Look through any discussion on violent texts on a social media post, and you will find Muslims claiming, “the Bible has violence texts, too. And they are worse!” But is that truth? Are they the same? Different? Or Worse?
There are 5 ways in which the Bible verses of violence and the Quranic & Hadith verses are completely different.
1) Judgment for Crimes Committed vs. Open-Ended Commands Because People Exist
There are texts in the Bible where God commands punishment on people. But if you read them, the judgments God commands are for specific crimes that have been committed.
For example, a common one in is in 1 Samuel 15:3 where God commands the Israelites bring destruction to the people and spare no one. But what is left out is the immediate verses before it that say it is a punishment for what they did to the Israelites.
When the Israelites came through during the exodus out of Egypt, the Amalekites unprovoked killed off the slower ones – the sick, the elderly, the children. God says this was a great evil and in 1 Samuel 15:3 we see the judgment.
The judgment in the Bible is for specific crimes committed. It is righteous justice. It is descriptive.
Compare this to the Quran. It is prescriptive. “Fight those who do not believe in Allah” (Quran 9:29). These are open-ended calls to violence against anyone who disbelieves. This is not a judgment for a crime, but an open-ended command to anyone who does not believe, especially Jews and Christians.
Some will try to say that this also is context for breaking a treaty. This is not the context of Quran 9:29. See the previous post on this here.
In the Bible, God brings judgment for specific crimes. In the Quran, violence is commanded and open-ended, not for crimes, just because someone does not believe.
It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah said:
This is open-ended, prescriptive, and has nothing to do with a person’s crime.
2) Covenant Commands
The Old Testament judgments brought against nations for their criminal behavior was under the Old Covenant. Many of the commands for Israel were for Israel in particular.
When Jesus came, he fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, and he gave the new command: “Love one another as I have loved you.” He didn’t take away the commands, he fulfilled them. The Laws we follow still flow out of God’s nature and character, holiness, and righteousness.
The Quranic teachings on the other hand are completely different. Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) developed detailed legal frameworks around Quranic violence texts, giving them ongoing legal weight. Biblical violence texts were rarely codified the same way in Jewish or Christian law, mainly, again, because they were generally descriptive, not prescriptive.
There is no New Covenant equivalent in Islam that reframes or fulfills the violence commands. The sword verses of the Quran remain active legal material in classical Islamic law. It is the basis of many of the terror groups around the world today.
3) Biblical Commands are ones of Hyperbole; Islamic commands are Not
Biblical texts are often hyperbole in nature. There is a great example of this found in Deuteronomy 7:1-2. God tells Israel that when they enter the land, they are to “utterly destroy” the seven nations before them and “show them no mercy.” That sounds absolute.
But then, in the very next breath in Deuteronomy 7:3-4, God immediately gives instructions about intermarriage with those same people: “Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons.”
Take a pause. If they were all literally destroyed, who exactly are your sons and daughters supposed to not be marrying?
The text answers its own question. You cannot give commands about intermarriage with people who no longer exist. The “utter destruction” language is ancient Near Eastern war rhetoric, the language of decisive, sweeping victory, was not a body count. It was a well-understood literary device in that era, used across multiple cultures in the region. It is much like when one sports beats another and the heading is, “We destroyed Them.” The point was the completeness of the defeat and the rejection of those nations’ influence, not a literal accounting of zero survivors.
This is not a modern rationalization invented to make the Bible look better. The text itself shows you, right there in the same passage, that people are still alive and God is giving laws about how to relate to them.
The Quran is different. The commands to fight, to strike necks, to not take disbelievers as allies — these were not treated as hyperbole by Muhammad’s companions, nor by the classical scholars who built Islamic jurisprudence around them. They were taken literally, applied literally, and codified literally.
One text gives you the interpretive key right inside the passage. The other was designed, and has historically been used, as direct legal instruction.
4) Jesus Defines and Exemplifies the Response to Enemies.
Even if someone wants to argue about the Old Testament, Christianity does not end there. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant, and he radically re-frames how his followers are to treat enemies.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:43-44).
“Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52).
The entire trajectory of the New Testament points away from violence on a personal level. Violence is only permitted for legal authorities for criminal indictments (Rom 13).
The proof is in the persecution. The early church spread under hostile actions against them. Countless numbers died. The Apostle Paul writes, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil” (Romans 12:17) and “as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18).
Islam has no parallel to this. Muhammad himself led military campaigns, ordered executions, and used force to expand the reach of Islam. The Hadith literature documents this extensively. Islamic scholars have not generally viewed this as something to define differently. It is considered exemplary behavior to be emulated, because Muhammad is considered the perfect human being. He himself encouraged Jihad.
“It was narrated from Abu Dharr that he asked the prophet of Allah (ﷺ) which deed was best. He said: “Belief in Allah and Jihad in the cause of Allah, the Mighty and Sublime”” (Sunan an-Nasa’i 3129).
The Christian faith has a corrective built into its very center: the cross and dying to oneself, not the sword. If someone takes up the sword, they are going against the teaching of Christ. But the opposite it true in Islam. If someone participates in violent Jihad, they are fulfilling its commands.
5) The Quran confirms the Bible
This one often surprises people, but it is worth pointing out because it is the Quran’s own testimony. The Quran repeatedly affirms that the Torah (Tawrat) and the Gospel (Injil) are revelations from God.
“We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Torah that had come before him, and We gave him the Gospel” (Quran 5:46).
“He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel” (Quran 3:3).
If the Quran confirms the Bible as the word of God, then the Quran itself is vouching for a text that includes the commands, covenants, and judgments. The Quran cannot claim the Bible is corrupted and at the same time affirm it as divine guidance without contradicting itself.
Consider the example above with Samuel. The Quran says that the Bible is the inspired, preserved, and authoritative Word of God. Additionally, the Quran affirms the story and events around Samuel (Quran 2:246–248). According to this, Muslim cannot condemn what happened through the life of Samuel as the Quran affirms it.
The Bible’s judgment texts, read in their full context, are part of a covenant narrative that moves toward redemption, forgiveness, and peace through Christ. The Quran’s violence texts, read in their full context, are part of a legal framework that classical Islamic scholars have consistently interpreted as ongoing duty to fight.
These are not the same.
They were never the same.