(Repost with updated numbers and graphs)
The LORD is a man of war. Exodus 15:3Fight in the way of Allah. Quran 2:244
Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran? Is there a way to objectively answer such a question?
Well, it wouldn't be easy. But it is possible to compare the amount of cruelty and violence in the two books.
Here is a summary of the highlighted verses in the SAB and SAQ.
| Number of Cruel or Violent Passages | |
| Bible | 907 |
| Quran | 520 |
So the Bible has more cruel or violent passages than the Quran. But the Bible is a much bigger book. How do they compare when size is taken into account?
| Violence and Cruelty | Total verses | Percent | |
| Bible | 907 | 31173 | 2.91 |
| Quran | 520 | 6236 | 8.34 |
When expressed as a percentage of cruel or violent verses (at least as marked in the SAB/Q), the Quran has nearly three times that of the Bible. (8.34 vs. 2.91%)
Of course this analysis does not consider the extent of the cruelty in the marked passages. And that is an important consideration. Is Numbers 31:14-18, for example, more cruel than Quran 5:34? That is something that each person must decide.
A good argument could be made that either book is the most violent and cruel book ever written. The award would go to one or the other, for neither has any close competitors.
It is frightening to think that more than half of the world's population believes in one or the other.
Posts
79 comments:
Steve,
You seem like a really smart guy, and it seems you like to do a lot of research, which is great.
I don't agree with your findings, but can appreciate what you do if you are in fact searching for truth or answers to real questions.
It's understandable if you don't agree or like the Bible, but the basis of everything I had a chance to read here is based on a misleading way of observing, interpreting, and applying the Bible.
What you're doing is basically known as proof-texting: taking a verse out of context and applying it to a teaching or meaning that the verse(s) were never intended to support.
Do you remember the movie The Shining? It was the creepiest, scariest horror movie of the ‘70’s.
Check out this re-made movie trailer for The Shining.
What you are about to witness is movie proof-texting. A clever individual pulled out little snippets of this gruesome movie to make it look downright charming. As you view this, keep the context of the whole movie in view. And keep this in mind, if you do not keep the entire context of the Bible in mind when you go through Scripture, you end up twisting Scripture to say anything you want.
Yes, it's clever, but misleading.
Thanks for your comment, Mark.
Which do you think is more cruel and violent, the Quran or the Bible?
I won't comment on the Quran, since I have never read it.
Mark said:
"I won't comment on the Quran, since I have never read it."
Fair enough. But what do you think about Surah 5:33, which says:
"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom."
After reading this verse in its context, does it seem cruel to you? Do you think it is cruel to cut off a person's hand?
Steve,
No kidding that seems like a pretty cruel act, (and unfortunately not as bad as half of what you'll read in your local newspaper today or on CNN) but a paragraph is hardly full context. I am not saying there is more to it, but to be fair, I do not know if it is advocating it's readers today to cut off hands or not.
You have gone through quite a bit of work with the SAB, and your blog, I respect that kind of diligence and commitment. Why are you so interested in these documents anyways?
Mark said: "No kidding that seems like a pretty cruel act, (and unfortunately not as bad as half of what you'll read in your local newspaper today or on CNN) but a paragraph is hardly full context."
Yeah, I know. That's why I provided the link to the text -- so that you could read the verse in its context.
After doing that, what do you think? Is it cruel or not?
Mark said: "You have gone through quite a bit of work with the SAB, and your blog, I respect that kind of diligence and commitment. Why are you so interested in these documents anyways?"
Because more than 3 billion people believe (or pretend to believe) in one or more of these documents. These beliefs conflict with one another and are causing problems throughout the world. It's time for us to take a look at the Bible, Quran, and Book of Mormon to see if they are worthy of belief.
3 billion? How are you helping them?
As I pointed out in a previous comment, (at least in what I saw about your method of Biblical interpretation), you either lack, or avoid, contextual interpretation, and it is more than a slight misrepresentation for the way the Bible would be understood for today's reader.
Obviously that could be your whole point, but nevertheless it is misleading. To try and steer people away from what you call works that are conflicting and causing problems is noble, but rings hollow if you are misleading them nonetheless.
"3 billion?"
Yeah, more than 3 billion, actually. 2.1 billion Christians, 1.3 billion Muslims, and 20 million or so Mormons.
But you never told me whether or not you think Surah 5:33 is cruel. If you don't want to tell me, that's fine. But I am curious.
Steve,
It doesn't matter if I think it is cruel or not, it isn't a document I believe in or use, so whether it gave advice on infidels or infinity, makes no difference to me.
You're obviously captivated by this document, so it makes sense for you to comment. However, if your skills of interpreting what the Quran means for readers today is anything close to your abilities to interpret the Bible, chances are you're missing it by a mile.
"It doesn't matter if I think it is cruel or not...."
You're right, it doesn't matter.
But do you think it's cruel or not? Is anything cruel to you, Mark?
I don't really have anything to contribute to this conversation but it is nice seeing both of you, Mark and Steve, holding an intelligible conversation. The internet has resulted in me expecting terribly misuse of grammar and nonsensical comments, whenever I look at the comments box of any page. This was a refreshing change. Thanks.
It doesnt matter what the context of the passage is, unless it says "the following is a lie" before it. What matters is do you think it is cruel and if so, than these many cruel passages is not a good influence on people. Your using of the Shining edited trailer doesnt support your theory as it takes out only the good bits of the film to portray it as nice, however noone is denying that the film has nice bits, they are useful in the story. The bad parts are in the bible and the Quran, no doubt in many religious works. The problem is, that even if by some slim chance they are better when read completely in context with the whole bible, how many people attending churches and other religious places across the world have not read the whole of their faiths writings? Im sure the answer is many, if not most of them. That constitutes a bad influence, and its hard to dismiss this as like any other form of media as none require such adherance as matters of faith.
Cheers guys
Interesting.. rather than the passages being interpreted as violence. I choose to read them as passages of guidance and justice.
I've read a few passages from the Qur'an on here. The translation's are not accurate.
I disagree with dismissing the context argument. The above poster when giving an example of 'lie' before the passage is not thinking outside the box.
Peace.. I'd recommend checking the authenticity of each verse of Qur'an.. Here is a translation of the works of Marmaduke Pickthal
Did acts of cruelty get counted if they were followed by denunciations? For example, stoning somebody is cruel, but if somebody stops it and says "stoning this person is bad," then are we reading about an act of cruelty or an act of mercy?
"Did acts of cruelty get counted if they were followed by denunciations? For example, stoning somebody is cruel, but if somebody stops it and says "stoning this person is bad," then are we reading about an act of cruelty or an act of mercy?"
I'd consider it an act of mercy and put it in the good stuff in the Bible or Quran.
One man's justice is another man's cruel violence. I like that. :)
Of course, the real problem is the idea of "belief" or "faith" rather than the content (context or not) of the text. Since faith is belief in the absence of evidence (and often in the face of it), the real problem that is being probed in this blog is of what harm that does to humanity.
The various religious texts, Bible, Book of Mormononsense, and so on are all different flavors the samething: texts used to control. One may argue it is God who is exherting that control (though why he'd need such badly written, and unclear garbage as this to do it remains a mystery) but the more likely answer is that man did. In fact, a believer in any one of these texts is duty bound to also believe that the other books are written for such purposes as those texts could not have been truely divinely inspired as the one believed in.
Of course, the funny thing is how a believer is sucked into their faith and cannot grasp how random it is. Christian? Muslim? Jew? Depends on where you grew up, who raised you, what you were and were not exposed to, who you meet in life and so on. Giving rise, ultimately to the most absurd of statements I always hear: "I have very good reasons for what I believe."
Yeah, and so does Tom Cruise... in his mind. Hell, 9/11 was one really well organized and effective faith-based initiative. We are supposed to live in a time of reason, yet paranormal beliefs tend to rule way too many important things in our lives.
If we'd all spend a little more time over at http://www.randi.org we'd all be better for it.
-- David
Of course, the funny thing is how a believer is sucked into their faith and cannot grasp how random it is. Christian? Muslim? Jew? Depends on where you grew up, who raised you, what you were and were not exposed to, who you meet in life and so on. Giving rise, ultimately to the most absurd of statements I always hear: "I have very good reasons for what I believe."
u've not met many converts to Islam then.. *chuckle
Steve as much as your article is interesting as much as it's missing content. An article just to base the facts of which one is crueler or not isn't really a comparison but how do people interpret the text and how it is followed is a more precise acuracy.
Oh btw, I am wondering why you have written this article comparing the Bible and the Quran and not mentioning the Torah? If you're going to compare the monogomous religions might as well make it a proper comparison.
Honestly it matters not which of these has more violent passages, if you study them closely they are both trying to say on thing and one thing only. There is one god and you must obey him. Allah is just a translated term in Arabic for the word "god", so please do not misinterpret these as two different gods. These passages are both violent, yes I agree but the simple fact of the matter is that, that violence is to defend your belief and gods name. I personally don't understand why the muslims and christians have been fighting for such a long time.
Going back to the comment about the verse of Quraan. Surah 5:33
It says:"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land"
Is that really typical to thank or please somebody makes war against you?
But I was hoping you read critically before you comment. In this time, in these days you're a terrorist if you try to protect yourself from occupiers and attackers. It is occupation at its best. Something 15th century actually had missed a lot with all of its darkness. Thanks to government broadcasting. I don’t really know how people think in these days.
Mark: I hope you can give me your address. So I can come and take your loved ones, car, and house, if you have one, I don’t have one yet. And I may let you work for me after I take everything, don’t be hasty, I still like you, and according to your peacefulness that is fair enough. I’m really dying to see you thank me after doing all of that and leave you miserable after that. Then I will come back here and really, really thank you for your givings.
Mark: I hope you can give me your address. So I can come and take your loved ones, car, and house, if you have one, I don’t have one yet. And I may let you work for me after I take everything, don’t be hasty, I still like you, and according to your peacefulness that is fair enough. I’m really dying to see you thank me after doing all of that and leave you miserable after that. Then I will come back here and really, really thank you for your givings.
Actually, the Bible pretty much teaches that bad things happen to people only because they've made a choice to separate themselves from God. Or, if they are a follower of God, that they've probably got some sin to get rid of in their life...or just need to be tested to be sure they'll stick around.
And, anyone following Jesus (not religion) probably would not get miserable when all his possessions are taken away. Jesus actually commanded us to sell them all, they have little value except here on earth. Now, being humans, it might be a rare if that extreme of an example actually took place, but it sounds about like what happened to Job.
It's all about learning to be humble and be a servant...ancient near east culture understood that, the Japanese still do. It only sounds crazy to westerners who are too attached to what they have.
Of course, the real problem is the idea of "belief" or "faith" rather than the content (context or not) of the text. Since faith is belief in the absence of evidence (and often in the face of it), the real problem that is being probed in this blog is of what harm that does to humanity.
Biblically, "faith" is actually supposed to be based on evidence. We can't have one without the other. The word used is "pistis", which is a legal term used when referencing to trial evidence. It has the general definition of "loyalty" (or, more appropriate, FAITHfulness). You can't be loyal (faithful) to something without evidence! It's impossible! And the evidence is more than out there. Biblically, God's fulfilled promises and the things He's provided for mankind are more than enough evidence. But for the person who is still lacking that, all the evidence needed is given when someone experiences the change that He's promised (if you just believe in Him) So where is this absence of evidence anyway? I'm still looking for it. I've been to thousands of "skeptic" websites, and one thing was always clear for people claiming lack of evidence - they just don't understand what they're talking about. Not even some of the "science" that is supposedly being passed off as authoritative.
The various religious texts, Bible, Book of Mormononsense, and so on are all different flavors the samething: texts used to control. One may argue it is God who is exherting that control (though why he'd need such badly written, and unclear garbage as this to do it remains a mystery) but the more likely answer is that man did. In fact, a believer in any one of these texts is duty bound to also believe that the other books are written for such purposes as those texts could not have been truely divinely inspired as the one believed in.
So who is controlling people with these texts? I don't see anyone controlling me yet with the Bible. It's just there, it's subject to however we respond to it. Obviously you're not controlled by it. What people get "controlled" by is religion - the man-made aspect of spirituality. People who believe that just doing what they're told, or following laws, is all it's about. People who haven't understood that it's a bit something more than making a routine of things.
As for divine inspiration, this is also a concept frequently misunderstood. The idea is that the writers themselves were inspired by what they saw or heard from God, and wrote down what they could. In a few cases, God did tell them what to write, but it's usually obvious that God isn't the one actually writing things. Most of the books included in the Bible were written in the literary styles of their time period. It was obvious the authors were writing to cater to their audience - they had to put some of their own work into that. But their "inspiration" for writing was divine.
And where is the "badly written, unclear garbage"? Maybe the bulk of the madeup nonsense in the Book of Mormon, otherwise everything I've heard people say is "badly written" or "unclear", is just something that people are trying to understand with the wrong context. Historical, as well as textual context, is needed to really understand alot of the Bible. If someone abuses either, then what they read will seem "unclear" or "badly written". But in actuality, I find most of these people knew exactly what they were writing...and didn't make near the mistakes some people think they did. And when you do see something out-of-place, translators have historically mis-transcribed a dash of things here/there. Never anything that overturns the meaning and teaching of the book.
Of course, the funny thing is how a believer is sucked into their faith and cannot grasp how random it is. Christian? Muslim? Jew? Depends on where you grew up, who raised you, what you were and were not exposed to, who you meet in life and so on. Giving rise, ultimately to the most absurd of statements I always hear: "I have very good reasons for what I believe."
This is just bigotry and oversimplification of a complex concept. What about Jews for Jesus? What about Muslims who become Christian? What about Christians who become Muslim? What about Christians who become atheists? And then the ones that eventually turn back to Christians? Or what about all the Christians who leave for other "cults". Or what about the people raised wicca who convert to Christianity?
Where you grew up, who raised you, etc. - has alot to do with where your "religion" starts. But what you make of it is ultimately personal choice. As for me? Few people I met had anything to do with my conversion. It was the desire for a changed life. It just so happened that later on, I realized how much some of the people I had come across had been trying to get me there sooner. If anything your argument is more saying it's controlled, not random. My argument actually states it's a bit more random...
Yeah, and so does Tom Cruise... in his mind. Hell, 9/11 was one really well organized and effective faith-based initiative. We are supposed to live in a time of reason, yet paranormal beliefs tend to rule way too many important things in our lives.
Wow, belittling someone or their religion to downplay it's importance. So what makes Tom Cruise's belief crazy, as you have implied? I know why I don't believe in Scientology, but what is it to you if he does? Everyone does have their reasons, maybe for once you should ask what they are and listen to them? Otherwise it just sounds like you're just believing what you want without weighing any evidence.
9/11 was not a faith-based initiative. 9/11 had nothing to do with religion, save for the intended purpose of inciting a Muslim civil war and a conflict with Israel. But that was planned decades ago by the CFR. The main purpose of 9/11 was resource and localized population control. But of course I'm sure you still believe it was 19 Muslims that were responsible for pretty much controlling the military's decisions that day?
If we'd all spend a little more time over at http://www.randi.org we'd all be better for it.
Actually, perusing the site a bit, I like it! Thanks for the link! The guy tends to oversimplify many things, or just write complete dissertations on crazy topics like UFOs.
The old testament quote that you point out in Numbers was a directive from God pertaining to a particular war. Jesus has given us the dirctive for our time and that is to 'love your enimies and pray for those who dispitefuly use you'. Old testament law was an eye for a eye, but Jesus taught to turn the other cheek. So therefore all who claim to be Christians ought to adhere to the doctrines of Jesus Christ. It could be argued that the Jews who don't believe in Jesus and who have only the old Testament law could have a more extreme view if they believe that those old battle directives applied today. Do Muslims have a change in dispensation like the Christians do, or would every literal interperetation of the Q'ran lead to an extreemist view.
So, by your math, 2.7% of the Bible is evil, 0.8 % is good. What about the other 96.5%? Useless? Somehow I think your criteria for deciding these types of things was a bit off. Are all the psalms and proverbs not "good" material.
"So, by your math, 2.7% of the Bible is evil, 0.8 % is good. What about the other 96.5%? Useless?"
Well, besides cruelty and good stuff there are another twelve categories at the SAB.
But, yeah, if I had "useless" and "boring" categories, every verse in the Bible would be highlighted.
"Are all the psalms and proverbs not 'good' material?"
I've only found three good verses in the Psalms, with 51 in "Injustice". That doesn't seem too good to me.
Proverbs is much better, though. 54 verses good verses, more than any other category. I think Proverbs is one of the best books in the Bible. (But the best by far is Ecclesiastes.)
Jason,
I have no idea what your comments stem from, or what your point is, but no worries matey (Matt 12:29).
Anonymous comments are weak.
Steve,
When you count the cruel verses in the SAQ, are you counting, additionally, verses stating that non-believer's will reside in hell, etc.?
Also, I'd be interested to know the "Big" count -- i.e. how *ALL* the bad/cruel/intolerant/sexist verses count as a % vs. the good stuff in the Qur'an
Sam from Egypt said:
"Oh btw, I am wondering why you have written this article comparing the Bible and the Quran and not mentioning the Torah? If you're going to compare the monogomous religions might as well make it a proper comparison."
I dont think that it warrants bringing in the torah when the bible and quran reach a far larger group of people, i think its more sphere of influence that brings these texts into the light, the torah cant match them in numbers
Well depending on which book you believe in the other one is more violent because it represents a faith that is anethema to yours. And I would like to pose a question, which one is the real religion?
funny thing. someone above says he posted the context of the verse 5:33 just by posting the verses before and after.
newsflash bro...the quran is not like any other book. usually each verse has distinct history behind it. they're just placed togother.
5:34 is not necessarily related to 5:33 or 5:35.
the bible is because it's like a story book. the quran is different.
the blogger fell into this trap.
5:33 is related to a certain people. to find this context you will never find it in a quran. you may need exegesis or a quran WITH comentaries.
so i advise all to pick up the book and do their own homework.
I hope people would come to understand Islam and know what Islam really is.
I've read a few passages from the Qur'an on here. The translation's are not even close to accurate.
And yet many of the followers of the Koran are more violent than the followers of the Bible these days.
I'd like to think that we as Christians understand the "truth" better, but I'm afraid it may be only because we, as a whole, have merely read our own book less. If the majority read more of the less "accessible" sections of the Bible, with their misunderstandings the world would be torn in twain. Yet, I fear, that may still be inevitable.
The majority is what is evil, whether Christian, Muslim, or Jew.
I think some key things are missing in this Koran vs Bible comparison...
1 - The Law that is in the Torah (which is the first five books of the OT) was law that God explictly imposed upon the Hebrews. The Hebrews were never given a mission by God to convert the world to their religion, so these violent laws were not binding on the rest of the world. So while some of these things are as violent as some Suras in the Koran the target of the violence is completely different. With the Koran it's usually everyone else on the planet who is going to get hurt, in the Torah it was just the Jews.
A lot of the New Testament letters are about why these laws didn't apply to Gentile (non-Jewish) converts to Christianity. God never intended them to be universal laws (with the exception of the basic dont kill, dont steal)
2 - The violence in the Old Testament that is not part of the Law is merely historical documentation (from its point of view) of past events. The violence is certainly not a "model" for readers to emulate.
3 - The violent commands in the Koran are intended for its readers to mete out on those who deserve it. For its readers to adhere to in their present time. The violence is PROSCRIBED not described. And this violence is directed towards those who are not members of the faith.
So perhaps you should add some subcategories to your violence labels, like "Violent "historical" event described"... "Violence directed towards adherents", "Violence command to be against non believers by beleivers" etc.
How much of the violence is merely related, and how much is actually presented as something proper? I think that this distinction is important.
How can god advocated rape, murder and slavery be taken out of context and thus be right in its proper context? It can't and its sick and its in the Bible. True believers of both Christianity and Islam are so poisoned by their belief systems they will make excuses for any atrocities committed or commanded to be committed by their supposed loving gods in their holy books. These books can be interpreted many different ways which is why there are different Islam and Christianity sects competing with eachother throughout the world and these interpretation problems are also the reasons why young children are misguided to ignore or accept some of the more cruel Bible or Koran verses by their elders and not allowed to read the books by themselves and come to their own conclusion as to read it on their own without adult interpretations and apologetics thrown in the mix for questionable verses both the Koran and Bible are absolutely sickening documents worthy of the world's revulsion not belief.
Interesting break-down. Of course, since "good" and "evil" are subjective concepts based on our own person upbringing and the culture we live in, it's difficult to gauge which of these scriptures has more "good" or "evil" violence.
If I kill an animal and eat it, then I gain protein and other nutrients, fur or skin to make into clothes or shelter, etc. If I kill an adversary, I can protect myself from her and maybe take her possessions, position, etc. So I could say that if there are those making war upon my god and his prophet, attempting to corrupt my land and by extension exploiting or threatening me, I would wish they were rewarded with death, or have their hands and feet cut off. At our basic core there is a primal instinct for survival. Some of us in the West do not think about it since we are protected from thoughts of survival. Our leaders and our businesses fight for us: exploiting others for their land and resources and killing those who oppose us. This way we don't have to bloody our own hands. Killing for religion is just an extent of killing for the tribe, just as killing for nationalism is an extent of killing for the tribe. It's just basic animal nature.
Is it not contradictory for some who does not believe in a diety to attempt to make commentary on books which require such belief to accept?
This aint the Constitution or a book by Carl Sagan.
What you are doing is like sending a rap critic to judge a rock album.
The first chapter and first handful of verses in the second chapter are like a disclaimer.
This is where the rap critic starts to cringe at the first loud notes of guitar and crashin cymbals. By the end of his listening session he's like...'hell nah that shit lacked a groove, the bass wasn't enough, etc,etc,etc blah blah'. So you are just like that rap critic.
So utterly and totally biased by what you believe.
What is your goal here? To defame a large group of people who will not listen to you either way? Hell, most will not hear you.
It is said we look for things in life that agree with what we already believe. So you are doing service to no one, ESPECIALLY not yourself.
I don't know if this is a continuing thread, or if it's long dead. Regardless....
As far as ALL so-called "holy scriptures" are concerned, if the supreme being of the universe had something to say to people, then certainly he shouldn't need specially trained people (clergy, "apologists" of all stripes) to interpret or translate the meaning of his words. I've read enough of the bible, particularly the Old Testament, to see quite clearly that any attempt to pretend that the violent, nasty, inhumane passages that abound there somehow turn out to be perfectly reasonable and loving and okay when "read in context" is a crock. Scriptures were supposedly written for PEOPLE, not for a special priestly class whose role it is to interpret it for the common "dummies." Are people here suggesting that God was such a befuddled thinker and even a worse writer that he was incapable of stating in clear terms - and for all ages - exactly what he meant without internal contradiction?
One other thing:
A previous "anonymous" poster stated: "Is it not contradictory for some who does not believe in a diety to attempt to make commentary on books which require such belief to accept?"
Say what? What came first, the scripture or the belief? Are you stating or implying that those who accepted the truth of the Bible and Koran many centuries ago already believed in them BEFORE they were written and disseminated? They already had to BELIEVE before they were able to accept? Then if they somehow already believed in stories and precepts that they had never been exposed to before, what was the point of writing down "God's word?" And why do missionaries proselyze and hand out copies of their scriptures to "heathens" if acceptance presupposes belief? That's absurd.
It should be noted that most of the violent sections in the bible are in the OLD testament and are generally overridden by the NEW testament in Christianity. However, in the Koran it is the opposite.
There are 114 versus in the Quran about peace and patience that are canceled by the call to Jihad and later periods in the Koran. These are in the earlier sections, where most of the nice versus about peace and patience, of the Quran and have been overridden by the later sections. This is known as nasikh (abrogation) in the Quran where versus written later in time abrogate the versus written earlier in time whenever there is a contradiction. Note that the Quroan is not arranged chronologically (time order), it is arranged from the shortest book to the longest. You need to know the time period a versus was written to determine if it is still valid or abrogated. Many Secular and moderate Muslims still quote peaceful verses despite the fact these are considered overridden via nasikh. The nasikh is not mentioned to Westerners when they read/study the Quran. For example in AD 614 Allah made one verse Surah 2:256 “There is no compulsion (i.e. coercion) in religion.” Then in AD 627 a very different one Surah 9:5 Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them…. But if they repent and accept Islam then leave their way free. The later one created in AD627 overrules the earlier one in AD614. In other words verse 2:256 is null and void. See abrogation rule in the Quran 2:106 Whatever a verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things? The 9th chapter is actually the last chapter written in time, it is the only chapter that does not start with the compassionate one and it contains the verse of the sword. There are peaceful and moderate Muslims but no peaceful and moderate Islam. Many of the most radical Muslims say Islam is a religion of peace because once Islam takes over the world there will be nothing but peace.
So now if you compare the valid violent sections of the Koran vs the bible you will get a much different result. Almost all, if not all, the violent verses in the Koran remain while virtually all of the violent versus in the bible’s Old Testament are void. There are still a few violent versus in the New Testament but I believe that is less than a dozen or so (can someone count them?). Thus as a percentage the Bible’s valid violent versus drops to almost zero while the Korans remains at the previously high amount. Thus it is an inescapable conclusion is that the Koran contains significantly more valid violent verses than the bible.
Let’s apply liberal rules around the bible’s valid violent versus and assume there are 50 violent versus left. The percentage of the violent versus in the bible would drop to 0.16% (50/31173) That is less than one percent. Now divide the Koran’s figure of 5.4% by 0.16% and you get 33.77 as the ratio, in other words the Koran is over 33 more time violent than the Koran. That is a HUGE difference!!!
Correction:
in other words the Koran is over 33 more time violent than the >>BIBLE<<. That is a HUGE difference!!!
Also: There are peaceful and moderate Muslims but >>it is hard to believe in<< peaceful and moderate Islam >>>when taken literally.
Steve wrote:
Fair enough. But what do you think about Surah 5:33, which says:
"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land...
It didn't insist violence against innocent people. But Bible do. That is another BIG DIFFERENCE! :)
Moreover it is equally noticeable that certain verses in Qur'an repeates again and again!
The violent verses in Bible are all unique!
By the looks of it, you need a damn degree in order to correctly understand a passage in any religions writing. You'd think "God" would make a message more accessible, but instead people argue about which book is divinely inspired and which book isn't. In the end, it's arguing about who's shit smells the least.
Anonymous said... "Old testament law was an eye for a eye, but Jesus taught to turn the other cheek."
Here's another interpretation. Normally, a 'higher' person would slap a 'lower' person, usually with the back of the hand. To turn the other cheek would be to have the higher person slap you with the front of the hand, which was reserved for equals. Jesus was saying let him slap you as an unequal then have him slap you again as an equal, subtly insulting him.
The church has taken Jesus, a social activist, a rebel that challenged religious authorities - and it has turned him into a relic used in a ritual required by 'God' for an injust judgement of our souls. It all started with good ol Paul the pharisee..
It's interesting that you bring up Muslims. My husband and I compare the similarites of Islam and Christianity almost daily. If the bible's teachings,(but who's to say, as it's very contradictory - some of it to be taken literally, and some not?) don't advocate violence, why do Christians still carry it out? Are they just the ones whom are confused? Or were they just not supposed to listen to that part of the bible? Maybe they're the brave ones, whom practice literally what they believe the bible tells them? Where are the violent radical Pagans, or Buddhists?
Most Christians - most, but not all - are not content with allowing others their own beliefs. They feel they must convince/convert/preach that their way is the one and only true way. This is what led to the intolerance that I and others with differing opinions have to deal with. When I point this out, the typical response is, "Oh, they're just the radicals, the extremists. I'm fine with what you believe." Well, if all Christians were so docile and accepting, why does this discrimination continue to prevail? Why can't I be public about my beliefs, without suffering some kind of consequences? The truth is, there are very real consequences for those who are not Christians - I live it every day. The victims of the Inquisition would probably agree.
The point is, any religion which is not OK with allowing others their own thoughts, is attempting to control people, and this in turn becomes violence.
The big problem with this research is that you are equating ACTS of violence in the bible with COMMANDS to COMMIT violence in the Koran.
Violent things happened in the bible, but there are few places where standing commands can be seen for Christians to COMMIT violence.
In the Koran most of the violent quotes are of the Koran specifically commanding their followers to COMMIT violence.
As such your comparison isn't exactly fair.
Firstly. Let me say that we should consider how intolerant each book is, rather than how violent it is. This must clearly be the best question when investigating how humane any religious or political ideology is. That the followers are always promised paradise, in heaven or on earth, goes without saying.
Secondly. The way a religion is practised is not only based on what is written in its scriptures, but also how rigid the interpretations of these scriptures are. Seemingly the Koran is stricter in that the followers have to believe exactly what is written.
The Koran is arguable the worst book in the first respect. But the latter is probably a much bigger problem.
In a discussion of violence in religion, we first have to separate individual instances and personal interpretations from the actual religion. In the case of Islam, the Koran is the ultimate AND ONLY authority. Therefore the actions of radicals cannot be attributed to violence in the religion. Followers of radical clerics (terrorists etc.) are in fact in strictly Koranic terms "idolteres" for they associate others (namely their clerics, leaders etc) with God instead of going to the source themselves. Of course they are fooled into believing this is ok as the clerics treat the Koran as a "guideline" instead of a definitive text, taking -- Just like the original article did -- verses that seemingly encourage violence and filtering out the rest.
In Islam this is the greatest form of blasphemy. The worst of the sins is to associate oneself or others with God and assume God's role in the interpretation and application of the divine Message.
The first verse of the Koran, "the Opening" explains this very well by dividing people into three categories: 1. Those God has blessed. 2. Those wrath has been directed to 3. Those who are astray. Some people lump 2 & 3 together, but I like to keep them separate as it introduces a leader/follower kind of hierarchy among the "sinners".
Radical Islamist Extremists that follow ideologies of hate fall right into groups 2 & 3. But of course so do the people on the other side of the coin who perpetuate violence and wars for oil and worldy gains and directly or indirectly spill the blood of thousands of innocents.
The Koran indeed treats this "sinner" group which it considers to be the enemy of God very cruelly. But to call it a cruel book because of this, you have to be ignoring a very cruicial element in the rest of the book that offsets this cruelty at every turn: God in the Koran, besides being all-powerful, all-knowing etc. is also all-compassionate and all-merciful. In fact these two are the most repeated properties of God. Each chapter begins with the phrase: "In the name of God, the all-compassionate, the all-merciful."
The opening verse I have mentioned also includes these adjectives and on top of which introduces the concept of divine guidance. Receiving divine guidance, followed by repentence and correcting one's actions is the path from groups 2 & 3 into what the opening verse calls "the straight path" on which the blessed walk. So these groups are not set in stone. God is not eternally vengeful against any specific person and everybody gets plenty of chances to repent and be forgiven in God's endless compassion and mercy. This involves people so wicked that we with our human mercy and compassion do not have the power to forgive.
So yes, you can focus on a specific verse against the enemies of God and call the Koran cruel if you want. But it wouldn't be the correct judgement when you also know that those who are subjected to that cruelty are also offered endless chances of repentence at a super-human level of mercy and compassion.
Outside of the Koran, the prophet Muhammed illustrated God's mercy by saying that "All of your sins are forgiven if you remove one thorn from your neighbor's path."
Now unlike many here, I don't know too much about the Bible. But I believe the true Muslim view above is very much in agreement with the true Christian view. God's mercy is embodied in Jesus in Christianity. Guilt is said to be a trick of the Devil to pull sinners deeper into self-loathing and more sin. Whereas repentence is rewarded with mercy and is achieved only by the guidance of the Lord.
Bottom-line: Neither religion is violent. Stupid people of ANY religion are.
My religion - or lack thereof - is atheism. I'm so glad that I don't need to be told how to think. I've never been incited to violence, as I personally abhor it.
Free will is so vastly underrated in this world.
The bible and the Quran were writen and modify many many many time by human with interest....
o please, dont compare christianity with islam. I know christianity can be a pain. But at least THEY DONT KILL PEOPLE in name of their religion! The pope does NOT burn or hang people, and does NOT ask for violence. Jesus was NOT a murderer. Mohammed WAS. Fatwas are always MUSLIM orders to kill someone who dared to oppose the VIOLENCE of ISLAM.
it was the inquisition who was the last christian religeous killing-team. The crusades. Herecy. Burnings to the stakes. Middel ages. Power corrupts. People who tried to live like jesus, poor, loving, unarmed, NOT VIOLENT, found a corrupt pope, with more power as kings, who was rich, un-loving, armed and VIOLENT.
we now know, that religion can NEVER be an excuse to KILL another person. We shall never tolerate a religion that incites VIOLENCE.
every scholar who reads the quran and studies the life of the prophet, will turn into a terrorist. Because that is what the prophet was. A terrorist. Because that is what the quran teaches: violence and hatred.
the core, the essence, of christianity is love. And STILL the popes killed people. The core, the essence, of islam is violence.
how would you feel if I claimed that 'kill all jews' was the word of god? or 'kill all black people'? That would be 'racist', right?
but the quran is full of texts like that, aimed at disbelievers! the prophet KILLED everyone who opposed him! dansers! poets! complete villages! he stole their woman! he fucked a nine year old child!
come on. This is clearly not a prophet. mohammed is worse as hitler and dutroux put together.
because people believe he actually IS a messenger from god.
would GOD ask you, to cut with a knife into the genitals of your child? would GOD, who created life, ask of you to KILL another living being?
islam is not a religion, it is FACISM!
the difference with christianity? NO PRIEST asks for MURDER! there are no SUICIDE nuns! the pope denounces violence, like jesus did!
christianity is bad. Islam is all that, PLUS a license to kill disbelievers, given, by ALLAH!
Steve,
Sorry about all the negative comments. You're doing good work here. That is all.
Man
I think I ought to make a comment on this suspect methodology that you employ quite a bit in your blog. To be honest, it's not like I have the answer to how you could do better, but these numbers seem to me to be misleading.
If you count the number of violent passages in the Bible vs. the number of violent passages in the Quran, you're only getting part of the story. You say, I'll make it better, and make it a percent! On other posts, you've said, I'll balance out the good and the bad! But is this really reflective of reality?
The real world, even from the point of view of most fundamentalists is not black ad white. Consider a hypothetical pair of killers:
Person A is a serial killer. Out of a sense of moral outrage, he sneaks into the houses of convicted (but released) sexual offenders and injects them in their sleep with lethal doses of morphene. He's killed, let's say 20.
Person B has never committed a crime before a few months ago, at which time he abducted a child from a local playground. He took the child home and tied them up in his basement, proceeding to sexually and physically torture them on a daily basis for a few months, until he got bored and decided to kill them off by feeding them alive to his pit bull.
Is person A 20 times more violent, cruel and/or unjust than person B because he killed twenty times more people (or more, perhaps technically person B never really killed anyone with their own hands, afterall)? I don't think anyone would think that, whether or not they thought he was morally justified. (I put in the part about the victims being sexual offenders because I expect some would consider such a person a hero, although I don't want you to think I would consider him justified.)
How violent a person is is not measured in numbers of victims of acts of violence, nor numbers of individual acts of violence, nor numbers of acts of violence less acts of kindness divided by years of life. Jesus implied in the Sermon on the Mount that it is measured in an abstract way in the heart. I agree with the sentiment, and not just because I'm a Christian.
Folks,
Most can agree that these two texts contain violent imagery in order to convey a message. The problem with modern religion is not the text but the interpretations. Interpretations are based on one's own perception of the world and the realities that exist in their life, community, country, region, etc. You cannot fairly condemn any book or text only the literal, figurative or simply misguided interpretation and the actions brought forth as a result.
You need to take a look at the extent of the creulty in each book.
In the old testiment there's lots of talk about God commanding people to kill for him or God killing people. Wiked people were killed and sent to hell, it sucks but it happened.
In the new testiment Jesus comes and alows people to be forgiven of their sins by believing in him, most of the creul talk is Jesus and God's way of discribing hell (lake of fire, gnashing of teeth, ect.) in the majority of the new testiment God is a relitively nice person but at the time of death and at the time of the rapture, non believers are sent to hell and during the rapture they are almost all killed by God with a death befitting to them. Then the devil gets to take over and he tourtures everyone left for a lot of time and then God comes back kicks the devil out and makes Heaven on earth, yay.
But in the Quran there is a lot of talk about killing or maiming people in the name of Allah, these rules have not been revoke but they command all muslums to kill Christians, Jews, Hippocrites, and non-believers or they will suffer the same fate as them. It describes multiple ways of torture that muslums should inflict upon those not deemed worthy. It says Allah himself MAKES people disbaleve (thats very nice). There is no talk revoking these rules and there still in effect for muslums today. Hence why we have all these problems in the middle east with muslums killing people and themselfs for Allah. Horribly violent religion if taken as the Quran tells you to.
The basis is Bible tells you to believe in Jesus Christ as your lord and savior and you get to go to Heaven. Do good deeds, witness and help others become Christians and you get rewards in Heaven. Strict guidelines restrict any creulty being done by christians (ten commandments).
On the other hand you have the Quran which tells its followers to be relentless and mercyless to anyone who doesn't believe. It commands people to kill others for the glory of Allah. There really isn't anything nice about the way people are told to treat anyone who donesn't believe and to kill them muslums have free reign and are actually praised for being overly cruel to non believers
Quran is MUCH MUCH MUCH more cruel then the Bible, the Bible talks about cruel things most of them discribing Hell.
First I think we should take out the promise of hell as violent. We all know it is allerogical.
In all those violent verses , the Quran is quite simple. Fight them hard if they fight you, but stop fighting them if they stop fighting you (them can be anybody). I dont see this as violent, but for self defence against your enemies.
As for worldly punishment, The Quran always gives the limits. The minimum and maximum. Example as for Surah 5:33, which says:
"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom."
Well, it doesnt look that bad relatively in those days for a crime for treason. During world war2 it was death. The Quran gives 3 options at least. Maybe banishment for the lighter offence and death for the severe ones.
As for the bible, it is the only holy book that include the killing of innocent women and children, etc.
In conclusion, I would say that the Bible is more violent than the Quran. Not by the number of violent words, but the violence itself. In fact The Bible is the most violent of all Holy Books.
Thank You
Please note that I was comparing the Bible and the Quran, not muslims or christians.
Thank You
People,
Any good christian or muslim, in fact any human being KNOWS it's wrong to be violent, cruel or to take anyone's life.
The people we see or hear about, that kill in name of God/Allah are downright fanatics, brainwashed and ignorant. In my eyes I do not consider them muslims, christians, jews or whatever.
@ Nick: Please do read some more of those books. Reading improves your spelling and removes all the bullshit the bogey man has planted in your head. It might also help to spend time with people from the two religions and watching a little less TV.
PS: I'd recomend anyone to visit any of the three blogs i write on, but they're in portuguese, so...
Interesting work and worth reading. I would have to agree that most followers of these religions have not read the works in full context, so each side, the believers and non believers are talking and not listening. These documents were written long ago and they survived transcriptions, translations, and even editing to some extent. The fact that a semi coherent document exists is a marvel of mankind. Skeptical fanatics and religious fanatics alike can mold these documents however they see fit and make their own plausible intellectual discussions for eternity. The truth of the matter is that a person of sound mind and reasonable intellect can produce positive thought from reading these texts in context and in their entirety. Skeptics with and without interest can play with their own short sightedness and fanatics can play with gullible masses. The rest will spend more time reading the texts and less time watching an intellectual volley. When I was a child I used to correct my fathers English. He would ask me if I was listening to how he said it or what he is saying. Don't be a child.
Listen man, Only God knows your true intentions,What are you trying to prove,More violent the Quran or the Bible.They both have violent verses so,What's new,That's very normal since they are from the same God.Or are you another radical pacifism Christian.God is no violent,His only love.Comforting your self with this fantasy.And by the way You don't know how to count. The Bibles you mentioned are just translations of different versions,Stop doing that, Stop Questioning God.Thats what you doing these are the words of God,Prove there not and your free to your opinion,But when it comes to your God then it's blasphemy.Man shame on you.You are playing with fire.
Come on people use your heads.In the Quran the first verse that gave permission to the Muslim to fight,be careful permission not command,They were asking God for it. [2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors. [2:191] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Masjid, unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers. [2:192] If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful. [2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors. [5:87] O you who believe, do not prohibit good things that are made lawful by GOD, and do not aggress; GOD dislikes the aggressors.
[8:61] If they resort to peace, so shall you, and put your trust in GOD. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.
[4:90] ... if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them.
[4:94] O you who believe, if you strike in the cause of GOD, you shall be absolutely sure. Do not say to one who offers you peace, "You are not a believer," seeking the spoils of this world. For GOD possesses infinite spoils. Remember that you used to be like them, and GOD blessed you. Therefore, you shall be absolutely sure (before you strike). GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you do.
[6:151] Say, "Come let me tell you what your Lord has really prohibited for you: You shall not set up idols besides Him. You shall honor your parents. You shall not kill your children from fear of poverty - we provide for you and for them. You shall not commit gross sins, obvious or hidden. You shall not kill - GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you, that you may understand."
[17:33] You shall not kill any person - for GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. If one is killed unjustly, then we give his heir authority to enforce justice. Thus, he shall not exceed the limits in avenging the murder; he will be helped.
[25:68] They never implore beside GOD any other god, nor do they kill anyone - for GOD has made life sacred - except in the course of justice. Nor do they commit adultery. Those who commit these offenses will have to pay.
No Compulsion in Religion
[2:256] There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.
Absolute Freedom of Religion
[18:29] Proclaim: "This is the truth from your Lord," then whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills let him disbelieve. We have prepared for the transgressors a fire that will completely surround them. When they scream for help, they will be given a liquid like concentrated acid that scalds the faces. What a miserable drink! What a miserable destiny!
How to Spread God's Message
[16:125] You shall invite to the path of your Lord with wisdom and kind enlightenment, and debate with them in the best possible manner. Your Lord knows best who has strayed from His path, and He knows best who are the guided ones.
[8:12-13] Recall that your Lord inspired the angels: "I am with you; so support those who believed. I will throw terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved. You may strike them above the necks, and you may strike even every finger." This is what they have justly incurred by fighting GOD and His messenger. For those who fight against GOD and His messenger, GOD's retribution is severe.
[9:4-5] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous. Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. ...
[9:13-14] Would you not fight people who violated their treaties, tried to banish the messenger, and they are the ones who started the war in the first place? Are you afraid of them? GOD is the One you are supposed to fear, if you are believers. You shall fight them, for GOD will punish them at your hands, humiliate them, grant you victory over them, and cool the chests of the believers.
The verse you quote it is not for the unbelievers,It's for any Muslim that does corruption,It's a law.
I for one appreciate SAB, and the side blogs as well. I find that it is very thorough in its research and picking apart things...In short its one of the best online concordances I have ever seen and doesn't leave anything out just because someone thinks that part is just a sidebar...
I also like that there is now also Koran and Book of Mormon. I would love to see him do a few other religious documents as well...
bible has rich history of thousands of years....yes also killings(i'm not naive- it was in ancient times through the cradle of civilization in mesopotamia to the greek and roman era)
while islam in few years exterminated entire civilizations ,their people language ,and culture
The Bible and Koran are just words. It's the followers that carry out the violence. Which religion has done more violence? That is the question we should be asking and we all know the answer to.
Your list of "violent" bible passage are akin to reading the phone book and finding names that sound dirty. You have to consider three things: CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!
I have read both the BIBLE and the QURAN / KORAN. The violence in the two is EXTREMELY DIFFERENT.
The bible's violent passages are mostly in the telling of a story. Cain kills Abel, David slays Goliath. THEY ARE OVERWHELMINGLY STORIES OF HUMANS HARMING OTHER HUMANS. There isn't a general feeling of G*d condoning or ORDERING his followers to commit violence upon each other when you look at the overall book.
On the other hand, the passages in the Koran are often ORDERS FROM G*D TO HIS FOLLOWERS. They are clear cut, concise COMMANDMENTS TO KILL, SLAY, BURN, and/or DISMEMBER the unbelievers (non-Muslims) or those whom you percieve to have wronged and/or threaten you. This is ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT from the Bible, it is in TOTAL OPPOSITION TO IT, especially the NEW TESTAMENT with it's overall message of turning the other cheek, of forgiving, of live-and-love-and-LET-live-and-love...
For a covering of some interesting Koran quotes visit my blog at wingless.aoriginality.com
I have been reading the articles on your website and the comments.. i must say to the writer that he deffinately takes things out of context! Your quotes are also incorrect:
Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom. (7)
This is the exact quote from a surah in the quran, if u read it like that you think that Allah has sealed the eyes on all non believers however the context is actually that Allah has sealed the eyes of the children of Israel!
They were favouritised and the most guided people however they chose to wonder astray regardless and so Allah has given the word that their eyes are sealed and they will see an awful doom.. which makes sense.
If Islam had nothing to do with what id called punishment not cruelty then it would all be good!!! why would one obey if regardless you will be rewarded? People use logic to try and defy religon however never try and use logic to explain religon.
I have been reading new testament. It is filled with "Love" from God.
I recently started seriously reading Old Testament, in particular, Samuel I, II. I am shocked by the violences in these books. That is why I
Googled to find out anythings in this regards. There it is, some pretty interesting blogs here.
The 'cruelty' in the old testament is the interpretations of God treatments or rather punishment to the Israel's 'misfortunes' or rather 'arrogances'. Israel people along the Arab people suffered in common from 'hatred' between each other for thousands of years. Therefore their God seems to be merciless when these people in fact do not follow God's commands.
Don't forget Bible's New Testament, God's true revelations of His Goodness and Mercies. God through His son, Jesus Christ, loves all of us who all fall short in His glory.
We are no different in terms of our true sinful nature. There is no differences in a criminal and a president in terms of our nature. Though yet, God loves us through Christ, our Lord ! That is the ultimate love.
"What you're doing is basically known as proof-texting: taking a verse out of context and applying it to a teaching or meaning that the verse(s) were never intended to support."
You mean like every minister in every church that's ever existed?
If any God exists there is know way that it would condone the killing of non believers, all of you blind people should go grab a gun or some other weapon and go kill each other until we are left with the people that actually want peace on Earth with out the racial hatred and violence that is incited by religion.
It’s all a simple case of my “God is bigger than your God” and if you disagree then you will burn in hell, this all sounds to me like the work of the Devil as commonly described to all of us.
The day religion dies is the day that humans evolve stop making weapons to protect a fake faith that totally contradicts everything that is truly Godly, if God does exist then the religions are just Chinese whispers of the same story spread around the world and translated into many languages and I know for a fact that no God would condone the killing, burning, harming of any kind of any living thing be it setenant or not.
The reason you believe in this bullshit is that you clearly have something missing in your sad lives.
I guess you all believe in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and dragons, all of which have no evidence of existence just like your fake Gods, these lies are there to control you idiots into following paths of violence 911 ring a bell?.
Despite what you may think of my opinion the world would be a much more humane place if so many people did not believe in this shit.
I also assume that you self centred, selfish individuals believe in alien’s right?
And if not why not?
Peace to all creatures that exist in the entire universe is what my God would promote, you would not burn in hell for not believing, being gay / lesbian as after all God made them gay at the end of the day and like it or not the facts remain that religion is a way to make the rich richer the poor die of AIDS in Africa all because the pope told them that contraception is evil, condone that your God thinks that is ok and you are the evil ones.
I can not prove if God exists or not I have an open mind unlike you religious zealots with your closed minds and if you had your way the whole world would be slaves to your demons.
Religion is like a Utopia in that if everyone followed the same rules and worshiped the same God peace may be possible, but all the time that religions live in a time of the past promoting violence to the non-believer and condemning them to burn in hell all I see is evil nothing good, nothing peaceful just a bunch of morons that clearly think their God is bigger and better than my God and if you do not believe me then die.
What a crock of horse shit, if any thing I type here offends any of you religious nut cases then I say good, because what you have done to the world in the present and the past offends me so much that it makes me almost hate humanity for being so foolish to believe is such nonsense.
blogman said:
Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom. (7)
This is the exact quote from a surah in the quran,
--------------- --------------- ---------------
HEY GENIUS, YOU JUST FOUND ANOTHER TRANSLATION! There are several... Some are very liberal in their translations (i.e. they say 'moved' or 'slayed' instead of 'killed', they say 'subdued' instead of 'humiliated'...
So do not assume the author misquoted...
--------------- --------------- ---------------
blogman said
if u read it like that you think that Allah has sealed the eyes on all non believers however the context is actually that Allah has sealed the eyes of the children of Israel!
--------------- --------------- ---------------
OH! THAT MAKES IT ALL BETTER... YOU EXPLAINED IT, I'M GOING TO SLEEP NOW FEELING ALL WARM AND FUZZY! End of delusion.
Are you saying it's ok because he only smote the JEWS?!
Heck, the Islamists would agree as that targets their favorite scapegoat (funny how that is, the #2 religion in the world (Islam), the religion involved in most wars going on in the world today (Islam!!!) are blaming all the world's woes on a religion whose numbers are so small that they do not make it to the top 10 by population (Judaism))
--------------- --------------- ---------------
blog man said:
They were favouritised and the most guided people however they chose to wonder astray regardless and so Allah has given the word that their eyes are sealed and they will see an awful doom.. which makes sense.
--------------- --------------- ---------------
Thanx, you are just echoing the original authors point that the Koran is manifesto for a holy war again non-Muslims. You assetion that it is "not against everyone" but JUST the Jews is (a) absolutely false (read the Koran, come down to wingless.aoriginality.com and see the posts on the Sura), (b) absolutely devoid of morality
--------------- --------------- ---------------
If Islam had nothing to do with what id called punishment not cruelty then it would all be good!!! why would one obey if regardless you will be rewarded? People use logic to try and defy religon however never try and use logic to explain religon.
--------------- --------------- ---------------
That is NOT NOT NOT the point. Do you not understand? The Jews & Christians & Buddists & Hindus & Jains & Bahais & Satanists DO NOT WANT TO FOLLOW ISLAM! Again, they have no interest or need for Islam... The Koran calls upon Muslims to KILL these people! There are multiple passages that call for the FOLLOWS to smite the non-believers. It does not say that G*d will punish them, it does not say they will be punished by an unseen force, it calls upon humans to kill other humans. That is unique in Islam, to Koran often reads like a manifesto to violence against non-Muslims. see sources
I'm gonna borrow from Pat Condell here:
I respect a Christian, I don't respect Christianity.
I respect a Muslim, I don't respect Islam.
I respect a Jew, i don't respect Judaism.
In other words, I respect the person as a human being but I couldn't give a hoot about whatever sky deity they believe in. Followers of these Abrahamic faiths use their holy books as a blueprint for daily life, which includes binding laws as well.
So if god tells you that unbelievers were punished both here and in the hereafter in all sorts of nasty ways, do you need any context to justify it? God says he did it or condones it, so it must be true. Otherwise it wouldn't be the word of god in the first place.
If you end up cherry picking verses based on context, as that context changes through time you'll find even less verses to choose from until there are none left. In the end you might as well put the Bible/Quran on the same shelf as the Greek myths and Gilgamesh.
(do correct me about where the top quote came from)
I’m sure everyone has heard someone say, “I believe what I see,” but actually the reverse is true: we see what we believe. If one believes the Bible is full of inspiration, one will see and believe those passages that support that belief and ignore the rest. Instead of finding the Bible beautiful and uplifting, I found much of it rather appalling. Thus, reading the Bible was one of the triggers that started my doubts.
As George Bernard Shaw said: “No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.”
According to Mark Twain: [The Bible] “is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.” (Letters From the Earth)
You can find more on why I am an atheist at my blog:
http://tirelesswing.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-i-am-atheist-blame-it-on-bible-part.html
In response to o Anonymous who posted MON APR 16, 11:20:00 PM 2007 who said: "o please, dont compare christianity with islam. I know christianity can be a pain. But at least THEY DONT KILL PEOPLE in name of their religion!... "
Has Anonymous never heard of the Inquisition? or the Salem witch trials? Did Christians not kill each other in the name of their religions in Northern Ireland? Have Christians not killed homosexuals or abortion doctors because they were sinners? I'm not saying every Christian does this, but some do, and they do it in the name of God and/or Jesus.
The tragedy of 9/11 is a perfect example of Muslim zealotry gone bad. But then most Christians conveniently forget that Christians killed every man, woman, and child in Maarat and Jerusalem ---at least 50,000 people--- during the First Crusade. They killed everyone: Muslim, Jew, Christian, man, woman, and child ---and even ate the bodies of those they had slain, all in the name of Christ.
There were nine Crusades in the Middle East and numerous others elsewhere. Although the main targets were Muslims, Crusaders also targeted pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, and political enemies of the popes, among others.
Most of us have no idea if our own ancestors were involved in The Crusades, but the Muslims know. They meet in coffee houses where the entertainment is the relating of the history of families for generations back to the Crusades as if it all happened yesterday. This is why Muslims were so horrified when George W. Bush used the word “Crusade” in remarks about his War on Terrorism.
(Read more: http://tirelesswing.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-i-am-atheist-part-3.html)
And then there are those good Christians who write hate letters to atheists. (Read some examples of the "lovely, kind, heartwarming" letters received by the Freedom From Religion Foundation from "compassionate" Christians: http://tirelesswing.blogspot.com/2009/02/christians-behaving-badly-6.html)
Steve,
Your blog and annotated texts are magnificent and enlightening.
The weaselly evasion that bad verses are out of context is rubbish. Frequently, you describe the entire surrounding story, and often that makes the violence and injustice even more remarkable.
Just curious: you've calculated violence as a percentage of both books. Would it be possible to divide the books into percentages for your categories (violence, injustice, contradictions, cruelty, good stuff) summing to 100%, or is there too much overlap between categories, or is 60% of them filler and pointless narrative and begats?
Thanks again for your great work.
John
As I read through the comments above, I was impressed by the respectful tone taken by everyone on every side of the discussion.
The content, however, left me less impressed. The Muslim defends the Koran without question, the Christian fully supports the bible and the Atheist claims both are 100% wrong. No wonder religion lies at the heart of so many of the world's conflicts.
Hi Steve (and the Internet...),
The concept of abrogation and the distinction between descriptive/past-tense violence and instructive/future-tense violence does seem important. Further, I often wonder about the "wiggle room" afforded by each tradition... because the Qur'an was written down by companions of the Prophet and because one version was agreed upon so quickly after his death, I think Islam is much more inclined to literal interpretations. But the point made earlier that distinctions like "good" and "evil" are relative is valid... from the perspective of Muslims they are simply defending themselves and all that is holy I guess (and honoring contracts, treating orphans kindly etc. are "good" ideas), and it was (almost?) all said somewhere in the OT/NT... too bad for women, homosexuals, non-believers, people who charge interest, etc...
At this point I'm rambling though... thanks very much for the work you're doing!
Oh, one last thing: I'm a Master's student studying Criminology at SFU, and my thesis is an analysis of online Canadian conservative discourse regarding "Islamic Terrorism," which is why I ended up at your wonderful blog. I have access to NVivo 8 (Qualitative analysis software, super handy for coding/content analysis) and if you ever wanted to collaborate on developing a code-sheet to dis-aggregate/further analyze the violence etc. in the Bible/Qur'an I would love to help. You've probably already done something like that actually, so I'll go poke around some more and see.
Cheerio,
Yeah. who cares, right? Even the Devil doesn't believe he's evil ... LOL and so are his children ... ask the Crusaders ... the Jihadists ... the ones who plotted the Inquisition during the dark ages---and they'll all tell you, they're doing all these FOR THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD. And like the fanatical MARK, everyone who doesn't see things the way he does are being misled and deceived. Very typical of anyone whose closeminded.
Short-sleeved polo ralph lauren is the father of the summer should be prepared to most commonly used item, it has both style and shape of lacoste polo shirts, and vest with a random function, so that in the short-sleeved burberry polos apply to both on many occasions, and the pink and black cheappolos color brought into effect. polo fashion integrates two types of luxury and leisure style, now more and more popular men’s polo logo, most designers have sought to perfect the cut with “cutting” polo shirts in vogue of bones of the body polo women clothing.
Post a Comment