Which More Violent: Bible or Quran?

[phrodeau]

No, I don't think you support Islam. You support Islam.

Did The Lord tell you that?

 

[TheWhiteBull]

I guess that you think I support Islam. What I support is religious freedom, as the Constitution specifies. What I support is the truth about Islam, not the lies that show up on this board.

Please elaborate on which lies.

 

[Gotham_Central]

I guess that you think I support Islam. What I support is religious freedom, as the Constitution specifies. What I support is the truth about Islam, not the lies that show up on this board.

I think that is a perfectly reasonable and laudable goal. The pursuit of truth is always to be applauded and supported.

Tell me, in your desire for truth, have you read and studied the Qur'an? What about the Hadith and Sunna? To understand Islam, all three must be studied. Western mind's often wrongly equate the Qur'an as the Muslim Bible. This is not so. Islam recognizes and accepts both Old and New Testament as written. To understand Islam requires understanding the teachings of Muhammed as documented in all three sacred texts, Qur'an, Sunna and Hadith as well as the Old and New Testament.

I assume that in deciding what is truth, you studied all five?

 

[phrodeau]

I think that is a perfectly reasonable and laudable goal. The pursuit of truth is always to be applauded and supported.

Tell me, in your desire for truth, have you read and studied the Qur'an? What about the Hadith and Sunna? To understand Islam, all three must be studied. Western mind's often wrongly equate the Qur'an as the Muslim Bible. This is not so. Islam recognizes and accepts both Old and New Testament as written. To understand Islam requires understanding the teachings of Muhammed as documented in all three sacred texts, Qur'an, Sunna and Hadith as well as the Old and New Testament.

I assume that in deciding what is truth, you studied all five?

Sure. I haven't studied them in Arabic, however. Some people would argue that if you don't know Arabic, you can't know Islam. I disagree.

 

[TheWhiteBull]

Sure. I haven't studied them in Arabic, however. Some people would argue that if you don't know Arabic, you can't know Islam. I disagree.

I can agree and disagree with that. The only disagreement I would have with that is idioms, not that you can't research those without knowing the language however.

 

[Gotham_Central]

Sure. I haven't studied them in Arabic, however. Some people would argue that if you don't know Arabic, you can't know Islam. I disagree.

All three are readily available in side by side Arabic and English translation. And tools for the study and translation of Arabic are readily available, often free.

I have studied them in English and in Arabic. The course was taught by an avowed atheist (who opposed all religion, no dog in the fight) as well as a former Imam.

Maybe you can expound on your theories re: the falsehoods presented with respect to the three works?

 

[Chris_Michael]

There's the free audiobooks on Youtube as well.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

burn the damned scriptures!

 

[Chris_Michael]

burn the damned scriptures!

Phrodeau doesn't want you to burn his Holy Books. The Bible is fine to burn, though.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Phrodeau doesn't want you to burn his Holy Books. The Bible is fine to burn, though.

Phrodeau is entitled to his opinion

 

[Chris_Michael]

Phrodeau is entitled to his opinion

I bet his Imam doesn't think so.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

I bet his Imam doesn't think so.

If he has an Imam, I doubt that he is significantly different from your pastor, rabbi, priest, reverend or guru

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Organized religion can be inspirational and good for the holy company and service but it's mostly crap. Ancient records regardless of who, why or where are not god.

 

[Chris_Michael]

If he has an Imam, I doubt that he is significantly different from your pastor, rabbi, priest, reverend or guru

Hmm... well, the pastor I had died a few years ago. I guess I agree with you, though.

 

[EternalFantasies]

burn the damned scriptures!

Eli has them memorized.

 

[dan_c00000]

Eli has them memorized.

Nice. I think about three people are going to get that joke.

 

[EternalFantasies]

Nice. I think about three people are going to get that joke.

See. My own filtration process, works and everything.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

First of all, the study is meaningless when it comes to comparing Islam and Christianity. The valid comparison would be between the Qur’ān and just the New Testament which, by its own words, attributed to and possibly spoken by Jesus, supplants with a peaceful philosophy the covenant on which the violence of the Old Testament was based.

Then again, what does it matter which book is more violent?

Historically, Islam has always been the most violent of the three major monotheistic religions.

That includes during the Crusades, which started, you should know and may recall, because Muslim armies had militarily conquered the eastern part of the Christian Byzantine Empire.

Again, history is far less important than what is happening in the real world now. Only Islam has a significant faction that believes and practices unprovoked violence as a manner of spreading their faith. There are not Christians setting up strict theocracies by conquest and in them committing mass murder against those it views as infidels and apostates. Only parts of Islam are doing that.

All of the Christian churches I know of (and I've worked extensively in multiple Protestant denominations) accept both the Old and New Testaments as their authority--at least until they are closely questioned and then, like you are trying to do, they often get mumble mouthed about the Old Testament part.

Last paragraph, yeah.

First paragraph, no. The meaningful comparison is the Quran against both OT and NT. Jesus did not abolish the Law (OT) as stated by himself, which means you have to include the OT. He is also supposed to be the fulfillment of OT prophecy, so without the OT there is no NT.

Ever heard of The Revelation of John? It's in the New Testament, and contains some of the most horrific and violent passages in the Bible. Straight from Jesus to John.

While you all raise slightly different points, the answer to them is essentially the same:

In the Christian Bible, there is nothing that can be legitimately read to direct Christian proselytization and conversion by violence and conquest. Indeed, written in the aftermath of the Titus’s sack of Jerusalem and the elimination of Judea as a political entity (A.D. 70), the Gospels, Epistles, and even Revelations, all go out of their way to dissuade spreading the faith by violence. Of course, in the Old Testament, there are cases of God and the prophets urging conquest and even genocide by the Israelites, but those are specific (quasi-) historical instances, limited to specific enemies in specific territories, and already a millennium in the past by the time of Jesus.

The Qur’ān, however, places no geographical or time limits on the Call of Allah and His Prophet to spread the Faith by violence and conquest. I own several copies of the Qur’ān. For the following quotes, I am using the one printed under the auspices of the Saudi king as “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques,” authenticated by The Presidency of Islamic Researches, IFTA, Call and Guidance. Sūrats 8 and 9 is one place in which the Qur’ān directs “the Believers” to “vanquish... the Unbelievers” (S.8 A.65). Merciless conquest is commanded:

It is not fitting
For a Prophet
That he should have
Prisoners of war until
He hath thoroughly subdued
The Land​

(S.8 A.67).

The official commentary in this most official version of the Qur’ān regarding this part of the text indicates “a Jihād is fought under strict conditions laid down by Islam” (Id., n.1234). Note that this commentary is in the present tense. Likewise, in regard to unclean “pagans”:

Fight those who believe not
In Allah nor the Last Day,
Nor hold that forbidden
Which hath been forbidden
By Allah and His Messenger,
Nor acknowledge the religion
Of Truth, from among
The People of the Book,
Until they pay the Jizya
With willing submission,
And feel themselves subdued​

(S.9 A.28-29).

In other words, fight wars against those who don’t practice Islam until they are “subdued.” While these themes are repeated elsewhere in the Qur’ān, it is plain from just these two passages that the Qur’ān calls Muslims to make ongoing wars of conquest against unbelievers.

Now, of course, this is not how most Muslims live their life, but that is not the issue here. The issue is which of the texts is most violent. I have read both the Bible and the Qur’ān cover-to-cover, as well as the Book of Mormon, treatises on Buddhism and Hinduism, and countless Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and secular philosophers. I can assure you that, of all those texts, only the Qur’ān has an ongoing and unlimited call for proselytization and conversion by violent conquest. That, to me, makes it clearly the most violent of any major modern religion or philosophy.

 

[sr71plt]

While you all raise slightly different points, the answer to them is essentially the same:

In the Christian Bible, there is nothing that can be legitimately read to direct Christian proselytization and conversion by violence and conquest.

You're mixed up and just a bit disingenuous. It's true that there's nothing directing Christian violence in the Christian Bible, but you are (purposely?) being mealy mouthed there because the Old Testament, which is the greater part of the Christian Bible, is directed at Jews, not Christians (which came along after Christ--he was a Jew to the end). You're either mixed up or are trying to be a bit too clever. I'll go with the bit to clever because this already was pretty well covered in this thread.

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

You're mixed up and just a bit disingenuous. It's true that there's nothing directing Christian violence in the Christian Bible, but you are (purposely?) being mealy mouthed there because the Old Testament, which is the greater part of the Christian Bible, is directed at Jews, not Christians (which came along after Christ--he was a Jew to the end). You're either mixed up or are trying to be a bit too clever. I'll go with the bit to clever because this already was pretty well covered in this thread.

The directions to violence in the Old Testament were against specific groups (e.g., the Canaanites, the Philistines, etc.) at specific times (~1,100 to 800 BCE). Nothing in the Bible directs the descendants of Abraham or the followers of Jesus to engage in proselytization and conversion by violent conquest at this time, nor has it for nearly three millennia.

By contrast, the Qur’ān directs “the Believers” to “vanquish... the Unbelievers” by merciless conquest (S.8 A.65-67) until "the Last Day" (S.9 A.29).

Given that I'm not a Canaanite living 3,000 years ago, the calls for violence in the Old Testament do not worry me. As an Unbeliever in the eyes of Islam, the calls for ongoing violence against nonbelievers in the Qur’ān becomes a concern, due either to Jihadist terrorism, or the chance that I might ever become subject to Sharia law.

Now do you see the difference between the expired-by-three-millennia calls to violence in the Old Testament versus the current and ongoing calls to violence in the Qur’ān?

 

[Hard_Rom]

As I am not a pagan Arab during the time of Mohammed I'm not overly worried about rabble rousing during a dispute between Arabic clans and cities. That is after all who and what the calls for violence in the Quran are directed at.

As an atheist straight Canadian I'm am not worried too much about the raging fundamentalists in the US preaching death to homosexuals either.

The calls to violence in the Quran are specifically targeted at political enemies. Even if the reference is usually non-believers.

You can distort both the Bible and the Quran to preach hatred and violence equally.

 

[sr71plt]

Nothing in the Bible directs the descendants of Abraham or the followers of Jesus to engage in proselytization and conversion by violent conquest at this time, nor has it for nearly three millennia.

That's not what the thread is about. It's not about violence in conversion; it's about violence. So, you're just being irrelevant to the thread.

 

[Hard_Rom]

The Bible prescribes the death penalty for the following activities, among others:
Murder[13]
Adultery[13]
Bestiality[14]
Rape of a betrothed virgin[15]
Male-male sexual intercourse[16]
One man picked up sticks on the Sabbath, he was taken into custody because a punishment was not known. The LORD told Moses that the man in custody must be killed. This particular crime and punishment is isolated case law.(Numbers 15:32–36)
The man and woman when a man meets a betrothed woman in town and sleeps with her. But if it is a case of rape where out in the country she called for help and no one heard, the death penalty only applies to the man[17]
A woman who is found not to have been a virgin on the night of her wedding[18]
Worshiping other gods[19][20]
Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18)
Taking the LORD's name in vain or cursing his name[21]
Cursing a parent[22][23][24]
Kidnapping[25]
Disobeying a parent[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_and_punishment_in_the_Bible

Really doesn't sound all that much different than the Sword verses.

Considering their was not an execution for apostasy in the Ottoman Empire for 400 years while Germany was losing 50% of it's population to religious wars.

 

[Chris_Michael]

That's not what the thread is about. It's not about violence in conversion; it's about violence. So, you're just being irrelevant to the thread.

This is 100% bullshit, and you know it. At this point, you are doing mental gymnastics to avoid conceding that he's right.

 

[Hypoxia]

Which stinks worse, dogshit or catshit? Is your favorite shit better or worse than my or someone else's favorite shit? Would you rather be injected with cholera, typhus, or some other disease? Why is any religion, whose doctrines are used to justify intolerance and atrocities, better or worse than another religion making similar bullshit excuses? "My god(s) told me to rape / enslave / kill / save you." Yeah, sure.