The Hadith, source of Islamic atrocities.

[danieldemol]

I failed to see a connection between the video and the Hadiths.

The video was of an innocent person being murdered who did not believe in mainstream Islam.

 

[dybmh]

The video was of an innocent person being murdered who did not believe in mainstream Islam.

I didn't watch the video.

Who is the murderer? Are they, in your opinion, an example of average, everyday Muslims? If so, why?

 

[danieldemol]

I didn't watch the video.

Who is the murderer? Are they, in your opinion, an example of average, everyday Muslims? If so, why?

You don’t have the courage to watch the video.

The correct question is who are the murderers? (You would know this if you watched it) it is a violent mob under the supervision of uniformed personnel. And the answer is they are a subset of Muslims who believe in certain Hadith.

A subset of people which deserves criticism.

A subset of people that certain folk lacking moral caliber would prefer we ignored and pretended did not exist.

 

[Wasp]

The video was of an innocent person being murdered who did not believe in mainstream Islam.

Two people were on the video.

Undeniably that was a disgusting video, but still I wouldn't use the word "innocent" unless you know exactly what happened, just for clarity.

I presuppose you know that they were Ahmadiyya muslims. But why were they killed exactly, how does that relate to hadith and how does the behaviour of the attackers relate to the Qur'an and the hadith?

 

[Wasp]

You don’t have the courage to watch the video.

You might want to avoid such comments. There's people with PTSD and such in the world. The video might be normal to you and drive another to suicide.

 

[dybmh]

@Aupmanyav ,

I find it ironic that you claim Muslims have one version for show and one for practice ( see below ), and then later you put on a show of your own downplaying racism in Hindu culture.

All of your evidence could be "for the show".

Same is true for defending the Swastika in your avatar. Yes, it has a scholarly meaning coming from India, but that explanation could be "just for the show".

Like elephant's teeth, Islam has two versions. One for show, the other for practice. Quran is for show, hadith is for practice. We have a saying in Hindi picturising that "Hathi ke do dant, Khane ka aur, dikhane ka aur" (One for show, the other for eating).

You claim that Ahmadiyya's would become violent if they had the power. And this is based on their religious label, not on what they say or how they behave.

The Swastika in your avatar is no different. If you had the power, perhaps you have your own final solution to the "Abrahamic Problem"? In this thread you have stereotyped, demonized, and generalized all Muslims. You said they are all violent, the only difference is that the peaceful ones don't have political power. ( see below )

Ahmadiyyas and Bahais don't, because they do not have the power. Allah changed the direction of bowing (Qibla) after Mohammad came to power.

I can say the same about people who put Swastikas on their avatars on forums.

I hope I made my point.

 

[Wasp]

The correct question is who are the murderers? (You would know this if you watched it) it is a violent mob under the supervision of uniformed personnel. And the answer is they are a subset of Muslims who believe in certain Hadith.

A subset of people which deserves criticism.

A subset of people that certain folk lacking moral fibre would prefer we ignored and pretended did not exist.

What subset? That sounds like you just made it up.

 

[dybmh]

You don’t have the courage to watch the video.

The correct question is who are the murderers? (You would know this if you watched it) it is a violent mob under the supervision of uniformed personnel. And the answer is they are a subset of Muslims who believe in certain Hadith.

A subset of people which deserves criticism.

A subset of people that certain folk lacking moral fibre would prefer we ignored and pretended did not exist.

Daniel, It's not a matter of courage. And no one is lacking moral fiber. No one is asking that they be ignored.

All of that is false.

The point is, that some people... ahem... you, in this thread attempted to make this practice out to be something that a majority of Muslims support. And you were wrong.

Now, question: when was the video taken? Where was it?

 

[dybmh]

You don’t have the courage to watch the video.

You might want to avoid such comments. There's people with PTSD and such in the world. The video might be normal to you and drive another to suicide.

Quite honestly, I didn't know if Daniel was posting a beheading video, and I didn't want to find out the hard way.

There's no shame in avoiding watching something like that on the Internet, as far as I'm concerned.

@danieldemol , is it a beheading? If it isn't; I'll watch if it will help us to discuss the matter further.

 

[danieldemol]

Daniel, It's not a matter of courage. And no one is lacking moral fiber. No one is asking that they be ignored.

All of that is false.

The point is, that some people... ahem... you, in this thread attempted to make this practice out to be something that a majority of Muslims support. And you were wrong.

Now, question: when was the video taken? Where was it?

No i’m not making it out to be something the majority support, I quoted the figures of the people in Indonesia who believed in that Hadith, you are just making stuff up

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You don’t have the courage to watch the video.

Excuse me, but that's a very rude thing to say to someone who does not want to see real graphic violence of a person being beaten to death by a mob (I watched it). I have seen all matter of real graphically violent videos that you can find on sites like Best Gore. I never recommend that anyone watch them as they can be extremely traumatizing. I have trauma issues from watching those things, myself.

 

[danieldemol]

Quite honestly, I didn't know if Daniel was posting a beheading video, and I didn't want to find out the hard way.

There's no shame in avoiding watching something like that on the Internet, as far as I'm concerned.

@danieldemol , is it a beheading? If it isn't; I'll watch if it will help us to discuss the matter further.

No it is not a beheading

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

@Aupmanyav ,

I find it ironic that you claim Muslims have one version for show and one for practice ( see below ), and then later you put on a show of your own downplaying racism in Hindu culture.

All of your evidence could be "for the show".

Same is true for defending the Swastika in your avatar. Yes, it has a scholarly meaning coming from India, but that explanation could be "just for the show".



You claim that Ahmadiyya's would become violent if they had the power. And this is based on their religious label, not on what they say or how they behave.

The Swastika in your avatar is no different. If you had the power, perhaps you have your own final solution to the "Abrahamic Problem"? In this thread you have stereotyped, demonized, and generalized all Muslims. You said they are all violent, the only difference is that the peaceful ones don't have political power. ( see below )



I can say the same about people who put Swastikas on their avatars on forums.

I hope I made my point.

I object to you accusing a Hindu with an avatar of a religious ceremony with a sacred symbol of Nazism. Nazis don't own swastikas and sunwheels. I wear those symbols as they have religious significance to me and I would be offended if some ignorant person accused me of Nazism for it.

Disagree with what he is saying all you please, but don't smear the symbol. The swastika is a holy symbol throughout Asia still today.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The video was of an innocent person being murdered who did not believe in mainstream Islam.

You should've found a news article about it instead of just posting a YouTube video that may have wrong information in the description.

 

[dybmh]

No i’m not making it out to be something the majority support, I quoted the figures of the people in Indonesia who believed in that Hadith, you are just making stuff up

OK. Here is what you said:

Be that as it may, we still have the folks at IslamQA who represent a sizeable number of Muslims calling for the death of apostates based on Hadith they regard as authentic1

So I think there is some legitimacy to criticism of their approach.

1 Some of the rulings on apostasy and apostates - Islam Question & Answer

Yes what I am asking for is more transparency on the consensus of the traditional schools of Islam.

How many Muslims want it enforced will depend on how many are brainwashed into believing the traditional schools of Islam represent God’s will, and it would be unwise to assume they are a minority. If people who reject all four(?) schools are in the majority I would certainly want to know that rather than just having it assumed.

So I am not making it up.

You said: "It would be unwise to assume the minority". Meaning: "It is wise to assume the majority".

 

[Shad]

But I actually believe strongly in immigration. To me, it is patriotic. Both of my grandfathers were immigrants.

Immigration then is nothing like it is now.

 

[dybmh]

I object to you accusing a Hindu with an avatar of a religious ceremony with a sacred symbol of Nazism. Nazis don't own swastikas and sunwheels. I wear those symbols as they have religious significance to me and I would be offended if some ignorant person accused me of Nazism for it.

Disagree with what he is saying all you please, but don't smear the symbol. The swastika is a holy symbol throughout Asia still today.

It is what he is saying and the avatar. But I am not smearing the symbol. The symbol without the stereotyping and demonizing is benign.

BTW, I have these symbols in my home. One on a Buddha statue, and it's on the cover of at least 1 book.

The symbol is fine.

 

[Neutral Name]

Immigration then is nothing like it is now.

True but did you know that over 4 million people a year come from Europe and, if I remember correctly, 5 million from Asia. Africa and Australia not as many.

 

[Shad]

True but did you know that over 4 million people a year come from Europe and, if I remember correctly, 5 million from Asia. Africa and Australia not as many.

Sure. My point was that you can not treat the systems in the past as if they are the same as now. For one the welfare state didn't exist when my great-grandfather immigrated. Here it didn't start until WW2. There were restriction based on race, nation and region as per the US systems from 1850 to 1960.

Take a look at Canada's immigration requirements now. No low class immigrants outside sponsorship. The reason for this is immigrants must benefit Canada not get benefits from Canada. It prevent immigration of people that would be a burden to Canada. Immigrants do not have access to a lot of social program for 5 years. Again this to prevent burdens to Canada.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. and then later you put on a show of your own downplaying racism in Hindu culture.
Same is true for defending the Swastika in your avatar. Yes, it has a scholarly meaning coming from India, but that explanation could be "just for the show".
You claim that Ahmadiyya's would become violent if they had the power. And this is based on their religious label, not on what they say or how they behave.

Did I down-play casteism in India? Hindus have accepted that it is wrong and are trying to make amends since the last 70 years of our independence. It is a very sticky thing, we are not yet out of its holds. I accept your point.
Swastika is sacred with us. No Hindu will associate ill will or violence with it. It has the same importance in Jainism and Buddhism. Hitler and Nazis were aberrations. I do not think I can accept this point.
Swastika - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Asia
I, Hindus or India, have no grudge against Ahmadiyyas. They have always been safe in India and the place of their pilgrimage where their Mahdi was born is in Indian Punjab. I am an atheist and I post my views in forums (even against theist Hindus). The saving grace is that atheism has been a part of Hinduism right from pre-historic RigVeda times. All monotheistic religions have been violent when in power. I do not think it would have been any different in case of Bahais or Ahamadiyyas.