The politically-correct (PC) fashion these days is to mythologize the Qur’an as basically the same as the Christian Bible. In fact, many of these PC people even say that the Bible is even more violent than the Qur’an. Scott Clark, professor at Westminster Seminary in California, has written a short rebuttal, “The Bible and the Qur’an,” and says:
There are violent passages in both the Old and New Testaments but there are also violent passages in Shakespeare. Any argument that suggests that a body of literature must be rejected because it contains violence is too silly to bear serious consideration.
Professor Clark compares Islam with Mormonism:
In some respects the Qur’an was a precursor to the 19th-century Book of Mormon. Both feature a prophet and a new revelation mediated through an angel. There are parallels between the early history of both movements since both led immediately to military movements. These histories distinguish both from the Christians. The Mormons, however, adapted, whereas the history of Islam was one of continual violence against the West through the 18th century, which resumed in 1972, after an interlude of roughly 150 years.
He then lists and explains three main differences between the Christian Bible and the Qur’an:
1. “[T]he Old Testament command to conduct holy war against neighboring nations was temporary and focused. The Israelites were never commanded to kill all infidels everywhere.”
2. The New Testament ethic is not about violence, war or hate. “According to the New Testament the Old Testament civil-religious codes about the Sabbath, ritual washing, circumcision, and holy war have been abrogated and are no longer in force. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus explained the true intention of the moral teaching of the Old Testament, in contrast to the way the rabbis had construed it. Christians are commanded to live peacefully as suffering servants, in imitation of Jesus, who unequivocally taught his disciples to “turn the other cheek.”
3. “[T]he central story of the New Testament is not of a military conquest by a prophet with a new revelation. It is the story of the arrest, torture, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, whom both the religious and civil authorities found to be morally and legally innocent of any crime. Jesus himself said that he came not to establish an earthly kingdom but to inaugurate “the Kingdom of God” or “the Kingdom of Heaven.” He called his disciples not to holy war nor to bring others into submission by force but to preach, persuade, teach, and, when necessary to die because they bear his name.”
Read the Bible then read the Qur’an. A reasonably literate person should observe these basic, striking differences between the two texts. The HRS [History of Religions School] fails because it assumes far more than it can prove. The popular appropriation of the HRS in the current controversy fails for the same reason: it cannot account for actual particular facts. Moses is not Muhammad. Jesus is not Joseph Smith. He did not claim to have received a new, superior revelation. Rather, he claimed to be the intended focus and culmination of the old revelation and the Savior of sinners, and that is what Christians believe him to be.