« Dearly Beloved | Main | Saturday Photoblogging »
Saturday, May 12, 2007
At The Sign Of Triumph Satan's Host Doth Flee
Several North Carolina readers send word of this WRAL report about a church in Spring Hope that is rankling local Muslims. The church's sign is causing controversy:
Well, as Robert Spencer has noted, Muhammad did in fact command Muslims to subjugate, convert, or kill non-Muslims (see, e.g., Sahih Muslim 4294). And salvation in Jesus Christ is certainly not the message of Islam.
The other side of the billboard at Good News Independent Baptist Church is equally provocative. It reads: "When is the last time you heard of a Jew or Christian with a bomb strapped to their body?"
An offended official at the Islamic Center of Raleigh has asked the head of the church and his congregation to "learn more about Islam." Or else?
She also includes a helpful reminder of what some "truly offensive religious signs look like":
Oh, whoops, those came from this Christian church, not some dirty muzzies. My bad.
It's interesting that Michelle thinks Muslims have a monopoly on violence and as proof links to a book that specifically details Islamic regulations of warfare. Odd that she missed this part:
It is narrated by Ibn 'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children.
Maybe she ignored that because we don't have a good track record in that regard. Or perhaps she just honestly missed that in her otherwise very thorough reading of the material. That's the most likely explanation, yet I am a bit surprised that such a Pillar of Wisdom and scholar of Islam would forget Surah 5:32:
We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.
Anyway, I guess some people find it weird that a religion would prescribe rules of war. That's so uniquely Muslim, right? And Jesus never said anything remotely like this:
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Religion of peace, indeed! I mean, this is what they think of people of different faiths:
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them...
Scary stuff, but shouldn't surprise us given that Allah is pro-war, and then there's all that stuff about submission that you will never find in Christianity. So probably we should preventively take the advice of people wiser than I:
Whenever there is an assassination or another atrocity, we should proceed to the closest mosque and execute five of the first Muslims we encounter,” the letter said. “After all, this is a ‘Holy War” and although such a procedure is not fair or just, it might end the horror.
Yes, that worked very well for Lidice, and I can't think of anybody better suited to conduct such a moral, peaceful campaign than General Boykin. Now I think I'm going to relax with a nice, peaceful, Christian video game.
ntodd
PS--Thanks to tigre for giving me good Christian gift ideas.
May 12, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c525c53ef00d83514496753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference At The Sign Of Triumph Satan's Host Doth Flee:
Comments
Missionaries never do that convert or die routine for Jesus, do they?
Posted by: whig | May 12, 2007 6:42:34 PM
"Muhammad did in fact command Muslims to subjugate, convert, or kill non-Muslims"
These morons ever hear of something called the Inquisition?
Posted by: Terry C - End Bush's War Now | May 12, 2007 7:23:14 PM
Wow Terry, the inquisition. What a trite standard answer. Sorry, but it is. Are people aware that it began after the Spanish finally defeated and kicked out their Muslim invaders? The more radical Muslims certainly are aware, and have called for "al Andalus" to be returned to Muslim rule. Good thing it's just the whack-jobs, like the Phelps family, pictured above.
NTodd--egads! Please don't give coverage to the Phelps', and CERTAINLY do not include them in the roster of Christian churches! Phred is a freak, and that whole "church"/cult is made up of his many children, their families and cousins. It's all family, baby. Except for Phelps' one gay son, of course. These idiots spent most of their time at the University of Kansas while I was going there, and we finally started ignoring them to the point that finally, at the drag show that ended Gay Pride Week, Phelps only managed two people to come with him. We almost drove his cult into the ground by just ignoring him, and then, whoa nellie! The wanker has a freakin' web site, is getting attention, and has moved up the "funeral protests" to this bizarre level it is at now. Please read my account of him in the 90s, including how I ended up knocking him down a hill:
http://whatwouldcharlesmarteldotm.blogspot.com/2007/04/was-going-to-writeok-phelps-it-is.html
Please don't lump him in as any example of Christianity. He's his own prophet with his own cult, and never failed to yell back at Christians on campus who would counter his argument or chants. He would tell them that they weren't "real Christians", and that if they were they'd believe what he believed and would join his "church". Oddly enough, even with the website, there has not been an insanely vast conversion to Phelpsism.
I can't help it with the comments when Phelps is brought up. He was such an embarrassment, and friends I have who still live in Lawrence, KS. keep steady track of the bastard and keep me up to date. I just can't help but comment when I see stories on Phelps.
Yes, there are extremist fundie Christians who don't seem to be part of the same religion I finally converted to. Actually, I just watched "Jesus Camp", and actually for once in my life wanted to beat the crap out of a 6 year old. I think that ALL extreme and fundamentalist types are dangerous, however, and Islam deserves no free pass in this. Do the research. The Wahhabi sect of Islam out of Saudi Arabia, which began in the late 1800s, is a fundamentalist movement, trying to bring everything back to the "glory days" of the first decades of the religion and shunning all else. As with most fundie movements, they're way off track and regarded by most Muslims as extremists. Unfortunately, bin Laden and Co. are Wahhabists. There is also a belief in Islam that certain verses are abrogated by later ones and not to be counted, as "Allah-through-Muhammad" rewrote them at a different time, therefore you must check on verses quoted out of context to see if they regarded as abrogated surahs.
NTodd, don't get me wrong, I applaud your effort in writing of extremists, especially these nuts here in the US. Government is not safe in the presence of these freaks, whether through influence by (wahhabist) CAIR or insanity incited by "pastors" like John Hagee. Hell, it's one reason I worry about Bush as well as the upcoming election. I'm probably the only blogger in the "anti-jihadi" set who regularly bashes the religious right as well, but hey, anything to keep my traffic down. I hate pressure....LOL.
OK, sorry about the novella, but that many pictures of those stupid old signs just brought it all back, dammit!
Posted by: Pim's Ghost | May 13, 2007 5:06:24 PM
its religion. religion kills.
Posted by: Mestizo | May 14, 2007 5:22:09 PM
think that ALL extreme and fundamentalist types are dangerous, however, and Islam deserves no free pass in this.
Precisely my point in bringing up Westboro _et al_. No religion has a monopoly on Fuckedupedness. I don't see anybody giving "Islam a free pass". Rather, I see Malkin and her ilk saying that Muslims are silly for being offended by anti-Muslim signs when, golly, they're the ones who put up REAL offensive signs. See the Gandhi post above...
its religion. religion kills.
No, that's too fucking glib. Religion can be a powerful tool for good as well as for evil, as is anything else wrought by humans or gods.
Posted by: NTodd | May 14, 2007 8:03:54 PM
Well, honestly, that may be something I agree with Malkin on, though I thought that was impossible. I'm pretty close to pulling a parody job of her along the lines of your "Atlas Juggs". Malkin's dogma is just as destructive as almost anything religious, and it astounds me as she is so incredibly untalented as a writer, and certainly on camera. I write against her on my blog (when I do write), I leave "constructive criticism" on her videos....LOL...she's power hungry, just as most religious leaders are.
As for the comment above, I just feel compelled to comment on ANY writings about Phelps. I have just dealt with the sleaze that he is far too up-close and personally. It took a lot of work, but we got him silenced by just holding everyone back. A lot of work in the gay community back then, but my activism regarding gay rights continues to this day, and I am constantly reassuring those of the GLBT side that Phelps is but a paper tiger, the man behind the curtains. Nothing there. Believe me, I understand your post, I just added a bit to my comment. I think we are generally of the same mind politically, sorry if that will come as a shock....LOL!
Posted by: Pim's Ghost | Jun 2, 2007 3:37:36 AM
Buy me stuff off my 
