A new data-based study published on Yahoo News, Huffington Post, and many other media, purports to have proven that the Bible—including the New Testament—is more violent than the Quran.
From Tom McKay’s article about the study: “Fifty-eight percent of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Islam” thanks to a “laundry list of misinformation about the faith’s holy text, the Quran.” He continues:
But a recent project by data analyst and research marketer Tom Anderson turns one common misconception on its head: that the Quran is more consumed by blood thirst than the Christian Bible.… Of the three books [Old Testament, New Testament, Quran], the project found, the Old Testament is the most violent, with approximately 5.3% of the text referring to “destruction and killing” — the Quran clocked in at just 2.1%, with the New Testament slightly higher at 2.8%…. According to Anderson, the findings challenge the popular notion among Westerners that Muslims subscribe to a particularly violent faith. Indeed, he concluded, “of the three texts, the content in the Old Testament appears to be the most violent.”
So this study proves what Islam’s apologists have long claimed: that the Bible contains more violence and bloodshed than the Quran. Even so, the intelligence and/or sincerity of anyone—including supposed scholars and “thinkers”—who cites this fact as proof that the Quran cannot incite more violence than the Bible must be highly doubted.
For starters, this argument fundamentally ignores the contexts of all three scriptures. Comparing violence in the Bible—old or new testaments—with violence in the Quran conflates history with doctrine. The majority of violence in the Bible is recorded as history; a description of events. Conversely, the overwhelming majority of violence in the Quran is doctrinally significant. In other words, the Bible has about as much capacity to incite its readers to violence as a history textbook. On the other hand, the Quran uses open ended language to call on believers to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims. (See “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?” for my most comprehensive and documented treatment of this tiresome apologia.)
This study also fails to consider who is behind the violence. It just appears to count the number of times words like “kill” appear. Due to this, New Testament descriptions of Christians—including Christ—being persecuted and killed are supposedly equal at inciting Christians to violence as Allah’s commandments for Muslims to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them—seize them, besiege them, and make ready to ambush them!” (Quran 9:5). This study sees no difference between the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7-8) and Allah’s words: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip” (Quran 8:12).
Even the claim behind this study—that “Fifty-eight percent of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Islam” apparently because of “misinformation about the faith’s holy text, the Quran”—is a strawman argument. “Islamophobia” is based less on what Americans think about the Quran and more on the violence, terrorism, and atrocities they see and hear Muslims commit in the name of Islam on a daily basis. (Ironically, the whole point of appealing to a strawman argument is that the argument itself is ironclad, even if it doesn’t address the real issue. As seen here, however, even the straw argument itself—that the Bible has more potential to incite violence than the Quran—is full of holes.)
This is to say nothing of the fact that Islamic teaching is hardly limited to the Quran; volumes of canonical (sahih) Hadith (words and deeds of Muhammad) equally inform Muslim actions. As one Muslim cleric put it, “Much of Islam will remain mere abstract concepts without Hadith. We would never know how to pray, fast, pay zakah, or make pilgrimage without the illustration found in Hadith…” And as it happens, calls to anti-infidel violence in the Hadith outnumber the Quran’s.
Due to its many shortcomings, even Anderson admits that his “analysis is superficial and the findings are by no means intended to be conclusive.” So why are several media outlets highlighting the conclusion of a study which readily admits it does not prove what its champions claim?
Because the politically correct conclusion—that Islam cannot be any worse than Judaism and Christianity—is all that matters here, gaping holes in methodology be damned.
About this subject, I highly recommend this article. The point stated, about how the Bible is a book about God embodied in flesh, while the Q’uran is God directly embodied in a book, is barely spoken.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=es&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.filosofiaenlared.com%2F2016%2F02%2Fel-islam-bibliolatria-gabriel-andrade.html&edit-text=
The important question is not what these religious texts have to say about violence in the name of the faith, but whether many of their contemporary adherents practice what the texts condone. Here the evidence seems to be very clear.
The Judeo-Christian texts, aside from a historical reference, do not condone violence in the name of their scriptures.
“Judeo-Christian”
No such thing. The Talmud is not being referenced. Stop using an idiotic term.
Old Testament = Judeo
New Testament = Christian
Hence Judeo-Christian.
the 2 Witnessess
Amen!
Where are the Jews in the OT? Jews certainly did not exist in the first 5 books (Torah).
Jews are the Pharisees who invented an oral law which is compiled in their Talmud. Judaism was invented AFTER the Roman destruction of the Temple in Persian Babylonia.
Old Testament =/= Judeo
Jews are the natural descendants of Abraham and Sarah = Jews. Why do you wrangle over words? Did you learn this art of misery in college?
“Jews are the natural descendants of Abraham and Sarah = Jews”
Whatever their genealogical history, Judaism was invented in Persian Babylonia after 70AD.
No temple, new religion. Judaism elevates the oral law of Pharisees above the Torah.
huh , nano I think your are a little out there?
Why do Jews need the Talmud more than they need the Torah to exist as Jews?
There are no Jews in the Torah
Actually comes from Judah, son of Jacob. Read my post to NanoNano.
Wasn’t Judah a descendant of Abraham?
From my post below:
“Jews comes from Judah, one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. Judah was one of the Twelve sons of Jacob (Twelve Tribes) and in Genesis God renames Jacob to Israel.”
So Judah, hence the name Jews, are direct descendents of Israel, or one of the twelve tribes. After the dispersion of the Ten northern tribes in 586 BC, due to the Assyrian captivity, the southern tribes, which included Judah, was all that was left being traceable back to Abraham with a certainty.
Jews are from Genesis 14-Malachi
Jews comes from Judah, one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. Judah was one of the Twelve sons of Jacob and in Genesis God renames Jacob to Israel. Moses led the Israelite’s out of Egypt (1400 BC) and each tribe then claimed part of the land that is Israel today (actually more than the area today). After David’s son Solomon (about 900 BC), Israel spit into Israel in the north and Judah in the south (Bethlehem area, Jerusalem the capital). The Assyrians conquered Israel in the north about 700 BC (722 BC per NIV), and Judah remained until about the 500’s BC when Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon conquered Judah. Anyway, Jew comes from Judah, the son of Jacob who was the son Isaac who was the son of Abraham. I have read the entire Bible through twice and the New Testament through 10 times since 9/11 and also the Quran and more than 30 books on Islam since 9/11. I knew nothing of Islam before 9/11. Now I know it is one evil death cult religion that is a cancer on mankind. Islam is a recipe for eternal fighting and killing among mankind. Islam and Christianity cannot both be true because the Quran, the allah god’s word (per Muhammad…unwitnessed), says that Jesus never said he is the Son of God and that Jesus did not die on the cross. These are lies against the Gospels written by eye witnesses to Jesus words and miracles 600 years before the Quran. Jesus says in the Gospels that Satan is the father of all lies. I conclude the allah god of the Quran is Satan…based on Jesus’ words.
“Jews comes from Judah”
Jews were not “Jews” until they created Judaism in Persian Babylonia over the 500 years after their Temple was destroyed by Romans.
Being of the tribe of Judah does not necessarily make one a Jew. Jesus was not a Jew because he rejected the vile and evil oral law which became the basis for Judaism as it was compiled over the centuries after the Temple’s destruction. Jesus wasn’t a Sadducee or Pharisee either.
Islam is Arab Talmudism. Jews instigated the creation of Islam. There was even a Jewish kingdom in Yemen. The last Jewish king of Yemen was very similar to Mohammad’s character.
And always remember, Jews were Muslims before Muslims existed.
http://www.jpost.com/Local-Israel/In-Jerusalem/Massacre-at-Mamilla
I absolutely agree with you. Judaism and islamism are old covenant man made cults of babylon. Judaism is not the religion of ancient israel. That Yemen king waged genocide on the christians of Yemen, murdering around 20 000.
And, indeed, going even further, beyond the assessment of the behavior of a religion’s followers, the founding text of the supremacist ideology of “Submission”explicitly and unambiguously commands its followers to wage war against non-Muslims as a sacred religious duty, by alleged Divine imperative. There is no corresponding dictate in Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity. Submission is unique in that it has been a supremacist, militant ideology of conquest and aggression since its founding, and inasmuch as its scripture vilifies non-Muslims and justifies said violence and conquest against them.
Its not about many or most, its about a sufficient number. In Islamic law, offensive jihad is fard al-kifaya: a communal obligation from which the ummah is released once a sufficient number have reported to the battle.
The number of Believing Muslims [9.111, 49.15] is sufficient for WTC1, WTC2, London, Madrid, Mumbai, Fort Hood & San Bernardino.
More evidence, if more is needed, of the disturbing proclivity of so called knowledgeable, western scholars and journalists attempts to conflate, and thereby marginalize 21st century Jihadism by comparing the Quran with the Jewish and Christian holy books. The west is to consider the demonstrably vicious, cruel, barbaric, brutal and bloody slaughter being perpetrated now, in the name of Islam, with that perpetrated by Christians, centuries ago, a historical comparison that can, in no way, be a justifiable argument for not confronting what is the modern day reality.
The Crusades was a Christian reaction, undoubtedly brutal in nature, in response to at least equally brutal Muslim aggression, Jihadism, 700 to 1000 years ago. Justifying the terrorist nature of the modern Jihad using the Crusades as the catalyst is more evidence of the spread of western dhimmitude than of western intellectual, accurate, well reasoned enlightenment.
Contrary to what these western intellectuals, scholars and journalists may think, they are and will remain, infidels, inferiors in the eyes of those they’re being manipulated by and they so desperately seek to appease and defend. The classic response of a coward to the bully by suggesting that the bully’s torments and brutality against you and those you allegedly represent, is somehow justified by events from generations past, only encourages and emboldens the bully.
Sooner or later, if the west is to prevail, the bully, Islamic Jihad, in all its forms, will have to be confronted and pummeled unmercifully until the west decides the threat is reduced to manageable proportions. So long as
Islam, in the eyes of a significant percentage of the worlds Muslim population, remains the immutable words of Allah and the words and deeds of the “perfect man,” the prophet, Mohammad, the threat of violent Jihadism can be contained but not be eliminated.
The Crusades were from the Catholic Church and Jesus preached Love not war…..
if you are a dumb ass keep silent.
Nothing in Christ’s teachings about not defending yourself, your people, or your land from assault by psychopaths bent on rape, pillage, burning, and eventual occupation.
“Turn the other cheek” was in reference to philosophical assaults on his teaching, not physical assaults on his followers.
Are you kidding? Did you even read the whole paragraph? How does “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.” mean talking about the philosophical assaults of the teachings of Jesus Christ? You and your ilk of lying bastards cherry picking verses out of the bible and falsely interpreting it disgust me.
The crusades were a reaction to crusades by islam to wipe out Christianity
Here are some quick facts…
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after the capital of the Christian world, Rome itself, was attacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.
By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.
Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death. As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.
In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques. Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in ‘converting’ the survivors to Islam.
Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance, but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered. (Compare this to the Quran’s justification for slaughter simply on the basis that Muslims were denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage).
Renowned scholar Bernard Lewis points out that the Crusades, though “often compared with the Muslim jihad, was a delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also an imitation…. Forgiveness for sins to those who fought in defence of the holy Church of God and the Christian religion and polity, and eternal life for those fighting the infidel: these ideas… clearly reflect the Muslim notion of jihad.”
Lewis goes on to state that, “unlike the jihad, it [the Crusade] was concerned primarily with the defense or reconquest of threatened or lost Christian territory… The Muslim jihad, in contrast, was perceived as unlimited, as a religious obligation that would continue until all the world had either adopted the Muslim faith or submitted to Muslim rule… The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law.”
If someone takes your wallet and you take it back, who is the thief?
The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca, as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda.
The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched tenuously over about 170 years, which is less than the Muslim occupation of Sicily and southern Italy alone – to say nothing of Spain and other lands that had never been Islamic before falling victim to Jihad. In fact, the Arab occupation of North Africa and Middle Eastern lands outside of Arabia is almost 1400 years old.
Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the “occupiers” quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Islamic radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands.
The Muslim world was also split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. This even included Saladin, the Kurdish warrior who is credited with eventually ousting the “Crusaders.” Contrary to recent propaganda, however, Saladin had little interest in holy war until a rogue Frankish prince began disrupting his trade routes. Both before and after the taking of Jerusalem, his armies spent far more time and resources battling fellow Muslims.
For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusader kingdoms and went so far as to sign treaties with their Muslim rivals on occasion.
Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.
Ironically, the Crusades can be justified from the Quran itself, which encourages Holy War in order to “drive them out of the places from whence they drove you out” (2:191). In this case, the objective wasn’t to expel Muslims from the Middle East, but to bring an end to the molestation of pilgrims. Holy war is not justified by New Testament teachings, which is why the Crusades are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against Christianity that began long before and continued well after that event.
The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which at least 3,000 people were said to have been massacred. This number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims, from India to Constantinople, Africa and Narbonne, but Muslims have never apologized for their crimes and never will.
What is called ‘sin and excess’ by other religions, is what Islam refers to as duty willed by Allah.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/games/crusades.aspx
Very good history. I was aware of most. Did you pick up most of this on your own or in conjunction with a degree in Mid East studies? Also what is your opinion about Muhammad? Did he have a supernatural being giving him revelations or did he make up his religion? The “same God” mantra is totally not correct if you know the teachings of the quran and the Gospels. Just curious since you appear to be a person well studied.
Hi there. Actually I copied the info from http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/games/crusades.aspx
Sorry, I have a degree but not in Mid-East. (I have a degree in Computer Sciences) But since my childhood Middle East history became a part of my life. So now is quran and islamic sources as I began to study Middle East events, because Middle East is mentioned in the Christian/Jewish prophecies. I am an Evangelical Christian. Muhammad was a man who saw an entity who claimed to be an angel. But from their own sources and biography he was scared to death seeing the spiritual creature that he though it was a demon. And first impressions are always right. This evil creature dictated the quran. In the chapter 72, a group pf genies, (In our Christian theology genies are demons ) were NOT allowed to be in heavens. The only angels who did not enter to heavens are known as demons. Read this from the quran:
“And we have sought [to reach] the heaven but found it filled with powerful guards and burning flames.” http://quran.com/72
So chapter 72, states that those creatures listened quran and became muslims. Muslims genies. Later those creatures begin to speak as the ones who dictates the quran.
So what the Bible says about the angels who were expelled from heavens?
Revelation 12:9
The great dragon was hurled down–that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his ***angels with him.
I can go on and on pointing out how quran came from an evil source.
Theologically Bible and Quran are incompatible.
Some quick facts from the Bible and islamic doctrine based on their own sources:
1-Islam is the AntiChrist. Quran denies Jesus as Son of GOD
2- allah is the original serpent
3- allah real name is abadon or apolion (the Angel of death ) also mentioned in the quran
4- Islam is the beast of revelation that reigns in the Middle East. This beast is being supported by the Western, Europeans nations.
5- Jihadists are the locusts of Revelation 9. Also mentioned in islamic tradition:
‘”In the Bedoween romance Antar, the locust is introduced as the national emblem of the Ishmaelites [one of the ancestors of the Arabs — DB]. And it is a remarkable coincidence that Muslim tradition speaks of locusts having dropped into the hands of Muhammed, bearing on their wings this inscription — ‘We are the army of the Great God.”‘ [10 Barnes, quoting Forster’s Mohammedism Unveiled (vol. i. p.217), 399.]’
Just saw your reply. Are those 5 points your conclusion/opinion from your knowledge of the Quran (Islam) and the New Testament? I’m still thinking the Antichrist will be a man coming from Islam…like Obama? Item 3…Where…Sura and verse?
The Crusades against Islam were justifed as Muslims have been killing Christians since the 7th century.
The Crusades: A Defensive Response to Islamic Aggression, Bill Warner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2OyapO4TNo&list=PL0190DA95A29367A7
Robert Spencer – The Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam & The Crusades: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nC6IzAU5AG8
Containment is impossible. Because their salvation depends on Jihad, Muslims can never abandon it. While there is one Muslim, he will recriut or breed more and the cycle will renew itself.
Plus the Crusades only lasted for 400 years due to Islamic atrocities in the Holy Lands, whereas for Muslims they are at war with anyone over everything and have been throughout their 1400 years creation, and still ongoing daily.
These ‘journalists’ have no understanding of the difference between descriptive and prescriptive language.
Exactly.
These ‘journalists’ can’t read. Period!
“Scientific”? Nobody believes scientists these days, except the ones with a history of telling the truth. When it comes to the Bible, I doubt any of them can tell the truth.
Sadly that is true.
The problem however isn’t scientists, it’s psuedo-scientists who abuse and pervert the scientific method for polemical ends (e.g. above), using fallacious techniques.
I’ll grant that various industries (e.g. tobacco) have had some “scientists” in their pockets who pandered to their aims and objectives, but such generally have zero reputation left.
Good article Raymond. Keep refuting the propaganda. What you’re doing is very necessary.
The traitorous left attempts again to whitewash the religion of jihad, misogyny, and rape. How can we defeat our Islamic jihadi enemies when the left does everything they can to protect Islam and Muslims from legitimate criticism? Islam is an existential threat to our way of life and the first thing to do is to stop all Muslim immigration into the West.
Oh not THIS canard yet again!
As you say Mr Ibrahim, any “Jewish violence” is set in the Biblical history as laid out in the bible-there are NO injunctions to repeat it outside the limited eras of history in which it was written-there is absolutely NO read across, and indeed has not been at any time after Jesus…and for many years before Him too!
It`s historical writing-NOT current commandments-which is why Israel is a democratic and peaceful country, as far as it`s allowed to be.
As for the New Testament?…Jesus says not one word that could be described as violent-does not one violent thing apart from throw a few market tables around( and doubt anybody got hurt!).
But the apologists for islam, and general Jesus baiters usually cite Luke 19.27-Sam Harris does anyway!
This would be added to the “Violent Christian” ledger, even though Jesus says they are the words of the bloke in a parable he is telling…but the automatic counters will roll and count that parable sentence as a dangerous Christian cerse.
Sadly that`s as thick and lazy they`ve all become…ANYTHING to cover the battlefield in smoke and mirrors as Islam gets a clear aim at the West unemcumbered.
Desperate crap-so keep up the good work, and thank you!
Istm that a technical analysis of this sort can only determine how much of a text is /about/ violence, rather than how much of a text /endorses/ violence. To illustrate:
“The Lord God commands you to hit, kill, wound, injure, poison, or physically harm your neighbor. You shall love killing your neighbor.”
and
“The Lord God commands you that you shall not hit, would, injure, poison, or physically harm your neighbor. Do not kill your neighbor, but love your neighbor.”
Analytically, the number of references to violence in both passage is equal. But in terms of what they endorse, the contents are complete opposites.
I conclude that there is very little value to such an analysis — except to stealth-jihadists and the deluded pluralistic fools (or paid henchmen — I’m looking at you, John Esposito) who defend them, who will cherry-pick it, as usual, in their attempts to paint Islam as inherently peaceful.
Bill Warner, Political Islam website, has done a very good statistical analysis of Islam’s texts, the Quran, Hadiths, and Sira. He finds that 60% deals with how to handle the unbeliever versus religion, how to get to Muslim heaven. Of course Jihad in the way of the allah god is the surest way per Muhammad, but Warner says Islam is 60% political and 40% religion. I have come to the conclusion Muhammad was demon possessed….the allah god of the Quran is Satan.
Jesus never killed anyone and taught us not to as well. Muhammad, and people acting on his orders, killed thousands of people in armed robberies and revenge attacks. Jesus blessed small children, Muhammad raped them and permitted his followers to do likewise.
The man was demon possessed…that’s the source of Islam…no other explanation makes sense…to me.
Clearly most of Shari’a is at odds with modern secular concepts of human rights, current international law, and the laws of western countries. It is also very different from the Christian ethics taught by the Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant churches. Most Muslims are not violent, but sadly most do support brutal policies. You can read this Pew survey to understand Muslim attitudes around the world.
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf
Nah – Madman Moe was just another ambitious gangster criminal.
See my cmnt. to TWF above.
Er … which one?
Can’t find it. Had to recreate it.
https://www.raymondibrahim.com/2016/02/14/scientific-claim-christian-bible-more-bloodthirsty-than-quran/#comment-2525953967
See “Islam Is Demonic” & “Allah Is Not God” . Moe feared that he was going mad and demon possessed. He told Aisha he had an attachment of devils.
Check into the first volume of Ibn Sa’d, also my posts entitled “Islam Is Demonic” & “Allah Is Not God”. Moe feard he was going mad and said he had a devil.
it is an unending task to respond to misinformation from islamist apologists. This article gives an effective concise way to respond to the fact the bible does have more mention of violence than the koran. Other perhaps worthy points are the bible is much larger. It is so important that most of the violence in the bible is just recording history and much of the rest is complaining about the violence against good people. Yes, we must remind people that the peaceful religions simply do not have holy verses calling out for violence today
Catholics are called to their Catechism as there settled belief basis & not literal translation of the Bible.
Let them now compare that with the Quran. There is zero call to violence in Catechism.
words do not matter action does. Christians, even if they do not condone them, are not throwing gays off high rises, or stoning them. The daily murders of millions are not coming from the Christians. I don’t know any modern day incidents of, riots, hangings, or crusifications for leaving the Christian faith, bad mouthing Jesus, or burning a bible. At most you get a few people with signs at best. They hardly compare.
Yes, this is an accurate article, and anyone with half a brain, and an inkling of an idea what context means should be able to see through this “Bible is more violent than Qur’an” nonsense. But no matter. The secular progressives of the Western left will continue with their heads in the sand until those very heads are lopped off and continue to lay in the hole of ignorance that they chose. There is NO chance of changing their minds.
So, if I write “THOU SHALT NOT KILL!” fifty times, and you only write “KILL THEM ALL!” once, then I’ve used the word “kill” fifty times more than you did – then I guess to these willfully self-blinded libtarded types of “scholars” and pundits, my writing would be deemed to be fifty times more violent than yours.
Criminally-negligent MORONS, willing accessories both before and after the fact, and enablers of the islamic crime-gang like these should be arrested for attempted public deception, fraud, treason to rationality and civilization, and basic sedition.
What pointless adversarial, feeble and generally worthless lives they must lead, to waste them trying to attack us with this same idiocy day after day, by trying to convince us that suicidal masochism should be our highest virtue, and that offending criminals, in hurting their feelings with the often-painful truth that they are only criminals, by accusing them of their crimes, should in fact be the only real crime.
dont cloud the issue with facts !!!
Sorry LOL!
Gotta be a mental disease or defective gene in their makeup. No other rational explanation makes any sense. Even cowardice does not seem to fit. Wouldn’t they just shut up if they were cowards? No they defend the Satanic barbarians that would either kill or convert them in an Islamic society. Demon possession is also plausible. Would not the demon possessed man in the Gospels that Christ cured when He drove the demons into the swine be medically considered having some form of mental insanity today in medical terminology?
Nah, it’s probably only basic masochism:
Like all criminals, leftists are defeatist masochists at heart, having no faith in being able to trust anyone else, and so in stead choosing to slander everyone else as being untrustworthy.
Like Muhammad, their defeatism leads to self-fulfilling prophecies, where they attack everyone else, first, then blame their victims for having “made” them attack. Their alibis to excuse their criminal choices are that there is no free will and there were no choices to be made; they pretend to be victims at the mercy of inevitable, “predetermined/predestined” force: victims of society/mere products of their environments, and of course slaves of “allah.”
Masochists pretend to “control” their fears (in stead of trying to learn to recognize and fix mistakes and solve problems by paying attention to their fears) BY causing the same, worst-case scenario, pain-causing problems they fear the most.
(Hence libertine “liberalism,” where they pretend that it’s noble to pretend that fear doesn’t exist, and so always want to “progress” to “freedom” from the fearful pain of self-restraint).
In this way, they hope to avoid the fear of pain, by pre-emptively inflicting that pain on themselves (thus cancelling the auxiliary pain caused by the fear)! See?
But while not ALL criminal negligence is masochism, all masochism IS criminal negligence.
And of course, such criminals are also always all about the subjective double-standards:
What they advocate for in public may be only an attempt to sway everyone ELSE to SUBMIT!
Being selfish, they embrace hypocritical double standards, wanting rights without responsibilities, to never be offended by having their feelings hurt by the painful truth of being accused of their crimes.
And others are expected to have only responsibilities to them – to embrace suicidal masochism as their highest virtue – “TO GO ALONG” (with their criminal lies) “TO GET ALONG” (with the lying criminals)! “Be a sport! Gimme a pass! We’re all only victims, right?”
In that way alone, (as victim) the Devil pretends he doesn’t exist.
😉
The study doesn’t seem to indicate which translations they used. Because there are different translation philosophies for the Bible (word for word vs. thought for thought). While the meaning is the same, the English word choice and word count will be different.
Example: search for the word “love” in the ESV, NIV, and NLT. The NLT has a much higher word count.
They also don’t take into account that you have different authors in the Bible, and while they have similar messages, they have different vocabulary. The Qur’an is supposed to be the product of one person.
They also don’t seem to be aware that you are dealing with different genres. A narrative will describe something, but it’s not endorsing or promoting it. The word “kill” and “blood” might appear in Genesis 37, but that doesn’t mean it’s encouraging someone to kill. The Hebrew prophets often talk about violence and bloodshed. But it’s often warning people to repent so that violence will be avoided.
Lastly they don’t look at the fact that the theme is often expressed differently in the Hebrew Bible than in the New Testament. Grace for example was supposedly not in the Hebrew Bible. It actually is, but usually translated as “loving kindness”.
very nice rebuttal
Imagine for one second , how we would view Jesus if he raped children
and murdered others.
UNREAL. How can anyone follow Islam
Many who follow cannot leave due to the death penalty for apostasy. Many, growing up in the death cult, do not have the inquisitiveness to question their religion…questioning the death cult can also cause one to be killed. Saw a recent article that a young boy was beheaded according to a Sharia Court sentence in Mosul…he was playing Western music. My guess is that the ruling was that by playing the Western music he was thereby an apostate…and should be killed. One is not allowed to study other religions or ways of life under Islamic Sharia Law.
It is necessary to induce mass apostasy on such a scale that the Believers can not overcome and execute all the apostates. Someone should prevail upon Mel Gibson to produce & distribute one of the three existing screen plays based on the sira.
Good pick for a director/producer! He’s just “mad” enough to!
He has the requisite funds, skill & spinal fortitude. Who else does?
I hope that was rhetorical because I really don’t know!
Sure ’nuff the producer of “Innocence Of Muslims” ain’t rich enough to do it.
Especially not if he’s still in jail.
I agree with the mass apostasy effort. My trust or effort is to convince them they are following Satan’s religion. Telling them we all pray to the same God (NOT) is heresy at best or blasphemy against my God, and few Muslims will come to Christianity if they believe the “same god” mantra, and weak Christians may decide to become Muslims if they erroneously think we all pray to the same God. Also, secular arguments will never convince Muslims of their error in following Mo IMO.
Google: scribd kab ashraf “Islam is demonic” to find my compiled blog post which proves from Islamic texts the identity of Allah. See also “Allah Is Not God” from the same Scribd page.
Then pound the facts , particularly the ahadith in Sahih Muslim, to Muslims.
Pathetic Mosul used to be better known as the Biblical “Nineveh!”
I just learned the other day that Saladin was a Kurd…and now the Islamic State and Turkey are killing the Kurds. One would think that Muslims would wise up and realize that their death cult religion is a curse on mankind. Do they think they go to Islamic heaven doing Jihad against each other? What a despicable false religion.
Actually, they probably do wage jihad against each other in their “Jannah” (Gehenna).
Moe is quoted as saying: “I wish Allah would let me leave heaven, and reincarnate me again and again so I could fight and die, and fight and die, again and again for him!”
Just like Communazi Marxism, criminal masochists “Submit to” the “Eternal Struggle!”
Liberals love criminal islam because it gives them the “God told us to commit these crimes!” excuse to cut loose their pent-up frustrations. Christianity, on the other hand, frustrates their libertine ambitions because it tells them they do have free-will choices and to feel guilt when they make the wrong choices.
Incisive and deep, Unk. Your fangs have not dulled with age 😉
Well, actually, yeah, they have – After a while, I had chipped them off and so had to hire a dentist to file them down LOL!
Learn to use a church key, Unk.
Necks these days aren’t usually encased in glass – or steel!
True, there’z pop tops and twist off caps 😉
That takes sneaky effort and headlocks. Too lazy.
OK!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=circle+jerk
I like the way you put that
Whenever one asks Muslims to prove their religion and prophet to be true, all of them answer in a similar and very absurd and illogical way. They explain:
Muslim: Muhammad is a true prophet because the Quran says so.
Inquirer: What is the evidence that the Quran is true and divine?
Muslim: The Quran is true because Allah says so.
Inquirer: How do you to be certain that Allah is the true God and the Quran is His divine words?
Muslim: Allah is the true God because Muhammad said so.
Inquirer: And how do you know what Muhammad was true?
Muslim: Muhammad is true because the Quran says so.
This is called circular logic, proving something from its own source. It is like saying: I am the God, and the evidence for this is that I am saying so. Remember, no one trust something that the claimer himself says. He has to prove himself either with evidences or with reason. The source of the Quran and Allah is only one and that source is Muhammad. Muhammad himself is claiming everything, and there is no evidence whatsoever that those claims are true and credible. Any thug and imposter can claim something in these ways. That doesn’t make that claim true. Not only that, whenever Muslims try to validate or justify any instruction or law of the Quran or of Islam—like the benefit of veil or growing beard or anything else—they give Quranic evidence in support of their claims, even to non-believers of the Quran. How foolish these behaviours are!
Sad thing that this article isn’t also on the HP as a.counter to the propaganda.
These are not “scientific claims” – these are lies from the transparent muslim fraud in the White House. That he is being enabled and fortified by Congress ESPECIALLY PAUL RYAN is disgusting beyond words. May they all rot in hell.