Apostates of Islam

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Let me correct you there. The Mughal rulers of India were not really a Muslim state - the vast majority of the population remained Hindu.

The state and population aren't the same thing. The Moghul state was Muslim. The Moghul peoples were mostly Hindu. The Ottoman state was overwhelmingly Slav, Albanian, and Greek (except in the military), but most of the people in the empire were Turks. Keep the two concepts seperate.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


There is no Gospel according to Saint Peter.

There are two, IIRC, but they're Gnostic.

[lord of the mark]

a sermon on Ve yikra (Leviticus)http://www.beth-am.org/index2.cfm?page=548

theres LOTS more.

[Spiffor]

LOTM:

That's a cool sermon (I agree almost entirely with it), but the Leviticus has nothing to do with it, save for the catch-phrase. A secular could have writtent just the same piece by using another catch-phrase, changing a few occurences to God, and taking a non-religious secular literature at the end.

It's not the same level of Leviticus-reality relationship as when a fundy excuses his anti-gay bigotry with the infamous Lev passage (and there are far worse passages that any fundy could excuse his bigotry with)

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Hueij
Care to back that up? I'm curious about those sources you speak of because I never could find them. And "everyone acknowledges" doesn't necessarliy make it so...

Your claim is that there was not a historical Jesus? My claim is that there was a historical Jesus but that his miracles were fabricated to draw in the more gullible. There has been enough historical research to conclude there was a historical person named Jesus to laugh at or ignore your claim there was not.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Oerdin
There has been enough historical research to conclude there was a historical person named Jesus to laugh at or ignore your claim there was not.

Erm, this is simply not true. You seem to be making stuff up left and right in this thread.

A link was provided for you about this subject. Why not read it first before making bald assertions?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
There has been enough historical research to conclude there was a historical person named Jesus to laugh at or ignore your claim there was not.

Er, no. There is serious scholarly debate about this. It's proabable there was a Jesus, but there are reasonable doubts.

[Dinner]

SALMAN RUSHDIE a man who has lived for two decades under the threat of death from muslim fanatics speaks out about the 9/11 and how it relates to Islam. His take is the politicians have it wrong and 9/11 is a natural part of Islam due to the fanaticism of its founder.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/rushdie/yes_its_about_islam.htm

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The state and population aren't the same thing. The Moghul state was Muslim. The Moghul peoples were mostly Hindu. The Ottoman state was overwhelmingly Slav, Albanian, and Greek (except in the military), but most of the people in the empire were Turks. Keep the two concepts seperate.

Actually the Ottoman military was originally predominantly Slav and Greek. The famous Janissaries, wo comprised the bulk of the Turkisn military well into the 19th century, were originally conscripted from the Balkans region. Only in the later 16th century did non-Europeans outnumber Europeans in the Janissary corps.

Given the massive size of the Ottoman empire at its peak no ethnic group could have claimed numerical predominance, though up to the 16th century Christians probably outnumbered Muslims.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Azazel
Blood loss is a pretty painless death, IIRC.

Maybe we could hang you by your heels, slit your throat, and then see if you agree.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Maybe we could hang you by your heels, slit your throat, and then see if you agree.

Golly Oerdin. Don't take it so personally.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ramo
You understand the concept of an ANALOGY?

The point is, only one source mentions it, no other source does. That doesn't bode well for its veracity.

Mohammed ordiering the genicide of the Jews is a well established fact. I'm sorry you have trouble accepting it but it happened. Mohammed tried to get the Jews to join his cult but the Jews believed the Miseijah would be an educated man from the temple while Mohammed was a peasant who was not a Jew so they would not accept him. Because of this Mohammed tried to kill, enslave, or exile all Jews from Arabia.

In short even if we ignore his raping, murdering, looting, and assassinating rivials we are still left with the unforgivable crime of genocide. Mohammed was an evil man just like Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam. The idolation of him by muslims is disgusting.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Erm, this is simply not true. You seem to be making stuff up left and right in this thread.

A link was provided for you about this subject. Why not read it first before making bald assertions?

Yeah, sure.... There was no one named JEsus who existed and everything about him from his followers, to the Jewish King's writings, to the Roman Governor's writings is all one giant international multimellianial Jewish conspiracy.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Actually the Ottoman military was originally predominantly Slav and Greek. The famous Janissaries, wo comprised the bulk of the Turkisn military well into the 19th century, were originally conscripted from the Balkans region.

Janissaries were created when muslims would raid Christian towns and steal Christian children. The Sultan wanted to raise the children to be muslims and military slaves of his empire.

[Ramo]

Sorry, but a story transcribed a century and a half years after the fact (perhaps up to three and a half centuries after the fact), being the sole citation among a plethora of biographies of Mohammed around the time period, including the only account contemporaneous with the alleged event (in the Qur'an) certainly doesn't constitute "well-established fact." I don't know whether or not it's true, but I do know that it isn't "well-established fact."

Your bigotry towards Islam is disgusting.

And it's sad that you can't even get the story right. Ishaq gave a totally different justification for the genocide in Medina.