# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  the Bible, the Koran and violence

## Ronin Truth

> *The Problem Isn’t Islam … It’s ALL Religious Fundamentalism*
> 
> Washington's Blog
> 
> August 29, 2014
> 
> *While the Koran Calls for Violence, The Bible Is Even Worse … Calling for Genocide*
> 
> Christians and Jews rightly point out that the Koran is a violent text which calls on Muslims to attack “unbelievers”.
> ...


http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/n...han-the-koran/

Copyright © 2014 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are provided.

This seems to be primarily an issue with all three of the major mono-theistic world religions. Is there a connection? 

*WWJD?*

----------


## Muwahid

Islamic rules of war:




> وقوله : ( ولا تعتدوا إن الله لا يحب المعتدين ) أي : قاتلوا في سبيل الله ولا تعتدوا في ذلك ويدخل في ذلك ارتكاب المناهي كما قاله الحسن البصري من المثلة ، والغلول ، وقتل النساء والصبيان والشيوخ الذين لا رأي لهم ولا قتال فيهم ، والرهبان وأصحاب الصوامع ، وتحريق الأشجار وقتل الحيوان لغير مصلحة
> 
> Translation: Allah's saying: 'Do not transgress, Allah does not love the transgressors', this means fight in the way of Allah, and do not transgress in it like committed prohibited acts. Hasan al-Basri stated those include: mutilation, theft, killing women, children, and old men who do not have an opinion [of the conflict; not involved] and do not fight, monks, the owners of sacred places, do not burn trees, or kill animals which benefit nothing


I'll let Christians defend their book, but the Qur'an is not bloodthirsty.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Islamic rules of war:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll let Christians defend their book, but the Qur'an is not bloodthirsty.



I'd say all three groups have very big (ignored) jobs to do, reining in their militant crazies.

----------


## Muwahid

> I'd say all three groups have very big (ignored) jobs to do, reining in their militant crazies.


It would be difficult to point to a conflict in which there wasn't a political/secular reason for the bloodshed as it's prime motivator. Religion may be a unifying factor, but is seldom the reason for war.

Most Muslim fundamentalist Jihadi groups do not release statements saying "We're declaring war on you because you're infidels", they really do give a comprehensive list of legitimate reasons why they wage war against their enemies... if they didn't use religion to unify people, they would just use other devices like nationalism to do the same job.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> It would be difficult to point to a conflict in which there wasn't a political/secular reason for the bloodshed as it's prime motivator. Religion may be a unifying factor, but is seldom the reason for war.
> 
> Most Muslim fundamentalist Jihadi groups do not release statements saying "We're declaring war on you because you're infidels", they really do give a comprehensive list of legitimate reasons why they wage war against their enemies... if they didn't use religion to unify people, they would just use other devices like nationalism to do the same job.


Care to add just a bit about the Sunni vs Shiite enduring blood letting issues?

----------


## otherone

> It would be difficult to point to a conflict in which there wasn't a political/secular reason for the bloodshed as it's prime motivator. Religion may be a unifying factor, but is seldom the reason for war.


Not a motivator; but a justifier.

----------


## staerker

> “In other words,” Jenkins says, “Saul has committed a dreadful sin by failing to complete genocide. And that passage echoes through Christian history. It is often used, for example, in American stories of the confrontation with Indians — not just is it legitimate to kill Indians, but you are violating God’s law if you do not.”
> 
> Jenkins notes that the history of Christianity is strewn with herem. During theCrusades 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.
> 			
> 		
> 
> *WWJD?*


So it seems the problem does not actually lie in the text, but rather by intentional manipulation of the text.

So then, why do you further another manipulation?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> So it seems the problem does not actually lie in the text, but rather by intentional manipulation of the text.
> 
> So then, why do you further another manipulation?


Slow Friday?

----------


## robert68

> As Christian writer and psychiatrist M. Scott Peck – who served as the United States Army’s Assistant Chief Psychiatry and Neurology Consultant to the Surgeon General of the Army, and held the rank of Lieutenant Colonel – explained, there are different stages of *spiritual maturity*.  Fundamentalism – whether it be Muslim, Christian, Jewish or Hindu fundamentalism – is an immature stage of development.


Spiritual maturity requires rejecting holy writ where “God” *ever* authorized genocide. If okay before, it can always be okay again.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Spiritual maturity requires rejecting holy writ where “God” *ever* authorized genocide. If okay before, it can always be okay again.


Methinks perhaps God may have just been blamed to cover for a WHOLE BUNCH of human evil. 
*This Land Is Mine (video)*

----------


## fisharmor

I'll get right on defending that Old Testament genocide stuff as soon as I'm done eating this pork sausage pizza.


Hackneyed argument is hackneyed.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I'll get right on defending that Old Testament genocide stuff as soon as I'm done eating this pork sausage pizza.
> 
> 
> Hackneyed argument is hackneyed.


  I await your genocide defense with great anticipation and baited breath.

----------


## Miss Annie

MOST of the verses related to violence in Islam are in the Hadith.  
The Koran is thus saith allah.  The Koran is thus saith Mohammed.  
The Hadith in Islam is akin to the book of mormon in mormonism.  Thou shalt not separate.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Becky Akers took on this subject toady. 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/...-of-scripture/
Intriguing that in its attack on Christian “fundamentalists” – an amorphous term that, whatever else the speaker wants it to mean, usually applies to Christians who believe the Bible’s claims to be the literal Word of God – _Washington’s Blog_  chooses to cite NPR. As Leviathan’s official medium, this network  retails little but propaganda; its animus against Christianity is  notorious. And why not? The satanic State knows that it competes with  the Lord Almighty for our worship. How better to denigrate Christianity,  and those who take it seriously, than to pretend that trusting Jesus  Christ for salvation is just another religion, one among many,  “immature” and “murderous.”
 Meanwhile, let’s examine the supposedly violent Old Testament in  context rather than deliberately telling only half the story as NPR  does. The Almighty did *indeed* command the complete annihilation of various peoples in the ancient Near East and He graciously tells us why, too: “…the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.”
 “The land” here is Canaan, the territory God was wresting from the  peoples who already lived there to bestow on the Children of Israel. Any  decent commentary on this verse will mention the natives’ utter  wickedness; I like this summary from the _Defender’s Study Bible_:
The land of Canaan,  which had long before been promised by God to Abraham and his seed, had  become so defiled by the time of Joshua that God was completely  vindicated in ordering the extermination  of its incorrigibly wicked inhabitants, lest the people of Israel and  eventually the whole world be corrupted by their influence, as in the  world before … [Noah’s] flood. This chapter [Leviticus 18] gives a  representative listing of their pervasive sins–promiscuity, incest,  homosexuality, bestiality, _even burning their children in sacrifice to a pagan god_ (Leviticus 18:21) and blaspheming the true God. _God had been long-suffering for four hundred years_, but now their iniquity was full and their time was up (note Genesis 15:13-16). [Emphasis added.]
 I will *bet*  a great many of the folks condemning the “violent” Old Testament,  including NPR, have no problem at all with the Allied firebombing of  Germany during WWII. Talk about _herem_ (“’_There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible…’ It is called_ herem,_ and it means total annihilation”)_! The Nazis were absolutely despicable, certainly, but not every German was a Nazi. Yet they all suffered for the Nazis’ sins.
  As NPR notes, King Saul disobeyed the Lord in refusing to execute one  native leader; elsewhere, the Bible says the Israelites also spared  some of the *indigenous peoples*.  And precisely what the _Defender’s Study Bible_  predicts happened: “the people of Israel … [were] corrupted by their  influence.” Among other horrors, the Israelites, too, sacrificed their  children on pagan altars, to the Lord’s unending heartbreak. He  repeatedly mentions in the Old Testament’s prophetic books His shock at such an abomination; one such passage comes from Jeremiah 19 (“They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for *burnt offerings*  unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my  mind…”). Those who dare judge the Almighty, please tell us what  punishment parents who incinerate their own children deserve.
 Now, to critics who sneer, “So does your God still tell people to  commit genocide?”, I respond, “Of course not. The Lord communicated  directly with the Children of Israel because they did not have the  written Word in its entirety as we do. And He specifically tells us that His revelation is finished; no one receives commands from Him any longer except through the Bible.” The Almighty’s order for _herem_ was strictly limited  to a certain time, place, and people. Those who extend it to anything  beyond God’s punishment of the Canaanites and who thereby hope to  justify their imperial wars will one day answer for such blasphemy.
 We should also remember that the Israelites, too, eventually  exhausted God’s patience, and He allowed other nations to destroy them,  just as He had used them to destroy the Canaanites. From all this let us  take a sober warning: America is traveling much the same path as these  ancient societies. We, too, sacrifice our own children – to the gods of  convenience, *career*, feminism, and abortion rights. We, too, applaud sodomy while persecuting anyone who refuses to endorse such perversion. We, too, wink at promiscuity as our homes and marriages disintegrate. We, too, are beginning to explore the “rights” of bestiality.
 Our iniquity is full, and our time may very well be up.
  							11:08 am on August 29, 2014

----------


## Ronin Truth

> MOST of the verses related to violence in Islam are in the Hadith. 
> The Koran is thus saith allah. The Koran is thus saith Mohammed. 
> The Hadith in Islam is akin to the book of mormon in mormonism. Thou shalt not separate.


I appreciate the added info. Thanks!

----------


## Muwahid

> Care to add just a bit about the Sunni vs Shiite enduring blood letting issues?


Sure. When the Safavid empire took Persia which was a majority sunni nation, they forced conversion to twelver shia Islam. Their motivations had to do with their feud with the Ottoman Empire, and obviously sunni empire, so it was in their interests to force a vehemently anti-sunni ideology into Persia... the original reasons for conflict had to do of course with lands in Anatolia and Mesopotamia. So again the historical Shia v. Sunni divide stems from imperialistic goals of empires, who then used religious differences as a tool to band together armies. 

In modern times, it's not like the Sunni and Shia in Iraq have simply decided to fight each other, especially during the second Iraq war, it would have been in their interests to not fight and fight the invading force. The Shia decided to use the political system to make a Shia dominated state, and that worked for them (until recent developments). 

If you were to ask an Iraqi sunni who hates the Shia government, why he hates them, I don't think he will say "Because they are Shia", but rather, "Because they imprison us, torture us, etc.", I would venture to say if the Iraqi government was ethical and not corrupt and Iraq prospered, the sunnis would have much less motivation to pick up arms and fight, even if they're slightly annoyed with their religion, they would probably take that annoyance work within the political system to give themselves more representation, so their kids could grow up without war. 

So the primary motivation in Iraq now, is to fight an oppressive, corrupt, western-backed government, not simply because they're Shia.

I will concede the Sunni v. Shia struggle is heavily ideological, I won't even deny that, but I still believe if you eliminated the secular wants and desires for power, and land, you wouldn't have this type of bloodshed.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*"By their fruits, ye shall know them."*

----------


## bunklocoempire

> Is the Bible More Bloodthirsty Than the Koran?






> WWJD?


 Of course Jesus would go on and on and on about his own _method_ of death while ignoring _the issue of death itself_, why it had/has to come about, and what can be done about it.  You know how he is.    sarcasm

I want to know *WDRTD?*

*What Did Ronin Truth Do to deserve his own fate of death?*  Start there friend -and when you have peace about that, _then_ you can share *your own* experience to promote peace in the _Peace Through Religion_ forum.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Of course Jesus would go on and on and on about his own _method_ of death while ignoring _the issue of death itself_, why it had/has to come about, and what can be done about it. You know how he is.  sarcasm
> 
> I want to know *WDRTD?*
> 
> *What Did Ronin Truth Do to deserve his own fate of death?* Start there friend -and when you have peace about that, _then_ you can share *your own* experience to promote peace in the _Peace Through Religion_ forum.


I was born. None of us are getting out of this alive. Shared experience: You too. Cheer up!

----------


## Christian Liberty

The biggest problem is that the meaning of "fundamentalism" isn't clear in the OP.

To some people "fundamental" just means sticking to the fundamentals of the Christian faith (which would be etymologically correct, to my understanding.)  To others it means killing people.

Also, political conservatism may or may not play a role in the definition.  I'm doctrinally somewhat fundamentalist, but politically an-cap libertarian.

The Old Testament is what it is.  God made people, so he has the right to kill them if he wants, and he has the right to use other people he made to do it.  I don't really see the problem, except when people get stupid and start saying that just because God commanded massacre in X situation that we can unilaterally decide to do it in Y situation also.

Mind you, I won't deny having a tough time with the massacres that occurred in the Old Testament, but that's not a logical problem with what the Bible says, just a spiritual problem for me.

For what its worth, I'm not really worried about Islam, or at least not for the same reasons that most US evangelicals are.  I think its theologically dangerous, but I am aware that the VAST majority of Muslims wouldn't hurt me... except by voting for statists

----------


## staerker

> Slow Friday?


Well, there is a discrepancy between the title of this thread, the title of the article, and the content of the article. Oh well.

----------


## Christian Liberty

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/...-of-scripture/

----------


## bunklocoempire

> I was born. None of us are getting out of this alive. Shared experience: You too. Cheer up!


I assure you that I am cheerful.  When one has died already everything else is a piece of cake, unless I get in the way of course (as is often the case). 

A bad analogy:  

What I have a hard time understanding is why someone brings up a diet, proceeds to take that diet plan out of context, and then further questions the diet because some dieters can't stick to the diet plan.  So it's the dieters who _successfully_ follow the diet that are partly at fault?  

NPR eh?  Looking for solutions to promote individual liberty and peace are they?  lol  _Is the diet really that good?_ _Did God really say?_ 

*snip*



> This seems to be primarily an issue with all three of the major mono-theistic world religions. *Is there a connection*?


Yes.  A connection with ALL and ANY groups.  The connection is cowardly and prideful *individual* men avoiding an internal audit of themselves at all cost.  It's that simple, and it will continue to happen as long as man is scared and proud.

The truth just isn't as exciting as cowardly and prideful people want it to be.  Not necessarily talking about you Ronin Truth, but *I* have had some personal experiences avoiding the truth myself.

----------


## fisharmor

> I await your genocide defense with great anticipation and baited breath.


Actually I just learned something.  The word you want is 'bated'.  Which is actually shorthand for 'abated'.  As in, you're holding your breath.

Are Pulp Fiction and Deliverance widely known as gay porn movies?  Using the article author's criteria, they must be - for each movie has a homosexual scene in it, and as has been demonstrated, a small sliver of a thing defines that thing.

Are beekeepers diagnoseable masochists?  Surely they know that they undertake an activity which will at some point result in their getting injected with venom.  It's part of the activity, and as has been shown, a small sliver of a thing defines that thing.  They must all be mentally unbalanced.

Surely everyone can see these are logically unsound, so why is it so many argue from a few verses out of over 30,000 and expect it to stick?
Did you genuinely not see the point in my stating I was going to finish my pork sausage pizza before replying?  (I really was eating pork at the time.)

The Amalekite example is using the same faulty logic against Christianity employed by those who think eating pork is forbidden: the fallacy of Hasty Generalization.  Taking one element of a thing (a verse or two, in this case) and applying it to the whole.

Christianity is not in a book.  Once you discover it you find that it is a living thing - a thing which has to be lived.  
One or two or ten or even a thousand verses are insufficient.

----------


## Miss Annie

> MOST of the verses related to violence in Islam are in the Hadith.  
> The Koran is thus saith allah.  The Koran is thus saith Mohammed.  
> The Hadith in Islam is akin to the book of mormon in mormonism.  Thou shalt not separate.


Just realized that I messed this up!  Let me fix.  
Again, Most of the verses related to violence in Islam are in the Hadith. 
The Koran is thus saith allah, the Hadith is thus saith Mohammed.  

Just goes to show why I should never try to multi task

----------


## Muwahid

> Again, Most of the verses related to violence in Islam are in the Hadith.


Like what?

----------


## Kevin007

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/n...han-the-koran/
> 
> Copyright © 2014 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are provided.
> 
> This seems to be primarily an issue with all three of the major mono-theistic world religions. Is there a connection? 
> 
> *WWJD?*


just one problem though.. Islam is still killing...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> just one problem though.. Islam is still killing...


A lot of people are still killing.  Usually ignoring what their religion says.  The difference between them and "Islam" is the uniform.

----------


## Kevin007

> A lot of people are still killing.  Usually ignoring what their religion says.  The difference between them and "Islam" is the uniform.


 NO. The dif is the "extremists" in Islam who are killing are the "good" Muslims who obey. Now if you seriously believe the NT, Jesus condones killing...I don't know what to tell you.

----------


## fr33

> Is the Bible More Bloodthirsty Than the Koran?


I can't tell the difference since so many who are inspired by both books are very bloodthirsty. It would require me to delve into semantics. Both books support peaceful solutions and both books contain enough violent methods to obtain their version of peace. It's not a coincidence that Islamists are attacking and oppressing people and that Christians are attacking and oppressing people. Save me your "No true scotsman" argument. Whether you have a bomb strapped to your chest or are fighting your christian war, you definitely aren't secular. You'll see Muslim apologists that don't support the war du jour and Christians. They were just inspired differently by the same ancient texts that the other believers often cite.

----------


## Muwahid

> I can't tell the difference since so many who are inspired by both books are very bloodthirsty. It would require me to delve into semantics. Both books support peaceful solutions and both books contain enough violent methods to obtain their version of peace. It's not a coincidence that Islamists are attacking and oppressing people and that Christians are attacking and oppressing people. Save me your "No true scotsman" argument. Whether you have a bomb strapped to your chest or are fighting your christian war, you definitely aren't secular. You'll see Muslim apologists that don't support the war du jour and Christians. They were just inspired differently by the same ancient texts that the other believers often cite.


No one said they are secular people. Their prime motivation are non-religious matters-- for example overthrowing an oppressive regime.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Sure. When the Safavid empire took Persia which was a majority sunni nation, they forced conversion to twelver shia Islam. Their motivations had to do with their feud with the Ottoman Empire, and obviously sunni empire, so it was in their interests to force a vehemently anti-sunni ideology into Persia... the original reasons for conflict had to do of course with lands in Anatolia and Mesopotamia. So again the historical Shia v. Sunni divide stems from imperialistic goals of empires, who then used religious differences as a tool to band together armies. 
> 
> In modern times, it's not like the Sunni and Shia in Iraq have simply decided to fight each other, especially during the second Iraq war, it would have been in their interests to not fight and fight the invading force. The Shia decided to use the political system to make a Shia dominated state, and that worked for them (until recent developments). 
> 
> If you were to ask an Iraqi sunni who hates the Shia government, why he hates them, I don't think he will say "Because they are Shia", but rather, "Because they imprison us, torture us, etc.", I would venture to say if the Iraqi government was ethical and not corrupt and Iraq prospered, the sunnis would have much less motivation to pick up arms and fight, even if they're slightly annoyed with their religion, they would probably take that annoyance work within the political system to give themselves more representation, so their kids could grow up without war. 
> 
> So the primary motivation in Iraq now, is to fight an oppressive, corrupt, western-backed government, not simply because they're Shia.
> 
> I will concede the Sunni v. Shia struggle is heavily ideological, I won't even deny that, but I still believe if you eliminated the secular wants and desires for power, and land, you wouldn't have this type of bloodshed.


Thanks for the info. I really appreciate that.

Several places in the Bible it says that Satan rules (controls) all human governments.  Does Islam hold a similar view?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Well, there is a discrepancy between the title of this thread, the title of the article, and the content of the article. Oh well.



You may want to take up that concern with Lew Rockwell.  That's the way his folks chose to handle it.  Actually it works for me.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I assure you that I am cheerful. When one has died already everything else is a piece of cake, unless I get in the way of course (as is often the case). 
> 
> A bad analogy: 
> 
> What I have a hard time understanding is why someone brings up a diet, proceeds to take that diet plan out of context, and then further questions the diet because some dieters can't stick to the diet plan. So it's the dieters who _successfully_ follow the diet that are partly at fault? 
> 
> NPR eh? Looking for solutions to promote individual liberty and peace are they? lol _Is the diet really that good?_ _Did God really say?_ 
> 
> *snip*
> ...


There are several other major religions not nearly as historically soaked in human blood as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.  And yet all three claim to revere the Golden Rule or close variations.  Go figure.  

(There's something rotten in Jerusalem.)

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Actually I just learned something. The word you want is 'bated'. Which is actually shorthand for 'abated'. As in, you're holding your breath.
> 
> Are Pulp Fiction and Deliverance widely known as gay porn movies? Using the article author's criteria, they must be - for each movie has a homosexual scene in it, and as has been demonstrated, a small sliver of a thing defines that thing.
> 
> Are beekeepers diagnoseable masochists? Surely they know that they undertake an activity which will at some point result in their getting injected with venom. It's part of the activity, and as has been shown, a small sliver of a thing defines that thing. They must all be mentally unbalanced.
> 
> Surely everyone can see these are logically unsound, so why is it so many argue from a few verses out of over 30,000 and expect it to stick?
> Did you genuinely not see the point in my stating I was going to finish my pork sausage pizza before replying? (I really was eating pork at the time.)
> 
> ...


Thanks for the spelling correction. Actually I knew that. It was just another one of those pesky senior moment brain farts and a finger check. 

Well, I was eating a Filet 'O Fish sandwich at the time , so perhaps my breath WAS indeed "baited". 

Personally I think that, *"By their fruits, ye shall know them."* simplifies and clarifies many of my problems and concerns with all three of them.

*Religion and politics are both the very same thing. They are both only, very old and very effective, means to control large masses of people. It has always only been that way, and it always only will be. 

The ends do NOT justify the means.*

----------


## Ronin Truth

> just one problem though.. Islam is still killing...


  Are Jews?  Are Christians?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> NO. The dif is the "extremists" in Islam who are killing are the "good" Muslims who obey. Now if you seriously believe the NT, Jesus condones killing...I don't know what to tell you.


HB isn't saying the NT condones killing.  He's saying that professing Christians kill people all the time, its just that they usually have a government uniform when they do it.  He's right.

----------


## Bryan

Note, please use this thread to clear up misconceptions in the op, not to bash other religions. Thank you.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *HB isn't saying the NT condones killing.*  He's saying that professing Christians kill people all the time, its just that they usually have a government uniform when they do it.  He's right.


Exactly.  Thanks, FF.  I don't see how kevin got that out of my post at all.

----------


## staerker

> You may want to take up that concern with Lew Rockwell.  That's the way his folks chose to handle it.  Actually it works for me.



"Is the Bible More Bloodthirsty Than the Koran?" vs "The Problem Isn’t Islam … It’s ALL Religious Fundamentalism" vs "While the Koran Calls for Violence, The Bible Is Even Worse … Calling for Genocide"

All of those are completely different statements. Just saying.

----------


## Kevin007

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Jesus-Muhammad.htm


_ Differences Between Muhammad  		and Jesus_

 * 		Muhammad...*
 * 		Jesus...*

Said  		Allah hates those who don't accept Islam.
(Qur'an 30:45, 3:32, 22:38)
 Said God loves everyone.  
(John 3:16)

 _"I have been commanded to fight 		
		against people till they testify that there
		 is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad
		 is the messenger of Allah"_
		(Muslim 1:33)
 _"He who lives by the sword 
		will die by the sword."_
		(Matthew 26:52)

 Stoned women for adultery.
		(Muslim 4206)
 _"Let he who is without sin cast  		the first stone."_
		(John 8:7)

 Permitted stealing from unbelievers.
		(Bukhari 44:668, Ibn Ishaq 764)
 _"Thou shalt not steal."_
		(Matthew 19:18)

 Permitted lying.
		(Sahih Muslim 6303, Bukhari 49:857)
 _"Thou shalt not bear false  		witness."_
		(Matthew 19:18)

 Owned and traded slaves.
		(Sahih Muslim 3901)
 Neither owned nor traded slaves.

 Beheaded 800 Jewish men and boys.
		(Sahih Muslim 4390)
 Beheaded no one.

 Murdered those who insulted him.
		(Bukhari 56:369, 4:241)
 Preached forgiveness.
		(Matthew 18:21-22, 5:38)

 "If then anyone transgresses 
		the 		prohibition against you, 
		Transgress ye likewise against him"
		(Qur'an 2:194)
 "If someone strikes you on the right 		
		cheek, turn to him the other also."
		(Matthew 5:39)

 Jihad in the way of Allah elevates  		one's position in Paradise by a hundred fold.
		(Muslim 4645)
 "Blessed are the peacemakers, for 
		they will be called Sons of God"
		(Matthew 5:9)

 Married 13 wives and kept sex slaves.
		(Bukhari 5:268, Qur'an 33:50)
 Was celibate.

 Slept with a 9-year-old child.
		(Sahih Muslim 3309, Bukhari 58:236)
 Did not have sex with children.

 Ordered the murder of women.
		(Ibn Ishaq 819, 995)
 Never harmed a woman.

 _"O you who believe!  Fight  		those of the
		 unbelievers who are near to you 
		and let them find in you hardness."_
		(Qur'an 9:123)
 _"Blessed are the meek, for 
		they shall inherit the earth."_
		(Matthew 5:5)

 Ordered 65 military campaigns 
		and raids in his last 10 years. 
		(Ibn Ishaq )
 Ordered no military campaigns, nor 		
		offered any approval of war or violence.  


 Killed captives taken in battle.
		(Ibn Ishaq 451)
 Never took captives.
Never killed anyone.

 Encouraged his men to rape enslaved  		women.
		(Abu Dawood 2150, Qur'an 4:24)
 Never encouraged rape.
		Never enslaved women.  

 Demanded captured slaves and
		a fifth of all other loot taken in war.
		(Qur'an 8:41)
 _"The Son of Man came not 
		to be served, but to serve.__"_
		(Matthew 20:28)

 Was never tortured, but tortured  		others.
		(Muslim 4131, Ibn Ishaq 436, 595, 734, 764)
 Suffered torture, but never tortured  		anyone.

 _"And fight them until there is no  		more persecution and religion is only for Allah"
_(Qur'an 8:39)
 _"Love your enemies and pray 
		for those who persecute you__"_
		(Matthew 5:44)

 Blessed the brutal murder of a  		half-blind man
(al-Tabari 1440)
 Healed a blind man(Mark 8:28)

 Ordered a slave to build the very  		pulpit 
		from which he preached Islam.
(Bukhari 47:743)
 Washed his disciples feet.
(John 13:5)

 What are the Greatest Commandments?
_"Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause"_ 
(Muslim 1:149)
 What are the Greatest Commandments? 
_"Love God and love thy neighbor as thyself."_
(Matthew 22:34-40)

 Demanded the protection of armed  		bodyguards, even in a house of worship
(Qur'an 4:102)
 Chastised anyone attempting 
		to defend him with force.
		(John 18:10-12)

 Died fat and wealthy from what was  		
		taken from others in war or 
		demanded from others in tribute.
 Demanded nothing for himself.  
		Died without possessions.

 Advocated crucifying others.
		(Qur'an 5:33, Muslim 16:4131)
 Was crucified himself.

 _According to his followers:_ 
		Had others give their lives for him.
(Sahih Muslim 4413)
 _According to his followers:_ 
		Gave his life for others.
(John 18:11 and elsewhere)

----------


## Christian Liberty

I'm not defending Islam by any means, but I suspect there's at least some cherry picking there.  There is some gruesome stuff in the Old Testament, for instance.  And while I obviously don't agree with the secular over the top condemnations, there are some things in the OT that definitely "look" ugly.  Are you certain that all of the Koranic verses are actually considered to be applicable to all Muslims, rather than just a specific point in history?

----------


## Muwahid

> I'm not defending Islam by any means, but I suspect there's at least some cherry picking there.  There is some gruesome stuff in the Old Testament, for instance.  And while I obviously don't agree with the secular over the top condemnations, there are some things in the OT that definitely "look" ugly.  Are you certain that all of the Koranic verses are actually considered to be applicable to all Muslims, rather than just a specific point in history?


I've responded fully to this claim of Kevin's before here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5592671

He does not get his information from the scriptures, he reads from anti-Muslim blogs who really have no formal education or credentials in the matter of theology. In my opinion if you're going to discuss theology, the sources used should at least be scholarly, not some Joe with a website. It's not some trivial matter.

----------


## Kevin007

> I've responded fully to this claim of Kevin's before here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5592671
> 
> He does not get his information from the scriptures, he reads from anti-Muslim blogs who really have no formal education or credentials in the matter of theology. In my opinion if you're going to discuss theology, the sources used should at least be scholarly, not some Joe with a website. It's not some trivial matter.



I don't? the verse is quoted right from the Muslim Holy Book.

----------


## fr33

> I don't? the verse is quoted right from the Muslim Holy Book.


I could make with equally $#@!ty quotes from your holy book.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I've responded fully to this claim of Kevin's before here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5592671
> 
> He does not get his information from the scriptures, he reads from anti-Muslim blogs who really have no formal education or credentials in the matter of theology. In my opinion if you're going to discuss theology, the sources used should at least be scholarly, not some Joe with a website. It's not some trivial matter.


I responded to some of your stuff.

----------


## Muwahid

> I don't? the verse is quoted right from the Muslim Holy Book.


Like I said I responded to all your claims, and no you didn't quote from the Muslim holy book you quoted from Ali Sina.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> "Is the Bible More Bloodthirsty Than the Koran?" vs "The Problem Isn’t Islam … It’s ALL Religious Fundamentalism" vs "While the Koran Calls for Violence, The Bible Is Even Worse … Calling for Genocide"
> 
> All of those are completely different statements. Just saying.


And Lew replied?

----------

