To Scholar

Submitted by Lisa (Canada), Nov 12, 2005 at 22:00

Jesus denounced violence to accomplish the will of God.

Linking Christ with violence has no basis. Jesus never preached violence and never practiced violence. In the Gospel of Matthew's account of the events in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus rebuked Peter, after Peter struck the ear off the servant of the high priest:
26:52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" (NIV)

I am not sure if you accept this verse as a proof since Muhammad convinced Muslims that the bible is corrupted.

The verse you have quoted has one meaning that one member of a family when believes in Jesus may not be accepted by the rest of his family, as an example if a son believed in Jesus and the father didn't, then there is a possibility that they will separate. Didn't this happen when early Muslims went to Madina and left their immediate families back in Mecca?

I can't understand that people still say peace can be accomplished by violence. History proofed and the present proofed that there are no winners in wars.

Violence creates violence, there is no peace comes from violence, even if peace was established it will only be temporary. Everlasting peace can only be established by respecting human rights, human entities, human differences even if they don't believe in what we believe as long as they have respect to the freedom of others.

Muhammad's life and Quran always indicate that even GOD belongs to believers only. Love and peace in Quran is linked to Muslims only.

You also indicated that Hamzah was killed by Quriash.
Why don't you say the whole story?
Hind Bin Utbah who Hamzah killed her father, her brother and her uncle raged a war against Muhammad and his followers as a revenge for her family, she won the war, and out of revenge she opened his body and ate part of his liver. Muhammad when he felt that he has enough power with a big army invaded Mecca and won the war against Quriash. He then started to send letters to the kings of the countries around Mecca. He and his followers intimidated what they have called "unbelievers" including Christians and Jews and lead them to wars. Yes I agree that Muhhamad instructed his followers not to kill Women, Children and not to cut a tree in wars, but is this a message of real peace? Why would be wars at the first place? Muhammad according to historians may have been one of the best Militant commanders but he is in no way a messenger from GOD.

When you said that Jews were in peace in Spain under the rule of Islam, what about the 200 Jews that Muhammad ordered to kill? Wasn't this a massacre? I am sure at then the Jews portrayed Muhammad, but is this enough reason for what you call "a messenger of peace" will use to kill 200 un-armed men and take their wives as captives?

To be frank with you, I see little difference in what Quriash (Hind Bin Utbah) did and what Muhammad and his followers did before and after his victory in Mecca.

Jews as you know portrayed Jesus, his response to them was "forgive them father for they don't know what they are doing"

I agree with you that there has been violence in Christian history, the difference is that neither the bibles nor Jesus' lifes called or justified violence.

BTW, one on the Muslims said that Women had freedom after Islam he quote that Aysheh lead a war after Muhammad's death as a proof that Islam gave freedom to women, Knowing that she lost the war against Ali Bin Abi Talib, and knowing that Hind Bin Utbah, who wasn't a Muslim but won the war against Muslims, isn't this a proof that Women in Quriash were smarter and had more freedom before Islam?

May GOD grant you peace and show you the truth

Lisa

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".