What The Quran-Bashers Don't Want You To Know About The Bible

What the Quran-bashers Don't Want You to Know About the Bib...
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/03/what-the-quran-bashers-do...
Robert Spencer | Pamela Geller | Bat Ye'or | Brigitte Gabriel | Daniel Pipes | Debbie Schlussel | Walid Shoebat | Joe Kaufman
| Wafa Sultan | Geert Wilders | The Nuclear Card Home About Archive Contact Send Us a Tip Site Map Register
Enter your search keywords here...
SUBSCRIBE TO THE RSS FEED SUBSCRIBE TO THE FEED VIA E-MAIL Anti-Loons Feature Loon Flashback Loon Media Loon People Loon Politics Loon Sites
Categorized | Feature, Loon Politics

Tags | Bible, David, holy books, Jihad, Joshua, Koran, Moses, Muhammad, Quran, Samson, saul, Suicide Bomber, Terror, Terrorism, Violence, which religion is more violent
What the Quran-bashers Dont Want You to Know About the Bible
1 of 66 1/25/12 12:48 AM
Posted on 26 March 2011 by Danios This article is part 4 of LoonWatchs Understanding Jihad Series. Please read my disclaimer, which explains my intentions behind writing this article: The Understanding Jihad Series: Is Islam More Likely Than Other Religions to Encourage Violence?
What the Quran-bashers dont want you to know is that the Bible is far more violent than the Quran. In fact, the Bibleunlike the Quranglories genocide; weve documented some of these genocideglorifying passages in our earlier articles: see part 1, part 2, and part 3. The anti-Muslim bigotssuch as the extremist Jewish Zionist Pamela Geller and the fervent, zealous Catholic polemicist Robert Spencerespecially dont want you to know about the Biblical passages regarding King Saul. The reason they dont want you to read these passages is that it would make the Islamic literature look quite tame by comparison, and well, that wouldnt be too good for the anti-Muslim business, now would it? It is of course getting tedious, redundant, and a bit boring to document all the God-sanctioned genocides of the Bible; there are too many of them, so they seem to mesh together. Having said that, Sauls genocide of the Amalekites warrants special attention, so it would behoove our readers to suffer through one last article on this topic. It should be noted, however, that our collection of violent
2 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
Biblical verses is non-exhaustive, limited only by our own boredom. So, who was Saul? He was the rst king of the United Kingdom of Israel, divinely appointed to this position by the Jewish prophet Samuel. His rst task as king was to ethnically cleanse the land of the Amalekite peoples: 1 Samuel 15:1 Samuel said to Saul, I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people, over Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 15:2 This is what the Almighty Lord says: I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and utterly destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. Notice that it was God Himself who ordered Saul to slaughter the Amalekites. And so King Saul led the Israelites in war against the Amalekites. Per Gods directives, Saul put to death men and women, children and infants. He killed every human being with the lone exception of the Amalekite king; he also spared some animals. By sparing King Agags life, Saul failed to complete the mitzvah (the religious obligation) of genocidesomething which was completely unacceptable to the God of the Bible: 15:7 Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, to the east of Egypt. 15:8 He took Agag, king of the Amalekites, alive, and all his people he utterly destroyed with the sword. 15:9 But Saul and the army spared [King] Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambseverything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed. 15:10 Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel: 15:11 I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions. Samuel was troubled, and he cried out to the Lord all that night. Saul tried to defend himself, but God stripped him of his kingship: 15:13 When Samuel reached him, Saul said, The Lord bless you! I have carried out the Lords instructions. 15:14 But Samuel said, What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear? 15:15 Saul answered, The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrice to the Lord your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.
3 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
15:16 Stop! Samuel said to Saul. Let me tell you what the Lord said to me last night. Tell me, Saul replied. 15:17 Samuel said, Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel. 15:18 And he [the Lord] sent you on a mission, saying, Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out. 15:19 Why did you not obey the Lord? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the Lord? 15:20 But I did obey the Lord, Saul said. I went on the mission the Lord assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag, their king. 15:21 The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrice them to the Lord your God at Gilgal. 15:22 But Samuel replied: Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrices as much as in obeying the voice of the Lord? To obey is better than sacrice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams. 15:23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you as king. 15:24 Then Saul said to Samuel, I have sinned. I violated the Lords command and your instructions. I was afraid of the people and so I gave in to them. 15:25 Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so that I may worship the Lord. 15:26 But Samuel said to him, I will not go back with you. You have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you as king over Israel! Saul repeatedly repented for his failure: 15:30 Saul replied, I have sinned. But please honor me before the elders of my people and before Israel; come back with me, so that I may worship the Lord your God. And God was sad that He had chosen such a sissy to be king: 15:35 The Lord repented that He had made Saul king over Israel. Saul was stripped of his kingship, which was given to Davidwho was frankly just much better at killing civilians. In fact, all the Israelite chicks fawned over David for being a more procient killer; all the girls wanted him and all the guys (including Saul himself) wanted to be him: 18:6 When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine, the women came
4 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with tambourines and lutes. 18:7 As they danced, they sang: Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands. 18:8 Saul was very angry; this refrain galled him. They have credited David with tens of thousands, he thought, but me with only thousands. What more can he get but the kingdom? 18:9 And from that time on Saul kept a jealous eye on David. Certainly, killing thousands just doesnt cut it. The mass murderer eld is just so saturated, that you really need to kill tens of thousands to be considered competitive for Heaven University. No wonder Samuel felt like an absolute idiot for sending a sissy to do a mans job; realizing this, he cleaned up Sauls mess: 15:33 Samuel put Agag to death before the Lord at Gilgal. King Agag was not the only one who was killed: God was so upset over the whole not killing everybody thing that He killed Saul and his three sons. The prophet Samuel explained to Saul why this was his fate: 28:18 Because you did not obey the Lord or carry out his erce wrath against the Amalekites, the Lord has done this to you today. [Using the emotive language of Pamela Geller, would this be a case of the maoso Jewish god ofng one of his goons for failing to carry out a hit--or in this case, a hit against thousands of people?] According to the Jewish texts (as reproduced on p.76 of Vol.11 of The Jewish Encyclopedia), Saul had protested the commandment to utterly destroy the Amalekites, saying: For one found slain the Torah requires a sin offering [Deuteronomy 21:1-9]; and here so many shall be slain. If the old have sinned, why should the young suffer; and if men have been guilty, why should the cattle be destroyed? What Saul didnt realize was that obeying the Lords commandmentin this case to kill women and childrenwas more important than anything else. The Bible explains the reason for Sauls demise: 1 Chronicles 10:13 Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD. He failed to obey the LORDs command A well-renowned Biblical commentary explains: Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the Lordin having spared the king of the Amalekites and taken the ocks of the people as spoils [1Sa 15:9], Today, Jews and Christians revere David over Saul, emphasizing the fact that David was more obedient to God than Saul. For example, ministry founder Tom Bushnell asks:
5 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
When faced with difcult decisions, should we act like King David or King Saul? King David and King Saul are as antithetical as any two people in the Bible. If we look at some of the dening moments in their lives, we see two men with drastically different outlooks on life. When faced with a decision, Sauls rst thought was, Is this pleasing to me? King Davids rst thought usually was, Is my choice pleasing to the Lord? Bushnell then gives this specic example to illustrate: Saul was disobedient when he spared king Agag and the best of the livestock of the Amalekites. (Partial obedience is disobedience). David was careful to follow the commands of the Lord, even during battle. One can only imagine the reaction of the IslamophobesSpencer, Geller, et al.had the Quran gloried genocide in this way. In fact, they can never cite verses in the Quran that promote, sanction, or justify genocidebecause they simply do not exist. Indeed, there are explicit statements of the Prophet Muhammad forbidding the killing of women and children. So next time anti-Muslim bigots troll the net by copying and pasting a litany of Quranic quotes in order to bash Muslims, we encourage readers to link this article about Saul (as well as our earlier articles about Moses, Joshua, Samson, and David) Reproducing these genocidal verses from the Bible is a good way to serve the Islamophobes a steaming hot platter of STFU, our absolute favorite dish. Addendum I: Perhaps the tone of voice in this article is a bit too aggressive, and as always with such topics I have my regrets. Yet, in the spirit of International Judge a Koran Day, I think a healthy dose of STFU is necessary. If you want to judge the Quran, then lets also be sure to judge some Bible. Ill see your jihad and raise you a herem. These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
6 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
162 Comments For This Post

1. Jack Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 3:33 am
Hm, I understand that describing someone as the extremist Zionist Jew Pamela Geller technically isnt very different from describing someone as the extremist Mujahiroon Muslim Anjem Choudary, but still, considering the historical connotations of calling someone out on being a Jew, I think you might want to soften the tone in using the term. If only to prevent your critics from using it as ammunition. What about the extremist Zionist Jewish Pamela Geller? Sounds a little less harsh. I dont know if that helps.
2.
Danios Says:
Shrug, sure. I changed it to extremist Jewish Zionist. And Anjem Choudary *is* a Muslim extremist. I dont have any problems with calling him thatjust like Pamela Geller is an extremist Jewish Zionist.
3.
mindy1 Says:
Hows about we just call her an extremeist?? As for the article, there will never be peace as long as any one group views itself as superior to another group.
4.
Percey Says:
It is a distortion to say that the bible glories genocide; it is part of the narrative of the bible
7 of 66 1/25/12 12:48 AM
and certainly not supported by Christs teachings besides you insist that we cannot judge Mohammed by modern standards, yet here you are apply modern ethics to stone age events that may or may not occurred. Violence in the bible does not cancel out criticism of the Quran; that is simply a reason to condemn religion in general.
5.
Mosizzle Says:
Reproducing these genocidal verses from the Bible is a good way to serve the Islamophobes a steaming hot platter of STFU, our absolute favorite dish. Yes it is. I absolutely hate it when Islamophobes try to end any discussion by pasting a whole load of verses from the Quran, knowing well that we wont be able to respond to all of them, and any responses that we do give will be immediately rejected. Often, getting the phobes to STFU is the best option and this is a great way to do it.
6.
Dawood Says:
@Percey: Violence in the bible does not cancel out criticism of the Quran, no doubt, and I agree with you on this. But the point is that different standards and criteria are used to evaluate the Quran compared to the Bible. The loudest critics of the Quran discussed on this site are self-professed Christians (e.g. Spencer) and Jews (e.g. Geller), so if they allow an interpretive tradition to evaluate, discuss and mitigate the verses outlined above, why do they not allow Muslims the opportunity of the same? It is this hypocrisy that is being highlighted in these articles, at least as I understand them.
7.
EJ Says:
@Mosizzle: I enjoy responding to all the verses they put in front of me. Lets me brush up on my history ^ ^
8.
EJ Says:
Ok, I just noticed this, but why is there a smiley face on the bottom left hand of the page O.O. It looks like its going to pounce me
8 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
9.
Mosizzle Says:
EJ, when people are up for a genuine discussion, Im okay with that. But often, some Islamophobes in various forums have a pre-prepared list of verses to throw in whenever theyre losing and then they just leave or ignore any response that is given. And Im more concerned about the guy on the Loonwatch logo
10.
Daniel Says:
@Dawood, well said. I dont think that we should go hunting for damning evidence against any religion in order to defame it. However, I think using mixed weights and measures is an abomination, and those who judge Islam and the Quran must be prepared to use the same standard in evaluating their own beliefs. Why should the Bible get a pass but the Quran have to exemplify pure-as-the-driven snow liberal democracy? (Please note my sarcasm on the last sentence; liberal democracy has often been illiberal and undemocratic.) If we tried to use the violence in the Bible to cancel out the violence of the Quran, it certainly would be Tu Quoque. But I think LW has made it abundantly clear that that is not the intention.
11.
Danios Says:
@ Percey (Cassidy?): It is a distortion to say that the bible glories genocide; Glories is somewhat of a subjective word. The Bible certainly sanctions and commands genocide. Various verses in the Bible also revel in genocide, which can be reasonably understood as glorifying genocide: i.e. For what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do the deeds and mighty works you do? Indeed, the Bible is actually boasting about how powerful the Israelite god is. This is accepted by scholars, which is something that Jack had earlier alluded to in the discussion about historicity. it is part of the narrative of the bible So genocide is a part of the narrative of the Bible. That confession in itself is good enough to prove our point. And certainly it is part of the narrative of the Good Guys of the Bible.
9 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
and certainly not supported by Christs teachings This is false, and an argument that will be refuted in my very next article in the Series. Stay put for that. At that time Im sure you will move on to the next topic. But for now, Ill say this: Jews do not believe in Jesus. So although this out may explain away Christianity, it does not do a thing for Judaism. So, basically you are throwing Judaism under the bus and saying that genocide is accepted in their holiest of teachings. If that be the case, why single out the Quran? Of course, now you will move on to another topic, i.e. where are the Jewish suicide bombers? That is a separate topic, one which will be discussed in a future article. The point is that the highest scriptural source of Judaism is more violent than the Quran, so why do Islamophobes always condemn the Quran as violent but never condemn the Hebrew Bible with the same force? besides you insist that we cannot judge Mohammed by modern standards, yet here you are apply modern ethics to stone age events We need to judge each by the standards of the time, and in a future article I will showjust as Dr. Philip Jenkins arguesthat Muhammad was mild compared to the times, whereas Moses, Joshua, Samson, David, etc. were all far more brutal than the surrounding nations. But again, thats a future article in the series. Violence in the bible does not cancel out criticism of the Quran I never claimed it did. Dawoods response above is sufcient. EDIT: Daniels response above is good too. Both state what I would have responded to you had I gotten to the scene rst, so no need to repeat what they said so succinctly. that is simply a reason to condemn religion in general. My views with regard to religion are discussed here: http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/03/2011/03/2011/03/the-understanding-jihad-series-is-islammore-likely-than-other-religions-to-encourage-violence/ As can be seen, I dont claim Judaism or Christianity are violent faiths. My point is only that if you use the same standards Islamophobes like you use against Judaism/Christianity, then in that case they are certainly violenteven more violent! But I myself reject those standards and that methodology.
12.
Mohamed S. Says:
10 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
Just a quick question: These are all verses from the Old Testament, correct? I believe Christians do not follow the commands of that part of the bible.
13.
rambo Says:
supported by Christs teachings why? did krist get his teachings from buddha? in krists teachings why not one word against the killing of the amaelekite people?
14.
JustBob Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:24 am
that Muhammad was mild compared to the times Compared to the times of what? 7th century Arabia? Id like to see Jenkins explain to us what other Arabian war lord massacred entire peoples or engaged in total war against his enemies. Muhammad was far more violent than his opponents, thats why he was able to triumph over those who opposed him or simply didnt declare full allegiance to, as in the case of the Southern Christian Pagan tribes Muslim forces under Muhammad attacked.
15.
NassirH Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:26 am
as in the case of the Southern Christian Pagan tribes Muslim forces under Muhammad attacked. Didnt Dawood already discuss this with you?
16.
Andrew Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:29 am
Great article, Danios. Keep emphasizing the disclaimer. Perhaps it would be a good idea to start qualifying them as extremist Zionists so as to be more specic. I think many people identify themselves as Zionists who also support Palestinian rights, so it is best to be careful with the language. Keep up the good work, friend.
11 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
17.
Mosizzle Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:30 am
Doesnt matter how many times its discussed, he wont accept it. Anyways, Danios said that will be discussed in a future article. Just wait and chill. Patience is a virtue.
18.
NassirH Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:36 am
Good point, Mosizzle. Even after Dawood refuted what Bob claimed, he crawled to over SATVs blog and suggested that SATV write about the subject.
19.
JustBob Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:43 am
Perhaps youre referring to Dawoods apologetic that the Southern Christian and Pagan tribes were pre-emptively attacked because tribes during Muhammads day were in perpetual war with each other? Im sure STAV would have no problem dismantling such a claim, which is why the poster suggested this as a discussion point.
20.
sameel Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:51 am
It is a common argument of Christians that it might be in Old testament but not in new testament, hence Jesus is peaceful. what they do not realise is , according to their own teaching Jesus is God himself. So the God of old testament is Jesus(for Christians)and the violence in old testament certainly apply to him.
21.
NassirH Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:53 am
Im sure STAV would have no problem dismantling such a claim, which is why the poster suggested this as a discussion point. The poster was you, apparently still incensed months after having your ignorance on the
12 of 66 1/25/12 12:48 AM
subject clearly exposed. As for your condence in STAV, hes just an ignorant Islamophobe, one of the many out there. The thing that differentiates him from a few other loons is his exceptionally pretentious tone when talking to Muslims.
22.
AJ Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
but still, considering the historical connotations of calling someone out on being a Jew, I think you might want to soften the tone in using the term. I agree with you on that Jack! I dont think Pamela follows the teachings of Judaism. She might be born into it but she doesnt practice it considering how violent she is.
23.
RP Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
These passages are documenting history. Instruction on what was to be done for that specic time. The Quran however, is violent instruction for todays reader.. Show us the passages instructing violence to the contemporary reader in the bible and show us the instruction in the New Testament. Poor argument!
24.
Nur Alia Says:

I do not have a problem with the tone of this articlefor once Nur isnt going to complain. Yesin the case of the specic incidence of genocide, the Bible does glorify it by bragging how well the Israeli forces ethniclly clensed the land they were stealing. We can also see, as well, that showing mercy, of any kind, even to animals who were taken as booty, even though the people were slaughtered wholesale was punished by a merciless entity (according to the Bible story) I often ask the Christians who question me being Muslim, and use the guise that women are oppressed or we are all evil terrorists to denouce without caveat ALL murder of any innocent person without caveat, and to say that they also denounce collective punishment. I see, by reading the articles like this one in Loonwatchwhy they cant. They would be doing the same as Saul did by his act of keeping bootywhich amounts to the questioning the god they obey as a tyrant.
13 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
25.
abdul-halim Says:
@Percy, I personally wouldnt claim you need to judge different events by a different moral standard. Im not really a relativist (but I do think that events should be understood in the right context with an awareness of how one society is different from another). In any case, one of the principles which I think holds up as an absolute across many different times and places is genocide is always wrong. And thats a pretty big milestone which the Bible goes against and the Quran does not. Secondly, in terms of Jesus and the New Testament, while there are Peace Churches which are genuinely pacist, historical Christianity generally holds ALL the Bible as inspired, including the genocidal parts in the Pentetuch. And it is clear that God is approving or even commanding those genocidal actions. So unless you are a follower of the heretic Marcion (an interesting early Christian group which believed in Jesus but thought that the God of the Old Testament was evil) Christians follow the God of the WHOLE Bible and are accountable for explaining why God would ever condone or command genocide. (which raises an interesting question of how Quakers, Mennonites and other Pacists actually deal with this issue.)
26.
Khushboo Says:
How about Judge whats happening in Gaza day! This brought tears to my eyes: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_tears_of_gaza_must_be_our_tears_20100809/ Bloggers, feel free to use this!
27.
Mosizzle Says:
The situation has not been good in Palestine these past few days. There have been killings on both sides, and each side will emphasise its own losses. I hope people learn to forgive, rather than calling the other side savages. Great article by the way.
28.
LibertyPhile Says:
14 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
Most Christians regard the Bible as a history book. They understand it is a compilation of works by different authors at different times and it is suffused with the propaganda and attitudes of those times. It is also very inaccurate historical record. When Muslims come to regard the Koran in the same light rather that the inerrant word of God for all time then your schoolboy comparisons might have some relevance.
29.
Dawood Says:
I dont know exactly what you did Danios, but youre really bringing them all out of the woodwork with this series of articles!
30.
Khushboo Says:
^then pray tell why priests use these scriptures as guidance to every day life?? For example, why is it bad to have an abortion?! Because its in the bible; Why cant gays get married? Because its not Christian thing to do since its nots in the bible. So stop with the BS! Quit being a School bully and leave us alone and only then can we stop using comparisons!
31.
Mosizzle Says:
LibertyPhile, long time no see answers to that here:
. Plenty of people have decided to bring that up. Danios
http://www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/On-the-Historicity-of-the-BiblicalAccount-LoonWatch2.pdf
32.
Khushboo Says:
oh FRACK! Correction: Homosexuality is not allowed according to the bible so many Christians are against homosexuals. So Liberty, Christians do use bible as guidance, not just as a history book.
15 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
33.
NassirH Says:
IslamophobiaPhile: Hows the ght against kebabs going? Regarding your argument that the Bible is historically questionable, the same could be said about Islams canon. It was known beforehand that Islamophobes would use this fallacious argument and it was already addressed several times. Notwithstanding, they continue to use this argument, showing that they dont read the articles but instead respond reexively with predictable comments. Finally, it is important to recognize that Muhammad is not merely the quest of believers, but of historians as well. In this regard a word of caution must be offered concerning the nature of the sources. The hijra (Muslim calendar) was established only during the caliphate of Umar b. al-Khattab (r. 634644 C.E.). Before the hijra, events in Arab life were remembered in relation to more signicant happenings of the recent past, such as raids and battles or through the mnemonic of numbers. Traditions in biographical literature that provide a chronology and sequence to the events that constitute the life of Muhammad are therefore suspect. Moreover the Quran, which is not compiled in the sequence in which it was revealed, mentions Muhammad only four times. Faizer, Rizwi. Muhammad (570632 C.E.). Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World. Ed. Richard C. Martin. Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004. 478-485.
34.
abdul-halim Says:
LibertyPhile, there are plenty of fundamentalist Christians who disagree with what you are saying (e.g. in Uganda you have Christians wanting to make homosexuality a capital offense, or the Lords Resistance Army is trying to impose the 10 commandments, and you even have Christians trying to kill witches) although I agree to the extent that there are multiple levels to Islamophobia (which Im assuming Danios will address in the series). On the one hand you have Bible-believing critics of Islam who are disingenuously hostile to Islam for factors which are found in a more extreme form in the Bible itself. (This kind of person is addressed in these early chapters of the series). On a second level you have more secular-minded critics of Islam and there the argument gets more complicated. But I would tend to answer the question Why do they hate us? in terms of history. Its like there is a verse in the Quran which says thou shalt hate Americans. But there is a whole history of colonialism, illegal wars in the middle east, civilian casualties, support for
16 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
dictators, etc.
35.
JustBob Says:
I dont think one of these articles so far have made a ripple against any of Danios opponents (he would certainly call them his enemies). Danios isnt interested in actual debate, but talking over everyone else. Its unfortunate, but until the Muslim side ourishes in a world of competitive view points, extremism and fanaticism will continue to prevail.
36.
LibertyPhile Says:
Danios says: Certainly, most Christians and Orthodox Jews believe in the accuracy of the Bible. Stated one way, the memory of the Jewish prophet Joshua is far bloodier, violent, and warlike than that of the Prophet Muhammad. In any case, what is clearly undeniableas we see and will continue to see in this Series is that the Bible is far bloodier, violent, and warlike than the Quran. Would our opponents at least concede this painfully obvious point? Yes, you have a problem in the US (and in some parts of Africa). Europe and most of the Christian world is different. And, of course there is the large and growing number of people (even in the US) who are not religious (and who will the view of the Bible as I described above). See here: Two-thirds of Britons not religious, suggests survey http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk12799801 (I wouldnt worry about Orthodox Jews. You are obviously obsessed by things Jewish but there arent that many Jews.) Now it is interesting, the Quran IS at least bloody, violent, and warlike enough, to bear comparison with the Bible even if, as you claim, it isnt as bad! The religion of Peace!
37.
Rob Says:
Danios isnt interested in actual debate, but talking over everyone else. The irony is so overwhelming.
17 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
38.
NassirH Says:
I dont think one of these articles so far have made a ripple against any of Danios opponents (he would certainly call them his enemies). Well, you certainly started spazzing after reading his articles. Just look under the article about the Biblical David and Samsonyouve managed to make numerous inane comments but havent scratched the article. If your arguments are strong, then why do you have to change the topic? Similarly, SATV also changed the topic when responding to Danios articles; he instead wrote about the views of Tariq Ramadan, Reza Aslan, and Muhammad Haykal regarding Muhammads raids, ignoring that what occurs in the Bible multiple times (divinely ordained genocide). The reason that the loons havent responded convincingly is because they cant.
39.
Jack Cope Says:

I dont think one of these articles so far have made a ripple against any of Danios opponents (he would certainly call them his enemies). None of them have tried to respond to them at all, they just ignore them, I wonder why. And Id advise you dont put words in his mouth, its rude. Danios isnt interested in actual debate, but talking over everyone else. I believe that Danios has called for debate many times so go for it, debate him! Oh wait Its unfortunate, but until the Muslim side ourishes in a world of competitive view points, extremism and fanaticism will continue to prevail. Extremism and fanaticism exist the world over, your point? It barely ourishes in the Muslim world unless there are a billion or so fanatical Muslims weve all been missing. If these billion existed, wed be in a world of shite
40.
JustBob Says:
Extremism and fanaticism exist the world over, your point? It barely ourishes in the Muslim world unless there are a billion or so fanatical Muslims weve all been missing. If these billion existed, wed be in a world of shite Jack, thats a joke, right?
18 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
41.
Mosizzle Says:
So you believe that there are a billion fanatical Muslims?
42.
Dosaaful Says:
And God was sad that He had chosen such a sissy to be king hahaha does anyone else remember the Biblical David killing off a husband of a woman he desired and fornicated with? Ten Commandments apparently did not apply to him, nor did the God of Israel see murder and fornication to be a big deal. Consistency is not something found in the OT
43.
Jack Cope Says:

Jack, thats a joke, right? Nope, unless youd care to point out this billion or so Ive been missing. Would be nice if you responded to the rest of the comment as well but pigs may y as the saying goes.
44.
Mosizzle Says:
Danios isnt interested in actual debate, but talking over everyone else. The irony is so overwhelming. Indeed, Rob. Sometimes Bob just loves to throw out BS statements and the enormity of the BS is such that he has no choice but to continue pushing it whilst ignoring the objections of everyone else. A particularly amusing example is when he tried to claim that Geert Wilders is a Leftist
45.
Rob Says:
19 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
Yes, I remember that vividly along with GeehadBob speaking on behalf of Jundullah and their goals.
46.
Suleyman Says:
Dosaaful does anyone else remember the Biblical David killing off a husband of a woman he desired and fornicated with? Ten Commandments apparently did not apply to him But king david was punished for that, so they did apply to him.
47.
NassirH Says:
LoonPhile: I wouldnt worry about Orthodox Jews. You are obviously obsessed by things Jewish but there arent that many Jews. Sounds like youre projecting your own traits onto someone else. Its you, not Danios, who devotes his time and blog to chronicling every little thing a religious group does, from what they wear to what they eat. Thus, you are obviously obsessed with everything Muslim, and in a negative way too (you link to a hate site that has advocated killing the Egyptian protesters).
48.
Garo Says:
I regret the fact I have missed so much information about the Jihad Series lately,because I could not stay away from AL-Jazeera/Arabic,where its reporters bring out what is going in Lybia,Yeman,Syria and Jordan live. It seems to me that the winds of the youths revolutions are spreading in the Arab world almost like consecutive earthquakes. The bloody Gadda is killing his own civilian population en masse. Sad. Sad. Sad. I shall try to catch up with what I have missed at Loonwatch lately and try to make comments when it is appropriate to do so.
49.
Farlowe Says:
20 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
So according to this article , the god of the Old Testament was , similar to the God of the Quran, a fairly ruthless empire builder. Why have any thing to do with this entity? They both sound loony to me.
50.
muhammad 'abd-al haqq Says:

NassirH, Regarding your argument that the Bible is historically questionable, the same could be said about Islams canon. Whoa! Are you doubting the historicity of the Quran? Traditions in biographical literature that provide a chronology and sequence to the events that constitute the life of Muhammad are therefore suspect. Moreover the Quran, which is not compiled in the sequence in which it was revealed, mentions Muhammad only four times. And doubting the historicity of Muhammad(saws)? Faizer, Rizwi. Muhammad (570632 C.E.). Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World. Ed. Richard C. Martin. Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004. 478-485. Or only presenting the views of Rizwi Faizer? If the historicity of the Bible and its characters, the historicity of the Quran, and the historicity of the existence of Muhammad(saws) matters not, but only what matters is that religious people believe these things, what benet is conferred by calling into question the historicity of Quran and Muhammad(saws)? If the Bible lacks historicity, so be it. Why say, hey the Quran lacks historicity too? Allahu Alam This sacred knowledge shall be borne by reliable authorities from each generation, who will preserve it from the distortions of extremists, the plans of the corrupt and the false explanations of the ignorant. (Narrated mursal by Al-Bayhaqi in Kitab al-Madkhal on the authority of Ibrahim bin Abd al-Rahman al-Udhri.)
51.
Dawood Says:
21 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
I dont know where you are Garo, but if you have relatives in the Mid East, I hope they are safe and well. Things are not too bad here, and I dont think it will escalate too much (hopefully).
52.
DefenderofIslam Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
Nothing much to say for some reason these artcals still remind me of jihad watch, but a nice artical none the less
53.
Anti-atheism Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
I dont think theres a need to restrict the morality of wars fought by Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) towards the 7th century only. Even by today secular standards which considers nuclear bombing two Japanese cities was moral, prophet muhammed(pbuh) beats them by a huge mark. But i believe Danios will in the latter part of the series discuss the wars fought by secular governments too. And do a nal series of articles on wars fought by prophet muhammed(pbuh).
54.
Anti-atheism Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Btw, excellent work Danios. It exposes the islamophobes to be a vomit unable to smell itself.
55.
Percey Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:11 pm
The Bible certainly sanctions and commands genocide. No the bible contains past examples of genocide; even if it does so what? The targeted people no longer exist, so those instances do not pose a threat to modern people. So genocide is a part of the narrative of the Bible. That confession in itself is good enough to prove our point. See above. But for now, Ill say this: Jews do not believe in Jesus. I didnt say they did; the Bible is associated with Christianity the most/
22 of 66 1/25/12 12:48 AM
So although this out may explain away Christianity, it does not do a thing for Judaism. So, basically you are throwing Judaism under the bus and saying that genocide is accepted in their holiest of teachings. If that be the case, why single out the Quran? Of course, now you will move on to another topic, i.e. where are the Jewish suicide bombers? That is a separate topic, one which will be discussed in a future article. Jewish history is benign compared to other religions; sure people can cite Israeli war crimes but that was not solely motivated by religion and Israeli crimes are dwarfed by the actions of Islamic extremists. The point is that the highest scriptural source of Judaism is more violent than the Quran, so why do Islamophobes always condemn the Quran as violent but never condemn the Hebrew Bible with the same force? Because Jewish violence is a joke compared to Islamist violence or Christian violence or Buddhist history (the Buddhist involvement in the Asian holocaust). My views with regard to religion are discussed here: You missed my point; examples of violence in the bible are simply another example of how religion worthless and should be rejected, theres more insight in Calvin and Hobbes than most religious texts.
56.
Dawood Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
No the bible contains past examples of genocide; even if it does so what? The targeted people no longer exist, so those instances do not pose a threat to modern people. The Quran contains past examples of warfare; even if it does, so what? The targeted people no longer exist, so those instances do not pose a threat to modern people. Cant you see your dual treatment on this?
57. Danios,
NassirH Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:33 pm
Percey is indeed Cassidy, hence the incoherent, tangential ramblings and moving of goalposts left and right. He wont stop notwithstanding how thorough the rebuttals against him are; the only way to get rid of this nuisance is to ban him, Im afraid. No the bible contains past examples of genocide; even if it does so what? The targeted people
23 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
no longer exist, so those instances do not pose a threat to modern people. If the Bible contains past examples of [divinely ordained] genocide then how does that contradict Danios assertion that the Bible certainly sanctions and commands genocide? The God of the Bible orders Saul to completely slaughter the Amalekites, thus genocide is both sanctioned and commanded. Secondly, your assertion that the targeted people no longer exist is irrelevant because (1) that doesnt contradict Danios assertion and (2) these stories have been invoked by Jews and Christians in order to justify violence. Similar things could be said about Muslims and Islam, of course, but thats a different topic. You missed my point; examples of violence in the bible are simply another example of how religion worthless and should be rejected, theres more insight in Calvin and Hobbes than most religious texts. What does this have to do with the article? Again, the question is: Which Holy Book is more violent: the Quran or Bible? Is there any incident in Islams canon that is more bloody than the Bibles portrayals of Moses, Samson, Joshua, or David? The answers are obvious, regardless of how many times you attempt to change the subject.
58.
Percey Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
Percey is indeed Cassidy, hence the incoherent, tangential ramblings and moving of goalposts left and right. So what? I admitted I was wrong about dhimmitude. the only way to get rid of this nuisance is to ban him, Im afraid. First of all I do not troll this site and I do not post anything hateful like this: The Kemalist Turks deny the Armenian Genocide, and the only country in the Middle East which does as well is israel, not b/c they were allies(up until recently) but because Zionists like Vladimir Jabotinsky and the Donmeh young turks(Sabbatean Jews pretending to be Muslims) were heavily involved in destruction of the Armenian community, http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/07/pamela-geller-watch-genocide-denier/ He was trying to blame the Armenian genocide on Jews; a repulsive and racist comment, if loonwatch responds to criticism by banning people then it shows that they prefer cheerleading to honest feedback. If the Bible contains past examples of [divinely ordained] genocide then how does that contradict Danios assertion that the Bible certainly sanctions and commands genocide? The wording that the bible commands genocide implies that genocide is an inherent biblical
24 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
practice when in fact its mythology that cannot be used in a current context. these stories have been invoked by Jews and Christians in order to justify violence. I havent seen any evidence to suggest that Christian extremists have actually cited the events Danios describes as justication.
59.
Percey Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
Anyway Nassir you havent called for other commentators who have posted racist material to be banned; congrats on revealing your hypocrisy.
60.
Garo Says:
March 26th, 2011 at 11:57 pm
As being born and raised to devout Christian mother and father who raised a lot of money to their own church,I was taught many good Christian teachings. Among the many good teachings I was taught was that God created man in His own image. Questions: As God instructed Saul and David through Samuel to kill all Almalekites who were human beings God created in His own image,did not that suggest that the God as described in the Bible was a suicidal God? And by killing all Amalekites did not He commit an act of suicide? Is not that meant that He had died ever since? Moreover,years ago,the cover story of Time magazine carried the following big headline: IS GOD DEAD? Till this very moment no one has proven,without the shadow of a doubt,that God is not dead yet,let alone ever existed. That is why I have ended up,not exactly an Atheist,but an Agnostic and have rejected the blood thirsty God as He is described in the Bible. I beg my mother and father to understand the reasons behind what had become of their teachings and forgive me in their graves. At the top of all that,I believe in no religion. However,I side with Islam because it certainly is the least violent of the three Abrahamic religions. I also side with true Muslims because they are the most misunderstood and abused minority in the West,these days,along with the true Jewish Americans,Native Americans and and African Americans. And the color of my skin is more white than any Anglo-Saxon who ruled America until Barack Obama came along and defeat another Anglo-Saxon nominee in the last election of 2008.
25 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
In short,I am all for the underdogs,regardless of their blood thirsty God,(meaning religion),regardless of their national origin and regardless of the color of their skin. Same applies to gender. I do practice the good teachings of the three abrahamic religions,but I adhere to none of them as a religion. Period. All based on personal reserches for a life time and personal persuasion as a conclusion. Final words: Muslims everywhere should be proud of the fact that their religion is certainly the least violent and its contributions to the human civilisation are,indeed,countless and enormous. The Islamic Andalus(Spain) was the gate of passage of the Islamic/Arab civilisations and technical know-how to the Christian Western world. This historical fact is very telling,indeed,for those who are free of bigotry/hatred and with opened-minds. Cheers for a better tomorrow for all Muslims everywhere.
61.
NassirH Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 12:00 am
Percey you are a silly man. First, that someone else made a bigoted comment doesnt palliate the fact that your comments are completely illogical. The wording that the bible commands genocide implies that genocide is an inherent biblical practice when in fact its mythology that cannot be used in a current context. LOL its not our fault that you have trouble comprehending written English. Anyway, what Danios said is fact, regardless of where youll move goalposts next (i.e. current context). I havent seen any evidence to suggest that Christian extremists have actually cited the events Danios describes as justication. Perhaps if you dont know what youre talking aboutwhich often seem to be the case then its best to keep quite. Jenkins notes that the history of Christianity is strewn with herem. During the Crusades in the Middle Ages, the Catholic popes declared the Muslims Amalekites. In the great religious wars in the 16th, 17th and 19th centuries, Protestants and Catholics each believed the other side were the Amalekites and should be utterly destroyed. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788
62.
NassirH Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 12:02 am
26 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
Anyway Nassir you havent called for other commentators who have posted racist material to be banned; congrats on revealing your hypocrisy. Actually I did. I said Rambo should be banned, for example.
63.
LibertyPhile Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 12:06 am
@NassirH Well, there are a lot more Muslims than Jews and some of them are a great cause for concern. I also link to loonwatch (and Islamophobia Watch, altmuslim, ENGAGE, London Muslim, MPAC, etc etc.) ++ Does anybody here stop to think of the half of mankind who are not Christian or Muslim. I imagine they couldnt care two hoots which of the two dubious historical works depicts the greatest violence. And, do I detect amongst the comments here by some loonwatch devotees the notion that the Koran is not the literal word of God? Regarding violence Danios might turn his attention to the spread of Islam compared with the spread of Christianity. (And, yes, I know what happened once the Church became a political force.) For anyone interested I recommend The Great Arab Conquests How the spread of Islam changed the world we live in by Hugh Kennedy, W&N, 2007. This really does deal with historical facts rather than schoolboy name calling.
64.
NassirH Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 12:06 am
An interesting thing about the Protestants is that some historians have suggested that they never would succeeded without Ottoman support (I say this because Percey has a morbid fascination with the Ottoman Empire). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_and_Islam
65.
NassirH Says:
27 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
March 27th, 2011 at 12:16 am
Phile, you seem to be unaware of the fact that one can be a devout Muslim and not be at your throat. Of course, your blog links to JihadWatch, who has a writer claiming Islam is a religion of fear and force, and its adherents can only be at your feet or at your throat. Does anybody here stop to think of the half of mankind who are not Christian or Muslim. I imagine they couldnt care two hoots which of the two dubious historical works depicts the greatest violence. Does this mean you concede that the Bible is more violent? That was the point of the article, not the religiosity of Christians in Europe or the spread of early Islam.
66.
Garo Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 12:20 am
I would like to know if there is a difference between the absolute dictator of Lybia,Moamar El-Gaddaf and his sons who have told the Lybian people the following: ema an nahkumakum ow nuqtolakum,translation:Ether we rule you or kill you., and the Biblical God who wanted all Amalekites killed or else? I see no difference. Both call for slaughtering human beings en masse for self preservation in the former and for self-glorication in the latter.
67.
Percey Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 12:39 am
Libya isnt an Islamic state so that question has no place here.
68.
Percey Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 12:53 am
Percey you are a silly man. First, that someone else made a bigoted comment doesnt palliate the fact that your comments are completely illogical. Once again, you havent called for any people who routinely post bigoted comments to be banned, lets assume my posts are illogical how is that worse than attempting to use the Armenian genocide to demonize Jews? Jenkins notes that the history of Christianity is strewn with herem. During the Crusades in the
28 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
Middle Ages, the Catholic popes declared the Muslims Amalekites. In the great religious wars in the 16th, 17th and 19th centuries, Protestants and Catholics each believed the other side were the Amalekites and should be utterly destroyed. Which was an example of people distorting the bible; the verses in question were obviously not calls to kill people. An interesting thing about the Protestants is that some historians have suggested that they never would succeeded without Ottoman support (I say this because Percey has a morbid fascination with the Ottoman Empire). You clearly do not understand my critique of the empire; its not just that it was cruel, its that the empire was culturally inferior compared to European, Asian or Middle Eastern cultures. The best thing that can be said is that they treated Jews quite well, yet the same can be said of the confederacy (one of the darkest chapters of American history) yet even the confederacy was more advanced since they at least had a republic.
69.
Garo Says:
Dawood, Many thanks for your concern. Much appreciated. No Dawood,I am not in the Middle East. I am a retired American who spent a large part of his life in the Middle East and North Africa. I live with my wife of 44 years in the Midwest of the United States which I love very much and hate to see in it so much unjustied bigotry and hatred. America can do much better without. I do follow closely what is going on in the whole Middle East and North Africa,because in the 1970s and 1980s I managed a complex technical business on behalf of a multi-national American corporation. My ofces for the corporation were based in Amman,Jordan,but I had to travel in all the Middle East and North African countries,(Iran only till 1979 as the Shah was overthrown),for trouble shootings,arrangement and preparations for technical seminars at universities and at some reserches centers,connected to the petroleum industry. As you may see,I know the region very well. I know its language,its culture and its rich history as well. That is why I nd myself glued to watching what is going on there through the blessing of Al-Jazeera. Cheers..
29 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
70.
Dawood Says:
Ah I see Garo, Well, all the best anyway. Al-Jazeera is indeed most helpful in highlighting whats happening in the Middle East right now; everyone is glued to it here. I am hoping that the issues in Jordan/Amman are resolved without escalation. The grievances here are different to elsewhere in the Mid East so heres hoping.
71.
Percey Says:
Ah news; the greatest of all spectator sports.
72.
Tarig Says:
//No the bible contains past examples of genocide; even if it does so what? The targeted people no longer exist, so those instances do not pose a threat to modern people.// Try telling that to Palestinians, you know, those things in that big prison next to the meditereanean sea, some people like to call them Humans! The reason they are in the situation they are in is because Zionists believe that occupied Palestine is their God given right, and they are free to commit acts of ethnic cleansing and what, if it was to be happening in Iran or Sudan, would be termed an act of slow genocide! Tell the Palestinians that they no longer exist! That the land belongs to a group of Europeans that came over the last 130 years to steal, I mean take back, what the Bible says is there! //Jewish history is benign compared to other religions; sure people can cite Israeli war crimes but that was not solely motivated by religion and Israeli crimes are dwarfed by the actions of Islamic extremists.// Wow, please can you tell me where Osama Bin Laden and his Ilk have imprisoned 1.5 million people? Can you cite an example of their use of white Phosphorous, or depleted Uranium? Muslim extremists are terrible, the crimes of the zionist entity are far worse!
73.
Percey Says:
30 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
Tarig, theres really no point in arguing with you, arguing about the Israeli-Palestinian wankfest on here has only been a source of frustration.
74.
Garo Says:
Percey wrote: Libya isnt an Islamic state so that the question has no place here. REALLY!! REALLY!! REALLY!! REALLY!! REALLY!! REALLY!! If Libya is not an Islamic state,will you please,Percey,educate me about the religion which the vast majority of the people of Libya adhere to?
75.
Percey Says:
Libya is a non-Islamic dictatorship; yes the the majority are Muslim but that does not make it an Islamic state, could read the wikipedia entry on Libya and spare yourself further embarrassment?
76.
Tarig Says:
//Tarig, theres really no point in arguing with you, arguing about the Israeli-Palestinian wankfest on here has only been a source of frustration.// That, or you just cant disprove the points made, my guess is the later!
77.
Percey Says:
Think what you like dear child; I am simply sick to death of discussing that stupid conict.
78.
LibertyPhile Says:
@Nassir
31 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
I am fully prepared to accept (from reputable sources) that the Bible may have more violence in it than the Koran. (I have only ever studied the New Testament, and then only part of it) But so what! Most Christians (apart from the Christian fundamentalists you suffer from in the US) dont have any problem with that. They view the Bible as I rst described above, unreliable historical propaganda of the times in which it was written, whereas Muslims (and please correct me if I am wrong) believe the Koran is the literal inerrant word of God. Do you not see the difference?
79.
Garo Says:
It is a myth to claim that Islam was spread by Arab conquests,meaning by the sword. Reasons: (1) Before appearance of Islam in Arabia,the Arabs of Arabia lived in an endless tribal warfare,one tribe fought another over a well of water or grazing rights for their domesticated animals,mainly camels and horses. In other words,the people of Arabia were completely and totaly disunited and on each other throught for survival. (2) Islam brought harmony and unity amongst the inhabitants of Arabia. The Noble Prophet Muhammad was worried about his people of going back to their old ways of tribal warfare after his death. And he said so to his closet Sahib,(companion),Abu Bakr El-Sidiq,who became the First Caliph after Muhammads death. (3) When the vast majority of Arabs became Muslims,with the exception of some Arab Jewish tribes who lived in Yathrib(Medina now),all Arabs of Arabia thought that the new religion of Islam was sent from the Creator only to themselves(the Arabs of old Arabia). And the Arabs of old did not care to share their new religion with other groups of people who were not Arabs. The Arabs of old Arabia thought that as the Christian and Jews in the old world had their own written scriptures,so did then the Arabs with the new religion of Islam. So they thought,although the essence of Islam was/is universal,indeed. (4) Most of the Arab conquests of the old world took place during the rules of the rst two Caliphs after the death of the Prophet,namely under the Caliphates of Abu Bakr El-Sidiq and Omar ibn Al-Khattab,respectively. And both of them were concerned like the Prophet before them that the people of Arabia might return to their old ways of tribal warfares. Therefore,the decision to let them ght it outside Arabia had made a lot of sense and it was no difference from the conquests of the world that Assurian empire,persian empire,Alexander the Great,the Roman empire,the Napoleanic empire,the British empire the French empire and lastly but not least,the American empire had/have done.. All these empire were/are imperialistic in nature and has to do with the fabric of the human nature. Hence, The Arab conquests were exactly what they were: Arab Imperialism. And it has nothing to do with the way how Islam spread.
32 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
To make a long story short,Islam was spread by Arab merchants who travelled from Damascu and Baghdad to India and southern China and southern Rusia. Through good examples and behviors of Arab merchants,Islam was spread by persuasions. In fact,Arab-Muslim merchants used to buy female slaves just to free them from their slavery. And eventually they married the slaves they freed by buying and had children with them and became families. Hard to believe,is not it? But it is the hard fact which is conveniently ignored where bigotry and hatred strive. Cheers for a better tomorrow for all Muslims everywhere
80. Percey,
Garo Says:
I not only read what you have suggested,but much much more. And you are very very wrong,my boy!
81.
Percey Says:
That is your baseless opinion, which you are more than welcome to.
82.
DrM Says:
@Anti-liberty phile, Muslims believe that Quran is the inerrant word of God, and it is. Islam is not Christianity, nor is the Quran the Bible. The difference being that the fundamentalist Muslim boogey man westerners who studies his or her religion understands the difference between symbolism and literalism. Find me a Christian leader anywhere ont his planet who is ready to declare war on usury and Ill be happy to follow such a person. Judging by the conspiratorial nature of your crappy anti-Islam blog its obvious you have no understanding of the subject and how the Bible and Quran came to be. But thanks for conrming that youve never read the Quran or even the Old or New Testament in its entirety. Less politics and more reading would do you a world of good.
83.
Garo Says:
33 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
Percey, The one who should be terribly embarrassed is the person who rudely has claimed that Libya is not an Islamic country,inspite of the vast majority of its people have been Muslims for century,because it is dictatorship. What a rude excuse is being used to deny the six million of Libyans who proudly call themselves Muslims,because they have a dictatorship which they are currently trying to overthrow. Such a claim has denied the right of the Muslim population in Libya to have the right of calling their country as an Arab Islamic country,inspite of the dictatorship of Gaddaf. Following such shallow comment that Libya is not an Islamic country,one wonders what the rest of the Islamic world must be called,since most of it has dictatorship like libya. Perhaps,it should be called Mr.Perceys non-Islamic world,because of dictatorship. Pity!! Percey,I must tell you you have no idea what you are talking about. You claim rudely that you do,but you really do not. Your comments about libya are telling,let alone about Islam. Pity!!
84.
Mosizzle Says:
Libertyphile, But so what! Most Christians (apart from the Christian fundamentalists you suffer from in the US) dont have any problem with that. Thats not the point of this article. It is simply to prove that the Bible is more violent than the Quran because many religious Islamophobes are in denial about this fact. And you seem to admit that as well, so its cool. But wherever people take the Bible uber-seriously, there is problem. Settlers currently violate international law to build houses in the West Bank. Why? Because the Old Testament includes that part in the Land of Israel as Judea and Samaria. George Bush seems to have been quite devout as well and tried to convince the French President to go to war in Iraq by claiming that the Biblical tribe of Gog and Magog would come from there. On right-wing Christian sites today, you will be horried to nd people justifying the war on Iraq by quoting Old Testament passages about the destruction of Babylon. Also, the most violent commandments in Deuteronomy are still part of Jewish law today, including the commandment to put to the sword all the male inhabitants of a city, but due to international laws this is not carried out. But its still part of the law. But the Quran can also be misused, and Im sure you have plenty of examples for that. But to claim that it no longer matters what the Old Testament said is ridiculous. But none of this is relevant to the article. The point is simply to get those Christian Islamophobes (Spencer) and Jewish Islamophobes (Geller) to understand that they should apply the same standards to their Holy Book as they do to ours. The following articles will apparently
34 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
deal with your question.
85.
Percey Says:
The one who should be terribly embarrassed is the person who rudely has claimed that Libya is not an Islamic country,inspite of the vast majority of its people have been Muslims for century,because it is dictatorship. I clearly stated that its not an Islamic state; theres nothing remotely Islamic about the Libyan government. What a rude excuse is being used to deny the six million of Libyans who proudly call themselves Muslims,because they have a dictatorship which they are currently trying to overthrow. Such a claim has denied the right of the Muslim population in Libya to have the right of calling their country as an Arab Islamic country,inspite of the dictatorship of Gaddaf. See above; so much whining and so little reading comprehension. Following such shallow comment that Libya is not an Islamic country,one wonders what the rest of the Islamic world must be called,since most of it has dictatorship like libya. Perhaps,it should be called Mr.Perceys non-Islamic world,because of dictatorship. Pity!! Percey,I must tell you you have no idea what you are talking about. You claim rudely that you do,but you really do not. Your comments about libya are telling,let alone about Islam. Pity!! Your mother should be ashamed for teaching you basic computer skills; something which must have took over a decade.
86.
Safak Ozgun Says:

But so what! Most Christians (apart from the Christian fundamentalists you suffer from in the US) dont have any problem with that. They view the Bible as I rst described above, unreliable historical propaganda of the times in which it was written, whereas Muslims (and please correct me if I am wrong) believe the Koran is the literal inerrant word of God. Do you not see the difference? just a few questions to libertyphile: 1- this claim that most christians view the bible as unreliable historical propoganda is weird. ive done some research on the bible, and ive had hundreds of christian friends. ive never heard this from any of them, on the research ive done, and never saw it on any media where the bible was in. this is, in fact, the st time ive ever heard that christians dont take their bible seriously.
35 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
where do u get this information from? do u have a source that can verify this? 2- u make a distinction between fundamentalists & christians, but not for muslims. why is it that christianity is excused for having a fundemantalist minority while muslims are not? 3- as far as i know, the old testament of the bible is followed by the jews. it is also the basis for zionism, which has caused great suffering for the palestinians. so if the bible was indeed viewed as unreliable historical propoganda, then why do certain people use zionism as an excuse to displace thousands of palestinians from their homes?
87.
abdul-halim Says:
Garo, another difference between the Amalekites and the Libya example is that in the case of the Amalekites, the armies of the children of Israel (according to the Bible) were told by God to commit UNCONDITIONAL genocide. There was no or else it was just kill them all
88.
Saladin Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 10:02 am
@LibertyPhile But so what! Most Christians .. Yes but there are multiple understandings Muslims have even if they believe it to be the literal word of God, You can not lock Muslims in to one understanding that you or the nutcases who distort for their own personal gain have.
89.
Garo Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 10:37 am
In his March 27th,2011 at 12:39 am,Percey wrote: Libya is not an Islamic state so that the question has no place here. While in his March 27th,2011 at 5:35 am,Percey wrote: I clearly stated that its not an Islamic state,there is nothing remotely Islamic about the Libyan government. When I described you,Mr.Percey,as a poster who had/has no idea what he was talking about I was so correct. The proof is in the above two posts of yours: ~ In the earlier post,you talked about the Libyan state,a whole country with six million Muslims
36 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
live within its border. You certainly were not talking about the Libyan government. ~ In the later post of yours quoted above,you seem to be unable to differentiate between STATE and GOVERNMENT. The difference in meaning is so great,my boy! I suggest that you take the following warning very very seriously: My mother has nothing to do with all of the above and she has been dead for the last 20 years. Therefore,I must warn you to keep her out of all of this. She was almost a saint. I let your garbage go unpunished,this time,but if you ever repeat such garbage again,you will hear from me a completely different and unpleasant tune in horrible English. So please be careful. Note for the editor of loonwatch.com: ====================================== Dear Mr.Garbaldi, I do hope that you read the above warning of mine to Mr.Percey,so that you have the background,in your les,if I let my lthy tongue get unleashed on Mr.Percey,in the future,if he ever again brings my mother,(or father), in the confused world of his. I trust fairness in your decision to publish or to delete. Thank you. Sincerely, Garo
90.
Garo Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 10:59 am
abdul-hamid, Thank you for your courteous and matured response,since I was merely raising a question and truly looking to read some answers,based on critical and reasonable thoughts. Your response has certainly met what I was looking for. I have sensed no arrogance whatsoever in your post addressed to me. Again,thank you.
91.
Mosizzle Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 11:08 am
That was pretty low, Percey. How will he respond? Well this person was being anti-Semitic last year on this website and nothing happened to him, so whats the problem, blah, blah
37 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
92.
JN Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 11:21 am
I think Percey should permanently change his username to So What? since thats what hes forced to respond with every time hes caught in or reminded of one of the countless mistakes hes made in his campaign of trolling here
93.
Stephen G. Parker Says:

March 27th, 2011 at 11:21 am
I would like to add my own appreciation for this series of articles by Danios. I think your aim is quite clear, and beautifully achieved. I have lived my entire life in the USA, and was raised in a fundamentalist and evangelical Christian family. I am very familiar with the way these people use the Biblical narratives in the Old Testament to justify all manner of atrocities. While I apostatized from Bible believing Christianity almost 25 years ago, my family has remained afliated with fundamentalism and I am surrounded by such believers. I think it was 2 and a half years ago that I broke down and attended a Kenneth Copeland conference with my wife in the hope against hope that God would use his ministry to heal me of neuropathy which was threatening to bring a close to my truck driving career. (I was in fact disqualied not too long after that due to my neuropathy). During that conference, Ken Copeland made the statement which he apparently loves to make: no Christian ought to oppose war (including the aggressive warfare of the USA), because the Bible says God is a God of war! Those heroes of the Old Testament are indeed used as shining examples for us today. It is said in the Bible that God does not change; so since God approved those atrocities back then, He must also approve of it today. It doesnt matter that the particular nations are no longer in existence today; the principle applies to present day ungodly nations. If it is said that the vast majority of Christians worldwide dont accept those Old Testament accounts any longer, and so dont justify warfare on that basis; a similar point (not exactly the same though) may be made concerning Muslims. The overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide do not believe in or justify terrorist atrocities based on the Quran. Those who do are a very small minority. The difference is that it is very religious Muslims who denounce terrorism; and they do so BASED ON the Quran, not because they deny the authenticity of that holy book. Their reverence for the word of God causes them to be very careful in their reading and interpretation of the book; they read it the the immediate context, the wider context of the rest of the Quran, and also the context of the times insofar as they are aware of that time context. They know very well that the violent texts of the Quran always promote only defensive warfare; and they never promote the genocidal violence depicted in the Biblical texts.
38 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
The Christian has to nd some way to claim that those O.T. passages are no longer applicable (even though he may acknowledge they were appropriate for their time, and despite the fact that I the LORD change not). The Muslim can accept the applicability of the Quranic principles to present day society even though times and cultures have changed because they know that those principles have always been both just and merciful. The horribly violent teachings of the Bible do not exist in the Quran. If killing must take place, it is only the guilty aggressors who are to be killed not everything that breathes! And when the aggressors cease their aggression, the Muslims must cease ghting also. There is certainly a vast difference between the Quran and the Bible and Danios is doing a very ne job of exposing that difference. Thanks very much.
94.
Garo Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 11:55 am
Steven G. Parker, As a person who was born to Christian parent and brought up strictly so and ended up Agnostic,I take off my hat in due respect to your constructive,impartial and,indeed,outstanding post. Thank you,Steven,for having such a beautiful mind. Much apprecited.
95.
AJ Says:
Garo, I am with you. Percey is an imbecile warmonger. I am sure he only learnt hate while growing up.
96. AJ,
Garo Says:
You have certainly chosen correctly the exact English word in describing him: IMBECILE. I could not agree more. Thanks,AJ. Your support is much appreciated.
39 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
97.
NassirH Says:
I would like to take an opportunity to highlight Perceys intelligence. Percey says: Anyway Nassir you havent called for other commentators who have posted racist material to be banned; congrats on revealing your hypocrisy. My response: Actually I did. I said Rambo should be banned, for example. Perceys response: Once again, you havent called for any people who routinely post bigoted comments to be banned http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_eaKbvlcIK10/TKJTIdP7NcI/AAAAAAAAJd8/pa4PtOjlyFc /s400/headdesk+(net).jpg
98.
Percey Says:
Im not familiar with rambo, I havent read where you called for him to be banned, link please?
99.
NassirH Says:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/03/us-army-kill-team-in-afghanistan-posed-for-photosof-murdered-civilians/#comment-65131 I contacted Loonwatch and reminded them that he slipped through, again.
100.
Percey Says:
Also I did notice you responded to DrMs attempt to blame the Armenian genocide on Jews, however you certainly didnt ask for him to be banned, the point is my comments are not racist or repulsive unlike other Muslim commentators on here.
101.
NassirH Says:
40 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
Ah, but your comments are completely illogical. Im sure most other Loonwatchers would agree. You manage to butcher threads, going in circles and abusing logical fallacies. Youre clearly not capable of rational conversation, and you never fail to attempt to extend debates even after your original points are thoroughly refuted (as evidenced by this thread). As for repulsive comments, just take a look at some of your anti-religion comments. Im sure many (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc) would classify those as bigoted.
102.
Garo Says:
Sorry,NassirH,to say that you are really wasting your time with this imbecile who is also wasting some other ne posters time. He is here with an agenda whose intent is clear to me: subotage,as much as possible,the great works of Danios,Gardaldi,Emporer etc. I had encountered his kind countless of times in other places,in the last 50 years. They were hopeless. To frustrate his nefarious intent is just ignore what he writes and move on in your constructive activities. Thats what I intend to do from now on. I will not even waste any time reading his posts,let alone responding to it. Cheers.
103.
EJ Says:
Darnit! I missed Perceys intellectual breakdown! Percey: if Christian Islamophobes and Zionists do not take the Bible as a guiding light for all eternity, can you please tell me why so many Christian leaders and politicians want our law to be based on the Bible?
104.
Percey Says:
Youre clearly not capable of rational conversation, and you never fail to attempt to extend debates even after your original points are thoroughly refuted (as evidenced by this thread). This is an example of projection; you cannot respond to me without twisting what I wrote. As for repulsive comments, just take a look at some of your anti-religion comments. Im sure many (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc) would classify those as bigoted. Theres nothing bigoted about criticizing religion or pointing out the well documented role that Buddhism played in the Asian holocaust, besides loonwatch has at least one article that claimed
41 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
that Atheism and Communism are one and the same.
105.
NassirH Says:
See what I mean? Your original points are thoroughly refuted; now accept that instead of going off about the well documented role that Buddhism played in the Asian holocaust. Im sure its very interesting, but unfortunately its a bit off-topic.
106.
Percey Says:
Thoroughly refuted? By the silly personal attacks here that do not merit a response? If my arguments are so pathetic why is that you cannot respond to me without distorting what I wrote or insulting me?
107.
NassirH Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
If you are worried about people not thinking so positively of you then I suggest a lessening of incongruous ramblings. Its also odd that your complaining when above your head are your own comments about Garo, etc. Throwing stones from glass houses? But regardless, you have been undeniably thoroughly refuted and none of your arguments against the article was cogent. Everyone is free to look at the comments above and come to the obvious conclusion.
108.
JN Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 10:27 pm
By the silly personal attacks here that do not merit a response? This is laughable. If you think personal attacks are beneath a response, then maybe you can explain why anyone should bother debating someone who will never, under any circumstances, let a debate go when theyve lost? When have you ever once actually conceded that you were wrong about something and walked away from it like a normal person, instead of trying to deect it by saying oops and then proceeding to toss out a few thousand more claims? Do you realize how foolish and obsessive that looks?
42 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
109.
Percey Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
I was not complaining about being insulted (I couldnt care less) I brought it up to show that your replies to me have no substance and if Im really so wrong surely you could respond without insults or distorting what I wrote.
110.
Percey Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
If you think personal attacks are beneath a response, then maybe you can explain why anyone should bother debating someone who will never, under any circumstances, let a debate go when theyve lost? When have you ever once actually conceded that you were wrong about something and walked away from it like a normal person, instead of trying to deect it by saying oops and then proceeding to toss out a few thousand more claims? Do you realize how foolish and obsessive that looks? Wrong since Ive ignored Garo and other similarly disturbed commentators and Ive stopped posting about Danios comparison.
111.
NassirH Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
Again, one can simply look at the comment above to test Perceys claims. I cited the work of Jenkins, for example, to point out the fallaciousness of his arguments. If this is about Percey wanting the last word, then let him say so clearly.
112.
Percey Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
If I am obsessive then the same can be said of you for continuing to respond to me without any actual arguments beyond twisting what I wrote (apparently according to you I support cultural genocide).
113.
NassirH Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Ive stopped posting about Danios comparison.
43 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
Exactly. Again, the question is: Which Holy Book is more violent: the Quran or Bible? Is there any incident in Islams canon that is more bloody than the Bibles portrayals of Moses, Samson, Joshua, or David? The answers are obvious. If I am obsessive then the same can be said of you for continuing to respond to me without any actual arguments beyond twisting what I wrote (apparently according to you I support cultural genocide). I said: [You claimed that] religion should be completely done away with. Does that count as cultural genocide? Is that a question or an accusation, Percey? Regardless, that was on another thread and its telling that youve been bringing it up here multiple times.
114.
Percey Says:
March 27th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Exactly. Again, the question is: Which Holy Book is more violent: the Quran or Bible? Is there any incident in Islams canon that is more bloody than the Bibles portrayals of Moses, Samson, Joshua, or David? The answers are obvious. Then that is a reason to reject religion in general. I said: [You claimed that] religion should be completely done away with. Does that count as cultural genocide? Is that a question or an accusation, Percey? Regardless, that was on another thread and its telling that youve been bringing it up here multiple times. I did not say that people should be forced to give up religion, what I wrote was that it would be nice if people gave up religion acting of their own free will, no honest person would call that support for genocide.
115.
LibertyPhile Says:
Christians have a choice. Whatever the violence portrayed and mandated in the Bible they can ignore it entirely. Muslims do not have a choice. The violence portrayed and mandated in the Koran is an inseparable part of their religion. It is the word of God. I note nobody here has responded to this later point which I have made several times. Perhaps because you dont like where it might lead. Also, if you are so keen on comparisons, why not compare the early spread of Christianity with the spread of Islam, which was almost entirely through military conquest? And, this is historically veriable.
44 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
116.
Khushboo Says:
Youre too late Lib. This topic has been discussed to death and were all tired of the same ole rhetoric. What violence in the Quran? The one where we defend ourselves?? As far as your conquest is concerned, no one was forced to convert but people converted on their own. As far as history is concerned, we can say the same about Christians. *yawns*
117.
LibertyPhile Says:
Garo Says: Through good examples and behviors of Arab merchants,Islam was spread by persuasions. In fact,Arab-Muslim merchants used to buy female slaves just to free them from their slavery. And eventually they married the slaves they freed by buying and had children with them and became families. Hard to believe,is not it? LibertyPhile says: Yes, it is hard to believe. Very hard. How, I wonder, does the idea of dhimmitude and non-Muslims paying a special tax because they were not Muslim, t into this benign view of the spread of Islam Saladin Says: Yes but there are multiple understandings Muslims have even if they believe it to be the literal word of God, You can not lock Muslims in to one understanding that you or the nutcases who distort for their own personal gain have. Mosizzle Says: But the Quran can also be misused, LibertyPhile says: Yes, I know from personal contact with westernised Muslims, they pick and choose the bits of Islam they can live with. And, I wonder who represents them. Who is their renowned and famous teacher? Who do they look up to? Who do they follow? Which school of Islam do they belong to? Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood, Syed Mawdudi, the Iranian religious leadership, the Saudi religious leadership, Tariq Ramadan (who cant bring himself to say stoning to death for adultery is wrong) etc. etc. etc. ???
118. Lin:
EJ Says:
I think you should read the article on dhimmitude. As for Jizya: almost every state in history has exacted a tax from its subjects. In Islamic taching, the tax was Zakat. But because it was a
45 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
Muslim religious obligation, it would be impossible to ask non-Muslim to pay it. If non-Muslims were asked to pay Zakat, we would have anti-Muslim bigots talking about the foricble stealth conversion of anyone who lives in a Muslim country. So, a different tax was et fro non-Muslims. That wya, they could pay tax without it being seen as stealth conversion. As for your point that Christians can ignore the parts about violence, that is debatable seeing as how many Christian leaders want the Bible to the basis of our law, how Jesus is the God of the Old Testament and how Jesus says he has come to uphold the law. None of us here hate Christianity or want to bash it, we are just pointing out the hypocrisy.
119.
Khushboo Says:
Totally agree EJ. These bigots really have no right to judge since they have violent scriptures in their bible whom many use TODAY to preach and live by. Enough of the hypocrisy and arrogance!
120.
Khushboo Says:
Lib, there are Muslims who drink alcohol even though its forbidden and there are muslims who date even though its forbidden and there are some who dont pray 5x a day or not as religious as others but we all agree that Quran doesnt promote violence and we all love our last prophet, Muhammad (pbuh) so nothing you say can change that. We may not follow every rule but will still remain Muslims and not convert just because you insult our religion and our messenger so GIVE IT UP!
121.
Mosizzle Says:
Christians have a choice. Whatever the violence portrayed and mandated in the Bible they can ignore it entirely. Muslims do not have a choice. The violence portrayed and mandated in the Koran is an inseparable part of their religion. It is the word of God. Lol. So you are saying that Christians dont believe that the Bible is the word of God? Fine, plenty of Christians think it is a load of rubbish and there are like-minded Muslims who think that as well. As I mentioned above, there are a number of Christians and Jews who still believe the Bible literally and they are numerous enough to be a cause of concern just like Muslim extremists. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with the main question of this article and neither does your question about the spread of Islam.
46 of 66 1/25/12 12:48 AM
Danios question is simple : Which book contains the most violence the Bible or the Quran Simple. Just agree on this and we can discuss the rest later. On everyone single one of Danios article in this series, there has been one loon that pops up and posts the same question, despite being repeatedly told that the answer to that question is coming in a future article. Yet they dont listen and continue to spam.
122.
LibertyPhile Says:
EJ Says: As for your point that Christians can ignore the parts about violence, that is debatable seeing as how many Christian leaders want the Bible to the basis of our law, how Jesus is the God of the Old Testament and how Jesus says he has come to uphold the law. LibertyPhile says: No it is not debatable. Just one small example of why it isnt, is a very successful programme on mainstream British TV at the moment, The Bibles Buried Secrets http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tv/2011/03/bibles-buried-secrets.shtml which shows what a distorted and inaccurate picture the Bible gives. (Roll on the day Muslims can be so objective about the Koran.) What Christian leaders are you talking about? (outside of the US) Khushboo Says: . We may not follow every rule but will still remain Muslims and not convert just because you insult our religion and our messenger so GIVE IT UP! LibertyPhile says: So you pick and choose. Thats nice. I just hope you go on picking the good bits. And, BTW, why do so many Muslims always describe any criticism of their faith as an insult? And I dont think Ive mentioned your prophet.
123.
Mosizzle Says:
By the silly personal attacks here that do not merit a response? If my arguments are so pathetic why is that you cannot respond to me without distorting what I wrote or insulting me? Lol. I laughed so hard at that one, I think you owe me a new chair. Is it not on this very thread that you told a 77-year old man that his mother, who has sadly passed away, should be ashamed. To insult someones mother and then whine about personal attacks is quite hypocritical.
124.
abdul-halim Says:
47 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
Also in terms of the jizya non-Muslims were generally exempt from military service but if they were citizens, they were still living under the protection of the Muslim state. So in order to pay for that protection, they contributed to the state through the jizya. And there were times when non-Muslims fought in the military they were then exempted from paying the jizya.
125.
Mosizzle Says:
And there were times when non-Muslims fought in the military they were then exempted from paying the jizya. Just as it is now. Not a single Muslim-majority country takes Jizya from its non-Muslims (but the treatment is still not satisfactory). The Jizya has been abolished by the Caliphs decree and modern scholars agree with this, unless youre a Taliban whos running low on cash and needs to pick on poor Sikhs. Anyways, this is just an attempt to distract everyone from the main question of this article. Jizya has been discussed in a previous article and will probably be touched on in a future article in this series.
126. Lib:
EJ Says:
March 28th, 2011 at 10:14 am
That doesnt back up anything you say. Just go to rightwingwatch.org and have alook at the number of Christian leaders who want the Bible to be our law and actively support that stance not only in the USA but over the world. To say that Christians dont see the Bible as a guiding light for eternity but only as a history book is just plain wrong when we see the various issues that crop up in politics relating to religion.
127.
EJ Says:
March 28th, 2011 at 10:16 am
Have a look at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org http://www.fstdt.net
128.
Khushboo Says:
48 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
March 28th, 2011 at 10:37 am
Lib. I never said I pick and choose nor is it right to do that but hey, who am I to judge others?? No one is perfect! I was merely pointing out that were all individuals, some more religious than others but none of us disagree with whats in the Quran. As usual, you only picked on the one thing I said to your advantage.
129.
LibertyPhile Says:
March 28th, 2011 at 10:59 am
In asking the question Which book contains the most violence the Bible or the Quran you (loonwatch) are making a comparison between Christianity and Islam, which religion has the most violence associated with it, and it is logical and legitimate to also compare the violence that may have been involved in the spread of each of these religions. And, if the response you get doesnt quite t in with your publishing plans, dont blame your readers!
130.
Stephen G. Parker Says:

March 28th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Concerning LibertyPhiles last comment (I cant keep up with or respond to all the various points being argued): the comparison between violence in the Quran and that in the Bible is not at all the same as trying to compare the violence that has been associated throughout history with the religions of Christianity/Judaism and Islam. The Bible and the Quran are the Sacred Scriptures on which those religions are supposed to be based; but there is no guarantee that the supposed followers of those Sacred Scriptures have been consistently faithful in their adherence. The comparison between the violence associated historically with the various religions may be interesting; but it is entirely separate from comparing what the different Sacred Scriptures have to say about the matter. Augustine of Hippo became convinced that it was legitimate for Christians to compel conversion with the sword. Thats historical fact. But was that practice consistent with the Bible on which he supposedly based his faith? Maybe and maybe not; but one has to determine rst what the Sacred Scriptures say to determine that. Some extremist Muslims may be convinced that its their duty to convert or kill indels. That seems to be fact. But is that practice consistent with the Quran on which they supposedly base their faith? Maybe and maybe not. First you need to determine what the Sacred Scripture says. Danios comparison is between what the Scriptures themselves teach. Whether or not the actions of the followers is consistent with those Scriptures is another question.
49 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
I believe Danios has made the point well that the violence in the Bible far exceeds that of the Quran. As I and others have pointed out, the Quran calls only for defensive warfare (something almost everyone recognizes as legitimate, and for which no Muslim need be ashamed); and never advocates indiscriminate killing of noncombatants and even animals. Quite a difference from the Bible and as I said, no Muslim should be ashamed to openly acknowledge his adherence to the defensive warfare advocated in the Quran. But any right thinking Bible believer should be ashamed of the genocidal atrocities which the Bible attributes to the command of the Holy God. As I commented on another of this series of articles, a couple of 1st century A.D. documents known as the Homilies and Recognitions of Clement [of Rome] claim the apostle Peter believed it was essential to recognize the falsehoods of the Scriptures. Such genocidal violence (among other things) as Danios has pointed out in the Hebrew Scriptures Peter is said to have vehemently repudiated as falsehoods. Interestingly, he is supposed to have said that God deliberately permitted those falsehoods to be inserted into the Scriptures as a test to see who would be ungodly enough to believe them! A lot of Christians today apparently fail that test of godliness!
131.
Mosizzle Says:
March 28th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Well said, Stephen. As for you, LibertyPhile, I can immediately detect that you have failed to read this article properly, because the very rst sentence contains a link to Danios disclaimer in which he explains his intentions behind the article. It was realised from the start that loons such as yourself would show up and start blabbing about this being some battle between which religion is more violent and throw out claims like Christians can pick and mix from the Bible etc. It is hoped that pointing to Judeo-Christian scriptural sources that are far more violent than what is quoted from Islamic sources will instill in the extremist Zionists and Messianic Christians a level of religious humilityMy fear in so doing, of course, is of offending well-meaning Jews and ChristiansTo be absolutely clear, I do not think that Judaism and Christianity are violent religionsWhat I am simply trying to prove is that just because certain Quranic verses seem violent, one cannot make sweeping statements of the religion based on thisno more so than showing certain violent Biblical verses would prove the inherent nature of Judaism or Christianity The whole article is worth the read. If you have read it, then why are you trying to twist the authors intention with this article to justify your irrelevant question, when you know thats not what he is intending. You must have seen the Islamophobes that throw out pre-prepared lists of violent Quranic verses into a discussion to somehow prove that Islam is super violent and that I have to blow up a shopping mall to be a good Muslim. This is for them. To give them, as Danish put it, a steaming hot platter of STFU. How many times do I have to explain that this is a series of articles on Jihad, and your question about Islam will be answered in a future
50 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
article, so stop wasting our time and wait, like everyone else, for the next article. Patience is a virtue
132.
Mosizzle Says:
March 28th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
There is nothing in the Bible that rivals the Qurans exhortations to violence Robert Spencer pg.19, The Factually Incorrect Guide to Islam. You can see why a level of religious humility needs to be instilled in Spencer if he loves to boast that there is nothing in the Bible that is more violent than the Quran. Anyways, lets not drag this into an off-topic discussion about Spencer (he gets his own site). And one correction: in the above article I meant to write Danios instead of Danish (Damn iPad autocorrect)
133.
AJ Says:
Liberty said And, BTW, why do so many Muslims always describe any criticism of their faith as an insult? And I dont think Ive mentioned your prophet. There is a thing called respect. Here! I will give you some examples. You dont take shoes off in your house and consider it a stupid habit but you take it off in someone elses home if they want it because you are trying to respect their principles. This is called respect. You are a big beef eater but when you send a Hindu neighbor a treat, you try not to use beef if they consider cows sacred. This is called respect. You may consider Muhammad a fake prophet but for us he holds the highest value among mankind so why is it so difcult for you to show us some respect?
134.
AJ Says:
My understanding is that Muslims in an Islamic country would have to pay Zakat which would pay for all the charitable organizations running in that country. Non-Muslims didnt pay Zakat plus they were exempted from military service so they paid jizya instead. Its not that non-Muslims were paying anything more than the Muslims. In fact I have read, jizya came out
51 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
to be much less than Zakat.
135.
EJ Says:
AJ, Zakat is a Muslim religious obligation. It would be impossible and not to mention unethical to force non-Muslims to pay Zakat. Because of that, a different tax was created for non-Muslims. Everyone has to pay taxes, but you cannot force a religious obligatory tax on someone who doesnt follow the religion.
136.
JustBob Says:
In fact I have read, jizya came out to be much less than Zakat. Where have you read that? This is a claim often made by Muslim apologists, but historians I have read come to the opposite conclusion.
137.
JustBob Says:
This is called respect. Your analogy fails because I dont have a right to be in your house but I have a right to freedom of speech, either in my home or in the public domain.
138.
Cynic Says:
but I have a right to freedom of speech, either in my home or in the public domain. Yes we all know youre quite giddy about your freedom to spam and troll this site.
139.
JustBob Says:
You can see why a level of religious humility needs to be instilled in Spencer if he loves to boast that there is nothing in the Bible that is more violent than the Quran. Anyways, lets not drag this into an off-topic discussion about Spencer (he gets his own site).
52 of 66 1/25/12 12:48 AM
Spencer claries that what he means is that Christians and Jews do not interpret passages in the Bible as being prescriptive verses for Christians or Jews to take as marching orders for all times. On the other hand, Spencer proves that Muslims understand several critical verses in the Koran as being for all times and places whether waging Jihad warfare against non-believers (Koran 9:29) or the verses which criminalize and punish certain behavior.
140.
Cynic Says:
Spencer claries that what he means is that Christians and Jews do not interpret passages in the Bible as being prescriptive verses for Christians orews to take as marching orders for all times. Umm no, just no. Youre just moving the goalposts here. The argument made by bigots such as Spencer and yourself, is that the Quran is a violent bookinnitely more so than the bible. This article is a counter to that, and shows that the reality is actually the opposite. But you are never willing to admit that, so you move the goalposts.
141.
JustBob Says:
Augustine of Hippo became convinced that it was legitimate for Christians to compel conversion with the sword. Thats historical fact. I disagree with you that this would be a fact. Even Danios article on Perpetual Servitude shows that later Western Christian theologians adopted Augustines stance on non-Christians living in Christian lands. As Danios article acknowledges, forced conversion was against Catholic law, hence Augustines views. Secondly, the quote youre alluding to actually refers of Augustines conict with the Donatists who were waging a rather violent insurrection. Putting Augustines quote in its historical and literal context would show that Augustine believed that the state was required to use force to defeat the Donatists. However, this was a conclusion Augustine arrived at only after Augustine had previously made clear that he was against forced conversion, based, in part, on his interpretation of the Gospels. Unfortunately, this misunderstanding of Augustine has spread in pseudo academia with the same force as the discredited belief that Christians believed the earth was at and Columbus would sail off the edge of the world.
53 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
142.
JustBob Says:
But you are never willing to admit that, so you move the goalposts. Well, since I have read Spencers book Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is and Islam isnt, Ill make the presumption that *you* are shifting the goal posts by making claims on Spencer which Spencer has claried time and again.
143.
Mosizzle Says:
Where have you read that? This is a claim often made by Muslim apologists, but historians I have read come to the opposite conclusion. Yes. Even Danios said so in his epic article on Dhimmitude. It talks about Jizya too, for all those interested. http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/the-churchs-doctrine-of-perpetual-servitude-was-worsethan-dhimmitude
144.
NassirH Says:
Spencer claries that what he means is that Christians and Jews do not interpret passages in the Bible as being prescriptive verses for Christians or Jews to take as marching orders for all times. On the other hand, Spencer proves that Muslims understand several critical verses in the Koran as being for all times and places whether waging Jihad warfare against non-believers (Koran 9:29) or the verses which criminalize and punish certain behavior. Thank you for clarifying what the fraudulent Spencer does. He takes modern, apologetic Christian interpretations of the Bible and contrasts them with medieval interpretations of the Quran. When this isnt enough, he fabricates his own interpretations of the Islamic canon, which of course is something you are also guilty of. This biased methodology was exposed in Danios articles regarding Dhimmitude, and Im sure it will be exposed again.
145.
Cynic Says:
54 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
Well, since I have read Spencers book Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is and Islam isnt, Wait was that the one where he calls for a new crusade? Good choice Bob. Ill make the presumption that *you* are shifting the goal posts by making claims on Spencer which Spencer has claried time and again. Do you even know what it means to be shifting the goalposts? Anyway, are you saying that Spencer isnt of the position that the Quran is a violent book written by a pedophile warlordno matter how (pseudo)eloquently put?
146.
NassirH Says:
I think we can all agree that Robert Spencer is a Catholic apologist and anti-Muslim bigot. Even Bob knows this when he alludes to Perpetual Servitude, a Christian doctrine whose existence Spencer denies. As for the book Bob has read, its simply a rehashing of material that is largely available on JihadWatch and in Spencers other books. One can take a glance of the back cover and quickly discern that it is nothing but a piece of bigoted propaganda, hence the glowing reviews from Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. The former advocated for the conversion of Muslims to Christianity by force, while the latter advocated the internment of American Muslims. Cynic: I think that Spencer advocated for a Crusade against Islam in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, not in the missionary book Bob is alluding to. However, the cover of Bobs book has a picture of a Crusader, which apparently helps prove that Christianity is a religion of peace. But perhaps more likely, it is simply indicative of Spencers passion for militant Christianity, as obvious by his thinly veiled support of the Bosnian genocide (he denies it for the same reasons anti-Semites deny the Holocaust).
147.
Cynic Says:
However, the cover of Bobs book has a picture of a Crusader, which apparently helps prove that Christianity is a religion of peace. LOL, okay thanks for the info anyway. The title alone of that book is enough to make me cringe in spasms. How can people ever read such obvious propaganda for reasons other than the mucho lulz to be had therein? In Bobs case, I think he just wanted to be reassured that those terribly evil Muslims dont have a more peaceful religion than his. Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.
55 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
148.
JustBob Says:
However, the cover of Bobs book has a picture of a Crusader, which apparently helps prove that Christianity is a religion of peace. Actually, when the title calls Christianity a religion of peace, what better way to predict the typical counter rebuttal by portraying a crusader on the cover? But Ive already explained this to you several times.
149.
Cynic Says:
^ What kind of warped logic is that Bob? Who the bell puts a picture of a predicted rebuttal on the cover of a book?
150.

Muslims do not have a choice. The violence portrayed and mandated in the Koran is an inseparable part of their religion. It is the word of God. Except the so-called mandated violence in hte Quran takes this form: Fight those who ght against yoube not the aggressors, etc, etc.. Allahu Alam This sacred knowledge shall be borne by reliable authorities from each generation, who will preserve it from the distortions of extremists, the plans of the corrupt and the false explanations of the ignorant. (Narrated mursal by Al-Bayhaqi in Kitab al-Madkhal on the authority of Ibrahim bin Abd al-Rahman al-Udhri.)
151.
JustBob Says:
Uh-oh. Looks like Muhammad is writing his own tafsir on the Koran. Why dont we consult medieval jurists and commentators to attain the correct interpretation of
56 of 66 1/25/12 12:48 AM
key verses like we did when I discussed the passages in the Koran of Lot offering his daughters to a mob of menno, wait
152.

NassirH, Regarding your argument that the Bible is historically questionable, the same could be said about Islams canon. Traditions in biographical literature that provide a chronology and sequence to the events that constitute the life of Muhammad are therefore suspect. Moreover the Quran, which is not compiled in the sequence in which it was revealed, mentions Muhammad only four times. Faizer, Rizwi. Muhammad (570632 C.E.). Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World. Ed. Richard C. Martin. Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan Reference Whoa!, are you suggesting that the Qurans historicity is suspect, that Muhammads(saws) historicity is questionable, or are you merely showing us the views of one Faizer, Rizwi? If historicity isnt the real issue, why bring it up? Isnt it true that regardless of historicity what is important is what Muslims and Christians and Jews believe and what our texts actually say? Allahu Alam This sacred knowledge shall be borne by reliable authorities from each generation, who will preserve it from the distortions of extremists, the plans of the corrupt and the false explanations of the ignorant. (Narrated mursal by Al-Bayhaqi in Kitab al-Madkhal on the authority of Ibrahim bin Abd al-Rahman al-Udhri.) USA, 2004. 478-485.
153.
NassirH Says:
No, Im just saying that the argument is fallacious because its easily neutralized.
154.
NassirH Says:
57 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
Also, I think Riwzi Faizer is a Mooslim (who has inltrated academia and usurped Spencers rightful place).
155.
Cynic Says:
Why dont we consult medieval jurists and commentators to attain the correct interpretation of key verses like we did when I discussed the passages in the Koran of Lot offering his daughters to a mob of menno, wait Except that the verses Muhammad is referring to are unambiguous in nature, and the tafsir are consistent with the literal interpretations. You seem to still be butthurt over your failed attempt at proving the Quranic version of the story of Lot is worse than its biblical counterpart. Even if you dont take the tafsir into account, you still fail miserably. Dir one, he didnt get raped by his own daughters. Enough said really.
156.

JahilBob, Uh-oh. Looks like Muhammad is writing his own tafsir on the Koran. Why dont we consult medieval jurists and commentators to attain the correct interpretation of key verses like we did when I discussed the passages in the Koran of Lot offering his daughters to a mob of menno, wait LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lets do that and see if that was my own tafsir!! You rst Allahu Alam This sacred knowledge shall be borne by reliable authorities from each generation, who will preserve it from the distortions of extremists, the plans of the corrupt and the false explanations of the ignorant. (Narrated mursal by Al-Bayhaqi in Kitab al-Madkhal on the authority of Ibrahim bin Abd al-Rahman al-Udhri.)
157.
NassirH Says:
58 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
I suggest that Bob be ignored. Hes trying to move goalposts and has already debated Quranic verses regarding ghting with some of our resident Muslims, consequently failing miserably and reduced to whining I only go by the Koran.
158.
JustBob Says:
March 28th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
Ill save that for if/when Danios ever decides to address the Muslim understanding of verses in question.
159.
Mosizzle Says:
Lol. Epic fail, Bob. But youre right, lets wait until the relevant article comes out, then we can discuss how utterly wrong you are about the verse. Im pretty sure that when Danios does write an article dealing with that, some loon will pop up and go on a copy/paste rampage to show that some Mooslim extremist is interpreting the verses differently, as if that will counter Danios point. Spencer did the same when he pathetically tried to defend himself when the Dhimmitude article came out. And we all now what happened afterwards
160.
nye880 Says:
April 5th, 2011 at 10:27 am
often christians say that those violent verses in the bible are from the OT so that those verses dont apply to christians. Yet, it is a fundamental belief of evangelical christians that the bible is without error and divinely breathed and inspired. those OT books are still in all of the bibles, so christians have to admit that their god did sanction the violence contained in the bible. the real question is whether or not that the violence sanctioned in those OT verses are still applicable today? i say this because the sanction could very well be allowed only for the context of that time or scenario. we also shouldnt be surprised over these verses, if God would let angels kill the rstborn of egypt, even though those children had nothing to do with the plight of the israelites, he wouldnt have had a problem with Saul or David doing it. my point is, that these people truly felt and believe that the commands were divinely inspired, and if a person feels that it is in fact God commanding them, they were gonna do it.
59 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
161.
Noah Says:
April 26th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
Glory be to God for His Justice and Wisdom, We all would not want to live among the Amalekites today! This site seems to be Glorifying the wickedness of the amalekites rather than glorifying God for his Just Command. Lets look at the whole picture, and hope that all will come to Glorify God. If anyone has read the article on this site, than he/she would know that God Commanded King Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites. So lets take it from there! First: The Amalekites were extremely wicked people indeed, who rose up and attacked the Israelites for no reason at all (Exodus 17:8). .. As a matter of fact, the amalekites, in their wicked scheme, being soo cruel, attacked the most vulnerable people of the Israelites when they were tired and wearisome (Deuteronomy 25:18) Second: The wickedness of the Amalekites did not seem to end at the time of the Exodus of the Israelites, but continued even to the times of King Saul. Hence the reason why God ordered Saul to utterly destroy the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:3). What was the Wickedness of the Amalekites at the time of Saul? 1 Samuel 15:33 gives the answer (The Author of this article quoted 1 Samuel 15:33, but did not give the full verse). The verse is below: But Samuel said, As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women. And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal Note the words of the prophet Samuel As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women This tells us the wickedness of the Amalekites in twofold: 1 The Amalekites were killing the Children of Women which left them childless 2 The Amalekites were killing women who have not had the opportunity to become mothers, which indicates that they are young and youthful This wickedness of the Amalekites was happening in every generation which needed to be stopped before more atrocities and bloodshed was to occur by these very wicked people. Glory be to God for His Justice and Wisdom, We all would not want to live among the Amalekites today!
162.
60 of 66
Superpowerarsenal Says:
1/25/12 12:48 AM
July 17th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Could the turd brains at skeptics annotate the Quran explain exactly HOW the Quran is worse than the bible? @Noah Thanks for that piece of info. but the article isnt to expose the bible as a book inciting genocide because God thinks its okay. It is to show the double standards Islam bashers use when quoting the Quran. THEY can take things out of context but God forbid WE take the bible out of context.
14 Trackbacks For This Post

1. What the Quran-bashers Dont Want You to Know About the Bible | Spencer Watch Says:
[...] What the Quran-bashers Dont Want You to Know About the Bible [...] 2. Jesus Loves His Enemiesand Then Kills Them All | Spencer Watch Says:
April 25th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
[...] West. When it is pointed out that the Biblical prophets including Moses, Joshua,Samson, Saul, David, among many otherswere far more violent and warlike (and even engaged inreligiously [...] 3. Jesus Loves His Enemiesand Then Kills Them All Says:
May 13th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
[...] West. When it is pointed out that the Biblical prophetsincluding Moses, Joshua, Samson, Saul, David, among many otherswere far more violent and warlike (and even engaged in religiously [...] 4. Islam more violent than Judaism & Christianity? Shatkona Says:
May 24th, 2011 at 10:59 am
[...] What the Quran-bashers Dont Want You to Know About the Bible [...] 5. The But Thats Just the Old Testament! Cop-Out (II): How the Christian Right Interprets the Bible | Spencer Watch Says:
June 2nd, 2011 at 10:22 am
[...] the Old Testament, which is clearly far more violent and warlike than the Quran (see 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6), simply doesnt count. The double-standards used to single out the Quranand [...] 6. My God is Better Than Yours (I): Christians Calling Muslims Mohammedans a Case of Pot Calling Kettle Black | Spencer Watch Says:
June 22nd, 2011 at 10:19 am
61 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
[...] claims are not well-founded, and weve thoroughly refuted them (see parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Understanding Jihad Series). Clearly, the Biblical prophets [...] 7. Anders Behring Breivik: His Christian Terrorist Video Discovered Exploring Life, The Universe and Everything Says:
July 24th, 2011 at 6:09 am
[...] condemn such an atrocity it is sad to note that there is ample Biblical justication for slaughtering the innocent in the Bible. It remains to be seen if he was motivated by such [...] 8. The Bibles Yahweh, a War-God?: Called Lord of Armies Over 280 Times in the Bible and Lord of Peace Just Once (I-II) Middle East atemporal Says:
August 30th, 2011 at 10:31 am
[...] platitudes were shattered in LoonWatchs Understanding Jihad Series, (see parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8). Clearly, the Bible is more violent than the Quran, and the Biblical [...] 9. The Bibles Yahweh, a War-God?: Called Lord of Armies Over 280 Times in the Bible and Lord of Peace Just Once (I) | Spencer Watch Says:
September 1st, 2011 at 11:02 am
[...] platitudes were shattered in LoonWatchs Understanding Jihad Series, (see parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8). Clearly, the Bible is more violent than the Quran, and the Biblical [...] 10. Why Religious Zionism, Not Judaism, Is The Problem Middle East atemporal Says:
October 5th, 2011 at 12:01 am
[...] proved these claims completely bunk by showing the Bible to be far more violent than the Quran,the Biblical prophets to be far more violent than the Prophet Muhammad, and Yahweh of the Bible to [...] 11. Atlas Shrugs, Civilians, collective punishment, distinction, Ethnic Cleansing, Geneva Conventions, Halakha, Halakhah, Islamic Law, Israel, Jewish Law, Jihad, Jihad Watch, just war theory, killing civilians, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Sharia, Shariah, Says:
October 7th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
[...] proved these claims completely bunk by showing the Bible to be far more violent than the Quran, the Biblical prophets to be far more violent than the Prophet Muhammad, and Yahweh of the Bible to [...] 12. Does Jewish Law Justify Killing Civilians? | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper Says:
[...] proved these claims completely bunk by showing the Bible to be far more violent than the Quran, the Biblical prophets to be far more violent than the Prophet Muhammad, and Yahweh
62 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
of the Bible to [...] 13. Does Jewish Law Justify Killing Civilians? Anti Islam: FAQ 99 Says:
[...] proved these claims completely bunk by showing the Bible to be far more violent than the Quran,the Biblical prophets to be far more violent than the Prophet Muhammad, and Yahweh of the Bible to [...] 14. Jesus Loves His Enemiesand Then Kills Them All Exploring Life, The Universe and Everything Says:
December 11th, 2011 at 7:14 am
[...] West. When it is pointed out that the Biblical prophets including Moses, Joshua,Samson, Saul, David, among many otherswere far more violent and warlike (and even engaged inreligiously [...]
Leave a Reply
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
Submit Comment
63 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
POPULAR COMMENTS FEATURED TAG CLOUD All Terrorists are Muslims...Except the 94% that Aren't Pamela Geller: The Looniest Blogger Ever Spencer Distorts Egyptian Society; Spreads Interfaith Bigotry Islamophobes Build Faux Memorial for Muslim Victims on Land that Muslims Cannot Own Robert Spencer of JihadWatch Becomes Desperate Against LoonWatch Jesus Loves His Enemies...and Then Kills Them All The Understanding Jihad Series: Is Islam More Likely Than Other Religions to Encourage Violence? Warrior Prophet: Moses or Muhammad? Should Canada ban Islamic face veils? Muslims and Christians Condemn Baghdad Church Massacre
CATEGORIES Recent Comments

Young & Free on In Police Training, a Dark Film on U.S. Muslims Hajj Dawud on Santorum: Equality doesnt come from Islam but from God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob khushboo on Two More Southern States Join the Anti-Shariah Craze! khushboo on On the Outlandish Claim That There is No Islamophobia Nur Alia on Santorum: Equality doesnt come from Islam but from God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob
64 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
Share LoonWatch
Bookmark on Delicious Digg this Recomend on Facebook Share on Reddit Share with Stumblers Tweet this
Tags
9/11
Amago Anti-Muslim Anti-Semitism Atlas Shrugs Barack Obama Bible Bigotry CAIR Christianity
Europe FBI Florida France Geert Wilders GOP Ground Zero Mosque
Hate Hate Crime Islam

New York
Islamophobia Israel Jihad Jihad Watch JihadWatch Judaism Mosque Muslim Muslims
Palestine
Pamela Geller Pamela Geller Watch Quran racism Right-wing Robert Spencer Robert Spencer Watch Sharia SIOA Terrorism UK Violence What if they were Muslim Zionism
ARCHIVES Browse
About Ads Help Promote Loonwatch.com! Archive Contact Register Send Us a Tip Site Map
Blogroll
Anti-Hate: Krapuul (Netherlands) Bartholomews Notes on Religion Chasing Evil Euroblog: Yellow Stars FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) Fake Ex-Muslims Gates of Vienna Vs. The World Vs. LGF
65 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM
Glenn Greenwald Hate Hurts America Islamophobia Today: e-News Magazine Max Blumenthal Media Matters Muslims Wearing Things My Best Friend is Muslim ObsessionForHate.com Plunderbund Richard Silverstein: Tikun Olam Sadly, No! Smearcasters SpencerWatch SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) WhatIfTheyWereMuslim? Copyright loonwatch.com. follow: Become Our Facebook friend RSS Tweet with Us Visit SpencerWatch.com Subscribe to our YouTube Channel
66 of 66
1/25/12 12:48 AM

What The Quran-Bashers Don't Want You To Know About The Bible

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

What The Quran-Bashers Don't Want You To Know About The Bible

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What the Quran-bashers Don't Want You to Know About the Bib...

Categorized | Feature, Loon Politics

162 Comments For This Post

Nur Alia Says:

March 26th, 2011 at 1:55 pm

LibertyPhile, long time no see answers to that here:

. Plenty of people have decided to bring that up. Danios

Jack Cope Says:

So you believe that there are a billion fanatical Muslims?

Jack Cope Says:

muhammad 'abd-al haqq Says:

March 26th, 2011 at 9:54 pm

March 27th, 2011 at 12:16 am

Libya isnt an Islamic state so that question has no place here.

Ah news; the greatest of all spectator sports.

deal with your question.

Safak Ozgun Says:

Stephen G. Parker Says:

that Atheism and Communism are one and the same.

Ive stopped posting about Danios comparison.

Have a look at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org http://www.fstdt.net

March 28th, 2011 at 10:37 am

Stephen G. Parker Says:

to be much less than Zakat.

muhammad 'abd-al haqq Says:

muhammad 'abd-al haqq Says:

muhammad 'abd-al haqq Says:

July 17th, 2011 at 3:26 pm

14 Trackbacks For This Post

Mail (will not be published) (required)

CATEGORIES Recent Comments

Hate Hate Crime Islam

You might also like