God’s wars and Allah’s wars, The Difference/s Between

[discipleofJesus]

"Muslim polemicists sometimes assert that Allah commanded Muhammad to fight polytheists in the same way that God commanded Moses and Joshua to fight Canaanites (Sura 2:246-251). The two situations are similar, so why would Christians and Jews complain about Islamic jihad today?

However, the comparison between the two cultures is completely flawed…"
Excerpted from “Allah and God at war: Worlds apart” by James M. Arlandson answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/allahs_wars.htm

Read the article to find out why.

 

[Cyber_Knight]

Gods war has been replaced by Gods LOVE. Allahs war has been carried fully by Muhammad and his followers till today. Thats all I can say.

 

[Contarini]

This is an incredibly weak article. Most of the points of comparison have nothing to do with the moral issue–in fact they underline the clear fact that Muhammad was less ruthless than were the Israelites according to Joshua. It takes a peculiar kind of twisted bigotry to argue that giving people a chance before you attack them somehow makes you less moral than those who slaughter without showing any mercy. And given the frequent Scriptural pronouncements of doom and destruction for those who don’t listen to God’s prophets, the Muslim treatment of Christians and Jews is relatively mild.

As for the broader question of Islamic wars of conquest, the plain historical fact is that they were not usually wars of forced conversion or extermination. Their motivation was to establish Islamic rule. And yes, once Islamic rule was in place people were often under pressure to convert to Islam (though not initially–the initial idea seems to have been that Islam was primarily for Arabs). But the fact is that Christian and Jewish minorities survived under Islam for centuries, and often even flourished. Even Muslim treatment of Hindus, harsh as it was, contrasts favorably with premodern Christian treatment of polytheists.

Edwin

 

[r.gonzales]

Contarini:

This is an incredibly weak article.
…

Edwin

good post.

 

[discipleofJesus]

Contarini:

This is an incredibly weak article…

It is not an incredibly weak article (however, your ‘rebuttal’ is incredibily weak), you have failed to understand what was written in it. A note to others, if you haven’t read the article yet, please do so to understand the it properly and don’t rely and what Edwin has just written (because he has failed to understand it). If you think I am just trying make you avoid reading what he has written, I am not. Just read the article carefully then read what he wrote and you will see what I mean.

 

[discipleofJesus]

Here’s a helpful quote from an answer by Glenn Miller to the question ‘is the Bible “as violent” as the Quran/Hadith?’ which you might want to read in addition to Arlandson’s article
christian-thinktank.com/quranlike.html

*The first thing to note about this passage is that it is about aggressive enemies–it is NOT about conquest of other nations, it is NOT about spreading Judaism throught the sword, and it is NOT about ‘judgment’ on infidel nations. It is about self-defence. [You can see this from the opening section in that chapter-- Israel is told not to be dismayed by the enemies’ strength and battle formation IN THE FIELD.]

*The second thing to note is that conquest of land (and the implicit ‘conversion’ of that land to the worship of Yahweh) was NOT a general thrust in the Hebrew Bible. Israel was SPECIFICALLY forbidden to try to conquer the land of Esau (for example), and, had the kings of Bashan and the Amorities let Israel pass through the land without incident, Israel would NOT have been allowed to annex Transjordan. But these kings were aggressively oppressive, and so the Lord (not Israel) judged them with conquest. Israel was told to travel THROUGH these lands–NOT to convert them!

*Thirdly, the only conquest in the Hebrew Bible is about the land of Canaan, which was an explusion and NOT a ‘conversion to YAHWEH’. There was nothing ‘evangelistic’ about it; it was a judgment by God on the Canaanites and their practices. God evicted them, and gave the land to new tenants.

*Fourth, the Abrahamic covenant was set up by God, with a specific judgment clause: “I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee”. Any nation that attacked Israel (when Israel was relatively righteous–unlike the Exile) would be attacked by God (not by a land-hungry Israel). By the same token, God would have blessed Israel’s neighbors had they been good neighbors to Israel (without ANY annexation of land!). That is, no requirement to convert to Israel’s “version” of Yahwehism existed in the Hebrew Bible.

*Related to this, fifthly, is that Israel was NOT supposed to conquer/convert the nations, but rather to be a ‘kingdom of Priests’–to intercede for, to teach, to heal, to nuture the foreigners. God would draw to Himself those Gentiles who wanted a closer relationship with Him.

*Next, we should note that the enemy was ALWAYS offered peace first–even if they HAD been the aggressor! Israel was NOT allowed to take their land, if they accepted peace. They became servant-states, under tribute, but their land was their own. No conquest or blood-lust at all here either.

This warfare rule for ‘when you are attacked by neighbors’ is NOTHING LIKE some general ethic that allows one to hide and ambush caravans for their goods, without ANY provocation or without ANY hostile intent. And is very distant from using conquest to ‘convert’ a nation to some religion…

 

[discipleofJesus]

Contarini:

This is an incredibly weak article. Most of the points of comparison have nothing to do with the moral issue–in fact they underline the clear fact that Muhammad was less ruthless than were the Israelites according to Joshua. It takes a peculiar kind of twisted bigotry to argue that giving people a chance before you attack them somehow makes you less moral than those who slaughter without showing any mercy. And given the frequent Scriptural pronouncements of doom and destruction for those who don’t listen to God’s prophets, the Muslim treatment of Christians and Jews is relatively mild.

As for the broader question of Islamic wars of conquest, the plain historical fact is that they were not usually wars of forced conversion or extermination. Their motivation was to establish Islamic rule. And yes, once Islamic rule was in place people were often under pressure to convert to Islam (though not initially–the initial idea seems to have been that Islam was primarily for Arabs). But the fact is that Christian and Jewish minorities survived under Islam for centuries, and often even flourished. Even Muslim treatment of Hindus, harsh as it was, contrasts favorably with premodern Christian treatment of polytheists.

Edwin

It is not an incredibly weak article (or even a weak article). A note to others, please read the article carefully then read what Edwin wrote to see if it is an incredibly weak article (or even a weak article) or not.

 

[applemango]

Contarini:

And given the frequent Scriptural pronouncements of doom and destruction for those who don’t listen to God’s prophets, the Muslim treatment of Christians and Jews is relatively mild.

As for the broader question of Islamic wars of conquest, the plain historical fact is that they were not usually wars of forced conversion or extermination.

False! Christians and Jews were treated very badly, pagans were treated a lot worse. The plain historical fact is that Islamic wars of conquest were usually wars of forced conversion or extermination. Do some research.

Christians and Jews (and maybe Zoroastrians?) had 3 choices, convert, die or pay jizya and become second class citizens who are humiliated and treated badly. Won’t get into the details but if you do some research you will see how badly they were treated.
Pagans and others who weren’t Christians and Jews (and maybe Zoroastrians?) only had 2 choices, convert or die! They didn’t have the the choice to pay jizya.
**How is that not by force or extermination?! **

Muslims are commanded to do this to the whole world, all nations, at all times, whereas in the wars in the Old Testament, these were not against the world but against a few nations (for self-defense?) at a certain period of time. Muslims do this to convert the world to Islam. The wars in the Old Testament were not about converting the nations they fought. What Muslims are commanded to do in Islam is much worse than what the Israelites were commanded to do in the Old Testament.

 

[Contarini]

False! Christians and Jews were treated very badly, pagans were treated a lot worse.

I didn’t challenge this. By the standards of a modern, democratic, pluralistic society what you say is absolutely true.

**

The plain historical fact is that Islamic wars of conquest were

usually wars of forced conversion or extermination. Do some research.**

Perhaps you can make some suggestions? I am relying largely on Marshall Hodgson’s *The Venture of Islam *(3 vols.; Univ. of Chicago Press, 1975-77). If you have sources of comparable credibility (i.e., respected, credentialed historians or primary source texts either complete or in substantial excerpts that give context), I’d like to see them. Hodgson’s interpretation fits with what I have seen in most textbooks–indeed, the Western Civ textbook I teach from is “softer” on Islam than Hodgson and I have to correct it in my lecture.

According to Hodgson, the original Muslim conquerors saw Islam as largely for Arabs. They did put heavy pressure on Arabs to convert to Islam (outright coercion in the case of pagans), but they did not expect non-Arab peoples to convert to Islam en masse. This attitude began to change in the later Umayyad period, and starting with the Abbasid era conversion was positively encouraged, and occasionally forced. There are plenty of stories of people who would otherwise have been executing being offered their lives in return for conversion; of non-Muslims being tricked into saying things that were interpreted as the “shahadah” and then forced to go through with the “conversion”; and of course on a larger scale of non-Muslims becoming Muslim because of the huge social advantages of such a step.

But the fact is that large non-Muslim minorities existed in Muslim lands for centuries.

Christians and Jews (and maybe Zoroastrians?) had 3 choices, convert, die or pay jizya and become second class citizens who are humiliated and treated badly.

How does this “bad treatment” compare with the way religious minorities (and for that matter the bulk of the peasant population of whatever religion) were treated under the Byzantine and Sassanid Persian empires? Hodgson claims that the poll tax exacted by Muslims was on the whole fairer and less oppressive than the taxation policies of those two empires. He could be wrong, but I await some evidence to that effect (a scholar of comparable stature who says otherwise would do). And no one disputes that Justinian’s armies massacred Monophysites in sixth-century Egypt, and that both Justinian and Heraclius persecuted Jews and pagans.

Pagans and others who weren’t Christians and Jews (and maybe Zoroastrians?) only had 2 choices, convert or die! They didn’t have the the choice to pay jizya.

That’s not true. Hindus existed under Muslim rule for centuries. By the late Middle Ages Muslims ruled most of India–but there are still millions of Hindus in India. Yes, there were instances of forced conversion and quite a few massacres, and certainly Hindus were treated much worse than Christians or Jews (or even Zoroastrians). But generally speaking pagans were not forcibly converted either.

 

[Contarini]

Muslims are commanded to do this to the whole world, all nations, at all times,

Again, Hodgson says otherwise. I’m inclined to believe him over you, unless you have credentials as a historian of Islam that I don’t know about. Yes, Muslims did/do recognize a mandate to spread Islam (which includes the imposition of shari’ah), and military conquest was (and is among many) one legitimate way to do this. But that is not the same thing as forced conversion. And many Muslims today would not see military force as a legitimate way to spread Islam. Ask them! It’s quite possible to interpret “jihad” as a war against injustice and tyranny (both the Byzantine and Persian empires were absolute monarchies) and to recognize that democratic, tolerant societies are not tyrannical and do not need to be overthrown. I’m not claiming that all or even most Muslims worldwide think this. But this 'liberal" interpretation does exist. To claim that this is somehow not “true” Islam is an act of stupendous folly and arrogance on the part of non-Muslims. How would you like it if non-Christians started telling you what you were really “supposed” to believe based on their reading of the Bible and Christian history?

whereas in the wars in the Old Testament, these were not against the world but against a few nations (for self-defense?) at a certain period of time.

According to Deuteronomy, the Israelites had the right to conquer not only the land of Canaan (slaughtering everyone), but also all the peoples between Egypt and the Euphrates river (they were to reduce them to tributary status, and if they resisted they were to kill all the males and enslave the women and children). Granted this is geographically limited. But I don’t see that this makes a lot of moral difference. “Self-defense” is not given as the reason legitimating this kind of holy war–rather, YHWH has given the Hebrews the land and hence they have the right and duty to slaughter its inhabitants.

Muslims do this to convert the world to Islam. The wars in the Old Testament were not about converting the nations they fought.

It’s hard for me to imagine the process of reasoning that leads you think that this comparison is in favor of the ancient Hebrews. Killing everyone without mercy is somehow *better *than giving them a chance to convert? (Never mind that Muslims rarely forced people to convert en masse, in spite of your unsubstantiated claims.)

And then there is the very spotty Christian record in this regard. Charlemagne gave the Saxons the choice between baptism and death. Olaf Tryggvason treated his own Norwegian subjects the same way. Hodgson claims that Christianity’s record in this regard is substantially worse than that of Islam. I’m not sure he’s right. But I can’t see that it’s much better.

Edwin

 

[Gnosis]

In God at War, Arlandson attempts to simultaneously discredit the violence performed in the name of the God of Islam as grave and unjust atrocities, while upholding the dignity of Christianity by defending similar violence perpetrated by the Christian God in the Old Testament.
He delivers two quotes, one from the Old Testament and one from the Qu’ran, both record God inciting bloodshed. The one from the Qu’ran, he says, is doubly hard to accept as “Christ showed us a better way”. Such a bias is hardly conductive to the academic argument he thinks he is proposing. Obviously Muslims do not believe that the means of salvation were changed by the death of Jesus, so it should have no bearing on his argument.
His first point of defense of is that “the historic span of the Bible and Qu’ran must be considered”, in which he asserts there is a considerable more percentage of violence in the Qu’ran when one considers it was written in ten years and the Bible in 1400. The Bible, when considering the time span, comes out peaceful while the Qu’ran, more violent. I don’t think it is quite clear as to how this, in any sense, justifies the actions of God in Canaan. The Old Testament gives us the picture of a God who commits genocide, who deliberately attempts to wipe out a race of people. A time span is absolutely irrelevant as to whether or not an act is justified. I suppose he is trying to say that the bible is much more realistic, in that it has times of peace and times of war, but whether the bible comes across as more authentic or not is irrelevant as to whether or not violence in the name of God is justified. And when one considers the supernatural claims of the Bible, the notion of what is “realistic” seems rather moot.
His second point is that the “Canaanites were beyond hope” but the pagan Arabs could have been saved. Firstly, the only evidence that the Canaanites were beyond hope lies in the Bible. While it is acknowledged that the moral practices of the Canaanites were somewhat distorted, this does not preclude any hope of eventually changing. As in the case of Nineveh, the people are described as “inventing ways of doing evil as a pastime’, yet God still sent them a prophet. One must wonder why it is that the people of Canaan were never sent prophets and asked to convert, why God never invited them to join his covenant. When compared to Muhammad, who gave all people he killed the opportunity to convert, the Christian God seems more so malicious. Arlandson also comments that, biblically speaking, God never destroys a place where the righteous can be found. But we are talking about an entire nation of people. This position ignores the reality of human character. Can we say today that there is nation in the world where every single person is evil with no hope of repentance? Why are the Canaanites unique in the thoroughness of their immorality and evil? While it can be asserted that their culture was immoral, it is ridiculous to assert that every single person was beyond hope. In fact, in the case of Jericho, we find that there are in fact righteous people that escape the city. It is not reasonable to say that they are the only ones. Yet some may say “Indeed, Rahab and her household were the only righteous people in Canaan” and that, though divine providence, God spared the righteous people. Yet Muslims could argue that God guided Muhammad and the Muslims to kill only those who were unrighteous, that through a similar act of divine providence, God spared the righteous Arabs. In the end it seems that Muhammad was more merciful than the God of the Old Testament, for he gives all the Arabs the opportunity to convert before killing them. The Canaanites were afforded no such opportunity, they were just killed.

 

[Gnosis]

His third point is ludicrous to the point of being humorous. He asserts that God was very specific about who should die, where as Allah was just haphazard about killing people. God, Arlandson holds, only has the nations within Canaan killed. This, more than anything, shows that the authors of the Old Testament were attempting to justify their conquest of the holy land with divine approval. God intends to clear a very particular area of sinners so that he can establish Israel to further his divine plan. Christians argue that to spread Islam by the sword is immoral, but for God to institute his divine plan by the sword would then be equally as wrong. It makes no difference whether God was decisive or meticulous about murdering a nation of people. The holocaust was one of the most meticulous and well documented genocides in history, yet this gives it no justification. Again, Arlandson is trying to appeal to a sense of realism. He is supporting the faulty premise that if the Bible portrays a more realistic God than the Qu’ran, than the Bible must be true. This, however, does not answer as to how these murders can be justified. Secondly, the Old Testament was written hundreds of years after the events they record, where as the Qu’ran was formed as these events occurred. Obviously one would seem haphazard, as the biblical authors were not reporting events as they saw them happen, but hundred of years later.
In his fourth point, he attacks Muhammad for dehumanizing the Jews so he can justify their killing by calling them apes and pigs. Obviously this ignores Yahweh’s own propaganda campaign, deeming the Canaanites so vile they were beyond redemption and worthy of slaughter.
His argument fails to confront the issue of children, who could not possibly be guilty and worthy of death. Surely, if God could have spared a prostitute, he could have spared the children. He could have commanded the Israelites to take the children they found and have every family adopt one of them, at least this would have considerably reduced the death toll. Or God could have taken all the children up to heaven, sparing them the terrifying slaughter.
Lastly, he fails to confront other situations in the Old Testament. Particularly the destruction that is committed in Egypt. Here God deliberately hardens Pharaoh’s heart so they he will refuse to let the Israelites go, and then massacres the first born of every Egyptian in order to get Pharaoh to change his mind. Surely, God could have never hardened his heart, and surely the deaths of the first born of EVERY Egyptian were not necessary.

Jordan.

 

[applemango2]

Contarini:

Perhaps you can make some suggestions? I am relying largely on Marshall Hodgson’s *The Venture of Islam *(3 vols.; Univ. of Chicago Press, 1975-77). If you have sources of comparable credibility (i.e., respected, credentialed historians or primary source texts either complete or in substantial excerpts that give context), I’d like to see them.

Sure, the main book I suggest is

The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims
by Andrew G Bostom

amazon.com/gp/product/1591023076/qid=1135438216/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-2059886-3970342?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

To give you an idea of what the book contains, here’s a quote from the Foreword by Ibn Warraq andrewbostom.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=61&Itemid=44

Dr Bostom has gathered together an impressive range of primary and secondary source documents relating to the theory and practice of Jihad, and to a certain extent the conditions of dhimmis, non-Muslims living as oppressed tributaries in Islamic countries. The theory of the treatment of non-Muslims was in part derived and developed by theologians and Koranic commentators from Sura IX. Verse 29:

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day , and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger , and follow not the religion of truth , until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Dr. Bostom is the first scholar to have had translated from the Arabic the works of commentators on Sura IX.29 like al-Baydawi, al-Suyuti, al-Zamakhshari, and al-Tabari. Other primary sources translated for the first time into English include documents on Jihad such as the one written by al-Ghazali , the celebrated Islamic Mystic or Sufi , laying to rest the myth that Sufis always interpreted jihad as an inner moral struggle against one’s lower instincts. Muslim jurists and philosophers include Shiites al-Hilli and al-Amili (the latter translated from Persian), and representatives of all four Schools of Sunni Jurisprudence, Averroes (Maliki) , Ibn Taymiyya (Hanbali) , Shaybani (Hanafi), al-Mawardi (Shafi`i) , Ibn Qudama (Hanbali), and Ibn Khaldun (Maliki).

Read the whole Forward (see above link) to read more about what the book contains. See also the Table of Contents to get more of an idea of what the book contains.

This site andrewbostom.org/ also contains the Table of Contents and Bibliography & Indices of the book and articles by Andrew G. Bostom

See also these questions and answers found on this Muslim website islam-qa.com/

63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=34770&dgn=4

islam-qa.com/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=43087&dgn=3

cont…

 

[applemango2]

…

Here’s a quote from 63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=34770&dgn=4

This applies unless they are People of the Book, i.e., Jews and Christians, or Magians, because Islam says that these three groups may be given the choice: they may enter Islam or they may pay the jizyah and feel themselves subdued.
Some of the scholars are of the view that others may also be given the choice between Islam and jizyah, but the most correct view is that no others should be given this choice, rather these three groups are the only ones who may be given the choice, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) fought the kuffaar in the Arabian Peninsula and he only accepted their becoming Muslim. And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“But if they repent [by rejecting Shirk (polytheism) and accept Islamic Monotheism] and perform As-Salaah (Iqaamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”
[al-Tawbah 9:5]
He did not say, “if they pay the jizyah”. The Jews, Christians and Magians are to be asked to enter Islam; if they refuse then they should be asked to pay the jizyah. If they refuse to pay the jizyah then the Muslims must fight them if they are able to do so. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allaah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”
[al-Tawbah 9:29]
And it was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) accepted the jizyah from the Magians, but it was not proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them) accepted the jizyah from anyone except the three groups mentioned above.

(underline, bold and italicized emphasis mine)

Here’s a quote from islam-qa.com/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=43087&dgn=3

Islam spread by means of proof and evidence to those who listened to the message and responded to it, and it spread by means of force and the sword to those who were stubborn and arrogant, until they were overwhelmed and became no longer stubborn, and submitted to that reality.

(underline emphasis mine)

I also suggest you read these articles by Andrew G. Bostom

The Legacy of Jihad in Historical Palestine (Part I)
andrewbostom.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=76&Itemid=27

The Legacy of Jihad in Historial Palestine (Part II)
andrewbostom.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=77&Itemid=27

The Legacy of Jihad in India
andrewbostom.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=27

Jihad begot the Crusades (1)
andrewbostom.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=54&Itemid=27

Jihad begot the Crusades (2)
andrewbostom.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53&Itemid=27

The Legacy of Jihad in Palestine
andrewbostom.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=27

The Jihad Genocide of the Armenians
andrewbostom.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=27

 

[applemango2]

Contarini:

And then there is the very spotty Christian record in this regard. Charlemagne gave the Saxons the choice between baptism and death. Olaf Tryggvason treated his own Norwegian subjects the same way. Hodgson claims that Christianity’s record in this regard is substantially worse than that of Islam. I’m not sure he’s right. But I can’t see that it’s much better.

Edwin

Irrelevant! If they did indeed do this they would be going **against ** what the Bible teaches, unlike what I have said Islam commands against non-Muslims, which is what the Quran and other authorative Islamic sources command.

 

[applemango2]

Gnosis:

…

This article christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html on the Canaanites was linked within Arlandson’s article, you don’t seem to have looked it up

Arlandson’s article states

See this lengthy article on how the Canaanites were worse than the surrounding pagan nations. The article also has a thorough explanation of God’s severe decree.

See also this related article christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html

On the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, see this article christian-thinktank.com/gutripper.html#harden

Here’s a relevant quote from the article on the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (which is by Glenn Miller)

It is well known that **Pharaoh hardened his own heart on the first several confrontations ** (7.13-14; 22-23; 8.15, 19, 32; 9.7) and only then did God begin to “give him what he asked for” (9.12; 10.1, 20, 27; 11.10; 14.8). Even then Pharaoh is still involved in the process (9.34-34). There is nothing like God ‘taking away his right to make the right decision’! God treated him like He often treats us: He confronts us repeated with opportunity to choose good, and as we consistently say “no, go away” He eventually withdraws His support for our initial “mixed criteria” and gives us over to our then-firmed-up intentions/wills.

The references in brackets i.e. (7.13-14; 22-23; 8.15, 19, 32; 9.7) etc are for Exodus, in the Old Testament.

 

[Contarini]

I will try to have a look at Bostom, although I’m suspicious of the very fact that Ibn Warraq points out as praiseworthy on Bostom’s part–namely that he’s a scientist and not a historian. That doesn’t mean that he has nothing valuable to say. But if indeed those who spend their lives studying this issue unanimously disagree with Bostom, then that casts suspicion on his conclusions from the start.

If I were to write a book on epidemiology that contradicted everything qualified epidemiologists said, would you take it seriously? I have a “Dr.” in front of my name too (as of October), but that doesn’t mean I know anything about medicine.

Edwin

 

[discipleofJesus]

applemango2:

This article christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html on the Canaanites was linked within Arlandson’s article, you don’t seem to have looked it up

Arlandson’s article states

See also this related article christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html

See also christian-thinktank.com/midian.html