NRK HAR mistet kompasset i KOMPASS

I programserien Kompass på NRK radio hadde kanalen et møte mellom en jøde, en muslim og en kristen og hvor tanken var å diskutere vold i religionene og eventuelt hvilken religion som var mest voldelig. Jeg spør: Hvilket Kompass er det man styrer etter og vil at folk skal styres etter, i Kompass?

 Det ble et program som var interessant på mer enn bare én måte, men helst var dette programmet en oppvisning i selvrefererende diplomati og et forsøk på mildest mulig form for dialog, eller convivenzia: Se på oss: Vi klarer det. Vi er gode, tolerante, vi. Og dette er selve temaet, ikke selv spørsmålet. Vi snakker om symptomer, ikke «årsaker», men problemet bare stiger og den diplomatiske fase vil kanskje før vi aner det fremby en helt annen «forståelse», både forståelsen og virkeligheten. 

Alt nå under NRK’s brede, beskyttende vinger, altså, selvsagt støttet av en selvskapt gud og av enhver mann og kvinne, som er blitt fullstendig gudløse og derfor totalt blinde. Og her skulle det hele være normativt. For her var alt gulerot uten kjepp. Folket har å bøye seg.

 Ingen tvil om at gud er på NRK’s side, altså. Den nye synkretistiske guden, den nye overguden.  Man skulle tro man befant seg i det gamle Romerriket for den gang forsøkte man seg også på å skape nye guder, til folkets beste, som det het. (Vi vet hvordan det gikk). Keiserne trodde ikke de var dumme. Og dette om du er uenig eller ikke. Synkretismen er på sett og vis innført via godhetsposering og diplomati. Fordi de føles mest servilt betinget emosjonelt korrekt å medvirke til slikt.

Tvil ikke på det, sier NRK. Vi sitter på sannheten, (selv om programlederen med en viss latter sår en viss tvil om undersøkelsen det vises til). Virkeligheten er slik vi bestemmer at den skal være, sier NRK. Vi skal riktig nok le litt av undersøkelsen, som om den faktisk kanskje var mer sann enn vi burde går ut fra, men samtidig slik at undersøkelsen helst burde være sann eller bli oppfattet som om den sa noe virkelig sant og godt, og følelsesmessig akseptabelt).

Det ligger en svær maktbrynde i denne tilnærmingen, som altså nærmest er for en trussel å regne. Hvis du ikke er like god og diplomatisk i alt du tenker, føler og gjør – vel, så er du utenfor. Cancellert. Vi skal være ydmyke, vi skal ha de aller beste illusjoner. Glem at diplomati er forskjønnende og ment å skape begeistring og eufori. Diplomati sikter riktig nok mot å skape endrede og bedre forhold på bakken, men her dreier det seg primært om ønsketenkning, ikke realpolitikk, strengt tatt. Den diplomatiske formen og selve settingen skal tjene som en instrumentell retorikk for å skape de mest forsonlige følelser, følelser av uovervinnelighet på begge sider. Selvsagt tjener dette primært bare til å skape enda flere illusjoner. Vi husker «det støre, store nye Vi’et».

Det er søtladent når konvertitten Linda Noor, fra Minotenk, stolt påpeker at de voldelige versene i Koranen ikke utgjør noe problem i Norge, fordi muslimene vet at de skal følge landets, dvs Norges, lover. Hun leser opp hele «sverdverset» i Koranen sure 9, ayat 5, (jeg går ut fra at leseren kjenner ordlyden). Hun nevner ikke at nettopp dette verset av muslimske lærde mener er selve «stjerneverset» som aldri kan abrogeres eller settes til side for «freds og sviskeversene», som jeg kaller dem, slik nåværende naive og poserende pave gjør).

Noor kommer selvsagt inn på korstogene og forteller lytterne at disse hadde mindre med religion å gjøre enn med grådighet og makt. Hun nevner selvsagt ikke at Allah beordret flere «halvmåne-tog» enn paven og europeerne noen gang kunne ha drømt om å gjennomføre; jeg nevner bare India og f eks på Balkan; her skjedde det uhyrligheter i islams navn og på en sånn skala at det det ikke kan sammenlignes. Noor virker helt uvitende om hva f eks ibn Khaldun, ibn Tamayyia og al-Ghazali sier om plikten til jihad. Jihad skulle føres selv om ingen jihad var nødvendig fordi man f eks manglet råvarer, land og andre ressurser; jihad for jihads skyld, jihad fordi det er Allah’s vilje og ikke noe annet, altså, ikke for rasjonell behovstilfredsstillelse for folket og dets velferd og blomstring i sin alminnelighet. Korsfarerne på sin side kjempet av en grunn, ikke for å krige for å krige og erobre for å erobre.

http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2022/11/islam-angrep-pa-dar-al-harb-krigens-hus.html

Når Noor snakker om islam i Norge, synes hun å snakke om islam her som den eneste sanne og verdige islam. Hun gjør seg selv til dommer over hva som er islam og hva som ikke islam. Islam i Norge er den sanne islam. Dette viser at hun ikke forstår islam som et pricipium, islam proper, islam i sin essens. Det er som å påstå at det er islam i Norge – den sanne islam – som gir kvinner utdannelse slik at alle islamske kvinner her i landet nå kan lese og skrive. Hun virker helt stengt for den erkjennelse at det er islam i resten av verden – og islam som principium - som nå holder sine kvinner nede i underordning og analfabetisme.

Hvorpå den kristne deltakeren, Ingrid Rosendorf Joyce, nå parerer med å sitere Matt 10. 34 f, hvor Jesus sier at han ikke er kommet for å bringe fred, men et sverd. Noor understreker at sverdverset i Koranen gjaldt helt spesifikke forhold på profetenes tid. Joyce mener at Jesus så å si privat ikke hadde intensjon om å skape vedvarende krig eller oppfordre til vold. Tekstene er skumle, får programlederen trukket frem, nikkedukkeaktig og tilnærmet blygt.

Hvorfor må Joyce nevne «det kristne sverdverset»? Jo, fordi hun er servilt betinget emosjonelt korrekt. Hun vil påføre kristne skyldfølelse, akkurat som det islamske sverdverset vil få noen til å føle seg «skyldige», som fromme muslimer sett, og deres lakeier. Ingen skal her være bedre enn noen andre, vi bærer alle sammen skyld for vold og drap i det forgangene, alle som egentlig tilhører den samme religion, den ene såkalt abrahamittiske religion, hvilket er en konstruksjon basert på en illusjon.

Kristne skal ikke tro de er «noe bedre enn», syne å være Joyces anliggende og primære intensjon. Det er litt av en metode å misjonere for kristentroen på. Hun kunne også, selvsagt, ha bragt inn Luk 19. 21 som sier: «Men før hit de fiendene mine som ikke ville at jeg skulle være konge over dem og drep dem rett foran meg».

Antakelig vil Joyce føle at dette er for drøy kost, selv for Linda Noor. Mange kristne får seg ikke til å tro at dette står i Bibelen, i DnT. De har i så fall ingen genuin kristen tro. Men ett må stå helt klart: Volden i disse versene i Bibelen kan ikke på noen måte begrunnes ut fra det kristne principium, som sådan, mens voldverset i sura 9. 5 kan.

De som ikke skjønner noe av Treenigheten eller som det er forbudt å to på for, slik det er i islam, forstår selvsagt ikke noe av disse uttalelsene fra Jesus. Luk 19. 21 kan bli oppfattet som et brudd på rascismeparagrafen, - det er det man er redd for og underlegger seg, lydig og servilt. 

Men så har altså NRK gjort seg til et snøfnugg, som smelter for det totalitære og ber om beskyttelse mot sannheten, fordi «barna» i denne verden forventes å ikke tåle virkeligheten, og som derfor må beskyttes – med diplomati, dvs selvromantisering via selv sentimentalisering, - ikke stort mer.

Bare den jødiske paneldeltakeren, norske Michal Krohn, tror jeg han heter, med «kontor» som rabbi i Bern, hadde noe vesentlig og virkelig interessant å bidra med, fra 5 Mosebok. Han får på en utmerket måte frem spesielt ulikheten i forhold til behandlingen av kvinner som tas til fange i en krig mellom jødedom (og derfor kristendom her), mellom islam og de to andre religionene. Jeg tror ingen av de andre deltakerne forsto poenget, særlig ikke programlederen …  Jødedommen ser på sin åpenbaring som progressiv, i islam er det motsatt, i prinsippet, og derfor ser vi islamistiske grupper i dag behandle kvinnelige slaver på samme måte som på profetens tid.

I programmet tar man utgangspunkt i en «undersøkelse» som liksom skal vise at kristendommen er mer voldelig enn de påstått andre abrahamittiske religionene. Det er konvertitten Linda Noor som bruker «abrahamittiske religioner» om kristendom, jødedom og islam, helt uimotsagt. Og som om dette ikke skulle være helt kokko eller verre å forutsette, som om det var en uomtvistelig sannhet, hvilket det ikke er.

At NRK der og da ikke problematiserer påstanden, vitner om det herskende emosjonelt forkvaklede paradigme i NRK allerede er diktert av servilt betingede korrekte emosjoner, og derfor bygget på feighet i stedet for mot og frimodighet. Feighet overfor så mangt, men mest overfor islam.

https://radio.nrk.no/serie/kompass/sesong/202212

Fra undersøkelsen det vises til, fra 2016, heter det: “Of … three texts, the content in the Old Testament appears to be the most violent.

Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%), but the Old Testament clearly leads—more than twice that of the Quran—in mentions of destruction and killing (5.3%).”

References of killing and destruction as percentage of verbatim text

• Quran - 2.1%
• New Testament - 2.8%
• Old Testament - 5.3%
  

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/09/bible-and-quran-text-analysis_n_9192596.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_violence

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

Se denne:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/-sp-karen-armstrong-religious-violence-myth-secular

Poengene I et nøtteskall:

Why Talk of the ‘Abrahamic’ Faiths is an Ecumenical Farce: Spearheaded by Pope Francis. November 24, 2022 by Raymond Ibrahim

What if you had a deceased grandfather whom you were particularly fond of, and out of the blue, a stranger says: “Hey, that’s my grandpa!” Then—lest you think this stranger is somehow trying to ingratiate himself with you—he adds: “And everything you thought you knew about grandpa is wrong!  Here, let me tell you what he really said and did throughout his life.”  The stranger then proceeds to inform you that much of the good things you had long attributed to your grandfather were, not just false, but the exact opposite of what he is now attributing to your grandfather—much of which you find immensely disturbing.

Would that endear this stranger to you? Every proponent of the so-called “Abrahamic Faiths” apparently thinks so.

I will explain, but first let’s define “Abrahamism”: because the patriarch Abraham is an important figure in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all three religions, according to this position, share a commonality that should bridge gaps and foster growth between them.

Pope Francis is one of the chief proponents of this view.  Speaking of his recent participation at an interfaith conference in Bahrain, he said his purpose was to create “fraternal alliances” with Muslims “in the name of our Father Abraham.”

Even so, Abrahamism is hardly limited to octogenarian theologians; it’s entrenched in mainstream American discourse.  Thus, even the Huffington Post (rather ludicrously) claims that “Muhammad clearly rejected elitism and racism and demanded that Muslims see their Abrahamic brothers and sisters as equals before God.”  In fact, Muhammad and his Allah called for perpetual war on Christians and Jews, until they either embraced Islam or lived in humbled submission to their Muslim conquerors (Koran 9:29).

That, of course, did not stop former Secretary of State John Kerry from beating on a mosque drum and calling Muslims to prayer during his visit to Indonesia—before gushing: “It has been a special honor to visit this remarkable place of worship. We are all bound to one God and the Abrahamic faiths tie us together in love for our fellow man and honor for the same God.”

After a Muslim from an Oklahoma City mosque decapitated a woman, “an official from Washington D.C. flew in to Oklahoma to present a special thank you to the Muslim congregation,” lest they feel too guilty over their coreligionist’s actions. He read them a message from former President Barack Obama: “Your service is a powerful example of the powerful roots of the Abrahamic faiths and how our communities can come together with shared peace with dignity and a sense of justice.”

Needless to say, Obama himself has often spoken of “the shared Abrahamic roots of three of the world’s major religions.”

Meanwhile, few people seem to have given this Abrahamic business much thought: How is one people’s appropriation of another people’s heritage—which is precisely what Abrahamism is all about—supposed to help the two peoples get along?

For starters, Islam does not represent biblical characters the way they are presented in the Bible, the oldest book in existence that mentions them.  Christians accept the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, as it is. They do not add, take away, or distort the accounts of the patriarchs that Jews also rely on.

Conversely, while also relying on the figures of the Old and New Testaments—primarily for the weight of antiquity and authority attached to their names—Islam completely recasts them to fit its own agendas.

One need only look to the topic at hand for proof: Abraham.

Jews and Christians focus on different aspects of Abraham—the former see him as their patriarch in the flesh, the latter as their patriarch in faith or in spirit (e.g., Gal 3:6)—but they both rely on the same verbatim account of Abraham as found in Genesis.

In the Muslim account, however, not only does Abraham (Ibrahim) quit his country on God’s promise that he will make him “a great nation” (Gen. 12), but he exemplifies the hate Muslims are obligated to have for all non-Muslims:  “You have a good example in Abraham and those who followed him,” Allah informs Muslims in Koran 60:4; “for they said to their people, ‘We disown you and the idols that you worship besides Allah. We renounce you: enmity and hate shall reign between us until you believe in Allah alone.’”

In fact, Koran 60:4 is the cornerstone verse that all “radical” Muslims—from al-Qaeda to the Islamic State—cite as proof that Muslims “must be hostile to the infidel—even if he is liberal and kind to you” (to quote the revered Sheikh Ibn Taymiyya, The Al-Qaeda Reader, p. 84).

Thus, immediately after quoting 60:4, Osama bin Laden once wrote:

So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility, and an internal hate from the heart. And this fierce hostility—that is, battle—ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [a dhimmi], or if the Muslims are [at that point in time] weak and incapable [of spreading sharia law to the world]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the hearts, this is great apostasy [The Al-Qaeda Reader, p. 43].

Such is the mutilation Patriarch Abraham has undergone in Islam. Not only is he not a source of commonality between Muslims on the one hand and Jews and Christians on the other; he is the chief figure to justify “enmity and hate … between us until you believe in Allah alone.”

Islam’s appropriation of Abraham has led to other, more concrete problems, of the sort one can expect when a stranger appears and says that the home you live in was actually bequeathed to him by your supposedly “shared” grandfather. Although the Jews claimed the Holy Land as their birthright for well over a millennium before Muhammad and Islam came along, Jerusalem is now special to Muslims partially because they also claim Abraham and other biblical figures.

As a result, statements like the following from mainline Christian groups such as the Presbyterian Church USA are common: “[PCUSA] strongly condemns the U.S. President’s [Trump’s] decision to single out Jerusalem as a Jewish capital.  Jerusalem is the spiritual heart of three Abrahamic faiths …”

The Muslim appropriation and mutilation of revered biblical figures is a source of problems, not solutions. When, as another example, Islam’s Jesus—Isa—returns, he will smash all crosses (because they signify His death and resurrection, which Islam vehemently denies), abrogate the jizya (or dhimmi status, meaning Christians must either become Muslim or die) and slaughter all the pigs to boot. Again, not exactly a great shared source of “commonality” for Christians and Muslims.

It is only the secular mindset, which cannot comprehend beyond the surface fact that three religions claim the same figures—and so they must all eventually “be friends”—that does not and never will get it.  All the more shame, then, that supposed Christian leaders, such as Pope Francis, rely on such “logic.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/why-talk-of-the-abrahamic-faiths-is-an-ecumenical-farce/

New study claims that the Bible is more violent than the Qur’an, Feb 10, 2016 5:27 pm By Robert Spencer . Problems with this study:

1. Tom Anderson used an English version of the Qur’an, which often obscure the martial meaning of words such as jahada, strive or struggle, which is the verbal form of jihad. Translating this word as “strive” is common, but obscures the violent import.

2. The study seems to have simply counted words that suggested violence. There is no hint in this article that Anderson took into account whether or not believers were being commanded to imitate the violent action. In the Bible, they aren’t. There are many passages of the Qur’an, on the other hand, that direct believers to commit violent acts. “Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%),” says this article, but it doesn’t mention that nowhere in the New Testament are Christians told to kill, while Muslims are told to kill many times in the Qur’an (2:191, 4:89, 9:5, 47:4, etc.).

3. There are armed groups of Muslims all over the world today, killing people and justifying their actions by referring to the Qur’an and Sunnah. There are no groups of Jews or Christians killing people and justifying their actions by referring to the Bible. This is not an accident, and warrants consideration in any genuine study of which religion’s book is more violent: mainstream exegesis in all three traditions should have been taken into account.

If it had been, however, Anderson would have found the Islam is much, much more violent than Judaism and Christianity, and that is not an outcome that the Western intelligentsia wants to hear.

“‘Violence more common’ in Bible than Quran, text analysis reveals,” by Samuel Osborne, Independent, February 10, 2016:

An analysis into whether the Quran is more violent than the Bible found killing and destruction occur more frequently in the Christian texts than the Islamic.

Investigating whether the Quran really is more violent than its Judeo-Christian counterparts, software engineer Tom Anderson processed the text of the Holy books to find which contained the most violence.

In a blog post, Mr Anderson explains: “The project was inspired by the ongoing public debate around whether or not terrorism connected with Islamic fundamentalism reflects something inherently and distinctly violent about Islam compared to other major religions.”

Using text analytics software he had developed, named Odin Text, he analysed both the New International Version of both the Old and New Testaments as well as an English-language version of the Quran from 1957.

It took just two minutes for his software to read and analyse the three books.

By categorising words into eight emotions – Joy, Anticipation, Anger, Disgust, Sadness, Surprise, Fear/Anxiety and Trust – the analysis found the Bible scored higher for anger and much lower for trust than the Quran.

Further analysis found the Old Testament was more violent than the New Testament, and more than twice as violent as the Quran.

Mr Anderson summarises: “Of the three texts, the content in the Old Testament appears to be the most violent.

“Killing and destruction are referenced slightly more often in the New Testament (2.8%) than in the Quran (2.1%), but the Old Testament clearly leads—more than twice that of the Quran—in mentions of destruction and killing (5.3%).”…

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/02/new-study-claims-that-the-bible-is-more-violent-than-the-quran

https://www.frontpagemag.com/robert-spencer-debate-islam-more-violent-frontpage-editors/

-

Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam? by Raymond Ibrahim, Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2009, pp. 3-12

"There is far more violence in the Bible than in the Qur'an; the idea that Islam imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during the time of the Crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting brutal holy wars against Islam."[1] So announces former nun and self-professed "freelance monotheist," Karen Armstrong. This quote sums up the single most influential argument currently serving to deflect the accusation that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant: All monotheistic religions, proponents of such an argument say, and not just Islam, have their fair share of violent and intolerant scriptures, as well as bloody histories. Thus, whenever Islam's sacred scriptures—the Qur'an first, followed by the reports on the words and deeds of Muhammad (the Hadith)—are highlighted as demonstrative of the religion's innate bellicosity, the immediate rejoinder is that other scriptures, specifically those of Judeo-Christianity, are as riddled with violent passages.

More often than not, this argument puts an end to any discussion regarding whether violence and intolerance are unique to Islam. Instead, the default answer becomes that it is not Islam per se but rather Muslim grievance and frustration—ever exacerbated by economic, political, and social factors—that lead to violence. That this view comports perfectly with the secular West's "materialistic" epistemology makes it all the more unquestioned.

Therefore, before condemning the Qur'an and the historical words and deeds of Islam's prophet Muhammad for inciting violence and intolerance, Jews are counseled to consider the historical atrocities committed by their Hebrew forefathers as recorded in their own scriptures; Christians are advised to consider the brutal cycle of violence their forbears have committed in the name of their faith against both non-Christians and fellow Christians. In other words, Jews and Christians are reminded that those who live in glass houses should not be hurling stones.

But is that really the case? Is the analogy with other scriptures legitimate? Does Hebrew violence in the ancient era, and Christian violence in the medieval era, compare to or explain away the tenacity of Muslim violence in the modern era?

Violence in Jewish and Christian History

Along with Armstrong, any number of prominent writers, historians, and theologians have championed this "relativist" view. For instance, John Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, wonders,

How come we keep on asking the same question, [about violence in Islam,] and don't ask the same question about Christianity and Judaism? Jews and Christians have engaged in acts of violence. All of us have the transcendent and the dark side. … We have our own theology of hate. In mainstream Christianity and Judaism, we tend to be intolerant; we adhere to an exclusivist theology, of us versus them.[2]

An article by Pennsylvania State University humanities professor Philip Jenkins, "Dark Passages," delineates this position most fully. It aspires to show that the Bible is more violent than the Qur'an:

[I]n terms of ordering violence and bloodshed, any simplistic claim about the superiority of the Bible to the Koran would be wildly wrong. In fact, the Bible overflows with "texts of terror," to borrow a phrase coined by the American theologian Phyllis Trible. The Bible contains far more verses praising or urging bloodshed than does the Koran, and biblical violence is often far more extreme, and marked by more indiscriminate savagery. … If the founding text shapes the whole religion, then Judaism and Christianity deserve the utmost condemnation as religions of savagery.[3]

Several anecdotes from the Bible as well as from Judeo-Christian history illustrate Jenkins' point, but two in particular—one supposedly representative of Judaism, the other of Christianity—are regularly mentioned and therefore deserve closer examination.

The military conquest of the land of Canaan by the Hebrews in about 1200 B.C.E. is often characterized as "genocide" and has all but become emblematic of biblical violence and intolerance. God told Moses:

But of the cities of these peoples which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them—the Hittite, Amorite, Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, and Jebusite—just as the Lord your God has commanded you, lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God.[4]

So Joshua [Moses' successor] conquered all the land: the mountain country and the South and the lowland and the wilderness slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord, God of Israel had commanded.[5]

As for Christianity, since it is impossible to find New Testament verses inciting violence, those who espouse the view that Christianity is as violent as Islam rely on historical events such as the Crusader wars waged by European Christians between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries. The Crusades were in fact violent and led to atrocities by the modern world's standards under the banner of the cross and in the name of Christianity. After breaching the walls of Jerusalem in 1099, for example, the Crusaders reportedly slaughtered almost every inhabitant of the Holy City. According to the medieval chronicle, the Gesta Danorum, "the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles."[6]

In light of the above, as Armstrong, Esposito, Jenkins, and others argue, why should Jews and Christians point to the Qur'an as evidence of Islam's violence while ignoring their own scriptures and history?

Bible versus Qur'an;

The answer lies in the fact that such observations confuse history and theology by conflating the temporal actions of men with what are understood to be the immutable words of God. The fundamental error is that Judeo-Christian history—which is violent—is being conflated with Islamic theology—which commands violence. Of course, the three major monotheistic religions have all had their share of violence and intolerance towards the "other." Whether this violence is ordained by God or whether warlike men merely wished it thus is the key question.

Old Testament violence is an interesting case in point. God clearly ordered the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples. Such violence is therefore an expression of God's will, for good or ill. Regardless, all the historic violence committed by the Hebrews and recorded in the Old Testament is just that—history. It happened; God commanded it. But it revolved around a specific time and place and was directed against a specific people. At no time did such violence go on to become standardized or codified into Jewish law. In short, biblical accounts of violence are descriptive, not prescriptive.

This is where Islamic violence is unique. Though similar to the violence of the Old Testament—commanded by God and manifested in history—certain aspects of Islamic violence and intolerance have become standardized in Islamic law and apply at all times. Thus, while the violence found in the Qur'an has a historical context, its ultimate significance is theological. Consider the following Qur'anic verses, better known as the "sword-verses":

Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way.[7]

Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day, and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden – such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book – until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.[8]

As with Old Testament verses where God commanded the Hebrews to attack and slay their neighbors, the sword-verses also have a historical context. God first issued these commandments after the Muslims under Muhammad's leadership had grown sufficiently strong to invade their Christian and pagan neighbors. But unlike the bellicose verses and anecdotes of the Old Testament, the sword-verses became fundamental to Islam's subsequent relationship to both the "people of the book" (i.e., Jews and Christians) and the "idolaters" (i.e., Hindus, Buddhists, animists, etc.) and, in fact, set off the Islamic conquests, which changed the face of the world forever. Based on Qur'an 9:5, for instance, Islamic law mandates that idolaters and polytheists must either convert to Islam or be killed; simultaneously, Qur'an 9:29 is the primary source of Islam's well-known discriminatory practices against conquered Christians and Jews living under Islamic suzerainty.

In fact, based on the sword-verses as well as countless other Qur'anic verses and oral traditions attributed to Muhammad, Islam's learned officials, sheikhs, muftis, and imams throughout the ages have all reached consensus—binding on the entire Muslim community—that Islam is to be at perpetual war with the non-Muslim world until the former subsumes the latter. Indeed, it is widely held by Muslim scholars that since the sword-verses are among the final revelations on the topic of Islam's relationship to non-Muslims, that they alone have abrogated some 200 of the Qur'an's earlier and more tolerant verses, such as "no compulsion is there in religion."[9] Famous Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) admired in the West for his "progressive" insights, also puts to rest the notion that jihad is defensive warfare:

In the Muslim community, the holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force ... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense ... They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people. That is why the Israelites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g., a caliphate]. Their only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the nations] … But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.[10]

Modern authorities agree. The Encyclopaedia of Islam's entry for "jihad" by Emile Tyan states that the "spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated." Iraqi jurist Majid Khaduri (1909-2007), after defining jihad as warfare, writes that "jihad … is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community."[11] And, of course, Muslim legal manuals written in Arabic are even more explicit.[12]

Qur'anic Language;

When the Qur'an's violent verses are juxtaposed with their Old Testament counterparts, they are especially distinct for using language that transcends time and space, inciting believers to attack and slay nonbelievers today no less than yesterday. God commanded the Hebrews to kill Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites—all specific peoples rooted to a specific time and place. At no time did God give an open-ended command for the Hebrews, and by extension their Jewish descendants, to fight and kill gentiles. On the other hand, though Islam's original enemies were, like Judaism's, historical (e.g., Christian Byzantines and Zoroastrian Persians), the Qur'an rarely singles them out by their proper names. Instead, Muslims were (and are) commanded to fight the people of the book—"until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled"[13] and to "slay the idolaters wherever you find them."[14]

The two Arabic conjunctions "until" (hata) and "wherever" (haythu) demonstrate the perpetual and ubiquitous nature of these commandments: There are still "people of the book" who have yet to be "utterly humbled" (especially in the Americas, Europe, and Israel) and "idolaters" to be slain "wherever" one looks (especially Asia and sub-Saharan Africa). In fact, the salient feature of almost all of the violent commandments in Islamic scriptures is their open-ended and generic nature: "Fight them [non-Muslims] until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. [Emphasis added.]"[15] Also, in a well-attested tradition that appears in the hadith collections, Muhammad proclaims:

I have been commanded to wage war against mankind until they testify that there is no god but God and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God; and that they establish prostration prayer, and pay the alms-tax [i.e., convert to Islam]. If they do so, their blood and property are protected. [Emphasis added.][16]

This linguistic aspect is crucial to understanding scriptural exegeses regarding violence. Again, it bears repeating that neither Jewish nor Christian scriptures—the Old and New Testaments, respectively—employ such perpetual, open-ended commandments. Despite all this, Jenkins laments that

Commands to kill, to commit ethnic cleansing, to institutionalize segregation, to hate and fear other races and religions … all are in the Bible, and occur with a far greater frequency than in the Qur'an. At every stage, we can argue what the passages in question mean, and certainly whether they should have any relevance for later ages. But the fact remains that the words are there, and their inclusion in the scripture means that they are, literally, canonized, no less than in the Muslim scripture.[17]

One wonders what Jenkins has in mind by the word "canonized." If by canonized he means that such verses are considered part of the canon of Judeo-Christian scripture, he is absolutely correct; conversely, if by canonized he means or is trying to connote that these verses have been implemented in the Judeo-Christian Weltanschauung, he is absolutely wrong.

Yet one need not rely on purely exegetical and philological arguments; both history and current events give the lie to Jenkins's relativism. Whereas first-century Christianity spread via the blood of martyrs, first-century Islam spread through violent conquest and bloodshed. Indeed, from day one to the present—whenever it could—Islam spread through conquest, as evinced by the fact that the majority of what is now known as the Islamic world, or dar al-Islam, was conquered by the sword of Islam. This is a historic fact, attested to by the most authoritative Islamic historians. Even the Arabian peninsula, the "home" of Islam, was subdued by great force and bloodshed, as evidenced by the Ridda wars following Muhammad's death when tens of thousands of Arabs were put to the sword by the first caliph Abu Bakr for abandoning Islam.

Muhammad's Role;

Moreover, concerning the current default position which purports to explain away Islamic violence—that the latter is a product of Muslim frustration vis-à-vis political or economic oppression—one must ask: What about all the oppressed Christians and Jews, not to mention Hindus and Buddhists, of the world today? Where is their religiously-garbed violence? The fact remains: Even though the Islamic world has the lion's share of dramatic headlines—of violence, terrorism, suicide-attacks, decapitations—it is certainly not the only region in the world suffering under both internal and external pressures.

For instance, even though practically all of sub-Saharan Africa is currently riddled with political corruption, oppression and poverty, when it comes to violence, terrorism, and sheer chaos, Somalia—which also happens to be the only sub-Saharan country that is entirely Muslim—leads the pack. Moreover, those most responsible for Somali violence and the enforcement of intolerant, draconian, legal measures—the members of the jihadi group Al-Shabab (the youth)—articulate and justify all their actions through an Islamist paradigm.

In Sudan, too, a jihadi-genocide against the Christian and polytheistic peoples is currently being waged by Khartoum's Islamist government and has left nearly a million "infidels" and "apostates" dead. That the Organization of Islamic Conference has come to the defense of Sudanese president Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court, is further telling of the Islamic body's approval of violence toward both non-Muslims and those deemed not Muslim enough.

Latin American and non-Muslim Asian countries also have their fair share of oppressive, authoritarian regimes, poverty, and all the rest that the Muslim world suffers. Yet, unlike the near daily headlines emanating from the Islamic world, there are no records of practicing Christians, Buddhists, or Hindus crashing explosives-laden vehicles into the buildings of oppressive (e.g., Cuban or Chinese communist) regimes, all the while waving their scriptures in hand and screaming, "Jesus [or Buddha or Vishnu] is great!" Why?

There is one final aspect that is often overlooked—either from ignorance or disingenuousness—by those who insist that violence and intolerance is equivalent across the board for all religions. Aside from the divine words of the Qur'an, Muhammad's pattern of behavior—his sunna or "example"—is an extremely important source of legislation in Islam. Muslims are exhorted to emulate Muhammad in all walks of life: "You have had a good example in God's Messenger."[18] And Muhammad's pattern of conduct toward non-Muslims is quite explicit.

Sarcastically arguing against the concept of moderate Islam, for example, terrorist Osama bin Laden, who enjoys half the Arab-Islamic world's support per an Al-Jazeera poll,[19] portrays the Prophet's sunna thusly:

"Moderation" is demonstrated by our prophet who did not remain more than three months in Medina without raiding or sending a raiding party into the lands of the infidels to beat down their strongholds and seize their possessions, their lives, and their women.[20]

In fact, based on both the Qur'an and Muhammad's sunna, pillaging and plundering infidels, enslaving their children, and placing their women in concubinage is well founded.[21] And the concept of sunna—which is what 90 percent of the billion-plus Muslims, the Sunnis, are named after—essentially asserts that anything performed or approved by Muhammad, humanity's most perfect example, is applicable for Muslims today no less than yesterday. This, of course, does not mean that Muslims in mass live only to plunder and rape.

But it does mean that persons naturally inclined to such activities, and who also happen to be Muslim, can—and do—quite easily justify their actions by referring to the "Sunna of the Prophet"—the way Al-Qaeda, for example, justified its attacks on 9/11 where innocents including women and children were killed: Muhammad authorized his followers to use catapults during their siege of the town of Ta'if in 630 C.E.—townspeople had refused to submit—though he was aware that women and children were sheltered there. Also, when asked if it was permissible to launch night raids or set fire to the fortifications of the infidels if women and children were among them, the Prophet is said to have responded, "They [women and children] are from among them [infidels]."[22]

Jewish and Christian Ways;

Though law-centric and possibly legalistic, Judaism has no such equivalent to the Sunna; the words and deeds of the patriarchs, though described in the Old Testament, never went on to prescribe Jewish law. Neither Abraham's "white-lies," nor Jacob's perfidy, nor Moses' short-fuse, nor David's adultery, nor Solomon's philandering ever went on to instruct Jews or Christians. They were understood as historical acts perpetrated by fallible men who were more often than not punished by God for their less than ideal behavior.

As for Christianity, much of the Old Testament law was abrogated or fulfilled—depending on one's perspective—by Jesus. "Eye for an eye" gave way to "turn the other cheek." Totally loving God and one's neighbor became supreme law.[23] Furthermore, Jesus' sunna—as in "What would Jesus do?"—is characterized by passivity and altruism. The New Testament contains absolutely no exhortations to violence.

Still, there are those who attempt to portray Jesus as having a similarly militant ethos as Muhammad by quoting the verse where the former—who "spoke to the multitudes in parables and without a parable spoke not"[24]—said, "I come not to bring peace but a sword."[25] But based on the context of this statement, it is clear that Jesus was not commanding violence against non-Christians but rather predicting that strife will exist between Christians and their environment—a prediction that was only too true as early Christians, far from taking up the sword, passively perished by the sword in martyrdom as too often they still do in the Muslim world. [26]

Others point to the violence predicted in the Book of Revelation while, again, failing to discern that the entire account is descriptive—not to mention clearly symbolic—and thus hardly prescriptive for Christians. At any rate, how can one conscionably compare this handful of New Testament verses that metaphorically mention the word "sword" to the literally hundreds of Qur'anic injunctions and statements by Muhammad that clearly command Muslims to take up a very real sword against non-Muslims?

Undeterred, Jenkins bemoans the fact that, in the New Testament, Jews "plan to stone Jesus, they plot to kill him; in turn, Jesus calls them liars, children of the Devil."[27] It still remains to be seen if being called "children of the Devil" is more offensive than being referred to as the descendents of apes and pigs—the Qur'an's appellation for Jews.[28] Name calling aside, however, what matters here is that, whereas the New Testament does not command Christians to treat Jews as "children of the Devil," based on the Qur'an, primarily 9:29, Islamic law obligates Muslims to subjugate Jews, indeed, all non-Muslims.

Does this mean that no self-professed Christian can be anti-Semitic? Of course not. But it does mean that Christian anti-Semites are living oxymorons—for the simple reason that textually and theologically, Christianity, far from teaching hatred or animosity, unambiguously stresses love and forgiveness. Whether or not all Christians follow such mandates is hardly the point; just as whether or not all Muslims uphold the obligation of jihad is hardly the point. The only question is, what do the religions command?

John Esposito is therefore right to assert that "Jews and Christians have engaged in acts of violence." He is wrong, however, to add, "We [Christians] have our own theology of hate." Nothing in the New Testament teaches hate—certainly nothing to compare with Qur'anic injunctions such as: "We [Muslims] disbelieve in you [non-Muslims], and between us and you enmity has shown itself, and hatred for ever until you believe in God alone."[29]

Reassessing the Crusades;

And it is from here that one can best appreciate the historic Crusades—events that have been thoroughly distorted by Islam's many influential apologists. Karen Armstrong, for instance, has practically made a career for herself by misrepresenting the Crusades, writing, for example, that "the idea that Islam imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during the time of the Crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting brutal holy wars against Islam."[30] That a former nun rabidly condemns the Crusades vis-à-vis anything Islam has done makes her critique all the more marketable. Yet statements such as this ignore the fact that from the beginnings of Islam, more than 400 years before the Crusades, Christians have noted that Islam was spread by the sword.[31] Indeed, authoritative Muslim historians writing centuries before the Crusades, such as Ahmad Ibn Yahya al-Baladhuri (d. 892) and Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (838-923), make it clear that Islam was spread by the sword.

The fact remains: The Crusades were a counterattack on Islam—not an unprovoked assault as Armstrong and other revisionist historians portray. Eminent historian Bernard Lewis puts it well,

Even the Christian crusade, often compared with the Muslim jihad, was itself a delayed and limited response to the jihad and in part also an imitation. But unlike the jihad, it was concerned primarily with the defense or reconquest of threatened or lost Christian territory. It was, with few exceptions, limited to the successful wars for the recovery of southwest Europe, and the unsuccessful wars to recover the Holy Land and to halt the Ottoman advance in the Balkans. The Muslim jihad, in contrast, was perceived as unlimited, as a religious obligation that would continue until all the world had either adopted the Muslim faith or submitted to Muslim rule. … The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law.[32]

Moreover, Muslim invasions and atrocities against Christians were on the rise in the decades before the launch of the Crusades in 1096. The Fatimid caliph Abu 'Ali Mansur Tariqu'l-Hakim (r. 996-1021) desecrated and destroyed a number of important churches—such as the Church of St. Mark in Egypt and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem—and decreed even more oppressive than usual decrees against Christians and Jews. Then, in 1071, the Seljuk Turks crushed the Byzantines in the pivotal battle of Manzikert and, in effect, conquered a major chunk of Byzantine Anatolia presaging the way for the eventual capture of Constantinople centuries later.

It was against this backdrop that Pope Urban II (r. 1088-1099) called for the Crusades:

From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians [i.e., Muslim Turks] … has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away a part of the captives into its own country, and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion.[33]

Even though Urban II's description is historically accurate, the fact remains: However one interprets these wars—as offensive or defensive, just or unjust—it is evident that they were not based on the example of Jesus, who exhorted his followers to "love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you."[34] Indeed, it took centuries of theological debate, from Augustine to Aquinas, to rationalize defensive war—articulated as "just war." Thus, it would seem that if anyone, it is the Crusaders—not the jihadists—who have been less than faithful to their scriptures (from a literal standpoint); or put conversely, it is the jihadists—not the Crusaders—who have faithfully fulfilled their scriptures (also from a literal stand point). Moreover, like the violent accounts of the Old Testament, the Crusades are historic in nature and not manifestations of any deeper scriptural truths.

In fact, far from suggesting anything intrinsic to Christianity, the Crusades ironically better help explain Islam. For what the Crusades demonstrated once and for all is that irrespective of religious teachings—indeed, in the case of these so-called Christian Crusades, despite them—man is often predisposed to violence. But this begs the question: If this is how Christians behaved—who are commanded to love, bless, and do good to their enemies who hate, curse, and persecute them—how much more can be expected of Muslims who, while sharing the same violent tendencies, are further commanded by the Deity to attack, kill, and plunder nonbelievers?

Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum and author of The Al Qaeda Reader (New York: Doubleday, 2007).

[1] Andrea Bistrich, "Discovering the common grounds of world religions," interview with Karen Armstrong, Share International, Sept. 2007, pp. 19-22.
[2] C-SPAN2, June 5, 2004.
[3] Philip Jenkins, "Dark Passages," The Boston Globe, Mar. 8, 2009.
[4] Deut. 20:16-18.
[5] Josh. 10:40.
[6] "The Fall of Jerusalem," Gesta Danorum, accessed Apr. 2, 2009.
[7] Qur. 9:5. All translations of Qur'anic verses are drawn from A.J. Arberry, ed. The Koran Interpreted: A Translation (New York: Touchstone, 1996).
[8] Qur. 9:29.
[9] Qur. 2:256.
[10] Ibn Khaldun, The Muqudimmah: An Introduction to History, Franz Rosenthal, trans. (New York: Pantheon, 1958,) vol. 1, p. 473.
[11] Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (London: Oxford University Press, 1955), p. 60.
[12] See, for instance, Ahmed Mahmud Karima, Al-Jihad fi'l-Islam: Dirasa Fiqhiya Muqarina (Cairo: Al-Azhar University, 2003).
[13] Qur. 9:29.
[14] Qur. 9:5.
[15] Qur. 8:39.
[16] Ibn al-Hajjaj Muslim, Sahih Muslim, C9B1N31; Muhammad Ibn Isma'il al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari (Lahore: Kazi, 1979), B2N24.
[17] Jenkins, "Dark_Passages."
[18] Qur. 33:21.
[19] "Al-Jazeera-Poll: 49% of Muslims Support Osama bin Laden," Sept. 7-10, 2006, accessed Apr. 2, 2009.
[20] 'Abd al-Rahim 'Ali, Hilf al Irhab (Cairo: Markaz al-Mahrusa li 'n-Nashr wa 'l-Khidamat as-Sahafiya wa 'l-Ma'lumat, 2004).
[21] For example, Qur. 4:24, 4:92, 8:69, 24:33, 33:50.
[22] Sahih Muslim, B19N4321; for English translation, see Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader (New York: Doubleday, 2007), p. 140.
[23] Matt. 22:38-40.
[24] Matt. 13:34.
[25] Matt. 10:34.
[26] See, for instance, "Christian Persecution Info," Christian Persecution Magazine, accessed Apr. 2, 2009.
[27] Jenkins, "Dark_Passages."
[28] Qur. 2:62-65, 5:59-60, 7:166.
[29] Qur. 60:4.
[30] Bistrich, "Discovering the common grounds of world religions," pp. 19-22; For a critique of Karen Armstrong's work, see "Karen Armstrong," in Andrew Holt, ed. Crusades-Encyclopedia, Apr. 2005, accessed Apr. 6, 2009.
[31] See, for example, the writings of Sophrinius, Jerusalem's patriarch during the Muslim conquest of the Holy City, just years after the death of Muhammad, or the chronicles of Theophane the Confessor.
[32] Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years (New York: Scribner, 1995), p. 233-4.
[33] "Speech of Urban—Robert of Rheims," in Edward Peters, ed., The First Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and Other Source Materials (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), p. 27.
[34] Matt. 5:44.

https://www.meforum.org/2159/are-judaism-and-christianity-as-violent-as-islam

Funnet på nettet, umulig å oppspore, men tankevekkende, selv om «premissene» er helt gale eller helt utilstekkelige for å danne seg et mer essensielt og sant bilde, kanskje, - jeg overlater svaret til leseren:

1.  Whose god has promised the cruelest fate for people of different religions?

Correct Answer: D. (Both are equally vicious. Both gods have utter disdain for all other religions and condemn the followers of those faiths to eternal damnation.) “Surely those who disbelieve . . . Allah has set a seal upon their hearts . . . and there is a great punishment for them” (Koran 2:6-7). “Surely those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers, these it is on whom is the curse of Allah and the angels and men all” (Koran 2:161). [W]hen the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance of them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord . . . (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9). “[H]e that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him”(John 3:36).  

2.  Whose god orders the most violent plight for nonbelievers while on Earth?

Correct Answer: C. (The Christian god because he ordered his followers to kill all those of a different religion, including family members, friends and even their cattle, whereas the Moslem god simply required the enslaving of nonbelievers .) “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods . . . thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people . . . If thou shalt hear . . . Certain men . . . have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods . . . Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants ofthat city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword” (Deuteronomy13:6-15). “Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection” (Koran 9:29).
 

3.  Whose god orders the cruelest warfare?

Correct Answer: D. (The Christian god because he ordered his followers to kill all the men inthe towns they invaded, enslaving only the women and children (who sometimes were to be slaughtered as well, along with every other living thing insight.)) “So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates” (Koran 47:4). “And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones . . . shalt thou take unto thyself . . . But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth”(Deuteronomy 20:13-16).
 

4.  Whose god has the least pity and most contempt for the enemies of his followers?

Correct Answer: D. (B and C.) “And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both males, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men who were before the house. And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go you forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city” (Ezekiel 9:5-7). “Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice” (Koran 60:8). “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing” (Koran 8:61).
 

5.  Whose god has more contempt for homosexuals?

Correct Answer: D. (B and C.) “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them”(Leviticus 20:13). “And if two (men) of you commit it, then hurt them both; but if they turn again and amend, leave them alone, verily, God is easily turned, compassionate” (Koran 4:21). “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God”(1 Corinthians 6:9-10). "And there shall wait on them young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls" (Koran 52:24). “They shall be attended by boys graced with eternal youth, who will seem like scattered pearls to the beholders" (Koran 76:19).
 

6.  Whose god has prescribed the more vicious physical punishment of sinners?

Correct Answer: B. (The Moslem god because he ordered his followers to apply more lashes to sinners than the Christian god did.) “(As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement” (Koran 24:2). “And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face . . . Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed”(Deuteronomy 25:2-3).
 

7.  Whose god should you fear most?

Correct Answer: C. (The Christian god because while Allah may be worthy of fear, God not only kills those who rub Him the wrong way but sends them to Hell as well.) “What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Apostle, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers” (Koran 9:13). “But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him” (Luke 12:5). “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).
 

8.  Whose god places the least value on the lives of women?

Correct Answer: D.(This is basically a wash. Both gods view women as less worthwhile than men.) “Allah enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females; then if they are more than two females, shall have two-thirds of what the deceased has left, and if there is one, she shall they have the half” (Koran 4:11). "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and sayunto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above, if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female, ten shekels" (Leviticus27:1-7).
 

9. Whose god puts women in their place with the harshest of restrictions on their speech?

Correct Answer: D. (B and C) “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" ; (1 Timothy 2:11-12). "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (1Corinthians 14:34-35). "Allah has heard and accepted the statement of the woman who pleads with you (the Prophet) concerning her husband and carries her complaint to Allah, and Allah hears the arguments between both of you for Allah hears and sees all things”(Koran 58:1).
 

10. Whose god is the champion of deceit?

Correct Answer: D. (Neither wins for both “B”and “C” are true.) “Surely Allah is not ashamed to set forth any parable-- (that of) a gnat or any thing above that; then as for those who believe, they know that it is the truth from their Lord, and as for those who disbelieve, they say: What is it that Allah means by this parable: He causes many to err by it and many He leads aright by it! but He does not cause to err by it (any) except the transgressors” (Koran2:26). “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (2Thessalonians 2:11-12).

-

Fra eget arkiv: Kampvers mm I Koranen:

3. 5      Den som ikke tror på Allah vil tape

3. 17    Islam er den sanne religion for Allah

3. 106  Allah's umma (parti/forsamling) er perfekt/ufeilbarlig

8. 40    Jihad, - "hellig krig" -  for Allah er en plikt for alle muslimer

9. 33    Islam står over alle andre religioner

34. 27  Allah og islam skal vinne herredømme over alle folk og religioner

35. 37  Muslimene er utvalgt av Allah til å lede alle folk og religioner

48. 28  Koranen er sendt ned av Allah og islam skal seire for Allah overalt

61. 9    Seieren er ”allerede sikret" av Allah

 

15 av i alt 114 surer i Koranen handler om kamp til døden mot vantro – dvs 10%

 

Sure 2: I alt 9 vers: 178/179/190/191/193/216/217/218/244

Sure 3: I alt 13 vers: 122/123/124/125/140/155/166/167/169/173/195

Sure 4: I alt 15 vers: 71/72/74/75/76/77/84/89/91/94/95/100/102/104

Sure 5: I alt 3 vers: 33/35/38

Sure 8: I alt 18 vers: 5/7/9/12/15/16/17/39/42/45/59/65/67/69/71/72/74/75

Sure 9: I alt 27 vers: 5/12/13/14/16/17/39/41/44/52/73/81/83/86/88/92/111/120/122/123

Sure 16: I alt 1 vers: 110

Sure 22: I alt 2 vers: 39/78

Sure 29: I alt 2 vers: 6/69

Sure 33: I alt 5 vers: 7/18/20/25/26

Sure 47: I alt 1 vers: 20

Sure 48: I alt 3 vers: 16/22

Sure 59: I alt 6 vers: 2/5/6/7/8/14

Sure 60: I alt 1 vers: 9

Sure 61: I alt 1 vers: 61. 4

Mer enn 100 vers fremmer krig, halshugging, slaveri og seksuell utnyttelse av kvinnelige slaver.

Muhammed understreker flere dusin ganger at Koranen bekrefter de jødiske og kristne skriftene og ikke en gang at den (feilaktig) korrigerer dem. 

At antallet på jomfruer i Paradis er 72 bekreftes 5 ganger i Koranen og hadith. (?)

Hvis hver fortelling som er repetert i Koranen ble gitt bare 1 gang, ville Koranen skrumpe inn til 40% av hva den er i dag.

Noen av de bibelske fortellingene pluss legendene om Abraham i Koranen gjentas 24 ganger i de første 87 suraene i Koranen.

Fortellingen om Moses og Farao gjentas hele 27 ganger. Dvs. 1 gjenfortelling for hver 3.3 sure. 

Jødenes påske – exodus - er utelatt i alle de 27 fortellingene.

Å tvile på Koranen medfører dødsstraff i dette livet og evig pine i det neste: Sure 2. 39, 2. 85 og 3. 106.

I sure 2 repeteres dette i versene 7/10/23/39/48/79/81/90/96 og vers 98: I alt 10 ganger.

Truslene repeteres mao. ca 1 gang for hvert 9, 5 av de 286 versene i denne suraen.

I sure 3 gjentas truslene 1 gang i hvert 7, 4 av de 200 versene.

I sure 5 gjentas så disse truslene igjen 1 gang for hvert 7. 2 vers.

Koranen har til sammen 6151 vers (Rothwell) fordelt på 114 Surer. I alt 783 ganger trues det med helvetes ild, Allah's vrede, evig fordømmelse og fortapelse.

Det trues med helvete 1 gang for hvert 7. 9 vers i Koranen. Helvete er nevnt 31 ganger i Det gamle testamente, 1 gang for hvert 774 vers. I Det nye testamente nevnes lignende ting 1 gang for hvert 120 vers av i alt 7992 vers.

Alle muslimer som nekter å dra i kamp eller rømmer eller trekker seg tilbake fra slagmarken dømmes til helvete, se Sure 8. 6 og 9. 49. 

Det advares mot avgudsdyrking 117 ganger.

Det advares 7 ganger mot å fornærme profeten i sure 33, (etter at han tok Zainab til kone, dvs. hans nevøs kone.)

I sure 4. 3 går det frem at det er mangel på selvkontroll som begrunner polygami, ikke et overskudd av enker etter slagene.

Muhammed siterer Allah (ikke engelen eller skapningen Gabriel) ca 100 ganger der Allah bekrefter at Koranen er sendt ned fra Ham, se Sure 16. 46 og 21. 10 f eks.

Jesus er ren, dvs. uten synd: Sure  19.19

Jesus er "et ord fra Allah": Sure 3. 39

Jesus er en ånd fra ham, dvs. Allah: Sure 4. 171

Muhammed er syndig: Sure 40. 55

(Don Richardson, s 96 ff).

Markus Aurelius i: Bleeding for Allah:

Koranen dreier seg om for nesten 30% vedkommende om andres tro og hvilke fryktelige konsekvenser det vil få ikke å bli muslim og tro på Allah og profeten.

Begrepet kjærlighet forekommer 675% mer i Det nye testamente enn i Koranen, (Dnt), (henholdsvis ca 270 mot 40). Ord som brukes om alle ikkemuslimer forekommer mer enn 1500% i forhold til i Dnt, (ca 700 mot 44). Ord som helvete, straff, tortur, vrede, gjengjeldelse, frykt, taper, lidelse forekommer ca 640% flere ganger enn tilsvarende ord i Det nye testamente, (1000 mot 157). Ord som terror, krig, kamp, angrep og bakhold og deres derivater brukes 600% mer i Koranen enn i Dnt, (120/18).

Ord som helbrede, redde/frelse, glede og håp forekommer mer enn 500% mer i Dnt enn i Koranen, (300/60).

Interessant nok brukes ord som nåde, tilgi, velsigne mer enn 200% oftere enn disse forekommer i Dnt, (500/200). Ordene myntes imidlertid bare på muslimer.

Islam Evil in the name of God (fra Bill Warner’s Center for Political Islam):

Bare 17% av de slamske skriftene omhandler ord fra Allah, resten er uttalelser fra Muhammed.

Ordet helvete brukes 6% med tanke på moralske feilgrep, mens det brukes 94% med relasjon til uenighet med Muhammed.

Ordet jihad brukes i 97% av nevnte ganger om krig, bare 3% om selvforedling eller ”indre jihad”.

67% av Koranen handler om å straffe vantro for å være uenig med Muhammed. Over 50% av suraene fra Medina om hyklere og jihad mot vantro.

Nesten 75% av surane handler om jihad. 20% av hadithsamlingene av Bukhari handler om jihad.

I 4% av suraene fremstilles kvinner som overlegne mannen, i 91% er kvinner underlegne og i bare 5% var mann og kvinne likestilte.

10, 6% av Medina-surane handler om jødehat. (6.8% av Hitlers Mein Kampf handler om det samme).

Det fins over 200 direkte umoralske utsagn i Koranen. Det fins 320 000 ”derogatory statements and commandments” i de muslimske skriftene om å drepe, ydmyke, torturere, terrorisere, underlegge eller ikke å snakke med ikkemuslimer.

Spørreundersøkelser har vist at 20% av verdens muslimer støtter selvmordsbombere – dette betyr 300 millioner verden over.

Markus Aurelius: Hvis vi sier at 99% av alle verdens muslimer ikke tror bokstavelig på Koranen og la oss si at 99% av 1% av alle de muslimer som virkelig tror bokstavelig på den ikke vil begå voldelige handlinger på grunn av sin tro, vil det bety at bare 1% av 1% av alle muslimer vil ty til vold på grunn av sin tro.

Dette betyr at det fins 120 000 potensielle terrorister i den muslimske verden i dag.

http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2022/11/islam-angrep-pa-dar-al-harb-krigens-hus.html