There is a big problem with any religion trying to gain converts in a community that does not want them there. With Islam it is even worse, because terrorism is connected to many mosques whether some folks want to believe it or not. There is concern that Muslims are distributing Islamic materials and recruiting new members in places like local prisons.
One such example of concern is a mosque in Pompano Beach Florida. The people in the community did not want the mosque and the mosque was reportedly being built near the local prison. It is well known that imams recruit prisoners. They have a captive audience, usually majority non-whites, who may be ripe for the message of jihad. Yet when communities encourage the Muslims to build their mosque somewhere else, they are labeled racist and Islamophobes.
Project Downtown is a Muslim community service group based at University of Miami. After Jumu'ah, or Friday prayers, they've made it a tradition to go down to the parking lot of the government building at 111 NW First St. to distribute food and clothing.
The sandwiches they usually hand out come from a Subway restaurant owned by a member of Ahktar's mosque. The clothes are unclaimed items from a dry cleaning shop owned by a friend of Ahktar's parents. And the toiletries come from members of the local chapter of CAIR, the Council of American-Islamic Relations. [snip]The UM group also has reached out to members of the Muslim Students Association chapter at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton to help out. [snip]
Several websites, such as militantislammonitor.org and pipelinews.org, have criticized the group, saying that along with the sandwiches and recycled clothes, they're also distributing copies of the Koran and Islamic propaganda. (source)
In FBI congressional testimony there's this:
The European and American experience shows that prisons are venues where extremists have radicalized and recruited among the inmate population. Prison radicalization primarily occurs through anti-U.S. sermons provided by contract, volunteer, or staff imams, radicalized inmates who gain religious influence, and extremist media. Ideologies that radicalized inmates appear most often to embrace include the Salafi form of Sunni Islam (including revisionist versions commonly known as "prison Islam") and an extremist view of Shia Islam similar to that of the government of Iran and Lebanese Hizballah. [snip]I would like to emphasize that not all prison radicalization is Islamic in nature. Domestic groups such as white supremacists also recruit in prisons.
Shouldn't a community have the right to decide what groups build there? In spite of public outcry in Pompano Beach, the city council voted 3-2 to change the zoning of the proposed site from residential to commercial, allowing the Islamic Center to be built. It will be one of the largest in America. By the way, the community is majority Black.
So whether it's a mosque or a civic group, if they are pushing Islam, shouldn't the community have a say?
Boy, you guys sure get your feelings hurt awfully easy.
Posted by: Thomas Hamilton | January 31, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Out of curiosity stormwarning do jews recite and memorize the torah? because I live nearby a Jewish community and I peaked at a Jewish congregation, I wasn't sure whether it was the Siddur or the Torah they were reading.
Posted by: Ibu | January 31, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Jason (and all):
I apologize. "Over and out."
SW
Posted by: StormWarning | January 31, 2007 at 10:05 AM
StormWarning: "I give up because you obviously know more about Judaism." That was uncalled for. I never claimed to know more about Judaism than you did. I only expressed knowledge gained by studying Scripture and Jewish historical documents. I even invited you to provide me with evidence to the contrary and, when you expressed a wish to "agree to disagree", I complied with your desire and dropped the subject. I've remained polite and courteous even though we obviously disagree. So why make a snide comment?
As to your other question, since you have already once expressed a wish to "agree to disagree", I will not answer it unless you really want me to answer. I have no desire to start a fight or an argument with you. If you truly want my answer, then ask me a second time or, alternatively, we can continue this privately in email.
Posted by: Jason | January 31, 2007 at 09:56 AM
Jason: Simply because it is never pronounced "YAHWEH," NEVER, EVER (which I believe was the original issue), not in my 1/2 century of being Jewish and attending Reform, Conservative, Orthodox and Sephardic services. Never has the sound of "YAHWEH" been heard. I give up because you obviously know more about Judaism.
And since this subject has continued (admittedly because I continued it and I said, "agree to disagree"), do I get to go to Heaven? [Talk about prostelytizing.]
Posted by: StormWarning | January 31, 2007 at 05:24 AM
Jason: I prefer reading history from civilized and profound locations instead of reading from concocted sources. All, from the first to the ninth crusade and so far were sole Christians waging wars of religious differences. Only the sixth crusade was cast off without the official blessing of the church, thus making it a political war as you claimed. The Church couldn’t create the crusade and of course they had no power to do so, but they influenced it ( making it a war of religious differences).
The Muslim weren’t aggressive and it wasn’t an incursion, but rather an excursion to blend and spread the message. Muslim aren’t being oppressed willingly by their leaders, it is the influence of the west and its leaders that’s arousing these atrocity you see on your tele.
I totally disagree with you, and here’s were you drastically went astray further then you already are. Please verify and label which Hadith or what verse in the Qu’ran state the follow
3) “Mohammed stated that it was acceptable to lie to unbelievers if it furthered your goals”.
I’ll be more than happy to expound upon this.
As for 1) and 2) Isn’t fully accurate, but I agree totally with 4) polygamy. You wouldn’t understand because you prefer to marry and divorce, leave women as trash and proceed to the next.
Muhammad (peace be upon him) did only truly married one women, his first which was khadija. And from there on he embraced the rest (making 22 wives). He took care of these women due to religious purposes, not for his own selfish lust. In the Qur’an you’re only limited to 4 wives, but Muhammad (PBUH) had 22 wives. “Read carefully don’t make any assumptions yet”. With these 22 wives he only had intercourse with fourth 4, excluding Aisha, The 12 year old girls as you claim. By the way there’s only few hadith that states “ Aisha... He married me when I was six years old and took me under his care at nine year of age”. Now that does not make him a molester or pedophile since he had no intercourse with her.
2) Mohammed killed those who refused to believe in Allah and follow him (this is called conversion by the sword)
He would only battle those who refuse to believe in Allah after he has tried all that was necessary to convey the message to the disbelievers. Because we believe if you don’t died in the state of submission, Islam then your inevitable end in the hereafter would be hellfire and if the message never reached you then only Allah would decide your faith. Therefore it wasn’t a method of conversion by the sword, but rather incumbent upon him to get rid of these people and carry on the message.
Thanks for the advise am working on my vocabulary, that’s what I intent to do in school. I believe is pass my bed time, and am beyond this computer typing more then I would for a school project, simply to refashion your thoughts about my faith. I see the reason why imams, scholar, or older Muslim don’t spend there time relating this message through debates online ‘Is meaningless”. But instead they have a confrontation publicly or personally. And few disbelievers would still leave carry this distorted image of ISLAM.
Posted by: Ibu | January 30, 2007 at 10:10 PM
StormWarning: How does that differ in anyway from what I said? You show the Hebrew letters for (transliterated) YHWH and, because of the vowel points, pronounce it as 'Adonai'. You have shown exactly what I stated.
Posted by: Jason | January 30, 2007 at 09:48 PM
Stormwarning, you conquered TypePad and got the Hebrew letters/words in. Good for you.
Posted by: Debbie | January 30, 2007 at 09:16 PM
Sorry, I couldn't help it.
אלהים Elohim
יהוה Silent but pronounced as Adonai and also written as אֲדֹנָי
Despite the fact that I am not a religious Jewish person, I believe that my 50+ years of attending Shul and having been Bar Mitzvah trumps your studies.
Posted by: StormWarning | January 30, 2007 at 09:11 PM
StormWarning: "However, perhaps this is left to a "agree to disagree.""
Fair enough, my friend. I can certainly agree to that.
I do want to let you know that I was not intent on hurting or insulting you in any way. I have nothing against you and, in fact, have enjoyed your comments in this post and others. I hope that we can remain friendly with each other.
Posted by: Jason | January 30, 2007 at 09:06 PM
Jason. The "Hebrew Scriptures" to which you refer, is the Torah. I do not believe that I proved any point that you made. However, perhaps this is left to a "agree to disagree." I will not debate this further.
Thanks.
Posted by: StormWarning | January 30, 2007 at 08:55 PM
StormWarning, I'm sorry but my information is quite correct. I realize that you have probably never heard YHWH spoken aloud. That doesn't surprise me in the least nor does it change the facts that I stated. It's interesting to note that you proved my point when you said:
"We do not pronounce the letters of Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh (YHVH)..."
And, if you examine the earliest Hebrew writtings, you will find that YHWH (or alternatively YHVH, untransliterated of course) contains the vowel points for 'Adonai'.
I'm sorry, but I have examined numerous Hebrew writtings in my Biblical Hebrew language class (I'm a seminary student). The documents themselves prove my case.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. I would be more then happy to examine it and bring it to my professor's attention. Until that time, however, I will stick with what the Hebrew Scriptures show.
Posted by: Jason | January 30, 2007 at 08:11 PM
Stormwarning, Christians use the terms Elohaynu and Adonai in songs and hymns that we sing.
Posted by: Debbie | January 30, 2007 at 07:39 PM
Jason. With all due respect, NO. In my 50+ years of attending Shul, I have never once heard anyone utter the word "YAHWEH." Never.
We do not pronounce the letters of Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh (YHVH)...I wish I could copy the Hebrew letters here but Typepad won't allow it. And yes, I should have also said that we say Elohaynu for G-d and yes, Adonai is "Lord" but is there a difference? So it is Blessed our Lord, Oh G-d, King of the Universe (Baruch Atah Adonai Elohaynu, Melech Ha Olam).
Posted by: StormWarning | January 30, 2007 at 07:29 PM
Jason, what an excellent comment. Thanks so much. I respect your opinions and your knowledge of the Bible and Koran.
No need to apologize for anything. I realize now that the post wasn't as clear as it could have been and perhaps I should have included more information on the community. (Lesson learned for future posts.)
I am reminded of the community in Arkansas (I think) where Muslims moved in, bought land, built a mosque, then told the farmer next door he had to move his pig farm, because the Muslims were offended by the pigs.
Now what gaul and nerve on the Muslims part. It's this type behavior that turns non-Muslims off.
The community should have the right to say no to something that will certainly lead to problems. That was my main point.
Great information, Jason. I always look forward to reading your articles at your place and your comments here.
Posted by: Debbie | January 30, 2007 at 07:17 PM
Before I respond, a few apologies are in order. I apologize for taking so long to get back to you all on your comments. I haven't been near a computer with internet access lately and so haven't been able to respond. I also apologize for the convoluted way my last comment came out. I was responding on my Blackberry and it lost the formatting (no paragraphs) for some reason. That's also why (I assume) it double posted. TypePad does odd things when I post via my Blackberry. I don't know why. No other blogging software gives me grief over it.
First up, Night Rider: The way I read Debbie's original post, it is two seperate issues (proslytizing and the mosque). I completely agree that the community in question (indeed any community) should be able to determine if they want a church, synagogue, or mosque in it. I find no fault with that position at all.
In fact, if I lived in a community where they didn't want a church (assuming that they don't already have one I would attend nearby), I would either move or, more likely, would start a house church. As the faith grew in the community (assuming it did), eventually a church could be built as more people would approve of it.
My problem was with the stance I perceived (possibly mistakenly so) Debbie making is that if the community does not want people to prosyletize in their area then the preacher, rabbi, or imam should leave. It is that stance that I disagreed with. On that particular issue, my opinion has not changed.
As for the Divine Name of God, YHWH, YHVH, or JHVH are all correct depending on the transliteration convention that is used. The traditional and most commonly used transliteration is YHWH. You are correct about YHSWH - Jesus though. Here's a lesson in etymology (the study of historical linguistic change, esp. as manifested in individual words) for you:
YHSWH in Hebrew is pronounced Yeshua (as you have noted).
Yeshua is translated to Ieasus in Greek.
Ieasus is then translated into Jesus in English.
In short: YHSWH (transliterated Hebrew spelling) = Yeshua (spoken Hebrew pronunciation) = Ieasus (transliterated Greek spelling) = Jesus (spoken English pronunciation). Gotta love it!
Next is StormWarning: Adonai is not the actual name of God and never has been. Adonai is directly translated from Hebrew to English as 'Lord'. Adonai was used in place of YHWH because, in Jewish tradition, the Divine Name was never to be spoken aloud. For that reason, when the vowel points were added to the Hebrew language, the vowel points used were those for Adonai. In fact, the divine name (transliterated) YHWH (pronounced Yahweh), combined with the vowel marks of Adonai is where the mistranslation of Jehovah comes from. But since God, by whatever name we call Him, knows our hearts, He knows to whom we are speaking.
As for the proselytizing, you are absolutely correct and make a point I failed to clarify. The person preaching has every right to speak what they wish. And the person being preached to has every right to, as you note, "reject someone's proselytizing outright, to walk away, or to be offended". They do not, however, have the right to silence the one doing the proselytizing.
Debbie: "My main point was that the communities should have a choice in what gets built in their own neighborhood." Then I had aparently misunderstood and for that I apologize. I read your original post making two seperate points, one about the mosque and the other about the proselytizing.
Here's something else I just thought of: if the people in this community (where this prison is located) are so concerned, why have they (the Christians at least) not been ministering to the prisoners and other needy people in the area? Based on how easy these Muslim proselytizers gained a foothold in the community, I am assuming that the Christians in the area did little or no ministering to the prisoners and other needy people in the area. I know that money may be tight and perhaps they work long hours, but the only ability we need for God to be able to use us is availability.
As for the businesses and they way the Muslims treated the children, I didn't have that information and so was unaware. But as you can see I do not disagree with you in any way about the mosque being built; Only about the proselytizing.
"You cannot compare Christians witnessing to others and what Islam does. Christianity ( or any other religion you can name ) is not known for producing a generation of Jihadists. Islam must be viewed differently."
While in principle you may be correct, this is the same type of argument the Nazis used against the Jews (not that I'm accusing you of being a Nazi or acting like them). They used propaganda to demonize the Jews and show how evil they were. Then they proceeded to silence them, restrict them from the public sector, take away their businesses, and eventually murder them. This has been seen many, many times throughout history. The Nazis weren't the first to use this tactic.
**** Please forgive me if that offended you. I did not mean anything personal by it. No insult toward you was intended in any way. ****
Ronald Reagan showed us that there is a better way. He allowed the communist party in American to speak against him and democracy. At the same time he fought the Cold War and helped spread Freedom throughout the world. He demonstrated that Freedom conquers oppression and slavery. Islam is a religion of slavery while Christianity is a faith of Freedom. It was said best and simplest in the movie 'The Kingdom of Heaven': Mohammed says submit, Jesus says decide.
As for the Bible verses you referenced: Matthew 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5.
Ibu: How sad you are, my foolish friend. You know nothing of history. Or of the English language and proper grammatical structure, capitalization, and punctuation. I'm not overly concerned with your spelling as my own is most often atrocious (my English teacher in High School never could rectify that). The others are very important when you are trying to get your point across though. Please do try harder.
"surely chritianity doesn't produce jihadist Debbie but it definitly generates crusaders to harm Islam"
Actually, Christianity did not produce the Crusaders nor the Crusades themselves. The Crusades were in response to Muslim aggression. The First Crusade was to repel Muslim invaders from European lands. The Second Crusade was in response to yet another incursion by Muslims into Europe, this time by following them back into Muslim lands and keep them there if at all possible. The Third Crusade was to recover Jerusalem after it had fallen to Muslim invaders. And it was the political powers, not the church (though in a few European countries they were one and the same), who had created the Crusaders.
The only action the church (in this case the Roman Catholic Church) took was to grant absolution for any soldiers who took the Crusades. The political powers actually wanted martyr status for their soldiers in order to counter the Muslim's willingness to sacrifice their own lives. The Pope refused to grant it because there was no Scriptural basis for such an act. The closest the Pope could come to was to grant absolution (forgiveness of sins) for the soldiers.
"But when a resistance uprise, the media declares a terrorist label"
A resistance? To what? The oppression, filth, and degradation that your own Muslim political leaders put you through? Please try a new tactic. This one is getting old. Muslims have not been oppressed in any way. At least not by Europe, America, or Israel. They are, however, being oppressed by their own leaders.
And as for the media declaring a "terrorist" label, you need to stop with the hallucinogens. Every media outlet has been doing all it can to prevent calling Islamic terrorists, well... terrorists. Instead they call them "resistance fighters", or "insurgents". They try to call terrorist actions a "civil war", despite the FACT that most of the fighters in Iraq (for example) have been, until recently, foreign. And the coalition military forces still aren't sure whether most foreign terrorists are dead and gone or if they are still the ones fighting.
"Is a common reaction for disbeliever to misunderstand our faith when we are trying to put our religion into practice, like giving Alms"
There is nothing wrong with giving Alms. It's called for in Judaism and Christianity as well. And if that's all Muslims were doing there wouldn't be a problem. But when a minority (no one is sure how large or small that minority is) is committing acts of terrorism and the majority (ditto) is not denouncing and helping rid the world of the Islamic terrorists, it makes the peacful Muslims look bad. It also creates fear and suspicion in the hearts and minds of other people. And before you utter a word, no, the ones who are afraid do not need to compomise or work with the silent (and possibly peaceful) Muslim majority until and unless the silent Muslim majority PROVES that they are peaceful.
"The fact prisoners are converting is because they have found the truth"
Let's examine that "truth" you claim. According to the Hadith:
1) Mohammed was a child molestor (he was married to a 12 year old girl)
2) Mohammed killed those who refused to believe in Allah and follow him (this is called conversion by the sword)
3) Mohammed stated that it was acceptable to lie to unbelievers if it furthered your goals
4) Mohammed practiced and taught that polygamy was acceptable and holy
These are just four points of the "truth" that Islam proclaims. I have read 5 different versions of the Koran and several different Hadiths. There is no mistaking the violence, terror, and bloodshed that Islam teaches. There are some good things in the Koran (such as the giving of Alms), I won't deny that. But the vast majority of it is hateful, spiteful, and just plain evil.
If you would only take the time to learn the evil that is Islam (http://www.prophetofdoom.net is a good site to start) and to honestly examine the claims of Christ, you can only come to one conclusion: Jesus is the Son of God, He died on the Cross for your sins, and He rose from the dead. He wants you to turn away from the evil you have embraced and come to Him. He wants to give you eternal life and the peace and joy that comes from following the One True God. I pray that you will come to Christ before it is too late.
Posted by: Jason | January 30, 2007 at 05:33 PM
They should all be killed (readers may decide on who "they" are)
Posted by: John Ryan | January 30, 2007 at 01:32 PM
No need to reiterate your comments Night Rider, I’ve read your ridiculous story back in the post “Muslim as president”.
"That’s ’cause we ain’t played Cowboys and Muslims yet, but I do believe it’s a-comin’."
If it were to occur my fellow American, given the nuclear power the west has nowadays we all can conjure up the winner. Put I’ll tell you this, is going to be a war the west will certainly forever hesitate to pursue again, due to its (war) being the longest war the west ever been it. I’ll give you an example_ take for instance the occupation of Palestine. The conflict still reach you home, and who knows when it’ll end.
Rastaman am not a “lying sack of Islamic crap”, next time when your falsely accusing be of lying, try your best not including Islam. I’ve visited the website you showed (Islamanazi) and was exposed to an endless stream of refutable nonsense targeting Islam. Am only one person and am unable to comment on all those insults, ( if I could , certainly would) but it pain me when you all are being deluded to believe Islam is unpleasant. And you rather I go to Alzeera so I can enlighten the people on the right path. You may prove this to be wrong from you own deduction, I clearly understand. But I prefer interfering, disturbing, intermingling and finally having the sense that I’ve related the message to individual such as you, who’s only intentions is to undermine my faith, just like the website you've led me to.
Posted by: Ibu | January 30, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Everybody, yes this is a majority Black neighborhood. But the strange thing is the Blacks area the ones against the Mosque.
Also, yes Martin there is a double standard with Islam and everything else. This is just wrong.
Thanks Angel. I'm headed over so see your newest article.
IBU, we understand that not all Muslims are terrorists and we respect those who choose peace. It's sometimes difficult to know who falls into which category.
Posted by: Debbie | January 30, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Ibu
Now Now, this one goes out to Ibu.
Cowboys and Muslims
Three strangers strike up a conversation in the airport passenger lounge one day while awaiting their respective flights. One was an American Indian passing through from the Four Corners. Another was a Cowboy on his way to Billings Montana for a livestock show and the third was a fundamentalist Arab student, newly arrived from the Middle East. Their discussion drifted to their diverse cultures. Soon, the two Westerners learned that the Arab is a devout, radical Muslim and the conversation falls into an uneasy lull.
The cowboy leaned back in his chair, crossed his boots on a magazine table and tipped his big sweat-stained hat forward over his face. The wind outside is blowing tumbleweeds around, and the old windsock is flapping; but their flights are late so they just sit there devoid of conversation. Finally, the American Indian cleared his throat and softly he said, "At one time here, my people were many, but sadly, now we are few."
The Muslim student raised an eyebrow and leaned forward, "Once my people were few," he sneered, "and now we are many. Why do you suppose that is?"
The Cowboy shifted his toothpick to one side of his mouth and from the darkness beneath his Stetson said in a smooth drawl, "That’s ’cause we ain’t played Cowboys and Muslims yet, but I do believe it’s a-comin’."
Posted by: Night Rider | January 30, 2007 at 10:21 AM
I sort of enjoy the richness of exposing the ACLU for what it is. Muslims do their thing and it's protected, up to and including recruitment in prisons, and worship lessons in public schools. Meanwhile, Christians and Jews need not apply. Of course we know what happens when Christianity and Judaism are allowed to flourish: random acts of senseless kindness, intolerable toleration, and people who don't wear sheets over their heads. So I can understand the duplicity...
Of course, the very act of being the ideological traffic cop has completely removed any idea of regard for the constitution as was formerly perceived by at least some of the public about the ACLU.
...I know, that was chasing a rabbit a little from your topic, but the underlying (and somewhat suicidal) double standard of the left is always what gets me the most.
Posted by: Martin | January 30, 2007 at 01:56 AM
Ibu, you are a lying sack of Islamic crap. Go take that stuff to the Al Jazeera website, no one here is buying.
Rastaman
www.islamanazi.com
Posted by: Rastaman | January 30, 2007 at 12:33 AM
This is just a guess, which is that maybe the Pomano Beach City Council is mostly black, which may be why it was voted for. Florida is Deep South and pretty redneck, I lived there and I know. How does the possibility sound that the reason the muzzies picked that area is because they already scoped it out and knew they could get a foothold there because of a majority black population?
Seems likely to me.
Rastaman
Posted by: Rastaman | January 30, 2007 at 12:31 AM
surely chritianity doesn't produce jihadist Debbie but it definitly generates crusaders to harm Islam. But when a resistance uprise, the media declares a terrorist label. Is a common reaction for disbeliever to misunderstand our faith when we are trying to put our religion into practice, like giving Alms. This is not another way to recruit jihadist but to simply observe our five pillars. The fact prisoners are converting is because they have found the truth, but the average civilian is distorted by the media that's been fabricated so it can only depict the fictitous part of Islam.
Posted by: Ibu | January 29, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Yes Debbie...by God the community should have a say..great read!
Posted by: Angel | January 29, 2007 at 10:38 PM
p.s. Night Rider, you are right on the website, it is Pipeline News
Posted by: Debbie | January 29, 2007 at 10:13 PM
My main point was that the communities should have a choice in what gets built in their own neighborhood. The citizens had legitimate arguments about not wanting the mosque/Islamic center in their neighborhood. The majority Black neighborhood knew that the prison in the backyard of where the mosque would be built. They also had complaints about the way the businesses were run and how their children were treated by the Muslims. I did not include all this information in the article, it would have been entirely too long.
But what the citizens wanted didn't seem to matter, they got the mosque anyway.
You cannot compare Christians witnessing to others and what Islam does. Christianity ( or any other religion you can name ) is not known for producing a generation of Jihadists. Islam must be viewed differently.
Also I believe there is a verse in the Bible where Jesus tells his disciples, if the people they are witnessing to do not want to hear what they have to share, then shake the dust off their feet and move along.
Posted by: Debbie | January 29, 2007 at 10:12 PM
Actually, the problem with prostelytizing is not of the prostelytizer, but of the recipient. What I mean is that it is someone's right to express their faith. But it is my right to reject someone's prostelytizing outright, to walk away, or to be offended, depending upon the "vigor" of the prostelytizing.
I don't know about you, but when I go to Shul and pray, the name of G-d is usually pronounced Adonai (and isn't pronounced as Yahweh).
But perhaps I parse too much.
http://judaism.about.com/od/reformjudaismfaq/f/god_spelling.htm
Posted by: StormWarning | January 29, 2007 at 09:24 PM
Jason
You have to read it in it's entire text, Debbie is correct if you take it in it's entire text and not separating the mosque and keeping it in the same issue.
You know that the times are different today Jason, we much of the world that is are at a crossroads with militant Islamofacists today and one must keep things in context and perspective.
I did enjoy your comment although we have to maintain a perspective that keeps us diligent to fighting off those that would do most of the world harm.
Yahweh is a proposed English reading of the name of the God of Israel as preserved in the original consonantal Hebrew Bible text. The four Hebrew consonants read JHWH or (in English transcription). It is also common to use YHWH.
YHSWH Or Yeshua is a form of the Hebrew name of Jesus.
Posted by: Night Rider | January 29, 2007 at 09:04 PM
Hi Debbie,
Your post says, Several websites, such as militantislammonitor.org and pipelinews.org
There is no pipelinews.org it is actually pipelinenews.org
But thanks for the heads up because I just bookmarked them in a bookmark labled Media Watch Dog Sites.
Posted by: Night Rider | January 29, 2007 at 08:58 PM
Debbie, I have to disagree that proslytizing is a problem (the mosque is a different issue). Using your logic, Jesus should never have gone to Jerusalem, Judea, Canan, etc. Paul shouldn't have gone to Antioch, Corinth, or Rome. John shouldn't have gone to Ephesis, Rome, etc. These Muslims have as much right to reach people with their message as we Christians have. We may not (and in my case, do not) agree with their message, but we should not silence them. How would that be any different from how Christians are treated in the majority of Muslim countries? People should be given the choice of believing in the One True God (YHWH) and His Son Jesus (YHSWH) or a false god (like allah). If they choose the false god (such as allah), they have only themselves to blame for their eternal damnation. We should, and I do, pray that they do not make that choice and if they do, that they see the Truth before it is too late. Ronald Reagan took a similar aproach with democracy versus communism. He knew that democracy and freedom were better than communism and so did not try to silence those who disagreed. He "preached" and worked toward democracy and let Truth win out. And today communism is virtually extinct today as a result.
Posted by: Jason | January 29, 2007 at 06:35 PM
Debbie, I have to disagree that proslytizing is a problem (the mosque is a different issue). Using your logic, Jesus should never have gone to Jerusalem, Judea, Canan, etc. Paul shouldn't have gone to Antioch, Corinth, or Rome. John shouldn't have gone to Ephesis, Rome, etc. These Muslims have as much right to reach people with their message as we Christians have. We may not (and in my case, do not) agree with their message, but we should not silence them. How would that be any different from how Christians are treated in the majority of Muslim countries? People should be given the choice of believing in the One True God (YHWH) and His Son Jesus (YHSWH) or a false god (like allah). If they choose the false god (such as allah), they have only themselves to blame for their eternal damnation. We should, and I do, pray that they do not make that choice and if they do, that they see the Truth before it is too late. Ronald Reagan took a similar aproach with democracy versus communism. He knew that democracy and freedom were better than communism and so did not try to silence those who disagreed. He "preached" and worked toward democracy and let Truth win out. And today communism is virtually extinct today as a result.
Posted by: Jason | January 29, 2007 at 06:31 PM