Hatun and Jay move on to the problem of violence and peace between Muhammad and Jesus.
They began by noting that while Jesus forgave the adulteress (John 8:7), Muhammad had adulteresses whipped and stoned (see Surah 24:2, the verse on Rajam, which demanded stoning at the time of Muhammad, but has subsequently been changed to 100 lashes, due to its overt violence).
Jay asked if Jesus ever killed anyone, and Abdul from the crowd said that in the Old Testament Jesus killed many and was very violent.
Jay responded that Jesus referred to this in Matthew chapter 5, where in verse 17 he said that he did not come to abrogate the Old Testament law, but he had come to fulfill it, and then went on to give 6 applications of what he meant.
Amongst those 6 he referred to the Old Testament injunction of taking “an eye for an eye” (vs 38), but now Christians were to “turn the other cheek”.
In verse 43 Jesus noted that in the Old law a Jew could love his neighbor, but hate his enemy, whereas Jesus now says (vs 44) that we were to LOVE OUR ENEMIES!
So much so that we weren’t even permitted to defend our Lord using violence. Jay pointed to Matthew 26:52 where Jesus scolded his disciple Peter who had cut off an ear of a servant trying to arrest him, telling him to “put away his sword, for he who lives by the sword will die by the sword”.
Yet, Abdul asked, what about the passage where Jesus said that he had not come to bring peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34)?
Jay responded by asking him to look at the very next verse (vs.35), where it clearly says that Jesus would set sons against their fathers and daughters against their mothers, so that the sword would be used against the disciples themselves, and often by their very own families.
To understand the context of this injunction, Jay suggested that we look at the whole of Matthew chapter 10, which concerned the commissioning of the 12 disciples, whom Jesus was sending out as “lamb before wolves” (vs 16).
Jesus said that his disciples would be hated (vs.22), persecuted (vs.23), jailed (vs.19), flogged (vs.17), and even killed (vs.21) for his name’s sake.
What’s more, if any of his disciples was not willing to take up his cross for Jesus, than they were not worthy to be called his disciples (vs.38).
So, the sword and the violence Jesus was referring to was the sword and violence which will come against us, because we go in His name.
Hatun then went to Muhammad to see how he compared to Jesus, and reminded the crowd of what he did in Medina, where he had come as a guest. Yet, within 2 years he had taken it over and stipulated that he was now the arbiter between Man and God for all of those living in Medina.
The Jews refused to accept his title, so Muhammad first had them expelled from Medina (the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir familes), and then had all 800 men of the Banu Quraiza family beheaded in one afternoon, and took their women as concubines for his men, and the children as their slaves.
Jay applied these actions by Muhammad in a modern setting of London, and asked if we were to refuse to support a Muslim mayor as an arbiter between man and god, would we be likewise beheaded today as Muhammad did in 627 AD, since he is the model for all Muslims everywhere and for all time?
With these kinds of examples it is easy to see that when we do a comparison between Muhammad and Jesus, it is Jesus who turns out to be the man of peace, while Muhammad is certainly the man of violence.
What’s more, because of his violence, he is simply not relevant for today, or any day, and not for me, or you, or anyone, not here, or anywhere.
© Pfander Centre for Apologetics – US, 2022
(67,210) Music: “Inspiring Teaser” by Rafael-Krux, from filmmusic-io