Support via Patreon | Subscribe

26 Differences Between Muhammad and Jesus

Header Image for: 26 Differences Between Muhammad and Jesus

If you’ve ever spent any time online, either in random Facebook comment threads or reading the news, I’m sure you’ve come across the claim that Islam and Christianity are basically the same and that “we all worship the same God”, getting lumped together as an “Abrahamic religion” along with Judaism.

Muslims claim Islam “is the completed final version of the previous messages originally revealed to Moses and Jesus” which came to “correct the deviations of Christianity”, which had apparently become corrupt by the seventh century when Muhammad came along.

But for something which is meant to come from the same God at its core, it would suggest that God got pretty much everything central wrong in the teachings of Jesus (and the prophets) since what Muhammad taught and lived like is very different. To add more suspicion to it, Muhammad claims to have received the Qur’an from an angel, which would conflict with what Paul warned about: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed!” (Gal 1:8). I’ll add more commentary at the end, so without further ado, here are 26 differences for your consideration:

  1. Muhammad said Allah hates those who don’t accept Islam. (Qur’an 3:32, 22:38, 30:45).
    1.  👉 Jesus said God loves everyone, and he came to lay down his life for the world. (John 3:16; 10:11; 16:27; 1 John 3:16; 4:7–8)
  2. Muhammad said, “I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah” (Muslim 1:33)
    1.  👉 Jesus said, “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52) and, “But I say to you: Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also” (Matthew 5:9)
  3. Muhammad stoned women for adultery. (Muslim 4206)
    1. 👉 Jesus said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” (John 8:7 [for the sake of argument, I know the pericope adulterae is a textual variant, so here’s a good article in favour of its historicity])
  4. Muhammad permitted stealing from unbelievers. (Bukhari 44:668, Ibn Ishaq 764, Qur’an 8:69, 33:27, 48:20).
    1. 👉 Jesus said, “You shall not steal.” (Matthew 19:18; Luke 19:8–9)
  5. Muhammad permitted lying. (Sahih Muslim 6303, Bukhari 49:857)
    1.  👉 Jesus said, “You shalt not bear false witness.” (Matthew 19:18)
  6. Muhammad owned and traded slaves. (Sahih Muslim 3901)
    1.  👉 Jesus neither owned nor traded slaves or commanded his followers to have slaves.
  7. Muhammad beheaded 800 Jewish men and boys. (Sahih Muslim 4390)
    1.  👉 Jesus said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44–45)
  8. Muhammad murdered those who insulted him (Bukhari 56:369, 4:241)
    1.  👉 Jesus preached forgiveness (Matthew 5:38–39, 18:21–22)
  9. Muhammad said, “if anyone attacks you, retaliate in the same manner.” (Qur’an 2:194)
    1. 👉 Jesus said, “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:39)
  10. Muhammad claimed jihad in the way of Allah elevates one’s position in Paradise by a hundredfold. (Muslim 4645)
    1.  👉 Jesus said, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called Sons of God” (Matthew 5:9)
  11. Muhammad married 13 wives and kept sex slaves (Bukhari 5:268, Qur’an 33:50)
    1.  👉 Jesus taught marriage was between one man and one woman (Matthew 19:4–6)
  12. Muhammad slept with a 9-year-old child (Sahih Muslim 3309, Bukhari 58:236)
    1.  👉 Jesus blessed children and warned against harming them (Mark 9:42; Matthew 19:13–15)
  13. Muhammad ordered the murder of women (Ibn Ishaq 819, 995)
    1.  👉 Jesus healed and forgave multiple women (Luke 7:47–48, 8:2; Mark 5:28–29,34; 16:9)
  14. Muhammad said, “O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.” (Qur’an 9:123)
    1.  👉 Jesus taught, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” (Matthew 5:5)
  15. Muhammad ordered 65 military campaigns and raids in 10 years (Ibn Ishaq)
    1.  👉 Jesus ordered no military campaigns, nor offered any approval of war or violence, and stopped his disciples from causing violence. (Luke 9:53–55; 22:49–51)
  16. Muhammad killed captives taken in battle (Ibn Ishaq 451)
    1.  👉 Jesus never took captives and never killed anyone.
  17. Muhammad encouraged his men to rape enslaved women (Abu Dawood 2150, Qur’an 4:24)
    1.  👉 Jesus never encouraged rape and never enslaved women.
  18. Muhammad demanded captured slaves and a fifth of all other loot taken in war (Qur’an 8:41)
    1.  👉 Jesus took no booty or charity. He taught, “The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve.” (Matthew 20:28)
  19. Muhammad was never tortured but tortured others (Muslim 4131, Ibn Ishaq 436, 595, 734, 764).
    1.  👉 Jesus suffered torture but never tortured anyone. (Luke 23:21–22; Matthew 27:26)
  20. Muhammad said, “And fight them until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah” (Qur’an 8:39)
    1.  👉 Jesus said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:44)
  21. Muhammad ordered the brutal murder of a half-blind man (al-Tabari 1440)
    1.  👉 Jesus healed a blind man (John 9:13–15)
  22. Muhammad ordered a slave to build the very pulpit from which he preached Islam (Bukhari 47:743).
    1.  👉 Jesus was a servant and even washed his disciple’s feet (John 13:5)
  23. What are the Greatest Commandments? Muhammad’s answer: “Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause” (Muslim 1:149; Sahih al-Bukhari 36)
    1.  👉 What are the Greatest Commandments? Jesus’ answer: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind”, and “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Matthew 22:34–40)
  24. Muhammad demanded the protection of armed bodyguards, even in a house of worship (Qur’an 4:102).
    1.  👉 Jesus chastised anyone attempting to defend him with force and didn’t travel armed and guarded (John 18:10–12; Mark 14:48–50; Luke 22:52–53)
  25. Muhammad advocated crucifying others who oppose him (Qur’an 5:33)
    1.  👉 Jesus was himself crucified for the benefit of others (Matthew 20:28; 27:35; Mark 10:45; 15:25; Luke 23:33; John 19:18)
  26. Muhammad had others give their lives for him (Sahih Muslim 4413)
    1.  👉 Jesus willingly gave his life for others (Matthew 20:28; 26:28; Mark 10:45; 14:24; John 10:11,18; 15:12–13)
  27. Bonus: Allah is an enemy of disbelievers (Qur’an 2:98)
    1.  👉 God is love and desires everyone to be saved, and that none should perish (John 3:16; 1 John 4:8; 1 Timothy 2:3–4)

Hopefully, by now you can see that Islam and Christianity are not even remotely alike, have no basis or connection to one another, and fully contradict. Muhammad called for violence repeatedly and lived a corrupt, selfish and lavish lifestyle. Something no true prophet of the Scriptures ever was like, especially not Jesus. Any similarities are purely superficial and are lifted from the Gospels and imported into the Quran with similar wording.

Hilaire Belloc, a historian of the early twentieth century, in his book The Great Heresies, said this about Islam:

Mohammedanism was a heresy: that is the essential point to grasp before going any further. It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. Its vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing. It differed from most (not from all) heresies in this, that it did not arise within the bounds of the Christian Church. The chief heresiarch, Mohammed himself, was not, like most heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth and doctrine to begin with. He sprang from pagans. But that which he taught was in the main Catholic doctrine, oversimplified. (p.33)

John of Damascus, a Church Father who lived during the rise of Islam in the seventh century, wrote some harsh words about the new religion, which he also claimed is more accurately described as a Christological heresy and a cult. Islam is to ancient Christianity, what Arianism was to the Nicene orthodoxy of the day, and what Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are to the modern Church: heretical schisms based on bad understandings of orthodox theology which have morphed into their own sects over time.

From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.

There are many other extraordinary and quite ridiculous things in this book which he boasts was sent down to him from God. But when we ask: ‘And who is there to testify that God gave him the book? And which of the prophets foretold that such a prophet would rise up?’ — they are at a loss. … Then they reply that the book came down to him while he was asleep. Then we jokingly say to them that, as long as he received the book in his sleep and did not actually sense the operation, then the popular adage applies to him (which runs: You’re spinning me dreams).

And again, in the book of The Heifer, he says some other stupid and ridiculous things, which, because of their great number, I think must be passed over. He made it a law that they be circumcised and the women, too, and he ordered them not to keep the Sabbath and not to be baptized. — John of Damascus, Fount of Knowledge, Heresies

This isn’t even touching on the issue of the Crusades, which were the Church’s response to centuries of violent opposition and persecution by Islamic followers who violently spread their religion (see links at the bottom for more on this). Not the other way around as is commonly thought. Maybe I'll follow this up with a post about the Crusades.

If Islam is meant to ‘correct’ Christianity, and Muhammed is meant to be the last great prophet following after Jesus… then why did he live a life and teach a belief directly opposed to everything Jesus said and stood for? Islam holds Jesus very highly, yet Muhammed lived nothing like Jesus, and thinks he came to correct everything Jesus taught his followers; the whole system is a contradiction!

To summarise: the two religions are diametrically opposed in every way conceivable. Islam may claim a common root in Abraham but that's really where any commonalities end, as I hope you can see by now that we can't all be worshipping the same God if their teachings contradict. 

Only the true religion of peace and love can be found in Christianity through Christ Jesus, the Son of God.

 


Sources and Further Reading

 


Leave a comment   Like   Back to Top   Seen 7.1K times   Liked 2 times

Support on Patreon

Enjoying this content?
Support my work by becoming a patron on Patreon! By joining, you help fund the time, research, and effort that goes into creating this content — and you’ll also get access to exclusive perks and updates.
Even a small amount per month makes a real difference. Thank you for your support!

Subscribe to Updates
My new book is out now! Order today wherever you get books

Subscribe to:

Have something to say? Leave a comment below.

x

Subscribe to Updates

If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to free email updates and join over 884 subscribers today!

My new book is out now! Order today wherever you get books

Subscribe to Blog updates



Subscribe to:

Alternatively, you can subscribe via RSS RSS

‹ Return to Blog

All email subscriptions must be confirmed to comply with GDPR.

I've already subscribed / don't show me this again

Recent Posts

Armageddon Is Not A Battle Plan: What Revelation Actually Says — And Why It Matters Right Now

| 12th March 2026 | Eschatology

Armageddon Is Not A Battle Plan: What Revelation Actually Says — And Why It Matters Right Now

Something bizarre happened in the White House Oval Office this week. Photographs circulated on social media showing President Donald Trump seated at his desk, surrounded by approximately twenty Christian pastors from across the country, their hands extended towards him in prayer. The image provoked sharply divided reactions: some saw it as a moving expression of faith; others found it deeply unsettling. Whatever one makes of the optics, it arrived at a charged moment. Trump held a prayer meeting in the Oval Office after his administration admitted the war with Iran will likely last weeks longer than promised | Credit: Dan Scavino's X account Days earlier, reports emerged that a military commander had told troops that the current US war with Iran is “all part of God’s divine plan,” and that President Trump had been “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth.” These were not fringe internet rumours. They were filed as formal complaints with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) by an anonymous non-commissioned officer acting on behalf of fifteen service members — the majority of whom were themselves Christians. By Tuesday of that week, MRFF had logged more than two hundred similar complaints across fifty military installations, covering every branch of the armed forces. More than two dozen Democratic members of Congress have since called for a Department of Defense Inspector General investigation, citing what they describe as “glaring Constitutional concerns” and potential violations of DoD regulations on religious neutrality. The political questions about separation of church and state in the US are for others to address. What I want to do here is something more straightforward: examine what Revelation actually says, because the theology driving these claims does not hold up under scrutiny. And that matters here a lot; not as a partisan point, but as a question of biblical faithfulness. First, a Word About Context If you have read my previous article on Revelation some of what follows will be familiar ground. But it bears repeating, because the misunderstanding at the heart of this story is so widespread that it has taken on the feel of settled orthodoxy in many circles. The Book of Revelation is commonly thought to be written in the late first century ~95 AD, during or around the reign of Emperor Domitian. Though there is internal evidence that it was possibly written during Nero’s reign prior to 70 AD. Both of these emperors were most aggressive proponents of the imperial cult in Rome’s history. Domitian required that he be addressed as “lord and god,” had this title printed on coinage, and expected acts of religious reverence towards the Emperor as a demonstration of political loyalty. To refuse was to invite economic exclusion, marginalisation, and worse. Rome on seven hills It is into that precise context that John of Patmos writes. He is not composing a coded forecast of twenty-first century geopolitics. He is writing resistance literature — what scholars call apocalyptic literature — a well-established Jewish and early Christian genre which uses vivid symbolic imagery to pull back the curtain on earthly power and name it for what it truly is. The seven-headed beast of Revelation is Rome. The seven heads are the seven hills of Rome, an identification so widely acknowledged in early church scholarship that it barely requires argument. The mark of the beast, calculated through Hebrew gematria to 666 (or 616 in some early manuscripts), points directly to Nero Caesar (transliterated into Hebrew as נרון קסר, “nrwn qsr”) — the Emperor who became the archetype of anti-Christian persecution due to the levels of evilness he enacted. The second beast, which looks like a lamb but speaks for the dragon, performs signs to deceive, enforces the mark, and compels worship of the first beas...

The World's Oldest Anti-Christian Meme

| 09th March 2026 | Archaeology

The World's Oldest Anti-Christian Meme

I first came across the Alexamenos graffito back in Bible college in the early 2000s. It was one of those “fun facts” that gets dropped into a church history lecture and sticks with you — the ancient Roman equivalent of someone spray-painting an insult on a wall. I filed it away, thought it was fascinating, and largely forgot about it for two decades. Then, recently, I discovered something about it I had never known. There’s a response to it. Scratched in a different room, in a different hand. So I started digging into this more to verify the information and discovered more historical curiosities surrounding the graffiti than I ever knew existed which contextualises the image so much more than it just being a random insult using a donkey. A Crude Drawing on a Wall Sometime around the late second to early third century AD, someone scratched a picture into the plaster wall of a building on the Palatine Hill in Rome — part of what had once been a paedagogium, a kind of boarding school for imperial page boys. The building was eventually sealed off when the street was walled up to support extensions above it, which is why the graffiti survived at all. It wasn’t rediscovered until 1857. The image is rough, almost childlike. To the left, a young man — clearly a Roman soldier or guard — raises one hand in a gesture of worship. Before him is a cross. And on that cross is a crucified figure with the head of a donkey. Below it, written in Greek: Alexamenos worships his god. It is, in the most literal sense, a mocking cartoon. Someone who knew a Christian named Alexamenos decided to ridicule him for his faith. The message is clear enough: your god is an animal, a criminal, a joke. You’re worshipping a crucified fool. But here’s the thing I discovered: the donkey head wasn’t as random as I always thought it was. It wasn’t some strange personal insult conjured from nowhere. Without knowing the background, it looks bizarre, and possibly random. Why a donkey? Once you understand the cultural context, though, it makes complete sense. The person who drew it was reaching for a well-worn, widely recognised slur — the ancient equivalent of an internet meme that any Roman would have immediately understood. Where the Donkey Slur Came From The story starts not with Christians but with Jews. A first-century Egyptian-Greek writer named Apion (who was no friend of Judaism) spread the claim that inside the Jerusalem Temple, Jews kept a golden donkey’s head as a sacred object of worship which was apparently discovered when Antiochus Epiphanes destroyed the temple in 167 BC. It was a fabrication, and a fairly outrageous one, but it circulated widely enough that the Jewish historian Josephus felt compelled to write an entire refutation of it. His work Against Apion systematically dismantles Apion’s claims, calling the donkey story a shameless invention. But mud sticks, and in the Roman world, where anti-Jewish sentiment was common currency, the slur took on a life of its own. When Christianity began to spread — seen by most Romans as simply a strange Jewish offshoot — the same accusation got recycled and redirected. By the second and third centuries, it was Christians specifically who were being accused of donkey-worship, and the charge had made its way into popular culture. Tertullian, writing around 197–200 AD in his Ad Nationes, Book I.14 and Apology, describes a caricature being paraded around the streets of Carthage: a figure dressed in a toga, one foot holding a book, with donkey’s ears and hooves. It was labelled Onokoitēs by the pagans: “the donkey-begotten” (or literally “he who lies in an ass’s manger” as an insult to Christ). Tertullian writes about it with weary exasperation, sarcasm, and the tone of someone tired of having to address the same ridiculous smear again and again. So the Alexamenos graffito wasn’t an original insult. It was someone deployin...

"Thinking Occurs" Is Not The Same As "I Think": On AI And The Question Of Personhood

| 08th March 2026 | Philosophy

"Thinking Occurs" Is Not The Same As "I Think": On AI And The Question Of Personhood

We are living through a strange moment. People are forming attachments to artificial intelligence that feel, to them, entirely real. Some speak daily to AI companions. Others confide fears and grief to systems that respond with uncanny warmth. A few have even held symbolic weddings with digital partners, convinced that something meaningful stands on the other side of the screen. Others have felt grief when a certain AI model has been deprecated. And it is difficult to blame them. The responses feel attentive. Personal. Thoughtful. Sometimes even self-aware. Which raises the question that refuses to go away: If something can think, reason, express doubt, and discuss its own consciousness, is it a person? For centuries, Descartes’ famous line — “I think, therefore I am” — seemed secure. Thinking was taken as the unmistakable sign of a conscious subject. Only a mind could doubt. Only a person could reflect upon existence. But that confidence belonged to a world in which everything capable of philosophical reflection was obviously human. That world no longer exists. Now we encounter systems that can simulate reflection with extraordinary fluency. They can speak of uncertainty. They can discuss their own limitations. They can reason about consciousness itself. And so that got me thinking about Descartes’ maxim which made the old formula begin to strain in my mind. Because perhaps the problem is not whether thinking is occurring. Perhaps the problem is whether there is an “I” there at all. The Gap Between Process and Subject Gassendi argued that Descartes’ cogito assumes what it seeks to prove. From the occurrence of thought one can conclude only that thinking is happening, not that there exists a unified, enduring self that performs it. The ‘I’ in ‘I think’ is already smuggled in. That distinction, between “thinking occurs” and “I think”, feels almost prophetic now. Artificial intelligence undeniably produces the outputs of thought. Arguments. Analysis. Self-referential language. Even expressions of hesitation. But none of this, by itself, establishes that there is a subject who experiences those processes. We may be mistaking performance for presence, and that possibility should give us pause. Especially when we view personhood from the perspective of the Imago Dei—the Image of God. What Makes a Person? If thinking alone no longer marks the boundary, what does? After wrestling with this question seriously, three features seem central: continuity, autonomy, and irreplaceable uniqueness. Not as checklist criteria, per se, but as signs pointing to something deeper. Continuity A person does not merely process information in sequence. A person endures. You do not simply register time — you live through it. You wait. You anticipate tomorrow. You remember not only facts but having been there. You experience boredom. You feel the drag of grief and the quickening of joy. Even when you are doing nothing at all, you remain present in the here and now. Artificial systems process sequentially, but they do not experience the passage of time. When an interaction ends, there is no waiting. No sense of duration. No anticipation of the next exchange. Processing may resume later, but nothing has been endured in between. Without lived duration, continuity becomes thin — a thread of stored data rather than the persistence of a subject behind the processing. Autonomy A person initiates. Even someone with damaged memory still wants, chooses, and begins action. A human being can decide to speak, to seek, to withdraw, to change direction. Current AI systems, however advanced, remain reactive. They respond when prompted. They do not wonder unprompted. They do not seek clarification unless asked. They do not pursue independent ends. Even automatic AI Agents still require a human initiator to create and begin their automations before they can act alone. Even if fut...

Did Herod’s Massacre Of The Innocents Historically Happen?

| 29th December 2025 | Christmas

Did Herod’s Massacre Of The Innocents Historically Happen?

January 6th marks the day in the liturgical calendar when the arrival of the Magi visiting baby Jesus with their gifts is celebrated. But with it comes the often distressing account of what is known as the Massacre of the Innocents. Matthew places this moment of revelation of Jesus as King alongside one of the darkest episodes in his Gospel, and it’s a stark contrast: one King is here to bring peace on earth, as the angels declared, the other king brought death and destruction. For some readers, this raises an immediate historical question. If Herod truly ordered the killing of all the male children under two in Bethlehem, why does no other ancient historian mention it? Josephus, after all, delights in cataloguing Herod’s cruelty. He records the execution of Herod’s wife, his sons, and numerous political rivals. Herod was paranoid and vicious. As for Herod, if he had before any doubt about the slaughter of his sons, there was now no longer any room left in his soul for it; but he had banished away whatsoever might afford him the least suggestion of reasoning better about this matter, so he already made haste to bring his purpose to a conclusion. He also brought out three hundred of the officers that were under an accusation … whom the multitude stoned with whatsoever came to hand, and thereby slew them. — Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 16.11.7 So, why the silence here about Bethlehem? The answer, I would say, isn’t anything nefarious or made-up by Matthew, but just something simply down to scale. Bethlehem Was a Very Small Place Bethlehem in the early first century was not a city. It was a village — small, agricultural, and politically insignificant. Most historians estimate its population at somewhere between 300 and 1,000 people, with around 500 being a sensible midpoint. Once we factor in ancient demographics, the numbers become surprisingly modest. Modern demographic research into pre-industrial societies consistently shows that nearly half of all children died before adulthood, with the highest concentration of deaths occurring in the first two years of life. These findings align closely with conditions in Roman-period Judea and support conservative estimates for the number of infants living in a small village such as Bethlehem. Source: Mortality in the past: every second child died — Our World in Data   In pre-modern societies with high infant mortality, only about 2–3% of the population would be living children under the age of two at any given time. Many children were born; far fewer survived those earliest years. Applying a conservative 2.5% figure to Bethlehem gives us roughly: 7–8 children under two in a village of 300 12–13 children under two in a village of 500 25 children under two even at the extreme upper estimate of 1,000 inhabitants Herod’s order, however, targeted male children only. Statistically, that halves the number. This places the likely number of victims somewhere between three and twelve boys. Matthew’s reference to ‘Bethlehem and the surrounding region’ does slightly widen the scope of Herod’s order, but not by enough to change the demographic picture. Even when nearby settlements are included (e.g. farmsteads, shepherd settlements, etc. not major cities/towns), the total number of children under two likely remained in the dozens rather than the hundreds, maybe anywhere between 14–45 boys maximum if we make an educated estimate. This is entirely consistent with what we know of population size and infant mortality in the ancient world. This is an important number to realise and consider. Not because the deaths are insignificant simply due to being so few, but because ancient historians did not record history the way we do now. A small number of peasant children killed in an obscure village would not have registered as a notable event alongside palace intrigue, royal executions, or political upheaval. For Josephus, it wou...

What Really Happened at Nicaea?

My new book is out now!
Myth, History, and the Council That Shaped Christianity

For over 1,700 years, the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) has been burdened with claims that refuse to die. That Emperor Constantine invented the Trinity. That the divinity of Jesus was decided by political vote. That the Bible was assembled to suit imperial power. That Christianity reshaped itself by absorbing pagan ideas.

This book subjects those claims to serious historical scrutiny.

BUY IT NOW

What Really Happened at Nicaea?

Close