Man who burned Quran shot dead in Sweden

Roane said:
Your references don't perpetuate violence. Your misunderstanding is a lazy and uninformed assumption.
Click to expand...

Surah Al-Baqarah - 190-191
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you ... And slay them wherever ye catch them ... And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God". Following passage in 192-193 gives permission to kill in the same regards. I've heard nothing but semantics when Imam's attempt to rectify the historical context.

Surah An-Nisa - 4 (47)
"Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of God whether he is slain or gets victory, soon shall we give him a reward of great (value). Those who believe fight in the cause of God and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil, so fight ye against the friends of Satan, feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan". Yusuf Ali's translation is far more accurate to the Arabic then other translators.

Surah Al-Ma'idah - 33
"Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land is death, crucifixion, cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, or exile from the land. This ˹penalty˺ is a disgrace for them in this world, and they will suffer a tremendous punishment in the Hereafter".

Surah Al-Bayyinah - 6
"Indeed, those who disbelieve from the People of the Book and the polytheists will be in the Fire of Hell, to stay there forever. They are the worst of all beings". If you are a Muslim you'll know Ahl al-Kitāb refers specifically to Christians and Jews so the Qur'an is defining them as the worst beings it's inciting prejudice.

You'd have to be all but ignorant to say the Quran doesn't perpetuate violence.
 
Redstain said:
Surah Al-Baqarah - 190-191
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you ... And slay them wherever ye catch them ... And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God". Following passage in 192-193 gives permission to kill in the same regards. I've heard nothing but semantics when Imam's attempt to rectify the historical context.

Surah An-Nisa - 4 (47)
"Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of God whether he is slain or gets victory, soon shall we give him a reward of great (value). Those who believe fight in the cause of God and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil, so fight ye against the friends of Satan, feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan". Yusuf Ali's translation is far more accurate to the Arabic then other translators.

Surah Al-Ma'idah - 33
"Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land is death, crucifixion, cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, or exile from the land. This ˹penalty˺ is a disgrace for them in this world, and they will suffer a tremendous punishment in the Hereafter".

Surah Al-Bayyinah - 6
"Indeed, those who disbelieve from the People of the Book and the polytheists will be in the Fire of Hell, to stay there forever. They are the worst of all beings". If you are a Muslim you'll know Ahl al-Kitāb refers specifically to Christians and Jews so the Qur'an is defining them as the worst beings it's inciting prejudice.

You'd have to be all but ignorant to say the Quran doesn't perpetuate violence.
Click to expand...

Like I said lazy and uninformed assumption.

I don't know whether to waste my time addressing these quotes personally, or just point you to a website that answered them to the website these get taken from.
 
hasanejaz88 said:
Leviticus 24:

13 The LORD then said to Moses:

14 Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and when all who heard him have laid their hands on his head, let the whole community stone him.

15 Tell the Israelites: Anyone who blasphemes God shall bear the penalty;

16 whoever utters the name of the LORD in a curse shall be put to death. The whole community shall stone that person; alien and native-born alike must be put to death for uttering the LORD’s name in a curse.

23 When Moses told this to the Israelites, they took the blasphemer outside the camp and stoned him; they did just as the LORD commanded Moses.

------------

Leviticus 18:22 ~ You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Click to expand...

Remember you said every religion, so include Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism even atheism.
 
My mistake but referring to the original post not every religion perpetuates the practitioners of the said faiths to commit violence.

I do see a common trait of using the Torah as some type of vindication but this mostly pertains to the early adoption of Judaism. The Midrashim of Leviticus from different sects of Jews avoid adherence to some laws because they are not entirely applicable, there's no longer a consecration of the old temple from a geographic standpoint so this obviously differs to a synagogue.

Then on the hand of Christianity there's a difference of dispensation, the common critique is that as a religion it's too soft, has no backbone, is easily pushed over etc which likely comes from the ideology that Jesus infers through different passages Matthew 5:

(43-44)
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;".
(38-40)
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also".

Put it this way, someone who burnt the Qur'an outside the mosque has committed a hate crime and deserves condemnation / imprisonment through a judiciary process. Those are the laws of the land.

The reality is he was killed for that decision and that action is justifiable in the Qur'an in defence of the religion.

Not every Muslim would have made that decision due to their own moral contemplation but the consensus in the doctrine of Islam does provide a feasibility to do so. This however is through highlighting this isolated incident, extremism is an entirely different phenomenon which depicts brainwashing and subjective compulsive obsession.
 
For the people saying islam is incompatible with western values, what do you suggest should be done about it? Outlaw islam?
 
bosnian_red said:
Not in Sweden sure but in many countries it is illegal.
Click to expand...
But this was in Sweden.

It only just very recently became illegal in Denmark last year, but that was because of geopolitical pressure not because the politicians genuinely felt it should be illegal.
 
Gehrman said:
But this was in Sweden.
Click to expand...
My point was that in many "modern, secular, democratic countries" you wouldn't and shouldn't just be allowed to do what he did. Not that people should take justice into their own hands, but it's illegal in many countries.
 
Roane said:
Your short skirt analogy doesn't fit really.

Let's just agree that killing a person is wrong in this incident. I don't think we should ignore his previous life and that may have had more to do with his death than burning a Quran.

Anyway to the point. Burning a holy book outside a mosque, church, synagogue, temple isn't the same as a wearing a short skirt generally. It's more the equivalent of wearing a short skirt and walking inside a lifers prison to tease and antagonise.

Nobody says the person deserves to be raped or touched for doing it but you better do it with guards ready to shoot if attacked.
Click to expand...
One could defend every attack on a hijab wearing woman in a strongly catholic region with your logic.


Well not defend it. But say it wouldn't have happened if...
 
Redstain said:
Remember you said every religion, so include Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism even atheism.
Click to expand...

Firstly, do you then agree then that Judaism and Christianity aren't compatible with liberal values given their scripture?

Secondly, doesn't Hinduism have a cast system that codifies discrimination? And I think widows aren't allowed to remarry (though I think the ritual of the widow killing herself is a cultural thing and not part of the religion).

Buddhism I can concede I don't think would have violet texts, but then again Buddists committed a genocide against Rohyinga Muslims in Myanmar because they were Muslims, so their violence was still a result of religion.
 
bosnian_red said:
My point was that in many "modern, secular, democratic countries" you wouldn't and shouldn't just be allowed to do what he did. Not that people should take justice into their own hands, but it's illegal in many countries.
Click to expand...

I think you should say. It depends on the motive. Lets say i burned a Quran and explained "that's what i feel its worth. Absolutely nothing. The religion based on this scripture is a cause of oppression worldwide in thought, in action. Its used as a source for terrorism worldwide. It intolerant to other religions, its oppresses women, its founder was a slaver etc".

Why should religious books that promote so many illiberal values deserve special protection in a liberal society?
 
Last edited:
hasanejaz88 said:
Firstly, do you then agree then that Judaism and Christianity aren't compatible with liberal values given their scripture?

Secondly, doesn't Hinduism have a cast system that codifies discrimination? And I think widows aren't allowed to remarry (though I think the ritual of the widow killing herself is a cultural thing and not part of the religion).

Buddhism I can concede I don't think would have violet texts, but then again Buddists committed a genocide against Rohyinga Muslims in Myanmar because they were Muslims, so their violence was still a result of religion.
Click to expand...

I'm not enticing a conversation about liberal values I responded initially to what you said as a generalisation concerning all religions.

It's within the doctrine of the Qur'an to perpetuate violence, a religious text can ascribe violence without indoctrinating it, wherein lies the issue.
 
Abizzz said:
One could defend every attack on a hijab wearing woman in a strongly catholic region with your logic.


Well not defend it. But say it wouldn't have happened if...
Click to expand...

How do you figure that? Considering nuns and the Virgin Mary (who catholics venerate) dress the same.

The issue here, and again the result is wrong, would be a hijabi walking into edl rally burning a picture of tommeh and getting beaten up or worse.

This man, named Salman incidentally and from Iraq, decided not to just burn a Quran but to actually go outside a mosque and burn it there. His name and ethnicity is important too as he would have known even more the reaction.

I don't advocate murder and I certainly don't advocate rape. My point was that you can't just add any analogy. I only used the short skirt one as that was offered. I will say the same with the hijabi one you offered. Context is key.

True story a friend and his wife were walking through the town centre. The wife wears a hijab. Some woman walked over shouting abuse and tore it off her head. Unbeknownst to this woman the friend and wife are "fighters". As in study and teach mixed martial arts. It is my opinion the wife would have been within her rights to smack the shit out of this woman.

However it didn't happen as those watching/seeing intervened, not hijabi not muslims. And straight away had a go at this woman. To the point the hijabi was stopping some from giving her beats.

I would expect the same if a person was burning a religious scripture outside a religious denomination. Don't care if you're religious or not. It's the principle for me. What I don't expect is support under the guise of freedom of speech.
 
Gehrman said:
I think you should say. It depends on the motive. Lets say i burned a Quran and explained "that's what it feel its worth. Absolutely nothing. The religion based on this scripture is a cause of oppression worldwide in thought, in action. Its used as a source for terrorism worldwide. Its intolerant to other religions, its oppresses women, its founder was a slaver etc".

Why should religious books that promote so many illiberal values deserve special protection in a liberal society.
Click to expand...

I'd ask why is something you know so little about, based on what you wrote, living rent free in your head?

I'd also question your "liberalism".

When something is worth nothing to me, it's literally that, nothing.
 
Roane said:
How do you figure that? Considering nuns and the Virgin Mary (who catholics venerate) dress the same.
Click to expand...
So you think someone who would commit a hate crime based on religion couldn't distinguish between the two? Possibly, given that these people usually are very thick, but I would not bet on it.

Roane said:
The issue here, and again the result is wrong, would be a hijabi walking into edl rally burning a picture of tommeh and getting beaten up or worse.

This man, named Salman incidentally and from Iraq, decided not to just burn a Quran but to actually go outside a mosque and burn it there. His name and ethnicity is important too as he would have known even more the reaction.

I don't advocate murder and I certainly don't advocate rape. My point was that you can't just add any analogy. I only used the short skirt one as that was offered. I will say the same with the hijabi one you offered. Context is key.

True story a friend and his wife were walking through the town centre. The wife wears a hijab. Some woman walked over shouting abuse and tore it off her head. Unbeknownst to this woman the friend and wife are "fighters". As in study and teach mixed martial arts. It is my opinion the wife would have been within her rights to smack the shit out of this woman.

However it didn't happen as those watching/seeing intervened, not hijabi not muslims. And straight away had a go at this woman. To the point the hijabi was stopping some from giving her beats.

I would expect the same if a person was burning a religious scripture outside a religious denomination. Don't care if you're religious or not. It's the principle for me. What I don't expect is support under the guise of freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
No, but you seem to go out of your way to find excuses for one of them. And this isn't what happened in this case. He was not beaten to death by the people coming out of the mosque in a fit of rage. He was murdered in cold blood for what he has done and to me it looks like you are coming up with excuses for it.
 
Last edited:
Drainy said:
Not endorsing the sentiment, but punishing individuals who commit crimes is the best way forward.
Click to expand...
I assume this individual will go to prison for murder, so it seems the system is working as intended, regardless of islam being compatible or not with a western system.
 
Abizzz said:
So you think someone who would commit a hate crime based on religion couldn't distinguish between the two? Possibly, given that these people usually are very thick, but I would not bet on it.


No, but you seem to go out of your way to find excuses for one of them. And this isn't what happened in this case. He was not beaten to death by the people coming out of the mosque in a fit of rage. He was murdered in cold blood for what he has done and to me it looks like you are coming up with excuses for it.
Click to expand...

In a strongly Catholic region you said. Context matters.

FYI I think this guy seems to have been taken out. That's a scary concept but seems to have been given a wide berth and the focus has once again become Islam. With his background I dont think the Quran burning was what did it. But I don't know all the details yet so didn't bring that into the discussion.

I make no excuses. My initial post was simply trying to say you can't try and compare analogies/examples unless they are in similar contexts.

Here's one for you. I do mass burnings of Qurans and religious documents. Haven't for a while but will be doing so again soon. Even bought an incinerator bin thing last week.

I used to work in a mosque locally. Teaching kids, leading prayers, doing Eid and Jummah khutbahs etc. I used to say at the khutbahs that I will be burning on such n such a day and people used to bring me Qurans etc to burn.

The context with my burnings is that is how you are supposed to "respectfully" destroy damaged and ripped Qurans and documents that have certain scriptures. You burn them. Nobody bats an eyelid and people bring damaged/ripped Qurans etc to me to dispose of them.
 
maniak said:
I assume this individual will go to prison for murder, so it seems the system is working as intended, regardless of islam being compatible or not with a western system.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Outside of efforts to encourage people not to commit crimes or gaining intel to stop prior to the crime during the planning there isn't much anyone can do bar punish the criminal after to discourage others.

Suppose it could fall down if a jury refused to convict, but seems unlikely
 
Redstain said:
I'm not enticing a conversation about liberal values I responded initially to what you said as a generalisation concerning all religions.

It's within the doctrine of the Qur'an to perpetuate violence, a religious text can ascribe violence without indoctrinating it, wherein lies the issue.
Click to expand...

And my quote to which you responded specially said "western values", to which I said ever religion. Don't move the goalposts then.

Violence in the Quran is no different to the Bible or Torah. All three of these books are virtually identical, same make believe stories and same backward ass commands .
 
hasanejaz88 said:
And my quote to which you responded specially said "western values", to which I said ever religion. Don't move the goalposts then.

Violence in the Quran is no different to the Bible or Torah. All three of these books are virtually identical, same make believe stories and same backward ass commands .
Click to expand...

It is different your making wild statements based on sentiment not factual undertakings. There are doctrinal differences between the Bible / Qur'an which are fundamentally different. Also disparities of time, the Qur'an is 6th century, Torah and sections of the Bible will pre date the 1st century by millennia. I have already explained the difference between ascribing violence and the doctrination of violence they are distinctly different.

From the Bereshit citing the account of creation all the way through to the explanation of sin, the mosaic law juxtapositioning to the Levitical priesthood. The only similarities are the names of particular prophets.
 
The punishment here in this case does not fit the crime. Why so much arguing? The murder should be universally condemned.
 
Last edited:
utdalltheway said:
The punishment here in this case does not fit the crime. Why so much arguing? The murder should be universally condemned.
Click to expand...
The sense I get is people are saying he did something extremely stupid so the outcome is not really surprising, not that the murder was the right thing to happen.
 
Redstain said:
Surah Al-Baqarah - 190-191
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you ... And slay them wherever ye catch them ... And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God". Following passage in 192-193 gives permission to kill in the same regards. I've heard nothing but semantics when Imam's attempt to rectify the historical context.

Surah An-Nisa - 4 (47)
"Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of God whether he is slain or gets victory, soon shall we give him a reward of great (value). Those who believe fight in the cause of God and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil, so fight ye against the friends of Satan, feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan". Yusuf Ali's translation is far more accurate to the Arabic then other translators.

Surah Al-Ma'idah - 33
"Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land is death, crucifixion, cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, or exile from the land. This ˹penalty˺ is a disgrace for them in this world, and they will suffer a tremendous punishment in the Hereafter".

Surah Al-Bayyinah - 6
"Indeed, those who disbelieve from the People of the Book and the polytheists will be in the Fire of Hell, to stay there forever. They are the worst of all beings". If you are a Muslim you'll know Ahl al-Kitāb refers specifically to Christians and Jews so the Qur'an is defining them as the worst beings it's inciting prejudice.

You'd have to be all but ignorant to say the Quran doesn't perpetuate violence.
Click to expand...
All taken out of context, did you Google them or copy and paste them from somewhere? Shows your ignorance on the verses. I can't even be bothered to answer each.

I would implore anyone who believes this poster to go do your own research, including the context of when they were revealed and the preceding verses and the ones after. These verses taken out of context are usual tropes used regularly by islamaphobic websites.
 
maniak said:
The sense I get is people are saying he did something extremely stupid so the outcome is not really surprising, not that the murder was the right thing to happen.
Click to expand...
Yeah I suppose that's a fair assessment.

Sweden and all the other European countries should make it clear that burning religious texts is not illegal, to send a message.
Not that I'd condone doing it front of a church/mosque/synagogue but it should not be illegal anywhere in a civilized country.
 
Dead guy's fellow campaigner found guilty of hate crimes.

Sweden court finds Quran burner guilty of hate crimes
A Swedish court gave an anti-Islam campaigner on Monday a suspended sentence and fined him, after he was found guilty of hate crimes. Swedish citizen Salwan Najem was convicted for "having expressed contempt for the Muslim ethnic group because of their religious beliefs on four occasions," the Stockholm district court said.
Click to expand...
Najem's fellow campaigner Salwan Momika, who was also involved in Quran-burning incidents, was shot dead last week. The shooting coincided with his scheduled verdict in a parallel case.
Click to expand...
https://www.dw.com/en/sweden-court-finds-quran-burner-guilty-of-hate-crimes/a-71493903
 
You must log in or register to reply here.