Free Qur'ans Versus Free Bibles: What's the Big Deal?

If this content resonates with you, share your thoughts in the comments below.

Free Qur'ans Versus Free Bibles: What's the Big Deal?

A photo circulating on X appears to show a stand offering free Qur'ans inside a Dairy Queen in Michigan, sparking controversy over religious expression in America.

Some have questioned why an American business would distribute Islamic religious texts, while others have defended the display, asking, "What's the problem? Christians give away free Bibles all the time. Isn't this simply freedom of religion?"

And in one sense, they're right.

The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, and that protection extends to Muslims just as it does to Christians. But defending someone's right to distribute a religious text is not the same as endorsing the teachings within it.

That is where I believe an important distinction is being overlooked.

In our efforts to embrace religious tolerance, we cannot afford to ignore the beliefs and political principles that Islam advocates, particularly when those principles conflict with the constitutional liberties Americans have fought to preserve.

What Does the Qur'an Actually Teach?

Before dismissing concerns about Islamic teachings as intolerance or prejudice, I would encourage Americans to examine the religious texts themselves.

Consider the following passages from the Qur'an:

Surah At-Tawbah 9:29 says:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Surah At-Tawbah 9:30 condemns the religious beliefs of Jews and Christians, including the Christian belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and contains the statement, "May Allah destroy them."

Surah An-Nisa 4:34 establishes male authority within marriage and, in the translation quoted here, instructs husbands dealing with a disobedient wife to first admonish her, then separate from her in bed, and finally "strike" her.

Surah An-Nisa 4:11 establishes inheritance rules under which a son generally receives twice the share of a daughter when sons and daughters inherit together.

These passages raise serious questions about the relationship between traditional Islamic law and American principles of religious equality, women's rights, and individual liberty.

Under the United States Constitution, citizens do not lose their religious freedom because they reject the majority's beliefs. Women are entitled to equal protection under the law. The government cannot impose religious conformity through force.

These are not minor distinctions. They concern the very foundation of how a society is governed.

And the Qur'an is not the only text worth examining.

What About the Hadith?

Alongside the Qur'an, many Muslims look to the Hadith, collections of reports concerning the words and actions of Muhammad, for guidance in religious and everyday life. Several passages found in widely recognized Hadith collections raise additional concerns.

Sahih al-Bukhari 304 records Muhammad saying, “"I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you."

Sahih al-Bukhari 7099 records the statement: "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."

Sahih al-Bukhari 3237 states that when a husband calls his wife to bed and she refuses, leaving him angry, angels will curse her until morning.

Sahih al-Bukhari 3017 contains the instruction, "If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."

Sahih Muslim 2167a instructs Muslims not to initiate greetings toward Jews and Christians and to force them toward the narrowest part of the road when encountering them.

These passages cannot simply be dismissed as nonexistent or fabricated. They are found in recognized Islamic collections and are followed by the majority of Muslims.

I believe Americans should be willing to ask difficult questions about such teachings, especially when they concern the treatment of women, religious minorities, and those who wish to abandon their faith.

Would we accept laws that punished someone for converting from Christianity? Would we support a government that prohibited women from serving as political leaders? Would we tolerate religious authorities determining what citizens could believe, say, or wear?

If our answer is no, why should we refuse to scrutinize religious doctrines that have been used to justify those very things?

Iran: A Warning from History

We do not have to rely exclusively on theological debates to understand what can happen when a government enforces restrictive interpretations of Islamic law.

Consider Iran. Iran was once a flourishing place for both men and women. Women gained the right to vote, could attend universities and work in many professions, were not required to wear hijabs, had expanded women’s rights concerning divorce and restricted polygamy, and could serve in some government positions.

But then, in 1979, Islamic religious groups and reformers took control, and Iranians voted in a referendum that established an Islamic republic. The consequences for women's freedoms were swift.

The Family Protection Law was suspended, women were barred from serving as judges, and new religious dress requirements were announced, prompting thousands of women to protest in March 1979. Demonstrators faced harassment and violence, and compulsory hijab requirements were gradually expanded and ultimately enforced through criminal penalties. Rights that had taken decades to establish were dramatically restricted under a new religious government.

The danger is not that someone privately believes in a particular religion. The danger emerges when a government uses its power to compel everyone else to live according to that religion's rules. And we are electing people to positions that could one day have the power to do so.

But Doesn't the Bible Contain Violent Laws, Too?

I already anticipate the response: "What about the Old Testament? Doesn't the Bible command stoning and describe violence, polygamy, and the punishment of religious offenders?"

Yes, the Bible contains difficult passages, and Christians should not pretend otherwise. But understanding the biblical context matters.

Many of the civil and judicial laws recorded in the Old Testament were given specifically to ancient Israel as a covenant nation. They were not delivered as a universal political system that Christians are commanded to impose upon every nation today.

Christianity, as taught in the New Testament, does not call believers to establish faith through forced conversion or the execution of those who reject Jesus Christ. Instead, Jesus commands His followers to love their enemies (Matthew 5:44), and the Great Commission instructs believers to make disciples through teaching and baptism (Matthew 28:19–20).

Likewise, although the Old Testament records polygamous relationships, these relationships were descriptive, not prescriptive. God makes it clear that marriage is to be one man and one wife. Jesus points back to God's design for marriage in Matthew 19:4–6. Ephesians 5:25 calls husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, a model of sacrificial love rather than cruelty.

Christians have not always lived consistently with these teachings, and the historical abuses committed in Christianity's name should be acknowledged. But those abuses do not erase the distinction between describing ancient events, prescribing laws for ancient Israel as a nation, and the instructions Christians receive under the New Covenant.

That distinction deserves consideration when comparing religious teachings and their application to modern government.

Religious Freedom Must Include the Freedom to Disagree

One of my greatest concerns is the apparent reluctance of some Americans, particularly within progressive political circles, to examine Islamic teachings with the same scrutiny they apply to Christianity.

The same people who are fighting for women’s rights, bodily autonomy, reparations, and gender equality are often the same people who are allowing and even encouraging the election of Muslim officials in our country, ushering in Islamic ideals. In doing so, they cheer for a potential future of limited women’s freedoms, an end to religious liberty, and a government run by extremist ideals.

So, is a free Qur'an at a Dairy Queen inherently a violation of American values?

No.

The freedom to distribute that book is itself an expression of American liberty. But that freedom does not require us to ignore or accept every idea within its pages.

Americans must be willing to recognize and challenge any ideology that seeks to replace constitutional liberty with religious rule. This is not a call to deny Muslims their rights or to wish them harm, but rather a call to defend the freedoms that belong to every American, regardless of faith. History has shown us how quickly those freedoms can disappear when religious authority becomes political power, and we would be foolish to believe our nation is somehow immune.

The liberty that allows a Qur'an to be freely offered at a Dairy Queen is the same liberty that could be threatened if interpretations of its teachings were ever established as American law. Under such a government, would a Christian enjoy that same freedom to offer a Bible?

Please Note: We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the content. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at the author or other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved.