This article is part 2 of LoonWatch’s Understanding Jihad Series. Please read my “disclaimer” here, which explains my intentions behind writing this article: The Understanding Jihad Series: Is Islam More Likely Than Other Religions to Encourage Violence?
Who was the most violent prophet in history?
Most readers will immediately assume it was the Prophet Muhammad, thanks to a decades long wave of Islamophobia and a sustained campaign of anti-Muslim propaganda. But here’s a tip: it wasn’t Muhammad. Not by a long shot. In fact, Moses had Muhammad beat by far.
But it wasn’t even Moses. In fact, it was Joshua–a Jewish prophet of Israel. Today, he is regarded by Jews as “a mighty warrior” of the faith, a victorious hero, and a righteous prophet after Moses:
Before he passed away, Moses was very disappointed that he couldn’t complete the ethnic cleansing of the land. He wanted to take part in the genocide of those living past the Jordan:
3:23 At that time I [Moses] pleaded with the Lord:
3:24 “O Sovereign Lord, you have begun to show to your servant your greatness and your strong hand. For what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do the deeds and mighty works you do?
3:25 Let me go over and see the good land beyond the Jordan—that fine hill country and Lebanon.”
God rejected Moses’ plea and declared:
3:28 “But commission Joshua, and encourage and strengthen him, for he will lead this people across and will cause them to inherit the land that you will see.”
And so, the job of genocide was divinely passed on from Moses to his successor, Joshua.
Joshua sought to complete the task that Moses had left undone. It is recorded in the most sacred Jewish holy book, the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament of Christianity), that God Himself commanded Joshua to finish the genocide of the natives living on the other side of the Jordan River:
Joshua 1:1 After the death of Moses the servant of the Lord, the Lord said to Joshua son of Nun, Moses’ aide:
1:2 “Moses my servant is dead. Now then, you and all these people, get ready to cross the Jordan River into the land I am about to give to them—to the Israelites.
1:3 I will give you every place where you set your foot, as I promised Moses.
1:4 Your territory will extend from the desert to Lebanon, and from the great river, the Euphrates—all the Hittite country—to the Great Seaon the west.
1:5 No one will be able to stand up against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will never leave you nor forsake you.
1:6 Be strong and courageous, because you will lead these people to inherit the land I swore to their forefathers to give them.”
The city of Jericho stood between Joshua and the land he was to conquer. As one city after another fell to the sword of Judaism, the people of Jericho feared for their fate. Would they too be subjected to ethnic cleansing?
One of the natives of the city, a woman by the name of Rahab, was so fearful of the wild-eyed massacres that the God-chosen people were known for that she said:
Joshua 2:9 “I know that the LORD has given you the land, and that your terror is fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land are deathly afraid of you.
2:10 For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea before you, when you came out of Egypt; and what you did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were beyond the Jordan, unto Sihon and to Og, whom you utterly destroyed.
2:11 No wonder our hearts have melted in fear! No one has the courage to fight after hearing such things.”
Rahab offered to hide Israelite spies, who were sent to engage in stealth jihad stealth herem. In exchange for her services, she begged the Israelites to spare her family from the brutal massacre that was sure to come after the conquest of her city. Rahab implored:
2:12 “Now then, please swear to me by the LORD that you will show kindness to my family, because I have shown kindness to you. Give me a sure sign
2:13 that you will spare the lives of my father and mother, my brothers and sisters, and all who belong to them, and that you will save us from death.”
The Israelites agreed, but warned her:
2:19 “If anyone goes outside your house into the street, his blood will be on his own head; we will not be responsible.”
In other words, every living thing in that city—except what was in her house—was to be utterly destroyed. The entire city was to be smitten as a sacrifice to the Lord:
6:17 The city and all that is in it are to be devoted to the Lord. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall be spared, because she hid the spies we sent.
As a footnote clarifies, “devoted” to the Lord means: “The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the LORD, often by totally destroying them.”
[The illustration at the top of this article is of the Battle of Jericho. Readers will notice the Jewish shofars, ram horns used in times of war. The Israelites sounded these shofars prior to invading the city and slaughtering all of its inhabitants. It is in this context that the anti-Muslim protesters in Orange County used them against Muslim-Americans in that now famous video.]
To their credit, the Israelite invaders fulfilled their promise, sparing those in Rahab’s house. They did, however, kill everyone else, women and children included:
6:21 They devoted the city to the Lord and utterly destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
However, the silver, gold, bronze, and iron were taken as plunder:
6:19 But all the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron are sacred to the Lord, and must go into his treasury.
And the city was razed to the ground:
6:24 Then they burned the whole city and everything in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the Lord’s house.
After “utterly destroying” Jericho, Joshua and the believers turned their attention to the city of Ai:
8:1 Then the Lord said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the kings of Ai, his people, his city and his land.
8:2 You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city.”
8:3 So Joshua and the whole army moved out to attack Ai. He chose thirty thousand of his best fighting men and sent them out at night
8:4 with these orders: “Listen carefully. You are to set an ambush behind the city…”
Joshua continued:
8:7 “You are to rise up from ambush and take the city. The Lord your God will give it into your hand.
8:8 “When you have taken the city, set it on fire. Do what your Lord has commanded. See to it! You have my orders.”
As per their orders from God and his prophet, the city was razed:
8:19 They entered the city and captured it and quickly set it on fire.
When the men of Ai fought back, they were decimated by Israel:
8:22 Israel cut them down, leaving them neither survivors nor fugitives.
After cutting down the soldiers, the Israelites entered the city to kill off all the civilians (twelve thousand men and women altogether):
8:24 When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and the in the wilderness where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it.
8:25 Twelve thousand men and women were put to death that day—all the people of Ai.
8:26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed all who lived in Ai.
8:27 But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the Lord had instructed Joshua.
8:28 So Joshua burned Ai and made it a permanent heap of ruins, a desolate place to this day.
The king’s body was then mutilated:
8:29 [Joshua] impaled the body of the king of Ai on a pole and left it there until evening. At sunset, Joshua ordered them to take the body from the pole and throw it down at the entrance of the city gate.
And then the believers built a triumphal mosque triumphal synagogue:
8:30 Then Joshua built on Mount Ebal, an altar to the Lord, the God of Israel.
Terror and fear of the genocidal wrath of the believers spread far and wide, just as the God of the Bible promised. One such people who were struck with dread were the people of Gibeon, who offered themselves up as slaves in exchange for their lives. The Gibeonites said to Joshua:
9:24 “We feared for our lives because of you, and that is why we did this.”
The Gibeonites were permitted to live so long as they “left idolatry” and lived under the “yolk of servitude”. They were consigned to the curse of perpetual servitude and permitted only to be “woodcutters and water carriers”, which were considered “very low and mean employment”:
9:23 “You are now under a curse: You will never cease to serve as woodcutters and water carriers for the house of my God.”
Joshua had thus destroyed Jericho and Ai, and neutralized Gibeon. The neighboring five Amorite kingdoms became aware that the Israelites were headed for them next, and formed a coalition to defend themselves. However, the Amorite coalition was soundly defeated by the Israelite army, and the five Amorite kings fled to a cave in Makkedah. The Israelites captured the kings and Joshua had them humiliated and executed:
10:24 When they had brought these kings to Joshua, he summoned all the men of Israel and said to the army commanders who had come with him, “Come here and put your feet on the necks of these kings.” So they came forward and placed their feet on their necks.
10:25 Joshua said to them, “Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Be strong and courageous. This is what the Lord will do to all the enemies you are going to fight.”
10:26 Then Joshua struck and killed the kings and hung them on five trees, and they were left hanging on the trees until evening.
10:27 At sunset Joshua gave the order and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had been hiding.
The Israelite vengeance was also savaged upon Makkedah (the city where the five kings had fled to), which was ethnically cleansed:
10:28 That same day Joshua captured and destroyed the town of Makkedah. He killed everyone in it, including the king, leaving no survivors. He destroyed them all.
The Israelite army then did the same to the southern cities, putting all to the sword—men, women, and children. First, the city of Libnah:
10:30 The city [of Libnah] and everyone in it Joshua put to the sword. He left no survivors there.
Then Lachish:
10:32 The Lord handed Lachish over to Israel, and Joshua took it on the second day. The city and everyone in it he put to the sword, just as he had done to Libnah.
Then Eglon:
10:35 They captured [Eglon] that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish.
Then Hebron:
10:37 They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors. Just as at Eglon, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it.
Then Debir:
10:39 They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors.
The killing was thorough and complete:
10:40 So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded.
10:41 Joshua subdued them from Kadesh Barnea to Gaza and from the whole region of Goshen to Gibeon.
10:42 All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one campaign, because the Lord, the God of Israel, fought for Israel.
After the decimation of the southern cities, the northern cities banded together to fight off Israel. The Israelites responded in the familiar way—killing every man, woman, and child:
11:11 The Israelites completely destroyed every living thing in the city, leaving no survivors. Not a single person was spared. And then Joshua burned the city.
11:12 Joshua slaughtered all the other kings and their people, completely destroying them, just as Moses, the servant of the LORD, had commanded.
11:13 But the Israelites did not burn any of the towns built on mounds except Hazor, which Joshua burned.
11:14 And the Israelites took all the plunder and livestock of the ravaged towns for themselves. But they killed all the people, leaving no survivors.
11:15 As the LORD had commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua. And Joshua did as he was told, carefully obeying all the commands that the LORD had given to Moses.
Joshua then utterly destroyed the Anakites:
11:21 During this period Joshua destroyed all the Anakites…He killed them all and completely destroyed their towns.
11:22 No Anakites were left in Israelite territory; only in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod did any survive.
11:23 So Joshua took the entire land, just as the LORD had directed Moses, and he gave it as an inheritance to Israel…
After all this death and destruction…
11:23 … Then the land had rest from war.
By this time, Joshua was on his deathbed and gave parting instructions to his people. He promised them that they would drive out the survivors from amongst the vanquished nations and usurp their land:
23:1 Now it came to pass, a long time after the LORD had given rest to Israel from all their enemies round about, that Joshua was old, advanced in age
23:2 And Joshua called for all Israel, for their elders, for their heads, for their judges, and for their officers, and said to them: “I am old, advanced in age.
23:2 You have seen all that the LORD your God has done to all these nations because of you, for the LORD your God is He who has fought for you.
23:4 See, I have divided to you by lot these nations that remain, to be an inheritance for your tribes, from the Jordan, with all the nations that I have cut off, as far as the Great Sea westward.
23:5 And the LORD your God will expel them from before you and drive them out of your sight. So you shall possess their land, as the LORD your God promised you.”
And so died Joshua, the most violent prophet in all of history.
Addendum I:
Aside from the sheer magnitude of Joshua’s killings, the major difference between Joshua and Muhammad is the issue of targeting civilians. Joshua, like Moses, targeted and killed civilians–women, children, babies, and the infirm elderly. The Bible states that Joshua “utterly destroyed with the sword every living thing in it–men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.” (Joshua 6:21) On the other hand, the Prophet Muhammad “forbade the killing of women and children.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.4, Book 52, #258)
Addendum II:
The historicity of the Biblical account–of Moses, Joshua, and the Exodus/Conquest–is discussed here.
Addendum III:
My intention in writing this article is not to bash Judaism or Christianity, but rather to refute a common argument raised by Islamophobes. To fully understand why I wrote this article, make sure you’ve read this: The Understanding Jihad Series: Is Islam More Likely Than Other Religions to Encourage Violence?
Update I:
I cannot reiterate enough how much I really, really didn’t want to write this article because I know it could offend Jewish and Christian readers–but I simply do not see how I can convincingly refute the Islamophobic argument without doing it this way.
March 14th, 2011 at 11:49 am
With all due respect Danios, wasn’t the first article enough? This seems a bit overkill imo.
March 14th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
yah i agree with cynic, why not compare mohammad to jesus. The islamaphobes will use these articals and say things like “well this proves the bible is the truth” said by SOME ONE last post. If you were to compare the prophet (pbuh) to jesus, the christian islamaphobes would be speachless there only cover to use stupid comments with no logic in them what so ever
March 14th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Farther more isnt loon watch turning more like jihad watch with these artical demonizing jews and christian?
March 14th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
check out bottom, addendum 111 where he says he wasn’t bashing Judaism or Christianity.
March 14th, 2011 at 12:18 pm
sorry, didn’t get to finish (someone at the door) when people say your Quran is violent, we can point out these lines and show their hypocrisy.
March 14th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Why not do an artical criticizing islam for the sake of fairness. These articals may incite hatred in some muslims, i no of no modern day christian that would hurt a muslim.(few exeptions). Though i am a muslim and i share there beleifs and always will there is a fine line between defence and offence. It is true that i enjoy articals and i may sound like hypocrit becuase in previous articals a i slandered people who brought the thread off track, so though this may regretebly help in doing so im just trying to voice my opinion. There are reasons why people think islam is out to destroy christianity and it is artical like this that make people beleive that moozlims are out to get them. I know im not nearly as a professional writer as danios but wouldnt it make more since to clear up spencer misconceptions in his book rather than doing the polar opisit and attack cathlics and jews. There fare many loyal jewish loon watchers that will get upset with this, most jews are good people exepting zionists. You can start by making the sence of the battles of the prophet (pbuh) to people who thought he did it for the sake of violence. I dont think this site was meant to mirror bigots like robert spencer, rather to expose the errs on there books and websites. Again i just hope that there will be a post telling readers more about the peacefull life the prophet (pbuh) had. Again do not take the thread off topic (as badly as i might have). Thank you danios for the time and effort in the website
March 14th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
yes and i saw that part of the website the addendum 111, but it sounded a little like robert spencer excuse for his hatred of muslims. I dont think it was danios intention to sound like that and im sure he is a good person but that dosnt matter, its what the islamaphobes think and islamaphobes may use these articals as leverage to hate muslims like me and you
March 14th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
* i realize when i said you there are many non muslims on staff (including danios) forgive my err
March 14th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
This is truly interesting as I haven’t read the old testament; the stories present here make the battles of the Prophet (SAW) seem like a walk in the park. Kudos to you Danios for bringing this to the forefront, many people would rather ignore these Biblical truths and project upon the Muslims horrendous atrocities that need to be taken in relative context to the times that they occurred. I hope the readers do the same with the stories you are presenting sir, ie, take them in context, and realize that Islam is peaceful in comparison to the other Ibrahimic traditions.
Now what about Jesus and the parable of sword?
March 14th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
* The Sword. do’h!
March 14th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
I just think it’s redundant to now compare the Prophet to Joshua. It’s going from making a very valid point (ie: in the first article) to borderline tu quoque in this one.
March 14th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Uh if the article is pointing out FACTS about what is in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, how is it exactly bashing Judaism and Christianity? And Moses is a Muslim prophet too, so if Moses had genocidal tendencies then that means Muhammad and Muslims revere a genocidal maniac just like Jews and Christians do.
Great post Danios! It’s easy to shut Christian/Jewish Islamophobes, but atheits its different. So why not do a post for Atheists? Loonwatch really needs to post about the New Atheists, they have created numerous Atheist Islamophobes, many of them are way more Islamophobic than Christian Islamophobes. And maybe even tackle those youtube “stars” who get views/revenue off of bashing Muslims like Pat Condell, ZOMGItsCriss, Thunderf00t etc.
March 14th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Also to defend jewdizem there told that they have to live in peace with the 5 kings of philistine. Thats why there are so many orthadox jews that do not want the state of israel, we need to support judizems followers becuase they are the brothers to the arabs and many are fighting for the palistinians rights, though through criticizem. The people in america and israel are being brainwashed into thinking muslims are the enemy and that real jews that listen to there god are self hating. What jews need to do is what the angel gabrail told mohammad (pbuh) to do, that is to read the torah and see the verse that tells them to live in peace.
March 14th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
The parable of the sword in christianity also in the Noble Quran,its not a real sword its about peircing some ones heart with the truth. If we where to use that verse against them than the islamaphobes could easly use the islamic sword.
* i worded the second to last line wrong in my previous post heres what it meant to sound like: What jews need to do is what the angel gabrail told mohammad (pbuh) to do, that is to read, read the torah and see the verse that tells them to live in peace
March 14th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Keep up the great work Danios!
March 14th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
This seems a bit overkill imo.
I always go for “overkill” when I debate with someone. I like them well done.
Much more to come. Much much more overkill. All to prove–without any shadow of a doubt–that this here is true:
the stories present here make the battles of the Prophet (SAW) seem like a walk in the park.
This “overkill” will also make it crystal clear that the Bible is far more violent than the Quran…exactly so that the readers can do this:
when people say your Quran is violent, we can point out these lines and show their hypocrisy.
With regard to the claim that the site is thus becoming like JihadWatch, would JW ever argue that you can’t call Islam “violent” just because certain Quranic verses appear so? That’s what I said of Judaism.
There is no other way to silence the Islamophobes. The first few parts of the series will show the Judeo-Christian side, and then after that, we’ll go into the Islamic side. Only after the former is complete can the latter be compared to it…and only then can we validate or reject the Islamophobic claim that Islam/Allah/Muhammad/Sharia/etc. are *uniquely* violent.
As for DefenderOfIslam, I am pretty sure she is a sock puppet.
March 14th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
I really don’t see why everyone is complaining. The disclaimer is more than sufficient enough, and he makes constant emphasis on *not* making these articles based on his own bigotry towards anybody (there’s no evidence he’s a bigot to begin with). Secondly, I learned a few things from this one, which I can only give my thanks. The series is a good one, and I’m sure he’s more than willing to tackle any attempted rebuttals back from Mr. Spencer and his legion of loons.
March 14th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
I suppose that the loons are going to rant about Muhammad’s raids again. Of course, there are many fundamental problems with that, e.g. Islamic law punishes highwaymen.
“One who cuts will not enter Paradise.” (Reported by al-Bukhari)
March 14th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
I am Jewish, and I do not think any faith should be above criticism. All three of the monotheistics faiths seem contradictary at times, sometimes encouraging peace, sometimes not, but in order for there to be peace, we must learn to accept our flaws and other peoples flaws.
March 14th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
I’ve heard Islamophobes always say that they can never accept that Allah is the same as the Judeo-Christian God because “God is about love and Allah is about war”. Roland Shirk and Robert Spencer said the same thing. Now I’m thinking — have they even read the Old Testament?
March 14th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
DefenderofIslam, I don’t see what you’re complaining about. Please read the following article; it was linked to in the first paragraph of this article for a reason.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/03/the-understanding-jihad-series-is-islam-more-likely-than-other-religions-to-encourage-violence/#comm
March 14th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Fantastic stuff as always. This is very critical in silencing Islamaphobes who have no concept of the history of Allah’s Prophets (Peace Be Upon Them)
March 14th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
^damn straight! No more being politically correct, as the islamophobes love saying lately. Enough of them having the gall to call our religion violent! Hopefully, this will shut them up. Ofcourse they’ll move on to something else then.
March 14th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Thanks, TheDemiprist.
The series is a good one, and I’m sure he’s more than willing to tackle any attempted rebuttals back from Mr. Spencer and his legion of loons.
Yep. Mine a multiple-layered attack. I will slowly refute each and every argument (and counter-argument) they have. I’ve been reading their arguments for years, and I have them compiled in my head. I have a refutation to each and every one of them, but it will take time to write the rebuttals.
In the meantime, the Islamophobes won’t be able to counter my articles, i.e. they can’t refute the fact that Moses and Joshua were more violent than Muhammad. Instead, they’ll move on to another argument, one which I am still getting to. I will certainly get to “raids” and other such stuff when I come to the topic of Muhammad’s wars. All in good time. In the meantime, do the Islamophobes cede the point that Moses/Joshua were more violent than Muhammad? Yes or no?
Mindy1:
Thanks. I agree with you. The Jewish tradition is very rich, dynamic, and fascinating. My intent in bringing up Biblical verses is not to refute that. My point is only to say that just like those Biblical verses don’t mean that Judaism is XYZ, likewise it doesn’t mean that Islam is if you just quote some Islamic texts. That’s all.
I don’t know how to prove that point convincingly without doing it the way I am doing.
March 14th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
No more being politically correct, as the islamophobes love saying lately
Although I do appreciate the fact that you like this series, I would like to point out that I would never be one to complain about “political correctness.” Whenever people invoke the “political correctness” complaint, it is almost always when they are just being incorrect, intolerant, racist, etc. When people are accused of being “politically correct”, usually it’s just that person being reasonable, nuanced, intelligent, and tolerant.
March 14th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
I agree with you, Mindy. These posts are not about refuting Jews or Judaism. In fact, antisemites use these same quotes that Danios has provided, to “prove” that Jews are “inherently” violent. The same tactic was used by the Nazis in their propaganda film, “The Eternal Jew.” The narrator even said, after quoting some harsh verses out of context, that Judaism was “not a religion”, but a “political” ideology…..
March 14th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Your welcome.
While I consider the texts of all three Abrahamic faiths fiction – there’s something about the deaths of warmongers like Moses and Joshua that gives a sense of relief. These are the fantasy writings of an early Jewish priesthood as far as I’m concerned, not that of texts written after the supposed historic “fact” of The Exodus. While we may disagree on the historicity, we do in fact agree that showing the Islamophobes the error in their own attempted logic is the best way to tackle their paranoia. So, cheers to you Danios!
I have a book written by a Jewish convert to Islam, pretty neat stuff. There’s nothing that suggested an appeal to Islamophobia, so it’s a very comforting read.
sources:
http://www.amazon.com/Message-Quran-Muhammad-Asad/dp/1904510353/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1300134095&sr=1-1-catcorr
http://www.scribd.com/doc/10720330/Message-of-Quran-Muhammad-Asad-Islam-Translation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Asad
March 14th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
As far as I’m concerned, “politically correct” means to reword something but it still has the same definition. How anyone could make such slippery slope fallacies in suggesting that leads to war or other inhumane activity, I haven’t a clue. Saying “canine” instead of “dog” doesn’t mean we’re going to have a nuclear holocaust.
March 14th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
What’s that fat guy’s name, he will be all wound up and twitchy.
March 14th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Thanks once again, Danios. Islam teaches that when one take an ‘innocent’ life unlawfully, it were as if one has taken all humanity from the face of the earth. There’s no political rhetoric that can averse this moral law, you will agree.
We also know that Jesus Christ (on whom be peace) again and again reiterated that he did not come to bring peace, even though his modern-day disciples ignorantly call him the ‘PRINCE OF PEACE’, but the sword. A ‘spiritual’ sword cutting ‘a physical’ ear of the High priest’s servant? That’s new to me. We knew full-well that if the sword of peter in the Garden of Gethsame had prevailed, we would have witnessed a massacre, equal to that of his ancentor Joshua, meaning Lord, Saviour, who have “killed men, women, children, an ox and donkeys; all with the edge of sword”(Joshual 6:21 )
March 14th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
keep up d good work danios…
Since everyone cannot understand clear truths on the same level, the way of abstract description was abandoned in favor of demonstration, representation and personification.
March 14th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Hey Danios,
Excellent article, excellent points, you didn’t come off as rude or hateful, it sounded intelligent and was very clear. Now if I can say something, and many of you may agree. Islamophobes, xenophobes, racistS, porch monkeys/ JihadWatchers, etc etc all those that come on this site do not read these articles. They just don’t. Maybe they read articles on other websites that oppose them but not loonwatch. Why? Because the cannot counte or refute, they cannot address the points so their mentality when attacking Islam or commenting on this article is not to refute any claims intellectually or anything like that it is to just bombard us with already refuted arguments or make what they perceive as witty sarcastic remarks or very cheesy attempts at humour. I wouldn’t be surprised. They probably get together and discuss it “Alright it doesn’t matter what they say, what argument,what reasoning, just make them angry make them feel bad even if u have to use dirty and disgusting language” lol anyway great article thank you and I wait in anticipation for your next masterpeice.
March 14th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
What I meant by “no more politically correct” is no more hiding the truth about other religions out of fear of offending someone. However, Islamophobes’ version of “no more politically correct” is to be racist/xenophobic/Islamophobic and it’s proven every time they open their filthy mouths and say “go back home” or “Muslims are being radicalized”!
March 14th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Demipris- I’m sorry to say this but there’s no a fairy tale such as ‘Abrahamic faiths’. There’s is only one truth, and that’s submission and surrender to the will of God in peace. All the genuine messengers of Almighty God (Anbiya’) such as Musa (Moses), Yahya (John the Baptist), Isa ( Christ Jesus) and Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them all) practised and preached the same truth, in which the arabic word is Islam.
I’m commenting here for the first time, but i would say that I always have admired the great job LW is or has been doing. Keep it up Danios. Let the islamophobes get the taste of their own medicine. By the meantime, islam is still the fastest growing religion in the entire world. It is growing at a faster rate than Christianity and all religions together, making many Christians worried.
March 14th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
I wish Danios was muslim, I noticed some of the best defenders of Islam are non-muslim. I like the over-kill keep it up.
–
In fact i believe some might convert to islam after reading about moses, jesus and other prophets/messengers in the holy Bible.
None muslims should note that Moses/Jesus etc are completely different in the Quran/Islam. So according to the Bible Moses, Joshua etc are evil murderes killers etc.. where as they are not in the Quran.
What ever Danios wrote has been used countless times in muslim-christian debates which you can watch online.
March 14th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
The Israelites sounded these shofars prior to invading the city and slaughtering all of its inhabitants. It is in this context that the anti-Muslim protesters in Orange County used them against Muslim-Americans in that now famous video.
I can’t tell if you’re being satirical or not, but if you’re actually claiming that because ram horns were used in the Bible, that then means protesters who use them are genocidal minded, that would certainly be a Judeophobic smear that is so often rampant on the far Left and Muslim circles.
However, Islamophobes’ version of “no more politically correct” is to be racist/xenophobic/Islamophobic and it’s proven every time they open their filthy mouths and say “go back home” or “Muslims are being radicalized”!
Right, because everyone who confronts the apologetic rhetoric of Islam and Muslims says ‘go back home’.
The fact is, is that the Muslim narrative regarding the texts and teachings of their religion following 9/11 was the dominant narrative and it has only been in the past several years where bloggers and scholars have successfully debunked the talking points regarding Islam to the West.
Muslims are less likely to claim that Jihad is an interior spiritual struggle or that Islam literally translates into peace because they now realize Westerners are more informed about Islam.
March 14th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Thank you? That was realy nice to say to someone who supports you danios, btw im only like 15 so im still learning.
March 14th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Then what were the shofars doing at the protest? They were being used as a call to war — and I certainly hope it’s not the type of war that was waged by Joshua (
). Just like Muslim extremists, many Jewish and Christian extremists, like those in the video, view this as a massive war between good and evil.
“that would certainly be a Judeophobic smear”
Islamophobe whines about Judeophobia…
“bloggers and scholars have successfully debunked the talking points regarding Islam to the West.”
If you’re talking about Spencer, then it’s quite clear that he has failed to do so. His Dhimmitude nonsense was rebutted by Danios and Spencer was unable to respond. It’s quite clear that bloggers and “scholars” (?) haven’t been successful if their lies can be destroyed very easily on sites such as Loonwatch.
“Muslims are less likely to claim that Jihad is an interior spiritual struggle or that Islam literally translates into peace because they now realize Westerners are more informed about Islam.”
Any evidence for this claim? Muslims aren’t going to change their beliefs just because someone else perceives it differently. And Jihad isn’t entirely an “interior spiritual struggle”, it’s just that some Muslims (such as some Sufis) believe that the inner struggle is more important than fighting.
Anyways, let’s not get into this, I’m sure this is discussed in a later article. We can talk about it then.
March 14th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Looking back at my comments i feel like a douch i didnt mean to imply that loonwatch was like jihad watch, the comment was that i think that jews are a neccecary allie for muslims to have and robert spencer has a diclaimer in part of his website he even says: “I dont mean to deamonize all muslims just the parts of the quaran where they get the violent verses from”. Now i realize that mabey robert spencer dosnt 100 percent of the time follow his words, hes a hypocrit. What exactly is a “sock puppet”? I tried to be some what curtious in my approach to tell my opinion. I geuss im just sencitive to criticizem. I hate what robert spencer and friends try to get people to beleive,it must be a pain in the a** to deal with commenters like me but you could have been a little more gentel with dealing with some one who disagrees with you. I must admitt however that i didnt read the before post to intencely ( bad habit tend to skim though literature, hehe) im sorry for my posts that didnt focus on the issues im also sorry for my critque on the post when i didnt even intently look at the explanation that was linked to the artical. Basicly im just over all sorry about my ignorance and i will never again post with such stupid words.
March 14th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
You want evidence that Muslims and their apologists frequently claimed Jihad meant peaceful interior struggle or that Islam literally translated to ‘peace’?
Now, I very rarely hear apologists for Islam make this claim, but just a few years ago, respected academics such as Esposito and Khaled Fadl were making claims that Jihad meant interior struggle or that there is no concept of war in Jihad, etc., etc.
March 14th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
“You want evidence that Muslims and their apologists frequently claimed Jihad meant peaceful interior struggle or that Islam literally translated to ‘peace’?”
No. I want evidence that Muslims have stopped saying these things just because Westerners have “learned” more about Islam. I still see Muslims say these things, even when they are amongst Muslims only (when they are out of “taqiyya” mode). I’ve heard people say that Inner Jihad is better than Violent Jihad and that Islam comes from a root word meaning peace, this is way after Spencer spilled the beans on our very secret religion and everyone found out about our plan to take over the world.
March 14th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
“Right, because everyone who confronts the apologetic rhetoric of Islam and Muslims says ‘go back home’.”
Remind me again, but wasn’t it you who wanted to discriminate against Muslims who weren’t American citizens? Specifically, you argued that restricting the immigration of Muslims as opposed to other groups was constitutional, because they weren’t American citizens.
JustBob Says: “Too many damn Moozlims in my country!”
March 14th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
And it was him who wanted Turkish Muslims to go home.
March 14th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
“Europe’s ever lasting debt to Islam” A G Leonard
—
“The rise of Islam Is perhaps the most amazing event in human history”
A M Stoddard
—
“Islam: The most CIVILISED and PROGRESSIVE” A M Stoddard
March 14th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
JustBigoted:
Are you seriously calling Spencer a scholar? Perhaps you can answer why he is rejected almost universally by academia? As Michael Kruse says, “When it comes to Robert Spencer scholars of Islamic studies outright dismiss him and his body of work. They call him an unreliable ideologue at best and a divisive bigot at worst.” It seems to me that the only people who follow him are clowns and bigots, such as yourself.
Oh, and why is Danios—who his simply an anonymous blogger, as the loon are so fond of labeling him—able to find so many errors in his book? I also took a look at his book, and it wasn’t very hard to realize Spencer’s modus operandi. Either he presents only one opinion, which is often the minority opinion, or he outright lies and misleads.
March 14th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
“…Judeophobic smear that is so often rampant on the far Left and Muslim circles.”
Aren’t most Jews Democracts? In other words, are they part of the dreaded Left? Also, there sure seem to be a lot of well known Leftist Jews, e.g. Max Blumenthal.
March 14th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Can someone please name me a respected scholar of Islamic studies who thinks Muslims are taking over the West via stealth Jihad? Anyone? Am I yet again forced to disregared Bob as a loon? Again?
March 14th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Maybe there is a place to put all thoughts of war to one side and focus on mediated solutions, letting people find their best paths of evolution?
- Muslim countries do not have much in the way of military technology to take on the West.
- The US does not have the oil reserves, nor any more cash in its piggy bank nor credit from China to wage another major war?
Ergo, we have a stalemate/draw? Is there a place to consider how we could build a peaceful world together, possibly using the Constitution of Medina and the several thousand years of Western democracies as a jumping off point?
Respectfully, Daniel
March 14th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
I think a lot of people here are missing the point of these posts.
The point is not to demonise Christianity or Judaism or any other faith. The point is simply to respond to the spencerians in a manner which displays their hypocrisy and double standards when they claim that Islam is “uniquely” violent.
That is all. No more. No less.
Great post btw.
March 14th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
“Judeophobic smear” lol! Sounds like the spencerstein posts all over again. Of course as usual, JahilBob wasn’t able to refute anything here.
“The fact is, is that the Muslim narrative regarding the texts and teachings of their religion following 9/11 was the dominant narrative and it has only been in the past several years where bloggers and scholars have successfully debunked the talking points regarding Islam to the West.”
Oh No! Muslims teaching others about their own texts and beliefs…that’s just unacceptable. Well, thank goodness for bloggers and non-scholars to bring to light the scary truth of a 1400 year religion in only a couple years. I mean, before 9/11 there there were very few orientalists to tell like-minded bigots about the evils of Islam and muslims. Now we have a whole industry. We even have individuals with their own tafsir! What a country.
March 14th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Deja Vu. *sigh*
JB, please go home! (to your beloved JW)
March 14th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
“Now, I very rarely hear apologists for Islam make this claim, but just a few years ago, respected academics such as Esposito and Khaled Fadl were making claims that Jihad meant interior struggle or that there is no concept of war in Jihad, etc., etc.”
Lies and Deception.
http://www.unaoc.org/repository/Esposito_Jihad_Holy_Unholy.pdf
March 14th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
I wonder how many westerners before 9/11 have ever heard of a Greater Jihad. I wonder how many Muslims before 9/11 have heard of Tiqaya or 72 virgins. I wonder.
March 14th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Danios…
I am not one who likes to turn to quoting scriptures from the Bible to somehow try to say that Christianity ‘more violent’ than us. However, I see your point in doing this, and it seems to be working on our apologists.
Notice how they keep trying to tell us what we belive, rather than addressing the topic with rebuttal?
I say…I really dont like this kind of ‘tit for tat’ dialouge, but I am all for it because, until they stop doing it to us, I will have to give in to my displeasure, and hesitantly support your effort.
May Allah guide us rightly.
March 14th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
I am a bit curious here though; I don’t really care which ‘prophet’ was the most violent, but what affects me is which followers would justify their actions based on whatever their ‘prophet’ supposedly said or did, and the outcome of that.
If you are a man of violence, you will cherry pick the torns and hurt people with them, but if you are a man of peace you will cherry pick the rose and bring joy to people. However, whichever bit you cherry pick, you cannot simply pretend that IT ALONE is all there is, and this is what irks me with all religions and religious followers, whatever the religion is.
Saying islam is a religion of peace is like saying water is neccessary for life. Sure, but water may also drown you. Just focusing on the drowning also takes away the positive sides of water, yet you still have to acknowledge there are two or more sides here.
I am an atheist, but if there is something good to learn from religion, and it applies to me without having to invoke theological arguments, then I will adopt that. Similarily, I will steer away from the bad parts, and I cannot adopt anything based on purely theological or what I deem as supernatural argumentation, no matter how “good” it is supposed to be.
So, whose prophet was the most violent? Is that really the question? If bad guy A was more ‘evil’ than bad guy B, does that really favor bad guy A, or are they both bad guys? If either of them were good also, does that weigh up for their ‘evil’ deeds? No, not unless they clearly admit their wrongdoings, and clearly state so.
With e.g. Muhammad and the fate of the banu Qurayza, how does one legitimize, reason or explain away that? Quran 5:32? Well surely not. It was a ‘moral zeitgeist’ and ‘the times were violent’ but ‘now we know better’? Well how can the perfect example of a man be a product of the times, or go against his own teaching..? I am not saying this to ‘bash muslims’, but I simply just don’t understand the reasoning behind this, or why anyone would choose to hold such dualistic individuals as flawless ‘prophets’ or examples of conduct. I am equally irked by christians who are ‘high on Jesus’, yet selectively ignore a lot of things Jesus says in the ‘sermon on the Mount’ because it fits them better.
March 14th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Rob, I never heard of Taqiya until the Islamophobes educated me. I also didn’t know that I am not really a Muslim since I don’t look like one and condemn terrorism, nor believe in beheadings, nor honor killings, nor stonings. I must not really be a Muslim since I don’t wear niqab, have an American accent and have Christian and Jewish friends. I’m a Westerner, therefore I’m not really a Muslim. Yes, I have learned much from Islamophobes.
March 14th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
“Rob, I never heard of Taqiya until the Islamophobes educated me. I also didn’t know that I am not really a Muslim since I don’t look like one and condemn terrorism, nor believe in beheadings, nor honor killings, nor stonings. I must not really be a Muslim since I don’t wear niqab, have an American accent and have Christian and Jewish friends. I’m a Westerner, therefore I’m not really a Muslim. Yes, I have learned much from Islamophobes.”
Well, according to Spencer you are a bad muslim. In order to be a good muslim, listen to Bin Laden, Spencer and to a letter extent JahilBob. His last minute tafsirs inspired by desperation and humiliation are brilliant!
March 14th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
“Yes, I have learned much from Islamophobes.”
Damn right! I never knew all the shite I never knew before from just reading the Qu’ran and other texts. Thanks people, now I know that I really should be blowing myself up to get 72 virgin things or something while beating my wife and riding a camel. Because that is being Muslim!
And on the subject of kit-kat and tequila, I committed tiqaya the other day. Let me explain…
My wife to be (ins’allah) developed a swelling on her forehead a few days back, accompanied by sickness, dizziness, headaches and lack of sleep. So go and see a doctor I told her. Ermmm, no, she wouldn’t, unfortunately some well meaning freind had let loose that the symptoms she has may be serious and above all my indicate the dreaded ‘c’ word (cancer). Of course, this caused massive panic amongst her and for some reason she wouldn’t see a doctor over it becuase she felt that if she was critically ill, she wouldn’t be suitable for me and didn’t want to cause me grief.
Long story short, after much frantic calling, IM and SMSing by me (we live hundreds of miles apart on different islands only connected by plane or boat) she stated that she would only see a doctor *if* I promised to leave her if there was a bad diagnosis and she had something horrible and possibly terminal. So what can I do? She’s got that fixed in her mind and is clinging to it like a raft in stormy seas and damn well won’t let go. Take it from me, she can be a determined as any woman, there was no way I was going to get her to a doctor short of dropping everything here, jumping on a plane and physically dragging her there (which I almost did).
There is no way that I’d leave her and especially not if she was terminally ill (what monster would that make me!) so I said ‘fine, I promise that I’ll leave you if it’s something bad’ but with my fingers metaphorically crossed behind my back. Happy, off she trots and sees someone about it. Relief for me and relief for her (at least until the test results come back).
So, I did ‘tiqaya’. As the Prophet said (repeating Jewish and Christian texts), we may make white lies if it is to prevent damage between a couple, this was the case here. That my friends, *is* ‘tiqaya’ and I challenge you to fine one man (who is not a scumbag) who would not have done the same! It’s nothing like people try to make it out, not some world domination plan or evil. It’s just common sense in reality and what we would all do.
March 14th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
“Can someone please name me a respected scholar of Islamic studies who thinks Muslims are taking over the West via stealth Jihad?”
Don’t you know? That’s because they’re all *in* on the conspiracy somehow, either by being on the paylist of Arabic sponsors or having a kind of weird intellectual Stockholm complex.
Fortunately, there are *real* scholars of Islam like Andrew Bostom and Daniel Pipes who can tell us the truth. The world would be lost without them.
March 14th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Awww…that is such a sweet story…. but I don’t believe you because you are a Muslim and all Muslim men treat women horribly or maybe you’re doing TAQIYA to fool us into thinking you’re actually good or maybe you’re not really a Muslim since you care about your girl! Islamophobes taught me well!
March 14th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
March 14th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Damn you got me Khushboo! Of course it’s, *gasp* DOUBLE taqu… taq… tawicki…. takiqiaya. I think… I think I have to eat your babies or puppies or kittens now or something.
March 14th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
I don’t believe a word any of you say…and quite frankly, I don’t believe anything I say. We must face the truth that we are all taqiya sprayers and carriers of the sharia strain. Thank goodness for islamophobic bloggers and non-scholars for their humbling and painstaking work in helping to sell their books.
March 14th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
You know…
A whole lot of Jewish people are greatful today that someone practiced ‘taqiyya’ during the Nazi regimes in Europe.
You know, some of these ‘islamophobes’ might owe thier own existance to this practice. Thier ancestors might be some of the beneficiaries.
March 14th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Okay, don’t get me wrong, I’m impressed with the research that went into this article and I think it’s wonderful how it manages to show the haters’ hypocrisy for what it is. However, I feel a bit uneasy with the idea of labelling so-and-so as more violent than so-and-so based on ancient texts. After all, the Old Testament is a lot older than other holy texts, which means that it has a longer history of possible tampering and fabrication throughout its existence. Especially when compared to, say, the thousands-years-younger Islamic texts. In fact, even some of these much younger Islamic hadiths have been fabricated/tampered with and were thus labelled da’if.
Additionally, Joshua is considered a prophet in Islam as well, and were briefly mentioned (though not by name) in the Qur’an. He was revered as a man of God in both books, but the difference is that in the Qur’an, Joshua was not described to have recklessly killed innocents. (Also in the Qur’an, the prophet Lott was not described to have impregnated his own daughters.)
Maybe it would be more accurate to compare the character of the texts instead of the characters that appear in the texts?
March 14th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Ay yes, I still remember the excellent taqiyya articles written by Inconnu and Danios which have been the last word on the subject. And I remember when Danios took JahilBob to school:
http://spencerwatch.com/2010/08/15/silencing-spencer-taqiyya-and-kitman-are-part-of-judeo-christian-belief/#comment-308
8 months of being schooled and he still hasn’t learned a damn thing.
March 14th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
I agree Rob, we must not trust! For this reason I will from now on be wearing a signboard with ‘Muslim’ on it (and maybe a yellow crescent) so everyone knows *not* to trust me. Damn my Muslimsness and thank you internet experts from the University if Google and Wikipedia for showing me! I never knew what I could do, thank you thank you thank you, you have undoubtedly saved me a lot of trouble and time, to think, I couldn’t find this anywhere in my books…
And yes, on a serious note, Nur you are quite right and it is recorded that Muslims did practice taquiya in order to protect Jewish citizens (and a number have even been honored). The truth shall come out soon enough.
March 14th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
“Also in the Qur’an, the prophet Lott was not described to have impregnated his own daughters”
But that’s the best part of the story!
March 14th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
Man, I just read my previous comment and I have to apologise if it appears offensive. I do have the highest respect for all religious texts and I believe each of them contain some of the truest truths, but I just take them all with a pinch of salt; always keeping in mind that the version I was reading could’ve been tampered with (if not by ancient men from centuries ago, than by a Spenceresque loon from last week).
But that’s the best part of the story!
Lol, yes, such a shame. And I wonder why it was omitted even from the Biblical picture book my mother bought us when were children.
March 14th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Danios, you are a singular voice – a mighty bulwark against the raging floods of the current Islamophobic onslaught. I propose to you sir, that with each new article, you are building a legacy that will never be forgotten.
Allow me then, to doff my hat to you.
March 14th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Great work, Danios. Thanks. Spencer, Geller and co. have clearly never sat down and read Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges et al. Your work might even prompt them to do so.
March 14th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
And thank you for all your work Lesley!
March 14th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
Great article and Lesley Hazleton would make a great name for a hospital. It could be called the the Lesley Hazelton Cancer institute. I’m only saying that because i used to live near Hazelton Institute.
March 14th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
To all non muslims- This article is Anti-Jewish or Anti-Christian because we are going straight off text and what it says without context or historic background much like what they anti muslim crowd does with the quran. THey have you whole chapters or a few select verses without also quoteing what it says above and under that verse to prove a point. That I think is the point Danios is trying to make …..
March 14th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
JD:
I think you mean this article is *not* Anti-Judeo-Christian, hence the following article linked to several times already.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/03/the-understanding-jihad-series-is-islam-more-likely-than-other-religions-to-encourage-violence/
March 14th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
The only Islamophobic non-scholar that I have seen make an attempt at answering the question of hypocrisy over violence in Biblical scriptures, is Daniel Pipes – and his argument was not very convincing. He said that Jews and Christians have learned to “keep it in the past”, whereas Muslims view their book as eternally relevant – therefore the verses saying to “kill the unbelievers” still stands for all “devout” Muslims. Even if that illogic is true (which it is not), there must be a lot of non-devout Muslims running around, because I don’t see nearly a billion Muslims randomnly killing “unbelievers.”
March 14th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
What an honor to have Lesley Hazleton post here!
March 14th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
@Isa
Daniel Pipes was the only scholar from amongst the Islamophobes. Well, he left academia so he no longer counts, but he–unlike the masses of Islamophobes out there such as Spencer, Geller, Bostom, etc.–has actual educational credentials.
With regard to the counter-argument you referenced, this argument is actually oft-used by Islamophobes. Robert Spencer uses this argument in his book as well.
I will tackle that argument thoroughly in a future article.
March 14th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
Oh yah it that person who recited the Holy Qur’an so wondefully, another example of judizem muslim unity. I like her veiw on what paridise, i living only two hours away from seatle know what she means about paradise being here in the northwest. Perhaps i over reacted with my above posts, i assumed that jews would be angered by this artical. So far i have been proven wrong, and im probably more offended about the offence they may feel than the offence they are feeling.
March 14th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
I know what you were trying to do with this article, & I appalaud your intention, but I <3 Moses & Muhammad, and even if the bible implies that Moses was "more violent" I think its kind of counter productive to say that.
Instead perhaps talk about how Muhammad really treated Christians I during his rule, allowing them protection from the Islamic state. Allowing them to pray in his own mosque, unlike these horrible people ruling in "saudi" Arabia, who won't allow churches to be built
Allah is the provider of Mercy and sustenance to all people, not just Muslims!
March 14th, 2011 at 11:33 pm
You lunatic writer! have you even read ‘Quran’ before quoting all this stuff here!? please don’t make a fool of yourself on such a large platform. advice: TRY TALKING SENSE!
March 15th, 2011 at 1:11 am
If we’re counting self-proclaimed “prophets”, rather than just prophets recognized as such by Muslims (or Jews or Christians) today, then by far the most violent prophet would be Hong Xiuquan.
One Christian blogger said he’s proof that there are some people for whom the Gospels are not intended…
March 15th, 2011 at 2:03 am
In results NOAH was the most violent even though no army, sword in his hands.
He requested for mankind’s destruction and got it.
All Jews, Christians and Muslims can agree on the lessons of Noah.
March 15th, 2011 at 11:57 am
Keep the truth coming brother!
March 15th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Shruti, obviously you don’t know WTH you’re talkig about! You’re the one who looks like a fool!
March 15th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Thanks, Danios, for these articles you’re in the process of writing. You definitely don’t allow your “opponents” any “wiggle room”!
These extremely violent texts in the Hebrew Scriptures have troubled people for centuries (or actually for millenia). Among the very earliest Christians, there are a couple of texts attributed to the 1st century Christian bishop of Rome named Clement. (Apparently the evidence is strong that they did originate in the 1st century; whether or not Clement actually authored them is another question). The two texts are essentially the same – just a few slight differences – telling of Clement’s conversations with the Apostle Peter; and are known as the Clementine Homilies and the Recognitions of Clement. In these texts, Peter is reported to have talked about how necessary it is to recognize the falsehoods of Scripture. It seems he believed (much like Muslims) that after God revealed the Torah to Moses, He permitted falsehoods to enter into the texts – in order to provide a test of the readers and hearers. The test was to see who were so ungodly as to be willing to believe the slanders against God (such as commanding genocidal exterminations), and who were so devoted to God that they would not for a minute believe such blasphemy!
The list of things Peter believed to be falsehoods is more extensive than my list; but I tend to agree in principle.
If you just go by the texts, though, Moses and Joshua were certainly “terrorists”. The differences between the violence of Joshua and that of Muhammad are major in at least 2 respects: (1) the violence of Moses and Joshua was aggressive, whereas that of Muhammad was strictly defensive; and (2) Moses and Joshua killed everybody (male and female, and even the children) including noncombatants, whereas Muhammad forbade killing anyone except the combatants – and as soon as they were willing to cease fighting, the Muslims were required to cease also.
Keep up the good work.
March 16th, 2011 at 2:29 am
Quote
======
Update1:
I cannot reiterate enough how much I really,really didn’t want to write this article because I know it could offend Jewish and Christian readers-but I simply do not see how I can convincingly refute the Islamophobic argument without doing it this way.
Unquote
========
Danios,
I may share your above quoted sentiment,if the Islambophobes hold not an identical but similar,or even merely close one,to your overly conscientious sentiment. Let me make it clear how I personally feel about the whole stinky problems with all Islamophobes:
(1) It is they who keep hating,for the slightest excuse,in spite of countless attempts made by so many Muslim communities leaders to reach some kind of understanding with them,in order to just lessen the unreal hatred they held/hold toward Islam and Muslims. Hatred serves no one of either group. I am almost sure that you and others at LoonWatch are well aware of that.
(2) When the intensity of their hatred and bigotry has reached unprecedented levels,to the point of calling all American Muslims as a “Fifth Column?” in the U.S.,it is time to confront them head-on and expose them as they should be exposed,(BY EVERY LEGAL AND TRADITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE MEANS AVAILABLE),to the self-respecting citizens of the U.S. and to the rest of the people of the world.
(3) If the Jewish and Christian readers are unaware of (1) and (2) outlined above,it is their duties,as fellow human beings or fellow citizens to make sure they find out on their own. As they do,they will be more equipped to appreciate what you are trying to do in this series,meaning: No Malice Toward Any Group of the Human Race and No Malice towards any Other Religion Either. Period.
(4) Although the teachings of Islam instruct that Muslims should never start a fight or an aggression,there is NO,”turn the other cheek”,either. There is,however,self-defense,as circumstances dictate to do so. The Noble Prophet himself had made that clear,as he waged battles in Badr,Ahud etc…against the Qurayshi Pagans who wanted to kill him and slaughter his followers as well. Here,really lies the fundamental difference between the inherited violence in Islam and the inherited violence in the Old Testament. The Noble Prophet had done it in self-defense while Moses and Joshua had done it for acquiring a country or territories for sheer survival. That is why,I have held the position that Islam has less violence than the other two Abrahamic faiths. In fact,some well known right-wing Christian evangelical leaders appeared on TVs,during the Invasion of Iraq,and said with a straight face that the God of the Bible was/is “a God of War”. That is their way for justifying the war against Iraq!!
Based on the foregoing outline,you need not worry about your open-minded Jewish and Christian readers. Losing the close-minded is not really a loss. I am not a Muslim,but I highly appreciate your profound knowledge,critical analysis and honesty;and value what you write greatly. I do realize others are not me and I am not others,but believe me,you can extrapolate accordingly. I have been around for too long,(77 years) and I have been in countless debates I have never looked forward to,but I felt obligated to refute unreal claims about Islam,Muslims and Arabs,including the Christian Arabs.
Cheers for a better tomorrow,for all Muslims everywhere………
March 16th, 2011 at 8:17 am
i’m not going to use foul language anymore . i have a question for danios
does danios know of farrell till’s response to the christian apologist glenn miller?
March 16th, 2011 at 9:13 am
Of course, us atheists have been pointing out how violent the bible is for ages, but only to those who insist it’s literal truth and then claim their God is Mr all loving fluffy bunnies and snuggles. Quite often they haven’t read it which I find really odd, I mean you don’t rent a flat without reading the lease agreement so why practice a religion without checking out all the rules first?
As for what you’ve written, it’s a good rebuttal to those who believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, but it leaves those who don’t still standing. After all, none of the stuff in the OT actually happened on anywhere near the scale claimed and most of it never happened at all (indeed a lot of it is written in genres that we no longer use: it might make sense to claim that some bloke single handedly held off an entire army with a shoe when that bloke is King, claims a divine mandate of some description and there’s no media to say different. Besides, no one believes it anyway because everyone knows that you need proper soldiers for that sort of thing, but the obelisks are nice. Try it now and everyone will think that bloke is nuts, king or no, unless they are religious fundamentalists. Poor sods don’t even get any nice obelisks, but I hear the kool-aid is tasty.), whereas we can prove that good ol’ Mo went swanning about the place hacking bits off people. It’s an important difference; you can argue about defensive and offensive wars ’til the cows come home, but what you’re comparing are actual events with outlandish and quite frankly grotesque boasting and an Islamophobe will point out that with your prophet the body count is actual which is why he’s worse. But then I’m sure you know all this already
March 16th, 2011 at 10:05 am
No,I do not know “all this already”. Please explan them to me. Thank you.
March 16th, 2011 at 10:13 am
I don’t think Noah counts as being violent. Natural disasters are very different from military actions.
March 16th, 2011 at 10:21 am
Badger, Danios has already discussed the obvious objection that many non-believers will have with this article — the historicity of the account of the Prophet’s life as well as the Old Testament.
http://www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/On-the-Historicity-of-the-Biblical-Account-LoonWatch2.pdf
March 16th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
“explan” should be “explain”
Please make the correction. Thank you.
March 16th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Reading this gives me chills. When people say Danios “ain’t pulling no punches”, I guess it’s true. Looking forward to the continuation and the finale. What ultimate message is there?
@What’s comment: Agree. New-Age Atheists that are really aggresive and confrontational often imply the moral, humanistic high ground, often using the now familiar phrases that has the effect of “You believe that there is an Invisible Old Man in the sky, thus, your argument is invalid.” I am interested in how Danios (and co.!)’s take on them.
@Capercaillie: IIRC, the Banu Qurayza case was more of a double-whammy since they, in effect, backstabbed the Muslims under siege during the War of The Trench, dishonoring the treaty they had signed with the Muslims. And if I am correct, when the battle is over, the Muslims granted their wish of being judged by Halacha law, which ironically enforced the mass death penalty instead of lessening it.
AFAIK, Banu Qurayzah was the last to remain loyal to the Muslims; banu Nadir (another Jewish tribe) had deserted earlier and is goading Qurayzah to do the same. Need corrections here, can someone check?
March 16th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
RDS, info seems fine to me. The Banu Nadir didn’t desert, but they were plotting an assassination of the Prophet. Obviously this violated the Treaty so they were expelled. I know Danios will address the Jewish tribes of Medina issue anyway in a future article.
March 16th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
@Garo: thanks for your kind words!
@Badjer: Please see the link Mosizzle provided. On top of that, I’d like to add that you are effectively arguing that the Bible is SO amazingly violent, bloody, and genocidal of a book that it can’t possibly be true–unlike the Quran. Great, thanks for proving our argument! Imagine how unbelievably bloody, violent, and genocidal a book has to be before it just can’t possibly be true! What an upside down argument, lol.
March 16th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Great work. Reminds me of verses in the new testament that shows Jesus quoting from the OT to fend off hypocritical criticism against him.
As for atheist rants, just read vox-days “The Irrational Atheist”. It puts the atheists (dawkins, hitchens, dennet, harris and the frenchie) back into their little mice hole.
March 16th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
By the way, a similar article to refute the “Quran preaches anti-semitism” argument was on my mind. (Obvious hint: Criticism against jews is 20 times more in the bible than in the Quran)
The trademark islamophobes usage of the prophecy of jews hiding behind stones is easily refuted by showing the longer version of the hadith. The big picture is infact about Jesus and his supporters chasing dajjal & his followers only. Some of the hadith version mentions “unbelievers” rather than “jews”. A similar prophecy scenario of the messiah killing is infact found in the book of revelation 19:20-21 and 2 Thessalonians 2:8-10.
I see that Danios is the best person to do this refutation. If you need references to what i mentioned, you can contact me via email. God bless!
March 17th, 2011 at 5:46 am
@ Danios
Actually, I was saying that we know that most of the OT never happened- a genocide of the Canaanites which they didn’t notice, God supposedly drowning the entire world, the exodus out of Egypt, entire cities being flattened with brimstone etc etc- therefore the comparison between Joshua and Mohammed is a duff one. It’s like comparing Ian Brady and Myra Hindley with Mickey and Mallory Knox from Natural Born Killers- interesting in and of itself, but when you’re being compared to Brady you need to be pointing out that your accuser is Ed Gein rather than talking about Mickey Knox.
Also, I never said that the bible is so violent it can’t be real- humanity has shown itself capable of far worse than a bunch of priests from way back when could even imagine. It’s almost as if the stuff in the bible is seen as a target to aim for and surpass. But your opponents can just go “Joshua didn’t exist, so how can he be worse than someone who did exist?” You’ve already refuted the islamophobic arguments over and over again, using far better arguments than this. This just doesn’t hit the right note. Meh.
March 17th, 2011 at 6:41 am
@badger
No need for your pseudo historical criticism of the bible. The aim here is to point out the hypocrisy of those who affirm the bible and yet demonise the Quran. And most of the islamophobes(evangelicals) are literalist. Even if they took the laughable position that everything found supposedly horrendous in the bible is not literal and just a myth; it does not make bible somehow less violent. It remains more violent by the standards of Islamophobes. It is a log in their eyes.
As for atheism, this article i believe isnt addressed primarily towards atheists, even though atheists do potray Islam as by default more violent & war mongering. Nor is there any need to address atheists, as their position like a stone or wood is upon “unbelief”. So whatever points are made the atheist will claim “We don’t believe in that”. You believe in nothing. If you do, than i would suggest you read voxdays “The Irrational Atheist” to find the mighty log that is in your eyes. The book provides some pretty interesting statistics when it comes to “secular” polemics.
March 17th, 2011 at 8:56 am
Badger,
“But your opponents can just go “Joshua didn’t exist, so how can he be worse than someone who did exist?””
Err, no. The Jewish and Christian Islamophobes — and let’s face it most of them are Jewish or Chrisian — will not deny the existence of Joshua. In fact, many still see him as a great warrior and believe the Biblical account. People like Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Daniel Pipes, Walid Shoebat etc. will be put in their place by this article. They spend all day criticising the Prophet Muhammad but ignore the fact that their own Prophets have been way more violent.
This article also targets those atheists who have a special hatred for Islam and the Prophet, but don’t care about Judaism and Christianity e.g Wafa Sultan. Those atheists who criticise all religions equally and don’t target Islam unfairly won’t be affected by this article.
March 17th, 2011 at 9:19 am
@ Badjer:
But your opponents can just go “Joshua didn’t exist, so how can he be worse than someone who did exist?”
As Joshua’s historicity is of uncertain historicity, so too is the case with Muhammad:
http://www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/On-the-Historicity-of-the-Biblical-Account-LoonWatch2.pdf
So the matter is the same. (Read the link.)
Naturally, neither believing Jews, Christians, and Muslims won’t doubt that these prophets existed.
Furthermore, your argument is a confession that the Bible is far more violent than the Quran, so the debate is conceded by yourself–if but inadvertently.
March 17th, 2011 at 10:23 am
“… therefore the comparison between Joshua and Mohammed is a duff one.”
I don’t think that is correct. The whole point of islamophobes by pointing out Muhammad was this butcher warlord is that Muhammad is a role model for all Muslims living today and therefore Islam teaches Muslims to go around and kill infidels in the name of Islam. To be sure: that’s not what I’m saying, that’s what people like Spencer, Geert Wilders, and others are saying.
Looking at it from that perspective, it doesn’t matter one iota whether Moses and Joshua actually did the things the Bible ascribes to them. What matters is that for Jews and Christians, they are being portrayed as role models also. In fact, I believe there has been some study among Jewish Israeli kids who were told the stories of Joshua and the effects it had on their views of Palestinian Arabs. The results were as expected. Kids who were told these stories without corrective ‘framing’ (that is: teaching them to think critically about these texts) showed more negative attitudes towards other ethnicities, cultures, religious communities.
In fact, for Israeli settlers living in the West Bank, such stories provide a powerful reinforcement of their negative attitudes towards Palestinian Arabs, as well as a justification of them taking the land by force. After all, if Joshua did and Moses proscribed, who is man to argue otherwise?
So your point about these stories not being historical and therefore they do not count is rather moot. Historical or not, these ‘heroes of faith’ are being presented as role models to be followed, albeit in most instances not in any literal way.
Now, if Christians and Jews would claim that this doesn’t mean they draw from the bible that it’s okay to go off and kill entire nations (even though that’s exactly what European settlers did in 19th century America), then it follows they should apply the same logic to Muslims. The fact that Muhammad fought battles and conquered cities doesn’t necessarily mean that Muslims feel they have the right to pick up weapons and conquer Spain or Greece either. What goes for the goose, goes for the gander.
March 18th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
I do not believe,for one single moment,that there could be smoke without fire,due to the solid reality of The Principle of Cause and Effect.
Based upon the above comment,I have to respect what is written in the Old Testament. Hence,I see no justifications to deny the existence of an integral part of the recorded human history that has been recorded and passed for thousand of years from one generation to the next.
The claim that Moses,Joshua,Jericho,Cannanites etc…is a myth is itself a myth,as some people in the far distance future,2000,3000,4000 or 5000 years from now,may also claim that George W.Bush,Dick Cheney,Donald Rumsfeld have never existed and the genocide they have committed in Iraq has never taken a place,but the people who lived in the early part of the 21st century witnessed and recorded,each according to his or her belief and agenda. Does that make sense? I think it does and it negates the myth involved in the denial of a recorded human history.
Cheers………..
March 18th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Hey Danios looks like your going to have your work cut out for you
Geert Wilders is writing a book about the history of Islam that argues it is not a religion but an ideology.
http://www.rnw.nl/africa/bulletin/wilders-book-islam-ideology
March 19th, 2011 at 12:25 am
“I do not believe,for one single moment,that there could be smoke without fire,due to the solid reality of The Principle of Cause and Effect.”
I guess you believe the stories of Odysseus to, including the interventions of the Greek gods, right?
The difference between legendary stories and historical accounts, is that with historical accounts – like Caesar conquering Gaul – is that historical accounts have independent evidence backing up the account. There’s no independent sources or evidence backing up the stories about Arthur, Camelot and the knights of the round table scouring the land in search for the Holy Grail. However, there is independent evidence for Caesar conquering Gaul.
There is no independent evidence which suggests the Biblical stories of the exodus are reliable. In fact, archeological findings suggest something else, and biblical scholarship suggests the stories were forged hundreds of years later.
Now, even if 5000 years from now, somehow all the digital records of the invasion in Iraq have vanished, you would still be able to find remnants of an American presence in Iraq from 2003 on.
March 19th, 2011 at 6:14 am
“Now,even if 5000 years from now,somehow all the digital records of the invasion in Iraq have vanished,you would still be able to find remnants of an American presence in Iraq from 2003 on.”
Question:
=========
After 5000 years have passed since the American invasion of Iraq,what have made you so certain that “you would still find remanents of an American presence in Iraq from 2003 on”???
Comments:
=========
Since the hard fact is that the “Weapons of Mass Destruction”(WMD) were supposed to be in Iraq,just a few months before the American invasion of Iraq in March 2003,could not be found in Iraq immediately after the invasion,it would certainly be extremely impossible to accept the notion that remanents of such weapons,(WMD),would be found in Iraq after the passage of 5000 years from now. Subsequently and by the same token,the view which says that,”remanents of an American presence in Iraq”,5000 years from now,would still be found in Iraq,would be even more difficult to buy or rather accept.
Cheers……..
March 19th, 2011 at 8:07 am
Garo; first of all, you’re assuming there were any WMD’s a few months up to the invasion of Iraq. But it’s quite possible Saddam Hussein discarded them as he promised (precisely because he didn’t want to give a pretext for an invasion and wanted the embargo’s on his country lifted) even though he bragged about still having WMD’s to his Arab neighbors (because he didn’t want to appear weak).
Secondly, archeologists are still able to find arrowheads and ruined cities, after thousands of years and identify them. You’d think they’d be able to track down bullets and mortar shells, and the wrecks of tanks a few millennia down the road.
March 19th, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Saladin
“Hey Danios looks like your going to have your work cut out for you
Geert Wilders is writing a book about the history of Islam that argues it is not a religion but an ideology.”
I am pretty sure Danios can more than handle Geert Wilders! Any Islamophobe, including Wilders, has the onus on them to prove that an ideology *cannot* be religious. I asked this exact question on “jihadwatch”, only to have my opponent retreat. Just another thinly veiled attempt to deny Muslims the constitutional rights other religious adherents enjoy. Islam is an ideology? So what?
Allahu A’lam
March 19th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
I like a certain Dutch professor’s response to Geert Wilders:
“How dare Wilders throw around Islamic terms about which he does not have a clue? Takiyya is a concept from the Middle Ages. It infuriates me that such a dogma from the past should be stuck onto the Muslims of today. It is as if you claimed that Christians think women who stay afloat are witches.”
March 21st, 2011 at 11:41 am
elhajj,
I was just sharing my subjective opinion, none of which includes bigotry against Islam or it’s adherents (whether they are characters in a book or someone I can actually shake hands with). Apologies if it came across that way, that wasn’t the intention at all, and sorry for the late response.
March 21st, 2011 at 11:44 am
“Anti-atheist”
Is that really appropriate? LW is here to tackle Islamophobia and their Loon representatives, not create a divide between theist and atheists that don’t buy the Islamophobic propaganda. I respect your belief, try and respect my lack of belief.
October 11th, 2011 at 10:20 am
Great Article, But its a shame no-one will ever see my message