"Flying
Hijacked Planes into Glass Houses: A response
to the American Muslim article, Throwing Stones at the Quran from
a Glass House" Source
In an article entitled, “Throwing Stones at the Quran from a
Glass House”, The American Muslim claims that the verses of violence
and war in the Bible can be misread in “exactly the same way
as some verses in the Qur’an” (emphasis ours). In other
words, the on-line magazine alleges that, like the Quran, there
are Biblical verses with open-ended commands to violence that are
not
bound by historical context within the passage itself.
Our first clue that this probably isn’t true is the scarcity
of Christian terrorist groups. Not too many people are losing their
heads to fanatics screaming praises to Jesus (or Moses, Buddha or the
many Hindu gods either) as they are to shouts of “Allah Akbar!” That
there are so many Islamic terrorist groups composed of fundamentalists
(or purists) of the Muslim faith is enough to impress any reasonable
person that there is something far more dangerous about Islam.
Nevertheless, to support their claim, The American
Muslim quotes sixteen
of the worst passages that the Bible has to offer in the way of violence.
Others are alluded to as well, but delving into these particular verses
should be a large enough sample to expose whatever sophistry might
be at play.
Their first try is a passage from Deuteronomy that might appear to
command present-day believers to take a city by force and slaughter
the inhabitants on order from God:
“When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer
it terms of peace. If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to
you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced
labor and shall serve you. However, if it does not make peace with
you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. When the
LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men
in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and
the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take
as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies
which the LORD your God has given you. Only in the cities of these
peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you
shall not leave alive anything that breathes” (Deuteronomy
20:10-17. As quoted by The American Muslim.)
Except for the part about sparing women and children, this sounds
similar to a verse from the Qur’an:
"And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to
its folk who live at ease, and afterward they commit abomination therein,
and so the Word (of doom) hath effect for it, and we annihilate it
with complete annihilation." (Quran 17:16)
But, in fact, the Biblical passage is not an open-ended
command, but instead, a story of history bound within the text.
Having trouble
seeing this? That’s because the author of The American
Muslim piece cleverly left out this part of the passage:
“Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites,
Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has
commanded you.”
Yes, it turns out that this was a specific command, given at a specific
time to the tribe of Israel concerning a discrete target. This is why
Christians and Jews do not treat these verses as present-day imperatives.
Strategic omission is just one way that Muslim apologists manipulate
Biblical passages. (In this case, The American Muslim editors did not
even include an ellipsis in place of the omission, since it may have
raised the suspicions of the reader).
The next passage that The American Muslim claims promotes violence
is from the apostle Paul, who writes:
“Hymenaeus and Alexander I have delivered to Satan that they
may learn not to blaspheme.” (1Timothy 1:20)
The violence in the passage is not exactly evident
from this reading. In the context of the previous verse, these
two men “suffered
shipwreck with regard to the faith,” but there is nothing to
indicate that they were physically harmed as a result. It was the practice
of the early Church to excommunicate apostates, and there is every
reason to believe that this was the “fate” of these
two individuals. They were expelled from the Church by Paul. The
Christian
Church does not advocate killing apostates.
Contrast this with the words of Muhammad:
"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" (Bukhari
84:57)
Not much ambiguity there. Abu Bakr, the first caliph and several other
Muslims testified that Muhammad had indeed put Muslim apostates to
death. For this reason, the practice is coded in Islamic law.
The next passage that is supposed to inspire Christians
to violence is the recounting of David’s victory against
the Philistines:
“This day the LORD will deliver you into my
hand, and I will strike you down, and cut off your head; and I
will give the dead bodies
of the host of the Philistines this day to the birds of the air
and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know
that there
is a God in Israel, Then David ran and stood over the Philistine,
and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath, and killed him,
and cut
off his head with it.... And David took the head of the Philistine
and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armor in his tent.
And as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner
took
him, and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine
in his hand.” (1 Samuel 17:46 As quoted by The American
Muslim.)
This is actually parts of verse 46 through 54. We
won’t waste
much time here, because it is apparent that this is a recounting
of an historical event. The omitted passages from within the text
make it even more obvious.
Compare this to the word of Allah in the Quran:
“I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite
ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” (Quran
8:12)
There is no historical context to mitigate this
Qur’anic exhortation
either in the verse or in those that surround it. (The American
Muslim actually makes a monumental effort to bring historical context to the
verse from sources external to the Qur’an in this article, which
contains several inaccuracies regarding the timing of the “revelation” of
the verse, the justification for attacking caravans, and the fate
of hostages taken in battle, some of whom were actually put to
death).
The next five passages quoted by The American
Muslim, in trying to
make the case that the Bible can be used to command violence, all suffer
from the same problems as above:
“Then Abishai the son of Zeruiah said to the king, “Why
should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over and take
off his head.”... And there is also with you Shimei the son of
Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurim, who cursed me with a grievous curse
on the day when I went to Mahanaim; but when he came down to meet me
at the Jordan, I swore to him by the LORD, saying, I will not put you
to death with the sword.’ Now therefore hold him not guiltless,
for you are a wise man; you will know what you ought to do to him,
and you shall bring his gray head down with blood to Sheol.” (2
Samuel 16:9, 1 Kings 2:8)
“When they came into the house, as he lay on his bed in his
bedchamber, they smote him, and slew him, and beheaded him. They took
his head, and went by the way of the Arabah all night, and brought
the head of Ishbosheth to David at Hebron. And they said to the king, “Here
is the head of Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, your enemy, who sought
your life; the LORD has avenged my lord the king this day on Saul and
on his offspring.” (2 Samuel 4:7)
"That is not true. But a man of the hill country of Ephraim,
called Sheba the son of Bichri, has lifted up his hand against King
David; give up him alone, and I will withdraw from the city.” And
the woman said to Joab, “Behold, his head shall be thrown to
you over the wall.” Then the woman went to all the people in
her wisdom. And they cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri, and
threw it out to Joab." (2 Samuel 20:21)
"At Jezreel by this time tommorrow...And when the letter came
to them, they took the king’s sons, and slew them, seventy persons,
and put their heads in baskets, and sent them to him at Jezreel. When
the messenger came and told him, “They have brought the heads
of the king’s sons,” he said, “Lay them in two heaps
at the entrance of the gate until the morning.” (2 Kings Chapter
10 verse 6) “God has now fulfilled the prophecy of the prophet
Elijah. So Jehu put to death all who were left of the house of Ahab
in Jezreel, as well as all of his close friends and priests, until
he had left not one single survivor.” (2 Kings Chapter 10 verse
10) “He put to death all of Ahab’s house, who were left
there and so blotted it out, in fulfillment of the word which YAHWEH
had spoken to Elijah." (2 Kings Chapter 10 verse 7)
"When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are
entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the
Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and
the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater
and stronger than you. And when the LORD your God delivers them before
you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall
make no covenant with them and show no favor to them." (Deuteronomy
7:1-2)
No doubt these were bad days to be particular individuals
by the name of Shimei, Ishbosheth, Sheba or Ahab, but they obviously
aren’t
around anymore to complain. Same with the tribes mentioned
in the passage from Deuteronomy. This is history, of course, not
some
open-ended instruction
like:
“Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with
him are ruthless to the Unbelievers, but merciful to each other.” (Quran
48:29)
At this point, The American Muslim pulls two verses out of the New
Testament Gospels. The first is quoted as if they are the words of
Jesus:
"I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but
from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken
away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over
them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."(Luke
19:26-27)
But, in fact, this is the tail end of a parable being told by Jesus.
The words actually belong to one of the characters in his story.
Again, contrast this with the actual words of Muhammad:
[Allah's Apostle said] "The Hour will not be established until
you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding
will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill
him." (Bukhari 52:256)
We don’t have to play the same games here that The American
Muslim does to try and convince Christians that they should kill based
on the words of a parable. Not only are these Muhammad’s
own words, but there are many Muslims at this very moment who are
trying
to kill Jews in Israel. Their religious leaders quote this passage
to inspire them.
Moving along to the second New Testament verse that supposedly advocates
violence:
"Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth. I did
not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against
his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against
her mother-in-law" (Matthew 10:34-35)
Though not quoted in the article, the passage actually
goes on to say, "Your enemies will be the members of your
own household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than
me is not worthy
of me; anyone who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy
of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not
worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever
loses their
life for my sake will find it."
Obviously, Jesus is speaking of the coming hardships
that will be suffered by Christians (ironically, the worst abusers
eventually
turned out to be Muslims). The “sword” is a metaphor for the persecution
against believers, not an admonition for them to take up arms. In fact,
elsewhere Jesus prevented one of his disciples from fighting on his
behalf and rebuked him for doing so. In confirmation of this, none
of his immediate followers formed an armed militia of any sort. There
were no armies claiming to be “Christian” for many
centuries.
By contrast, Muhammad was a military leader who
killed people in battle, executed captives and enslaved women and
children. When he
said that “Jihad
in the way of Allah elevates the position of a man in paradise” (Sahih
Muslim 20:4645), his followers knew what he meant. They engaged
in warfare following his death, which continues to this day.
The American Muslim then moves back to the Old Testament:
“I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people
to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their
backs unto thee.” (Exodus 23:27)
Is this an open-ended imperative for present-day
Christians and Jews? Hardly. Here’s the next verse:
“I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive
the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way”
Again, not a good time to be a Hivate, Hittite,
or a Canaanite… but
who is these days?
By contrast, the Qur’an speaks ill of Christians, Jews, “unbelievers” and “pagans,” and
commands its readers to “slay the infidel wherever ye find him.” The
historical context of the verse is apparently not all that conspicuous,
judging by the fact that so many Muslims are trying so hard to
kill these people in the name of Allah.
The American Muslim tries again:
"And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him,
and his sons, and all his people. At God’s instructions, the
Israelites “utterly destroyed the men, women, and the little
ones” leaving “none to remain.” And we took all
his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the
women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.
(Deuteronomy
2:33-36)
At this point, you can probably guess that there
is something being left out. If you look at the original passage,
you’ll find that
it refers to the Battle of Jahaz and even says “at that time” (emphasizing
that this is history - not edict).
Next is this passage from Joshua:
Joshua said to the people of Israel, “The
Lord has given you the city of the all silver, and gold, and vessels
of brass
and iron, are consecrated unto the Lord: They shall come into the
treasury
of
the Lord. The people utterly destroyed all that was in the
city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep, and ass,
with
the edge
of the sword. (Joshua 6:21-23 as quoted by The American
Muslim.)
The manipulation of the original passage is so extensive
that the verse is barely recognizable. The author employs both
omission
and juxtaposition to try and emphasize that the city in question
was destroyed.
In fact, the original does say that not everyone within the
city was killed. Even so, this is still a violent passage…but
it is not open-ended instruction.
The city in question was Jericho, and the verses
tell of the battle between the ancient Israelites and the inhabitants
therein—and the
subsequent massacre. It is obviously a historical passage, and
it no more inspires violence than reading an account of the Japanese
slaughter
of the people of Nanjing in 1937.
The American Muslim then pulls a verse from the Old Testament that
it says can be interpreted to mean that apostates should be stoned:
"And he should go and worship other gods and
bow down to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the
heavens...and you
must stone such one with stones and such one must die." (Deuteronomy
17:3-5, as quoted by The American Muslim.)
What does the ellipsis leave out, you may be wondering? Well, it turns
out that this was yet another specific command handed down to a specific
people at a specific time:
“If a man or woman living among you in one
of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes
of the LORD your God
in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped
other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the
stars in the sky, and this has been brought to your attention,
then you must
investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved
that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man
or woman
who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person
to death” (Actual text.)
No Christian in their right mind would kill someone for worshipping
a different god based on this passage. While it's true that Christian
apostates have been killed in sporadic and rare historical incidents,
it was not the example of Jesus, nor is it a part of Christian teaching.
As we have already pointed out, however, Islam’s
most reliable Hadith mandates the execution of apostates from Islam.
It is
firmly established in Islamic law, since it is the example set forth
by
Muhammad himself.
The American Muslim then submits a rare New Testament verse as proof
that Christians can interpret the Bible as a command to murder in the
way that Jihadis wage holy war:
"Although they know God’s righteous decree
that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue
to do these very
things but also approve of those who practice them." (Romans
1:20-32, as quoted by The American Muslim.)
It is unclear why the author cites verses 20-32 but quotes only the
last verse. The full text of the passage actually contains a rebuke
against killing and it assigns judgment to God alone. The next verses
in sequence confirm this:
“You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone
else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself,
because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that
God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.
So when you, a mere human, pass judgment on them and yet do the same
things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?” (Romans
2:1)
God is the judge, and not man, according to the
context of this passage. How anyone is supposed to interpret this
to mean exactly the opposite—that they should kill another human
being—is a leap of logic that escapes this writer (and generations
of Christians as well,
apparently).
Muhammad’s own words, however, contain no
such cryptic message:
“Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is
possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye
love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” (Quran
2:216)
Now, at last, The American Muslim pulls out the
grand finale—the
famous passage from Numbers that is quoted so enthusiastically
by the detractors of Western religion:
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill
every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have
not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.” (Numbers
31:17-18)
From the way this is quoted, it sounds as if God is telling today's
Bible-thumpers to kill every man within reach and enslave their women
and children. What a horrible world this would be if Christians took
this fragment literally and killed the nearest person.
So why aren’t the Jews and Christians of today
doing this?
Well, it's most likely because there aren't any
Midianites around, since that was the unfortunate tribe on which
this vengeance is
specifically commanded—as it is obvious from the surrounding verses.
Again,
this is a historical narration that clearly refers to an obscure
tribe, unlike many of the open-ended passages of violence against
unbelievers, “idolaters,” polytheists,
Jews and Christians found in the Qur’an.
Contemporary Islamic apologists, such as the author of this American
Muslim piece, apparently borrowed this research from secular critics
of Christianity, who use passages such as these to make dark insinuations
about the character of the god of the Bible and thus bolster their
rejection of all religion.
This certainly makes for some strange bedfellows,
given that most atheists would concur that the god of Muhammad
is far more violent
than the god of the New Testament. (Those who may not agree are
free to travel to a Muslim country and see how publicly denying Allah
there compares to Christian "intolerance" at home, but
they may want to make out a will beforehand).
We’ll leave it to the theologians to respond,
since the character of God and the nature of progressive revelation
falls outside
the scope of this discussion. Our only interest here is in the argument
that
Muslims are trying to make by citing such passages.
Since Muslims do not argue the point that Muhammad commanded the slaughter
and enslavement of others at various times in his last ten years (a
practice that his followers have faithfully applied to this ery day),
their logic here is quite tenuous. At best, these apologists appear
to be trying to bring other religions down to the level of Islam, particularly
Christianity.
What makes this noteworthy is that Christians and others do not act
as if they need to bring Islam down to their religion of choice. The
reason is that no other religion regularly kills members of every other
faith explicitly in the name its god. And, on the rare occasions when
this does happen, the response is anger and denouncement rather than
the general indifference that Muslims have for Islamic terror (aside
from the 15% or so who openly endorse it).
Islamic terrorists wage holy war on a daily basis
because it is the literal command of the Qur’an. Western Muslim apologists (concerned
solely with the image of Islam) window-dress these violent passages
through a complex series of appeals to a patchwork of external Muslim
sources. Then, after delicately arranging the products of this Herculean
charade in such a way as to convince the rest of us that these Qur’anic
verses of violence are not what they appear, the apologist steps back,
wipes the sweat from his brow and says, “See how clear it
is? No Muslim could possibly interpret this command to kill as
a command
to kill.”
Well, why are these verses in the Qur’an at all, then? If they
are supposed to be history, then why do they appear as imperative?
Why isn’t the context right there in the text as it is in
the Old Testament?
After all, this is supposed to be Allah’s perfect book. How
is it that it is so vulnerable to the worst sort of "misinterpretation"?
Lacking a decent answer to these questions, Muslims attack the Bible
instead.
See also: Comparing Islam and Christianity,
Muhammad and Jesus.
Also: The Political Violence of the Bible and
the Koran by Bill Warner
in The American Thinker. This article points out that
about 67% of the Quran is devoted to Jihad. The Islamic trilogy
(the Quran,
Hadith
and Sira) contain 9.6 times as much violence as the Hebrew Bible
(the New Testament has none).
The difference, as we point out in this article
is not just quantitative, but one of quality as well. As Warner
puts it: "The political
violence of the Koran is eternal and universal. The political violence
of the Bible was for that particular historical time and place.
This is the vast difference between Islam and other ideologies.
The violence
remains a constant threat to all non-Islamic cultures, now and
into the future."
From: TheReligionofPeace.com Home Page
Copyrighted ©2007-2010
