The post Exposing the Standard Dawah Attack first appeared on Islam Revealed.

The Prophets Who Bled and the Sword from His Mouth

Part 4 of 7 in the series: The Truth That Divides

So far in this series we have watched Jesus and Paul speak truth and watched the world react with cliffs, crosses, riots, and chains. But this pattern did not begin with Jesus. It runs all the way back through the Old Testament. And it did not end with Paul. It runs all the way forward to us.

This post rewinds to the prophets who bled long before Bethlehem then fast-forwards to modern converts who still pay the price and finally unpacks the sword Jesus said He came to bring.

Scene 5: The Long Shadow Prophets and Modern Converts

Textual backdrop: 1 Kings 18–19; 22; 2 Chron 16; 24; Jeremiah 20; 26; 37–38; Hebrews 11:36–38; Matthew 23:37; John 16:2; 1 Peter 4:3–4; 1 Corinthians 7:12–16

Men and women “leave the herd” because God speaks and the herd reacts.

Gideon tears down Baal’s altar; his neighbors are ready to kill him by morning (Judg 6:25–32).

Elijah confronts Ahab and Jezebel; Jezebel responds by killing the LORD’s prophets and swearing to take Elijah’s head (1 Kgs 18:4; 19:2).

Micaiah tells King Ahab the truth when four hundred court prophets will not; he is struck in the face and thrown into prison on starvation rations (1 Kgs 22:24–27).

Hanani rebukes King Asa; Asa imprisons him in stocks (2 Chr 16:10).

Zechariah stands in the court of the house of the LORD and calls the people back; King Joash has him stoned to death (2 Chr 24:20–22).

Uriah prophesies judgment; King Jehoiakim hunts him down and kills him with the sword (Jer 26:20–23).

Jeremiah is beaten, put in stocks, thrown into a cistern; his own people call him a traitor (Jer 20; 37–38).

Hebrews looks back and sums it up: “Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword…” (Heb 11:36–37).

Jesus weeps over Jerusalem: “the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it” (Matt 23:37).

Notice something: most of the blood is not shed by pagans. It is shed by Israel’s own rulers and elites. The prophets did not go looking for fights; they went looking for faithfulness. The fight came to them.

The pattern is old: obedience divides. Not because prophets seek division for its own sake, but because they seek God’s glory and glory has edges that cut through compromise.

Fast-Forward: Conversion Still Costs

Even today, conversion pulls you out of the herd:

Former companions “are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you” (1 Pet 4:4).

In mixed households, some come to Christ and others do not; the apostle writes sober instructions for living with that fracture (1 Cor 7:12–16).

In some religious communities, leaving the inherited faith for Christ means losing family, employment, sometimes life. In some states, conversion is literally illegal; in others, it is socially lethal.

Even in liberal democracies, public Christian speech can cost you reputation, career, friends and sometimes your life.

When Ayaan Hirsi Ali a high-profile critic of Islam and a symbol of secular Enlightenment announced in 2023 that she had come to believe in Christianity, she did not receive warm applause from her former allies. Richard Dawkins publicly dismissed core Christian doctrines as “theological bullshit.” The content of her conversion was treated as an intellectual regression, not a serious step.

And in 2025, a man who went from campus to campus insisting that Jesus is Lord and that God’s Word must shape law, culture, and personal lives was shot dead for it.

Saying the truth about God can get you killed. It happened to the prophets. It happened to the Son of God. It happened to the apostles. It still happens.

The Sword That Always Divides

Jesus did not hide what His coming would do:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matt 10:34–36; cf. Luke 12:51–53)

Later, on the eve of His arrest, He speaks another puzzling line:

“Whoever has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.” (Luke 22:36)

Is Jesus contradicting Himself? First He warns that He Himself brings a sword, then He tells His disciples to buy swords but in Gethsemane He rebukes Peter for using one:

“Put your sword back in its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matt 26:52)

So what sword did He come with? What sword does He want His followers to carry?

Two Swords, Two Levels

There is the sword He came by, and the sword He allows His people to have in hard times.

The sword He came by is not steel. He never leads an army. He never swings a blade. The only “weapon” He ever wields is the Word. Scripture calls it “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Eph 6:17), “sharper than any two-edged sword… discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb 4:12). In Revelation, the risen Christ appears with “a sharp two-edged sword” coming out of His mouth (Rev 1:16; 19:15). That is the sword He came with: the truth spoken, preached, embodied.

The sword He tells His disciples to buy in Luke 22 is about practical hardship. The age of easy travel and popular applause is ending; persecution and danger are coming. But even there, when Peter uses a real sword to cut off Malchus’ ear, Jesus immediately heals the man and rebukes the disciple (Luke 22:49–51). The physical sword is a concession to a fallen world, not the main instrument of His Kingdom.

The only sword He ever truly carries is the one that comes out of His mouth. And that sword always divides. It divides truth from lie, repentance from excuse, wheat from chaff, sheep from goats.

The Sword in Action

From the very start of His ministry, His words cut Israel in half.

In Nazareth, they love His gracious words until He applies them and reminds them that God’s mercy reaches Gentiles (Luke 4:16–30). Then they try to throw Him off a cliff.

In Jerusalem, He calls religious leaders “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” “fools,” “whitewashed tombs,” a “brood of vipers” (Matt 23:13–33). He unmasks their exploitation and spiritual pride.

When He says, “Before Abraham was, I AM,” they pick up stones to kill Him for blasphemy (John 8:58–59).

When He says, “I and the Father are one,” they pick up stones again (John 10:30–33).

The reaction is consistent. He is not stoned for being too “inclusive” or too “nice.” He is nearly stoned for claiming divine authority and for exposing the sins of those who considered themselves guardians of orthodoxy.

Why Truth Always Divides (and Why That’s Not a Bug)

You don’t need sociology to feel this, but a few categories help us see the mechanics.

Leaving the herd hurts. People stabilize their beliefs with relationships. Your sense of “we’re right” is often held up by “these are my people.” When you convert to Christ or when you start taking His Word seriously in public you don’t only change doctrines; you change belonging. Your old circle feels judged simply because you left it. Even if you say nothing accusatory, your very existence as “the one who walked away” is a mirror. The world’s most common interpretation of that mirror is: “You think you’re better than us.”

Truth exposes profit. In Ephesus, the silversmiths didn’t call a theology conference; they called a riot (Acts 19:23–41). When people stopped buying idols, the idol-makers didn’t say, “Interesting change in spiritual convictions.” They said, “Our trade is in danger.” When lies pay salaries, truth is labeled “hate speech” or “dangerous extremism.” When the gospel calls abortion murder, pornography slavery, or state-sponsored confusion about male and female an assault on God’s design people who profit from those things will not applaud. They will call you divisive.

Conscience hates mirrors. Jesus said plainly: “The world hates me because I testify that its works are evil” (John 7:7). He is not saying, “The world hates me because I’m rude.” He is saying, “They hate me because I name what they want unnamed.” People often prefer the comfort of never being challenged to the freedom of being forgiven. The mirror of truth is unbearable unless you also trust the mercy of the One holding it.

So yes: truth divides. Not because Christians enjoy conflict, but because reality has edges. The sword Jesus brings is not arbitrary; it is the necessary cut between what God calls good and what He calls evil.

We have now walked through all five scenes from Nazareth to Jerusalem, from Caiaphas’s council to Paul’s riot-strewn mission trail, from the Old Testament prophets to modern converts. The pattern is undeniable: truth spoken plainly into any age will split the room.

But that raises the hardest question of all: what about unity? Doesn’t the Bible command it? Isn’t division always bad?

In the next post, we confront the “unity trap” head-on and dissect exactly how the language of love and peace gets weaponized to silence the very courage Scripture commands. For an example of standing firm in the storm, read Back to the Lighthouse. For a deeper look at how the world labels this courage, read Would Jesus Be Called a Fascist? (For more on the cost of such courage, read Better That One Man Die.)

Next in the series: “The Unity Trap” Biblical unity defined, the rhetorical anatomy of Arjen and Jan’s articles (similar to the linguistic critique found in The Most Evil “Maar” BUT), and why “love” that only punches one way isn’t love at all.

The post The Long Shadow first appeared on Islam Revealed.

Part 1 of 7 in the series: The Truth That Divides

This paper exists because of a word with four letters.

“Maar.”

“Charlie Kirk is vermoord. Vreselijk. We leven mee. Maar…BUT”

Within days of his assassination, while his widow was still choking through the funeral speech, Dutch Christians began publishing pieces that moved from grief to correction at remarkable speed. Arjen ten Brinke wrote an opinion piece — “Charlie Kirks dood leert ons: Jezus is geen uithangbord voor een partij” (“Charlie Kirk’s death teaches us: Jesus is not a billboard for a party.”) On LinkedIn, Jan Wolsheimer posted “De verleiding van de cultuuroorlog” (“The temptation of the culture war.”) (a conflict that often includes debates on charged topics like Dutch Islamophobia).

This pattern of discouraging public witness is also addressed in our rebuttal to the Dutch EO Broadcasting Network.

Both condemned the killing. Both then used it as a sermon illustration against the very kind of public Christian discipleship Charlie embodied.

This is a response to that reflex — to that particular “BUT/MAAR,” which wraps itself in the language of love and unity while functionally telling Christians: Do not do what the apostles did — or those who disagree got it coming.

Two New Golden Calves: “Unity” and “My Truth”

The Bible knows about idols of wood and stone. Our age has forged quieter idols, with nicer slogans.

One is called Unity. Not unity in truth, not the costly reconciliation born of repentance and forgiveness — but unity as harmony, the absence of tension, the feeling that no one is upset. Unity as “nobody raises their voice in public about what God thinks of abortion, family, sexuality, justice, or law” (a cultural retreat that has led to what one Coptic writer calls Europe’s Death Empire).

The other is called My Truth, or my Group’s truth. Not God’s revealed Word, not the shared confession of the church across time — but the moral story I tell myself, which becomes untouchable. This “truth” can be fiercely progressive or fiercely conservative; what makes it an idol is that it cannot be corrected by Scripture or by the body of Christ. It’s the truth in my head that must never be challenged.

The first idol silences prophetic speech in the name of love. The second weaponizes conscience to baptize whatever I already wanted to believe.

Both appeared subtly but clearly in the Christian responses to Charlie Kirk’s murder.

The Tender Opening — and the Pivot

Arjen opens tenderly. His son watched Charlie’s videos “almost every day,” and Charlie helped him “not hide his faith” and “swim against the current.” He confesses he didn’t really know who Charlie was until after the murder; then, as he listened, he was “moved by his courage” and his open talk of Jesus, family, and creation. All good and true.

But as soon as he sees the funeral — the flags, the ministers, Trump, the American setting — his stomach tightens. In his words, Charlie is now used “as a symbol of [their] political struggle.” He then lists the familiar litany: family separation at the border, harsh rhetoric toward women and migrants, the infamous Bible-photo in front of the church, America First as if the Kingdom of God were one nation. From there the logic slides quickly: when faith is “connected to power,” the gospel is in danger; polarization uses even a funeral to score points; Jesus is not left or right; so let’s admire Kirk’s courage and his widow’s forgiveness, but let’s not repeat his public posture.

Jan’s article does something parallel on a more abstract level. He warns against being seduced by the “culture war” — framing public, contested Christian speech in political terms as a temptation to trade the “gospel of peace” for “false promises of safety and comfort.” His target is broader than Charlie Kirk, but the timing and the rhetoric land in the same way: bold, dividing public witness is cast as dangerously close to idolatry of tribe and power.

Both writers deplore the murder. Both then pivot to send a clear signal to watching Christians — especially young ones: Don’t be like him.

This series argues that such counsel, however well-intentioned, is theologically shallow, historically naïve, and pastorally dangerous.

When Condolences Become a Leash

There is a holy “maar” in Scripture:

“We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair.” (2 Cor 4:8)

“You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good.” (Gen 50:20)

The Christian “but” is meant to lift the eyes from the grave to the resurrection.

But there is another kind of “maar” that shows up after certain deaths — a rhetorical pivot that starts with condolences and ends with a leash:

“What happened is horrific, but we must be very careful not to fall into culture war.”

“We grieve, but we should also talk about how dangerous it is to tie faith to politics.”

“This is a tragedy, but remember: Jesus is not a billboard for a party.”

Nothing in those sentences is false at the surface level. Faith can be hijacked by power. Jesus isn’t the mascot of any party. Yet the function of this “maar” is not to deepen grief with gospel hope; it is to morally reposition the victim and discipline the watching flock: the real lesson is that you must not imitate his public boldness. You may admire his private piety and his wife’s forgiveness, but his way of showing faith in the world is quietly placed in the “warning” column.

That is a devastating message to send in a moment when a man was shot, by all indications, precisely because he dared to speak Christian convictions in the public square.

You do not have to endorse every line Charlie ever spoke to see the logic: he was doing, in 21st-century America, what the apostles did in synagogues and marketplaces — arguing for Christ, applying God’s Word to public life, opposing the idols of his age, and taking the hit for it. To call that “culture war” and to suggest the problem is the visibility of his convictions is to rebuke not only Charlie but Peter, Paul, Stephen, John the Baptist, and a long line of martyrs.

That is not love.

Why This Is Not Mainly About Charlie Kirk

This is not a hagiography of an American activist. Charlie was a sinner like the rest of us; some of his phrasing was unwise or needlessly sharp; he is not above criticism.

What matters is the pattern that his death revealed in the church’s reaction:

A Christian dies for his public convictions. A portion of the church issues condolences — then immediately shifts the spotlight onto the alleged dangers of public conviction itself. “Unity” and “love” are invoked not to comfort the bereaved and strengthen the courageous, but to dampen the instinct to speak and act as he did.

You can substitute other names and other contexts. The logic would be just as broken if it were applied to a Nigerian pastor killed by Islamists, or a Finnish politician dragged into court for quoting Scripture on sexuality, or a cop who loses his job for refusing to lie about gender. The names change; the pattern stays: We’re sorry you suffered; just don’t be so public next time.

That pattern is what this series confronts.

What This Series Will Do

The posts that follow will do three things.

First: tell the story again, properly framed. We will revisit the lives of Jesus, Paul, and the Old Testament prophets in narrative form — five scenes — to show that “division” followed them not because they were abrasive culture warriors, but because truth has edges. The accusations against them (“demon-possessed,” “subverting the nation,” “turning the world upside down”) already sound like our modern smear words.

Second: analyze why truth divides — biblically, sociologically, and historically. We will look at the mechanisms: identity and belonging, economic interests, cognitive dissonance, boundary maintenance, plausibility structures. We will show why conversion is always socially costly and why attempts to buy “unity” by muting hard truths are doomed to fail.

Third: expose the idol of “unity without truth” and the idol of “my private truth,” then recover a better way. We will argue that unity without shared submission to God’s Word is not Christian unity — it is a cease-fire with darkness. That truth which never leaves the safe confines of the heart or the church building is not biblical truth — it is a buried talent. And that love which refuses to confront destructive lies about God, about man, about children, about justice — is not love at all.

Along the way, we will also listen to the early church fathers — Justin, Chrysostom, Lactantius, and others — who lived under real imperial power and yet insisted on praying for rulers, serving the common good, refusing idolatry, and accepting persecution rather than silence.

Why This Matters — For Your Vote, Your Church, and Your Children

This is not a theoretical dispute. It goes straight to what you do with your ballot, your pulpit, your parental authority, and your citizenship.

Adam was placed in Eden “to work it and keep it” (Gen 2:15). Every Christian today lives in a cluster of “Edens” — a home, a congregation, a neighborhood, a country.

The God who gave detailed civil guidelines to Israel; who used Joseph, Daniel, Nehemiah, and Esther inside pagan states; who inspired Paul to appeal to Caesar — that God has not rescinded His interest in public life. Christ did not abolish the Law; He fulfilled it, and He said not one stroke would pass away until heaven and earth pass away (Matt 5:17–18).

In a constitutional system, voting, speaking, organizing, running for office — these are simply the tools available to “work and keep” the garden you’ve been given.

If we tell Christians that using those tools boldly, in line with Scripture, is “culture war” and a threat to the gospel, we are not protecting the gospel. We are helping dismantle the last remnants of Christian influence in law, education, and culture — and then acting shocked when someone else catechizes the next generation.

This series is for those who feel that shock, see the drift, and refuse to worship the new golden calves called “unity” and “my truth.” It is, unapologetically, a defense of divisive truth as a good — a surgical division, like light from darkness and bone from marrow (Heb 4:12).

Jesus went first. Paul followed. The prophets bled. A man named Charlie tried, in his own fallible way, to walk that same road — and died for it.

Before we rebuke his courage as “culture war,” we should at least ask whether we are rebuking the very thing Scripture calls faithfulness.

Next in the series: “Leaving the Herd” — We open the Bible and watch what happens when Jesus speaks truth in His own hometown. Spoiler: they try to throw Him off a cliff.

The post The Most Evil “Maar” BUT first appeared on Islam Revealed.

Stefan Paas, the J.H. Bavinck Professor of Missiology and Public Theology at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and the Theological University Utrecht, recently posted a notable message on X (formerly Twitter) (this article is also available in Dutch). As a theologian and academic focused on mission, church, and society, he often addresses the position of Christianity in a secular world (a complex issue that includes the challenges faced by minority groups like Coptic Christians in Europe). In his post, he suggests that Christians who believe they are being persecuted in the Netherlands should instead look at the real victims of discrimination: Muslims.

He writes (freely translated): “Christians who think they are being persecuted in the Netherlands should read this article carefully. If there are believers being persecuted in this country, it is primarily Muslims. They are confronted every day with distrust, tough talk from politicians, discriminatory proposals in right-wing party platforms (often amplified by divisive media narratives), and a government that deliberately violates fundamental constitutional rights. The good news is that the rule of law has corrected itself here.”

Paas links to a NOS article about a total fine of €250,000 imposed by the Dutch Data Protection Authority (AP) on ten Dutch municipalities: Delft, Ede, Eindhoven, Gooise Meren, Haarlemmermeer, Hilversum, Huizen, Tilburg, Veenendaal, and Zoetermeer.

What Exactly Happened?

Between approximately 2015 and 2021, these municipalities, on the advice of the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security (NCTV), commissioned external agencies to conduct covert investigations into local Muslim communities. This was a response to concerns about radicalization following events such as the Syria fighters, the Paris attacks (2015), and the Brussels attacks (2016) (fears often rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of concepts like jihad). The agencies compiled dossiers containing sensitive information: religious beliefs, political views, family ties, mosque structures, photographs of visitors, internal tensions, and even suspicions of Salafist influences.

This data was sometimes shared with the police, the NCTV, and ministries, without the knowledge of those involved and without any legal basis. The AP ruled that this constituted a serious privacy violation, was discriminatory (targeting only Muslims), and violated the GDPR. AP chairman Aleid Wolfsen emphasized that public trust in the government had been severely damaged. The municipalities acknowledge the error, have offered apologies, and are working to restore relations with the communities.

Did This Investigation Yield Anything Useful for State Security?

This is a crucial question if we want to assess whether the monitoring was justified. From all available sources AP reports, news articles (NOS, NU.nl, NL Times), and analyses there is no evidence whatsoever that these investigations produced any concrete security benefits.

• There are no reports of prevented attacks, arrested radicals, or actionable intelligence that directly came from these dossiers.
• It involved broad “mapping” without specific suspicions → more profiling than targeted intelligence.
• Critics, including the AP, point out that such practices are counterproductive: they erode trust, make cooperation with Muslim communities more difficult, and can actually promote radicalization.
• The investigations were ultimately deemed unlawful, which suggests they did not meet the strict requirements for privacy infringement in the interest of security.

In short: the intention was understandable in a time of heightened threat, but the execution was unlawful and apparently produced no measurable security gains. That makes the fines justified, but the distrust that Paas describes also has a background in real security concerns something that should not be ignored in the debate.

(Continuation follows: from here we can delve deeper into broader context, statistics, and why ‘fear’ is not always ‘phobia.’)

Analysis of Stefan Paas’s Core Statement

Let us take Paas’s words literally and dissect them:

“Christians who believe they are being persecuted in the Netherlands should read this article carefully. If there are believers being persecuted in this country, it is primarily Muslims. They wake up every morning knowing that they are distrusted, that every day some politician talks tough about them, that party platforms on the right are routinely filled with discriminatory proposals, and that the government has knowingly violated their fundamental constitutional rights. The good news is that the rule of law has corrected itself here, even if it took a while.”

Paas flips the victim narrative here: not Christians, but Muslims are supposedly the truly persecuted believers in the Netherlands. He specifically mentions:

• Daily distrust,
• Political ‘tough talk’,
• Discriminatory proposals in right-wing party platforms,
• And deliberate violation of fundamental constitutional rights by the government.

He concludes on a positive note: the rule of law has restored itself.

We give Paas honest credit where it is deserved: the covert investigations were indeed an infringement on the fundamental rights of a specific group. The right to privacy (Article 8 ECHR and Article 10 of the Dutch Constitution) and the prohibition of discrimination (Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution) were violated. The Dutch Data Protection Authority ruled unequivocally: no legal basis, disproportionate data processing, and exclusive focus on Muslim communities that makes it discriminatory. The fines are legally justified.

Was This an Illegal Action, and What Does That Say About the Execution?

Yes, it was undeniably illegal. There was no basis in the Police Data Act or the GDPR. The investigations did not meet the requirements of necessity, proportionality, and subsidiarity. Municipalities and the NCTV exceeded their authority.

But precisely for that reason, it was also a stupid move. Bureaucrats and security services chose an approach that was not only unlawful but also ineffective and counterproductive. All reports and sources show no concrete security results whatsoever: no prevented attacks, no arrests of radicals, no actionable intelligence. It was broad-based profiling without targeted focus a blunt instrument against a complex threat.

This reveals a deeper problem: a lack of understanding of how the Islamic world and its internal dynamics work (Salafism, political Islam, radicalization processes). Instead of smart, lawful methods such as cooperation with communities or targeted intelligence they resorted to covert practices that destroy trust and can actually fuel radicalization.

Paas is right that constitutional rights were violated and that the rule of law corrected itself. But his leap to ‘persecution’ of Muslims goes too far: it was a policy blunder, not systematic oppression. The distrust he describes has real roots that we should not whitewash.

Does This Error Demonstrate Systemic Racism? Is the Dutch State a Racist State?

No, this policy error however unlawful and stupid does not prove systemic racism, a racist state, or a racist people. That would be a gross exaggeration that does violence to reality.

Muslims in the Netherlands enjoy full rights and freedoms, often more than in the countries where they or their parents came from. They hold prominent positions in politics and government, which would be impossible in a ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobic’ society:

• Ahmed Aboutaleb has been the mayor of Rotterdam since 2009, the second-largest city in the Netherlands a Moroccan-Dutch Muslim who is one of the most respected administrators.
• Ahmed Marcouch is the mayor of Arnhem and was previously a member of parliament for the PvdA (Labour Party).
• In 2007, Ahmed Aboutaleb and Nebahat Albayrak became the first Muslims to join a Dutch cabinet (as state secretaries).

This pattern is visible across all of Europe:

• Sadiq Khan has been the mayor of London since 2016.
• Humza Yousaf was First Minister of Scotland from 2023 to 2024.
• In Germany, Cem Özdemir has been Minister of Agriculture (since 2021) and former party leader of the Greens.

If the Netherlands or Europe were systematically racist, Muslims would never reach such high positions. Democracy works here: voters elect them, parties nominate them.

Freedoms That Are Unthinkable Elsewhere

Muslims in the Netherlands have freedoms that do not exist in 90% of Islamic countries. Take a simple example: a Muslim can openly criticize, insult, or even sue King Willem-Alexander here, and nothing serious happens (lèse-majesté exists but is rarely prosecuted and at most results in a fine). In Morocco, by contrast, you risk up to five years in prison for ‘insulting the king’ (Article 179 of the Penal Code), the Amir al-Mouminine (‘Commander of the Faithful’). There are countless cases of activists and journalists who spent years in prison for a Facebook post or a critical remark.

Here there are no blasphemy laws, no apostasy penalties, no mandatory sharia. Muslims freely build mosques (more than 450 in the Netherlands), receive subsidies for schools, receive welfare benefits, and can file discrimination complaints with the courts. They pray freely, fast freely, wear what they want just like all other Dutch citizens.

Persecution? A Gross Exaggeration

To call Muslims in the Netherlands ‘persecuted’ is a gross exaggeration and a nonsensical generalization. An illegal investigation into a specific group (driven by concerns about radicalization) is a blunder, not proof of state racism. Mosques are open, Friday prayers go on, nobody is arrested for praying. On the contrary: the rule of law protects Muslims just as it does everyone else.

The distrust Paas mentions has causes but it does not make the Netherlands a racist hell. It makes us a country with common sense, one that corrects its mistakes without condemning the entire society.

The Distrust Why Does It Actually Exist?

Yes, Stefan Paas has a point: there is distrust toward Muslims in the Netherlands. To deny that would be foolish. But the question is: where does that distrust come from? Is it because the Dutch are inherently ugly, racist people who should be ashamed of their colonial past? No, cut it out with that leftist guilt talk. That is a cheap distraction.

The Netherlands is not a racist country, and the Dutch are not ‘rednecks’ or con artists. Every society has its problems and oddities, but this people is absolutely not inherently evil or xenophobic. I speak from experience: as an African-American Copt living here, who has learned Dutch and runs multiple businesses (no shawarma shops, for the record), I can freely go to the Coptic church, pray, and go home without anyone giving me a second glance. My Hindustani friends and employees celebrate Diwali without some official coming to ‘investigate’ whether it might be radicalization. Nobody makes a problem out of it.

Even Christians sometimes get strange treatment: a pastor was arrested because someone felt he held anti-gay views or prayed that gays would be ‘healed.’ As a Christian, that made me angry, but I’m not going to shout that the Netherlands is Christophobic or racist. It is bureaucracy that sometimes goes too far, not a system that oppresses believers.

The distrust is not primarily directed at Muslims as people people are people, in every culture and religion. There are always individuals who spew online hate against Dutch culture or call for everyone to convert to Islam, and yes, that sometimes feeds a personal resentment. But let’s be honest: the real distrust is directed at Islam as an ideology, as a dogma.

Why? Because Islam is not simply a private faith that stays neatly at home. In its classical texts and historical application, it contains elements that are difficult to reconcile with an open, secular society: verses that call for struggle against unbelievers (the Sword Verse from Surah 9:5 is not a metaphor), a prophet whose biography includes wars, conquests, and executions (such as the 900 men of Banu Qurayza), and a long history of expansion that has wiped out entire Christian regions.

That is not a ‘phobia’; it is a rational response to an ideology that, in its pure form, cannot always coexist peacefully alongside other convictions. People distrust Islam because they know the texts, know the history, and see the news reports not because they are ‘racist.’ The distrust is not blind hatred; it is common sense that says: “We have seen this before, and we don’t want it here.”

Muslims as people deserve respect and freedom, just like everyone else. But Islam as a system? You can distrust that without being a bad person.

The Distrust Deepened Why the Entire West Feels It

The distrust toward Islam as an ideology is not a Dutch phenomenon. It exists across the entire Western world: Europe, America, Australia, Canada. And no, it does not come from ‘colonial guilt’ or because we are all secretly racists. It comes from facts hard, bloody facts that nobody can whitewash.

Since 1979, nearly 70,000 Islamist terrorist attacks have been carried out worldwide (according to the latest Fondapol figures from 2025, based on 45 years of data). This resulted in at least 250,000 deaths. Most victims fall in Muslim countries themselves (more than 90%), but the attacks spread across the entire planet: India (thousands dead in Kashmir, Mumbai 2008 with 166 victims), Africa (Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab), Asia, and yes, also the West and Australia.

In India alone, tens of thousands dead from fundamentalist violence think train bombings, market explosions, attacks on temples. Wherever literal, fundamentalist interpretations of Islam dominate, mass slaughter follows.

Filtering for the West (Europe, US, Australia, Canada): hundreds of attacks since 2000, with thousands dead. Examples etched in our memory:

• 9/11 (US, 2001): nearly 3,000 dead.
• Madrid trains (2004): 191 dead.
• London 7/7 (2005): 52 dead.
• Paris Bataclan and terraces (2015): 130 dead.
• Nice truck attack (2016): 86 dead.
• Manchester Arena (2017): 22 dead.
• And more recently: the ISIS-inspired attack on Bondi Beach in Sydney (December 2025), where a terrorist shot 15 people dead during a Hanukkah celebration the deadliest attack in Australia in decades.

These are not ‘incidents.’ This is a pattern. And it continues, to this very day (early 2026). It is impossible to act as if 70,000 attacks are ‘nothing,’ or ‘a small problem.’ Every attack leaves scars: families without a father, children without a mother, cities in mourning. Anyone who trivializes that is living in denial.

The Big Problem of Ignorance The Numbers Don’t Lie

Here comes the biggest source of concern: the scale. There are over 2 billion Muslims in the world. Hypothetically assume and this is a rough, commonly used estimate in debates that ‘only’ 10% are fundamentalist (meaning they follow the texts strictly literally, including the violent verses). That is 200 million people.

Now assume that of that 10%, again ‘only’ 10% are willing to take action (not all terrorists, but supporters, financiers, or potentially violent). That is still 20 million people.

20 million. Let that sink in.

How large was Hitler’s army at its peak? The Wehrmacht counted a maximum of around 13 million soldiers. And how many allies did Hitler have among certain groups in the Arab world? Think of figures who openly collaborated with him.

20 million potential adversaries shouting ‘death to America,’ ‘death to Israel,’ ‘death to the West’ that is not a ‘small group of extremists.’ That is an army larger than what set the world ablaze in the 1940s.

Of course, not nearly all Muslims are like that. Most just want to live their lives. But the potential, the ideology that fuels it, and the attacks that keep coming that makes distrust understandable. It is not a phobia. It is realism.

Vigilance Works Prevented Attacks and Why Intelligence Work Is Crucial

The distrust is not blind fear, but a response to a real threat that is fortunately often stopped thanks to excellent intelligence work by NATO countries and their security services. Yes, attacks have gotten through Bataclan, Nice, Manchester but many more have been prevented. That proves how important proactive defense is.

In the EU alone, according to Europol reports (TE-SAT), dozens of jihadist plots were thwarted in recent years:

• Between 2019 and 2021: at least 29 jihadist or far-right plots stopped.
• In 2024: 19 thwarted attacks in total (out of 58 reported).
• In the UK: between 2017 and recent years, more than 30 ‘late-stage’ plots prevented, mostly jihadist.

Examples of successful operations:

• Multiple thwarted attacks on Christmas markets in Germany (inspired by ISIS).
• Plots against concert halls and airports in the UK and France.
• In the US: numerous lone-wolf plans stopped by the FBI, such as subway bombings in New York.

Every thwarted plot potentially saves hundreds of lives think of the scale of Bataclan (130 dead) or Nice (86 dead). Thousands of lives have been saved thanks to tips, surveillance, infiltration, and international cooperation. Without that work, the West would look much bloodier.

Of course, far-right and neo-Nazi plots are also stopped and rightly so. In the UK, of the 32 thwarted plots since 2017, 12 were far-right. In the EU, that number is rising. But here lies the difference: those are domestic problems. Neo-Nazis do not attack in Morocco, Egypt, or Indonesia. Saudi Arabia does not have a ‘white Nazi terror problem.’ Dubai does not monitor churches or Hindu temples because no threat comes from there Christians and Hindus do not carry out attacks there.

Conversely: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain (not Qatar) strictly monitor mosques and have banned the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, with severe criminal consequences. Why? Because the Brotherhood promotes a political Islam that threatens regimes and feeds radicalization. And ironically: the same Muslim Brotherhood, through affiliated networks, has influence on many mosques in the West (through financing, imams, and organizations like the Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe). Countries like France and Austria have therefore taken action against Brotherhood-linked groups, and there are proposals in the US to designate them as a terrorist organization.

That is the asymmetry: the West must be vigilant against an international, ideological threat that can emanate from mosques and networks just as Muslim countries do for internal Islamist groups. Vigilance is not racism; it is realism that saves lives.

Without intelligence work and healthy skepticism, those 70,000 attacks worldwide would come much closer to home. The distrust is earned but it should be channeled toward prevention, not hatred.

Blaming the West White Guilt, Historical Revisionism, and Cultural Suicide

One of the biggest problems in this debate is the reflex to explain every Islamist act as ‘our fault.’ The West supposedly provoked it itself through colonialism, through the Crusades, through Israel, through ‘oppression.’ That is not only nonsense; it is toxic white guilt that leads to cultural suicide. We are mutilating our own society by turning the crimes of an ideological fringe group into a ‘Western problem.’ As if we are responsible for what others do in the name of their dogma.

The favorite excuse: “Muslims are angry because of the Crusades, that’s why they still hate us.” Bullshit. Pure historical revisionism. The Crusades (1095–1291) were not unprovoked aggression but a late, defensive response to nearly 500 years of Islamic expansion and conquest. From the 7th century onward, Islamic armies conquered the entire Middle East, North Africa, and large parts of Europe: Egypt, Syria, the Levant, Spain all originally Christian regions. Tens of thousands of churches were destroyed or converted into mosques. Christian pilgrims were robbed, murdered, or enslaved. Only when Jerusalem fell and the Seljuks threatened the Byzantine Empire did a counter-reaction come.

We do not owe that. We did not ‘provoke’ it. And we are not going to discuss the real chronology in sufficient detail here there are articles elsewhere for that. But one thing is clear: Muslim hatred of the West (and of Jews) has existed for centuries before the Crusades and before the modern era.

Take Israel as an excuse: “They do it because of the occupation.” More nonsense. Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, was already best friends with Hitler in 1941. He met him personally in Berlin, called for the expansion of the Holocaust to the Middle East, recruited Muslims for SS units, and spread Nazi propaganda via radio. This was years before the establishment of Israel in 1948. There was no ‘occupation,’ no ‘Nakba’ only pure, ideological hatred of Jews that seamlessly aligned with verses in the Quran and hadith that designate Jews (and Christians) as enemies.

All of this proves once again how often ‘doormat Christians’ Christians who, out of misplaced empathy, explain everything away are wrong. By placing the blame on ourselves, we deny the reality of an ideology that is inherently expansionist and intolerant. We are committing cultural suicide: borders open, criticism taboo, defense labeled ‘racism.’ Toxic empathy turns love into capitulation.

We did not cause this. It is not a ‘reaction’ to our behavior. It is an ideological problem that we must name without guilt. Only then can we protect ourselves without hatred, but with clarity.

The Damage of Paas’s Narrative Guilt-Tripping Christians into a Utopian Worldview

People like Stefan Paas guilt-trip Christians into a completely unreal worldview: a virtual utopia where existing reality lives in Narnia, not in the world as it is. Islamist attacks happen period. Since 1979, nearly 70,000 Islamist terrorist attacks worldwide, with more than 250,000 deaths, and that pattern continues in 2025–2026 with groups like ISIS active in 22 countries and hundreds of thwarted plots in the West. In Europe and the US alone: dozens of thwarted jihadist plots in 2024–2025, such as the attack on Taylor Swift concerts in Vienna, thwarted by intelligence work that saved thousands of lives. The perpetrators come from mosques, so if some idiot thought he could save lives by covertly monitoring mosques, call him what he is: a stupid idiot. Not a racist idiot. Racism plays absolutely no role here; it was a bureaucratic blunder, not a hate campaign, and it produced zero security results.

But the only result of Paas’s thinking his portrayal of Muslims as ‘persecuted’ in the Netherlands is the creation of even more white guilt among people who did nothing except welcome Muslims into their communities. Only to wake up with some of them saying that Dutch girls are ‘whores’ who need to cover up, or who tell their children not to play with or date ‘filthy Dutch’ because they are not Muslims. And yes, the stereotypical line ‘not all Muslims are like that’ of course not, nobody ever said that! This article began by saying: people are people, Muslims are better than their dogma. The problem comes from a supposedly holy book that tells Muslims to hate the Dutch, to hate their culture. A book that says: do not take Jews and Christians as friends, because that is against the Quran (Surah 5:51). Muslims are good people, yes but many want to follow their book literally, and if the Dutch community or some of the Dutch do not trust that, it is completely understandable. The Quran is extremely hostile toward everything non-Muslim, and even more so toward Jews and Christians. FYI: Muslims view the entire West as ‘Christian’ and ‘Jewish.’ Remember the verse: “Lan tarda anka al-yahoud wal-nasara hata tatabia millatahum” (Surah 2:120) Jews and Christians will never be pleased with you until you follow their religion. And consider the doctrine of Al-Walaa wal-Baraa: loyalty to Muslims, hatred of and distance from all non-Muslims, in order to be a true worshipper of Allah!

So why does Mr. Paas act as if nothing is going on, as if the Dutch are just persecuting Muslims out of nowhere? As if that is a realistic assumption! Muslims here enjoy freedoms they do not have in 90% of Islamic countries: mayors like Ahmed Aboutaleb in Rotterdam since 2009, Ahmed Marcouch in Arnhem, Sadiq Khan in London since 2016. Criticize King Willem-Alexander without a death sentence, while in Morocco insulting the king (Amir al-Mouminine) means years in prison. Mosques open, praying freely no blasphemy laws. ‘Persecution’? A gross exaggeration.

Why is vigilance suddenly a sin and a source of guilt? Why falsely guilt-trip Christians with a false narrative and a wrong interpretation of the Bible? Yes, ‘love thy neighbor’ but what if my neighbor is a pedophile who wants to ‘date’ a 9-year-old girl? Am I supposed to hug him and love him? Should I not call the police to protect his 9-year-old ‘bride’? Should I betray 2,000 years of social development, emancipation, and civilization to turn a bunch of Christians into doormats? This guilt-tripping ignores the historical reality: the Crusades were a response to 475 years of Islamic aggression, murder of Christians, and slavery; Egypt, Syria, the Levant were Christian before 30,000 churches were burned. No revenge for the Hagia Sophia or Ottoman massacres we accept the flow of history. But we do not revise it to weaponize empathy against ourselves. Amin al-Husseini shook Hitler’s hand in 1941, before Israel pure hatred of Jews, no ‘reaction.’

Consider how disastrous that doormat behavior is, as we have discussed throughout this entire piece: it is not Christianity; it is self-destruction. Love thy neighbor stops exactly where the neighbor pulls the pin or pulls the trigger. God calls Christians to love, but also to defense of self, family, and flock. Jesus did not say we should let ourselves be slaughtered He drove out the money changers with a whip (John 2:15). Paul carried protection (Acts 23:12–24). The Bible is full of righteous defense: David against Goliath, Nehemiah who built walls with a sword in hand (Nehemiah 4:17–18). Love does not mean capitulation; it means protecting the innocent, setting boundaries, enforcing law and justice. Otherwise, you abolish everything: no borders, no police, no prisons because thieves, rapists, and bombers are also ‘enemies’ we must ‘love.’ Some Christians in America already preach this, but it is madness. Toxic empathy turns love into suicide; real love protects the flock.

“Paas’ narrative cultivates a fatal spiritual defenselessness. It imposes a guilt complex on Christians in which vigilance is dismissed as a sin, whereas it is simply common sense. This attitude ignores the enormous scale of the ideological threat: out of two billion Muslims, ten percent fundamentalists already equates to a group of 200 million. Even if only a fraction of that 20 million is willing to commit violence, we are talking about a fighting force larger than the Wehrmacht.

Let’s be honest: the recent infringement on religious freedom was ugly, unwise, and counterproductive. That must be said. But it is of a staggering naïvety to pretend we live in a world of rainbows and unicorns, where Islam seamlessly blends with our values.

It is intellectual cowardice to deny that there are deep, fundamental incompatibilities between Islam and Western civilization. We cannot close our eyes to the fact that since day one, Islam has pursued a doctrine of conquest, systematically attacking and annexing Christian territory. Its theology explicitly states that Christians and Jews are not friends, but enemies to be subjugated. As long as a ‘good Muslim’ is theologically discouraged from being our friend, we face an existential problem.

If we do not place this uncomfortable truth openly and honestly on the table, we invite disaster upon ourselves. The desperate suppression of this conflict inevitably leads to panic reactions and further infringements on rights—precisely what we wish to prevent. Forcibly ignoring the facts only widens the rift between Muslims and the rest of society, precisely when we need to move forward as a nation. But to heal, one must first admit the patient is sick. The first step to recovery is honestly naming the problem: our cultures clash, and silence is no solution.”

Sources and Citations

Below is a complete list of sources and citations used for the facts, statistics, and historical references in this article. They are numbered for easy reference and based on reliable, recent data (up to February 2026). Where relevant, inline citations in the text are linked to this list.

1. Fondapol (2024). “Islamist terrorist attacks in the world 1979–2024.” Fondation pour l’innovation politique. Available at: https://www.fondapol.org/en/study/islamist-terrorist-attacks-in-the-world-1979-2024. (Used for statistics on 66,872 attacks and 249,941 deaths worldwide since 1979.)
2. Institute for Economics and Peace (2025). “Global Terrorism Index 2025: Measuring the Impact of Terrorism.” Sydney: IEP. Available at: https://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Global-Terrorism-Index-2025.pdf. (Used for terrorism trends, including the rise in the West and focus on ISIS activities in 2024–2025, with 24 thwarted attacks linked to ISIS.)
3. Europol (2025). “European Union Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2025 (EU TE-SAT).” The Hague: Europol. Available at: https://www.europol.europa.eu/publication-events/main-reports/european-union-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report-2025-eu-te-sat. (Used for statistics on 58 attacks in the EU in 2024, 449 arrests, and thwarted jihadist plots in Europe 2024–2025.)
4. Cato Institute (2025). “Human Freedom Index 2025.” Washington, DC: Cato Institute. Available at: https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2025. (Used for comparison of personal freedoms: Muslim-majority countries averaging 5.52 vs. nearly 9 in Europe; including women’s rights and regional differences.)
5. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (2026). “Hajj Amin al-Husayni: Key Dates.” Washington, DC: USHMM. Available at: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/hajj-amin-al-husayni-key-dates. (Used for historical details about the meeting between al-Husseini and Hitler on November 28, 1941, and his role in Nazi propaganda and SS recruitment.)
6. Combating Terrorism Center at West Point (2025). “The August 2024 Taylor Swift Vienna Concert Plot.” CTC Sentinel. Available at: https://ctc.westpoint.edu/the-august-2024-taylor-swift-vienna-concert-plot. (Used for details on thwarted jihadist plots in Europe, including the Taylor Swift concert plot in 2024 and involvement of minors.)
7. Wikipedia (2026). “2025 Bondi Beach shooting.” Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Bondi_Beach_shooting. (Used for details on the ISIS-inspired attack on December 14, 2025, in Sydney, with 16 deaths during a Hanukkah celebration.)
8. Nesser, P. (2024). “Introducing the Jihadi Plots in Europe Dataset (JPED).” Perspectives on Terrorism, 18(1). Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00223433221123360. (Used for analysis of 273 jihadist plots in Western Europe 1994–2024, with 58% thwarted attacks and a focus on lone actors.)
9. International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (2025). “The Islamic State in 2025: An Evolving Threat Facing a Waning Global Response.” The Hague: ICCT. Available at: https://icct.nl/publication/islamic-state-2025-evolving-threat-facing-waning-global-response. (Used for trends in ISIS threats, including the increase in minor involvement and thwarted attacks in Europe 2024–2025.)
10. Danish Institute for International Studies (2025). “Europe’s Teenage Jihadists.” Copenhagen: DIIS. Available at: https://www.diis.dk/en/research/europes-teenage-jihadists. (Used for statistics on minors in jihadist plots, with 33% of European ISIS-related incidents since 2022.)
11. Reuters (2024). “Fact Check: Viral post about number of Muslim mayors in UK is misleading.” Available at: https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/viral-post-about-number-muslim-mayors-uk-is-misleading-2024-06-12. (Used for verification of Muslim mayors in Europe, including Sadiq Khan and others.)
12. The Quran (standard translation). Verses such as Surah 2:120, 5:51, 9:5, and doctrines such as Al-Walaa wal-Baraa. (Based on classical interpretations from Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Tafsir al-Tabari, and Tafsir al-Jalalayn; no specific web source, but academic consensus.)

These sources were selected based on their relevance and reliability. For historical facts about the Crusades, destroyed churches, and Ottoman history, general academic works were used (not specifically cited, but consistent with standard references such as “The Oxford History of the Crusades” by Jonathan Riley-Smith). For updates after 2026, consult current databases.

The post Dutch Islamophobia: A Rational Fear? first appeared on Islam Revealed.

Stefan Paas, de J.H. Bavinck Hoogleraar Missiologie en Publieke Theologie aan de Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam en de Theologische Universiteit Utrecht, plaatste onlangs een opvallende post op X (voorheen Twitter). Als theoloog en academicus met een focus op missie, kerk en samenleving, richt hij zich vaak op de positie van het christendom in een seculiere wereld. In zijn bericht suggereert hij dat christenen die menen vervolgd te worden in Nederland, beter kunnen kijken naar de werkelijke slachtoffers van discriminatie: moslims (een scherp contrast met de historische rol van het christendom in conflicten zoals de kruistochten).

#image_title

Hij schrijft: “Christenen die denken dat ze vervolgd worden in Nederland, moeten dit artikel goed lezen. Als er gelovigen vervolgd worden in dit land, dan zijn het vooral moslims. Zij worden elke dag geconfronteerd met wantrouwen, stoere praat van politici, discriminerende voorstellen in rechtse partijprogramma’s en een overheid die bewust fundamentele grondrechten schendt. Het goede nieuws is dat de rechtsstaat zich hier heeft gecorrigeerd.”

Paas linkt naar een NOS-artikel over een boete van in totaal €250.000 die de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (AP) oplegde aan tien Nederlandse gemeenten: Delft, Ede, Eindhoven, Gooise Meren, Haarlemmermeer, Hilversum, Huizen, Tilburg, Veenendaal en Zoetermeer.

Wat gebeurde er precies?

Tussen circa 2015 en 2021 lieten deze gemeenten, op advies van de Nationaal Coördinator Terrorismebestrijding en Veiligheid (NCTV), externe bureaus heimelijk onderzoek doen naar lokale moslimgemeenschappen. Dit was een reactie op zorgen over radicalisering na gebeurtenissen als de Syriëstrijders, de aanslagen in Parijs (2015) en Brussel (2016). De bureaus stelden dossiers samen met gevoelige informatie: religieuze overtuigingen, politieke opvattingen, familiebanden, moskeestructuren, foto’s van bezoekers, interne spanningen en zelfs vermoedens van salafistische invloeden (een stroming die soms wordt geassocieerd met bepaalde interpretaties van jihad).

Deze gegevens werden soms gedeeld met politie, NCTV en ministeries, zonder dat de betrokkenen ervan wisten en zonder wettelijke grondslag. De AP oordeelde dat dit een ernstige privacyschending was, discriminerend (alleen gericht op moslims) en in strijd met de AVG. AP-voorzitter Aleid Wolfsen benadrukte dat het vertrouwen in de overheid ernstig is beschadigd. De gemeenten erkennen de fout, hebben excuses aangeboden en werken aan herstel van relaties met de gemeenschappen.

Leidde dit onderzoek tot iets nuttigs voor de staatsveiligheid?

Dit is een cruciale vraag als we willen beoordelen of de monitoring gerechtvaardigd was. Uit alle beschikbare bronnen rapporten van de AP, nieuwsartikelen (NOS, NU.nl, NL Times) en analyses blijkt geen enkel bewijs dat deze onderzoeken concrete veiligheidsvoordelen opleverden.

• Er zijn geen meldingen van voorkomen aanslagen, opgepakte radicalen of bruikbare inlichtingen die direct uit deze dossiers kwamen.
• Het ging om brede ‘mapping’ zonder specifieke verdachtmakingen → meer profilering dan gerichte intelligence.
• Critici, waaronder de AP, wijzen erop dat zulke praktijken contraproductief werken: ze eroderen vertrouwen, maken samenwerking met moslimgemeenschappen moeilijker en kunnen radicalisering juist bevorderen.
• De onderzoeken werden uiteindelijk als onwettig bestempeld, wat suggereert dat ze niet voldeden aan de strenge eisen voor inbreuk op privacy ten behoeve van veiligheid.

Kortom: de intentie was begrijpelijk in een tijd van verhoogde dreiging, maar de uitvoering was onrechtmatig en leverde blijkbaar geen meetbare veiligheidswinst op. Dat maakt de boetes terecht, maar het wantrouwen dat Paas beschrijft, heeft ook een achtergrond in reële veiligheidszorgen iets wat in het debat niet genegeerd mag worden.

(Vervolg volgt: hierna kunnen we dieper ingaan op bredere context, statistieken en waarom ‘angst’ niet altijd ‘fobie’ is.)

Analyse van de kernuitspraak van Stefan Paas

Laten we de woorden van Paas letterlijk onder de loep nemen en ontleden:

“Christenen die van mening zijn dat ze vervolgd worden in NL, zouden dit artikel goed moeten lezen. Als er gelovigen vervolgd worden in dit land, zijn het vooral moslims. Die worden elke morgen wakker in de wetenschap dat ze gewantrouwd worden, dat er elke dag wel een politicus is die stoere praat over hen uitslaat, dat partijprogramma’s op rechts routineus vol zitten met discriminerende voorstellen, en dat de overheid willens en wetens hun fundamentele grondrechten heeft geschonden. Het goede nieuws is dat de rechtsstaat zichzelf hier heeft gecorrigeerd, al duurde het even.”

Paas draait hier het slachtofferverhaal om: niet christenen, maar moslims zouden de werkelijk vervolgde gelovigen zijn in Nederland. Hij noemt concreet:

• Dagelijks wantrouwen,
• Politieke ‘stoere praat’,
• Discriminerende voorstellen in rechtse partijprogramma’s,
• En bewuste schending van fundamentele grondrechten door de overheid.

Hij sluit af met een positieve noot: de rechtsstaat heeft zich hersteld.

We geven Paas eerlijk krediet waar het verdient: de heimelijke onderzoeken waren inderdaad een inbreuk op fundamentele rechten van een specifieke groep. Het recht op privacy (artikel 8 EVRM en artikel 10 Grondwet) en het discriminatieverbod (artikel 1 Grondwet) zijn geschonden. De Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens oordeelde ondubbelzinnig: geen wettelijke basis, disproportionele verwerking, en exclusieve focus op moslimgemeenschappen dat maakt het discriminerend. De boetes zijn juridisch terecht.

Was dit een illegale actie en wat zegt dat over de uitvoering?

Ja, het was ontegenzeglijk illegaal. Er was geen grondslag in de Wet politiegegevens of de AVG. De onderzoeken voldeden niet aan de eisen van noodzakelijkheid, proportionaliteit en subsidiariteit. Gemeenten en NCTV traden buiten hun bevoegdheden.

Maar juist daarom was het ook een domme zet. Bureaucraten en veiligheidsdiensten kozen een aanpak die niet alleen onwettig was, maar ook ineffectief en contraproductief. Uit alle rapporten en bronnen blijkt geen enkel concreet veiligheidsresultaat: geen voorkomen aanslagen, geen arrestaties van radicalen, geen bruikbare intelligence. Het was brede profilering zonder gerichte focus een bot instrument in een complexe dreiging.

Dit onthult een dieper probleem: een gebrek aan begrip van hoe de islamitische wereld en haar interne dynamieken werken (salafisme, politieke islam, radicaliseringsprocessen). In plaats van slimme, wettelijke methodes zoals samenwerking met gemeenschappen of gerichte inlichtingen greep men naar heimelijke praktijken die vertrouwen vernietigen en radicalisering juist kunnen aanwakkeren.

Paas heeft gelijk dat grondrechten zijn geschonden en dat de rechtsstaat corrigeerde. Maar zijn sprong naar ‘vervolging’ van moslims gaat te ver: het was een beleidsblunder, geen systematische onderdrukking. Het wantrouwen dat hij beschrijft, heeft reële wortels die we niet mogen wegpoetsen.

Toont deze fout systemisch racisme? Is de Nederlandse staat een racistische staat?

Nee, deze beleidsfout hoe onwettig en dom ook bewijst geen systemisch racisme, geen racistische staat en al helemaal geen racistisch volk. Dat zou een grove overdrijving zijn, die de realiteit violenceert.

Moslims in Nederland genieten juist volle rechten en vrijheden, vaak meer dan in de landen waar zij of hun ouders vandaan komen. Ze bekleden prominente posities in politiek en bestuur, wat onmogelijk zou zijn in een ‘racistische’ of ‘islamofobe’ samenleving:

• Ahmed Aboutaleb is sinds 2009 burgemeester van Rotterdam, de tweede grootste stad van Nederland een Marokkaans-Nederlandse moslim die een van de meest gerespecteerde bestuurders is.
• Ahmed Marcouch is burgemeester van Arnhem en werd eerder Kamerlid voor de PvdA.
• In 2007 traden Ahmed Aboutaleb en Nebahat Albayrak als eerste moslims toe tot een Nederlands kabinet (staatssecretarissen).

Dit patroon zie je in heel Europa:

• Sadiq Khan is sinds 2016 burgemeester van Londen.
• Humza Yousaf was van 2023 tot 2024 First Minister van Schotland.
• In Duitsland is Cem Özdemir minister van Landbouw (sinds 2021) en voormalig partijleider van de Groenen.

Als Nederland of Europa systematisch racistisch zou zijn, zouden moslims nooit zulke hoge functies bereiken. Democratie werkt hier: kiezers kiezen hen, partijen nomineren hen.

Vrijheden die elders ondenkbaar zijn

Moslims in Nederland hebben vrijheden die in 90% van de islamitische landen niet bestaan. Neem een simpel voorbeeld: een moslim kan hier koning Willem-Alexander openlijk bekritiseren, beledigen of zelfs aanklagen en er gebeurt niets ernstigs (majesteitsschennis bestaat, maar wordt zelden vervolgd en leidt hooguit tot een boete). In Marokko daarentegen riskeer je tot vijf jaar gevangenisstraf voor ‘belediging van de koning’ (artikel 179 Strafwet), de Amir al-Mouminine (‘Leider der Gelovigen’). Er zijn talloze gevallen van activisten en journalisten die jaren vastzaten voor een Facebookpost of kritisch woord.

Hier gelden geen blasfemiewetten, geen apostasie-straffen, geen verplichte sharia. Moslims bouwen vrij moskeeën (meer dan 450 in Nederland), ontvangen subsidie voor scholen, krijgen bijstand en kunnen discriminatie aanklagen bij de rechter. Ze bidden vrij, vasten vrij, dragen wat ze willen net als alle andere Nederlanders.

Vervolging? Een grove overdrijving

Om moslims in Nederland ‘vervolgd’ te noemen is een grove overdrijving en een onzinnige generalisatie. Een illegaal onderzoek naar een specifieke groep (door zorgen over radicalisering) is een blunder, geen bewijs van staatsracisme. Moskeeën staan open, het vrijdaggebed gaat door, niemand wordt gearresteerd omdat hij bidt. Integendeel: de rechtsstaat beschermt moslims net zo als iedereen.

Het wantrouwen dat Paas noemt, heeft oorzaken maar het maakt Nederland geen racistische hel. Het maakt ons een land met gezond verstand, dat fouten corrigeert zonder de hele samenleving te veroordelen.

Het wantrouwen waarom bestaat het eigenlijk?

Ja, Stefan Paas heeft een punt: er ís wantrouwen tegenover moslims in Nederland. Dat ontkennen zou dom zijn. Maar de vraag is: waar komt dat wantrouwen vandaan? Is het omdat de Nederlanders van nature lelijke, racistische mensen zijn die zich moeten schamen voor hun koloniale verleden? Nee, hou op met die linkse schuldpraat. Dat is een goedkope afleiding.

Nederland is geen racistisch land en Nederlanders zijn geen ‘rednecks’ of oplichters. Elke samenleving heeft zijn problemen en rariteiten, maar dit volk is absoluut niet inherent slecht of xenofoob. Ik spreek uit ervaring: als Afrikaans-Amerikaanse Kopt die hier woont, Nederlands heeft geleerd en meerdere bedrijven runt (geen shoarmazaken, voor de duidelijkheid ), kan ik vrij naar de koptische kerk gaan, bidden en naar huis gaan zonder dat iemand me aankijkt. Mijn Hindoestaanse vrienden en werknemers vieren Diwali zonder dat er een ambtenaar komt ‘onderzoeken’ of het misschien radicalisering is. Niemand maakt daar een probleem van.

Zelfs christenen krijgen soms rare behandeling: een predikant werd gearresteerd omdat iemand vond dat hij anti-homostandpunten had of bad dat homo’s ‘genezen’ zouden worden. Daar werd ik als christen boos over, maar ik ga niet roepen dat Nederland christofoob of racistisch is. Het is bureaucratie die soms doorslaat, niet een systeem dat gelovigen onderdrukt.

Het wantrouwen richt zich in essentie niet op moslims als individuen; de menselijke maat is immers universeel de menselijke natuur toont overal vergelijkbare verschijnselen, ongeacht culturele of religieuze achtergrond. Hoewel incidentele excessen zoals online haat tegen de Nederlandse cultuur of een agressieve oproep tot bekering tot de islam onmiskenbaar persoonlijke aversie kunnen voeden, ligt de kern elders. Het fundamentele wantrouwen geldt niet de gelovige, maar de islam als ideologisch systeem en dogmatisch kader.

Waarom? Omdat Islam niet zomaar een privé-geloof is dat netjes thuis blijft. In zijn klassieke teksten en historische toepassing bevat het elementen die moeilijk te rijmen zijn met een open, seculiere samenleving: verzen die oproepen tot strijd tegen niet-gelovigen (het zwaardvers uit Soera 9:5 is geen metafoor), een profeet wiens biografie oorlogen, veroveringen en executies bevat (zoals de 900 mannen van Banu Qurayza), en een lange geschiedenis van expansie die hele christelijke regio’s heeft weggevaagd.

Dat is geen ‘fobie’, dat is een rationele reactie op een ideologie die, in zijn zuivere vorm, niet altijd vredig naast andere overtuigingen kan bestaan. Mensen vertrouwen Islam niet omdat ze de teksten kennen, de geschiedenis kennen en de nieuwsberichten zien niet omdat ze ‘racistisch’ zijn. Het wantrouwen is geen blinde haat, het is gezond verstand dat zegt: “We hebben dit eerder gezien, en we willen het niet hier.”

Moslims als mensen verdienen respect en vrijheid, net als iedereen. Maar Islam als systeem? Dat mag je wantrouwen zonder dat je een slecht mens bent.

Het wantrouwen verdiept waarom het hele Westen het voelt

Het wantrouwen tegenover Islam als ideologie is geen Nederlands fenomeen. Het leeft in de hele Westerse wereld: Europa, Amerika, Australië, Canada. En nee, dat komt niet door ‘koloniaal schuldgevoel’ of omdat we allemaal stiekem racisten zijn. Het komt door feiten harde, bloedige feiten die niemand kan wegpoetsen.

Sinds 1979 zijn er wereldwijd bijna 70.000 islamistische terroristische aanslagen gepleegd (volgens de laatste Fondapol-cijfers uit 2025, gebaseerd op 45 jaar data). Dat resulteerde in minstens 250.000 doden. De meeste slachtoffers vallen in moslimlanden zelf (meer dan 90%), maar de aanslagen spreiden zich uit over de hele planeet: India (duizenden doden in Kashmir, Mumbai 2008 met 166 slachtoffers), Afrika (Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab), Azië, en ja, ook het Westen en Australië.

In India alleen al tienduizenden doden door fundamentalistisch geweld denk aan treinbombardementen, marktontploffingen, aanvallen op tempels. Overal waar letterlijke, fundamentalistische interpretaties van Islam domineren, volgen massaslachtingen.

Filteren we naar het Westen (Europa, VS, Australië, Canada): honderden aanslagen sinds 2000, met duizenden doden. Voorbeelden die in ons geheugen gegrift staan:

• 9/11 (VS, 2001): bijna 3.000 doden.
• Madrid treinen (2004): 191 doden.
• Londen 7/7 (2005): 52 doden.
• Parijs Bataclan en terrassen (2015): 130 doden.
• Nice vrachtwagen (2016): 86 doden.
• Manchester Arena (2017): 22 doden.
• En recenter: de ISIS-geïnspireerde aanslag op Bondi Beach in Sydney (december 2025), waar een terrorist 15 mensen doodschoot tijdens een Chanoeka-viering de dodelijkste aanslag in Australië in decennia.

Dit zijn geen ‘incidenten’. Dit is een patroon. En het gaat door, tot op de dag van vandaag (begin 2026). Het is onmogelijk om te doen alsof 70.000 aanslagen ‘niets’ zijn, of ‘een klein probleem’. Elke aanslag laat littekens achter: families zonder vader, kinderen zonder moeder, steden in rouw. Wie dat bagatelliseert, leeft in ontkenning.

Het grote probleem van onwetendheid de cijfers liegen niet

Hier komt de grootste bron van ongerustheid: de schaal. Er zijn ruim 2 miljard moslims op de wereld. Stel hypothetisch en dit is een ruwe, vaak gebruikte schatting in debatten dat ‘slechts’ 10% fundamentalistisch is (dus strikt letterlijk de teksten volgt, inclusief de gewelddadige verzen). Dat zijn 200 miljoen mensen.

Stel nu dat van die 10% weer ‘slechts’ 10% bereid is tot actie (niet allemaal terroristen, maar wel supporters, financiers, of potentieel gewelddadigen). Dat zijn nog altijd 20 miljoen mensen.

20 miljoen. Laat dat even bezinken.

Hoe groot was Hitlers leger op zijn piek? De Wehrmacht telde maximaal rond de 13 miljoen soldaten. En hoeveel bondgenoten had Hitler onder bepaalde groepen in de Arabische wereld? Denk aan figuren die openlijk met hem samenwerkten.

20 miljoen potentiële tegenstanders die ‘dood aan Amerika’, ‘dood aan Israël’, ‘dood aan het Westen’ roepen dat is geen ‘klein groepje extremisten’. Dat is een leger groter dan wat de wereld in de jaren ’40 in brand stak.

Natuurlijk zijn lang niet alle moslims zo. De meesten willen gewoon leven. Maar het potentieel, de ideologie die dat voedt, en de aanslagen die blijven komen dat maakt wantrouwen begrijpelijk. Het is geen fobie. Het is realisme.

Vigilantie werkt voorkomen aanslagen en waarom inlichtingenwerk cruciaal is

Het wantrouwen is geen blinde angst, maar een reactie op een reële dreiging die gelukkig vaak wordt gestopt dankzij uitstekend inlichtingenwerk van NAVO-landen en hun veiligheidsdiensten. Ja, er zijn aanslagen doorgekomen Bataclan, Nice, Manchester maar er zijn er veel meer voorkomen. Dat bewijst hoe belangrijk proactieve verdediging is.

In de EU alleen al werden volgens Europol-rapporten (TE-SAT) in recente jaren tientallen jihadistische complotten verijdeld:

• Tussen 2019 en 2021: minstens 29 jihadistische of extreem-rechtse complotten gestopt.
• In 2024: 19 verijdelde aanslagen in totaal (van de 58 gerapporteerde).
• In het VK: tussen 2017 en recente jaren meer dan 30 ‘late-stage’ complotten voorkomen, grotendeels jihadistisch.

Voorbeelden van succesvolle operaties:

• Meerdere verijdelde aanslagen op kerstmarkten in Duitsland (inspired door ISIS).
• Complotten tegen concertzalen en vliegvelden in het VK en Frankrijk.
• In de VS: talloze lone-wolf plannen gestopt door FBI, zoals subway-bombardementen in New York.

Elk verijdeld complot redt potentieel honderden levens denk aan de schaal van Bataclan (130 doden) of Nice (86 doden). Duizenden levens zijn gespaard dankzij tips, surveillance, infiltratie en internationale samenwerking. Zonder dat werk zou het Westen er veel bloediger uitzien.

Natuurlijk worden ook extreem-rechtse en neo-nazi complotten gestopt en terecht. In het VK waren van de 32 verijdelde complotten sinds 2017 er 12 extreem-rechts. In de EU stijgt dat aantal. Maar hier ligt het verschil: dat zijn binnenlandse problemen. Neo-nazi’s vallen niet aan in Marokko, Egypte of Indonesië. Saoedi-Arabië heeft geen ‘witte nazi-terreurprobleem’. Dubai monitort geen kerken of Hindoetempels omdat er geen dreiging vandaan komt christenen en hindoes plegen daar geen aanslagen.

Omgekeerd: Egypte, Saoedi-Arabië, de VAE en Bahrein (niet Qatar) monitoren moskeeën streng en hebben de Moslimbroederschap verboden als terroristische organisatie, met zware strafrechtelijke gevolgen. Waarom? Omdat de Broederschap een politieke islam promoot die regimes bedreigt en radicalisering voedt. En ironisch: dezelfde Moslimbroederschap heeft via gelieerde netwerken invloed op veel moskeeën in het Westen (via financiering, imams en organisaties als de Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe). Landen als Frankrijk en Oostenrijk hebben daarom acties ondernomen tegen Broederschap-gelinkte groepen, en er zijn voorstellen in de VS om ze aan te merken als terroristisch.

Dat is de asymmetrie: het Westen moet waakzaam zijn voor een internationale, ideologische dreiging die uit moskeeën en netwerken kan komen net zoals moslimlanden dat doen voor interne islamistische groepen. Vigilantie is geen racisme; het is realisme dat levens redt.

Zonder inlichtingenwerk en gezonde argwaan zouden die 70.000 aanslagen wereldwijd veel dichter bij huis komen. Het wantrouwen is verdiend maar het kanaal naar preventie, niet haat.

De schuld bij het Westen leggen white guilt, historische revisionisme en culturele zelfmoord

Een van de grootste obstakels in dit debat is de reflexmatige neiging om iedere islamistische daad te duiden als ‘onze eigen schuld’. Het Westen zou dergelijk geweld zelf hebben uitgelokt door kolonialisme, de kruistochten, de situatie rond Israël of vermeende onderdrukking. Deze redenering is niet alleen feitelijk onjuist, het getuigt van een destructieve schuldidentiteit bekend als (white guilt) die leidt tot culturele zelfmoord. We beschadigen onze eigen samenleving door de misdaden van een ideologische splintergroepering te herdefiniëren als een exclusief ‘Westers probleem’. Het is een misvatting dat wij verantwoordelijk zouden zijn voor daden die anderen plegen uit naam van hun dogma, nogmaals dit is geen gezonde reflectie! dit is culturele zelfmoord.

De favoriete smoes: “Moslims zijn boos door de kruistochten, daarom haten ze ons nog steeds.” Bullshit. Pure historische revisionisme. De kruistochten (1095-1291) waren geen uit het niets gekomen agressie, maar een late, defensieve reactie op bijna 500 jaar islamitische expansie en verovering. Vanaf de 7e eeuw veroverden islamitische legers het hele Midden-Oosten, Noord-Afrika en grote delen van Europa: Egypte, Syrië, de Levant, Spanje allemaal oorspronkelijk christelijke gebieden. Tienduizenden kerken werden vernietigd of omgebouwd tot moskeeën. Christelijke pelgrims werden beroofd, vermoord of tot slaaf gemaakt. Pas toen Jeruzalem viel en de Seltsjoeken het Byzantijnse Rijk bedreigden, kwam er een tegenreactie.

We zijn dat niet verschuldigd. We hebben het niet ‘uitgelokt’. En we gaan nu niet in detail genoeg artikelen elders bespreken de echte chronologie. Maar één ding is duidelijk: moslimhaat tegen het Westen (en tegen joden) bestaat al eeuwen vóór de kruistochten én vóór de moderne tijd.

Neem Israël als excuus: “Ze doen het door de bezetting.” Nog meer onzin. Haj Amin al-Husseini, de grootmoefti van Jeruzalem, was al in 1941 beste vrienden met Hitler. Hij ontmoette hem persoonlijk in Berlijn, riep op tot uitbreiding van de Holocaust naar het Midden-Oosten, rekruteerde moslims voor SS-eenheden en verspreidde nazi-propaganda via radio. Dit was jaren vóór de oprichting van Israël in 1948. Er was geen ‘bezetting’, geen ‘nakba’ alleen pure, ideologische jodenhaat die naadloos aansloot bij verzen in de koran en hadith die joden (en christenen) als vijanden bestempelen.

Dit alles bewijst weer hoe vaak ‘doormat christians’ christenen die uit misplaatste empathie alles wegverklaren ongelijk hebben. Door de schuld bij onszelf te leggen, ontkennen we de realiteit van een ideologie die inherent expansionistisch en intolerant kan zijn. We plegen culturele zelfmoord: grenzen open, kritiek taboe, verdediging ‘racisme’. Toxische empathie verandert liefde in capitulatie.

Wij hebben dit niet veroorzaakt. Het is geen ‘reactie’ op ons gedrag. Het is een ideologisch probleem dat we moeten benoemen zonder schuldgevoel. Alleen dan kunnen we onszelf beschermen zonder haat, maar met helderheid.

De schade van Paas’ narratief christenen schuldig maken aan een utopisch wereldbeeld

Mensen als Stefan Paas guilt-trippen christenen in een volkomen irreëel wereldbeeld: een virtuele utopia waar de bestaande realiteit in Narnia woont, niet in de wereld zoals hij is. Islamistische aanslagen gebeuren punt uit. Sinds 1979 bijna 70.000 islamistische terroristische aanslagen wereldwijd, met meer dan 250.000 doden, en dat patroon zet zich voort in 2025-2026 met groepen als IS actief in 22 landen en honderden verijdelde complotten in het Westen. Alleen al in Europa en de VS: tientallen verijdelde jihadistische plots in 2024-2025, zoals de aanslag op Taylor Swift-concerten in Wenen, verijdeld door inlichtingenwerk dat duizenden levens redde. De daders komen uit moskeeën, dus als een of andere idioot dacht dat hij levens kon redden door moskeeën heimelijk te monitoren, noem hem dan wat hij is: een stomme idioot. Niet een racistische idioot. Racisme speelt hier totaal geen rol; het was een bureaucratische blunder, geen haatcampagne, en leverde geen enkel veiligheidsresultaat op.

Maar het enige resultaat van Paas’ denken zijn portrettering van moslims als ‘vervolgd’ in Nederland is het creëren van nog meer white guilt bij mensen die niks deden behalve moslims welkom heten in hun gemeenschappen. Om dan wakker te worden met sommigen van hen die zeggen dat Nederlandse meisjes ‘hoeren’ zijn die zich moeten bedekken, of die hun kinderen vertellen niet te spelen of te daten met ‘vuile Nederlanders’ omdat ze geen moslims zijn. En ja, de stereotype zin ‘niet alle moslims zijn zo’ natuurlijk niet, niemand zei dat ooit! Dit artikel begon al met zeggen: mensen zijn mensen, moslims zijn beter dan hun dogma. Het probleem komt van een zogenaamd heilig boek dat moslims vertelt de Nederlanders te haten, hun cultuur te haten. Een boek dat zegt: neem geen joden en christenen als vrienden, want dat is tegen de koran (Soera 5:51). Moslims zijn goede mensen, ja maar velen willen hun boek letterlijk volgen, en als de Nederlandse gemeenschap of sommigen van de Nederlanders dat niet vertrouwen, is dat volkomen begrijpelijk. De koran is extreem vijandig tegenover alles wat niet-moslim is, en nog meer tegen joden en christenen. ter info: moslims zien het hele Westen als ‘christelijk’ en ‘joods’. Herinner je het vers: “Lan tarda anka al-yahoud wal-nasara hata tatabia millatahum” (Soera 2:120) joden en christenen zullen nooit tevreden met je zijn totdat je hun religie volgt. En denk aan de doctrine van Al-Walaa wal-Baraa: loyaliteit aan moslims, haat en afstand tegenover alle niet-moslims, om een echte aanbidder van Allah te zijn!

Dus waarom doet meneer Paas alsof er niks aan de hand is, alsof de Nederlanders zomaar moslims vervolgen? Alsof dat een realistische aanname is! Moslims hier genieten vrijheden die ze in 90% van islamitische landen niet hebben: burgemeesters als Ahmed Aboutaleb in Rotterdam sinds 2009, Ahmed Marcouch in Arnhem, Sadiq Khan in Londen sinds 2016. Koning Willem-Alexander bekritiseren zonder doodstraf, terwijl in Marokko belediging van de koning (Amir al-Mouminine) jaren cel betekent. Moskeeën open, bidden vrij geen blasfemiewetten. ‘Vervolging’? Een grove overdrijving.

Sinds wanneer is waakzaamheid een zonde? Waarom laten christenen zich een vals schuldgevoel aanpraten op basis van een incorrecte Bijbeluitleg? ‘Heb uw naaste lief’ betekent niet dat je alles tolereert. Als mijn buurman een pedofiel is die achter een negenjarig meisje aan zit, moet ik hem dan knuffelen? Nee, ik moet ingrijpen en dat kind beschermen. We gaan toch geen tweeduizend jaar beschaving en emancipatie overboord gooien om van christenen makke lammeren te maken?

Dit aangeprate schuldgevoel is historisch onjuist. De kruistochten vielen niet uit de lucht; ze waren een reactie op 475 jaar islamitische agressie, slavernij en de vernietiging van christelijk grondgebied. Egypte en Syrië waren christelijk voordat tienduizenden kerken in vlammen opgingen. Wij hoeven geen wraak voor het verleden, maar we laten ons geen leugens vertellen. Onze empathie mag niet tegen ons worden gebruikt. Het bewijs ligt er: Amin al-Husseini stond in 1941 al bij Hitler op de stoep. Dat was pure Jodenhaat, lang voordat er sprake was van een ‘reactie’ op Israël

dornsife.usc.edu

time.com

Ga maar eens na hoe rampzalig dat doormat-gedrag is, zoals we doorheen dit hele gesprek besproken hebben: het is geen christendom, het is zelfvernietiging. Love thy neighbour stopt precies waar de buurman de pin trekt of de trekker overhaalt. God roept christenen op tot liefde, maar ook tot verdediging van zichzelf, gezin en kudde. Jezus zei niet dat we ons moeten laten afslachten Hij verdreef de geldwisselaars met een zweep (Johannes 2:15). Paulus droeg bescherming (Handelingen 23:12-24). De Bijbel bulkt van rechtvaardige verdediging: David tegen Goliath, Nehemia die muren bouwde met een zwaard in de hand (Nehemia 4:17-18). Liefde betekent niet capitulatie; het betekent de onschuldigen beschermen, grenzen stellen, politie en justitie handhaven. Anders schaf je alles af: geen grenzen, geen politie, geen gevangenissen want dieven, verkrachters, bommenwerpers zijn ook ‘vijanden’ die we moeten ‘liefhebben’. Sommige christenen in Amerika preken dat al, maar het is waanzin. Toxische empathie verandert liefde in zelfmoord; echte liefde beschermt de kudde.

Het narratief van Paas cultiveert een fatale geestelijke weerloosheid. Het praat christenen een schuldcomplex aan waarin waakzaamheid als zonde wordt weggezet, terwijl het puur gezond verstand is. Deze houding negeert de enorme schaal van de ideologische dreiging: op twee miljard moslims betekent tien procent fundamentalisten al een groep van 200 miljoen. Zelfs als slechts een fractie daarvan 20 miljoen bereid is tot geweld, spreken we over een strijdmacht groter dan de Wehrmacht.

Laten we eerlijk zijn: de recente inbreuk op religieuze vrijheid was lelijk, onverstandig en contraproductief. Dat mag gezegd worden. Maar het is van een stuitende naïviteit om te doen alsof we leven in een wereld van regenbogen en eenhoorns, waarin de islam naadloos samensmelt met onze waarden.

Het is intellectuele lafheid om te ontkennen dat er diepe, fundamentele onverenigbaarheden zijn tussen de islam en de westerse beschaving. We kunnen onze ogen niet sluiten voor het feit dat de islam sinds dag één een doctrine van verovering voert, waarbij christelijk grondgebied stelselmatig is aangevallen en geannexeerd. De theologie stelt expliciet dat christenen en joden geen vrienden zijn, maar vijanden die onderworpen moeten worden. Zolang een ‘goede moslim’ theologisch wordt ontmoedigd om onze vriend te zijn, hebben we een existentieel probleem.

Als we deze ongemakkelijke waarheid niet openlijk en eerlijk op tafel leggen, roepen we het onheil over onszelf af. Het krampachtig verzwijgen van dit conflict leidt onvermijdelijk tot paniekreacties en verdere inbreuken op rechten—precies datgene wat we willen voorkomen. Het geforceerd negeren van de feiten vergroot de kloof tussen moslims en de rest van de samenleving alleen maar, terwijl we als natie juist verder moeten. Maar wie wil genezen, moet eerst erkennen dat de patiënt ziek is. De eerste stap naar herstel is het eerlijk benoemen van het probleem: onze culturen botsen, en zwijgen is geen oplossing.

Bronnen en citaties

Hieronder volgt een volledige lijst van bronnen en citaties die zijn gebruikt voor de feiten, statistieken en historische verwijzingen in dit artikel. Ze zijn genummerd voor eenvoudige verwijzing en gebaseerd op betrouwbare, recente gegevens (tot februari 2026). Waar relevant, zijn inline citaties in de tekst gekoppeld aan deze lijst.

1. Fondapol (2024). “Islamist terrorist attacks in the world 1979-2024.” Fondation pour l’innovation politique. Beschikbaar op: https://www.fondapol.org/en/study/islamist-terrorist-attacks-in-the-world-1979-2024. (Gebruikt voor statistieken over 66.872 aanslagen en 249.941 doden wereldwijd sinds 1979.)
2. Institute for Economics and Peace (2025). “Global Terrorism Index 2025: Measuring the Impact of Terrorism.” Sydney: IEP. Beschikbaar op: https://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Global-Terrorism-Index-2025.pdf. (Gebruikt voor trends in terrorisme, inclusief stijging in het Westen en focus op IS-activiteiten in 2024-2025, met 24 verhinderde aanslagen gelinkt aan IS.)
3. Europol (2025). “European Union Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2025 (EU TE-SAT).” Den Haag: Europol. Beschikbaar op: https://www.europol.europa.eu/publication-events/main-reports/european-union-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report-2025-eu-te-sat. (Gebruikt voor statistieken over 58 aanslagen in de EU in 2024, 449 arrestaties, en verhinderde jihadistische complotten in Europa 2024-2025.)
4. Cato Institute (2025). “Human Freedom Index 2025.” Washington, DC: Cato Institute. Beschikbaar op: https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2025. (Gebruikt voor vergelijking van persoonlijke vrijheden: moslimmeerderheidslanden gemiddeld 5.52 vs. bijna 9 in Europa; inclusief vrouwenrechten en regionale verschillen.)
5. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (2026). “Hajj Amin al-Husayni: Key Dates.” Washington, DC: USHMM. Beschikbaar op: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/hajj-amin-al-husayni-key-dates. (Gebruikt voor historische details over de ontmoeting tussen al-Husseini en Hitler op 28 november 1941, en zijn rol in nazi-propaganda en SS-rekrutering.)
6. Combating Terrorism Center at West Point (2025). “The August 2024 Taylor Swift Vienna Concert Plot.” CTC Sentinel. Beschikbaar op: https://ctc.westpoint.edu/the-august-2024-taylor-swift-vienna-concert-plot. (Gebruikt voor details over verhinderde jihadistische complotten in Europa, inclusief de Taylor Swift-concertplot in 2024 en betrokkenheid van minderjarigen.)
7. Wikipedia (2026). “2025 Bondi Beach shooting.” Beschikbaar op: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Bondi_Beach_shooting. (Gebruikt voor details over de IS-geïnspireerde aanslag op 14 december 2025 in Sydney, met 16 doden tijdens een Hanukkah-viering.)
8. Nesser, P. (2024). “Introducing the Jihadi Plots in Europe Dataset (JPED).” Perspectives on Terrorism, 18(1). Beschikbaar op: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00223433221123360. (Gebruikt voor analyse van 273 jihadistische complotten in West-Europa 1994-2024, met 58% verhinderde aanslagen en focus op lone actors.)
9. International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (2025). “The Islamic State in 2025: An Evolving Threat Facing a Waning Global Response.” The Hague: ICCT. Beschikbaar op: https://icct.nl/publication/islamic-state-2025-evolving-threat-facing-waning-global-response. (Gebruikt voor trends in IS-dreigingen, inclusief toename in minderjarige betrokkenheid en verhinderde aanslagen in Europa 2024-2025.)
10. Danish Institute for International Studies (2025). “Europe’s Teenage Jihadists.” Copenhagen: DIIS. Beschikbaar op: https://www.diis.dk/en/research/europes-teenage-jihadists. (Gebruikt voor statistieken over minderjarigen in jihadistische complotten, met 33% van Europese IS-gerelateerde incidenten sinds 2022.)
11. Reuters (2024). “Fact Check: Viral post about number of Muslim mayors in UK is misleading.” Beschikbaar op: https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/viral-post-about-number-muslim-mayors-uk-is-misleading-2024-06-12. (Gebruikt voor verificatie van moslimburgemeesters in Europa, inclusief Sadiq Khan en anderen.)
12. De Koran (standaardvertaling). Verzen zoals Soera 2:120, 5:51, 9:5, en doctrines als Al-Walaa wal-Baraa. (Gebaseerd op klassieke interpretaties uit Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Tafsir al-Tabari en Tafsir al-Jalalayn; geen specifieke webbron, maar academische consensus.)

The post De Gevaarlijke Leugen van Staatsislamofobie first appeared on Islam Revealed.

A Bold Rebuttal to the Divisive False Narratives of the Dutch EO Network

Inspired by the courageous truth-telling of channels like Geloof en Rede who are heroes to us, not villains. They first opened my eyes to the rot within the EO.

Please visit and subscribe here: https://youtube.com/@geloofenrede?si=cT1kKUkd_HXAiGKG

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions.” (2 Timothy 4:3)

Despite the lies spun by state-sponsored media, the Netherlands remains a great nation blessed with a remnant of genuine, faithful Christians. You are rising up. You are pushing back against the horrors unleashed by your pseudo-Christian counterparts. These relativists led by the polished faces at EO tried to snuff out every ember of hope, to make us abandon our orthodox faith and bow our heads in shame. But the true remnant stands firm. You keep the flame alive, holding your heads high, proving that real Christianity still burns bright, even in the heart of Europe.

Do not despair, brethren.

John 16:33 “I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”

The Betrayal: The Poison of the “Maar”

This reckoning exists because of a single, poisonous word with four letters: “Maar.” (But.)

“Charlie Kirk is vermoord. Vreselijk. We leven mee. Maar…” (“Charlie Kirk was murdered. Terrible. We sympathize. But…”)

That word is a shiv. It is a dagger wrapped in velvet. Within days of his assassination, while his widow was still choking through the eulogy, the Dutch religious establishment figures like Rachel Rosier and her guests began moving from grief to “correction” at remarkable speed. They wasted no time stepping over the warm body of a brother to scold him for getting shot.

But make no mistake: Rachel Rosier is merely the current face of a much deeper rot. This poison has been brewing for a long time, meticulously distilled by architects like Arjen ten Brinke and Jan Wolsheimer.

When Arjen took to his socials to preach that “Jesus is not a billboard for a party,” and Jan warned of “The temptation of the culture war,” they weren’t just offering commentary. They were revealing the dark heart of a specific variant of Dutch pseudo-Christianity a smug, localized heresy that has lost its moral compass entirely.

Consider the absolute hypocrisy: You let a poor girl like Lisa from Abcoude/Amsterdam lie cold in the morgue, butchered by a predator like Chris Jude an undocumented Nigerian thug with a history of ignored rapes. Where was your outrage then? Where were the television specials? Where were the theological deep-dives into the evil of allowing wolves to roam among the sheep? Silence. You stepped over her body without a second glance because acknowledging her murder would require you to confront the failure of your “tolerant” worldview.

But when it comes to America? Oh, suddenly you find your voice! You step over the broken body of a Dutch girl to fly across the ocean and teach the “Yanks” how to be “good Christians.” You lecture Americans that taking the Bible objectively calling abortion murder and demanding borders makes them “fascists.”

This is the manifestation of a colonial arrogance you claim to despise.

• You look East at my Orthodox brothers and sisters and dismiss them as “gullible,” “unknowing,” and “superstitious peasants” because they haven’t adopted your liberal impotence.
• You look West at the American branch of Christianity and call them “barbaric idiots” because they still believe the Bible is a sword and not a suggestion.

This is straight fire from me an African American Copt carrying the weight of ancient faith and fresh blood on my back. My roots run deep into Egypt’s Coptic soil. We were worshiping Christ centuries before any European “explorer” decided to “civilize” us with their distorted version of the Gospel. And I am telling you: This is not love. This is fear dressed as piety.

You have invented a “Germanic Wimp Jesus” who never judges, never divides, and never fights. And because you worship this idol, you hate anyone whether a Copt in Cairo or a Conservative in Chicago who dares to follow the Lion of Judah.

Part I: The Hypocrisy of the Death Empire

You swan in, Rachel, with your puffed-up European piety to “explore” whether Charlie Kirk was a fascist thug (a.k.a. Hitler) or a saintly martyr. You dare to judge his tone? You dare to lecture us on morality?

Spare me. This isn’t just media fluff; it is the latest symptom of Europe’s death-dealing DNA. You are a “Death Empire” stretching from Roman bloodbaths to your pint-sized modern kingdoms. You have been pyromaniacs, scorching the globe for millennia.

• Roman Roots: Gladiators gutting each other for sport; legions conquering until the empire imploded in its own gore.
• The Enlightenment: Your “geniuses” birthed revolutions that guillotined thousands, followed by Napoleon’s ego-wars that drowned Europe in blood.
• The World Wars: A senseless meat grinder sparked by your colonial greed and fascist fever dreams, chewing up 85 million souls from Auschwitz to Hiroshima.

The Satanic Gift of Marxism And don’t sleep on that satanist Karl Marx. Yes, I said it the bearded devil who scribbled the blueprint for communism, a hellish ideology straight from the pit. Born in your German heartland, Marx’s “utopia” sparked wildfires of death that raged globally.

• Russia: 20 million starved, shot, or gulaged.
• China: 45 million dead.
• Cambodia: 2 million skulls stacked using your imported poison. Europe’s gift to the world is a satanic system promising equality but delivering despotism, famines, and firing squads.

The Dutch Indictment Let’s not gloss over the Dutch specifically, since this EO smugness comes straight from the Netherlands. Your Dutch East India Company (VOC) wasn’t just a corporation; it was a machine of extermination.

• Banda Islands (1621): 15,000 killed or enslaved to secure a nutmeg monopoly.
• Batavia Massacre (1740): The rivers ran red with the blood of 10,000 ethnic Chinese.
• Indonesia (1945-1949): You doubled down on savagery with summary executions and village burnings (Rawagede, South Sulawesi).

So when EO preaches morality from Amsterdam, remember: it comes from a nation whose “enlightened” empire left trails of blood from Banda to Balongsari. You have no moral high ground to stand on.

Part II: The Theological Betrayal: The Invention of the “Wimp Jesus”

But your crimes aren’t just historical; they are theological. You look at Charlie Kirk’s strength his willingness to fight and you recoil. Why? Because you worship a Counterfeit Christ.

During the Reformation, and solidified by modern European liberalism, you reinvented Jesus. You took the Lion of Judah the God who flipped tables, who blinded Saul, who returns with a sword in His mouth and you turned Him into a YES I SAID IT

aGermanic Wimp.

You created a “gentle,” passive, conflict-averse social worker who just wants everyone to be nice. “funny enough! Germanics hate wimps! yet Germanic jesus is a Master punshing bag wimp!”

This “Wimp Jesus” is a useful idol for a dying continent that is doing its best to avoid ANY confrontation!.

• He never offends.
• He never judges.
• He never divides.
• And most importantly, He never asks you to fight for anything real.

The Tilburg Betrayal: Cheering for the Chains We saw the deadly fruit of this idolatry just recently in Tilburg, on January 9, 2026. When the Dutch evangelist Tom de Wal was arrested for the “crime” of praying, what did you do? Did you stand up for the Constitution? Did you defend the sacred right to worship? No. Some of you cheered.

Let’s be clear: I may not agree with every dot of De Wal’s theology. But since when does theological disagreement justify the State suspending a man’s Constitutional rights? You watched a Mayor reclassify a Worship Service as an “Event” just to bypass the Constitution. You watched the Dolle Minas that Marxist, feminist mob stalk a pastor and attack his fundamental rights. You watched the police drag a Christian preacher away for praying on the street.

And what was the response from a part of the “respectable” Dutch Christian establishment? “Good. He was a trouble-maker.” “It was dwaalleer (Dutch word means false teaching).”

How messed up is your soul? You are happy that a brother in Christ was arrested because his theology isn’t “neat” enough for your taste? Let me ask you: The Hindu religion is also dwaalleer according to the Bible. Do you cheer when the police close a Temple? Do you high-five the Dolle Minas when they harass Muslims or Buddhists? Of course not. You would call that ‘intolerance.’ You would weep for their ‘religious freedom’ and scream that ‘God is love.’ But apparently, that love stops at your own brothers. You are quick to brand a fellow Christian a ‘Fascist’ for standing on Scripture, yet you would never dare pin that label on an Imam even if he were standing in the pulpit screaming ‘Kill the infidels!’

But when a Christian is arrested? When a man praying to Jesus is hauled off by the State? You smile. You side with the Fascist/Marxist mob against your own family because he embarrasses you. You would rather see a Christian in handcuffs than risk being associated with someone “uncool.”

This is why this Pseudo-Christianity is deadly. It trains you to love the State more than the Church. It trains you to sacrifice your own brothers to the secular wolves just to keep your hands clean. We Copts know what this looks like. We know what happens when the State decides which prayers are “legal.” And to see you applaud it? It makes me sick.

This is why you call faithful men “Fascists.” Because when you see actual masculine strength the strength to defend boundaries, to protect children, to pray even when the Mayor says “No” it terrifies you. It exposes the weakness of the effeminate idol you’ve set up in your churches.

We Copts never worshiped your Wimp. We worship the King of Glory who conquers death. We worship the God who demands we carry a cross, not a cushion.

Part III: The “Fascist” Smear and the Theology of Order

You call Kirk and anyone like him a “Fascist” because he holds the Bible as objective reality. You spit on him because he said “America First.” You recoil because he prioritized his own nation. And you mock the Americans for supporting Trump. You act as if it is idolatry.

The Trump Derangement: A Choice Between a Bodyguard and a Butcher You think we look at Donald Trump and see a High Priest? No. We see a Bodyguard. We had to choose between a “Mean Tweeter” who is at least not an enemy of Conservative Christians, and Kamala Harris a woman who hates everything we stand for, supports abortion until birth, and is rumored to participate in satanic rituals (allegedly). We chose the bodyguard. You want us to choose the butcher because she is “polite.”

Let me teach you some theology you seem to have forgotten.

1. Ordo Amoris: Why “America First” is Biblical

You call it “Nationalism” and “Hate.” St. Augustine called it Ordo Amoris the Order of Loves. God is a God of Order, not chaos. Love is not a flat, infinite soup where you love everyone equally and do nothing for anyone. Love is concentric.

• I am commanded to love my wife more than my neighbor’s wife.
• I am commanded to feed my children before I feed the children in the next town over.

Scripture is crystal clear:

“But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1 Timothy 5:8)

When Charlie Kirk said, “We must secure our borders and help our own poor before we fix the world,” that wasn’t Fascism. That was Biblical Stewardship. To leave your own children hungry to feed strangers is not charity; it is neglect. It is a performance of virtue paid for by the suffering of your own family.

2. The Abortion Deflection: The “Rape” Tangent

And then, the most disgusting maneuver of all. When we stand up and speak the Objective Truth that Abortion is Infanticide, the slaughter of the innocent image of God what do you do? Do you engage the truth? Do you weep for the 73 million dead babies? No. You immediately pivot to: “But what about rape? What about incest? What about abuse?”

You cowards.

yeah i said it! YOU COWARDS, You take the horrific, tragic 1% of cases (rape/incest) and use them as a Human Shield to protect the 99% of abortions that are simply birth control by murder. You weaponize the pain of rape victims to justify the industrial-scale slaughter of children. Not surprising to me though you call the murder of babies in the womb “reproductive freedom”!

This is analogous to declaring the entire prison system immoral because of the tragedy of wrongful convictions. Would we tear down every jail and release the 99% of thieves, rapists, and murderers simply because 1% might be innocent? If you think this comparison is a logical fallacy, think again; we are debating whether a tragic anomaly should dismantle a standard moral law.

The core fact remains that abortion is murder the needless killing of a human life. Arguments calling the unborn a ‘clump of cells’ or ‘not yet human’ are dangerous deflections; by that metric, you are also just a clump of cells, and that specific dehumanizing logic is indistinguishable from the rhetoric white supremacists use to declare that anyone who isn’t white or blonde is ‘NONhuman or rat like!.

look at how some germans see Jews! (NON HUMAN) and terminatable of course, jews are just a clump of cells according to Nazis as well!

before you feel all superior and tell me oh these are not german these are russians, 

here have a look at the entire archive!
https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/sturmer.htm

When a man says, “Do not tear a baby limb from limb,” and you scream, “You Fascist, you don’t care about rape victims!” you are the one twisting reality. You call him a Fascist for caring about God’s Truth objectively!

The “Might Makes Right” Fallacy

And one more point for those who smirked at Charlie’s death while dismissing the unborn as “insignificant.” You argue that the mother the stronger, “independent” party gets to decide who lives or dies because the baby lacks memories, autonomy, or “intellectual status.” You are not making a moral argument; you are making an Appeal to Power. You are claiming that Superiority grants the right to terminate the Inferior.

Let’s follow your logic to its suicidal conclusion.

If Human Rights are based on intelligence, independence, and capability, then answer me this: What happens if we are invaded tomorrow by a race with an average IQ of 400? Imagine beings who are physically stronger, vastly more intelligent, and possess memories and consciousness far beyond our comprehension. Compared to them, you are just as helpless, stupid, and “dependent” as that baby is to you. By your own logic, that invader would be morally justified in exterminating us. Why? Because they are the “Superior Beings.” If rights are determined by power and prowess, then we are just cattle to the first Superman who lands on Earth.

Or let’s bring it closer to home: If the State the ultimate independent, superior Power decides that you are an “unneeded citizen,” does the Collective get to suspend your rights and liquidate you? If independence and memory are the criteria for life, can the State euthanize the coma patient, the elderly with dementia, or the mentally disabled without consent?

Do you see the trap you have built? If you grant the Strong the right to kill the Weak simply because they are “more advanced,” you haven’t argued for “Reproductive Freedom.” You have argued for the Law of the Jungle. You are establishing a hierarchy where Human Rights don’t exist only the whims of the Bully.

• Objective Truth: It is a baby. It is alive. Killing it is murder.
• Your Response: Emotional manipulation to silence the conscience.

We see through you. You don’t care about the “rape victim” you care about preserving the sexual revolution’s sacrament of abortion. And even worse, you just care about not offending a fringe among humanity at the cost of biblical values!

Part IV: The Sword That Always Divides

You call us “divisive.” You call our stance “dangerous.” You are confusing the ailment with the cure.

Jesus did not hide what His coming would do. He shattered the “gentle hippie” myth before He even started:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matt 10:34) and we all know for A FACT that jesus wasn’t talking about open war! He is not that other prophet from Arabia!

The Lighthouse and the Convoy Picture a convoy of ships pushing through a dark sea. Same heading, same speed. It feels safe. It feels like “Unity.” On one bridge, a junior officer spots a lighthouse marking a fatal reef. He realizes the convoy is aimed at the rocks. He radios: “We need to alter course.” The flagship replies: “Don’t be divisive. Stay with the group.”

That is the drama of the Christian life. God’s truth is that lighthouse. It does not bend to the convoy’s consensus. It stands where it stands. Truth is always divisive. Not because God loves conflict, but because He loves Reality, and Reality does not bend to your feelings.

Part V: The War Record (A Dossier of Evidence)

Do not take my word for it. Look at the receipts. In every age, when a man of God steers by the lighthouse, the herd attacks.

1. Jesus of Nazareth

• In Nazareth: He applied the truth to His neighbors. They tried to throw Him off a cliff.
• In Jerusalem: He called the religious elites “hypocrites” and “vipers.” They called Him demon-possessed.
• The Verdict: Caiaphas, the high priest, calculated that it was “better that one man should die” than for their fragile political order to be disturbed. The Cross is the Establishment’s response to the Sword of Truth.

2. Paul the Apostle

• The Charge: “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also.” (Acts 17:6).
• The Fallout: Riots in Ephesus. Blood oaths in Jerusalem. Beheaded by Rome.
• The Reality: Paul wasn’t a “culture warrior” in the shallow sense. He was a herald of a Kingdom that displaced the old order. When you displace idols, the idol-makers riot.

3. The Blood of the Insider Here is the jagged truth: Most of the blood was not shed by pagans. It was shed by Israel’s own rulers. By the “Church” of that day.

• Zechariah was stoned to death in the church courtyard by order of the King.
• Jeremiah was thrown into a muddy cistern by his own people.
• Jezebel attacked God’s messengers from inside the palace.

Jesus summarized it best: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets.” So when you see a modern Christian treated as a “troublemaker” for refusing idols, you aren’t seeing a glitch. You are seeing Normal Christian History.

Part VI: The Early Fathers vs. The Modern Cowards

You think your “nuanced,” passive Christianity is traditional? It is a modern invention. The Early Church Fathers who actually faced lions had a spine.

• Justin Martyr (c. 155): “We worship God alone.” Loyalty to the state, yes. Idolatry? Never.
• Lactantius (c. 313): “Religion is to be defended, not by killing but by dying.”
• Athanasius (c. 357): “The sentiment of truth must not be hidden.” When heresy said “let’s be unified,” he said “Truth First,” even if it meant exile.

They understood what you have forgotten: Unity without Truth is a conspiracy.

Part VII: The False Love Checklist

You deploy words like “Love” and “Unity” to silence us. But we see through the game. Here are the warning signs that your “Love” is being weaponized:

1. Love That Only Punches Right: If your “love” only rebukes the sheep for bleating too loud, but never confronts the wolves butchering children, destroying the family, or legalizing injustice, you are not a shepherd. You are a hireling.
2. Unity That Always Drifts Left: If “unity” always means “Christians must move closer to secular progressive positions,” that isn’t biblical unity. It is Theological Peer Pressure.
3. Condolences with a Leash: When a Christian is killed for speaking truth, and your first response is, “This is terrible… but we must talk about his tone,” that is social control wrapped in sympathy.

Conclusion: The Final Verdict

This EO episode offers zero closure because truth is exiled for emo-drama. It is scripted sludge: rough edges equal villainy, feelings trump facts, and absolutes are outlawed.

We are back on the bridge of the ship. You have two options:

Option A: Stay in formation, bless the convoy’s drift toward the rocks, and call it “Unity.” Option B: Alter course to the lighthouse as heroes like Geloof en Rede and all forms of Orthodox Christianity have done even if the herd jeers, and call it “Obedience to Jesus.”

Jesus went first. Paul followed. The prophets bled. A man named Charlie tried, in his own fallible way, to walk that same road and he died for it. He died because he believed in Ordo Amoris that loving his nation meant protecting it. He died because he believed Objective Truth that a baby is a baby, no matter how inconvenient.

Your “Maar” is rejected. Your “Death Empire” history strips you of the right to lecture us. Your “Wimp Jesus” is a false idol. We will steer by the Light. And if that divides us from you?

So be it.

Bless those charred, two-faced souls crispier than a bitterbal left in the fryer too long, and just as empty inside.

The post A Bold Rebuttal to the Divisive False Narratives of Dutch EO Broadcasting Network first appeared on Islam Revealed.

Europe’s Death Empire: A Coptic Reckoning

A Bold Rebuttal to the Divisive False Narratives of the Dutch EO Network

Inspired by the courageous truth-telling of channels like Geloof en Rede who are heroes to us, not villains. They first opened my eyes to the rot within the EO.

Please visit and subscribe here: https://youtube.com/@geloofenrede?si=cT1kKUkd_HXAiGKG

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions.” (2 Timothy 4:3)

Despite the lies spun by state-sponsored media, the Netherlands remains a great nation blessed with a remnant of genuine, faithful Christians. You are rising up. You are pushing back against the horrors unleashed by your pseudo-Christian counterparts (exploring the question of whether war is a biblical command). These relativists led by the polished faces at EO tried to snuff out every ember of hope, to make us abandon our orthodox faith and bow our heads in shame (a dangerous path when confronting historical evils like those embodied by Grand Mufti Amin Al Husseini). But the true remnant stands firm. You keep the flame alive, holding your heads high, proving that real Christianity still burns bright, even in the heart of Europe.

Do not despair, brethren.

John 16:33 “I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”

The Betrayal: The Poison of the “Maar”

This reckoning exists because of a single, poisonous word with four letters: “Maar.” (But.)

“Charlie Kirk is vermoord. Vreselijk. We leven mee. Maar…” (“Charlie Kirk was murdered. Terrible. We sympathize. But…”)

That word is a shiv. It is a dagger wrapped in velvet. Within days of his assassination, while his widow was still choking through the eulogy, the Dutch religious establishment figures like Rachel Rosier and her guests began moving from grief to “correction” at remarkable speed. They wasted no time stepping over the warm body of a brother to scold him for getting shot.

But make no mistake: Rachel Rosier is merely the current face of a much deeper rot. This poison has been brewing for a long time, meticulously distilled by architects like Arjen ten Brinke and Jan Wolsheimer (see our full Christian rebuttal here).

When Arjen took to his socials to preach that “Jesus is not a billboard for a party,” and Jan warned of “The temptation of the culture war,” they weren’t just offering commentary. They were revealing the dark heart of a specific variant of Dutch pseudo-Christianity a smug, localized heresy that has lost its moral compass entirely.

Consider the absolute hypocrisy: You let a poor girl like Lisa from Abcoude/Amsterdam lie cold in the morgue, butchered by a predator like Chris Jude an undocumented Nigerian thug with a history of ignored rapes. Where was your outrage then? Where were the television specials? Where were the theological deep-dives into the evil of allowing wolves to roam among the sheep? Silence. You stepped over her body without a second glance because acknowledging her murder would require you to confront the failure of your “tolerant” worldview.

But when it comes to America? Oh, suddenly you find your voice! You step over the broken body of a Dutch girl to fly across the ocean and teach the “Yanks” how to be “good Christians.” You lecture Americans that taking the Bible objectively calling abortion murder and demanding borders makes them “fascists.”

This is the manifestation of a colonial arrogance you claim to despise.

• You look East at my Orthodox brothers and sisters and dismiss them as “gullible,” “unknowing,” and “superstitious peasants” because they haven’t adopted your liberal impotence.
• You look West at the American branch of Christianity and call them “barbaric idiots” because they still believe the Bible is a sword and not a suggestion.

This is straight fire from me an African American Copt carrying the weight of ancient faith and fresh blood on my back. My roots run deep into Egypt’s Coptic soil. We were worshiping Christ centuries before any European “explorer” decided to “civilize” us with their distorted version of the Gospel. And I am telling you: This is not love. This is fear dressed as piety.

You have invented a “Germanic Wimp Jesus” who never judges, never divides, and never fights. And because you worship this idol, you hate anyone whether a Copt in Cairo or a Conservative in Chicago who dares to follow the Lion of Judah.

Part I: The Hypocrisy of the Death Empire

You swan in, Rachel, with your puffed-up European piety to “explore” whether Charlie Kirk was a fascist thug (a.k.a. Hitler) or a saintly martyr. You dare to judge his tone? You dare to lecture us on morality?

Spare me. This isn’t just media fluff; it is the latest symptom of Europe’s death-dealing DNA. You are a “Death Empire” stretching from Roman bloodbaths to your pint-sized modern kingdoms. You have been pyromaniacs, scorching the globe for millennia.

• Roman Roots: Gladiators gutting each other for sport; legions conquering until the empire imploded in its own gore.
• The Enlightenment: Your “geniuses” birthed revolutions that guillotined thousands, followed by Napoleon’s ego-wars that drowned Europe in blood.
• The World Wars: A senseless meat grinder sparked by your colonial greed and fascist fever dreams, chewing up 85 million souls from Auschwitz to Hiroshima.

The Satanic Gift of Marxism And don’t sleep on that satanist Karl Marx. Yes, I said it the bearded devil who scribbled the blueprint for communism, a hellish ideology straight from the pit. Born in your German heartland, Marx’s “utopia” sparked wildfires of death that raged globally.

• Russia: 20 million starved, shot, or gulaged.
• China: 45 million dead.
• Cambodia: 2 million skulls stacked using your imported poison. Europe’s gift to the world is a satanic system promising equality but delivering despotism, famines, and firing squads.

The Dutch Indictment Let’s not gloss over the Dutch specifically, since this EO smugness comes straight from the Netherlands. Your Dutch East India Company (VOC) wasn’t just a corporation; it was a machine of extermination.

• Banda Islands (1621): 15,000 killed or enslaved to secure a nutmeg monopoly.
• Batavia Massacre (1740): The rivers ran red with the blood of 10,000 ethnic Chinese.
• Indonesia (1945-1949): You doubled down on savagery with summary executions and village burnings (Rawagede, South Sulawesi).

So when EO preaches morality from Amsterdam, remember: it comes from a nation whose “enlightened” empire left trails of blood from Banda to Balongsari. You have no moral high ground to stand on.

Part II: The Theological Betrayal: The Invention of the “Wimp Jesus”

But your crimes aren’t just historical; they are theological. You look at Charlie Kirk’s strength his willingness to fight and you recoil. Why? Because you worship a Counterfeit Christ.

During the Reformation, and solidified by modern European liberalism, you reinvented Jesus. You took the Lion of Judah the God who flipped tables, who blinded Saul, who returns with a sword in His mouth and you turned Him into a YES I SAID IT

aGermanic Wimp.

You created a “gentle,” passive, conflict-averse social worker who just wants everyone to be nice. “funny enough! Germanics hate wimps! yet Germanic jesus is a Master punshing bag wimp!”

This “Wimp Jesus” is a useful idol for a dying continent that is doing its best to avoid ANY confrontation!.

• He never offends.
• He never judges.
• He never divides.
• And most importantly, He never asks you to fight for anything real.

The Tilburg Betrayal: Cheering for the Chains We saw the deadly fruit of this idolatry just recently in Tilburg, on January 9, 2026. When the Dutch evangelist Tom de Wal was arrested for the “crime” of praying, what did you do? Did you stand up for the Constitution? Did you defend the sacred right to worship? No. Some of you cheered.

Let’s be clear: I may not agree with every dot of De Wal’s theology. But since when does theological disagreement justify the State suspending a man’s Constitutional rights? You watched a Mayor reclassify a Worship Service as an “Event” just to bypass the Constitution. You watched the Dolle Minas that Marxist, feminist mob stalk a pastor and attack his fundamental rights. You watched the police drag a Christian preacher away for praying on the street.

And what was the response from a part of the “respectable” Dutch Christian establishment? “Good. He was a trouble-maker.” “It was dwaalleer (Dutch word means false teaching).”

How messed up is your soul? You are happy that a brother in Christ was arrested because his theology isn’t “neat” enough for your taste? Let me ask you: The Hindu religion is also dwaalleer according to the Bible. Do you cheer when the police close a Temple? Do you high-five the Dolle Minas when they harass Muslims or Buddhists? Of course not. You would call that ‘intolerance.’ You would weep for their ‘religious freedom’ and scream that ‘God is love.’ But apparently, that love stops at your own brothers. You are quick to brand a fellow Christian a ‘Fascist’ for standing on Scripture, yet you would never dare pin that label on an Imam even if he were standing in the pulpit screaming ‘Kill the infidels!’

But when a Christian is arrested? When a man praying to Jesus is hauled off by the State? You smile. You side with the Fascist/Marxist mob against your own family because he embarrasses you. You would rather see a Christian in handcuffs than risk being associated with someone “uncool.”

This is why this Pseudo-Christianity is deadly. It trains you to love the State more than the Church. It trains you to sacrifice your own brothers to the secular wolves just to keep your hands clean. We Copts know what this looks like. We know what happens when the State decides which prayers are “legal.” And to see you applaud it? It makes me sick.

This is why you call faithful men “Fascists.” Because when you see actual masculine strength the strength to defend boundaries, to protect children, to pray even when the Mayor says “No” it terrifies you. It exposes the weakness of the effeminate idol you’ve set up in your churches.

We Copts never worshiped your Wimp. We worship the King of Glory who conquers death. We worship the God who demands we carry a cross, not a cushion.

Part III: The “Fascist” Smear and the Theology of Order

You call Kirk and anyone like him a “Fascist” because he holds the Bible as objective reality. You spit on him because he said “America First.” You recoil because he prioritized his own nation. And you mock the Americans for supporting Trump. You act as if it is idolatry.

The Trump Derangement: A Choice Between a Bodyguard and a Butcher You think we look at Donald Trump and see a High Priest? No. We see a Bodyguard. We had to choose between a “Mean Tweeter” who is at least not an enemy of Conservative Christians, and Kamala Harris a woman who hates everything we stand for, supports abortion until birth, and is rumored to participate in satanic rituals (allegedly). We chose the bodyguard. You want us to choose the butcher because she is “polite.”

Let me teach you some theology you seem to have forgotten.

1. Ordo Amoris: Why “America First” is Biblical

You call it “Nationalism” and “Hate.” St. Augustine called it Ordo Amoris the Order of Loves. God is a God of Order, not chaos. Love is not a flat, infinite soup where you love everyone equally and do nothing for anyone. Love is concentric.

• I am commanded to love my wife more than my neighbor’s wife.
• I am commanded to feed my children before I feed the children in the next town over.

Scripture is crystal clear:

“But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1 Timothy 5:8)

When Charlie Kirk said, “We must secure our borders and help our own poor before we fix the world,” that wasn’t Fascism. That was Biblical Stewardship. To leave your own children hungry to feed strangers is not charity; it is neglect. It is a performance of virtue paid for by the suffering of your own family.

2. The Abortion Deflection: The “Rape” Tangent

And then, the most disgusting maneuver of all. When we stand up and speak the Objective Truth that Abortion is Infanticide, the slaughter of the innocent image of God what do you do? Do you engage the truth? Do you weep for the 73 million dead babies? No. You immediately pivot to: “But what about rape? What about incest? What about abuse?”

You cowards.

yeah i said it! YOU COWARDS, You take the horrific, tragic 1% of cases (rape/incest) and use them as a Human Shield to protect the 99% of abortions that are simply birth control by murder. You weaponize the pain of rape victims to justify the industrial-scale slaughter of children. Not surprising to me though you call the murder of babies in the womb “reproductive freedom”!

This is analogous to declaring the entire prison system immoral because of the tragedy of wrongful convictions. Would we tear down every jail and release the 99% of thieves, rapists, and murderers simply because 1% might be innocent? If you think this comparison is a logical fallacy, think again; we are debating whether a tragic anomaly should dismantle a standard moral law.

The core fact remains that abortion is murder the needless killing of a human life. Arguments calling the unborn a ‘clump of cells’ or ‘not yet human’ are dangerous deflections; by that metric, you are also just a clump of cells, and that specific dehumanizing logic is indistinguishable from the rhetoric white supremacists use to declare that anyone who isn’t white or blonde is ‘NONhuman or rat like!.

look at how some germans see Jews! (NON HUMAN) and terminatable of course, jews are just a clump of cells according to Nazis as well!

before you feel all superior and tell me oh these are not German these are Russians, 

here have a look at the entire archive!
https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/sturmer.htm

When a man says, “Do not tear a baby limb from limb,” and you scream, “You Fascist, you don’t care about rape victims!” you are the one twisting reality. You call him a Fascist for caring about God’s Truth objectively!

The “Might Makes Right” Fallacy

And one more point for those who smirked at Charlie’s death while dismissing the unborn as “insignificant.” You argue that the mother the stronger, “independent” party gets to decide who lives or dies because the baby lacks memories, autonomy, or “intellectual status.” You are not making a moral argument; you are making an Appeal to Power. You are claiming that Superiority grants the right to terminate the Inferior.

Let’s follow your logic to its suicidal conclusion.

If Human Rights are based on intelligence, independence, and capability, then answer me this: What happens if we are invaded tomorrow by a race with an average IQ of 400? Imagine beings who are physically stronger, vastly more intelligent, and possess memories and consciousness far beyond our comprehension. Compared to them, you are just as helpless, stupid, and “dependent” as that baby is to you. By your own logic, that invader would be morally justified in exterminating us. Why? Because they are the “Superior Beings.” If rights are determined by power and prowess, then we are just cattle to the first Superman who lands on Earth.

Or let’s bring it closer to home: If the State the ultimate independent, superior Power decides that you are an “unneeded citizen,” does the Collective get to suspend your rights and liquidate you? If independence and memory are the criteria for life, can the State euthanize the coma patient, the elderly with dementia, or the mentally disabled without consent?

Do you see the trap you have built? If you grant the Strong the right to kill the Weak simply because they are “more advanced,” you haven’t argued for “Reproductive Freedom.” You have argued for the Law of the Jungle. You are establishing a hierarchy where Human Rights don’t exist only the whims of the Bully.

• Objective Truth: It is a baby. It is alive. Killing it is murder.
• Your Response: Emotional manipulation to silence the conscience.

We see through you. You don’t care about the “rape victim” you care about preserving the sexual revolution’s sacrament of abortion. And even worse, you just care about not offending a fringe among humanity at the cost of biblical values!

Part IV: The Sword That Always Divides

You call us “divisive.” You call our stance “dangerous.” You are confusing the ailment with the cure.

Jesus did not hide what His coming would do. He shattered the “gentle hippie” myth before He even started:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matt 10:34) and we all know for A FACT that jesus wasn’t talking about open war! He is not that other prophet from Arabia!

The Lighthouse and the Convoy Picture a convoy of ships pushing through a dark sea. Same heading, same speed. It feels safe. It feels like “Unity.” On one bridge, a junior officer spots a lighthouse marking a fatal reef. He realizes the convoy is aimed at the rocks. He radios: “We need to alter course.” The flagship replies: “Don’t be divisive. Stay with the group.”

That is the drama of the Christian life. God’s truth is that lighthouse. It does not bend to the convoy’s consensus. It stands where it stands. Truth is always divisive. Not because God loves conflict, but because He loves Reality, and Reality does not bend to your feelings.

Part V: The War Record (A Dossier of Evidence)

Do not take my word for it. Look at the receipts. In every age, when a man of God steers by the lighthouse, the herd attacks.

1. Jesus of Nazareth

• In Nazareth: He applied the truth to His neighbors. They tried to throw Him off a cliff.
• In Jerusalem: He called the religious elites “hypocrites” and “vipers.” They called Him demon-possessed.
• The Verdict: Caiaphas, the high priest, calculated that it was “better that one man should die” than for their fragile political order to be disturbed. The Cross is the Establishment’s response to the Sword of Truth.

2. Paul the Apostle

• The Charge: “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also.” (Acts 17:6).
• The Fallout: Riots in Ephesus. Blood oaths in Jerusalem. Beheaded by Rome.
• The Reality: Paul wasn’t a “culture warrior” in the shallow sense. He was a herald of a Kingdom that displaced the old order. When you displace idols, the idol-makers riot.

3. The Blood of the Insider Here is the jagged truth: Most of the blood was not shed by pagans. It was shed by Israel’s own rulers. By the “Church” of that day.

• Zechariah was stoned to death in the church courtyard by order of the King.
• Jeremiah was thrown into a muddy cistern by his own people.
• Jezebel attacked God’s messengers from inside the palace.

Jesus summarized it best: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets.” So when you see a modern Christian treated as a “troublemaker” for refusing idols, you aren’t seeing a glitch. You are seeing Normal Christian History.

Part VI: The Early Fathers vs. The Modern Cowards

You think your “nuanced,” passive Christianity is traditional? It is a modern invention. The Early Church Fathers who actually faced lions had a spine.

• Justin Martyr (c. 155): “We worship God alone.” Loyalty to the state, yes. Idolatry? Never.
• Lactantius (c. 313): “Religion is to be defended, not by killing but by dying.”
• Athanasius (c. 357): “The sentiment of truth must not be hidden.” When heresy said “let’s be unified,” he said “Truth First,” even if it meant exile.

They understood what you have forgotten: Unity without Truth is a conspiracy.

Part VII: The False Love Checklist

You deploy words like “Love” and “Unity” to silence us. But we see through the game. Here are the warning signs that your “Love” is being weaponized:

1. Love That Only Punches Right: If your “love” only rebukes the sheep for bleating too loud, but never confronts the wolves butchering children, destroying the family, or legalizing injustice, you are not a shepherd. You are a hireling.
2. Unity That Always Drifts Left: If “unity” always means “Christians must move closer to secular progressive positions,” that isn’t biblical unity. It is Theological Peer Pressure.
3. Condolences with a Leash: When a Christian is killed for speaking truth, and your first response is, “This is terrible… but we must talk about his tone,” that is social control wrapped in sympathy.

Conclusion: The Final Verdict

This EO episode offers zero closure because truth is exiled for emo-drama. It is scripted sludge: rough edges equal villainy, feelings trump facts, and absolutes are outlawed.

We are back on the bridge of the ship. You have two options:

Option A: Stay in formation, bless the convoy’s drift toward the rocks, and call it “Unity.” Option B: Alter course to the lighthouse as heroes like Geloof en Rede and all forms of Orthodox Christianity have done even if the herd jeers, and call it “Obedience to Jesus.”

Jesus went first. Paul followed. The prophets bled. A man named Charlie tried, in his own fallible way, to walk that same road and he died for it. He died because he believed in Ordo Amoris that loving his nation meant protecting it. He died because he believed Objective Truth that a baby is a baby, no matter how inconvenient.

Your “Maar” is rejected. Your “Death Empire” history strips you of the right to lecture us. Your “Wimp Jesus” is a false idol. We will steer by the Light. And if that divides us from you?

So be it.

Bless those charred, two-faced souls crispier than a bitterbal left in the fryer too long, and just as empty inside.

The post Europe’s Death Empire: A Coptic Reckoning first appeared on Islam Revealed.

The Influences

Many elements were taken by Muhammad from the Persian religions, and these are considered fundamental aspects upon which Muhammad built his doctrine.

The Paraclete

Muhammad claimed about himself that he was the one foretold by Jesus. This is a statement previously repeated by the followers of Mani. It was a cry issued by Manichaean jurisprudence in defense of Mani, imposing upon followers the recognition of him. To reinforce this recognition, it was even added to their prayers—so when a follower prostrates, it is only to conclude his prayer with greetings and peace upon this prophet, saying: “Blessed is our guide, the Paraclete, the Messenger of Light” (a theme also explored in the Islamic concept of Allah’s Light). (33)

It is narrated about Zoroaster… The people of his religion frequently recount the miracles, extraordinary events, and signs that accompanied his birth; that from his childhood he devoted himself to contemplation and inclined toward solitude; that during this time he saw seven visions; then he announced his mission, declaring that he was God’s messenger sent to remove the errors that had attached themselves to religion and to guide to the truth. He continued calling people to the truth for many years, but only a few responded. It was then revealed to him to migrate to Balkh…” (34)

In the book Religion in India, China, and Iran, the author discusses Zoroaster’s early mission, quoting from the Avesta: “Regarding this prophethood, mission, and revealed revelation “gatha” emerges—a jurisprudential discourse in which the prophet-messenger speaks: From the stages of maturity, from childhood to youth, and even beyond the stages of youth… Zoroaster devoted himself to contemplation and solitude… searching for truth, he traversed the folds of the desert in devotion… secluded in a cave on Mount Sabalan, where the first signs of his prophethood and mission began around the age of forty—with visions… then speech… then the ascent (mi’raj) to heaven (a journey involving celestial beings like angels)!” (35)

In Firas al-Sawah’s study on Zoroaster… after receiving the message, Zoroaster set out preaching it in his homeland among his people for ten years, but he could not win many to the new religion. Ordinary people regarded him with doubt and suspicion because of his claim to prophethood and receiving heavenly revelation (some of which included bizarre demonic encounters), while the nobles opposed him because he threatened them with the punishment of the Hereafter (a concept with vivid descriptions in Islam, where it is even said that Hell speaks to Allah) and promised the humble the possibility of immortality, which in traditional belief had been reserved for the elite. When the prophet despaired of his people and kin, he resolved to emigrate from his homeland and went to the nearby kingdom of Chorasmia, where King Vishtaspa received him well, then he and his wife embraced Zoroastrianism and worked to spread it in his land.” Was the life of Zoroaster a source of inspiration for the Prophet of Islam in his life and actions?

The Last of the Prophets

The Prophet of Islam said about himself that he was the last of the prophets and messengers. Zoroaster said the same: “O people, I am God’s messenger to you… God sent me to guide you in the end of time… He wished to conclude this worldly life with me, so I came as a guide to the truth and to remove the impurities that had attached themselves to religion… I came as a bearer of glad tidings and a warner of this approaching end…” (36) Mani later repeated the same claim, saying he was the last of the prophets.

Monotheism

The Prophet of Islam called for monotheism and rejection of all false gods: “There is no god but Allah.” Zoroaster called for monotheism and rejection of all other gods: “There is no god but Ahura Mazda.”

The Names of God

The Prophet of Islam said that God has names, and a specific number of them. Zoroaster said the same before Muhammad. When Zoroaster asked to be taught this name, he was told it was “the requested secret.” The other names were: the first “Bestower of Blessings,” the second “the Mighty,” the third “the Perfect,” the fourth “the Holy,” (37) the fifth “the Noble,” the sixth “Wisdom,” the seventh “the Wise,” the eighth “Experience,” the ninth “the Knower,” the tenth “the Rich,” the eleventh “the Enricher,” the twelfth “the Lord,” the thirteenth “the Benefactor,” the fourteenth “the Good,” the fifteenth “the Compeller,” the sixteenth “the Upholder of Truth,” the seventeenth “Sight,” the eighteenth “the Healer,” the nineteenth “the Creator,” and the twentieth “Mazda” or the Knower of all things. (38)

The Night Journey (Isra’)

The Prophet of Islam said he was taken up to heaven. The same story is narrated in Zoroaster’s biography: “Then the angel took Zoroaster by the hand and ascended with him to heaven, where he stood in the presence of Ahura Mazda and the spiritual beings called Amesha Spenta; there he received from God the message he was to convey to his people and to all humanity.” (39) The pages of the Gathas record another instance of this belief—the belief in the ascent to heaven—lines stating that Zoroaster himself spoke of this event: “O people! I am God’s messenger to you… He speaks to me! He speaks to me with revelation through a messenger angel; He raised me to Him, the great angel led me to His presence… There, manifesting Himself, God appeared, taught me the law, and showed me the true religion, for He entrusted this book to you.” (40) We do not know, then, whether the story of the Prophet of Islam’s Night Journey and Ascension was merely a “dream” or a claim borrowed from similar ancient stories. It was certainly not a real event, even in the view of some Muslims (see Ibn Arabi’s commentary and Aisha’s statement: “The body of the Messenger of God was never missing”).

Some Acts of Worship

The Prophet of Islam imposed five daily prayers on Muslims: dawn, noon, afternoon, sunset, and night. In Zoroastrianism, which appeared before Islam: “Zoroaster called believers to five daily prayers performed at dawn, noon, afternoon, sunset, and midnight.” (41)

In Manichaeism: “Prayer in Manichaeism is an obligation performed at fixed times with specific bodily movements of standing, bowing, and prostration… four prayers a day—the first at noon, the second in the afternoon, the third at sunset, and the fourth at night. Each prayer consists of twelve rak’ahs and a prostration… each rak’ah and prostration has a specific formula, recitation from the holy book in a particular manner, tone, and melody.” (42)

Muslims have a qibla: the Sacred Mosque. For the Zoroastrian and Manichaean worshipper, the qibla is the source of light—the sun or moon.

Muslims must perform ablution before prayer. The Zoroastrian does the same: “Prayer is preceded by ablution, which includes washing the face, hands, and feet.” (43) Manichaeans also precede prayer with ablution.

The Prophet of Islam imposed a thirty-day annual fast on Muslims. Mani imposed fasting on his followers: “Fasting in Manichaeism is an obligation of thirty days each year and seven days each month—the fast begins when the sun enters Aquarius and breaks at sunset.” (44)

Resurrection, the Bridge (Sirat), Reward and Punishment, and the Record of Deeds

The Quran elaborates extensively on eschatological matters: resurrection, judgment, reward, and punishment. We find these in Zoroastrianism: humans have another life besides this worldly one; the soul remains after death, then returns to reunite with its body… “Souls, after leaving bodies upon death, remain in the limbo of Menog awaiting the Day of Resurrection with longing, so they may reunite with their bodies raised from the earth.” (45)

Humans in this life have free choice between good and evil, and in the next life comes recompense. All human deeds are recorded: “Angels called ‘guardians’ are assigned to humans, recording their sins and good deeds in this ‘book’… Humans will find their actions and thoughts recorded—for and against them—in this book written by the guardian angels who record their deeds and thoughts.” (46)

Judgment is based on one’s deeds in the first life, good and evil: “After leaving the body, the soul appears before Mithra, judge of the other world (leader of the Ahuras who, with the Amesha Spenta, form the sacred heavenly host), who judges it for what it did in this world for the good of humanity and the world. Standing to Mithra’s right and left are his assistants Srasha and Rashnu, who weigh the deeds of the deceased on the scales of justice, placing good deeds in one pan and evil in the other. Here, no intercession comes from sacrifices, rituals, or formal worship—only good thoughts, words, and deeds. Whoever’s good outweighs goes to paradise; whoever’s evil outweighs goes to the abyss of hell.” (47)

Then comes the Sirat, the bridge the soul must cross over hell leading to paradise. It is wide for the good soul, which crosses in peace; narrow for the evil soul, which soon falls into hell: “The Sirat is stretched over the abyss of hell… an abyss whose floor is darkness from which flames burst, yet… though stretched over the abyss of hell, it also leads to the garden of abode—paradise!” (48) “After that, the soul proceeds to cross the Bridge of Destiny, a bridge that widens for the good soul, allowing it to walk leisurely to the other side toward the gate of paradise, but narrows for the evil soul, causing it to stumble and fall into the fire of hell.” (49)

The Awaited Mahdi

The belief in the awaited Mahdi is well-known in Islam. It appears in Tirmidhi and others: “…from Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, who said: The Messenger of God (peace be upon him) said: The Mahdi is from me, broad of forehead, aquiline of nose; he will fill the earth with equity and justice as it was filled with oppression and injustice; he will rule for seven years.” This is also mentioned in Zoroastrianism.

Al-Shahrastani in Al-Milal wa al-Nihal states: “Among what Zoroaster foretold in the book Zend Avesta: In the end of time a man named ‘Saoshyant’ will appear—meaning the knowledgeable man—who will adorn the world with religion and justice. Then in his time ‘Pityara’ will appear and cause affliction to his affairs and kingdom for twenty years. Then ‘Saoshyant’ will appear over the people of the world, revive justice, destroy oppression, restore altered traditions to their original state; kings will submit to him, matters will be facilitated, religion and truth will be aided, and in his time there will be security, comfort, cessation of strife, and removal of tribulations.” (50)

Corruption of the Gospel

The Prophet of Islam said the Jews and Christians corrupted their scriptures. Mani said the same about the Gospels: “Mani rejected recognition of the four Christian Gospels on the grounds that the apostles had corrupted them to serve Jewish interests.” (51)

The Crucifixion of Christ

The Quran denies the reality of Christ’s crucifixion, saying what happened was only an appearance: “it appeared to them so.” This is what Mani said: “Deacon Mansi al-Qummus explains this point in Manichaeism: Christ appeared among the Jews wearing the form and shadow (i.e., appearance) of a human body, not a real body… but the god of darkness incited the Jews to crucify him. Since he had no body, the sufferings did not affect him, but the Jews thought he was crucified.” (52)

6. Other Influences on Judaism and Christianity

The influence of Persian religion was not limited to Islam; Judaism, Christianity, and others were affected earlier.

Judaism

A Christian writer on the post-exilic period: “It should not surprise us to see Judaism after the exile influenced by Zoroastrianism… though the effects of this religion did not become apparent in Judaism until two centuries later. In this historical period, visionary writings appeared in Hebrew literature clearly bearing traces of Zoroastrian beliefs about heaven and hell, judgment after death, and the end of the world. The belief in angelic priesthood emerged, along with dualism of good and evil under two opposing powers, each with its leader—Archangel Michael for good and Satan for evil. Added to these was the idea of the messianic kingdom that will one day rule with righteousness.” (53)

Example: Satan. The Hebrews did not know Satan in his full form as the source of evil in the world until after the Babylonian exile and contact with other religions.

Al-Aqqad in Iblis: “Comparative religion shows that the belief isolates the power of evil and confines it to the ‘satanic personality’ the more it advances in exalting God and rejecting that evil could emanate from Him. Therefore, early Hebrews felt no need to isolate Satan or attribute evils to him, for they expected from God actions like those of Satan… The same act was sometimes attributed to Satan and sometimes to God, as in the census of the people in David’s time…” (54)

In Allah by the same author: “The Jews did not speak of ‘demons’ before the exile or before dwelling between the rivers; they spoke of Satan after likening him to Ahriman, who represents evil and corruption among the Magi.” (55)

Christianity

Christianity was also influenced by Persian religions, either directly through borrowing or indirectly through Judaism, which was itself influenced by Persian religion. Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin, translator of Hymns of Zoroaster, on Zoroastrian influences in Judaism that prepared the way for Christ’s mission: “The development of beliefs in Palestine concerning theological vision, the kingdom of God, final judgment, resurrection, the Son of Man, the prince of this world or prince of darkness, the savior—these formed fertile soil capable of receiving and interpreting the message of life, the Word, and the death of Jesus.” (56)

Example: Satan’s temptation of Christ. The first three Gospels mention the story that Satan put Christ through trial and tried to instill doubt in him… “Then the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, and said to him: ‘All this I will give you if you fall down and worship me.’ Jesus said: ‘Get away, Satan! For it is written: You shall worship the Lord your God and Him alone shall you serve.’” (Matthew 4:8-10)

The same legend appears in Zoroaster’s biography: “When he came of age, Satan came to tempt him and placed in his hand dominion over all the earth in exchange for abandoning his future mission, but Zoroaster rebuked him and drove him away.” (57)

7. The Confusion of the Prophet of Islam Regarding the Magi

It is well known in Islam that “People of the Book” refers to Jews and Christians, while no text explicitly includes the Magi as People of the Book. Yet the Prophet of Islam seems tof have been confused about this issue. He was heavily influenced by and borrowed from Persian religion, yet he also found elements that contradicted his doctrine and were not present in the scriptures he considered revealed. The Prophet of Islam took much from Persian religion and rejected other parts. The result was a middle-ground solution that is astonishing and contradictory: not explicitly recognizing them as People of the Book but treating them as such!

The Prophet of Islam did not explain why they should be treated as People of the Book when they are not. The only answer is a kind of gratitude for what he took from their religion—and it was considerable. Two issues, I believe, made the Prophet of Islam hesitate to recognize the Persians as People of the Book:

1. The struggle between good and evil in the world, the cornerstone of Persian religion. The Prophet of Islam rejected it and did not accept it as an explanation for the existence of evil—an idea deeply rooted in Persian religion that cannot be dismissed by claiming the Persians corrupted their faith.
2. The separation of Persian prophets—Zoroaster and Mani—from the chain of Hebrew prophets.

This ambiguity and confusion persisted after him.

First: The status of the Magi during the Prophet’s lifetime. In Sahih al-Bukhari: “…from Ali ibn Abdullah… Sufyan said: I heard Amr say: I was sitting with Jabir ibn Zayd and Amr ibn Aws when Bijalah told them in the year 70, during Mus’ab ibn al-Zubayr’s pilgrimage with the people of Basra near the Maqam of Zamzam: I was scribe to Jaz’ ibn Mu’awiya, uncle of al-Ahnaf… A letter came from Umar ibn al-Khattab a year before his death: Separate every pair of Magi related by marriage. Umar had not taken jizya from the Magi until Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf testified that the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) took it from the Magi of Hajar.”

In Muwatta: “From Ja’far ibn Muhammad from his father: Umar said: I do not know what to do with the Magi. Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf said: I bear witness that I heard the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) say: Treat them as you treat the People of the Book.”

Second: Confusion persisted after the Prophet. Even Umar, a major companion, did not know how to treat the Magi—an extension of the Prophet’s own ambiguity and vague position. Later jurists also differed on marriage to Magian women; most forbid it, some permit it.

“Abu Thawr permitted marriage to Magian women because they pay jizya like Jews and Christians.” (58)

Historical books mention Hudhayfa marrying a Magian woman, though reports vary.

Al-Shahrastani falls into the same confusion and finds no solution but to follow the Prophet’s middle path, classifying the Magi under “those who have a semblance of scripture”!

8. Conclusion

Islam was clearly influenced by Persian religions. We find strong similarities in many doctrines; some are nearly identical, especially eschatological matters—resurrection, raising, judgment, reward, punishment, and the Sirat. The Persian spirit is clearly evident in many beliefs. Zoroastrianism even surpasses Islam in clarity and logic in some doctrines that appear similar, such as free will.

While Zoroastrianism clearly affirms human free will and thus responsibility for actions, Islam lacks clarity and shows obvious contradiction. Some Quranic verses indicate humans freely choose their actions; others state that God has decreed matters and nothing escapes His will—everything that happens is execution of the divine will to which humans have no alternative.

Without delving into details, here are some contradictory verses denying human free choice: “Indeed, those who disbelieve—it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them—they will not believe. Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment.” (Al-Baqarah 2:6-7)

“And whomever Allah wills to guide, He opens his breast to Islam; and whomever He wills to send astray, He makes his breast tight and constricted as though he were climbing into the sky. Thus does Allah place defilement upon those who do not believe.” (Al-An’am 6:125)

“And if Allah had willed, He could have made you one nation, but He sends astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And you will surely be questioned about what you used to do.” (Al-Nahl 16:93)

“Whoever Allah guides is the guided one; and whoever He leaves astray—for them you will find no protector to guide them.” (Al-Kahf 18:17)

This contradiction caused major disputes in early Islamic centuries and led to the emergence of different sects.

Another distinction of Zoroaster is the complete absence of violence in his mission, unlike Islam. Zoroaster did not take up the sword—how could one whose mission was goodness and its support wield the sword? This contrasts with Islam’s policy of the sword; all Islamic history is stained with blood, battles, and war. While Islam’s direction toward violence impacted later history, Zoroaster’s influence on his followers is evident among the Parsis: “They are a people of lofty morals and refined manners, a living witness to the merit of Zoroastrian religion and its great effect in refining and civilizing humanity.” (59)

Even in Paradise: Discrimination Between Men and Women

“The righteous… in gardens and springs… Thus We will marry them to fair women with large, beautiful eyes.” (Al-Dukhan 44:51-54)

But who are these houris? How many for each believing Muslim? “Fair ones reserved in pavilions… whom no man or jinn has touched before them… So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny?” (Al-Rahman 55:72-75)

“We have created them of special creation (God created them without birth for the pleasure of the believing Muslim) and made them virgins (they return as virgins after the believing Muslim enters them).” (Al-Waqi’ah 56:35-38)

From Abu Sa’id al-Khudri: The Messenger of God (peace be upon him) said: “When the people of Paradise have intercourse with their women, they return as virgins.” (Narrated by Tabarani, Bazzar, Suyuti, Ibn Kathir, and Ibn Qayyim.)

“Those who believed in Our signs and were Muslims—enter Paradise, you and your spouses, delighted… Therein is whatever souls desire.” (Al-Zukhruf 43:69-71)

From the above, the believing Muslim man has wives in Paradise from these virgins created by God for his pleasure, untouched by man or jinn before him. But the paradise of chaste women differs from the paradise of obedience where Adam and Eve lived before disobeying God and their private parts became visible.

“Then Satan whispered to them to expose what was concealed from them of their private parts… He led them on with delusion. And when they tasted of the tree, their private parts became apparent to them…” (Al-A’raf 7:20-27; Ta-Ha 20:120-121)

Adam and Eve lived in obedience to God and did not see their private parts, but after obeying Satan and disobeying God’s command, their private parts appeared. This was Satan’s goal. God then warned the children of Adam against that satanic aim and urged them to righteousness. If this was the state of Adam and Eve in God’s paradise—unaware of their private parts in obedience to God but aware after obeying Satan—how can God contradict Himself and permit all those virgin women?

Leaving that aside, if the believing Muslim’s reward in Paradise is this open number of virgin women, what is the reward of the believing Muslim woman in that Paradise? Does she have an open number of men? Did God create for her husbands like the houris created for men? Were these virgins incentives for Arab fighters to fight fiercely and sacrifice their lives to win in Paradise women who return as virgins after intercourse? What is the woman’s share? The Quran never mentions any pleasure for women. This is the woman’s status and lot in the Quran in this world and the next—and much more. Though Muhammad’s hadiths provide many details, here we rely only on the Quran. The subject of women in Islam would fill volumes.

Sources

1. Pre-formation: Through the arrival of Persian religion to the Arabian Peninsula, the Prophet of Islam’s acquaintance with it, and his influence by it. Post-formation: Through Persian influences in the emergence of Shi’ism, Sufism, the call for socialism by Abu Dharr, some Mu’tazilite opinions, and other matters. Some also see a Persian influence “during formation” through the role assumed for Salman the Persian with the Prophet of Islam.
2. “Allah” by Abbas al-Aqqad, p. 81, Dar al-Hilal, 1954.
3. “Ancient Persian Literature” by Paul Horn, translated by Dr. Hussein Mujeeb al-Masri, p. 102, Anglo Library, 1982. (Quotation from a translator’s footnote).
4. “The Story of Civilization” by Will Durant, Vol. 2, p. 425, Egyptian General Book Authority, 2001.
5. “Mithra” in the original text.
6. “Religion in India, China, and Iran” by Abkar al-Saqaf, pp. 248–249, New Ages Edition, 2000.
7. Researcher Firas al-Sawah is cited in a study titled “The Birth of Satan: Zoroaster, Prophet of Monotheism, Prophet of Dualism,” providing three probable dates for Zoroaster’s birth…
8. In a later stage after Zoroaster, “Ahura Mazda” became the god of good, and “Ahriman” the god of evil, marking a transition from monotheism to dualism.
9. “Hymns of Zoroaster,” translation of the Gathas, prepared and translated by Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin, Arabic translation by Dr. Philip Atiyah, Gatha 51, p. 145, Egyptian General Book Authority, 1993.
10. “Dawn of Islam” by Ahmad Amin, p. 162, Egyptian General Book Authority, 1996.
11. “Heresy in the West” by Dr. Ramses Awad, p. 53, Sina Publishing, 1997.
12. “Religion in India, China, and Iran,” p. 314.
13. “Al-Milal wa al-Nihal” by al-Shahrastani, Vol. 1, p. 244, Mustafa al-Babi al-Halabi Edition, 1976.
14. “Dawn of Islam,” p. 171.
15. “Religions of the World” by Habib Said, p. 157, Episcopal Church Publishing House, Cairo (no date).
16. “Ancient Persian Literature,” p. 95. (Quotation from a translator’s footnote).
17. “Heresy in the West,” pp. 52, 54.
18. Mani authored many books and treatises… (detailed description of Mani’s works, including “Shabuhragan,” “Living Gospel,” etc.), from “Iran in the Sasanian Era” by Arthur Christensen, translated by Dr. Yahya al-Khashab, pp. 187–188, 192, 195, Egyptian General Book Authority, 1998.
19. “Dawn of Islam,” p. 30.
20. Ibid., p. 31.
21. Ibid., p. 32.
22. Ibid., p. 32.
23. Captive at Badr; the Prophet of Islam ordered his execution.
24. “Dawn of Islam,” p. 107.
25. “From the History of Atheism in Islam” by Dr. Abd al-Rahman Badawi, p. 24, Egyptian Renaissance Library, 1945.
26. “Religion in India, China, and Iran,” p. 323.
27. “Dawn of Islam,” pp. 167–169.
28. “From the History of Atheism in Islam,” pp. 28–29.
29. “Religion in the Arabian Peninsula” by Abkar al-Saqaf, pp. 64, 69, New Ages Edition, 2000.
30. Ibid., pp. 69–70.
31. In Ibn Hisham’s Sirah: Some scholars narrated…
32. “Restless Figures in Islam” by Dr. Abd al-Rahman Badawi, pp. 32–33, Egyptian Renaissance Library, 1946.
33. “Religion in India, China, and Iran,” p. 318.
34. “Dawn of Islam,” p. 155.
35. “Religion in India, China, and Iran,” p. 293.
36. Ibid., p. 291.
37. As it appeared in the text; likely intended “al-Quddus” (the Holy).
38. “Allah,” p. 82.
39. “The Birth of Satan” (previously referenced study).
40. “Religion in India, China, and Iran,” p. 292.
41. “The Birth of Satan.”
42. “Religion in India, China, and Iran,” p. 315.
43. “The Birth of Satan.”
44. “Religion in India, China, and Iran,” pp. 314–315.
45. “The Birth of Satan.”
46. “Religion in India, China, and Iran,” p. 285.
47. “The Birth of Satan.”
48. “Religion in India, China, and Iran,” pp. 287–288.
49. “The Birth of Satan.”
50. “Al-Milal wa al-Nihal,” Vol. 1, p. 239.
51. “Heresy in the West,” p. 54.
52. Ibid., p. 55.
53. “Religions of the World,” pp. ۱۶۰–۱۶۱.
54. “Iblis” by Abbas al-Aqqad, p. 103, Hilal Book Series, 1958.
55. “Allah,” p. 78.
56. “Hymns of Zoroaster,” p. 8.
57. “The Birth of Satan.” (Footnote on parallels in Buddhist and Christian literature also provided.)
58. “Fiqh al-Sunnah” by al-Sayyid Sabiq, Vol. 2, p. 93, Muslim Library, 1983.
59. “The Story of Civilization,” p. 437.

The post The Persian Roots of the Islamic Faith first appeared on Islam Revealed.

Before diving in, let me be upfront: this lesson isn’t some scientific revelation or ironclad proof, it’s a theory I’ve pieced together. I’ve done my best to dig into why things in Western Christianity have unfolded the way they have, following the evidence where it led me and connecting the dots as honestly as I could.

I’m not claiming this is the only way to interpret the history or any discussed evidence, or theology; far from it. There are plenty of other lenses out there, and reasonable people can disagree. But this framework is what made the most sense to me after wrestling with the sources. I know the logic-fallacy crowd will jump on this, nitpicking for inconsistencies, but I can guarantee you: if you follow the framework step by step, you’ll see there are zero logical fallacies here. It’s all built on observable patterns, biblical texts, and historical timelines. Now, let’s get into it.

The Materialist Christian: The Personal Diagnosis & The Logical Proof

The Personal Diagnosis: The Mirror Test

Before we dive into history or theology, let’s make this personal. If you want to know if you’re a “Materialist Christian,” you don’t need a fancy chart or quiz. Just perform a simple audit of your own thoughts catch yourself in the act of thinking.

Catching Yourself in the Act:

Do you ever physically flinch when the Bible says something that clashes with modern secular vibes? In that moment of discomfort, do you reach for the text and start twisting it to make it more palatable? You know what I mean. You take a sharp, uncomfortable verse one about divine judgment, sexual purity, or God’s exclusivity and you wrestle it until it stops breathing fire and starts whispering the cozy platitudes of the world.

The “Hamster Wheel” of Rationalization

Take the most common hot-button issue today: same-sex relations. The Bible is crystal clear on this from a metaphysical standpoint it’s about the design of body and soul, not just actions. But when you’re pressed on it by friends or colleagues, or some some LGBTQ allied pastor watch what happens in your brain.

You start spinning on a stationary hamster wheel, telling yourself:

“Well… love is love, right? It’s not like they’re hurting anyone. It’s just affection!” Then the biblical text hits back hard with Leviticus, Romans 1, the story of Sodom. It’s relentless. So what do you do?

You don’t step off the wheel you run faster. You sprint, desperate for a loophole:

“Oh, the Bible meant lust, not love! Sodom wasn’t about homosexuality; it was about inhospitality and rape! Paul was only talking about reckless, lustful encounters, not committed relationships!”

The Logical Slap in the Face

Then simple logic slaps you: You’re arguing that the Bible condemns “lust” but green lights “making love,” as if the physical act of sex can be neatly separated from passion. Think about how absurd and unscientific that is that is. Are you seriously claiming that “making love” is pure agape (selfless, spiritual charity) with zero eros (passion or desire)? Are you aware of what happens during sexual activity when neither partner experiences arousal? If not, I suggest brushing up on basic biology and sex education.

When your parents conceived you, was there “no lust involved” just a sterile, holy handshake? Did they conceive you in a cathedral too? I mean it was a holy act of agape after all! Of course not. You’re redefining reality because you can’t handle that God prioritizes the metaphysics of sex the divine design of body and soul over modern ideas of “consent” or “no harm done.”

SO NO NO NO saying they are two consenting adults DOES NOT cancel the fact that it’s a biblical sin!

The Materialist Surrender

By falling back on “It doesn’t hurt anyone,” you’ve admitted your standard for sin isn’t God’s holiness anymore it’s physical harm aka a material cause.

You’re saying: “If no bones are broken and no property is stolen, no sin occurred.”

You’ve essentially told God: “Your metaphysical concerns (the eternal state of the soul) don’t matter to me. I only care about material happiness.”

If you catch yourself on that hamster wheel, twisting Scripture to fit the secular “do no harm” creed, you’re not interpreting the Bible you’re sanitizing it. You’re judging God by atheist standards.

The Core Diagnosis: Physical vs. Metaphysical

This unconscious materialism has turned many faithful, well-meaning believers into pacifist “doormat” Christians: emotionally sensitive, quick to emphasize “love” and “peace,” but ultimately defenseless. They condemn violence in any form as the absolute worst evil while downplaying far graver sins that damage the eternal soul. To understand why this is a disaster, we need a clear framework. Christianity has always contained two intertwined but distinct dimensions:

• Physical: The observable, material world (physis in Greek) bodies, property, measurable harm or benefit.

• Metaphysical: What lies “beyond” the physical (meta-physis) the immortal soul, abstract morality, concepts of right and wrong, and God Himself.

The Historic Christian Priority:

1. The eternal soul is infinitely more precious than the temporary body. The body is destined for dust; the soul faces eternal destiny.

2. Metaphysical sins are far graver than physical ones. Sins that corrupt the soul or directly offend God (like heresy, pride, idolatry) without necessarily causing physical harm are the root evils Christianity most fiercely opposes.

3. Violence is serious, but not intrinsically the worst sin. Unjust killing is a great evil, but when necessary to defend higher goods (the innocent, the faith, sacred order), it can be a tragic but necessary lesser evil never celebrated, but accepted as preferable to greater spiritual corruption.

This is not modern pacifism. This is the tougher, soul-centered Christianity of the apostles, Church Fathers, medieval saints, and believers until very recently.

The Modern Inversion:

Modern Christians judge sin mainly if it has a tangible physical dimension.

• Murder or theft? “Sin, because it hurts someone.”

• Heresy, lust, or pride? “Not a big deal no one’s getting hurt.”

This reveals the shift: Modern morality reduces everything to one question “Does it cause physical harm?” ignoring the metaphysical almost entirely.

The Logical Proof: Worse Than Atheists

If your ethical system boils down to “no physical harm = okay,” you’re operating as a functional materialist even if you believe in God. Let’s derive this step by step:

A. The Atheist Logic (Consistent Materialism)

• Premise: No God, no soul matter is the only reality.

• Highest Good: Preservation of physical life and comfort.

• Ultimate Evil: Physical death and pain.

• Conclusion: Anything causing death or pain is the worst evil.

B. The Traditional Christian Logic

• Premise: God exists; the soul is eternal.

• Highest Good: Union with God (salvation, holiness).

• Ultimate Evil: Separation from God (sin, damnation).

• Conclusion: Sin is worse than death. Accept physical death (martyrdom) or inflict it (just war) rather than allow spiritual corruption.

C. The “Materialist Christian” Error

Here’s the fatal contradiction:

• You claim Premise B (God exists).

• But you adopt the Highest Good/Ultimate Evil of A (physical safety first; pain is the worst).

The Verdict:

Honest atheists are consistent materialists. Materialist Christians claim metaphysical truths (eternal soul, divine judgment) but ignore them, judging everything by the atheist’s physical test. This inconsistency makes you worse than the honest atheist those truths, if embraced, should revolutionize your values.

Evidence from the Tradition

The Bible overwhelmingly supports the soul-first framework.

• The Seven Deadly Sins: Pride, envy, wrath, sloth, lust, greed, gluttony. Only gluttony is primarily physical (and often seen as least serious). The rest are metaphysical root vices evil because they disorder the soul, even without physical harm.

• Romans 1:18 32: Paul’s list of sins inviting divine judgment includes envy, deceit, malice, arrogance, God-hating. Out of ~21 sins, only one (murder) is explicitly physical the rest are metaphysical heart disorders.

• Historical Warriors (The Crusades): This explains why modern Christians can’t grasp the Crusades. Medieval Christians saw it as metaphysical a defense of the Incarnation and Cross against blasphemy dominating sacred lands. Violence was the lesser evil compared to acquiescing to spiritual corruption. If “war is always the worst” to you, you’ve lost righteous discernment you’re judging history with a materialist ruler.

The Materialist Christian: The Forensic Genealogy (The Highway to Chaos)

The Observation: Connecting the Dots

We’ve diagnosed the patient: The modern Western Christian often runs on atheist ethical software matter is all, so physical harm is the only real sin. But how did we get here? How did a faith rooted in the Incarnation (God becoming flesh) turn into a sterile prep room for atheism?

I’m not dogmatically blaming the Reformation for atheism correlation isn’t causation. I’m just laying out observations: a specific “slippery slope” the East avoided. While we can debate causes, the timeline is undeniable. Some patterns are too consistent to ignore. As a forensic observer, I’m noting the Reformation didn’t stop the rot it accelerated us toward it. Here’s the step-by-step timeline.

Phase I: Paving the Road (The Late Medieval Drift)

Before any theses were nailed, the Latin West paved the road to materialism. The 1054 East-West split cut the West from mystical, experiential theology, favoring definitions and data.

The Scholastic Error: Analyzing Mystery to Death

High Middle Ages Scholastics (like Aquinas) brilliantly integrated Aristotle, but the mood shifted from encountering God (theosis) to analyzing Him.

• Absurdity: They sought “data” on God like measuring His shoulders. God isn’t a specimen; He’s consuming fire.

• Trap: Elevating logic over liturgy made the human brain judge of the Infinite. If liturgy said “This bread is God” but logic said “Bread can’t be God,” logic won.

• Result: Reason trumped revelation, priming the West for rationalism.

The Hidden Virus: Nominalism (14th Century)

William of Ockham’s nominalism finished the pavement: Universals (truth, divine order) aren’t real in nature only individual, material things exist.

• Shift: A tree was once part of divine “tree-ness”; now, just wood.

• Result: Severed physical from metaphysical. Matter became “dead stuff” for analysis, laying groundwork for empiricism and science over mysticism.

Phase II: The Super Car (The Reformation’s Afterburner)

If nominalism paved the road, the Reformation built a race car and floored it, turning a philosophical error into theological mandate.

Iconoclasm: The Murder of Sacred Matter

Zwingli, Calvin, Puritans smashed statues, relics, altars claiming “The finite can’t contain the Infinite.”

• Lesson: God can’t be in bread or statues matter is empty of spirit.

• Consequence: The physical world became a wall, not a window to heaven. The “enchanted world” died, paving way for secularism.

Sola Fide: The Legalization of the Soul

Luther rejected infusion (God healing the soul’s nature) for imputation (God declaring a legal status).

• Shift: Saved man as “snow-covered dung” your actual state doesn’t matter, only legal standing.

• Logic: If who you are (physical/spiritual reality) is irrelevant for salvation, reality divorces from religion.

• Result: Birth of the “Materialist Christian” no need to be holy (metaphysical); just hold the ticket (legal).

Phase III: The Ride to Hell (Modern Materialism)

With mystery stripped from sacraments and salvation from ontology, the car hit warp speed.

The Vacuum of “Superstition”

Reformers targeted “superstition” (incense, rosaries, fasting, pilgrimage) spiritual anchors tethering body to metaphysics.

• Reality: Stripping “smells and bells” created a void, not “pure spirituality.”

• Fill: Science and commerce rushed in. If bread isn’t God’s body, it’s carbs analyze it. Science became the only tool for reality; metaphysical tools were trashed.

The Final Crash: The “Atheist” Christian

Today’s Materialist Christian inherits:

• Reformation iconoclasm (matter isn’t holy).

• Ockham’s nominalism (universals aren’t real).

• Enlightenment rationalism (only measurable is true).

Conclusion: The Super Car’s Destination

The Reformation promised “pure” faith. Instead, it drove off a cliff.

• Catholicism/Orthodoxy: “The world is charged with God’s grandeur matter vehicles spirit.”

• Reformation: “God in heaven; world just stuff don’t idolize it.”

• Modernity: “World just stuff no God in heaven.”

The Materialist Christian is the wreckage: claiming supernatural belief but living like atheists, because ancestors dismantled the sacramental bridge connecting physical and metaphysical.

The post The Materialist Christian The Metaphysical Wound That Never Healed first appeared on Islam Revealed.

So we will simulate a discussion between two people.

Person 1: “The savage Christians butchered innocent people in the Middle East. People who did no crime and waged no war. The Christians killed millions of innocent people!”

Person 2: “Do you mean Christians killed millions of innocent Muslims during the Crusades?”

Person 1: “Yes. not only in the Crusades. God’s people committed mass genocide against so many people throughout the old testament, they did all that in the name of their God ”

Person 2: “And you also mean that the savage Christians waged an unprovoked, unjust war against innocent Muslim people who did nothing to deserve something that horrible? Also in general, you are claiming that the God of the Bible is a violent and murderous God?”

Person 1: “Yes.”

Person 2: “Where can I check these facts? Do you have sources that can explain this issue in detail from a geopolitical perspective?”

Person 1: “No, why should I explain it to you? We all learned about it in school. You are just ignorant! You should know all of that. You just claim not to know because you are a white supremacist and a racist!”

Prelude to the answer

The assertion that Christians killed millions of innocent people during the Crusades is a highly controversial and contested claim. While it is true that there were instances of violence and atrocities committed during the Crusades, it is important to examine this issue from a geopolitical perspective and consider the historical context in which these events took place.

Several reliable academic sources have produced works that support the defensive nature of the Crusades, arguing that they were a response to centuries of Muslim aggression and expansionism (a concept often misunderstood and misrepresented as an eternal jihad). For example, historian Thomas F. Madden argues that the Crusades were a just war and a necessary response to the Islamic conquests of Christian lands (which were guided by a specific holy war doctrine), such as Syria, Egypt, and the Holy Land. Similarly, historian Rodney Stark has written extensively on the defensive nature of the Crusades, contending that they were a response to Muslim attacks on Christian pilgrims and a defense of the Byzantine Empire (learn more about the historical context of this aggression in our article, Did Mohammed use terror as a threat?).

Moreover, there were several ancient Middle Eastern historians who wrote about the Crusades and their defensive nature. For instance, Ibn al-Athir, a 13th-century Muslim historian, wrote that the Crusaders came to the Holy Land in response to Muslim aggression and oppression of Christians. Additionally, the 14th-century Arab historian Ibn Khaldun wrote that the Crusades were a just war fought in defense off Christianity.

It is important to note that the idea that Christians killed millions of innocent Muslims during the Crusades is a gross exaggeration and a distortion of historical facts. While there were instances of violence and atrocities committed by both sides, the scale of the conflict and the number of casualties are hotly debated among historians.

It is, therefore, essential to approach the issue of the Crusades with a nuanced and critical perspective, considering the historical context and examining reliable academic sources. The notion that the Crusades were an unprovoked, unjust war waged by savage Christians against innocent Muslims is a highly disputed claim that requires further scrutiny and examination.

I would like to offer a comprehensive analysis of this issue from various viewpoints, including historical, philosophical, and religious perspectives. It is important to note that the religious perspective will be examined in detail to demonstrate unequivocally that the Bible and Christianity as a whole do not endorse any form of warfare carried out by human beings.

Religious perspectives

The Old Testament.

Wars of the Old Testament

Are not the wars of the Old Testament considered genocide and racial purification? Are not the methods and ethics of war in the Old Testament considered atrocities? Asking such a question using this logic presents a flawed inquiry.

It is judging the ethics of a war that took place thousands of years ago with the ethics and ideas of the 21st century. A mental condition known as PRESENTISM. (a fallacious way of thinking that involves judging past events and people by contemporary standards, values, and beliefs. It is the belief that current social, political, and moral standards should be used to evaluate the past, rather than understanding it within its historical context.

Presentism can lead to misinterpretations of historical events and figures, and it can also overlook important factors that may have contributed to past events. Historians and scholars generally try to avoid presentism and instead seek to understand the past in its own context.)  

Now, there are the United Nations, treaties, and laws for human rights and the Geneva Convention for prisoners of war. Were all of these systems and laws available and internationally agreed upon for the Israelites to comply with during the Old Testament era, around 3,500 years ago or more? Were the Amorites or the Canaanites in the year 3500 BCE bound by the Geneva Convention signed in 1945? Would those ancient peoples have treated prisoners of war according to the standards of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

It is inappropriate and unscientific to judge events that occurred 3500 years ago with present-day logic. These events should be evaluated within the context of their time and place. If we objectively examine the historical and cultural context, do we find that the Israelites were more violent than the surrounding peoples? Were they the only ones wielding weapons while other peoples welcomed them with flowers? Or was what we now consider barbaric and savage behavior normal in those distant times?

We should ask the question from a different perspective. Were the methods employed by the ancient Israelites in warfare more or less violent than those of the surrounding peoples? Did the peoples of the region come bearing flowers to welcome the Israelites, but the Jews still chose to kill and slaughter them? All the peoples of the earth were fighting and killing each other with the same laws in those days. The Israelites had weapons because there was an Israelite people at that time.

We should not forget that every era has its own laws, methods, and ethics. The laws of the twenty-first century are valid for the twenty-first century, and it is neither appropriate nor acceptable to judge the people of the distant past by our current laws and ethics.

What is strange in this situation is that when critics read historical texts such as Sumerian or Pharaonic texts, they always try to understand the context, historical and social circumstances surrounding the text. They also try to understand the psychological circumstances of the author of the text. Why, then, doesn’t the Gospel deserve the same fair opportunity? Why is the Gospel judged before a verdict is even pronounced? The internationally agreed legal principle is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty! So why is the Gospel accused before any verdict is even pronounced?

The texts of wars in the Old Testament are now universally regarded by both Christians and Jews as descriptive and historical narratives, rather than mandatory orders or obligations upon those who follow Judaism or Christianity. As a Christian, I am not obliged to carry the Ark of the Covenant and march around the walls of Jericho blowing a trumpet. This is not because I reject my faith or disbelieve in the holy scriptures, but simply because the general understanding among Christians and Jews is that this text is a historical narrative of what happened in the past, rather than a mandatory commandment for all believers.

There is no notion of defensive jihad or offensive war in the Bible, and therefore jihad is not a prescribed obligation for those who follow this scripture. All of those wars were defensive wars and were never offensive wars. The Jews did not go to Egypt or Babylon to wage revengeful wars in response to centuries of humiliation and enslavement, nor did we ever see them going to war with distant lands to spread their beliefs or religion.

But does all of this justify killing children, women, and animals? Does a defensive war require all of this bloodshed and brutality?

The Killing was not directed specifically towards children or any specific group. Rather, it was mentioned not to spare anyone, because if you showed pity towards them and the animals, you would lose the war. They would exploit that and it would be your weakness. And if they captured you, they would do the same to you, they would kill you! So, the matter is simply: to be or not to be.

If the people of Israel treated these primitive tribes with the human rights and geneva convention logic that would be invented and decided upon after thousands of years, these tribes certainly would not adhere to principles that were unfamiliar to their time and that no one living in that ancient time knew about. The evidence of this is that children and animals were used as shields. For example, in Jericho they used children and animals as human shields when the people of Israel besieged them. This was also a normal thing in those days! And it still happens in some places in our time, as ISIS terrorists used children and women as human shields!

These are difficult choices, war is always a difficult choice. It is a bloody matter at all times. We have never heard of a white or clean war, because the death of any human being is terrible. War was never the first choice of the people of Israel. War was necessary and essential for survival. If they had any other choice, they would have chosen peace. But in this case, they had no choice, and sometimes survival requires war, a logic that has not changed to this day.

In the context of objectively studying the historical context of these tribal communities, we must mention that loyalty was to the tribe and blood. When children in any tribe or clan grow up and their loyalty strengthens, they seek revenge for their fathers. Honor crimes and revenge still occur almost daily in the Arab world. The tribal mentality has not changed much until now.

Racism and Xenophobia of God in the Old Testament

Isn’t the idea of God’s chosen people a racist idea?

In the Bible, there is no concept of a better or superior nation. All humans are equal before God. We do not see the Lord covering up or justifying the sins of his people, as the people of Israel are not the best or the finest, but on the contrary, we find many verses in the scripture that rebuke this people. For example, in the book of Isaiah, the Holy Scripture says through the prophet Isaiah, “The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master’s crib; but Israel does not know, my people do not understand.” (Isaiah 1:3). And in other places, we find the Holy Scripture calling on all people to turn to God and to follow his commandments, regardless of their nationality or ethnicity.

Hosea 13:16 “The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”

“Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God. Your sins have been your downfall!” Hosea 1:14

“Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary.” Ezekiel 9:6

The selection here that led to their being called the chosen people of God is not a preferential choice, but a choice that carries responsibility. For as much as God loves them, so too does his wrath and punishment fall upon them. Accountability comes with knowledge. This is a simple and understandable logic, as being close to the king always puts one in a sensitive position, as his proximity to the king makes him accountable to the king! Therefore, it is not permissible for one of those close to the throne to be a thief or an oppressor because this makes the king himself a part of this improper act. For example, we have not seen the Lord turn a blind eye to their sins, or forget or cover up their wicked deeds, but we see Him punishing them and handing them over to captivity for hundreds of years, and even closing His ears to them for generations until their souls are straightened out and their deeds are repaired. And why did God treat them this way, despite them being His chosen people in the Old Covenant? Is it because God is contradictory and hates the people He chose, from whom the Redeemer would come? Certainly not! For God is perfect, and falsehood does not come to Him from behind or in front of Him, but because they were never a complete people as some might think, they were never a people superior to other peoples or above them. Therefore, our holy God does not use double standards, and does not prefer any of His children over another. Like the people of Israel, they are like all human beings and peoples, and we see the Lord more merciful and forgiving to the rest of the peoples of the earth in many other instances than His forgiveness and tolerance towards a people once called the chosen. For the Lord’s choice of the people of Israel was for the coming of the Messiah from them, not for their glory, wisdom, or favor. We deduce this from the words of the Holy Scripture in Deuteronomy, “The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt.” (Deuteronomy 7:8-7)

They were never the strongest, most powerful, or purest of peoples on earth. However, being called the chosen people of God placed upon them great responsibilities and a great burden of accountability. They were not given any privileges or authority. It is also important to consider the whole picture by taking the New Covenant into account. We have all become God’s people and chosen ones in Christ, as attested to by the Holy Scripture. “Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.'” (Matthew 25:34). Hence, it has become clear that all the earth has become God’s people, with all its races, tribes, and tongues, as we read in the Book of Revelation: “After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands.” (Revelation 7:9). To emphasize the purposes of the Holy Scripture, we read the following: “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” (John 1:12). The scripture used the word “all,” meaning there is no preference for Jews over Gentiles or Arabs over non-Arabs, but rather all people from all corners of the earth without distinction. This is further emphasized by the words of Christ, “And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.” (John 17:22).

“Whoever is not against us is for us.” (Mark 9:40) This statement includes a clear implication, as seen in preceding verses, that salvation is for all races, colors, languages, and tongues, gathering all of humanity without racism or discrimination against ethnicity or tribe.

The objective analysis of the narratives of the Holy Bible proves without a doubt that the God of the Bible is just and clear, and far from racism in form and content. Therefore, He calls and accepts everyone without racial or discriminatory distinctions. If God were racist, He would have treated the people of Israel with special treatment, forgiven them for their sins and wrongdoings without accountability or punishment, and punished other peoples and treated them harshly for no reason other than their not following Him or not being Jews. We clearly see in the book of Genesis that God blessed all peoples of the earth through Abraham, saying, “And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:1-3). If the God of the Holy Bible were racist, how could He bless all the peoples of the earth through Abraham and not just the people of Israel?

The new Testament

The main accusation goes to the following verses.

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34)

“Then he said to them, ‘But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.'” (Luke 22:36)

“So they said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ And He said to them, ‘It is enough.'” (Luke 23:38)

Luke 19:27: “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Luke 22:36″And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”

These are the texts that are taken out of context by critics and used to support their claim that Jesus Christ our Lord commanded his followers to carry swords and that his message aimed at casting swords on the ground and igniting wars. The strangest thing about this criticism is that its author sometimes searches for the word “sword” throughout the entire Bible and comes up with the result telling you: “Look how many times the word ‘sword’ is mentioned in your book.” However, he fails to realize that the texts in which the word “sword” appears are either parts of historical narrative stories that detail ancient wars or even parts that talk about the end of wars and the arrival of peace: “He shall judge between many peoples, and shall decide for strong nations far away; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.” (Micah 4:3)

Let us examine these Gospel texts that the critic relies on in his claim: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.” This phrase was said by Christ to his disciples in his first mission to the people of Israel and to the nations, and that is why he told them, “Do not go on the road to the Gentiles.” Therefore, the people of the mission are the disciples and their relatives, those who cling to Judaism and the teachings of the Pharisees. For Christ, he is the owner of a new call, and for every new call, there is strong and harsh opposition that can reach some to the extent of expelling their sons from their homes in case they embrace this call and leave their fathers’ religion. Christ tells his disciples in advance that this will happen because he did not come to appease the contemporary religious leaders. He did not come to bring peace to Israel, but “division,” as stated in the parallel text in Luke 12:51. Therefore, whoever clings to this will leave his relatives who reject him, even if they are his family. This is the sword of division that Christ cast on the land of Israel, and that is why he said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes” (Matthew 10:23). Christ did not rely on his mission to the nations at this time because the earth is not the whole world, but it is the land qualified to undergo the sword of division because it has an ancient religion and a new belief. In this mission, the disciples are sent to their own people, with no risk of being killed, no long-distance travel, so there is no need for a sword or the gold and silver necessary for supplies, no provider, no two clothes, no shoes, not even a stick because the journey is internal.

And he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one” (Luke 22:36). The scene has changed now, as Christ is going to die on the cross, and the disciples are not going to their own people in Israel, but to all the nations, to Samaria and the ends of the earth. That is why Christ mentioned it in the first mission and how he did not lack anything. But now they will travel extensively and be exposed to the dangers of the road and wild beasts, so they need to carry a sword to defend themselves against the dangers of the road and wild beasts. The disciples understood this to be necessary at the moment of Christ’s words, but Christ did not mean this now, but he meant “from now on” you must buy swords to protect yourselves in your mission so that the saying “and he who has no sword must sell his garment and buy one” is fulfilled. Without swords, they are not sinful, but the disciples understood that the Lord wanted swords for an upcoming mission. They did not understand his intention well, which made him say to them, when Peter said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords,” He said, “It is enough.” Not for making war or defending themselves in their mission, but it is enough to fulfill the prophecy “and he who has no sword must sell his garment and buy one.” Some people think that Christ meant the sword as a metaphorical word, but this interpretation does not match the context of the text. Others believed that Christ rebuked them for not understanding his words correctly, but he did not mean this. Christ meant that these two swords were enough now for something else after they did not understand his first intention.

These are the words of Christ during the Last Supper, and on the table there were at least two knives for cutting food. At that time, it was permissible for a Jewish person to carry a knife while traveling to defend themselves against robbers and highwaymen, as well as for use in cutting fruit or the like. In Greek, the word for knife is “machirah,” which is the same word translated as “sword,” which is what Peter asked about when he said, “Shall I strike with the sword?” This is the same Greek word that all Greek dictionaries give this definition for: “a short sword or dagger,” or according to Thayer’s Lexicon, word number 3162 means “a large knife,” which was used to kill animals and cut meat, or a small sword to distinguish it from a larger sword.

the disciples had these two large knives on the table during the Last Supper, and they could be used on the table or for self-defense. When Jesus said to them, “This is enough,” he did not mean it was enough to fend off the coming war or to attack others as Peter did and used this knife to attack the criminal attackers. Rather, Jesus’ thought does not include either the sword of battle or jihad to spread the true religion. He said on one occasion to Peter, “Put your sword back into its sheath” (John 18:11), as its place is not in the bodies of people, but rather it is permissible to use it to defend yourself on the road at the time. “For all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Jesus’ words were for specific people, namely the disciples, for a specific purpose, which is the mission and fulfillment of prophecy. But the general principle for him is to abandon the use of the sword. Jesus is the king of peace, the head of peace, the possessor of peace, and the maker of peace. The sword is not a sign of belief in him or a source of pride.

It has become clear that the Christian belief does not involve laws or rules of war. Instead, it contains the foundations of peace and love for all humans. The Holy Scripture did not say that if a Christian slaps you, turn the other cheek, nor did it say to save all Christians as much as you can. It said to save all people without specifying their ethnicity, lineage, religion, or group.

Luke 19:27 “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. is a frequently criticized verse in the New Testament due to its use by some individuals to argue that Jesus is depicted as a violent figure, Some ignorant people have misconstrued this verse to suggest that Christianity advocates for killing. However, what they don’t know is that this verse is among the most profound in the New Testament, and it has a historical background that confirms the reliability of the New Testament text. It is part of a parable that Jesus Christ used to illustrate the story of a king named Archelaus, who wanted to rule over the Jews. The Jews rejected his proposal, saying they did not want Archelaus to rule over them. Nevertheless, Archelaus became king and slaughtered all his enemies. Jesus used the phrase “Archelaus” in the parable to refer to his Second Coming and Judgment Day.

When the Lord Jesus spoke the parable, he wanted the Jews to think about what happened during the days of their rejection of Archelaus and what Archelaus did when he ruled over them. The speaker Archelaus in the quotation that the Lord Jesus quoted, so the Jews believed that the Messiah was the earthly king who would establish the kingdom of David, restore its glory, and lead a revolution against the Roman rule.

The Bible Reader’s Companion states that the background of the parable presented by Jesus, which is the parable of the ten minas, involves Archelaus, son of Herod the Great, who hurried to Rome to seek permission to rule as king. However, his request was rejected by the Jewish subjects. Herod granted him power and authority, and he returned. One can imagine what happened to those who took a stand against him. With these events in mind, Jesus depicted himself as one who, like Archelaus, was rejected but would return and reign. The parable corrects the idea that the kingdom of God is about to appear on earth immediately, as in Numbers 11.

The Bible Exposition Commentary confirms that Jesus knew that many people hoped for his kingdom to be established. Therefore, he gave the parable to clarify the matter. When Herod the Great died, he left the Jewish rule to Archelaus, who was to go to Rome to be approved as king. However, the Jews rejected him, saying that they did not want Archelaus to be their king. They sent 50 men to argue their case with Augustus Caesar.

The Bible Guide, which includes an index, narrates that Jesus added a touch of objectivity to the parable for those who did not want to have a king. They sent a delegation to protest against his kingship. This happened when Herod died, and Archelaus, his son, went to Rome to be appointed king of the Jews. However, he was met with some rejection by a delegation from the Jews. King Augustus Caesar allowed Archelaus to rule only a part of his father’s kingdom, and he refused to grant him the status of king.

As for Luke 22:36″And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”

The word for “sword” μάχαιρα (machaira) can mean either a dagger or a large knife. It is the same word used in Genesis 22:6, “And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife (μάχαιρα, machaira) they went both of them together.” In Luke 22:36, Jesus instructs his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword, indicating that they may need to defend themselves against potential threats. The meaning of the word “sword” in this context is likely a larger weapon used in combat rather than a small knife or dagger.

The reason for the disciples’ request for swords is logical, as they were going to Samaria and to the ends of the earth, where there was no air travel or transportation. They would have to camp in the desert and rest, and this machaira (a large knife or dagger) was primarily used for hunting and cutting meat and fish. They would certainly need it and also use it for protection against animals and road hazards. Jesus told the disciples that he would be numbered among the transgressors, indicating that it was time to go to death and the cross, and they needed to go to multiple distant places. Those who go to the desert take their staff and machaira for protection and cutting meat. The knife has no relation here to attacking others to rob them of what they have, but rather for protection and personal use.

But the disciples did not understand Jesus’ words, and that’s why they said to him, “Here are two swords.” And Jesus said, “That is enough.” This means it is enough because you did not understand, and it does not mean that two swords are enough for a battle, as there were only twelve disciples, so how would two swords be enough for them?

The Lord Jesus said in John 18:36, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.” Therefore, Jesus did not ask anyone to fight for him.

In Matthew 26:52, “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.”

The second interpretation is that Jesus tells them that their protection will be their responsibility. The sword is a symbol of protection, and he tells them that they will need to protect themselves, even if they have to sell their clothes, because protection is a priority.

In the book of Barton, B. B., Veerman, D., Taylor, L. C., & Osborne, G. R. (1997). Luke. Life application Bible commentary (505). Wheaton, Ill. : Tyndale House Publishers.

Jesus told his disciples that the situation would change, as he condemned the use of the sword against the servant of the high priest in Luke 22:49-51. His words suggest that they will face difficult days ahead and they should not rely on his physical presence and guidance, but take care of themselves. The sword was for protection, not aggression, and the Church maintained a non-violent approach in the face of persecution, as recorded in Acts 4:25-31, Acts 8:1-3, Acts 9:1-2, and Acts 12:1-5. Therefore, they would need great courage to protect themselves more than they would need their clothing.

The complete religious picture hyperlinked through space-time

To complete the picture, we must mention that the Old Testament was followed by the New Testament, which brought a revolution and a qualitative transfer with new laws and commandments that rise to spiritual and physical perfection. As Christians, we do not hold accountable what happened thousands of years before us, as we are not Jews and we do not testify to Jesus Christ. Anyone who reads the New Testament clearly sees that the doctrine of Christianity is far from violence and fighting, but rather leans towards absolute peace in most cases, as confirmed by the holy texts in the gospel of Matthew: “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword!” (Matthew 26:52) “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” (Romans 12:18) And to complete and crown this absolute peace, the commandments of the Lord Jesus come in the full sermon on the mount in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter five, where he said…

“Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.

21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”

To map this hyperlinkage, let us focus on these questions and use them to bridge the old testament to the New Testament.

• Is the God of the New Testament the same as the God of the Old Testament? Did God change?
• Does God desire destruction and devastation?
• Why do we find wars in the Old Testament but not as much in the New Testament?
• What is the difference between the wars in the Old Testament and other wars?
• How can we understand wars in light of divine revelation?
• If some nations are guilty, what is the fault of children in the conquest of Canaan or in other places?
• The Conquest of Canaan.

Some people view God as suffering from schizophrenia, where the outward appearance of God changes without affecting His essence. The outward change may be viewed as a split personality or what is known in psychology as a dissociative identity disorder, which is different from schizophrenia where one part of the person is psychological and the other part is intellectual, regardless of the content. Some people delude themselves into thinking that the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New Testament and that they are two different Gods. The God of the Old Testament is seen as a racial purifier, a bloodthirsty deity by Richard Dawkins, and as a bloody racist by Dr. Mustafa Mahmoud in his book “The Beginning and End of Israel”. Christopher Hitchens also stated that the Old Testament contains a lot of senseless massacre. Many critics of Christianity have criticized the Old Testament, finding in their harsh criticism a means of casting doubt on the word of God, and they have accused the Lord of committing crimes against humanity. They continued to deceive the simple-minded by distorting the image of the holy and loving God, using the principle of the end justifies the means, with the goal of discrediting the Bible by means of internal criticism. They justify what they believe in through what is known as “projection,” which is taking what is within themselves and attributing it to the text. But the fact remains, the Bible is stronger than their attempts, which end in failure, just as others before them have tried for hundreds of years. Let us ask, then, are these criticisms directed towards the Old Testament true? Is God in the Old Testament bloody? Does He want to destroy and call for genocide against innocent men, women, and children? Is the God of the Old Testament different from this loving God in the New Testament? This is the subject of our study, and the question remains a primary axis.

Is the God of the New Testament the same as the God of the Old Testament? Did God change?

Many critics of Christianity argue that the God of the Old Testament is fundamentally different from the God of the New Testament. They believe that the God of the Old Testament does not represent the God of the New Testament, who calls for love. This was also the case in the appearance of the heresy of Marcion and the dualistic view, which rejected the God of the Old Testament. Marcion rejected the Old Testament scriptures and deleted what the New Testament contained of teachings related to the Jewish faith. Luke’s gospel was retained, but only after the deletion of the first chapters of the prophecy of the lineage of Jesus and all that relates to Jewish beliefs. Luke’s gospel retains ten of the epistles of Paul after deleting what contradicts his ideas and relies on the Old Testament. He also deleted pastoral epistles.

In fact, the separation and dualistic view of God was not a new concept, as it existed in the early Church. The objectors describe God according to their whims and their lack of sufficient knowledge of the Scriptures and what it declares. The Bible declares to us that God has no change or variation: “For I am the Lord, I change not.” (Malachi 3:6) The Psalmist states: “My days are like a lengthened shadow, And I wither away like grass. But You, O Lord, abide forever, And Your name to all generations.” (Psalm 102: 11-12)

God is eternal and unchanging, and does not undergo any alteration in any aspect, nor do His attributes, prophecies, or promises change. He does not experience what is known as abrogation, but remains as He is, with His purposes and essence, forever. Saint Augustine said, “As we know that you alone are the true and only existing one, so we know that you alone exist without change, and the desired without change.” Therefore, God does not change, even if we are unfaithful, for He remains faithful until the end. The Bible unequivocally responds to the issue of change, stating that the holy, loving God of the Old Testament cannot change, and the same is true of the God of the New Testament, where Christ is described as “the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). Both the Old and New Testaments reveal the love of God from the beginning of creation and its unfolding, and demonstrate God’s love for humankind. In the Old Testament, the punishment of God does not contradict the attribute of love, as love is the guidance of others towards repentance. When Adam returned to God, God loved him, even though He said that he would surely die on the day he ate from the tree. Therefore, it can be concluded that God loves Adam.

However, with God’s love for Adam, there is also the holiness of God that calls for judgment, but this judgment is always preceded by warnings. God did not send the flood or destroy the Canaanites without warning, for example, the period of building the ark was 120 years, during which Noah urged people to repent, but he encountered a lot of ridicule. So how could a person build an ark on dry land, and some people thought he was crazy. The judgment came after 120 years. It was possible to avoid God’s judgment if someone repented. The last resort for God was judgment, preceded by a warning. God waited for decades for some people to reach more than four hundred years together before their destruction. There was no future judgment without warning, and there was no warning without future judgment if they continued on their path in their way of life. God dealt with these people in many different ways, with many warnings. This is what our Lord Jesus Christ also declared when he said in Luke 13:34, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.” God wanted very much to gather his children, but after their rejection, judgment came. “Look, your house is left to you desolate” (Luke 13:38). Those who object that God has changed truly do not understand the essence of God and are ignorant of what is stated in the context of the texts we will discuss in detail later. God is eternal and does not change, and what reassures our hearts and minds is that he does not change with the passage of time.

Does God desire destruction and devastation?

Some wonder how a God of love and compassion could have acted in the past in such a way. Does God want destruction, killing, and devastation? Does He delight in punishing nations and destroying them? How does this align with the holiness of God and His love for humanity? Let us see what God really wants. Divine revelation in the book of Ezekiel 33:11 says, “Say to them, ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’” So, God does not delight in the death of the wicked, but rather in their repentance and turning away from the path leading to eternal death. Similarly, in the New Testament, God is a God who delights in repentance. This is also mentioned in the Old Testament, where divine revelation confirms that God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 18:23).

Therefore, those who claim that God desires destruction or that He is bloodthirsty are lying and slandering the God who is merciful and loving. We find that God did not destroy Pharaoh’s army without giving warnings by Moses multiple times. We will see this in detail later. The Bible tells us about God’s patience with generations, such as in Genesis 15:16 where it is mentioned that the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet complete. God is patient for hundreds of years before He destroys these nations. The last resort for God is punishment. Therefore, God is merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in kindness. In Exodus 34:6, God declares, “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth.” He keeps kindness for thousands of generations, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin. Therefore, God proclaims that He is merciful, loving, and slow to anger, and that He is the God who calls for love: “Do not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:18). We also see that God is full of mercy and forgiveness. “The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in mercy. He will not always strive with us, nor will He keep His anger forever. He has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor punished us according to our iniquities” (Psalm 103:8-10).

Some may argue that there is a significant amount of violence in the Old Testament that is blind to the truth, and that it fails to acknowledge the immense amount of love. This is affirmed by Deuteronomy 6:5 and the love of God, as well as His patience towards His people when they reject Him, as well as their worship of pagan gods in Hosea 9:7-11. Examples of love can be found in Deuteronomy 7:7-15, where the Lord is said to be attached to the Israelites and has chosen them, not because they are greater than any other people, but because of His love for them, His faithful promise to their ancestors, and His act of freeing them from slavery in Egypt. It is said that He will keep His covenant and show kindness to those who love and keep His commands for a thousand generations. The Lord will also curse those who hate Him, and not delay in punishing them.

In order for the Israelites to hear and observe these laws, they must be preserved and put into action. If they do this, the Lord will keep His covenant and loving-kindness with them, which He swore to their fathers. He will love and bless them, multiply their numbers and bless the fruit of their womb and their land, such as their wheat, wine, oil, and the young of their cattle and sheep. They will be blessed above all peoples and there will be no barrenness or infertility among them or their livestock. The Lord will remove from them all sickness, and will not afflict them with any of the terrible diseases of Egypt that they know. Instead, He will turn the curse into a blessing for them, as He did when He turned the curse of Balaam into a blessing for them because He loved them. This is seen in 1 Kings 10:9, where the Lord, the God of heaven, who is great and awesome, is blessed because He loves Israel forever, and has made Solomon king to execute justice and righteousness.

Similar concepts are also found in the New Testament, where we see the love of God as well as His wrath. We see His love in passages such as John 4:1-21 and John 3:16, and His wrath in passages such as Matthew 3:7, Matthew 10:28, Luke 12:5, John 3:36, and Romans 1:18. It is important to note that God does not change and cannot be rationally divided.

Why do we find wars in the Old Testament but not as much in the New Testament? What is the difference between the wars in the Old Testament and other wars?

Before delving into the issue of violence in the Old Testament against nations, it is believed that we must first address another important issue, which is that many people notice a lot of battles and wars in the Old Testament, while there is nothing of the sort in the New Testament, except for the Book of Revelation which presents prophecies about future wars. The reason, in short, is that the Old Testament contains a huge amount of history regarding the state of Israel that extends for nearly 1500 years, while the New Testament focuses on the ministry of Jesus Christ which lasted only three years.

It is also important to note that nations often go to war at times, as when we look at the wars waged by the United States, for example, in less than a hundred years, they waged World War I and II, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Persian Gulf War, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to countless skirmishes. As much as one dislikes it, violence and war are a part of reality, and therefore, they are a part of history, and history is a part of the Old Testament. Thus, the Old Testament mentions wars because they are part of the history of the people of Israel, and there are strong spiritual indications of God standing with his people and supporting them.

What is the difference between the wars in the Old Testament and other wars?

One of the most important distinctions between wars in the Old Testament and wars in other religions is that Old Testament wars are limited and confined to specific times, whereas wars in some other religions may continue until the end of time, as they are unlimited and not confined by time. Additionally, Old Testament wars are limited and confined to specific places and were not directed towards the entire world, but rather towards specific peoples, such as the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites.

Old Testament wars were not intended to spread or enforce a religion or belief, and the goal was not to expand religion through coercion. Judaism was not an evangelical religion, unlike wars in some other religions, which were intended to spread a belief or impose it.

Old Testament wars were not motivated by the desire for booty or profit, and did not seek to win the hearts of the warriors, unlike some other religions, which sought to profit from wars through spoils and booty.

Old Testament wars were not motivated by personal revenge, unlike some other religions, which were motivated by personal revenge.

Old Testament wars were punishment for crimes committed, and the current law punishes such crimes with the death penalty.

Old Testament wars were sometimes directed towards the Jewish people themselves, through punishment for breaking the commandments and covenant. They were not always directed towards other nations, as God is just and punishes those who sin.

The most important difference is that judgment came after many warnings from God, and not without warning.

Old Testament wars were not racist towards a particular people, as evidenced by God punishing Israel in the same way as other nations. For example, God punished Judah with Assyria and punished them by the hands of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. Israel was the most punished people under God’s judgment in the Old Testament.

How can we understand wars in light of divine revelation?

To understand the wars in the Old Testament, we must first place them in two stages: first, place the event in its historical context, and then judge the event through the vision, society, and customs of that time. For example, you may come across a story in history about a king who is said to be “merciful,” and you find that this king was cold-bloodedly killing prisoners of war. Without a doubt, you would say that he is not merciful, not only because you judged him by today’s standards, but also because you removed the information from its historical context. But when you return to the historical context in which this king lived and read more deeply, you will ultimately learn that all the kings who preceded him actually burned their prisoners of war alive after gruesome torture, and that this king was the first to replace burning with killing. Only then will “killing” turn into mercy, and you will realize why this king was called merciful, and even believe that he was indeed merciful!

Similarly, we cannot judge the events of the Old Testament and view them through the standards and perspectives of the 20th century and its values and ethics, nor even through the standards of the 5th century, because by doing so, we place these events outside their original reference framework. Therefore, we only come out with a distorted, harsh, and violent image. On the other hand, we mistakenly attribute them to God, comparing them with a crime against humanity, as is often done today when looking back at ancient times, where slavery was not considered a crime or even an act of violence.

In the second stage, we consider whether certain texts speak of prophecies that God revealed in advance and then fulfilled. In such cases, we cannot view these texts as God’s commands with an essential result. Rather, they reveal God’s advance knowledge of events and an announcement to one of the prophets to warn people. Sometimes, such warnings had a positive meaning, as with the people of Nineveh, who believed in God and repented of their ways. In the third stage, we find that God, in the book of Genesis, hates the shedding of blood and imposes the death penalty on those who take another person’s life. Some people might accuse God of violence and murder, but this is an unscientific view. God gave people decades to repent, but they persisted in violating His commandments and following the path of perversion, sexual immorality, incest, murder, and other crimes. In such cases, God intervened as He did in Sodom and Gomorrah, through the flood, or by using one nation against another. God punished the Canaanites through the Israelites because of their many wickedness. In the fourth stage, we note that God’s advance knowledge of every person’s judgment prevents us from questioning why God judges people in a certain way. God’s perspective is different from ours since human reason is subject to time and place, while God is outside of time and place. The book says, “How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways!” (Romans 11:33). In the fifth stage, we distinguish between human actions and human will. When the Old Testament mentions some acts of violence committed by humans against other humans or kings against other kings, we must examine whether they were at God’s command or against God’s will. God punishes the aggressor.

The sixth stage is the concept of punishment in a comprehensive manner – the punishment of God for evil nations: There was a punishment from God for evil nations in the Old Testament who disobeyed God, committed evil deeds, and attempted to entice God’s people to commit sin to corrupt and defile the land. The reason for God’s punishment of them was to contain evil so that society would not become contaminated, and to stop evil from spreading in their descendants. The cancerous cell must be removed so that the entire body does not become infected, just as a person with diabetes who has a foot ulcer that has become gangrenous must have the foot amputated (the left foot has become contaminated, and it is possible for the contamination and toxins it contains to be transferred to the rest of the body). The condition is dangerous, and the leg must be amputated.

This is the case with some nations that spread immoral behavior, such as incest, bestiality, and other shameful acts. Their wickedness sometimes led God to intervene directly in dealing with evil, such as in the case of the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, and others. God, as we have mentioned, was slow to anger and did not punish directly, but waited for generation after generation, even giving some of them four hundred years to repent. The last resort for God was punishment.

If some nations are guilty, what is the fault of children in the conquest of Canaan or in other places?

One important point regarding the killing of children is that God has provided for those infants who did not have the chance to attain salvation if they had lived to reach the age of accountability. We must remember that the Canaanites were a barbaric and evil culture, so one can imagine that these infants and children, had they grown to adulthood, could have turned out like their parents and become wicked criminals deserving of punishment and eternal damnation in hell with Satan and his followers after they die. As most Christians believe, infants and young children who die before reaching the age of accountability go to heaven. Moreover, if God had allowed these Canaanite children to live and mature in a corrupt culture, we should remember the Scriptures that refer to all children who die before reaching the age of accountability as morally innocent and will be saved (2nd Samuel 12:23 and Matthew 19:14). Isaiah 7:15-16 also refers to the age of accountability. Before that, a child may not have the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong and thus not be guilty of any personal sin. God has given them eternal life that they could not have obtained if they had lived in a corrupt and evil culture like their parents, which is something we would not have expected. From the compassion and love of the Lord, he saved them before they faced destruction.

Another point to consider is who would protect and support these children without a father or mother. It is likely that they would face death due to hunger or other causes, regardless of whether they were allowed to live or not. The chances of survival for orphans were not good in the ancient Near East.

A third point to consider is that these children, upon reaching maturity, may have sought to fight against the Israelites. However, God protected His people.

In light of what was previously mentioned, we can understand the problematic issues raised by objectors to the Bible.

The Conquest of Canaan.

The sentence of execution was issued against a group of humans who deserved God’s judgment. This destruction was directed more towards the Canaanite religion than specifically targeting the Canaanites themselves (Deuteronomy 7:3-5). The destruction was not motivated by racism, but for justifiable reasons. It is known about the Canaanites that they engaged in deviant practices with animals, incest, child sacrifice, and sexual acts of perversion. God was preparing the world for the coming of Christ, and He was preparing the religious and historical climate that would make it possible for Israel’s enemies, including Egypt, Babylon, and Assyria, to feel the sense that Christ is coming to bring salvation, not just to Israel but also to Israel’s enemies. (Psalm 87:4-6; Isaiah 19:23-25)

When evaluating these events, it is important to take into consideration the depraved behavior of human beings. Norman Geisler in his book “The Canaanites” says that this culture was universally evil to the point where the Bible says that God was nauseated by them. They were characterized by cruelty, bestiality, incest, and prostitution with pagan rituals, even offering their children as sacrifices. They were an aggressive culture seeking to annihilate Israel.

It is worth mentioning that God gave the Canaanites a very long and sufficient time to repent, a quarter of a century, as mentioned in Genesis 15:16. In the book of Hebrews, it is mentioned that the Canaanites were the staff of wickedness, which refers to their moral crimes (Hebrews 11:31).

The Canaanites were aware of the strength of God (Joshua 2:10-11; 9:9), and Rahab’s example demonstrates that it was possible for the Canaanites to avoid destruction if they repented as stated in Joshua 2, and as Ezekiel said, the joy of the Lord is in the return of the wicked through repentance (Ezekiel 18:31-32; 33:11). God did not command the Israelites to kill non-combatants, and it is clear in the Bible that there was not a single case where they fought against the women of the Canaanites. This does not mean they were innocent, however, their shameful behavior is mentioned in Numbers 25. The question that arises is what about the children? This question has already been answered, but it must be considered that it is likely that they would have died anyway due to starvation or some other cause, without parents to protect and support them. The chances of survival for orphans were not good in the ancient Near East.

Finally, and most importantly, as we have previously mentioned, God provided for those infants who would not have had the opportunity to receive salvation if they had lived until the age of maturity. We must remember that the Canaanites were a barbaric and evil culture. One can imagine that these infants and children may have grown up to be just like their parents, filled with evil and brutality, and would have been condemned to hell after their death. However, we believe that infants, young children, and babies who die go to heaven. Moreover, the children of the Canaanites would have been in a much better situation if God had allowed them to live and grow to maturity in a corrupt culture.

In the end, the issue of violence is a difficult one, but we must understand that God sees things from a preeminent perspective, and His ways are not our ways. While it is God’s justice to punish sin, His mercy still extends to those who are willing to repent. In the destruction of Canaan, we see two important things: that God is merciful and compassionate, holy, and also capable of being angry.

The historical part of the Crucades (references are included inline)

In the year 632 CE, the Prophet Muhammad, the central figure of Islam and regarded as its founder, died in Medina, Saudi Arabia. Muhammad was born in Mecca, Arabia in 570 CE, and through his teachings, he spread Islam throughout the Arabian Peninsula. After his death, his followers, known as Muslims, continued to expand the religion and its influence through military conquests.

Western ancient references to Muhammad include early Christian writings, such as the Epistle of John of Damascus, which provided a critical view of Islam and its prophet. The medieval Latin chronicle of the First Crusade, the Gesta Francorum, also referenced Muhammad and his religion. Eastern ancient references to Muhammad include the works of medieval Persian historians, such as Al-Tabari and Ibn Khaldun, who wrote extensively about his life and teachings.

References:

• Hodgson, M. G. S. (1974). The venture of Islam: conscience and history in a world civilization. University of Chicago Press.
• Crone, P. (2008). Muhammad. Oxford University Press.
• Hoyland, R. G. (2006). Seeing Islam as others saw it: A survey and evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian writings on early Islam. Darwin Press.

In the year 635 CE, the Muslim armies under the leadership of the Rashidun Caliphate launched an invasion into the region of Syria, which at that time was a predominantly Christian territory. The invasion was part of the expansionist policy of the early Islamic state, which aimed to spread its influence and control over neighboring regions.

The conquest of Syria by the Muslim armies is well documented in both Eastern and Western ancient references. According to Eastern sources such as the early Islamic historical works of Al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir, the Muslim armies successfully captured major cities in Syria such as Damascus and Homs, despite initial resistance from the Christian Byzantine Empire. Western sources, including the writings of the Byzantine historian Theophanes and the Arab Christian chronicles of Thomas the Presbyter, also provide accounts of the Muslim invasion of Syria.

Overall, the Muslim invasion of Syria marked a significant event in the early history of Islam and had profound consequences for both the Islamic and Christian world.

References

• Kaegi, Walter Emil. Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests. Cambridge University Press, 1992.
• Kennedy, Hugh. The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates: The Islamic Near East from the 6th to the 11th Century. Routledge, 2016.
• Nicolle, David. The Great Islamic Conquests AD 632-750. Osprey Publishing, 2009.
• Shahid, Irfan. Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fourth Century. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1984.

In the year 638 CE, a Muslim army led by General Amr ibn al-As conquered Jerusalem and Alexandria, which were both prominent centers of the Orthodox Christian faith at the time. This military campaign marked a significant expansion of the Islamic empire and had a lasting impact on the religious and cultural landscape of the region.

There are several ancient Christian references to the Islamic invasion of Egypt that are academically accepted. One example is the Chronicle of John of Nikiu, which was written in the 7th century and provides a detailed account of the Arab conquest of Egypt. Another example is the writings of the Coptic bishop Severus Ibn al-Muqaffa, who lived in the 10th century and wrote extensively about the Arab conquest of Egypt and its impact on the Coptic Church.

Other ancient Christian references to the Islamic invasion of Egypt can be found in the writings of the Church Fathers, such as Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Cyril of Alexandria, who lived in the 4th and 5th centuries respectively. These writings do not directly address the Islamic invasion, but they provide insight into the religious and cultural context of Egypt during the early Christian period.

References:

• Kennedy, H. (1998). The armies of the caliphs: Military and society in the early Islamic state. Routledge.
• Rogan, E. (2012). The Arabs: A history. Basic Books.
• Sahner, C. (2019). The holy land in the time of Jesus: An introduction. Princeton University Press.
• Coptic Egypt: The Christians of the Nile by Christian Cannuyer
• The Coptic Papacy in Islamic Egypt by Stephen J. Davis
• Christianity and Monasticism in the Fayoum Oasis: Essays from the 2004 International Symposium of the Saint Mark Foundation and the Saint Shenouda the Archimandrite Coptic Society by Gawdat Gabra and Hany Takla
• The History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria by Mark N. Swanson (translator)
• Christian Egypt: Coptic Art and Monuments Through Two Millennia by Massimo Capuani
• The Christian Heritage of Egypt: An Introduction to the Coptic Orthodox Church by Jill Kamil

In the year 650 CE, the Islamic armies made significant advances towards the western and eastern Mediterranean regions, extending their control beyond the Arabian Peninsula. Among the territories conquered were parts of Italy and Cyprus, where they captured hundreds of thousands of people, including Christians and non-Christians, who were taken as slaves.

This military expansion of the Islamic empire is documented in several ancient sources. In the West, the “Chronicon Salernitanum,” a medieval chronicle written in the 11th century, reports the Muslim invasion of Italy in the 7th century, including their capture of enslaved people from the region. In the East, the “Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor,” an 8th-century Byzantine chronicle, also mentions the Islamic invasions and the capture of prisoners as slaves.

References:

• Salernitanum, Chronicon. Translated by G. A. Loud. Manchester University Press, 1997.
• Theophanes the Confessor. The Chronicle of Theophanes: Anni Mundi 6095-6305 (A.D. 602-813). Translated by Cyril Mango and Roger Scott. Oxford University Press, 1997.

In the year 711 CE, Muslim forces led by Tariq ibn Ziyad, crossed the Strait of Gibraltar and launched an invasion of the Iberian Peninsula, which was at that time part of the Visigothic Kingdom. Within a short period of time, the Muslim armies conquered much of the peninsula and by 715 CE, they had established control over most of the Spanish territory. This event marked the beginning of the Islamic presence in Spain, which lasted for several centuries and had a significant impact on the history and culture of the region.

The invasion of Spain by Muslim forces is a well-documented event in both Western and Eastern ancient sources. Western sources include the writings of the Spanish historian, Isidore of Seville, who chronicled the arrival of the Muslim armies and their conquest of the Visigothic Kingdom. Similarly, the Eastern sources, such as the Arabic chronicles of al-Tabari and Ibn Khaldun, also provide detailed accounts of the invasion and subsequent Muslim rule in Spain.

References

• Collins, R. (1989). Visigothic Spain, 409-711. Blackwell.
• Foltz, R. C. (1999). The Fall of the Caliphate of Córdoba: Berbers and Andalusis in Conflict. Brill.
• Kennedy, H. (1996). Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of al-Andalus. Routledge.
• O’Callaghan, J. F. (1975). A History of Medieval Spain. Cornell University Press.

In the year 717 CE, the Muslim armies led by Umar ibn AbdulAziz, the governor of Egypt, besieged the Byzantine capital Constantinople. The siege lasted for several months and ended in failure, with the Muslim armies suffering heavy losses and ultimately being defeated. This event is considered a turning point in the Byzantine-Muslim Wars, and is documented in both Western and Eastern historical sources.

The Western sources include the chronicles of the Frankish historian, Fredegar, who recorded the events of the siege of Constantinople in his “Chronicon” written in Latin in the 7th century. The Eastern sources include the chronicles of Theophanes the Confessor, a Byzantine historian who wrote the “Chronographia” in Greek in the 9th century, which provides a detailed account of the siege and its aftermath.

References:

• Treadgold, W. (1997). A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford University Press.
• Mango, C. (2002). The Oxford History of Byzantium. Oxford University Press.
• (1960). The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar. In J. M. Wallace-Hadrill (Ed.), The Fourth Book of the Chronicle of Fredegar: With Its Continuations (pp. 1-49). Nelson.
• Theophanes the Confessor. (1997). The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284-813. Oxford University Press.

In the year 730 CE, Islamic armies invaded the Frankish territory of Gaul (modern-day France), and quickly gained control of large areas. However, their advance was halted and they were eventually pushed back by Charles Martel, the Frankish military commander, in the Battle of Tours in 732 CE. This battle is considered a turning point in the Muslim conquests of Europe, and is regarded by many historians as one of the most significant battles in Western history.

Eastern references to the Islamic invasion of France in 730 CE can be found in various Islamic historical sources, such as the works of Ibn Kathir and Ibn al-Athir. Western references to the Battle of Tours include the Chronicles of Fredegar and the Historia Francorum by Gregory of Tours.

References:

• Kennedy, Hugh. The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In. Da Capo Press, 2007.
• Holt, P.M., Lambton, A.K.S., and Lewis, B. (eds.). The Cambridge History of Islam, Volume 1A: The Central Islamic Lands from Pre-Islamic Times to the First World War. Cambridge University Press, 1999.
• Collins, Roger. The Arab Conquest of Spain, 710-797. Wiley-Blackwell, 1989.

In the year 792 CE, Muslim forces launched a major incursion into France with the intention of invasion. However, the campaign ultimately ended in failure. The specifics of the operation remain uncertain, but it is believed that the Muslim forces were led by a chieftain named Aroun al-Raschid. Despite initial success, the campaign was thwarted due to a combination of factors including logistical challenges, unfavorable weather conditions, and effective resistance from the Franks.

Western and eastern sources provide varying accounts of the events of this campaign. Western sources, such as the Chronicle of Moissac and the Annales Regni Francorum, often portray the campaign as a Christian victory against Muslim aggression. Eastern sources, on the other hand, such as the works of Muslim historians al-Baladhuri and al-Tabari, tend to downplay the significance of the campaign and its outcome.

References:

• Bachrach, B. S. (2018). The Anatomy of a Campaign: The 793 Raid on the Carolingian Empire. In The Battle of Lechfeld and its Aftermath, August 955 (pp. 1-19). Brill.
• Collins, R. (2014). Early medieval Europe: 300-1000. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Kennedy, H. (2014). The great Arab conquests: How the spread of Islam changed the world we live in. Da Capo Press.

In the year 872 CE, Muslim forces launched an invasion of southern Italy, and eventually conquered the island of Sicily, which remained under Muslim control until 1092. The fate of the Christian population under Muslim rule is a complex and contested issue, with some sources indicating instances of forced conversion, mass murders and rapes the conquest of Sicily is considered to have had a significant impact on the religious and cultural history of the region. Comparisons with contemporary conflicts in Syria and Egypt are often drawn to highlight the long-term effects of such invasions on religious minorities and their communities.

References:

• Abulafia, D. (2011). The Great Sea: A Human History of the Mediterranean. Penguin UK.
• Kreutz, B. M. (1996). Before the Normans: Southern Italy in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries. University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Metcalfe, A. (2009). Muslims and Christians in Norman Sicily: Arabic Speakers and the End of Islam. Routledge.
• Papaioannou, K. (2015). Early Christian-Muslim Dialogue: Theological Exchange in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries. Gorgias Press.

In the year 846 CE, Muslim forces invaded the city of Rome, which is referred to as the Sack or Raid of Rome in historical records. The invading forces demanded even from the pope payment of jizyah,

Western sources such as the Liber Pontificalis, a collection of biographies of the popes, and the Annales Bertiniani, a chronicle of events in the Frankish empire, document the raid on Rome by Muslim forces. Eastern sources such as the Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor, a Byzantine chronicle, also describe the event.

References

• Armstrong, K. (2000). Islam: A Short History. New York: Modern Library.
• Collins, R. (2004). Visigothic Spain, 409–711. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• De Groot, A. (2014). The Ottoman Empire and the Netherlands in the Age of Globalization. Leiden: Brill.
• Haldon, J. (2002). Byzantium at War: AD 600-1453. Oxford: Osprey Publishing.
• Hodgson, M. (1974). The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization, Volume 1: The Classical Age of Islam. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Kennedy, H. (1996). Muslim Spain and Portugal: A Political History of Al-Andalus. London: Routledge.
• Kreutz, B. (1996). Before the Normans: Southern Italy in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Laiou, A. (2001). The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
• Lewis, B. (1987). The Jews of Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Treadgold, W. (1997). A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press
• Ibn al-Athir. Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh. Vol. 3. Dar al-Sadir: Beirut, 2001.
• al-Mas’udi. Les Prairies d’or. Vol. 7. Translated by Barbier de Meynard and Pavet de Courteille. Imprimerie Impériale: Paris, 1861.
• al-Tabari. Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk. Vol. 35. Dar al-Ma’rifah: Beirut, 2005.
• Ibn Khaldun. The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. Translated by Franz Rosenthal. Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1967.
• al-Makin. The History of Baghdad. Translated by Haider Al-Saadi. Routledge: London, 2003.

In the year 848 CE, Islamic forces launched a third invasion of France, which ultimately ended in failure. This military campaign was part of a larger effort by Islamic powers to expand their territory beyond the Iberian Peninsula and North Africa, into Europe. The failed invasion was a significant setback for the Islamic armies, who faced strong opposition from Frankish forces led by King Charles the Bald. This defeat is believed to have played a role in reducing Islamic military activities in Europe during the following years.

Western historical accounts of this event can be found in several sources, including the Annals of Saint-Bertin and the Chronicle of Nantes. Eastern accounts can be found in Arabic sources such as the Annals of al-Tabari and the History of the Prophets and Kings by Ibn Khaldun. These sources provide insight into the motivations and strategies of the Islamic armies during their attempts to expand their power and influence in Europe.

References

• Bachrach, B. S. (1973). The Islamic invasions: Their impact and significance. In A History of France (pp. 54-69). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Collins, R. (2004). Charlemagne’s imperial coronation and the Annals of Lorsch. Charlemagne: Empire and society, 211-246.
• Lewis, A. (2002). Islamic Spain. University of Chicago Press.
• O’Callaghan, J. F. (2013). The Arab Conquest of Spain, 710–797. University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Muluk” (The History of Prophets and Kings) by the Persian historian al-Tabari
• “Kitab Futuh al-Buldan” (The Book of the Conquest of Lands) by the Andalusian historian al-Baladhuri
• “Al-Mughrib fi Tarikh al-Andalus wa’l-Maghrib” (The West in the History of Andalusia and the Maghreb) by the Arab historian Ibn al-Khatib

These sources provide accounts of the Muslim invasion attempts in France, along with other historical events in the region.

In the year 1091 CE, following an extended period of tolerance and political inaction spanning 459 years, Europeans finally launched a retaliatory campaign. The instigation for this response was a Papal decree declaring the first Crusade, with the aim of reclaiming Christian territories from violent islamic forces who were attacking pilgrims en route to Jerusalem.

The same Muslims that ruined and ransacked the churches of Jerusalem as a simple example I would like to mention The Destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which refers to the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, churches, synagogues, Torah scrolls and other religious artifacts and buildings in and around Jerusalem, which was ordered on 28 September 1009 by the Fatimid Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, known by his critics as the “mad Caliph”or “Nero of Islam.”

The desecration was not only carried out on Christian sites in and around Jerusalem. In campaigns of 1011 and 1013–14, Al-Hakim continued his campaign of destruction against Jewish synagogues and Torah scrolls along with churches all over Syria. Unlike other Fatimids, Al-Hakim launched persecutions against Christians and Jews that lasted throughout his reign.  Christians were made to wear large crosses, and Jews were forced to wear wooden blocks around their necks so they would become easy pickings. He only stopped for fear of retaliatory attacks on mosques in Christian lands.

The Islamic conquests and conflicts with Europe persisted through the Ottoman Empire, which was marked by violence and aggression. In the Battle of Vienna, from July 4 to September 12, 1683, the Ottomans were prevented from overtaking the city thanks to the efforts of the Germans.

Here is a shortened list of major wars initiated by Ottomans against Christian Europe

1. Conquest of Constantinople (1453)
2. Ottoman-Hungarian Wars (1366-1526)
3. Ottoman-Venetian Wars (1463-1718)
4. Ottoman-Wallachian Wars (1462-1476)
5. Ottoman-Moldavian Wars (1475-1476)
6. Ottoman-Habsburg Wars (1521-1791)
7. Siege of Vienna (1529)
8. Ottoman-Polish Wars (1672-1676)
9. Ottoman-Russian Wars (1568-1774)
10. Ottoman-Cretan Wars (1645-1669)
11. Morean War (1684-1699)
12. Great Turkish War (1683-1699)
13. Austro-Turkish War (1716-1718)
14. Russo-Turkish War (1735-1739)
15. Russo-Turkish War (1768-1774)
16. Austro-Turkish War (1787-1791)

A full list of Ottoman conquests in Europe is included in the end of the document.

Western references:

• Stoye, J. (1994). The Siege of Vienna: The Last Great Trial Between Cross and Crescent. Pimlico.
• Wheatcroft, A. (1995). The Ottoman Empire, 1700-1922. Macmillan.

Eastern references:

• Qaradaghi, A. M. (2014). الجهاد الإسلامي وتحديات العولمة [Islamic Jihad and the Challenges of Globalization]. Dar Al Kotob Al Ilmiyah.
• Hitti, P. K. (1967). History of the Arabs: From the Earliest Times to the Present. London: Macmillan.
  

The philosophical dimension

in regard to the philosophical dimension, it is pertinent to note that warfare in any manifestation and justification is an abhorrent phenomenon. While it may serve the purpose of safeguarding our liberties and defending our countries, it remains an iniquitous undertaking that ultimately results in losses for all parties involved, even the victors. Despite the noble aspirations of the crusaders, their actions were marred by unforgivable transgressions that tainted their reputation for eternity. However, it is imperative to acknowledge the reality of the situation. Is the notion of a pristine war a plausible one? Such a concept remains a utopian ideal that has yet to materialize in the realm of human experience.

Throughout history, wars have resulted in numerous heinous acts, and while Western civilization and its churches have sought to express remorse for the actions of some of their ancestors, distancing themselves from such behavior and openly condemning it, it remains uncertain whether Islamic civilization has taken comparable steps. Specifically, has Islamic civilization expressed regret for the actions of early Islamic armies towards Syria and its Jewish and Christian inhabitants, as well as the events surrounding Constantinople? Moreover, has the Hagia Sophia cathedral been restored to its status as a church?

Regarding the religious motives behind the Crusades, they were primarily centered on the objective of European nobles to safeguard the holy land and shield Christians from Muslim aggression en route to Jerusalem. In terms of searching for biblical justification to wage war, such efforts are ill-founded. The aforementioned exposition has provided ample evidence concerning the beliefs and viewpoints of Christians on this matter.

Dear viewer, this study has sought to provide a fair examination of the historical, religious, and philosophical factors that underpinned the Crusades. It is hoped that the evidence presented has illuminated the complexity of this period, dispelled misconceptions, and fostered a deeper understanding of this relatively controversial era in Western civilization. It is essential that we refrain from scapegoating Europe’s Christian heritage for present-day problems and instead work towards unity and honest engagement with the past. The stakes are high, and the future is uncertain, but by grappling with our history, we can begin to chart a path forward.

Conclusion

The Crusades are often portrayed in modern times as an example of Western aggression against the Islamic world, and many critics argue that they were motivated by religious fanaticism and a desire for conquest. However, a closer examination of the historical record reveals a more complex and nuanced picture of the Crusades.

The historical record shows that the Crusades were a response to centuries of aggression and expansionism by Muslim powers. From the early seventh century onwards, Islamic armies had conquered vast swathes of territory stretching from the Arabian Peninsula to North Africa, the Levant, and even parts of Europe. In the process, they had subjugated or expelled Christian and Jewish communities, destroyed their religious sites, and imposed a discriminatory system of taxation known as jizya.

This pattern of aggression and expansionism continued for centuries, as Muslim powers continued to encroach on Christian territories in the Mediterranean world. Muslim armies invaded Christian Syria in 635, and captured Orthodox Christian Jerusalem and Alexandria in 638. They reached the south of Italy and Cyprus in 650, capturing hundreds of thousands of Christians and non-Christians as slaves. In 711, Muslims invaded Spain and controlled most of the country by 715. In 717, they laid siege to Constantinople but were defeated. In 730, they invaded France and almost took the country until they were stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours. In 792, Islamic armies mounted a massive raid to invade France again, but the campaign failed. In 872, Muslims invaded southern Italy and took over Sicily, which remained under Muslim control until 1092.

These aggressions had profound consequences for Christian Europe, and they created a sense of fear and insecurity that lasted for centuries. Christians were forced to live under the shadow of Islamic domination, and their religious sites and cultural heritage were continually at risk of destruction. For many Europeans, the Crusades were a way of responding to this aggression and reclaiming Christian lands from the hands of their oppressors.

The religious dimension of the Crusades cannot be denied, but it should also not be overstated. While religious piety played a role in motivating some Crusaders, it was not the sole or even the primary driver of the movement. Economic, political, and social factors also played a significant role in shaping the Crusades, as did the desire to protect and reclaim Christian lands from Muslim rule.

Moreover, it should be noted that not all Muslims were hostile to Christians, and not all Christians were united in their support for the Crusades. There were many instances of peaceful coexistence and even cooperation between Christians and Muslims in the medieval world, and there were also many Christian voices that criticized the Crusades and condemned the violence and atrocities committed by the Crusaders.

In conclusion, the Crusades were a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that cannot be reduced to a simple narrative of Western aggression against the Islamic world. They were a response to centuries of Muslim aggression and expansionism, as well as a product of economic, political, and social factors. While the Crusades had profound consequences for the history of Europe and the Middle East, they should also be seen as part of a larger historical context that included both cooperation and conflict between Christians and Muslims.

Numerous historians and scholars have highlighted the defensive nature of the Crusades. For example, Rodney Stark, a prominent sociologist and historian, argues that the Crusades were defensive wars aimed at protecting Christian lands and people from Muslim aggression (Stark, 2009). Similarly, Jonathan Riley-Smith, a leading Crusades historian, contends that the Crusades were a response to Islamic aggression and that the Christians had the right to defend themselves and their territories (Riley-Smith, 2005).

Final word

There are many historians and reliable academics who have produced work supporting the defensive nature of the Crusades. For example, Thomas Madden, a historian at Saint Louis University, argues that the Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression, and that the goal of the Crusaders was to protect Christians and Christian holy sites from Muslim attacks. Madden has written extensively on the subject, including in his book “The New Concise History of the Crusades,” which offers a comprehensive and accessible overview of the Crusades and their historical context.

Similarly, Rodney Stark, a sociologist at Baylor University, has argued that the Crusades were a defensive response to Muslim expansionism, and that the Crusaders were motivated by a desire to protect Christians and their lands from Muslim aggression. Stark has written several books on the subject, including “God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades,” in which he presents a detailed and compelling argument for the defensive nature of the Crusades.

Other historians and scholars who have argued for the defensive nature of the Crusades include Jonathan Riley-Smith, a historian at the University of Cambridge, who has written extensively on the subject and has argued that the Crusades were a response to the threat posed by Muslim expansionism, and Bernard Lewis, a historian at Princeton University, who has written numerous books and articles on the history of the Middle East and Islam, and who has argued that the Crusades were a defensive response to Muslim aggression.

Overall, while there are certainly scholars who disagree with this interpretation of the Crusades, there is a significant body of work that supports the idea that the Crusades were a defensive response to Muslim aggression, rather than an unprovoked attack on the Islamic world. As such, it is important to approach the history of the Crusades with an open mind, and to consider a variety of perspectives and sources in order to arrive at a more nuanced understanding of this complex and often controversial historical event.

There were also ancient Middle Eastern historians who wrote about the events leading up to and during the Crusades, and their works support the idea that the Crusades were a defensive response to Muslim aggression. One example is Ibn al-Athir, a Muslim historian who wrote in the 13th century. In his book, “Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh,” he described the Muslim conquests of Christian lands and the atrocities committed against Christians, including the destruction of churches and the killing of Christian pilgrims. He also wrote about the motivations behind the Crusades, describing them as a response to Muslim aggression against Christians.

Another example is the Armenian historian Matthew of Edessa, who wrote in the 12th century. In his chronicle, “The Chronicle of Matthew of Edessa,” he described the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem and the subsequent mistreatment of Christians by Muslim rulers. He also wrote about the events leading up to the First Crusade and described them as a response to the Muslim aggression against Christians.

These historians, along with others, provide evidence that supports the defensive nature of the Crusades and suggests that they were not merely aggressive campaigns launched by Western Christians.

Another example of a historian from the era who supports the defensive nature of the Crusades is Fulcher of Chartres, who was present during the First Crusade and wrote an account of the events. In his “Historia Hierosolymitana,” Fulcher portrays the Crusaders as motivated by a desire to defend Christianity and to liberate the holy places in Jerusalem from Muslim rule. He describes the Muslims as tyrannical and oppressive, and presents the Crusaders as heroic figures fighting against an evil enemy.

Another historian from the era who supports the defensive nature of the Crusades is Albert of Aachen. In his “Historia Ierosolimitana,” Albert presents the Crusaders as engaged in a just war to defend Christianity and to liberate the holy places from Muslim rule. He describes the Muslims as cruel and barbaric, and presents the Crusaders as brave and chivalrous figures fighting for a noble cause.

Overall, while there were certainly some Crusaders who were motivated by greed, power, and other less-than-noble intentions, many historians from the era suggest that the majority of Crusaders were motivated by a desire to defend Christianity and to protect themselves and their fellow Christians from Muslim aggression

Ottoman Wars against the entire planet. Check the Excel file Ottoman Empire wars

The post Is Christianity a Violent Religion? first appeared on Islam Revealed.