3 ms·

tbf Ahmadiyyas are a particular exceptional case, and you'd be hard-pressed to find even moderate mainline Muslims accepting of them as coreligionists, since th

tbf Ahmadiyyas are a particular exceptional case, and you'd be hard-pressed to find even moderate mainline Muslims accepting of them as coreligionists, since they (seemingly) violate one of the basic tenets of Islam, i.e., the Seal of the Prophets. The fact that Ahmadiyyas do accept the Seal of the Prophets but assign a sub-prophet role is the devil in the details here.

tankenmate 4y ago
By the same token it could be argued that Islam violates the Blasphemy laws in that it treats Jesus as a prophet and not God; i.e. it violates one of the basic tenets of Christianity. So my main point stands, because so many people claim so many different things under the colour of religion, laws like the Blasphemy law turns into a case of my sect is better / stronger than your sect. And now I have a piece of paper that proves you broke the law. Originally this law was written to try to keep the peace, but now it has been weaponised to suppress minorities.
- valarauko 4y ago
  I agree with your assessment of Islamic beliefs would constitute as Christian blasphemy, and vice versa. My point is directed at the specific example of the Ahmadiyyas, with the text suggesting that it's an example of the spectrum of Islamic practices. While there is definitely a spectrum in the way Islam is practiced across the world in ways that might throw off outsider Muslims, Ahmadiyya is an extreme example that I would suggest is not representative of the continuum. It's not just some hardliner believers that would consider them heretical, or even just 'some Wahabbists' - I would suggest that mainline Muslims across the spectrum would denounce the theology as heretical. Yes, there is definitely a spectrum of beliefs across the Islamic world, but the Ahmadiyya theology modifies one of the core pillars that would be a hard buy for believers. Whether blasphemy laws should exist is an entirely other point (I don't think they should).

tankenmate 4y ago

By the same token it could be argued that Islam violates the Blasphemy laws in that it treats Jesus as a prophet and not God; i.e. it violates one of the basic tenets of Christianity. So my main point stands, because so many people claim so many different things under the colour of religion, laws like the Blasphemy law turns into a case of my sect is better / stronger than your sect. And now I have a piece of paper that proves you broke the law. Originally this law was written to try to keep the peace, but now it has been weaponised to suppress minorities.

valarauko 4y ago
I agree with your assessment of Islamic beliefs would constitute as Christian blasphemy, and vice versa. My point is directed at the specific example of the Ahmadiyyas, with the text suggesting that it's an example of the spectrum of Islamic practices. While there is definitely a spectrum in the way Islam is practiced across the world in ways that might throw off outsider Muslims, Ahmadiyya is an extreme example that I would suggest is not representative of the continuum. It's not just some hardliner believers that would consider them heretical, or even just 'some Wahabbists' - I would suggest that mainline Muslims across the spectrum would denounce the theology as heretical. Yes, there is definitely a spectrum of beliefs across the Islamic world, but the Ahmadiyya theology modifies one of the core pillars that would be a hard buy for believers. Whether blasphemy laws should exist is an entirely other point (I don't think they should).