"Much to my surprise, the Islamic
scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than
those in the Bible," Jenkins says.
Jenkins is a professor at Penn State
University and author of two books dealing with the issue: the recently
published Jesus Wars, and Dark Passages , which has not been published but is
already drawing controversy.
Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures
in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the
- Philip Jenkins, author of 'Jesus Wars'
Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is
largely a defense against attack.
"By the standards of the time, which is
the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are
actually reasonably humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and
we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a
specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call
It is called herem, and it means total
annihilation. Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to
attack the Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not
spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man
and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."
When Saul failed to do that, God took away
"In other words," Jenkins says,
"Saul has committed a dreadful sin by failing to complete genocide. And
that passage echoes through Christian history. It is often used, for example,
in American stories of the confrontation with Indians — not just is it
legitimate to kill Indians, but you are violating God's law if you do
Jenkins notes that the history of
Christianity is strewn with herem. During the Crusades in the Middle Ages, the
Catholic popes declared the Muslims Amalekites. In the great religious wars in
the 16th, 17th and 19th centuries, Protestants and Catholics each believed the
other side were the Amalekites and should be utterly destroyed.
Barbara Bradley Hagerty
Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran? – Link to
NPR – National Public Radio
March 18, 2010
THE THREAD OF SUPREMACY
The pundits of all hues, leanings, and
national origin are busy explaining the genesis of terrorism. The Muslim
baiting cadre attributes it to their different values, hatred of
Judeo-Christian ethos, lure of paradise with nubile and willing virgins, and
all kinds of thinly disguised racist attitudes. Others dwell on desperation,
reaction to historic injustices, after effects of colonialism, legacy of the
Soviet Union, poverty, lack of education, indoctrination, reaction to Iraq and
Relative success in achieving objectives
against an otherwise invincible foe has been blamed for enhancing the fanatical
fervor. But only countries of little consequence withdrew from Iraq after their
soldiers came under attack, till Spain gave in the aftermath of train bombings,
and Italy was shaken in its resolve.
There is an element of truth in all the
proffered reasons. Not all suicide bombers are illiterate. Many come from
affluent households. The TV pictures of Madrassahs (seminaries) with children
reciting the Quran, which they obviously do not understand, would not appeal to
an educated person. The London subway suicide bombers were born and brought up
in Britain. That country offers free health service, nearly free college
education (completely free in Scotland), and a decent welfare system. One of
the bombers was teacher of children with learning difficulties. He was well
respected and had to be a sensitive and considerate person to be able to cope
with his job. It is argued that but for religious indoctrination, they would
not have suicide bombed London tubes and bus system. All 9/11 highjackers were
well educated and lived a fairly affluent life. But they conveniently forget
that George Washington and his fellow leaders of the
American war of independence were wealthy
Apologists lament that Islam does not
sanction mindless killing, that suicide is a sin in Islam etc. But the
promoters of the acts of terror appear to have equally valid authority to back up
their claim that suicide bombers are fighting injustice and killing for a good
Dr. S. Akhtar Ehtisham
Role of Religion in Violence: A Historic Review Of Its
March 27, 2014
OUT OF APOCALYPTIC FERVOR
Demonstrators and newspaper editors called on the government to
execute all ISIS sympathizers in detention, with the government acquiescing by
immediately executing two condemned Iraqi terrorists in Jordanian custody,
Sajida al-Rishawi and Ziad al-Karbouli. King Abdullah, vowing a “relentless
war” against the group, was greeted by cheering crowds of thousands.
Even radical voices critical of the coalition have been forced to
moderate their tone, likely fearful of public wrath or a spell in Jordanian
prisons. Former al-Qaeda ideologue Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi was released from
prison to condemn Kasasbeh’s burning as un-Islamic, while prominent jihadi
Salafi leader Abu Sayyaf said that the execution “had no connection to Islam,” blaming
the burning on ex-Baathist officers among ISIS ranks.
Yet the slaughter of Coptic Egyptian workers in Libya has lent further
credence to the idea that ISIS aims not to sow discord abroad, but to draw
countries such as Egypt and Jordan further into the internecine conflicts
raging on their borders, regardless as to whether they do so out of apocalyptic
fervor or the strategic logic of asymmetric warfare.
Sultan Barakat &
Jordan, Egypt, and the response to ISIS: Beyond air strikes – Link to the Article
The Brookings Institution
February 22, 2015
The centrality of the impending Apocalypse in ISIS ideology is its Achilles' heel. The bulk of end-time dogma comes from the Hadiths which have no divine sanction and are not binding on us. Many of us have for long said that the hadiths should not be considered holy books.
The only thing that the Quran tells us on the subject is that God alone knows the timing of the Quiyamah. We must actively refute and mock this obsession with eschatology.
Excellent article from Nomani and Arafa. ISIS ideology is part of Islam just as cancer is part of the body.