Strange reasoning

[YusufNoor]

Perhaps they didn't think it through properly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

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

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

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

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

do i have that right?

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

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

 

[Azy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.

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

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

 

[YusufNoor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

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

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

 

[Muezzin]

Perhaps they didn't think it through properly.

Probably.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Azy]

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

Fair enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Muezzin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Azy]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Muezzin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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