What's happened to Islam?

[bananabrain]

Muslimwoman has already indicated that she wants no more dialogue.

that might be because you've been extremely hostile. i think if you were able to calm things down a bit, this would be a more productive conversation, however:

neither will I withdraw the statement "Islam lacks any ethical core beyond "Do whatever you are told" " which is entirely accurate: the Qur'an contains some good ethical advice, and some dubious advice, and some I consider very bad, but a Muslim cannot distinguish the good from the bad, because all of it is based on "whatever you are told, that is from God";

this i feel is monumentally tendentious and unfair. you are confusing an argument for the source of moral authority with the content. clearly many muslims *can* distinguish between right and wrong as you would understand it and would, as in other systems, interpret out things which, if interpreted literally, would result in wrongdoing. you have only to look at today's open letter to the pope to see there are some people trying to make a difference to this:

BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Muslim scholars reach out to Pope

i personally know plenty of highly ethical muslims who draw their moral authority from the Qur'an. they are certainly not "do as you're told" kind of people. i really think statements like this add nothing to the discussion and just appear bigoted.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[bob x]

that might be because you've been extremely hostile. i think if you were able to calm things down a bit, this would be a more productive conversation

My horoscope for today: "On the way to work, your feathers -- usually flat and smooth -- start to ruffle. As the day goes on, you feel increasingly aggressive and grouchy. Maybe it's time to work some of that out. Hit the barbells hard tonight." I would take that as a bad sign, but: this astrologer-person thinks my feathers are usually flat and smooth? Must not know me in the slightest!

you are confusing an argument for the source of moral authority with the content.

The source determines the content. If the source is believed to be "whatever it says in an ancient book", then the content will be the preservation of the stupidities and brutalities of ancient times.
Now as you point out, many religious people *say* they derive their moralities from the ancient books, but they don't really *mean* it: if shown something horrible that they are "commanded" to do, out come the excuses and tendentious interpretations to explain it away, because they know in their heart that it is just wrong. But that moral sense in their heart is not what their religion is teaching them: it is something they hold onto IN SPITE OF what their religion teaches.
And while you say you know many Muslims who interpret away what would lead to wrongdoing, I find that this is rarer in Islam than in the other Abrahamic religions (though make no mistake, I despise fundamentalist Judaism and fundamentalist Christianity equally as much as fundamentalist Islam; and spend more of my energy combatting fundamentalist Christianity, since it is the most direct threat to my life and livelihood). The Torah does to be sure include some laws with no stated basis than "do as you're told" ("Thou shalt not boil a kid in his mother's milk-- I am YHWH!") but oftentimes grounds it pronouncements in an ethics of reciprocity ("Thou shalt not mistreat slaves-- for remember, you were slaves in Egypt"). The New Testament is strong on this, not just "Love God with all you have, and your neighbor as yourself-- on that depends all of the law", but even explicit statements that what is in old books should be disregarded if it is not right (the law about unilateral divorce "was written out of hard-heartedness", Jesus says, and is just wrong); however, Christianity often becomes a neo-legalism, no don't go by whatever the Jewish old book said, go by whatever OUR new improved old book says.
Islam? The Qur'an grounds its laws in "Allah knows best", and I seldom find any hint of any other logic. When reference is made to the possibility that you would know in your own heart what is right, the Qur'an often tells you to GO AGAINST your heart: as in the passage about inflicting 100 lashes, which particularly sent me over the edge into hostility. I don't see any hope for Islam until Muslims are ready to say, some things in the Qur'an are just flat-out wrong. That's what I don't see: "fundamentalist Christians" are a subset of Christians; but, "fundamentalist Muslims" is practically a redundancy, they're just about all that way.

 

[Muslimwoman]

i know *you* don't. however, there are some who would agree with you that they are part of the same faith, who would, nonetheless, consider that the violence and terrorism they practise were taught by this faith. they interpret it into action one way, you interpret it into action another way. there are people in my faith who interpret it in such a way as to suppose that it gives them the right to treat non-jews in general with disdain, or actively persecute palestinians. i may be of the same faith as them, consider them to be jews, but consider them to be completely in error in terms of what the faith teaches - and i would and do go out of my way to point this out to them by any means in my power. [FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']what you are objecting to is *categorical* statements without context, nuance and distinction[/font] - as do and would i. that's the point.

Excellent analysis and I can agree completely, thank you.

sometimes i think you fail to appreciate the depth of doublethink and hypocrisy that occurs - the "logic" goes something like this:

I don't think I fail to understand it or accept this is how these people think or that they take those teachings from their interpretation of verses of the Quran (while totally ignoring huge chunks of it because it doesn't fit their argument). What I cannot do, as I said to Niranjan so many times, is argue their corner or explain why they think this way, I do not think like them alhamdolillah so all I can do is try to offer guesses as to how the political situations in places like Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan are fuelling their warped thinking.

you can see, therefore, how these fine distinctions are meaningless if you can justify a bus bombing in tel aviv on the grounds that every israeli is a "military target" and tel aviv is a "settlement".

Well here we need a distinction of what in my view is a military target (I say in my view as I said I would support fighting legitimate military targets within Israel). In the Irish troubles the IRA used to put car bombs on soldiers cars, cars which carried wives and children. That is not a legitimate military target.

Once that soldier gets into his tower or tank and trains his gun on your people, he then becomes a legitimate military target.

So to me a legitimate military target is someone armed, capable and intending to fight you. There is no fine distinction in my mind or in the Quran, we can only fight those actively fighting us (and that does not include children throwing stones). Okay then we get into the who started it bit and who refused which peace offer but that’s another argument.

i know most journalists fail to point this out - it's the same doublethink and hypocrisy that allows certain people to go on about how wonderful the ahle qitab ("people of the book") are without pointing out that no christians and jews have actually qualified for that label since the revelation of the Qur'an, so it's effectively meaningless except for pretending to be tolerant.

I agree with you, people are individuals and hold differing views of the same thing. As for the People of the Book, to me that is like saying I didn't agree to being called German because I am Deutsch (same thing different languages). It is simply a name to refer to followers of the Torah and followers of the Bible. It is like this silly discussion about is G-d and Allah the same thing Erm YES it is just the same word in a different language.

i agree - but equally, no amount of temporising and equivocation is going to change the fact that *they consider* themselves muslims, consider themselves driven by their faith and followers of the Qur'an, hadith and sunnah in every detail.

I can't and don't argue with that, I simply object when I am tarred with their brush (and my objection is toward the person saying it and the Muslims that creat that brush for me to be tarred with).

thus we can have people saying that "well, the 9/11 hijackers and 7/7 bombers weren't muslim",

No-one but Allah can say they are or are not Muslim, we can only say their acts are unIslamic.

that is *so* glib. what the US did (and the UK sort of did whilst at the same time sort of trying to not do) was support the right of the jewish people to national self-determination,

Now come on BB, accepting the right to self-determination is one thing but doing that by saying ‘oh look we are occupying this country so you can go there and of course we don’t need to ask the people that live there’ is typical British Empirical thinking. At the time the Muslims and Jews in the area were not exactly having hugging competitions, Jerusalem has important Jewish and Islamic religious sites – could anyone over the age of 4 not guess there would be trouble? Quite frankly I thin the UK & US just wanted the problem to go away and be someone else’s problem – I can see no other reason for what they did, knowing what would happen (or maybe the intelligence people were on holiday that week?).

There is also the issue of Zionist leaders refusing unoccupied land, where the Jewish nation would have been welcomed, using guilt and foot stamping to say ‘it is this bit or nothing’. If any other nation of people did that everyone else would say ‘hey your choice mate’.

Even if you accept the religious right of the Jewish nation to live on that land (which from a religious perspective I do) that should not be at the expense of other people.

i'm not sure there are many US and UK army bases in iran, lebanon and syria.

Hee, hee good one.

fine, i agree that, just as long as we also agree that the way they have been treated by their "own people" is also shameful, whether we are talking about the dreadful rulers or the rabid insurgents.

Okay we can agree on that, as long as we can also agree that for the Israeli government to build settlements in the buffer zone and place their people out as cannon fodder, just to grab another km of land, is also shameful. (hey maybe you and I should be appointed to create a peace accord for them )

although not in guantanamo bay, eh, or those camps that mubarak has.

Of course not, torturing these people simply solidifies their feelings of injustice and gives their supporters something else to fight about. Personally I would have an international prison which was an education centre. The guards would be from non aggresive countries and the teachers would be moderate Imams. The world would be safe from them and re-educated back to the true path of Islam. On their release, if ever, they would take that message back to others. Quite honestly I think those that remained inside for life would actively participate in re-educating new inmates.

as long as this peace did not depend upon either side being treated as dhimmi were in practice, as contemptible, somewhat laughable second-class citizens.

I know this will annoy you but so be it. If you get peace for 100 years and your kids can sleep safely in their beds and you have a huge bloody wall to stand behind does it matter if you stand on that wall, bear your buttocks and say “we are dhimmi’s”. Okay it is not very pleasant but let’s be honest we all see the statements about ‘one million Arabs not worth a Jewish fingernail’ and Israeli soldiers saying ‘we are human and they are animals’. So ‘superiority’ is an issue on both sides but 100 years would be a real time of peace to find middle ground, to move forward, to find a way past these issues.

i think we know what sort of people you are not a fan of and i am not a fan of them either - but they are not the only people who are entitled to call themselves zionists.

Sorry that I have used it incorrectly (generalising again). Can you give me an appropriate word for the group I am not a fan of?

as it happened i got my auntie to give one of my palestinian friends a lift to brent cross the other day, so i suppose it's a start, they just both happened to be at my house at the same time!

Everything starts with small steps – Bravo.

look, as tesco say, every little helps, but we are so far away from that being an action that would stop someone murdering me

But if we say we want it all today we are being unrealistic. We must grab any little crumb we can find and build on it, get that information out so in time the net is flooded with demands for peace, rather than the hatred we have now. I know that is easier for me to say when no-one is calling for my death or that of my auntie. This, to me, is one of the biggest problems at the moment, everyone looks for the negative, so if the document calls for the end of terrorist attacks but also says ‘Muslims are superior to Jews so should take the high road’ (I have not read it all yet either so am not suggesting it says that just giving an example), the negative comment will be latched onto and the positive will be ignored. So why should that cleric make the effort in the future? It just encourages him to say ‘bugger it, why bother making myself unpopular and a target’.

asharq al-awsat did

LMAO that is such a western sounding name!!! That makes my point perfectly, why was it not on the front page of the Times “STEP TOWARD PEACE” or “SAUDI CLERIC STATES TERRORIST ACTION UNISLAMIC” – with huge neon lights and bells and whistles and loads of encouraging sounds from western governments?

because we have a principle that human interpretation is valid as well and sometimes has to overrule revealed truth for the sake of practicality, equity and the sanctification of the Divine Name (i.e. making G!D look good) - to our way of thinking, G!D thoroughly approves of us using the *rules of argument and logic* that came from G!D to come to a conclusion that may *appear* to overrule G!D.

Hmm, not sure we could go as far as overruling G-d but certainly we must get back to the time when discussion and personal interpretation was encouraged (think you know my teeth are firmly gritted on that issue).

 

[Muslimwoman]

but all the high-tech weaponry in the world doesn't stop low-intensity, low-tech irregular warfare, as the israelis ought to bloody know, at any rate you can't stop 80,000 rockets; they found that out the hard way last summer.

You really don’t want to start comparing number of dead civilians in Israel to number of dead civilians in Lebanon last year do you? Or we really will start arguing. That is not to defend killing Israeli’s but what they did to Lebanon turns my stomach and to be totally honest turned me against Israel (as a government) totally, any sympathy I had for them before that vanished to be frank.

i understand this, of course, but i am still not aware that the irish encouraged their children to seek martyrdom and aspire to it religiously.

The reason the Irish troubles and Palestine?israel are such a good comparison is because they both started fighting over land and it developed into a fight about religious differences.

Okay they do not use the same terminology or promise 72 virgins and daily orgies but the teaching, to children, of religious hatred was the same. They were taught that we are on the side of right and we are superior to them. Sounding familiar? Have you heard of the IRA Youth wing? Do you know how young some of them were? It was not the boy scouts I can assure you. Two young sisters (one 7 yrs and one 9 years) were videoed in an abandoned warehouse practicing stripping and re-assembling an automatic rifle (I wish I had such nimble fingers).

they might have hated the english but they didn't try and get this over by intentionally sacrificing their children.

I accept that but then I have to ask why a 7 year old needs to know how to strip an SLR?

once you factor that in, it becomes quite understandable how so many of them have died, israeli attitudes notwithstanding

That does not wash with me for a split second, been there, seen it, done it and got the t-shirt in every colour. I am not talking about 15 year old boys as human bombs, I am talking about 9 year old girls in school (or was the teacher teaching them to fight with a stick of chalk?). I am talking about Israeli reports that children were blown up by their own bombs yet their bodies in the morgue show bullet wounds to the head and no evidence of bomb damage (seen by independent witnesses). I accept the Mickey Mouse things blows my mind – sheer bloody insanity but you cannot use that as an excuse to kill children.

What I would like to see, as disrespectful as it sounds, is that every time a child is killed an independent expert is brought in to examine the body and evidence of what that child was doing. I would bet my bottom Egyptian pound that within 6 months there would be outrage (including from Israeli people).

i can assure you i know plenty of israeli soldiers, my cousins all serve - and all of them are appalled at being put in a situation where they might be forced to make a split-second decision about whether a kid has a bomb belt on or not.

incidentally, i've got no problem with the guardian. or this neo-marxist site, though i don't care for their politics or their tone sometimes: Stop mothering the Middle East | spiked

Well there you go then, it is okay to kill a kids family and bomb his home as long as there are adults around to comfort him there will be no lasting damage. Hey give him a football, that will take his mind off it. Let’s start a ‘send footballs to war zones campaign’. And this outrageous sympathy for children, I mean how stupidly emotional.



Salaam
MW

I am going for the longest post in CR history - how am I doing?

 

[Muslimwoman]

That's what I don't see: "fundamentalist Christians" are a subset of Christians; but, "fundamentalist Muslims" is practically a redundancy, they're just about all that way.

Polite words fail me.

 

[bob x]

"Hmm, not sure we could go as far as overruling G-d "
Could you get as far as overruling Muhammad? This would, of course, mean acknowledging that just because he spoke in God's name doesn't mean the words were actually from God.

 

[Muslimwoman]

"Hmm, not sure we could go as far as overruling G-d "
Could you get as far as overruling Muhammad? This would, of course, mean acknowledging that just because he spoke in God's name doesn't mean the words were actually from God.

I can and do go as far as to overrule many of the hadiths attributed to the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). As soon as I found out that many hadiths are considered 'weak' (ie lies) by the scholars I began to dismiss them en masse unless they are specifically confirmed in the Quran. I have said many times that if the scholas really want us to understand our faith they must get together and write a book of hadiths they consider authentic. All this 'some are but you need us to tell you which ones' is just a way of keeping their little power base in tact and is in fact leading s many Muslims astray.

An example - I do not accept stoning as a punishment. Stoning is not mentioned in the Quran as a punishment and all this 'ah yes but it was abrogated and the verse did exist but was eaten by a goat' is utter bloody claptrap in my opinion. The hadiths cannot abrogate the Quran, we know that because the Quran says so and Allah says He will protct the Quran for all time - it does not say I will protect it except the stoning verse. In my opinion this brutal punishment was a norm at the time and the continued use of it was because some bloody minded men wanted to keep using it to satisfy their blood lust.

Also of the 6 or 7 Muslims on CR that I have had lengthy discussions with only one stuck to 'stoning is fom the Sunnah and is the consensus so you must accept it' line.

If you ever want to have a real discussion about Islam, without personal comments or agresively calling my faith names then we can do that and I shall explain my theory of where a vast majority of the oppressive Muslim practices come from (and they did not come from the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh)). I trace virtually all of them back to one man.

 

[bob x]

Let me make myself clearer then: can you overrule THE QUR'AN? Can you ever say, what it says here in the Qur'an is just *wrong*, it was Muhammad's opinion, and yes, he spoke in the name of God, but the words are a man's words and not God's words? Can you say that, about anything, anything at all, in the Qur'an?

 

[Muslimwoman]

Let me make myself clearer then: can you overrule THE QUR'AN? Can you ever say, what it says here in the Qur'an is just *wrong*, it was Muhammad's opinion, and yes, he spoke in the name of God, but the words are a man's words and not God's words? Can you say that, about anything, anything at all, in the Qur'an?

Show me something you consider *wrong* in the Quran and I will tell you if I can agree with that and if not, why not.

There are some things in the Quran that on first reading I thought 'no way is that from Allah' but once I found context and looked at the historical practices of the time even I had to accept.

 

[bob x]

We are back to the 100 lashes which I called "vile and disgusting"; your earlier defense of it was that it is only supposed to happen rarely. I say it is thoroughly wrong, always; to repeat from post #108 so you don't have to scroll back:

Violence has no justification except to prevent other violence. If a wife is unfaithful to her husband, of course he is entitled to a divorce, and she loses her rights to any support or to custody of any children they might have. But if the husbands murders her, or commits gross violence, that is a crime. Such "crimes of passion" may be punished less heavily because it is recognized that not everyone can control their baser emotions. But to kill, or commit such savage violence as the Qur'an calls for, not in the heat of passion but cold-bloodedly, as an act of the whole society? That is deliberately feeding the baser emotions, calling mercy bad and cruelty good. To do such in the name of God is a profound blasphemy.

 

[Muslimwoman]

We are back to the 100 lashes which I called "vile and disgusting"; your earlier defense of it was that it is only supposed to happen rarely. I say it is thoroughly wrong, always; to repeat from post #108 so you don't have to scroll back:

There isnt a one line answer so you will have to bear with me. This is why Muslims say it is so important to put verses in context with other verses.

In Islam adultery is one of the gravest sins. So you understand the seriousness of this issue for Muslims:

“[Under Islamic laws in an Islamic state] It is not lawful to shed the blood of a Muslim except for one of three sins: a married person committing fornication, and in just retribution for premeditated murder, and [for sin of treason involving] a person renouncing Islam, and thus leaving the community [to join the enemy camp in order to wage war against the faithful].” (Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, and An-Nasa’i)

The conditions placed on punishing anyone for adultery (as per the Quran) are:

1. The person who commited adultery must be a sane, adult Muslim.

2. Proof of the crime can only be through voluntary confession or 4 reliable Muslim witnesses that actually see the penis enter the vagina (seeing clothing meeting is not enough all 4 must actually see the genitals in contact) or through unjustifiable pregnancy (ie the husband has been away for 10 months and the woman does not claim rape, of course there is no punishment for a woman that has been raped).

3. The person that confesses does not change their testimony before punishment is given.

4. None of the 4 witnesses change their testimony before punishment is given.

NB for all other crimes only 2 reliable male Muslim witnesses are required.

So according to the Quran the only way you can receive 100 lashes (be you male or female) is if you confess, basically do it in the town square with lots of witnesses, unexplainably become pregnant with no suggestion of rape.

For those that confessed, to avoid punishment they can simply withdraw their confession.

Any witness that gives evidence against someone and that evidence is shown to be false, they will be punished instead and their testimony in any matter will be rejected in the future.

Much is told in the Sunnah of the practice of withdrawal prior to ejaculation, which one would assume if you are committing adultery and there is no such thing as contraception (which there was not at the time) is a practice you would use to avoid pregnancy.

So what we actually have is simply a severe warning against committing adultery because it is virtually impossible, according to the Quran, to earn this punishment.

That is the Quran, the faith of Islam - what some Muslims twist that into is a completely different matter.

 

[bob x]

"In Islam adultery is one of the gravest sins. "
Violence is a much graver sin. I know perfectly well that Islam thinks sexual matters justify violence (that I, personally, would be dead very quickly if I fell into the hands of someone like Muhammad). This is one of the grave evils in Islam. You cannot say so, because you cannot repudiate The Book. That is what I mean when I say that you, too, are a "fundamentalist" (an idolater who worships a book). There is no point that I can see in arguing about it any further: what you call good, I consider profoundly evil, and that is not likely to change.
"unjustifiable pregnancy (ie the husband has been away for 10 months and the woman does not claim rape, of course there is no punishment for a woman that has been raped)"
In practice, of course, if the woman has been raped she will be unable to prove it, and will be condemned.

 

[Muslimwoman]

(that I, personally, would be dead very quickly if I fell into the hands of someone like Muhammad).

Good heavens you are just a non Muslim version of Abdullah, even when I offer to have a grown up conversation about Islam you just go into 'hate' mode. I suggest you learn what the Quran teaches.

Show me one single verse of the Quran that states the punishment for a man that performs a homosexual act ...... I'll save you some time shall I here it is:

If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful. (4:16)

Again, what my faith teaches and what some Muslims do are two totally different things. No, we do not accept homosexuality as a natural practice, as sexual intercourse is for procreation. Yes I do reject the people that insist death is the punishment for homosexuality, your sexual practices will be judged by Allah, as will mine.

Different Muslim countries have different views on homosexuality. In Egypt homosexuality is not illegal but if people are openly 'flirting' their sexuality they can be prosecuted under public indecency laws (as I would be if I stuck my tongue down my husbands throat in public).

In practice, of course, if the woman has been raped she will be unable to prove it, and will be condemned.

Try to think about what you are saying. It would take 3-4 months before a pregnancy became known, so one would assume that unless the woman has been in a coma for that length of time she would have told somebody she had been raped.

 

[bob x]

If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both.

My understanding is that the word you render "punish" here means "execute". Of course there could be reprieve

If they repent and amend...

but I cannot "amend" my nature. I am as God made me, and have nothing to "repent" for in that regard.

In Egypt homosexuality is not illegal but if people are openly 'flirting' their sexuality they can be prosecuted under public indecency laws

Dozens were arrested for being at a private party, and imprisoned in harsh conditions for lengthy periods. If you have not heard of the case, I certainly have.

one would assume that unless the woman has been in a coma for that length of time she would have told somebody she had been raped

And been condemned as a liar, for failure to produce four witnesses; then, when her pregnancy shows, that is proof of her guilt. If you have not heard of such cases, I certainly have.

And then there is this case: no no no, I am not going to tell you this is "typical" of Muslims, it's just too funny
Gunman severs victim's penis - Yahoo! News

 

[bob x]

16. Waallathani ya/tiyaniha minkum faathoohuma fa-in taba waaslaha faaAAridoo AAanhuma inna Allaha kana tawwaban raheeman
from this source giving transliterations and the common translations:
USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts
None of the translators give any clarity about what kind of "punishment" is intended:
004.016
YUSUFALI: If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: And as for the two of you who are guilty thereof, punish them both. And if they repent and improve, then let them be. Lo! Allah is ever relenting, Merciful.
SHAKIR: And as for the two who are guilty of indecency from among you, give them both a punishment; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them; surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.
USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts

 

[Muslimwoman]

My understanding is that the word you render "punish" here means "execute". Of course there could be reprieve

Thank you for posting the correct interpreations of the Quran. It does not say execute or mean execute. My belief is that the word punish is left for mankind to decide, as G-d knows morals will change with time.

but I cannot "amend" my nature. I am as God made me, and have nothing to "repent" for in that regard.

I am not saying that you can change, it is an issue I really do not understand. My personal feeling is that your sexuality is between you and G-d. Do I agree it is a natural way to have sexual intercourse, no I do not but do I judge you for it, no I do not.

Dozens were arrested for being at a private party, and imprisoned in harsh conditions for lengthy periods. If you have not heard of the case, I certainly have.

No I have not heard about it, I would be interested if you have a link. I cannot see how they can arrest people in private for something that is not illegal. I would imagine they have decided that a private party is public, as there are more than 2 people there but would need to read about it before I made any rational comment.

That said we do not live in a democracy, we live under martial law and the police are a law unto themselves (particularly the secret police).

And been condemned as a liar, for failure to produce four witnesses; then, when her pregnancy shows, that is proof of her guilt. If you have not heard of such cases, I certainly have.

I have heard of many terrible things that Muslims do, what I am saying is that it is not sanctioned by our faith.

And then there is this case: no no no, I am not going to tell you this is "typical" of Muslims, it's just too funny
Gunman severs victim's penis - Yahoo! News[/quote]

Wow was Mrs Bobbit a Muslim? Jealousy makes people do the most awful things no matter what faith they follow.

Do you have a faith Bob? Either one you were born into and rejected or one you choose to follow? Just curious.

 

[bob x]

I am not saying that you can change, it is an issue I really do not understand. My personal feeling is that your sexuality is between you and G-d.

Thank you. But: the author of the Qur'an did not have that opinion; are you repudiating the Qur'an to that extent?

Dozens were arrested for being at a private party, and imprisoned in harsh conditions for lengthy periods. If you have not heard of the case, I certainly have.
No I have not heard about it, I would be interested if you have a link

Egypt Officially Brands Homosexuality ‘Perverted’

And been condemned as a liar, for failure to produce four witnesses; then, when her pregnancy shows, that is proof of her guilt. If you have not heard of such cases, I certainly have.
I have heard of many terrible things that Muslims do, what I am saying is that it is not sanctioned by our faith.

I don't see how you can say that: if she makes an accusation of rape, and has no witnesses, her charge cannot stand, according to the Qur'an. Then, the charge against her is proven, by the evidence of the pregnancy. Where in the Qur'an do you see that this is not exactly how it is supposed to go?

Do you have a faith Bob? Either one you were born into and rejected or one you choose to follow?

I was not raised in any religion (if you go back to my great-grandparents, they were mostly Presbyterians, but none of my grandparents or parents were religious). I consider myself Buddhist more than anything.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Thank you. But: the author of the Qur'an did not have that opinion; are you repudiating the Qur'an to that extent?

Not at all. The Quran is very clear that homosexuality is forbidden. The verse I gave you says homosexuals should be punished, so it is not an accepted way of life. All sins must be accounted for after our death. I am nobody's judge, it is not my place to judge you, which is why I say it is between you and G-d. When you die you will have to account for your bad deeds, as will I.

Egypt Officially Brands Homosexuality ‘Perverted’

It seems my husband must be gay as he does not pass the 'underwear' test:

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Crossing Continents | Egypt crackdown on homosexuals

I honestly don't know where I stand on this issue Bob. I cannot agree it is a natural way of life as I do believe life is about procreation and husband/wife relationships but I would not want to see harm come to you or any other gay person. I also would not want to live in a society where any sexuality, homosexual or hetrosexual, was openly shown.

We have a young gay man comes into our shop to buy clothes, he is a very pleasant young man. I would not like to see him arrested or abused in any way by anybody but I suppose I keep hoping he will 'grow out of it'. That must sound insulting and naive to you and I am sorry but it is how I feel.

I don't see how you can say that: if she makes an accusation of rape, and has no witnesses, her charge cannot stand, according to the Qur'an. Then, the charge against her is proven, by the evidence of the pregnancy. Where in the Qur'an do you see that this is not exactly how it is supposed to go?

The Quran talks about witnesses for zina (consensual sexual intercourse). Rape is by definition not zina.

The Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) never punished a rape victim and used to have the rapist killed. No witnesses were required, he took the womans word for it.

What Muslims have done with that is another matter (like the awful Hudood laws) but neither the Quran nor the Prophet accepted rape or insisted that women must have witnesses.

This is from IslamOnline:

A raped woman is a victim that must be treated with honor and kindness. She is not required to produce four witnesses to prove the crime done against her, nor is she punished for the crime done against her.

In his response to your question, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, a senior lecturer and Islamic scholar at the Islamic Institute of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, states:

If a person makes an allegation of adultery against another person (male or female) he or she must produce four witnesses to support such an allegation; otherwise, he or she is guilty of slandering, which is a grave offense in Islam, for we are not to tarnish the honor of anyone.

A woman who has been raped cannot be asked to produce witnesses; her claim shall be accepted unless there are tangible grounds to prove otherwise. To insist that she provide witnesses is akin to inflicting further pain on her. If anyone refutes her claim of innocence, the onus is on him to provide evidence, and she may simply deny the claim by making a solemn oath, thus clearing herself in public.​

 

[Snoopy]

Not at all. The Quran is very clear that homosexuality is forbidden. The verse I gave you says homosexuals should be punished, so it is not an accepted way of life.

We have a young gay man comes into our shop to buy clothes, he is a very pleasant young man. I would not like to see him arrested or abused in any way by anybody but I suppose I keep hoping he will 'grow out of it'. That must sound insulting and naive to you and I am sorry but it is how I feel.

Clearly, I can only speak for myself; but I do not recall making a conscious decision as to my sexuality. Therefore, whatever it is, I had no choice. Should it be reasonable that there be a possibility that I might be punished for it, either in this world or...?

Also, I am not expecting to grow out of my sexuality...

s.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Clearly, I can only speak for myself; but I do not recall making a conscious decision as to my sexuality. Therefore, whatever it is, I had no choice. Should it be reasonable that there be a possibility that I might be punished for it, either in this world or...?

I can't answer for G-d. All of the Scriptures have said it is forbidden and unnatural, so I can't even say 'well maybe we misinterpreted our Scripture'. I honestly don't know what to make of it all, is it a test from G-d to see if I practice the tolerence I preach? I honestly do not know what to make of this issue, it is one of a list of issues I leave to G-d and trust He knows what He is doing, as it is one of the few issues my 'gut' remains silent on.

Also, I am not expecting to grow out of my sexuality...

I don't imagine the young man I was talking about will 'grow out of it' either. I think that is just my mind struggling with what I accept and do not.