Islam, Jack Chick and the Battle for Souls – “Men of Peace?” (updated)

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْم

Islam, Jack Chick and the Battle for Souls – Response to the Chick Tract “Men of Peace?”

Originally Published: February 11, 2018

Updated: December 12, 2022

Read as PDF

“And ˹remember, O Prophet,˺ when the disbelievers conspired to capture, kill, or exile you. They planned, but Allah also planned. And Allah is the best of planners.”

– The Holy Quran, Surah Al-Anfaal, 8:30

This article is a continuation of the series “Islam, Jack Chick and the Battle for Souls”. We will now discuss the tract titled “Men of Peace?”[1]

“Men of Peace?” – The Plot

            The fictional tract starts with a man running after leaving a suitcase in a public area. Immediately after, a powerful explosion rocks the city of London (“Big Ben” is shown in the foreground of the explosion). Soon thereafter, a menacing looking man is on the phone claiming that the (emphasis in the original) “wicked city is feeling the wrath of Allah”. So, it is obvious that the perpetrators of the explosion are “Islamic” terrorists (but apparently, they are not suicide bombers). The man also warns that the explosion (emphasis in the original) “is only the beginning”. He claims to be a member of a terrorist group called “Muhammad’s Faithful”, which is apparently well-known and feared since the helpless and scared white men on the other end of the phone exclaim that they are (emphasis in the original) “in DEEP trouble”.

Meanwhile, a young woman named “Jenny” reveals the horrible news to her grandfather or “Gramps” that “London’s burning”. Struggling to understand why the carnage is happening, the distraught Jenny asks the elderly (and thus “wise”) “Gramps” to explain it to her, and “Gramps” confidently answers that “[i]t’s a holy war…” When Jenny askes whose “holy war” it is, “Gramps” answers:

“Muhammad, of course!”

But Jenny is offended because, as she learned in college, Muhammad (peace be upon him):

“…was a great man who united his people under God.”

But “Gramps” tells her that he “…was nothing like what you heard.” When Jenny accuses him of being “intolerant” and tells him to stop judging “them” (Muslims) “…because of a few bad ones”, “Gramps” corrects her by explaining that the terrorists are not “fanatics” or “even bad Muslims” because they are “faithful followers of Muhammad” and “want to carry out the will of Allah”. Jenny, obviously annoyed at this point, asks if “Gramps” is claiming that “God is a terrorist”, to which the elderly man responds (emphasis in the original):

“No! I’m saying Allah is NOT God!”

He also reveals that the “God of the Bible” is “completely different” from Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He), and that the latter “was just an idol”. “Gramps” then tells Jenny that archaeologists discovered “four idols” in the 1940s, one of which was an idol of the “moon god”, which was known to the Babylonians as “Sin” and to the Arabs as “Allah”. As for the other three idols, they were allegedly identified as “the daughters of Allah” (Al-Lat, Al-Uzzah and Manat).

“Gramps” then explained that when Muhammad (peace be upon him) conquered Mecca, he cleared the Kaaba of the 360 idols which had been worshiped by the Arabs before the coming of Islam. However, he did not throw out all of the gods. Rather, he saved the “moon god”, which he declared “to be the only true God…”[2]

The puzzled Jenny then asked her know-it-all grandfather how Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) made “Muhammad his prophet”. To this, “Gramps” answered that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had “dreams and visions”, and that he would meditate in a cave. But (queue the sinister background music), there was “something lurking in the dark, watching him.” This “spirit” claimed to be the angel Gabriel and seized Muhammad (peace be upon him) “violently”, and after that, “later revelations” would come upon him, causing “seizures, headaches and convulsions”. According to “Gramps”, Muhammad (peace be upon him) thought the spirit was a “devil”, but he was convinced by his wife Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) that it was really Gabriel. Khadija was, according to “Gramps”, the “guiding force in his life”, but she was really a “Catholic widow” who, along with her “Catholic cousin” Waraqah, became Muhammad’s “trusted advisors and helped push his new religion”.

After Khadija’s death, Muhammad (peace be upon him) was left with no one “to protect or guide him” and forced to leave Mecca for Medina. Soon after, according to “Gramps”, he “began raiding caravans – robbing and killing the merchants.” Then “Gramps” asks a rhetorical question:

“[w]hat happened to the peaceful Muhammad?”

He then answers his own question (emphasis in the original):

“Allah and his ‘Angel Gabriel’ changed Muhammad into a religious dictator. He showed NO mercy!

“Unbelieving friends and relatives” were “gripped” with “terror” because “later verses of the Quran” commanded Muslims to kill them.

Even more shocking, “Gramps” explains that during his raids, Muhammad (peace be upon him) “kidnapped beautiful women and held them for ransom”, eventually amassing a “fortune”. Every terrible act, whether murder, plunder or rape of unbelievers was “lawful”. In one alleged raid on a caravan, “Gramps” claims that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had a man tortured while forcing his wife to watch while sitting in his lap![3] And even when the man gave up his money, he was still beheaded and his wife was married to Muhammad (peace be upon him)!

Concluding his shocking summary of the rise of Islam, “Gramps” explains to Jenny that:

“…Islam is NOT the ‘peaceful religion’ that people claim it to be.”

Apparently won over by “Gramps” stories (and not questioning them at all), Jenny admits that “Allah” scares her. “Gramps” answers that “behind every idol is a devil and Allah is no different.” Finally, he informs Jenny that Muhammad (peace be upon him) died in 632 CE, but that “his soul is damned for eternity”.

Even though Jenny is won over by her grandfather’s summary of Muhammad’s life, she learns that she has something in common with Muhammad (peace be upon him): they have both rejected Jesus.[4] According to “Gramps”, Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught his followers that Jesus (peace be upon him) “worships Allah”, which is an “insult to God”.[5] He then tells Jenny the story of Jesus (peace be upon him) as told in the New Testament, and how every person (even a terrorist) “…can be saved through faith in Jesus Christ.”[6] When Jenny protests that she is not a terrorist, “Gramps” tells her that she is still “lost.”[7] Jenny declares that she does not “want to go to hell” and accepts Jesus as her “savior”.

Examination of “Men of Peace?”

            As we have seen, “Men of Peace?” is another typical example of Chick’s deep-seated hostility to Islam. In other tracts, the villains are random Muslims, all of which are angry, violent men. But in “Men of Peace?” the villains are “Islamic” terrorists (but also angry and violent), who claim to “carry out the will of Allah”. Of course, real-life terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda or ISIS do claim to be carrying out the “will of Allah” by their terrorist activities, but does that make them “good Muslims”, as “Gramps” claimed? The answer is no, of course. But Chick was not interested in facts. We have already seen this in our refutations of other Chick tracts. So let us see these facts.

First, as Jenny pointed out, the terrorists go so far as to “blow up children”. Anyone who is familiar with actual Islamic teachings (which excludes “Gramps”) knows that killing non-combatants, especially women and children, is explicitly forbidden. In a hadith in Sunan Ibn Majah, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) gave orders to a military detachment which was going into battle, which included a clear prohibition against killing children:

“[g]o in the Name of Allah, and in the cause of Allah. Fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Do not mutilate, do not be treacherous, do not steal from the spoils of war, and do not kill children.”[8]

Other ahadith also make it clear that killing women and children is forbidden. For example, a hadith in Sahih Bukhari states:

“It is narrated by Ibn ‘Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) forbade the killing of women and children.”[9]

It is clear that attacks against civilians are not allowed by Islamic law, even during a state of war. As Islamic scholar Jalal Abualrub has explained, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):

“…forbade the killing of women and children and targeting civilians in war, thus, setting the righteous and humane standard of conduct during war.”[10]

Thus, it is evident that terrorists, like the fictional group “Muhammad’s Faithful”, are actually disobeying the commands of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). So how can they be “good Muslims”? Such people, who disobey a command from Allah and His Messenger, are actually condemned in the Holy Quran:

“It is not for a believing man or woman—when Allah and His Messenger decree a matter—to have any other choice in that matter. Indeed, whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has clearly gone ˹far˺ astray.”[11]

Commenting on this verse, the 13th-century scholar Ibn Kathir stated that:

“[t]his Ayah [verse] is general in meaning and applies to all matters, i.e., if Allah and His Messenger decreed a matter, no one has the right to go against that, and no one has any choice or room for personal opinion in this case.”[12]

He also quoted another verse (Surah An-Noor, 24:63) to emphasize how serious this issue was:

“So let those who disobey his orders beware, for an affliction may befall them, or a painful torment may overtake them.”

So let the real-life terrorists beware of their violations of the Prophet’s commands. They are not carrying out the “will of Allah”, and they are certainly not “good Muslims”.

On a side note, when Bible-thumping missionaries make false claims like these against Islam, such as the one made by Chick’s fictional character “Gramps”, they should be reminded that it is not the Holy Quran or the authentic ahadith which command the killing of civilians, but rather the Bible! The following examples should suffice:

“Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”[13]

“Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”[14]

“Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.”[15]

According to the Biblical standard of war, even infants were not safe, so who are the missionaries to complain about Islam, when Islam’s standard is far more humane? The usual excuse given by anti-Islamic Christians is that the commands to kill children and infants only applied to the ancient Israelites and not to Christians. But how does that change the fact that, according to their Bible, the “loving” God commanded the murders of children and infants? What kind of “loving” God is that? Moreover, as Abularub points out, since Christians believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) is “God”, then he must have been the one who commanded the Israelites to kill babies![16]

Next, “Gramps” explained to Jenny that “Allah is not God”. To back this up, he appealed again to the debunked “moon-god” myth. We have already discussed this embarrassing Christian blunder in another article, so we will only briefly discuss any new claims here.[17] According to “Gramps”, archaeologists had found “four idols” in the 1940s, the first of which was an idol of the Babylonian moon-god Sin (who was allegedly known to the Arabs as “Allah”), while the other three were identified as idols of the “daughters of Allah”.[18] We have already discussed the first so-called “idol” elsewhere (see note #18), so let us briefly discuss the supposed link between the Babylonian “moon-god” Sin and Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He). In actual fact, the Babylonian god “Sin” is different from the god identified in an excavated temple in Hadramawt in Southern Arabia (Chick did not mention this link but it was claimed by his main source for the moon-god myth: the late Robert Morey). But most importantly, no scholar has identified the latter deity as “Allah”! This deity’s name is actually spelled “S-Y-N” and not “S-I-N”. As the website “Islamic-Awareness” explains:

“…the name of the Hadramitic patron deity according to the epigraphic evidence is and it is transcribed as SYN. The case for SYN being a Moon-god rests on identifying him with the Akkadian Su-en, later Sin: the well-known north Semitic moon deity. The presence of three consonants in the name of the Hadramitic deity SYN poses problems for one wishing to equate it with the Babylonian deity Sin which is written by two signs to be pronounced EN-ZU (or ZU-EN).”[19]

Moreover, other evidence suggests that the south Arabian deity’s name was actually pronounced “Sayin”, a view which is “now widely accepted among scholars”. Based on this scholarly agreement, “Islamic-Awareness” states:

“…the Hadramitic patron deity Sayīn is different from the north Semitic deity Sin. Consequently, the former’s connection with the moon is speculative.”

Also, it is now widely accepted among scholars that “Sayin” was actually a solar deity, as shown by the presence of an eagle on some Hadramitic coins depicting “Sayin”. Since eagles were associated with the sun, and not the moon, there is no reason to think that “Sayin” was a lunar deity.[20] This scholarly consensus is summarized by the Encyclopedia Britannica, which states:

“[i]n Ḥaḍramawt the national god Syn was also a sun god: the current identification with the Mesopotamian moon god Sin (Suen) raises phonetic objections, and the symbolic animal of Syn, shown on coins, was the eagle, a solar animal.”[21]

This must add insult to injury for the missionaries since it was also proven that the Sabian deity “Almaqah” (which they also tried to equate with “Allah”) was also a solar deity rather than a lunar one![22]

As for the claim that three other idols were found and identified as the “daughters of Allah”, this is merely a fabrication. Chick was relying on the shabby and dishonest research of Robert Morey, the missionary responsible for making the “moon-god” myth so popular among Christians. As “Islamic-Awareness” states:

“[e]qually ridiculous is another of Morey’s claims that several smaller statues were also found “which were identified by their inscriptions as the “daughters” of the Moon-god.” No such statues or inscriptions accompanying them were found in Hazor. Unfortunately for Morey he has been caught red-handed fabricating evidence. Put simply, he is making up stories here.”[23]

This is probably why Chick’s tracts always have pictures of the so-called “idol” of the “moon-god” (which is actually probably a statue of a man), but never any pictures of the alleged idols of the “daughters of Allah”.[24] He always drew them as statues wearing burkas (see Figure #1), as if the pagan goddesses dressed like some Muslim women do! Being the prejudiced and deceitful man he was, Chick’s behavior was not surprising. Clearly, the missionaries were lying through their teeth!

daughters idols
Figure 1: Chick’s hilarious and ludicrous depiction of the idols of the “daughters of Allah” that were worshiped by the pre-Islamic Arabs.

Incidentally, Chick cited Cotterell and Storm’s “The Encyclopedia of World Mythology” when he mentioned the “daughters of Allah”, probably to give the illusion that he had done thorough research on the subject (which he clearly did not do). The book mentions how Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat were worshiped by the Arabs as the “daughters of Allah”,[25] which is certainly nothing new or shocking, but what it is perhaps most significant is what it does not say about Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He). In the entry under “Allah”, Cotterell and Storm state (emphasis ours):

“Allah was the supreme, though not sole, deity in Arabia before the arrival of Islam. He lived, together with other deities, in the heavens and was said to have created the earth and bestowed water on it. […] Allah is said to be supreme and transcendent; he is regarded as the creator of all life, the controller of all nature, the bestower of bounty and the judge of humankind in the last days. […] Because Allah is believed to be completely different from everything he has created, it is forbidden for anyone to attempt to portray him.”[26]

There is a glaring absence of any association between Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) with the moon, not to mention that He was never depicted![27]

Next, “Gramps” mentioned that upon conquering Mecca, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) “threw out” all the pagan idols, with the exception of the “moon god”. This directly contradicts what Chick claimed in the tract “Camel’s in the Tent”. In that tract, he claimed that:

“Muhammad threw away the moon god idol, but kept the name ‘Allah’…”[28]

So, which was it? Did Muhammad (peace be upon him) throw away all the idols or did he throw away most of them except the idol of the “moon god”? It seems Chick was a little confused. The reality is that there was no “idol” of Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) in the Kaaba nor has there ever been one. Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) was worshiped as the supreme deity by the Arab pagans, but even they never had any idols of Him.

Next, “Gramps” repeated another silly Christian polemic against Muhammad (peace be upon him) regarding the life-changing experience that began his prophetic mission. As usual, “Gramps” provided a less-than honest summary of the experience. According to him, Muhammad (peace be upon him) had “dreams and visions” and would frequently meditate in a cave. But in the cave, there was something else present, and this “spirit” manifested in a “physical form” and essentially choked Muhammad (peace be upon him) three times. We have already refuted this utterly false summary in another article:

“…the claim that this “powerful force” had “strangled” Muhammad (peace be upon him) is simply a lie. Chick made it up! None of the sources, whether Ibn Ishaq or the authentic accounts in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim say that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was “strangled”. In actual fact, they all state that the being had “caught” or “pressed” him in a powerful embrace.”[29]

Also, regarding the “dreams and visions”, it was observed that:

“…his prophethood actually began with dreams that would come true and, according to some reports (such as in Ibn Ishaq), trees and stones would greet him as he walked by saying: ‘Peace unto thee, O apostle of Allah.’ The reports of dreams are found in the authentic collections as well.”

So, as we can see, “Gramps” was not being honest. Not only did the “spirit” not strangle the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the “dreams and visions” he had would actually come true (as we would expect when a true prophet has such visions), and according to some sources like Ibn Ishaq, even inanimate objects would greet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and refer to him as the “apostle of Allah”! Perhaps “Gramps” ignored these facts (or did not know them) because they did not fit into his absurd and biased narrative!

Next, “Gramps” blamed the Prophet’s wife Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) for convincing him that the “spirit” in the cave was indeed the angel Gabriel. He even referred to her as the “guiding force in his life”. Not only that, but he claimed that she was a “Catholic widow”, who together with her cousin Waraqah, became Muhammad’s “trusted advisors”. First, the idea that Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) was a “Catholic widow” is laughable and absurd. The origin of this utterly idiotic claim is the conspiracy theory propounded by Chick that the Vatican created Islam. This topic requires a separate article, so for now, let us simply consider the claim that Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) was a former Catholic nun. In short, there is absolutely no evidence for this claim! All of the Islamic sources agree that Waraqah was a convert to Christianity, but none of them say the same for Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) or even hint that she was a Christian. Furthermore, if Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) was a Catholic, and Muhammad (peace be upon him) had known this, then why would she have taken him to see Waraqah in the first place? She could have easily told him what he needed to hear! Furthermore, had there been any hint that she was a Christian, surely scholarly sources would mention it. But unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists, such scholarly sources do not exist. Here is how the orientalist scholar W. Montgomery Watt described Khadija and Waraqah (emphasis ours):

“…soon after the first revelation, [Muhammad] is said to have been encouraged to believe in his vocation by his wife Khadija, and more particularly, by her cousin Waraqah. The latter had become a Christian and was reputed to be familiar with the Bible.”[30]

So, while Waraqah’s Christian religion is emphasized, the religion of Khadija is not. But if she was a Christian, then why would that have been taken for granted and not even mentioned? Clearly, there is no true provenance for the claim that she was a Christian.

Equally absurd is the claim that it was Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) who protected Muhammad (peace be upon him) from his enemies in Mecca. According to “Gramps”, when she died, there was no one “left to protect or guide [Muhammad]”. This is completely false. As a matter of fact, it was not Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) who protected Muhammad (peace be upon him), but rather his uncle Abu Talib. As Watt explains:

“Muhammad himself still enjoyed the protection of his clan, though that did not exempt him from minor insults, such as having his neighbors’ rubbish and waste dumped at his door. Abu-Jahl is said to have appealed more than once to Muhammad’s uncle Abu-
Talib, who was head of the clan, either to stop his nephew proclaiming the new religion or else withdraw his protection from him.”[31]

The eminent scholar Karen Armstrong also echoes this sentiment:

“[a]s long as Abu Talib was his protector and could make this protection effective nobody in Mecca would be able to touch him.”[32]

Despite being wealthy, Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) was not in a position to protect Muhammad (peace be upon him). The main reason for this is that she was a woman, and not the leader of her clan. In fact, the year that she died was the same year that Abu Talib died, and so it became known as “the year of grief and sorrow”.[33] Of course, the death of his beloved wife caused great grief for Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and affected him greatly, but in terms of his safety in Mecca, it had no significance. Rather, it was the death of Abu Talib that gave the pagans the free hand they needed to deal with the religion Muhammad (peace be upon him) was preaching. In fact, he said himself that:

“[t]he Quraish did not have an effect on me such as they did after the death of Abu Talib.”[34]

Watt describes the change in fortunes after Abu Talib’s death as follows:

“[t]he repercussions of the death of Abu-Talib were much more serious for Muhammad. Abu-Talib was succeeded as chief of the clan of Hashim by his brother Abu-Lahab.”[35]

After Abu Talib’s death, the Quraish became bolder in their persecution, which ultimately culminated in an assassination attempt which Muhammad (peace be upon him) miraculously escaped. Thus, not only is it absurd for the missionaries to claim that Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) was a Catholic widow sent by the Vatican to start a new religion in distant Arabia, but also that she was the protector of Muhammad (peace be upon him) in a patriarchal society. The missionaries seem to be getting desperate!

“Gramps” then stated that Muhammad (peace be upon him) fled to Medina and began “raiding caravans” and “robbing and killing the merchants”. Of course, as we have already seen, “Gramps” had a tendency to lie more often than not. The fact is that even after leaving Mecca, Muhammad (peace be upon him) still had to contend with the plots of the pagans. It is well-known that the Quraish contacted the pagans in Medina (led by Abdullah bin Ubai Ibn Salul) and demanded their cooperation in destroying Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his people. According to Al-Mubarakpuri:

“[t]hey [Quraish] sent him [Abdullah] a strongly worded ultimatum ordering him to fight or expel the Prophet [peace be upon him], otherwise they would launch a widespread military campaign that would kill his people and arrest his women.”[36]

If this was the attitude of the Quraish, then who could fault Muhammad (peace be upon him) from taking up arms against them? The Quraish were busy trying to create alliances against the Muslims, so permission was given to the Muslims to fight against their enemies. “Gramps” credulously asked “what happened to the peaceful Muhammad?”, as if being peaceful meant one could never strive to defend oneself from physical harm! Being “peaceful” does not make one a “pacifist”. It was Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) who gave permission to the Muslims to fight against their oppressors (emphasis ours):

“Permission ˹to fight back˺ is ˹hereby˺ granted to those being fought, for they have been wronged. And Allah is truly Most Capable of helping them ˹prevail˺.”[37]

So, Muhammad (peace be upon him) fought against the Quraish because they were waging war on him and striving to kill his people. No reasonable person (which excludes Christians like “Gramps”) would find this to be objectionable.

But what about the egregious accusations of “raiding caravans” and “robbing and killing the merchants”? As with most Chick polemics, this one is also more deceitful propaganda rather than facts. The fact is that Muhammad (peace be upon him) dispatched squads to intercept caravans belonging to Quraish, and which often times, were led by their leaders such as Abu Sufyan and Abu Jahl. Targeting the caravans and the main trade routes would make sense during a war. As Al-Mubarakpuri explains, the Muslims had two options “to bring the commercial routes leading to Makkah under their control”:

  1. Making treaties with strategically-located tribes.
  2. “Dispatching successive armed missions for harassment along the strategic commercial routes”.[38]

Even so, the early raids on the caravans were not as widespread and there was actually very little fighting or casualties. Al-Mubarakpuri provides a list of these early missions, which preceded the Battle of Badr.[39] The list is reproduced here along with a brief summary of each mission:

  1. Saiful-Bahr – Ramadan, 1 AH (after Hijra)/623 CE

Thirty Muslims led by the Prophet’s uncle Hamzah bin Abdul-Muttalib (may Allah be pleased with him) attempted to intercept a caravan of 300 people led by Abu Jahl. However, no fighting occurred as a peaceful resolution was reached due to a mediator, whose name was Majdi bin ‘Amr.

  1. Rabigh – Shawwal, 1 AH/April 623 CE

Sixty Muslims intercepted a caravan of 200 people led by Abu Sufyan. No man-to-man fighting occurred, but two people from the Quraish ranks defected and joined the Muslims.

  1. Al-Abwa/Waddan – Safar, 2 AH/623 CE

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself led a group of 70 Muslims to intercept a Quraish caravan. No encounter occurred, but the Prophet did sign a non-aggression pact between himself and the Bani Damrah tribe. The pact stated:

“…concerning Bani Damrah in which he [Muhammad] established them safe and secure in their wealth and lives. They can expect support from the Muslims unless they oppose the religion of Allah. They are also expected to respond positively in case the Prophet sought their help.”[40]

  1. Buwat – Rabi’ul-Awwal, 2 AH/623 CE

Once again, Muhammad (peace be upon him) led a group of 200 Muslims to intercept a caravan led by Umaiyah bin Khalaf (the torturer of Bilal; see note #41) with 100 other people and 2,500 camels.[41] But the caravan had already left by the time the Muslims reached Buwat.

  1. Safwan – Rabi’ul-Awwal, 2 AH/623 CE

In this case, Muhammad (peace be upon him) led a group of 70 Muslims in pursuit of Kurz bin Jabir Al-Fihri, who had raided Medina and “looted some animals”. Kurz was able to outrun the pursuing Muslim army.[42]

  1. Dhil-Ushairah – Jumada Al-Ula/Jumada Al-Akhirah, 2 AH/November/December 623 CE

The Prophet led about 200 Muslims to intercept yet another caravan, but as before, they could not catch it in time. However, the Muslims were able to sign another treaty, this time with the people of Bani Mudlij and Bani Dumrah.

  1. Nakhla – Rajab, 2 AH/January 624 CE

The famous Nakhla raid occurred when 12 Muslims, led by Abdullah bin Jahsh, were sent to intercept a Quraish caravan. This raid preceded the Battle of Badr, which would be the first time the Muslim army would directly fight against the pagans. In contrast to previous attempts, this time the Muslims managed to intercept the caravan. However, since it was the sacred month of Rajab, there was a question as to whether fighting was allowed. The Arabs did not fight in the months of Rajab, Dhul-Hijjah, Dhul-Qa’dah, and Muharram. After consultation, however, the Muslims agreed amongst themselves to attack. During the fighting, a prominent leader of the Quraish, Amr bin Al-Hadrami, was killed and two prisoners were taken. The Muslims captured the entire caravan, which consisted of raisins and other goods, and was then divided up, with 1/5 going to Muhammad (peace be upon him), who of course distributed it among his followers and kept none for himself. While the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) initially disapproved of the decision to attack the caravan, a revelation (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:217) from Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) excused the attack, since the Quraish had been responsible for the conflict in the first place and had themselves violated the sacred months in their effort to eliminate the Muslims. The verse states:

“They ask you ˹O Prophet˺ about fighting in the sacred months. Say, ‘Fighting during these months is a great sin. But hindering ˹others˺ from the Path of Allah, rejecting Him, and expelling the worshippers from the Sacred Mosque is ˹a˺ greater ˹sin˺ in the sight of Allah. For persecution is far worse than killing.”

As Al-Mubarakpuri explains:

“[t]he sacred inviolable sanctities had been repeatedly violated in the long process of fighting Islam and persecuting the believers. The wealth of the Muslims as well as their homes had already been violated and their Prophet [peace be upon him] had been the target of repeated attempts on his life.”[43]

Amazingly, Muhammad (peace be upon him) released the two prisoners and also paid the diyah (blood money) to the father of Amr bin Al-Hadrami. In other words, he paid money to the father of an enemy soldier, who if the roles had reversed, would not have hesitated to kill Muhammad (peace be upon him) or his followers! Would a “merciless robber” do that?

So, as we have seen, there were seven attempted “raids” on the Quraish caravans, only one of which ended in some light fighting, some casualties and spoils being taken. Where is the evidence of “robbing” caravans or “killing the merchants”? Thus far, over a course about 2 years, only one so-called “merchant” had been killed! In some cases, peaceful resolutions were reached to avoid any fighting, as in the Saif-ul Bahr mission, whereas in others, treaties were signed between the Muslims and previously hostile tribes, as in the case of the Al-Abwa/Waddan and Dhil-Ushairah missions. As Muhammad Asad observed:

“[t]he story of the Prophet’s expeditions before Badr forces the conclusion on us that their real object was not the acquisition of booty. Had this been the case, the Prophet would have had no reason to spare the hostile Banu Damrah in the expedition of Abwa.”[44]

Also, Chick and his sock-puppet “Gramps” would need to explain how Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was allegedly motivated by money and yet according to Ibn Ishaq, he returned the wealth of the Meccans that he was holding as a trust when he was leaving for Yathrib. Ibn Ishaq notes that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was told to “restore the deposits which the apostle held”.[45] Imagine that! A supposed “robber” was holding “deposits” from other people and made sure to return them to their rightful owners!

Moving on, perhaps “Gramps” should have turned his criticism towards the Bible, and its stories of mass slaughter and taking of vast riches from conquered cities. For example, when the Israelites, led by Joshua, attacked Jericho and Ai, they completely destroyed the cities and everyone in them and took the spoils of war for themselves. This is how the Bible describes the carnage:

  1. Jericho –

“They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.”[46]

“Then they burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the Lord’s house.”[47]

  1. Ai –

“Twelve thousand men and women fell that day – all the people of Ai. […] But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the Lord had instructed Joshua.”[48]

So, what exactly about Muhammad’s campaigns was “Gramps” complaining about? Was it the lack of mass slaughter and pillaging? There is absolutely no comparison to the Prophet’s campaigns, which were characterized mainly by diplomacy, and the Biblical campaigns, which were characterized by brutal acts of genocide.

“Gramps” then claimed that the “unbelieving friends and relatives” of Muslims were “gripped” with “terror” because “later verses” ordered their deaths. He appealed to such verses as Surah Al-Maeda, 5:33 and Surah Al-Anfal, 8:60-65, but when these verses are actually examined, it is easy to see that “Gramps” was simply lying again. Here are the relevant verses (emphasis ours):

  1. 5:33 –

Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land is death, crucifixion, cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, or exile from the land. This ˹penalty˺ is a disgrace for them in this world, and they will suffer a tremendous punishment in the Hereafter.”

As we can see, the verse is clearly referring to those who “wage war” against the Muslims. It does not say anything about killing anyone simply for being an unbeliever. If it was the latter case, then why did Muhammad (peace be upon him) make treaties with pagan tribes like the Bani Damrah?[49]

  1. 8:60-65 –

“Prepare against them what you ˹believers˺ can of ˹military˺ power and cavalry to deter Allah’s enemies and your enemies as well as other enemies unknown to you but known to Allah. Whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be paid to you in full and you will not be wronged. If the enemy is inclined towards peace, make peace with them. And put your trust in Allah. Indeed, He ˹alone˺ is the All-Hearing, All-Knowing. But if their intention is only to deceive you, then Allah is certainly sufficient for you. He is the One Who has supported you with His help and with the believers. He brought their hearts together. Had you spent all the riches in the earth, you could not have united their hearts. But Allah has united them. Indeed, He is Almighty, All-Wise. O Prophet! Allah is sufficient for you and for the believers who follow you. O Prophet! Motivate the believers to fight. If there are twenty steadfast among you, they will overcome two hundred. And if there are one hundred of you, they will overcome one thousand of the disbelievers, for they are a people who do not comprehend.”

It is difficult to understand why “Gramps” would appeal to these verses, since verse 61 clearly says that if the enemy offers peace, then the Muslims are commanded to accept it!

So, we can see that the egregious accusations of widespread raids and killing of merchants and family members are pure nonsense. Similarly, the claim that the Muslims “kidnapped beautiful women and held them for ransom” so that Muhammad (peace be upon him) eventually “amassed a fortune” is also utter nonsense. Not surprisingly, “Gramps” did not provide any examples of such “kidnappings”. Which “beautiful women” were “kidnapped” and “held for ransom”? When searching the Islamic sources, we actually find that women were not being “kidnapped” via random raids. As a matter of fact, prisoners were taken after battles between the Muslims and the tribes that were allied with the Quraish. This included men, women, and children, who were often ransomed for money or exchanged for Muslim prisoners. Let us look at one example from Sahih Muslim, in which the narrator, Salama bin al-Awka, described a battle with a tribe known as Banu Faraza, and the taking of prisoners afterwards (emphasis ours):

“Among them [the prisoners] was a woman from Banu Fazara. She was wearing a leather coat. With her was her daughter who was one of the prettiest girls in Arabia. I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr who bestowed that girl upon me as a prize. So we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) met me in the street and said: Give me that girl, O Salama. I said: Messenger of Allah, she has fascinated me. I had not yet disrobed her. When on the next day the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) again met me in the street, he said: O Salama, give me that girl, may God bless your father. I said: She is for you, Messenger of Allah! By Allah, I have not yet disrobed her. The Messenger of Allah () sent her to the people of Mecca, and surrendered her as ransom for a number of Muslims who had been kept as prisoners at Mecca.[50]

In this case, the beautiful woman was “ransomed” for Muslim prisoners who were being held captive by the pagans at Mecca. No money was involved, only an exchange of prisoners. This shows that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not after money or beautiful women. The only thing that mattered was the spreading of Islam and the safety of his followers.

Furthermore, it is ludicrous to say that Muhammad (peace be upon him) “amassed a fortune” when, as we have seen, the collection of spoils and money was not his primary concern at all. Even when making raids on his enemies, he actually made alliances and trades, rather than holding people hostage to extort money from their families. In fact, in some cases, he actually released prisoners out of charity, taking into consideration the poverty of their families. In fact, Ibn Ishaq, one of the favorite sources of the deceitful missionaries, related that on one such occasion, Muhammad (peace be upon him) released a man named Abu Azza. According to Ibn Ishaq:

“[h]e was a poor man whose family consisted of daughters, and he said to the apostle: ‘You know that I have no money, and am in real need with a large family, so let me go without ransom.’ The apostle did so on condition that he should not fight against him.”[51]

Why didn’t “Gramps” tell Jenny this story? The propensity for the missionaries to lie and exaggerate shows how far they will go in their dishonesty to malign the greatest man who ever lived.

It should also be asked that if Muhammad (peace be upon him) was simply after money and power, then why did he not take advantage of the Quraish’s offer to him when he was still in Mecca in the early days of his preaching? This story is well-known, but the missionaries ignore it either out of ignorance or willful dishonesty. Al-Mubarakpuri relates that after the conversions of Hamzah bin Al-Muttalib (the Prophet’s uncle) and Umar bin Al-Khattab, the leaders of Quraish decided to negotiate with Muhammad (peace be upon him) and sent Utbah bin Rabiah to literally make him an offer he could not refuse. Here is what Utbah said to Muhammad (peace be upon him):

“[i]f you are doing all this with a view to getting wealth, we will join together to give you greater riches than any Quraishite has possessed. If ambition moves you, we will make you our chief. If you desire kingship we will readily offer you that. If you are under the power of an evil spirit which seems to haunt and dominate you so that you cannot shake off its yoke, then we shall call in skillful physicians to cure you.”[52]

Of course, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) rejected this offer. Wealth, power, and kingship did not appeal to him (and he was certainly not being “haunted” by an evil spirit). It is illogical to claim that he wanted wealth and power, yet rejected this offer of wealth and power, and then left Mecca because it became dangerous, only to wage a war against the Quraish, and steal from merchants or hold them hostage for ransom, so that he could “amass” a “fortune”! But since when are missionaries like Chick known for their “logic”?

Finally, we should ask that if Muhammad (peace be upon him) had sought wealth, then why did he not possess such wealth at the time of his death? According to all sources, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) died with very meager possessions, as mentioned in Sahih al-Bukhari:

“Narrated ‘Amir bin Al-Harith: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) did not leave a Dinar or a Dirham or a male or a female slave. He left only his white mule on which he used to ride, and his weapons, and a piece of land which he gave in charity for the needy travelers.”[53]

Where did his “fortune” go? We can see that “Gramps” was an ignoramus who made ludicrous accusations against Muhammad (peace be upon him) based on some very unreliable information. In fact, besides all of these fabrications, there is one that is utterly laughable and is proof-positive of the deception of the Christians.

According to “Gramps”, on one particular raid on a “caravan” (which was actually not a caravan but the city of Khaibar), Muhammad (peace be upon him) had a man tortured to force him to give up his money and also forced his wife, whose name was Safiya, to watch the whole thing “while sitting on his lap”. Let us provide the facts of the expedition to Khaibar and expose the lies of the missionaries.

First, as already mentioned, it was not a “caravan” that was attacked. It was the aftermath of the battle of Khaibar between the Muslims and the Jews of Bani Nadir. The Bani Nadir had been previously expelled from Medina after their treachery against Muhammad (peace be upon him) had been exposed.[54] Even after being expelled yet being allowed to keep their wealth as an act of mercy (rather than being killed in the ways of the Bible), the Bani Nadir remained a threat to the Muslims, despite repeated attempts by Muhammad (peace be upon him) to settle their differences peacefully. As Al-Mubarakpuri explains:

“The Jews of Khaibar, united by an ancient alliance with the Confederates, provoked Bani Quraizah to practice treachery, maintained contacts with Ghatafan and the Arabians and they even devised an attempt on the Prophet’s life. […] Envoys were repeatedly sent to them for peaceful settlement, but all in vain.”[55]

Second, once the battle had commenced, the Jews realized that they would lose and ironically asked for a peace treaty. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), once again choosing to be merciful, agreed to spare them (emphasis ours):

“…on condition [that] they evacuate Khaibar and the adjacent lands, leaving whatever gold and silver they had in their possession. However, he specified that he would give up any commitment if they concealed anything.”[56]

So, the Bani Nadir agreed to surrender their wealth and not to hide any of it. But some of them decided to once again resort to treachery. One particular man, Kinana bin Ar-Rabi, hid a bag full of jewels belonging to the chief of Bani Nadir, Huyai bin Al-Akhtab. “Gramps” claimed that Kinana was tortured so that he would reveal the location of the bag, but that is not entirely accurate (we will discuss the “torture” issue later). Once again, it seems the Christians only selectively use their favorite source, Ibn Ishaq, who provided the details of the incident. Here is what Ibn Ishaq stated:

“Kinana b. al-Rabi’, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, ‘Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?’ he said ‘Yes.’ The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-‘Awwam, ‘Torture him until you extract what he has,’ so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud.”[57]

So, as a matter of fact, Muhammad (peace be upon him) gave Kinana a warning to reveal the location of the jewels as per the treaty, which Kinana refused to do. Also, it was a fellow Jew who revealed that Kinana was lying, and only after some of the treasure had been recovered, thus proving Kinana a liar, was he “tortured” until he was finally killed! Notice also that there is absolutely no mention of Safiya, the wife of Kinana, being made to watch her husband’s torture! This is simply a fabrication! Chick’s only source for this outrageous accusation is the unknown pseudo-scholar and apostate Mohammad Al-Ghazoli’s book “Christ, Muhammad and I”. When searching this laughable book for a source on this episode, we find that Al-Ghazoli also failed to provide any. The reason is clear: there is no such source and Al-Ghazoli made it up, while Chick, who was equally clueless, blindly copied it into his tract!

As a side note, it should be pointed out that while the missionaries indulge in their crocodile tears for Kinana, Ibn Ishaq revealed his true nature. He was a violent and abusive man. According to Ibn Ishaq, he struck his wife Safiya to the extent that it gave her a black eye. In contrast, Muhammad (peace be upon him) forbid striking one’s wife on the face, let alone using such brutal force.[58] Here is Ibn Ishaq’s account:

“[n]ow Safiya had seen in a dream when she was the wife of Kinana b. al-Rabi’ b. Abu’l-Huqayq that the moon would fall into her lap. When she told her husband he said, ‘This simply means that you covet the king of the Hijaz, Muhammad.’ He gave her such a blow in the face that he blacked her eye. When she was brought to the apostle the mark was still there, and when he asked the cause of it she told him this story.”[59]

Finally, let us discuss the alleged “torture” of Kinana. Ibn Ishaq does certainly mention that he was “tortured”, but this has been a matter of controversy. In comparison to Ibn Ishaq, the Muslim scholar al-Tabari does not mention any “torture” and simply stated (like Ibn Ishaq) that Kinana had been:

“…killed by Muhammad b. Maslamah at the Prophet’s order. He was struck on the neck until he died.”[60]

In addition, many scholars state that the report of Kinana’s “torture” cannot be true since the authentic ahadith state that it was forbidden to torture a person with fire.[61] Whatever the truth of the matter is, what we have seen is that Kinana and the other members of the Bani Nadir had acted treacherously and repeatedly violated their treaty obligations. Even if Kinana was “tortured”, the missionaries certainly have no moral grounds from which to judge, for we find a few incidents of brutal acts of torture done by the Biblical heroes and no condemnation of these acts by “Yahweh”. Here are some examples:

  1. In the period of the Judges, God commanded the Israelites to attack the Canaanites and Perizzites. During one battle, they captured Adoni-Bezek, one of the Canaanite kings:

“[i]t was there that they found Adoni-Bezek and fought against him, putting to rout the Canaanites and Perizzites. Adoni-Bezek fled, but they chased him and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and big toes.”[62]

  1. The Israelite hero Gideon tortured the elders of Sukkoth with thorns and briers because they had not given bread to his men:

“[h]e took the elders of the town and taught the men of Sukkoth a lesson by punishing them with desert thorns and briers. He also pulled down the tower of Peniel and killed the men of the town.”[63]

We can see that torture was used by the Israelites, and “Yahweh” said nothing to condemn it (i.e., “Yahweh” approved of the torture)!

We have now discussed and refuted all of the claims made by “Gramps” against Muhammad (peace be upon him). Before we close, let us briefly discuss his rant about what the Quran says about Jesus (peace be upon him). “Gramps” felt that when the Holy Quran says that Jesus (peace be upon him) worshiped Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He), it “is an insult to God”. “Gramps” must have forgotten that, in the New Testament, Jesus worshiped God,[64] so there is no “insult” in saying that he worshiped Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He), which is what Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews called God. Indeed, the blessed Jesus (peace be upon him) worshiped Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He), just like all the prophets did:

“We surely sent a messenger to every community, saying, “Worship Allah and shun false gods.” But some of them were guided by Allah, while others were destined to stray. So travel throughout the land and see the fate of the deniers!”[65]


            In this article, we have examined the Chick tract “Men of Peace?” Yet again, we have shown evidence of the shoddy research of Jack Chick and the outright lies he directed towards the blessed Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him). We have shown that, contrary to the rants of the fictional character “Gramps”, Muhammad (peace be upon him) was indeed a great man, who called people to the worship of the One God, who was merciful even to his enemies, who favored peace rather than war, and who shunned material things to live a life of simplicity. That is the real Muhammad (peace be upon him).

And Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) knows best!


[2] As we will see, Chick contradicts another tract, in which he claimed that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had thrown out all the idols of the Kaaba, including the alleged idol of the “moon god”.

[3] As we will see, this is a complete and utter fabrication!

[4] Of course, as any person with even a rudimentary knowledge of Islam knows, Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not “reject” Jesus (peace be upon him). In fact, it is a central tenet of Islam to accept all the prophets of God. Muslims simply reject (and rightfully so) that Jesus was “God” or the “son of God” or claimed to be such things.

[5] “Gramps” evidently did not realize that the Biblical Jesus worshiped God as well. Muhammad (peace be upon him) emphasized the humanity of Jesus (peace be upon him), and rejected the contradictory Christian idea that Jesus was “God” and yet also worshiped God.

[6] Apparently, “Gramps” had never told Jenny this story before, despite being an obvious Bible-thumping missionary!

[7] The fact that Jenny is no different from a terrorist reveals a fundamental flaw in Christian theology which requires a separate discussion that is outside the scope of this article.

[8] Sunan Ibn Majah, 2857;

[9] Sahih Muslim, 1744b;

[10] Jalal Abualrub, 50 Righteous and Humane Concepts Brought by Muhammad (Madinah Publishers and Distributors, 2007), p. 111.

[11] Surah Al-Ahzaab, 33:36.


[13] Numbers 31:17-18.

[14] 1 Samuel 15:3.

[15] Ezekiel 9:5-6.

[16] Abularub, op. cit., p. 108.


[18] This is the same “idol” which Chick referred to in the tract “Allah Had No Son”, though it was a different pagan deity (Almaqah) that Chick claimed was the inspiration for the Arab deity “Allah”. As we explained in the discussion of that tract, there has been disagreement among scholars as to whether the statue found at Hazor was of a deity or just a person. We also pointed out that even among those scholars who believe that the statue is of a deity, none have identified it as being an “idol” of “Allah” (Glorified and Exalted be He).


[20] Ibid. For pictures of some of these coins, see the “Islamic-Awareness” article (note #19).


[22] See the discussion on the tract “Allah Had No Son” (note #17).


[24] Of course, in the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the so-called “daughters of Allah” were worshiped via idols. So, it would not be surprising if such idols were discovered by archaeologists. The Holy Quran mentions that the pagans attributed “daughters” to Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He), so this is not a new development. But what is most important is that there NEVER was any “idol” of Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He).

[25] Arthur Cotterell and Rachel Storm, The Encyclopedia of World Mythology: A comprehensive A-Z of the myths and legends of Greece, Rome, Egypt, Persia, India, China, and the Norse and Celtic lands (London: Lorenz Books, 2006), pp. 262-263, 297.

[26] Ibid., p. 263.

[27] Cotterell and Storm also note that the deity “Wadd” was a moon god that was worshipped “in certain parts of southern Arabia from the fifth to the second centuries BC” and is mentioned in the Quran (Surah Nuh, 71:23) as one of the gods worshiped by the people of Noah (peace be upon him) (Ibid., p. 328). But they still make no association with this deity and Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He). If Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) was a “moon god”, then the Quran’s condemnation of the worship of Wadd would not have made sense!

Not only that, but as it turns out, moon gods were quite prevalent in pre-Islamic Arabia. Besides Wadd, other moon gods included Aglibol (who was worshipped at Palmyra) and Amm (a moon god in the south Arabian pantheon) (Ibid., pp. 262, 264). But none of these pagan deities were EVER associated with Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He)! Interestingly, however, there is one deity that is conspicuously never associated with an Arabian moon god by Cotterell and Storm: the Babylonian moon god Sin himself, whom Chick claimed was none other than “Allah” to the Arabs (Ibid., pp. 318-319)!

But Cotterell and Storm do make a rather strange claim regarding the pre-Islamic deity Hubal. According to them, an image of Hubal is still in the Kaaba today (Ibid., p. 285)! It is unclear what part of the Kaaba they are referring to, but suffice it so, there are no “idols” or “images” in the Kaaba today. They were all removed by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Cotterell and Storm also make the claim the “Black Stone” is somehow associated with Hubal. But this claim is not very impressive, as all they could say about it was the following:

“[i]t is believed that the Black Stone of the Ka’aba might be connected with the god in some way.”

This is rather vague. The fact is that there is no evidence to suggest that the “Black Stone” was worshipped as an “image” of Hubal. While it is likely that the stone was worshipped by the pre-Islamic Arabs (but not as a symbol of Hubal), this practice was stopped with the coming of Islam. As Eric Staples states:

“[i]ts exact origins are uncertain, though it was probably one of the sacred objects worshipped in Mecca in pre-Islamic times. Western scholars assert that it may have originally been a meteorite. Early Muslim accounts say that it was originally a radiant white sapphire brought by Gabriel to Adam after his expulsion from Paradise” (Eric Staples, “Black Stone”, in Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. Juan E. Campo (New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2009), p. 108).

Thus, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) stopped the worship of the stone while acknowledging its true origin as a relic of Paradise.

On a side note, Cotterell and Storm also make an interesting entry under “Yahweh”, which is the name given to God in the Bible. They state that Yahweh:

“…probably originated as a mountain god and was identified with El, the supreme deity of the Canaanite pantheon” (Ibid., p. 329).

Perhaps Chick should have spent more time trying to figure out why Yahweh is associated with Canaanite mythology, rather than peddling the debunked “moon god” myth against Islam!



[30] W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesmen (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), p. 22.

[31] Ibid., p. 76.

[32] Karen Armstrong, Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1992), p. 120.

[33] Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, The Sealed Nectar: Biography of the Noble Prophet (Riyadh: Darussalam, 2002), pp. 148-151.

This was in the 10th year of Muhammad’s prophethood, approximately 619 CE (Ibid., p. 148; Watt, op. cit., p. 79).

[34] As quoted in Al-Mubarakpuri, op. cit., p. 151.

[35] Watt, op. cit., p. 79.

Abu Lahab was among the vilest enemies of Islam. However, he too was held back by tribal custom and was forced to provide some protection to Muhammad (peace be upon him). But this did not last long.

[36] Al-Mubarakpuri, op. cit., p. 239.

[37] Surah Al-Hajj, 22:39.

[38] Al-Mubarakpuri, op. cit., p. 242.

[39] Ibid., pp. 243-250.

[40] In his commentary on this incident, Muhammad Asad explained that Bani Damrah was a “hostile tribe” which agreed “never again to help any enemy of the Muslims” (Sahih Bukhari: The Early Years of Islam, tr. Muhammad Asad (Kuala Lumpur: Islamic Book Trust, 2013), p. 256.).

[41] Umaiyah bin Khalaf was a leading member of the Quraish. He is best known as the former master of Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him). When Bilal converted to Islam, Umaiyah tortured him to force him to renounce his faith. This story is well-known to Muslims.

[42] Asad states that Kurz converted to Islam shortly after this incident (Asad, op. cit., p. 256).

[43] Al-Mubarakpuri, op. cit., p. 247.

[44] Asad, op. cit., p. 256.

[45] Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, trans. Alfred Guillaume (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 227.

[46] Joshua, 6:21.

[47] Joshua 6:24.

[48] Joshua 8:25-27.

As it turns out, this account is probably an anachronistic story. The word “Ai” literally means “ruin”. Since it is unlikely that a city that was inhabited by thousands of people would be called a “ruin”, the name “Ai” must have originated centuries later, when it was literally just a bunch of ruins.

[49] For more on this verse, see the explanation here:

[50] Sahih Muslim, 1755;

[51] Ibn Ishaq, op. cit., p. 318.

[52] Al-Mubarakpuri, op. cit., pp. 133-136.

[53] Sahih al-Bukhari, 4461;

[54] Al-Mubarakpuri, op. cit., pp. 354-359.

[55] Ibid., p. 431.

[56] Ibid., p. 439.

[57] Ibn Ishaq, op. cit., p. 515.

[58] See our article on Chick’s tract “Is Allah Like You?”:

[59] Ibn Ishaq, op. cit., p. 515.

[60] The History of Al-Tabari, Vol. IX, The Last Years of the Prophet, trans. Ismail K. Poonawala (New York: State University of New York Press, 1990), p. 135.


[62] Judges 1:5-6. In verse 7, Adoni-Bezek laments that he did the same thing to 70 other kings, and “[n]ow God has paid me back for what I did to them.”

[63] Judges 8:16-17.

[64] See Matthew 26:39ff. See also John 20:17, where Jesus refers to God as “my God”.

[65] Surah An-Nahl, 16:36.

15 thoughts on “Islam, Jack Chick and the Battle for Souls – “Men of Peace?” (updated)

  1. You may recall your many wrecking jobs of “Joel” the fristian who posts at williams blog, but I think I know who he is, he might be “Bob the builder”

    It’s the same arguments man, the same trashy arguments which were addressed on bt

    It is possible jelly is none other than Bob the builder

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Shad

    Jenny seems to be like her grandpa by the way, swallowing whatever the old man says without at least thinking of cross-checking the claims… QB, hope your future granddaughter doesn’t turn out to be like Jenny…

    Liked by 1 person

      1. brother , i remember patrice rebutting a fristian on the claim “the angel who appeared to Muhammad did not identify himself”

        Pat said :

        Here is a quote from one of your earlier comments – “No emissary of god could possible be the cause of such confusion.” Just in case you may have forgotten. I would also refer you to what Mozer has said about Joshua mistaking an Angel for an enemy soldier:

        “Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”

        “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?” – Joshua 5:13-14

        The parallel between Joshua and Mohammad is almost identical. The reality is that this could not have been a demon because as you well know Jesus tells us:

        “If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.” – Mark 3:24

        Why would a demon herald a religion which teaches people that there is only one God and the purpose of life is to worship him alone, abandon idolatry and practice good morals. The same message as Jesus and Moses? I hope this demon got the sack for such incompetance

        The reason why Joshua is ‘clear within moments’ is because the Angel tells him who he is, however when Gabriel first appears to Prophet Muhammad, no such announcement exists. The comparison Joshua and Muhammad is that when they knew who had appeared to them was they accepted what was revealed to them was from God, this is the most important point rather than the particulars of how long it took and what they thought beforehand is irrelevant. To put it simply is there any indication from Joshua, Jacob, and St Mary that they would have caught on by themselves? I doubt it.

        On to your second point, Prophet Muhammad did not worship one God over others but instead preached that there is only one God, there are no other gods. With regards to his message lacking originality, well that is kind of the point of what Islam teaches. The message of Muhammad is the same as the previous messengers. The extraordinary fact is that this came about in a culture where worshipping idols was the norm for centuries and within a short period of time was able to completely change not only that society but have that message spread all over the world. A merchant, illiterate was able to change the world. Hardly unusual.


        although she completely demolished jelly on this, i was wondering if you had done an article on it ?

        Liked by 2 people

  3. Pingback: Islam, Jack Chick and the Battle for Souls – “The Prophet”, Part II – The Quran and Bible Blog

  4. Pingback: Islam, Jack Chick and the Battle for Souls – “Unforgiven?” (updated) – The Quran and Bible Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s