Killing and the Koran

Pages: 1 2

Muslims have been persecuting Christians ever since the time of Muhammed.  But in the wake of the so-called “Arab Spring,” such activity seems to be on the rise throughout much of the Islamic world, now that Muslims in several countries are enjoying greater freedom to do things they felt more restrained from doing before.  Christians are being beaten and murdered, churches attacked and destroyed.

If there is a positive side of this terrible development, it is this: if there’s more such persecution going on, more attention is finally being paid to it in the mainstream Western media.  Yet even as some of the media are daring to report on these events, there remains a strong disinclination to suggest that this pattern of persecution has anything whatsoever to do with Islam.

Last Thursday, USA Today ran an op-ed which did a splendid job of presenting the persecution of Christians as un-Islamic.  The author of the op-ed, a Muslim named Qasim Rashid, chided his coreligionists for persecuting Christians, and quoted the Prophet Muhammed against them: “Christians are my citizens, and by God, I hold out against anything that displeases them.”  And: “We defend Christians. … No Muslim is to disobey this covenant until the Last Day.”

Rashid went on to catalog various horrendous punishments that have recently been meted out in Muslim countries to Christians, blasphemers, apostates, and so on.  In response to these acts, Rashid insisted that all of them were at odds with the dictates of Islam, because, he insisted, “the Quran commands Muslims to protect churches from attack,” “Islam requires equal rights and protection for minorities,” “the Quran forbids punishment for blasphemy,” “the Quran forbids punishment for apostasy,” “Islam does not sanction the mixing of mosque and state,” “the Quran protects the rights of women and children, condemns rape, forbids inheriting women (let alone children) against their will, and forbids compulsion in religion,” and “Islam demands absolute justice in all affairs.”  Islam, in short, is not the problem – it is the solution.

To be sure, Rashid is an Ahmadi Muslim – a member of a sect that really does believe in all these good things.  Describing the Ahmadi movement as being “at the forefront of taking Islam back from the corruption of such ‘Muslim’ nations” as Pakistan and Iran, he explains that “Ahmadi Muslims believe in absolute justice, reject religious compulsion, are loyal to their nations of residence, uphold the absolute sanctity and equality of human life, believe in gender equity and spiritual equality, condemn religious aggression, and champion universal religious freedom.”  Rashid identifies these as Islam’s “founding principles.”

Alas, Ahmadi Muslims represent a tiny minority of Muslims around the world.  Other Muslims do not even consider them Muslims, and in many Islamic countries they are persecuted and punished for identifying themselves as members of the Muslim faith.  While Ahmadis, moreover, consider these “nice” passages from the Koran to be at the center of their faith, mainstream Muslim theologians overwhelmingly disagree.  For them, it is not just the Koran but also the Hadith, or sayings of Muhammed, that are legitimate sources of Islamic law.  Also, there’s the question of which parts of the Koran you prioritize over the others.  Like those who prefer Woody Allen’s earlier, funnier movies, Ahmadi Muslims tend to stress the older, more humane portions of the Koran, while virtually all other Muslims consider those benign passages to have been abrogated by the more violent and intolerant material that came along later.

Pages: 1 2

  • cpmondello

    "Muslims have been persecuting Christians"…..lmao….seems you forgot to mention how Christianity is the reason for more bloodshed throughout history that Islam. You can say "Hitler was not a real Christian" all you want, but if you hold Christianity to that standard, you must say "9/11 was not done by real Muslims". If you allow yourself to accept both and all religions with having the ability to have extremists, you will agree with me, and many of the Founding Fathers of America: Christianity has been the cause of more bloodshed that Islam by a long shot. It wasnt the 'Sermon on the Mount' that allowed Christianity to become so widespread….

    "The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy." ~ George Washington

    "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." – James Madison

    "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites." ~ Thomas Jefferson

    "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." ~ Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to John Adams (April 11, 1823)

    "The Christian god is a three-headed monster, cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three-headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always
    of two classes: fools and hypocrites." ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

    "It is from the bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder, for the belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man, and the bible is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind" ~ Thomas Paine (1737-1809)

    "All national institutions of churches whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. … My own mind is my own church." ~ Thomas Paine 'The Age of Reason' (1794)

    “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” ~ Tripoli of Barbary. Art. 11. – Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the
    Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, having seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

    "The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion". ~ Thomas Paine

    "The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church and the State." ~ James Madison a.k.a. 'The Father of the Constitution of the United States of America

    I suggest you ALL watch the following DVDs & Videos:

    'Imagine If All Atheists Left America':

    'Constantines Sword':

    'Theologians Under Hitler: Gerhard Kittel, Paul Althaus and Emanuel Hirsch' ( By Robert Ericksen "Robert Ericksen is a renowned historian of the
    Holocaust. His book Theologians Under Hitler (1985) was widely acclaimed, and was made into a documentary in 2004: ‘Theologians Under Hitler’ DVD:….. He maintains affiliations with the Humboldt Foundation and the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, and sits on the editorial board of Kirchliche
    Zeitgeschichte, an important German journal. He is currently professor of history at Pacific Lutheran University." (Quote source:

    'The God Who Wasn't There':

    'A brief rundown of the cost in human lives exacted by religion and religious warfare':

    • CharlesWhite

      You can lump all the religions (pagan and all) that ever existed together and make the claim “Religion” has murdered and tortured more humans then none Religion has but that’s an Apple to Fruit salad comparison, to do an Apple to Apple Comparison you simply have to look back at the last 100 years to understand that Secularism and Atheist have Murdered Millions more than the 2000 year history of Christianity ever did! And in that time period Christianity has been the foundation on which humans have advanced out of dirt huts and into the stars which No Other Religion or Secular/Atheist Culture has done! The other problem with blaming Christ for the Murder and Torture thru Christendom’s history is those thru history that Murdered or Tortured in the Name of Christ did not do as Christ taught and Were Not acting as a follower of Christ but were using Christ for their Personal gain! To close, No One has ever been “Murdered or Tortured” by a “Christ Follower” since Jesus Christ walked this earth!!!

    • intrcptr2

      I had thought of reading your post, later, but when I noticed you linked "The God Who Wasn't There", I realized just how blind and ignorant you truly are.

      Fine, quote, rather selectively, a few men who helped cast off the shackles of British rule.
      Care to explain why Washington celebrated his victory at Yorktown by worshiping at St Mary''s around the corner from the Penssylvania State House, by laying the British standards at the altar?

      If this is the best that "freethinking" gets a man; equating Hitler's ignoring of the Bible with Khomeni's adherence to the Quran, then such demographic shifts, and changes in worldview, brought on by growing infidelity, bode very badly for this country and the world.

    • aspacia

      The current problem is Islamists not Christians. Focus child, Focus.

    • Flounder

      That was the catholic church not true Christians. There is a difference.

  • dlp

    The problem is not which passges in the Koran prevail, but the way in which this issue is settled in Islamic doctrine, and that is abrogation. Yet this depends on a certain conception of God and the Koran as his verbatim book, infallible throughout all time, which lies at the root of the problem. Its not the content of the book, but its conception as divine, infallible and applicable for all time.

    • aspacia

      Oh, dippy, yes it does matter which verses take precedence. Currently, most Islamic religious authorities claim the verses of the Sword supercede the moderate, earlier verses.

  • C"H"Martel

    My book, "Satan's Trinity: Hitler, Stalin & Muhammad," will be available within the month and one may pre-order at For the first time in history "HSM" appear together on a book cover. The idea behind the book is to make headway against the ludicrous idea that Muhammad should be conjoined with any religious leader/founder. Once this comparison, driven by actual names, has been made then it must be attacked. Once the attack has been launched then the attackers will be forced to defend their attack. Since the attack is indefensible then the "religion" Muhammad (if he existed) founded will begin to be viewed as the scam it is. This book has been written under the principle of KISS. And nothing is simpler to understand than Hitler and Stalin…..and now, Muhammad. Thank you for your time…….C"H"Martel

  • BobSmith101

    The bi-polar nature (Medina vs. Mecca) of Islamic theology always gives Muslims (and Islamic apologists) an “out” to white wash Islamic violence.

    Unfortunately as numerous Muslims have said – Islam is Islam. And Islamic violence is an integral part of the “religion”.

    Without Islamic reformation – nothing will change.

    Read how fear is the core driving force of Islam at:

  • Sobieski

    Adolf Hitler quote:

    “The knighthood that the Castilians have is actually one of Arab heritage. If Charles Martel had not overcome in Poitiers: since the Jewish world already seized us – that Christianity is something well of insipid – we would have better received Mohammedanism, those doctrines of the reward of heroism-: combatants alone have the seventh heaven! With that the Germans would have conquered the world. It is only by Christianity that we have been held distant.”

  • mrbean

    A lecture is in order for Ahmadi Muslim and any other intellectually inept follower of any organized religion whether it is Islam, Hindu, Christian, Hevbrew, Wiccan, Scientology, or Linus's great pumpkin that comes at midnite on Halloween Orgainzed religion is a best a blatantly dishonest attempt to explain our place as a temporary species occupying a small planet for less than a few million years, that is orbiting a middle aged star in a ordinary solar system on the far outskirts of an average mid-size galaxy containing billions of suns and tens of billions of planets in a universe that contains billions and billions of galaxies and that is more likely than not., infinitely old beyond any time scale. What was the "First Cause" Many thinks the Big Bang which is really beginning to look like regurgitated Genesis cloaked in pseudo scientific camoflage, If you don't know, just admit it and do make up lies.

    • garretso

      So basically… life is meaningless. Trying to understand is pointless, and caring is futile. Sounds great. Where do I sign up?

    • aspacia

      Oh, you mean like the intellectually inferior Pasteur? Too funny.

      • Amused

        Why Mr.Bean , you surprise me ! You do possess a smidgeon of insight . For as far as understanding the Universe , we are no further along than Plato .All we have done in our history here, is to merely describe and observe the mechanisms of an entity we have absolutely no understanding of .You diminish yourself with your racists remarks in view of what you know .

        • aspacia

          Amused, your snide comment to bean went to aspacia.

  • Marty

    There is no way to avoid the reasonable conclusion that islam is intolerant and violant. After all, mosques are being built all over europe and North America. In the 57 islamic countries churches are being dismantled or allowed to deteriorate with no allowance made for their reparis. Mainstream islam is a totalitarian ideology that, after being founded by the pedophile mohamad, could never countenance a competing faith. There is no islamic society today that wasn't origianlly converted by the sword.

    • ScienceIsReligion

      And Churches have completely stopped being built? At least we don't send out missionaries to desperately try and convert people. You also spelled "violent" you self-righteous fuckwad. Of course Islamic countries don't upkeep churches, it's the job of the christian minorities in those countries to maintain them, not the muslims' jobs. That's like saying Jewish leaders should push for maintenance of churches, doesn't make any sense and it's not like in the U.S., where WE'RE the minority, that anyone funds our mosques other than us. Hell, we can't afford shit besides a few rooms, speakers and air conditioning but every fucking church has a gold cross on the front entrance.

      Also, please give me evidence of all the claims you make: Pedophile prophet, inherent violence, totalitarian ideology.

      Oh nevermind, you can't because this entire site is skewed, you ignorant piece of shit

  • al KIdya

    In 1984, the Government of Pakistan, under General Zia-ul-Haq, passed Ordinance XX, which banned proselytizing by Ahmadis and also banned Ahmadis from identifying themselves as Muslims. According to this ordinance, any Ahmadi who refers to himself as a Muslim by either spoken or written word, or by visible representation, directly or indirectly, or makes the call to prayer as other Muslims do, is punishable by imprisonment of up to 3 years. Because of these difficulties, Mirza Tahir Ahmad moved the Ahmadiyya Community's headquarters to London, UK. [Source: Wikipedia]

  • xlent

    There are two words which totally sum up islam, jihad and taqiyya. Jihad demands death or enslavement to all non muslems, and taqiyya (allah aproved lying) is used until the time is ripe for jihad. It's as simple as that.

  • Jari

    Nice peace of article. I just want to mind the readers and the author that in the beginning all truths started out with one person, Prophet of Allah, whether it is Moses ( PBUH), Jesus ( PBUH), MUhammad ( PBUH) and now Ahmadi Muslims ( founded by Ahmad in 1889). Ahmad's main course of struggle was to stop the barbaric concept of the then mullahs, he laid the foundation of Jihad with pen, time has shown after 120 years that pen is stronger than sword or weapon of anyking again and again. He announced to the Muslims, that concept of Jihad that you have, is totally wrong, real concept of Jihad is self purification by supplication, dealing with humans with love and peace and humanity, and showing respect for the human values. Being loyal to the country and government and the land, abiding by the laws of land. When First Ahmad Missionary enteres us, on his interview he was asked whether he will preach polygamy. His answer was simple, that no it is against the law of land, I would not do such a thing to creat disorder.

  • Jari

    As far as verses of Holy Quran, chapter 9 is particularly dealt with the wars against those who wanted to kill the Prophet and the Muslims. US is at war against terrorists, lets put ourselves in the shoes of Prophet Muhammad and his followers. Even today we follow the same rules of engagement when we encounter our enemy, being strict against them, we kill terrorists where we find them, we don't become friends with them, we don't even want to become friends with friends of the enemies. That is how wars is. Quran is a book for all situations of life. Imagine a book which does not have code of conduct for war or peace. Quran has guidance for kings, general public, scientists, scholars, illitrates, politicians, past and future. whosoever reads it without being partial finds guidance in it. .

    • Fred Dawes

      You are right but stop the BS.

  • Jari

    As far as verses of Holy Quran, chapter 9 is particularly dealt with the wars against those who wanted to kill the Prophet and the Muslims. US is at war against terrorists, lets put ourselves in the shoes of Prophet Muhammad and his followers. Even today we follow the same rules of engagement when we encounter our enemy, being strict against them, we kill terrorists where we find them, we don't become friends with them, we don't even want to become friends with friends of the enemies. That is how wars is. Quran is a book for all situations of life. Imagine a book which does not have code of conduct for war or peace. Quran has guidance for kings, general public, scientists, scholars, illitrates, politicians, past and future. whosoever reads it without being partial finds guidance in it.

  • Jari

    author also wrote that whosoever are burning churches or persecuting christians have read Quran, it is wrong. Majority of the Muslims read Quran without understanding it. there are several Muslims who memorize the Quran by heart but they dont know the meaning of even simple phrase or single word. They are just followers of ingorant mullahs, who knows nothing other than to create disorder. This was prophesized by Prophet Muhammad, that in later days, scholars will be the worst creatures on earth, when Islam will be just name of Islam, there will be no core to it. IN those days, God will send Messiah, Son of Mary, to bring back true teachings of Islam and unite all religions. that Messiah has come in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. Ahmadies have believed in him, while rest of Muslims are still waiting for one

  • Kinana of Khaybar

    This article from Bruce Bower is appreciated. However, a major problem is that he simply takes as a given that the Qur'an says all those "nice" things as Qasim Rashid claims. The only one of Rashid's claims about the Qur'an that is even remotely true is that is does have a verse that says "there is no compulsion in religion."

    “the Quran commands Muslims to protect churches from attack,”

    -Misleading. The Quran does cite the destruction of the houses of worship of the People of the Book as a bad thing, but does so in referring to this in the past tense. It does not forbid Muslims, after Muhammad has come and delivered his message to the world, to refrain from attacking any particular houses of worship. Indeed, in Sura 9, there is reference to Muhammad's attack on a mosque of opposition. If it's okay to attack mosques that are deemed to be opposed to true Islam, then surely it is okay to attack churches and other religious places that are deemed in opposition to true Islam. Today, Muslims attack churches, mosques, and other religious sites on an almost daily basis.

    “Islam requires equal rights and protection for minorities,”
    -Mainstream Islam today requires the subjugation of non-Muslims under sharia law. Most Muslims today want anyone who criticizes Islam or Muhammad to be criminally prosecuted and punished. The Quran 9:29 commands Muslims to fight (q-t-l there means fight to kill) or subjugate and extract jizya from the People of the Book who don't believe in Muhammad and Islam.

    “the Quran forbids punishment for blasphemy,”
    -Nowhere in the Quran are Muslims forbidden from punishing people for blasphemy. What Rashid may be using here are verses such as those early ones that tell Muslims to "argue in a way that is better" or to turn away and disengage from non-Muslims who critique and/or mock Islam. However, these commands are tailored to Muslims' circumstances. Once Muslims attained more military and political power, the policies changed accordingly. There is no direct ruling in the Quran on what Muslims should do to blasphemers either in terms of protection or punishment. These policies are laid out, albeit poorly, in the Hadith. Based on Muhammad's commands and example, the final policy for the situation where Islam is in power is that blasphemers must be punished, including by being put to death. Quran 4:80 says that to obey Muhammad is to obey Allah. Indirectly, there are at least 2 verses in the Quran relevant to real policies on blasphemy. 9:12-14 includes, among other justifications for killing and warfare "those who revile your religion." 5:32-33 refers to those who "spread mischief/corruption" in the land, and those who wage war against Muhammad and Allah. Some Muslims interpret these vague terms as referring to not only violent crimes but "crimes" including blasphemy and apostasy.

  • Kinana of Khaybar


    “the Quran forbids punishment for apostasy,”
    -No it doesn't. The Quran is not clear on the earthly punishment for apostasy, though it does say the disbelievers and apostates will have no protectors on earth; but the ruling of death to apostates is in the Hadith.

    “Islam does not sanction the mixing of mosque and state,”
    -Indeed, mainstream Islam today demands that secular states be replaced by sharia rule. Polls by PEW, Gallup, World Public Opinion, etc., bear this out. Most Muslims want sharia and do not want western-style secularism.

    “the Quran protects the rights of women and children,"
    -It does not protect non-Muslim women and children from sharia and jihad. The only restrictions on Muslims killing women and children in jihad are mentioned in the Hadith, and even these are equivocal. Even those restrictions do not protect women and children from being collateral damage (which Muslims today claim to deplore), and certainly women and children who say anything even remotely construable as offensive to Islam, Muhammad, and Muslims are not protected. On the contrary, they are subject to harsh penalties.
    -women are not allowed to leave Islam; children are (according to the Hadith) to be beaten if they refuse prayers, and, after they reach puberty, can be killed according to sharia if they leave Islam and/or if they say something deemed offensive about Islam, etc.
    -women who commit adultery are stoned to death according to the Hadith. Unmarried women who commit fornication are subject to 100 lashes (which can kill) according to Quran 24:2. Muslim males are ordered to beat disobedient wives (Quran 4:34).

    " condemns rape,"
    -No it doesn't. It does forbid a Muslim master to force his own female slaves into prostitution (i.e., into having sex with other men for money), but doesn't forbid him from having sex with his own slaves. The Quran allows Muslim males to take non-Muslim females captive or as slaves and allows them to have sex with them (4:24, 23:1-7, 70:29-30, 33:50-52). These women have no right to resist. The Hadith fairly graphically describes Muslim males having sex with female captives, and with Muhammad not only present and supervising and approving, but participating by choosing the most beautiful woman for himself!
    -The hadith does forbid the rape of the free pious Muslim female who does not "entice" (i.e., obeys dress and behavioral code) and who attempts to resist the attacker. A Muslim male is not allowed to have sex with someone else's slave, but is allowed to have it with his own.

    "forbids inheriting women (let alone children) against their will,"
    -Misleading use of the word "inherit". Early Islam was based on taking the enemies' females captive, and either selling them or keeping them and having sex with them and having more Muslim children.

    "and forbids compulsion in religion,”
    -Forbids "compulsion" and yet allegedly forbids all those other things that Rashid claims it forbids? Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too, Rashid. Forbid = strong compulsion. If "Islam" forbids something, that's compulsion. If it allows everything, it's not adding any compulsion. Does it forbid anything, or is there no compulsion? Of course, this whole "no compulsion" business is largely taken out of context and is used for image management purposes by Muslims in the West. Moreover, Muhammad is reported to have used the phrase "there is no compulsion in religion (deen)" in various contexts, including in the context of threatening the Khaybar Jews, not long before attacking them! But Muslim jurists tend to view the verse in light of the original context and interpret it narrowly to mean that the People of the Book should not be forced, in a direct way, to convert to Islam. Instead, they are forced indirectly through the imposition of the dhimma and jizya.

    and “Islam demands absolute justice in all affairs.”
    -The problem is that in Islam justice is sharia and jihad. So the idea that "Islam demands justice" is hardly reassuring. On the contrary; Rashid's comments ought to be viewed with great concern, and ought to be followed up with tough no-nonsense questioning an investigative journalism.

    • Fred Dawes

      The Koran has had many redrafts reshape and reworded and rewritten so many times but all to justify and validate mass murder.

  • skulldiggerin

    Nice try at Islamic(Satanic) triple talk.
    "_ You lie !
    _ So what ? Ain' t I the father of lies ? "

  • Amused

    I simply look at "the prophet " , his life , his actions , what his very companions have written about him – to conclude the he has no connection , similarity , nothing at all in common with Jesus , Moses , jews , or christians whatsoever . Putting aside what men did in the past , and focusing on what is TODAY , no jews or christians behave in such a manner as muslims .
    face the truth Mohammedans .

  • Fred Dawes


  • PhillipGaley

    Well, as Rick Nelson would have it, "You got t'please yourself, . . .", and after reading through that ropey lump, . . . sounds like "cpmondello" feels pretty good about hisself; so, . . . but, we've got a lotta good American soldiers who've seen the effects of Islam in a population, firsthand, . . .

  • Bamaguje

    Given that Ahmadis are considered heretics by mainstream Muslims, I wouldn't lend much credence to Qasim Rashid's propaganda.
    He is clearly speaking for his minority sect which is at odds with mainstream Islam.

  • intrcptr2

    Although tens of millions is a very large number of people, compared to the total count of Muslims of all stripes, it is indeed a miniscule minority.
    All the works you have done do not change how small and, as yet, uninfluential you are; such works do not endear anyone to God, who has loved man from all eternity utterly apart from our sins and righteousnesses. I say this as prelude to remind you that the prophesied Messiah was, andis, the King of Jews, not some random, self-proclaimed adherent to another religion or culture.

    I do not doubt for one moment that Ahmadi Muslims are peaceful, but then so are Quakers; neither worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Outside of that realationship, there can be no justice, or peace.

  • polkadot

    Ahmadi Muslims routinely exaggerate their numbers. The total number of the Ahmadis is only about 2 millions.

  • Fred Dawes

    The Koran 0r Qoran of today is not the Koran of the 700AD! THE Koran today was made to attack non muslims in 950AD!!!

  • alan g

    Hitler may have had some demonic notion of carrying out god’s will if he in fact claimed to be Christian, (which I don’t believe), he was truly a mad man. How can anyone even point to Hitler as an example of religious dictate, especially when the bible clearly identifies Jews as having a profound position with god that no man should mess with.

  • intrcptr2

    Yes, we are quite aware of what Hitler wrote.

    Are you though, that really ignorant of what Jesus told his followers nearly 2000 years earlier about those who falsely claimed they were doing the will of the father?
    Hitler's attachment to Christ is about as strong as a spider web holding onto Jupiter.

  • Paul of Alexandria

    Hitler was a self-professed pagan, if anything. He persecuted the Church as violently as he did the Jews (see, for instance, the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer – The only saving grace was that since Germany was at least nominally majority Christian (either Roman Catholic or Lutheran) he couldn't simply kill all of the Christians outright. Instead he had to try to co-opt the church with his own version.

    The key point is that any time you show me an abuse by Christians – and any true Christian will freely confess to there being many such, since we acknowledge the inherent sinfulness of humankind – I can point to specific commands from Christ against these actions. You cannot do the same for Islam.

  • Martin K.

    " The book demonstrate emprically that the Bible is far more violent, and that the Qur'an is actually quite balanced and just. And by the way, the author is NOT a Muslim."

    Just for the sake of others here:

    2: 47 Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all other (for My Message).

    2:53 And remember We gave Moses the Scripture and the Criterion (Between right and wrong): There was a chance for you to be guided aright.

    2:60 And remember Moses prayed for water for his people; We said: "Strike the rock with thy staff." Then gushed forth therefrom twelve springs. Each group knew its own place for water. So eat and drink of the sustenance provided by Allah, and do no evil nor mischief on the (face of the) earth.

    3: 1-3
    1 Allah! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal.
    2 Allah! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal.
    3 It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).

    4: 163 We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms.

    5:43 But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) law before them?- therein is the (plain) command of Allah; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) People of Faith.
    44 It was We who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers.
    45 We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers.
    46 And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
    47 Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

    [quote end]

    I love it when Muslims trash the Bible, when their "stoned-gawd" claimed to have revealed all of them… So if Muslims find something they dislike in the Bible they should take this up with their gawd!

  • Dunendil

    Hitler also said the following, as quoted in the memoirs of Albert Speer:
    "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
    Hitler actually despised Christianity and only professed faith in it for political expedience. He considered it a Jewish religion that had subverted the glorious paganism of the roman empire and of his Germanic ancestors, and planned to destroy it once there was little opposition left. In contrast, he admired Islam for its warrior ethos and violent totalitarianism, recognizing its kinship to his own ideas. After all, the Islamic heaven and Valhalla share the lovely particularity of only being guaranteed to those who die in battle.

  • alan g

    Hitler also consorted with the grand mufti of jerusalem to destroy the Jews. Amahdi, why didn’t you include that little fact buddy?

  • alan g

    Hitler’s men and women followed him because they believed they were superior beings and were not compelled by any religious edict. Bin laden’s followers kill in the name of Allah and only for that reason. Maybe you can’t see the difference, but most reasonable thinking people can. By the way, Mao tse dung murdered over 70 million of his own people. The communist murdered 14 million Ukranians. How about Pol Pot? There are many examples in this century alone where there has been much non-religious massacre.

  • intrcptr2

    Yeah, and Muqtedar Khan is playing awfully fast and loose with the rules, too.

    Rashid leaps from this purported document from Muhammad to claiming that the Quran itself protects Christians. And Khan seems blissfully unaware of the questionable provenance of this agreement with the monastery.

    I have never heard of this before. Has anyone else? Is it referred to in the Hadith?
    If the newest copy we have is from the Ottomans in 1517 (Two years before the Diet of Worms!), I myself can place practically no credence in the document concerning Muslim belief or practice.

  • jonmc

    The point that you forget – and I'll assume it's not deliberate – is that Hitler's actions are in clear opposition to the teachings of Christ – wherefore it is reasonable to say "Hitler wasn't Xtian".
    Bin Laden's on the other hand are in clear agreement with Mohammed's and if (as the Koran insists in over 100 repititions) Muslims should "follow the prophet" then Bin Laden is a good Mohammed following Muslim.
    "Authentic references". Interesting. Who "authenticates" what?
    However, even your chosen commentary on 9:29 clearly states (to summarise) that to enjoy the protection of the Islamic state – i.e. NOT to be treated as a person "spreading fitnah in the land" (a capital offence btw) the Jew or Xtian has to acknowledge the superiority of hte Muslims. Thus there is no equality between Muslims and non-Muslims in an Islamic state, yet Muslims demand to be treated as equals (or better) in non-Muslim states. that too is hypocritical logic.

  • AR Momen

    The author hasn’t reckoned up the desecration of the Israeli authorities of the Muslims holy sites in Palestine ,here is a sample of what these bigotted jews trying to conceal ,while they trigger and kindle the sparks of chaos and quarrelling between Christians and Muslims : Here is a list of a few examples of Israeli forces or workers or businessmen desecrating various village Mosques during or following the 1948 fighting.
    • ‘Akbara Mosque destroyed during fighting
    • al-Lydd Mosque was site of Israeli massacre of aproximately 176 Palestinian civilians
    • Zarnuqu Mosque converted to a Synagogue
    • Khulda’s Mosque converted into a Museum
    • al-Manshiyya Mosque turned into a private Israeli home
    • Wadi Hunayn Mosque converted to a Synagogue
    • ‘Ayn Hawd Mosque converted into a Israeli tourist restaurant/bar
    • Qisarya Mosque converted into a bar
    • Kawfakha Mosque converted into a stable and storehouse for animal fodder for Israeli farmers
    • Sa’sa’ Mosque demolished by Israeli workers after fighting ended

    Moreover the Quran called for both peace and war ,and determained the proper time for each ,the Quran does not tell Muslims to be cowards and peaceful when their lands are occupied or when their religion is humilated ,NEVER, but at the same time ,Allah ordered Muslims not to begin with aggression ;This is aplain verse from Surat 60,Al-Mumtahanah(translated by T.D.alhilali& Muh .M.Khan)verses 8,9 : Allah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion nor drove you out of your homes .Verily Allah loves those who deal with equity.
    It is only as regards those who fought against you on account of religion ,and have driven you out of your homes , and helped to drive you out, that Allah forbids you to befriend them .And whosoever will befriend them ,then such are the Zalimin(wrongdoers-those who disobey Allah).Now put the Israeli occupiers of Palestine and who help them on one side vs the uprooted Muslim majority of Palestinians and their (true) brothers in religion on the other side ,that’s the equation.

  • Richard Head

    Ahmadi muslims may be more peaceful, but you my friend are obviously still a muslim. You will not take responsibility for anything done in the name of your religion (whatever the sect) and are quick to point out tenuous links (Hitler) to crimes of other religions as a justification of your argument. Unfortunately you are a pawn of the arab imperialist moon god religion and have swallowed their version of history completely. In fact, you demonstrate the total futility and stupidity of religion per se. You KNOW you are right, therefore you are bigoted and blind to all but your point of view. You will excuse anything and everything with your world view. You KNOW that other members of the muslim world are burning churches, killing and intimidating christians and you KNOW that these people should be the biggest enemy of your faith as they are painting it in such a bad light to the rest of the world. Your silence in criticising/attributing blame to other muslims can only be viewed as tacit agreement with them. Have the balls to say what is true and stop the preaching

  • aspacia

    And mad Mo subjegated the infidels or outright murdered them.

  • Raymond in DC

    "When disbelievers and the Jews of the time were busy planning the eradication of this new revolution of Islam…"

    That you promote such rubbish shows you (if you are indeed an Ahmadi) can't get past the theological nostrums of Islam, which includes its literalism, its supremacism, and its anti-Semitism.

  • aspacia

    Quakers are Christians who do worship the God of Abraham.

  • intrcptr2

    Ehnnn… erm,

    George Fox most certainly was a Bible-believing Christian. But these days, the great majority of The Friends meetings accept anyone, with no doctrinal demands, especially concerning the Son of David.
    I have scruples about calling such a body "christian".

    For strict accuracy's sake, I ought not have made such a sweeping statement. Forgive me please, if I have offended.

  • aspacia

    You have not offended:-) Many have corrected my errors on this site and I usually appreciate the valid evidence, albeit without the ad hom attacks that so many indulge in.

    If memory serves, early Christian accepted all with no regard for doctrine. The Gnostic's Bible is quite interesting regarding this. Remember, it was much later that Saul/Paul brought this new faith to the gentiles and created many of its tenets.

  • intrcptr2


    I have a friend who is a Friend. I owe him for telling me that there are still some Quakers who claim Christ. But for me I find it impossible to accept that God looks lightly on such "mixing", unless of course they are preaching Christ to the other silent ones. ;)

    I do not question your memory, but I do deny such an interpretation of the eclecticism of the early believers in Jerusalem.

    I wouldn't really call a mere 30 years, if that, as much later. And the gnostic texts are indeed a good bit later (Thomas clocks in the earliest no sooner than 125 AD, at best).

    The real problem for such interpretations is two-fold;
    1. Gnostic texts are blatantly and expressively antisemitic. The best one can get out of the biblical texts is some questionable twisting, and a number of centuries of Catholicism (The fact that Jews wrote the entire Bible, and made plain that Jesus is Jewish makes an antisemitic Bible a stretch).
    2. Such a history of canon utterly ignores the OT and the plethora of Messianic prophecies. The Messiah was meant to be identifiable, and he was, to those who were looking for him.
    A corollary to this is that Jesus was a singular personality, teaching a certain understanding of Judaism and God. To accept that he taught that beliefs were virtually irrelevant is both bad history and bad psychology.

    Often when any argument began over canon, and hence doctrine, it was Gnostics trying to remove texts from the lists. Marcion did just that near 150 AD in Rome, and even he did not attempt to insert any new texts in his truncated list (Which he took from an already established canon).

    Paul did indeed seek out the Goyim, but there were always Gentiles in the community. He claims to not have been innovating and comparing his teachings to the OT, and the others in the NT, bears this out; Saul did not invent a new religion.

  • aspacia

    According to their site, which is considered a valid source, they are Christian: "ESR is a Christian graduate theological school in the Quaker tradition. ESR prepares women and men for leadership that empowers and for ministry that serves. This mission grows out of our Christian belief that God calls everyone to ministry. Using a transformative model of education, ESR encourages students to explore the intellectual, spiritual, and practical dimensions of their calls to ministry."

    Any individual who considers Jesus divine and the son of God is considered a Christian. This includes Catholics, Mormoms, etc.

    Why do you consider the Gnostic's Bible antiSemitic, when it was written by Jew, several who were Jesus' apostles, including Mary Magdalene. The apostles were jealous of her status with Jesus. Sure, similar to Jesus, the Gnostics were critical of formal Judaism and its cronyism, but that does not mean that they hate Jews, just the structure of the faith.

    I have both the text and the audio of it and found it interesting how so many texts were deleted from the New Testament during Nicea or was it Trent.

    I am not Christian, but do research many faiths for the many faithfuls POV.

    A Deist

  • Martin K.

    Quote: ,Allah ordered Muslims not to begin with aggression]

    Why was Spain invaded and unjustly occupied by Muslims? They did not live there! The same with Constantinople it was a "Christian" City! Or any other places which were conquered by Muslims marauders! India?! Today's Afghanistan, Malaysia. What right did Muslims have trying to conquer Europe? Again they did NOT LIVE there, and could not claim to have been driven out to have any justification.

    Muslims do not complain that after WWI the Islamic Ottoman Empire was carved up into smaller ISLAMIC states, they only complain because of TINY Israel. Why did Egypt and Jordan NOT create the Islamic state in the Gaza Strip and Judea/Samaria (AKA Westbank)? If today the land allotted for this "country" gets smaller (because Jews still buying land) then should not these Politicians be held responsible?
    Karl Marx (a Jew who lost his faith, in case you didn't know) wrote that there lived already more Jews in Jerusalem then Muslims when he visited the city. Jews lived in the land more or less with the permission of the Turkish Overlords. Arafat PLO honcho was born in Cairo Egypt, so how can he claim to a place he never owned? Speaking of ownership, how much people must have earned up to the independence of Israel, to not only buy the land but to build lavish homes? Refugees? LOL up to 1967 the vast majority of the refugee camps used to be on the land earmarked for the "Islamic" State, only after the 6 day war, many of them moved. But the "Refugee-Camps" in Gaza? Being a Refugee in the OWN land? 20 year old people in Gaza are "Refugees" because their Grand-Parents used to be migrants from other Islamic regions and moved into Israel…. The Gaza Strip and Judea/Samaria was supposed to be the homeland Muslims leaders failed to create the state, blame them first, unless of course you claim the whole area for Muslims using the name of a people who might have never existed.

    You did not declare the right of Israel to exist…..