by Silas



Matthew 7:15-20 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.” ---  Jesus, warning His disciples of future false prophets and deceivers.


“It is as easy to deceive one’s self without perceiving it, as it is difficult to deceive other without their finding it out. --- Francois Rochefoucauld (1630–80).





           Recently, Alex Kronemer wrote an article published on Beliefnet entitled “Was Muhammad a Terrorist?” , found here:




           Kronemer presents many historical anecdotes related to Muhammad’s actions.  Reportedly Kronemer received a Master’s degree from Harvard Divinity School and one would assume that he would present accurate details from Islamic sources.  Tragically  this is not the case.   I challenge Kronemer’s presentation of the historical Muhammad and Islam.  I say it is false.   I maintain that Kronemer did not tell the truth, and I cannot accept ignorance as an excuse from someone who has studied the field.



           Last year, Muslims murdered some 3000 Americans.  Their evil actions also caused thousands of injuries, cost working people their jobs, and stained our lives.  Muslims all over the world cheered these actions.  Further, many Muslims have promised to continue to murder Americans.  Further, Muslims all over the world are murdering people for Islam’s sake.  You can find them murdering in Indonesia – bombing tourists in Bali, or destroying churches, you can find them in India, murdering Hindu people by burning them on trains or attacking them in shops, you can find them in Jordan -  murdering an American ambassador, you can find them acting as snipers in Washington DC.  Certainly you know I could go on and on and on.  Violence is integral to Islam.



           So let me ask you some questions:  If Islam is a religion of violence, and if Muhammad indeed justified terrorist actions, shouldn’t we be made aware?  Isn’t the price of ignorance about Islam too high to pay now?  Should we continue to let our guard down if indeed Islam is a legitimate motivation behind the Muslim terrorist actions?  What do you think Muslim terrorists would do next if we are deceived about Islam and allow them to operate?



           During the last year there has been copious discussion about Islam and it’s role in motivating the terrorists.  Some say Islam is a legitimate motivation of the terrorists, some say it is not.  Let’s face it, they all cannot be right.  Shouldn’t we seek to understand this from the point of view of the terrorists themselves?  Is it fair and honest to dismiss their claims as incorrect because they do not match up well with an ignorant, American, “politically correct” viewpoint? 



           First and foremost we MUST examine Islam from it’s own historical sources.  Aren’t the consequences of being asleep while potential mortal danger lurks just a few hours away horrendous? And would not closing our eyes be highly irresponsible?



           I will forth-rightly say from the outset that there is a large group of Muslims functioning exactly like a propaganda machine.  They may be sincerely ignorant Muslims, or, they may be deceptive and trying to mislead the public.  However, one thing is certain:  they are not telling the whole truth about Muhammad and Islam.  A half-truth is still a deception and a lie.  Despite the continuing rivers of blood flowing all over the world, they want to calm our fears that Islam is not a violent religion and that Muhammad was not a terrorist, rather he was a bringer of peace.  I challenge this and I say that Islam is a violent religion and that Muhammad was indeed a man of brutal violence.  I say, let the historical record speak for itself.  I say Muslims will strike our nation again and once again bring a great amount of devastation to our country.  I say that much of the American public and academia is naive and gullible, and that those that defend Islam or try to portray it in only a positive light are misleading us and causing us to not be adequately prepared for their next deadly strike.  As Daniel Pipes states:



November 2002


AMERICANS STRUGGLING to make sense of the war declared on them in the name of jihad, whether they are policymakers, journalists, or citizens, have every reason to be deeply confused as to who their enemy is and what his goals are. Even people who think they know that jihad means holy war are susceptible to the combined efforts of scholars and Islamists brandishing notions like "resisting apartheid or working for women's rights." The result is to becloud reality, obstructing the possibility of achieving a clear, honest understanding of what and whom we are fighting, and why.



           In his article, Kronemer deliberately made significant errors and omissions.  He was forthright on some important points, deceptive on others, and outright wrong on still others .  I cannot assume that he is merely ignorant of the historical facts – after all, he does have a Harvard degree in theology, and, in other articles he quotes from and references various Islamic sources, the same ones I intend to quote.  Islam allows for lying for 3 reasons, one of them being for war --- perhaps Kronemer believes he is justified in his half-truths because this is a war or jihad for him and he is seeking to present a benign, whitewashed version of Islam to an ignorant American audience, and an ignorant team at Beliefnet. 


           I do not want to sound too strident.  But I was amazed at Kronemer’s inaccuracy.  And, I am troubled that someone could so carelessly make these kind of errors and omissions.  I don’t know his motives for putting out such shoddy work.  But I intend to expose his mistakes and call him to account for them.




           Let’s review the facts from the Islamic sources.  Let the historical record, written by Muslim scholars and historians, speak for itself.


           Below are the quotes from Kronemer and I’ll comment on these as needed.  I’ll present actual quotes and references that present the historical record.


My comments will be in black, Kronemer’s in green, and source quotations in blue.



1)  Kronemer wrote:

By today's standards, Muhammad engaged in an appalling amount of violence--but he brought peace to the Holy Land.



My Comment (1):

The first part of the sentence is correct, but, the second part is misleading and false.  I agree - Muhammad was a very violent man, but he did not bring peace to the Holy Land.  The Holy Land refers to ancient Palestine or Israel, i.e. the land of the Jews.  Muhammad died (632 AD) before his armies had attacked and conquered Jerusalem (637).  So, he did not bring peace, he was dead.  Further, the forced conquest of people is not bringing peace, but subjection.  There is a big difference between living in peace and living under the rule of harsh foreign power.  Ask the East Timorese people how they felt living under Indonesia’s rule.  Living under an oppressive regime is not living in peace.  For example, the fourth “Rightly-Guided” Caliph of Islam, Ali, had people executed because they were once Muslims and later realized how wrong Islam was so they left it.  Below is the historical account of Ali’s murdering of the ex-Muslim Christians taken from the Muslim Historian, Tabari, volume 17.


           Among them were many Christians who had accepted Islam, but when dissension had developed in Islam had said, “By God, our religion from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow.  Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.”  And they returned to their former religion.  Al-Khirrit met them and said to them, “Woe unto you!  Do you know the precept of Ali regarding any Christian who accepts Islam and then reverts to Christianity?  By God he will not hear anything they say, he will not consider any excuse, he will not accept any repentance, and he will not summon them to it.  His precept regarding them is immediate cutting off of the head when he gets hold of them.”   (page 187, 188).



           “I was in the army that Ali Abi Talib sent against the Banu Najiyah…. Our commander said to one of these groups, “What are you?”  and they replied, “We are a Christian people who do not consider any religion to be better than ours, and we hold fast to it.”  Our commander said to them, “Be off with you.”  He said to another band, “What are you?”  And they said, “We were Christians, but we accepted Islam, and we hold fast to our Islam.”  He said to them, “Be off with you!”   Then he said to the third group, “What are you?”  and they said, “We are a people who were Christians.  We accepted Islam but we do not think, that any religion is better than our previous one.”  He said to them, “Accept Islam!” but they refused.  He said to his men, “When I rub my head three times attack them and kill the fighting men and make captive the dependants.”  (page 188).


           But there was an old man among them, a Christian called al-Rumahis b. Mansur, who said, By God, the only error I have made since attaining reason was abandoning my religion, the religion of truth for yours, the religion of wickedness.  No by God, I will not leave my religion and I will not accept yours so long as I live.”  Maqil brought him forward and cut off his head.”  (page 191).


           “As for the Christians, we made them captive and led them off so that they might be a warning for those of the protected peoples who come after them not to refuse the jizyah (extortion tax), and not to make bold against our religion and community, for the protected people are of little account and lowly in status.  (page 192)



           Notice the status of the Jews and Christians living under Islam’s rule = “of little account and lowly in status.”  Brutalizing and killing the Christians and Jews, or any non-Muslim, is normal under Islam’s domain.



Two questions for Kronemer:


(Q1)    Is this your idea of peace – attacking and conquering a people, subjecting them to the rules and brutalities of a foreign religion, and forcing them to live as second class citizens (dhimmies)?


(Q2)    Do you agree with Ali murdering the ex-Muslim Christians, was it the right thing to do?




2) Kronemer wrote:

The accepted practice in the Biblical period when times were hard was to steal from neighboring communities. Moses and Muhammad both did this, though Muhammad limited the raids to only Meccan caravans.


My comment (2a):

           Here Kronemer misleads the readership via the statement:  “the Biblical period”.  He uses this undefined term throughout his article. Doesn’t the “Biblical Period” cover some 4000 years?  Which part of the Biblical period is Kronemer referring to?  Certainly Jesus did not teach His followers to go out and steal from others.   Jesus taught to give, not steal.  As Kronemer admits, Muhammad was a thief.  Stealing as Muhammad did would not be accepted by Jesus, it would be unacceptable to Him.


(Q3)    Question for Kronemer:  Are you implying that  Muslims today follow in Muhammad’s footsteps and are allowed to attack and plunder others during “tough” times? 



(b), though Muhammad limited the raids to only Meccan caravans.


My comment: (2b)

           Another inaccurate statement by Kronemer.  Muhammad raided and attacked various tribes during his stay in Medina.  For example he attacked the Banu Mustaliq.  Below is a reference concerning the attack and the division of the spoils of war - female captives and the subsequent rape of those female slaves.




           Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relations with them without impregnating them.  So they asked the prophet about coitus interruptus.  The prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection".

           Qaza'a said, "I heard Abu Said saying that the prophet said, ‘No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it.’"   (also ref. Bukhari 5:459).



For a thorough examination of the allowance to rape female slaves in Islam see:





(Q4)    Question for Kronemer:  Do you approve of Muhammad attacking Arab tribes, enslaving the people, breaking up families, and allowing female slaves to be raped?



3)  Kronemer wrote:

 Three times the Meccans sent large armies to killed Muhammad and slaughter the small but growing Muslim community.


My comment (3)

           Another inaccurate statement by Kronemer.  The first time the Meccans sent an army to fight Muhammad was occasioned by Muhammad’s attack on one of their caravans.  Previously Muslims had attacked a Meccan caravan, robbed them, and killed some of the caravan attendees.  It was Muhammad’s robbery and killing that started them off at war after Muhammad fled to Medina.  Prior to that the Quraysh were not fighting Muhammad at Medina.   Later, another caravan had completed a trading visit to Syria and was returning to Mecca.  Muhammad heard that they had substantial monies with them so he set out to attack this caravan and plunder it as well.  Instead of trying to build up his communities ability to provide for itself, Muhammad the thief set out to rob others.  However, the Meccans heard of Muhammad’s attempt to rob them so they sent out their men to defend their possessions.  Below is the account from Tabari, Volume 7, page 29:


Abu Sufyan came from Syria at the head of nearly seventy horsemen from all the clans of Quraysh.  They had been trading in Syria and they all came together with their money and their merchandise.  The Messenger of God and his companions were informed about them.  This was after fighting had broken out between them and people had been killed, including Ibn al-Hadrami at Nakhlah, and some of Quraysh had been taken captive, including one of the sons of al-Mughirah and their mawla, Ibn Kaysan.  Those responsible were Abd Allah b. Hajsh and Waqid, the confederate of the Banu Adi b. Ka’b, together with other companions of the Messenger of God who he had sent out with Abu Allah b. Jahsh.  This incident had provoked (a state of) war between the Messenger of God and Quraysh and was the beginning of the fighting in which they inflicted casualties upon one another; it took place before Abu Sufyan ad his companions had set our for Syria.

           Subsequently Abu Sufyan and the horse men of Quraysh who were with him returned from Syria, following the coastal road.  When the Messenger of God heard about them eh called together his companions and told them of the wealth they had with them and the fewness of heir numbers.  The Muslims set out with no other object that Abu Sufyan and the horsemen with him.  They did not thing that these were anything but easy booty and did not suppose that there would be a great battle when they met them.  It is concerning this that God revealed, “And ye longed that other tan the armed one might be yours.”

           When Abu Sufyan heard that the companions of the messenger of God were on their way to intercept him, he sent to Quraysh saying, “Muhammad and his companions are going to intercept your caravan, so protect your merchandise….”



Continued comment (3b):

           Do you see how Kronemer has misled his readers?  First of all, the battle between the Meccans and Muslims started because Muhammad attacked the Meccan caravans and robbed them.  Second, the reason the Meccans sent out their troops the first time was because they were defending their property. 


(Q5)    Question for Kronemer:            Was it acceptable to you for Muhammad to attack other people’s, and kill them, because of his desire to steal their possessions  (as you previously admitted)?



4)  Kronemer wrote:

There is also the slaughter of the of a Jewish Tribe. There were many Arab Tribes in Medina who followed Judaism. Most signed a mutual support agreement with Muhammad, but some rejected Muhammad’s leadership and did not. Two of these tribes were eventually exiled, while 700 men of another tribe, who agreed to help the Meccans in one of their battles with Muhammad, were all executed when the Meccans failed and fled the field of battle. They were all beheaded and thrown into a pit.


My comment (4a):

           The Jews of Medina did not willingly join a “mutual support agreement.”  Rather the “Treaty of Medina” was an edict that Muhammad issued against them.  All of these tribes were under Muhammad’s edict.  See “"Muhammad and the Jews of Medina", by A. Wensinck, for an examination of this.  Regarding this edict, Wensinck writes on page 70,   (comments in black text are mine)


           The constitution was no treaty concluded between muhajirun (Muhammad’s followers from Mecca), Ansar (Muhammad’s followers from Medina), and the Jews. It was an edict defining the relation of the three parties;  above them was Allah, i.e. Muhammad.  It is evidence of his great authority that, after a short stay in Medina, he, the stranger, could lay down the law for all segments of the population.



           Additionally, Kronemer leaves out the details of the expulsion of the two Jewish tribes.  In one case Muhammad attacked the Jews because of a personal conflict between various Muslims and Jews.  Muhammad used this conflict as a pretense to attack the entire tribe of Jews.  Later he was going to massacre all the Jewish adult and teen males, but, a pagan stepped in and demanded that Muhammad not murder them all.  In a fit of rage, Muhammad relented.  Below is the story recorded by Ibn Sa’d:



“Kitab al Tabaqat al Kabir”, vol 2, page 32:


            They shut themselves up in their fortress, so he (Prophet) strongly besieged them, till Allah cast fear in their hearts.  They submitted to the orders of the Apostle of Allah, that their property would be for the Prophet while they would take their women and children with them.  Then under his orders their hands were tied behind their backs.  The Apostle of Allah appointed al-Mudhir Ibn Qadamah al-Slimi, of the Banu al-Silm, the tribe of Sa’d Ibn Khaythamah to tie their hands behind their backs.  Abd Allah Ibn Ubayyi had a talk with the Apostle of Allah about them and entreated him (to release them).  Thereupon he (Prophet) said:  Leave them, may Allah curse them and curse him who is with them!  He abandoned the idea of their killing and ordered them to be banished from Madinah. 


           In the second case of the Jews, Muhammad attacked the other Jewish tribe based upon a “warning from heaven” that some Jews were plotting to kill him.  As a result, Muhammad attacked this tribe and expelled them.


           For more details concerning Muhammad’s duplicitous dealings with Jews and other Arab tribes, see





(Q6)    Question for Kronemer:  Do you accept the attack upon and expulsion of an entire tribe of people from their homes and land justified based upon a vision or the actions of a few?



My comment (4b)

           Kronemer fails to note that the Jews that “agreed” to help the Meccans never took part in the battle and they never allowed the Meccans and their allies, to use their land as a base against the Muslims.  These Jews remained on their own land and did not attack the Muslims, but they had entered into dealings with Muhammad’s enemies.  I assume they had seen how Muhammad had brutally treated other Jews and they were exploring their options.  Muhammad attacked these non-combatant Jews after the Meccans and their allies gave up the siege.   Kronemer also omits that many of these men who were beheaded were in their early teens.  Additionally, Kronemer omits that if the Jews became Muslim, then they would be spared (compulsion) – all 700, save 4, refused to accept a religion they knew was false.  Finally, Kronemer omits that Muhammad then enslaved the surviving women and children, taking one of the women as his concubine.   Some of these slaves were sold in various slave markets so that Muhammad could buy horse and weapons for more war.



(Q7)    Question for Kronemer:  Do you consider the enforced edict and subsequent massacre of the Jews, the enslavement of the women and children, and the compulsion to accept Islam to be acceptable?




5)  Kronemer wrote:

Though such words and actions, or those of Moses, may horrify our modern sensibilities, in the context of the Biblical period it was not only accepted, but also commonplace. In an earlier battle that the Meccans won, they mutilated faces of the fallen and the Meccan women danced on the Muslim corpses


My comment (5)

           Again Kronemer misleads his readers, with his “Biblical period.”  Wouldn’t it be more accurate to detail which period he is talking about?  Jesus did not engage in Muhammad’s style of violence.  Muhammad’s actions would not be accepted by or commonplace among Christians in their “Biblical period.” Kronemer apparently thinks in some scheme of "progression of morality over time" and people of earlier times are excused in their cruelty because they couldn't know better yet. Note: Muhammad lived 600 years AFTER Jesus. If anything at all, Muhammad methods and teaching are a huge step backwards.

           Kronemer notes how the Meccans desecrated the bodies of the Muslims.  Yet, Kronemer does not note that in an earlier battle, Muhammad had the Muslims threw the dead bodies of the Meccans down a well.   Muhammad then gloated over the dead bodies and actually claimed to talk with and mock these dead Meccans.  Here is the reference from Bukhari’s Collection of Hadith.



Narrated Abu Talha:

           On the day of Badr, the Prophet ordered that the corpses of twenty four leaders

of Quraish should be thrown into one of the dirty dry wells of Badr. (It was a habit of the Prophet that whenever he conquered some people, he used to stay at the battle-field for three nights. So, on the third day of the battle of Badr, he ordered that his she-camel be saddled, then he set out, and his companions followed him saying among themselves." "Definitely he (i.e. the Prophet) is proceeding for some great purpose." When he halted at the edge of the well, he addressed the corpses of the Quraish infidels by their names and their fathers' names, "O so-and-so, son of so-and-so and O so-and-so, son of so-and-so! Would it have pleased you if you had obeyed Allah and His Apostle? We have found true what our Lord promised us. Have you too found true what your Lord promised you? "'Umar said, "O Allah's Apostle! You are speaking to bodies that have no souls!" Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hand Muhammad's soul is, you do not hear, what I say better than they do." (Qatada said, "Allah brought them to life (again) to let them hear him, to reprimand them and slight them and take revenge over them and caused them to feel remorseful and regretful.")



           And, another comment on the desecration of the bodies.  Two generations later, as the Muslims were slaughtering each other in various civil wars, Muhammad’s grandson was killed in battle and his body was trampled by horses under order from one Muslim ruler, and his head was desecrated by the Muslim Caliph Yazid.  See the link below for details.





(Q8)    Questions for Kronemer:  What is different about Muhammad’s brutalities, the subsequent Muslim times, and their behavior and this “Biblical period” that you mention?


(Q9)    Do you believe that God brought these dead people, while they were down in a well, back to life in order to be mocked by Muhammad?




6)  Kronemer wrote:

The Biblical period ended in an event that happened toward the end of this period of fighting between Muhammad and the Meccans.


My comment (6)

Why is Kronemer unable to state accurately which “Biblical Period” he is talking about?  Jesus lived some 600 years prior to Muhammad.  There were Christians living in Mecca during the time Muhammad lived there.  According to the Christian perspective the “Biblical period” is still in effect. 



7)  Kronemer wrote:

It is difficult today to register their utter shock and surprise when instead Muhammad granted everyone amnesty and forgiveness for past sins.



My comment (7)

The statement above is the most inaccurate and misleading statement made by Kronemer in his article.  I’ve never encountered any Muslim, even the most ardent defender of Muhammad, who had stated anything so erroneous.  Let’s examine the historical record.


           Did Muhammad grant amnesty and forgive the sins of all the Meccans?  Let’s see.


           The quote is from Ibn Sa’d’s “Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir (The Book of the Major Classes) Vol. 2, page 168.


           "The apostle of Allah entered through Adhakhir, [into Mecca], and prohibited fighting.  He ordered six men and four women to be killed, they were (1) Ikrimah Ibn Abi Jahl, (2) Habbar Ibn al-Aswad, (3) Abd Allah Ibn Sa'd Ibn Abi Sarh, (4) Miqyas Ibn Sababah al-Laythi, (5) al-Huwayrith Ibn Nuqaydh, (6) Abd Abbah Ibn Hilal Ibn Khatal al-Adrami, (7) Hind Bint Utbah, (8) Sarah, the mawlat (enfranchised girl) of Amr Ibn Hashim, (9) Fartana and (10) Qaribah.



           Here I count 10 people that Muhammad ordered to be killed without mercy.  Note that three of them were slave girls!  Their crime you ask?  They previously made fun of Muhammad.  I guess hurting his feelings was a crime that deserved death.   Additionally, there were some Meccans who did resist the Islamic conquest and they defended themselves against his conquest and fought the Muslim army.


Quoting from "The Life of Muhammad", A Guillaume's a translation of Ibn Hisham's "Sirat Rasul Allah", from page 550: [words in brackets [ ] are mine]


The apostle had instructed his commanders when they entered Mecca only to fight those who resisted them except a small number who were to be killed even if they were found beneath the curtains of the Ka’ba. Among them was `Abdullah b. Sa’d, brother of the B. `Amir b. Lu'ayy. The reason he ordered him to be killed was that he had been a Muslim and used to write down revelation; then he apostatized and returned to Quraysh [Mecca] and fled to `Uthman b. `Affan whose foster brother he was. [Uthman was one of Muhammad's closest friends, and later became the Caliph of Islam]. The latter hid him until he brought him to the apostle after the situation in Mecca was tranquil, and asked that he might be granted immunity. They allege that the apostle remained silent for a long time till finally he said yes, [granting `Abdullah immunity from the execution order]. When `Uthman had left he [Muhammad] said to his companions who were sitting around him, "I kept silent so that one of you might get up and strike off his head!" One of the Ansar [Muhammad's helpers from Medina] said, then why didn't you give me a sign, O apostle of God?" He [Muhammad] answered that a prophet does not kill by pointing.


Ibn Sa’d corroborates Ibn Ishaq and says on page 174:


A person of al-Ansar had taken a vow to kill Ibn Abi Sarh [the already mentioned Abdallah] if he saw him. `Uthman whose foster brother he (Ibn Abi Sarh) was, came and interceded for him with the prophet. The Ansari was waiting for the signal of the prophet to kill him. `Uthman interceded and he [Muhammad] let him go. The apostle of Allah said to the Ansari, "Why did you not fulfill your vow?" He said, "O apostle of Allah! I had my hand on the hilt of the sword waiting for your signal to kill him." The prophet said signaling would have been a breach of faith. "It does not behave the prophet to make signal."


           Does it sound like Muhammad forgave Sarh?  Muhammad stared at Sarh, hoping that one of his followers would kill Sarh.  But since his followers could not read Muhammad’s mind, and Muhammad’s vanity prohibited him from telling them to kill him, Sarh lived.  That does not sound like forgiveness to me, does it to you?



           Further, the Meccans were obligated to become Muslims.  Ibn Sa’d records on page 168,

           The Apostle of Allah forced his entry into Makkah.  Then the people embraced Islam willingly or unwillingly.


           Muhammad’s “forgiveness” was not without requirement.  The Meccans had to become Muslims and submit to Muhammad’s rule.  This certainly is not what Kronemer is telling his audience.


           Another important point needs to be made about Muhammad’s conquest.  It was self-serving on Muhammad’s behalf to not destroy the Meccan people.  Having forced their submission, he now had for himself more resources at his disposal.  These resources fueled his later attempts at attacking and conquering other Arab tribes. 


Questions for Kronemer:

(Q10)  Do you agree to Muhammad’s order to kill slave girls for making fun of him?

(Q11)  After Sarh left Muhammad’s presence, Muhammad railed at his followers for not cutting Sarh’s head off!  Does that sound like forgiveness?



(8)  Kronemer wrote:

But more than that, he announced that a new era was beginning in the Land of Abraham. No more tribal warfare. No more exploitation of the weak and vulnerable. The rule of law finally began to take hold in the land. Tribal barriers began to break down, allowing the people to combine resources. at and science became possible, and Islamic Civilization grew.


           More balderdash from Kronemer.  Kronemer implies that once Muhammad came, conquered all the various Arab tribes, and united them in Islam that they were one big happy family.  “Islam is a religion of peace” he would say.  I say, “When has it ever been a religion of peace?”  Let’s look at the historical record.


           Immediately after Muhammad’s death, many Arab tribes wanted to leave Islam or stop being forced to pay the religious taxes levied against them.  There were several wars fought between the new Islamic Caliph, Abu Bakr, and these various tribes.  Umar sent his armies out to attack and conquer other peoples.  Later, during Uthman’s caliphate, things in the Islamic empire were so bad that three separate tribes of Muslims rose in rebellion and moved against Uthman.  Uthman ended up being murdered by these Muslims!  What is more shocking is that one of the ringleaders of the rebellion was the son of Abu Bakr, the second of the so-called “Rightly Guided” Caliphs.


From the “History of Al-Tabari”, volume 15, “The Crisis of the Early Caliphate”…[4]


           In this year (654), those who were alienated from Uthman b. Affan wrote to one another planning to gather together in order to confront him with those matters concerning which they were angry at him.  (page 131).


           Muhammad b. Abi Bakr (Abu Bakr’s son), came with thirteen men and went up to Uthman.  He seized his beard and shook it until I heard his teeth chattering.  Muhammad b. Abi Bakr said, “Muawiyah was no help to you, nor was Ibn Amir, nor your letters.”  Uthman said, “Let go of my beard, son of my brother!  Let go of my beard!”  Then I saw Ibn Abi Bakr signaling with his eye to one of the rebels.  He came over to him with a broad iron headed arrow and stabbed him in the head with it…. They gathered round him and killed him.”  (pages 190, 191).




           After Uthman died, Ali, Muhammad’s son-in-law became the Caliph.  He was immediately challenged by two of Muhammad’s closest “companions”, Talha and az-Zubayr, and by Muhammad’s child bride Aisha, and shortly thereafter by Muwawiyah, (the son of Muhammad’s former chief enemy, Abu Sufyan, who was forced to convert to Islam upon the point of a sword).


           From Tabari, volume 16:


           As they were thus engaged, news suddenly arrived that the Meccans were going in a completely different direction.  So Ali stood up among them to address them on the subject and said... “Talhah and al-Zubayr and the Mother of the Faithful [Aisha] have certainly joined together in discontent with my rule and have called on the people to set things right… (page 34).





           Eventually, Ali was murdered by other Muslims.  He fought several wars against other Muslims, and as previously noted, he murdered ex-Muslims as well.  After Ali died, the civil wars continued.   See the articles below for a short review of the wars, strife, and bloodshed found throughout the early Islamic peoples.  There were few months, if any, that they were not killing each other, or killing those that wanted to leave Islam.






           Don’t believe Kronemer’s statement for a second.  The Islamic family is not one big happy family.  Rather, they most often functioned like a large organized crime gang, beset with petty strife, murder, lust, deception, and so on.  Please read the records for yourself – Tabari’s History is available in most any bookstore.


           It is true that Islamic scientists did contribute to the world’s wealth of science.  But, it was after the Muslims had borrowed science from the great Persian, Hindu, and Roman cultures, that they began to make those significant contributions.  Sadly, even the impetus of the knowledge of these other cultures could not long sustain the societal decay inherent within Islam.  Today, we see the backwardness, the corruption, the oppression of real Islam, Muhammad’s Islam, at work.



(9)  Kronemer wrote:

Today, as the voices of conflict on both the Christian and Muslim sides grow louder, Muhammad may present an example that might benefit the world. Humanity took one giant step for the better when one man in a position of religious authority stood on the shoulders of giants like Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, and instead of the expected recriminations, uttered words of forgiveness and reconciliation.


Was Muhammad a terrorist? He would have made a different choice when he entered Mecca if he were, and the Biblical period would not have come to an end.


My comment (9)

It is not only the Christians that are having conflict with the Muslims.  So are the Hindus, in India.  So are the Buddhists in China, so are the animists in Sudan, so are the Jews.  Wherever Muslims are, there is going to be conflict with that that is non-Muslim.  Muhammad was not a good example.  Rather, he was a man with mixed emotions and mixed strengths and weaknesses.  He was not purely Satanic, nor was he full of goodness.  Humanity took a step backwards when Muhammad rose to power.  Muhammad was a man of violence, and, contrary to what Kronemer asserts, he did use violence against those that refused his rule, or who had simply hurt his feelings. 


Below are some of Muhammad’s statements.  Ask yourself if these are the words of a benevolent man.


MUHAMMAD: "May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of the prophets." Bukhari, Vol. 1, #427 [Muhammad had been poisoned years earlier by a Jewish woman whose husband was killed by the Muslims and the poison had slowly worked its effect. He said this while dying in the arms of his wife Aisha].


Bukhari, 2.133:

Narrated Masruq:

One day I went to Ibn Mas'ud  who said, "When Quraish delayed in embracing Islam, the Prophet I invoked Allah to curse them, so they were afflicted with a (famine) year because of which many of them died and they ate the carcasses…


Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3178:

'Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: When we came to Medina, and it was an unhealthy, uncongenial place, Abu Bakr fell sick and Bilal also fell sick; and when Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) saw the illness of his Companions he said: O Allah, make Medina as congenial to us as you made Mecca congenial or more than that; make it conducive to health, and bless us in its sa' and in its mudd, and transfer its fever to al-juhfa.  [Here Muhammad is asking that the fever be placed upon non-Muslims].


Sahih Muslim #6930:

…that he (Allah's Messenger) said: You will attack Arabia and Allah will enable you to conquer it, then you would attack Persia and He would make you to Conquer it. Then you would attack Rome and Allah will enable you to conquer it, …


Sahih Muslim #6981:

Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger as saying: You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me) ; kill him.



           I could go on and on about the violent, hateful, attitudes and actions of Muhammad.  But, do a little independent research for yourself and you can easily discover the facts.  You should not need anyone to do your thinking for you.  Read and study the history of Islam, written by Tabari himself.  Think things through carefully.  Determine if Muhammad is a man to whom you want to entrust your eternity.  I don’t.





           Earlier, I implied that Kronemer is not telling the whole truth, he has omitted several important historical records.  Further, in some cases, Kronemer is practically inventing, or re-writing Islamic history to make it palatable to an ignorant and naive Western audience.  Kronemer is trying to tell us that Islam is a religion of peace and Muhammad was a forgiving, benevolent leader.  The historical record and current record show that Islam is at war with everything that is not subject to its rule.  Muslims have repeatedly struck us in the past, present, and they will again in the future.  I’m sure that the Muslim terrorists who flew the planes into the NY towers would have told you that Islam was a religion of peace, and Muhammad was a benevolent, merciful leader.   Those Muslims followed in Muhammad’s footsteps.


           Jesus predicted that false prophets would come:

Matthew 7:15 - 20 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.”


           Muhammad’s fruit is bad fruit.  As I said before he was a man with mixed character.  However, once he attained power, he turned it upon those that opposed him.  He was not the benevolent, merciful leader that Kronemer tries to portray.  Muhammad was one of the false prophets Jesus warned us of.


           I appeal to Kronemer and to anyone else to re-examine the historical record.   I ask Kronemer to correct his errors.  Further, I ask him to re-evaluate Muhammad in the light of those Islamic records and, compare Muhammad to Jesus.  Jesus is superior to Muhammad, Jesus is the person we should be following.





This prayer is written for anyone.  This includes Muslims who are seeking the truth and who want to know God in a personal way.


           “Lord Jesus, I believe in You.  I believe that You are the Son of God and the Lord.  I believe that You died for my sins and were raised from the dead.  I confess that I am a sinner and I ask You to come into my heart, cleanse me from my sins, and forgive me for my sins.  I turn to follow and obey You – I put my faith in you.  I now receive You as Messiah and Lord and totally commit my life to You.”



Articles by Silas
Answering Islam Home Page