JESUS’S KINGDOM VERSUS MUHAMMAD’S KINGDOM

IS ISIS ISLAMIC?  — Part 1

By Silas

THE MESSIAH’S KINGDOM AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD

Jesus’s arrest was the second in a series of pivotal events that led directly to His death.  Many Jewish leaders wanted Him dead and many Jewish supporters loved Him, and at least one, Peter, fought and was willing to die for Him.  Pointedly, Jesus told Peter to stop fighting.

A short time later Jesus stated:

Jesus did not intend to set up a physical kingdom.  Not only was it not one of his goals, He resisted the effort to do so.  In contrast to this, Jesus taught previously that He, as the Messiah, the Son of God, would return as the King and Judge and purge evil people from His kingdom.  (Matthew 13:40-43, 25:31-46, 26:63, 64, also ref. Daniel 7:13, 14, 27).  But for now the Messiah’s kingdom was going to have to wait.  One day it would be established, but not today, not during His life. 

There was another kingdom Jesus taught about: the “kingdom of God.”  A comparison of His teachings on His future kingdom with His teachings on the “kingdom of God” shows that more emphasis was placed on the “kingdom of God” theme.  This theme was prominent in His teaching, parables, and sermons.  The kingdom of God was present on earth, it existed in the here and now, and would be established in a fuller measure when He returned as the Word of God, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  This significant theme was one of the primary topics He taught following His resurrection (Acts 1:3).

Note however, even after His resurrection His disciples wanted and expected an established physical kingdom (Acts 1:7).  This kingdom would at the very least supplant Roman rule.  These disciples wanted earnestly to establish God’s rule on earth.  They rued Rome’s rule over and oppression of their country.  But they were answered “not now” and that that time was in the Father’s hands.  Then they were instructed on their lives’ mission and purpose.  From then on the physical kingdom of God on earth was not their goal or their vision.

Jesus instructed His disciples extensively about the kingdom of God because He desired that it be established and fulfilled in their lives.  Until He returned it was to be a spiritual kingdom, a spiritual power.  It is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17); it is where God is King.  God, through the Holy Spirit, was to rule as King in their hearts, souls, strengths, and minds.

As God ruled in people’s hearts and minds they changed.  Jesus’s two great commands were to love God and love your neighbor.  Men and women who became Christians were commanded to excel at this.  Those who became Christians turned from sin and hate towards loving God and man.  Their hearts and minds changed as they loved and obeyed Christ.  This submission to God was powerful enough to cause them to not only live for Him; it motivated them to suffer and die for Him.

During the next few centuries Christianity was persecuted harshly but it spread throughout the Roman Empire.  The kingdom of God was established in the hearts and minds of the early church and their faith and love won an empire.  No claim of moral perfection is made here, rather the changing of hearts and minds, and lives, under the kingdom of God’s rule is demonstrated.  This victory was won without the use of the sword, without threat, without coercion, without promise of material gain.  Force was not used to make people believe in Christ as the Messiah, the Son of God, and Lord.  No bigoted forms of taxation, social humiliation, or discrimination were imposed to provoke people to become Christians.  Under severe persecution Christianity continued to spread far and wide.

Why didn’t Jesus instruct His followers to establish a physical kingdom on earth?  They were willing to pick up swords.  Perhaps they could establish it for the Messiah’s rule?  Imagine a true Christian kingdom, a sanctified country, whose citizens excelled at loving God and loving their neighbor. This kingdom of God on earth would be a geo-political kingdom, a cultural and social kingdom, a martial kingdom.  There the church could establish, and if need be, enforce their beliefs and rules on non-Christians.

Why didn’t Jesus instruct His disciples to establish a theocracy or an ecclesiocracy?

“What could go wrong?”

Perhaps something like these monks fighting each other at the Church of the Nativity? Fighting Monks

How shameful.  How embarrassing.  What a brilliant crimson stain upon Christianity.  Atheists, Muslims, and others rightly use these public actions to criticize Christianity.  Christianity’s birthplace was in Jerusalem but these men are not practicing the Christianity Jesus and His disciples practiced.  They certainly do not represent a root of Christianity; their fruit is carnal. 

Yes, “What could go wrong?”

 MUHAMMAD’S KINGDOM & THE CALIPHATE

Muhammad’s ministry lasted for 23 years, from 610 to his death from poisoning in 633.  During that time, with the exception of his colossal Satanic Verses error, he proclaimed and practiced Islam faithfully.  Those 23 years were divided between two cities: 13 years in Mecca and 10 years in Medina.

Muhammad’s ministry in Mecca was primarily a spiritual one.  In several aspects it paralleled Jesus’s ministry.  At this time he did not seek to establish a physical kingdom of Allah.  (I know that Allah means God and Arab Christians use it.  Here I am using Allah to signify Islam’s God).  Allah had told Muhammad that he was not to force men to become Muslims:

Muhammad had little success in Mecca.  His few followers were weak and oppressed.  Any use of force against the Quraysh, the dominant tribe in Mecca, would result in their deaths.

However a few years before he left Mecca he gained new converts in Medina.  These followers preached Islam and gained many converts there.  Soon Muhammad had a sizeable body of Muslims in Medina.  Many were men of war and at the Second Pledge of Aqabah they pledged their swords in Muhammad’s defense.

Throughout his ministry, as Muhammad’s circumstances changed Allah’s revelations changed, and Islam changed.  And these fighting men represented a significant change!  Unlike his followers in Mecca the Medina Muslims were not weak or oppressed.  They were armed and knew how to fight.  On cue, shortly before he left Mecca and fled to Medina, Allah gave Muhammad a new revelation, the “Order to Fight.”  Ibn Ishaq states:

The apostle had not been given permission to fight or allowed to shed blood before the second Aqaba. He had simply been ordered to call men to God and to endure insult and forgive the ignorant….

The “Order to Fight” is described on pages 212 and 213.  Different Islamic scholars have differing opinions as to which verses exactly comprise this revelation (most all of the various verses are similar), but here the general text is stated as 22:39-41 and 2:193.  Below are two of the four verses

The order to fight allowed both defensive and offensive fighting, (offensive to end idolatry and spiritual rebellion).  Many of the non-violent verses in the Quran were now "abrogated" or canceled.

Muhammad summed up Allah’s directive:

I want to emphasize this:  If you want to understand the violence in the Islamic would today you must start here.  Muhammad’s statement above is a foundation, a “Maxwell’s Equation,” for understanding the role violence plays in Islam.

Muhammad intended to set up a kingdom of Allah.  People would have to testify that Muhammad was Allah’s Messenger and they would have to obey various aspects of Islamic law.  This was not optional.  People had to either submit to Islam or fight the Muslims.  Muhammad, and implicitly his followers, were ordered to fight non-Muslims until they either converted or submitted to Islam’s rule (as Christians and Jews had to pay extortion and submit in humility per 9:29).

Muhammad establishes Allah’s kingdom on earth.

Muhammad heeded this new direction from Allah and put it into effect quickly.  He obeyed Allah and fought non-Muslims until they bent the knee to him.  He established Allah’s kingdom on earth.  How did he accomplish this?

Shortly after arriving in Medina Muhammad began to send out his soldiers to raid and pillage non-Muslim villages and trade caravans.  Naturally this led to them murdering non-Muslims.  Muhammad’s thefts and murders led to war.  Tabari records:

Tabari notes that it was Muhammad, not the Quraysh, that started the war.  During the next ten years the breath, width, and depth of violence increased.  Below is a general progression of Muhammad’s efforts to obey Allah and spread Islam’s domain through the use of force, or threat of force, primarily:

Muhammad did not win all of his battles but he won most of them.  People feared Muhammad and the Muslims.  Muhammad’s military leaders proclaimed:  “Accept Islam and you will be safe.”  People understood that if they did not accept Islam then they were fair game to be attacked, plundered, tortured, enslaved, raped, and murdered.  Consequently many Arab tribes used the “if you can’t beat em, join em” approach to becoming Muslim.  They didn’t want to be plundered, have their wives stolen, enslaved and raped, they didn’t want their children made into slaves, they didn’t want to die.  Why not join Islam then?  And all of this occurred under Muhammad’s direction and approving eye.

You can find all of this here:  Articles on Terrorism and Violence

Key articles are:

Muhammad's Excessive Cruelty

Jihad

Jihad: Islamic Teaching from its primary sources

The trail of oppression and blood behind Muhammad grew ever wide.  Muhammad took Allah’s command seriously and labored to fulfill that command:  he spread and established his Islam, the kingdom of Allah.  While he lived no one dared disobey him.  He ruled Allah’s kingdom firmly, continued to obey Allah, and fight men until Islam ruled over them.  He and his followers engaged in jihad, holy warfare, to spread his kingdom’s domain.  (Jihad means struggle or effort, but its theological definition is “holy warfare” see this article, section 4: The Verse of the Sword: Sura 9:5 and Jihad )

He died about a year and a half after his conquest of Mecca.  He was an eminently successful man:  he had wealth, power, fame, respect, sex with many beautiful women, both wives and slave concubines.  He had overcome incredible challenges and eventually subjected or crushed his enemies.  Muhammad died at the apex of his power and he established Allah’s kingdom on the bodies of those who opposed or rejected his claim of prophethood.

But what happened after Muhammad died?  We’ll take a look at the kingdom of Allah in action.  What was its power?  What were its effects?

An examination of the Caliphate, the continuing “Kingdom of Allah.”

Muhammad left behind him a body of men that knew him, loved him, and obeyed him.  They would fight, kill, and die for him because they believed him to be a true prophet.  They had memorized his Quran, they recorded anecdotes about his life and teachings (hadith), and they imitated his lifestyle (sunnah) earnestly.  There was no shortage of knowledge about Muhammad’s example and his commands to love one another as brothers.  The men that led the Muslims after his death were not a pack of novices; they knew him and his will intimately.

ABU BAKR

Immediately following Muhammad’s death the Muslims began to quarrel amongst themselves over who would be their leader.  The original Muslims from Mecca, (the Muhajirun, “immigrants”), wanted one of their own to assume command as Caliph, while the Medina Muslims, (the Ansar, “helpers”), wanted one of their own, Sa’d bin ‘Ubadah, to be the leader.  An ugly argument broke out and each side cursed and threatened to kill the other.  Punches were thrown, and swords drawn but not used.  Umar proclaimed that Abu Bakr should be the leader and demanded that everyone give him the oath of allegiance willingly or unwillingly.  Finally the Ansar agreed to have Abu Bakr as ruler.

Quite an inauspicious start for them wasn’t it?  So much for the Muslim brotherhood that Muhammad taught and commanded.  Not much to be proud of.  This start was a portent of things to come.

Also following Muhammad’s death many tribes that had been subjected, coerced, or forced into becoming Muslims under compulsion, “willingly or unwillingly”, left Islam to one degree or another.  Many were not at war with the Muslims.  They wanted to live in peace and freedom instead of being forced to be Muslims.  However, under Islam they were viewed as apostates and Muhammad commanded the killing of apostates.  Consequently these tribes that refused to walk to Abu Bakr’s Islamic talk were attacked, re-subjected, or slaughtered.  Tens of thousands were killed by Abu Bakr’s Islamic army.  These wars are known as the wars of apostasy, (Ridda Wars).  Tabari volume 10 describes these brutal, imperial, wars in detail.

Some people doubt that the Muslims used compulsion and forced people to submit to Islam.  But that use of force is documented clearly:

Muslims quote 2:256 as saying that there is no compulsion in religion but that verse was spoken for a specific time and a specific situation and it was definitely not a universal command with universal application.

Abu Bakr continued Muhammad’s methods of war and oppression to establish Allah’s kingdom and compel or force people to submit to Islam.

That of course was an external trait of Allah’s kingdom – conquering all that is non-Islamic.  But what about affairs of the heart?  How was Allah’s kingdom internalized?  How did it compare to Jesus’s “kingdom of God?”

The answer to his is best displayed in how Muhammad’s closest followers behaved and acted towards each other.  The early Christians were generally humble and devoted to each other and they served each other.  How about Muhammad’s family?  There we should expect to see the fullest measure of Allah’s kingdom in their lives and hearts.

But you would be surprised to see what actually happened.  Family and friends turned upon each other.  Betrayals, murders, assassinations, lust for power, greed, etc. all were prominent in the lives of Muhammad’s closest family and friends. 

For example, Muhammad had amassed a sizeable amount of wealth prior to his death.  Before his death Muhammad established that a large portion of it be used in support of the Muslim community and that his wives be provided for but he also ordered that his descendants were not to inherit any of the wealth because he believed that is what the Jewish prophets of old had done (he was wrong in this belief).  Consequently, upon becoming Caliph, Abu Bakr refused to distribute any of the wealth to Muhammad descendants.

This led to deep rooted strife and bickering.  Muhammad’s daughter, Fatimah, her husband Ali, and her relative al-Abbas, bickered with Abu Bakr and demanded the wealth.  He refused to give them a nickel.  As a result Fatimah and the other hated him deeply.  Fatimah died six months after Muhammad.  Ali’s hate was such that he did not even tell Abu Bakr about her death nor allow him to attend her burial.⁵

You can see from this episode that these people had not been transformed from their carnal selves.  Muhammad’s kingdom had changed their outsides, they grew wealthy and powerful, but their hearts were unregenerate and sinful.

Abu Bakr was Caliph up to his death about a year and a half later.  He was Muhammad’s best friend and knew him best.  Certainly Abu Bakr did what Muhammad expected him to do.  Abu Bakr shed a river of blood to spread and maintain Allah’s kingdom, Islam. 

UMAR

Abu Bakr was wise enough to preclude the violence and stress of a leader’s unexpected death and he decreed that Umar, (who was previously Muhammad’s second closest friend), would succeed him as Caliph.  Umar sent his armies out to conquer non-Muslim lands and they conquered Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Persia, and Egypt.  (Persia suffered especially under the Arab’s oppression).  These were conquests by the sword.  Wars and battles were fought but over time the Muslims conquered.  Islam was certainly not then a religion of peace, it was instead a religion of power, force, and brutality.  Tens of thousands were killed and hundreds of thousands were subjected by force to Islam’s rule.  Those that converted to Islam were treated much better than the non-Muslims, and through this oppressive bigotry Islam coerced people to convert.

UTHMAN

Uthman assumed leadership after Umar died.  Uthman’s claim to fame is that he issued the official recension of the Quran we have today.  There were many different Qurans in existence.  They were mostly similar but also had notable differences.  These differences caused severe divisions amongst the Muslims.  Uthman fixed this by having an official version of the Quran made and ordered other competing Qurans to be burned.

Uthman’s armies conquered much of Armenia, pushed further NW into Asia, and subjected Cyprus.  During his reign the Muslims had become very powerful and wealthy.

I believe that in Uthman’s death we see Islam’s truest fruit.  Political corruption set in and many Muslims became disgruntled and upset with Uthman.  Eventually large groups of these disgruntled Muslims from several Muslim regions went to Medina to confront Uthman.  One of these groups was from Egypt and they wanted Ali to assume the Caliphate.

Ali, Muhammad’s son in law, was responsible to protect the aged Uthman.  Initially he did post guards and fulfilled his responsibility. 

However, deep down Ali seethed with bitterness and resentment because he felt that he should have been made successor to Muhammad.  Instead he bit his tongue as one by one, Abu Bakr, Umar, and then Uthman, assumed the role.  His bitterness rooted itself ever deeper in his heart while he coveted the wealth, status, and power of being Caliph.

The confrontation between the disgruntled Muslim gangs and Uthman took a turn for the worse.  It was at this point Ali withdrew his family and guards responsible for protecting Uthman.  Uthman was then attacked and murdered.  Ali’s men were nowhere to be found.

It’s important to note that one of the assailants was Abu Bakr’s son, Muhammad b. Abi Bakr.  Here is Tabari’s account:

Conversely, imagine this: Jesus’s apostles hating, fighting with, and murdering each other.  Imagine Peter’s son murdering Thomas.  It would be quite horrible; it would be a dark and evil situation.

The story actually gets worse, darker, and more evil.  After Uthman’s death there was an outcry to punish the murderers.  With the support of the Egyptian gang Ali assumed the Caliphate.  To make a long story short some prominent Muslims, Talhah, al-Zubayr, and Aisha, Muhammad’s child bride, started the first civil war in Islam.  Ali and his army marched against them and they fought.  This battle is known as “The Battle of the Camel.”  Ali was triumphant.  Talhah and al-Zubayr were killed and Aisha put under house arrest.  Casualty figures range from ten to twenty thousand killed. 

I could give many more examples of Muhammad’s “Companions” murdering other “Companions” for power or greed.  Perhaps its apex is the battle of Siffin, or perhaps its apex is when Yazid, a Muslim leader in Damascus and the grandson of Muhammad’s arch-enemy Abu Sufyan, killed Muhammad’s grandson, Husain.  Husain’s head was brought to Yazid and he and his companions desecrated it.

If you want to read about the events following Muhammad death you can read this series of articles:  Islam's Royal Family, Part 1, Muhammad's Wealth

Better yet get Tabari’s History and read it for yourself.  Don’t let anyone do your thinking for you.  Read and study the Islamic source materials for yourself.  Start with volume 10: “The History of al-Tabari Vol. 10: The Conquest of Arabia: The Riddah Wars A.D. 632-633/A.H. 11”

CONCLUSION

This was a brief, general comparison of two kingdoms: Christ’s versus Muhammad’s.  I wanted to present just how different these men, their methods, and their fruits are.

Jesus’s rule is an internal presence that changes men’s hearts for the better.  Jesus’s kingdom is established spiritually by persuasion and conviction.  Clearly Christ’s rule transformed men’s hearts and its evidence is found in the lives of the early Christians who won over much of the Roman Empire without the sword but by their faith and love.  It continues today in the church and in the lives of dedicated Christians.  The evidence of that kingdom-rule is disciples having “love for one another."  Without that love, as demonstrated by those foolish monks, the kingdom of God is absent.    Its strength and presence has varied over time but it has been present since His time on earth.

Muhammad’s rule is an external force that changes men’s outward lives but does not have the power to transform men’s hearts towards godliness.  Once Muhammad’s personal rule was removed by his death, his companions, Islam’s leaders, proved themselves to be unchanged, carnal, and sinful.  The early Muslims hearts were selfish, bitter, and cruel.  Their lusts and desires drove them to betray and murder their friends. 

Muhammad’s kingdom was established and maintained physically primarily by the sword.  It is both a religious and geo-political kingdom.  It institutionalizes armies, taxes, familial and cultural rules, commercial laws, etc.  It has all the constructs of a governed community and his kingdom continues today in one degree or another in both Muslim’s lives and various Muslim-majority countries.  

Muhammad was ordered by Allah to fight men to bend the knee to his Islam.  This included defense against enemy attacks and offensive actions against enemies in order to force them to submit to Muhammad’s rule.  Muhammad’s message was clear:  “Accept Islam and you will be safe.”  Further, Muhammad’s kingdom was maintained by force of arms.  When various Arab tribes left Islam, for various reasons, they were attacked and forced to re-submit to Islam or die fighting.  Like spilled blood on a white sheet Muhammad’s kingdom spread throughout the world.  During the first 100 years of Islam Muhammad’s kingdom spread and grew into one of the world’s largest empires primarily through the force of arms.

I end with three quotes from Islamic sources.  The first quote concerns Iraqi Christians, who were once Christian, converted to Islam, but then left Islam to follow Christ again.  Their words sum up my argument perfectly:

This second quote concerns what some of Muhammad’s Companions did to an 80 year old women whose tribe had fought the Muslims:

The Muslims were initially defeated by the Fazara. The wounded Muslim leader swore vengeance. After he recovered he went out and attacked the Fazara again. One very old woman was captured. Here is the account:

This third quote shows just how Muhammad regarded those who mock him (bear this in mind when you consider the Charlie Hebdo massacre).  This involves a Muslim man who murdered his own slave because she mocked Muhammad.

In all three instances above we see the murder, the brutality, the cruelty, that was part of Muhammad’s Islam.  If it was good enough for Muhammad then it’s good enough for the Muslims today. 

Part of this article’s title is “Is ISIS Islamic?”  In order to arrive at a logical, conclusive answer we need to establish what constitutes “Islamic” to establish a point of reference.   We need only examine Muhammad’s words and deeds to define “Islamic” and I’ve shown that Muhammad’s Islam, real Islam, is evil, sinful, and inhumane.  I also wanted to contrast Jesus and Muhammad.  Far too often ignorant people conflate the two and equate them because both were great religious leaders.  These two men were diametrically opposed in both their teachings and actions.

Continue with Part 2: Muhammad Did It, ISIS Does It

REFERENCES

1 Ibn Ishaq, "Sirat Rasulallah", compiled by A. Guillaume as  "The Life of Muhammad", Oxford, London, 1955, page 212

2 Muslim, Abu’l-Husain, “Sahih Muslim”, International Islamic Publishing House, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1971, translated by A. Siddiqi, volume 1, #33

3 al-Tabari, "The History of al-Tabari", State University of New York Press,” volume 7, page 29

4 al-Tabari, "The History of al-Tabari", State University of New York Press” volume 10, page 2

5 For a description of this event see: al-Tabari, "The History of al-Tabari", State University of New York Press volume 9, 1993, pages 196, 197

6 al-Tabari, "The History of al-Tabari", State University of New York Press,” volume 15, pages 190, 191

7 al-Tabari, "The History of al-Tabari", State University of New York Press, volume 17, pages 187, 188

8 Ibn Ishaq, "Sirat Rasulallah", compiled by A. Guillaume as  "The Life of Muhammad", Oxford, London, 1955 page 665

9 Abu Dawud, Suliman, “Sunan”, al-Madina, New Delhi, 1985, translated by A. Hasan, Book 38, Number 4348