Dutch public broadcasters dump Bible-Koran violence relativism
posted at 10:33 am on March 1, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Our friend Robert Spencer reports that the Dutch public broadcaster KRO has given up on its planned production to show that the Bible contains just as much potential for violence as the Koran. NIS News states that the reason that KRO put this project in turnaround is that the producers couldn’t make the case:
In his short film Fitna, intended to be shown in March, Wilders wants to show gruesome events said to be inspired by the Koran. KRO, nota bene itself a Catholic broadcaster, wanted to show that such a film could also be made about the Bible.
The film was “one of the plans for participating in the debate that Geert Wilders has aroused with his proposal to ban the Koran. After extensive research, linking Bible quotations with real political events and acts of violence however produced an insufficient basis for a thorough journalistic production.”
An “insufficient basis”? What does that mean? It means that context is everything. While no one doubts that the Bible contains plenty of violence, it comes in the context of history, not commands. Geert Wilders, the inspiration for this idea, understood the difference. KRO — which according to NIS is nominally a Christian broadcaster — didn’t have enough knowledge of the Bible to understand it themselves.
This is the silliness that accompanies moral relativism. In their quest to prove that all cultures are equal, they rush to excuse barbarity by discovering barbarity in our own religion. Only, we don’t see significant or even fringe “jihadi” movements in Judaism or Christianity, or for that matter in Buddhism or Hinduism either. Only one major religion has that kind of movement, and as Wilders demonstrated, it is based on the core scriptural texts of their belief. That doesn’t mean the vast majority of its practitioners are jihadists, but it does mean that there really are quantitative and qualitative differences between the two texts — which really should be an obvious point.
Perhaps “Christian” broadcaster KRO should familiarize itself better with the Bible. That way, it won’t have to issue embarrassing press releases that reveal their ignorance of its own scriptural texts.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
They should do a documentary on their failure to make the first documentary. That’d be informative.
AbaddonsReign on March 1, 2008 at 10:38 AM
It’s not how much violence is in the book. It’s how many are using the book as an excuse to carry out violence.
TooTall on March 1, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Too bad you could not get that accross to the people at CNN. Thank you
TroubledMonkey on March 1, 2008 at 10:46 AM
This entire post is excellent. This needs to be said over and over and over again, until the Western world gets the point.
INC on March 1, 2008 at 10:51 AM
You are correct TooTall.
If the makers of this potential documentary couldn’t find text in the Bible which is comparable to the Koran in regards to “jihad”, then either they weren’t looking hard enough or they’re illiterate. In 1 Samuel 15, God orders Samuel to instruct the Jews to slaughter the Amalekites, men, women, children, and infants. There is no difference in principle between the Old Testament and the Koran. But the difference is Islamofascists are acting on the violent orders of the Koran, Jews and Christians are not acting on the violent orderss of the Old Testament.
barry norris on March 1, 2008 at 10:57 AM
With the countless acts of terrorism, and the countless acts of threatened terrorism, in the name of Islam, one wonders what it will take for the Western wall to get the point rather than yearning to appease and take a vacation from history.
Blackacre on March 1, 2008 at 10:58 AM
What this means is despite the angst ridden atheists claims that Christianity is just as violent as Islam when asked to prove such claims no honest evaluation of the evidence is capable of validating that assertion.
Christian theology does not and never has advocated violence and does and always has reserved it strictly for acts of self defense.
Yes there have been evil people in the past who exploited the ignorant and uneducated in theology through the use of violence for their own personal gain. But such acts were never supported by the teneants of Christian theology.
And as KRO discovered not even the most intentionally malicious twisted pretzel logic could sustain any assertion of moral equivalence between Christian theology and Islamic theologies approach to and advocacy of violence.
doriangrey on March 1, 2008 at 10:59 AM
PIMF. . . . Western
wallworld . . .Blackacre on March 1, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Oh if they try hard enough they could fill the documentary with quotes and history. The colonization of Africa, the American west, Hitler’s rants. I’m actually surprised they didn’t try that angle (American liberals would have lapped it up). I’m not saying the examples I gave are good ones, but I’m sure a Michael Moore or Al Gore could make a case of it.
What stopped them was the lack of post WWII examples. They could throw in McVeigh or Jim Jones, but that’s about it. Compared to the actions taken on behalf of Islam they just realized how foolish they would look. Now it is just something to sweep under the carpet and try something else.
They’ll be back.
Limerick on March 1, 2008 at 11:03 AM
At least they were intellectually honest enough to scrap it. If they really want to get it to done, they should just hand it over to some liberal college kids in the States.
Like, don’t you know that Muslims only kill because of the patriarchical world order brought on by the propagation of Christianity and American culture? So, really, like, it’s Christianity that’s the cause of all this so-called “terrorism”. Duh. PS9/11wasagovernmentplot.
amkun on March 1, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Wrong Barry. 1 Samuel 15 was specific to a incident.
This was not a general command or even a theological tenant. but an act of retribution for a very specific incident.
The extent of this can be seen in
Where those not responsible for the incident are spared, and only those responsible are held accountable. Moreover, the extent that this specific case of violence does not fit into Judaic theology can be seen in the following passage.
To quote Capitan Ed… Perhaps you should familiarize yourself better with the Bible. That way, you won’t have to issue embarrassing press releases that reveal your ignorance of Christianities scriptural texts.
doriangrey on March 1, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Christianity went through this (violence in the name of the faith), but for the most part grew out of it several hundred years ago. Time for Islam to leave the Middle Ages.
exhelodrvr on March 1, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Not quite. The violence ordered in the context of the Old Testament is presented as descriptive, rather than normative or prescriptive for followers of God throughout all times. Conversely, much of the Koran is directly prescriptive in demanding normative violence from its followers.
I would begin to grant your assertion in context of some parts of the Old Testament law…but it should be noted that those passages are highly contextual,and also to be carried out within the covenant community, not violence acted out against others. And that is understood by the vast majority of Judaism and Christianity.
I guess I’m saying that, in my view, there is a difference. You seem to be saying that the constitutive texts of both faiths are, if not the same then, similar, and that the difference lies in the followers. I don’t think that is that case. I think that the texts are wildly different, and hence those who follow the fundamentally different texts behave (or, should behave) differently.
nailinmyeye on March 1, 2008 at 11:22 AM
doriangrey,
Funny how you conveniently left out 1 Samuel 15:3:
“3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”
If you can’t understand the fact the biblical God ordered the killing of innocent women and children then you are only embarrassing yourself with your level of reading comprehension. Actually think when you read instead of just mindlessly following.
barry norris on March 1, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Could you provide an example of 1 Samuel 15:3 in action?
Limerick on March 1, 2008 at 11:26 AM
So the Dutch are having a hard time equating “Love thy neighbor”, with kill all those who do not submit? I figured after talking their own aging population into liquidating the elderly, that they could really turn a phrase?
Keep in mind that the liar Mohammad also took what violence was reported in the OT and magnified it to justify the evil nature of his false god.
Hening on March 1, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Thank you doriangrey. Next time though, post a bit faster… I was just getting ready post my reply to Mr. Norris (after about 15 minutes of pulling verses together).
Oh well, I’m a newbie. Not quite up to speed on gathering info to back up m’arguments. Sigh.
Anyway, very good response to Barry.
Brian K on March 1, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Sounds like a job for… MICHEAL MOORE!!!!
4shoes on March 1, 2008 at 11:29 AM
But you’re missing the greater point. God may have told the Israelites to kill the Amalekites but He didn’t say kill all unbelievers until they convert to Judaism. God in effect gave the Jews an end-state, no more Amalekites, He did not give them an open season on everyone who wasn’t a Jew.
See the difference?
JasonG on March 1, 2008 at 11:32 AM
I forgot to ask:
How do you say, “Jew eating rabbit vs. St Francis of Assisi” in Dutch?
Hening on March 1, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Wrong barry, there is nothing remotely lacking in my reading comprehension furthermore I didn’t leave anything out. Since you had already posted that my repeating it would have been unnecessarily redundant.
The fact that God ordered such a drastic degree of punishment on a very specific people for a very specif incident is not even remotely relevant to the discussion at hand.
Context is everything barry, without it you might as well just be pulling random words out of the dictionary. If there is a reading comprehension problem here, it obviously belongs to you.
doriangrey on March 1, 2008 at 11:37 AM
So, barry norris, I guess if you’re an Amalekite you should be worried. If not, what? Can you put that particular incident in a historical context that shows Christians acting on it today?
4shoes on March 1, 2008 at 11:39 AM
The people who truly (as opposed to political conveniently) believe this equivalence stuff with Islam and other religions have to maintain a purity of ignorance which is remarkable. They have to avoid reading anything written by jihadis. No easy task even for dedicated slackers. Comparing Tim McVeigh to what’s soon to be 11,000 fatal jihad attacks since 9/11 is exceptionally illogical even for people not noted for clear thinking. But they keep doing it. Then they’ll mention “The Crusades” as if some of us are recently retired from waging them.
Of course many of them are not just stupid, but on the other side.
Beagle on March 1, 2008 at 11:41 AM
They not only mention “The Crusades” but do so as if “The Crusades” were an unprovoked series of attacks against poor innocent peaceful Muslims. When the truth is that every single one of “The Crusades” were Christian European responses to Islams violent attempts at conquest against Christian peoples.
doriangrey on March 1, 2008 at 11:47 AM
I wonder how the left-wing relativist media would feel if I and my fellow Baptists strapped a few bomb-vests to our more committed members and sent them into the offices of the New York Times, PBS, and the Democratic Party headquarters for some cultural-based “fireworks”. Would that be ok? I mean, if it’s cultural and all, then why not?
Of course, cultural relativism and the violence associated with it is only ok when other cultures do it to us, not vice versa… right?
Gartrip on March 1, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Jesus ended the Old Testament call for holy violence.
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
Old Mohammad restored it.
“Strike at their necks!”
Big mistake.
Islam is a retrograde force, turning the New Testament’s Loving God back into what William Blake called Old Nobdodaddy.
Until it either recognonizes the full sayings and total message of Isa (their name for Jesus), or until they have a figure of equal weight within Islam to bring them their own New Testament, we will have to fight off the sanctimonious, homicidal zombies produced by this throwback creed.
profitsbeard on March 1, 2008 at 11:53 AM
oops.
(Threw in an extra d from typing too fast.)
profitsbeard on March 1, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Why stop there? God by his nature is responsible for the life and death of everyone who ever lived and died. Therefore you could accuse God of murdering someone who dies in the the street of a sudden heart attack.
aengus on March 1, 2008 at 12:00 PM
its simple
the abortion clinic bomber does it in the name of God
the shahid does it because God tells him to.
blatantblue on March 1, 2008 at 12:08 PM
I think there is more to the violence in the Old Testament that meets the thinking of most people. Historians tell us that in the lands that Moses conquered the people were totally corrupted, including sacrificing their children to the various local gods. Obviously, this would offend God’s Holiness and Love greatly. So Moses was commanded to kill everyone. If you look at the children cutting off heads in jihad, you might get an idea of why God wanted these City-States totally destroyed.
TimothyJ on March 1, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Limerick and others,
The point of this blog entry is “Bible-Koran violence relativism”. The Dutch public broadcaster KRO allegedly couldn’t find it, I did. I already stated in my first post that Christians and Jews aren’t acting on the violent orders of religious text. This is the important difference between them and Islamofascists, not the Bible and the Koran.
Neither did I give the exact verse nor quote the biblical text. If you had, it would have made your biblical quotes look irrelevant since it’s wrong to order the killing of innocent infants regardless of whether it was done on a specific people at a specific time etc.,. If you can’t grasp that, then I suggest you get a better education.
barry norris on March 1, 2008 at 12:09 PM
what we also need to understand is that Christianity puts most of its marbles in the NEW testament.
the old testament is not of the same consequence as the new testament.
this is not like the Qur’an, in which all the ahadith are equally important, and are of equal value. Muslims do not say, “oh, that half we put less relevance to.”
blatantblue on March 1, 2008 at 12:12 PM
barry norris,
There’s a simple solution to this problem. Report God to the International Criminal Court and have him arrested and tried for war crimes.
aengus on March 1, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Not all Muslims are “terrorists”, that is performed as you may expect, by the young. The rest are logistical supporters, cheerleaders and whining complainers. The mildest Muslims are Typhoid Marys. The ones who want to leave Islam do so in secret for the most part due to the heavy exit fee. There is no one to “deal” with within the community and nothing to negotiate that would change Islamic behaviour.
They have a mission against a superior culture and their god will give them no rest or peace until it is done. Of course Allah is generous and Muslims can keep 4 out of 5 dollars found on the bodies of any society they can ravage. Plus you get all their women. Sell a bunch as slaves and milk the rest as tax slaves. Take credit for anything they invented or discovered. It’s a great gig for Muslims if you can keep the booty flowing. Without taking other peoples stuff, Islam becomes a dump.
So next time Muslims whine about some “wedding party” getting pureed, just say ….
Not all westerners are Marines, even though most Marines are westerners.
BL@KBIRD on March 1, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Professed Christians went through a period of violence in the name of faith, but not on the instructions of the Faith.
The Christian Faith did not order persecutions of non-believers. That would be the opposite of Christ’s instructions.
Unfortunately the instructions of the islamic faith are specific and not merely historical accountings. There are specific instructions to kill, as in ‘Kill the Jew’. Followers of islam have to alter the meanings of their faith to justify not killing the Jew
To stop professed Christians from killing non believers you must instruct them in the faith
To stop professed muslims from killing infidels you must dis-instruct them of the faith
entagor on March 1, 2008 at 12:17 PM
There’s nothing like the repeated instructions in the Quran for spreading the faith, encapsulated in – but not limited to – 9.29. Just off the top of my head – sorry for the pun – 2.191 et seq, 3.151, 8.12, 8.60, 9.5, 9.29.
Eh… Never mind that stuff. People who weren’t curious after 9/11 are dumb as rocks by now.
This might help some people:
When Christians emulated the life of Jesus they created various ascetic monastic orders. When Muslims emulate Mohammed they go on razzias for slaves and booty, or jihad for territory.
Beagle on March 1, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Perhaps this conclusion and press release was their true goal all along. At least give them credit for where the ended up no matter what their original intent.
TheBigOldDog on March 1, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Great analogy!!!
4shoes on March 1, 2008 at 12:29 PM
I’m not a religious scholar by any stretch, but I don’t remember my Grandma ever teaching me things like I have heard listening to Robert Spencer’s informative series about the Koran right here on Hot Air. If you pay just passable attention, it’s obvious that there is absolutely no “equivalence” between Christianity and that Islamorot that permeates the Muslin cultures. And they are bringing it to us, in more ways than one. Right as we speak we are the passive victims of Sharia creep just as rot advances in a barrel of apples. I have no answers, but I have no problem seeing the problem…..
b4lucy on March 1, 2008 at 12:33 PM
4shoes,
Thanks. I try to take the complex stuff through which I slog and distill it down to useful rhetorical bits.
Beagle on March 1, 2008 at 12:40 PM
I am thoroughly enjoying the addition of Captain Ed to HA. Sharp HR department here.
Thanks HA!
Saltysam on March 1, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Obviously, these guys are graduates of the “inaccurate but true” school of journalism.
Sean A on March 1, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Beagle, you’re welcome! That’s a good talent to have, I personally am not good at it.
4shoes on March 1, 2008 at 12:50 PM
You should ask them for a job. So, to be clear, you are saying that the violence in both texts is completely equal, and only different on the basis of how readers/followers interpret or act out the text? Did you happen to read my post above where I challenged your practice of reading texts out of context, and discuss the descriptive and prescriptive functions of the texts, both biblical and koranic? Just curious.
Heh. That’s funny. All you have done is take one verse, out of its larger context, and made it paradigmatic of all of the biblical text as a whole. Then, you add to your argument “you’re stupid,” and, “learn to read” to DG. So, either you are angry about the Bible, or you kinda like being a
jerk, I mean, provocative.nailinmyeye on March 1, 2008 at 12:50 PM
I like the way Robert Spencer puts it. The violence in the Bible is descriptive whereas the violence in the Koran is prescriptive.
Jesus: Love your enemies.
Mohammad: Slaughter your enemies.
Mojave Mark on March 1, 2008 at 12:52 PM
It has already been stated a couple of times but it is NOT that Christians are not following the texts….there is nothing in the Bible that instructs all Christians to kill. There were times in the Bible where God instructed certain people to kill other certain people – but that wasn’t a general order for all Christians to carry out for all time. You won’t find one passage in the Bible that instructs all the believers of Jesus to kill anyone.
So that is a very big difference between the Bible & the Koran, the later of which instructs all Muslims to kill ALL Jews, ALL Christians and ALL lazy/apostate Muslims (and all others just to be sure). Obviously, not all Muslims are following their texts to the letter.
Cheesestick on March 1, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Surprisingly, Wiki has a decent entry on “Ghazw.”
Mohammed’s Raids
There’s lots more at the link.
Beagle on March 1, 2008 at 1:01 PM
I think the first thing that any “researcher” with half a brain should figure out is that anyone who prescribes to the Old Testiment is NOT a Christian. Christianity is named after a guy named Christ — which part of that is too complicated for liberals to figure out?
In other words: The difference between Islam and Christianity is the difference between Mohammed and Jesus.
And that difference, my friends, is a gigantic one. But we’re still still waiting for someone to do THAT documentary.
logis on March 1, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Why, for saying they couldn’t make the case? If they were from IBT shcool, they would have made the film anyway, no matter how weak the arguments. These people at least stood up and said the couldn’t make the case and that’s a pretty powerful admission that’s getting attention.
TheBigOldDog on March 1, 2008 at 1:06 PM
This is awesome! Thx for posting this, Ed. I’ve sent the link off to a dozen friends.
jediwebdude on March 1, 2008 at 1:08 PM
You’re not arguing the same thing everyone else is.
The whole point of this post is that they found several instances of violence. It makes no sense that you believe you found a passage that KRO did not.
What they were unable to find is an actual directive from the Bible telling its followers to fight. All directives are done as a historical view of what already happened, rather than what could happen now.
No one is arguing that killing women and children is a good thing. That is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Esthier on March 1, 2008 at 1:20 PM
4shoes, even if barry norris was Amalekite, he should only be worried about men named Samuel.
blink on March 1, 2008 at 1:49 PM
There is a Grand Canyon size difference of principle between Islam and Biblical Christianity.
ColtsFan on March 1, 2008 at 1:51 PM
barry norris, are you implying that a “better education” can help someone grasp that ordering the killing of innocent infants is wrong?
blink on March 1, 2008 at 1:53 PM
How can that be irrelevant when God in the OT ordered it?!? How can the biblical OT God be superior to the Koran’s Allah if both orderED the killing of innocents?!? That’s the whole point, isn’t it?!!! What is irrelevant and silly to this discussion is the idea of descriptive vs. prescriptive since it doesn’t matter very much to the dead.
Let’s just remember that we’re talking about the Bible as a whole and we’re applying this to both Jews and Christians. For example:
Leviticus 20:13
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
Here it clearly states that Jews are to execute homosexuals but Israel doesn’t execute them today… WHY?
Neither but obviously you like being the latter.
barry norris on March 1, 2008 at 1:55 PM
[There is a Grand Canyon size difference of principle between Islam and Biblical Christianity.
ColtsFan on March 1, 2008 at 1:51 PM]
But not the OT and the Koran. If this bolg entry had been about the Gospels vs. the Koran then your thinking would be correct.
barry norris on March 1, 2008 at 2:00 PM
It’s not about the Christian God versus the Islamic Allah. That’s what I was trying to tell you. You are arguing something entirely different.
The question is over the Bible versus the Koran.
Esthier on March 1, 2008 at 2:02 PM
The Old Testament does not stand alone in biblical Christianity. So you must compare the Koran to the entire Bible, not just half of it.
Esthier on March 1, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Provocative? I can dig it.
Hey, did you read my post at 11:22?
Just curious…’caus…you know, I responded to your OT question…so, either you didn’t read my response, or you don’t have an answer to it. I even preemptively responded to your question about the law that you just asked…
nailinmyeye on March 1, 2008 at 2:16 PM
The God of Christianity and the Quran both commanded their followers to engage in violence in certain situations. Point conceded, but irrelevant.
The crucial distinction between Biblical and Quranic commands to violence is the target audience. The Bible records as a matter of history that God commanded specific individuals or groups to commit specific acts of violence against specific other individuals or groups at specific times. The Quran contains commands for any Muslim to commit violence against all unbelievers without any specified time limits.
This is the difference between saying, “I believe the South was justified in fighting the Civil War,” and saying “The South ought to rise again.” One is a specific judgment grounded in a specific time period, while the other is a generally-applicable command.
DavidV on March 1, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Which is exactly what I’ve been doing and said such:
“Let’s just remember that we’re talking about the Bible as a whole and we’re applying this to both Jews and Christians.
barry norris on March 1, 2008 at 1:55 PM”
You’re just repackaging my points. I was responding to Coltsfan and the term “Biblical Christianity” was used which is why I used “OT” to make that point exactly.
barry norris on March 1, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Hi Barry:
I understand your view to be:
P1: There is no difference in principle between the OT and the Koran.
P1 seems to require the support of P2:
P2: There is textual and hermeneutical support for P1 in the Old Testament itself.
But if P2 is true, then that entails something very close or identical to P3:
P3: The nature or attributes of the Islamic God (Allah) revealed in the Koran is very close or similar to (if not identical to) the God revealed in the Old Testament (Yahweh).
Now ignoring just for the moment, the many issues of hermeneutics, textual support, etc that initially pose philosophical obstacles for any rational person accepting P3, one key hurdle that comes up immediately is the documented history of the Jewish people. Even a brief, cursory look reveals that the history of Jewish people cannot be equated with the history of Islamic Jihadists.
The above point raises the question that the adherents of Old Testament theology themselves may be understanding the same OT passages differently from you.
ColtsFan on March 1, 2008 at 2:26 PM
A 30-000 foot comparison, and hopefully a little in the way of clarification.
1. Jesus lived a life of complete non-physical violence. (The one possible counter example is when he drove the money lenders from the temple and fashioned a whip, presumably for the animals, although not specifically stated as such. Still I believe that had he actually whipped people, it would have been noted if for no other reason than to show that it was the one exception.) As a disciple of Christ, I have NO guidelines on how to conduct violence or war in any context. It is completely alien to the basic tenants of His message, which was one of overwhelming love. And love towards a person and violence towards a person are mutually exclusive. That does not mean that I am of a pacifistic nature myself, for I am human, and thus an imperfect image bearer of what God wants from me. But EVERY act of violence perpetrated in the name of Christianity is therefore due to a human perception/influence/corruption of that divine ideal, and not a reflection of the one from whom Christianity gets his name. No more than a good parent can be blamed for the actions of an errant child for the simple reason that he bears the same surname.
2. Compare that to Judaism, which is based on the premise that the world will be saved by a coming Messiah, and that he is predestined to come through the lineage of Israel. In that context, it makes perfect sense that there would be cases where God would demand that Israel engage in warfare, and even slaughter entire nations of people in order to protect and preserve the people group which he has chosen. As for why in each case, you are then asking for an explanation of the motivations of God for a specific act, on which I cannot comment. But the overarching narrative makes sense. (Indeed, Israel was supposed to spread the light of God to all nations, and failed to do so.) Also do not forget that the Old Testament is rife with examples and stories of when the Israelites were punished by God for the same reason… to preserve their dependence on him, as they needed that special relationship with him to bring that Messiah promise to fruition. But in all cases, the wars and violence against non-Israelites are specific examples and commands, not enduring tenants. If there are any examples of ‘systemic’ violence against any people as a rule, they are internally directed against non-compliant Israelites, as best exemplified in Leviticus.
3. Thirdly, Islam. While in many ways an Old Testament style religion, the emphasis on how to treat others is a mirror image of Judaism. Systemic violence against non-Muslims is specifically commanded. Kill the Infidels. Lie to them. God hates them. Ultimately this is simply true. In the west, we console ourselves by listening to ‘moderate’ Muslims. The problem with that is that these moderates are influenced by living in a Judeao-Christian society. In other words, they disagree with their own sacred texts because they have had exposure to the life that is experienced by society that attempts (albeit imperfectly) to explicitly reject the kind of violence and intemperance the Koran teaches. In other words, a moderate Muslim is caught in a catch-22. If you really want to know what Islamic leaders and scholars think, believe and teach, listen to those who lead in the Middle East.
whiteotter on March 1, 2008 at 2:33 PM
One other thing I should have mentioned in my comparison….
If you are going to compare, you need to compare…
The Koran vs The Old Testament vs Jesus
NOT
The Koran vs The Old Testament vs The New Testament
For a Christian, the ultimate authority is Jesus’s life and the example he set, not the book that tells us the story. For a Muslim, it is the Koran itself which is the ultimate revelation.
whiteotter on March 1, 2008 at 2:49 PM
And the Middle East leaders stress to their European adherents the ethnic Arab-ness of their religion.
ColtsFan on March 1, 2008 at 3:05 PM
For those multiculturalists who like to point to the Crusades as some evidence of the violence of Christianity not only were they defensive or reactionary in nature the relativists need to be reminded that the entire western part of the umma from Syria to the Atlantic in North Africa prior to the rise of Islam was predominantly Christian for centuries. So who were the real aggressors? And Persia was Zoroastrian.
DerKrieger on March 1, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Christians follow the teachings of Christ, they do not seek to re-enact the Old Testament.
People have often asked me ‘how do you know that Mohammed and the Muslims are not correct?’
The Bible of course provides the answer:
Luke 6:43-45
43 A good tree does not bear rotten fruit, nor does a rotten tree bear good fruit.
44
For every tree is known by its own fruit. For people do not pick figs from thornbushes, nor do they gather grapes from brambles.
45
A good person out of the store of goodness in his heart produces good, but an evil person out of a store of evil produces evil; for from the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks
Take a look at Mohammed’s life of violence versus Christ’s and you will see what I mean.
DavidM on March 1, 2008 at 3:27 PM
This is true and I’m sure that Robert Spencer’s point can be made even more clear when it is observed that the entire Qur’an is Allah speaking in the first person; it is not a narrative recounted by a third person. This makes everything in it imperative.
(Obviously, the first sura and the prefix to every one of them, except the ninth, seem not to follow this rule, but that’a Allah’s problem.)
Annar on March 1, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Good point.
But “Allah’s problem” with following a rule occurs precisely due to Islam’s open acceptance of logical contradictions via the route of Islam’s Doctrine of Abrogation.
Islam encourages logical contradictions.
ColtsFan on March 1, 2008 at 3:52 PM
When I read your posts I bemoan my own inability to formulate arguments in such a philosophical/logical manner.
I’m just a homiletician. And, as such, just really really like to be colloquial.
But, seriously, I always appreciate your posts.
nailinmyeye on March 1, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Thanks!
I enjoyed reading the intellectual discussion between you and Barry.
I haven’t see your posts, lately.
I hope your family is well, my friend.
ColtsFan on March 1, 2008 at 4:02 PM
If you can’t dispute something, diminish and avoid it?
“barry” should get a perma-scrollover.
Beagle on March 1, 2008 at 4:07 PM
I’ve been largely absent as I am in (semi) final stages of my doctoral program. Thought it better to sluff off blogs (I still read hot air, however) and put my head down and to the grindstone.
New son keeping my busy as well!
Hope you are well too.
nailinmyeye on March 1, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Congratulations!!
I need to stop by your blog again…
I haven’t been there in awhile.
ColtsFan on March 1, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Neither have I I’m afraid. Hiatus includes there as well. But, someday I’ll be back!
nailinmyeye on March 1, 2008 at 4:20 PM
I think sometimes it helps to stop and remember the most basic facts: Mohammed and his immediate followers turned Islam into one of the top three or four land grabs in human history, conquering half of the known world at the time.
To compare Islam to Christianity in its early days – hiding from Romans and Jews – is a real insult to Islam’s ability to kill people and take their stuff.
Beagle on March 1, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Don’t know if Barry the Troll is still around, but some of you have hit very near the truth of the matter: the Koran’s instructions of death and conquest are the last word of Allah to his followers. Hence those who are consistent in their Islam do try to follow it (am I saying peaceful Muslims are inconsistent in their faith? Yes I am, but I’m glad they are…the fact that they are is the very reason people never hear “moderate” Muslims condemning the so-called “extremists;” they know the extremists are more consistent in their faith).
Not so with the Bible. The 66 books of the Bible are variously broken up/separated along dispensational lines (that’s a good Bible work, in case some have problems with it). The apostle Paul is the one chosen by Christ to describe the most recent dispensational divide, separating today (the dispensation of grace, as Paul called it) from the prior dispensation of Law, which was yet in force while Christ walked the earth during His earthly ministry.
But as Paul himself says so plainly that it cannot be mistaken: believers in Christ [Christians] are DEAD to the Law, including its commands, as these were intended for the nation of Israel (now set aside in unbelief due to rejection of Messiah…again, that’s what Paul said, not me). So as has already been said, one cannot make an honest comparison of the Koran and the Word of God. One has to be a deliberate liar or simply an ignorant fool to do so.
So, folks, let the foolish likes of Barry rip God’s commands to obliterate the enemies of Israel (hence enemies of the then-future Messiah, hence enemies of the salvation of the world) out of the O.T. and shove them in your face with their childish “ah-HA! Gotcha!” attitude. He’s wrong, and will have that fact made clear to him one day, lest he repent first.
splink on March 1, 2008 at 4:53 PM
sorry: 2nd paragraph, 2nd line, “work” should read “word.” Dispensation can also be translated “economy,” “administration” or “management.”
splink on March 1, 2008 at 4:56 PM
One more thing:
There are no dispensational divisions in the Koran. As many of you already know, there are the earlier and later commands of Mohammed…the later ones having been written after Jews and Christians rejected him as a prophet. That’s what p*ssed him off, and that’s when he starting killing people and instructing his followers to do likewise.
And if you’ve been in the military, you know the principle: follow your last orders first. Hence “extremist” [actually, "consistent and obedient"] Muslims.
If anyone can find ANY command ordering or EVEN SUGGESTING violence against others in the New Testament, I’d like to know of it.
splink on March 1, 2008 at 4:59 PM
My argument is opposite that of KRO. It seems the doctrine of struggle or jihad as every person’s business is one of the advantages that the muslims have over the participants in many other ways of life. It seems the rest of us would do well to struggle to become stronger, deeper, more evil, and more beautiful than our enemies among the muslims.
Kralizec on March 1, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Why would one not wish to become, “Of the Body”, and submit to the will of Landru?…I mean Allah…
All you have to do is give up every freedom you have. You get to stop making decisions about any and every aspect of your life. Even the proper way to urinate and defecate are laid out for you in the Koran.
All you have to do is submit, and let the Lawgivers run your life…I mean the religious police.
Army Brat on March 1, 2008 at 5:23 PM
Ed already addressed this in his original post – which you apparently have overlooked and/or misunderstood:
Barry, you cannot quote a historical account and then interpret it as a religious command for modern-day Jews and Christians.
Redhead Infidel on March 1, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Being a college graduate with a B.F.A the quality of my education is contrary to your assertions not even remotely in question. Furthermore, You did quote the text sufficiently to make my repeating it redundant as this quote of yours proves…Since at no point did I dispute that this was the substance of the text such redundancy would have and superflours.
The question isn’t one of whether killing of innocent infants is wrong, but of whether there is any moral equivalence between 1 Samuel’s reference to extract retribution on a specific people for specific crimes committed by that people and Islams open ended commandments to kill.
The OT makes closed ended statements regarding such acts. Closed ended in that they were always against specific peoples for specific actions taken by those people with no exceptions or caveats for continued executions of said acts of violence.
This is diametrically contrasted to Islams multiple commandments to kill for the express purpose of vengeance or subjection of infidels to Islam.
If you cant see this you have no business discussing anyones educational needs, rather you need attend to your own education. I would personally suggest courses in logic and basic communications theory.
It would also be wise of you to engage in a modest perusal of symbolic interactionism and hermeneutics, not to mention at the very least have some working knowledge of the text you are attempting to posture yourself as having an educated opinion regarding.
doriangrey on March 1, 2008 at 7:27 PM
You make a good case for why Muslim conversions should not be allowed to take place in prisons.
Connie on March 1, 2008 at 7:48 PM
There’s one thing everyone is missing about the Old Testament.
The violence contained in the Old Testament was committed long before the Old Testament was even written.
Up above there’s a debate centered on 1 Samuel. All the things going on in 1 Sam were done BEFORE THERE WAS a 1 Samuel.
So even if the OT is “violent”, it wasn’t the reason for the violence it described. The historical incidents were recorded later. It wasn’t as if Samuel said to his people at the time “Oh, let me check for the Bible to see what happens next”.
So.. not only does the OT not give out commands to future people to do violence.. it didn’t even give out commands to people at the time to do violence.
VinceP1974 on March 1, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Good point Vince…
doriangrey on March 2, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Timothy McVeigh was mentioned a bit ago as an example of “Christian” violence but he was actually an agnostic and never claimed to have bombed the Murrah building as a faithful follower of Jesus. He was quite clear that it was revenge for Waco, pure and simple.
Abortion clinic bombers (all what, three, of them) think they are actually protecting innocent life by removing what they view as murderers. (It somehow escapes them that they are committing murder as well.) Though their actions are inexcusable, their motives are certainly different from the suicide bomber whose objective is indiscriminate death of as many evil infidels as possible. In addition, while suicide bombers are lionized by their people, abortion bombers are loudly denounced by all but the most fringe Christian groups for not following the teachings of Christ. Clinic bombing is not a natural outgrowth of being a Christian.
The violence of the OT was consistent with cultural and ethical standards of the time and has been left to history. The violence of the Koran is still being visited on us today in all its original barbarity. That, to my mind, is the major difference.
inmypajamas on March 2, 2008 at 12:42 AM
The Jews of the Old Testament were not just a religion: they were a nation. The command to kill the Amalekites was not given to all Israelites: it was given to the king. It was a very specific event, and reference was made to the cause: when the Israelites were coming out of Egypt, the Amalekites atttacked them without cause. God specifically said at that point that he would punish them for the attack, but that he would use the nation of Israel to do it, when they had reached their strength.
In short, it was the sort of warfare and justice that nations by their nature deal with. But no one can ever make a case of stating that it was part of the Jewish religion.
It is a fact, though, that the animosity continued for hundreds of years. In the time of Esther, an Amalekite named Haman tried to influence the king to wipe out all the Jews by royal command.
What this all illustrates is that there should be a clear separation between religion and government. When Jesus stood before Pilate being interrogated, and was asked if he was the “King of the Jews,” he said, “If my kingdom were of this world, then would my followers fight: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”
So there you go. The kingdom of the Old Testament was of this world as well as the next, so Judaism was both government and religion. So it contained laws with penalties, including the death penalty, and as any government in the real world, it had to fight for its life on occasion.
Christianity is not a kingdom of this world. Christians may fight and war, but it is on behalf of their nation, never for their religion.
Finally, the Christian “equivalent” of jihad is evangelism. Evangelism or the “Great Commission” is the duty of each Christian, and the way that Christianity is spread. Let’s face it: trying to convert people of their own free will is not at all the same thing as “holy war.”
theregoestheneighborhood on March 2, 2008 at 12:44 AM
Christians pray for your souls, that you may accept Christ and thus not spend eternity in Hell. Christians follow the Great Commission.
Islamofascits try to send you to Hell and themselves to Heaven by blowing themselves up in the hopes that you’ll catch a piece of their shrapnel. Muslims refer to non muslims as “infidels”.
Night/Day Apples/Oranges Mars/Venus
Bubba Redneck on March 2, 2008 at 1:46 AM
Except the first one which was an unmitigated and unprovoked attack based on a false tale of the Holy Sepulchre being desecrated. (which is turns out was still in tact and standing as per usual when the Crusaders acting on ‘the word of God’ swept in and killed Jew, Muslim AND Christians living there) Other than that ‘minor’ oversight, yes, they were reactions to Muslim attacks. Oh and you have to overlook the 3rd Crusade also which was a Christian offensive but after that…you have the Baltic Crusades carried out by Christians on people who weren’t even Muslim to make them ‘submit to God or die’ (sound familiar?) but after that….ahhh forget it.
See above re: the Crusades. The only revisionists are the ones who belive the cock and bull story about the sacking of Jerusalem.
You people miss the larger point. The Muslim world at that time was almost exclusively moderate (by the standards of the time) and the Christian world was really quite extremist.
You point out that a large part of the region wasn’t Muslim before. Then I suppose it’s only fair to point out, that Germany, Scandanavia and England were pagan until relatively recently (and many continue to practice to this day and due to the hegemony of the Holy Roman Empire, many pagan practices have found their way into Christianity)Is it your assertion that those regions converted peacefully? I assure you they did not. Many Germans and Scandanavians today still hold many of those old beliefs. (I know, my mother and her side of the family are all born and raised in Germany)
If you cracked open some prime texts once and a while you would see chilling similarities between the two using religion as an excuse for barbarism.
Jihadis today shout ‘god is great’ before slaughtering people to justify killing the innocent, Christian warriors/Crusaders shouted ‘god wills it!’ to justify their barbarism. That is but one small example of the similarity.
The Muslime world before Ghengis Kahn was actually quite sophisticated and moderate religously and socially. After the first Crusade and the sacking of the Khwarezmid Empire of Ghengis Khan the region has sprialled into poverty and despair and religous extremism over the course of the intervening millenium.
Europe was very poor when radical Christians were cutting a swath of terror across any lands they could find. The middle east (save for some oil barons) is very poor and a hot bed for extremism. Coincidence?
If you can’t see that it’s not the book in either case, Christian or Muslim, and in fact the socio-economic settings were fueling the extremism then I don’t know what to tell you. You will belive what you are going to believe blindly and not take a step back and look at anything rationally or logically.
MannyT-vA on March 2, 2008 at 7:46 AM
Great post Manny,
We Jews would tend to disagree with this assertion. The Islamic world was the only place we could get a break back then.
Squid Shark on March 2, 2008 at 8:11 AM
A very appropriate name for a very ignorant post. Muslims only true way to heaven are to follow the 5 pillars: Charity, Fasting, Prayer, Pilgrimage, Proclomation of the oneness of G-d (sound like confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord? does to me)
Squid Shark on March 2, 2008 at 8:15 AM
Please tell that to the homicide bombers! Perhaps they might stop! The are strapping C4 to themselves to win big points with those 72 virgins in heaven, and I don’t hear any “moderate muslims” saying that is the wrong way to Heaven. Jihad has become the sixth pillar and these mullah’s are not doing a damn thing to stop it; in fact many the world over are encouraging it. Those following Mr. Spencer’s trip through the Qur’an will note the many times Muslims are instructed to kill infidels.
For those interested I recommend; 1) “A Christian’s Guide to Islam” by Sookhdeo and; 2) “The Bible and The Qur’an: a Question of Integrity” by Masood.
Bubba Redneck on March 2, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Actually, the Vikings in their many raids on England and down the coast brought back slaves, Christian slaves (monks, priests, women etc.) It was these slaves that did the bulk of the conversions.
Bubba Redneck on March 2, 2008 at 11:17 AM
doriangrey, I’ve already rebutted these points so your cries of redundancy are themselves redundant. And I suggest you get a refund on that BFA… “superflours” indeed…
It IS the very question here. You can make whatever arguments you want to justify it in the name of God but if it was morally acceptable at one time in the Bible then the Muslim can make A SIMILAR (not exactly the same) case for the Koran.
A practicing Muslim would be best to address this issue since he would be better informed on such a text’s context.
It would also be wise of you to engage in a modest perusal of symbolic interactionism and hermeneutics, not to mention at the very least have some working knowledge of the text you are attempting to posture yourself as having an educated opinion regarding.
doriangrey on March 1, 2008 at 7:27 PM
I’ve never heard a pastor say,”Read the Bible and know about hermeneutics”. But then again, why can’t the same thing be said of the Koran? I invite any objective reader to go over 1 Samuel 15 and come to his own conclusion of whether or not that passage is morally comparable to the Koran.
barry norris on March 2, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Sorry readers, I have to redo the last half, the preview button wasn’t working for a while…
I suggest you take your own advice since you’ve obviously not taken those courses.
I’ve never heard a pastor say,”Read the Bible and know about hermeneutics”. But then again, why can’t the same thing be said of the Koran? I invite any objective reader to go over 1 Samuel 15 and come to his own conclusion of whether or not that passage is morally comparable to the Koran.
barry norris on March 2, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Notice that very few rich American Muslim Doctors are doing it, most of the time it is some poor schmuck from asscrack Egypt. It is far less about religion than social and cultural choices. Religion is just a crutch.
So you are saying that because the establishment was pushing for wholesale slaughter of Jews, Muslims and fellow Christians during the Crusades that Christians are bloodthirsty thugs.
BTW Redneck, here are some links to stories about muslims speaking out against imams.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/689
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131580,00.html
Squid Shark on March 2, 2008 at 12:12 PM
“1) “A Christian’s Guide to Islam” by Sookhdeo and; 2) “The Bible and The Qur’an: a Question of Integrity” by Masood.”
Not interested in either, any analysis of one religion through the prism of another is inherently flawed.
Squid Shark on March 2, 2008 at 12:13 PM
I think God ordered the total destruction of a group when allowing that group to continue allowed the possibility of corrupting or destroying the Jews (we’ve all heard about how just a little bit of cr*p ruined the whole brownie batch). This is before Jesus came and then we became personally responsible to receive knowledge and know the truth and not let ourselves be corrupted by the world we live in and to fight for that no matter the trails and tribulations Jesus promised would come.
In a way I see the reason for not allowing any corruption to become mainstreamed. I just signed two petitions here in California. One is to restore my right as a parent to teach my children what the Bible says is not permissible is not to be done. I believe the Bible is the uncorrupted and irrefutable word of God. Sheila Kueul (sp) got a law passed which Arnold signed that makes it so that the homosexual transgender lesbian bisexual way of life can be taught to my children as perfectly normal and acceptable. I don’t believe that becaue it goes against what God says in the Bible. The other is an amendment to the Constitution that declares once and for all that in CA marriage is between a man and a woman. We overwhelmingly passed a proposition that sates this but the CA activist judges are on the verge of subverting the will of the people again and striking this down.
A relatively small group of legislators, who got in because we weren’t really paying attention, are making drastic changes to our values and beliefs and rights as parents here in CA. This is why we have to be diligent in non-violently removing corruption from our midst. I don’t hate any of these people and I do pray for those whom I believe to be lost according to Scripture but, I will fight them when they try to impose their beliefs on me and try to take away my rights to worship and believe as I feel is right and to raise my children according to Scripture.
CCRWM on March 2, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »