A Comparison of Violence in the Bible and the Koran

A recent study (see below) makes the claim that the Bible is as violent as the Koran. Hence there is no need to worry about with Islam. It is just like Christianity and Judaism.

My only interest is in political violence, not when Cain killed Able. Political violence is when a group attacks those outside of it. It is political when Muslims kill Kafirs in jihad, for instance. This eliminates counting personal violence and internal wars.

We want to measure ideas, so we count more than individual sentences. We need to count all the content that applies to the political violence.

There is no political violence in the New Testament, There are 34,000 words about political violence in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and 328,000 in the Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and the Hadith (his traditions). In short, there is nearly 10 times as much political violence in Islamic doctrine than there is in the Bible.

The violence in the Old Testament is historical in nature, not prescriptive. The violence in Islam is prescriptive applicable to all people and times. Jihad is forever.

This data all makes sense. It will be Muslims committing murder in the morning news, not Methodists or Mennonites.

Сравнение жестокости в Библии и Коране
Недавнее исследование (см. ниже) позволяет утверждать, что Библия является такой же жестокой, как и Коран. Поэтому не стоит беспокоиться по поводу Ислама. Он такой же, как христианство и иудаизм.
Мой единственный интерес касается политического насилия, а не того, когда Каин убил Авеля. Политическое насилие проявляется тогда, когда группа нападает на тех, кто в нее не входит. Политический характер проявляется тогда, когда мусульмане убивают кафиров в джихаде, например. Это не включает личное насилие и внутренние разборки.
Мы хотим измерить идеи, так что мы предпочитаем не ограничиваться отдельными фразами. Нам нужно все то, что относится к политическому насилию.
В Новом Завете нет политического насилия. Насчитываются 34.000 слов о политическом насилии в иудейской Библии (Ветхий Завет) и 328,000 слов в Коране, в Сире (Жизнь Мухаммада) и хадисах (традиции). Короче говоря, в исламской доктрине имеется почти в 10 раз больше политического насилия, чем в Библии.
Насилие в Ветхом Завете носит исторический, не предписывающий характер. Насилие в Исламе — предписывающее и применимо ко всем людям и времени. Джихад – навсегда. Все эти данные имеют смысл. Именно мусульмане совершают убийства в утренних новостях, а не методисты или меннониты.


3 Responses


    Dr Bill Warner you are totally wrong.
    Ali never supported AbuBaker, Umar and Uthman. Ali was a great warrior. But he did not join any war initiated by AbuBaker, Umar and Uthman. He opposed them. Read the last wish and regrets of AbuBaker.
    Read about the treatment AbuBaker gave to the daughter of Prophet Muhammad.
    AbuBaker, Umar and Uthman were usurp rulers.
    After the death of Uthman Muslims were really messed up and they begged Ali to become their Caliph.
    Ali fought with so called Muslims for all of his tenure to undo what his predecessors did.
    After the death of Ali the so called Caliphate was again in the hands of usurp rulers. They used Islam to get political gains.
    AbuBaker, Umar, Uthman Muaweeya and onward were Sunni Caliphs only. From Muaweeya and onward most Sunni Caliphs were as brutal as ISIS.

    Most Sunnis are ignorant about Islam. They do not know who, when and why somebody named them Sunni Muslims instead of Muslims. It is easy to manipulate an ignorant.
    Daesh is manipulating ignorant Sunni to join them. Syrian and Iraqi Sunni invited them as their Sunni brothers to help them. They named themselves ISIS (Daesh) in Syria. Now Daesh is beheading the Sunnis too.
    I came across the following information about the origin of Sunni name. I asked 100’s of Sunni scholars but nobody knew the origin of Sunni name then I researched myself from Sunni books and found the following reason.
    1- Umer bin Khatab appointed a small council from his death bed to appoint his successor with the condition that his successor has to follow the Sunnah of his predecessors (AbuBaker and Umer) and if the nominee does not accept this condition his head should be cut off. The council offered Khilafat to Ali with this condition but Ali (as) said .
    ““I shall act according to the Book of God, and the Sunnah of His Apostle. As for following the precedents of Abu Bakr and Umar, I have a judgment of my own, and I am going to use it.”
    The council did not cut his head. Uthman accepted that condition and became Khalifa.
    After the death of Uthman, Ali became Khalifa and Muaweeya became against him.
    Muaweeya needed something against Ali so he told his followers that Ali rejects the Sunnah of AbuBaker and Umer but Muaweeya accepts the Sunnah of AbuBaker and Umer. Muaweeya called his followers AHLE-SUNNAH. There were no newspapers, TV, Radio, good transportation at that time. Ruler’s orders were the only news. If anybody was against the ruler, they used to cut his head off. Many people joined Muaweeya and were known as Ahle-Sunnah. Muaweeya fought with Ali and made a fraudulent pact with Ali . Muaweeya realized that he could not fool Muslims forever so he declared that he had treaty with Ali . NOW WE ARE UNITED AS ONE UMMAH. He added WA JAMAIT to show unity among all Muslims. Ahle-Sunnah wal Jamait became the religion of rulers. It fitted well for them. Every ruler after Muweeya protected this Ahle-Sunnah wal Jamait because it accepted them Khalifa.
    Ottoman empire started as SULTAN not Khalifa but then they realized the political benefits of Ahle-Sunnah wal Jamait. They became Ahle-Sunnah wal Jamait and declared themselves KHALIFA.
    This is the origin of Ahle-sunnah wal Jamait (SUNNI).

  2. […] devrait savoir que, comme l’a dit Bill Warner, il n’y a pas de violence politique dans le Nouveau Testament, alors qu’il y a 328.000 […]

  3. anti-statist

    Dr. Warner, I greatly appreciate your skill and talent as it relates to statistical analysis. Thank you for taking the time to present the important difference between prescriptive violence which permeates Islam, and the complete absence of it in the new testament. I have read the new testament through many times, and I can assure anyone; violence toward your follow man is absolutely and unquestionably proscribed!

Leave a Reply

We require registration to prevent excessive automated spam commenting.