Many Christians try to claim that Jesus is the ‘prince of peace’ and that killing people would have negated his status of being not only a prophet of God but also his son. They mention this in particular to try to argue that Muhammad (saw) is not a prophet because he participated in wars.
This is obviously an absurd argument because we can just mention the “fatally violent acts” of OT prophets. In addition to this , if christians claim Jesus is God, why is Jesus ordering people in the OT to rip open the bellies of pregnant women(Hosea 13:16) which further debunks the claim that Jesus does not promote violent acts. However in this post, I will show in particular that Jesus is killing boys as a child.
Now before I get into the account, let me defend the infancy Gospel of Thomas. In short the infancy Gospel of Thomas, is just as authentic as the Bible we have today :p. You can take that statement however you want, because I am sure most people already know that I have a very low opinion of the authenticity of the Bible. A more articulated form of what I said, is echoed by a PhD candidate who is studying the Gospel of Thomas:
“I think that the fact that we are dealing with written records of orally transmitted eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ ministry and teaching means that we have no accurate way of making empirical decisions about what is and isn’t authentic Jesus tradition”
Now that we have settled any issues brought about the authenticity of the Gospel of Thomas, let us get into the text:
We are often told of the shinning example that Secular Democracy has given the world in the embodiment of the American Republic; but is this the example that the Founders would have wished for civilized world? Though Americans tout the principles of a government void of religion, these principles are easily caste aside when it comes to someone of a non-christian sect assuming his rightful place in office. Many may be familiar with Keith Ellison the first Muslim elected to congress, and how he wished to swear on the Qur’an instead of the Bible. While a logical person would be pleased with the decision that he would swear on a book that actually means a great deal to him instead of a book that holds no real religious significance, this was not the case for many Americans. In the blink of an eye Americans went from Champions of Secularism to the enforcers of the Religious Reich! The more read the more confounded I became at the situation until it just all fell into place. Americans were not opposed to religion in its totality, but rather just Islam! Jews such as Madeleine Kunin and Debbie Wasserman Schultzhave been allowed to swear on torah’s and Jewish prayer books yet there was no outcry! President Johnson was sworn in on a Catholic missal and President John Quincy Adams did not even use a Bible he used a law book! It is the American sentiment that Muslims are excluded from the nation’s politics. Sadly Americans do not realize that the founders of their nation would not consider this sentiment to be American. Thomas Jefferson praised the laws of religious tolerance passed in Virginia and specifically mentioned Islam as a reason this law was needed to insure they were allowed to participate in office. But does this tolerance mean a voiding of religion all together, would the founders want our children to be void of religion? I think perhaps the sentiment is best summed up by a Signer of the Declaration of Independence, attendee of the Continental Congress and Friend of Thomas Jefferson, Physician Benjamin Rush. Benjamin rush stated that he would ““rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles.”
I just thought this story of Elisha the prophet of God was interesting and thought I would share this for people who are confronted by Haters who try to say Muhammed “killed innocent people who did not want to follow Islam or mocked him” we have all heard the lies over and over so I shan’t regurgitate them here. Here the Prophet Elisha has 42 children torn apart for calling him bald and mocking him
So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake. And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria.2 Kings 2:22-25 KJVR
(Qur’an 5:31) Then Allah sent a crow searching in the ground to show him how to hide the disgrace of his brother. He said, “O woe to me! Have I failed to be like this crow and hide the body of my brother?” And he became of the regretful.
Taken from here:
Salah ad-Deen belonged to a prominent Kurdish family of noble origin. This family belonged to a Kurdish tribe that was regarded as one of the noblest in lineage, a clan that was known as ar-Rawadiyah.’
…But some Ayubids tried to deny their Kurdish origins and claim Arab blood in general, claiming to be descended from Banu Umayah in particular….
It is very strange that some historians go out of their way in their research to attribute Salah ad-Deen to a chain of forefathers that ends with Mudar, who was descended from ‘Adnan; it is as if, by means of this research which is contrary to academic standards, not to mention pure facts, they want to connect every non-Arab genius to an Arabic lineage,