Rebuttal to James Arlandson's article Top ten reasons why Islam is NOT the religion of peace.

Further Topic Research:
Syntax help

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog


Rebuttal to James Arlandson's article

Top ten reasons why Islam is NOT the religion of peace

Violence in Muhammad's life and the Quran






James Arlandson has been recently writing quite a few articles on the answering-islam website. I have been reading these articles and felt it was time to start refuting them because it seems Arlanderson seems he is making a point, when in fact all he is doing is mis-reprsenting Islam.



He Wrote


Ever since 9/11, Muslim leaders who have access to the national media have told us that Islam is the religion of peace and that violence does not represent the essence of Muhammad’s religion.



Even President Bush and Britain’s Prime Minister Blair have repeated this assertion, saying that Islam has been "hijacked" by a few violent fanatics. Is this true?

Sadly it is not, for empirical, observable facts demonstrate beyond doubt that Islam at its founding is filled with violence—in the life of Muhammad himself and in the Quran itself.

Hence, these Muslim apologists must stop misleading unsuspecting Westerners, and they must be honest about the heart of their religion, for once and for all.


Here are ten clear, verifiable reasons that explain why Islam is not the religion of peace.

Clear? In order to prevent the standard, reflexive "out of context" defense from Muslim apologists, the context of each verse in the Quran is explained either in this article or in the links provided within each of the ten reasons. No verse is taken out of context, and Muslim translations are used.




My Response


To begin with, James assumes 9-11 was carried out by Muslims, I to once assumes this was the case. However I have looked over the incident and the real facts which show that Muslims did not carry out 9-11 and the facts speak for themselves. The fact of the matter is that many Americans are also now realizing that 9-11 was not what it was said to be, it was not carried out by Muslims with an Islamic agenda. I urge people to really go look at the facts, the supposed facts are laughable indeed. For instance did you know the FBI admited that 6 of the hijackers are still alive? Did you also know that there was not one Arab name on any of the passenger list on any of the planes? Did you also know that the world trade center was built to withstand multiple plane impacts? Did you also know that building 7 of the world trade center was pulled, meaning imploded, meaning they took it down. The owner of the buildings admited they pulled building 7 down. Did you know that the owner made at least 3.5 billion dollars worth of insurance as a result of the WTC attacks? Did you also know that firefighters reported bombs inside the building? Did you also know that this is recorded but the FBI has classified this information? Did you also know that there was not one single hole in the pentagon building when the plane supposedly hit it? The supposed hole that is always shown occured as a result of a collapse which did not occur on impact, so if a plane hit the pentagon, then why was the hit section still standing with no holes or any sign of a plane hitting it? You can go look at the pictures yourself, the section that was supposedly hit by the plane was still standing with no holes. Did you also know that buildings have gone on fire for 19 hours and even several days without collapsing? Yet the world trade center collapsed in 56 minutes! There are many many many more facts that prove that 9-11 was not carried out by 19 men from caves, you can go get the information for yourself. So James trying to bring up 9-11 means nuthing to me, because the proof shows that 9-11 was not done by Muslims.


He Wrote


10. Muhammad nicknames his weapons.


Tabari (AD 839-923) is an early Muslim historian who is considered largely reliable by scholars today. In fact, the State University of New York Press selected his history to be translated into 38 volumes. (We use The Last Years of the Prophet, trans. Ismail K. Poonawala, 9:153-55.)


In the context of the list of Muhammad’s assets at the end of his life (horses, camels, milch sheep, and so on), Tabari records the nicknames of Muhammad weapons.

Muhammad nicknames three swords that he took from the Jewish tribe Qaynuqa after he banished them from Medina in April 624: "Pluck Out," "Very Sharp," and "Death." Two other swords from elsewhere are named: "Sharp" and "That is wont to sink" (presumably into human flesh). After his Hijrah or Emigration from Mecca to Medina in 622, he owned two swords called "Sharp" and "Having the vertebrae of the back." This last sword he collected as booty after his victory at the Battle of Badr in March 624.

Next, Muhammad took three bows from the Qaynuqa tribe and named them as follows: "Most conducive to ease, or wide," "white," and "of nab wood" (species of tree from which bows are made).


The name of a coat of mail implies "ampleness" or "redundant portions," probably because Muhammad was portly (cf. Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans. Guillaume, p. 383).

Finally, even Muhammad himself has a nickname. After Tabari lists the positive ones, he matter-of-factly provides one that is not so positive: "The obliterator."


Muslim apologists may object that Tabari is not authoritative (except when he shows Muhammad as heroic or victorious) and that he is not on the same level as the Quran and some hadiths (words and deeds of Muhammad outside of the Quran). This is true. But Muslim apologists still must answer why such a tradition of naming weapons developed about Muhammad. After all, later, unauthoritative traditions about Christ developed, but they do not show him even owning weapons, let alone naming them. The answer to this question about Muhammad is found in the next nine reasons.


Thus, violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in the life of Muhammad. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.


My Response


Now it may just be me, but James did not bring anything in point 10 to show Islam is not peaceful. I would like James to show me from what he said, which shows that Islam is not peaceful. Muhammad's nicknames doesnt prove his point, its laughable at best. So point 10 doesnt prove his case, its just him trying to make an argument out of nuthing.


He Wrote


9. Muhammad commands in his Quran that adulterers and adulteresses should receive a hundred lashes.


24:2 Strike the adulteress and the adulterer one hundred times. Do not let compassion for them keep you from carrying out God’s law—if you believe in God and the Last Day—and ensure that a group of believers witnesses the punishment. (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Quran, New York: Oxford UP, 2004)


The supposed historical context of this sura occurs during a raid of a tribe in December 627 or January 628, on which Muhammad brought his favorite and youngest wife, Aisha, also the daughter of Abu Bakr, his right-hand lieutenant. After the Muslims’ victory, they journeyed back to Medina, one hundred and fifty miles to the north. On their last halt, Aisha answered the call of nature, but lost her necklace in the dark, just as the army was setting out from their encampment early in the morning. She left her litter, returned to look for the necklace, and found it. Meanwhile, the man leading her camel assumed she was in her curtained litter and led the animal away by the halter. Returning, Aisha saw that she was left behind.


However, a handsome young Muslim named Safwan saw her and accompanied her back to Medina, though both the Muslims and Muhammad’s opposition wagged their tongues at seeing the two youngsters entering the city together. Eventually, revelation came that Aisha was not guilty of any immorality.


Sura 24 thus establishes some ground rules against adultery, of which flogging one hundred times is one of the rules. Amazingly, 24:2 exhorts the accusers and judges not to let compassion keep them from carrying out God’s law.


Moreover, early and reliable traditions depict Muhammad and his Muslims stoning adulterers and adulteresses, as recorded by the two most reliable collectors and editors of the hadith, Bukhari (AD 810-870) and Muslim (c. AD 817-875):


Umar said: God sent Muhammad with the truth and sent down the Book [Quran] to him, and the verse of stoning was included in what God most high sent down. God’s messenger [Muhammad] had people stoned to death, and we have done it also since his death. Stoning is a duty laid down in God’s Book for married men and women who commit fornication when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy, or a confession.

Umar was Muhammad’s right-hand lieutenant (along with Abu Bakr), and even shortly after Muhammad’s death he tried very hard to get a verse allowing stoning into the Quran, but he did not succeed (Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, trans. Guillaume, p. 684). Be that as it may, this and the next hadith are sufficient for many Muslims today to endorse stoning, as seen here: [<>], [<>], [<>], [<>].


Perhaps the most gruesome hadith is the following. A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification (by being punished for her sin). He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted that she was pregnant as a result of fornication. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community and ordered the woman’s death by stoning.


And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her ... (Muslim, No. 4206)


It is true that Muhammad told Khalid to be gentler, but how gentle does one have to be when one throws a rock at a woman buried up to her breasts? Is the rock required to go only 30 miles per hour or 40? Perhaps Muhammad was ordering Khalid not to curse her. In any case, the prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? They should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.

Even if some Muslim apologists today do not accept these hadiths, then they still have to answer why the true God would send down the harsh punishment of lashing in the Quran (Sura 24:2), when the New Testament says nothing about this. Christians should therefore rightly reject this verse, for Christ forgave the woman caught in adultery and told her to go and sin no more (John 8:1-11). He showed us the better way and taught the will of the true God.


For more information on this early punishment and how it is applied today, refer to this article <flogging.htm>, which also answers Muslim apologists and explains John 8:1-11 more thoroughly.

Thus, cruel violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.


My Response


To begin with, I would like to thank James for exposing himself and showing how low he has to go to argue against Islam. James says stoning adulerers or punishing them by lashes means Islam is not peaceful, well let me turn the table on him and show him that these same laws are in the OT. Before doing so let me respond to a few arguments James might bring up in me using the OT, James will claim the OT no longer followed or to be used. However so, a simple response to this is that his God allowed at one time, the God of the OT is the same God as the NT, so hence his God still allowed at one time, so the fact he doesnt use the OT anymore doesnt help him out of this. Now since James thinks that punishimg adulterers is wrong, then he must now also admit his God is not peaceful for once allowing these punishments in the OT, if James doesnt admit that, then we are all witnesses to what a hypocrite he is, now to the OT verses:


Lev 20:2  Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever [he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.


Lev 20:27  A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood [shall be] upon them.


Lev 24:14  Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard [him] lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.


Lev 24:16  And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD], shall be put to death.


Lev 24:23  And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.


Num 15:35  And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.


Deu 13:10  And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.


Deu 17:5  Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, [even] that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.


Deu 21:21  And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.


Deu 22:21  Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. (ADULTERY)


Deu 22:24  Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, [being] in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. (ADULTERY)


Exd 21:29  But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. ( THE OX GETS STONED!!!)


Lev 20:16  And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.


And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:17)"


"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. (Leviticus 20:9)"


So as you can see for yourself, the OT has laws of stoning, it also has laws that you should kill your kids if they curse you. So hence using James own argument, the God of the OT is not peaceful, and the God of the OT is the same God of the NT, therefore the God of James is not peaceful! So James has really shot himself in the foot on this one.

However back to the Quran, how is Islam not peaceful for punishing adulterers? How does this make Islam violence? This is a law from God, there is nuthing violent about it, its just a punishment to those who commit adultery. James argument infact shows how merciful the prophet was, take note:


Perhaps the most gruesome hadith is the following. A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification (by being punished for her sin). He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted that she was pregnant as a result of fornication. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community and ordered the woman’s death by stoning.


So notice how Muhammad told her to leave, he ignored her for 4 times! he ignored her for 4 times because he didnt want to have to punish her, which is exactly why he told her to leave, so eventually she didnt leave and Muhammad had no choice but to punish her with the laws of God. So James infact shows how merciful the prophet is because he turned her down 4 times because he did not want to punish her!


He Wrote

8. Muhammad in his Quran permits husbands to beat their wives.


4:34 Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in the husbands’ absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Haleem)


Written in the historical context of the Battle of Uhud (March 625), in which Islam lost 70 holy warriors, this verse belongs to a larger collection of verses that outlines laws for the family, such as how to divide the inheritance and to how to oversee the assets of orphans (vv. 1-35).


Plainly said, Sura 4:34 specifies that husbands may beat their unruly wives if the husbands "fear" highhandedness, quite apart from whether the wives are actually being highhanded.


This puts the interpretation of the wives’ behavior squarely in the husbands’ judgment, and this swings the door to abuse wide open. This verse embodies a gigantic cultural and social step backwards and should be rejected by all fair-minded and reasonable people.

For a more thorough analysis of this hurtful practice, refer to this article <beating.htm>.

Thus, domestic violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in the life of Muhammad and his Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.


My Response

There are several Muslim opinians on this verse, however the main Islamic standpoint on this verse is that you dont hurt your wives, you just tap her lighlty and not to cause bruises or marks, the verse doesnt say to go beat your wives up. So this shows how James just mis-interprets and tries to make something out of nuthing, this is his loving Christian spirit. Now also notice the verse says this as a LAST option, after you have tried everything else. However the fact is this that the Islamic standpoint on this is not that you go beat your wives up, but just a light tap or even lighter, this has already been covered in the rebuttal to Shamoun where he attacks the position of women in Islam, I will quote what he said from Islamic sources:


Muhammad Asad, in his footnote to this passage, #45, wrote:


It is evident from many authentic Traditions that the Prophet himself intensely detested the idea of beating one's wife, and said on more than one occasion, "Could any of you beat his wife as he would beat a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?" (Bukhari and Muslim). According to another Tradition, he forbade the beating of any woman with the words, "Never beat God's handmaidens" (Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Hibban and Hakim, on the authority of Iyas ibn 'Abd Allah; Ibn Hibban, on the authority of 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas; and Bayhaqi, on the authority of Umm Kulthum). When the above Qur'an-verse authorizing the beating of a refractory wife was revealed, the Prophet is reported to have said: "I wanted one thing, but God has willed another thing - and what God has willed must be best" (see Manar V, 74). With all this, he stipulated in his sermon on the occasion of the Farewell Pilgrimage, shortly before his death, that beating should be resorted to only if the wife "has become guilty, in an obvious manner, of immoral conduct", and that it should be done "in such a way as not to cause pain (ghayr mubarrih)"; authentic Traditions to this effect are found in Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Da'ud, Nasa'i and Ibn Majah. On the basis of these Traditions, all the authorities stress that this "beating", if resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic - "with a toothbrush, or some such thing" (Tabari, quoting the views of scholars of the earliest times), or even "with a folded handkerchief" (Razi); and some of the greatest Muslim scholars (e.g., Ash-Shafi'i) are of the opinion that it is just barely permissible, and should preferably be avoided: and they justify this opinion by the Prophet's personal feelings with regard to this problem. (Source <>; bold and underline emphasis ours)


He Wrote

7. Muhammad in his Quran commands that the hands of male or female thieves should be cut off.


5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)


Three passages in the hadith interpret Muhammad’s policy and provide its context. This is a quick compilation taken from Bukhari and Muslim:


Aisha [favorite wife of Muhammad] reported the Prophet saying, "A thief’s hand should be cut off for only a quarter of a dinar and upwards."

A dinar, a word taken from the Roman denarius, was not a small sum, but not exorbitant either, yet one-fourth of a dinar merits the loss of a hand in Muhammad’s view.

Ibn Umar said the Prophet had a thief’s hand cut off for a shield worth three dirhams.

The shield was fairly expensive. The poor in Muhammad’s armies could not afford one. But is a shield equal to a hand?


Abu Huraira reported the Prophet as saying, "God curse a thief who steals an egg and has his hand cut off, and steals a rope and has his hand cut off!"


Some commentators are quick to say that an "egg" is really a helmet, and the rope is a ship’s rope, which is sizable and costly. However, the translation above is usually accepted, and this means that the penalty could be imposed for trivial thefts. But even if the more expensive items are in view here, they still do not measure up to a hand.

For more information on this gruesome practice and its historical context, consult this article <hands_off.htm>, which answers Muslim apologists who seek to defend this practice and which also contrasts Christ with Muhammad. Suffice it to say here, Christ never endorsed this. And Paul the Apostle says that thieves should work with their hands in order to share with those in need, not get their hand cut off (Ephesians 4:28). So Paul excels Muhammad.


Thus, harsh and excessive punitive violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace


My Response


Once again, passages from the OT on punishment show that according to James own criteria, that his God is not peaceful. Secondly there is nuthing violent about cutting a thiefs hand, it is a punishment, it is punishing the criminal. However it seems James prefers that we dont punish the criminals and let them just get away with it, or go to jail and be released in a couple of months and come out and steal again! James is really a joke I must say, such shady scholarship work is un-exsubale to say the least.


He Wrote

These two poets represent others in early Islam.


March 624: Uqba bin Abu Muayt


Uqba mocked Muhammad in Mecca and wrote derogatory verses about him. He was captured during the Battle of Badr, and Muhammad ordered him to be executed. "But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?" Uqba cried with anguish. "Hell," retorted the prophet coldly. Then the sword of one of his followers cut through Uqba’s neck.


March 624: Asma bint Marwan

Asma was a poetess who belonged to a tribe of Medinan pagans, and whose husband was named Yazid b. Zayd. She composed a poem blaming the Medinan pagans for obeying a stranger (Muhammad) and for not taking the initiative to attack him by surprise. When the prophet heard what she had said, he asked, "Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?" A member of her husband’s tribe volunteered and crept into her house that night. She had five children, and the youngest was sleeping at her breast. The assassin gently removed the child, drew his sword, and plunged it into her, killing her in her sleep.


The following morning, the assassin defied anyone to take revenge. No one took him up on his challenge, not even her husband. In fact, Islam became powerful among his tribe. Previously, some members who had kept their conversion secret now became Muslims openly, "because they saw the power of Islam," so conjectures an early Muslim source that reports the assassination.


In addition to the sources that recount these and other assassinations, the Quran also supports harsh punishments for mockers and insulters (Suras 3:186; 33:57; 33:59-61; and 9:61-63).


However, even if Muslims reject the early non-Quranic sources where these assassinations are found, they still must answer these questions: Why would such a tradition grow up around Muhammad in friendly Islamic sources? What was it about Muhammad that produced such reports? Why are these friendly sources eager to present their prophet in a "positive" way?


For an in-depth analysis of Muhammad’s assassinations of poets and how they justify assassinations of artists today, like the one of Theo van Gogh <>, the Dutch filmmaker, refer to this article <dead_poets.htm>, which also answers the Muslim apologists who try to justify Muhammad’s deadly policy, and which contrasts early Christianity with early Islam—Jesus assassinated no one, neither did he order this in the Gospels.

Thus, bullying and murderous violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.


My Response

To begin with, its funny that James quotes events without giving the situation of such events, once again showing his shady scholarship work. As for Asma bint marwan, this has already been adressed here:


As for Uqaba, James post no sources from where he gets this from, are we supposed to take his word and nuthing else? Christian missionaries do tend to mis-abuse situations and make it seem what it isnt as in this case:


So does James expect us Muslims to just take his word and read what he quoted and nuthing else? The fact that James cant show a source, or the entire context of the situation, but a small part of it makes it obvious that he has something to hide. So therefore such shady scholarship is un-acceptable. When James can produce the source, and the ENTIRE context of the situation, then he will be worth a response, therefore his argument is thrown out until he brings more information.


He Wrote


5. Muhammad in his Quran commands death or the cutting off of hands and feet for fighting and corrupting the land.


5:33 Indeed, the punishment of those who fight Allah and His Messenger and who go around corrupting the land is to be killed, crucified, have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, or to be banished from the land. That is a disgrace for them in this life, and in the life to come theirs will be a terrible punishment. 34 Except for those who repent before you overpower them. Know, then, that Allah is All-Forgiving, Merciful. (Majid Fakhry, An Interpretation of the Quran, New York: NYUP, 2000, 2004)


According to the hadith, the historical context of these verses runs as follows and clarifies "fighting" and "corrupting" the land.


Some Arab tribesmen visited the prophet, but fell sick in the uncongenial climate of Medina, so he recommended an old folk belief: drinking the milk and urine of a camel. Subsequently, they are reported to have felt better. However, for some reason, after departing from Medina, they killed some of Muhammad’s shepherds, turned apostate, and drove off the prophet’s camels.


This news reached him, and he ordered them to be hunted down and brought before him. He decreed that their hands and feet should be cut off, their eyes gouged out, and their bodies thrown upon stony ground until they died.

For more information on this policy that punishes people today based on Sura 5:33, even on ambiguous charges like colonialism, racism, and the disintegration of family relationships see here <>, and for a reply to Muslim apologists, refer to this article <>, which also contrasts Christ with Muhammad.


Thus, gruesome violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.


My Response


Once again James exposes himself, note what he himself says:

Some Arab tribesmen visited the prophet, but fell sick in the uncongenial climate of Medina, so he recommended an old folk belief: drinking the milk and urine of a camel. Subsequently, they are reported to have felt better. However, for some reason, after departing from Medina, they killed some of Muhammad’s shepherds, turned apostate, and drove off the prophet’s camels.


So the fact is that those men killed Muhammads sheperds, became apostates and drove of the camels. So hence Muhammad basically punished them, James would have a case if the men didnt do anything wrong, but the fact they did commit something evil throws out his entire argument. The argument can also be turned against him by using the OT.


He Wrote


4. Muhammad aggressively attacks Meccan caravans.

A year or so after Muhammad’s Hijrah from Mecca to Medina in 622, he attacks Meccan caravans six times, and sent out a punitive expedition three-days away against an Arab tribe that stole some Medinan grazing camels (or cattle), totaling seven raids.

W. Montgomery Watt, a highly reputable Western Islamologist who writes in favor of Muhammad and whose two-volume history of early Islam (Muhammad at Mecca (1953) and Muhammad at Medina (1956)) has won wide acceptance, tells us why geography matters:


The chief point to notice is that the Muslims took the offensive. With one exception the seven expeditions were directed against Meccan caravans. The geographical situation lent itself to this. Caravans from Mecca to Syria had to pass between Medina and the coast. Even if they kept as close to the Red Sea as possible, they had to pass within about eighty miles of Medina, and, while at this distance from the enemy base, would be twice as far from their own base. (Muhammad at Medina, emphasis added, p. 2)


It must be emphatically stated that the Meccans never sent a force up to the doorstep of Medina at this time—they did later on when they were fed up with Muhammad’s aggressions. It is true that the Meccans gathered forces to protect their caravans, but when Muhammad confronted them, they were many days’ journeys away from Medina, often more than eighty miles. (Medina and Mecca are around 200-250 miles from each other, taking seven to eleven days of travel by foot, horse, or camel.)


Hence, two Muslim scholar-apologists are misleading when they assert that the caravans "passed through" Medina, adding that the Muslims haphazardly sought for whatever spoils they could get, whereas the Meccans mobilized for war (Isma’il R. al-Faruqi and Lois Lamya’al Faruqi, The Cultural Atlas of Islam, New York: Macmillan, 1986, 134). Rather, it is more accurate to say that the Muslims were aggressively harassing the Meccans.

To complete the picture of expeditions, raids and wars in Muhammad’s life from 622 to 632, Watt totals up the number that Muhammad either sent out or went out on: seventy-four (Muhammad at Medina, pp. 2; 339-43). They range from negotiations (only a few compared to the violent expeditions), to small assassination hit squads, to the conquest of Mecca with 10,000 jihadists, and to the confrontation of Byzantine Christians (who never showed up), with 30,000 holy warriors to Tabuk (see below).


For a fuller account of these six early aggressive attacks against Meccan caravans, go to this article <>, which explains more thoroughly why these attacks are not defensive.

Thus, aggressive military violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.


My Response


James once again lies and exposes himself further, it indeed was the Meccans who were the agressive ones, and infact Muhammad was just responding to them by attacking their caravans. Note what James says that exposes him again:


A year or so after Muhammad’s Hijrah from Mecca to Medina in 622, he attacks Meccan caravans six times, and sent out a punitive expedition three-days away against an Arab tribe that stole some Medinan grazing camels (or cattle), totaling seven raids.


James himself admits the Arab tribe stole from Medinah yet when Muhammad responds, James tries to make Muhammad look bad! James has proven himself to be a man who conducts himself in very very shady-scholarship writings.


So the fact is that Muhammad attacked back against Meccans, and once again James doesnt post the sources, he posts one source which is not even from an Islamic scholar.


He Wrote

3. Muhammad in his Quran promises sensuous Gardens for martyrs dying in a military holy war.


Throughout the Quran, Muhammad promises the men in his fledgling Muslim community that if they die fighting for Allah and for him, Allah will reward them with a "virgin-rich" Garden (Suras 44:51-56; 52:17-29; 55:46-78).


In the following Quranic passage, representing others (Suras 4:74, 9:111; 3:140-143), the Arabic word "jihad" (root is j-h-d) is the means or currency to trade in this life for the life to come in an economic bargain.


61:10 You who believe, shall I show you a bargain that will save you from painful punishment? 11 Have faith in God and His Messenger and struggle [j-h-d] for His cause with your possessions and your persons—that is better for you, if only you knew—12 and He will forgive your sins, admit you into Gardens graced with flowing streams, into pleasant dwellings in the Gardens of Eternity. That is the supreme triumph. (Haleem)

These verses are found in the historical context of the Battle of Uhud (625), in which Muhammad lost 70 of his fighters. Thus, he must make the loss of life appear worth the sacrifice, so he frames their deaths in an economic bargain (note the word in bold print). If his jihadists trade in or sell their lives down here, they will be granted Islamic heaven—it is a done deal.


For an in-depth analysis of Islamic martyrdom and how Biblical martyrdom opposes it, consult this article <death_economy.htm>. Christ’s "Martyrdom" on the cross opens the way to heaven so that Christians do not have to die in a holy war to reach heaven.

Thus, deadly, ‘heavenly violence’ sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in the Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.


My Response


Once again James exposes himself, in what way does this make Islam violent? In what way is it bad when the prophet says you will go to heaven for fighting in Gods cause? I would really like to know. If James can tell me then I will really be grateful. The fact is there is nuthing sisnister in the fact that you will get rewarded for fighting in Gods cause. Now what is fighting in Gods cause? Fighting in Gods cause is when someone attacks you and kills your familly and people because of your religion, and then you fight back to do justice, that is fighting in Gods cause. Fighting in Gods cause is fighting those who fight you because of your religion.


He Wrote


2. Muhammad unjustly executes around 600 male Jews and enslaves the women and children.


After the Battle of the Trench in March 627 (named after a trench that the Muslims dug around parts of Medina) against a large coalition of Meccans and their allies, Muhammad imposed the ultimate penalty on the men in the Jewish clan, Qurayzah, his third and final Jewish rivals (he banished the Qaynuqa tribe in April 624 and the Nadir tribe in August 625). The Qurayzah tribe was supposed to remain neutral in the Battle, but they seem to have intrigued with the Meccans and to have been on the verge of attacking Muhammad from the rear. They were judged guilty by one of their Medinan Muslim allies, though Muhammad could have shown mercy, exiled them (as indeed they requested), or executed only a few.


The sentence: Death by decapitation for around 600 men (some Islamic sources say 900), and enslavement for the women and children (he took a beautiful Jewess as his own prize). Muhammad was wise enough to have six clans execute two Jews each in order to stop any blood-feuds. The rest of the executions were probably carried out by his fellow Emigrants from Mecca and lasted the whole night.


The prophet says the following in Sura 33:25-26 about the Battle of the Trench and his treatment of Qurayzah:


33:25 God sent back the disbelievers along with their rage—they gained no benefit—and spared the believers from fighting. He is strong and mighty. 26 He brought those People of the Book [Qurayza] who supported them down from their strongholds and put terror into their hearts. Some of them you [believers] killed and some you took captive. 27 He passed on to you their land, their homes, their possessions, and a land where you had not set foot. God has power over everything. (Haleem)


Now this atrocity has been enshrined in the eternal word of Allah—and the Quran seems to celebrate it. But these questions must be answered: Is intriguing with the enemy equal to slaughtering 600 men and enslaving the women and children? Who decides? The Arab tribal chief with the most powerful army? Muhammad said around the time of his Hijrah in 622 the following:

16:126 If you [people] have to respond to an attack, make your response proportionate, but it is better to be steadfast. (Haleem)


Any reasonable and fair-minded person would judge that Muhammad was not making his response (execution) proportionate to the breach of the agreement. The Qurayzah tribe never attacked the Muslims, and even if a few were to have done so, the punishment does not fit the crime. Therefore, Muhammad was being excessive and disproportionate because he used an irreversible penalty to express his human wrath.

For a fuller account of this atrocity, refer to this article <>.

Thus, anti-Semitic violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran. Islam is therefore not the religion of peace.


My Response

To start of, the tribe broke the treaty and attacked Muhammad and his people, so therefore they were punished. As for Muhammad taking women and children and enslaving them, it seems James would have prefered to have killed them! As for the treatement and ending of slavery in Islam please consult these links:


He Wrote


1. Muhammad launches his own Crusades.


In the following verse, Muhammad uses the Arabic word qital (root is q-t-l), which means warring, fighting, or killing:


9:29 Fight [q-t-l] those among the people of the Book [Christians] who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden and do not profess the true religion, till they pay the poll-tax out of hand and submissively. (Fakhry)


The two most interesting clauses in this violent verse are (1) People of the Book (Christians in this verse late in Muhammad’s life) are to be attacked if they do not profess the true religion: Islam. This leaves the door wide open for terrorists today to attack and fight Christians because they do not adhere to Islam; (2) Christians must pay a tax for the


"privilege" of living under the "protection" of Islam—submissively or in humiliation.

The historical context of Sura 9:29 finds Muhammad preparing for a military expedition against the Byzantine Empire in 630, two years before his ordinary death of a fever in 632. Indeed, some scholars regard Sura 9 as the last sura to be revealed from on high. Therefore, it sets many policies for Muslims today, and is often interpreted as abrogating or canceling previous verses, even peaceful ones.


Muhammad heard a rumor that the Byzantines amassed an army some 700 miles to the north in Tabuk (northern Arabia today) in order to attack Islam, so he led an army of 30,000 holy warriors to counter-strike preemptively. However, the Byzantines failed to materialize, so Muhammad’s belief in the false rumor was misguided and his expedition was fruitless, except he managed to extract (extort) agreements from northern Christian Arab tribes that they would not attack him and his community. An army of 30,000 soldiers from the south must have deeply impressed the northern tribes, so they posed no real threat to Islam. They are the ones who paid the "protection" tax mentioned in Sura 9:29 (and so do tribes and cities after Muhammad’s death). Therefore, Muhammad’s forced tax was aggressive and hence unjust, not defensive and hence just.


Muhammad’s military expedition qualifies as an Islamic Crusade long before the European ones. After all, in 638, only six years after Muhammad’s death, Muslim armies conquer Jerusalem. Today, Muslims should never again complain about European Crusades, unless they first come to grips with their own.

For more information on the Muslim Crusades after Muhammad’s death and their atrocities and motives, refer to these articles (one <crusades.htm>, two <ultimate_goal.htm>).

Thus, crusading violence sits at the heart of early Islam—in Muhammad’s life and in his Quran—and beyond, even reaching to today’s western world. Islam is therefore not the religion peace.


What the ten reasons mean for us today

These ten aspects of violence that have burrowed into the hemorrhaging heart of early Islam have eight implications for us today. The first three are theological; the rest are practical.


The theological implications are as follows:


First, as each reason in this article has hinted at and the links explain more thoroughly, Christ never, ever engaged in such violence. For example, he never assassinated opponents, whipped adulterers, cut off the hands of thieves, or launched his own Crusades (what the Medieval Europeans did is not foundational to Christianity). Christ expresses the love of God. Therefore, Christians and all fair-minded persons have the right to question whether the true God would reveal the Quran when it contains such violent verses that conveniently support Muhammad’s violence, whereas the New Testament does not have such violence.


Second, Muslims believe that the New Testament is corrupted, whereas the Quran is inerrant. Even if we assume only for the sake of argument that these claims are true (but they actually are not), then why would reasonable seekers of the truth prefer the "pure" but violence-filled Quran over the "corrupted" but peaceful New Testament?

Before Muhammad is allowed to throw around unsubstantiated charges about alleged New Testament corruption, he and his Quran must pass a down-to-earth test regarding his dubious, violent practices. But he and it fail the test badly, as this article demonstrates, whereas Christ and the New Testament pass with a perfect score. Therefore, if Muhammad is so wrong about down-to-earth matters like whipping adulterers and cutting off the hands of thieves and beating wives, then he is likely wrong about unresearched accusations of New Testament corruption—and factually he is wrong.

Please refer to the articles listed on these pages for more information: [<../../Bible/Text/index.html>], [<../../Quran/Bible/index.html>].


Third, since Muhammad who claims divine guidance is so wrong about practical matters, why should we believe him about theoretical matters like the deity of Christ and the Trinity, both of which he denies? Clearly, he was not divinely guided in practical matters because the true God would not degrade religion by endorsing such gruesome violence six hundred years after Christ came—the historical span is critical. Christ and the New Testament do not have even one example of such violence. Again, if Muhammad first fails the down-to-earth test, then he likely fails the theological or theoretical test—we have no reason to believe him in such high doctrines, especially since he was no theologian and his revelations are now empirically suspect.

The practical implications of the top ten reasons are as follows:


Fourth, nominal Christians who no longer take their faith seriously, but who are tempted to convert to Islam, must stop to think a second time. Christ the Son of God demonstrates the love of God (Matt. 3:16-17), not the wrath of an ordinary, self-described human messenger (Sura 3:144). Why would they trade in the religion of God’s peace and love for Allah’s human religion of violence?


Fifth, fanatical Muslims today are simply carrying on their prophet’s mission. Why should we be surprised if they want to conquer the West, in order to impose Allah’s will on non-Islamic societies? They are still working out Muhammad’s Crusades and trying to put a halt to the reality embodied in this simple logic:

(1) If A, then B. If Allah endorses Islam, then it should expand endlessly.
(2) Not-B. But it is not expanding endlessly (see this analysis <>).
(3) Therefore, not-A. Therefore, Allah does not endorse Islam.

This logic eats away at the heart of fanatics, especially premise two, even if they are not conscious of it in this logical form. What is stopping the endless expansion of Islam, according to the fanatics? Their answer: the US and even the very existence of the Jewish State of Israel in the heart of the Middle East. The fanatics have yet to uproot the Jews, despite three wars, which the Arabs lost. This tiny non-Islamic, Jewish State in their neighborhood slaps them in the face every day. How could Allah let this happen? Hence, premise two is the deepest reason that they have been launching attacks on the US and the West and Israel for the last two decades and why Osama bin Laden ignited 9/11. For more information on three Quranic verses that predict the worldwide dominance of Islam and that provide the motives for fanatics, refer to this article <ultimate_goal.htm>. And for more information on bin Laden’s motives specifically, go here <>.


Sixth, as noted in the introduction to this article, Muslim apologists who have access to the national media and who constantly assert that Islam is the religion of peace must stop misleading unsuspecting Westerners. Factually, Islam is not the religion of peace. True, it had peaceful moments, but not for very long. Muhammad sent out or went out on seventy-four expeditions, raids, and wars in only ten years (622-632), most of which were violent.

Seventh, western civilization must never accept the lie that Muhammad’s life, the Quran, and sharia (the law derived from the hadith and the Quran) are benefits to society. Rather, Islam represents many gigantic steps backwards, culturally and socially. One of the most tragic events in the western world in recent years—and one of the most underreported—is the existence of an Islamic court in Canada <>. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce court in Australia <>, as well. The Canadian government should promptly shut it down, and Australia should never allow one. And such a court must never be allowed to exist here in the US or elsewhere in the West. Sharia does not benefit society, bluntly stated.


Eighth and finally, Islam should never be taught in our public schools, K through 11 <>. Perhaps grade 12 is acceptable, but only on one condition. If school administrators insist on teaching it, Islamic violence must be included in the lesson plans because it is part and parcel of early Islam and Muhammad’s life.


Of course, Muslim apologists assert that Christianity is filled with violence, citing the Roman Emperor Constantine and the Medieval Crusaders. However, to repeat, they are not foundational for Christianity—only Christ and the New Testament are. And he and the New Testament authors never practiced or endorsed such violence.

On the other hand, Muhammad and his Quran are foundational for Islam, and violence fills his life and its pages.

Therefore, for ten clear and verifiable reasons, Islam is not the religion of peace.

[ Note: This article has a companion piece: Does Islam improve on Christianity? — Muhammad fails Jesus’ simple fruit inspection <fruit_inspection.htm>. ]

Further reading:

       Mohammed without Camouflage <../../Books/Gairdner/camouflage.htm>, written by a Christian who comes from an older generation and who knew Islam and Arabic thoroughly, has a list of Muhammad's atrocities. It is a must-read for Christians and open-minded Muslims.

       Where is the Gandhi of Islam? <> If Islam were peaceful, why does it not produce prominent champions for peace that find broad support in the community? All we see is a few Muslims making half-harted statements after another terror attack, but nobody rallies great support in the community for the purpose to get rid of and end terrorism, and consistently works for this goal. Every Muslim in Britain should be cooperating with the authorities to track down the guilty. Every person in every mosque in Britain and the West and elsewhere should report radicals meeting in their house of worship and planning acts of violence. Why don't they do this?

       Islam & Terrorism <../../Terrorism/index.html>


My Response


To start off, the verse is talking about war situations, to fight the unbelievers in war and make them pay the jizya. So once again James has no argument, he tries to make the verse seem what it isnt, but the fact is clear, the verse is talking about war situations, not when your in peace and have treaties with other communities and if they dont attack you.

So basically ALL of James 10 reasons fall short, not a single one of them proved his case, we infact saw that according to his criteria, that the God of the OT is violent, since James believes in the same God then this means that the God that James believes in is not peaceful!

As for terror attacks, James should study the facts instead of blaming Muslims with so called facts that are laughable. James has proven himself to be a man who invloves himself in shady scholarship work, and that is bad enough.








Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.

Rebuttals to James Arlandson's Articles section.

A Muslim's Rebuttals section.

Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.