Why is Islam so much against homosexuality?

[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.]

[MENTION=37849]Search[/MENTION] - 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,

:

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.mg:

*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/10948796/Paedophilia-is-natural-and-normal-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/s...-says-danish-professor-of-criminal-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/g...promotes-incestuous-pedophilia-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.

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, '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.