18 gay muslims to be stoned to death!!%%?????!!!!

So having the option to opt out of the military and paying taxes instead of zakat is economic slavery? Does that mean that the minorities under the Arabs and Ottomans lived in poorhouses and worked as slaves? Also if statistically people convert to the religion of the invaders, why did the invaders adopt the religion of the masses?

Also, the Mughals were rulers of India for 800 years, while the Ottomans ruled the ME for 600 years (and were initially from East Asia, same as the Mongol Mughals). How many Indians converted to Islam in North India? Also there are some errors in the wiki article; there were Muslims in India in the lifetime of the Prophet.

Someone has been making mischief with that wiki; I distinctly remember referring to it before, it had more accurate info then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_empires_in_India

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, if the taxes are higher than the zakat. Also, if one is forced to convert for infractions against the islamic overlordship, well, one can see how one might run into problems quite quickly in that way.

Not at all - their neighbourhoods were their poorhouses. The slavery comment seems to be made of straw, so I won't tilt at it just yet.

Which invaders and which masses?

Most of the ones that weren't killed, apparently.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

see edit.

And I've already shown you how the BJP has been using its members to spread Hindu militancy by falsification of history.

I wish you would not support such nonsense after it has already been invalidated once. Unless that is your aim.

The Mughals were on the whole very much a part and parcel of India. The revolution of 1857 was spearheaded by Bahadur Shah because the sepoys (hindus) who mutinied went to him for ask for help to overthrow the British.

All this has already been discussed with you. If you are more interested in spreading hatred than truth, just say so and I will leave you to yourself to continue doing so in peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You do that all the time, Sam, why won't you allow him do it?

Baron Max

 

Are we still talking about the gay guys that are being put to death??

 

No. The topic has changed completely. They're now discussing why women shouldn't be permitted to strip-dance in front of male audiences.

Baron Max

 

I don't hate anybody.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Do you think that is the real topic here?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Since when has anyone cared about the rights of gays in Nigeria?

 

Geez, Sam, how can you say that?! You should know that I care very, very much about the gays in Nigeria!

Baron Max

 

Why hello S.A.M.

Lets hear from the the Muslim general in his own words:

Do you not see the wealth of the land of the Persians? Do you not remember the poverty of the land of the Arabs? Do you not see how the crops in this land cover the earth? If the holy war were not enjoined by Allah, we should still come and conquer this rich land and exchange the hunger of our deserts for the abundant eating which is now ours

It seems Muslims were no different than any other plunderers, unlike your previous 14 page hypothesis - 'Muslims were "defending" themselves' - it seems they simply wanted to steal.

Your argument would like saying the Mongolians were defending themselves. Anyone can see that Great Wall was an eminent Chinese offensive attack!:bugeye: Seems silly doesn't it?

Or how about Saddam and his WMD? The USA was defending itself and oil had nothing to do with nothing.

You can see how each time you tell me I'm living in a fantasy how hypocritical you sound - to me at least? You're Muslim and you have a fairytale view of Muslim conquest - it's plain to see you are biased at least in regards to Islamic history. Please reread the generals words and think about what they mean.

Firstly by conquering and ruling them.
Persians by and large never converted to Abrahamic monotheism, even though there were Xian and Jewish communities in Persia and the Persians were well versed in these Religious. The Qur'an, being a rehash of these monotheisms, certainly didn't offer up anything novel theologically that persuaded Persians to convert.

Agreed?

So here we have a long History of Persians who knew of monotheism and still retained their indigenous beleif.

Secondly, History shows that prior to the Muslim war of aggression the Persians never adopted Arab religous theology into their culture. There is no reason a rehash is going to convince Persians to venertate an Arab and prey to Arabia. As we can see it never happened with the Europeans who were also versed with monotheism. It happened with the Persians because they were conquered by theives.

If you will read the links I posted you will find that Political Islam coerced Persians to convert. This was, at times, for financial means, tax, social promotion within a conquered society and at other times by means of out right aggression and even the murder of Persian which is well documented and also I posted.

We see the same sort of History of the people the Europeans conquered.

You SAM, are writing in English after all - that should tell you something.

Michael

 

Except Americans and Israelis, huh? Oh, and American cops, too!

Baron Max

 

Micheal:
Let me guess, this was recorded on a piece of bark?

When did the Persians convert to Islam?

The Arab Caliphs had the rule that Arabs should not marry or mix with the Persians

The Ummayyads (who were a rowdy bunch) did not permit conversion because it would mean a loss of revenue.

It was actually a Persian who helped the Abbasids to overthrow the Ummayyads and take over the Caliphate.

 

OOOHHHHH, it wasn't the gay part, it was the Muslim part. gotcha.

 

Are you nuts? Have you seen Oded Fahr? He's delicious!

 

Well, my point in regards to homosexuals was in reference to the commonly held beleif, which many Muslims hold, that there was in the past a time when Islamic land was ruled justly by a righteous Caliph and many Muslim hope this will happen again one day.

As part of this happening - homosexuals will have to be "dealt with" and in the most fundamental "Islamic" coutnries of the ME they are.

Kadark has pointed out time and again that it's the problem of the dictators themselves and there are no true "Islamic" counties in the ME. If set in this mythical notion of a utopian-like Politcal Islamic state being possible this reference becomes clear. And Kadark you did say that under one Caliph it was pretty close. Perhaps the whole world must be Islamic first? (or Communist?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

What I would like to ask is: What is the place of homosexuals in this Caliphate?

 

Happy Thanksgiving to you too Sam

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Most of the "rules" against "dhimmis" et al were formulated by and after the Ummayyads. I think what happened was the Arabs who had no experience of governance (remember thet came from a region where there were no rulers) learned politics from the Persians (who had been playing it for generations); it was the Ummayyads who imposed Arabic as the state language and moved the capital from Mecca to Kufa; they transformed the Caliphate to a dynastic succession and represented themselves as God's representatives on earth. However I do not think there were any rulings against homosexuals at the time, I haven't been able to locate the time point when it became punishable under Sharia, but I'm guessing it was after exposure to Christian traditions.

 

Ok time for research:

So it appears that

1. the major Sunni school (Hanafis) does not consider same-sex intercourse as adultery

2. in those who do, one would need four witnesses of actual penetration to allow for conviction

 

:bugeye: and....?!?!?

Did we both read the same passage you posted? Each school can, if they so choose, advocate the death to homosexuals by condemning them as adulterers except the Hanafi school which doesn't seem to consider a homosexual relationship as adultery - perhaps something more insidious? I wonder how homosexual Muslims were treated in the Caliphate of that most righteous Caliph Al'Wht'sIs'nAm?


* The Hanafi school does not consider same-sex intercourse to constitute adultery, and therefore leaves punishment up to the judge's discretion. Most early scholars of this school specifically ruled out the death penalty, others allow it for a second offense.
* Imam Shafi'i considers same-sex intercourse as analogous to other zina; thus, a married person found to have done so is punished as an adulterer (by stoning to death), and an unmarried one, as a fornicator, is left to be flogged.
* The Maliki school says that anyone (married or unmarried) found to have committed same-sex intercourse should be punished as an adulterer.
* Within the Ja'fari schools, Sayyid al-Khoi says that anyone (married or unmarried) found to have committed same-sex intercourse should be punished as an adulterer.

 

Yeah, but the Hanafi school does not consider it as adultery, almost all Asian Muslims are Hanafis (with few Shias and Khojas) , which is why there are no stoning incidents with homosexuals in Asia. Btw, the judge or court is a civic body while scholars are an academic body, but if the madhab does not recognise it as a crime, it is unlikely the judges will.

The laws of adultery require 4 witnesses for prosecution.