Boy, 6, beheaded for not being the right type of Muslim. Watch

Vinny C
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#41
Report 1 week ago
#41
(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
I


Fatter?
Yes... I'm always hearing about fatter Muslims.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#42
Report 1 week ago
#42
(Original post by TheNamesBond.)
He was beheaded for being a Shia Muslim not a Sunni, this occured near the shrine of Prophet Muhammed in Saudi Arabia, the kid was beheaded, a guy came out of a car, stabbed the boy with a broken glass and severed his head in the process, all because he wasn’t the ‘right’ type of Muslim, well tell me, is the ‘right type of Muslim’ the type that murders?!

https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/10/boy-6...e-8503492/amp/
Allahu Akbar etc
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#43
Report 1 week ago
#43
(Original post by Abd al-khaliq)
the man was mentally ill
If you behead one person you are "mentally ill", if you behead 600, you are a "prophet".
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#44
Report 1 week ago
#44
(Original post by Abida.etc)
Any 'real' muslim knows that to kill one life is as if you were to kill all of humanity.
Any 'real' Muslim knows that you have misquoted and decontextualised Quran verse 5:32.
It actually says that to kill a life "without justification" is to kill all humanity. Some of the "justification" is disbelief and disobeying Allah's law.

The media and society are recurrently being brainwashed into this toxic view that these types of people are what reprents Islam as a religion and a way of life.
What represents Islam is the contents of the Quran and sunnah. Therefore slavery, sex with captives, execution by torture, gender discrimination and sexual intolerance are all things that "represent Islam" just as much as trimming your nails, respecting parents and paying zakat.

I think people need to grow up and think that petty feuds over clans, race, etc is NOT what Islam accepts nor promotes, let alone any decent human being.
The jihad between Islam and disbelief is more than just a "petty feud", both historically and ideologically.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#45
Report 1 week ago
#45
(Original post by Bright Student)
Beheading those who don't adhere to Islam is not an Islamic precedent.
It kinda is. When Muhammad beheaded the entire Banu Qurayza tribe, they could save themselves by converting. About 600 were beheaded, including boys as young as 12. Of course, He wasn't all bad. The women and children were merely sold into slavery.

Yet I agree, this ideology of harming someone because they do not fall into your niche view of what is wrong and right is immoral and erroneous, and that is an issue with the individual, not the religion itself.
Not so.
Quran 9:5 - "...slay the idolaters wherever you find them..."
The renowned classical Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir explains that this means that the disbelievers "have no choice but to die or embrace Islam". (Ibn Kathir's tafsir is the most widely used interpretation of the Quran)

There are also several sahih hadith (the highest level of authenticity) where Muhammad says "I have been commanded to fight the people until they submit to Islam. Then their lives and property will be protected from me".

Islam has clear textual authorisation of the use of violence to encourage conversion.
Last edited by QE2; 1 week ago
1
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#46
Report 1 week ago
#46
(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
I

Fatter?
I think he's referring to Fatah - a Palestinian political movement rather than a sect of Islam.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#47
Report 1 week ago
#47
(Original post by QE2)
Any 'real' Muslim knows that you have misquoted and decontextualised Quran verse 5:32.
It actually says that to kill a life "without justification" is to kill all humanity. Some of the "justification" is disbelief and disobeying Allah's law.
Compare with OT Christianity - the testamentary command is not "thou shalt not kill" (as often imagined) but "thou shalt not commit murder" - eg, sanctioned or "commanded" death sentences (ordered by a king perhaps, a prophet or a sufficiently influential and zealous religious leader 'in the name of YHWH') are absolutely fine - such as stoning for adultery, etc.

It's easy to play the game of condemning the old religions based on their sacred texts against modern values. Both religions claim these Books as sacred and irrevocable, but in reality, the followers of both routinely ignore them and so it isn't particularly fair to label Islam as only suffering this difficulty of modern interpretation - vs - modern realities.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#48
Report 1 week ago
#48
(Original post by QE2)
Islam has clear textual authorisation of the use of violence to encourage conversion.
It's not the only old religion whose followers periodically decide that it's scripturally-supported and OK to kill non-believers. For comparison purposes, see the long history of active persecution and mass murder of Jews by Christians. Even during the Crusades, ostensibly directed at the recapture of the holy places from Islam, the murder of Jews took priority.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#49
Report 1 week ago
#49
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Compare with OT Christianity - the testamentary command is not "thou shalt not kill" (as often imagined) but "thou shalt not commit murder" - eg, sanctioned or "commanded" death sentences (ordered by a king perhaps, a prophet or a sufficiently influential and zealous religious leader 'in the name of YHWH' are absolutely fine - such as stoning for adultery, etc.
Obviously. What kind of ancient civilisation would outlaw killing of any kind. I was merely pointing out (as I often have to do) that the verse in question does not forbid killing. It actually permits killing people for their belief.

It's easy to play the game of condemning the old religions based on their sacred texts against modern values. Both religions claim these Books as sacred and irrevocable, but in reality, the followers of both routinely ignore them and so it isn't particularly fair to label Islam as only suffering this difficulty of modern interpretation - vs - modern realities.
To be fair, Christianity has the NT to mitigate the worst excesses of the OT. But it is true, the OT is possibly even more barbaric than the Quran and sunnah. However, the majority of Christians do not view it as the literal, infallible, immutable guide for all humanity in the way that most Muslims view the Quran - and example of Muhammad to a lesser extent.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#50
Report 1 week ago
#50
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
It's not the only old religion whose followers periodically decide that it's scripturally-supported and OK to kill non-believers. For comparison purposes, see the long history of active persecution and mass murder of Jews by Christians. Even during the Crusades, ostensibly directed at the recapture of the holy places from Islam, the murder of Jews took priority.
I don't consider whataboutery to be any kind of legitimate argument.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#51
Report 1 week ago
#51
(Original post by QE2)
To be fair, Christianity has the NT to mitigate the worst excesses of the OT. But it is true, the OT is possibly even more barbaric than the Quran and sunnah. However, the majority of Christians do not view it as the literal, infallible, immutable guide for all humanity in the way that most Muslims view the Quran - and example of Muhammad to a lesser extent.
I think my central point was precisely that they don't. It's not possible for modern people to follow the ancient texts precisely and to the letter. Those who claim to are pretending and inevitably simply follow their own interpretations. Watch Islamic TV religious shows for any length of time and you quickly realise that they are completely stuck and muddled on these kinds of things.

The NT doesn't to most Christians invalidate the numerous injunctions in the OT to kill and persecute people you dislike and leading authorities in the NT such as Paul if anything reinforce them - the church fathers likewise. A post-Roman Empire Christian in, say, 1000AD was every bit as bigoted, ready to attack non-believers and the marginalised and to condemn the non-Christian as his opposite number in Islam was.
0
reply
3121
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#52
Report 1 week ago
#52
Awww the boy looked really sweet and cute so sad to see.

Why are we pretending in the west there isn’t stabbings and schools being shot up though? As if people in Ireland aren’t killed because they’re the wrong type of Christian.
3
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#53
Report 1 week ago
#53
(Original post by QE2)
I don't consider whataboutery to be any kind of legitimate argument.
My point is that there's a focus in western critiques currently on Islamic scriptures, as if they are the only sacred texts or old religion that advocates cruel behaviour to non-believers or holds bizarre medieval or ancient beliefs. I accept that to some extent there has been review of old beliefs in Christianity, but the recent revivals of Christian fundamentalism, particularly in the US, are very troubling and just as likely to push us into a new dark ages (especially with one of their supporters as President) and right now are probably a bigger threat to our way of life than Islam.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#54
Report 1 week ago
#54
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
t isn't particularly fair to label Islam as only suffering this difficulty of modern interpretation - vs - modern realities.
I hereby undertake never to refer to the matter again - the moment Moslems stop referrring to Mohammed as an eternal role model, stop claiming the Koran is perfect and that its message is for all men in all times. If you claim that seventh-century morality is perfect then there is no lack of fairness in pointing out what that means.

I do not single out Islam for this treatment. I am perfectly happy to point out the hypocrisy, lies and double-dealing in Christianity and Judaism as well.
Last edited by Good bloke; 1 week ago
0
reply
HowToBeABlobfish
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#55
Report 1 week ago
#55
(Original post by TheNamesBond.)
He was beheaded for being a Shia Muslim not a Sunni, this occured near the shrine of Prophet Muhammed in Saudi Arabia, the kid was beheaded, a guy came out of a car, stabbed the boy with a broken glass and severed his head in the process, all because he wasn’t the ‘right’ type of Muslim, well tell me, is the ‘right type of Muslim’ the type that murders?!

https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/10/boy-6...e-8503492/amp/
I think the most important thing to take away is "is the 'right type' of Muslim the type that muders?"
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#56
Report 1 week ago
#56
(Original post by 3121)

Why are we pretending in the west there isn’t stabbings and schools being shot up though? As if people in Ireland aren’t killed because they’re the wrong type of Christian.
Who's pretending that?
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#57
Report 1 week ago
#57
(Original post by Good bloke)
I do not single out Islam for this treatment. I am perfectly happy to point out the hypocrisy, lies and double-dealing in Christianity and Judaism as well.
This is my position. I regard all of the ancient religions as deeply flawed and largely irrelevant to modern times and the viewpoint that their scriptures are infallible to be absurd. Unfortunately, many active posters on TSR and other social media seem to think that only Islam falls into this category.
1
reply
hannxm
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#58
Report 1 week ago
#58
Disgusting. I wish religion vanished completely. A lot of the ignorance towards different groups of people would probably reduce.
2
reply
HowToBeABlobfish
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#59
Report 1 week ago
#59
(Original post by QE2)
It kinda is. When Muhammad beheaded the entire Banu Qurayza tribe, they could save themselves by converting. About 600 were beheaded, including boys as young as 12. Of course, He wasn't all bad. The women and children were merely sold into slavery.

Not so.
Quran 9:5 - "...slay the idolaters wherever you find them..."
The renowned classical Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir explains that this means that the disbelievers "have no choice but to die or embrace Islam". (Ibn Kathir's tafsir is the most widely used interpretation of the Quran)

There are also several sahih hadith (the highest level of authenticity) where Muhammad says "I have been commanded to fight the people until they submit to Islam. Then their lives and property will be protected from me".

Islam has clear textual authorisation of the use of violence to encourage conversion.
Firstly, "he wasn't all bad. The women and children were merely sold into slavery". Does that mean that being sold into slavery isn't "all bad" and it's only "merely"? Being sold into slavery is as bad as being murdered.
Secondly, doesn't the word Islam mean peace? It's literally an oxymoron if the religion that means peace is fine with using violence to convert people.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#60
Report 1 week ago
#60
(Original post by HowToBeABlobfish)
Firstly, "he wasn't all bad. The women and children were merely sold into slavery". Does that mean that being sold into slavery isn't "all bad" and it's only "merely"? Being sold into slavery is as bad as being murdered.
Secondly, doesn't the word Islam mean peace? It's literally an oxymoron if the religion that means peace is fine with using violence to convert people.
I think your sarcasm detector is on the blink. I recommend getting a new one. 'Islam' means 'submission', not peace.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have a food intolerance or allergy?

Yes - a food intolerance (38)
12.18%
Yes - a food allergy (35)
11.22%
Yes - an autoimmune disorder (i.e coeliac, colitis) (9)
2.88%
Yes - I have an intolerance and allergy (9)
2.88%
No (221)
70.83%

Watched Threads

View All