srizals said...True, Len, there are sects distinctively different from the mainstream. Could you list the percentages of Christians according to their sects and numbers? The mainstream Muslims are Ahlus Sunnah wal jamaah, the minority groups are Syiah (which has 3 more distinctive groups), Ahmadiyyah. Only one nation of Islam is Syiah. As for Ahmadiyyah, they are considered astray as they have other final prophet after the actual final prophet. And other smaller sects are not even Muslims anymore, like the Sikhs and Baha’is. Who are the mainstream Christians?
Voyager, take a voyage in history or go back to the time of the dinosaurs. It would help improve your history skills, I hope.
Yes, the Arabs, Turks, Afghans and the Moghul invaded the mighty Hindu Rajputs and so almost did Alexander the Great. Muslim Moghul that unlike the pagan Mongol, were keen to build instead of obliterate, prospering the lands of the suicidal Hindus that had forgotten about their Kalki Avatar, but instead fell in love with Suttee and dehumanizing Caste system while blaming others for mentioning about it.
Could you please share your resources of the millions that perished in the Muslim conquest? Reliable one hopefully, since not enough true historians dared to suggest so. Hope you're not a deliberate liar. A confused liar I hope. My proof, the Hindus are aplenty nowadays as they once were, far outnumbering the decimated Christians and Jews. Could they have recovered in such a speedy way from an unchecked holocaust? Get real.
May I present a proof why I don't think that Muhammad s.a.w. was just a man.
Thawban – may Allah be pleased with him – that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said, “Two groups of my umma Allah has protected from the hellfire: a group that will conquer India and a group that will be with ‘Isa b. Maryam – ‘alaihimas- salat was-salam.” Reported Ahmad, an-Nisa’i, and at-Tabarani
Voyager, take a voyage in history or go back to the time of the dinosaurs. It would help improve your history skills, I hope.
Yes, the Arabs, Turks, Afghans and the Moghul invaded the mighty Hindu Rajputs and so almost did Alexander the Great. Muslim Moghul that unlike the pagan Mongol, were keen to build instead of obliterate, prospering the lands of the suicidal Hindus that had forgotten about their Kalki Avatar, but instead fell in love with Suttee and dehumanizing Caste system while blaming others for mentioning about it.
Could you please share your resources of the millions that perished in the Muslim conquest? Reliable one hopefully, since not enough true historians dared to suggest so. Hope you're not a deliberate liar. A confused liar I hope. My proof, the Hindus are aplenty nowadays as they once were, far outnumbering the decimated Christians and Jews. Could they have recovered in such a speedy way from an unchecked holocaust? Get real.
May I present a proof why I don't think that Muhammad s.a.w. was just a man.
Thawban – may Allah be pleased with him – that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said, “Two groups of my umma Allah has protected from the hellfire: a group that will conquer India and a group that will be with ‘Isa b. Maryam – ‘alaihimas- salat was-salam.” Reported Ahmad, an-Nisa’i, and at-Tabarani
srizals said...The prophecy on India was fulfilled while another one is pending, hopefully I would still be alive then, with all the nuclear bombs lying around in the hands of those who are scared of being killed, but not scared of killing, of course.
India prospered until the British Raj came and massacred more Hindus and Muslims and used them as slave soldiers throughout its empire. Hindu nobles even allied themselves with Muslim rulers. Could you honestly believe they would do so with their exterminators, in the age of the clashing swords?
"Communally focused critics of Mughal rule have often ignored how particular caste categories offered their services and allegiance to Mughal rules, and received tangible benefits in exchange. Kayasthas in particular experienced upward mobility as they rose from being scribes and junior record-keepers to hold important administrative posts, and achieved a social rank comparable to court Brahmins. Mercantile caste categories also had a stake in the success of Mughal rule. Hindu money-lenders and shop-keepers did quite well in the prosperous Mughal towns, and a majority of the top revenue administrators under the Mughals (even during the reign of Aurangzeb) were either Hindu Banias or Brahmins."
http://india_resource.tripod.com/mughal.html
India prospered until the British Raj came and massacred more Hindus and Muslims and used them as slave soldiers throughout its empire. Hindu nobles even allied themselves with Muslim rulers. Could you honestly believe they would do so with their exterminators, in the age of the clashing swords?
"Communally focused critics of Mughal rule have often ignored how particular caste categories offered their services and allegiance to Mughal rules, and received tangible benefits in exchange. Kayasthas in particular experienced upward mobility as they rose from being scribes and junior record-keepers to hold important administrative posts, and achieved a social rank comparable to court Brahmins. Mercantile caste categories also had a stake in the success of Mughal rule. Hindu money-lenders and shop-keepers did quite well in the prosperous Mughal towns, and a majority of the top revenue administrators under the Mughals (even during the reign of Aurangzeb) were either Hindu Banias or Brahmins."
http://india_resource.tripod.com/mughal.html
srizals said...If you're afraid of any Muslim becoming hostile towards you, outshame him out of himself by this saying from his prophet. Since the frequency of the attacks and the daily death tolls are nothing similar as suffered by the Afghanis, Iraqis and Pakistanis in the hands of the likes of you, I'm guessing the probability is quite low. Hope you do have a peace treaty with the Muslims, though. And if it is not too much to ask, could you please get out from their lands asap. And do take along your fancy weaponry that you used to kill their children.
And he said, "He who kills a non-Muslim who keeps a peace treaty with the Muslims will not smell the scent of Heaven, though its scent can be traced to as far as a march of 40 years"
[Imam Ahmad and Al-Bukhari in Al-Jizyah]
I don't recall anyone dared to abrogate this hadith, Johnny. Maybe some self-appointed scholars of Islam dared to abrogate them for you. Do you have the authority or even the knowledge to do so?
Len, Jesus speaks Aramaic, not Hebrew.
"One of the most striking Aramaic sentences found on the lips of Jesus in the Gospels is: eli eli lema sabachthani (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34 uses eloi instead of eli). The sentence is then translated into Greek by Matthew and Mark, with the English meaning: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This, as it turns out, is a quotation from Psalm 22:1, which reads in Hebrew: 'eli 'eli lama 'azavtani. (Here you can see, by the way, an example of the similarity between Aramaic and Hebrew.) The fact that Matthew and Mark have Jesus speaking in Aramaic does suggest that this line was remembered by the early Christian community in its original language, namely, Aramaic."
Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/markdroberts/pages/series/what-language-did-jesus-speak-why-does-it-matter.html#ixzz1Fe4ATjlQ
And he said, "He who kills a non-Muslim who keeps a peace treaty with the Muslims will not smell the scent of Heaven, though its scent can be traced to as far as a march of 40 years"
[Imam Ahmad and Al-Bukhari in Al-Jizyah]
I don't recall anyone dared to abrogate this hadith, Johnny. Maybe some self-appointed scholars of Islam dared to abrogate them for you. Do you have the authority or even the knowledge to do so?
Len, Jesus speaks Aramaic, not Hebrew.
"One of the most striking Aramaic sentences found on the lips of Jesus in the Gospels is: eli eli lema sabachthani (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34 uses eloi instead of eli). The sentence is then translated into Greek by Matthew and Mark, with the English meaning: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This, as it turns out, is a quotation from Psalm 22:1, which reads in Hebrew: 'eli 'eli lama 'azavtani. (Here you can see, by the way, an example of the similarity between Aramaic and Hebrew.) The fact that Matthew and Mark have Jesus speaking in Aramaic does suggest that this line was remembered by the early Christian community in its original language, namely, Aramaic."
Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/markdroberts/pages/series/what-language-did-jesus-speak-why-does-it-matter.html#ixzz1Fe4ATjlQ
