Why do islam hates people?

[bryant.coleman]

i think you are wise enough to know who controls wikipedia

As I have already posted multiple times, Wikipedia can't be an unbiased source for articles in the following topics: Politics, Religion, History, and Crime. However, Wikipedia can be a good reference for subjects in other topics, such as Flora & Fauna, Linguistics, Sports, Science, Medicine.etc.

If you think Wikipedia is biased then have a look at this- http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Islam
Some parts of the article are hillarious.

I don't know much about various wikis hosted in wikia, so I am not going to comment on it. If you want unbiased and quality information, then you should refer the Encyclopedia Britannica or some other reputed reference material. I was an editor with Wikipedia from 2004 to 2011, and I know very well what is going on there right now.

[thebitcoinquiz.com]

i think you are wise enough to know who controls wikipedia

As I have already posted multiple times, Wikipedia can't be an unbiased source for articles in the following topics: Politics, Religion, History, and Crime. However, Wikipedia can be a good reference for subjects in other topics, such as Flora & Fauna, Linguistics, Sports, Science, Medicine.etc.

If you think Wikipedia is biased then have a look at this- http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Islam
Some parts of the article are hillarious.

I don't know much about various wikis hosted in wikia, so I am not going to comment on it. If you want unbiased and quality information, then you should refer the Encyclopedia Britannica or some other reputed reference material. I was an editor with Wikipedia from 2004 to 2011, and I know very well what is going on there right now.

I always used to think that there must be many people working with Wikipedia and all will have different believes and faiths, but still is it possible for an organisation like Wikipedia to get biased?

[r3wt]

i think you are wise enough to know who controls wikipedia

As I have already posted multiple times, Wikipedia can't be an unbiased source for articles in the following topics: Politics, Religion, History, and Crime. However, Wikipedia can be a good reference for subjects in other topics, such as Flora & Fauna, Linguistics, Sports, Science, Medicine.etc.

If you think Wikipedia is biased then have a look at this- http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Islam
Some parts of the article are hillarious.

I don't know much about various wikis hosted in wikia, so I am not going to comment on it. If you want unbiased and quality information, then you should refer the Encyclopedia Britannica or some other reputed reference material. I was an editor with Wikipedia from 2004 to 2011, and I know very well what is going on there right now.

Thanks, i'll just pass this information along to Jimmy Wales and see what he thinks about your comments

[Muhammed Zakir]

i think you are wise enough to know who controls wikipedia

As I have already posted multiple times, Wikipedia can't be an unbiased source for articles in the following topics: Politics, Religion, History, and Crime. However, Wikipedia can be a good reference for subjects in other topics, such as Flora & Fauna, Linguistics, Sports, Science, Medicine.etc.

If you think Wikipedia is biased then have a look at this- http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Islam
Some parts of the article are hillarious.

I don't know much about various wikis hosted in wikia, so I am not going to comment on it. If you want unbiased and quality information, then you should refer the Encyclopedia Britannica or some other reputed reference material. I was an editor with Wikipedia from 2004 to 2011, and I know very well what is going on there right now.

I always used to think that there must be many people working with Wikipedia and all will have different believes and faiths, but still is it possible for an organisation like Wikipedia to get biased?

It is possible. If there are people who check recent edits, they can/may correct biased edits, however, we can't tell it doesn't have any biased sentences in it.

[Spendulus]

Truth is not established by the number of claims on one side or the other.  Almost everything about WWII is documented and the records are stored.  For example every single Allied flight mission, every person on those missions, where they went and what they did.  Even the secret records are no longer secret, IIRC.

We can't be sure about that. Even in most recorded wars, people can do things secretly. However, most of the things record say will be true.

While telling others (us) not to believe propaganda (anti-Muslim), you use it yourself for your own purposes(pro-Muslim)?

I didn't understand exactly what you are saying. Probably, you can clarify a bit?

You've claimed that the USA starved to death or killed something like 1.7 million German soldiers in some kind of camps.  The absurd claim is yours to prove.  That's half of the German military fatalities.

You have massive inventory of facts on the Internet about WWII, and many students of history.  You make the fantastic claim that somehow, 1.7M soldiers could be killed "in secret."  I don't buy that.  It's not that easy to keep secrets.

Now how exactly would such a thing be done?  It would have to be in places OTHER THAN those my grandfather was at when he was in charge of holding German soldiers after they surrendered.  Somewhere that he had not ever heard about.  You see it would have to even be kept secret from many who were in charge of guarding the German prisoners.  

More importantly, the charges make zero sense.  Why would anyone want to do such a thing?  For what gain?  Large numbers of German prisoners of war were brought to the USA during the war to work in farming and manufacturing.  Because we needed workers - just about all the men were overseas.  After the war, with the exception of (1) the rocket engineers and scientists (2) those held for possible war crimes like the SS - prisoners of war were simply let go.  Who cared about them?  You see they were no longer soldiers.  They went back and started their lives over.

You see, when a war is over, when the conflict is ended, people go back to  living regular lives as best they can.

http://www.world-war-2.info

[Muhammed Zakir]

You've claimed that the USA starved to death or killed something like 1.7 million German soldiers in some kind of camps.  The absurd claim is yours to prove.  That's half of the German military fatalities.

You have massive inventory of facts on the Internet about WWII, and many students of history.  You make the fantastic claim that somehow, 1.7M soldiers could be killed "in secret."  I don't buy that.  It's not that easy to keep secrets.

Now how exactly would such a thing be done?  It would have to be in places OTHER THAN those my grandfather was at when he was in charge of holding German soldiers after they surrendered.  Somewhere that he had not ever heard about.  You see it would have to even be kept secret from many who were in charge of guarding the German prisoners. 

More importantly, the charges make zero sense.  Why would anyone want to do such a thing?  For what gain?  Large numbers of German prisoners of war were brought to the USA during the war to work in farming and manufacturing.  Because we needed workers - just about all the men were overseas.  After the war, with the exception of (1) the rocket engineers and scientists (2) those held for possible war crimes like the SS - prisoners of war were simply let go.  Who cared about them?  You see they were no longer soldiers.  They went back and started their lives over.

You see, when a war is over, when the conflict is ended, people go back to  living regular lives as best they can.

http://www.world-war-2.info

May I ask you the same thing? What did Nazis' gained by killing Jews? A big "zero". They hated Jews as a race. Just like that, it is possible that Dwight D. Eisenhower hated Germans as a race.

There are no longer any surviving records showing which German POWs and Disarmed Enemy Forces were in U.S. custody prior to roughly September 1945. The early standard operating procedure for handling POWs and Disarmed Enemy Forces was to send a copy of the POW form to the Central Registry of War Criminals and Security Suspects (CROWCASS). However, this practice was apparently stopped as impractical, and all copies of the POW forms, roughly eight million, were destroyed. By way of contrast, the Soviet archives contain dossiers for every German POW they held, averaging around 15 pages for each.

The Wikipedia page is still being edited. It was last edited ~2 hours ago.

This maybe helpful:

• http://truedemocracyparty.net/2014/01/german-holocaust-german-genocide-9-to-15-million-germans-killed-1945-1953-the-morgenthau-plan-eisenhowers-death-camps-a-forgotten-genocide/

I haven't made a deep look into this though.

[Daniel91]

For me such question is strange.
How can religion hate people?
I know that people can hate other people, because of their faith, race, nationality etc. but I don't think that religion itself can hate somebody.
We can say or considered that people can be influence by religion to do or believe something, but this is completely different issue.

[Spendulus]

You've claimed that the USA starved to death or killed something like 1.7 million German soldiers in some kind of camps.  The absurd claim is yours to prove.  That's half of the German military fatalities.

You have massive inventory of facts on the Internet about WWII, and many students of history.  You make the fantastic claim that somehow, 1.7M soldiers could be killed "in secret."  I don't buy that.  It's not that easy to keep secrets.

Now how exactly would such a thing be done?  It would have to be in places OTHER THAN those my grandfather was at when he was in charge of holding German soldiers after they surrendered.  Somewhere that he had not ever heard about.  You see it would have to even be kept secret from many who were in charge of guarding the German prisoners. 

More importantly, the charges make zero sense.  Why would anyone want to do such a thing?  For what gain?  Large numbers of German prisoners of war were brought to the USA during the war to work in farming and manufacturing.  Because we needed workers - just about all the men were overseas.  After the war, with the exception of (1) the rocket engineers and scientists (2) those held for possible war crimes like the SS - prisoners of war were simply let go.  Who cared about them?  You see they were no longer soldiers.  They went back and started their lives over.

You see, when a war is over, when the conflict is ended, people go back to  living regular lives as best they can.

http://www.world-war-2.info

May I ask you the same thing? What did Nazis' gained by killing Jews? A big "zero". They hated Jews as a race. Just like that, it is possible that Dwight D. Eisenhower hated Germans as a race.

There are no longer any surviving records showing which German POWs and Disarmed Enemy Forces were in U.S. custody prior to roughly September 1945. The early standard operating procedure for handling POWs and Disarmed Enemy Forces was to send a copy of the POW form to the Central Registry of War Criminals and Security Suspects (CROWCASS). However, this practice was apparently stopped as impractical, and all copies of the POW forms, roughly eight million, were destroyed. By way of contrast, the Soviet archives contain dossiers for every German POW they held, averaging around 15 pages for each.

The Wikipedia page is still being edited. It was last edited ~2 hours ago.

This maybe helpful:

• http://truedemocracyparty.net/2014/01/german-holocaust-german-genocide-9-to-15-million-germans-killed-1945-1953-the-morgenthau-plan-eisenhowers-death-camps-a-forgotten-genocide/

I haven't made a deep look into this though.

No you have not made "a deep look into it."  You've just posted propaganda crap with an "out."

Germans gained a lot when they killed Jews.  Aside from money and property, they stereotyped and demonized an internal enemy.  That's part of the method used by fascism and is defined as part of the method of propaganda.  An internal enemy focuses public attention in a direction other than regime corruption.

There is no "wikipedia page still being edited."  All wikipedia pages are always being edited.  You don't have to go there, and you can't ignore the ridiculous level of this conspiracy by criticizing wikipedia.  There are truly massive amounts of information and databases on WWII on the Internet.

Of course this is understandable if you demonize the USA then I guess the USA becomes an enemy which needs some jihad.  But now you are just being a propagandist, not a seeker of truth.  In that case none of your says are credible, are they?  Nothing you say about Islam should be believed, because of the quickness with which you spread falsehoods?

[Muhammed Zakir]

Thanks for the information. However, why did they destroy copies if they didn't do anything wrong...?

No, I am not telling whole USA is bad. Because of the persons who did some bad things, I will never say whole community is bad. I mentioned "US" than some people's name to tell about this.

And no Jihad doesn't mean "holy war" and US never became an enemy to me but their attacks mostly are aimed to Muslims which is also mentioned in Wikipedia.

I give refernces when I speak too. There were equal claims in Wikipedia, so I think it may be true but it can also be false.

You said "Jihad" many times even though it doesn't mean "holy war" or "war". Isn't this falsehood? Many people posted "falsehood" about Islam. Don't that be "falsehoods". Almost all human commit mistakes.

[Wilikon]

You've claimed that the USA starved to death or killed something like 1.7 million German soldiers in some kind of camps.  The absurd claim is yours to prove.  That's half of the German military fatalities.

You have massive inventory of facts on the Internet about WWII, and many students of history.  You make the fantastic claim that somehow, 1.7M soldiers could be killed "in secret."  I don't buy that.  It's not that easy to keep secrets.

Now how exactly would such a thing be done?  It would have to be in places OTHER THAN those my grandfather was at when he was in charge of holding German soldiers after they surrendered.  Somewhere that he had not ever heard about.  You see it would have to even be kept secret from many who were in charge of guarding the German prisoners. 

More importantly, the charges make zero sense.  Why would anyone want to do such a thing?  For what gain?  Large numbers of German prisoners of war were brought to the USA during the war to work in farming and manufacturing.  Because we needed workers - just about all the men were overseas.  After the war, with the exception of (1) the rocket engineers and scientists (2) those held for possible war crimes like the SS - prisoners of war were simply let go.  Who cared about them?  You see they were no longer soldiers.  They went back and started their lives over.

You see, when a war is over, when the conflict is ended, people go back to  living regular lives as best they can.

http://www.world-war-2.info

May I ask you the same thing? What did Nazis' gained by killing Jews? A big "zero". They hated Jews as a race. Just like that, it is possible that Dwight D. Eisenhower hated Germans as a race.

There are no longer any surviving records showing which German POWs and Disarmed Enemy Forces were in U.S. custody prior to roughly September 1945. The early standard operating procedure for handling POWs and Disarmed Enemy Forces was to send a copy of the POW form to the Central Registry of War Criminals and Security Suspects (CROWCASS). However, this practice was apparently stopped as impractical, and all copies of the POW forms, roughly eight million, were destroyed. By way of contrast, the Soviet archives contain dossiers for every German POW they held, averaging around 15 pages for each.

The Wikipedia page is still being edited. It was last edited ~2 hours ago.

This maybe helpful:

• http://truedemocracyparty.net/2014/01/german-holocaust-german-genocide-9-to-15-million-germans-killed-1945-1953-the-morgenthau-plan-eisenhowers-death-camps-a-forgotten-genocide/

I haven't made a deep look into this though.

No you have not made "a deep look into it."  You've just posted propaganda crap with an "out."

Germans gained a lot when they killed Jews.  Aside from money and property, they stereotyped and demonized an internal enemy.  That's part of the method used by fascism and is defined as part of the method of propaganda.  An internal enemy focuses public attention in a direction other than regime corruption.

There is no "wikipedia page still being edited."  All wikipedia pages are always being edited.  You don't have to go there, and you can't ignore the ridiculous level of this conspiracy by criticizing wikipedia.  There are truly massive amounts of information and databases on WWII on the Internet.

Of course this is understandable if you demonize the USA then I guess the USA becomes an enemy which needs some jihad.  But now you are just being a propagandist, not a seeker of truth.  In that case none of your says are credible, are they?  Nothing you say about Islam should be believed, because of the quickness with which you spread falsehoods?

[Spendulus]

Thanks for the information. However, why did they destroy copies if they didn't do anything wrong...?

To clear space in warehouses or offices for new paper records would be the likely guess.  Someone would have decided what was important and what was not important.  Back then all records were paper, not even microfishe.

Like tax records in the US, people are supposed to keep them for four years, or in some cases seven.  Then they can be thrown away.

No, I am not telling whole USA is bad. Because of the persons who did some bad things, I will never say whole community is bad. I mentioned "US" than some people's name to tell about this.

That's a reasonable point of view.  My family on the mother side is all German, they were all in the US in WWII and fought in the war.  There was never any hate of the German people by the American people - you can go back and look at the newspapers from the 1940s and see that.   It may have been that hate was fostered during wartime against the German soldiers, yes.  Certainly the SS even today have a legacy of "Evil" about them.

Again, it makes zero sense to talk about killing millions of ex prisoners of war after a war has officially ended.  That's one of the craziest things I have ever heard.  You realize you are talking about productive workers, right?

See in the US most people are all mixed up, half Indian half Irish, half Negro half Phillipino, half Irish quarter German quarter Chinese, lol....in the 1940s it was not as pronounced as today but it was still very much so I think.

[neurotypical]

Yes, there are millions of muslims out there, therefore the hateful muslim extremists that go around doing that jihad shit are a minority, the problem is, you even know who is on the process of becoming a radical, about to blow himself up in hopes to get some after life pussy. Jesus christ, what a bunch of nutjobs, it never gets any less insane no matter how many times you reduce the whole thing for what it is.

[BADecker]

The problem with Islam regarding Muslim extremists is, because of the words that express hate and violence in the Quran and Hadith (or seem to), Islam can be interpreted by sincere extremists to be a religion of violence, or it can be used as an excuse for violence by insincere extremists. Sometimes the two groups are mixed, the insincere Muslims using the sincere ones.

[Spendulus]

Yes, there are millions of muslims out there, therefore the hateful muslim extremists that go around doing that jihad shit are a minority, the problem is, you even know who is on the process of becoming a radical, about to blow himself up in hopes to get some after life pussy. Jesus christ, what a bunch of nutjobs, it never gets any less insane no matter how many times you reduce the whole thing for what it is.

Some time back I was walking along a beach in a very popular tourist spot.  To my right was the beach with all the girls sunning topless. Hundreds.  As far as you could see.  To my right was some Muslim guy walking along sort of angry looking.  Behind him trailed four women with just the eye-slits burka things.

I started wondering about stuff.  If he had four did that mean that there were three guys somewhere (where ever he came from) that didn't get any?  That'd make them rather crazy.  

Maybe they'd go for that after-life pussy then.

[thebitcoinquiz.com]

Yes, there are millions of muslims out there, therefore the hateful muslim extremists that go around doing that jihad shit are a minority, the problem is, you even know who is on the process of becoming a radical, about to blow himself up in hopes to get some after life pussy. Jesus christ, what a bunch of nutjobs, it never gets any less insane no matter how many times you reduce the whole thing for what it is.

Some time back I was walking along a beach in a very popular tourist spot.  To my right was the beach with all the girls sunning topless. Hundreds.  As far as you could see.  To my right was some Muslim guy walking along sort of angry looking.  Behind him trailed four women with just the eye-slits burka things.

I started wondering about stuff.  If he had four did that mean that there were three guys somewhere (where ever he came from) that didn't get any?  That'd make them rather crazy.  

Maybe they'd go for that after-life pussy then.

Well just going by the stats there would be more than three that didn't get any(there are Muslims who have more than 3 women too) and plus the male to female ratio is not at all balanced.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Thank you, Spendulus for your inputs! I still think there is something bad on "destroying" "every" copies and I don't think they are "useless" or "unneeded" "documents". Anyway, I don't think there is much we can do about this and it is hard to find the truth. We can believe the widely-known belief now.

Yes, there are millions of muslims out there, therefore the hateful muslim extremists that go around doing that jihad shit are a minority, the problem is, you even know who is on the process of becoming a radical, about to blow himself up in hopes to get some after life pussy. Jesus christ, what a bunch of nutjobs, it never gets any less insane no matter how many times you reduce the whole thing for what it is.

The problem with Islam regarding Muslim extremists is, because of the words that express hate and violence in the Quran and Hadith (or seem to), Islam can be interpreted by sincere extremists to be a religion of violence, or it can be used as an excuse for violence by insincere extremists. Sometimes the two groups are mixed, the insincere Muslims using the sincere ones.

Do you know what "extremists" mean, don't you?! "Islamic extremists" are often used in a "false way", in a single word "misused", nowadays. As I mentioned a few times, "extremists" bother to spend most of their time to "pray" and do other "must do" things such as Zakat, Fast etc... "Extremists" will know almost every rules and teachings of Islam but muslim terrorists contradicts these rules and teachings. Still they are "extremists"? I don't think so.

Some time back I was walking along a beach in a very popular tourist spot.  To my right was the beach with all the girls sunning topless. Hundreds.  As far as you could see.  To my right was some Muslim guy walking along sort of angry looking.  Behind him trailed four women with just the eye-slits burka things.

I started wondering about stuff.  If he had four did that mean that there were three guys somewhere (where ever he came from) that didn't get any?  That'd make them rather crazy. 

Maybe they'd go for that after-life pussy then.

Well just going by the stats there would be more than three that didn't get any(there are Muslims who have more than 3 women too) and plus the male to female ratio is not at all balanced.

What if one woman was his wife and others were his sisters or cousins or one wife, one mom and one sister? There are many possibilities too. And yes, It is also possible they are all his wives.

To answer your statement: A muslim is permitted to have upto 4 women at a time but even with two wives, it is hard to do justice to them. I read Islamic teachings when you have more than one wife, I must say, it is really hard. I don't even think about having more than 1 wife that time forth.

Male to female ratio is unbalanced not because of muslims "only".

[lophie]

A muslim is permitted to have upto 4 women at a time

WAIT WAIT WAIT before any misunderstanding happens! He meant 4 in his life as wives not 4 as in a fivesome okay!

JUST SAYING

[lophie]

The problem with Islam regarding Muslim extremists is, because of the words that express hate and violence in the Quran and Hadith (or seem to), Islam can be interpreted by sincere extremists to be a religion of violence, or it can be used as an excuse for violence by insincere extremists. Sometimes the two groups are mixed, the insincere Muslims using the sincere ones.

Yes that is absolutely correct. Imagine I saw a video where this insane long bearded guy is convinced youngsters that yes if anyone is not a muslim it is okay to shoot him dead right there on the street and take everything he owns and take his wife and kids for yourself......

I really saw that and I know for sure some think like that.... no that is very scary because yes how will you distinguish between someone like them and well...... any of other long bearded muslims...

[thebitcoinquiz.com]

Some time back I was walking along a beach in a very popular tourist spot.  To my right was the beach with all the girls sunning topless. Hundreds.  As far as you could see.  To my right was some Muslim guy walking along sort of angry looking.  Behind him trailed four women with just the eye-slits burka things.

I started wondering about stuff.  If he had four did that mean that there were three guys somewhere (where ever he came from) that didn't get any?  That'd make them rather crazy. 

Maybe they'd go for that after-life pussy then.

Well just going by the stats there would be more than three that didn't get any(there are Muslims who have more than 3 women too) and plus the male to female ratio is not at all balanced.

What if one woman was his wife and others were his sisters or cousins or one wife, one mom and one sister? There are many possibilities too. And yes, It is also possible they are all his wives.

To answer your statement: A muslim is permitted to have upto 4 women at a time but even with two wives, it is hard to do justice to them. I read Islamic teachings when you have more than one wife, I must say, it is really hard. I don't even think about having more than 1 wife that time forth.

Male to female ratio is unbalanced not because of muslims "only".

I didn't mean to say that male to female ratio is dis balanced because of muslims.
Now can you also describe the "good" in having 4 wives? Isn't this anti-social and unethical?
Why doesn't your religion care to treat the female followers of the same religion with respect??
How will you feel if your sister marries a man who already has 3 wives and is sex crazy?

[Okurkabinladin]

The similarites of Islam and Christianity

<a taken>
b) Both believes in doing good works.
c) Both believes in praying, and repentance to sins commited
d) Both teaches to not judge others

True.

The key difference between Islam and Christianity as i see it:

a) Islam believes that Jesus was apostle of God, and not the son of God that he was made to be in the scriptures of the Bible.
b) Christianity believes that Jesus was the son of God, sent to die for our sins, so that we might be redeemed through good works and repentance of sins.

True.

could you perhaps add to these list Muhammad Zakir, about any difference i may have missed, or any errors that i made? I am really enjoying this discussion

Here are some problems:

a) Both believes there is one true God.

Only Islam believes in one true God.

Why isn't Christianity?

#1: “Jesus was the son of God” itself tells there is another God than Jesus and they believe it. If not, they can't beleive Jesus was "son of God".

#2: They take this is as evidence for Jesus as God.

“I and my Father, We are One.” (John 10:30).

In fact, it is out of context.

John 10:22 -  “But it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem and it was winter.”
John 10:23 - “And Yeshua was walking in The Temple on the porch of Solomon.”
John 10:24 - “And the Judeans surrounded him and were saying, "How long will you keep our souls in suspense? If you are The Messiah, tell us plainly."”
John 10:25 - “Yeshua answered and said to them, "I have told you, and you do not believe, and the works that I do in the Name of my Father, they testify of Me."”
John 10:26 - "But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep, just as I said to you."
John 10:27 - "My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow Me."
John 10:28 - "And I am giving them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them from my hand."
John 10:29 - "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand."
John 10:30 - "I and my Father, We are One."

If you look at this, you will understand on purpose they are one but it doesn't mean they are one person. Nobody can't snatch from Jesus' hands, nobody can't snatch from God's hand and hence, they are one.

Anyway, if they are still telling "no". Then they will have to believe in 14 Gods. Jesus, God and 12 disciples. Same thing used in different lines:

Romans 12:5 - “So also, we who are many, are one body in The Messiah, and each one of us is a member of the other.”

1 Corinthians 10:17 - “Just as that is one bread, and thus we are all one body, for we all receive from that which is one bread.”

John 17:11 - “From now on, I do not dwell in the world, but these are in the world, and I am coming to join you. Holy Father, keep them in your Name- that Name which you have given me, so that they shall be one, just as we are.”

Maybe more are there but last one I post which is said by Jesus' to disciples:

John 17:20-22 -  "That the all may be made one. Like thou Father art in me, I in thee, that they may be one in us. I in them, they in me, that they may be perfect in one"

See? Same "ONE" is used here. So that means 14(+) Gods?

Muhammad, you raise a good point here. It is really confusing even for some christians. The point is, peculiar to christianity, that essence of God is in trinity (Father, Son and the spirit), they are all part of same supreme being. Not three gods, but three parts of the God representing different qualities.

As to your question about apostles, it is misunderstanding. Jesus was talking about oneness beyond time and space. Before creation essence of all living things was part of God, after death it will be again. I really thought, that islamic view on this is similar. Could you elaborate on this?