Islam vs. Christianity – Who is Really the Religion of Peace?

As European countries tear down their borders and flood their nations with a tsunami of Islamic refugees and Americas left grows increasingly more sympathetic to Islamic influence in America, it is only natural for one to question if Islam is truly compatible and tolerant with differing ideologies. Even with the simple act of questioning Islams motives, the left is quick to shame you and make a paltry attempt at citing Christianity's supposed history and advocacy of hatred and violence. Not only does the attempt to equate another ideologies "crimes" to that of Islam in an effort to excuse the actions and advocations of Islam inexcusable, it is also an entirely erroneous argument. 


       Related image

To hold some chronology to this post, we will begin with the history of the two religions. Before we get started, I must remind everyone that in the Bible there is a difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is primarily historical context, while the New Testament is about how to live your life for Jesus. How Christians are to live their life is almost entirely derrived from the New Testament. Christians were not a thing until Christ came. Even if you are to look just at the Old Testament, followers of Judaism do not commit acts of violence for God like Muslims do for Allah. 

Muhammad who believed an angel spoke to him giving him Allah's will took his new found religion to Mecca, a polytheistic city, where Muhammad was then expelled from. From there he traveled with his family to Medina where he managed to convert the entire city. He then returned to Mecca and conquered them. He would go on the conquer the entire Arabian Penisula, converting or killing all who did not believe in Islam. On the contrary, Jesus never formed a militant group, conquered or enforced Christianity on anyone.

Christianity has many times in history been spreaded through force, however nothing close to the extent of Islam and unlike the Quran, the Bible never once condones the use of force or violence to convert those who disbelieve. After Muhammad, Islam would spread greatly between two Caliphates. The Rashidun Caliphate would expand past the Arabian Peninsula to parts of modern day Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey as well as a small portion of North Africa in Egypt and Libya. After the Rashidun era, the Umayyad Caliphate would expand even further into West Asia and North Africa. It would even be broaded into Spain. This was acomplished through the teachings of the Quran, but through a unified coalition fighting in the name of Allah as their prophet Muhammad instructed.

Christianity's expansion that occured many centuries before was spread in it's early stages almost solely through the love and salvation of Jesus Christ. The Crusades are often the model campaign used in order to prove the violence against Muslims by Christians but this is a faulty example to use for that objective. For one, the Europeans support for the Crusades was due to the Islamic occupation of the Holy Land. It was Islam who first invaded Israel and the Crusaders sought to expel them from the Holy Land. Yes, the Crusaders did have intentions of converting the Jews to Christianity but that intention was never fully carried out, and it was no act against the Muslims. Some of the Crusades would never even reach the Holy Land and one was even redirected towards Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire which they looted ultimately assisting the Ottomans in taking the city some 200 years later. The Crusades were simply intented to reclaim the Holy Land while the Islamic conquests that would spread through North Africa, the Middle East and Asia had the intentions of converting all whom they defeated to Islam. Historically, conversion through sword has Christianity and Islam leagues apart. 


Image result for how much did muhammad conquer


Now that I have given a short history lesson on the spread of each religion, we will take a look at each religions "model citizen". Jesus vs. Muhammad. Jesus was the Son of God who gave those who believed in him salvation and eternal life. Muhammad was the "Last Prophet of Allah" who promised those who believed in him 72 virgins… 

Image result for muhammad vs jesus

The most notable difference between the Son of God and the Pedophile Prophet is that Jesus died on the cross for man so that they may have eternal life and be saved from their sin while Muhammad commanded man to die for Allah so that they may have eternal life… and 72 virgins… This is evident in a comparison between Matthew 24:52: 51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." and Muslim 1:33: "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah"  Another important difference is that Jesus was never married while Muhammad was big in the marriage business having a total of 11 wives, one of them at the age of 6. In addition to these, another distiniction between the two was their methods of spreading their message. Jesus never once raised a sword or drew blood to spread his word while Muhammad spread Islam with the sword and spilt reams of blood. Another area of difference between the two was in their last words. Jesus said "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do" while Muhammads last words were cursing the Jews and Christians. The last difference between Jesus and Muhammad, but certainly not the least of the reasons is slavery. Quite simply, Jesus did not have slaves and believed all humans, man or woman and all races are worthy of his salvation. Muhammad on the other hand bought, sold and owned many slaves. These are just some of the many key differences between Muhammad and Jesus. It is clear which truly promoted and represented peace and love and which was a violent warmongering pedophile. 

Related image

For the sake of article length I won't go into too much detail on the comparison between the Bible and the Quran as there are too many contrasts to count between the two but I will list a couple from The Quran contains over 100 verses that sanction violence for the cause of Allah.


"Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44) (Bible)

"And fight them until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah" (Quran 8:39) (Quran)

"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39) (Bible)

"If then anyone transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him" (Quran 2:194) (Quran)

"We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority." (Quran 3:151) (Quran)


At last we arrive at the most relevant part of this argument in regard to the modern day debate. Are Christians or Muslims more peaceful? The answer is obvious to anyone that has an ounce of common sense. Christians. It isn't Christian nations that restrict the rights of all it's citizens, it isn't Christian nations forcing it's people under Sharia Law that issues death for all that deny Allah or Muhammad and equates women to property. It isn't Christian nations that are dropping gays off of buildings. It isn't Christians that have committed over 30,000 acts of terror since just 9/11. Leftists in America have made Christianity their enemy; they consider Christians to be a threat to their existence. The truth is, while conservatives and Christians may not entirely align with their feminist and homosexual ideas, we do not and will not kill you for those ideas. In Islam, you can and often are killed for those ideas. Islam is a religion of peace to anyone in Islam. Peace, as defined in Islam, is obtained by complete submission to Allah. To anyone outside of Islam, peace has another definition, and Islam is far from it. Sure, there are those who claim to be Christian and misinterpret parts of the Bible, but it is rare for it to be misinterpreted in a way that causes violence. If you have ever read the Quran you would promptly realize that it isn't the radical Islamic terrorists that misinterpret the Quran, it is the so called "moderates". What is stopping those moderates from understanding entirely their own religion some day and doing as Muhammad has instructed? Islam a threat to our Constitutional Republic and are waging war on our Western and American values. Islam isn't peaceful, and Islam isn't compatible with Western Civilization.











2 thoughts on “Islam vs. Christianity – Who is Really the Religion of Peace?

  • December 25, 2017 at 9:41 pm

    I think the article was very well written and brought up some important points. However I think a less biased approach might help you gain more readers. I do understand that this is a Christian, conservative blog, and I, fitting into both of those categories can respect that. But looking at mainstream media today, I see lots of underlining bias in headline articles, especially with CNN, msnbc, or even fox. I can't be the only reader that just wants information instead of the writers personal views. Now this doesn't exactly pertain to this specific article, because all of the information you presented was true. I just feel that if you want a larger amount of readers, you might want to try a different approach. 


    • January 3, 2018 at 5:47 pm

      Thank you for the feedback, it is greatly appreciated! I do understand your concern over bias news especially in this day and age of mainstream media bias. However, I must remind you that there is a difference between a bias, narrative pushing "news network" and an openly opinionated site. We are claiming to be a conservative site, it is in our name and entirely evident in our posts. The goal is to provide information and our opinions on that information from a Christian Conservative perspective. A network like CNN and Fox News claim to be an unbiased news network but they are sharing most of the news in a selection and bias way that fits their personal agenda. I do intend in the future to work on some non-bias pieces when I have some time freed up and can write more often on just current events that may not always need my analysis on it, and maybe even open up dialogue between two opposing viewpoints, but for now it will be just my conservative commentary on the issues. Upon the sites growth I could see the site being more like something close to that of The Daily Wire, where there is an openly admitted bias in many posts but also just simply reporting the incident and the information leaving you to conclude your own opinions in other posts. That all depends on Andres and his vision for the site of course, but for now you can expect just conservative commentary on the issues, at least from me anyways. 

Comments are closed.