Strange reasoning

[Muezzin]

Isn't it funny how if a religious person says 'hate the sin, not the sinner' in reference to homosexuality, some non-religious people view those comments as bad and homophobic; yet if a non-religious person says 'I like religious people, I just don't like their way of life', it's okay.

The recipient of such backhanded compliments on either side makes no distinction between themselves and their 'lifestyle'. Why do people on Internet forums seem to?

Me? What you do in private is no concern of mine as long as you're not hurting me or anyone else - I do believe that God sees all things, and that everyone should bear that in mind, especially if they're religious.

That's not the issue, though. I'm just clarifying my position in case anyone decides to make an issue out of it. The issue is the hypocrisy of the attitude described in the first sentence of this thread.

Am I right? Wrong? In the middle? Overreacting? In need of a strawberry milkshake?

[snakelegs]

may i suggest a coffee malt instead?
generally, people see what they are looking for...

[Dr.Trax]

Isn't it funny how if a religious person says 'hate the sin, not the sinner' in reference to homosexuality, some non-religious people view those comments as bad and homophobic; yet if a non-religious person says 'I like religious people, I just don't like their way of life', it's okay.

I totally agree with you brother for this part,you're right here!

:sl:

[glo]

may i suggest a coffee malt instead?
generally, people see what they are looking for...

Seriously, snakelegs!
I like you as a person, but I don't like your choice of beverages!

Peppermint tea is the answer!
:D

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Muezzin]

may i suggest a coffee malt instead?

Awesome.

generally, people see what they are looking for...

What do you mean?

[------]

:salamext:

Have u heard of the saying by a scholar Dr. Tahir Ul Qadri?

"Gunnah se nafrat karo, gunehgaar se nahin"
Hate the sin, not the sinner.

Allaahu Aalim...

[Muezzin]

:salamext:

Have u heard of the saying by a scholar Dr. Tahir Ul Qadri?

"Gunnah se nafrat karo, gunehgaar se nahin"
Hate the sin, not the sinner.

Allaahu Aalim...

I agree with that reasoning.

Especially when it comes to flatulence.

It's just strange how that logic seems to be selectively applied.

[snakelegs]

Awesome.


What do you mean?

i meant that often what we see, is based on our preconceptions.
there is hypocrisy on all sides.

glo - you have yet to discover The One True Bliss of a coffee malt! ;D

[------]

:salamext:

flatulence

^ Flat-what :?

[Muezzin]

i meant that often what we see, is based on our preconceptions.
there is hypocrisy on all sides.

You're right. It's just strange (yet somehow amusing) how it's only ever considered okay for one side of an argument to call 'shenanigans'.

Quote:
flatulence

^ Flat-what

Step 1 - open the dictionary to 'F'

Step 2 - locate 'flatulence'

Step 3 - giggle and/or shake head.

[------]

:salamext:

^ You are a FISH!! :muddlehea

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Some potential reasons:
1) It's the internet - very few people know how to debate properly
2) People who use that tactic are deluded and don't really know what they are saying.
3) If they do know what they are saying, they're flippin crazy!

[Pk_#2]

Isn't it funny how if a religious person says 'hate the sin, not the sinner' in reference to homosexuality, some non-religious people view those comments as bad and homophobic; yet if a non-religious person says 'I like religious people, I just don't like their way of life', it's okay.

The recipient of such backhanded compliments on either side makes no distinction between themselves and their 'lifestyle'. Why do people on Internet forums seem to?

Me? What you do in private is no concern of mine as long as you're not hurting me or anyone else - I do believe that God sees all things, and that everyone should bear that in mind, especially if they're religious.

That's not the issue, though. I'm just clarifying my position in case anyone decides to make an issue out of it. The issue is the hypocrisy of the attitude described in the first sentence of this thread.

Am I right? Wrong? In the middle? Overreacting? In need of a strawberry milkshake?

Agreed.. I fink..,

My my little one, you ain't a happy bunny today, also Glo and Snakey have no taste,

*catch*

Ribena cumin your way,

AsaslamuAlaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh.

[Azy]

I suppose you need to make the distinction between homosexuality, and sodomy (deja vu), since it would be considered wrong to hate someone for what they are rather than what they do or think.

[Muslim Knight]

Peppermint tea is the answer!
:D

Typical British person.

LOL.

[Woodrow]

I suppose you need to make the distinction between homosexuality, and sodomy (deja vu), since it would be considered wrong to hate someone for what they are rather than what they do or think.

That is a valid observation, it is a good example of what is meant by hate the sin, not the sinner.

[Azy]

That is a valid observation, it is a good example of what is meant by hate the sin, not the sinner.

So when you say homosexuality you really mean sodomy?

[Woodrow]

So when you say homosexuality you really mean sodomy?

It is often an error to try to second guess the meaning of another person's words. It is far better to accept a statement as it is written, rather than to try to justify an inner meaning for the purpose of debate.

Sodomy is not always a homosexual act. It is sometimes practiced among people of different genders. However, sodomy is a sin in most religions, even when practiced by heterosexual couples.

Sodomy does not equal homosexual. Homosexual does not equal sodomy.

But, sodomy does equal sin.

[crayon]

[Woodrow]

Isn't it funny how if a religious person says 'hate the sin, not the sinner' in reference to homosexuality, some non-religious people view those comments as bad and homophobic; yet if a non-religious person says 'I like religious people, I just don't like their way of life', it's okay.

The recipient of such backhanded compliments on either side makes no distinction between themselves and their 'lifestyle'. Why do people on Internet forums seem to?

Me? What you do in private is no concern of mine as long as you're not hurting me or anyone else - I do believe that God sees all things, and that everyone should bear that in mind, especially if they're religious.

That's not the issue, though. I'm just clarifying my position in case anyone decides to make an issue out of it. The issue is the hypocrisy of the attitude described in the first sentence of this thread.

Am I right? Wrong? In the middle? Overreacting? In need of a strawberry milkshake?

The recipient of such backhanded compliments on either side makes no distinction between themselves and their 'lifestyle'. Why do people on Internet forums seem to?

It often is the result of too much idle time among juveniles or the result of immaturity. An immature mind has a tendency to believe that if that can say their "lifestyle" and see it in writing, it must be permissible.

Strawberry milkshakes is an ideal choice.

[glo]

I suppose you need to make the distinction between homosexuality, and sodomy (deja vu), since it would be considered wrong to hate someone for what they are rather than what they do or think.

That is a valid observation, it is a good example of what is meant by hate the sin, not the sinner.

I disagree that Azy's observation relates to 'Hate the sin, but not the sinner'

According to my understanding of Islam (please correct me if I am wrong), being homosexual is no sin at all - hence a homosexual is no sinner at all (at least not in the area of his sexuality)

Being sexually active with other men is a sin according to Islam, therefore a sexually active homosexual would be a sinner.

Consequently 'hate the sin' refers to 'disapprove of the homosexual act', and 'but not the sinner' refers to 'don't hate (mistreat) the gay man'.

[Azy]

It is often an error to try to second guess the meaning of another person's words. It is far better to accept a statement as it is written, rather than to try to justify an inner meaning for the purpose of debate.

You may or may not have noticed the question mark. What I said was a request for clarification.

I understand that homosexuality in itself is not a sin so I was wondering why the first poster used "hate the sin, not the sinner" with reference to something that isn't actually a sin.

Am I missing something obvious, because I'd really like someone to spell it out for me if I am.

[YusufNoor]

:sl:

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

that strawberry thingy is making me hungry!

hate the sin? that's NOT a western concept, so if we are talking about gay folks then Muslims should try to understand that "Westerners" "got over this" decades ago!

to try to make my point:

it seems to me that Westerners ARE JUST AS OFFENDED BY REMARKS MADE ABOUT GAY PEOPLE/ACTS as Muslims are about Gay people/acts! and i find Muslims VERY OFFENDED about Gay people/acts!

my wife is a born Muslim and i'm often astonished at the stuff that she says, EVEN when she says them VERY INNOCENTLY!

it's a difficult topic but i think i side with non-Muslims in that some of the things we say can be deemed offensive, THEREFORE i would like to see Muslims, especially in the West, find ways to better articulate Islamic points of view on this topic.

:w:

[Woodrow]

You may or may not have noticed the question mark. What I said was a request for clarification.

I understand that homosexuality in itself is not a sin so I was wondering why the first poster used "hate the sin, not the sinner" with reference to something that isn't actually a sin.

Am I missing something obvious, because I'd really like someone to spell it out for me if I am.

The person is not the sin. The act is the sin. The person need not be guilty of that sin.

So although all people are sinners, they may not be guilty of that specific sin.

The original post does not seem to be meaning the person is a sinner because of being homosexual. We are all sinners,Homosexual, Heterosexual etc. Being a sinner does not require any orientation. We all are sinners.

[Woodrow]

I disagree that Azy's observation relates to 'Hate the sin, but not the sinner'

According to my understanding of Islam (please correct me if I am wrong), being homosexual is no sin at all - hence a homosexual is no sinner at all (at least not in the area of his sexuality)

Being sexually active with other men is a sin according to Islam, therefore a sexually active homosexual would be a sinner.

Consequently 'hate the sin' refers to 'disapprove of the homosexual act', and 'but not the sinner' refers to 'don't hate (mistreat) the gay man'.

You are correct. Azy pointed that out a few posts after you posted this.

[Azy]

The person is not the sin. The act is the sin. The person need not be guilty of that sin.

So although all people are sinners, they may not be guilty of that specific sin.

The original post does not seem to be meaning the person is a sinner because of being homosexual. We are all sinners,Homosexual, Heterosexual etc. Being a sinner does not require any orientation. We all are sinners.

OK yeah, I get all this, I just thought there was a more specific component to the argument but when I read it again it is quite general.

So erm yeah, basically it's hypocrisy if you get called up on that comment.
I think the thing is that non-religious people make the assumption that religious folk hate homosexuality itself, believe it's just deviant to be attracted to the same sex and all that jazz. Going by some of the responses in the homosexuality threads this isn't entirely unexpected, but then it's obviously a bad thing to tar everyone with the same brush.

[Umar001]

As Salaam Alaykum Wa Rahmatullah,

Maybe it should be clarified if it is the case that it is not just the act that is bad but also thinking of it? For sure someone might have tendencies but one should try not to entertain those right?

Like I might look at a woman by accident but I shouln't keep looking, or I might think of a woman by accident but it would be sinful for me to keep willingly thinking of her?

And Allah knows best

[jd7]

I hope this reply isn’t too far off topic.

The answer to the original post is that the “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”.
The prejudice is correct in the eye of the prejudiced person.

Azy a practicing Kleptomaniac should be no more acceptable than a practicing Homosexual.

It still amazes me how the sin of practicing Homosexuality has gained a special status now days.

Azy, any argument beyond that goes to God’s right to regulate his subject’s behavior.

JD7

[jd7]

Azy “religious folk….believe it's just deviant to be attracted to the same sex”.

It IS deviant:

Deviant;
–adjective
1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.
–noun
2. a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm.


How is it NOT deviant?
JD7

[Pygoscelis]

How is it NOT deviant?
JD7

You're right of course, it is deviant, as in not the norm.

But by that meaning of deviant, its also deviant to risk one's life to save another or to give ones fortune to the poor.

As for the OP, I think you're seeing through biased lenses. Its ok for me to say "I like people who are religious but I hate their religion?". Since when is that? I'd get cussed at if I said that most places. In fact, religion is one of the few things left in society that is "holy" and beyond criticism. Merely by making a criticism of a religion you are often told you are launching personal insults at people. In some places they may even kill you for speaking such criticism. Declaring something a "religious view" is one of the few ways we've got left to make the otherwise deplorable sound acceptable and tolerable. Be that discriminating against homosexuals/women/infidels/whatever, mutilating a child's genitals, or denying one's child a blood transfusion and killing them in the process. Try to point out the obvious imorality and you'll be told you need to "respect their religion". I'm sick of that.

[glo]

I take your point, Pygo. And yet, we judge people on their faiths and worldviews all the time.

How often do we hear comments like 'He's a Muslims - but he's still a nice guy' or 'Nice woman - but did you know she's a born-again-Christian?' (By doing so, expressing a certain amount of surprise that a religious person could be nice at all ...:?)

It works the other way too, of course. I remember a young guy in church once talking about his best friend. He said 'He's one of the nicest people I know ... and he's not even a Christian!' That made me laugh!:giggling:

Truth is, we have certain sterotypical ideas of what people of other groups/faiths/cultures are like ...

[Azy]

This was my point, obviously it's not nice to prejudge someone.

The problem I have with this outlook is this:
We like and dislike people because of how they act and think, we judge them by their character.
I imagine most people would think it reasonable that others should be allowed to have their own beliefs even if we don't have to agree with them, but we don't have to like the person who holds them, especially if they are discriminatory.

e.g. KKK members hate people because they're black, now that's ok if you just think it and don't act on it, you're entitled to an opinion but don't expect me to respect that opinion or like you as a person.

On that basis Muslims don't have to respect people who are homosexual or people who think homosexuality is acceptable.
I don't have to respect Muslims on the basis that they don't think homosexuality is acceptable, but I can still get along with them and do so on a daily basis.

"He's a Muslim - but he's still a nice guy" is valid in this context.

[barney]

Yah, Homosexuality is only a sin within the bounds of religion. (and within the bounds of human law up till the early 20th century) But that Human law was based on religious law, so..pffft.

I know what Woody is getting at, but I'll just point out that Theism isnt a "way of life".
Biking is a way of life, I can give it up. Fitness freaks have a way of life. Religious people dont have a way of life, it's something a lot deeper than that.
If we are talking about the "way of life" being wearing the clothes, doing the rituals, not talking to unbeleivers, I dont think many agnostics are too fussed about that.
They are surely more likely to be upset over being shown scripture which, unless interpreted to them by a mainstream "Moderate", just reads as intolerant or violent.

So the phrase "Love the person, dislike the Religion" is more appropriate?

[Muezzin]

As for the OP, I think you're seeing through biased lenses.

Well, it has been a while since my last eye test.

Its ok for me to say "I like people who are religious but I hate their religion?".

Actually, this is what I wrote in my first post:

Isn't it funny how if a religious person says 'hate the sin, not the sinner' in reference to homosexuality, some non-religious people view those comments as bad and homophobic; yet if a non-religious person says 'I like religious people, I just don't like their way of life', it's okay.

Not 'hate', which is a much stronger word.

Since when is that? I'd get cussed at if I said that most places.

The use of conditional tense indicates you may not have actually tried saying that in public.

In fact, religion is one of the few things left in society that is "holy" and beyond criticism. Merely by making a criticism of a religion you are often told you are launching personal insults at people.

And the same happens vis a vis homosexuality. Which is why I like to let God make such judgments. Us mere mortals aren't often in an effective position to sufficiently separate people from actions, unless those actions are extreme (murder, rape, theft etc) - even then, we don't really separate the actors from their acts.

In some places they may even kill you for speaking such criticism.

Okay, fair enough. I've never heard of a place that would kill you for criticising homosexuality.

Although some of the Village People do look pretty scary.

Declaring something a "religious view" is one of the few ways we've got left to make the otherwise deplorable sound acceptable and tolerable. Be that discriminating against homosexuals/women/infidels/whatever, mutilating a child's genitals, or denying one's child a blood transfusion and killing them in the process. Try to point out the obvious imorality and you'll be told you need to "respect their religion". I'm sick of that.

If 'love the religous person, dislike the religion' is valid, 'dislike the sin, not the sinner' must also be valid. That's all I'm saying.

Personally, I would really, really appreciate it if everyone left all this kind of judgement to God or karma or whatever, but hey, that's life.

On that basis Muslims don't have to respect people who are homosexual or people who think homosexuality is acceptable.

Um, no. In this context, Muslims do indeed have to respect people they disagree with. Thus 'hate the sin, not the sinner'. If some dude is openly camp, that absolutely does not give any Muslim the right to start stoning him. However, if that dude is witnessed sodomising someone... that would be the sin, see? Similarly, a woman mustn't be punished for looking a bit... butch. However, if she's caught in the act so to speak, that's where she's committing a sin under Islamic law.

Note: I don't want this to become a discussion of Islamic law, I'm just clarifying. There are plenty of other threads covering that particular topic.

I don't have to respect Muslims on the basis that they don't think homosexuality is acceptable, but I can still get along with them and do so on a daily basis.

Don't confuse 'respect' with 'agreement'. The two are not mutually exclusive.

It amuses me to no end that you brought up the KKK, though. Still, beats invoking Godwin's law.

The KKK hate people for who and what they are, not what they do. Religious people in general are not supposed to hate people for who and what they are, they're supposed to hate their wrongdoing. If religious people do hate people for who and what they are, they become sinners themselves.

"He's a Muslim - but he's still a nice guy" is valid in this context.

Valid, but still ignorant and bigoted-sounding. Just like 'He's gay - but he's still a good guy' or 'She's a woman - but she's still pretty clever' would be ignorant and bigoted-sounding.

[Muslim Knight]

I know what Woody is getting at, but I'll just point out that Theism isnt a "way of life".
Biking is a way of life, I can give it up. Fitness freaks have a way of life. Religious people dont have a way of life, it's something a lot deeper than that.

Of course theism is a way of life. Talk about weaning religion, why do you think we even have the word "apostasy".

However, I can agree with you in the sense that religious people consider it deeper than that rather than just another way of life. Religion is more than a piece of cloth. I've once heard Sufi saying (not that I am a Sufi), to them, the salah prayer is not only obligatory for them, it's their life, without salah it's like being a fish out of water.

[Azy]

However, if she's caught in the act so to speak, that's where she's committing a sin under Islamic law.

Well this is the thing, can you respect people who are wilfully sinful?

What it boils down to is that when you see someone who is performing sodomy or can prove that they have, you are required to call for their execution. You are hating the sin and the sinner.

It's all very well you saying you have to respect people you disagree with, so long as they aren't transgressors of one of your god's rules, otherwise 'respect' suddenly becomes 'stone to death'.

It amuses me to no end that you brought up the KKK, though. Still, beats invoking Godwin's law.

Well I did want to use Hitler but it's pretty much a cliche in these discussions.

Valid, but still ignorant and bigoted-sounding. Just like 'He's gay - but he's still a good guy' or 'She's a woman - but she's still pretty clever' would be ignorant and bigoted-sounding.

Being a muslim is a choice of belief and action, being gay or a woman is not.

If someone was of the opinion that all muslims should be executed, would you be compelled to respect them?

[9.28] O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean.

[KAding]

Isn't it funny how if a religious person says 'hate the sin, not the sinner' in reference to homosexuality, some non-religious people view those comments as bad and homophobic; yet if a non-religious person says 'I like religious people, I just don't like their way of life', it's okay.

But that isn't how Islam approaches homosexuality is it?

Isn't it more like: "It's ok to be homosexual, you just can't practice it", i.e. "I don't mind Muslims, I just don't think they should be allowed to practice Islam"?

If someone would say that I would consider him an Islamophobe/homophobe.

[Abdul Fattah]

But that isn't how Islam approaches homosexuality is it?

Isn't it more like: "It's ok to be homosexual, you just can't practice it", i.e. "I don't mind Muslims, I just don't think they should be allowed to practice Islam"?

If someone would say that I would consider him an Islamophobe/homophobe.

There's a difference. I don't speak for all muslims, but the way I see it it's not: "It's ok to be homosexual, you just can't practice it"
But rather: "It's ok to be homosexual, however practicing it is a sin, so I'd advice against it."
(also note that I have repeatedly questioned whether or not rulings about executing homosexuals are correct)

[Muezzin]

If we are talking about the "way of life" being wearing the clothes, doing the rituals, not talking to unbeleivers, I dont think many agnostics are too fussed about that.
They are surely more likely to be upset over being shown scripture which, unless interpreted to them by a mainstream "Moderate", just reads as intolerant or violent.

So the phrase "Love the person, dislike the Religion" is more appropriate?

Not really. In that context, the phrase 'Love the person, dislike their reading habits' would be more appropriate.

Also, I know you didn't specify Islam, but just to clarify, Muslims are not forbidden from talking to 'unbelievers'. That wouldn't be very respectful, would it?

Well this is the thing, can you respect people who are wilfully sinful?

It depends on the sin. In this case, yes, I can respect people who are wilfully sinful in regards to homosexuality. As I said in my first post. God will decide, not I.

What it boils down to is that when you see someone who is performing sodomy or can prove that they have, you are required to call for their execution. You are hating the sin and the sinner.

Actually, execution and punishment in general are last resorts, but this reasoning has got lost somewhere along the line of certain Muslims' self-indulgent violence. At any rate, executing a homosexual would not solve the problem as perceived by religious people, it would just satisfy certain of their number's bloodlust.

It's all very well you saying you have to respect people you disagree with, so long as they aren't transgressors of one of your god's rules, otherwise 'respect' suddenly becomes 'stone to death'.

No. See above.

Well I did want to use Hitler but it's pretty much a cliche in these discussions.

Tellingly, you would equate Islam and Muslims to either a group of racist thugs or the most recent genocidal maniac in human history. I am beginning to suspect your motives for being here.

Being a muslim is a choice of belief and action, being gay or a woman is not.

Okay. If I said 'Hey, he's a pretty nice guy, even though he's an athiest', or 'hey, she's pretty polite for a feminist' or 'wow, he's got pretty big biceps for a Star Trek fan' you would be fully within your rights to call me an ignorant bigot. Can you see how insulting and degrading those kinds of statements are to the people on the receiving end?

If someone was of the opinion that all muslims should be executed, would you be compelled to respect them?

I'd be compelled to tell them their beliefs are mistaken, and if they act upon those beliefs and actively harm Muslims, no I would not respect them. Also, I'd be interested in understanding exactly why that person holds such a belief.

[9.28] O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean.

In light of that, if you worship idols, I suggest you bathe. If you don't, I suggest you slide the chip off your shoulder.

Isn't it more like: "It's ok to be homosexual, you just can't practice it", i.e. "I don't mind Muslims, I just don't think they should be allowed to practice Islam"?

If someone would say that I would consider him an Islamophobe/homophobe.

Then we actually agree that both statements are equivalent.

Also, I didn't specify Islam, I just said 'religious people'. Logic these days, eh? Going the way of the dodo.

[Azy]

It depends on the sin. Actually, execution and punishment in general are last resorts, but this reasoning has got lost somewhere along the line of certain Muslims' self-indulgent violence.

Whether they are stoned for sodomy, forced into a heterosexual relationship in order to conform to the law or deprived of relationships altogether they are being punished either way.

Okay. If I said 'Hey, he's a pretty nice guy, even though he's an athiest', or 'hey, she's pretty polite for a feminist' or 'wow, he's got pretty big biceps for a Star Trek fan' you would be fully within your rights to call me an ignorant bigot. Can you see how insulting and degrading those kinds of statements are to the people on the receiving end?

There's a slight difference between that and saying "Hey, he's a pretty nice guy, even though he's a gay and now we have to kill him if he doesn't repent"

I'd be compelled to tell them their beliefs are mistaken, and if they act upon those beliefs and actively harm Muslims, no I would not respect them.

Who are you to say they are mistaken? What if their scripture says muslims should die?

In light of that, if you worship idols, I suggest you bathe.

Why not just say people who don't bathe are unclean, rather than idolaters?

[Muezzin]

Whether they are stoned for sodomy, forced into a heterosexual relationship in order to conform to the law or deprived of relationships altogether they are being punished either way.

Where did I suggest any of those as an alternative? Where did I suggest execution as a desirable course of action? Although I suppose taking my words out of context would muddy the waters a little.

There's a slight difference between that and saying "Hey, he's a pretty nice guy, even though he's a gay and now we have to kill him if he doesn't repent"

Where did I suggest we should kill gays? Chips go better with fish than on shoulders.

Who are you to say they are mistaken? What if their scripture says muslims should die?

Show me such scriptures. Also, I did say I would want to understand their point of view. It seems to me you are being deliberately obtuse as to such an obvious point.

Why not just say people who don't bathe are unclean, rather than idolaters?

Why not just stay on topic rather than indulge in non-sequiturs? There are plenty of other threads about such topics.

[barney]

I would Imagine that theres very very few mulsims who on being approached by Graham Norton or Julian Clarey, (known sodomists) would immediatly reach for the rocks.

What Azy i think is saying, is reaching for the rocks is an instruction from scripture. A law perhaps, because if it is what God says he wants, who is a beliver to argue or disagree? Why would they start say, "well its a last resort, first we would invite them through reasoned discussion to cease their activities and acknowlage their sin, failing this we might remonstrate or chastise them verbally, then we might boycott them and refuse to deal or talk with them, then we mightif the persisted in their sin, use any legal means against them, then after this was exhausted, we might demonstrate outside their house, then we might when all else has failed verbally abuse them, and failing this, we might start lightly tapping them on the shoulder with a small twig to remind them of their sin....

You get the drift...

But God diddnt say that. He said stone them with stones till they are dead.

God: He dosnt mess about!

[Muezzin]

I would Imagine that theres very very few mulsims who on being approached by Graham Norton or Julian Clarey, (known sodomists) would immediatly reach for the rocks.

Though they might reach for their own stones.

Sorry. They can't all be funny.

What Azy i think is saying, is reaching for the rocks is an instruction from scripture. A law perhaps, because if it is what God says he wants, who is a beliver to argue or disagree? Why would they start say, "well its a last resort, first we would invite them through reasoned discussion to cease their activities and acknowlage their sin, failing this we might remonstrate or chastise them verbally, then we might boycott them and refuse to deal or talk with them, then we mightif the persisted in their sin, use any legal means against them, then after this was exhausted, we might demonstrate outside their house, then we might when all else has failed verbally abuse them, and failing this, we might start lightly tapping them on the shoulder with a small twig to remind them of their sin....

I appreciate that. Yet, it's all completely outside the scope of this topic which is about the equivalence of the phrases 'hate the sin not the sinner' in the context of homosexuality, and 'I like religious people, I just dislike their way of life'.

Nowhere in the opening post did I mention Islam or Muslims, but rather the generic term 'religious people', but so much for logic.

You get the drift...

But God diddnt say that. He said stone them with stones till they are dead.

God: He dosnt mess about!

I do wonder where exactly this particular divine law is written. Oh well. Again, outside the scope of this particular topic.

[Woodrow]

Well this is the thing, can you respect people who are wilfully sinful?

What it boils down to is that when you see someone who is performing sodomy or can prove that they have, you are required to call for their execution. You are hating the sin and the sinner.

sin is sin is sin. You commit a sin or break a law in any culture or religion and you accept the responsibility of your actions. I used to love sky diving. My wife did not approve of it. My wife loved me. If one day the chute had failed to open, I would have been dead. but, my wife would still love me, in spite of the fact she hated sky diving and I was a sky diver.

It's all very well you saying you have to respect people you disagree with, so long as they aren't transgressors of one of your god's rules, otherwise 'respect' suddenly becomes 'stone to death'.

I respect Rommell as a military strategist. If I had been old enough to serve during WWll, I would have been doing my utmost to destroy him. But, I still respect him highly for having what I consider the best military mind of the 20th century. In my view he was a transgressor. But, he earned respect for his military ability.

Well I did want to use Hitler but it's pretty much a cliche in these discussions.
Being a muslim is a choice of belief and action, being gay or a woman is not.

If someone was of the opinion that all muslims should be executed, would you be compelled to respect them?

The is no paradox in respecting the good and/or strengths a person has. Nor is it paradoxical to respect their right to life, while at the same time see it as a duty to condemn their actions.

[9.28] O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean.

[/QUOTE]

We are not the ones calling idolaters unclean. Even so we are to still treat them justly and fairly.

9:26. Then Allah sent down His tranquillity upon His Messenger and upon the believers, and sent down hosts which you did not see, and chastised those who disbelieved, and that is the reward of the unbelievers. P Y C

9:27. Then will Allah after this turn (mercifully) to whom He pleases, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. P Y C

9:28. O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise. P Y C


Shakir's Quran Translation

[Pygoscelis]

If 'love the religous person, dislike the religion' is valid, 'dislike the sin, not the sinner' must also be valid. That's all I'm saying.

Fair enough, but that isn't what you said. You said "Hate the sin, not the sinner", which is why I changed the other to "hate the religion".

And as I noted, nobody is going to kill you or burn you at the stake or chop your head off, or declare you fit for eternal torture after you die for being against homosexuality. At worst we'll call you irrational or bigotted.
Also note that people even in the more secular west can often use their "faith" as a virtue to get them into public office. For example, no US presidential candidate could be an out of the closet atheist. You have to pretend to be a person "of faith".

I seriously think you've got this double standard backwards.

[Azy]

Where did I suggest any of those as an alternative? Where did I suggest execution as a desirable course of action? Although I suppose taking my words out of context would muddy the waters a little.

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 8, Book 82, Number 820:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

The Prophet cursed the effeminate men and those women who assume the similitude (manners) of men. He also said, "Turn them out of your houses." He turned such-and-such person out, and 'Umar also turned out such-and-such person.

Sunan Abu-Dawud
Book 38, Number 4447:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.

Book 38, Number 4448:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.

Show me such scriptures. Also, I did say I would want to understand their point of view. It seems to me you are being deliberately obtuse as to such an obvious point.

Hypothetical situation, I was hoping you could just humour me for the duration of the discussion.

[glo]

e.g. KKK members hate people because they're black, now that's ok if you just think it and don't act on it, you're entitled to an opinion but don't expect me to respect that opinion or like you as a person.

On that basis Muslims don't have to respect people who are homosexual or people who think homosexuality is acceptable.
I don't have to respect Muslims on the basis that they don't think homosexuality is acceptable, but I can still get along with them and do so on a daily basis.

"He's a Muslim - but he's still a nice guy" is valid in this context.

Now, it would be nice if we could manage not to be prejudiced.

I went on a Diversity and Equality conference not so long ago, and the people present (from all kinds of backgrounds, faiths, races etc) came to the agreement that we all had out own prejudices. Seems to be part of the human condition ...

So perhaps we have to accept that we are prejudiced.

The difference is - as you already said - that we should not act upon our prejudices. It then becomes discrimination: treating people differently (usually in a negative sense) and/or denying them respect and basic human rights on account of their differences.

[Woodrow]

Now, it would be nice if we could manage not to be prejudiced.

I went on a Diversity and Equality conference not so long ago, and the people present (from all kinds of backgrounds, faiths, races etc) came to the agreement that we all had out own prejudices. Seems to be part of the human condition ...

So perhaps we have to accept that we are prejudiced.

The difference is - as you already said - that we should not act upon our prejudices. It then becomes discrimination: treating people differently (usually in a negative sense) and/or denying them respect and basic human rights on account of their differences.

Just have to add this. i went to a similar type conference years ago and the key note speaker began with the statement that "non-prejudiced people are very prejudiced against people who are prejudiced."

[YusufNoor]

.
Being a muslim is a choice of belief and action, being gay or a woman is not.

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

the topic is strange reasoning and THAT INDEED is strange reasoning!

IF Allah [Subhannahu Wa Ta' Alla] calls you to Islam, you obey or face the consequences; if Shaytaan calls you towards any incorrect act actually, you have FREE WILL to listen or not...

and yet i don't see why it appears that some Muslims find an individual being gay is worse than being a polythiest!?

:w:

[barney]

Just have to add this. i went to a similar type conference years ago and the key note speaker began with the statement that "non-prejudiced people are very prejudiced against people who are prejudiced."

I was doing a presentation using a "Brainstorm" technique. Which is people shouting out ideas, no matter how mad, and me writing them down for discussion.
Turns out that "Brainstorm" is discriminating against epileptics.
My Bad.:rollseyes

[glo]

Just have to add this. i went to a similar type conference years ago and the key note speaker began with the statement that "non-prejudiced people are very prejudiced against people who are prejudiced."

LOL
That's brilliant! :D

[jd7]

Pygoscelis and Azy

In light of “What it boils down to is that when you see someone who is performing sodomy or can prove that they have, you are required to call for their execution. You are hating the sin and the sinner”, and the fact the year is later than 40 A.D. I concede to your argument.

I was coming at it from a slightly different angle.
JD7

[Abdul Fattah]

I was doing a presentation using a "Brainstorm" technique. Which is people shouting out ideas, no matter how mad, and me writing them down for discussion.
Turns out that "Brainstorm" is discriminating against epileptics.
My Bad.:rollseyes

Not to mention the snowball effect it might have on people with tourette's. ^_^

[Muezzin]

Fair enough, but that isn't what you said. You said "Hate the sin, not the sinner", which is why I changed the other to "hate the religion".

Fair enough.

And as I noted, nobody is going to kill you or burn you at the stake or chop your head off, or declare you fit for eternal torture after you die for being against homosexuality. At worst we'll call you irrational or bigotted.
Also note that people even in the more secular west can often use their "faith" as a virtue to get them into public office. For example, no US presidential candidate could be an out of the closet atheist. You have to pretend to be a person "of faith".

That's in the US. In the UK, it's controversial for politicians to be associated with faith. Witness the controversy over Tony Blair's recent conversion to Catholocism, for example. But I'm straying now.

I seriously think you've got this double standard backwards.

You know, I rather hope I have got it wrong on a global scale. In the UK, I don't think I have. On a global scale, I'd prefer for people not to judge anyone else for such things and respect people for their actions and all that mushy stuff.

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 8, Book 82, Number 820:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

The Prophet cursed the effeminate men and those women who assume the similitude (manners) of men. He also said, "Turn them out of your houses." He turned such-and-such person out, and 'Umar also turned out such-and-such person.

Sunan Abu-Dawud
Book 38, Number 4447:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.

Book 38, Number 4448:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.

All that is valid under a Sharia state. I do not live in one. The point I was making was about the equivalence of certain phrases, which I accept I did not make clear were in the context of a non-Sharia, secular state.

Also, under those ahadith, one can only be punished for a crime that has been witnessed. It's not as if the act of sodomy in and of itself is going to bring about an instant hail of rocks. It needs to be reported. And since most people conduct such things in private, it's rather difficult to prove a man is a sodomite, no? But, yet again, I'm straying here.

Hypothetical situation, I was hoping you could just humour me for the duration of the discussion.

Alas, my sense of humour sufferred a metaphorical cardiac arrest. Several miligrams of caffeine later, however, it's fighting fit.

[Azy]

sin is sin is sin. You commit a sin or break a law in any culture or religion and you accept the responsibility of your actions.

But there is a difference between breaking a law and committing a sin, particularly in secular states that are based on democratic process.
I could start a religion which held speaking with your mouth full as a sin punishable by death and eternal torment, but how much credibility would that have in the outside world?
Do we accept that even in a state where this is the official religion that another human being who isn't an adherent of that religion shouldn't have to be held to those standards i.e. should state and religion be separate?

Muezzin, I suppose this is related somewhat to your point. How do you go about upholding the law in a secular state, when surely God's law supercedes men's laws. If God has ultimate authority then cannot a shari'a court punish a secular citizien in a secular state under God's laws?

I respect Rommell as a military strategist. If I had been old enough to serve during WWll, I would have been doing my utmost to destroy him. But, I still respect him highly for having what I consider the best military mind of the 20th century. In my view he was a transgressor. But, he earned respect for his military ability.

I'm glad you posted this, I had a good long think about respect last night.
Respect is a very personal thing. Some people hand it out to nearly everyone they meet, othe people hold it for a select few, ultimately it is a personal choice as to which values and aspects you have respect. Also some people choose (as you seem to be able) to separate a person from his actions.
Rommell may be a great strategist and you can respect him for that, but he was also an important part of a genocidal machine. I personally have to take the second part into account when making a judgement with regards to respect.

I realised that I value personal freedoms above most other things when considering how worthy a person is of my respect. Obviously there are other attributes, I respected Richard Pryor as a comedian but then found out about him beating his wife and he lost my respect as I have to weigh up the importance of the two things.

Islam doesn't have a very rosy view of people who have homosexual intercourse or intercourse before marriage, and has punishments which impinge upon personal freedoms but do not seem to gain any benefit from persecuting those involved (unless you count the non-specific and unquantifiable 'harm to society'). This is in breach of my own personal values and as such anyone who chooses to follow those rules would lose respect.

[Woodrow]

But there is a difference between breaking a law and committing a sin, particularly in secular states that are based on democratic process.

And if the majority of the people within the State select religious law, isn't that also a democratic choice of the people?

I could start a religion which held speaking with your mouth full as a sin punishable by death and eternal torment, but how much credibility would that have in the outside world?

Would that be of any concern if the majority of the people of the country agreed with the "religion"?

Do we accept that even in a state where this is the official religion that another human being who isn't an adherent of that religion shouldn't have to be held to those standards i.e. should state and religion be separate?

Is that any different from enforcing secular laws upon people who disagree with them. I like fresh eggs from my own chickens. It is against the law for me to have live chickens in the city of Austin. Is it fair that I can be arrested and pay a large fine because I want fresh eggs?

Muezzin, I suppose this is related somewhat to your point. How do you go about upholding the law in a secular state, when surely God's law supercedes men's laws. If God has ultimate authority then cannot a shari'a court punish a secular citizien in a secular state under God's laws?

NO, we are obligated to follow the laws of the country we live in. If for religious reasons we can not follow the laws, we are obligated to leave the country.

I'm glad you posted this, I had a good long think about respect last night.
Respect is a very personal thing. Some people hand it out to nearly everyone they meet, othe people hold it for a select few, ultimately it is a personal choice as to which values and aspects you have respect. Also some people choose (as you seem to be able) to separate a person from his actions.
Rommell may be a great strategist and you can respect him for that, but he was also an important part of a genocidal machine. I personally have to take the second part into account when making a judgement with regards to respect.

I doubt if it is possible to respect any modern person in all areas. We can only respect in terms of specific qualities or accomplishments.

I realised that I value personal freedoms above most other things when considering how worthy a person is of my respect. Obviously there are other attributes, I respected Richard Pryor as a comedian but then found out about him beating his wife and he lost my respect as I have to weigh up the importance of the two things.

True, but that can also be a division of respect. Respect as a comedian, disrespect as a husband, respect of his rights as a human etc. Respect is a multi-faceted word

Islam doesn't have a very rosy view of people who have homosexual intercourse or intercourse before marriage, and has punishments which impinge upon personal freedoms but do not seem to gain any benefit from persecuting those involved (unless you count the non-specific and unquantifiable 'harm to society'). This is in breach of my own personal values and as such anyone who chooses to follow those rules would lose respect.

Why would a person continue to live in a country they disagree with or refuse to follow the laws of?

[Trumble]

And if the majority of the people within the State select religious law, isn't that also a democratic choice of the people?

'Democratic' or not, it still represents what John Stuart Mill called the 'tyranny of the majority' if that religious law interferes with what the minority choose to do of their own free will that does not harm others ('mere offence' or 'offending public decency' or 'moral values' doesn't count).

Why would a person continue to live in a country they disagree with or refuse to follow the laws of?

Hume this time, in response to Locke (in a surprisingly similar context).. they continue to live there because in practice it's very difficult to just up and go somewhere else. I suspect that's even more true today than it was then.

[Woodrow]

'Democratic' or not, it still represents what John Stuart Mill called the 'tyranny of the majority' if that religious law interferes with what the minority choose to do of their own free will that does not harm others ('mere offence' or 'offending public decency' or 'moral values' doesn't count).

Good point, but it is very difficult to determine what does not harm others if the religious law is allowed to be over ridden by a minority that is interfered with by the law. It seems that if the violation of a religious law truly did not harm others, the violation would not be noticed unless made public by the offender.

The "tyranny of the majority" is a very valid issue to be considered in the writing of laws.

Hume this time, in response to Locke (in a surprisingly similar context).. they continue to live there because in practice it's very difficult to just up and go somewhere else. I suspect that's even more true today than it was then.

I sometimes wonder about that. Is it a question of difficulty or is it a conflict of what a person is willing to do to preserve their personal beliefs and lifestyle? I find many people that are willing to die for their beliefs, but it seems to be a rarity to find someone who is willing to live for them.To live in an area that is in disagreement with ones beliefs means either concession and compromise. Perhaps the issue is not one of difficulty, but one of how much compromise a person will accept, before leaving no matter what the sacrifice is.

[Muezzin]

Guys, there's no 'tyranny of the majority' with me. I'm a single tyrant who will start a mass deleting spree of off-topic posts if the discussion doesn't get back on track. To see what that track is, see the first post.

[Azy]

Isn't it funny how if a religious person says 'hate the sin, not the sinner' in reference to homosexuality, some non-religious people view those comments as bad and homophobic; yet if a non-religious person says 'I like religious people, I just don't like their way of life', it's okay.

Perhaps they didn't think it through properly.

The recipient of such backhanded compliments on either side makes no distinction between themselves and their 'lifestyle'. Why do people on Internet forums seem to?

They've nothing better to do on an evening or maybe your generalising a bit. I wouldn't want to steer this thread off into what sort of people use Internet forums.

Maybe it's because homosexuality as an act is driven by a desire of biological origin. They may see it as unfair that although both are choices, one is a choice that would cause emotional suffering in the person choosing not to sin.

Me? What you do in private is no concern of mine as long as you're not hurting me or anyone else - I do believe that God sees all things, and that everyone should bear that in mind, especially if they're religious.

Seems like a good way to sit on the fence. If you see something sinful, you can appease the religious and denounce it, if it goes on in private you can appease the liberal by minding your own business.

A bit like me arguing for people being able to drive without a seatbelt if noone is looking.

[YusufNoor]

Perhaps they didn't think it through properly.

Maybe it's because homosexuality as an act is driven by a desire of biological origin.

and YET you use the word DESIRE. my dad was an alcoholic and his dad was an alcoholic, it creates a GREAT DESIRE in me to drink. YET, drinking is haraam in Islam so i don't drink.

They may see it as unfair that although both are choices, one is a choice that would cause emotional suffering in the person choosing not to sin.

and YET you REFUSE to ACCEPT that "the choosing not to sin" can lead to any goodness, eh?

If you fear Allah(Subhannahu Wa Ta' Aala), the act of choosing NOT to anger Him can bring MUCH more satisfaction than yielding to haraam DESIRES that offer only temporary fulfillment.

Seems like a good way to sit on the fence. If you see something sinful, you can appease the religious and denounce it, if it goes on in private you can appease the liberal by minding your own business.

so if a Muslim is tolerant, you have a problem with it? you would prefer that the Muslim be outspoken so then you can denounce the Muslim for FEARING Allah(Subhannahu Wa Ta' Aala), and "pat the deviant one on the back " for yielding to his BIOLOGICAL DESIRES?

A bit like me arguing for people being able to drive without a seatbelt if noone is looking.

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

you CAN drive without your seat-belt if no-one is watching!

now if the Muslim is the son of Muslim parents who are the progeny of Muslim parents who are the progeny of Muslim parents who are the progeny of Muslim parents who are the progeny of Muslim parents who are the progeny of Muslim parents, etc, you would argue that FEARING Allah(Subhannahu Wa Ta' Aala), is NOT a desire of biological origin such that choosing to sin could lead to emotional suffering in the person even though they could have chosen to sin?

and NONE of that would be a relevant as the homosexual?

so we need to accept "deviant behaviour" as unavoidable and "painfully necessary" whereas FEARING & OBEYING Allah(Subhannahu Wa Ta' Aala), is somehow on a different plane merely because YOU & others view it as a choice free of pain or happiness? merely an intellectual option with no real consequence [other than religious intolerance]?

do i have that right?

I could start a religion which held speaking with your mouth full as a sin punishable by death and eternal torment

actually, you COULD start a reigion which held speaking with your mouth full as a sin punishable by death BUT you COULD NOT start one which held speaking with your mouth full as a sin punishable by eternal torment as you have no control over eternity. you could say it, but it wouldn't be true...

:w:

[Azy]

and YET you use the word DESIRE. my dad was an alcoholic and his dad was an alcoholic, it creates a GREAT DESIRE in me to drink. YET, drinking is haraam in Islam so i don't drink.

What your father and grandfather did and the impression it made on you has very little to do with your fundamental human processes. I think I should have found a word other than desire, because you seem to ignore 'biological' qualifier when it suits you.
When you are hungry you feel a desire to eat. When thirsty a desire to drink. Mate. Sleep.

I have no doubt that I could choose to resist my biological desire to eat, but what would come of it?

and YET you REFUSE to ACCEPT that "the choosing not to sin" can lead to any goodness, eh?

I fully agree that in many cases choosing not to sin can lead to 'goodness', but not in this case.

so if a Muslim is tolerant, you have a problem with it?

A bit like me arguing for people being able to drive without a seatbelt if noone is looking.

you CAN drive without your seat-belt if no-one is watching!

You seem to be missing the point again. You can drive without your seat-belt if noone is watching, but the question is should I not be concerned by people breaking the law just because I can't see it happening?

now if the Muslim is the son of Muslim parents who are the progeny of Muslim parents who are the progeny of Muslim parents who are the progeny of Muslim parents who are the progeny of Muslim parents who are the progeny of Muslim parents, etc, you would argue that FEARING Allah(Subhannahu Wa Ta' Aala), is NOT a desire of biological origin such that choosing to sin could lead to emotional suffering in the person even though they could have chosen to sin?

I would call this social conditioning. The state of being a muslim is clearly not biological, as most people are not muslims. If sinning would cause you emotional suffering it is because you have spent your whole life creating a habit which would be difficult for you to break, similar to your alcoholic father and grandfather.

and NONE of that would be a relevant as the homosexual?

No.

so we need to accept "deviant behaviour" as unavoidable and "painfully necessary" whereas FEARING & OBEYING Allah(Subhannahu Wa Ta' Aala), is somehow on a different plane merely because YOU & others view it as a choice free of pain or happiness? merely an intellectual option with no real consequence [other than religious intolerance]?

I did not say it was unavoidable. The desire to obey a specific god and his rules is a chosen one. The desire to procreate is not (even if the object of that desire is misdirected).
How would you feel if you were told you had to live your life contrary to your desire, never marry, never be with a woman, die alone.

[YusufNoor]

What your father and grandfather did and the impression it made on you has very little to do with your fundamental human processes. I think I should have found a word other than desire, because you seem to ignore 'biological' qualifier when it suits you.

actually what they did made no impression on me, my grandfather died before i was born and my mom and dad separated when i was 3 or 4. i drank on all my own. they say that "it" is hereditary, that's what i was thinking...

When you are hungry you feel a desire to eat. When thirsty a desire to drink. Mate. Sleep.

I have no doubt that I could choose to resist my biological desire to eat, but what would come of it?
I fully agree that in many cases choosing not to sin can lead to 'goodness', but not in this case.

so, a homosexual MUST give in to the desire! why is that??

You seem to be missing the point again. You can drive without your seat-belt if noone is watching, but the question is should I not be concerned by people breaking the law just because I can't see it happening?

unless you wrote ALL of the laws or agree with all of the laws, why should something that doesn't harm you cause you so much concern? but then let me ask:

should Allah(Subhannahu Wa Ta' Aala), not be concerned by people breaking His laws just because you can't see it happening?

of course, i expect that you are under the impression that YOUR concerns are more important!


I would call this social conditioning. The state of being a Muslim is clearly not biological, as most people are not Muslims. If sinning would cause you emotional suffering it is because you have spent your whole life creating a habit which would be difficult for you to break, similar to your alcoholic father and grandfather.

so why is homosexuality "clearly" biological as most people are not homosexual?? there are over a billion Muslims, i ASSUME that is more than the G,L,B & TG crew!

or do you think that homosexuality is the only genuine genetic defect?

The desire to obey a specific god and his rules is a chosen one.

maybe for all the false religions it is, but when you make the testimony "La Ilaha Ilah Allah Muhammadur Rasulullah, which you DO choose [with Allah's (Subhannahu Wa Ta' Aala) help]; you then MUST conform to Islamic requirements.

The desire to procreate is not (even if the object of that desire is misdirected). if we have a "mandatory" desire to procreate, then why is is harmful for gays to ignore their "unprocreational" like behavior?

How would you feel if you were told you had to live your life contrary to your desire, never marry, never be with a woman, die alone.

by who? and why? (and i'm not a Catholic priest!)

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

i've only been a Muslim for 2 years, but i can't be a real nasty situation if i can't pray on time!

ans there a few things that one has attachments to that were and are difficult to overcome, ie, smoking and listening to music, lowering one's gaze and not getting ticked off. BUT that's one of the whole points of Iman and Taqwa, we move toward a position where we are always[hopefully] removing those impediments. it's called Jihad and a homosexual could fight those same fights if they chose too!

:w:

[Muezzin]

Perhaps they didn't think it through properly.

Probably.

They've nothing better to do on an evening or maybe your generalising a bit. I wouldn't want to steer this thread off into what sort of people use Internet forums.

It's just something I've noticed. It's a failure to see things from the other person's point of view. To religious people (at least the ones who would take issue with such comments), there is no separation between their way of life and themselves. To homosexual people (at least the ones who would take issue with such comments), there is no separation between their sexual orientation and themselves. What I'm saying is both comments are equivalent, both are perceived as an insult, and both are therefore counterproductive. We need to be more tactful, to put it lightly.

Maybe it's because homosexuality as an act is driven by a desire of biological origin. They may see it as unfair that although both are choices, one is a choice that would cause emotional suffering in the person choosing not to sin.

I suppose in this context, 'choosing' has the meaning of 'being forced'. It would cause a religious person emotional suffering if they 'chose' not to practice their religion.

Seems like a good way to sit on the fence. If you see something sinful, you can appease the religious and denounce it, if it goes on in private you can appease the liberal by minding your own business.

A bit like me arguing for people being able to drive without a seatbelt if noone is looking.

Ah, cynicism, the lifeblood of message boards. Even when you try to sit on the fence for argument's sake, someone still takes issue with you. Oh well. I did say my personal opinion was not the issue, I was just making it clear in case someone decided to make it the issue. It seems you were that someone.

In any case, driving without a seatbelt and homosexuality are in no way equivalent. Like you said, the latter is a biological desire. Society in general, secular or religious, does not approve of all biological desires, but if you wish to discuss Islamic rulings on homosexuality there are many, many other threads in which to do so.

[Azy]

It's just something I've noticed. It's a failure to see things from the other person's point of view. To religious people (at least the ones who would take issue with such comments), there is no separation between their way of life and themselves. To homosexual people (at least the ones who would take issue with such comments), there is no separation between their sexual orientation and themselves. What I'm saying is both comments are equivalent, both are perceived as an insult, and both are therefore counterproductive. We need to be more tactful, to put it lightly.

Fair enough.

I suppose in this context, 'choosing' has the meaning of 'being forced'. It would cause a religious person emotional suffering if they 'chose' not to practice their religion.

The difference being that in the case of religion, the driving force behind the choice is another choice, the one of whether to follow a religion, which religion etc.
If you suffer from choosing not to practice it, that's of your own making since you chose to practice it in the first place, which is not the case with homosexuality.

Ah, cynicism, the lifeblood of message boards. Even when you try to sit on the fence for argument's sake, someone still takes issue with you. Oh well. I did say my personal opinion was not the issue, I was just making it clear in case someone decided to make it the issue. It seems you were that someone.

In any case, driving without a seatbelt and homosexuality are in no way equivalent. Like you said, the latter is a biological desire. Society in general, secular or religious, does not approve of all biological desires, but if you wish to discuss Islamic rulings on homosexuality there are many, many other threads in which to do so.

The reason I took you up on that was that something just didn't seem right about it to me and the seatbelt thing was a comparison to my own experience with laws.

I'd find it odd if someone told us it was none of our business if people break the law so long as it's in the privacy of the home.

[Muezzin]

Fair enough.
The difference being that in the case of religion, the driving force behind the choice is another choice, the one of whether to follow a religion, which religion etc.
If you suffer from choosing not to practice it, that's of your own making since you chose to practice it in the first place, which is not the case with homosexuality.

See, Islam regards acting upon homosexual desires a sin. The desire itself isn't. So this notion of choice applies just as much in this context to homosexuality in this context, at least as far as Islam is concerned. I'm unfamiliar with the Christian or Judaic rulings though.

The reason I took you up on that was that something just didn't seem right about it to me and the seatbelt thing was a comparison to my own experience with laws.

If someone doesn't wear a seatbelt, they're risking their own safety and possibly the safety of others. It seems that certain religions view sodomy more like drug use - 'we can't see what you do in private, but God can, and we catch you we'll punish you' sort of thing.

I'd find it odd if someone told us it was none of our business if people break the law so long as it's in the privacy of the home.

Sodomy is not against the law in the UK. It is against Sharia law, but this goes beyond the scope of this thread, really. As long as the law of the land does not prevent Muslims practicing their faith (and I'm talking about the basics like faith, prayer, fasting, charity here, not criminal law), Muslims must comply with it. My own personal view is that, as a Muslim, there are currently much bigger fish to fry in the world than issues of homosexuality. That's about all I can say without driving the thread further off topic.

[Azy]

See, Islam regards acting upon homosexual desires a sin. The desire itself isn't. So this notion of choice applies just as much in this context to homosexuality in this context, at least as far as Islam is concerned. I'm unfamiliar with the Christian or Judaic rulings though.

I 100% understand what you're saying but I think you're missing my point.
Clearly you can choose not to have a physical relationship, but everyone has a biological desire to do so and asking someone to abstain their whole life may well cause them mental anguish.
You could argue the same of someone who chooses to stop practicing religion but the source of that desire is not innate, the desire itself is a result of a previous choice.

It doesn't seem fair to compare the things people do as a result of a chosen desire to those that result from a biological desire.

If someone doesn't wear a seatbelt, they're risking their own safety and possibly the safety of others. It seems that certain religions view sodomy more like drug use - 'we can't see what you do in private, but God can, and we catch you we'll punish you' sort of thing.

I've seen a lot of religious folk claim that just having homosexuals around is damaging to society, I don't know if there's anything in any scripture to warrant that suspicion but it seems to be a widely held belief.

[Muezzin]

I 100% understand what you're saying but I think you're missing my point.
Clearly you can choose not to have a physical relationship, but everyone has a biological desire to do so and asking someone to abstain their whole life may well cause them mental anguish.
You could argue the same of someone who chooses to stop practicing religion but the source of that desire is not innate, the desire itself is a result of a previous choice.

It doesn't seem fair to compare the things people do as a result of a chosen desire to those that result from a biological desire.

It might not seem fair, but in fact it is under Islam. Heterosexual males might have certain biological desires concerning women they could never marry, but if they act upon those desires, they would be committing a sin.

Note I said 'women they could never marry', for whatever reason. Those who are 'out of reach' so to speak, whom religion could not sanctify, the equivalent of the target of a religious homosexual's desire.

Just for the record, I do not advocate marriage as a means to satisfy a bioligical desire. :p

Also, I think you're missing my point which is 'hey, if homosexuals feel insulted by those comments, and religious people feel insulted by these comments, maybe we should all grow up and stop using such comments? They don't foster understanding, they just look petty and arrogant.'

I've seen a lot of religious folk claim that just having homosexuals around is damaging to society, I don't know if there's anything in any scripture to warrant that suspicion but it seems to be a widely held belief.

Then it's a mistaken widely held belief. If God wants another Sodom and Gomorrah, all we have to do is look to the skies, not our baseball bats. And if people really are concerned that kind of scenario will take place in a given locale, they should do the intelligent thing and leave.