[DanBC]

Any text can be manipulated to be violent. The concept of holy war has been in christianity for at least 1,500 years. There's plenty of vile stuff in the Bible.

Even Buddhism (which has "I will not kill" as one of its five fundamental tenets) has a buddhist army (DKBA) and a buddhist terrorist group (969 movement). Any text can be manipulated by idiots.

It's a bit disturbing to see blatant willful ignorance being pushed so fervantly.

[waps]

True, of course, but some texts can't reasonably be interpreted not to be violent. About the quran we can have reasonable arguments about who one is supposed to be violent against, when and under what conditions, but you can't reasonably argue it's not calling to fight.

Compare, if you will http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html

With http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

And judge for yourself. Take specific note of the big differences, the first link mostly consisting of calls to violence whereas the second link is mostly reports of violence. Also keep in mind that the bible is easily 3 times longer than the quran.

[dragonwriter]

> Take specific note of the big differences, the first link mostly consisting of calls to violence whereas the second link is mostly reports of violence.

I disagree with that characterization, and will note further, that of those things that are "reports of violence", they are largely:

(1) reports of violence by God, or (2) reports of violence by people acting out calls to violence from God, or (3) reports of violence that are explicitly condoned as good

None of which are substantially different from a call to violence, especially when they are reports of future violence that meet #2 and/or #3 (as many of those from Revelation are.)