Jesus and Mohammad-preaching


In the name of Allāh,

the Beneficent, the Merciful.

Peace and Blessings of Allāh on Mohammad.


Allāh–the Glorious and the High,

Lord of the worlds


Mohammad–who brought the world

to our feet and eternity to our arms.




The Christian says that Jesus said to his followers that whoever does not welcome them they must shake the dust off their feet when they leave the home(s) or town(s) of such people–(Matt. 10:14-15, 23), whereas Mohammad ordered Muslims to attack any city that rejected Islam.

It is rather strange that Jesus said this yet he ridiculed the Jews as vipers etc poured all the righteous blood from Abel down to Zachariah (son Barachias) into the hands of the Jews and consigned them to the greater damnation of hell and cursed the people of Chorazin, Capernaum and Bethsaida for not heeding his preaching, rather than just “shake the dust off” his feet and leave them alone. Jesus also ordered that his enemies be slain. (Matt. 23:14, 31-38; 11:20-24. Luke 19:27).

   Mohammad’s duty, as clearly stated in the Qur’an was only to preach the Divine Message of the Qur’an. And which he did. To the point that he was bloodied from stoning at Ta’if. Had the disbelievers not first taken up arms against Mohammad he would not have taken up arms in defense.

   That Mohammad ordered Muslims to attack any city that rejected Islam, no proof of this is given. And none can be given. Because such a charge against Mohammad is baseless. And may even be slander.

   Islam allows fighting only in self-defense–(Qur’an 2:190; 22:39); and on behalf of the oppressed–(Qur’an 4:75). It cannot be shown that the Prophet Mohammad or the first four Caliphs of Islam forced Islam at the point of the sword on anyone.

   While there is no injunction in the Qur’an or in the Tradition of the Prophet to spread religion by force, there are clear teachings to propagate religion by instruction:

“So obey not the disbe-lievers,

and strive against them a mighty striving

with it (the Qur’an)”

(Qur’an 25:52);

“And from among you there should be

a party who invite to good and

enjoin the right and forbid the wrong.

And these are they who are successful”

(Qur’an 3:103);

“thou art not one to compel them.

So remind by means of the Qur’an

him who fears My warning”

(Qur’an 50:45).

   In compliment to the above exhortations to teach with the Qur’an there are clear verses prohibiting the use of force –that the Prophet’s (and Muslims’) duty is only to deliver the Message of Islam, not to enforce it:

“There is no compulsion in religion”

(Qur’an 2:256);

“Thy duty is only to deliver the message”

(Qur’an 3:19);

“And if thy Lord had pleased,

all those who are in the earth would

have believed, all of them.

Wilt thou then force men till

they are believers?”

(Qur’an 10:99);

“And say: Truth is from your Lord;

so let him who please believe,

and let him who please disbelieve”

(Qur’an 18:29).

   And upon his triumph at Makkah, Mohammad forgave his rabid enemies of twenty-three grueling years who persecuted him, besieged him, tried to assassinate him, forced him into exile, pursued him, and warred on him: “It is related that the Prophet took hold of the two sides of the gate of the Ka'ba on the day of the conquest of Makkah and said to the Quraish: How do you think I should treat you? They said: We hope for good, a noble brother and the son of a noble brother. Then he said: I say as my brother Joseph said: “No reproof be against you this day” (Rz).”1

   No inquisition. No incrimination. No confession. No rancor. Only lofty words of benevolence and nobility -"No reproof be against you this day"! Let the world produce proof of another such demonstration of magnificence and magnanimity as that of Mohammad’s. (See Qur’an 12: 92 for this saying of the prophet Joseph).

   Even after the Prophet’s time the charge that Muslims attacked cities that rejected Islam is pure fabrication or ignorance. Lois and Lamya Al-Faruqui notes:

“And yet, if the Muslims were so tolerant, the Christian persistently asks, why did their co-religionists flock to Islam by the millions? Of these co-religionists the Arabs were the smallest minority. The rest were Hellenes, Per-sians, Egyptians, Cyrenaicans, Berbers, Cypriots, and Caucasians.”2

   Muslims are required to fight even on behalf of non-Muslims:“Those who are driven from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And if Allah did not repel some people by others, cloisters and churches, and synagogues and mosques in which Allah's name is much remembered, would have been pulled down. And surely Allah will help him who helps Him. Surely Allah is Strong, Mighty”–(Qur’an 22:40). Muhammad Ali comments on this verse:

“The religious freedom which was established by Islam thirteen hundred years ago has not yet been surpassed by the most civilized and tolerant of nations. It deserves to be noted that the lives of Muslims are to be sacrificed not only to stop their own persecution by their opponents and to save their own mosques, but to save churches, synagogues and cloisters as well–in fact, to establish perfect religious freedom. The mosques, though they are the places where the name of Allah is remembered most of all, come in for their share of protection even after the churches and the synagogues. Early Muslims closely followed these directions, and every commander of an army had express orders to respect all houses of worship, and even the cloisters of monks, along with their inmates.”

Contrast the above teachings of Mohammad/Islam to those of Christ/Christianity that views non-Jews as “dogs” and “swine” and preaches in parables so these “dogs” and “swine” would not understand and gain salvation; and that those who are not with him are against him (and are thus considered as enemies) and are to be slain–(Matt. 7:6; 15:26; Mark 4:9-12; Matt. 12:30; Luke 19:27. That after the make-believe crucifixion and resurrection Jesus said to preach the Gospels in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to the world, these verses of Matthew and Mark have been shown to be “forgeries” in the BIBLE. Jesus was sent by God wholly and solely ONLY FOR JEWS).

   In the case of Christians. Christians suffered and also lived under security and prospered under Muslim rule: “Living under this security of life and property and such toleration of religious thought, the Christian community –especially in the towns– en-joyed a flourishing prosperity in the early days of the Caliph-ate.”3

   Christians held public offices including in the “department of finance;” “the Christians frequently amassed great wealth and were much honoured in the house of the great;” Muslims also “permitted the Copts to erect churches in the new capital of Cai-ro.” The “non-Muslim communities enjoyed an almost complete autonomy;” as Thomas Arnold penned in his The preaching of Islam.

   In fact, Muslims were so tolerant of Christians that Muslims even prevented Christians from persecuting one another:

“In the fifth century, Barsauma, a NESTORIAN BISHOP, had persuaded the Persian king to set on foot a FIERCE PERSECUTION OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH, by representing Nestorius as a friend of the Persians and his doctrines as approximating to their own: as many as 7,800 of the orthodox clergy, with an enormous number of laymen, are said to have been BUTCHERED DURING THIS PERSECUTION. Another PERSECUTION was instituted against the ORTHODOX by Khusrau II, after the invasion of Persia by Heraclius, at the instigation of a JACOBITE, who persuaded the King that the Orthodox would always be favourably inclined towards the Byzantines. But the principle of Muslim toleration forbade such acts of injustice as these: on the contrary, it   seems to have been their endeavour to deal fairly by all their Christian subjects; e.g. after the conquest of Egypt, the JACOBITES TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE EXPULSION OF THE BYZANTINE TO ROB THE ORTHODOX OF THEIR CHURCHES, but later they were RESTORED BY THE MUHAMMADANS TO THEIR RIGHTFUL OWNERS when these had made good their claim to possess them.In view of the toleration thus extended to their subjects in the early period of the Muslim rule, THE COMMON HYPOTHESIS OF THE SWORD AS THE FACTOR OF CONVERSION SEEMS HARDLY SATISFACTORY, and we are compelled to seek for other motives than that of persecution.”4      

   Christian suffering seemed to have been the result of their in-trigue against the State. Decrees to exclude non-Muslims from public offices depended on the prevailing situation. Mr. Arnold notes: “The last of these was prompted by the discovery of an attempt on the part of the CHRISTIANS TO BURN THE CITY OF CAIRO.”5

   Regarding the harsh rule of Harun al-Rashid, as Mr. Arnold points out:

   “these decrees were the outcome, not so much of any purely religious feeling, as of the political circumstances of the time. The Christians under Muhammadan rule have often had to suffer for the BAD FAITH KEPT BY FOREIGN CHRISTIAN POWERS in their relations with Muhammadan princes, and on this occasion it was the TREACHERY OF THE BYZANTINE EMPEROR, NICEPHORUS, that caused the CHRISTIAN NAME TO STINK in the nostrils of Harun. Many of the persecutions of the Christians in Muslim countries can be traced either to DISTRUST OF THEIR LOYALTY, EXCITED BY THE INTRIGUES AND INTERFERENCE OF CHRISTIAN FOREIGNERS AND THE ENEMIES OF ISLAM, OR TO THE BAD FEELING STIRRED UP BY THE TREACHEROUS OR BRUTAL BEHAVIOUR OF THE LATTER TOWARDS THE MUSALMANS(Muslims).”6 (This is perhaps true today also).

   Some persecutions of Christians were due to “the alleged abuse” of their position to “plunder and annoy the faithful, treat-ing them with great harshness and rudeness and despoiling them of their lands and money;” and for “acting as the spies of the Abbasid dynasty and hunting down the adherents of the dis-placed Umayyad family;” and later, “were accused of treason-able correspondence with the Crusaders.”Thus, far from being forced to convert to Islam, Christians “brought on themselves severe restrictive measures which cannot justly be described as religious persecution.”7

(Contrary to NONIE DARWISH’S claim that Copts [as “the Jacobite Christian of Egypt are called”] were forced to convert to Islam. Christians were the ones decimating Christians:

   “The JACOBITES, who formed the majority of the Christian population, had been very roughly handled BY THE ORTHODOX adherents of the court and subjected to indignities that have not been forgotten by their children even to the present day –“Justinian is said to have had 200,000 Copts put to death in the city of Alexandria, and the persecutions of his successors drove many to take refuge in the desert.”Some were tortured and then thrown into the sea; many followed their Patriarch into exile to escape from the hands of their persecutors, while a large number disguised their real opinions under a pretended acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon.To these Copts, as the Jacobite Christians of Egypt are called, the MUHAMMADAN CONQUEST BROUGHT A FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS LIFE SUCH AS THEY HAD NOT ENJOYED FOR A CENTURY…In the early days of the Muhammadan rule then, the condition of the Copts seems to have been fairly tolerable, and there is no evidence of their widespread apostasy to Islam being due to persecution or unjust pressure on the part of their new rulers. Even before the conquest was complete, while the capital, Alexandria, still held out, many of them went over to Islam, and a few years later the example these had set was followed by many others”).8

   Muslims benevolence to Christians is also admitted by the Christian Patriarch, as noted by Thomas Arnold:

“Michael the Elder, Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch, writ-ing in the latter half of the twelfth century…writes: “This is why the God of vengeance…beholding the wickedness of the Romans who, throughout their do-minions, cruelly plundered our churches and our monas-teries and condemned us without pity –brought from the region of the south the sons of Ishmael, to deliver us through them from the hands of the Romans.” (The Preaching of Islam, p. 54).  

   Muslims not only liberated Christians and treated them with justice, Muslims also made donations to Christian places of worship as Muhammad Ali notes:

“Muir, after admiring the leniency of the Arab con-querors towards the conquered and their justice and integrity, quotes a Nestorian Bishop of the time: “These Arabs to whom God has accorded in our days the do-minion are become our masters; but they do not combat the Christian religion; much rather they protect our faith; they respect our priests and our holy men, and make gifts to our churches and our convents” (p. 128 [The Caliphate])””(The Early Caliphate, p. 86).

   There is a common misunderstanding that Muslim soldiers went to battle with the sword in one hand and the Qur’an in the other to spread Islam by the sword. Every Muslim is required to be a preacher of Islam. The Muslim soldier taking the Qur’an on expeditions was not to force religion. The sword was for defense and the Qur’an was for preaching the Divine truth as the opportunity arose. Thomas W. Arnold has stated in his The Preaching of Islam that:

“of any organised attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of any syste-matic persecution intended to stamp out the Christian religion, we hear nothing. Had the caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made Protes-tantism penal in France, or the Jews were kept out of England for 350 years. The Eastern Churches in Asia were entirely cut off from communion with the rest of Christendom, throughout which no one would have been found to lift a finger on their behalf, as heretical com-munions. So that THE VERY SURVIVAL OF THESE CHURCHES TO THE PRESENT DAY IS A STRONG PROOF OF THE GENERALLY TOLERANT ATTITUDE OF THE MUHAM-MADAN GOVERNMENTS TOWARDS THEM.” “Of forced conversion or anything like persecution in the early days of the Arab conquest, we hear NOTHING.”9

And in the words of De Lacy O'Leary

History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.”10 

Even if Jesus was the best preacher and teacher and/or the only teacher and preacher yet this would not make him God or son of God or vicarious atoner or that mankind inherited sin from Adam/Eve. These Cardinal doctrines of Christianity have no Divine foundation, no prophetic foundation, no logical founda-tion, and are repugnant to reason.

   Whereas Jesus was only a messenger of God sent to the Israelites to call them to “repentance” and “forgiveness,” Christians consigned Jesus to the bed of celibacy, crowned him with Divinity and made him scapegoat for non-existent inherited sin.

   (See the various topics on Christianity and on Jesus).



1. Muhammad Ali, Qur’anic comm. 1252 (Qur’an 12:92).

2. Ismail and Lois Lamya Faruqui, The Cultural Atlas Of Islam. pp. 197-198.

3. T.W. Arnold, The Preaching of Islam, p. 63.

4. Ibid. pp. 64-69. Mr. Arnold also notes from other sources. Emphasis added. 

5. Ibid. p. 76. f/n. Emphasis added.

6. Thomas Arnold, The Preaching of Islam, pp. 76-77. Mr. Arnold also notes from Muir. Emphasis added.

7. Ibid. pp. 78, 79. Mr. Arnold also notes from other source(s).

8. Ibid. pp. 103-104. Mr. Arnold also notes from other source(s). Emphasis added.

9. Ibid. pp. 80,136. Emphasis added).

10. De Lacy O'Leary, Islam at the Crossroads, London 1923, p. 8. Quoted in Prof. K.S. Ramakrishna Rao, Muhammed The Prophet of Islam, p. 32.