Top Menu

What the Quran-bashers Don’t Want You to Know About the Bible

This article is part 4 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?

What the Quran-bashers don’t want you to know is that the Bible is far more violent than the Quran.  In fact, the Bible–unlike the Quran–glorifies genocide; we’ve documented some of these genocide-glorifying passages in our earlier articles: see part 1, part 2, and part 3.

The anti-Muslim bigots–such as the extremist Jewish Zionist Pamela Geller and the fervent, zealous Catholic polemicist Robert Spencerespecially don’t want you to know about the Biblical passages regarding King Saul.  The reason they don’t want you to read these passages is that it would make the Islamic literature look quite tame by comparison, and well, that wouldn’t be too good for the anti-Muslim business, now would it?

It is of course getting tedious, redundant, and a bit boring to document all the God-sanctioned genocides of the Bible; there are too many of them, so they seem to mesh together.  Having said that, Saul’s genocide of the Amalekites warrants special attention, so it would behoove our readers to suffer through one last article on this topic.   It should be noted, however, that our collection of violent Biblical verses is non-exhaustive, limited only by our own boredom.

So, who was Saul?  He was the first king of the United Kingdom of Israel, divinely appointed to this position by the Jewish prophet Samuel.  His first task as king was to ethnically cleanse the land of the Amalekite peoples:

1 Samuel 15:1 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people, over Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord.

15:2 This is what the Almighty Lord says: ‘I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and utterly destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'”

Notice that it was God Himself who ordered Saul to slaughter the Amalekites.  And so King Saul led the Israelites in war against the Amalekites.  Per God’s directives, Saul “put to death men and women, children and infants.”  He killed every human being with the lone exception of the Amalekite king; he also spared some animals.  By sparing King Agag’s life, Saul failed to complete the mitzvah (the religious obligation) of genocide–something which was completely unacceptable to the God of the Bible:

15:7 Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, to the east of Egypt.

15:8 He took Agag, king of the Amalekites, alive, and all his people he utterly destroyed with the sword.

15:9 But Saul and the army spared [King] Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.

15:10 Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel:

15:11 “I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was troubled, and he cried out to the Lord all that night.

Saul tried to defend himself, but God stripped him of his kingship:

15:13 When Samuel reached him, Saul said, “The Lord bless you! I have carried out the Lord’s instructions.”

15:14 But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?”

15:15 Saul answered, “The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the Lord your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.”

15:16 “Stop!” Samuel said to Saul. “Let me tell you what the Lord said to me last night.”

“Tell me,” Saul replied.

15:17 Samuel said, “Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel.

15:18 And he [the Lord] sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.’

15:19 Why did you not obey the Lord? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the Lord?”

15:20 “But I did obey the Lord,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the Lord assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag, their king.

15:21 The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the Lord your God at Gilgal.”

15:22 But Samuel replied: “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

15:23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you as king.”

15:24 Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned. I violated the Lord’s command and your instructions. I was afraid of the people and so I gave in to them.

15:25 Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so that I may worship the Lord.”

15:26 But Samuel said to him, “I will not go back with you. You have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you as king over Israel!”

Saul repeatedly repented for his “failure”:

15:30 Saul replied, “I have sinned. But please honor me before the elders of my people and before Israel; come back with me, so that I may worship the Lord your God.”

And God was sad that He had chosen such a sissy to be king:

15:35 The Lord repented that He had made Saul king over Israel.

Saul was stripped of his kingship, which was given to David–who was frankly just much better at killing civilians.  In fact, all the Israelite chicks fawned over David for being a more proficient killer; all the girls wanted him and all the guys (including Saul himself) wanted to be him:

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.”

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.

Certainly, killing thousands just doesn’t cut it.  The mass murderer field is just so saturated, that you really need to kill tens of thousands to be considered competitive for Heaven University.  No wonder Samuel felt like an absolute idiot for sending a sissy to do a man’s job; realizing this, he cleaned up Saul’s mess:

15:33 Samuel put Agag to death before the Lord at Gilgal.

King Agag was not the only one who was killed: God was so upset over the whole not killing everybody thing that He killed Saul and his three sons.  The prophet Samuel explained to Saul why this was his fate:

28:18 Because you did not obey the Lord or carry out his fierce wrath against the Amalekites, the Lord has done this to you today.

[Using the emotive language of Pamela Geller, would this be a case of the mafioso Jewish god offing one of his goons for failing to carry out a hit–or in this case, a hit against thousands of people?]

According to the Jewish texts (as reproduced on p.76 of Vol.11 of The Jewish Encyclopedia), Saul had protested the commandment to “utterly destroy” the Amalekites, saying:

For one found slain the Torah requires a sin offering [Deuteronomy 21:1-9]; and here so many shall be slain.  If the old have sinned, why should the young suffer; and if men have been guilty, why should the cattle be destroyed?

What Saul didn’t realize was that obeying the Lord’s commandment–in this case to kill women and children–was more important than anything else.  The Bible explains the reason for Saul’s demise:

1 Chronicles 10:13 Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD.  He failed to obey the LORD’s command

A well-renowned Biblical commentary explains:

Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the Lord–in having spared the king of the Amalekites and taken the flocks of the people as spoils [1Sa 15:9],

Today, Jews and Christians revere David over Saul, emphasizing the fact that David was more obedient to God than Saul.  For example, ministry founder Tom Bushnell asks:

When faced with difficult decisions, should we act like King David or King Saul?

…King David and King Saul are as antithetical as any two people in the Bible. If we look at some of the defining moments in their lives, we see two men with drastically different outlooks on life.

When faced with a decision, Saul’s first thought was, “Is this pleasing to me?”

King David’s first thought usually was, “Is my choice pleasing to the Lord?”

Bushnell then gives this specific example to illustrate:

Saul was disobedient when he spared king Agag and the best of the livestock of the Amalekites. (Partial obedience is disobedience).

David was careful to follow the commands of the Lord, even during battle.

One can only imagine the reaction of the Islamophobes–Spencer, Geller, et al.–had the Quran glorified genocide in this way.  In fact, they can never cite verses in the Quran that promote, sanction, or justify genocide–because they simply do not exist.  Indeed, there are explicit statements of the Prophet Muhammad forbidding the killing of women and children.

So next time anti-Muslim bigots troll the net by copying and pasting a litany of Quranic quotes in order to bash Muslims, we encourage readers to link this article about Saul (as well as our earlier articles about Moses, Joshua, Samson, and David)  Reproducing these genocidal verses from the Bible is a good way to serve the Islamophobes a steaming hot platter of STFU, our absolute favorite dish.

Addendum I:

Perhaps the tone of voice in this article is a bit too aggressive, and as always with such topics I have my regrets.  Yet, in the spirit of International Judge a Koran Day, I think a healthy dose of STFU is necessary.  If you want to judge the Quran, then let’s also be sure to judge some Bible.  I’ll see your jihad and raise you a herem.

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

  • Percey

    Also I did notice you responded to DrM’s attempt to blame the Armenian genocide on Jews, however you certainly didn’t ask for him to be banned, the point is my comments are not racist or repulsive unlike other Muslim commentators on here.

  • NassirH
  • Percey

    I’m not familiar with rambo, I haven’t read where you called for him to be banned, link please?

  • NassirH

    I would like to take an opportunity to highlight Percey’s intelligence.

    Percey says: Anyway Nassir you haven’t called for other commentators who have posted racist material to be banned; congrats on revealing your hypocrisy.

    My response: Actually I did. I said “Rambo” should be banned, for example.

    Percey’s response: Once again, you haven’t called for any people who routinely post bigoted comments to be banned…

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_eaKbvlcIK10/TKJTIdP7NcI/AAAAAAAAJd8/pa4PtOjlyFc/s400/headdesk+(net).jpg

  • Garo

    AJ,

    You have certainly chosen correctly the exact English word in describing him: IMBECILE. I could not agree more.

    Thanks,AJ.

    Your support is much appreciated.

  • http://aayjay.wordpress.com/ AJ

    Garo, I am with you. Percey is an imbecile warmonger. I am sure he only learnt hate while growing up.

  • Garo

    Steven G. Parker,

    As a person who was born to Christian parent and brought up strictly so and ended up Agnostic,I take off my hat in due respect to your constructive,impartial and,indeed,outstanding post.

    Thank you,Steven,for having such a beautiful mind. Much apprecited.

  • http://www.mystic444.wordpress.com Stephen G. Parker

    I would like to add my own appreciation for this series of articles by Danios. I think your aim is quite clear, and beautifully achieved.

    I have lived my entire life in the USA, and was raised in a fundamentalist and evangelical Christian family. I am very familiar with the way these people use the Biblical narratives in the ‘Old Testament’ to justify all manner of atrocities. While I ‘apostatized’ from ‘Bible believing’ Christianity almost 25 years ago, my family has remained affiliated with fundamentalism and I am surrounded by such ‘believers’.

    I think it was 2 and a half years ago that I broke down and attended a Kenneth Copeland conference with my wife in the ‘hope against hope’ that God would use his ministry to heal me of neuropathy – which was threatening to bring a close to my truck driving career. (I was in fact disqualified not too long after that due to my neuropathy). During that conference, Ken Copeland made the statement which he apparently loves to make: no Christian ought to oppose war (including the aggressive warfare of the USA), because the Bible says God is a God of war! Those ‘heroes’ of the Old Testament are indeed used as shining examples for us today. It is said in the Bible that God does not change; so since God approved those atrocities back then, He must also approve of it today. It doesn’t matter that the particular ‘nations’ are no longer in existence today; the principle applies to present day ‘ungodly’ nations.

    If it is said that the vast majority of ‘Christians’ worldwide don’t accept those ‘Old Testament’ accounts any longer, and so don’t justify warfare on that basis; a similar point (not exactly the same though) may be made concerning Muslims. The overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide do not believe in or justify terrorist atrocities based on the Qur’an. Those who do are a very small minority.

    The difference is that it is very religious Muslims who denounce terrorism; and they do so BASED ON the Qur’an, not because they deny the authenticity of that holy book. Their reverence for ‘the word of God’ causes them to be very careful in their reading and interpretation of the book; they read it the the immediate context, the wider context of the rest of the Qur’an, and also the context of the times insofar as they are aware of that time context. They know very well that the ‘violent’ texts of the Qur’an always promote only defensive warfare; and they never promote the genocidal violence depicted in the Biblical texts.

    The ‘Christian’ has to find some way to claim that those O.T. passages are no longer applicable (even though he may acknowledge they were appropriate for their time, and despite the fact that “I the LORD change not”). The Muslim can accept the applicability of the Qur’anic principles to present day society – even though times and cultures have changed – because they know that those principles have always been both just and merciful. The horribly violent teachings of the Bible do not exist in the Qur’an. If killing must take place, it is only the guilty aggressors who are to be killed – not everything that breathes! And when the aggressors cease their aggression, the Muslims must cease fighting also.

    There is certainly a vast difference between the Qur’an and the Bible – and Danios is doing a very fine job of exposing that difference. Thanks very much.

  • JN

    I think Percey should permanently change his username to “So What?” since that’s what he’s forced to respond with every time he’s caught in or reminded of one of the countless mistakes he’s made in his campaign of trolling here…

  • Mosizzle

    That was pretty low, Percey. How will he respond?

    ‘Well this person was being anti-Semitic last year on this website and nothing happened to him, so what’s the problem, blah, blah”

  • Garo

    abdul-hamid,

    Thank you for your courteous and matured response,since I was merely raising a question and truly looking to read some answers,based on critical and reasonable thoughts. Your response has certainly met what I was looking for. I have sensed no arrogance whatsoever in your post addressed to me. Again,thank you.

  • Garo

    In his March 27th,2011 at 12:39 am,Percey wrote:

    ” Libya is not an Islamic state so that the question has no place here.”

    While in his March 27th,2011 at 5:35 am,Percey wrote:

    ” I clearly stated that it’s not an Islamic state,there is nothing remotely Islamic about the Libyan government.”

    When I described you,Mr.Percey,as a poster who had/has no idea what he was talking about I was so correct. The proof is in the above two posts of yours:

    ~ In the earlier post,you talked about the Libyan state,a whole country with six million Muslims live within its border. You certainly were not talking about the Libyan government.

    ~ In the later post of yours quoted above,you seem to be unable to differentiate between STATE and GOVERNMENT. The difference in meaning is so great,my boy!

    I suggest that you take the following warning very very seriously:

    My mother has nothing to do with all of the above and she has been dead for the last 20 years. Therefore,I must warn you to keep her out of all of this. She was almost a saint. I let your garbage go unpunished,this time,but if you ever repeat such garbage again,you will hear from me a completely different and unpleasant tune in horrible English. So please be careful.

    Note for the editor of loonwatch.com:
    ======================================

    Dear Mr.Garbaldi,

    I do hope that you read the above warning of mine to Mr.Percey,so that you have the background,in your files,if I let my filthy tongue get unleashed on Mr.Percey,in the future,if he ever again brings my mother,(or father), in the confused world of his. I trust fairness in your decision to publish or to delete. Thank you.

    Sincerely,
    Garo

  • Saladin

    @LibertyPhile
    “But so what! Most Christians …..”
    Yes but there are multiple understandings Muslims have even if they believe it to be the literal word of God, You can not lock Muslims in to one understanding that you or the nutcases who distort for their own personal gain have.

  • http://www.planetgrenada.blogspot.com abdul-halim

    Garo, another difference between the Amalekites and the Libya example is that in the case of the Amalekites, the armies of the children of Israel (according to the Bible) were told by God to commit UNCONDITIONAL genocide. There was no “or else” it was just “kill them all”

  • Safak Ozgun

    “But so what! Most Christians (apart from the Christian fundamentalists you suffer from in the US) don’t have any problem with that. They view the Bible as I first described above, unreliable historical propaganda of the times in which it was written, whereas Muslims (and please correct me if I am wrong) believe the Koran is the literal inerrant word of God. Do you not see the difference?”

    just a few questions to libertyphile:

    1- this claim that most christians view the bible as “unreliable historical propoganda” is weird. ive done some research on the bible, and ive had hundreds of christian friends. ive never heard this from any of them, on the research ive done, and never saw it on any media where the bible was in. this is, in fact, the fist time ive ever heard that christians dont take their bible seriously. where do u get this information from? do u have a source that can verify this?

    2- u make a distinction between fundamentalists & christians, but not for muslims. why is it that christianity is excused for having a fundemantalist minority while muslims are not?

    3- as far as i know, the old testament of the bible is followed by the jews. it is also the basis for zionism, which has caused great suffering for the palestinians. so if the bible was indeed viewed as “unreliable historical propoganda”, then why do certain people use zionism as an excuse to displace thousands of palestinians from their homes?

  • Percey

    “The one who should be terribly embarrassed is the person who rudely has claimed that Libya is not an Islamic country,inspite of the vast majority of its people have been Muslims for century,because it is dictatorship. ”

    I clearly stated that it’s not an Islamic state; there’s nothing remotely Islamic about the Libyan government.

    “What a rude excuse is being used to deny the six million of Libyans who proudly call themselves Muslims,because they have a dictatorship which they are currently trying to overthrow. Such a claim has denied the right of the Muslim population in Libya to have the right of calling their country as an Arab Islamic country,inspite of the dictatorship of Gaddaffi.”

    See above; so much whining and so little reading comprehension.

    “Following such shallow comment that Libya is not an Islamic country,one wonders what the rest of the Islamic world must be called,since most of it has dictatorship like libya. Perhaps,it should be called Mr.Percey’s non-Islamic world,because of dictatorship. Pity!!

    Percey,I must tell you you have no idea what you are talking about. You claim rudely that you do,but you really do not. Your comments about libya are telling,let alone about Islam. Pity!!”

    Your mother should be ashamed for teaching you basic computer skills; something which must have took over a decade.

  • Mosizzle

    Libertyphile,
    “But so what! Most Christians (apart from the Christian fundamentalists you suffer from in the US) don’t have any problem with that.”

    That’s not the point of this article. It is simply to prove that the Bible is more violent than the Quran because many religious Islamophobes are in denial about this fact. And you seem to admit that as well, so it’s cool.

    But wherever people take the Bible uber-seriously, there is problem. Settlers currently violate international law to build houses in the West Bank. Why? Because the Old Testament includes that part in the Land of Israel as Judea and Samaria. George Bush seems to have been quite devout as well and tried to convince the French President to go to war in Iraq by claiming that the Biblical tribe of “Gog and Magog” would come from there. On right-wing Christian sites today, you will be horrified to find people justifying the war on Iraq by quoting Old Testament passages about the destruction of Babylon. Also, the most violent commandments in Deuteronomy are still part of Jewish law today, including the commandment to “put to the sword” all the male inhabitants of a city, but due to international laws this is not carried out. But it’s still part of the law.

    But the Quran can also be misused, and I’m sure you have plenty of examples for that. But to claim that it no longer matters what the Old Testament said is ridiculous.

    But none of this is relevant to the article. The point is simply to get those Christian Islamophobes (Spencer) and Jewish Islamophobes (Geller) to understand that they should apply the same standards to their Holy Book as they do to ours. The following articles will apparently deal with your question.

  • Garo

    Percey,

    The one who should be terribly embarrassed is the person who rudely has claimed that Libya is not an Islamic country,inspite of the vast majority of its people have been Muslims for century,because it is dictatorship. What a rude excuse is being used to deny the six million of Libyans who proudly call themselves Muslims,because they have a dictatorship which they are currently trying to overthrow. Such a claim has denied the right of the Muslim population in Libya to have the right of calling their country as an Arab Islamic country,inspite of the dictatorship of Gaddaffi.

    Following such shallow comment that Libya is not an Islamic country,one wonders what the rest of the Islamic world must be called,since most of it has dictatorship like libya. Perhaps,it should be called Mr.Percey’s non-Islamic world,because of dictatorship. Pity!!

    Percey,I must tell you you have no idea what you are talking about. You claim rudely that you do,but you really do not. Your comments about libya are telling,let alone about Islam. Pity!!

  • DrM

    @Anti-liberty phile,

    Muslims believe that Qur’an is the inerrant word of God, and it is. Islam is not Christianity, nor is the Qur’an the Bible. The difference being that the “fundamentalist” Muslim boogey man westerners who studies his or her religion understands the difference between symbolism and literalism. Find me a Christian leader anywhere ont his planet who is ready to declare war on usury and I’ll be happy to follow such a person. Judging by the conspiratorial nature of your crappy anti-Islam blog its obvious you have no understanding of the subject and how the Bible and Qur’an came to be. But thanks for confirming that you’ve never read the Qur’an or even the Old or New Testament in its entirety.
    Less politics and more reading would do you a world of good.

  • Percey

    That is your baseless opinion, which you are more than welcome to.

  • Garo

    Percey,

    I not only read what you have suggested,but much much more. And you are very very wrong,my boy!

  • Garo

    It is a myth to claim that Islam was spread by Arab conquests,meaning by the sword. Reasons:

    (1) Before appearance of Islam in Arabia,the Arabs of Arabia lived in an endless tribal warfare,one tribe fought another over a well of water or grazing rights for their domesticated animals,mainly camels and horses. In other words,the people of Arabia were completely and totaly disunited and on each other throught for survival.

    (2) Islam brought harmony and unity amongst the inhabitants of Arabia. The Noble Prophet Muhammad was worried about his people of going back to their old ways of tribal warfare after his death. And he said so to his closet Sahib,(companion),Abu Bakr El-Sidiq,who became the First Caliph after Muhammad’s death.

    (3) When the vast majority of Arabs became Muslims,with the exception of some Arab Jewish tribes who lived in Yathrib(Medina now),all Arabs of Arabia thought that the new religion of Islam was sent from the Creator only to themselves(the Arabs of old Arabia). And the Arabs of old did not care to share their new religion with other groups of people who were not Arabs. The Arabs of old Arabia thought that as the Christian and Jews in the old world had their own written scriptures,so did then the Arabs with the new religion of Islam. So they thought,although the essence of Islam was/is universal,indeed.

    (4) Most of the Arab conquests of the old world took place during the rules of the first two Caliphs after the death of the Prophet,namely under the Caliphates of Abu Bakr El-Sidiq and Omar ibn Al-Khattab,respectively. And both of them were concerned like the Prophet before them that the people of Arabia might return to their old ways of tribal warfares. Therefore,the decision to let them fight it outside Arabia had made a lot of sense and it was no difference from the conquests of the world that Assurian empire,persian empire,Alexander the Great,the Roman empire,the Napoleanic empire,the British empire the French empire and lastly but not least,the American empire had/have done.. All these empire were/are imperialistic in nature and has to do with the fabric of the human nature.

    Hence, The Arab conquests were exactly what they were: Arab Imperialism. And it has nothing to do with the way how Islam spread.

    To make a long story short,Islam was spread by Arab merchants who travelled from Damascu and Baghdad to India and southern China and southern Rusia. Through good examples and behviors of Arab merchants,Islam was spread by persuasions. In fact,Arab-Muslim merchants used to buy female slaves just to free them from their slavery. And eventually they married the slaves they freed by buying and had children with them and became families. Hard to believe,is not it? But it is the hard fact which is conveniently ignored where bigotry and hatred strive.

    Cheers for a better tomorrow for all Muslims everywhere……

  • LibertyPhile

    @Nassir

    I am fully prepared to accept (from reputable sources) that the Bible may have more violence in it than the Koran. (I have only ever studied the New Testament, and then only part of it)

    But so what! Most Christians (apart from the Christian fundamentalists you suffer from in the US) don’t have any problem with that. They view the Bible as I first described above, unreliable historical propaganda of the times in which it was written, whereas Muslims (and please correct me if I am wrong) believe the Koran is the literal inerrant word of God. Do you not see the difference?

  • Percey

    Think what you like dear child; I am simply sick to death of discussing that stupid conflict.

  • Tarig

    //Tarig, there’s really no point in arguing with you, arguing about the Israeli-Palestinian wankfest on here has only been a source of frustration.//

    That, or you just can’t disprove the points made, my guess is the later!

Powered by Loon Watchers