Submission Must Be Defined by What Is Commanded

Islam means submission, but the word alone does not tell a reader what a person is submitting to. The content comes from the Qur’an, the traditions concerning Muhammad, and the bodies of Islamic law developed from them. The Muslim profession of faith identifies Allah as God and Muhammad as His messenger, placing Muhammad’s authority within the foundation of Islamic belief. Prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and pilgrimage are well-known expressions of that commitment. They are not, however, a complete account of the religion’s teaching about government, warfare, marriage, or the treatment of non-Muslims. An article that describes those devotional practices while leaving out the harder commands gives readers an incomplete picture. The proper question is what the authoritative texts say a faithful adherent may or must do. That question should be asked just as directly of Christianity, whose standard is the teaching of Jesus and His apostles. The two religions’ calls to obedience cannot be treated as equivalent simply because both use the language of devotion to God.

The distinction becomes clear in the identity each religion assigns to Jesus. The New Testament says that Jehovah sent His Son, that Jesus died for sins, and that Jehovah raised Him from the dead, as Acts 3:13–15 and 1 Corinthians 15:3–4 state. Qur’an 4:157 denies that Jesus was killed or crucified as the New Testament reports. The disagreement concerns the event on which the apostles based their proclamation, not a minor difference in ceremonial practice. Jesus described His coming death as a ransom for many in Mark 10:45. Paul said that if Christ had not been raised, Christian faith would be futile in 1 Corinthians 15:17. Christianity consequently cannot recognize a later message that denies the death and resurrection at the center of its gospel. Galatians 1:8–9 instructs believers to reject a different gospel even if an apparently authoritative messenger presents it. A comparison of Islam and Christianity must begin with that direct conflict over Jesus and the means of salvation.

What the Qur’an Says About Fighting

The Qur’an contains a statement that there is “no compulsion in religion” at 2:256. It also contains commands concerning armed conflict that cannot be made to disappear by quoting that statement alone. Qur’an 9:29 directs fighting against specified people of the Book until they pay jizya, a tax imposed under Muslim rule. Qur’an 9:5 commands action against polytheists in a passage connected with the chapter’s discussion of treaties. Qur’an 2:190 speaks of fighting those who fight Muslims and warns against transgression, providing wording that differs from the command in 9:29. The passages must be identified individually, since their addressees and immediate settings are not identical. Nevertheless, a description of Islam as simply peaceful submission is untenable when it omits an explicit command to fight until non-Muslims accept a subordinate legal position. The jizya provision concerns political authority and the status of a religious community, not merely an individual’s private spiritual struggle. Readers need to see the actual provisions before accepting a general claim about what Islamic obedience entails.

Abrogation, known as naskh, is relevant to how these passages have been understood. Qur’an 2:106 speaks of one revelation being replaced by another, and Islamic interpreters have debated which particular rulings this principle affects. Some have held that later fighting commands supersede or limit earlier statements about restraint, while others have rejected that application to particular verses. A claim that every peaceful verse was automatically canceled by every later fighting verse goes further than identifying the doctrine of abrogation. Qur’an 2:256 also should not be described as an early Meccan statement; it appears in a Medinan surah. Neither correction removes Qur’an 9:29 or its requirement that the named opponents be fought until they pay jizya. The evidence should be stated precisely so that an inaccurate chronology does not distract from the substantive command. A reader can examine the competing interpretations of abrogation while still recognizing that the fighting texts are part of the Qur’an. They cannot be excluded from an assessment of the religion by presenting only verses that sound congenial to a modern audience.

Muhammad’s Example and the History of Conquest

The history of early Islamic expansion supplies concrete evidence that military conquest was part of Islam’s growth. After Muhammad established political authority in Medina, his community participated in armed campaigns. Following his death, Muslim armies took territories that had been governed by the Byzantine and Persian empires. Syria, Egypt, and regions of North Africa did not come under the caliphates because Muslim teachers merely went from house to house offering a Qur’anic discussion. Armies fought, governments changed, and Islamic political authority was established over populations that included Christians and Jews. The fact that some inhabitants later converted over time does not change how political control was first obtained. Nor does acknowledging conquest require the inaccurate assertion that every conquered person was immediately forced to become Muslim. The crucial distinction is that the biblical Christian commission calls disciples to teach and persuade, while early Islamic expansion included the use of military force to extend rule.

Muhammad’s example has continuing significance because accounts of his conduct contribute to Islamic law and religious teaching. The hadith report numbered Sahih al-Bukhari 5133 says that Aisha was married to Muhammad at six and that the marriage was consummated when she was nine. That age report comes from a hadith, not from a verse of the Qur’an. Its importance in this comparison is that Muhammad is treated as an example, making reports of his conduct relevant to debates about marriage. The account should be identified accurately rather than attributed to the wrong text or concealed because it is troubling. Likewise, discussion of Muhammad’s military campaigns must address actual reported conduct rather than rely only on an abstract definition of jihad as inward effort. The New Testament presents a different model in Jesus, who told Peter to put away his sword in Matthew 26:52. When Jesus’ followers faced opposition, He directed them to bear witness, as Acts 1:8 records. The contrasting examples matter because a religion’s authoritative model influences what its followers are taught to regard as permissible obedience.

Islamic Law and the Treatment of Others

Islamic law draws on the Qur’an and hadith and addresses far more than private prayer. It has included rules concerning marriage, inheritance, public order, warfare, and the legal status of non-Muslims. Qur’an 4:3 permits a man to marry up to four women under its stated condition concerning just treatment. Qur’an 4:34 has been rendered as authorizing a husband to strike a wife in a specified marital dispute, though its wording and application are contested. Qur’an 23:5–6 distinguishes wives from women described as those whom a man’s right hand possesses, language historically associated with enslaved women. These are specific textual provisions, and their presence cannot be answered by saying only that Muslims value family or charity. The Bible presents marriage from creation as a man and woman becoming one flesh in Genesis 2:24, a passage Jesus applied in Matthew 19:4–6. Husbands are instructed to love their wives and avoid harsh treatment in Colossians 3:19. Placing the actual instructions side by side shows why the content of obedience matters.

The status of Christians and Jews under Muslim rule is another essential part of the subject. Qur’an 9:29 links fighting certain people of the Book with their payment of jizya, and Islamic governments historically applied legal distinctions between Muslims and protected non-Muslim communities. Protection did not mean equal religious or political standing under those systems. The exact restrictions and their enforcement differed across rulers, places, and periods, so one example should not be presented as though it describes every century. The governing principle nevertheless deserves plain description: Islamic political authority could require non-Muslims to accept a subordinate status and pay a tax associated with that status. Jesus gave His followers a different task when He commissioned them to make disciples by teaching in Matthew 28:19–20. Paul described reasoning and persuading his hearers in Acts 18:4. Neither passage authorizes Christians to conquer a population and impose a payment for remaining outside the faith. The distinction concerns what the respective religious authorities permit as a means of advancing or governing their communities.

Concealment and the Need for Exact Claims

Discussions of taqiyya also require attention to what is being asserted. The term is associated with concealing religious identity or belief under threat, and it has a place in Islamic discussion, particularly in traditions shaped by persecution. Its existence should not be hidden when an article examines what Islamic sources permit. At the same time, naming taqiyya does not prove that a particular speaker who cites a peaceful Qur’anic verse is knowingly lying. That conclusion requires evidence about the speaker’s actual words, beliefs, and intent. An imam may quote Qur’an 2:256 while omitting Qur’an 9:29, and the omission leaves an audience without a necessary part of the textual picture. A writer can identify that omission and examine how the imam explains the fighting passage. The criticism is stronger when it demonstrates a selective presentation than when it assumes knowledge that has not been established. Accuracy here serves the central argument: neither concealment nor reassuring public language should prevent scrutiny of the Qur’an’s actual commands.

The same discipline applies to public claims that Islam is a religion of peace. A person making that claim must explain Qur’an 9:29, the history of military conquest, and legal provisions concerning non-Muslims, rather than cite charitable conduct or peaceful verses as though those settle the issue. An appeal to the word jihad as personal striving likewise does not erase its use in connection with armed conflict. The question is not whether acts of kindness occur among Muslims; acts of kindness do not repeal a text. Nor does an account of conquest establish the intent of every Muslim living in a different setting today. The article’s subject is the religion’s authoritative claims and historically documented forms of obedience. Those claims can be assessed without substituting a reassuring slogan for the difficult passages. They can also be assessed without making an unsupported accusation against a named neighbor or speaker. A truthful Christian examination keeps the text, the historical record, and a person’s demonstrable conduct distinct.

Political Influence and the Limits of What Can Be Claimed

Islam’s relationship to political power is a legitimate subject of scrutiny because its history includes states governed under Islamic authority. The question remains current wherever an organization advocates replacing ordinary civil law with religious rules or seeks state enforcement of a religious obligation. Such proposals should be examined by reading their stated aims, legal requests, and documented actions. Funding for educational institutions, public advocacy, and favorable media coverage can influence how any ideology is presented, including an Islamic one. The existence of funding, however, does not by itself establish who wrote a particular lesson, what a student believed, or why a protest occurred. Nor can every mosque, Muslim family, or elected official be treated as an agent of one coordinated plan without evidence connecting them to it. Particular organizations may be criticized for particular statements and actions when those statements and actions are documented. A sweeping assertion about an entire population is a different claim and requires evidence of its own. The case against coercive religious rule is substantial enough to be made through explicit texts, historical conduct, and identifiable proposals.

For a Christian, opposing the imposition of Islamic law is consistent with refusing to impose Christian faith by force. Jesus said that His Kingdom was not from this world and pointed to the fact that His servants were not fighting to prevent His arrest in John 18:36. Paul instructed Christians to present their case and reason with hearers, as Acts 17:2–3 shows. A follower of Christ can therefore challenge a proposed religious law, defend freedom to speak about the Bible, and investigate foreign political influence without claiming authority to compel a conversion. Respectful conduct does not require participating in a shared act of worship that treats contradictory claims about Jesus as interchangeable. In 2 Corinthians 6:14–17, Paul warned believers against a religious partnership that joins what cannot be joined. Jesus Himself called people to come to the Father through Him in John 14:6. Christian witness can be peaceable and unambiguous at the same time. Its method and message both follow Christ rather than the use of political force to secure religious submission.

The Biblical Way to Jehovah

The Bible’s account of approaching God begins with a human need that religious discipline cannot remove on its own. Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned, and Romans 3:24–26 locates the remedy in the redemption provided through Jesus Christ. Jesus’ sacrifice is not an optional addition to otherwise sufficient acts of submission. According to 1 Peter 2:24, He bore sins in His body so that people might turn from sin and live to righteousness. Jehovah then raised Him, as Peter proclaimed in Acts 2:32–36. The resurrection identifies Jesus as living and authoritative rather than a dead teacher whose instructions can be revised by a later claimant. 1 Timothy 2:5–6 identifies Him as the one mediator between God and human beings and says that He gave Himself as a ransom. A religious teaching that denies His death and the apostolic witness to His resurrection rejects the means of access to God proclaimed in the New Testament. That disagreement cannot be resolved by saying that both religions encourage prayer or obedience.

The contrast is also visible in what each faith calls its adherents to do toward those who disagree. Jesus instructed His followers to make disciples by teaching them, and the book of Acts repeatedly records proclamation, discussion, and persuasion. Acts 8:30–35 shows Philip explaining a Scripture to a traveler who had invited the conversation. Acts 17:17 describes Paul reasoning with people in the marketplace. Neither account depicts the apostolic message advancing by conquest or by requiring a tax from those who decline it. The apostles did warn of judgment, as Acts 17:30–31 records, but they assigned that judgment to the risen Jesus appointed by God. Christians have a responsibility to state the claims about Jesus plainly and to allow hearers to consider them. They also have a responsibility to refuse teachings that deny His sacrifice while claiming to offer another way to God. Faithfulness is measured by adherence to Christ’s message and method, not merely by earnestness in pursuing a religious goal.

Islamic submission and Christian obedience therefore have different authoritative content. The Qur’an’s fighting passages, jizya provision, marriage rules, and denial of Jesus’ crucifixion belong in an examination of Islam alongside its prayers and charitable obligations. Muhammad’s reported conduct and the early caliphates’ conquests belong in its historical examination as well. The New Testament directs Christians to the Father through Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection, calling them to teach rather than conquer. John 6:68–69 records Peter recognizing that Jesus has words of everlasting life. Acts 10:42–43 says that the apostles were commanded to testify about Him and that forgiveness is proclaimed through His name. Those are substantive claims about authority, conduct, and salvation, not merely two ways of describing devotion. A reader seeking Jehovah must decide whether the apostolic testimony about Jesus is true. If it is, the way to God is determined by the Son Jehovah sent, not by a later command that contradicts the testimony about His death and resurrection.

You May Also Enjoy

From True Worship to Religious Counterfeits: How False Religion Began

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS