Strange reasoning

[Muezzin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[barney]

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

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

You get the drift...

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

God: He dosnt mess about!

 

[Muezzin]

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

Though they might reach for their own stones.

Sorry. They can't all be funny.

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

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

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

You get the drift...

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

God: He dosnt mess about!

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

 

[Woodrow]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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


Shakir's Quran Translation

 

[Pygoscelis]

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

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

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

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

 

[Azy]

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

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 8, Book 82, Number 820:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

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

Sunan Abu-Dawud
Book 38, Number 4447:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

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

Book 38, Number 4448:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

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

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

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

 

[glo]

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

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

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

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

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

So perhaps we have to accept that we are prejudiced.

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

 

[Woodrow]

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

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

So perhaps we have to accept that we are prejudiced.

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

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

 

[YusufNoor]

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

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

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

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

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

 

[barney]

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

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

 

[glo]

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

LOL
That's brilliant!

 

[jd7]

Pygoscelis and Azy

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

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

 

[Abdul Fattah]

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

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

 

[Muezzin]

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

Fair enough.

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

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

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

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

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 8, Book 82, Number 820:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

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

Sunan Abu-Dawud
Book 38, Number 4447:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

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

Book 38, Number 4448:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Azy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Woodrow]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Trumble]

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

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

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

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

 

[Woodrow]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Muezzin]

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

 

[Azy]

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

Perhaps they didn't think it through properly.

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

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

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

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

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

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