Top Menu

The Suicide Bomber Prophet

This article is part 3 of LoonWatch’s Understanding Jihad Series. Please read my “disclaimer”, which explains my intentions behind writing this article: The Understanding Jihad Series: Is Islam More Likely Than Other Religions to Encourage Violence?

As we noted in an earlier article:

A recent Pew Research poll found that almost half of U.S. adults think that the Islamic religion is more likely to encourage violence than other religions, a figure that has almost doubled since 2002.  A clear majority of conservative Republicans (66%), white Evangelicals (60%), and Tea Baggers (67%) believe Islam is more violent than other religions, with a plurality of whites (44%) and older folks (42-46%) also thinking this.  (Of note is that blacks, Hispanics, and liberal Democrats are significantly less bigoted towards Islam.)  The idea that Islam is more violent than other religions–held most strongly by old white conservatives–is a key pillar to the edifice of Islamophobia.

Prof. Philip Jenkins writes:

In the minds of ordinary Christians – and Jews – the Koran teaches savagery and warfare, while the Bible offers a message of love, forgiveness, and charity.

Worse, the Quran is said to be a book of terrorism.  It was in this vein that Bill O’Reilly invoked an analogy between the Quran and terrorism and Mein Kampf and Nazism.  It must be the Quran that compels these Islamic radicals to engage in suicide bombing and terrorism.

Prof. Jenkins responds:

In fact, the Bible overflows with “texts of terror,” to borrow a phrase coined by the American theologian Phyllis Trible. The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery.

In part 1 of LoonWatch’s Understanding Jihad Series, we traced the violence of the Bible to the Jewish prophet Moses, who submitted heathen nations to what can only be described as genocide.  In part 2, we moved on to Moses’ divinely ordained successor, Joshua, who was arguably the most violent prophet in history.  But the holy killing did not stop there.

The Warrior Tribe

After the death of Joshua, the Israelites wondered who would carry on the God-sanctioned genocide and conquest of the promised land. They did not have to wait long for the answer. God passed down the sword of the faith to the tribe of Judah:

Judges 1:1 After the death of Joshua, the Israelites asked the LORD, “Who will be the first to go up and fight for us against the Canaanites?”

1:2 The LORD answered, “Judah, for I have given them victory over the land.”

Judah heeded this call and continued the holy genocide against the unbelievers, culminating in the brutal conquest of Jerusalem:

1:8 The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem also and took it. They put the city to the sword and set it on fire.

From there, the tribe of Judah vanquished the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills (1:9), Hebron, the Sheshai, Ahiman, Talmai (1:10), and Debir (1:11).  They destroyed Zephath:

1:17 [Judah] attacked the Canaanites living in Zephath, and they utterly destroyed the city. Therefore it was called Hormah [Hormah means Destruction.]

Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron (1:18) fell to the Israelite nation, for “the Lord was with the men of Judah.” (1:19)

Judge, Jury, and Executioner

After the massacre of most of the inhabitants of Canaan, the God of the Bible was concerned with ensuring that Israel remain warlike:

3:1 These are the nations the Lord left to test all those Israelites who had not experienced any of the wars in Canaan

3:2 It was only in order that the generations of the people of Israel might know war, to teach war to those who had not known it before.

The sword was then wielded by the judges of Israel, first with Othniel, then Ehud, then Shamgar, then Barak, then Gideon, then Jephthah, and then Samson. Each of these judges of God was involved in religiously motivated massacres. The Bible recounts the hundreds of thousands of people they collectively slaughtered. From the first Israelite judge:

3:10 The Spirit of the Lord came upon him, so that he became Israel’s judge and went to war.

To the last of them:

1 Samuel 7:11 The men of Israel chased the Philistines from Mizpah to a place below Beth-car, slaughtering them all along the way.

Samson the Suicide Bomber Glorified in the Bible

One of the Israelite judges is worthy of special mention: the Jewish prophet Samson.  According to the Bible, Samson was responsible for killing thousands of Philistines (the indigenous population of southern Canaan).  Eventually, the Philistines successfully used a ruse to capture Samson, who was then taken to a temple where he was to be given as a sacrifice to one of the Philistine gods.  Instead, Samson leaned against the pillars of the temple, and brought the temple down, killing himself along with 3,000 men and women:

Judges 16:26 Samson said to the young man who held him by the hand, “Let me feel the pillars on which the house rests, that I may lean against them.”

16:27 Now the house was full of men and women. All the lords of the Philistines were there, and on the roof there were about 3,000 men and women, who looked on while Samson entertained.

16:28 Then Samson prayed to the Lord, “O Sovereign Lord, remember me. O God, please strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes.”

16:29 Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other,

16:30 Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines!” Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived.

Today, Samson is glorified as a hero by Israelis.  Far from being a dead letter, Samson’s deed has become part of Israel’s state policy.  The Samson Option is a doctrine adopted by the state of Israel, which states that should Israel’s existence ever be threatened, it will release a nuclear holocaust upon its enemies and other targets as well.  As Israeli military historian Prof. Martin van Creveld famously put it (as reproduced on p.119 of David Hirst’s The Gun and The Olive Branch):

We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them as targets in all directions…We have the capability to take the world down with us.  And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under.

Unfortunately, the temple Samson destroyed has now become entire countries or even the entire world.

David: Giant Slayer and Baby Killer

The militant sword of Israel was then passed from the judges to holy kings. The first king of the United Kingdom of Israel was Saul. His story is especially interesting, and one which we will return to. We will however focus now on David, who at that time was Saul’s appointed generalissimo. The Israelite ladies fawned over David, not only because he killed the Philistine Goliath but also because he massacred “tens of thousands”:

1 Samuel 18:6 When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with tambourines and lutes.

18:7 As they danced, they sang: “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.”

It should be noted that by the end of David’s death, he ended up killing not tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands. In any case, King Saul became jealous over the fact that David was credited with more kills than he was:

18:8 Saul was very angry; this refrain galled him. “They have credited David with tens of thousands,” he thought, “but me with only thousands. What more can he get but the kingdom?”

18:9 And from that time on Saul kept a jealous eye on David.

But then the king’s daughter fell in love with David. It seems that David was interested in this proposal but thought he was too poor to offer an adequate dowry:

18:23 David said, “Do you think it is a small matter to become the king’s son-in-law? I’m only a poor man and little known.”

King Saul reassured David that he accepted American Express penile foreskins:

18:25 Saul replied, “Say to David, ‘The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.’”

David was unfazed by this interesting request and brought back double the number of requested foreskins:

18:27 David and his men went out and killed two hundred Philistines. He brought their foreskins and presented the full number to the king so that he might become the king’s son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.

However, King Saul’s jealousy continued to grow and he unsuccessfully tried to kill his son-in-law. David found refuge in Ziklag (Philistine territory!) and raided other cities to stay financially afloat. Typical Biblical cruelty was added to these ghazwas raids:

27:8 Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites…

27:9 Whenever David attacked an area, he did not leave a man or woman alive, but took sheep and cattle, donkeys and camels, and clothes. Then he returned to Achish.

27:10 When Achish asked, “Where did you go raiding today?” David would say, “Against the Negev of Judah” or “Against the Negev of Jerahmeel” or “Against the Negev of the Kenites.”

27:11 He did not leave a man or woman alive to be brought to Gath, for he thought, “They might inform on us and say, ‘This is what David did.’” And such was his practice as long as he lived in Philistine territory.

David massacred the Amalekites—men, women, and children:

30:17 David and his men rushed in among them and slaughtered them throughout that night and the entire next day until evening. None of the Amalekites escaped except 400 young men who fled on camels.

Eventually David became king of Israel and continued his string of conquests, subjugating heathens to Israelite rule:

2 Samuel 12:31 He also made slaves of the people of Rabbah and forced them to labor with saws, iron picks, and iron axes, and to work in the brick kilns. That is how he dealt with the people of all the Ammonite towns.

It should be noted that David’s slaughter of the Philistines was sanctioned by God:

1 Samuel 23:2 David inquired of the LORD, saying, “Shall I go and smite these Philistines?” And the LORD said unto David, “Go, and smite the Philistines…!”

God promised David:

23:4 “I am going to give the Philistines into your hand.”

As well as:

2 Samuel 5:19 So David inquired of the Lord, “Shall I go and attack the Philistines? Will you hand them over to me?” The Lord answered him, “Yes, go! For I will surely hand the Philistines over to you.”

And David did what God commanded him to do:

5:25 And David did so, as the Lord had commanded him, and smote the Philistines.

Although we will discuss the genocide of Amalekites in a later article, it is safe to say that virtually every Biblical authority agrees that this was God-ordained as well. In fact, God approved of everything David did—all of his many killings—except for “in the case of Uriah the Hittite”:

1 Kings 15:5 David had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord and had not failed to keep any of the Lord’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.

Uriah was one of King David’s soldiers. David had an affair with Uriah’s wife and had Uriah killed, an act which earned God’s displeasure. God forgave David, but it was the one killing that God did not approve of.  The Geneva Study Bible commentary assures us that David “enterprised no war, but by God’s command.”

In fact, Jews and Christians today revere David’s “obedience to God” and even argue to become “more like David”.  Jewish and Christian children read about David in Sunday school.

Addendum I:

Muhammad’s wars will be discussed in a future part of this series.  But suffice to say, we have now set the groundwork to prove that several Jewish prophets–including Moses, Joshua, Samson, and David–were far more violent and warlike than Muhammad.

The major difference between Muhammad and the others was with regard to targeting and killing civilians.  Samson killed 3,000 men and women in his suicide bomb attack, and David “did not leave a man or woman alive.” (1 Samuel 18:11) This stands in marked contrast with Muhammad who repeatedly “forbade the killing of women and children.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.4, Book 52, #258)

Regardless of issues surrounding historicity,what is quite clear is that the Bible glorifies genocide and the killing of civilians, whereas the Quran does not.  Unlike the Bible, no single verse in the Quran talks about killing women, children, and babies.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Cynic

    Mosizzle,

    I think Muhammad ‘Abd-al Haqq explained it quite eloquently…with relevant quotes from the tafsir.

  • Mosizzle

    “I’m not sure if Bob realizes or not but the “daughters” that Lot refers to in the Quran are metaphorical; ie: the women of the land as evidenced by the various tafsir.”

    Hmm. You seem to be right. I was mixing up the Biblical commentary and Tafsirs that I was reading at the same time.

    In which case, this whole thing has been a pointless argument. Bob owes me an hour.

  • http://abdalhaqq.wordpress.com/ muhammad ‘abd-al haqq

    *shall

    Allahu A’lam

  • http://abdalhaqq.wordpress.com/ muhammad ‘abd-al haqq

    JustBob,

    I can’t believe i missed this earlier!

    “Mosizzle, two of the six Muslim translators inserts the word ‘marriage’ into the verse. That hardly proves that Muslims understand Lot to mean he was offering his daughter up for marriage, especially…”

    What? How so? Which two out of six Muslim translators? Besides there aren’t only six Muslim translators in the world who have translations of the Qur’an. I have 20 on my computer alone. And let’s not forget the tafsir. I think it can be firmly established that the verse refers to marriage, but not in the sense of offering up his own daughters, but commanding the men to move away from lewdness and marry women instead.And that is how the majority of Muslims see it.

    And why would you even refer to Muslim translators and tafsir if you only intend to discount what they say and do your own tafsir anyway? I think you are simply trying to equate the Biblical and Qur’an account in your latest disguised tu quouque argument in order to avoid admitting that the Biblical account is worse.

    Where were we again? Ah…Samson, the “suicide bomber”? Let’s deal with that sahll we Bob. Staying on topic might actually be better for you here since you have been thoroughly trashed on your other points. And don’t think i didn’t notice your inability to back up your claim that Qur’an allows sex outside of marriage, or that you ran to a thread first posted in late 2010, calling it an abomination, instead of admitting defeat here. :)

    Allahu A’lam

  • Cynic

    I’m not sure if Bob realizes or not but the “daughters” that Lot refers to in the Quran are metaphorical; ie: the women of the land as evidenced by the various tafsir. Whereas the ones referred to in the Bible are the same two described as practically raping their father.

    By the way Bob, when is The Abridged Tafsir of JihadBob going to hit stores?

  • http://abdalhaqq.wordpress.com/ muhammad ‘abd-al haqq

    Alastair,

    “It seems that you miss the time factor. Torah was written 3500 years ago. 2000 years before the Quran was created and 1500 years before the New Testament was compiled.”

    No disrespect but it seems you missed the disclaimers for this article series.

    “It is not what is written in books written 1500-3500 years ago. It is about how we each live today in the here and now.”

    These two statements do not go together if we are talking about groups of people who live their lives according to what *is* in millenia old books. What is in those books become relevant.

    “Are their Muslims who wish to have Religious Law to be the authority for order in the world. YES.”

    I get that you are against religious law being the authority in the world, and i can show you that all laws that give justice, peace, tolerance, love, security to the world are religion-based, but that is besides the point. Can you please explain what you mean by this?:

    “Science, laws, social order and cultural development were able to flourish and we conquered the whole world.”

    “Do the Christians have the support of powerful governments and armed militias = No”

    If you actually think that some people in Western militaries are not on some crusade to “civilize” the world, or that many in the US military in particular are not giving “fundamentalist Christians” armed support to carry out their crusades into the Muslim world, then…I don’t know what to tell ya.

    “ACTIONS are what matters not WORDS”

    Words can incite/encourage actions, so they have equal importance, in my view. In other words i don’t understand your point or your objections.

    Allahu A’lam

  • Mosizzle

    “It should be interesting when non-Muslims read these passages and consider the arguments and give their opinion as to what Lot did.”

    Indeed:

    “An incident just before the destruction of Sodom has caused many to look at Lot with revulsion – his offering of his two young daughters to the evil mob.

    Did Lot really mean it? Would he really have handed his two daughters over to the mob? Or, was it intended as some sort of a diversionary tactic, an offer that would not be accepted, because he knew that those men had no interest in women? That could be a possibility to consider, in view of the mob’s response – they continued to ignore the two daughters, and decided to assault Lot along with the two men/angels. (Genesis 19:9)”

    Source: keyway canada

    A Jewish site offers a more bizarre explanation:

    “At first, Lot is downright heroic: he goes outside his house, closes the door behind him, and implores the crowd “don’t do this to my guests;” but then he immediately, cowardly, offers to the crowd – those wolves – his innocent daughters to “do to them as you please.” Can it be that Lot actually values hospitality over his daughters’ innocence? I don’t think so. I think Lot offered his daughters not to protect his guests so much as to protect himself. He did so to preserve good relations with his neighbors as well as with the strangers in his home. After all, he had moved to Sodom, drawn by its wealth, with the intent of acquiring wealth himself. He would not be able to do this without maintaining good relations with his neighbors, and with any traveling merchants with whom he might find himself interacting. Daughters in those days were not revenue generating. Even if they married well, they would not necessarily have been obligated to see to Lot in his old age.

    Lovely stuff from site beth-elsa.

    The Catholic Encyclopedia says that Lot made a mistake. *Whoops*

    I don’t know what denomination you are, but from past conversations it seems you are Catholic (forgive me if I am wrong). But this is Haydock’s Catholic Commentary, 1859 on Genesis 19:

    “Lot tries by every means to divert them from their purpose; being well assured, that they would have nothing to do with his daughters, who were promised to some of the inhabitants. He endeavours to gain time, hoping perhaps that his guests would escape by some back way, while he is talking to the people.”

    A whole range of responses there from absolutely random sources that I found on Google. But it was you who pondered that my explanation was rubbish and that it would be interesting what non-Muslims make of the situation. You now have a range of responses. The most logical of which correspond with my explanation. And the rest contradict each other.

  • Sam Seed

    Boy, when I mentioned Islamophobe I wasn’t expecting mister sarcy-pants.Just what is your problem exactly?

  • NassirH

    I find it hilarious that Bob is suggesting that we listen to him regarding the Qur’an rather than Qurtubi, Jalaluddin Al-Suyuti, Ibn Kathir, and Tabari. They certainly know more about the Qur’an, Arabic, and Sunnah than him or any other Islamophobe. This guy obviously thinks too highly of himself! Maybe he’s a bit like Spencer, a little man who suffers from a Napoleon complex.

  • Vinny

    your article proves nothing.
    all religions are the same, because they were all started by men.
    religion denies the power of God.
    God does not belong to any religion.
    ….and so what if God told his prophets to go and kill…there was a reason for it, so get over it.
    …what you don’t quote is that Gods love is as same as his wrath….how much love has God got?…that the same measure of his wrath.
    so all this rubbish about my religion is better than yours is a waste of time.
    look what religions have caused…war, famines, deaths (spanish inquistion) killed millions….and will continue to do so
    answer me this please….what has God got to do with the stupidity and evil of men?…yet they say we do it in Gods name….rubbish.

  • http://abdalhaqq.wordpress.com/ muhammad ‘abd-al haqq

    JahilBob,

    You are definitely a skilled sophist, i give you that. Flogging a dead horse while advocating that we stop doing it?

    “What we all can agree on is that the Koran does not use the word ‘marry’, ‘marriage’ when Lot is recorded in the story of offering his daughters to satiate a mob of lustful men.”

    You really don’t understand Islamic tradition at all, and you display it fully when you attempt your own little tafsir according to the “plain meaning of the text”. You should read up on juristic methodology, principles of jurisprudence, Quranic exegesis, and science of hadith before you comment. If you did then you would know that one of the principles of Quranic exegesis is “Qur’an explains Qur’an”. Here is why Muslim translators “insert” the word “marriage” in the verse and why all the tafsir destroy your argument:

    The story of Lot(as) is not only found in the two aforementioned verses.

    (Qur’an 26:165-166):

    Do you come to the males from among the creatures

    And leave your wives whom your Lord has created for you? Nay you are a people exceeding the limits.

    The other verses must be understood in this light. From this we get a picture not of Lot(as) offering up his daughters for anything(sex,rape, marriage),but using the example of his “daughters” as legitimate mates, to tell the men of the city to have sex with women, in a marital relationship. The rest of your post is your typical hypocrisy and projection.

    “One must decide whether that interpretation makes sense in light of the situation – would a marriage proposal of two women stop a rampaging mob?
    …Would anyone, for a second, think that?”

    It wasn’t a marriage proposal, you’re doing your own tafsir again.

    “I certainly applaud the mental gymnastics you’re willing to perform to make your interpretation logical for you. I’ll stay with the clear reading of the text since I don’t have the faith to believe such a remarkable interpretation.”

    Someone who believes that a Prophet of God got so drunk that he was vulnerable to seduction by his own daughters,and that his daughters actually contemplated and went through said seduction, finds it hard to believe what Muslims say about their own scripture?! You don’t say! I will leave it to readers to decide which story’s interpretation is a result of mental gymnastics. You have a lot of more faith than you proclaim. You have enough faith to justify everything in the Bible, no matter how horrible it sounds. You have enough faith to be sure that your interpretation of Islam is correct in the face actual Muslims contradicting your claims.

    “It should be interesting when non-Muslims read these passages and consider the arguments and give their opinion as to what Lot did.”

    Without being rooted in the Islamic tradition, their opinions, like yours, will be just that; opinions. It will not necessarily reflect what Muslims actually believe about our texts.

    Allahu A’lam

  • Mosizzle

    “One must decide whether that interpretation makes sense in light of the situation – would a marriage proposal of two women stop a rampaging mob?”

    When are you releasing your own Tafsir, Bob? You seem to have more knowledge than all the past scholars of Islam for 1400 years. You only ignore the Muslim’s interpretations of the verse because you would rather project your own flawed understanding upon to the text. Regardless, all major Tafsir find the command to have referred to a marriage.

    It is also clear that you didn’t read my comment. I said that a marriage wouldn’t stop a mob. This proves that Lot didn’t intend that the deal would actually happen. He only did so out of desperation, as a last attempt to save the people from God’s punishment. This was the last minute to act, the mob was at the door ready to rape the men inside. So Lot had to do something, as the Prophet of God appointed to guide the men to the straight path (no pun intended) — so that he could at least tell God that he tried.

    “I certainly applaud the mental gymnastics you’re willing to perform to make your interpretation logical for you. ”

    Please explain to me how you, as a Christian, interpret this story. You are in the same situation as me, except that the Islamic tradition makes it clear that marriage is implied yet the Christian tradition does not. I don’t have to make it seem logical. To me it is logical. At least far more logical than God appointing a man who condones rapes and sleeps with his daughters. In what bizarre world would Josef Fritzl be a Prophet of God?

    “I’ll stay with the clear reading of the text since I don’t have the faith to believe such a remarkable interpretation.”

    But you have the faith to admit that one of God’s appointed men could have offered his daughters to a “ravenous” mob to do ‘whatever they want’ and that he could have slept with them? If you go for a clear reading of the text, no interpretation, you have to believe this.

    “So then why did Lot offer his daughters in the first place?”

    See above.

  • Pingback: Why it is quite clear that the Bible glorifies genocide and the killing of civilians, whereas the Quran does not « Exploring Life, The Universe and Everything()

  • JustBob

    Yeah, flogging this dead horse is getting tiresome. I think even the horse is getting tired.

    What we all can agree on is that the Koran does not use the word ‘marry’, ‘marriage’ when Lot is recorded in the story of offering his daughters to satiate a mob of lustful men.

    One must decide whether that interpretation makes sense in light of the situation – would a marriage proposal of two women stop a rampaging mob?

    Would anyone, for a second, think that?

    I certainly applaud the mental gymnastics you’re willing to perform to make your interpretation logical for you. I’ll stay with the clear reading of the text since I don’t have the faith to believe such a remarkable interpretation.

    It should be interesting when non-Muslims read these passages and consider the arguments and give their opinion as to what Lot did.

    I also don’t see the logic behind the interpretation that Lot merely offered his daughters to the mob but knew the mob would refuse. So then why did Lot offer his daughters in the first place?

    The mind boggles at these quaint views. But bravo to the mental acrobatics being performed.

  • Alastair

    Evening,

    It seems that you miss the time factor. Torah was written 3500 years ago. 2000 years before the Quran was created and 1500 years before the New Testament was compiled. The New Testament is a different type of document entirely from the other two which are complete books. The NT is a collection of seperate cannons produced separately then joined at a later date.

    If I recall correctly the NT has 33(ish) Cannons and this number was decided by the early Church at Constantinoble(Turkey) and each Cannon was assessed and included or declared forbidden from an original of over 50 cannons.

    You are also misunderstanding the Founding Fathers of the United States and their complaints about religious practise.

    You would gather a lot of insight if you were to do some research into the “Enlightenment in Europe” “Calvinism” “Protestantism” “Christian Reformation”

    Basically for hundreds of years we killed each other over method of observance and interpretation of belief much in the same way Muslims do at the moment in the middle east. The religious practices were “Reformed” by the Protest-ant movement who Protested at much of the practise of the Christian church, the manipulation of religious rulings to maintain power for certain families, states. The reasons for wars, etc. etc. (Can you see the similarity)

    After the Reformation and Enlightenment with society no longer being held back by religious rulings. Science, laws, social order and cultural development were able to flourish and we conquered the whole world.

    Northern Ireland Explained – Very quickly and in brief summary

    There are still divisions in the UK from the last changes in 1689. The Rightful King of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland with a history going back over 1000 years and more unbroken bloodline. The King was a Catholic and was deposed by his daughter and her Husband William from Netherlands. Many battles followed the King fled. William died and instead of the Monarchy passing to next in line (Oldest Male of Bloodline) it passed to 52 in line who was first Protestant and a foreigner from Germany called George 1. More wars in Scotland and Ireland,to try to reinstate King.

    To this day the Troubles of Northern Ireland stem from this time. When the Protestant German, replaced the Gaelic Catholic King who was the rightful King by all the laws except the law of the sword.

    The UK then sent many Protestant Scots and English to live there and rule over the Catholic Irish (Iraq Sunni/Shia comparison) It is not just religion, it is culture, monarchy, race and religion.

    People are people. Teach them hate and they hate. Teach them love and they love. Tell them it is US against THEM and they will HATE THEM and make excuses for US.

    It is not what is written in books written 1500-3500 years ago. It is about how we each live today in the here and now.

    Are their Muslims who wish to have Religious Law to be the authority for order in the world. YES.

    Are their Christians who wish to have Religious Law to be the authority for order in the world. YES.

    Do the Muslims have the support of powerful governments and armed militias – Yes

    Do the Christians have the support of powerful governments and armed militias = No

    ACTIONS are what matters not WORDS

  • Mosizzle

    “Are arranged marriages of this type to be followed for all times?”

    I don’t know about a similar thing said by Jesus but the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was clear that the women’s consent is essetial:

    “A [girl who was not married] came to the Messenger of God and mentioned that her father had married her against her will, so the Prophet allowed her to exercise her choice.” (Abu Da’ud, on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas)

    Also, the man and woman are allowed to meet:

    “Go and look at her (the woman you are considering marrying) because this will help your time together to be strengthened. “(Ahmad)

  • Mosizzle

    Ouch. Muhammad abd al haq and NassirH hit Bob where it hurts.

    I guess this just ends the discussion, really:
    “Narrated by Qutada: Allah’s Messenger Lot commanded the people to marry women. (Tafsir Tabari, Commentary on Surah 15:71)”

    I would go on longer but I want to just remind people. This all started when Abdul Haleem mentioned (correctly) that the Quran does not contain some of the stories from the Bible such as the incestuous relationship. Rather than discuss this, Bob, tried to change the subject. He thought that he would find an equally objectionable story in the Quran and the two would just cancel out. However, this argument came crashing down when I decided to read Genesis and lo and behold, the same story was there.

    So to sum up, Bible contains both incest and Lot offering women for marriage. Quran contains just the second one. Bob’s point has been nullified.

    Bob is trying to talk about the ethics of that story, but clearly, God has put both stories in our scriptures. So if Bob has a problem he should take it up with Him.

    Bob mocked me when I claimed that Lot knew his offer was futile. But notice the change of tune as soon as Bob is reminded that the same story is in the Bible:

    “That Lot ‘knew’ his daughters would be rejected by the mob could be said of the Bible, too”

    I also mentioned that obviously Lot knew that 2 women wouldn’t be enough to stop the advance of the mob anyway. But Bob ignored this at first. But now says the same thing after he realises that the same story is in the Bible.

  • NassirH

    Your hypocrisy knows no bounds and you will go to any length to avoid admitting where the Bible sounds worse than the Qur’an.

    I’m sure many will wholeheartedly agree with this comment, including Philip Jenkins who said “Jews and Christians…so ignore their own scriptures that they become self-righteous [towards Islam and Muslims].”

  • http://abdalhaqq.wordpress.com/ muhammad ‘abd-al haqq

    JustBob,

    “Whoosh! That’s the sound of my comment flying over your head.”

    More projection! That’s actually Mosizzle’s comment going over *your* head.

    “So I would say the story, which is recorded in both the Bible and Koran, of Lot offering his daughters up to a vile mob of hedonists is far worse than an inebriated Lot being taken advantage of by his daughters.”

    Only in the Biblical story is he offering up his daughters for sex(rape), but you need to equate the stories(Biblical and Quranic), simply because you cannot deny that the Bible story is horrible. You move goalposts quite nicely. Wasn’t Isa talking about how the story of incest is not found in the Qur’an?

    “How do you know what Lot was thinking and how did Lot know the sexual desires of every man in that mob?”

    Hint: it’s not the same way he knows the verse isn’t about offering up his daughters to be raped….

    “Did he take a straw count to determine that every man was a homosexual repulsed at the sight of women? Did he get lucky that there were no bisexuals in the crowd?..Was Lot unaware of the practices of some cultures in the Ancient world to have a wife but also have relations with men and boys?…You’re making quite a lot of assumptions.”

    It seems that your are the only one making assumptions.

    “So you’re saying Lot offered his daughters to a mob of ravenous men to marry?”

    “Sigh, there’s nothing in the Koran that says Lot offered his daughters to a mob of men for marriage.”

    In light of this statement of mine:”Lot(as) “offering up his daughters” is markedly different from Lot(as)”offering up his daughters for marriage””!, let’s look at some actual tafsir:
    ———————————–
    1.Ibn Kathir

    Concerning the statement,

    (and since aforetime they used to commit crimes.) This means that this did not cease being their behavior until they were seized (by Allah’s torment) and they were still in the same condition.

    (He said: “O my people! Here are my daughters (the women of the nation), they are purer for you…”) This was his attempt to direct them to their women, for verily the Prophet is like a father for his nation. Therefore, he tries to guide them to that which is better for them in this life and the Hereafter. This is similar to his statement to them in another verse,

    (Go you in unto the males of the nation, and leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your wives Nay, you are a trespassing people!)[26:165-166] Allah said in another verse,

    (They (the people of the city) said: “Did we not forbid you from entertaining any of the `Alamin”)[15:70] This means, “Didn’t we forbid you from hosting men (male) guests”

    ([Lut] said: “These (the girls of the nation) are my daughters, if you must act (so).” Verily, by your life, in their wild intoxication, they were wandering blindly.)[15:71-72] Then, Allah said, in this noble verse,

    (Here are my daughters, they are purer for you.) Mujahid said, “Actually, they were not his daughters, but they were from among his nation. Every Prophet is like a father to his nation.” A similar statement has been reported from Qatadah and others. Concerning the statement,

    (So have Taqwa of Allah and disgrace me not with regard to my guests!) This means, “Accept what I command you by limiting the fulfillment of your desires to your women.”

    (Is there not among you a single right-minded man) This means, “Is there not a good man among you who will accept what I am enjoining upon you and abandon what I have forbidden for you”

    (They said: “Surely, you know that we have no need of your daughters…”) This means, “Verily, you know that we do not want our women, nor do we desire them.”

    (and indeed you know well what we want!) This means, “We only want males and you know that. So what need is there for you to continue speaking to us about this” (Tafsir of Ibn Kathir)

    2.Tabari

    “Narrated by Qutada: Allah’s Messenger Lot commanded the people to marry women. (Tafsir Tabari, Commentary on Surah 15:71)

    3. Tafsir Jalalayn

    “And his people, when they became aware of them, came to him, running, hastening, towards him – and previously, before they came, they had been committing abominations, namely, penetrative sexual intercourse with men. He, Lot, said, ‘O my people! Here are my daughters, marry with them; they are purer for you. So fear God, and do not degrade me, [do not] disgrace me, before my guests. Is there not among you any upright man?’, to enjoin decency and forbid indecency?” (Tafsir Jalalayn, Commentary on Surah 11:78)

    He said, ‘These here are my daughters, if you must be doing’, what you desire [to do] in the way of satisfying your lust, then marry them. God, exalted be He, says: (Tafsir Jalalayn, Commentary on Surah 15:71)

    4. Qurtubi also says the same thing in his commentary on Surah 11:78 and Surah 15:71, namely that Prophet Lot meant that the men should go and marry the women of his tribe.
    ——————————-

    And don’t think that this doozie went unnoticed:

    “(and the Koran does allow relations between men and women outside of marriage, but that’s another story)”

    You are definitely following my manual, shifting goalposts and throwing out as many claims as possible to offer distraction from the issues at hand.Your hypocrisy knows no bounds and you will go to any length to avoid admitting where the Bible sounds worse than the Qur’an

    Allahu A’lam

  • NassirH

    “You’re an anti-Semite, a Christianophobe and a Homophobe.”

    I suppose if he was also an Islamophobe your opinion of him would be radically different.

  • NassirH

    “Mosizzle, two of the six Muslim translators inserts the word ‘marriage’ into the verse. That hardly proves that Muslims understand Lot to mean he was offering his daughter up for marriage, especially when one of the translators, Yusuf Ali, has translated other passages of the Koran based on his understanding of modern science, to make the Koran appear miraculous.”

    You’re speaking of verse 15: 71, correct? Most of the translations I checked insert marriage (in one form or another) into to the verse in question.

    [Lot] said, “These are my daughters – if you would be doers [of lawful marriage].” (Sahih International)

    [Lout (Lot)] said: “These (the girls of the nation) are my daughters (to marry lawfully), if you must act (so).” (Muhsin Khan)

    He said: “There are my daughters (to marry), if ye must act (so).” (Yusuf Ali)

    He said, “These are my daughters (to marry), if you would be performing (that).” (Dr. Ghali)

  • NassirH

    This is rich. Bob is criticizing a story that occurs in the Qur’an that occurs in far less acceptable form in the Bible. This is a classic case of calling the kettle black, which of course of JihadBob’s modus operandi.

    “Mosizzle, two of the six Muslim translators inserts the word ‘marriage’ into the verse. That hardly proves that Muslims understand Lot to mean he was offering his daughter up for marriage, especially when one of the translators, Yusuf Ali, has translated other passages of the Koran based on his understanding of modern science, to make the Koran appear miraculous.”

    Let’s check to Tafisrs, shall we?

    “And his people, when they became aware of them, came to him, running, hastening, towards him — and previously, before they came, they had been committing abominations, namely, penetrative sexual intercourse with men. He, Lot, said, ‘O my people! Here are my daughters, marry with them; they are purer for you. So fear God, and do not degrade me, [do not] disgrace me, before my guests. Is there not among you any upright man?’, to enjoin decency and forbid indecency?”

    http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=11&tAyahNo=78&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

    “That Lot ‘knew’ his daughters would be rejected by the mob could be said of the Bible, too, since Genesis presents the mob of men as sodomists, etc.”

    You’re making quite a lot of assumptions. I just hope you’re not trying to convince yourself more than you are me.

  • JustBob

    god sent angels to destroy the faggots, but god didn’t send an angel to prevent incest? this is how your god works?

    Thanks for proving you’re not Jewish, rambo.

    You’re an anti-Semite, a Christianophobe and a Homophobe.

  • MohammedKasib

    It’s funny really, JustBob has managed to derail the whole comments section and hopefully some of you have realized that. He is clearly holding his hands over his ears and creating fallacious arguments that ignore every point that you guys raise. This article will never bring truth to people like him, because they just cannot accept it and instead try to point at “this” or “that” and say blindly “YOU’RE WRONG!” Let’s just ignore him because the truth is he will most likely never change, and as much as we want to help, it won’t do anything.

  • JustBob

    Mosizzle, two of the six Muslim translators inserts the word ‘marriage’ into the verse. That hardly proves that Muslims understand Lot to mean he was offering his daughter up for marriage, especially when one of the translators, Yusuf Ali, has translated other passages of the Koran based on his understanding of modern science, to make the Koran appear miraculous.

    http://qb.gomen.org/QuranBrowser/cgi/bin/get.cgi

    That Lot ‘knew’ his daughters would be rejected by the mob could be said of the Bible, too, since Genesis presents the mob of men as sodomists, etc.

    Thirdly, the alternative interpretation that Lot offers his daughters to an unruly mob of men for marriage (assuming somehow his two daughters could satiate the lustful desires of a mob – and quickly) STILL falls short of modern conceptions of justice and ethics. What kind of screening process is that? Who lets their children be taken in marriage to a group of savages? Are arranged marriages of this type to be followed for all times?

Powered by Loon Watchers