The world quickly rushed to defend Dearborn Muslims against another anti-Muslim hate crime (and we rushed to condemn this apparent act of terrorism as well, and we still do). Dawud Walid, Executive Director of CAIR-Michigan, wasted no time in connecting the attempted firecracker attack to anti-Muslim bigotry:
"I believe it is a mixture of the two, between a person being mentally unstable within a society context of a lot of anti-Muslim rhetoric floating around. People can be on the edge and when they're exposed to enough negative information about a group of people... it may be enough to push them over the edge." (Source)
Imam Sayed Hassan Al-Qazwini (Imam at the Islamic Center of America) was quick to point out American hypocrisy:
"We always hear about Muslims being terrorists, we always hear about Muslims attacking innocent person. When America only talks about Muslims being terrorists, they will turn a blind eye on their own terrorists." (Source)
Dearborn Police Chief Ronald Haddad attributed Stockham's rage to a hatred of Arabs and Muslims:
"He picked Dearborn as a stop because of the huge Arab and Muslim population." (Source)
Numerous Muslims in the blogosphere were even declaring that Stockham is a "Christian terrorist." For instance, a Muslim who calls himself "thegrandverbalizer19," elated that he finally had evidence that Christianity is violent, posted an article titled "Christian Terrorist Arrested for Attempted Attack on Mosque," where he said:
"Thank God that the Christian terrorist who was planning an attack against a Muslim Mosque was thwarted by the very good citizens and policeman of the United States. Praise the Lord!"
There's just one problem with all these cries of "Islamophobia!" Like so many other anti-Muslim hate crimes, this turned out not to be an anti-Muslim hate crime at all.
I'll still need more information to make any definitive conclusions regarding this case, but here's how things look now. Roger Stockham is a convert to Islam. But he's a Sunni Muslim, and he wanted to toss some M-80s at the largest mosque in America, because he hates Shia Muslims. Stockham was given a court-appointed attorney (Mark Haidar), whom he rejected for supposedly being a Shia. Stockham speaks fluent Arabic and quotes the Qur'an during interviews.
Here's the latest from Fox News. (Note: This is the same courtroom where we spent five days on trial for having a peaceful discussion with Muslims in Dearborn. The Judge you see in the video is Judge Mark Somers, whose bias in favor of Dearborn police got Negeen convicted.)
New Lawyer for Dearborn Mosque Threat Suspect Roger Stockham: MyFoxDETROIT.comThe Dearborn Press and Guide adds more:
DEARBORN — The preliminary examination Friday for the man accused of making terrorist threats toward the Islamic Center of America was adjourned until next week.
Attorney Matthew Evans cited a lack of preparation in requesting the adjournment. Evans was thrust into the defender role just minutes before the request, after defendant Roger Stockham rejected his initial court-appointed attorney, Mark Haidar. The rescheduled exam is set for next Friday.
Stockham, a convert to Islam, said in court he wouldn't accept Haidar because — according to Stockham — Haidar is a Shi'ite Muslim who worships at the Islamic Center.
“I reject my appointed counsel. He is a Shi'ite and I am not. And he attends the mosque I am attempted of accusing (sic),” he said, before he was cut off by 19th District Judge Mark Somers.
Somers interjected, saying he wanted things to get off on the right foot and subsequently appointed Evans, who was already at the courthouse.
Haidar was not at the hearing. His stand-in, attorney Jeffrey Schwartz, said he was taken by surprise with the comments. He said Haidar is a Muslim, but was not sure if he was Shi'ite or if he worshipped at the Islamic Center.
“I don’t know what (Haidar) disclosed to him,” Schwartz said. “This kind of caught me by surprise, to be honest.”
Haidar could not immediately be reached for comment, but credible court sources said Stockham spoke fluent Arabic during their interview and quoted Qur’anic verses. (Read more.)
Now here's what's interesting. As soon as word got out of an attempted attack against a Dearborn mosque, people started accusing us (i.e. Acts 17) of causing the attack (through our "hate speech," "Islamophobia," etc.).
Our old friend Jem sent me this message:
hello, david; its been a while since i posted a comment.....but i feel the time is appropriate...to post my comment..... "this man's actions are both directly and indirectly a result of you work.... promoting hate towards muslims and islam......if you recall....sometime ago i posted several comments of the dire consequences that would occur for your irresponsibility...
1) hate speech/rhetoric
3) lack of moral responsibilty as a in a leadership position....
i'm afraid more hate crimes will continue to occur if you dont have a change of heart...and have the love, tolerance. patience, of G-D in your heart......
i pray the All Mighty give you guideance;;;;;
ps i dont mean to offend you...merely rebuking you as the scripture commands the believer to do....
It seems that our hate speech (i.e. drawing attention to disturbing facts about Islam, while maintaining our love for Muslims) somehow caused the Sunni-Shia split. Perhaps Jem believes that Nabeel and I constructed an Acts 17 time machine, travelled back to 632 and caused division in the Muslim community right after Muhammad died. Perhaps I went to Abu Bakr and said, "Hey! You should be leader!" Then Nabeel went to Ali and said, "You're better than Abu Bakr!" Fourteen centuries later, the division we caused led a Sunni convert to attack a mosque. Acts 17 must be even craftier than we thought!
A Muslim who goes by the name "Someone" left this comment:
May Allah guide us to the Truth.
Actually, sites like this are directly responsible for anti-Muslim feelings and Islamophobia rising in America and elsewhere; so, please, claim credit where credit is due, Mr. David Wood and bloggers and readers for yourselves for giving rise to terrorism against Muslims.
We're "directly responsible" for "giving rise to terrorism against Muslims." I guess Nabeel and I should be ashamed of ourselves for causing so much Shiaphobia among Sunnis with all our anti-Shia, pro-Sunni hate speech. In order to prevent future Sunni-Shia attacks, I'll go ahead and erase all of our anti-Shia hate speech. . . . There, done! (It didn't take long, since we've never posted any.)
The infamously deceptive Yahya Snow wrote:
OK, we have seen Islamophobic rabble-rousers on the internet hate-mongering against Muslims and distorting the realities in Dearborn. Some Islamophobes even take their fear-mongering to the level of presenting sex hoaxes about Muslims and some specifically target Dearbon by claiming there is "Sharia in Dearborn" and even visit the city looking for controversy under the guise of evangelsim.
Well, it seems Islamophobic lies and propaganda have affected a 63 year old man, Roger Stockham, to the extent that he attempted to BLOW UP a mosque in Dearborn. Apparently, he travelled all the way from the San Diego area to do so. This man has been buttered up by the Islamophobic propaganda - I would not be surprised if this fella was donating cash to the self-styled internet warriors against "jihad" and "sharia".
I just hope this chap learns it's a business - he was taken in by their Islamophobic rhetoric - a rhetoric which is designed to fear-monger and generate donations ($$$). Some folk are just so gullible!
Well, Yahya and I can at least agree that "some folk are just so gullible." Mr. Taqiyya himself accused us of "distorting the realities in Dearborn" and "buttering up" Stockham with our "Islamophobic propaganda." I wonder if we should return all the donations we got from Stockham. Perhaps he can use the funds to hire a Sunni lawyer.
Here's the interesting thing about our critics. Let me put it into dialogue form.
DAVID: "Is there any connection between (a) Muhammad's clear commands to fight unbelievers, and (b) Muslims fighting unbelievers?"
CRITICS: "No connection at all!!!"
DAVID: "Is there any connection between (a) Muhammad's sexual relationship with a nine-year-old girl, and (b) the fact that sex with young girls is so prevalent in the Muslim world?"
CRITICS: "Absolutely no connection whatsoever!!!"
DAVID: "Is there any connection between (a) a Sunni Muslim attempting to blow up a Shia mosque in Dearborn, and (b) our demands for equal rights and Constitutional protections in Dearborn?"
CRITICS: "YES! There is a clear connection! Acts 17 directly caused this Sunni to attack a Shia mosque!"
Get my point? If a man with mental problems were to be somehow inspired by us, this would be clear proof that we promote violence. But if a man with mental problems is inspired by his religious beliefs . . . well, that has absolutely nothing to do with his religion! I guess it's easy to be illogical if consistency doesn't mean much to you.
By the way, how long do you think it will be before one of the lying and corrupt police officers in the Dearborn Police Department convinces Stockham to say that we somehow inspired him? Given what I've seen over the past year, I wouldn't put anything past the likes of Chief Haddad, Sergeant Mrowka, and Corporal Kapanowski (not to mention City Prosecutor William DeBiasi). "Hey, Inmate Stockham, you want some cigarettes? We just need you to say a little something in court . . ."
(Click here for a complete summary of our experience in Dearborn.)
This reminds me of the situation with the attack against Congresswoman Giffords and how many people attempted to use this deplorable act to condemn the rhetoric of the Tea Party. Then it turned out that Loughner had nothing to do with the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, and cross-hairs, but in fact he was mentally ill and a liberal himself!
Then in this case Stockham, a man, whom we know very little about and whose motives have not been revealed, attempts to blow up a mosque with fire-crackers (clue number one that he isn't quite all there upstairs). Suddenly, everyone who has a bone to pick with Acts 17 Apologetics levies blame upon them for this man's actions. Notice how everyone assumes that because he is a 60 year old white American that he is NOT a Muslim! Doesn't that seem a little racist?
In any case, now that we have the facts it turns out that CAIR was right when they said, "People can be on the edge and when they're exposed to enough negative information about a group of people... it may be enough to push them over the edge." CAIR just didn't realize they were in fact indicting themselves! LOL!
Well,it is known that many Sunnis and Shias hate each other so it has turned out it was a case of Sunni-Shia war.
A strange twist to the whole case.
Suppose an atheist named Richard has a website dedicated to exposing Christianity's falseness and violent teachings, which he writes because he genuinely believes that Christianity is a danger to society. For the latter subject (violent teachings), he posts news articles about Christian fundamentalists harassing homosexuals and blowing up abortion centers, and then he explains how Christians are behaving this way because of the Bible. But he never once calls for his readers to harm Christians and he repeatedly says that he does not condone hate crimes against Christians.
Then news comes out that a mentally-ill atheist attempted to set fire to a major church down south. Richard posts a news article about it on his website and ends his post by condemning the attack, saying: "Regardless of the creed of the victim or terrorist, I categorically denounce terrorism."
But Christians come to his site and attack his motives. "This is all your fault!" they say. "You're spreading Christenophobia for money!" And Richard's fellow atheist tells him, "I warned you that posting articles on your website would cause people to try to kill Christians. You are directly responsible for this man's actions."
Can any of you seriously say that Richard -- who never promoted hate against Christians but simply wanted to protect the world from what he perceived as a violent ideology -- is responsible for the attempted attack against the church?
(Sorry for the dumb story, but I thought it would make people think about how stupid this blame-game is by replacing elements of the events.)
So let's blame the guy who did it (Roger Stockham) instead of the Richards who don't promote or intend for attacks like this to happen.
I'm laughing so hard at this. I mean really its the little things.
Crazy man meats Islam. Thank God no one was hurt
@ CharisKai Eirene
You said ...
"Suddenly, everyone who has a bone to pick with Acts 17 Apologetics levies blame upon them for this man's actions."
Well I knew Acts 17 had nothing to do with this, cause there smart people. If they had the guy would of used real explosives and had a exist strategy so he wouldn't get caught :)
Looks like the Dearborn Police Chief was rushing to judgement without being in possession of even the most basic facts of the case.
This is the sort sweet, delicious irony that is the reason I love following your blog on how people react to your ministry. You can't make up hypocrisy this irrational.
You and Nabeel consistently condemn the violence of Muhammad and his followers (in particular, but really from anyone) on the grounds that it is violence and yet are accused of inciting violence against Muslims even though no one affiliated with you has ever done anything violent. But Muhammad actually did incite violence and his followers actually do, say, drive across the country to lob fireworks at buildings because of his commands... and again it is you who are at fault for pointing this out to people.
It's so brilliantly ridiculous that I am likewise almost speechless.
Well, Well, Weeeelll! Ha ha! And I thought that we had one of the few anti-muslim terrorists. Boy was I wrong. When can reality sink in for our muslim brothers? Come to the Light...the light of the world.
The news about Stocham being a Muslim are kind of surprising in a way but on the other hand, there's not much about Islam in the contemporary world that surprises me anymore.
Great point about the influence of the Quran and how it's completely inconsistent for your critics to hold that there's no connection with Muslim violence at all while at the same time (absurdly) blaming you for this incident. I was thinking of the same thing when reading the post, just to find out that you had thought of the same thing already.
However, I do think that this is the point at which you go a bit overboard:
DAVID: "Is there any connection between (a) a Sunni Muslim attempting to blow up a Shia mosque in Dearborn, and (b) our demands for equal rights and Constitutional protections in Dearborn?"
CRITICS: "YES! There is a clear connection! Acts 17 directly caused this Sunni to attack a Shia mosque!"
I don't think that anyone who knew about this man being a Muslim has made the claim that you "caused" or even influenced on the attack. So this part is a bit misleading.
Haecceitas: "So this part is a bit misleading."
I think there's a difference between being misleading and being sarcastic. No one said that we built a time machine either. But that wasn't meant to mislead anyone into thinking that our critics believe that we're time travelers. It was meant to draw attention to the absurdity of the accusations against us.
"I think there's a difference between being misleading and being sarcastic. No one said that we built a time machine either. But that wasn't meant to mislead anyone into thinking that our critics believe that we're time travelers. It was meant to draw attention to the absurdity of the accusations against us."
Really? I thought you DID have a time machine (which you obviously built with Jewish funding) and also used it to go and remove every single reference to Muhammad from the early Bible manuscripts.
But more seriously, the difference as I see it is that the part about the time machine was obviously sarcastic and prefaced with "perhaps Jem believes that..." rather than attributing the part that follows directly to Jem. The other comment seemed to directly attribute that position to your critics and I didn't catch an equally good indication of sarcasm is there was such.
But all of this is just a minor quibble on my part, with the motivation that I'm trying to make an effort in pointing out possible problems with what the people on my own side of the debate are saying just to maintain a balanced approach. Since it's very seldom that there are any big problems with what you are saying, I may occasionally decide to comment on minor points.
Btw, it is understandable that many of the Muslim commentators assumed that Stockham is a non-Muslim. But some went further and declared that Stockham is a Christian (rather than agnostic, atheist, deist, indifferentists, or whatever).
All other accusations aside, I think it is reprehensible for Yahya Snow to insinuate that you criticise Islam because it makes you rich. What a deeply unfair accusation, and one I doubt he can support with evidence.
One could just as easily assert that Muslim apologists are only in it for the money, but why slander people with groundless accusations?
I hope an apology is coming your way.
I find that groundless accusations are standard among Muslim apologists like Yahya. Instead of carefully refuting arguments (which they can't do), many Muslim apologists attempt to discredit critics of Islam through personal attacks (i.e. "Don't pay attention to this person's arguments, because he's a bad person," followed by a bunch of groundless accusations). I've got plenty of examples. Maybe I'll post a few of the more horrendous examples in the next day or so.
As I've mentioned before on this blog, I am an agnostic.
But reading this article again, and in the context of other recent events in Dearborn, I'm tempted to wonder if someone somewhere isn't writing the script...
I was going to write a refutation to this on my blog but whats the use? YaYa is a Muslim who uses propaganda to try to defend the evil acts of his own religion. His attempts to do such things proves he knows it was an evil act committed by yet another Muslim. Muslims seem to never try to take responsibility for their actions they have to blame others. Try to write an article to refute the likes of YaYa only seems like a waste of time hes a coward and honestly not smart enough to even worry about.
I feel for you guys here at acts17. It must be a tough road to be on.
***Have ya'll ever been accused of wanting to kill every Muslim in the world?***
I had it happen to me a few days ago and I am still disturbed by it. I've never wanted to kill anyone except for the guy that murdered my brother. And God got a hold of me and set me straight on that and I forgave him.
I have a shirt that says,,"Some people are alive simply because it is illegal to kill them".
It is not about killing at all, it is about how some people are so obnoxious, ignorant, socio-pathic and just outright jerks that it is a wonder they have not been killed.
I've had many people say,,"I know allot of people like that",, and then offer to by me a drink. But I made the mistake of being caught wearing the shirt by someone who already called me a racist for talking about Islam,,, and darndit; if it was not the most hurtful thing I have ever had said to me. It brought me to tears for about 30 minutes. How can someone act like I am the biggest monster that ever lived and then on the other hand act like they love me?
Has anyone here ever been accused of wanting to kill all Muslims?
I've had some self righteous Christians say some bad things about me doing apologetics, but I have never seen more of a look of disgust on a persons face than what was shown to me.
And to top it off,,, this came from a person who says "they'll get to heaven because they are a good person that has never hurt anyone". But she also says arguing or debating is a form of violence,,, go figure,,huh. LOL
uppose an atheist named Richard has a website dedicated to exposing Christianity's falseness and violent teachings, which he writes because he genuinely believes that Christianity is a danger to society. For the latter subject (violent teachings), he posts news articles about Christian fundamentalists harassing homosexuals and blowing up abortion centers, and then he explains how Christians are behaving this way because of the Bible. But he never once calls for his readers to harm Christians and he repeatedly says that he does not condone hate crimes against Christians.
This is exactly what MSM does 24x7. And to the extent they describe the extreme Christian fundamentalists, who probably number 15-20 people in US, they are right. The issue however is that extreme fundamentalism is today's Islam mainstream. While Christian fundamentalism is so rare that it became an amusing aberration. But MSM would have you to believe otherwise.
It's all about disinterest in reality and looking for things that support a point of view.
"Has anyone here ever been accused of wanting to kill all Muslims?"
I haven't exactly, though I have been accused of all sorts of things with that all-encompassing "you Christians" label.
What I also found quite disturbing right after the Dearborn Arab Festival incident was the way that people on many forums and blogs (not just Muslim sites) had a tendency to make a number of unfounded assumptions about Acts 17 just on the basis of the fact that they are a Christian group with an intention to evangelize Muslims. I suppose the behavior of some fringe groups like the Westboro Baptist Church may have something to do with this perception but it's also multiplied by a factor of 10 by the selective and distorted media portrayal of Christians.
I find this twist rather amusing. How painfully embarrassing is it for those who jumped into conclusion that this guy must be a Christian before much was known about him! More so for those who accused Acts 17 - they are caught with their foot in their mouth! However, I am not betting on receiving any apology.
Another thing: Is there some way to contact Acts 17 team to report stories? I couldn't find a contact email or contact form. I am relatively new to this blog.
Here is one story that I read today about Muslims attacking other Muslims:
Hi David and Nabeel
Good Job exposing the shameful conclusions of Yahia.
The Bible is right again: "Whoever gives an answer before he listens is stupid and shameful." Proverbs 18:13
"I was going to write a refutation to this on my blog but whats the use? YaYa is a Muslim who uses propaganda to try to defend the evil acts of his own religion."
Brian Yahya Snow is now saying that 1. He did not accuse Acts17 of influencing Roger Stockam.
2. He did not accuse any "Islamaphobe" of influencing Roger Stockam
3. And this is the funniest one. Since it has come to light that this man is a Muslim he now is saying he believes in "David Wood's Theory" that the man is mentally un stable.
WOW, talk about double speak. So before this man was a Muslim he was influenced by Islamaphobes, now he is a Muslim he was not influenced by anyone and he is mentally unstable
What irony. God truly is good and has a sense of humor.
This was out of the park.
One can clearly see which side God is on. =)
One thing people need to realize about this situation is that it matters not who is guilty or innocent.
In the Middle East, Muslims get away with this kind of crap all the time. "The first impression will be your last impression" is something you should always remember. People won't remember that this guy is a Muslim, They will only remember what was originally reported.
"3. And this is the funniest one. Since it has come to light that this man is a Muslim he now is saying he believes in "David Wood's Theory" that the man is mentally un stable.
WOW, talk about double speak. So before this man was a Muslim he was influenced by Islamaphobes, now he is a Muslim he was not influenced by anyone and he is mentally unstable."
Even more so, before David Wood was not a credible source, but now he is.
This is perhaps off topic but it shows how intolerant the muslims are. This is from Indonesia: mainline mulim beating an ahmadi muslim. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgY6N6Qe5EA&feature=player_embedded
Hi David, this is what happened recently in my country (Indonesia).
Added concept of the humanity of Islam. In Indonesia,the plight of the minority has risen to extreme levels. Where Christain Churches are not allowed to be built, current churches are burned and congregations are attack. Now the new minority to attack is Ahmadiyah sect. Living peachefully in Indonesia since the inception of The Republic of Indonesia, are now being heavily prosecuted, even to the point where the government under Muslim Extremist pressure have issued a decree banning Ahmadiyah from spreading thier religion (difference to note is Mohammad is the last prophet for Muslims, while Ahmadiyah believe another prophet came has already come).
Interesting enough the decree doesn't forbid Ahmadiyah members to congregate or practice thier faith, just not to spread thier faith.
Well after months of harrassments throughout Indonesia, of attacks both to thier homes, thier mosques, and thier people. Yesterday the first 3 lives were taken. You can see the a video of thier glee here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgY6N6Qe5EA
(Warning extreme violence. not for the faint of heart)
This is the tolerance we feel first hand in a muslim majority country or a country plagued with muslim morality, muslim ethics, and muslim majority led world. This is the love we feel when non muslims need police escort just to practice thier faith (and this in no way guarantee safety), this is the world we live in when Islam as a faith is the majority and controls a nation. Just look at Egypt, Somalia, Tunasia, and every country controlled by Islam. Full of violence, Rape, intolerance, ignorance, and suffering.
I hope to God that this never happens in Indonesia, and America wakes up with the concept that Radical Muslims are prevalent and the West be protected from thier evil. It will be difficult to find allies in Moderate Muslims as they are used to stuffing thier ears and hiding thier heads in the sand to the actions of thier Hardliner Bretherns.
Don't get me started on trying to convert.
If this were a movie, the twist at the end where Roger Stockham rejects his attorney for being a Shia Muslim would win the Golden Globe awards.
AAAND....just like before when commenters like "Jem" threw out a bunch of accusations against Acts 17, only to have them shown to have been false accusations, Ms. Jem has mysteriously gone silent on her fingerpointing about Roger Stockham's motives for wanting to bomb a mosque.
Acts 17 guilty of inciting a Muslim to attack other Muslims? Acts 17 caused Sunnis and Shi'ites to fight each other? Two men telling Muslims in Dearborn 'Jesus loves them' did all that? I say if that were true, then David and Nabeel should immediately file suit against Roger Stockham for theft of intellectual property! Why should Stockham take credit for what David and Nabeel began? Why, if it weren't for Acts 17, Stockham might have been openminded enough...enough to become a Shi'ite himself!!! Who knows what churches or synagogues (instead of amosque) this man might have attacked if only David and Nabeel had never told anyone in Dearborn that Jesus loves them!
The horrors, David! The outrage, Nabeel! How could Jem possibly keep her thoughts to herself in light of all that has gone down?? Right, Jem?
Jem?....Jem?....where'd she go?
Jam is not very bright she wants us to tolerate Muslims why doesn't she tell them to show tolerance as well? Jam here is a scripture for you.
Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. (Ephesians 5:11 ESV)
Now my last point how does an anti-islam website cause a Muslim on Muslim attack? Thats like me saying I (a protestant) decide to go blow up a Catholic church and blame it all on Answering Christianity website. I would never do such a thing but do you see how stupid their argument is?
A Muslim who goes by the nick name, "The Grandverbalizer19" called Roger Stockham a "Christian".
Apparently, he calls him a Christian, only because he is western or born in USA or had European descendents.
The news that he is a Sunni convert to Islam and refused a Shiite lawyer is indeed ironic and humorous.
Thanks Haecceitas for your response!!!
The Grandverbalizer19 has now changed his blog article and title and took out everything relating to Sunni Convert Roger Stockham, who he assumed was a Christian when he wrote his original article.
Now, he (GV19) takes two verses out of context and seeks to apply them, to today, one is a parable about Jerusalem and God's right to judge in hell/or in 70 AD.
"Moreover, these enemies of mine that did not want me to become king over them bring here and slaughter them before me.” Luke 19:11-27; Matthew 28:19, 2"
Hey - GV19 - if you read this - duh! this is a parable -about Jerusalem and judgment day - duh! Put your brains on. it has nothing to do with Matthew 28:19 or Matthew 28:2 ( I think you meant verse 20, so, first, you should correct your typos; but Matthew 28:19 has nothing to do with Luke 19:11-27)
Your use of this to try to smear Christianity is disgusting!
the parable is speaking of judgment day or God's judgment on Jerusalem by, in His sovereignty, in allowing the Romans to destroy the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD; and has nothing to do with killing any one today or by the state. Christians don't do that, and don't have honor killings like Islam does; and the west even as a whole (even Roman Catholics that did that in 500s - 1400- 1700s) and other Protestants that did in 1600s or 1700s) don't even kill or execute for apostasy. No one does that anymore in the west !
They are disciplined by excommunication, but not execution.
(Matthew 18:15-20; I Corinthians 5)
You need to study Christian history better also.
The other verse from Psalm 137 was a cry for justice against the Babylonians who first attacked them in 605-586 BC and destroyed the temple and exiled Jews for 70 years, etc. But it was only a prayer for justice for that time.
Since there is no more Biblical Israel as a political unity - the kingdom of God was taken away from them by Jesus in Matthew 21:33-46 ( see especially verses 43-45) - this Psalm 137 does not apply at all to the church of today in the new covenant of God's people in all nations.
So, your whole article is a joke.
God is indeed all mighty and working through us, His true followers, in strange and awesome ways...
I've come to realize that it was no coincidence when I said, "One can clearly see which side God is on. =)"
Back in an earlier post regarding Roger Stockham, 'Someone' made a comment that included this sentence:
"But I am already aware people on the blog do not share my feelings nor do its avid readers. But I know for a fact that God is on the side of people who speak with love and humility, and I know also that in our times the people who possess such hearts are the majority of Muslims who do, despite the strong dramatizing of Muslim violence on this site, live peaceful lives and want peace for themselves and the world."
islam is not a religion but it's a totalitarianism, expansionist, militaristic, seditious evil political system. All muslims are sedition against the Constitution of The United States of America since their true allegiance is to the koran and the depraved mind who wrote it. The American public should be aware that certain muslim leaders, including the head of the ISNA (islamic society of North America, a brotherhood front organization) recently urged DOJ officials to take steps to criminalize of islam. One official embraced of the OIC (organization of islamic conference. Hillary Clinton) push for a UN resolution calling governments to criminalize defamation of islam. This is very serious since they are trying to confiscate our 1st amendment rights. The state of Tennessee with a few other states is battling to keep sharia and other foreign laws from being implemented with our legal system. In the state of Florida, there have been a number of righteous killings by muslims on their own family members. Once they are arrested, they cry out that they want to be tried under sharia law since under sharia law righteous killing is an honor to allah and the muslim in question goes free and not charged with any crime. England sad to say, will be the first European country to be under islamic and sharia law. In many countries of Europe, you can criticize Christians, Jews, Pentecostals, Baptist, etc but you cannot criticize islam and if you do, prison time or death awaits you. When muslims say that islam is peace, what it really means.. peace will be achieve only when every man woman and children are under islam and sharia would be the law of the land. We must get rid of this infestation of leaders that would allow foreign laws to mingle with our own By the way, I doubt it very much so that the owners of blog will publish my comment but let their conscience be their guide.
Mosque of America is a "SUNNI" masjid. This whole blog is an outright lie. Sunni/Shia do not hate each other and many co-exist throughout the world. Sure there were battles long ago just as the different European countries fought each other. Sunni/Shia lived in peace until they were manipulated by the CIA in the 70s and 80s to start fighting each other again. As far as this Stockham person being a muslim. Another lie.
I find many Christian tell tales as is if this is the Tortoise and the Hare race. If Christianity is the truth as you claim it to be, there would be no need for you to constantly try to attack Islam. TRUTH STANDS CLEAR FROM ERROR. TRUTH DOESN'T NEED TO PROVE ITSELF. TRUTH IS SELF-EVIDENT. With all the lies being told against Islam, no wonder Allah continues to make it grow and grow and grow...for all the Muslim haters, one day your children will come home Muslim, your spouse will become Muslim, your Pastor will become Muslim...The Zionist MSM has caused you all to see what they want you to see and even though your eyes see one thing, they make you believe you're seeing something else. Keep believing this "Islam hates the world" rhetoric as the Zionists continue to steal your very lives
Post a Comment