I saw that old video of yours which you reshared—where you claimed the Qur’ān praises the Christians for being "peace-loving."
Well, that praise was clearly directed at the early Christians—those who truly followed the Injīl revealed to ʿĪsā (Jesus), not the versions written by Mark, Luke, John, and ‘Jesse’ (whoever that is)—individuals who were largely unknown and without established chains of transmission.
Nevertheless, we do believe there remains some truth in the writings of Luke and others, either because the Qur’ān confirms aspects of them or because they do not contradict the Torah.
So yes, the early Christians were peace-loving—just like the early Muslims in the Makkan period, who did not fight any wars. And the reason for that was simple: they were not in power. If they had gained political power, they would have fought wars, just like the Prophet (ﷺ) did when he was in Madinah.
Had Jesus stayed longer—before he was raised to the heavens—he would have fought wars. That is the context of what the Qur’ān indicates in Surah At-Tawbah.
Didn’t Jesus reportedly say:
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.
For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
A man’s enemies will be those of his own household.”
(Matthew 10:34–36, NKJV)
You once argued that Muslims should accept the interpretations offered by Bible scholars for such verses—since Muslims also have interpretive principles (uṣūl) through which they explain the Qur’ān.
But that was your old view.
Now you say Muslims should just read the Qur’ān without tafsīr—as you Olórí pípé people do!
So, tell me, Boda Olórí pípé, when Jesus said he came not to bring peace but a sword, what does that mean without deferring to Bible scholars? Let’s hear it from you now.
You see, your head is not correct at all (orí ẹ ò pé).
See this one too:
“Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.
From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.”
(Luke 12:51–53, NIV)
Yes, we may accept the explanations of Bible scholars about these horrific and bombastic statements attributed to Jesus. But when people like you discredit the Qur’ān for saying Jesus had a similar mission of confrontation with disbelievers, that’s sheer ignorance on your part.
Now tell me: during the Crusades and Inquisitions, what verses did Christian leaders quote to inspire their soldiers?
Malik, it was those very verses—otherwise no one would have marched.
Even Hitler’s war had a Christian undertone. Or what did he mean when he said:
> “We are determined to take Christianity out of its sickly and effeminate state and turn it into a religion of strength”?
And what about the British wars during colonization? They clearly had a Christian agenda. Tell me: is there any country Christianity entered where a British army wasn’t the forerunner?
Even these American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—do you think they are purely political? No, they have underlying Christian motivations. I can even show you what American soldiers write on their missiles before they launch them.
Now, please help me find out: on whose cause were (or are) these groups fighting?
The Conquistadors (15th–17th centuries)
The Lord's Resistance Army (Uganda)
Aryan Nations (USA)
The Covenant (USA)
The Sword (USA)
The Arm of the Lordk (USA)
Army of God (USA)
The Ku Klux Klan (USA).
Don’t be silly, please, Malik.
Click here for more on this individual.
