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.

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

  • Cynic

    ^ What kind of warped logic is that Bob? Who the bell puts a picture of a predicted “rebuttal” on the cover of a book?

  • JustBob

    However, the cover of Bob’s book has a picture of a Crusader, which apparently helps prove that Christianity is a religion of peace.

    Actually, when the title calls Christianity a religion of peace, what better way to predict the typical counter ‘rebuttal’ by portraying a crusader on the cover?

    But I’ve already explained this to you several times.

  • Cynic

    However, the cover of Bob’s book has a picture of a Crusader, which apparently helps prove that Christianity is a religion of peace.

    LOL, okay thanks for the info anyway. The title alone of that book is enough to make me cringe in spasms. How can people ever read such obvious propaganda for reasons other than the mucho lulz to be had therein? In Bob’s case, I think he just wanted to be reassured that those terribly evil Muslims don’t have a more peaceful religion than his. Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.

  • NassirH

    I think we can all agree that Robert Spencer is a Catholic apologist and anti-Muslim bigot. Even Bob knows this when he alludes to Perpetual Servitude, a Christian doctrine whose existence Spencer denies. As for the book Bob has read, it’s simply a rehashing of material that is largely available on JihadWatch and in Spencer’s other books. One can take a glance of the back cover and quickly discern that it is nothing but a piece of bigoted propaganda, hence the glowing reviews from Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin. The former advocated for the conversion of Muslims to Christianity by force, while the latter advocated the internment of American Muslims.

    Cynic:

    I think that Spencer advocated for a Crusade against Islam in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, not in the missionary book Bob is alluding to. However, the cover of Bob’s book has a picture of a Crusader, which apparently helps prove that Christianity is a religion of peace. But perhaps more likely, it is simply indicative of Spencer’s passion for militant Christianity, as obvious by his thinly veiled support of the Bosnian genocide (he denies it for the same reasons anti-Semites deny the Holocaust).

  • Cynic

    Well, since I have read Spencer’s book Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is and Islam isn’t,

    Wait was that the one where he calls for a new crusade? Good choice Bob.

    I’ll make the presumption that *you* are shifting the goal posts by making claims on Spencer which Spencer has clarified time and again.

    Do you even know what it means to be shifting the goalposts? Anyway, are you saying that Spencer isn’t of the position that the Quran is a violent book written by a pedophile warlord…no matter how (pseudo)eloquently put?

  • NassirH

    “Spencer clarifies that what he means is that Christians and Jews do not interpret passages in the Bible as being prescriptive verses for Christians or Jews to take as marching orders for all times.

    On the other hand, Spencer proves that Muslims understand several critical verses in the Koran as being for all times and places – whether waging Jihad warfare against non-believers (Koran 9:29) or the verses which criminalize and punish certain behavior.”

    Thank you for clarifying what the fraudulent Spencer does. He takes modern, apologetic Christian interpretations of the Bible and contrasts them with medieval interpretations of the Quran. When this isn’t enough, he fabricates his own interpretations of the Islamic canon, which of course is something you are also guilty of. This biased methodology was exposed in Danios’ articles regarding Dhimmitude, and I’m sure it will be exposed again.

  • Mosizzle

    “Where have you read that? This is a claim often made by Muslim apologists, but historians I have read come to the opposite conclusion.”

    Yes. Even Danios said so in his epic article on Dhimmitude. It talks about Jizya too, for all those interested.

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/11/the-churchs-doctrine-of-perpetual-servitude-was-worse-than-dhimmitude

  • JustBob

    But you are never willing to admit that, so you move the goalposts.

    Well, since I have read Spencer’s book Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is and Islam isn’t, I’ll make the presumption that *you* are shifting the goal posts by making claims on Spencer which Spencer has clarified time and again.

  • JustBob

    Augustine of Hippo became convinced that it was legitimate for Christians to compel conversion with ‘the sword’. That’s historical fact.

    I disagree with you that this would be a fact. Even Danios’ article on Perpetual Servitude shows that later Western Christian theologians adopted Augustine’s stance on non-Christians living in Christian lands. As Danios’ article acknowledges, forced conversion was against Catholic law, hence Augustine’s views.

    Secondly, the quote you’re alluding to actually refers of Augustine’s conflict with the Donatists who were waging a rather violent insurrection. Putting Augustine’s quote in its historical and literal context would show that Augustine believed that the state was required to use force to defeat the Donatists. However, this was a conclusion Augustine arrived at only after Augustine had previously made clear that he was against forced conversion, based, in part, on his interpretation of the Gospels.

    Unfortunately, this misunderstanding of Augustine has spread in pseudo academia with the same force as the discredited belief that Christians believed the earth was flat and Columbus would sail off the edge of the world.

  • Cynic

    Spencer clarifies that what he means is that Christians and Jews do not interpret passages in the Bible as being prescriptive verses for Christians orews to take as marching orders for all times.

    Umm no, just no. You’re just moving the goalposts here. The argument made by bigots such as Spencer and yourself, is that the Quran is a violent book…infinitely more so than the bible. This article is a counter to that, and shows that the reality is actually the opposite. But you are never willing to admit that, so you move the goalposts.

  • JustBob

    You can see why a “level of religious humility” needs to be instilled in Spencer if he loves to boast that there is nothing in the Bible that is more violent than the Quran. Anyways, let’s not drag this into an off-topic discussion about Spencer (he gets his own site).

    Spencer clarifies that what he means is that Christians and Jews do not interpret passages in the Bible as being prescriptive verses for Christians or Jews to take as marching orders for all times.

    On the other hand, Spencer proves that Muslims understand several critical verses in the Koran as being for all times and places – whether waging Jihad warfare against non-believers (Koran 9:29) or the verses which criminalize and punish certain behavior.

  • Cynic

    but I have a right to freedom of speech, either in my home or in the public domain.

    Yes we all know you’re quite giddy about your freedom to spam and troll this site.

  • JustBob

    This is called respect.

    Your analogy fails because I don’t have a right to be in your house but I have a right to freedom of speech, either in my home or in the public domain.

  • JustBob

    In fact I have read, jizya came out to be much less than Zakat.

    Where have you read that? This is a claim often made by Muslim apologists, but historians I have read come to the opposite conclusion.

  • EJ

    AJ, Zakat is a Muslim religious obligation. It would be impossible and not to mention unethical to force non-Muslims to pay Zakat. Because of that, a different tax was created for non-Muslims. Everyone has to pay taxes, but you cannot force a religious obligatory tax on someone who doesn’t follow the religion.

  • Pingback: What the Quran-bashers Don’t Want You to Know About the Bible | Spencer Watch()

  • AJ

    My understanding is that Muslims in an Islamic country would have to pay Zakat which would pay for all the charitable organizations running in that country. Non-Muslims didn’t pay Zakat plus they were exempted from military service so they paid jizya instead. Its not that non-Muslims were paying anything more than the Muslims. In fact I have read, jizya came out to be much less than Zakat.

  • AJ

    Liberty said “And, BTW, why do so many Muslims always describe any criticism of their faith as an insult? And I don’t think I’ve mentioned your prophet.”

    There is a thing called respect. Here! I will give you some examples.

    You don’t take shoes off in your house and consider it a stupid habit but you take it off in someone else’s home if they want it because you are trying to respect their principles. This is called respect.

    You are a big beef eater but when you send a Hindu neighbor a treat, you try not to use beef if they consider cows sacred. This is called respect.

    You may consider Muhammad a fake prophet but for us he holds the highest value among mankind so why is it so difficult for you to show us some respect?

  • Mosizzle

    “There is nothing in the Bible that rivals the Quran’s exhortations to violence”– Robert Spencer pg.19, The Factually Incorrect Guide to Islam.

    You can see why a “level of religious humility” needs to be instilled in Spencer if he loves to boast that there is nothing in the Bible that is more violent than the Quran. Anyways, let’s not drag this into an off-topic discussion about Spencer (he gets his own site).

    And one correction: in the above article I meant to write Danios instead of “Danish” (Damn iPad autocorrect)

  • Mosizzle

    Well said, Stephen. As for you, LibertyPhile, I can immediately detect that you have failed to read this article properly, because the very first sentence contains a link to Danios’ “disclaimer” in which he explains his intentions behind the article. It was realised from the start that loons such as yourself would show up and start blabbing about this being some battle between which religion is more violent and throw out claims like Christians can pick and mix from the Bible etc.

    “It is hoped that pointing to Judeo-Christian scriptural sources that are far more violent than what is quoted from Islamic sources will instill in the extremist Zionists and Messianic Christians a level of religious humility…My fear in so doing, of course, is of offending well-meaning Jews and Christians…To be absolutely clear, I do not think that Judaism and Christianity are violent religions…What I am simply trying to prove is that just because certain Quranic verses seem violent, one cannot make sweeping statements of the religion based on this…no more so than showing certain violent Biblical verses would prove the inherent nature of Judaism or Christianity”

    The whole article is worth the read. If you have read it, then why are you trying to twist the author’s intention with this article to justify your irrelevant question, when you know that’s not what he is intending. You must have seen the Islamophobes that throw out pre-prepared lists of ‘violent’ Quranic verses into a discussion to somehow prove that Islam is super violent and that I have to blow up a shopping mall to be a good Muslim. This is for them. To give them, as Danish put it, a “steaming hot platter of STFU”. How many times do I have to explain that this is a series of articles on Jihad, and your question about Islam will be answered in a future article, so stop wasting our time and wait, like everyone else, for the next article.

    “Patience is a virtue”

  • Concerning LibertyPhile’s last comment (I can’t keep up with or respond to all the various points being argued): the comparison between violence in the Qur’an and that in the Bible is not at all the same as trying to compare the violence that has been associated throughout history with the religions of Christianity/Judaism and Islam. The Bible and the Qur’an are the “Sacred Scriptures” on which those religions are supposed to be based; but there is no guarantee that the supposed followers of those “Sacred Scriptures” have been consistently faithful in their adherence. The comparison between the violence associated historically with the various religions may be interesting; but it is entirely separate from comparing what the different “Sacred Scriptures” have to say about the matter.

    Augustine of Hippo became convinced that it was legitimate for Christians to compel conversion with ‘the sword’. That’s historical fact. But was that practice consistent with the Bible on which he supposedly based his faith? Maybe and maybe not; but one has to determine first what the “Sacred Scriptures” say to determine that.

    Some extremist “Muslims” may be convinced that it’s their duty to “convert or kill” infidels. That seems to be fact. But is that practice consistent with the Qur’an on which they supposedly base their faith? Maybe and maybe not. First you need to determine what the “Sacred Scripture” says.

    Danios’ comparison is between what the “Scriptures” themselves teach. Whether or not the actions of the ‘followers’ is consistent with those “Scriptures” is another question.

    I believe Danios has made the point well that the violence in the Bible far exceeds that of the Qur’an. As I and others have pointed out, the Qur’an calls only for defensive warfare (something almost everyone recognizes as legitimate, and for which no Muslim need be ashamed); and never advocates indiscriminate killing of noncombatants and even animals. Quite a difference from the Bible – and as I said, no Muslim should be ashamed to openly acknowledge his adherence to the defensive warfare advocated in the Qur’an. But any right thinking “Bible believer” should be ashamed of the genocidal atrocities which the Bible attributes to the command of the “Holy” God.

    As I commented on another of this series of articles, a couple of 1st century A.D. documents known as the “Homilies” and “Recognitions” of Clement [of Rome] claim the apostle Peter believed it was essential to recognize the “falsehoods of the Scriptures”. Such genocidal violence (among other things) as Danios has pointed out in the Hebrew Scriptures Peter is said to have vehemently repudiated as “falsehoods”. Interestingly, he is supposed to have said that God deliberately permitted those falsehoods to be inserted into the Scriptures as a test to see who would be ungodly enough to believe them! 😀 A lot of Christians today apparently fail that test of godliness!

  • LibertyPhile

    In asking the question “Which book contains the most violence — the Bible or the Quran” you (loonwatch) are making a comparison between Christianity and Islam, which religion has the most violence associated with it, and it is logical and legitimate to also compare the violence that may have been involved in the spread of each of these religions.

    And, if the response you get doesn’t quite fit in with your publishing plans, don’t blame your readers!

  • Khushboo

    Lib. I never said I pick and choose nor is it right to do that but hey, who am I to judge others?? No one is perfect! I was merely pointing out that we’re all individuals, some more religious than others but none of us disagree with what’s in the Quran. As usual, you only picked on the one thing I said to your advantage.

  • EJ
  • EJ

    Lib:

    That doesn’t back up anything you say. Just go to rightwingwatch.org and have alook at the number of Christian leaders who want the Bible to be our law and actively support that stance not only in the USA but over the world. To say that Christians don’t see the Bible as a guiding light for eternity but only as a history book is just plain wrong when we see the various issues that crop up in politics relating to religion.

Powered by Loon Watchers