Friday, April 01, 2016

Islam in America: Violent and Bloodthirsty, or Peaceful?

My Experience With Islam in America

            Islam is supposedly a religion of peace.  American Muslims, at least, are supposedly peace loving, Americanized and Westernized people.  The vast numbers of Quranic commands to kill non-Muslims are supposedly irrelevant to these American followers of Allah who supposedly put the Constitution above the Quran.  Is it so?  There are certainly secular Muslims who care more about making money and living like rich people than about what the Quran says.  However, there is a vast and growing body of already extant evidence demonstrating that far, far too many Western Muslims, and majorities of Muslims in many nations worldwide, still believe the Quran and thus tend towards violence.  To that body of evidence may the following true story provide some further light.  The person involved in the record below will remain anonymous, and statements in the comment section speculating on the person involved will probably be deleted.  The story will be told in the first person.  It illustrates Islam in the American heartland.

The Testimony—What Muslims in America Are Doing

            Not that long ago I was in the Milwaukee area, on a public sidewalk, passing out The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible outside of a Muslim gathering at a particular mosque in the region.  Recognizing that “a soft answer turneth away wrath” (Proverbs 15:1), I sought to be especially polite and kind to the Muslims there as they left the mosque in multitudes.  I was by no means doing anything to whip up the Muslims, as some foolish people in Christendom do at Muslim gatherings.  As I respectfully offered them the literature, some of them cursed at me.  One of them spat at me.  Some of them ripped it up.  (Some of them took it also, and I do not know what they did with it—hopefully they read it and God worked in their life toward them rejecting Allah and receiving Jehovah’s eternal Son, Jesus Christ.)  One of them told me that there were crazy people there and I might be in danger.  After a while, a sizable group of young Muslim men told me that they were going to kill me.  They were not kidding, either.  As they were approaching me, a private security vehicle with its lights flashing “just happened” to pull up, and it remained on the site the rest of the time I was passing out the Christian pamphlet.  The vehicle stayed there for about two hours while the young Muslim men circled around and around in a car to see if the security vehicle was still there or if they could act out their desire to do me serious bodily injury or send me to the grave.  This private security vehicle was God’s answer to my prayers, and the prayers of others, for protection before I went.  After about everyone had left the mosque, I left also.

            Politely passing out that pamphlet to those Muslims was the most dangerous evangelistic endeavor I have ever undertaken.  I have passed out tracts to gatherings of people of many different religions.  I have preached on the street and passed out literature to gatherings of militant sodomites, in front of drunks, and with various other rabble-rousers.  While sometimes these people have made threats (sodomites, for example, have burned tracts, said they would kill me, and done other similar things), none, I repeat, none of these evangelistic opportunities has been as dangerous as politely passing out pamphlets to Muslims in the American heartland.  This is my testimony to the character of Islam in America.
            Interestingly, I was listening to National Public Radio (NPR) one time—perhaps a mistake in itself—and the radio station wanted people to call in to give their story of their encounters with Muslim neighbors.  Everything was supposed to be light, happy, and frothy.  I called and told the person vetting the calls what my story was.  Not surprisingly, I was not allowed on air.  It did not fit the P. C. fairy-tale narrative about Islam.
          We should use the freedoms that we have in the United States to boldly evangelize the Muslims that are here—we would not have that liberty in countries where they are the majority.  We should also ask God to protect us and take sensible steps to protect ourselves when we do so (e. g., have someone recording the evangelism on a camera, have someone ready to call 911, perhaps even wear bullet proof vests or other protection, although, based on Matthew 5:44, the example in Acts 7, etc. I do not believe it is best to carry weapons for self-defense when preaching the gospel, although carrying them for general protection is certainly Biblical, Luke 22:36-38.  If Stephen had used a concealed weapon in Acts 7 things would haven been not a little different!)  We should also consider what we are doing to our nation when we bring into our country and make citizens those who believe in the Quran.  Muslim immigration can be vastly limited by simply passing a law that states that countries with a high level of support for terrorism cannot send people here (with an exception for persecuted minorities such as Christians).  Islam does not even need to be mentioned in the law.  By passing such a law, those who believe in the anti-Biblical and anti-American system of Sharia can be kept out to a large extent, while those that are already here can be boldly evangelized.

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm really disappointed in this post. You sound just like Donald Trump, and most Christians have rejected his views and are working against him getting the nomination for his unkind, backwoods, uneducated views on women and Muslims. I'm sorry, this one is a new low for your site.

Anonymous said...

Really? Passing out literature at a mosque! Although Christians might not be as violent if the tables were turned, I don't think they would appreciate it if Muslims passed out literature to members leaving a church service. This shows little common sense or civility and has no biblical warrant. Yes, by all means evangelize Muslims. They need the Savior. But this smacks of needless antagonism and look-at-me evangelism.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hi,

I went ahead and published these two anonymous comments, because I thought they were typical of the kind of thinking of Islam in the United States and even among professing Christians. Very often I'm not publishing negative anonymous comments, but I did these, because I think they add to the post. Not only is there a physical threat for even talking to Moslems about Jesus and the Bible, but people treat it like these two comments do.

If people stood outside our church property to pass out Moslem literature as we walked out, and they were not threatening to be violent, we would not have a problem with it. If they didn't mind us conversing back to them without their being violent, we would like it. We wouldn't have to go to them, because they came to us.

I didn't write this post, but calling it "look-at-me" evangelism is like calling the book of Acts, look-at-me evangelism because Luke wrote about what they did in those places where they were persecuted. What is "look-at-me" evangelism? How would it be different than a "look-at-me" blog comment?

I found his experience interesting. I think a lot of people wouldn't know what would happen, and now we know how rank and file Moslems integrate into American society. Regular Moslem mosque attendees, the so-called peaceful Moslems, are either violent or approving or look the other way. The people most like them, as I see it, are the socialist or communist agitators on state university campuses and mainly in urban areas, including where I live who vandalize our property just because we exist.

Tyler Robbins said...

In response to the anonymous comment - if a pagan religious organization showed up outside my church, I'd invite them in to hear the sermon and ask them to have coffee and chat about our beliefs afterwards. There is no reason to be afraid. What a great opportunity to talk to them!

I'm doing a Bible study on Wednesday evenings at our church on Christ and the Trinity from the Gospel of Mark. During the course of a Bible study, I often show video clips from Unitarians and Oneness Pentecostals as they argue for their false versions of Christ. I say again, there is no reason to be afraid of false beliefs. As Bro. Brandenburg wrote, at least they're coming to you!

Tyler Robbins said...

One more thing - the Gospel is inherently offensive. There is nothing you can do to make it un-offensive, and still retain the message. It's not antagonistic to hand people literature with the Gospel message, and be polite about it. I've sat down with many unbelievers and calmly explained the Gospel, and they were polite about it, even as I knew they didn't accept it. Most people are pretty civil.

I wonder what people who are fearful of "needless antagonism" do with Luke 11:37ff; Jesus' discussion with this Pharisee (while a lunch guest at the man's home!) was pretty confrontational and "rude."

Anonymous said...

My comment was not meant to be negative. After looking at the pamphlet being handed out "The Testimony of the Quran to the Bible" I withdraw my "look-at-me evangelism" comment. Was the person really talking about Jesus and the Bible? It doesn't sound like evangelism after all. Maybe pre-evangelism. Maybe provocation. And it's easy to say if Moslems did it at our church we wouldn't have a problem with it partly because most people know that out of respect for people's right to worship as they want (false worship included) they should be left in peace at their place of gathering and they won't violate what seems to be a respectful stance. I'm not saying Islam isn't a threat or that Islam is a religion of peace. But handing out literature is not necessarily evangelism. The write wants to evangelize? Let him stand down the street and engage Muslims in conversation. Let him witness to the Muslim shop owners in his community (if there are any). This sounds more like hit and run "evangelism" than real evangelism. Thanks for publishing these comments. It's a conversation that needs to happen.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Tyler,

People, as you know, who call themselves Christian, don't look at what Jesus and the Apostles did. They value their own opinion than exegesis, I guess thinking that they have inspired opinions, one of the negative effects of an environment of continuationism in Christian culture. People should be happy we are sowing and watering, not depending on signs or man's wisdom, but they seek after wisdom and signs. I call it, "having our breath mint," all the pragmatic necessities, really new measures, that will "work" in evangelism, not understanding that it is a supernatural problem solved by the gospel, a supernatural solution. You can't make them "want it." I know you track with all this, but everybody knows so much that they do nothing, so they could never go wrong except for doing nothing. Two things are occurring here, preaching the gospel and giving out gospel literature. This isn't rocket science here. They hate that, but he's saying that if you take a different approach, they'll like it, you know, one that makes sense for Moslems. OK.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Anonymous,

One good way to persuade and love us is to go anonymous and be insulting. Why would I trust you with Moslems? They're a much tougher crowd. I'm guessing that with Moslems you wouldn't insult so much because you know that isn't the way to go. It's sort of instinctive toward people who will kill you, because that's part of their religion. You don't have that same fear here, even though you've got to go anonymous, because you're afraid of something. Jesus said, Fear not. Does that make sense to you?

KJB1611 said...

Dear Anonymous,

I'm sorry, but Donald Trump is not polite and respectful, so this post is not at all like Donald Trump.

I would say that the Christians that read this blog would generally be delighted if there were lost people on a public sidewalk outside of their church building politely offering literature. They would go over to them and preach the gospel.

I can see you don't like Christian literature being passed out on public sidewalks. You condemned that. It is a "new low" to reach Muslims where there are actually groups of them. How about trying to kill the person politely passing out literature? You didn't say a single word about that. Is that OK? Murder?

By the way, the person and just about all of his (or her) friends are actually either going to or have already voted Cruz, and they strongly dislike Trump. Also, the policy of limiting immigration from nations where a high percentage of the population wants to kill us is actually something even the libertarian Rand Paul has advocated. It is actually just common sense to not let people into the country who want to kill you if you exercise your First Amendment freedoms.

KJB1611 said...

Dear Anonymous,

My previous comment was written before your last comment. I'm glad you are not trying to be negative, although saying that the post is a "new low" sure looks negative. Thanks for withdrawing the "look-at-me" comment.

Giving Muslims gospel literature is definitely evangelism, part of seeking to reach "every creature." The gospel is very clear in:

http://faithsaves.net/quranbible/

What do you pass out to Muslims that deals with their false religion and preaches the gospel at least as clearly as the work you say does not "sound like evangelism after all"?

No one was disturbing them in the place where they worship their god. The person was standing on a public sidewalk politely offering the Muslims literature that had the gospel. He was on the street. He was happy to engage the Muslims in conversation, but they spat at him instead. The ones that conversed said they were going to kill him, and that is a conversation that doesn't go very far. How do you know he does not witness to Muslim shop owners in the community? How do you know he isn't very happy to talk to Muslims that are less hostile? What if he has them over to his home, along with other members of false religions? But what if "every creature" in Mark 16:15 is trying to reach everyone, not just the one who owns the shop? Do you do what the Bible teaches in Acts (see, e. g., http://faithsaves.net/house-evangelism/? ) and both go to places where there are masses of people to get the gospel to them all, and also go house to house to reach every single person in your community?

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

There were two anonymous persons commenting. The first one mentioned Trump for whatever reason. I hope that's who Kent refers to as insulting. The second anonymous and following comments were made by another person. Rather than criticizing anonymity (BTW who wrote the article? Oh, he/she's anonymous) and questioning whether the person can be trusted, etc. it would be more helpful to deal with the issues. I give my name and then it might be "oh well, it's him /her and we shouldn't be surprised by the compromiser." I still contend that this wasn't evangelism. did you read the literature being handed out? The link in the article was broken but I think I found it. If it's the correct literature that was handed out then call it polemic or apologetic but it's not evangelism and there's no gospel. Tyler's right. The gospel is offensive. I have no desire or intention to make it otherwise. But we should ask whether there was any gospel and if the person himself was offensive. The person wasn't witnessing. He was accosting people as they left the mosque. You can continue to defend this approach but please don't try to associate the apostles with it. They proclaimed Christ and Him crucified.

P.S. I know there's some confusion between Moslem and Muslim with different roots and connotations but since the 80's or so the more accepted term has been Muslim. The article uses "Muslim." I'm not sure why the throwback to "Moslem" which although still used in some settings has more of a negative connotation to Muslims themselves.

Anonymous said...

"I would say that the Christians that read this blog would generally be delighted if there were lost people on a public sidewalk outside of their church building politely offering literature. They would go over to them and preach the gospel."

Exactly.

The Preacher

Anonymous said...

"Do you do what the Bible teaches in Acts (see, e. g., http://faithsaves.net/house-evangelism/? ) and both go to places where there are masses of people to get the gospel to them all, and also go house to house to reach every single person in your community?"

Probably not since he condemns the obvious.

The Preacher

KJB11611 said...

Dear Anonymous (#2? #3?),

Thanks for pointing out the bad link. It is fixed.

I would like to know why pgs. 6-10 are not a detailed gospel presentation. (See the PDF at http://faithsaves.net/quranbible/; it is easier to read.)

Also, many Christian writers on Islam remain anonymous so they are not killed. If you are anonymous because you think putting your name here will possibly get you killed, then please, by all means, remain anonymous.

You have labeled politely offering literature to someone accosting that person--this is bad. I have not seen any condemnation of attempted murder. Is that bad, too? Are they equivalent? Did the person deserve what he got from the Muslim thugs?

Anonymous said...

I would have to say that I agree with the person who posted the Trump comment. This article calls Muslims "violent" and does nothing but propagate that negative stereotype. The reasons that most Christians are not voting for Trump is because he is unkind in his statements against gays (think Rosie O'Donell and call her a slob) and against Muslims calling them "violent terrorists." I to am surprised that this blog owner is letting this post be part of his site. One would tend to think that Brandenburg is voting for Trump by allowing this type of rhetoric to be on his blog. Call me disappointed.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Anonymous,

I feel stereotyped by you, but that's OK, because you are you. Is that a stereotype too? You being you.

It's interesting to me that people think Muslims will change if we don't confront their doctrine, but be all nicey-nicey too them and maybe act like they have some truth, and sort of allow some of their killing, because they deserve to do some of that, since it's their religion and all. People get saved because they hear the gospel. When they reject the gospel, they don't get saved. It's as not nice as it can be when someone goes to hell because we were so nice. But then again, people don't believe the gospel, like it seems you don't, anonymous.

Did you know that God is very offended by homosexuality? He created woman for man and rebellion against that makes Him very unhappy. Making Him unhappy is less serious to you though than making Muslims, with a totally bogus fiction as a religion, that murders thousands, unhappy. Your credo for life, make Muslims happy, make God unhappy. That will work. Nope.

Joshua said...

I'd recommend the following quote from Sobran to understand the anonymous critics above. Exchange Soviet for Muslim and it's the exact same phenomenon.

"All this is not to suggest that liberals like the Soviet system. Their attitude toward it is peculiar. They see it as a sort of death-god, a Moloch, that must be constantly appeased and propitiated, never angered. Moloch is beyond morality. He is a "reality," which it is not our place to censure. That only makes him mad. And a good roar from Moloch sends liberals scurrying, indignant not at him, of course, but at whoever "provoked" him. Death, for thoroughly secularized people, is the final reality--not heaven, not even honor--and a power that can inflict death on a huge scale becomes a sort of ultimate from which it is prudent and even imperative to take one's orientation. If the Soviet Union no longer offers paradise, at least it can threaten us with hell. - Joseph Sobran 1985."

John Mark IB said...

Dear Pastor Brandenburg and Dr Ross,

Hope you're doing great spot on as always here's proof of this issue as a reason why we need to be informed as wise as serpents harmless as doves, I love how the Israelis are doing security and the USA aviation industry should be doing it here too the same as Israel! Here's some very helpful information I believe that you'll find worth passing on to the rest in these times just my two cents worth may GOD bless you and your family with health love joy and peace always in Jesus name amen have a blessed day and weekend, this religion is only serving one purpose to conquer and destroy there's no peace about it it's obvious with that said I use Dr Ross site to push the Gospel via faithsaves.net anywhere on the net and your sites too not an endorsement of the sites but there is info that is pertinent information on this subject here are the sites you should read or check out
http://dhimmitude.org/

http://thegorkabriefing.com/

http://www.palwatch.org/site/modules/videos/pmw/videos.aspx?fld_id=142&doc_id=2362

Dr Ross here's one you might like to place on your page with your Islam links

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/#

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/quran-not-from-allah.aspx


http://www.faithdefenders.com/article-category/Islamic-Booklet.html


http://watch.org/

http://www.memritv.org/


http://www.foi.org/free-resources/article/preservation-jewish-people/



http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/the-muslim-brotherhood-in-america/




http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/mftoc.html


Dennis Prager middle east problem
https://youtu.be/ezx6IJguevo


https://youtu.be/8EDW88CBo-8


News headlines from Israel current situation etc
http://prophecytoday.com/


http://israpundit.com/

Defense of Israel in today's world
https://youtu.be/CC94-y_9_ek

Thanks for allowing me to share these on your page I'm not affiliated with any of these nor do I agree with everything on them but for news and information purposes only





John Mark IB said...

Dear Pastor Brandenburg and Dr Ross,

Hope you're doing great, sorry I meant to clarify my bad grammar and punctuation or lack thereof, when I said not an endorsement of the sites listed, in my previous text, post, I never meant your sites, I wholeheartedly support yours and Dr Ross sites! It's the links listed that I was referring to that I don't necessarily agree with everything on, thanks for your great kindness and allowing my participation on your great deep thought provoking topics that seek to be Biblically accurate! Here's one or 2 more that should be interesting to read and for news headlines in regards to Islam etc the term used for people who have been duped by the false religion of Peace and are either lying or just blind to the murderous verses in the koran are called dhimmi dupes! Also if I'm not mistaken from my study of the nature of Islam a muslim man can lie in 3 matters called taqiya or tackiya they call it holy lying based upon when mohamed lied in agreement made by false treaties with enemies to gain advantage when he was weaker so he lied until he gained the advantages over his enemies then attacked and killed them but a muslim can lie in matters of faith war and marriage so basically you can't trust them period! Contrast that to our knowledge and commands from GOD'S Preserved Words KJV that command us to never lie period!? So that is something of interest for wise as serpents discernment for us all!
Thanks again have a blessed day and weekend with health love joy and peace always in Jesus name amen GOD bless you and your family! Thanks again and sorry for the overload but I try to inform the masses number one of Christ and Christ alone saves and I use Dr Ross site to push the Gospel so thankful for yours and his materials and helping me too! Hope this helps you and others as well!

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

http://pamelageller.com/



http://dhimmitude.org/d_today_christian_antizionism.html


http://dhimmitude.org/archive/by_dhimmitude_marcionism_en.pdf

Thanks a million for allowing me to share my thoughts with you on your awesome site!

John Mark IB said...

Dear Pastor Brandenburg and Dr Ross,

Hope you're doing great, sorry I meant to clarify my bad grammar and punctuation or lack thereof, when I said not an endorsement of the sites listed, in my previous text, post, I never meant your sites, I wholeheartedly support yours and Dr Ross sites! It's the links listed that I was referring to that I don't necessarily agree with everything on, thanks for your great kindness and allowing my participation on your great deep thought provoking topics that seek to be Biblically accurate! Here's one or 2 more that should be interesting to read and for news headlines in regards to Islam etc the term used for people who have been duped by the false religion of Peace and are either lying or just blind to the murderous verses in the koran are called dhimmi dupes! Also if I'm not mistaken from my study of the nature of Islam a muslim man can lie in 3 matters called taqiya or tackiya they call it holy lying based upon when mohamed lied in agreement made by false treaties with enemies to gain advantage when he was weaker so he lied until he gained the advantages over his enemies then attacked and killed them but a muslim can lie in matters of faith war and marriage so basically you can't trust them period! Contrast that to our knowledge and commands from GOD'S Preserved Words KJV that command us to never lie period!? So that is something of interest for wise as serpents discernment for us all!
Thanks again have a blessed day and weekend with health love joy and peace always in Jesus name amen GOD bless you and your family! Thanks again and sorry for the overload but I try to inform the masses number one of Christ and Christ alone saves and I use Dr Ross site to push the Gospel so thankful for yours and his materials and helping me too! Hope this helps you and others as well!

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

http://pamelageller.com/



http://dhimmitude.org/d_today_christian_antizionism.html


http://dhimmitude.org/archive/by_dhimmitude_marcionism_en.pdf

Thanks a million for allowing me to share my thoughts with you on your awesome site!

Anonymous said...

KB, I don't know about these other posters, but I wonder if you misunderstood some of the comments. I don't think the posters talking about Trump were talking about Muslim doctrine. Most Christians are against Trump for his rudeness in three areas: His war against women via Megan Kelley. Miss Kelly is a fine, cultured, delicate flower-like women. To say rude things about Miss Kelly is just, well, rude. The stereotype about Muslims being "violent" and "terrorists" is another reason Christians don't stand with Trump. That is a rude stereotype that is just ignorant. Sure, there are some terrorists who happen to have been Muslims in history, but that is just a mathematical statistic, just like there have been some terrorists who have been left-handed. To subscribe to this view that Muslims are violent or terrorists is just rude. Lastly, most Christians disagree with calling Rosie O'Donell a slob. She is a talented talk show host who brings up interesting points on The View. To call her a slob is just rude and anti-gay and also anti-women. The reason Trump was even mentioned is that by linking to an article such as you did, which seems to ascribe to the "Muslims are violent" stereotype, makes us think you are a typical uneducated, white, redneck male. That is the only group that actually supports that guy. We are just concerned that you appear to have gone off the deep end and have started supporting Trump-like views.

Anonymous said...

Yes, there are some big differences in theology from Christianity and Islam. I don't think anyone was disputing that. What we object to is this whole "Muslims are violent terrorist" negative stereotype, which this article seems to purport. That is unkind and rude. Some Christians also have disagreements over views on homosexuality. But to call Rosie O'Donnell a slob is just rude. She is a talented journalist, just as Megan Kelley is. We don't want to appear as if we support the "Muslims are terrorists" views or appear like we disagree with strong women who hold strong viewpoints, which is the main thing about Trump and this type of article that turns off Christians. You'd think the author of this article just can't wait to get down to the polls and strike his vote for Trump. We are just surprised that you would allow this type of article on your site that holds these rude stereotypes. No one said anything about disagreeing with others in a non-rude way.

Leroy St. Jean said...

Brother Kent, you gave Luke 22:36-38 as proof that it is biblical to carry weapons for general protection. Now I thought Jesus Christ rebuked Peter for his use of his sword on a man? So can weapons be carried for general protection but not used?

And did Jesus literally mean for His disciples to buy swords or were they mistaken? I mean we do have the Bible which is the sword of the Spirit. Yes I read the whole article and I chose that to ask you about it. So, what gives?

KJB1611 said...

Dear John Mark IB,

Thanks.

Dear Leroy St. John,

Peter was not supposed to hack off the guy's ear, but as Mt 10 was literal when it said not to carry the various items, so it is reasonable to conclude that the passage is also literal when it says to carry them in the post-resurrection situation.

Dear Anonymous,

I don't think you have paid much attention to the post or the comments. Go give the gospel to large groups of Muslims and Biblically deal with their false religion and you will probably find out that the content of this post is correct. As you are getting killed, you can be happy that at least you weren't rude by saying that the Muslims are violent.

KJB1611 said...

This article is now also here:

http://patriotpost.us/commentary/41696

Leroy St. Jean said...

It's actually Leroy St. Jean. Not St. John.

And I read the Qu'ran some time ago and it teaches Muslims to be violent. It tells them to kill the infidels. Granted all Muslims may not actually kill people but their book tells them they should do it for Allah. As long as one disagrees with a Muslim I think such a person will be killed.

Anonymous said...


Dear brothers Brandenburg and Ross,

Excellent article and insight. Its exactly how we ought to preach to the Moslems. Its following the pattern of Biblical preachers, not only the apostles and the prophets of old, but also the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

I spent nearly 5 years living in a very devout Sharia law-run country. I preached the gospel openly and non-compromisingly. I also preached openly against the evils of Islam. I preached to "good" Moslems and to "bad" Moslems. "Good" Moslems are those that will kill you in obedience to Allah and the Qur'an. "Bad" Moslems, as also was mentioned in the article, are "secular Muslims". Indeed, I am writing in first hand and my head is still attached to my shoulders, only because of the grace of God. It is God's will that we rebuke evil (Eph. 5:11) and to point them to Christ, not just Moslems but all sinners. Christ spoke many things that were hard to hear by His audience (Jn. 6:60) and they found offensive (Jn. 6:61; Matt. 23 --indeed sinful mankind finds God's gospel offensive because of our pride and love of sin and self), yea even compelling His hearers to plot His death, but it didn't stop our blessed Saviour from speaking the truth in love. Neither did it stop any of the apostles, or Stephen, or other Bible preachers/prophets, etc.

Those that argue against this article are "dhimmis". These are actually the ones that the "peace-loving" Moslems target. Nations with Biblical-based freedoms (or what remains of "freedom") ought to make the Qur'an illegal. That's where its got to start. No matter how many "bad" Muslims you have and no matter how secular they become, all it takes is one demon-possessed Imam to inspire (or propagate fear) and you now have a mosque full of "good" Muslims. They monger fear, and honour-killings are very common among Moslems, which I know personally due to the nature of my work in the Middle East. I would also add that the vast majority of devout Moslems are demon possessed. I have witnessed this even in little Moslem children. My wife (and other believers) is my witness.

Your first link (National Review), by the way, in the article is bad. This one should work: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428146/more-than-few-islamic-extremists

I remain anonymous for a "good" reason, ;)

Kent Brandenburg said...

All readers,

This is an anonymous comment for good reason. Good reason.

Thanks for the comment. People should take it into full consideration.

I agree on the Quran. I don't think Thomas would agree on that one.

Jim Camp said...

Kent,

I hope you can tolerate a little irony.
I'm reasonably certain that the anonymous posters, from the earlier comments, feel that you won't tells us what country this man is in & what his address & name is, due to your "unkind, backwoods, uneducated views on women and Muslims". Surely there is no danger, no honest reason to worry for anyone's safety, just your debilitating redneck prejudices.
Perhaps, as a test of his enlightenment, he should go to the nearest mosque & pass out the above mentioned tract, with his personal home address listed on the back. A man with such high regard for Muslim peacefulness would have no fear of such actions.

I can only guess that much of this is a "drive by shooting" anonymous post. The person bringing up "the war against women & being anti-gay" sounds more like a deluded leftist, than someone concerned with Christianity.

Thanks for letting me vent. I'm a better person now.


Anonymous said...

I seriously doubt if the last poster was reading the comments carefully or is familiar with this blog. Christians are against Trump for 3 reasons: Megan Kelly, Rosie O'Donnell, and Muslims. We have talked in other posts how much Trump is a bad candidate and no one should vote for him for these reasons. Calling Rosie O'Donnel a "slob" is not nice. Being against Fox news and more specifically, being against Megan Kelly, a delicate rose, is ant-woman. But more pertaining to this section, these above comments seem to only support the myth that "Muslims are terrorists and violent." Sure, some Muslims are, so so are some people from Texas. It's a total non sequitur to relate Muslims with violence. We don't like Trump's rudeness in saying Muslim immigrants should be "screened." That is rude and racist. We just are saddened that this blog seems to be all over the board and makes no sense. First we try to tell evangelicals that they shouldn't vote for Trump. Then in the same breath a couple of topics later we seem to be on the same side as Trump and agree with his anti-woman, anti-Muslim policies! Can we just please not confuse the audience and either not let these people post this Islamaphobia or at least put a warning on their posts?

KJB1611 said...

Dear Jim,

Yes, I would be interested in knowing how many Muslims the Anonymous people are confronting with the gospel and calling to repent of their idolatry and trust in Jehovah and His risen and eternal Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

By the way, I wish conservative Christian radio would spend more time explaining to people how to preach to Muslims and less time just saying that Islam is bad. It is bad, very, very bad, but they are part of the "every creature" mandate of Mark 16:15.

Dear Anonymous evangelist of Muslims (who, I agree, has a much better reason for remaining anonymous),

Thanks for pointing out the bad link. I will plan to fix it shortly, Lord willing.

I agree that Islam is evil, very evil. However, I strongly disagree with the idea of making the Quran illegal. The Quran should be legal, as should Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto, North Korean propaganda, material by the KKK, etc. Muslims that are currently here should be allowed to lawfully and peacefully petition for sharia the same way that KKK people should be allowed to lawfully and peacefully prance around like morons in their white hoods and petition the government to reestablish segregation. If we give the government power to ban books because they argue for political viewpoints that are evil (as the Quran's political viewpoint certainly is), we give the government far too much power, and it could ban the Bible the way it banned the Quran. Banning the Quran would also not stop demon possession, as demons don't care what the laws of the US are when they decide to possess somebody, and demons can possess someone praying in front of a statue of Mary, or the gods of Joseph Smith, etc. Banning the Quran would also require overturning the First Amendment. Futhermore, it would actually lead to more people reading the Quran and more sympathy for Muslims. I cannot help but conclude that it is a very bad idea.

Furthermore, a government that can ban a Muslim firebrand from preaching in favor of sharia can also ban a Baptist preacher from preaching against sodomy. Dictatorial atheist states in the 20th century (e. g., communist countries) killed many more people than Muslim sharia states. Opposition to Islam must not make us turn to the extreme danger of a too-powerful government.

It is possible that in a nation with too many Muslims--e. g., Egypt--the only way to keep out Sharia may be avoiding freedom in favor of a dictator. However, when Muslims are c. 1% of the American population--as they are--they aren't going to take over any time soon and we should keep the First Amendment and freedom instead of going for an anti-Sharia dictator. A simple alternation in immigration policy that does not allow immigration from nations with a high percentage of popular support for terrorism would radically reduce Muslim immigration without even mentioning "Islam," and such a policy does not require abandoning freedom or the First Amendment.

Thanks for the comment.

KJB1611 said...

Excuse me--"alternation" should have been "alteration."

Kent Brandenburg said...

The first amendment doesn't give liberty to cry "fire" in a crowded auditorium and neither should it give liberty to the publication and distribution of a book that orders its individual adherents to kill people. Sedition is not allowed in the United States. The Quran is seditious.

Anonymous said...

"A simple alternation in immigration policy that does not allow immigration from nations with a high percentage of popular support for terrorism would radically reduce Muslim immigration without even mentioning "Islam," and such a policy does not require abandoning freedom or the First Amendment."

I understand what you are saying, but it's hard not to be labeled Islamaphobic if any country limits immigration from nations that "just happens" to have a high percentage of terrorists, because any such nation would surely be Muslim.

On a side note, can anyone tell me what this blog is about? It seems to be all over the map with no clear cut answer. I'm getting the impression that this is a schizophrenic blog. First we are radically anti-Trump, then at the same time we support the anti-Muslim views that the radical right like him hold.

Then on other posts we have other posters lamenting the fact that "the mantle of Hyles" has not been filled, and then the blog owner comes on and basically admits that he is not 100% for Hyles. But then we have posters who call themselves "KJB," so one would of course think that this is a site that holds the defense of the KJV as the most important issue of the day, if not the most important. Hyles also wanted to firmly support the KJV..........Is there anyone here who does NOT have multiple personality disorder? I can't figure out where this blog stands or where it attracts fans because this place is all over the place.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Anonymous,

We could talk, but I want to know who you are. Readers come here because they get opinion coming from a biblical perspective. It deals with all sorts of issues. That's not schizophrenic. It's consistently biblical. Trump is more of a populous. He's more conservative than some, but being against the doctrine of Islam isn't uniquely Trump. Are you pro Islamic terrorism? If you aren't, should we say you support Trump? If people come at this position with a view of objective truth, a biblical worldview, it's easy to see. Hyles took a different position on the Bible than I do. He didn't believe in divine preservation.

Jeff Voegtlin said...

To the confused Anonymous,

It might help you to keep track of who is writing the blog posts here that you are reading... Every Friday "KJB1611" writes and normally signs it "TDR." All the other days Kent Brandenburg writes. Both writers' blogs are "posted by Kent Brandenburg."

The two men normally agree on most issues, but they are different men. That's where the "schizophrenia" you perceive is coming from.

Anonymous said...

It is possible to agree on major issues with someone and still disagree with them on others. For example, many Christians would agree that the Muslims are a decent and proper culture, much more so than most Americans, because they believe in no pants on women. While this is probably one of our building blocks and bridge-builders of unity with the Muslim community, we would not see eye to eye with them on all issues. Some of these issues are worth talking about and debating. While we disagree with Muslims on some issues, would our unity on the no pants on women trump (no pun intended) all other disagreements? I don't know. It's worth talking about.

Anonymous said...

I do like this blog in that it does bring some interesting comments from "interesting" posters!

Kent Brandenburg said...

Bill,

I could have posted your comment, but you used profanity, so it was a no go. If you'd like to edit a little, then you could, but with the profanity, I couldn't publish it.

By the way, your comment was wrong and showed complete ignorance too, but the reason I didn't publish it was because of the profanity.