Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran?


As the hijackers boarded the airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001, they had a lot on their minds. And if they were following instructions, one of those things was the Quran.

In preparation for the suicide attack, their handlers had told them to meditate on two chapters of the Quran in which God tells Muslims to “cast terror into the hearts of unbelievers.”

“Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them,” Allah instructs the Prophet Muhammad (Quran, 9:5). He continues: “Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites! … Hell shall be their home, an evil fate.”

When Osama bin Laden declared war on the West in 1996, he cited the Quran’s command to “strike off” the heads of unbelievers. More recently, U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan lectured his colleagues about jihad, or “holy war,” and the Quran’s exhortation to fight unbelievers and bring them low. Hasan is accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, last year.

Given this violent legacy, religion historian Philip Jenkins decided to compare the brutality quotient of the Quran and the Bible.

Defense Vs. Total Annihilation

“Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible,” Jenkins says.

Jenkins is a professor at Penn State University and author of two books dealing with the issue: the recently published Jesus Wars, and Dark Passages , which has not been published but is already drawing controversy.

Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible.

- Philip Jenkins, author of ‘Jesus Wars’

Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

“By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane,” he says. “Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide.”

It is called herem, and it means total annihilation.  Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: “And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them,” God says through the prophet Samuel. “But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.

“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 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.

‘Holy Amnesia’

But Jenkins says, even though the Bible is violent, Christianity and Judaism today are not for the most part.

“What happens in all religions as they grow and mature and expand, they go through a process of forgetting of the original violence, and I call this a process of holy amnesia,” Jenkins says.

Philip Jenkins, the author of 'Jesus Wars'

Jenkins, author of Jesus Wars, says that violence in the Quran is largely a defense against attack.

Jenkins, author of Jesus Wars, says that violence in the Quran is largely a defense against attack.

They make the violence symbolic: Wiping out the enemy becomes wiping out one’s own sins. Jenkins says that until recently, Islam had the same sort of holy amnesia, and many Muslims interpreted jihad, for example, as an internal struggle, not physical warfare.

Andrew Bostom calls this analysis “preposterous.” Bostom, editor of The Legacy of Jihad, says there’s a major difference between the Bible, which describes the destruction of an enemy at a point in time, and the Quran, which urges an ongoing struggle to defeat unbelievers.

“It’s an aggressive doctrine,” he says. “The idea is to impose Islamic law on the globe.”

Take suicide attacks, he says — a tactic that Muslim radicals have used to great effect in the U.S., Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East. It’s true that suicide from depression is forbidden in Islam — but Bostom says the Quran and the Hadith, or the sayings of Muhammad, do allow self-destruction for religious reasons.

“The notion of jihad martyrdom is extolled in the Quran, Quran verse 9:1-11. And then in the Hadith, it’s even more explicit.  This is the highest form of jihad — to kill and to be killed in acts of jihad.”

‘Out Of Context’

That may be the popular notion of jihad, says Waleed El-Ansary, but it’s the wrong one. El-Ansary, who teaches Islamic studies at the University of South Carolina, says the Quran explicitly condemns religious aggression and the killing of civilians. And it makes the distinction between jihad — legal warfare with the proper rules of engagement — and irjaf, or terrorism.

“All of those types of incidences — [Sept. 11], Maj. Nidal Hasan and so forth — those are all examples of irjaf, not jihad,” he says. According to the Quran, he says, those who practice irjaf “are going to hell.”

So what’s going on here? After all, we all have images of Muslim radicals flying planes into buildings, shooting up soldiers at Fort Hood, trying to detonate a bomb on an airplane on Christmas Day. How to reconcile a peaceful Quran with these violent acts?

El-Ansary says that in the past 30 years, there’s been a perfect storm that has created a violent strain of Islam. The first is political: frustration at Western intervention in the Muslim world. The second is intellectual: the rise of Wahhabi Islam, a more fundamentalist interpretation of Islam subscribed to by Osama bin Laden. El-Ansary says fundamentalists have distorted Islam for political purposes.

“Basically what they do is they take verses out of context and then use that to justify these egregious actions,” he says.

El-Ansary says we are seeing more religious violence from Muslims now because the Islamic world is far more religious than is the West. Still, Jenkins says Judeo-Christian cultures shouldn’t be smug. The Bible has plenty of violence.

“The scriptures are still there, dormant, but not dead,” he says, “and they can be resurrected at any time. Witness the white supremacists who cite the murderous Phineas when calling for racial purity, or an anti-abortion activist when shooting a doctor who performs abortions.

In the end, the scholars can agree on one thing: The DNA of early Judaism, Christianity and Islam code for a lot of violence. Whether they can evolve out of it is another thing altogether.

Excerpt: ‘Jesus Wars’

by Philip Jenkins

'Jesus Wars'

March 18, 2010

Introduction

Who Do You Say That I Am?

Jesus once asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” They answered that all sorts of stories were circulating — that he was a prophet, perhaps Elijah or John the Baptist come back to earth. “But,” he asked, “Who do you say that I am?” Over the past two thousand years, Christians have formulated many different answers to this question. Yes, most believe Jesus was a human being, but at the same time he was also God, one of the three persons of the Trinity. He was both God and man.

But when we have said that, we have raised more questions than we have answered, as the basic belief in Jesus Christ demands combining two utterly different categories of being. Such a transgression of boundaries puzzles and shocks believers of other faiths, especially strict monotheists such as Muslims and Jews. But even those Christians who accept the basic concept probably could not explain it with anything like the precision demanded by early church councils. By those rigorous standards, virtually all modern nonspecialists (including many clergy) would soon lapse into grave heresy. . . .

So was Jesus a Man-bearing God, or a God-bearing man? Between those extreme poles lay any number of other answers, which competed furiously through the first Christian centuries. By 400, most Christians agreed that Jesus Christ was in some sense divine, and that he had both a human nature (Greek, physis) and a divine nature. But that belief allowed for a wide variety of interpretations, and if events had developed differently — if great councils had decided other than they actually did — any one of these various approaches might have established itself as orthodoxy. In the context of the time, cultural and political pressures were pushing strongly toward the idea of Christ-as-God, so that only with real difficulty could the memory of the human Jesus be maintained. Historically, it is very remarkable that mainstream orthodoxy came out so strongly in favor of asserting Christ’s full humanity.

Related NPR Stories

And yet it did just that. When most modern churches explain their understanding of Christ’s identity — their Christology — they turn to a common body of ready-made interpretations, an ancient collection of texts laid down in the fifth century. At a great council held in 451 at Chalcedon (near modern Istanbul), the church formulated the statement that eventually became the official theology of the Roman Empire. This acknowledges Christ in two natures, which joined together in one person. Two natures existed, “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person.”

We cannot speak of Christ without declaring his full human nature, which was not even slightly diluted or abolished by the presence of divinity. That Chalcedonian definition today stands as the official formula for the vast majority of Christians, whether they are Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox — although how many of those believers could explain the definition clearly is open to debate. But as we are told, Chalcedon settled any controversy about the identity of Christ, so that henceforward any troublesome passages in the Bible or early tradition had to be read in the spirit of those powerful words. For over 1,500 years now, Chalcedon has provided the answer to Jesus’ great question.

But Chalcedon was not the only possible solution, nor was it an obvious or, perhaps, a logical one. Only the political victory of Chalcedon’s supporters allowed that council’s ideas to become the inevitable lens through which later generations interpret the Christian message. It remains quite possible to read the New Testament and find very different Christologies, which by definition arose from churches very close to Jesus’ time, and to his thought world. In particular, we easily find passages that suggest that the man

Jesus achieved Godhood at a specific moment during his life, or indeed after his earthly death.

In political terms, the most important critics of Chalcedon were those who stressed Christ’s one divine nature, and from the Greek words for “one nature,” we call them Monophysites. Not only were Monophysites numerous and influential, but they dominated much of the Christian world and the Roman Empire long after Chalcedon had done its work, and they were only defeated after decades of bloody struggle. Centuries after Chalcedon, Monophysites continued to prevail in the most ancient regions of Christianity, such as Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. The heirs of the very oldest churches, the ones with the most direct and authentic ties to the apostolic age, found their distinctive interpretation of Christ ruled as heretical. Pedigree counted for little in these struggles.

Each side persecuted its rivals when it had the opportunity to do so, and tens of thousands — at least — perished. Christ’s nature was a cause for which people were prepared to kill and to die, to persecute or to suffer martyrdom. Modern Christians rarely feel much sympathy for either side in such bygone religious wars. Did the issues at stake really matter enough to justify bloodshed? Yet obviously, people at the time had no such qualms and cared passionately about how believers were supposed to understand the Christ they worshipped. Failing to understand Christ’s natures properly made nonsense of everything Christians treasured: the content of salvation and redemption, the character of liturgy and Eucharist, the figure of the Virgin Mary. Each side had its absolute truth, faith in which was essential to salvation.

Horror stories about Christian violence abound in other eras, with the Crusades and Inquisition as prime exhibits; but the intra- Christian violence of the fifth- and sixth-century debates was on a far larger and more systematic scale than anything produced by the Inquisition and occurred at a much earlier stage of church history. When Edward Gibbon wrote his classic account of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, he reported countless examples of Christian violence and fanaticism. This is his account of the immediate aftermath of Chalcedon:

Jerusalem was occupied by an army of [Monophysite] monks; in the name of the one incarnate Nature, they pillaged, they burnt, they murdered; the sepulchre of Christ was defiled with blood. . . . On the third day before the festival of Easter, the [Alexandrian] patriarch was besieged in the cathedral, and murdered in the baptistery. The remains of his mangled corpse were delivered to the flames, and his ashes to the wind; and the deed was inspired by the vision of a pretended angel. . . . This deadly superstition was inflamed, on either side, by the principle and the practice of retaliation: in the pursuit of a metaphysical quarrel, many thousands were slain.

Chalcedonians behaved at least as badly in their campaigns to enforce their particular orthodoxy. In the eastern city of Amida, a Chalcedonian bishop dragooned dissidents, to the point of burning them alive. His most diabolical scheme involving taking lepers, “hands festering and dripping with blood and pus,” and billeting them on the Monophysite faithful until they saw reason.

Even the Eucharist became a vital component of religious terror. Throughout the long religious wars, people were regularly (and frequently) reading others out of the church, declaring formal anathemas, and the sign for this was admitting or not admitting people to communion. In extreme episodes, communion was enforced by physical violence, so that the Eucharist, which is based upon ideas of self-giving and self-sacrifice, became an instrument of oppression. A sixth-century historian records how the forces of Constantinople’s Chalcedonian patriarch struck at Monophysite religious houses in the capital. Furnished with supplies of consecrated bread, the patriarch’s clergy were armed and dangerous. They “dragged and pulled [the nuns] by main force to make them receive the communion at their hands. And they all fled like birds before the hawk, and cowered down in corners, wailing and saying, ‘We cannot communicate with the synod of Chalcedon, which divides Christ our God into two Natures after the union, and teaches a Quaternity instead of the Holy Trinity.'” But their protests were useless. “They were dragged up to communicate; and when they held their hands above their heads, in spite of their screams their hands were seized, and they were dragged along, uttering shrieks of lamentation, and sobs, and loud cries, and struggling to escape. And so the sacrament was thrust by force into the mouths of some, in spite of their screams, while others threw themselves on their faces upon the ground, and cursed every one who required them to communicate by force.” They might take the Eucharist kicking and screaming —  literally — but once they had eaten, they were officially in communion with Chalcedon and with the church that preached that doctrine.

Reprinted from Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 Years by Philip Jenkins. Copyright 2010. With permission of the publisher, HarperOne.

  1. #1 by acrossburningsands on December 14, 2011 - 10:54 pm

    Absolutely thought provoking material here.

    I would suggest two things in resolving the confrontational aspect of the information presented.

    First, as the author has asked, ‘who do you say I am”. This can only gotten by a personal witness in one’s own being.

    Such a ‘witness’ can only be achieved by the study of The New Testament; and apart from any influence of man made tradition.

    Secondly, I would suggest; that, to the degree that the ecclesiastical ‘authorities’ adopted

    1.The Jewish Tribal Deity to be the same as The Father of Christ

    2. The Lying Jew Writings to be valid scripture, applicable to Christians

    3. The Judaising ‘influence’ of hard core first century Jews in molding their destiny

    it would be to that degree that they were led into total error, and became the murderous band of renegades setting out in power to establish an earthly kingdom, the promise to the jews in their writings; but NEVER promised by Christ to His Own.

  2. #2 by B.A.Frémaux-Soormally on December 14, 2011 - 11:05 pm

    Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran?

    Wrong question? At least two wrong assumptions.

    Basheer

  3. #3 by Adalberto Erazo on December 15, 2011 - 1:28 am

    Off Topic

    @ Gino, Isaac and others

    Presstv has created a Spanish language news website called http://www.hispantv.com/

    For Spanish speakers who want the real truth on whats going on the world. Way better than Telemundo or Univision which are jewish controlled and spread lies like their English counterparts in America. Verdadera noticias! Spread the word. Arriba!

  4. #4 by Maritza on December 15, 2011 - 1:29 am

    Wrong question all around. It is the Talmud and its pseudo-Christian counterpart the on purpose Masoretic errors in the Christian Bible put there by the Rabbinic compilers of the Masoretic text that are extremely violent.

    The reason is their god, Satan, that the Jews worship and do the will of.

    John 8:41 You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: 43 Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. 45 But if I say the truth, you believe me not.

    Please see this also: Palestine Cry: Palestine Cry: Israeli attack on USS Liberty (US Navy ship), Operations Northwoods and the Satanism behind it

  5. #5 by Isaac on December 15, 2011 - 3:41 am

    Do you want to talk about which is the most violent of the religions? just read the Babilonian Talmud in which you find hate, unconceivable insults and desecration against the Christian and the Muslim creed. They call the Virgin Mary a Whore, that she was menstruating when she conceived Jesus Christ, and the undescrivable insults they tell against Jesus, that he was a crazy magician, that he did not know that he really wanted and his followers are nothing but idolatours inferior beings, that the Goyim or non-Jews are at the level of cattle and dogs, etc………..

  6. #6 by فيستا في ستيف on December 15, 2011 - 5:17 am

    Isaac says:

    Do you want to talk about which is the most violent of the religions? just read the Babilonian Talmud in which you find hate, unconceivable insults and desecration against the Christian and the Muslim creed. They call the Virgin Mary a Whore, that she was menstruating when she conceived Jesus Christ, and the undescrivable insults they tell against Jesus, that he was a crazy magician, that he did not know that he really wanted and his followers are nothing but idolatours inferior beings, that the Goyim or non-Jews are at the level of cattle and dogs, etc………..

    Isaac, you are correct, the Talmud is the absolute worst blasphemy there is. It offends both Christian and Muslim.

    Maritza says:

    Wrong question all around. It is the Talmud and its pseudo-Christian counterpart the on purpose Masoretic errors in the Christian Bible put there by the Rabbinic compilers of the Masoretic text that are extremely violent.

    The reason is their god, Satan, that the Jews worship and do the will of.

    John 8:41 You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: 43 Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. 45 But if I say the truth, you believe me not.

    Please see this also: Palestine Cry: Palestine Cry: Israeli attack on USS Liberty (US Navy ship), Operations Northwoods and the Satanism behind it

    I agree with both of these.

    Let me add that heresy, as you point out Maritza, in Christian Old Testament texts was put there by Rabbinic translators who flat out lied about the translation of certain verses in the Old Testament.

    Also, in Islamic civilization, it was the Judaizing influence – Hurufi, Ismaeli, Frankist Doenmeh and Wahhabi too which brought in heresies, khafir, there as well. It is not at all surprising, as the Jews rejected the Torah of Moses to begin with.

    It is part of the Jews divide and conquer strategy. It is a murderous strategy and even suicidal on their part.

  7. #7 by Al on December 15, 2011 - 5:22 am

    I confess that I am not expert in religion but I think this is a wrong question… If we forget about minor differences between Christianity, Islam and Judaism we will see that these three major faiths, in general, talk about love and peace…

    At the same time they talk and emphasize about self defense and fight for our rights and against injustice especially against the unjust rulers or governments in the world… I think those people who are silent when they see their government has been committing crimes and illegal invasions of other countries, their silence is also a kind of sin…

    So, if any Christian, Muslim or Jew is concerned about the real meaning of this question, the best true answer is “Search for Love and Fight against Injustice”… Anything less or more would be wrong in any faith…

  8. #8 by John on December 15, 2011 - 7:35 am

    They can manage to cite instances of Christians and Muslims (even ‘white supremacists’) using the Bible to justify acts of violence, but not even one specific mention of Jews doing so? If they can reach for obscure examples like white supremacists or American pioneers finding a justification for violence intheir holy texts, why are they unable to find any instances in recent memory of Jews doing the same thing? To find an example of Jews using their Torah this way one need look no further than the pamphlets and sermons rabbis gave to the IDF during Operation Cast Lead. That’s a far more recent and better documented case than the obscure ones they cite for Christians.

  9. #9 by MJ on December 15, 2011 - 12:38 pm

    The position of the oppressed in relation to the oppressor:
    Islamic Persepective

    http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=articles&id=142450

    Allaah Says (what means): “And those who, when tyranny strikes them, they defend themselves. And the retribution for an evil act is an evil one like it, but whoever pardons and makes reconciliation – his reward is [due] from Allaah. Indeed, He does not like wrongdoers. And whoever avenges himself after having been wronged – those have not upon them any cause [for blame]. The cause is only against the ones who wrong the people and tyrannise upon the earth without right. Those will have a painful punishment. And whoever is patient and forgives – indeed, that is of the matters [requiring] determination [i.e. on the part of those seeking the reward of Allaah].” [Quran 42: 39-43]

    Theses verses include two matters:

    First: Taking revenging from the oppressor.

    Second: Forgiveness on the part of the oppressed.

    Ibraaheem may Allaah have mercy upon him said: “The believers hated anyone to humiliate them, but whenever they had the chance to take revenge, they would forgive instead.”

    Allaah praises the believers in the above mentioned verses for having the strength and power to avenge in a just manner, for restoring their rights, and for not allowing aggressors to take advantage of them. They are by no means incapable, weak or humiliated, and they are quite capable of exacting revenge, yet they forgive and forget.

  10. #10 by Vickie Jacobs on December 15, 2011 - 3:50 pm

    We are living in a time of great confusion. Of a country that has gone almost completely mad. Everyone looking for answers yet no matter what medicine is taken it kepts getting worse. The poison is in their own water yet they keep drinking it.

    What I am talking about is the bible. What! You might say. Yes, since the very beginning. One has destruction and has killed many. The other is the one persecuted.

    THE ONE THAT HAS DESTRUCTION IN ITS PATH (that causes madness) started here:

    ALEXANDRA (Egypt) 45 manuscripts from Paprus 200 AD
    Clemet 150-215 AD
    Origen 184-254 AD
    Septuagant LXX (Romanism)
    Vaticanue 331 AD
    Jerome 382 AD
    Alexandrinus 450 AD (Latan Vulgate 382 AD)
    Rhemus-Douay Bible 1582 AD (English)
    Greek New Testament 1805-1872
    Westcot and Hort 1881………..started then all the REVISED VERSIONS (and the madness)

    THE ONE THAT HAS BEEN PERSECUTED:

    ANTIOCH (5210 manuscripts)
    Textus Receptus 90 AD
    Vaudois 100-200 AD
    Old Latan and Syriac of Origianls 100-200 AD (also same date)
    Papyri Manuscripts 150-400
    Uncial and Cursive manuscripts 99% of the traditional texts 150-1500
    Old Latan Vulgate (not Jerome) Waldensians 1100-1300 AD
    Wycliffe 1382 AD
    Eramus Received Text 1516 AD
    Martin Luther Bible 1522-1534 (German)
    Tyndales 1535 AD
    Matthews Bible 1537 AD
    Great Bible 1539 AD (English)
    Stephen Greek NT 1550
    Bishops 1568 (Engliish)
    Bezas Greek 1598
    KING JAMES BIBLE 1611-1850 (even that has been touched with C.I. Scofield………his one seemed to be the only one put forth at the time for many to have but his footnotes were corrupt.)

    This country started out with everyone having the same bible. There was no division. Now there is because everyone is using this poison to divide and cause madness.

    Once I threw out all the ones that were corrupt I started seeing peace in my home. Something was happening. It brought back a sense of righteouness………this is what a country needs:

    “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” Proverbs 29:2

    I know nothing of the Quran. Maybe Satan has had his way with others who’s heart feels something is not right there also.

  11. #11 by amerikagulag on December 15, 2011 - 4:12 pm

    Fake religions centered around fake deities, supported by a fake history, acting as a front for an organized crime syndicate.

    If you ask yourself, what benefit has religion offered to mankind? You’d be hard pressed to find justification, except for the fictitious and unprovable promises they offer. Religions have no power over the spirit

    Compassion, charity, humility, love. These are not the hallmarks of religions, but rather the ideals of the human species. They are admirable and necessary for and beneficial to, an organized society, but they are NOT the property of religion. They are human traits. Religion has simply adopted them as a front in order to continue their tax-free status and their world-wide power quest.

    The torah and the talmud are weapons of mass destruction and their adherents are enemies of humanity. And both the spin-off religions spawned by this destructive, hateful club are on equally deceitful ground.

  12. #12 by massigusoni on December 15, 2011 - 4:22 pm

    That these things would occur had been foretold, yet many were then, and are now ignorant of the impetus and why it is happening the explanation is explained concisely here –

    http://timutele.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/war-with-her-children/

    Though our author is concerned primarily with those factions within ‘Christianity’ and their barbarity, it might be said that the Jews may have had more than just an influence ‘behind the scenes'; the Jew certainly had an impetus in the Crusades.

    They ‘financially backed’ them; which must lead us to be believe that they most probably had some influence in getting them started as well.

    It was “one shot two kills” then for them as well. They not only set the Christian to war against the Muslim; but, also altered feudal law to enable their financial backing, which resulted in Jew Law replacing Anglo-Saxon Law. –

    http://fremaux-soormally.blogspot.com/2011/11/law-of-jews-becomes-law-of-land.html

  13. #13 by Oscar on December 15, 2011 - 5:20 pm

    A lot of reading, for such a simple explanation.

    The “holy books” were written a long time ago, things were a lot different then, when the press (phress?) hadn’t yet conjured the up the illusion of civilization, which is probably the biggest lie ever told. The righteous need only to read history, religious or not, to realize this; and with further thought, to know that nothing on earth is divine, not even a book. Did pharaoh Musa kill? Peace be upon him! Could the prophet Muhammad teleport and fly like Gilgamesh on a rocket? Peace be upon him! Was YeHoshua turned a zombie? Peace be upon him.

    Was the slaughtering of American natives, and their replacement with African slaves, manifest destiny? Yazid’s deity was his gigolo.

    In order for people to be converted like currency, the leaders needed to conjure up miraculous lies. And thus, what many people actually worship.

  14. #14 by B.A.Frémaux-Soormally on December 15, 2011 - 10:48 pm

    Vickie Jacobs says:
    December 15, 2011 at 3:50 pm
    “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” Proverbs 29:2

    This is what is lacking in the world and in our hearts.

    Basheer

  15. #15 by Yusuf bin Jussac (Joe Jussac, Jr.) on December 31, 2011 - 7:31 am

    Shalom/Salaam derived from THREE identical consonants SLM of Hebrew (Aramaic? Spoken by Prophet Moses/Musaa alaihi salaam) and Arabic, stands for Peace.

    To Bro Basheer: DITTO!

    But to me, WRONG Question especially re the Al-Qur’an! The author quoted some Surat/Chapters and/or Ayat/Verses of it OUT OF context. I invite him to visit http://www.answering-christianity.com or MANY other good Islamic Sites. May Allah SWT Guide him to TRUTH. Amiin.

    Further, to everyone here, and especially the writer/author of the article, here is my end-of year present http://islamworld.net/docs/bible-speak.html

    — and weep!

    Shalom! Joe Jussac, Jr. (Yusuf bin Jussac) Googleable, at http://www.scribd.com/tjoaginsing

    Happy New Year everyone!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,598 other followers

%d bloggers like this: