialogue in England, pertains to violence in the Old Testament. Although there are many ways to formulate the objection, its primary thrust is that God commands violence in the Bible, therefore Christianity is not peaceful. As we saw in part 4, this objection fails because Christians are under a new covenant, not the covenant made with Moses and the Hebrews. The commands that God gave the Jews are not the commands given to C
hristians.

  Yet there are related, more nuanced objections that deserve attention. God does command violence in the Old Testament. For this reason, as a Christian I do believe God can command violence. As a corollary, I cannot object to Islam simply based on its use of violence.

  All the same, the nature of the violence is significantly different in the Old Testament versus in Islam. What we see in the Old Testament is judgment commissioned by God in a very specific time and place, a judgment deferred for four hundred years. In Genesis 15:13–21, God promises Abraham that his descendants will inherit the land of Canaan. Abraham himself, though, will not receive this land because “the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure” (Gen. 15:16 NIV). God foretells the violent battles of the Hebrews against the Canaanites, but the Canaanites would be given four hundred years to repent. This is the violence we see in the Old Testament: judgment directed toward specific peoples on account of specific sins, and deferred for as long as possible.

  The violence taught by Muhammad, on the other hand, extends to all non-Muslims in Islamic lands unless they fulfill certain conditions. According to the Quran, polytheists are given three options: convert to Islam, depart from the land, or be killed (e.g., Quran 9.3–11). These options are not limited to place or person but apply to all who do not believe in Islam in lands claimed by Muslims. Looking again at the text, 9.5 says, “Kill the polytheists wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them, and wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and establish salaat and give zakaat, then leave their way.” In other words, the Quran commands Muslims to kill people for being polytheists, but if they become Muslim, then leave them be. The next verse offers an additional option of exile.

  Jews and Christians are allowed a further option in the Quran: pay a ransom tax in submission (e.g., Quran 9.29). In this case, it is even more clear that the violence is based on their beliefs. The Quran literally says, “Fight those who do not believe in Allah . . . nor acknowledge the true religion, from those who were given the scripture [i.e., Jews and Christians].” In other words, fight Jews and Christians who do not acknowledge Islam or believe in Allah. The next verse makes the reasoning clear: “The Jews said Ezra is the Son of God and the Christians said the Messiah is the Son of God . . . May Allah destroy them.” Their doom is merited on account of their beliefs. This was the verse that justified an offensive attack against the Romans in the ill-fated Battle of Tabuk, even though the Romans had never attacked Muslims.4

  Given these teachings, it should be no surprise that the records of Muhammad’s life in Sahih Muslim show him saying, “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.”5 The violence he espouses in the hadith and sirah do not appear to be limited to specific people or a specific time.

  Before moving on from this point, it is worth mentioning chronology. These verses promoting violence against Jews, Christians, and polytheists are all found in chapter 9 of the Quran, and according to the Islamic records, this was the last major chapter of the Quran revealed to Muhammad.6 The Quran’s last words and marching orders, as it were, are the most violent teachings found in its pages. This is especially important given the traditional Islamic notion of abrogation, which teaches that earlier verses can be cancelled by later ones.

  The violence in the Old Testament, on the other hand, was part of God’s campaign of making his sovereignty known early in Jewish history; it is nowhere near the last word of the Bible. For Christians in particular, the final marching orders are the Great Commission: to spread the good news of God’s love and mercy throughout the world by multiplying disciples of Jesus.

  Whereas the culmination of Quranic teaching is the most violent chapter of the Quran, the culmination of biblical teaching is grace, love, mercy, and self-sacrifice. When we approach the violence of the Old Testament carefully, we see it has very little bearing on Christian praxis.

  This conclusion reinforces our basic assertion: One must divert attention from Jesus to justify violence in Christianity. A strict adherence to Jesus’ teachings simply allows no basis for violence. By contrast, one must divert attention from Muhammad to argue that Islam is a religion of peace, since he says that a Muslim who does not fight in jihad or at least express a desire to fight is a hypocrite.7

  CHAPTER 20

  JESUS VERSUS JIHAD

  Before leaving London in July 2009, David and I made a stop at Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park. For a few hours every Sunday, Britons gather for a rousing display of free speech in the park, taking to ladders to proclaim their messages amid throngs of listeners. From politics to protests to proselytization, orators are never short of subjects or passion at Speakers Corner, and hundreds gather to hear. Although many are present simply to heckle the speakers or otherwise observe such spectacles, some in the audience are truly interested in dialogue.

  David and I, each being over six feet tall, forsook ladders and proclaimed the gospel where we stood. We were almost immediately surrounded by Muslims who loudly challenged our views in return. Responding to them over the din of the crowd was more difficult than I had anticipated, and after about thirty minutes of dialogue and repartee, my voice grew too hoarse to continue. I abandoned my efforts and joined the various discussions that had sprung up around us.

  I spotted two impassioned interlocutors and decided to join their conversation. A young Mennonite woman was dialoguing with a Muslim man on the issue of women’s rights. When the young woman referred to 4.34 of the Quran, which allows men to hit their disobedient wives, he responded that 1 Corinthians 14:34 goes further in denying women their rights. Up until this point, the dialogue was productive and I had simply observed the discussion, but what happened next has been etched in my mind for years.

  The young woman opened a Bible she had in her hand, intending to clarify the context of 1 Corinthians 14. While she was turning the pages, the man forcefully pushed her hand down, saying, “I don’t trust your Bible. Don’t bother!”

  Without thinking, I grabbed him by his lapel and shoved him back, saying, “Don’t you dare touch her!”

  He was stunned, a genuine look of shock across his face. “Nabeel,” he said, “you’re a Christian! I thought Christians were pacifists!”

  Still a little hot under the collar, I retorted, “I’m no pacifist, and if you touch her again you’ll really find out!” Perhaps he realized his mistake, or perhaps he wanted to avoid finding out how not-pacifist I was, but he apologized to the young woman and they continued their dialogue.

  Years later, I cannot help but recall his stunned expression. He was utterly convinced that Christians must be pacifist, and as I consider Jesus’ words more carefully, I have to wonder whether he was right. My actions in Hyde Park that day illustrate, in a very microcosmic sense, that defending victims with violence is a natural reflex. But throughout the Gospels, Jesus teaches us to forsake our natural inclinations for his otherworldly teachings.

  Could it be that, even when it comes to defending victims, Jesus does not want Christians to fight? Honestly, I am not sure. I find such a teaching hard to believe, but if I were pressed on the matter, I think I might have to default to Jesus’ words in Scripture and forsake violence altogether, even defensive violence.

  Although this is a dilemma for me as a Christian, being caught between pacifism and defending the oppressed, I think it is an excellent place to be theologically. It means that Christians who want to engage in defensive violence must do so while reckoning it as a moral abomination. No adherent of Jesus’ teachings can entertain the notion of violence as inherently good, even defensive violence. This would have been very different if Jesus had sanctioned some sort of violence. Such an allowance would invariably have opened the door for those predisposed to shedding blood.

  This is what we see occurring throughout Islamic history—with ISIS today and with other inevitable Islamists in the future. Even Muslims who believe that Islam is a religion of peace gener
ally concede that Muhammad allowed fighting under some circumstances, and it is the life of Muhammad to which Islamists appeal in order to justify their terrorism.

  If Muhammad, after gaining an army, commissioned or participated in eighty-six battles over the course of nine years, one would consider such activity among his followers to be inevitable. By contrast, it is beautiful that Jesus Christ, the exemplar for Christians, is never once reported to have even carried a sword. That leaves his followers somewhere between an otherworldly reliance upon God in pacifism and a reluctant use of violence for the defense of the oppressed. There is absolutely no room for exulting in violence for the follower of Jesus.

  QUESTION 2

  CAN WE KNOW WHETHER ISLAM OR CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE?

  A decade of experiences as a Christian contrasted with my first twenty-two years of life as a Muslim leaves me no alternative conclusion: Christianity is very different from Islam. The message it preaches is pure grace, the God that it proclaims is objective love, its founder on earth was none other than the incarnate God, its scriptures are communal and diverse, and it leaves no room for exulting in violence. Islam, as traditionally understood, differs significantly at every turn.

  Virtually no one with a conservative, devout upbringing in Islam would be under the illusion that Christianity is the same as Islam, especially not someone with as much to lose as Fatima. After growing up Muslim and passionately defending her faith, she became disillusioned with Islam and left her religion. It was in full awareness of Islam’s teachings that she found Jesus’ message compelling. So not only did Fatima realize that the two are different, but the fact that she was willing to accept Christianity after leaving Islam testifies that the differences make a difference, and it was worth whatever risk.