Why is Islam so much against homosexuality?

[TheKid]

I've been wondering about this one for a while now. I live in the Netherlands. Recently, there has been a minor incident involving some guys handing out pamphlets that were clearly against homosexuality. They had some biblical and quanic verses to back up their position. These guys have now been arrested and will be criminally charged with inciting hatred against the LGBT community.

So why are these Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) so fervently against homosexuality? Scientists have found strong leads suggesting that homosexuality is highly likely to be natural rather than to be a product from the environment (nature versus nurture). So that begs the question: why would God in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge knowingly create a homosexual only to condemn him or her later? Ask yourself how much sense that makes?

I know about the story of Lot (Loet in Islam) and the city of Sodom and Gomorra being destroyed because of the rampant homosexuality. But is this really a good argument to treat someone bad? Can anyone give me one good rational reason to be against homosexuality?

[islamirama]

So why are these Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) so fervently against homosexuality? Scientists have found strong leads suggesting that homosexuality is highly likely to be natural rather than to be a product from the environment (nature versus nurture).

Scientists find many things only to be proven wrong time after time as more evidence and research comes into play down the road. We are not bound by finite knowledge and reasoning of man.

So that begs the question: why would God in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge knowingly create a homosexual only to condemn him or her later? Ask yourself how much sense that makes?

This is based on your first statement being a fact, which it is not. Studies can be curtailed to any way you want them, depending on who is funding it and what the motive is. God in his infinite wisdom warned the people of this sinful abomination and punished the people like none before them to set an example. It doesn't make sense to you because you are putting man's knowledge before God's.

I know about the story of Lot (Loet in Islam) and the city of Sodom and Gomorra being destroyed because of the rampant homosexuality. But is this really a good argument to treat someone bad?

I think the story requires a revisit to the Quranic verses in question. Maybe you didn't see the answer in there.

“And (remember) Loot (Lot), when he said to his people: ‘Do you commit the worst sin such as none preceding you has committed in the ‘Aalameen (mankind and jinn)?

81. ‘Verily, you practise your lusts on men instead of women. Nay, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds (by committing great sins).’

82. And the answer of his people was only that they said: ‘Drive them out of your town, these are indeed men who want to be pure (from sins)!’

83. Then We saved him and his family, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind (in the torment).
84. And We rained down on them a rain (of stones). Then see what was the end of the Mujrimoon (criminals, polytheists and sinners)”
[al-A’raaf 7:80-84]

“Verily, by your life (O Muhammad), in their wild intoxication, they were wandering blindly.
73. So As‑Saihah (torment — awful cry) overtook them at the time of sunrise.
74. And We turned (the towns of Sodom in Palestine) upside down and rained down on them stones of baked clay.
75. Surely, in this are signs for those who see (or understand or learn the lessons from the Signs of Allaah).

76. And verily, they (the cities) were right on the highroad (from Makkah to Syria, i.e. the place where the Dead Sea is now)”
[al-Hijr 15:72-76]

Can anyone give me one good rational reason to be against homosexuality?

Because God said so isn't rational enough for you?

as to why it is forbidden, check here: https://islamqa.info/en/10050

[Delete.]

Firstly, Islam differentiates between homosexual behaviour and having homosexual thoughts. The first is punishable and the second is not, it is a Jihad to fight these thoughts. God created man with the fitrah (natural disposition), and all Wisdom is with Him, we have but very little knowledge. We all fight our own battles, and ultimately the purpose of living in this world is to attain Paradise by obeying Allah and His Messenger, by sacrifice and struggle.

Why would God create homosexuals is like asking why would He create rapists, murderers, oppressive rulers, abuse of all kind (physical, mental, verbal). The list never ends and it is not a logical argument. We don't have even an atom's weight of God's Wisdom. What we are prescribed is for our own good, to attain Paradise, which is our true home. This world has good and evil, and God created it with His Wisdom. Without evil, there would be no concept of good whatsoever. And without evil, this world would be Paradise, which defeats the purpose of it to begin with.

Homosexuality goes against the fitrah. It is shameful, immoral, and has brought countless diseases to mankind, AIDS being just one of them. It causes great harm to the individual, the people who surround him/her, and society.

As you requested, I will not bring up the argument of the people of Lot (peace be upon him).

As for your claim that they are treated "badly".. Openly committing homosexual acts is shameful and unnatural, and the one who commits them should be punished. But Allah says:
"And the two persons among you who commit illegal sexual intercourse, hurt them both. And if they repent (promise Allah that they will never repeat, i.e. commit illegal sexual intercourse and other similar sins) and do righteous good deeds, leave them alone. Surely, Allah is Ever All-Forgiving (the One Who forgives and accepts repentance), (and He is) Most Merciful" Quran 4:16

This verse refers to fornication and homosexuality. Allah knows best.

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "... cursed is the one who has intercourse with an animal, cursed is the one who does the action of the people of Lot."

What we are prescribed to do (or not to do) is good for our souls and never is Allah unjust. He is the Most Wise, and the Most Just. And we hear and we obey.

Allah knows best.

[TheKid]

Scientists find many things only to be proven wrong time after time as more evidence and research comes into play down the road. We are not bound by finite knowledge and reasoning of man.

Yes, that can certainly be the case. But you do realise that as time went by and more research was done, the evidence supporting the view that homosexuality is natural only got stronger right?
Yeah, our knowledge is finite. But the only way to increase our understanding of this world and the universe is through science. You claim not to be bound by this. So what makes you so much more superior to others then? What do you have that scientist apparently don't?

Because God said so isn't rational enough for you?

Where is the evidence that this is the word of God? Reality is that the religious have yet to prove God's existence, let alone that the Quran is his word. So this argument is certainly not convincing enough for me to condemn people for the way they are.

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

[TheKid]

Firstly, Islam differentiates between homosexual behaviour and having homosexual thoughts. The first is punishable and the second is not, it is a Jihad to fight these thoughts.

But surely you realise that one is the logical consequence of the other. I'm a heterosexual for example (and I assume you are too). I am sexually attracted to the opposite sex. As a consequence of this I want to have sexual intercourse with women from time to time. Don't you think it is extremely hypocritical to say that sex for heterosexuals (within marriage, I'm aware of that otherwise it's zina) is allowed, however it's not for homosexuals? What is the key difference between the two then? Intercourse is intercourse right?

Homosexuality goes against the fitrah. It is shameful, immoral, and has brought countless diseases to mankind, AIDS being just one of them. It causes great harm to the individual, the people who surround him/her, and society.

What is so immoral about it? Don't you think that actively condemning it based on no good rational reason whatsoever is much more immoral than homosexuality is? You can catch AIDS from a siringe and guess what? Heterosexual sex is also harmful to one's health if practised unsafely. And what great harm does homosexuality cause to society? It's not a terrorist organisation now is it?

[Delete.]

Where is the evidence that this is the word of God? Reality is that the religious have yet to prove God's existence, let alone that the Quran is his word. So this argument is certainly not convincing enough for me to condemn people for the way they are.

The evidence is the Qur'an, it absolutely could not have been written by Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) let alone any human on the face of the Earth at that time, because of the knowledge it contains of the future (which science actually agrees with now), and the reaffirmation of previous knowledge that was unknown to anyone in the Arabian peninsula at that time. To this day, no one has been able to recreate anything like it, from the very detailed set of Laws, to the knowledge that no human on Earth had (scientists are just now starting to discover things that the Qur'an already stated, which were impossible to know at that time because of the inability to travel in space or perform in depth medical procedures yet it is all stated in the Qur'an), everything about the Qur'an is evidence that it is God's Word. It was compiled over 23 years with zero contradictions.

You can disagree with the Laws, homosexuality, punishments, etc. But if you are truly being rational, you cannot deny it is the Word of God.

The language of the Qur'an is evidence in itself because there was absolutely no one who could argue it's miraculousness so it was declared by the unbelievers as "magic". They themselves had no argument against the Qur'an except this one, and they lived in that time!

Allah knows best.

[Delete.]

But surely you realise that one is the logical consequence of the other. I'm a heterosexual for example (and I assume you are too). I am sexually attracted to the opposite sex. As a consequence of this I want to have sexual intercourse with women from time to time. Don't you think it is extremely hypocritical to say that sex for heterosexuals (within marriage, I'm aware of that otherwise it's zina) is allowed, however it's not for homosexuals? What is the key difference between the two then? Intercourse is intercourse right?

No, incorrect. You seemed to have missed my whole first argument! It's not hypocritical at all because like the punishment for homosexuality, there is a punishment for zina. The key difference between the two, logically, is that sex between man and women is natural, and homosexuality is not. (Refer to my first argument as I have explained all of this.)

What is so immoral about it? Don't you think that actively condemning it based on no good rational reason whatsoever is much more immoral than homosexuality is? You can catch AIDS from a siringe and guess what? Heterosexual sex is also harmful to one's health if practised unsafely. And what great harm does homosexuality cause to society? It's not a terrorist organisation now is it?

We are commanded to forbid all evil, and enjoin what is good. Homosexuality is an evil (because of what I explained to you in my first argument). It goes against the fitrah of humans, it has clear consequences (physically and mentally) to not just the people committing the sin, but society as a whole. AIDS, HIV, and if you want to bring science into it: Science has proven that homosexual couples have a shorter lifespan than their heterosexual counterparts, child molestation is higher for homosexual adults compared to heterosexual, children raised in a homosexual home experience more problems (proved by science experiments), science has also proved that the media plays a huge role in people's homosexual tendencies (going back to your "born gay" theory), homosexual sex is linked to dangerous behaviour (use of weapons, drugs, etc), and if that's not enough, you can't reproduce by having homosexual relations. This in itself is enough to prove that it is not natural. And if you'd like to know more of the dangerous effects of homosexuality on society then I am sure you can find them on Google with a quick search!

Side note: I saw your subtle slip of mentioning terrorism and I'd like to kindly inform you that Islam condemns terrorism of all sorts.

Allah knows best.

[Al Sultan]

Intercourse is intercourse right?

Not with men kid,that leads to AIDs,lol you never knew that??!!

It's because God made women for us,to see who will follow the rules,and who will not,as simple as that.

[*charisma*]

So why are these Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) so fervently against homosexuality? Scientists have found strong leads suggesting that homosexuality is highly likely to be natural rather than to be a product from the environment (nature versus nurture).

So are you saying that homosexuals are born gay? I don't think there's clear evidence that supports this completely. I'm from the opinion that suggests that sexuality is indeed a spectrum, and humans in general can have tendencies towards the same sex if they wanted to or are seduced in that way. If there is clear evidence that they are born this way, then it should be considered a disease since it is not "normal" and if they are not, then they can find ways to control their desires.

So that begs the question: why would God in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge knowingly create a homosexual only to condemn him or her later? Ask yourself how much sense that makes?

It makes sense because God is infinite in wisdom and knowledge. You cannot understand it, or it does not make sense to you because you are not infinitely knowledgable or wise.
You can pretty much ask this question in regards to anything that you disagree with. In life, we are tested in different ways. Homosexual desires is just one of the ways some people are tested.

But is this really a good argument to treat someone bad? Can anyone give me one good rational reason to be against homosexuality?

In what ways have you seen homosexuals being treated badly by Muslims?

We don't pick and choose what we want to follow out of our religion, otherwise we are creating our own belief system. Sexuality in of itself in Islam is meant to be a private matter. Women and men both have to lower their gazes and protect themselves from unlawful sex. If someone wants to be a homosexual, that's on him, but there's no reason to publicize it and make it a huge ordeal as is being done. We are now living in such a debauchery where everything has to be driven through sexual innuendos, pornography, immodest behavior, homosexuality, etc. and people want to make the argument that "it's not harming anyone physically" but what about spiritually or psychologically? Yes homosexuality is being used as a driving force to make a hypersexual society normal. Homosexuality is a sexual deviancy just as much as pedophilia, affecting a small percentage of the population, but because "society" has to be sensitive to the issue of homosexuality, it is no longer considered as such.

[Karl]

Why is Islam so much against homosexuality?
Because it is a tenet of Islam.
Why are atheists, liberals etc. So fanatically against men having sex with their horse? Or "under age sex"? And other so called "paraphilias"? If homosexuality is ok, shouldn't it be just anything goes? What are all these prudish hang ups then?
Can't you see your hypocrisy?

BTW I am not into horses, but just trying to make a point.

[eesa the kiwi]

And then when western morals decline even further i wouldnt be surprised if we get someone coming on here and going "Why is Islam so against incest"
homosexuality is a perversion from the shaitaan



Dont blame me for being a homophobe, i was born that way

[sister herb]

Some scientists have revealed their studies and claim that also pedophilia is "a nature rather than to be a product from the environment". By their studies, pedophiles born to be pedophiles. Should we then accept it as "normal", change the laws and stop discriminations against them? Only few decades ago homosexuality was crime and sickness in the most of the western countries. Do we now need to wait few more decades before some groups start to demand equality and rights for them too? (And make accusations against religions as they still are so old-fashion that they don´t accept such natural features.)

What might be next the perversity of the human mind which will become "natural" by some liberal scientists? Maybe an anthropophagy?

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Can anyone give me one good rational reason to be against homosexuality?

The best reason you will be given is "God says so". But when people violently attack homosexuals and use the Qur'an and ahadith to justify their actions, you will be told that this has nothing to do with Islam.

Peace

[sister herb]

Greetings,



The best reason you will be given is "God says so". But when people violently attack homosexuals and use the Qur'an and ahadith to justify their actions, you will be told that this has nothing to do with Islam.

Peace

That´s correct. The God doesn´t says to us to violently attack against other people but guide them to leave their bad habits and avoid the sins. ;)

[anatolian]

Greetings,



The best reason you will be given is "God says so". But when people violently attack homosexuals and use the Qur'an and ahadith to justify their actions, you will be told that this has nothing to do with Islam.

Peace

Peace. The best answer for any question regarding Islam is "Allah says so" for sure no matter for what subject it is. This is just like a child refusing a stranger and saying because my father/mother says so. However, there is a wisdom in every commendment, encouragement and prohibition of Allah.

So you think people using Quran and Hadith for their actions neccesarily mean those actions have a real base in these sources? People sometimes interpret the same verses with very different ways and act very differently. This is why we see different madhabs in Islam. The essential point here is to understand the basic and ultimate message of Islam and approach these incidents with this understanding.

[Al Sultan]

If you didn't know,the homosexuals who had sex will be questioned if they meant or not,if they SINCERELY said they couldn't control their desires and tell the truth,they will be forgiven,it says in the hadith,i forgot it though,but if he doesn't say the truth and says something like "Hey I do what I want ok?" both of them will be hurt.


Peace

[kritikvernunft]

So why are these Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) so fervently against homosexuality? Can anyone give me one good rational reason to be against homosexuality?

The legitimacy of sex is ultimately vested in the fact that it is required for the reproduction from generation to generation. As soon as it gets treated as just another form of entertainment, the entire behavioural pattern around sex and reproduction quickly becomes untenable. That is also, for example, what the feminists complain about. The sacrifices demanded from women are too high. We can only counter that feminist argument by asserting that these sacrifices are required for successful reproduction from generation to generation. The entire edifice of humanity, and actually of life itself, rests on the fact that reproduction is an overruling concern. Hence, it is not possible to legitimize or otherwise endorse sexual behaviour that is completely divorced from reproduction, and that would just be some form of entertainment.

The concern of reproduction is itself, however, not -- or barely -- rational.

Indeed, why would anybody care whether a next generation will be around, when we will be gone already? Still, we are all descendants of people who made the otherwise irrational choice to spend effort to launch the next generation. Most of your own ancestors are today dead already. So, what difference would it make to them? Why did they spend so much effort raising the children who raised their own children, and turtles all the way down, ultimately ourselves? In other words, we only exist for reasons that are simply irrational. These reasons do not have a rational but only possibly a metaphysical explanation.

So, yes, reproduction from generation to generation must have some kind of sacred purpose, and religion overrules individual preferences on those grounds. In that sense, I do not endorse the behaviour of people in the LGBT community.

Concerning the act of arresting and criminally charging with inciting hatred against the LGBT community, the people doing the arresting and criminally charging will at some point have to prove that they are willing to risk their lives and die for what their believe in. That will be a moment of truth. They very well know that this moment cannot be eternally delayed. At same time, we can rationally suspect that this proof will remain elusive.

[crimsontide06]

This video will answer your question, the speaker specifically uses homosexuality as an example, in the first 11 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReboWgK3VnM

I've been wondering about this one for a while now. I live in the Netherlands. Recently, there has been a minor incident involving some guys handing out pamphlets that were clearly against homosexuality. They had some biblical and quanic verses to back up their position. These guys have now been arrested and will be criminally charged with inciting hatred against the LGBT community.

So why are these Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) so fervently against homosexuality? Scientists have found strong leads suggesting that homosexuality is highly likely to be natural rather than to be a product from the environment (nature versus nurture). So that begs the question: why would God in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge knowingly create a homosexual only to condemn him or her later? Ask yourself how much sense that makes?

I know about the story of Lot (Loet in Islam) and the city of Sodom and Gomorra being destroyed because of the rampant homosexuality. But is this really a good argument to treat someone bad? Can anyone give me one good rational reason to be against homosexuality?

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Greetings,

The best reason you will be given is "God says so".

In metaphysical terms, that is indeed the best reason. And when we come to the question of metaphysics, I have already told you previously that the thing to understand is not why "God say so" but to investigate if there is a God.

But when people violently attack homosexuals and use the Qur'an and ahadith to justify their actions, you will be told that this has nothing to do with Islam.

Peace

You have have taken a jab at us with the last line even though you've ended the post with the word "[p]eace." :uhwhat That's not fair or honest, is it? :?

Let me explain in terms you'd understand or at least I hope so as you're in a teaching position.

Let's say you go into a classroom on the first day and say the following words to your elementary school fourth-grade students, "I welcome you to my classroom and expect that you are all bright young pupils. Since I know that you are all bright, I expect all of you to use that gift of intelligence to work hard. I do not want any of you to get a failing grade because I know that none of you are 'stupid'"—"but having said that, I also realize that none of you are perfect. I will work with you in any capacity you need me to but I expect in turn that you know that I will not give you a grade that you don't deserve. If you fail, you will fail on your own merit. If you do excellent, you will achieve that excellence on your merit. My hope is that all of you achieve excellence in my classroom and that you hold one another as peers accountable to achieving that collective excellence in my classroom."

There's Pupil X in your classroom, who, on a midterm, scores a failing grade. Now, when Pupil X was on the bus, he took out his paper to see how he could have done so badly that he failed. Pupil Z saw him take out that paper and smiled to himself. So, the next day, during recess hour, Pupil Z on the playground said out loud to the playground, "X is stupid. He's so stupid he failed the midterm." Then, Pupil Z pushed Pupil X into the ground and kicked him to the chants of his friends saying, "Stupid, stupid, stupid."

Now, I have a couple of questions for you.
1. Is what you said in the first day of your classroom responsible for what happened to Pupil X?
2. Did Pupil Z follow your instruction?
3. Should you have not said anything about failure at all?
4. Are you sadistic for talking about your expectations of your classroom pupils?

Just generally, however, I'd like to ask one more thing in another scenario not related to the first one at all:
Say you've been teaching for 20 years. If, tomorrow, you read in the papers one of your high school students committed a heinous murder and his defense is that you are responsible for that murder because that the book you assigned him in the classroom called Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger had an adverse psychological effect on him. Is your reaction ever, "I and this book should be tried in the court of public opinion for the moral and psychological failing of my student in committing a murder!" Or do you say to yourself and the public and the courtroom if need be: "Actions of people are their own individual responsibility and shifting of any blame is inexcusable."

Wishing you good judgment because I already know you're intelligent,

[czgibson]

Greetings,

You have have taken a jab at us with the last line even though you've ended the post with the word "[p]eace." :uhwhat That's not fair or honest, is it? :?

I am reporting what happens whenever this issue arises. There is nothing dishonest in what I have written. I hope for peace, and stand in opposition to religiously justified violence.

My hope is that all of you achieve excellence in my classroom and that you hold one another as peers accountable to achieving that collective excellence in my classroom.

This is a stupid thing for a teacher to say. Pupils can encourage each other, but holding each other "accountable" is too much temptation for a bully.

1. Is what you said in the first day of your classroom responsible for what happened to Pupil X?
2. Did Pupil Z follow your instruction?
3. Should you have not said anything about failure at all?
4. Are you sadistic for talking about your expectations of your classroom pupils?

1. Partly, yes.
2. Yes.
3. Not necessarily.
4. No.

Is your reaction ever, "I and this book should be tried in the court of public opinion for the moral and psychological failing of my student in committing a murder!" Or do you say to yourself and the public and the courtroom if need be: "Actions of people are their own individual responsibility and shifting of any blame is inexcusable."

Although I don't think those are the only two possible reactions, I would tend towards the former. The Catcher In The Rye is a book that depressed adolescents may identify with, but it certainly does not directly encourage murder, and I think a court would see that clearly.

When IS shout "Allahu Akbar" and then throw a homosexual off a tall building, how do you analyse the behaviour of the crowd of people watching and then throwing stones at the dead body after it hits the ground? It's no longer individual behaviour at that stage, and as a group they feel justified in their collective action. To say this has nothing whatever to do with Islam is to ignore the obvious facts of the situation.

Peace

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Greetings,

I am reporting what happens whenever this issue arises. There is nothing dishonest in what I have written. I hope for peace, and stand in opposition to religiously justified violence.

If so, I am happy to be corrected. However, is that the only kind of violence there is - the "religiously justified violence"? I hope we can stand against all kinds of violence, right?

I stand for peace too. And a majority of Muslims do too. And you should already know this because you've been with us for 11 years. In 11 years, I hope you have learned enough to know that we're a amalgam of individuals and not every action that looks to have stemmed from religion is actually religiously-motivated.

This is a stupid thing for a teacher to say. Pupils can encourage each other, but holding each other "accountable" is too much temptation for a bully.

I have studied in schools; and so have you. I had a math teacher, algebra teacher specifically, who had us hold each other accountable by assigning us to a number of groups comprising of even individuals based on the scores we had on individual tests. So, basically the lowest scorers were put in a group of the lowest scorers and the highest scorers were put in the group of the highest scorers. And in the group, we'd have to consult each another on what final answers we were going to put on the test; and I know that I am really bad in maths. But because of this accountability and not being able to count on another person in the group, I ended up getting really high marks because I'd study more. So, peer accountability does work, and I rather think it's not "stupid." In fact, we have a court system based on the fact that we hold people accountable to us a society - again, not "stupid." Yes, it is probably still temptation for someone to do vigilante justice, but that does not mean that the justice system is responsible for such "temptation" on the part of the individual to hold another accountable.

1. Partly, yes.
2. Yes.
3. Not necessarily.
4. No.

czgibson, a question, do you really think others would probably agree with you on this? I have a feeling that they wouldn't. And not surprisingly, I disagree with you on those first two answers; I think what's really happened probably is that you're overreaching as to attached responsibility.

But just so you know, I was bullied when I was in middle school. I was gangly, awkward, studious, and shy - all the wrong combinations to be in middle school. And it happened because I think I was easier to pick on because any of those things made me an an easier target among my peers. I was also dubbed "a teacher's pet" - exactly the wrong thing to be in middle school.

So, you know what, the idea that a teacher or a label can make someone do something to someone like bullying as in the aforesaid scenario is entirely wrong because even at that age individuals are acting on their own ideas and interpretations of what is appropriate even when they know those interpretations are unjustified and wrong.

And you know a funny thing? Specific to bullying that I experienced in middle school, I believe we had an anti-bullying rally as well. Didn't seem to work really in anyone's favor in terms of the fact that children still bullied other children who were easier targets, and sadly I happened to number one of them.

Although I don't think those are the only two possible reactions, I would tend towards the former. The Catcher In The Rye is a book that depressed adolescents may identify with, but it certainly does not directly encourage murder, and I think a court would see that clearly.

Well, you are right it does not directly encourage murder; but a number of serial killers have been found to be inspired by this great classic. Mark David Chapman, the killer of John Lennon, particularly loved that book and proceeded to read it again after the killing but before being arrested. John Hinckley, the man who attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan, also seemed to have an affinity for the book. And Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin of John F. Kennedy, is said to have been quite fond of the book as well. So, my question is Catcher in the Rye an assassination trigger? I don't think it is because I've read the book; and believe me, I've not wanted to assassinate anyone. Books don't kill people; people kill people.

When IS shout "Allahu Akbar" and then throw a homosexual off a tall building, how do you analyse the behaviour of the crowd of people watching and then throwing stones at the dead body after it hits the ground? It's no longer individual behaviour at that stage, and as a group they feel justified in their collective action. To say this has nothing whatever to do with Islam is to ignore the obvious facts of the situation.

Okay, well, let's examine this too. I have two thoughts in my mind, and I'll share both of them.

Have you heard of the group called "Children of God"? So, basically, the families involved in this group practice polyamory with adults and children as a way of experiencing divine and neighborly love. So, basically, anyone can have sex with anyone except same-sex in the case of males. This is a Christian fundamentalist group that is known as a "cult" and they use specifically Matthew 22:37–40 and Galatians 5:14 as the ostensible bases for this belief. Now, you come from a Catholic background, and I want you to tell me how plausible you think the interpretation is specific to sharing said love with children no matter how young. In 1986, this group's self-regulation in terms of law had been modified, but the actual ground reality is that people are still having sex with children in that group. Obviously, this is considered by Christians a heretical group and for good reasons. Also, coercion and rape have been used in the group; and unsurprisingly, the group has experienced police raids.

My personal understanding is that anybody can take anything - book, video games, pamphlet, magazine, movie, television - and use it to justify whatever no matter how much mental gymnastics a person has to do to get there; but at the end, the fact remains that the persons involved in these actions are solely accountable.

I actually talked to a Daesh member on the Internet and read many of his exploits which he'd shared. He actually confessed to the deed that you've just enumerated. The victim was not afforded any trial because this Daesh member said that the guy had started crying and then confessed when he was questioned about doing a homosexual act. And so he was murdered in the way that you've just described. Now, just facially, there are lots of problems with this and apart from the fact that there was no trial and no reporting to a judge and no 4 witnesses and that the person had not merited any examination as to the age, mental state, or willingness of engagement in the act. The first thing is that Islam is holistic; Muslims cannot cherry-pick what to apply and when due to convenience or expediency because the purpose of Islamic jurisprudence is to serve both justice and mercy (for all).

Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Ward off the hudood punishments from the Muslims as much as you can. If there is any possible way for the accused, let him go. For a judge to err in pardon is better than his erring in punishment.” Hudood in Arabic means "limit" or "restriction."

In another hadith (prophetic tradition), we have Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) saying, “Ward off the hudood with the doubts (shubuhaat).”

We also know Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Whoever conceals [the faults, offenses] of a Muslim, Allah will conceal his in this world and the Hereafter.” So, we know that even if a person has committed a transgression against God's rights like illegal intercourse of which we somehow happen to learn, the immediate thing any Muslim should do is conceal that transgression that that person committed and take that knowledge of that person's sin to our grave.

In one case, one of the Sahaba :ra: encouraged another Sahaba :ra: to confess his specific illegal intercourse to Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) and this is what Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Woe to you, O Hazzal. If you had veiled him with your mantle it would have been better for you.”

Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Forgive the hudood among you. But should a hadd case reach me, punishment is certain.”

And there are so many ahadith (prophetic traditions) on seeking personal forgiveness and atonement from Allah and not sharing your sins with others that I can probably fill the entire Internet page and it still wouldn't be enough or do justice as to what has been said about this in both the Qur'an and the ahadith (prophetic traditions).

The aim of Islamic jurisprudence is God-consciousness and spiritual reformation and enlightenment of the individual in addition to deterrence of criminality in society. Indeed, the focus of ordinances in Islam is the reform and betterment of individuals, societies and nations. The aim of Islamic jurisprudence is not punishment or vengeance, and anyone who doesn't understand that hasn't understood Islam and should repent for his/her inclination to do injustice and not think that such ignorant and barbaric inclinations are either the purpose of Islam or the will of Allah.

By the way, czgibson, be careful lest one day you find yourself in the position of having to defend your actions as a teacher for any wrong that your student has committed of his/her own accord; I am sure you might then be more likely to defend exactly what I'm telling you here because I do believe I'm right even if you're not going to concede this right now.

Perverting words or ideas to justify the worst tendencies in ourselves as human beings is the vindication of the unjust and an exemption; I don't believe any criminal groups like Daesh deserve that, and I don't think you do either. In time, giving people any ammunition to say that so-and-so caused me to do so-and-so is trying to exempt persons from personal accountability for any wrongs committed. Do we say that environmentalists or environmental lobbyists or their programs and education efforts cause others similar-minded as an individual or a group to commit eco-terrorism? Do we say that women being sexual attractive or wearing sexually provocative clothing causes a man to lose his head and rape her? Really, you are opening a Pandora's box with this line of thinking and it won't stop until it becomes the end of us all as moral persons and as a society desiring to do justice on the basis of that regardless of whether religion is involved or not. However, when religion does become involved with any specific person or group committing injustice in its name, I believe it becomes paramount that we not let them get away with blaming ideas from the religion for so-and-so because doing so would give them a get-out-of-jail-free card, exactly what we don't want to have happen.

[Delete.]

@Search - Masha Allah sister. BarakAllahu fiki wa JazakAllahu khayr, that was very interesting. أُحِبُّكِ فِي اللَّهِ May Allah bless you with goodness.

[czgibson]

Greetings, Search,

You've written a lot, as you often do, and I fear I won't have time to respond to all of it. I will say that it's remarkable how many words you've devoted to the task of denying the obvious connection between instructions to kill homosexuals in Islamic scripture and Muslims carrying out those instructions.

Well, you are right it does not directly encourage murder; but a number of serial killers have been found to be inspired by this great classic.

It is well-known that the book has been associated with assassins. This is a coincidence. I'm not aware of the serial killer connection.

Mark David Chapman, the killer of John Lennon, particularly loved that book and proceeded to read it again after the killing but before being arrested.

True. He was also a fundamentalist Christian who was disgusted by John Lennon's atheism, as expressed in some of Lennon's songs such as 'God' and 'Imagine'. More religiously motivated violence?

John Hinckley, the man who attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan, also seemed to have an affinity for the book.

It was found among his possessions by police at his home, but as far as I know he wasn't obsessed with it like Chapman was.

And Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin of John F. Kennedy, is said to have been quite fond of the book as well.

Again, I think it was found among his possessions. Was he the assassin, though? That's a whole other discussion.

So, my question is Catcher in the Rye as assassination trigger? I don't think it is because I've read the book; and believe me, I've not wanted to assassinate anyone.

I don't think it is either.

Books don't kill people; people kill people.

True, but books can certainly help. Your argument is like something from the NRA when they say "Guns don't kill people; people kill people".

If someone reads a book called How To Make Bombs and then uses the information in it to make a bomb, would you deny the connection between the book and his actions?

So, basically, the families involved in this group practice polyamory with adults and children as a way of experiencing divine and neighborly love. So, basically, anyone can have sex with anyone except same-sex in the case of males. This is a Christian fundamentalist group that is known as a "cult" and they use specifically use Matthew 22:37–40 and Galatians 5:14 as the ostensible bases for this belief. Now, you come from a Catholic background, and I want you to tell me how plausible you think the interpretation is specific to sharing said love with children no matter how young.

It's definitely not a reasonable interpretation of those passages. But this gives me an opportunity to mention the point I think you're missing. The problem I am referring to isn't necessarily simply the content of a text, but the attitude of the reader; after all, someone could write a novel that contained a character who gave repeated instructions to kill Frenchmen (for example, War and Peace), but it's unlikely people are going to treat that as a blanket instruction that they would feel obliged to obey.

However, with Islam we are talking about a text (the Qur'an) that is assumed to be perfect, every word of which is to be obeyed, and the life of Muhammad (pbuh), whose character is considered to be perfect and whose actions are to be followed in every respect. When a follower of this person carries out his instructions (even if their interpretation is wrong and they have no authority to do so), denying the connection is to deny the obvious.

Peace

[drac16]

Why would God create someone that He knew would be homosexual? because He wants to be known. The homosexual, in his time of weakness, will realize his need for God. In times of weakness, that's when we realize our need for Him. Homosexuality will never bring a person peace-- there's always a sense of emptiness. Time after time, a homosexual will pursue homosexual practices to try and fill that void, but it never happens. They just want to do it more and more, but it never satisfies. There is hope for anyone who seeks Allah, because He is willing to save such a person, even if they experience homosexual desires.

What that person who is awakened by God must do is acknowledge that these desires come from the ego and pursue the perfect example of our beloved prophet [peace be upon him]. These desires are given over to God and, by the grace of God, that person will become righteous and will be changed. That doesn't necessarily mean that the homosexual desires will cease, but they will be subdued to a point where they are manageable. A person like this should be part and parcel of our community and we should assist them in their spiritual walk.

On the other hand, God can [and sometimes does] increase a person's homosexual desires out of wrath. In other words, He withdraws restraint from that person, thereby increasing their desire to commit sinful acts (this is found in the Qur'an in surah 2:10, where He increases a person's spiritual disease). This is only done after a person turns their back on God and chooses, by their own volition, to live a wicked lifestyle. I believe that most homosexuals fall into this category because most homosexuals want nothing to do with Qur'anic purity and holiness. He seals their heart and, unless they decide to change, are nothing but fuel for Hell.

So is there hope for a homosexual? of course there is. Muhammad [peace be upon him] was a mercy to all of mankind and that includes homosexuals. With that said, most homosexuals alive today will end up in Hell because they want nothing to do with repentance and acknowledging their lowliness before a Holy God. I don't get any joy from saying that, though.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Greetings, Search,

:)

You've written a lot, as you often do,

:p:

and I fear I won't have time to respond to all of it.

:hmm:

I will say that it's remarkable how many words you've devoted to the task of denying the obvious connection between instructions to kill homosexuals in Islamic scripture and Muslims carrying out those instructions.

My friend, if it was so obvious, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, which means that your interpretation of it being so "obvious" is a personal interpretation and not a fact. Facts cannot be denied such as you're an English teacher and were born male. Interpretations such as you're the most wonderful English teacher ever born in U.K. can be denied, even if you think such denials are without merit.

It is well-known that the book has been associated with assassins. This is a coincidence. I'm not aware of the serial killer connection.

Well, it's certainly touted as a book to have inspired serial killers, although it might just be killers.

True. He was also a fundamentalist Christian who was disgusted by John Lennon's atheism, as expressed in some of Lennon's songs such as 'God' and 'Imagine'. More religiously motivated violence?

:uuh::mmokay: You do know he went between Christianity and Satanism, things which couldn't be two more diametrically opposed religions. And he also thought he'd magically turn into the book's protagonist Holden Caulfield once he executed John Lennon. Perhaps you're projecting your biases here, my friend?

It was found among his possessions by police at his home, but as far as I know he wasn't obsessed with it like Chapman was.

Actually, it was found in his hotel room on a coffee table in an FBI investigation named REAGAT.

Again, I think it was found among his possessions. Was he the assassin, though? That's a whole other discussion.

It has been claimed by sources that Oswald was very keen on the book. For the purposes of our discussion, let's assume he was.

I don't think it is either.

I agree with you except I want to know why don't you think so?

True, but books can certainly help. Your argument is like something from the NRA when they say "Guns don't kill people; people kill people".

Well, ;D, I'm an American. And I certainly confess to being "inspired" by that argument as applied to the case of books. I don't find it responsible to let people blame books or guns for their own actions.

If someone reads a book called How To Make Bombs and then uses the information in it to make a bomb, would you deny the connection between the book and his actions?

Think on where your analogy fails. Here, a person with a specific intent seems to read a specific book; the intent I'd argue was not born of reading the book at all but existed prior to reading of that book. In fact, that is an entirely reasonable assumption to make given the outcome.

Also, in this example, the book is clearly for a specific purpose: making a bomb. And there is no other purpose.

Qur'an or ahadith (prophetic traditions), however, are for purposes of worshipful submission to a Most Merciful Allah. It is not about solely or wholly about condemning any groups of people (e.g. homosexuals) but providing a holistic understanding of how a person conscious of God should live his/her life to one's best abilities in perfecting intentions, character, morals, and actions. These religious texts are about providing humanity guidelines about how a connection can be built with Allah; so, we already know from the start that a person has to understand everything in context in order to be able to ascertain how best to be able to inculcate within oneself the values that would allow one to live an exemplary life. Because any words removed out of context of the big picture will never equal the sum of its parts.

It's definitely not a reasonable interpretation of those passages. But this gives me an opportunity to mention the point I think you're missing. The problem I am referring to isn't necessarily simply the content of a text, but the attitude of the reader; after all, someone could write a novel that contained a character who gave repeated instructions to kill Frenchmen (for example, War and Peace), but it's unlikely people are going to treat that as a blanket instruction that they would feel obliged to obey.

Anarchist Cookbook by William Powell could be treated as instruction to obey against one's transgressive government that one would feel obliged to obey or what I'd assume is that people who read the book are already so inspired in that direction, something which I'd already earlier said.

However, with Islam we are talking about a text (the Qur'an) that is assumed to be perfect, every word of which is to be obeyed, and the life of Muhammad (pbuh), whose character is considered to be perfect and whose actions are to be followed in every respect. When a follower of this person carries out his instructions (even if their interpretation is wrong and they have no authority to do so), denying the connection is to deny the obvious.

Let's walk this through so that you can see the other side of the argument. We have people who read the same Qur'an and understand the same emphasis and beauty of emulating the life of Prophet Muhammad :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) but we don't have the same outcomes as to what is adopted in terms of behavior or character or understanding. The majority did not understand and still do not understand the "instructions" in the vein of the modern minority of our time that are responsible for things like murder of homosexuals. So, the logical conclusion is that something else accounts for that disparity in results. I'd say then at that point we know religion cannot be the "obvious" driver of those results in what we see happening with the minority; to ignore that is to be be seeing things through the lens of confirmation bias.

For example, let's take this bit of sophism: When ice cream sales rise, so do homicides. So, ice creams cause homicides. Yup. Isn't that peachy? But wait, is it really valid to conclude that ice cream sales are causing the homicides? The answer is no. However, we can look at when ice cream sales rise, which would likely be during summertime, to discover if that might explain away the correlation. And we know that in the summer the temperatures are higher and probably more people are likely to be out and about as a consequence and also due to the heat more likely to be cranky and impatient with others and so we know that murders can probably be attributed to rise in temperatures. Ice cream is just a nice distraction from the fact that it is not ice cream causing the murders. In fact, empirical studies support that murder rates rise when temperatures rises.

So, I'm saying what you're seeing as a causation or a direct connection is remote enough that I simply don't buy into it; what I find most likely factors to be the drivers of how a person treats homosexuals (which is the the topic of this conversation) are the following: in what country you were born and/or brought up, if you have ever met/known homosexuals, how likely you find in yourself empathy, whether your parents, friends, peers, community members, or congregation have/share an extremely negative bias towards homosexuals, and the ability to sympathize with those whom you don't understand.

Peace

:) Okay, I know, I know. I talk a lot. So, shutting up now.:omg:

*Takes a bow*

*Exits stage*

Wishing you peace,

[kritikvernunft]

If someone reads a book called How To Make Bombs and then uses the information in it to make a bomb, would you deny the connection between the book and his actions?

A book about bombs is not a bomb. It is a book. A book about books about bombs, is not a bomb. It is an index. Expressing information about a future murder, is not a murder. It is information. Attempts to suppress the free flow of information does not pit you against bombers or murderers, but against everybody else.

John Gilmore, 1991: The internet treats censorship as a defect and routes around it.

Technology is something strange. Ultimately, technology is always controlled -- and exclusively so -- by the people who understand it. In that sense, what technology do you believe that political powers could ever use against the very people who control it? Therefore, I can happily guarantee to you that there shall be no censorship powers assigned to politicians. We simply do not endorse any such possibility, nor will we ever facilitate it.

However, with Islam we are talking about a text (the Qur'an) that is assumed to be perfect, every word of which is to be obeyed, and the life of Muhammad (pbuh), whose character is considered to be perfect and whose actions are to be followed in every respect. When a follower of this person carries out his instructions (even if their interpretation is wrong and they have no authority to do so), denying the connection is to deny the obvious.

In the end, there is only one thing that can overrule technology, which is willpower, the monopoly on which is in the hands of the true believers. As long as the true believers keep believing, they will remain unstoppable. Furthermore, all authority emanates from the laws of the Supreme Being, our Beloved Master, the One God, the most merciful Allah. There is no more need to restrain true believers who misinterpret Divine Law than corrupt politicians who abuse political power. I can happily live with both.

[islamirama]

Some scientists have revealed their studies and claim that also pedophilia is "a nature rather than to be a product from the environment". By their studies, pedophiles born to be pedophiles. Should we then accept it as "normal", change the laws and stop discriminations against them?

According to studies in Europe it is 'natural and normal' and should be legalized. The lawyers pushing for this law, the professors putting out studies backing this up, the psychologists and professionals promoting this as normal, and funding lobby behind this, and the citizens supporting this are ALL pedophiles. This is how sick animals infiltrate a whole system to have what they want.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/1...for-males.html

And then when western morals decline even further i wouldn't be surprised if we get someone coming on here and going "Why is Islam so against incest"

West is already there. Like pedophilia, they are calling for legalization of incest in Europe.

Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11119062/Incest-a-fundamental-right-German-committee-says.html

‘Sibling incest should be legal,’ says Danish professor of criminal justice ethics
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/si...nal-justice-et

So we have pedos and incest, can we have both please?

Sure you can! Germany professionals say it's healthy for a father to play with the genitals of her daughters in their development.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ge...as-healthy-sex

wait... isn't that how homosexuality was at one point as well?

I'm glad you asked. That's exactly how homos were regarded 30 years ago. They got into fields and found supporters and funders and infiltrated all fields of academia, professional, media and legal system and made it seem like being homo is normal and how you are born with it. They have set a great example for the pedos and incestors to follow.

So homosexuality is an abomination and a great sin. Anyone who has been spoon fed the latest and greatest "studies" and "scientific facts" need to go bleach wash their brainwashed minds. We do not condone such abhorrent perversions, nor will we back off to please your pervasive thinking.

you do realise that as time went by and more research was done, the evidence supporting the view that homosexuality is natural only got stronger right?

see my replies above. It's all a hogwash. You can do all the research in the world, at end of the day it is still an abomination and a great sin and nothing more.

Yeah, our knowledge is finite. But the only way to increase our understanding of this world and the universe is through science. You claim not to be bound by this. So what makes you so much more superior to others then? What do you have that scientist apparently don't?

I'm all for scientific research that promotes knowledge of the world and the universe, not supporting and approving perversions and corruption of the society. That is not "research" that is sick animals funding and lying their way to promote their own perversion.

Where is the evidence that this is the word of God? Reality is that the religious have yet to prove God's existence, let alone that the Quran is his word. So this argument is certainly not convincing enough for me to condemn people for the way they are.

If you want the evidence then read the Quran. Religion has proven existence of God, those who don't want to believe it will make up excuses. Not all religions speak of the same God. There are fake ones out there, just as there fake scientists and "scientific" facts out there. To group all religions and existence of God in one category is no different than doing the same to science community.

Regardless of religion, homosexuality is an immoral perversion and any sane logical and reasonable man will condemn it as they condemn incest and pedophilia. Today you condemn the latter two while find the first one as acceptable. Another 10-15 years, people will find the latter two acceptable and you will be in the same spot as we are , trying to convince them that is immoral and wrong.


Society morals and values degrade over time and people become corrupt and immoral. That is why previous nations were destroyed and that will be the downfall for these nations as well. No scientific break through and advancements will you save you from that.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

My friend, if it was so obvious, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, which means that your interpretation of it being so "obvious" is a personal interpretation and not a fact. Facts cannot be denied such as you're an English teacher and were born male. Interpretations such as you're the most wonderful English teacher ever born in U.K. can be denied, even if you think such denials are without merit.

OK, let's have a look at some facts:

In Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen, homosexual activity carries the death penalty. This apparently has nothing to do with Islam.

Most Muslim-majority countries and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have opposed moves to advance LGBT rights at the United Nations, in the General Assembly or the UNHRC. Again, nothing to do with Islam.

In May 2016, a group of 51 Muslim states blocked 11 gay and transgender organizations from attending 2016 High Level Meeting on Ending AIDS. Again, apparently nothing to do with Islam.

Narrated by 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.

Ibn al-Jawzi, writing in the 12th century claimed that Muhammad had cursed "sodomites" in several hadith, and had recommended the death penalty for both the active and passive partners in homosexual acts. Abu Bakr apparently recommended toppling a wall on the evil-doer, or else burning alive, while Ali bin Abi Talib ordered death by stoning for one "luti" and had another thrown head-first from the top of a minaret - according to Ibn Abbas, this last punishment must be followed by stoning.

Does any of this have anything to do with Islam?

:uuh::mmokay: You do know he went between Christianity and Satanism, things which couldn't be two more diametrically opposed religions. And he also thought he'd magically turn into the book's protagonist Holden Caulfield once he executed John Lennon. Perhaps you're projecting your biases here, my friend?

Or maybe I'm just taking him at his word: "I would listen to this music and I would get angry at him, for saying that he didn't believe in God... and that he didn't believe in the Beatles. This was another thing that angered me, even though this record had been done at least 10 years previously. I just wanted to scream out loud, 'Who does he think he is, saying these things about God and heaven and the Beatles?' Saying that he doesn't believe in Jesus and things like that. At that point, my mind was going through a total blackness of anger and rage."

It has been claimed by sources that Oswald was very keen on the book. For the purposes of our discussion, let's assume he was.

Oswald is a fascinating character who was keen on many things. I don't think we can read to much into him owning The Catcher in the Rye, though.

I agree with you except I want to know why don't you think so?

I only know of one case where the book played a significant part in the thinking of an assassin (Chapman), and in his case the killing had more to do with his state of mind than the content of the book. Everything else on this topic seems to me to be coincidental.

Think on where your analogy fails. Here, a person with a specific intent seems to read a specific book; the intent I'd argue was not born of reading the book at all but existed prior to reading of that book. In fact, that is an entirely reasonable assumption to make given the outcome.

I don't disagree with you here at all. I'm not talking about where the original intent comes from. My point is that the information in the book helped him to create the bomb, and is directly linked to him creating it. Are you denying this connection? I don't see how you could.

Anarchist Cookbook by William Powell could be treated as instruction to obey against one's transgressive government that one would feel obliged to obey or what I'd assume is that people who read the book are already so inspired in that direction, something which I'd already earlier said.

If someone used the information in this book to harm others, you wouldn't deny the connection between the book and the action, would you? Remember, I'm not talking about the source of the original intention to harm others.

So, I'm saying what you're seeing as a causation or a direct connection is remote enough that I simply don't buy into it; what I find most likely factors to be the drivers of how a person treats homosexuals (which is the the topic of this conversation) are the following: in what country you were born and/or brought up, if you have ever met/known homosexuals, how likely you find in yourself empathy, whether your parents, friends, peers, community members, or congregation have/share an extremely negative bias towards homosexuals, and the ability to sympathize with those whom you don't understand.

I don't deny that other factors play a part; that's not the argument I'm making. I'm simply asking you to acknowledge the connection between beliefs and behaviour. If someone already hates homosexuals and wants to harm them, they can very easily claim that the scriptures of Islam give their views legitimacy. That, in my view, is dangerous. How could you possibly disagree?

Peace

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

But when people violently attack homosexuals and use the Qur'an and ahadith to justify their actions, you will be told that this has nothing to do with Islam.

OK, let's have a look at some facts:

In Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen, homosexual activity carries the death penalty. This apparently has nothing to do with Islam.

Capital punishment carried out following due process of Islamic law is totally different to 'violent attacks' in the form of vigilante justice. That is why Search was correct in pointing out the dishonesty in your words.

I will say that it's remarkable how many words you've devoted to the task of denying the obvious connection between instructions to kill homosexuals in Islamic scripture and Muslims carrying out those instructions.

I don't deny that other factors play a part; that's not the argument I'm making. I'm simply asking you to acknowledge the connection between beliefs and behaviour. If someone already hates homosexuals and wants to harm them, they can very easily claim that the scriptures of Islam give their views legitimacy. That, in my view, is dangerous. How could you possibly disagree?

Your posts are simply a determination to justify your preconceived conclusion that (in your own words) Islam is (on the whole) 'false and dangerous'. It is very clear that you are trying to force a direct connection between the Qur'an and unIslamic behaviour, yet the arguments that contradict your conclusion are dismissed under the guise of not being the argument you are making. You are so keen to reduce a complex matter to an incorrect conclusion of one or two sentences, complaining that Search is using too many words, yet in another thread it was you who pointed out that 'misunderstanding and reduction of a complex matter to single sentences' is not helpful.

If your entire premise is about a 'connection' and getting 'legitimacy', Search already pointed out that, 'anybody can take anything - book, video games, pamphlet, magazine, movie, television - and use it to justify whatever no matter how much mental gymnastics a person has to do to get there; but at the end, the fact remains that the persons involved in these actions are solely accountable.'

Understanding the roots of violence requires recognising the way that oppositional movements decide to turn to violence in the face of state violence: for the anarchists, it was the violent suppression of the Paris Commune in 1871, in which tens of thousands were killed, that triggered the turn to dynamite and assassination across Europe; for the Provisionals, it was the British army’s violent suppression of the nationalist civil rights movement in Northern Ireland; for the 7/7 bombers, it was the images of mass violence and torture in Iraq. It is false to obscure these connections by assuming that religious ideology directly causes terrorism, without taking due account of political and social contexts.

If we are to look at the facts, including reports by academics, MI5 and the cases plastered all over the news, we learn that the vast majority (if not all) of those Western Muslims that went to join ISIS or committed an act of so-called “terrorism” in fact did not receive an Islamic upbringing and education. Many weren’t even Muslims in their childhood, whilst others owned bars and nightclubs, whilst yet others drank alcohol and used drugs. In some cases their recent Amazon purchase history even included the book, Islam for Dummies. Perhaps if such individuals familiarised themselves with Islamic Scripture, they might not have made such rash decisions.

It is also worth pointing out the danger posed by this anti-Muslim narrative. By assuming that Islamic Scriptures are 'dangerous' based upon assumptions and forced connections, legitimacy is found for such shocking behaviour as the Tajikistani government removing headscarves from 1,700 women and forcefully shaving off of the beards of 13,000 men in the last year. Islamophobic behaviour, draconian measures to spy on Muslims and hate crimes against Muslims are on the rise across the world, to the point that even atheists on this forum have been describing Islam as 'a virus of the mind'. This blatant hatred for Muslims justified by perceived connections is far more dangerous and blameworthy, and it is about time you acknowledged this obvious truth.

[kritikvernunft]

But when people violently attack homosexuals and use the Qur'an and ahadith to justify their actions, you will be told that this has nothing to do with Islam.

Still, even if it doesn't, as far as I am concerned, there is no benefit whatsoever in prioritizing this particular problem. In my opinion, it is clearly better to remain indifferent. We have over 1.5+ billion people who seem to agree that man-made law is a depravity and who would agree to reinstating the alternative of Divine Law. We are sitting on a possible solution there. Seriously, combating the evils of man-made law is much more of a priority than the fact that some believers are allegedly overly self-righteous on the subject of homosexuals. That is why I propose to throw this issue off the agenda for lack of priority. My proposal is to close it with the WONTFIX tag.

The Meaning of WONTFIX

WONTFIX The problem described is a bug which will never be fixed. That means that WONTFIX acknowledges that a bug as reported is indeed a valid bug. But it also says that it will not be fixed: Not in the near future (that would be status ACCEPTED), not in some future release (that would be LATER), never. It means that whoever is responsible for the piece of software against which the bug was reported has examined the situation and evaluated possible approaches to fix the problem. But the conclusion of that process was that the bug will not be fixed.

[sister_39738]

Sexual desire in any human is natural but Allah does not want us to engage in haram sex. Why Allah has chosen anything is only for him to answer. I am only his creation so I cant tell you why he has chosen something or if he has just allowed Shaiytan to run rampid. But what I can tell you is that homosexuality will cut family ties. The same gender cannot procreate, there wont be influence from the opposite sex parent, and any children that come to these unions by adoption or surrogation will be separated from their birth families. You will also find in any society where homosexuality is encouraged that the family structure and the people of society are weakened . Dysfunctionality, materialism, self-centered thinking, sexual disease, and secularism are some examples.
You say that homosexuality is natural well so are all other human urges. Jealousy is natural, back biting, gluttony, greed, thievery, and lust are all natural but all of these are things that displease Allah. Society implies that since homosexuality is natural (in some peoples opinion) that it should not and cannot be changed. Well, both of these things are untrue. If our parents and society teaches us that we must control our baser urges and instincts for the good of ourselves and society then where do we draw the line? What benefit does homosexuality bring except for the individual's personal wants?
I can also speak from personal experience. Ever since I started puberty I have felt an attraction to both sexes. There were some periods when I felt more of an attraction to one sex over the other and before I started learning about Islam I wanted a relationship with a woman even though I still had sexual desires for men. I was an atheist and felt no guilt for these feelings. However, when I found Islam I decided to forgoe anything that would displease Allah. But recently (months ago) I went through a crisis of faith and had to choose between my sex life and Allah. When I decided to come back to Islam I was steadfast in my resolve to never commit any major sin against Allah. To make a long story short one day I was sitting in the masjid waiting for the imam to call the prayer and I was talking to a sister. Well, as I was watching her face I started to feel a sexual stirring. I was horrified because I struggle with sexual urges and feared that I would have had to cut ties with this girl just like all the other women I had desires for. In that moment I begged Allah to take that desire away from me and he did. Now today I am best friends with this girl. I maintain my sexual purity with women the same way I do with men. I lower my gaze and ask Allah to grant me strength.

[Hafiz Ikram]

You are wrong in saying that homosexuality is natural. It's not natural at all. If it was natural, what is the need of creating 2 different genders. Ask yourself and deep inside you will get a clear answer.

[Al Sultan]

I can also speak from personal experience. Ever since I started puberty I have felt an attraction to both sexes. There were some periods when I felt more of an attraction to one sex over the other and before I started learning about Islam I wanted a relationship with a woman even though I still had sexual desires for men. I was an atheist and felt no guilt for these feelings. However, when I found Islam I decided to forgoe anything that would displease Allah. But recently (months ago) I went through a crisis of faith and had to choose between my sex life and Allah. When I decided to come back to Islam I was steadfast in my resolve to never commit any major sin against Allah. To make a long story short one day I was sitting in the masjid waiting for the imam to call the prayer and I was talking to a sister. Well, as I was watching her face I started to feel a sexual stirring. I was horrified because I struggle with sexual urges and feared that I would have had to cut ties with this girl just like all the other women I had desires for. In that moment I begged Allah to take that desire away from me and he did. Now today I am best friends with this girl. I maintain my sexual purity with women the same way I do with men. I lower my gaze and ask Allah to grant me strength.

Mashallah sister...you literally fought your desires and urges and turned to Allah..Allahu Akbar,that's so amazing...may Allah make you steadfast on the truth.


"

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Greetings,

:)

OK, let's have a look at some facts:

Yes, let us, czgibson. :p

In Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen, homosexual activity carries the death penalty. This apparently has nothing to do with Islam.

czgibson, did you notice you moved the goalposts? Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met. Let's not forget that the conversation that started it all was when you'd written, "But when people violently attack homosexuals and use the Qur'an and ahadith to justify their actions, you will be told that this has nothing to do with Islam." Also, you gave the example of IS executing homosexuals in post #20. If the goalposts are moved far enough, then the standards can eventually evolve. May I know the reason for moving the goalposts?

We were talking about vigilante justice and now are talking about specific countries. So, I have questions. Are you telling me that you think that laws proscribing homosexual activity causes others to take law into their own hands? Or is your argument that the belief in Islam has led them to have laws designating capital punishment for homosexual activity. I'd disagree with the former and not with the latter. And that's why it is important we parse these points out as conflating one with the other is just disingenuous as I'd hope you have some cause to realize.

Most Muslim-majority countries and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have opposed moves to advance LGBT rights at the United Nations, in the General Assembly or the UNHRC. Again, nothing to do with Islam.

If we're talking about discriminatory policies, then you should already know that Islam proscribes discrimination based on inclination, thought crime, or suspicion of engaging in homosexual activity. So, if there are instances of discrimination specific to homosexuals, and I don't doubt there are, they are in fact not emerging from Islam but the baser impulses and instincts of mankind.

However, if you're specifically talking about things like the right to marry in specific countries if one is a gay person, then I do hope you realize that Islam envisions marriage as a sacred institution part of the larger prescription of worship which necessarily limits participation to a man and a woman marrying and mating with one another because that relationship is presumed to have a spiritual dimension and continues from here onward to the hereafter. I hope you understand that the religious clergy do not want to be forced to perform a specific religious matrimonial ceremony when the act of it would go against one's deeply held faith.

In May 2016, a group of 51 Muslim states blocked 11 gay and transgender organizations from attending 2016 High Level Meeting on Ending AIDS. Again, apparently nothing to do with Islam.

In the Guardian article "Muslim states block 11 LGBT groups from attending UN Aids meeting," it is written that "Egypt wrote to the president of the 193-member general assembly on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to object to the participation of the 11 groups. It did not give a reason in the letter, which Reuters has seen." I'm assuming, czgibson, you're as an atheist not claiming clairvoyance that would enable you to divine that the reason is Islam and not politics. In fact, given what I know about such Muslim majority states from simply a historical and current affairs perspective, my person opinion is that this move is political.

Narrated by 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.

Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) also said, "Forgive the hudood among you. But should a hadd case reach me, punishment is certain."

As part of a larger hadith (prophetic tradition), Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) also said, “Treat people the way you would love to be treated, and do not treat them the way you would hate to be treated.”

Are we going to play a game of tag, czgibson, in which we're going to be pitting one hadith (prophetic tradition) against one another? czgibson, I hope both you and I should know that ahadith (prohetic traditions) are studied altogether and as a sum of the bulk of which primarily constitute intention, action, rectitude, and not rulings. And then of those that are rulings, the ahadith (prophetic traditions) aretaken together with the others not about ruling and then with the primary text of the Qur'an constitute Islamic law and analogies are used to determine how to understand and apply said rulings to answer questions of whether, who, what, why, when, where, how.

Ibn al-Jawzi, writing in the 12th century claimed that Muhammad had cursed "sodomites" in several hadith, and had recommended the death penalty for both the active and passive partners in homosexual acts. Abu Bakr apparently recommended toppling a wall on the evil-doer, or else burning alive, while Ali bin Abi Talib ordered death by stoning for one "luti" and had another thrown head-first from the top of a minaret - according to Ibn Abbas, this last punishment must be followed by stoning.

That's all well. However, I hope you have some cause to realize that just as we are today disputing certain matters specific to homosexuality, so did others in the scholastic tradition of both early and later periods of Islam. For example, the main position in the Hanafi school of law for many centuries was that someone convicted of sodomy (which in all the schools required four witnesses to the act of penetration) was not executed but only given a milder punishment or perhaps only disciplined by a judge. But the other three Sunni schools of law (Maliki, Shafi, and Hanbali) did consider sodomy to be a death penalty offense (at the very least for the active partner). The Hanafi school differed with this position because 1) the school did not permit declaring something to be a hudood crime by analogy (sodomy might be analogous to zina, but Allah and the Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) had commanded Muslims to seek the most minimal possible application of hudood laws, so extension by analogy was indulging); 2) Hanafis argued that the prophetic traditions asserting the death penalty for sodomy were of debatable authenticity; and 3) there was far too much disagreement over the proper punishment for sodomy among early Muslim scholars to suggest that capital punishment was the clear conclusion.

None can afford to look at only one text of one scholar or a few specific Companions :ra: (may God be pleased with them) of Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) because we have to take into account all the scholarly understanding (for/against) on the subject whether of traditional scholars or of Companions :ra: (may God be pleased with them). To sum a scholastic tradition as only one thing when it has historically and even to contemporary time been rather richer is an example of agenda-setting and unfruitful.

Does any of this have anything to do with Islam?

Again, I am not sure where you are going with this because if you're talking about Islamic texts describing punishments for sodomy, I will not deny that that has to do with Islam. However, if you tell me that people today are committing acts of violence against homosexuals because of Islam, I will disagree with you on that. And the reason is because at any given time we have a number of beliefs, some contradictory, some not, some compartmentalized. However, to prove that Islam is the cause or has a direct connection with violence against homosexuals, you'd have to prove that it can't be any other belief. And here, I'll present to you a chart that I've created to show why I think any number of beliefs act for any number of motivations which can lead to any type of intention but this is just one example of what can happen.

Or maybe I'm just taking him at his word: "I would listen to this music and I would get angry at him, for saying that he didn't believe in God... and that he didn't believe in the Beatles. This was another thing that angered me, even though this record had been done at least 10 years previously. I just wanted to scream out loud, 'Who does he think he is, saying these things about God and heaven and the Beatles?' Saying that he doesn't believe in Jesus and things like that. At that point, my mind was going through a total blackness of anger and rage."

That's not fair, czgibson. Because you've missed his other thought processes, haven't you? Let's continue from wherein you'd left off, "So I brought the Lennon book home, into this Catcher in the Rye milieu where my mindset is Holden Caulfield and antiphoniness. While contemplating this new Lennon, I really delved into the ink of Holden Caulfield. I was swimming in the ink of The Catcher in the Rye. And I was blinded by it. The ink had gotten into my eyes and I was just dripping in the blackness of that ink. It would go on to blind my judgment for years to come.

So enter Lennon onto this stage of blackness and despair and my striking at the world for its hypocrisy and its phoniness. Enter Lennon, who to me had been antiestablishment and counterculture and a hero. To find him in the coats fo the rich on the roof of a million-dollar, a multimillion-dollar apartment complex was just too much, at that point in my life, for a disintegrating personality to bear. So there I was in the persona of Holden Caulfield, and I remember the exact moment that I thought about killing Mr. Lennon."

That doesn't sound like religiously-motivated violence, czgibson; and I certainly know I don't think it was.

Oswald is a fascinating character who was keen on many things. I don't think we can read to much into him owning The Catcher in the Rye, though.

I only know of one case where the book played a significant part in the thinking of an assassin (Chapman), and in his case the killing had more to do with his state of mind than the content of the book. Everything else on this topic seems to me to be coincidental.

Can I just say something? You believe that "[e]verything else on this topic seems to me to be coincidental" yet you would not believe or allow that argument to be made for when people do commit violence if they happen to be theists. I wonder why, czgibson, and I want you to reflect on why you have one set of standards for measuring one thing and not the same for the other.

I don't disagree with you here at all. I'm not talking about where the original intent comes from. My point is that the information in the book helped him to create the bomb, and is directly linked to him creating it. Are you denying this connection? I don't see how you could.

But you're trying to use that analogy to religion when I think it is a false analogy; it might seem useful to you, but I hope with the chart that I've managed to create you'd at least have some cause to pause and realize why this analogy fails.

If someone used the information in this book to harm others, you wouldn't deny the connection between the book and the action, would you? Remember, I'm not talking about the source of the original intention to harm others.

I'd have to look at the specific situation, czgibson, and that's why I'd refuse to make that connection until and unless it could be proven that it was nothing else but that that could have led to that specific action.

I don't deny that other factors play a part; that's not the argument I'm making. I'm simply asking you to acknowledge the connection between beliefs and behaviour. If someone already hates homosexuals and wants to harm them, they can very easily claim that the scriptures of Islam give their views legitimacy. That, in my view, is dangerous. How could you possibly disagree?

I think I have proved you in the above chart that a person is not made simply of one belief. A person can and does hold multiple beliefs about the same subject and hold myriad motivations for any intention and so it is really hard to prove that the connection as you imagine exists between one specific belief and one specific action because it's rather convoluted as human thought process is rather convoluted as well. Remember, truth of what action is prompted by what belief cannot be sacrificed for either convenience's or expediency's sake; so, speaking for myself, when someone says a said belief definitely causes said action, I have to dissect and figure out if that said intention was caused by said motivation promoted by said belief and whether nothing else but that linkage exists. Unless that's the case, I'm not sure you can say with any confidence that said action is caused by said belief.

Peace

Wishing you peace as well, :)

[Al Sultan]

else burning alive

Hold it right there brother,burning someone alive in islam IS NOT ALLOWED and also the prophet Mohammed (PBUH) he himself said:“No one punishes with fire except the Lord of fire,” Narrated by Abu Dawood and Ahmad in his Musnad.

So whatever it is,homosexual,adulter,etc..cannot be burned alive,thats haram,the only thing we do when someone dies is put him in his grave,no matter what he/she is,athiest,hypocrite,hindu,christian etc...

So can you give me a hadith that confirms homosexuals CAN/SHOULD be burned alive?

[kritikvernunft]

So whatever it is,homosexual,adulter,etc..cannot be burned alive,thats haram

I personally believe in don't ask don't tell.

The policy prohibits people to "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline.

Obama made an own goal by abolishing this policy. It will demoralize the corn-fed, Bible-belt Christians who form the backbone of his armies. These persons do not want to be forced to rely on effeminate colleagues in combat situations. I will be on the floor laughing when that LGBT-infested circus will find itself deployed in the Middle East again, for Stalingrad-style man-to-man -- or rather gay-to-man -- combat in the streets. That will give us the opportunity to admire the courage of these true LGBT believers. Put them in the front line already! ;-)

[Al Sultan]

when that LGBT-infested circus will find itself deployed in the Middle East again, for Stalingrad-style man-to-man -- or rather gay-to-man -- combat in the streets. That will give us the opportunity to admire the courage of these true LGBT believers. Put them in the front line already! ;-)

.................................................. ..............

[czgibson]

Greetings, Muhammad,

As so often in these discussions, you and I are talking past each other. In many cases in your post here I'm not sure which points you are addressing. I don't think I can have explained my position well enough because you seem (as in the past) to be responding to things I haven't said and don't believe.

Capital punishment carried out following due process of Islamic law is totally different to 'violent attacks' in the form of vigilante justice. That is why Search was correct in pointing out the dishonesty in your words.

State sanctioned violence against homosexuals is a practice that I am opposed to, just as I am opposed to any form of violence against them. What is dishonest about that?

State sanctioned violence also legitimises unofficial violence. It's far easier to be a member of that crowd throwing stones at bodies of gay people who have recently been thrown off a high building, in the name of someone's version of Islam, when you are aware that several Islamic majority countries enact similar laws in an official manner.

Your posts are simply a determination to justify your preconceived conclusion that (in your own words) Islam is (on the whole) 'false and dangerous'.

I'd like to know on what grounds you think it preconceived. I've been gathering information during the decade or so I've been interested in Islam and have only recently come to this conclusion.

It is very clear that you are trying to force a direct connection between the Qur'an and unIslamic behaviour, yet the arguments that contradict your conclusion are dismissed under the guise of not being the argument you are making.

That's the reason they don't contradict my position.

I am opposed to violence against gay people. I'm not gay myself, but I can see absolutely no reason for persecuting people who are. My claim is that the Islamic scriptures are a contributary factor in the persecution of gay people around the world.

I do not say that they are the only cause.

I do not say that they are a necessary cause.

I do not say that every action committed by a theist is done in the name of that belief.

(These are three of the common misrepresentations I have seen here.)

We are constantly told that Islam is a religion of peace, but how can that be true for a gay person? Over 4000 people have been executed in Iran since 1979 on charges of committing homosexual acts, because of the Iranian state's version of Islam. How can you claim that Islamic scriptures have nothing to do with this?

You are so keen to reduce a complex matter to an incorrect conclusion of one or two sentences, complaining that Search is using too many words, yet in another thread it was you who pointed out that 'misunderstanding and reduction of a complex matter to single sentences' is not helpful.

I have never complained about anything Search does. It was simply an observation.

If your entire premise is about a 'connection' and getting 'legitimacy', Search already pointed out that,[I] 'anybody can take anything - book, video games, pamphlet, magazine, movie, television - and use it to justify whatever no matter how much mental gymnastics a person has to do to get there; but at the end, the fact remains that the persons involved in these actions are solely accountable.'

It doesn't take much in the way of mental gymnastics to follow a simple instruction to kill a homosexual. Even if the killer has interpreted the wider context of the scripture wrongly, the end result is the same.

The next part of your post was interesting but I can't see how it is related to our discussion of Islamic hostility to homosexuality.

It is also worth pointing out the danger posed by this anti-Muslim narrative. By assuming that Islamic Scriptures are 'dangerous' based upon assumptions and forced connections, legitimacy is found for such shocking behaviour as the Tajikistani government removing headscarves from 1,700 women and forcefully shaving off of the beards of 13,000 men in the last year. Islamophobic behaviour, draconian measures to spy on Muslims and hate crimes against Muslims are on the rise across the world, to the point that even atheists on this forum have been describing Islam as 'a virus of the mind'. This blatant hatred for Muslims justified by perceived connections is far more dangerous and blameworthy, and it is about time you acknowledged this obvious truth.

Hatred for Muslims is a bad thing, and of course I accept "this obvious truth". We've discussed this several times before. I thought you knew my quarrel is with Islam, not with Muslims.

Far more dangerous and blameworthy than what, exactly?

Peace

[ardianto]

I am opposed to violence against gay people. I'm not gay myself,

Me too. That's why in my thread I wrote my hope that there is therapy for gays to make them have desire to opposite gender too, so they could live in normal married life and no need to live celibacy.

Being gays in Muslim society is disaster. As human they still have desire to live with beloved partner. But they cannot, because there is sanction that can be deadly. Live celibacy?. Before we tell it to the gays it's better if we ask ourselves, can we live celibacy too?.

That's why I hope there is therapy that can help them.

[Nobody's Girl]

I don't hate homosexual people to me it is just un-natural :/ I have heard that homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom. I think we should tolerate each other. If we want to help them we should be more understanding after all who would want to be persecuted for something they apparently chose.

[Al Sultan]

The thing is,they spread AIDs..in other words,diseases...and Allah brought sex in this world only reproduce,Allah never said he allowed it...

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

:) Hey, hope you've been doing well @czgibson.

State sanctioned violence against homosexuals is a practice that I am opposed to, just as I am opposed to any form of violence against them.

Death penalty has been called "state sanctioned violence" but I don't agree with the term because the name seems to imply a kind of purging that is evil or in the vein of terror, neither of which is the case in most countries. For example, in the U.S., we have the death penalty for murder or cases of terrorism in some states (though obviously not for homosexuals), and I wouldn't agree to the labeling of the death penalty as "state sanctioned violence."

With that said, in terms of Muslim majority countries, I hope you realize there isn't any discrimination in terms of sexuality because both heterosexuals or homosexuals who engage in illegal sex in those countries are by penal code similarly punished. So, the punishment cannot be said to be discriminatory, though we can of course deliberate over the rightness of said punishments in the penal code as I do later in the post.

State sanctioned violence also legitimises unofficial violence.

I respectfully disagree.

For example, let's say someone in the U.K. X family has a female family member raped. Obviously, there are legal punishments for rape in U.K.; however, the legal punishment for any rape being perpetrated is not invitation for a person of the X clan to then go on to brutalize the perpetrator as a means to exact retribution. If someone interprets a legal penalty for rape in that way, then that interpretation is at fault and not the state. The state is right and completely lawful in establishing penalties it deems fit to advance its aims of justice as it sees fit. So, I'd argue that "state sanctioned violence" doesn't legitimize unofficial violence at all but is a symptom of specific persons' inability to put faith in the wheels of justice to turn properly; impatience or lack of faith if you will is a human imbroglio.

It's far easier to be a member of that crowd throwing stones at bodies of gay people who have recently been thrown off a high building, in the name of someone's version of Islam, when you are aware that several Islamic majority countries enact similar laws in an official manner.

As you, however, acknowledge, the two are not the same. Laws do not equal justification for vigilante justice; vigilante justice happens in every country, whether in Western countries or Eastern countries. There are people also, for example (in the same vein of the earlier example that I've given above), that have killed persons who they found sexually molesting their children, but that does not mean that that is a burden deserved to be carried by people or the state whether as associative guilt or in terms of accountability for having laws against persons who sexually molest children. Penal code's existence is not ever an invitation for anyone to commit extrajudicial violence.

Also, I'd argue that throwing stones at bodies of gay people as you envision (after having died from being thrown off a high-rise) probably has a lot to do with the inbred barbaric and voyeuristic tendencies in man and not anything to do with religion. For example, this ignoble impulse takes today the form of tabloid reading on the Internet with the proverbial "throwing of stones" in the comments' section on public figures and on one another but historically has also included gladiator sports being engaged in for the entertainment of the spectatorial crowds. I doubt this basic base human nature changes because the place or the time or the religion changes. Piety, however, I'd argue and have some cause to believe is better at curbing this base and basic nature of man than anything else that you can presently imagine.

I'd like to know on what grounds you think it preconceived. I've been gathering information during the decade or so I've been interested in Islam and have only recently come to this conclusion.

May I ask why you've recently come to this conclusion? I ask because obviously I think your conclusion is wrong. I think your conclusion has probably been shaped by Daesh, and I do not see why that should be the case. Just as Hitler, who has been unfairly critiqued at times as an atheist, when he was a Christian, does not represent Christianity, so do Daesh not represent Islam. Just as Mao and Stalin do not represent atheism.

I am opposed to violence against gay people. I'm not gay myself, but I can see absolutely no reason for persecuting people who are.

Did you notice something? It is something that I noticed about myself as well. Why do we say "I'm not gay" if we did not pick up some unconscious bias about what being "gay" means in the world? You're an atheist. If you were gay, would it/should it matter for the purposes of your position? It does not. But you still said that "I'm not gay" just as in a previous thread I'd felt compelled to point out something to the effect of "I'm not gay." Why? I think it bespeaks of unconscious biases we do have against gay persons in the world even when we're not gay ourselves because we understand that being gay does mean something sometimes to some people with which we unconsciously or maybe consciously don't want to be associated.

Like you, however, I'd also like to emphasize that I don't agree with any harassment or violence against gay persons and would stand with you on that point.

That said, when it comes to persecution, I believe we'll probably diverge on what persecution details. For example, you may believe not allowing two gay persons to marry when they're presumably not harming anyone else (a matter with which I disagree) is persecution. However, I see that allowance as infringing on the right of the religious clergy to not perform matrimonial ceremonies in which they don't believe due to seeing it as a sacred institution.

My claim is that the Islamic scriptures are a contributary factor in the persecution of gay people around the world.

I'd say that sentence needs amending to say that sometimes Islamic scriptures are somewhat a contributory factor in some types of persecution of gay people in the world.

That being said, I hope you understand that all major religions in the world carry some type of condemnation for sodomy being committed between two males; and even before Islam existed on the scene, Mosaic Law and even Christian Law had already in place condemnation of and penalties for engaging in homosexuality. For example, Puritans in America literally whipped persons for tending towards sodomy even when the act was not committed and had laws prescribing death penalty for sodomy. And condemnation of homosexuals still exists and is thriving in many countries, many of them not Muslim. For example, India considers homosexuality and lesbianism illegal, and Russia forbids promotion of any LGBTQ literature where children can potentially access the material.

Also, I note that virtually all cases of violence against LGBT community have a common denominator, and it isn't any religion but the male gender generally perpetrating the persecution.

Finally, I also think that a majority of times it is not religion that enables persecution of homosexuals but primal fear and ignorance.

We are constantly told that Islam is a religion of peace, but how can that be true for a gay person? Over 4000 people have been executed in Iran since 1979 on charges of committing homosexual acts, because of the Iranian state's version of Islam. How can you claim that Islamic scriptures have nothing to do with this?

Islam is a primordial call to submission to God and in such submission is a means of inducing peace in the heart, and that is true for persons regardless of whether they identify as heterosexual or homosexual. Iran follows a Shia version of Islam. Majority of the people, however, in the world are Sunni, and Pew Forum estimates Sunni population to be 87-90% of all Muslim population whereas Shia pulation is estimated to be 10-13% of the population. I can't really say anything about Iran but I do know that they engage in practices that Sunni populace consider unIslamic and haram (forbidden) such as temporary marriage known as mutah. So, I'm not sure holding Iran as an example works because there are also texts and fatwas (rulings) that emerge from Shia version of Islam with which Muslims have historically disagreed and continue to disagree.

That said, I think your broader question has to do with why should anyone believe Islam is a peaceful religion when shariah's (Islamic law''s) approach towards homosexuals doesn't seem benign. Well, let me give you an analogical example. If you and a man agree to get in a physical fight (please work with me on imagining this scene), but the guy says, "Wait, wait, before we get into a fight. We need some ground rules. You can't hit my face. You can't hit me in the eyes. You can't hit me anywhere in the legs. You can maybe hit me in the stomach but only lightly but not really anywhere else." Then probably the thought process and words out of you are going to be, "So, what's the point of even fighting?" That's what shariah is meant to have happen in terms of implementation of the death penalty for illegal intercourse (whether a homosexual person or heterosexual person commits it) in the broader perspective and has so meant for centuries. For example, the act of requiring 4 witnesses in itself for witnessing penetration in sodomy is such a high burden to meet that I think the point is that it's not really ever supposed to be met. For example, even if two men had their penises out and 4 witnesses saw both of them nude and one with erection facing the anus, the assumption still cannot be that they intended to commit sodomy because the act of penetration is the determiner of the act of sodomy and not anything else. Ejaculation or rubbing of the buttocks still does not merit the punishment. It must literally be penetration and there can be not even 1% doubt about whether the act of penetration in any person's mind of any of the 4 witnesses. And the 4 witnesses must all be sane, all of age, all willing to testify, and exemplary characters in the community that have not been found to have previously done anything that would make their testimony inadmissible (such as fabricating stories previously); if there are less than 4 witnesses, the testimony is not accepted and punishment withheld even if the act of sodomy occurred. Also, if there are less than 4 witnesses willing to testify, the persons making the accusation are punished and not the perpetrators involved in the act of sodomy. Also, if the guilty parties repent before the 4 witnesses testify in court before the judge, the witnesses are encouraged to cover the sin and the judge is also to seek excuses to ward off punishment. Now, the question is why would God have prescribed a harsh penalty if the end result was that it wasn't really supposed to be ever implemented due to the high burden that is required to be met.

Well, let's look at the law in which running a red traffic light means heavy fines. The intent behind the creation of this law is not to actually fine people but to ensure that people are discouraged from running a red traffic light. So, for example, even when I "think" that I won't be caught running a red light at night when there's hardly any traffic and I don't see any police cars, I still don't run the red traffic light because I am conscious of the fact that there's a possibility that a police car might be hidden from my vantage point waiting to sound its siren the second I violate the traffic code and that if I get caught so doing, I'll be subsequently heavily fined. This is incidentally also an example of operant conditioning.

So, the question generally is why do we have laws when the intent behind is not to punish but to deter whether in a theocratic or a secular state. Because our laws are a reflection of our societal values. And shariah's (Islamic law's) purpose is inculcate God-consciousness in a society, not to punish as it's wrongly presumed in Western or Orientalist thought but to use operant conditioning to modulate societal behavior.

Also, I want you to think about the fact that your encouragement of homosexuals living as they want is based on the fact that you don't factor into your consideration the spiritual world and the unseen. So, from a worldly perspective, you may honestly believe that they're harming no one. However, spiritually, the truth is that they're harming themselves and the society around them because each sexual act not confined to marriage is one that increases black dots in their own hearts so that they're deprived of feeling sakina (inner peace), and if enough people engage in these acts without religious others in the wider society trying to prevent them from engaging in this sin through good advice and counsel, then Allah (God) decides to punish the wider society as a collective because we're no longer encouraging people towards what is good and right and opposing incorrect understanding of the matter. While all sins are bad and wrong, and while we all sin as human beings, God is willing to forgive us for all sins (yes, even the person who has engaged in 1 million acts of sodomy in his lifetime) provided that any of us as human beings are willing to ask for divine forgiveness and make efforts towards repentance. However, as a society, by giving persons blanket encouragement to turn away from trying to exert self-control in cases specific to their sexuality, we're actually harming them by closing the doors of repentance for them; current trends of normalization are literally acting as the means to prevent persons from repenting as a person will only feel the need to repent from something that they consider sinful. So, in the vein of compassion, if you are not part of the solution of turning them towards God and God-consciousness, you are part of the wider society working to impair their spiritual judgment. Compassion has its place among human beings, and I would be the first to commend anyone who has compassion for any human being, but compassion can never come at the cost of what is right and true and good. Enslaving oneself to desires of one's genitals is not wisdom even from the worldly perspective; I'm sure you have heard about societal indictments of the man who thinks "with his little head" which is to say that we as human beings do not respect people who think with their genitals. Frankly, we should never leave off thinking with our minds and hearts even when our genitals are involved but I'd add to that line about how we should also feel obliged to include spirituality as a consideration to move towards what is right.

Also, czgibson, I've told this to you before, and I repeat here again, you are basing your judgment of any penalty based on simply the worldly perspective; however, this obviously leaves you great spiritual room to massively err as you're not factoring in the existence of God into the equation of what we should be doing for ourselves and others as persons who are compassionate and merciful for those struggling with their desires whether that be in a homosexual or heterosexual vein.

Also, for how long do we live in this world? 70 years? 80 years? 90? 100 or 110 or a little more if we're fortunate? Then, as souls, we travel to eternity. 10-20 or 30 minutes of sexual enjoyment multiplied however many times sex is had in this world can never equal the actual enjoyment of Paradise. So, why should we encourage believers to sin against God's proscription when exerting self-control will win them bliss in eternity and more importantly permanently God's pleasure. It doesn't make sense.

Also, I'd say that all human knowledge presently available and knowledge attainable in the future can be summed up in a dot such as this "." dot. Our knowledge is limited; our knowledge is necessarily parochial in time and space and hostage to available tools and current understanding, and subject to faultiness, manipulation, or corruption. However, God's knowledge can never be summed up in any dot because it is omniscient, complete and infinite. In addition, God's knowledge is sublime and perfect. Therefore, we can never say that our current logic on any topic is the right logic as we're not privy to all the understandings that leads God to deem something as spiritually harmful and thereby sinful for us.

I have never complained about anything Search does. It was simply an observation.

:p

It doesn't take much in the way of mental gymnastics to follow a simple instruction to kill a homosexual. Even if the killer has interpreted the wider context of the scripture wrongly, the end result is the same.

Say you're in a relationship and you have a very bad boss and a very bad day after you come from work. So that day you're having a conversation with your girlfriend and you say something like, "I just hate him. I wish someone would just kill him. He's a waste of an oxygen space." So, your girlfriend (desiring to please you) then goes and kills your boss expecting you to be pleased. But wait, are you pleased? Or do you think she's a psycho? Here, no reasonable person would assume that you're actually expecting your girlfriend to kill your boss. So, I disagree with you; it does take mental gymnastics because a simple instruction is not that that simple even it is interpreted in such a way by delusional, simplistic, or simple-minded persons. Similarly, the hadith (prophetic tradition) you presented earlier in the post about active and passive participants in homosexuality also has a context, and the context is specific to judges or positions of authority who are able to make that judgment in Islamic law after due process of a trial at the stage of sentencing; no reasonable person would assume that that is an actual instruction to kill for just any Muslim Tom, Dick, or Harry.

I thought you knew my quarrel is with Islam, not with Muslims.

I'd like to actually challenge you intellectually on this matter because I want you to think about this more deeply. While I agree with you that ideas and people are distinct and require different treatment, I also see a potential problem with this type of simplistic thinking. Because I think it's more complicated than simply saying that you think that Islam is "false" and "dangerous" but simultaneously "[h]atred for Muslims" is a bad, wrong, and maybe an undeserved thing. The reason I say this is because we're voluntarily identifying ourselves as a Muslim, which is a consequential choice to endorse also the defining ideas, values, politics and actions that are inherent to the founding documents of Islam. Since "Muslim-ness" is a trait that's not biological and entirely a distinct matter of choice and entails actions that impact individuals, society, and the globe, you're literally ceding room for Islamophobes to engage in demonization and punditry and then also inviting others similar-minded to have a "quarrel" with Muslims and [h]atred for Muslims." That is because our allegiance to Islam will not be interpreted in a vacuum and so in an anti-Islam environment our "Muslim-ness" will also be seen an overt hostile act that merits evaluation and subsequent devaluation. Add to that the misinformation that exists currently about Islam, war propaganda for involvement in Middle Eastern countries, and bombardment of negative media coverage (of various instances of criminal behavior in Muslim communities or terrorist organizations) even on slow news days, I'd say you're actually literally at that point making an argument for a clash of civilizations and the solution, whether you perceive this as such or not or agree with the perception or not, will be seen as erasure of Muslim identity which I already see happening in Western Europe in present-day. Also, this perception lends itself into the rightness of making inroads into generally making it impossible for Muslims to ever politically have power in any region of the world and annihilation of Muslims across the globe, as that's what will be seen as best action to undertake to stop a "false" and "dangerous" religion and its perceived ignoble adherents.

Far more dangerous and blameworthy than what, exactly?

If you think secularism or democracy will protect Muslims in Western Europe, you're wrong. I have always believed and said that "perception is king" because perception is a value judgment that does not take into account its own rightness or wrongness. The prescription, for a "false" and "dangerous" religion as you now consider Islam to be, will never be to let Muslims simply be. It is in fact impossible within the parameters of even reasoned perception because a "false" and "dangerous" thing must always be opposed, and since ideas cannot be killed, Muslims will be; and even if they're not, they will become this idea's victims in other ways.

Finally, I wanted to say one more thing, and please bear with me when I say this as I don't say this in any bad way: You're wrong about Islam being "false" and "dangerous." I know you've spent 11 years on this board and so I know you think you're right to reach this conclusion or make this evaluation, but two things: #1: God does exist. I need you to keep trying to find God because denying existence of the divine does not make God to objectively not exist. #2 At this point in time, the only religion capable of spiritually opposing immorality and amorality and satanic influences is Islam, which is why you're going to be seeing tumult in the world heading towards Muslims at breakneck speed because Iblees (Satan) is real and the only thing standing now between him and further enslaving of human beings to their desires and the world in preparation of emergence of Dajjal (Anti-Christ) is Islam. Judaism and Christianity have long knelt and bowed down to secularism; Islam doesn't have the instrument of doing so because the Qur'an is literally memorized by millions of Muslims across the globe and is literally the immutable perfect Word of God; even if all the physical copies of the Qur'an were thrown in the sea right now and all Qur'an sites deleted from the Internet, Muslims would still be able to produce the same Qur'an over and over again; this miracle ensures that Muslims cannot change Islam.

Even as an atheist, you'll not escape feeling the reverberations of all said tumult and darkness and negative cultural levers gaining wider purchase in the world; and yet you'll see Islam withstanding the winds of tumult and darkness and negative cultural levers again and again. Because Islam's survivalist tendencies have roots in the supernatural/unseen dimension.

Peace

Wishing you peace as well, :) and chocolates (because sharing is caring and you're welcome to some of my Cadbury eclairs), ;)

P.S. I know I've written a lot (just as I usually do), but you should be used to me doing so by now, :p and most importantly your post deserved a proper response (though I do apologize for both my verbosity and repetition).

[czgibson]

Greetings, Search,

Again, I am not sure where you are going with this because if you're talking about Islamic texts describing punishments for sodomy, I will not deny that that has to do with Islam.

Wonderful. That's half of my argument conceded right there.

However, if you tell me that people today are committing acts of violence against homosexuals because of Islam, I will disagree with you on that.

There are countless examples. Here's one:

Here is a Saudi government official referring to the 2010 case of a man who had appeared in a gay video online: "The District Court sentenced the accused in a homosexuality case that was referred to it by the CPVPV (the Hai’a) in Jeddah before he was tried for impersonating a security man and behaving shamefully and with conduct violating the Islamic teachings." The man was fined, imprisoned and given 500 lashes.

I wouldn't agree to the labeling of the death penalty as "state sanctioned violence."

What could be more violent than executing somebody? It's a perfectly appropriate label.

Penal code's existence is not ever an invitation for anyone to commit extrajudicial violence.

But people often do decide to take the law into their own hands, and if there is a law on the statute book that feeds their prejudices, it is more likely that they will do so. The fact that they are wrong to do so is irrelevant. The end result is the same.

May I ask why you've recently come to this conclusion? I ask because obviously I think your conclusion is wrong. I think your conclusion has probably been shaped by Daesh, and I do not see why that should be the case.

Daesh is definitely not the only reason. I'm reluctant to answer this because of the particularly heavy-handed censorship that's been occurring around here lately. Perhaps a PM?

If you were gay, would it/should it matter for the purposes of your position? It does not.

You are right. I only mentioned it because in previous forum discussions about this I've been attacked with homophobic language by people who assumed I was gay.

Like you, however, I'd also like to emphasize that I don't agree with any harassment or violence against gay persons and would stand with you on that point.

Why do you support the death penalty for homosexuals then?

I'd say that sentence needs amending to say that sometimes Islamic scriptures are somewhat a contributory factor in some types of persecution of gay people in the world.

And that's the other half of my argument pretty much conceded as well. Marvellous.

That being said, I hope you understand that all major religions in the world carry some type of condemnation for sodomy being committed between two males;

Yes: add that to the large list of reasons why I am opposed to them all.

Also, I note that virtually all cases of violence against LGBT community have a common denominator, and it isn't any religion but the male gender generally perpetrating the persecution.

That is sadly true. It's also usually true of violent crime generally. With deep shame, I apologise on behalf of men everywhere.

Also, czgibson, I've told this to you before, and I repeat here again, you are basing your judgment of any penalty based on simply the worldly perspective; however, this obviously leaves you great spiritual room to massively err as you're not factoring in the existence of God into the equation of what we should be doing for ourselves and others as persons who are compassionate and merciful for those struggling with their desires whether that be in a homosexual or heterosexual vein.

So, because of certain supernatural beliefs that you adhere to, you are content to see people killed because of their sexual behaviour. If you can't see how dangerous that is, then I'm not sure there's much point continuing this discussion.

I'd like to actually challenge you intellectually on this matter because I want you to think about this more deeply. While I agree with you that ideas and people are distinct and require different treatment, I also see a potential problem with this type of simplistic thinking. Because I think it's more complicated than simply saying that you think that Islam is "false" and "dangerous" but simultaneously "[h]atred for Muslims" is a bad, wrong, and maybe an undeserved thing.

So, whenever I criticise the behaviour of certain Muslims, I'm told that that has nothing to do with Islam, because Islam and Muslims are different; yet when I criticise the ideas of Islam, I am assumed to be attacking Muslims. What a convenient double standard.

If you think secularism or democracy will protect Muslims in Western Europe, you're wrong. I have always believed and said that "perception is king" because perception is a value judgment that does not take into account its own rightness or wrongness. The prescription, for a "false" and "dangerous" religion as you now consider Islam to be, will never be to let Muslims simply be. It is in fact impossible within the parameters of even reasoned perception because a "false" and "dangerous" thing must always be opposed, and since ideas cannot be killed, Muslims will be; and even if they're not, they will become this idea's victims in other ways.

Ideas don't need to be killed when they can be debated in a free society, and they stand or fall on their own merits. Holocaust denial is also false and dangerous, but it's definitely a view that should be available for debate, with no need for violence whatsoever.

I don't see why Muslims can't be allowed to believe what they like in a secular society. As long as they don't expect non-Muslims to follow Muslim rules, and as long as they don't break the law of the land, then what is the problem?

I know I've written a lot (just as I usually do), but you should be used to me doing so by now, and most importantly your post deserved a proper response (though I do apologize for both my verbosity and repetition).

Yes I'm used to your massive posts, and although I disagree with you on several things, I have never doubted your awesomeness. :shade:

Peace

[kritikvernunft]

That being said, I hope you understand that all major religions in the world carry some type of condemnation for sodomy being committed between two males;

Yes: add that to the large list of reasons why I am opposed to them all.

In my impression, religious people are not much up in arms about people being homosexual, or even committing sodomy, but much more so, for doing that publicly. These gay people get punished for violating some kind of social don't ask don't tell code. Since they are getting prosecuted for promoting homosexual views by acting homosexually in public, as far as I am concerned, just throw the complain off the agenda and close it with the WONTFIX status code.

[Karl]

Here is a question. Why are most Westerners homosexuals and are trying to force their degenerate behaviour on people all over the world? It has gotten so bad these days that a lot of big white men breed with skinny little Asians in the hope of having homosexual sons.
Islam does not need to defend itself in being anti homosexual because it is just degenerate behaviour and sexual perversion. It is like eating by ramming food up your nose, it's just a crazy thing to do.

[Karl]

In my impression, religious people are not much up in arms about people being homosexual, or even committing sodomy, but much more so, for doing that publicly. These gay people get punished for violating some kind of social don't ask don't tell code. Since they are getting prosecuted for promoting homosexual views by acting homosexually in public, as far as I am concerned, just throw the complain off the agenda and close it with the WONTFIX status code.

True and Russia has a law against promotion of homosexuality. White Russia has returned to Christianity and some of the Asian states are mostly Muslim. So it is best for the homosexuals to stop pushing their agenda as Putin may get it into his head to nuke the West. God works in mysterious ways.

[Reminder]

Can anyone give me one good rational reason to be against homosexuality?

Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt_xxqMT2JY

[kritikvernunft]

Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt_xxqMT2JY

A great response by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Sex is not just some form of entertainment. Sex fundamentally acquires its legitimacy from the fact that we reproduce with it, while homosexual behaviour does not lead to reproduction. That is clearly why homosexuality cannot have the same status.

As believers, we define "freedom" as being able to engage in any behaviour that is not explicitly forbidden in the Divine Law. Freedom means that the ruler cannot forbid that what Divine Law has permitted, but it also means that the ruler cannot give permission for that what Divine Law has forbidden. The CNN reporter asks Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "Wouldn't it be great?" to give permission for what Divine Law has forbidden, i.e. homosexual behaviour?

The answer is no. It would not be great. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the leader of the believers in Iran. He cannot give permission for that what Divine Law has forbidden.

[Search]

:bism: (In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

Greetings, Search,

:) Hello, my fellow IB friend.

Wonderful. That's half of my argument conceded right there.

:?czgibson, I'm not sure how you've reached this conclusion.

If you come at me with the hadith (prophetic tradition) in which Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) talked about sodomy, I will of course not deny that hadith as part of Islam.

However, your argument from my understanding had to do with how violence done against homosexuals can be accounted to Islam, and this is a conclusion that I have consistently denied and still do.

Remember your argument originally was about vigilante type violence committed towards homosexuals.

There are countless examples. Here's one:

Here is a Saudi government official referring to the 2010 case of a man who had appeared in a gay video online: "The District Court sentenced the accused in a homosexuality case that was referred to it by the CPVPV (the Hai’a) in Jeddah before he was tried for impersonating a security man and behaving shamefully and with conduct violating the Islamic teachings."

I don't know if you know this, but a few years ago in the U.S. there was a scare about some males impersonating officers and stopping women for presumed traffic violations but instead raping women. I am not sure how that incidence as above proves anything except that some persons have committed criminal behavior for which they themselves are responsible.

What could be more violent than executing somebody? It's a perfectly appropriate label.

Tut. Tut. Respectfully disagree with you, czgibson. The term "state sanctioned violence" seems more like sophisticated propaganda to make people wary of the death penalty, something which I've already told you I'd favored as an atheist and still do as a Muslim.

We have the death penalty in U.S. for things like terrorism and murder, and in the majority of the states, we do have the death penalty.

But people often do decide to take the law into their own hands, and if there is a law on the statute book that feeds their prejudices, it is more likely that they will do so. The fact that they are wrong to do so is irrelevant. The end result is the same.

Again, czgibson, I disagree with you that that is not relevant. It is in fact the salient point. And I don't think having laws against specific criminal actions leads people to then commit vigilante justice; people's own impatience, fear, ignorance, or/and lack of faith in the justice system do.

Daesh is definitely not the only reason. I'm reluctant to answer this because of the particularly heavy-handed censorship that's been occurring around here lately. Perhaps a PM?

Yes, right after I'm done writing and posting this post, I'll PM you InshaAllah (God-willing) as I'm curious about how you've reached such an erroneous conclusion, and yes, the use of the word "erroneous" is deliberate.

Why do you support the death penalty for homosexuals then?

czgibson, I work in the legal field; if an attorney cannot support laws, what's the point of even going to law school? I don't agree with all the laws even in the United States, but I still follow them. Do you imagine that others in other countries should be exempt from following their country's laws? That's my first point.

My second point is that just because I support shariah (Islamic law) doesn't mean that I necessarily also support the death penalty for homosexuals because as I've said to you clearly and will say again that the point of forbidding sodomy in shariah doesn't even necessarily result in the death penalty because Hanafi school didn't follow that understanding or conclude that whereas the other three methodological schools (Maliki, Shafi, Hanbali) did. And guess what? I follow the Hanafi school.

My third point, however, is as I've said previously that even those who do support shariah from other schools having the death penalty still doesn't mean that they necessarily advocate capital punishment for homosexuals because such a case should be proven in the court of law without even 1% doubt; and shariah itself has already made any case against homosexuals engaging in illegal intercourse almost impossible to prove and taken together with Prophet :saws: (peace and blessings be upon him) encouraging us to ward off punishment with doubts and to also forgive the punishment when possible, that the right conclusion is definitely that we're to encourage those who commit illegal intercourse to repent.

And that's the other half of my argument pretty much conceded as well. Marvellous.

Hey, Brit, and I say this fondly, I mutiny against the tyranny of your statement and presumption. Harrumph. ;D Remember you said, "My claim is that the Islamic scriptures are a contributary factor in the persecution of gay people around the world." So, I said, "I'd say that sentence needs amending to say that sometimes Islamic scriptures are somewhat a contributory factor in some types of persecution of gay people in the world." I meant, my lovely British gentleman, that you should amend your claim to reflect the truths that I've given for you to consider in your statement, not that I agreed with your claim. :facepalm:

I still don't think Islam causes persons to commit vigilante justice in the vein that you imagine because the "motive" is not based in Islam.

Yes: add that to the large list of reasons why I am opposed to them all.

:Emoji17: I think you already know what that emoticon indicates based on our previous PM conversations.

That is sadly true. It's also usually true of violent crime generally. With deep shame, I apologise on behalf of men everywhere.

How about I apologize for all the times you've been treated badly by my gender any time in all your life. And yes, I'm totally making fun of you for doing the apologizing, not that I don't consider the genuine sentiment behind the statement and applaud it as well. But yes, on the whole, I find that apology umm :p funny.

So, because of certain supernatural beliefs that you adhere to, you are content to see people killed because of their sexual behaviour. If you can't see how dangerous that is, then I'm not sure there's much point continuing this discussion.

It is not because of "certain supernatural beliefs" that I ever went from atheism to Islam.

First and foremost, I'm never content for any person to be killed. However, because God is the Truth, I do believe that God is the Rightful and Ultimate Legislator and therefore do not think that passing judgment on God's laws is ever going to be fruitful.

And finally, throughout the entire history of Ottoman Empire, there is only one recorded instance where illegal intercourse was punished and that was in 1680. Now, the Ottoman Empire lasted for 624 years. Do you honestly believe there was only one person who committed illegal intercourse in 624 years? Well, if you believe that, please wire me all your monetary savings to my bank account because you should also be happy to believe that I'm a Nigerian prince and I'll use your monetary savings to help myself out of a tricky situation. ;)

So, whenever I criticise the behaviour of certain Muslims, I'm told that that has nothing to do with Islam, because Islam and Muslims are different; yet when I criticise the ideas of Islam, I am assumed to be attacking Muslims. What a convenient double standard.

Lol. Seems like it, doesn't it? But on a serious note, while I'm currently only active on this forum, I do read other forums. And this is a matter I've been recently pondering deeper myself. While I do think criticism of Islam should be allowed, because that criticism exists itself and is then subsequently answered in the Qur'an in what I believe are wonderful ways, I also believe that while you as a person are able to make a distinction between Muslims and Islam, others can't and won't. So, for example, Trumpians don't make that distinction. So, I do want you to think about this deeply and tell me what you think because I'd like to be able to hear your thoughts on this matter; sometimes, hearing other people's thoughts on a subject matter clarifies for us our own vision on what line of belief/thinking we want to adopt.

Ideas don't need to be killed when they can be debated in a free society, and they stand or fall on their own merits. Holocaust denial is also false and dangerous, but it's definitely a view that should be available for debate, with no need for violence whatsoever.

But czgibson, do you really mean when you say this? For example, in U.K., one of the things that scares non-Muslims is the possibility that U.K. can be a Muslim-majority nation even though this has been debunked. But let's assume that's a real possibility. Are you then seriously saying then that you'd have no problems with shariah being the law of the land in a free society if people did on the majority stand for it?

I don't see why Muslims can't be allowed to believe what they like in a secular society. As long as they don't expect non-Muslims to follow Muslim rules, and as long as they don't break the law of the land, then what is the problem?

czgibson, I know that Tommy Robinson left EDL, but unless I'm mistaken, EDL still exists in the U.K. Muslims might be hypothetically allowed to believe whatever they want to believe, but practically, I don't think that translates as well because we also have certain efforts being made to erode Muslim identity with things like the PREVENT program.

Yes I'm used to your massive posts, and although I disagree with you on several things, I have never doubted your awesomeness.

Oh, :p yes. *Takes a bow.* Thank you for acknowledging my awesomeness. I don't doubt my awesomeness either. :p

And I don't doubt your awesomeness either, although I do have disagreements with you and will continue to have them on specific matters pertinent to Islam.

And yes, I do believe you should try to understand the foundation of Islam, which is that God Exists and is One. Because unless we've gotten you past that hurdle, you'll continue to wonder why Muslims believe in "impossible" things from which emerge "impossible" understandings.

Wishing you awesomeness, and peace, and yes, inspiration,:)

[kritikvernunft]

I work in the legal field; if an attorney cannot support laws, what's the point of even going to law school?

In the field of software, most participants reject copyright, but only as a principle in general. We do use copyright to define copyleft, which results in exactly the opposite situation as what copyright tries to achieve. So, in that sense, we support copyright, because we can use it to destroy the very purpose and ambitions of copyright itself. In every other sense, we reject copyright. If there is no way to destroy copyright by using a countering copyleft strategy, we will not participate in the copyright system, and not recognize it.
My personal view is that man-made law is only halal if you can use the man-made law itself, to neutralize itself, and to make money from such principle of self-neutralization.

I don't agree with all the laws even in the United States, but I still follow them. Do you imagine that others in other countries should be exempt from following their country's laws?

I do not "follow" such man-made laws. I only seek to neutralize these man-made laws using themselves. Man-made law is notoriously inconsistent, even if only because the underlying motivations are never to bring justice, but always to justify injustices. In that sense, it should always be possible to exploit man-made law to destroy itself and happily make money in the process of doing so.

But then again, governments become increasingly dependent on computer systems that pretty much nobody in such governments actually understands. So, that leads to another game. More and more people are getting increasingly excited at the prospect of destroying their little toys. Not growing dependent on these toys is not possible either, because their enemies will, and in that case, they will lose from enemies with better toys. I think that they are pretty much check mate! ;-)

[Akeyi]

It is a krankheit in the eyes of evolution

[Born_Believer]

I've been wondering about this one for a while now. I live in the Netherlands. Recently, there has been a minor incident involving some guys handing out pamphlets that were clearly against homosexuality. They had some biblical and quanic verses to back up their position. These guys have now been arrested and will be criminally charged with inciting hatred against the LGBT community.

So why are these Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) so fervently against homosexuality? Scientists have found strong leads suggesting that homosexuality is highly likely to be natural rather than to be a product from the environment (nature versus nurture). So that begs the question: why would God in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge knowingly create a homosexual only to condemn him or her later? Ask yourself how much sense that makes?

I know about the story of Lot (Loet in Islam) and the city of Sodom and Gomorra being destroyed because of the rampant homosexuality. But is this really a good argument to treat someone bad? Can anyone give me one good rational reason to be against homosexuality?

Do you know if Islam is more or less against homosexuality than against theft, or murder, or fraud etc? Homosexuality is a crime and I highly doubt the Quran and any hadith mention it more so than other crimes. Could you fill me in on that?

Second, what are these strong leads that scientists have found? There is currently zero genetic evidence showing that homosexuality is linked to the genetic make up of an individual. There is a concerted effort by scientists to push this idea (a lie) the same way as western biologists have pushed the idea of evolution for instance. All of it with the bare minimum of evidence.

You must remember scientists are bought and sold, especially in the west, on the drop of a hat:
- Scientists promoted the lie that eating carrots helped you to see in the dark during WW2

- Scientists were paid by tobacco industrialists to promote the idea that smoking was good for the consumer as recently as the 1950s and 1960s

- Scientists in the modern world have almost completely given up researching and contributing to the creation of new antibiotics because it is far more financially viable to make drugs with regards to heart disease or long terms illnesses where a person will have to use said medication over a period of 20-30 years

- Leading scientists and doctors have bowed to political pressure and of course, financial incentives to claim that gender dysphagia is no longer a disease, although the majority of literature does not support that claim

I could go on for another 20 pages on such things if you like.

And Allah does not punish someone for something that is natural to them, so I have firm belief there is nothing "natural" or hereditary/genetic about homosexuality and no genuine scientific research will ever prove otherwise.

So ultimately we come to the crux of the matter - why do you so firmly believe that homosexuality is correct/right/acceptable?


People always have to defend anti-homosexual views but why does the pro lobby not explain what's so good about homosexuality? How does it help society?

[Huzaifah ibn Adam]

Do you know if Islam is more or less against homosexuality than against theft, or murder, or fraud etc? Homosexuality is a crime and I highly doubt the Quran and any hadith mention it more so than other crimes. Could you fill me in on that?

In the Hadeeth, Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم has cursed sodomites, whereas he has not cursed those who steal or commit fraud.

[Serinity]

:salam:

I want to be an apple. Can I go to the doctor and get a surgery that makes me to a human apple? Please!! I really want to be an apple!! a flying apple!! I feel the need to.. I love apples.

Don't judge me, I want to be an apple that can fly. Impossible? am I crazy? Who are you to judge me! Apple-phobic! I was born with the desire to be a flying Apple!

Allahu alam.

[Kiro]

:salam:

I want to be an apple. Can I go to the doctor and get a surgery that makes me to a human apple? Please!! I really want to be an apple!! a flying apple!! I feel the need to.. I love apples.

Don't judge me, I want to be an apple that can fly. Impossible? am I crazy? Who are you to judge me! Apple-phobic! I was born with the desire to be a flying Apple!

Allahu alam.

I want to be an Elf