Ahmadi "Muslim" killed by Muslim or another Ahmadi?

[repoman]

I am using quotes because the scant reading I have done makes it seem like Ahmadis are as Muslim as Mormons are Christian - which is not at all. Another prophet after Big Mo? Get out of here with that bullshit! That is totally heretical. Sounds like someone saw a business opportunity to make a new religion.

I am an atheist, so I couldn't give a fuck either way.

Anyway, it is always bad when someone is killed, but why is the question?

This is a news story and in the comment I saw this blog post linked. I gotta sleep now, so I will just put up the links without explaining it further.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/after-asad-shahs-religiously-prejudiced-death-we-know-inter-muslim-hatred-is-a-problem-in-britain-a6955146.html#commentsDiv

https://medium.com/@akber/tragic-asad-shah-the-striker-in-millennium-ffea1ccdbe98#.pvy1mow87

 

[iolo]

All we have is some dubious news reports, based on who knows what. A man is dead, and another man is on trial. So, the case being sub iudice, how much can reasonably be said until we have a jury verdict?

 

[Underseer]

I love that ignorant comment at one of the above links:

Muslims cannot integrate, even within their own sects...

It's hardly just Muslims. Up until very recently, Catholics and Protestants were slaughtering each other with glee in Ireland, while Catholics and Eastern Orthodox were butchering each other with even more vigor in the former Yugoslavian states.

Then there are the Christians in Angola who banned Islam recently.

It seems that Christians are not exactly "able to integrate" either.

 

[TSwizzle]

All we have is some dubious news reports, based on who knows what. A man is dead, and another man is on trial. So, the case being sub iudice, how much can reasonably be said until we have a jury verdict?

A statement from the accused;

This all happened for one reason and no other issues and no other intentions. Asad Shah disrespected the messenger of Islam the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. Mr Shah claimed to be a prophet. When 1400 years ago the Prophet of Islam Muhammad peace be upon him has clearly said that "I am the final messenger of Allah there is no more prophets or messengers from God Allah after me. 'I am leaving you the final Quran. There is no changes. It is the final book of Allah and this is the final completion of Islam. There is no more changes to it and no one has the right to claim to be a prophet or to change the Quran or change Islam. It is mentioned in the Quran that there is no doubt in this book no one has the right to disrespect the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and no one has the right to disrespect the Prophet of Islam Muhammad Peace be upon him. If I had not done this others would and there would have been more killing and violence in the world. I wish to make it clear that the incident was nothing at all to do with Christianity or any other religious beliefs even although I am a follower of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him I also love and respect Jesus Christ.

 

[repoman]

is what Asad Shah did by claiming to be a prophet allowed for Ahmadis?

Are other Ahmadis in danger?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

is what Asad Shah did by claiming to be a prophet allowed for Ahmadis?

Are other Ahmadis in danger?

In Pakistan where most Ahmadis reside, they have indeed been attacked, harassed by the government, pronounced officially as heretics for decades now.

 

[repoman]

I know, but I asked if what he did was heretical to Ahmadis...

 

[Bomb#20]

I know, but I asked if what he did was heretical to Ahmadis...

Not as such. Ahmadis draw a distinction between law-giving prophets and subordinate prophets, who are supposedly inspired by God to call Muslims misled by the doctrinal corruption of centuries back to the pure original teaching of the final law-giving prophet Muhammad (as explained by themselves, of course). So in theory, Asad Shah was only claiming to be another example of what Mirzā Ghulām Ahmad himself claimed to be. So it can hardly be heresy to Ahmadiyya. But in practice, inevitably, there are internal disputes as to who is qualified to decide whose claims of divine inspiration are to be accepted.

I am using quotes because the scant reading I have done makes it seem like Ahmadis are as Muslim as Mormons are Christian - which is not at all.

I roomed with a Mormon in college. Sure seemed pretty bloody Christian to me.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I love that ignorant comment at one of the above links:

Muslims cannot integrate, even within their own sects...

It's hardly just Muslims. Up until very recently, Catholics and Protestants were slaughtering each other with glee in Ireland, while Catholics and Eastern Orthodox were butchering each other with even more vigor in the former Yugoslavian states.

Then there are the Christians in Angola who banned Islam recently.

It seems that Christians are not exactly "able to integrate" either.

But does that mean that Muslims integrate well?

Is it not possible to talk about the contradictory and inconsistent brands of Islam without referring to other religions? Certainly it's a discussion that can stand on its own and it isn't ignorant to discuss it without trying to pretend it doesn't exist or isn't problematic simply because other religions can't claim perfection.

For example, one can talk about the problems of Christianity for years without ever having to refer to any other religion. Or, if one knows about cars, they could talk about the problems unique to Ford transmissions without having to discuss Chevy; or talking about McDonald's is possible without ever bringing Burger King into the picture.

I personally don't give a shit about the problems of any religion as long as it doesn't affect me. And if the adherents to that religion don't want to fix it, I don't give a shit about that either. And if people like yourself don't want to acknowledge or discuss the extant problems, fine by me---let it all rot for a few more centuries. But actually discussing a real problem, all on its own merits is possible without resorting to relativism.

 

[Underseer]

I love that ignorant comment at one of the above links:



It's hardly just Muslims. Up until very recently, Catholics and Protestants were slaughtering each other with glee in Ireland, while Catholics and Eastern Orthodox were butchering each other with even more vigor in the former Yugoslavian states.

Then there are the Christians in Angola who banned Islam recently.

It seems that Christians are not exactly "able to integrate" either.

But does that mean that Muslims integrate well?

Is it not possible to talk about the contradictory and inconsistent brands of Islam without referring to other religions? Certainly it's a discussion that can stand on its own and it isn't ignorant to discuss it without trying to pretend it doesn't exist or isn't problematic simply because other religions can't claim perfection.

For example, one can talk about the problems of Christianity for years without ever having to refer to any other religion. Or, if one knows about cars, they could talk about the problems unique to Ford transmissions without having to discuss Chevy; or talking about McDonald's is possible without ever bringing Burger King into the picture.

I personally don't give a shit about the problems of any religion as long as it doesn't affect me. And if the adherents to that religion don't want to fix it, I don't give a shit about that either. And if people like yourself don't want to acknowledge or discuss the extant problems, fine by me---let it all rot for a few more centuries. But actually discussing a real problem, all on its own merits is possible without resorting to relativism.

We can talk about Christianity without mentioning other religions because Christianity is the dominant religion in this culture. These comments don't happen in a vacuum. You know darned well that things like this are used by Christians for the express purpose of trying to make themselves look better in comparison.