Islamists celebrate murder of Ahmadi Muslim Brit who wished Christians Happy Easter

Whats with "moslem", it's not particularly offensive and isn't pronounced like that in English maybe "mooslim" if you wanted to use that argument? Is it just being stupid for the sake of being stupid?

This has been asked so many times that I would have expected all TSR members would know that my spelling is perfectly valid in English and an older one than the one you use. It is pronounced the same with either spelling.

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/moslem

Sikhism is pretty ambiguous in what they are (pantheism/monotheism) and if a Sikh embraces monotheism and calls themselves a Muslim they could probably still partake in a lot of sikh practices and still be Muslim.

you're a shia, the shia sect was a political division, ahmadis are a theological one.

While most sane shia accept the Qu'rans completeness, the finality of the prophet and have the same shahada as Sunnis - Ahmadis don't.

Alot of people say we're simply stirring hate towards ahmadis but by their own admission (a poster earlier provided an ahmadi source which highlights these beliefs) they believe MGA to be at best the second coming of Isa (as) at worst a reincarnation of Mohammed (SAWS).

Guru Nanak also incorporated tonnes of islamic teachings in his religion, should we then also consider Sikhs to be Muslim?

Where do you get this nonsense from, especially the last line. Sikhs do not believe that Muhammed pbuh was the last prophet and the Quaraan the last and final revelation.

Also this thread is full of the usual jibberish in who is considered a Muslim. Anyone who is a practicing Muslim cannot commit shirk which is seen as the greatest and most unforgivable sin. That's the main criteria when distinguishing halaal acts to ones that are shirk.

If a Sikh wanted to call themselves a Muslim they would reject Pantheism (shirk) as well as accept the finality of the Qu'ran and the prophet (Saws) (they already consider him a prophet).

They would still be a revert.

That, to me, sounds like a very "half-truth" type of analysis. Unless you're rejecting all the political aspects in Islamic theology, then that isn't true at all. I'm sure choosing the right caliph is one of the most part of Islamic theology. Besides, their schools of jurisprudence have significant differences from sunni ones.
Not agreeing on who should succeed the prophet doesn't make you a non-muslim, centuries later some sects of shia have turned to shirk and would be considered non-muslim, this does not apply to the vast majority of shia.

"completeness" is a vague term. I would argue no one except Quranists "accept" the Quran's "completeness"...
That would be everyone who claims to be muslims

Yet, that is to be defined. You have ignored all their explanations. By your definition of "prophethood", then even Ahmadis admit MGA wasn't a prophet, but again they have a different interpretation of the word "seal" and "prophethood".

They're pretty clear on their definition of prophet here, this goes directly against the Qu'ran.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophethood_(Ahmadiyya)

If their biggest crime was to have an alternative non-literal interpretation (different from orthodox ones), then again I say you read the Quran.



Islam incorporated tonnes of early Christian/Jewish and even Greek teachings... let's all consider Zeus as the only true god?

You're agreeing with me here, just because a faith uses elements of another faith, does not mean they are the same belief. Just because Guru Nanak borrowed heavily from Islam doesn't make Sikhs and Muslims equivalent. The whole world under one faith with differing opinions would be great though, I'A Islam will accomplish this.

Anyway, Ahmadis still believe in monotheism, the teachings of prophet and they consider the quran to be the final divine scripture that was revealed, and the teachings to be timeless (Ahmadis believe MGA's teaching do not abrogate Muhammed's, so he cannot be another complete "prophet".

They don't have different interpretations of many things (Jesus' (as) crucifixion and death), they flat out disagree with the Qu'ran, this is ignoring the "completeness" of a prophet.

You're suggesting from what I can see that a person can be/call himself Sikh and Muslim at the same.

No i'm saying that if a Sikhs are very similar to Muslims but cannot be called Muslim, just as quadinites cant be called Muslim.

If a Sikh rejects Pantheism, Accepts the Qu'ran and the final Messenger of Allah, he is a muslim.

What you have not done, which I'd be interested to hear, is why you disagree with what Mohammed is reported to have said on the matter in the hadith, and how you intend to deal with his assessment of you in the afterlife?

He wont be the one assessing me, he's not God.

So what he said is both wrong and unimportant?

Islam or Islamism? I assume the latter is what we are talking about.

The left is far from a homogeneous group, and there are many on the left who do criticise Islamism and who do not pander to extremists. Christopher Hitchens is an example of a person on the left who was critical of the Saddam regime and Islamism. Also, not all left-wing people support large governments, left-wing anarchists would be a classic example.

People like Hicth are few and far between, I don't have the quote on hand, but I even remember him saying as much. Free speech is advocated by most and defended by few.

Those that rally behind the "Je suis Charlie" banner are by enlarge just going through the motions, they wouldn't actively appose Islam or actively defend free speech by drawing Mohammed themselves and joining in solidarity with those that are in danger.

We just know that the ranks of actual liberals, that share similar beliefs as Harris or Hicth or Douglas Murray or even Mark Steyn, are not legion. They are the fringe minority of the left wing political group.

The rest can and will take the path of least resistance, I hope I don't sound overly pretentious when I say this, but the majority of our group are sheep. Their reasoning skills are lesser than the theists, often having far worse reasons for their atheist position than the theists (mainly Christianity), they are so often critical of. They are just as indoctrinated as many theists.

Their atheist position is a political ploy, a metaphorical stick with which they can beat on their political opponents. They want anti-hate speech laws to grow, they will want anti-islamophobia (blasphemy) laws to come into effect. They are already on the side of Islam and Islamism.

Guru Nanak also incorporated tonnes of islamic teachings in his religion, should we then also consider Sikhs to be Muslim?

they are muslim though...

As a Muslim they are not Muslim who celebrate another person's death in such a way. They are extremist who views and ideological thought processes are of a minority and not the minority.

Most Muslims here (uk) and around the world are good Muslims just like my fellow Jews, Christians, Catholics, Indians etc.

He was a good man. 😰