Boston Bomber: “Bible Is A Cheap Copy Of The Koran”…


One week after the terrifying — and deadly — bombings at the Boston Marathon, authorities are piecing together information about the two alleged assailants, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

In the wake of the attack, Albrecht Ammon, a neighbor who resides in an apartment in the same house where Tamerlan lived, is shedding some light on the purported terrorist’s alleged views on the American government, the Bible and the Koran.

Ammon, 18, told reporter that he recently argued with Tamerlan about the Bible and American foreign policy, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports. The contentious discussion took place at a pizza parlor, with the Boston bombing suspect purportedly dismissing the Christian holy book, claiming that “the Bible is a cheap copy of the Koran.”

‘Bible Is a Cheap Copy of the Koran’: Boston Bomber Suspect Allegedly Hurled Fiery Accusations About U.S. Foreign Policy and the Bible |
The fact that the bible was around before the Koran only signifies that there are those so indoctrinated they forget fact. From what I have read the Koran was written after using the bible and other books as a template and then the child molester writing his version.


It’s not even close to the Bible. It may be that it was used as a “template” in so far as the divisions are numbered - but that’s all. And the numbered divisions of the Bible were done after the fact, just to allow for easier reading.


and then the child molester writing his version

I’m curious how the mods would respond if a member used a similarly despicable slur in describing Jesus Christ?


Muhammed married a girl of age 6 and consummated the marriage when she was as young as age 9. Child molester? Pedophile? Either seem literally true, Jazz.

I’ve read both. There’s no resemblance, beyond the use of ink and paper. The chances that The Late Bomber read any significant portion of the Bible are pretty low.


I know many of you are more versed in scripture but wasn’t Mary like 12 when she received the immaculate conception?


I don’t recall anything in the Bible that gave her age, at least not directly. I’ve heard estimates that she was high-school age.


I forget where I heard the 12-13 range, but the reasoning for it was that was give or take the age at which women were betrothed to their husbands. And Mary was only recently betrothed to Joseph before she was visited by Gabriel. The point I believe I was trying to make was that Muhammad marrying a 9-year old in the year 750 AD was not that uncommon, especially among the Arab tribes where life expectancy was in the 40s. THAT OF COURSE DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE PRACTICE IN THE 21ST CENTURY. Just saying, got to give historic context of the situation.


Mohammed also couldn’t read or write, IIRC it was compiled after his death.


It’s highly unlikely- especially then- that a nine-year-old was capable of conceiving, let alone safely.


Muhammad’s squeeze or Mary?


Muhammad’s “wife” was the one reputed to be nine. At any rate, nine is rare for reproductive capability even now when girls are hitting puberty younger than in decades and centuries gone by.


Oh, OK. Ya I have no idea about that. The bottom line of it being used to justify marrying off little kids to 40/50 year old men is where I begin to feel sick to my stomach.


I heard from somewhere that she might have been as young as 13. Don’t know where it came from, but not the Bible. And nothing tells us how recently she was betrothed the Joseph. The most common estimates (based on the practices of the day) was between 17 and 19. Joseph was probably between 19 and 24. I think perhaps there is some literature somewhere that this info is taken from. Actually, she may have been “betrothed” in infancy - an arranged marriage, that is. Although, there would have been an official betrothal before the marriage - I think that was supposed to have been a year before. But the betrothal was as binding as a marriage - remember, when Joseph found out Mary was pregnant, he planned to divorce her privately (not making a big fuss over it, for her sake). A betrothal required a divorce to dissolve it; also, it was common, at least in some areas of Israel, that the couple frequently “jumped the gun,” so it was probably assumed among their friends and acquaintances that that was exactly what happened. When it did, the husband would take his wife home, and the marriage would be established. That is why Mary & Joseph were still considered just to be “betrothed” at the time Jesus was born - because he had not yet taken her to his home and consummated the marriage.


Either seem literally true, Jazz.

So? The poster intended the remark as a slur. Whether it was a malicious slur I cannot say, but I decline to approach the question from a position of naivity.

Hate begets hate. I say that’s not Christian.


The bible and Koran are similar. Jesus plays a large role in the koran


I agree that hate begets hate. I try to avoid it personally.

I do, however, allow strong characterizations, opinions, and insulting allegations about non-members as long as it’s not a broad-brush generalization of a group of people. The only exception is saying the POTUS is Hitler (a rule TO put in place).

Feel free to continue debating the accuraccy of sam’s statement.


Oh, and I might be inclined to call out a person for overdoing those type of statements.


So then am I to assume that “liberals are evil” would be against the rules?


References, please?


You can assume the rules are how they are enforced. From my perspective, the mods are doing a fine job.