So, now that we have it established that those calling themselves "moderate" Muslims have it mostly wrong about what are called the "sword verses" in the Qur'an (See: Moderate Muslims Wrong: Terrorists, Violent Jihadists, & Qur'anic Sword Verses and An Amazing, Firsthand Eye-Opener as to What "Moderate" Muslims Think Islam Is), let's move to what that means regarding Islam versus Christianity.
Brevity is the soul of wit, but how is it edifying for those who lack the background to get it? Therefore, while attempting not to be long winded, in order to be truly educational and enlightening for those who are less familiar with the subject matter, the groundwork must be done. Of course, that does not relieve anyone of the responsibility to dig independently for answers to questions that are not anticipated or answered here.
To be a properly practicing Muslim, one must adhere to the sword verses when they apply; and they apply now and have for some time, especially ever since the establishment of a "Jewish" state in Palestine. This appears to have been generally understood by the Ummah (Islamic community) when Israel declared its sovereignty as such: a Jewish state where Jewish law supercedes and even completely nullifies Islamic law (Sharia).
Palestine was once under Islamic law. However, it was under British rule right before the Jewish state declared itself. Per the Qur'an, the whole of Islam should have been fighting the British (and French).
In no way can a Muslim properly read the Qur'an and come away with the view that Mohammed meant for any land once conquered to be allowed to fall back into non-Muslim rule.
Regardless of even that, as has been shown and referred to above, the sword verses mandate that whenever anyone or group is afflicting or persecuting Muslims, Muslims are to fight them. There is room in the Qur'an for negotiations and treaties; but when negotiations fail and treaties are broken (especially repeatedly), Muslim men are required under the Qur'an to fight.
The West has violated numerous treaties (international law to which it is signatory) and has clearly intentionally afflicted and persecuted Muslims over and over and over.
I can write with a clear conscience that Mohammed, were he to be consistent with his own verses, would fight them and would rebuke anyone calling himself or herself a Muslim who would disagree.
Might Mohammed be situational today? One would hopes so, but one cannot read his mind from the grave. We have only the Qur'an to guide us. There are varying interpretations of the Qur'an by widely accepted Islamic scholars who call themselves Muslims. Some might make the argument that because of changed circumstances, Mohammed would be expedient and not fight; but my view of that is that such speculation runs away from the central question of whether the Qur'an is a document that can be relied upon to guide one eternally and without fail.
So, let's deal with what are the central differences between Islam and Christianity concerning these sword verses.
I will begin with a declaration. Christianity is human-on-human pacifism. It is other things, but it is that. Those who claim to be practicing Christianity while they are engaged in or advocating violence are being anti-Christ.
The moderate Muslims will claim that I am engaging there in a logical fallacy: that Christianity is whatever those who claim to be Christian do and that for me to declare them non-Christian is simply wrong. You may see this position made by Ahmed Rehab, Executive Director of CAIR-Chicago (Council on American-Islamic Relations), in this post: An Amazing, Firsthand Eye-Opener as to What "Moderate" Muslims Think Islam Is.
However, Ahmed Rehab says that those being termed terrorists, such as the Islamic State, are being anti-Islamic: That Islam is what the majority of Muslims say it is:
Now, Both logic and islamic tradition resolved this with the concept of Ijmaa or consensus among the learned, followed by the closest thing to it: the majority. Now in the case Islam its both quantity and quality. That is both the overwhelming majority (majority of scholars AND majority of the public) as well as the weighted quality of those scholars (i.e. The most learned and respected) Both point to an anti-terrorism stance and anti-killing of innocents stance regarding all the verses in question. Additionally in practice, 99.9% are not violent and .1% are. Despite all of this, you will put 99.9% on trial rather the 0.1%. That outs you as unfair, slow, or blinded by agenda.
According to Ahmed Rehab and because the majority of those calling themselves Christians don't subscribe to pacifism, I am mistaken that Christianity is always pacifistic in the way I said above. His position and that of the other moderates is untenable. You'll have to read the other post to see how Ahmed says that I'm wrong for defining Christianity as I have because the KKK and others disagree with me.
If everyone calling himself or herself Christian were suddenly to denounce the Gospels entirely and take up Islam claiming that Christianity is now one with Islam, doing so would not render Christianity Islam. It would simply be that those who had claimed Christianity, even if it were every single one of them in existence in the flesh on this plane of existence, had become non-Christian, would have become Muslims.
To be Christian is to follow the Gospels. The question isn't what the majority of those claiming Christianity think Christianity is. The question is what the Gospels say that Jesus meant and means, always.
Muslims attempt to wave that away by denouncing the Gospels as fake and that Jesus wasn't even crucified: a position that shows either a complete lack of comprehension, falling for misinformation at the time, and/or a very sinister bent on Mohammed's part.
It is clear to me that Mohammed was heavily influenced by Gnosticism concerning the inherent, inescapable evil of the flesh, but that's a huge topic I won't go into here other than to say that Jesus ascended in the flesh and returned in the flesh and ascended again in the flesh.
God can and has manifested in the human flesh on the Earth and was not inherently evil when doing so. Who was Mohammed to pronounce that God wouldn't do that, wouldn't manifest here as Jesus Christ, the son of Man and son of God, one with God as God?
Please, I don't grant Mohammed the right to define God away and to replace God with Mohammed's Allah, who under Mohammed's concept, is not the YHVH of whom Jesus spoke and revealed in the Gospels, the YHVH and Elohim whom no one before Jesus fully knew and/or revealed here.
Moses was dealing with an angel of the LORD (the Jews think it was Michael). Mohammed said Mohammed was dealing with what Mohammed said was a different angel of Allah (not Jesus's YHVH, not Jesus's Elohim) Mohammed said was Gabriel.
Jesus was from God proper and directly, no interceding archangels, who are below Jesus in Heaven. Plus, there are fallen angels, fallen spirits, who pass themselves off as angels of light.
Can a fallen angel lie and claim to be Michael or Gabriel in the mind of the one having the visions? Even Mohammed himself had it written in his Qur'an that he wasn't sure with whom he was dealing. Jesus never had any such doubts about who was God and who was attempting to tempt him away from God, as if God could be tempted away from himself.
Satan wanted the test, and Satan lost.
The Gospels always compel the Christian to not engage in violence under any circumstances. The moderates want their Qur'an not to be read out of context or to be cherry picked. Well, the same applies for me concerning Christianity.
One may argue over what is permissible for God to do per words, ideas, concepts, etc., attributed to God in the Gospels; but the Gospels are unequivocal concerning what human beings are to do, how they are to behave when faced by violence or situations where non-pacifists would engage in violence, including in self-defense or the violent defense of others, including even their own children. The early Christians in Rome were exactly right not to fight back when Romans took their children and them to the slaughter in the Roman arenas. Those Christians were following Jesus's teachings on the matter to the letter and in their full spirit.
This is so important because to get the fundamentals wrong is to set up a cascade of failures leading to darkness.
We have only to look at the current Pope, Frances, as a prime example. I won't go into all the egregious errors he has made in his public pronouncements but limit myself here to the issue of Islam and the Roman Catholic doctrine of "just war."
Pope Frances doesn't hold that the Gospels demand of him that he be a pacifist. He misreads or ignores the Gospels because of his aversion to the fundamentals of the faith. He would take up the sword now rather than be led to the slaughter by the "Romans" of today (those who would persecute the Christians even by feeding them to misused, mis-trained, hungry lions). I say this because were it otherwise, he would have stood immediately to set the faith straight on the "just war" doctrine. He has not denounced war, all war. Could he still do it? Of course, and he should. Don't count on it because to do so would inevitably lead him to follow everything I'm writing here, which completely overturns Roman Catholicism (apostolic succession).
Frances has met with so-called moderate Muslims. He has prayed with them ostensibly to God while they prayed to Allah and while Frances avoided whether they were praying to the same being (the same one the Muslims have in mind). Maybe he was praying to Allah. I don't pray to the being the Muslims have in mind. Frances avoids the issue at the very least. He tries to be calculating rather then speaking to the fundamentals. I find him exasperatingly vague, though I feel I can see right through him. My exacerbation lies in how I dislike that he is misleading those who want to be Christians.
Naturally, Frances doesn't read the Qur'an sword verses other than in the limited context the "moderate" Muslims have routinely put forth and which position of theirs has remained unchallenged until now. That he does this is made clear by, among other things, his recent statement that violence is the "product of falsification of religion." He has lumped Islam in with that, when clearly he ought not to have. Violence is the product of the falsification (per Frances' usage) of Christianity and some other pacifist faiths, but not Islam.
Frances doesn't say that even where he would believe the Muslims are being afflicted and persecuted and that treaties (upon which the Muslims have a right to expect would preclude such) have been broken, that the Muslims shouldn't then violently fight: maiming, killing, etc., the flesh of the afflicters and persecutors (on the order of those Mohammed fought for the same reasons). Would such a situation, a situation that exists today (Muslims are being afflicted and persecuted and treaties have been broken and are being broken as I write this), meet the criteria for a "just war" by the Muslims against the afflicters, persecutors, treaty-breakers? The answer is yes.
So you should now see the problem full-circle.
There's more though concerning the so-called moderate Muslims.
Since Muslims must, according to the Qur'an as properly interpreted, fight now, what problems arise for them as a consequence that Mohammed either didn't anticipate because of his failed vision or didn't concern himself with at all though he knew?
The most glaring are the weapons of mass destruction held by the Western powers. Were Islam to declare war on the West, which it is obligated to do under the Qur'an and were the West to find itself losing a conventional war where the Muslims were fighting it even perfectly in accordance with the rules of war and religion in the Qur'an and even the "best" Hadiths ("prophetic traditions" of Islam), the West would wipe out Islam until no one would dare fight the West per the Qur'an. That is what I meant above concerning whether Mohammed would be expedient today.
The second and even more important point concerns comparing and contrasting Islam and Christianity on the matter.
In Christianity, one of the reasons (and it is righteous enough to stand on its own, as are all of Jesus's teachings) that human beings are not to engage in violent warfare (maiming and killing the flesh), is because it cannot be done without "collateral" damage: without making errors concerning God's plan for individuals as to the condition of their hearts: whether they are reachable, redeemable, etc.
This is shown in the Gospel parable teaching by Jesus (which Gospel teaching Mohammed rejected because they precluded Mohammed's worldly empire-building ambitions):
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. (Matthew 13:24-30 KJV)
"Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?" That is the question put to Muslims and those who claim the "just war" theory is correct under Christianity. "Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?" is the same as asking today, should we kill the ones doing evil (who are being misled by the spirit of evil)? Jesus's answer is clear for all times for human beings who are not all-knowing and never will be until they are perfected and become completely one with God (Jesus said of himself that he went through that process here on Earth to show us the way).
And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. (Luke 13:32 KJV)
For those who don't know, the third day there is the resurrection after the crucifixion, both of which Mohammed denied happened. He taught that to his poor, misled followers.
Mohammed, again, completely missed the point or wanted to lead people away from Jesus's teachings so Jesus's guiding light would be hidden rather than honored and followed. I say it's both because to lead others astray is to miss the point. To truly get it is to follow it.
What a lesson missed!
It is the difference between hearts softened enough that there will be no more war versus retaining hardness that will cascade into more of itself: wars, etc., whether in so-called self-defense or not.
I say "so-called" there because of what I said above: "...not all-knowing and never will be until they are perfected and become completely one with God." Then they are of that self, that one soul.
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. (Acts 4:32 KJV)
Those early Christians got it: one heart, one soul, the self, one with God, perfecting unto that perfection. That's clearly not the Allah of Mohammed.
If everyone on the planet becomes Christian per the Gospels versus everyone becoming Muslims per the Qur'an, evil with be completely displaced. The Qur'an leaves opening for evil because it is not the perfect light or path to God. It deviates eternally. It can never arrive. It can never bring Heaven to the Earth. It is logically impossible. For the Muslim, the spirit of God never dwells within.
Do you see the utter confusion and endless stream of errors that results in not getting it right? Look at the mess that results: "'One cannot make war (or) kill in the name of one's own religion,' Francis said on his way to the Philippines. '... To kill in the name of God is an aberration.'" (Vatican defends Pope after punch remark) The whole conversation becomes impossibly fractured. He has to defend his comments against those who don't know where the issue lies in the first place, as is the case with the Pope himself.
What does he mean by saying that falsification of religion is the problem and at the same time, "One cannot make war (or) kill in the name of one's own religion," while intending to defend moderate Islam, while the Qur'an exhorts Muslims to fight in the way of Allah, to kill for Islam?
His position is not Christian. It doesn't matter how many people claim it is. It's not Christian by Jesus's definition, which is the only one that matters in Christianity. Christianity is following Jesus's teachings, not wherever those calling themselves Christians but do not follow his Gospels teachings attempt to drag Jesus's religion. I don't care if I'm the last person standing who believes it. I'll remain right about it while everyone else will be wrong.
This is why the self-styled Christian-Zionists are wrong. They say that Israel (the Zionists Project in Palestine, the worldly promise land, before it Canaan and a number of iterations and aberrations thereafter), has a right to violently defend itself, which Jesus clearly said not to do. How can any Christian tell Jews in Palestine to fight and that doing so is right and their right when Jesus said not to fight that way? The answer is obvious.Were Jesus to have said that to the Pharisees, they would have not opened their mouths because they were quick enough to know that to do so would only make their position worse before the people. They didn't much care about God, because they thought as the moderate Muslims do, that the majority will (in the case of the Pharisees of the Sanhedrin) was, and is, paramount (that they, the Jewish religious elite, has won arguments with God). Did you know that?
Christians don't think they can win arguments with God, and they don't think the uninformed, unenlightened majority defines the religion of Christianity. This is why this site has the term "Real" in its name, to separate itself from the false.