By Raymond Ibrahim
A new data-based study published onYahoo News, Huffington Post, and many other media, purports to have proven that the Bible—including the New Testament—is more violent than the Quran.
From Tom McKay's article about the study: "Fifty-eight percent of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Islam" thanks to a "laundry list of misinformation about the faith's holy text, the Quran." He continues:
But a recent project by data analyst and research marketer Tom Anderson turns one common misconception on its head: that the Quran is more consumed by blood thirst than the Christian Bible.... Of the three books [Old Testament, New Testament, Quran], the project found, the Old Testament is the most violent, with approximately 5.3% of the text referring to "destruction and killing" — the Quran clocked in at just 2.1%, with the New Testament slightly higher at 2.8%.... According to Anderson, the findings challenge the popular notion among Westerners that Muslims subscribe to a particularly violent faith. Indeed, he concluded, "of the three texts, the content in the Old Testament appears to be the most violent."
So this study proves what Islam's apologists have long claimed: that the Bible contains more violence and bloodshed than the Quran. Even so, the intelligence and/or sincerity of anyone—including supposed scholars and "thinkers"—who cites this fact as proof that the Quran cannot incite more violence than the Bible must be highly doubted.
For starters, this argument fundamentally ignores the contexts of all three scriptures. Comparing violence in the Bible—old or new testaments—with violence in the Quran conflates history with doctrine. The majority of violence in the Bible is recorded as history; a description of events. Conversely, the overwhelming majority of violence in the Quran is doctrinally significant. In other words, the Bible has about as much capacity to incite its readers to violence as a history textbook. On the other hand, the Quran uses open ended language to call on believers to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims. (See "Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?" for my most comprehensive and documented treatment of this tiresome apologia.)
This study also fails to consider who is behind the violence. It just appears to count the number of times words like "kill" appear. Due to this, New Testament descriptions of Christians—including Christ—being persecuted and killed are supposedly equal at inciting Christians to violence as Allah's commandments for Muslims to "slay the idolaters wherever you find them—seize them, besiege them, and make ready to ambush them!" (Quran 9:5). This study sees no difference between the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7-8) and Allah's words: "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip" (Quran 8:12).
Even the claim behind this study—that "Fifty-eight percent of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Islam" apparently because of "misinformation about the faith's holy text, the Quran"—is a strawman argument. "Islamophobia" is based less on what Americans think about the Quran and more on the violence, terrorism, and atrocities they see and hear Muslims commit in the name of Islam on a daily basis. (Ironically, the whole point of appealing to a strawman argument is that the argument itself is ironclad, even if it doesn't address the real issue. As seen here, however, even the straw argument itself—that the Bible has more potential to incite violence than the Quran—is full of holes.)
This is to say nothing of the fact that Islamic teaching is hardly limited to the Quran; volumes of canonical (sahih) Hadith (words and deeds of Muhammad) equally inform Muslim actions. As one Muslim cleric put it, "Much of Islam will remain mere abstract concepts without Hadith. We would never know how to pray, fast, pay zakah, or make pilgrimage without the illustration found in Hadith..." And as it happens, calls to anti-infidel violence in the Hadith outnumber the Quran's.
Due to its many shortcomings, even Anderson admits that his "analysis is superficial and the findings are by no means intended to be conclusive." So why are several media outlets highlighting the conclusion of a study which readily admits it does not prove what its champions claim?
Because the politically correct conclusion—that Islam cannot be any worse than Judaism and Christianity—is all that matters here, gaping holes in methodology be damned.
By John Griffing
Europe is on fire, in a social and financial crisis of its leaders’ own making. Its public places are now spectacles of the obscene, and its women are sexual objects for a predatory race of invaders. Its social systems are stretched to the breaking point by belligerent "refugees" who are devouring their host countries at will, while Europe’s leaders defend the invaders and blame their own citizens.
Western civilization is under attack, and rational citizens are at a loss to understand why their leaders are allowing the destruction of their societies.
Much has been written about the outrageous acts that have been committed by Muslim migrants, so we need not repeat them here. We can simply agree that the situation in Europe is disastrous, and it’s getting worse. And America is not far behind.
Western leaders are aiding and abetting this insanity with a consistency and single-mindedness of purpose that can only be explained in one way: they must think they have something to gain from the chaos created by this crisis.
What other conclusion can be drawn from the brazen ascendancy of Islam in the western world, and the deafening silence that permits its success? Clearly, Western leaders think they can use Islam for their own ends, to consolidate their own power.
Whether their motivations are globalist, nationalist, pro-Islam, or merely megalomaniacal, they all seem to hold one belief in common: the belief that they can control Muslim migration to create the chaos necessary to justify their predetermined solutions.
These European -- and American -- leaders think they can control what is pouring out of the Pandora’s box they’ve thrown open; they think they can put the Jinn back in the bottle at their whim.
But they are dangerously underestimating those they presume to use as pawns.
In the First Century, “the Moors” -- Muslims of antiquity -- invaded and nearly conquered the entire European continent (Spain, France, Greece, Turkey, etc.) It was only the strength of Christianity and the unity this inspired, which turned back the scourge of Islamic imperialism in Europe.
The world of today is very similar, but with one key difference. Europe, and less so America, now exist in a moral and religious vacuum. There is no concrete ideology or religious paradigm posing a credible challenge to the radical adherents of Islam.
Islam is now controlling most of Europe, either actively, or passively, due to the absence of any response from local governing authorities -- a curious void of law and order. “Peace in our time” has now given way to the “Religion of Peace.”
Unless Europeans and Americans rise up now to reverse this trend, one of two things will occur. Either those in power will succeed in using this crisis to advance their aims and fundamentally transform their societies, or, more likely, Islam will become dominant in the West past the point of no return.
“The Moors” have come home. The Muslim hoard hastily imported into Europe over the cries and screams of voters are living up to the archetypes people in the West have come to fear, especially when cartoons result in lynch-mobs, and when a woman clothed according to western custom is mercilessly raped by “migrants.”
Some would say that the murderous attacks perpetrated by Islamic radicals should be considered an aberration and unrelated to the religion of Islam. Very well; then consider:
The head of the “moderate” Muslim group CAIR Omar Ahmad (which was investigated by Congress and then ignored by Congress), wants to replace the Constitution with the Qur’an, saying, “The Quran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”
Sirraj Wihhaj, unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 WTC bombings and the original person selected by President Obama to give the prayer before the 2012 DNC, also believes the Constitution should be replaced: "It is my duty and our duty as Muslims to replace the U.S. Constitution with the Quran."
A majority of Muslims living in Britain say they want full Sharia law, a separate Muslim police force, and death for anyone who speaks against Mohammed. The same survey revealed a majority percentage also favor terrorist attacks against Britain and the United States. 51 percent of American Muslims also say they want Shariah and the US government to become Islamic.
The Netherlands openly advocates placing Shariah -- the desert law which commands death for adulterers, death for gambling, death for leaving the faith (or having no faith), and death for homosexuals -- on the ballot.
German courts are already enforcing Shariah when requested, and the impetus for this golden nugget originated in Nuremburg.
France has over 751 “no-go zones,” i.e. areas of land ruled by Islamic law and totally unrecognizable as French. This was verified again after the recent French attacks.
The British already have actual Shariah courts in operation all over the United Kingdom. These “courts” are chaired by a man who thinks amputation for petty crimes is a great idea, something he wants to “offer British society.”
Americans and Europeans need to stop acting surprised when Muslims behave like Muslims. They are acting according to what the Qur’an says to do. It’s there in plain sight for anyone to read. And its ultimate aim is conquest and complete domination of any other culture but Islam.
Winston Churchill referred to it as a “militant and proselytizing faith.”
Like the Moors, history is repeating. And not only is history repeating, but it is repeating on a crash timetable, and with the perverse backing of the host countries destined to be remade in the image of Islamic hegemony. Why would any true German, Frenchman or Briton cooperate in their own organized destruction if there were not some goal or elusive purpose to be accomplished by the ever less accountable and more distant governments that make such decisions?
It would only be logical to deduce that French leaders, German leaders and British leaders have determined that there is an acceptable cost to property and lives if the chaos resulting from the indiscriminate welcoming of new migrant hoards can be directed towards an unspoken goal. This is not out of left field. Angela Merkel calling her own people “neo-Nazis” and turning water cannons on her own citizens is indicative.
Amazingly, this mindset is evident in every recent action to open the borders of Europe and America to their new visitors. Controlled chaos is the desired result. We underestimate the depravity of Western leaders if we think the lives of American and European citizens mean anything more to them than plot points in a narrative, one leading inevitably to the end of national sovereignty.
The old expression, “the genie is out of the bottle,” comes from Arabic folklore, surrounding the devilish character known as the “Jinn” who grants wishes in exchange for the soul of the seeker.
Western leaders have let the “Jinn” out of the bottle, and like Pandora’s box, the resulting chaos will not be contained.
