• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran?

kryonlight

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.sg/2006/06/which-is-more-violent-bible-or-quran.html

The LORD is a man of war. Exodus 15:3
Fight in the way of Allah. Quran 2:244


Which is more violent, the Bible or the Quran? Is there a way to objectively answer such a question?

Well, it wouldn't be easy. But it is possible to compare the amount of cruelty and violence in the two books.

Here is a summary of the highlighted verses in the SAB and SAQ.

Number of Cruel or Violent Passages

Bible 1214
Quran 527


So the Bible has more than twice as many cruel or violent passages as does the Quran. But the Bible is a much bigger book. How do they compare when size is taken into account?

Violence and CrueltyTotal versesPercent
Bible1214311733.89
Quran52762368.45

When expressed as a percentage of cruel or violent verses (at least as marked in the SAB/Q), the Quran has more than twice that of the Bible. (8.45 vs. 3.89%)

Of course this analysis does not consider the extent of the cruelty in the marked passages. And that is an important consideration. Is Numbers 31:14-18, for example, more cruel than Quran 5:34? That is something that each person must decide.

A good argument could be made that either book is the most violent and cruel book ever written. The award would go to one or the other, for neither has any close competitors.

It is frightening to think that more than half of the world's population believes in one or the other.

religion_peaceful.gif
 

GOD IS MY DOG

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
among these 2 sick jokebooks..................bible win lah.............


the fictional Great Flood killed almost everyone mah...................plus the animals leh ?
 
Last edited:

GOD IS MY DOG

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Almighty God Allah inspired both Bible and Quran


Allah-Mak.......Salah liao...........


Yahweh is the daddy of Jehovah and Allah...........


of course, all 3 are man-made fictional figures.........just like Darth Vader is the father of Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia
 

drifteri

Alfrescian
Loyal
Islam appears to be more violent simply because they are more pious in following their religion laws...women have to wear scarf and so you don't see them in their mosques. Christians cherry pick what laws they want to follow...you find woman singing merrily in churches although paul's laws are very clear on what woman can and cannot do in churches:wink: Clearly, one of faiths mentioned here is the super hypocritical one:wink:
 
Last edited:

PUNISHER

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
Don't act blur here , as usual christain love to play dumb when cornered . As I said , I don't want to waste time on idiot .. There's many post in this folder that show bible is violent ...all you need to do is open your eyes and look . Don't expect me to spoon feed you while you acting dumb ! http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?115225-365-days-evil-Scripture-Reading-)

No, I am not acting dumb at all. Neither do I feel cornered. Don't flatter yourself. I am asking you what you mean by Bible is violent. You mean those accounts of warfare? Well, like it or not real war involves violence, whether it is recorded in the Bible or elsewhere. Much of the OT is history, and I am sure you have heard or read about the "Horrible History" series so why just trot out the Bible for criticism? The issue is not whether history contains violent episodes, or whether the Bible contains records of violence, but whether the events recorded are true. There are also accounts of God sending judgement on the wickedness of evil people, that also involves violence. We cane criminals or send them to the gallows, is that not violence? Yet you just focus on the Bible. More double standards for you?
 
Last edited:

PUNISHER

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
No, I am not acting dumb at all. Neither do I feel cornered. Don't flatter yourself. I am asking you what you mean by Bible is violent. You mean those accounts of warfare? Well, like it or not real war involves violence, whether it is recorded in the Bible or elsewhere. Much of the OT is history, and I am sure you have heard or read about the "Horrible History" series so why just trot out the Bible for criticism? The issue is not whether history contains violent episodes, or whether the Bible contains records of violence, but whether the events recorded are true. There are also accounts of God sending judgement on the wickedness of evil people, that also involves violence. We cane criminals or send them to the gallows, is that not violence? Yet you just focus on the Bible. More double standards for you?


" e issue is not whether history contains violent episodes, or whether the Bible contains records of violence, but whether the events recorded are true. "

Speaking of double standard , you chose to believe what you want to believe in the bible !! Whahahaha ! I thought you say bible is real ? Now you try to twist and turn saying those evil incidents might not be true ? Whahahahah ...lolol . Idiot ! That's not the way to defense your cult. ! Lol . It just make you dishonest and stupid .
 

drifteri

Alfrescian
Loyal
These two verses are enough to proof frodo delusional opinion wrong..

The Lord has made everything for his own ends, even the wicked for the evil day. (Proverbs 16:4 NAB)



"Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock." Psalms 137:9
 

drifteri

Alfrescian
Loyal
No, I am not acting dumb at all. Neither do I feel cornered. Don't flatter yourself. I am asking you what you mean by Bible is violent. You mean those accounts of warfare? Well, like it or not real war involves violence, whether it is recorded in the Bible or elsewhere. Much of the OT is history, and I am sure you have heard or read about the "Horrible History" series so why just trot out the Bible for criticism? The issue is not whether history contains violent episodes, or whether the Bible contains records of violence, but whether the events recorded are true. There are also accounts of God sending judgement on the wickedness of evil people, that also involves violence. We cane criminals or send them to the gallows, is that not violence? Yet you just focus on the Bible. More double standards for you?
I agree there is violent in any war, how are you going to defence God's heros peculiar fantasy for virgins. ;(
 

whoami

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Islam appears to be more violent simply because they are more pious in following their religion laws...women have to wear scarf and so you don't see them in their mosques. Christians cherry pick what laws they want to follow...you find woman singing merrily in churches although paul's laws are very clear on what woman can and cannot do in churches:wink: Clearly, one of faiths mentioned here is the super hypocritical one:wink:

U mean being pious considered as violent? LOL

N who told u women who put on scarf cannot pray in Mosques.?

WahLou eh. Go read up the Quran or google lah before u spouting nonsense here.

Woman being pious and wearing scarf considered violent? LOL
 

drifteri

Alfrescian
Loyal
U mean being pious considered as violent? LOL

N who told u women who put on scarf cannot pray in Mosques.?

WahLou eh. Go read up the Quran or google lah before u spouting nonsense here.

Woman being pious and wearing scarf considered violent? LOL

My friend, read the first post. There are 527 violent verses out of 6236. That is around 8% of the Quran. Read my post again, I am saying christians are less pious than muslims in following the laws of abrahim(ibrahim), moses and paul. That why you don't find woman putting on scarf when going to places of worship, although a few conservative churches in europe you can observe woman putting on scarf.

Remember, your ancestors were once hindus or believers of bumi religions. Islam is not a religion of war and conquest, you mean your ancestors got converted by some arab preachers. Muslim warriors were once the rulers of spain in the past.
 

drifteri

Alfrescian
Loyal
whoami,
please go and read my post again, I wrote being more pious in following religion doctrines. Which can be good or bad depending on the scriptures.

All jihats are motivated by religion scriptures, unless you dare to say otherwise:wink:

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.
 

drifteri

Alfrescian
Loyal
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.



Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."



Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.



Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."



Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').



Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.



Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"



Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."



Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).



Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?



Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"



Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.



Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."



Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:293, also). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals."



Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."



Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."



Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."
 

drifteri

Alfrescian
Loyal
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.



Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."



Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.



Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."



Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').



Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.



Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"



Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."



Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).



Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?



Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"



Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.



Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."



Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:293, also). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals."



Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."



Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."



Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
" e issue is not whether history contains violent episodes, or whether the Bible contains records of violence, but whether the events recorded are true. "

Speaking of double standard , you chose to believe what you want to believe in the bible !! Whahahaha ! I thought you say bible is real ? Now you try to twist and turn saying those evil incidents might not be true ? Whahahahah ...lolol . Idiot ! That's not the way to defense your cult. ! Lol . It just make you dishonest and stupid .

I am baffled as to how you can conclude that I am saying that there are incidents recorded in the Bible that might not be true. Maybe you can't read well? I am saying that it matters not whether you find the recorded events distasteful to your liking, the issue is whether it happened as recorded. You should know that I believe they happened.
 

drifteri

Alfrescian
Loyal
Is there a peculiar fantasy for virgins that I have to defend?

Murder, Rape, and Pillage at Jabesh-gilead



"So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan."



"The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."



"Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes." (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)
 
Top