Was Christ Peaceful While Muhammad (ﷺ) Was a Warlord? Exposing a Common Fallacy

Introduction

"Christ fought no one, but Muhammad took up the sword and fought!" This is what the objectors whisper, as if they had found conclusive proof that Christianity is a religion of peace, and Islam is a religion of violence!

Religious Christians repeat this proudly, while secularists use it as a weapon against Islam. What these people do not know is that they fall into a strange historical fallacy, mixing different circumstances and ignoring glaring facts.

Is it proper to compare a prophet who lived for three years under a mighty Roman Empire with a prophet who founded a state and led a nation? And how can we ignore the fact that Christ himself came endorsing the Law of Moses, which commands fighting in certain situations? And where do we place the prophecies that speak of Christ’s return as a fighter in the end times?

Let us contemplate this issue with fairness and expose the fallacies of this objection, so that we may see how historical truth refutes this weak claim, and how sound logic completely rebuts this allegation.

Christ (peace be upon him) and Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ): An Objective Look at the Issue of Fighting

The comparison between the stances of the prophets on fighting requires a deep understanding of the historical circumstances and social contexts in which each prophet lived. Judging matters in isolation leads to misinterpretation and erroneous conclusions. Let us examine this issue through multiple perspectives that reveal the falsity of this objection.

1. Christ and the Law of Moses

One of the most astonishing aspects of this objection is that it ignores an important fact: that Christ (peace be upon him) did not come with a new law, but rather as a completer of the Law of Moses. He stated this himself in the Gospel of Matthew:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Matthew 5:17

If Christ came as a completer of the Law of Moses rather than as its negator, how do we understand his stance on fighting? The Old Testament is full of commands for fighting and jihad. Moses (peace be upon him) led the Children of Israel in many wars by God’s command, as in the Book of Numbers:

Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 'Take vengeance for the Children of Israel on the Midianites.'

Numbers 31:1-2

And David—the prophet whom Christians believe in—was a warrior king, and indeed the Psalms recited in Christian churches are filled with references to fighting and war. Solomon—despite his renown for wisdom and peace—had a mighty army, as mentioned in the Bible.

Moreover, Christ himself said:

Do not think that I came to bring peace; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Matthew 10:34

. They all came with the same essential message, though differing in some details.

If Moses and David fought by God’s command, and Christ endorsed their law, then how can one object to the fighting of Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ)? Such an objection stems only from ignorance of the reality of divine laws or a deliberate disregard for them.Fighting—in all the heavenly scriptures—is not an end in itself, but a means to repel aggression, protect the truth, and spread goodness. Moses fought against the oppressors, David confronted the tyrants, and Muhammad (ﷺ) fought both as a peacemaker and as a fighter against the aggressors. They were all guided by their Lord.

1. The Impact of Political Circumstances

Anyone who studies history knows that understanding any historical event requires considering its context and surrounding circumstances. How can we compare two stances on fighting without examining the political circumstances surrounding each?Consider first the political circumstances in which Christ (peace be upon him) lived: Palestine at that time was under the rule of the Roman Empire, the greatest military power of ancient history. Palestine did not have its own army or sovereign power; the Jews were under direct Roman rule. Even the Temple itself was under Roman control. Under such circumstances, would it have been wise for Christ to call for fighting? Would that not have led to the mass extermination of his followers and the loss of his message—as happened repeatedly with Jewish revolutionaries?

Now consider the biography of Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ): In Mecca, when the Muslims were a small, oppressed group, fighting was not permitted. The Prophet even commanded his companions to exercise patience even in the severest oppression. Some companions even asked, "O Messenger of Allah, when will we be victorious?" and he advised them to be patient.

But when the Muslims migrated to Medina and formed a political entity with military power, fighting was legislated. Even at that stage, the fighting was not arbitrary but was regulated by strict ethical guidelines: no killing of women, children, or the elderly; no destruction of trees or crops; no treachery or betrayal.

Thus, the issue is not one of “violence” versus “peace” as portrayed by the objectors, but one of wisdom in handling circumstances. It is like a skillful doctor: he prescribes a bitter medicine when the disease requires it, and a sweet medicine when appropriate—both being part of his wisdom and knowledge.

If we reflect on the history of all the prophets, we find this wisdom: Noah called his people to repentance for 950 years; Abraham patiently endured the harm of his people until they cast him into the fire; Moses began his mission with dialogue with Pharaoh. All the prophets chose the appropriate means according to circumstances, and that is the very definition of wisdom.

Fighting—like other divine rulings—is subject to the balance of benefits and harms. When the benefit requires patience and conciliation, that is the wisdom; and when the benefit requires fighting to protect the truth and repel falsehood, that is legitimate. The wise stance is the one that suits each circumstance appropriately.

1. The Fighting Christ in the End Times

One of the strangest paradoxes in this objection is that the Christians themselves believe that Christ will return as a fighter in the end times! The Book of Revelation—the last book of the New Testament—portrays Christ in his second coming as a commander of a great army:

Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And the one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war... And he is clothed in a robe dipped in blood...

Revelation 19:11-14

Then it says:

From his mouth comes a sharp sword to strike the nations.

Revelation 19:15

and his followers. In his return, Christ will not be solely a preacher of peace as the objectors claim, but a mujahid fighting against the forces of evil and corruption in the earth.

Here we ask a logical question: How can Christians reasonably object to fighting in Islam when their own holy book portrays their Christ in the end times as a fighter with a sword? How do they claim that fighting contradicts Christ’s teachings, and then believe that he will return as a warrior?

This strange contradiction reveals two important points:

First, that fighting is not condemned in itself, but is a means that may be legitimate under certain circumstances and for noble purposes.

Second, that the idealized image the objectors portray of Christ as one who knows nothing but absolute peace is inaccurate, and does not even align with the texts of their own Bible!

The truth is that Christ—like other prophets—adopts the appropriate stance according to circumstances. In his initial mission, the wisdom was in peace; and in his return in the end times, the wisdom will be in fighting. This is exactly what Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) did: peace in Mecca when it was wise, and fighting in Medina when it was legitimate.

1. The Limits of Absolute Pacifism

One of the most famous texts used by the objectors is Christ’s saying:

But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 5:39

But can these texts be applied at the level of states and societies?These teachings—with all their nobility and beauty—may be suitable for individuals in their personal relations when dealing with individual insults or personal disputes. But is it conceivable to apply them at the level of nations? Can a state "turn its left cheek" to an invading army that kills its people and violates its sanctities? Can a government "love its enemies" when those enemies seek to annihilate its people?Let us imagine what might happen if nations applied this principle:

• How would a state protect its citizens from external aggression?How would it deter criminals and aggressors?How would it preserve its sovereignty and independence?How would it secure its borders and protect its resources?

Even the Christians themselves realized the impossibility of applying this principle at the state level. As soon as they came to power in Rome, their theologians began to develop theories justifying the use of force. The Just War Theory was developed by St. Augustine and later refined by Thomas Aquinas, becoming a fundamental part of Christian theology. This theory holds that fighting may be legitimate in certain cases such as:

• Self-defenseProtecting innocents from injusticeRecovering what was taken unjustlyPunishing aggressors

This is very similar to what Islam has provided regarding the regulations and legitimate causes for fighting. Islam did not legislate fighting for aggression and oppression, but rather for repelling aggression, lifting oppression, and protecting the truth.Thus, the issue is not as simple as the objectors portray. The teachings of Christ on pacifism must be understood in their proper context: they are ethical teachings for individuals in their personal relationships, not policies for states in their international relations. The confusion between the individual and collective levels is the cause of many fallacies in understanding this matter.

1. Christian History and Fighting

One of the marvels of history is that the staunchest objectors to fighting in Islam are adherents of a religion whose history is filled with some of the longest and most violent wars in human history! A careful study of Christian history reveals that wars and conflicts never ceased in the name of religion; rather, they encompassed all sects and nations of the earth.

The Crusades, which lasted for centuries, were but one chapter in this bloody history. They were followed by the Reconquista, which ended with the complete ethnic cleansing of Muslims and Jews from the Iberian Peninsula. Then came the wars against the Ottoman Empire in Eastern Europe, followed by colonial campaigns in the Islamic world.Even the followers of other religions did not escape this violence. The pagans in Europe faced organized campaigns of extermination, the Jews endured various forms of persecution and massacres through the ages, and the Hindus and Buddhists suffered under colonial and forced conversion campaigns. The peoples of the Americas were annihilated in the name of spreading Christianity and civilization!

What is most astonishing of all is that Christians did not escape violence even at the hands of fellow Christians! The wars between Catholics and Protestants filled the pages of European history with blood. The Thirty Years' War—which killed a third of the population of Central Europe—is just one example of the ferocity of conflicts between Christian sects.

In contrast, we find that fighting in Islam is governed by strict rules and ethics: no killing of women, children, or the elderly; no destruction of infrastructure; no mutilation of the dead; no treachery or betrayal. Moreover, it has legitimate causes: repelling aggression, lifting oppression, and supporting the oppressed. And it has noble objectives: spreading justice and goodness, and protecting religious freedom.So how can those whose history is filled with uncontrolled wars object to a legitimate and regulated form of fighting? Is it not a case of seeing the speck in another’s eye while ignoring the log in one’s own? We do not say this out of animosity or revenge, but to demonstrate the absurdity of this objection and the weakness of its reasoning.

Conclusion

Thus, it becomes clear to every fair-minded observer that objecting to the fighting of Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) by comparing it to the pacifism of Christ is one of the weakest and most unfounded objections. Such an objection ignores glaring facts: Christ himself came as an endorser of the Law of Moses, which commands fighting; he will return in the end times as a fighter according to their scriptures; and the political circumstances imposed different realities upon each prophet.

The true marvel is not in the disciplined, ethical fighting of Muhammad (ﷺ), but rather in the audacity of those who object to this fighting while belonging to a religion whose history is filled with the Crusades, religious massacres, and genocidal wars carried out in the name of the Cross! It is as if they ignore in their own history the Crusades, religious massacres, and the wars of extermination committed in the name of Christ!Let the objectors cease repeating this weak allegation, and let them understand that the issue is not whether fighting exists or not, but rather its legitimacy, its guidelines, and its objectives. All the prophets—from Moses to Jesus to Muhammad (ﷺ)—were guided by their Lord, choosing the appropriate means in each circumstance to achieve one goal: to exalt the word of God and to spread goodness and justice on earth.