T Nation

Jefferson's Quran

I just got this email from one of my friends:

What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad…

Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States Congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim
book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.

Capitol Hill staff said Ellison’s swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the US House. Ellison
represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.

The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America’s founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.

Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson’s Quran because it showed that “a visionary like Jefferson” believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.

There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be “gleaned” from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic “Barbary” states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.

Ellison’s use of Jefferson’s Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly
forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic “Barbary” states.

Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.

The taking of slaves in predawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the “non-Muslim” older men and women as possible so the preferred “booty” of only young women and children could be collected.

Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.

Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs, who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created “eunuch stations” along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.

When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for
protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the “Dey of Algiers”–an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.

Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with
the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.

Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to
pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.

Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled “through the medium of war.” He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.

In 1786, Jefferson, then the American Ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the “Dey of Algiers” Ambassador to Britain.

The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote to appease.

During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey’s ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam
“was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise.”

For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of
American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20% of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Not long after Jefferson’s inauguration as President in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.

Declaring that America was going to spend “millions for defense but not one cent for tribute,” Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines
and many of America’s best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.

The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.

In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.

During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by
Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.

Jefferson’s victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country’s battles on the land as on the sea.”

It wasn’t until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.

Jefferson had been right. The “medium of war” was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a
“visionary” wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I just got this email from one of my friends:

What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad…

Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States Congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim
book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.

Capitol Hill staff said Ellison’s swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the US House. Ellison
represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.

The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America’s founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.

Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson’s Quran because it showed that “a visionary like Jefferson” believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.

There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be “gleaned” from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic “Barbary” states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.

Ellison’s use of Jefferson’s Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly
forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic “Barbary” states.

Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.

The taking of slaves in predawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the “non-Muslim” older men and women as possible so the preferred “booty” of only young women and children could be collected.

Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.

Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs, who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created “eunuch stations” along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.

When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for
protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the “Dey of Algiers”–an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.

Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with
the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.

Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to
pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.

Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled “through the medium of war.” He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.

In 1786, Jefferson, then the American Ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American Ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the “Dey of Algiers” Ambassador to Britain.

The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress’ vote to appease.

During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey’s ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam
“was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to paradise.”

For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of
American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20% of United States government annual revenues in 1800.

Not long after Jefferson’s inauguration as President in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.

Declaring that America was going to spend “millions for defense but not one cent for tribute,” Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines
and many of America’s best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.

The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.

In 1805, American Marines marched across the dessert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.

During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by
Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.

Jefferson’s victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country’s battles on the land as on the sea.”

It wasn’t until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.

Jefferson had been right. The “medium of war” was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a
“visionary” wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.
[/quote]

Zap,
An excellent read. Makes one wonder what’s being taught in those mosques???

Bah, everyone knows that diplomacy (or bribery) is the only avenue to peace! All that “war” stuff is for mental midgets looking for an excuse to justify the US’s massive military expenditures.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim
book of jihad [/quote]

Calling the Qu’ran the ‘Muslim book of Jihad’ is no more apposite than calling the Bible the ‘Christian book of Holy Crusades’. Extreme interpretations of either book can lead to irrational behaviour by their followers.

It is a shame that intelligent discussion should be marred by frivolous rhetoric.

[quote]jarvis wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim
book of jihad

Calling the Qu’ran the ‘Muslim book of Jihad’ is no more apposite than calling the Bible the ‘Christian book of Holy Crusades’. Extreme interpretations of either book can lead to irrational behaviour by their followers.
[/quote]

I agree. Unfortunately extreme interpretation of the Quran seems all too commonplace.

The letter is a bit over the top but it makes some good points.

[quote]jarvis wrote:

Calling the Qu’ran the ‘Muslim book of Jihad’ is no more apposite than calling the Bible the ‘Christian book of Holy Crusades’. Extreme interpretations of either book can lead to irrational behaviour by their followers.

It is a shame that intelligent discussion should be marred by frivolous rhetoric.[/quote]

I understand your point, but the substantive difference is that the Bible does not call for military crusades, nor was Jesus a military leader famous for spreading his word by the sword. Contrast that to the Qu’ran, which textually affirms both for the religion of Islam.

The comparison is not all that apt. While Islamism may be an extreme interpretation, the leap from the holy book to the call for war is not that wide, compared to what it would be for the Christian Bible.

And it certainly isn’t frivolous rhetoric to recognize the enabling passages of the Qu’ran so that we can deal with them, rather than pretending as though they don’t exist.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
jarvis wrote:

Calling the Qu’ran the ‘Muslim book of Jihad’ is no more apposite than calling the Bible the ‘Christian book of Holy Crusades’. Extreme interpretations of either book can lead to irrational behaviour by their followers.

It is a shame that intelligent discussion should be marred by frivolous rhetoric.

I understand your point, but the substantive difference is that the Bible does not call for military crusades, nor was Jesus a military leader famous for spreading his word by the sword. Contrast that to the Qu’ran, which textually affirms both for the religion of Islam.

The comparison is not all that apt. While Islamism may be an extreme interpretation, the leap from the holy book to the call for war is not that wide, compared to what it would be for the Christian Bible.

And it certainly isn’t frivolous rhetoric to recognize the enabling passages of the Qu’ran so that we can deal with them, rather than pretending as though they don’t exist.[/quote]

You mean its not a religion of peace? I’m shocked!!!

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
jarvis wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim
book of jihad

Calling the Qu’ran the ‘Muslim book of Jihad’ is no more apposite than calling the Bible the ‘Christian book of Holy Crusades’. Extreme interpretations of either book can lead to irrational behaviour by their followers.

I agree. Unfortunately extreme interpretation of the Quran seems all too commonplace.

It is a shame that intelligent discussion should be marred by frivolous rhetoric.

The letter is a bit over the top but it makes some good points.

[/quote]

Word up.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

I agree. Unfortunately extreme interpretation of the Quran seems all too commonplace.
[/quote]

And the extreme interpretation of the Bible by Bush’s Conservatives isn’t commonplace?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And it certainly isn’t frivolous rhetoric to recognize the enabling passages of the Qu’ran so that we can deal with them, rather than pretending as though they don’t exist.[/quote]

I was indicating that calling the Qu’ran the ‘book of jihad’ was frivolous rhetoric. At no point would I advocate a head in the sand policy towards understanding the motivations of the enemy in a war.

Whilst Jesus Christ was never known to spread his religion by the sword, the Holy crusades of 1095-1291 were sanctioned papally. Therefore, historically speaking one could make the point that when interpreted in an extreme way, both Christianity and Islam can be utilised to sanction war.

Zap, you also made some good points. I have been deliberately staying away from this particular section of the forums for a while. However you seem pretty level headed and willing to concede along certain lines of reasoning.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

I agree. Unfortunately extreme interpretation of the Quran seems all too commonplace.

And the extreme interpretation of the Bible by Bush’s Conservatives isn’t commonplace?
[/quote]

Very few people are interpreting the Bible to go blow up people.

[quote]jarvis wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
And it certainly isn’t frivolous rhetoric to recognize the enabling passages of the Qu’ran so that we can deal with them, rather than pretending as though they don’t exist.

I was indicating that calling the Qu’ran the ‘book of jihad’ was frivolous rhetoric. At no point would I advocate a head in the sand policy towards understanding the motivations of the enemy in a war.

Whilst Jesus Christ was never known to spread his religion by the sword, the Holy crusades of 1095-1291 were sanctioned papally. Therefore, historically speaking one could make the point that when interpreted in an extreme way, both Christianity and Islam can be utilised to sanction war.

Zap, you also made some good points. I have been deliberately staying away from this particular section of the forums for a while. However you seem pretty level headed and willing to concede along certain lines of reasoning.

[/quote]

I stayed away for a while because it can ge out of hand with the neo-nazis and other trolls but is fun to discuss these issues with people of differing viewpoints.

Thomas “the Libertarian” Jefferson, without congressional approval, sends warships – Adams’ Navy – to attack Tripoli. Say it isn’t so!

[quote]jarvis wrote:

Whilst Jesus Christ was never known to spread his religion by the sword, the Holy crusades of 1095-1291 were sanctioned papally. Therefore, historically speaking one could make the point that when interpreted in an extreme way, both Christianity and Islam can be utilised to sanction war.[/quote]

Correct - it was sanctioned papally, and we know from Christian history that people departed from the papal authority by by actually claiming men had gotten Christ’s vision wrong (see the Reformation). By contrast, the warlike nature of spreading religion by the sword is directly attributable to the infallible Divine Prophet in Islam, not by clerics. This creates a different problem - Muhammed was divine and could not err, and therefore it is difficult for Muslims to ever say Muhammed was wrong to engage in war. We can’t say the propensity for religious violence comes from men like it does in Christianity, it instead comes from the direct action of the infallible Prophet. This creates an easier justification to say that war in the name of Islam is natural and right.

It’s not that both religions haven’t had violent periods. The point is the religions are not the same in substance, and comparing them directly runs the danger of missing the point - getting Christians to absolve themselves of spreading the Gospel by the sword is a hell of a lot easier than getting Muslims to do the same, because of the nature of Muhammed and the Qu’ran.

Some interesting points thunderbolt. It’s clear that I need to go and read the Qu’ran and see these views expressed in their proper context. I’ve had a copy lying around for a while that I’ve never gotten round to reading.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
jarvis wrote:

Calling the Qu’ran the ‘Muslim book of Jihad’ is no more apposite than calling the Bible the ‘Christian book of Holy Crusades’. Extreme interpretations of either book can lead to irrational behaviour by their followers.

It is a shame that intelligent discussion should be marred by frivolous rhetoric.

I understand your point, but the substantive difference is that the Bible does not call for military crusades, nor was Jesus a military leader famous for spreading his word by the sword. Contrast that to the Qu’ran, which textually affirms both for the religion of Islam.

The comparison is not all that apt. While Islamism may be an extreme interpretation, the leap from the holy book to the call for war is not that wide, compared to what it would be for the Christian Bible.

And it certainly isn’t frivolous rhetoric to recognize the enabling passages of the Qu’ran so that we can deal with them, rather than pretending as though they don’t exist.[/quote]

The Bible calls for the slaying of innocent children, and thousands upon millions of Americans and others to be killed.

This includes: Every Gay man, every rebellious teenager, everybody who does anything but pray on Sundays, anybody who does not believe in God, anybody who blasphemes the Holy Spirit (the only offense even Jesus Christ could not bring himself to forgive), and many, many more.

These things are not happening, as the things described in the Koran are. But does that make the BOOK any less evil? Nope.

It’s all about interpretation. You say Jesus wasn’t a soldier; neither was Mohammed. He was, actually, a merchant. Just like Jesus was a carpenter (at some point).

Christianity has an even greater history or oppressing others and killing in the name of God than Islam. Islams evilness is just more current.

Some Muslims are evil.
Some Christians are evil.
Not all Muslims are evil.
Not all Christians are evil.

Both books containing equally disgusting, as well as equally insightful words.

If you compare the books, not the people, they stand on equal ground.

Even comparing the people, the religion is used more as an excuse for war than anything else. I don’t believe for one second Osama Bin Laden is attacking America and hates America solely because he believes the Koran tells him to. In fact, I say it has very little to do with his actual decision making, and all to do with his recruitment. Certainly, it plays some role, but I don’t believe it it’s as big a role as many people like to think.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

the substantive difference is that the Bible does not call for military crusades,[/quote]

By “Bible,” Thunder, I assume you are referring to the Christian Bible (New Testament), and not the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament).

For certainly, a look at both the Quran and the Hebrew Bible shows that the Allah who called for bloody jihad against idolaters and infidels is the very same god as the Yahweh who, in the books of Deuteronomy, Judges, Samuel etc., commanded Joshua, David and the other Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites and Philistines, smash their idols, enslave their wives and daughters, and occupy their lands.

Yahweh is often referred to as the “Lord of Hosts” (a host, of course, being an army), as is Allah in the Quran.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

By “Bible,” Thunder, I assume you are referring to the Christian Bible (New Testament), and not the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament).

For certainly, a look at both the Quran and the Hebrew Bible shows that the Allah who called for bloody jihad against idolaters and infidels is the very same god as the Yahweh who, in the books of Deuteronomy, Judges, Samuel etc., commanded Joshua, David and the other Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites and Philistines, smash their idols, enslave their wives and daughters, and occupy their lands.

Yahweh is often referred to as the “Lord of Hosts” (a host, of course, being an army), as is Allah in the Quran. [/quote]

Correct, Varqanir - but you essentially answered your own question: the New Testament.

That is my point. There has been plenty of blood shed in Christianity’s name, but the point is not that Christianity has no blood on its hands, but rather more avenues to argue from a ‘Christian’ perspective that such violent behavior is wrong - Jesus was a personal pacifist, turning the other cheek, and so forth.

There is no similar angle to play in the Qu’ran - who can make the Muslim argument that Islam should not be spread at the point of a sword? Since Muhammad’s divinity was confirmed for many by virtue of military victory at Badr, plus the fact that the victory was an example of Allah intervening on the behalf of Islam’s righteousness, it is difficult to make the ‘Muslim’ argument that Islam should eschew any conquest by sword.

It’s not that the Bible hasn’t been used for violent ends, it’s that Christians have also been able to use that same Bible to also eschew violence - which they have. It is much more difficult for readers of the Qu’ran - who aren’t interested as a doctrinal matter in straying from textual literalism - to find their way out of violence relying on their holy book.

Not impossible for Muslims, just more difficult. And waiting/hoping for them do it is all the more exhausting because they have so little to work with (little wiggle room in the text of the holy book, no Enlightenment to act as a counterweight, etc.).

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:

By “Bible,” Thunder, I assume you are referring to the Christian Bible (New Testament), and not the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament).

For certainly, a look at both the Quran and the Hebrew Bible shows that the Allah who called for bloody jihad against idolaters and infidels is the very same god as the Yahweh who, in the books of Deuteronomy, Judges, Samuel etc., commanded Joshua, David and the other Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites and Philistines, smash their idols, enslave their wives and daughters, and occupy their lands.

Yahweh is often referred to as the “Lord of Hosts” (a host, of course, being an army), as is Allah in the Quran.

Correct, Varqanir - but you essentially answered your own question: the New Testament.

That is my point. There has been plenty of blood shed in Christianity’s name, but the point is not that Christianity has no blood on its hands, but rather more avenues to argue from a ‘Christian’ perspective that such violent behavior is wrong - Jesus was a personal pacifist, turning the other cheek, and so forth.

There is no similar angle to play in the Qu’ran - who can make the Muslim argument that Islam should not be spread at the point of a sword? Since Muhammad’s divinity was confirmed for many by virtue of military victory at Badr, plus the fact that the victory was an example of Allah intervening on the behalf of Islam’s righteousness, it is difficult to make the ‘Muslim’ argument that Islam should eschew any conquest by sword.

It’s not that the Bible hasn’t been used for violent ends, it’s that Christians have also been able to use that same Bible to also eschew violence - which they have. It is much more difficult for readers of the Qu’ran - who aren’t interested as a doctrinal matter in straying from textual literalism - to find their way out of violence relying on their holy book.

Not impossible for Muslims, just more difficult. And waiting/hoping for them do it is all the more exhausting because they have so little to work with (little wiggle room in the text of the holy book, no Enlightenment to act as a counterweight, etc.).[/quote]

I can agree with this. Well worded and very moderate stance, Thunderbolt. Very good points and a solid argument based in logic.

I like it :slight_smile:

But; just so you know, the New Testament is riddled with good old fashioned violence and horribly disgusting passages. Not nearly as much, however, as the Old testament and Koran.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

the substantive difference is that the Bible does not call for military crusades,

By “Bible,” Thunder, I assume you are referring to the Christian Bible (New Testament), and not the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament).

For certainly, a look at both the Quran and the Hebrew Bible shows that the Allah who called for bloody jihad against idolaters and infidels is the very same god as the Yahweh who, in the books of Deuteronomy, Judges, Samuel etc., commanded Joshua, David and the other Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites and Philistines, smash their idols, enslave their wives and daughters, and occupy their lands.

Yahweh is often referred to as the “Lord of Hosts” (a host, of course, being an army), as is Allah in the Quran. [/quote]

The old testament god was certainly a cruel motherfucker.

Jesus was more of a peace and love type.