Islam "accepts homosexuality"

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Here's a one in the eye for the Islamophobes at RevLeft:


Islam 'recognizes homosexuality'

Abdul Khalik , The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Fri, 03/28/2008 1:38 AM | Headlines

Homosexuals and homosexuality are natural and created by God, thus permissible within Islam, a discussion concluded here Thursday.

Moderate Muslim scholars said there were no reasons to reject homosexuals under Islam, and that the condemnation of homosexuals and homosexuality by mainstream ulema and many other Muslims was based on narrow-minded interpretations of Islamic teachings.

Siti Musdah Mulia of the Indonesia Conference of Religions and Peace cited the Koran's al-Hujurat (49:3) that one of the blessings for human beings was that all men and women are equal, regardless of ethnicity, wealth, social positions or even sexual orientation.

"There is no difference between lesbians and nonlesbians. In the eyes of God, people are valued based on their piety," she told the discussion organized by nongovernmental organization Arus Pelangi.

"And talking about piety is God's prerogative to judge," she added.

"The essence of the religion (Islam) is to humanize humans, respect and dignify them."

Musdah said homosexuality was from God and should be considered natural, adding it was not pushed only by passion.

Mata Air magazine managing editor Soffa Ihsan said Islam's acknowledgement of heterogeneity should also include homosexuality.

He said Muslims needed to continue to embrace ijtihad (the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the Koran and the Sunnah) to avoid being stuck in the old paradigm without developing open-minded interpretations.

Another speaker at the discussion, Nurofiah of the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), said the dominant notion of heterogeneity was a social construction, leading to the banning of homosexuality by the majority.

"Like gender bias or patriarchy, heterogeneity bias is socially constructed. It would be totally different if the ruling group was homosexuals," she said.

Other speakers said the magnificence of Islam was that it could be blended and integrated into local culture.

"In fact, Indonesia's culture has accepted homosexuality. The homosexual group in Bugis-Makassar tradition called Bissu is respected and given a high position in the kingdom.

"Also, we know that in Ponorogo (East Java) there has been acknowledgement of homosexuality," Arus Pelangi head Rido Triawan said.

Condemnation of homosexuality was voiced by two conservative Muslim groups, the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) and Hizbut Thahir Indonesia (HTI).

"It's a sin. We will not consider homosexuals an enemy, but we will make them aware that what they are doing is wrong," MUI deputy chairman Amir Syarifuddin said.

Rokhmat, of the hardline HTI, several times asked homosexual participants in attendance to repent and force themselves to gradually return to the right path.



Link: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/03/27/islam-039recognizes-homosexuality039.html (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/03/27/islam-039recognizes-homosexuality039.html)

[Unicorn]

"Islamic views on homosexuality are as varied as those of most other major religions and have changed throughout history. Traditionally, Qur'anic verses and hadith have been seen as condemning sexual acts between members of the same sex. The Qur'an cites the story of "people of Lot" (also known as the Sodomites) who were destroyed because they engaged in homosexual acts. The legal punishment for sodomy has varied among juristic schools: some prescribe capital punishment; while other prescribe a milder discretionary punishment. Homosexuality is a crime and forbidden in most Islamic countries, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. In some relatively secular or multi-religious Islamic countries, this is not the case, Algeria, Malaysia, Indonesia and Turkey being examples."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Islam

All four Islamic schools treat homosexuality as a crime. Some "moderate" Muslims may have a different opinion but they are in the minority. Christianity does not accept homosexuality either and it is considered a sin in the Bible. The influence of these religions has been harmful in the world.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Rosa, I smell opportunism here... :(

[Bilan]

There are Christians who accept homosexuality too, that doesn't mean the religion in itself is not inherently homophobic, not to mention detrimental to the development and liberation of humanity.

[Devrim]

This post has nothing to do with 'Islam accepting homosexuality'. It has to do with a few 'Muslim scholars', whose credentials as 'Muslim scholars look pretty dubious to me, accepting it.

Devrim

[Gitfiddle Jim]

Tell this to Abu Hamza.

[Luís Henrique]

While it certainly is less harmful that those scholars have concluded that homosexuality is a natural thing, it still should be pointed that nobody asked them, and their opinion on the matter should carry no more weight than that of Benedict XVI.

Luís Henrique

[careyprice31]

Here's a one in the eye for the Islamophobes at RevLeft:






Link: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/03/27/islam-039recognizes-homosexuality039.html (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/03/27/islam-039recognizes-homosexuality039.html)



I dont wish to be generalizing or stereotyping or racist or anything but i have never heard of an islamic person who actively follows the religion and also supports homosexuality.

[Lector Malibu]

This post has nothing to do with 'Islam accepting homosexuality'. It has to do with a few 'Muslim scholars', whose credentials as 'Muslim scholars look pretty dubious to me, accepting it.

Devrim

I got the same impression from the post as well.

[Black Dagger]

I dont wish to be generalizing or stereotyping or racist or anything but i have never heard of an islamic person who actively follows the religion and also supports homosexuality.

It's not common to find 'actively' religious people of any stripe that 'support homosexuality' - but nevertheless i do know non-homophobic muslims (one of them used to post on this messageboard)- and there's probably a lot more whom i have not met - particularly amongst movements for social change - and don't forget queer muslims.

[Lector Malibu]

I'm sure it is the case in all kinds of religions that there are not only homosexuals , but people who accept homosexuality and don't condemn homosexuals as sinners. That's good and it's a start, never the less though it does not take away the evils of religion or alter the horrific impact religion has had on the world be it Christianity , Islam, or Catholicism.

[Devrim]

While it certainly is less harmful that those scholars have concluded that homosexuality is a natural thing, it still should be pointed that nobody asked them, and their opinion on the matter should carry no more weight than that of Benedict XVI.

Luís Henrique

Of course their opinions should carry no more weight than that of the Pope. However, they will in fact carry much less.

Millions of people, unfortunately listen to the pope. These figures do not in any way represent Islam. As for the claim that they are Islamic scholars, it is laughable. Three of the four people quoted are women for a start. The first is an academic, but I think really the term 'Islamic scholar' implies more than somebody is an academic who studies Islam. Alongside her, we have an editor of a flight magazine, and a human rights worker. It is hardly Qom, is it?

In fact it just seems like it is something that someone has decided to post in their ever more desperate attempts to defend Islam as a religion in itself.

That some Muslims think that homosexuals should have equally rights is news to nobody. It doesn't mean that Islam itself suggests this in any way.

Devrim

[Neutrino]

Islam "accepts homosexuality"

I'd like to believe it, but I don't. What bullshit.

[Luís Henrique]

Christianity , Islam, or Catholicism.

Catholics are Christians. In fact, they are the Christians; the others are merely heretics... ;)

Luís Henrique

[Trystan]

Here's a one in the eye for the Islamophobes at RevLeft:





Link: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/03/27/islam-039recognizes-homosexuality039.html (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/03/27/islam-039recognizes-homosexuality039.html)


Oh really? Try telling that to members of the gay community in Iran . . .

http://www.mererhetoric.com/images/irangayteens3_sm.jpg


Islam is a barbaric religion with the exact opposite principles of leftism/socialism.

[Luís Henrique]

Islam is a barbaric religion with the exact opposite principles of leftism/socialism.

No more than Christianism.

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

Catholics are Christians. In fact, they are the Christians; the others are merely heretics... ;)

Luís Henrique

You're a Catholic, aren't you? ;)

[In any event, I would argue that the "original" Xians (and please note my usage of "X" instead of the fuller term ;) ) are either Eastern Orthodox or Gnostics.]

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The Koran disagrees:

7:80-1 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/7/index.htm#80) "And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk."

(homosexual acts are considered an abomination)

26:165-6 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/26/index.htm#165) "What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, And leave the wives your Lord created for you ? Nay, but ye are froward (sic?) folk."

(men are created to have wives, not other males)

27:54-55 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/27/index.htm#54) "And Lot! when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination knowingly? Must ye needs lust after men instead of women ? Nay, but ye are folk who act senselessly."

(Homosexuals are stupid and knowingly do abominable acts)

29:28-29 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/29/index.htm#28) "And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Lo! ye commit lewdness such as no creature did before you. For come ye not in unto males."

(Straight out of the horse's mouth. Don't commit acts of homosexuality)

[emphasis mine]

The argument that homosexuals should be accepted because they are creations of Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah just doesn't wash - He created Satan, but I never hear of Abrahamic religionists calling for the acceptance of Satan, quite the opposite in fact.

Also, followers of Islam (and Christianity for that matter) are more likely to accept the authority of the Koran/Bible than that of some maverick clerics.

But since I don't consider homosexuals to be an "abomination", I guess that makes me an "Islamaphobe" right? :rolleyes:

[Luís Henrique]

You're a Catholic, aren't you? ;)

Nope, I'm an heretic atheist. I don't believe in God for the right reasons.

Luís Henrique

[Trystan]

No more than Christianism.

Luís Henrique

Yes . . . and your point being?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Luis: Still, so say that Catholicism is the original religion does display a "deficit" of knowledge regarding the development of that religion, no? ;)

[To sum it up, there was a heretical Jewish apocalyptic sect that morphed over time into a large cult that incorporated some pagan stuff. When this cult was finally recognized, it took a few hundred years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Nicea_to_Great_Schism_.28325_-_1054.29) before a certain Bishop of Rome dabbled into opportunism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism#Papal_Supremacy).]

[Marsella]

Islam: when religion becomes trendy to defend.

[Gitfiddle Jim]

Islam is a barbaric religion with the exact opposite principles of leftism/socialism.

Seconded.

[spartan]

Islam is a barbaric religion with the exact opposite principles of leftism/socialism.

Its not just Islam its all religions.

I think the concern that people like Rosa have is that she sees that people seem to single out Islam for "special treatment" instead of picking on all religions (Including Islam).

Its a valid concern when you think about it considering the times that we now live in (The west versus Islamic fundamentalists).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Indeed. Most so-called "Islamaphobes" have an equal disdain for other religions as well.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR:



Rosa, I smell opportunism here...


Well, resist it.

I do...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JDL, no more than Christianity is -- and the latter has been progressive at times.

No religion is set in concrete, as some of you seem to believe.

[Marsella]

No religion is set in concrete, as some of you seem to believe.

It certainly is not, which makes it all the more dangerous.

Religion can be upheld to justify all sorts of ludicrous claims.

[Gitfiddle Jim]

JDL, no more than Christianity is -- and the latter has been progressive at times.


Yeah I agree, I'm against all organised religion.

[Trystan]

Its not just Islam its all religions.

I think the concern that people like Rosa have is that she sees that people seem to single out Islam for "special treatment" instead of picking on all religion (Including Islam).

Its a valid concern when you think about it considering the times that we now live in (The west versus Islamic fundamentalists).

Just because "the west" uses Islamism as an excuse is no reason to go easy on Islam with its backward ways.

[Die Neue Zeit]

JR:

Well, resist it.

I do...

I was referring to opportunism on your part, just as with the case of the "sons of the bourgeoisie." :(

[al8]

It certainly is not, which makes it all the more dangerous.

Religion can be upheld to justify all sorts of ludicrous claims.

Exactly! And its just tactical manouvering. Rosa, don't get sand in your eyes! They regularly say contradictory things to different sectors. Its the way they hussle power and eak out sympathies. This is age old con-artistry at work.

[Faux Real]

It certainly is not, which makes it all the more dangerous.

Religion can be upheld to justify all sorts of ludicrous claims.Like socialism.

[black magick hustla]

Like socialism.

i see what you did there chump :)

[Enragé]

Oh really? Try telling that to members of the gay community in Iran . . .

http://www.mererhetoric.com/images/irangayteens3_sm.jpg


Islam is a barbaric religion with the exact opposite principles of leftism/socialism.

Read The Prophet and the Proletariate by Chris Harman, on the Class Basis of Islamic Fundamentalism.

No religion has principles EXACTLY opposed to "leftism/socialism", in fact, a good portion is usually the same. This is even more so with Islam, in Islam women at least have SOME rights [they dont in christianity], and jews and christians are allowed to live their lives. In Christianity, they do not.

If you want to know why christianity winded up like it is, and why islam wound up as it is now, you have to go back to the time of the crusades. I'll give you a teaser: When the crusaders took Jeruzalem, they murdered half the city, when Salah'edin took it back for the muslims, he washed it in water and roses, let everyone live whether jew, christian, or muslim. That was Islam when it was at it's wealthiest, its most powerful in comparison to those barbarians who came from the north to slaughter anyone with another religion (or, in fact, christians as well, since they sometimes mistakenly thought they werent since they didnt look like the christians back home). FUCK THE POPE, bless jezus, and mozes, and Muhammad above all.

oh and Kathars = the shit.

[Enragé]

^^^ Luis: Still, so say that Catholicism is the original religion does display a "deficit" of knowledge regarding the development of that religion, no? ;)

[To sum it up, there was a heretical Jewish apocalyptic sect that morphed over time into a large cult that incorporated some pagan stuff. When this cult was finally recognized, it took a few hundred years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#Nicea_to_Great_Schism_.28325_-_1054.29) before a certain Bishop of Rome dabbled into opportunism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism#Papal_Supremacy).]

err
agreed

with the exception that the bastards raped jezus at Nicea.

[MAVA]

homosexuality maybe "tolerated" but the right will try to connect this terrorism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR:



I was referring to opportunism on your part, just as with the case of the "sons of the bourgeoisie."


Explain to me the difference between seizing an opportunity to further the struggle (consistent with Marxist principles) and 'opportunism'.

At some point we are going to have to relate to the muslim popuation -- all 1.3 billion of them (particularly muslim workers) --, and until the material conditions that give rise to their need for this particular opiate are changed, they are not going to abandon their faith (no matter how much we bad mouth them or their beliefs -- indeed, that will only alienate them further).

However, it is important in the meantime not to see all muslims as some comrades here see them, and thus erect artifical barriers.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Al8:



Rosa, don't get sand in your eyes! They regularly say contradictory things to different sectors. Its the way they hussle power and eak out sympathies. This is age old con-artistry at work.


Just who are they attempting to con? Are they really trying to win RevLeft over? Do 1.3 billion muslims actually need us?

And how do you know they are trying to con anyone?

Sure, some of them are insincere, but some are not. The point is that all muslims are not as they are sometimes pictured here; they are not all anti-gay.

[Die Neue Zeit]

JR:

Explain to me the difference between seizing an opportunity to further the struggle (consistent with Marxist principles) and 'opportunism'.

The latter is the politics of reformists, obviously, but can be the politics of confused "revolutionaries."


At some point we are going to have to relate to the muslim popuation -- all 1.3 billion of them (particularly muslim workers) --, and until the material conditions that give rise to their need for this particular opiate are changed, they are not going to abandon their faith (no matter how much we bad mouth them or their beliefs -- indeed, that will only alienate them further).

Well, in your defense, Hezbollah is playing the anti-fundie card quite well. In one of the RevMarx threads ("most pressing tasks"), I talked about Hezbollah's social outreach. Why aren't self-proclaimed Marxist parties doing this?


However, it is important in the meantime not to see all muslims as some comrades here see them, and thus erect artifical barriers.

That's true.

[Marsella]

Like socialism.

Unfortunately true. :(

Various parties have a very cultist attitude and demand worship from just as many people as Islam does.

Just as harmful to human emancipation as any other religion.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ For once, I agree with you (though I wouldn't call it "worship" - just "party line"). :(

If you could drop your hostility towards "vanguardists" like Lenin, you would be able to see my point in the RevMarx thread on "Democratic centralism vs. Lenin's slogan." :(

[Devrim]

No religion has principles EXACTLY opposed to "leftism/socialism", in fact, a good portion is usually the same. This is even more so with Islam,

Personally, I think that the ideas about economics laid down in the Koran are directly opposed to socialist ideas.

Devrim

[Devrim]

However, it is important in the meantime not to see all muslims as some comrades here see them, and thus erect artifical barriers.

How do you think people see Muslims?

Devrim

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR:



The latter is the politics of reformists, obviously, but can be the politics of confused "revolutionaries."



I agree; but why do you think I am the latter (i.e., an opportunist), and not the former (i.e., someone who wants to seize an opportunity to further the struggle (consistent with Marxist principles))?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:



How do you think people see Muslims?


As soon as you regain your capacity to read what I write with due care, I might deign to tell you...

[Devrim]

As soon as you regain your capacity to read what I write with due care, I might deign to tell you...

Nothing is said because they have nothing to say. Basically, they correctly identified that there was a racist campaign in the West against people from Muslim backgrounds.

The extremes that they have adopted because of this are ridiculous though. And they end up in this position trying to demonstrate that Islam is progressive.

Of course Islam is not progressive in any way. Religion isn't. Today it is reactionary in its very nature.

Devrim

[Dimentio]

Here's a one in the eye for the Islamophobes at RevLeft:





Link: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/03/27/islam-039recognizes-homosexuality039.html (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/03/27/islam-039recognizes-homosexuality039.html)


Why must Islam be defended?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim, the prophet of 'god', speaketh:


Of course Islam is not progressive in any way. Religion isn't. Today it is reactionary in its very nature.


And you read that off stone tablets, no doubt...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Serpent:


Why must Islam be defended?

Who's defending Islam?

All I am doing is undermining a few very deep prejudices held against just over one sixth of the human race.

[Led Zeppelin]

Islam should not be defended by Marxists, just as any other religion shouldn't be, but when most people see me here (in the Netherlands) they equate me with a Muslim because of my Middle-Eastern appearance, that is what should be fought against.

And I believe that is what Rosa meant because as sad as it is, Islam has become connected to a certain appearance in some parts of the world.

[al8]

Just who are they attempting to con? Are they really trying to win RevLeft over? Do 1.3 billion muslims actually need us?

If it where so blatant it would't be effective. Here abiguity is strength. This is not the common muslims that are speaking - the actual base - but specific idiological representatives that are pimpin' the turf, playing on the sentiments of progressive in general (or to leftists for that matter), by feats of re-interpetive window-dressing. This amounts to putting cosmetics on shit, hoping some fool would give it a kiss.


And how do you know they are trying to con anyone?

By seeing the greater picture, I don't even need to. Whatever the case they are objectively con-men whether they are consious of it or not, since they are part and parsel of a larger organized ignorance. By atempting to give good appearance to a highly evangelical faith by means of giving it progressive atributes by far fetched interpretations they're essencially nothing more than a propaganda section I'd like to call the sweet-talk brigade.


Sure, some of them are insincere, but some are not. The point is that all muslims are not as they are sometimes pictured here; they are not all anti-gay.

I know that. Near all atheist know the thumb-rule that "what I think"="what God thinks". (not surprising since gods imaginary).

But I've always found it to be the case that these people are the last ones, drudging behind everybody in adopting progressiveness. Because they inevitably have to grundgingly disrecard the holy word of god through tortuous interpretation. I've noticed that they are only progressive to the amount that they are willing to ignore scripture. (that's why advocacy of atheism is essencial and honest thing to do, for it nullifies the problem.) But now gay rights are on so some represetitive of Islam has to pander to it in some (meaningless) way sooner or later. It's a trite tactical manouver. Dismiss it.

[Lector Malibu]

Devrim, the prophet of 'god', speaketh:



And you read that off stone tablets, no doubt...



Rosa , you know I hear what you are saying Islam has been vilified and yes as a result of 9/11 alot of people think that is okay. I do wish though when addressing this though you would not come off as condescending, even though I agree with your point it makes it harder to hear when presented that way.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Al8:



If it where so blatant it would't be effective. Here abiguity is strength. This is not the common muslims that are speaking - the actual base - but specific idiological representatives that are pimpin' the turf, playing on the sentiments of progressive in general (or to leftists for that matter), by feats of re-interpetive window-dressing. This amounts to putting cosmetics on shit, hoping some fool would give it a kiss.



That does not answer my questions.


By seeing the greater picture, I don't even need to. Whatever the case they are objectively con-men whether they are consious of it or not, since they are part and parsel of a larger organized ignorance. By atempting to give good appearance to a highly evangelical faith by means of giving it progressive atributes by far fetched interpretations they're essencially nothing more than a propaganda section I'd like to call the sweet-talk brigade.


Thank goodenss we have you to protect us.:rolleyes:



I know that. Near all atheist know the thumb-rule that "what I think"="what God thinks". (not surprising since gods imaginary).



And in some cases, what 'god' tells them can be progressive.



But I've always found it to be the case that these people are the last ones, drudging behind everybody in adopting progressiveness. Because they inevitably have to grundgingly disrecard the holy word of god through tortuous interpretation. I've noticed that they are only progressive to the amount that they are willing to ignore scripture. (that's why advocacy of atheism is essencial and honest thing to do, for it nullifies the problem.) But now gay rights are on so some represetitive of Islam has to pander to it in some (meaningless) way sooner or later. It's a trite tactical manouver. Dismiss it.



This generalisation neither fits the facts not makes any sense. If it were true, imams and priests would lose touch with their audience.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LM:


Rosa , you know I hear what you are saying Islam has been vilified and yes as a result of 9/11 alot of people think that is okay. I do wish though when addressing this though you would not come off as condescending, even though I agree with your point it makes it harder to hear when presented that way.

In what way am I 'condescending'?

[Devrim]

Who's defending Islam?

All I am doing is undermining a few very deep prejudices held against just over one sixth of the human race.

Why try to pretend that Islam is something that it is not? Islam as a religion is anti-homosexuality. Any attempt to pretend otherwise is fundamentally dishonest.

This doesn't mean that every Muslim is anti-homosexual, but the religion Islam is.

I think it would be true to say of Muslims that the more religious a person is the more anti-homosexual he is likely to be (I would say that this also applies to Christians too). However, Islam has a much stronger grip on many of its believers than Christianity does.

Do people think that it is a coincidence that all of the eight countries in the world where homosexuality is punishable by the death penalty are Islamic (see map: the dark purple shows the countries where it is a capital crime):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/World_homosexuality_laws.svg/350px-World_homosexuality_laws.svg.png
I live in an Islamic country where homosexuality is legal. It is also one of the most secular countries in the Middle East. These things are not unconnected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_homosexuality_laws.svg

Does saying this mean I am Islamophobic?

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

JR:



I agree; but why do you think I am the latter (i.e., an opportunist), and not the former (i.e., someone who wants to seize an opportunity to further the struggle (consistent with Marxist principles))?

I just read Led's post on appearance. If that's what you meant, then I retract my statement. After all, African-American Muslims in the US aren't looked down upon compared to Arab-American Muslims.


Islam should not be defended by Marxists, just as any other religion shouldn't be, but when most people see me here (in the Netherlands) they equate me with a Muslim because of my Middle-Eastern appearance, that is what should be fought against.

And I believe that is what Rosa meant because as sad as it is, Islam has become connected to a certain appearance in some parts of the world.

I was under the impression you were German. Interesting. :cool:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:



Why try to pretend that Islam is something that it is not? Islam as a religion is anti-homosexuality. Any attempt to pretend otherwise is fundamentally dishonest.


Not according to the quoted muslim scholars it isn't.


Does saying this mean I am Islamophobic?


It might do.

And, yes -- this suggests you are:


Do people think that it is a coincidence that all of the eight countries in the world where homosexuality is punishable by the death penalty are Islamic (see map: the dark purple shows the countries where it is a capital crime):

Do people think it a coincidence that in every 'communist' state democracy has been suppressed?

Even so, that does not make Marxism anti-democratic.

Same with Islam.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JR:


I just read Led's post on appearance. If that's what you meant, then I retract my statement. After all, African-American Muslims in the US aren't looked down upon compared to Arab-American Muslims.

It's part of it, but it's not my entire point.

[RedStarOverChina]

Here's a one in the eye for the Islamophobes at RevLeft:





Link: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/03/27/islam-039recognizes-homosexuality039.html (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/03/27/islam-039recognizes-homosexuality039.html)

Heretics!!! :scared::scared::scared:

[Devrim]

Not according to the quoted muslim scholars it isn't.

Who have absolutely no credentials as Islamic scholars. Three of the four people quoted are women. They may be academics who study Islam, but that is not what the term Islamic scholar implies.

Muslim scholars are universally agreed that homosexuality is a sin.

The personal opinions of a few Muslim does not change the ideology of the religion.

To try to portray Islam as a progressive thing in itself serves no purpose except to justify political alliances with reactionary elements.

Devrim

[Dimentio]

Serpent:



Who's defending Islam?

All I am doing is undermining a few very deep prejudices held against just over one sixth of the human race.

Homophobia is not the worst inherent feature of islamic societies.

Why does everyone equals dislike of islam with prejudices against moslems or people living in the middle east, while almost no one equals dislike of christianity with European people?

I do not dislike Mahmud, Fatima, Mehmet, or Ali. I dislike islam, and I should not be compelled to defend a religion which is used to keep one sixth of the population of Earth in shackles, just because I otherwise might appear as unprogressive, to not apologise for gender mutilation, reactionary politics, legitimisation of patriarchy, and so on.

I'll say fuck Islam.

[Enragé]

Well, in your defense, Hezbollah is playing the anti-fundie card quite well. In one of the RevMarx threads ("most pressing tasks"), I talked about Hezbollah's social outreach. Why aren't self-proclaimed Marxist parties doing this?

Because they are dumbshits.

Hezbollah, for analytical purposes, is simply social-democratic with a religous background - with guns in their hands. They call strikes, but stop when they get another minister in government. Like the PvdA over here 60 years ago.


Personally, I think that the ideas about economics laid down in the Koran are directly opposed to socialist ideas.

Devrim


Ok, fair enough. They're petit-bourgeois.

But still, long live the AK-Party when threatened by Fascistoid nationalists!

[Devrim]

But still, long live the AK-Party when threatened by Fascistoid nationalists!

I don't see how socialists can really take sides on these issues. It is a fight between two different factions of the bourgeois, and the working class has no material interests in supporting either of them.

In fact at the moment we are having huge strikes against the AKP pension 'reforms'.

Also at the moment the AKP seem to be closer aligned with the fascists than the army are.

Devrim

[Enragé]

I don't see how socialists can really take sides on these issues. It is a fight between two different factions of the bourgeois, and the working class has no material interests in supporting either of them.

When the choice is bourgeois democracy or dictatorship...


In fact at the moment we are having huge strikes against the AKP pension 'reforms'.

Ok, in that context forget what I said.


Also at the moment the AKP seem to be closer aligned with the fascists than the army are.

k, you know better, you actually live there ^^

[Devrim]

When the choice is bourgeois democracy or dictatorship...

Bourgeois democracy is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Banning of political parties is a part of the normal democratic process in this country. We are not talking about another military dictatorship like in 1980. It will be more like after the last coup in 1998.



Also at the moment the AKP seem to be closer aligned with the fascists than the army are. k, you know better, you actually live there ^^

It is close. You never know which side the MHP will go with these days. They are not the party of the military though. The party of the military is the CHP, the 'Socialist International' party.

Devrim

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:



Who have absolutely no credentials as Islamic scholars. Three of the four people quoted are women. They may be academics who study Islam, but that is not what the term Islamic scholar implies.



So you say.


Muslim scholars are universally agreed that homosexuality is a sin.

Obviously not.


To try to portray Islam as a progressive thing in itself serves no purpose except to justify political alliances with reactionary elements.


You'd have had a go at Thomas Muntzer, wouldn't you?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Serpent:



I'll say fuck Islam.


That should win all 1.3 billion for the left.

Good thinking!

[bcbm]

Serpent:



That should win all 1.3 billion for the left.

Good thinking!

So where do we stop with this? What the minimum number of people one part of the leftist program must offend before it it jettisoned in favor of winning converts?

[RHIZOMES]

Even so, that does not make Marxism anti-democratic.

Same with Islam.

Please point out where in the Communist Manifesto it says democracy is bad. :rolleyes:

[Devrim]

Please point out where in the Communist Manifesto it says democracy is bad. :rolleyes:

I think that you are missing the point here. It is not to try to construct an argument, but to smear as 'Islamophobic' those who disagree with the SWP's alliances with Islamic reactionaries and Muslim businessmen.

Devrim

[spartan]

So where do we stop with this? What the minimum number of people one part of the leftist program must offend before it it jettisoned in favor of winning converts?

By Rosa's logic we should all start chanting "Heil Hitler" to see if we can potentially win over some Nazi's to the left:lol:

Either way it does not matter what a few low ranking Muslim scholars say because experience shows that Islam, along with every other major Abrahamic religion, is in practice deeply homophobic and that will never change until these religions die out.

[black magick hustla]

i come from a muslim background and look very middle eastern. am i still a racist for saying islam is a crock of reactionary shit?

[Dimentio]

Serpent:



That should win all 1.3 billion for the left.

Good thinking!

Well, why not oppose abortion then?

There are over 2 billion catholics in the world. I'm sure that if you make enough concessions, say that "Christ wanted communism" and so on, you could convert a lot of christian to something resembling communism.

[Devrim]

i come from a muslim background and look very middle eastern. am i still a racist for saying islam is a crock of reactionary shit?

You are still a racist for saying that word the other week!

Devrim

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BCBM-as-was:


What the minimum number of people one part of the leftist program must offend before it it jettisoned in favor of winning converts?

No 'jettisoning' going on here. I have been quite consistent.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Ghost:



Please point out where in the Communist Manifesto it says democracy is bad.


It doesn't, and I never said it did.

Where does it say being gay is bad in the Koran?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spartan:



By Rosa's logic we should all start chanting "Heil Hitler" to see if we can potentially win over some Nazi's to the left


Not so; and I resent your equation of Muslims with Nazis.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marmot:


am i still a racist for saying islam is a crock of reactionary shit?

Where has racism been an issue in this thread?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Serpent:



Well, why not oppose abortion then?


This is not about what we believe is right and wrong -- or about what our principles are --, but about prejudice against all muslims.

Islam is not anti-gay, according to some muslims; that is all. The rest you lot are just making up.

I am not defending Islam; I am just as much an atheist as the rest of you.


There are over 2 billion catholics in the world. I'm sure that if you make enough concessions, say that "Christ wanted communism" and so on, you could convert a lot of christian to something resembling communism.

And Christianity is not anti-gay, either -- according to millions of Christians.

One or two of you seem not to be able to focus.

[Devrim]

Where does it say being gay is bad in the Koran?

Al-Araf, though some of the Hadith are much more shockingly explicit.

Devrim

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:



Al-Araf, though some of the Hadith are much more shockingly explicit.



Let's see the quotes.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This is what Wiki says:



Islamic views on homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality) are as varied as those of most other major religions and have changed throughout history. Traditionally, Qur'anic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an) verses and hadith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith) have been seen as condemning sexual acts between members of the same sex. The Qur'an cites the story of "people of Lot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lot)" (also known as the Sodomites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomites)) who were destroyed because they engaged in homosexual acts. The legal punishment for sodomy has varied among juristic schools: some prescribe capital punishment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment); while other prescribe a milder discretionary punishment. Homosexuality is a crime and forbidden in most Islamic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam) countries, Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia), Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran), etc. In some relatively secular or multi-religious Islamic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam) countries, this is not the case, Algeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria), Malaysia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia), Indonesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia) and Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey) being examples. Despite this, homoerotic themes were present in Muslim poetry and other literature which celebrated male love, and were more common than expressions of attraction to women.

Some liberal Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_movements_within_Islam), such as the members of the Al-Fatiha Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Fatiha_Foundation), accept and consider homosexuality as natural, either regarding these verses as obsolete in the context of modern society, or pointing out that the Qu'ran speaks out against homosexual lust, and is silent on homosexual love. Writer Irshad Manji (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irshad_Manji), a lesbian, has expressed the view that homosexuality is permissible within Islam; however, this remains a minority viewpoint. Within Shi'a Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27a_Islam), thinkers such as Ayatollah Khomeini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah_Khomeini) have argued for the legality of sex-change operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_change_surgery) if a man is homosexual, and feels effeminate.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Islam

Also check this out:

[quote]Queer Jihad:


Queer Jihad, once called the Muslim Homosexual Resource Center, estimates that there are about 50 million gay and lesbian Muslims in the world. The number appears reasonable; it would include about 5% of the total membership of the Islamic faith. The term "Jihad" can be translated into English as "struggle." The North American media have often mistakenly reported it as meaning "holy war."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topruled.gif
Al-Fatiha:

Al-Fatiha is an "international organization for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Muslims, including those questioning their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, as well as their friends, families, partners, and allies." They feature three Email discussion groups: one is a general group, one is restricted to women, another is for men. They hope to work within the progressive wing of Islam "work in order to enlighten the world that Islam is a religion of tolerance and not hate, and that Allah (God) loves His creation, no matter what their sexual orientation might be."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topruled.gif
Queernet: a Gay-Muslim mailing list:

This was started on 1997-DEC. Its purpose is "to bring gay and lesbian Muslims together to communicate issues of common concern. By using our own individual experiences, our knowledge, and our faith in Islam and in Allah (God), the goal of this list is to bring two important aspects of our lives together. Being Gay and Muslim are not exclusive, nor are they an oxymoron. By participating in this list, the hope is that each and every one of us will realize that. God certainly does not discriminate, and indeed we can be both practicing Muslims AND still identify ourselves as being gay or lesbian."
It appears to have gone offline.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topruled.gif
Gay and Lesbian Arabic Society:

"GLAS" defines itself as a "networking organization for Gay and Lesbians of Arab descent or those living in Arab countries. We aim to promote positive images of Gays and Lesbians in Arab communities worldwide. We also provide a support network for our members while fighting for our human rights wherever they are oppressed. We are part of the global Gay and Lesbian movement seeking an end to injustice and discrimination based on sexual orientation." They are based in New York City, and hold twice-monthly meetings in a community center there. GLAS has a online newsletter and a mailing list. 6

http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topruled.gif
Queer Muslims Home page:

"This is a page for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Muslims, and for allies." The webmaster I intend to put up a list of frequently-asked questions, compiled with the help of Gay Muslims mailing list members. In the meantime, here are all of the resources that I know of. Because of my background and work, I know more about resources for Arabs and transgendered people, but I will be adding information to be more inclusive. Please email me if you have any additional suggestions.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_isla3.htm

[Devrim]

The Wiki link has an interesting quote:
Whoever has intercourse with a woman and penetrates her rectum, or with a man, or with a boy, will appear on the Last Day stinking worse than a corpse; people will find him unbearable until he enters hell fire, and God will cancel all his good deeds.

The point about the rest of your points there is that they are Muslim gay groups (and one of them is even an Arabic gay group. Are you saying that all Arabs are Muslims now). Nobody has stated that all Muslims are anti-gay. What has been stated is that Islam is anti gay. To prove that it is necessary to quote the Sunna, hadiths, and Fatwa, non of which to my knowledge argue in your favour.


Let's see the quotes.

Look them up yourself. I am not your secretary.

Devrim

[Enragé]

Rosa, Devrim, i think you both should realise that the objective circumstances in both your countries are radically different. In Turkey, I'd probably support Devrim's points, in the UK (and where I live, the Netherlands), I'd go with Rosa.

And yes, the SWP's sucks, but not really. They're just trots who got big, i.e they're arrogant, and like every trot org they tend to exagerate the united front idea, or at least, they implement it wrongly by going to the top bureaucrats/businessmen of the other group they want to have a united front with. Which is understandable, if you want quick successes, and well, trots are either High on success or Low, splitting every three seconds because of some stupid row. I blame Lenin.

Devrim, you have to realise how the european far right has used islamophobia to attack the islamic minority, whilst pushing through neoliberal reforms. A few days ago the fascistoid Wilders released a movie called Fitna, in which he continues his attacks on the muslims in a style reminiscent of Der Ewige Jude by the nazis. One of the biggest flaws of the European radical left is that it often goes along with this, because ofcourse they don't like religion. Thankfully, the International Socialist Tendency does not.

What we are seeing is a criminalisation of poverty unseen in history, and the weapon of choice is Islamophobia (racism covered under a veil of atheism). In this context I stand by Rosa's efforts to curb this trend of revolutionary leftist surrender to neoliberal propaganda.

[Sentinel]

It's long been abundantly clear that certain members here are more afraid of alienating the pious muslims and islamists (ie, not all people of middle eastern etc origin, those aren't the same thing as this thread alone shows) than the homosexuals. This presumably due to coldblooded calculations, on from which crowd they are more likely to acquire votes for their party at home.

They are afraid of the condemnation of Islam raising 'artificial barriers', while they apparently have much more patience with the barrier -- or gallows, to be more precise -- Islam raises against homosexuals. Thus the homosexuals of the theocratic islamic countries are deemed expendable by them, they are to be sacrificed on the altar of 'anti-imperialist solidarity' with Islam.

Trying to make Islam seem non-homophobic, for example by quoting the views of individual muslims -- who apparently either haven't studied their own 'holy text' well enough or are in denial of what it says on the matter -- is nothing short of looking between the fingers when it comes to the fate of those who are being murdered by the mullahs, for having the 'wrong' sexual orientation.

Islam is just as homophobic as the other abrahamic religions, and denying this effectively equals giving the green light to it's barbarism. This makes my blood boil. I'm queer, and I'll never suck up to a religion which considers me an 'abomination' and thus justifies the ongoing murdering of people like me. Neither will I quit exposing the compromising of humanist values and human rights by those who do. Fuck that shit.



Where does it say being gay is bad in the Koran?


Eh? How about reading NoXion's post in this thread?



7:80-1 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/7/index.htm#80) "And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk."

(homosexual acts are considered an abomination)

26:165-6 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/26/index.htm#165) "What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, And leave the wives your Lord created for you ? Nay, but ye are froward (sic?) folk."

(men are created to have wives, not other males)

27:54-55 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/27/index.htm#54) "And Lot! when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination knowingly? Must ye needs lust after men instead of women ? Nay, but ye are folk who act senselessly."

(Homosexuals are stupid and knowingly do abominable acts)

29:28-29 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/29/index.htm#28) "And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Lo! ye commit lewdness such as no creature did before you. For come ye not in unto males."

(Straight out of the horse's mouth. Don't commit acts of homosexuality)

That is the Koran speaking. Who are we to trust, the central text of Islam and the religion's the main currents, or a few fence-sitters who wish to be progressive and/or live out their sexuality, but can't let go of the opiate of religion? Which is more likely to give us the accurate picture of Islam the Religion's stance?

[Vanguard1917]

All religions, when allowed to influence politics, tend to be highly reactionary. Islam is no exception. You don't have to be an 'Islamophobe' to recognise this. I really have no idea what the OP is trying to argue.

[Die Neue Zeit]

And yes, the SWP's sucks, but not really. They're just trots who got big, i.e they're arrogant, and like every trot org they tend to exagerate the united front idea, or at least, they implement it wrongly by going to the top bureaucrats/businessmen of the other group they want to have a united front with. Which is understandable, if you want quick successes, and well, trots are either High on success or Low, splitting every three seconds because of some stupid row. I blame Lenin.

Since when did LENIN come into the picture? :rolleyes:

[Unless you meant Trotsky, but you definitely have the wrong guy here.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:


Look them up yourself. I am not your secretary.


Then I cannot accept your allegations.

The quote you give is indeed quite clear, what you forgot to tell your readers is that the Wiki article also says of it:

"One narrative, attributed as part of Muhammad's farewell speech...", which means it is not part of the Koran, etc.



Nobody has stated that all Muslims are anti-gay. What has been stated is that Islam is anti gay.


But, you have yet to prove this.

And, as if to confirm further your incapacity to read what I post, or your fondness for invention, you then say this:



Are you saying that all Arabs are Muslims now



No, but I am saying you are an idiot.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

NKOS-as-was:



And yes, the SWP's sucks, but not really. They're just trots who got big, i.e they're arrogant, and like every trot org they tend to exagerate the united front idea, or at least, they implement it wrongly by going to the top bureaucrats/businessmen of the other group they want to have a united front with. Which is understandable, if you want quick successes, and well, trots are either High on success or Low, splitting every three seconds because of some stupid row. I blame Lenin.



Please do not derail this thread.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sentinel:



How about reading NoXion's post in this thread?



As with Biblical passages, every one of those passages is open to alternative interpretations.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A hush descends on the multitude as the Voice of Big Capital speaketh:


All religions, when allowed to influence politics, tend to be highly reactionary. Islam is no exception. You don't have to be an 'Islamophobe' to recognise this.


Excellent, more tablets of wisdom from off the mountain!

VG1917 has spoken. Who may question his hallowed decree?

[black magick hustla]

Class organizations have always shown disdain for religious superstition. Whether it was spanish anarchists shooting at statues of Jesus Christ, or Lenin rallying against pan-islamism. I don't understand what is the point of this thread.

Of course we don't hate muslims or christians. If I hated everyone who I thought had retarded ideas I wouldn't have friends. :)

[Devrim]

Then I cannot accept your allegations.

The excerpt from Al-Araf had already been posted twice on this thread.


The quote you give is indeed quite clear, what you forgot to tell your readers is that the Wiki article also says of it:

"One narrative, attributed as part of Muhammad's farewell speech...", which means it is not part of the Koran, etc.

I didn't claim it was from the Koran, which should be obvious by the fact that I attributed it to Mohammed, not the Koran.

However, it is a hadith, and as such is accepted by many Muslims as being the word of Mohammed whether it was or not.



Nobody has stated that all Muslims are anti-gay. What has been stated is that Islam is anti gay. But, you have yet to prove this.

Only to you. I think it is clear to everybody else.



Are you saying that all Arabs are Muslims now
No, but I am saying you are an idiot.

As part of your argument that Islam is not anti gay, you quote from an arab lesbian and gay group:


Gay and Lesbian Arabic Society:

"GLAS" defines itself as a "networking organization for Gay and Lesbians of Arab descent or those living in Arab countries. We aim to promote positive images of Gays and Lesbians in Arab communities worldwide. We also provide a support network for our members while fighting for our human rights wherever they are oppressed. We are part of the global Gay and Lesbian movement seeking an end to injustice and discrimination based on sexual orientation." They are based in New York City, and hold twice-monthly meetings in a community center there. GLAS has a online newsletter and a mailing list.

If somebody were to argue that Christians were not anti gay and produced as part of the evidence the fact that Stonewall existed, an English anti gay group, which, however, had no connection to Christianity at all. They would be roundly laughed out of the argument.

Calling somebody an idiot doesn't really obscure that fact.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Rosa, Devrim, i think you both should realise that the objective circumstances in both your countries are radically different.

I do.


Devrim, you have to realise how the european far right has used islamophobia to attack the islamic minority, whilst pushing through neoliberal reforms. A few days ago the fascistoid Wilders released a movie called Fitna, in which he continues his attacks on the muslims in a style reminiscent of Der Ewige Jude by the nazis. One of the biggest flaws of the European radical left is that it often goes along with this, because ofcourse they don't like religion. Thankfully, the International Socialist Tendency does not.

I do realise that there is a racist attack on people from Middle Eastern, and South Asian backgrounds in the west. What I am saying is that painting Islam as something that it is not in no way counters this.

Devrim

[al8]

What we are seeing is a criminalisation of poverty unseen in history, and the weapon of choice is Islamophobia (racism covered under a veil of atheism). In this context I stand by Rosa's efforts to curb this trend of revolutionary leftist surrender to neoliberal propaganda.

WTF. This is a fundamentally dishonest portrayal of the issue. Being a princibled atheist dos not make one automatically rasict or for that matter a surrenderer to 'neoliberal propoganda'.(!) What is actually happening is that this reactionary Islamopandering is discreteting leftist the world over. Its already spilled into my country where many leftist playing copy-cat all of a sudden start sweet-talking Islam - even more loudly than explaining (which they almost never do) their actual conception of class struggle* that promted the nervous sweet-talking. Raising the conserns would be more enlightening than seeing otherwise completely atheist people going on a tangent supporting Islam as part of a blatantly dishonest political manouver.

We should win by telling the truth not twisting things for convinience.

I am somewhat dissapointed to see Rosa, such an otherwise ardent atheist especially in respect to dialectical mysticism, play the SWP politics of pandering to religion.

---
*fx that the hightened relevance of (the othewise justifiable) critical discorce in the West of Islam may among other be traced to the upperclasses of both the West and the Middle-East, trying to forge antagonism between the lower classes of the areas of which they influance respectively. (And also in the context of an ongoing imperialist usurption of markets and resources from a native capitalist class in an areas where identity is commonly connected to Islam)).

[RHIZOMES]

i come from a muslim background and look very middle eastern. am i still a racist for saying islam is a crock of reactionary shit?

:laugh:


Where does it say being gay is bad in the Koran?

And Lut, when he said to his tribe: "Do you commit an obscenity not perpetrated before you by anyone in all the worlds? You come with lust to men instead of women. You are indeed a depraved tribe." The only answer of his tribe was to say: "Expel them from your city! They are people who keep themselves pure!" So We rescued him and his family—except for his wife. She was one of those who stayed behind. We rained down a rain upon them. See the final fate of the evildoers! ” — Qur'an, 7:80–84

The people of Lout (Lot) (those who dwelt in the towns of Sodom in Jordan) belied the Messengers. When their brother Lout (Lot) said to them: "Will you not fear Allah and obey Him? "Verily! I am a trustworthy Messenger to you. "So fear Allah, keep your duty to Him, and obey me. "No reward do I ask of you for it (my Message of Islamic Monotheism), my reward is only from the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists). "Do you go in unto the males of the 'Alamin (mankind), and leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your wives? Nay, you are a trespassing people!" They said: "If you cease not. O Lout (Lot)! Verily, you will be one of those who are driven out!" He said: "I am, indeed, of those who disapprove with severe anger and fury your (this evil) action (of sodomy). "My Lord! Save me and my family from what they do." So We saved him and his family, all, Except an old woman (his wife) among those who remained behind. Then afterward We destroyed the others. And We rained on them a rain (of torment). And how evil was the rain of those who had been warned. Verily, in this is indeed a sign, yet most of them are not believers. And verily! Your Lord, He is indeed the All-Mighty, the Most Merciful. ” — Qur'an 26:159–175

How many times must this be quoted? :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:


The excerpt from Al-Araf had already been posted twice on this thread.

I have already responded to this in a recent reply (to Sentinel).


I didn't claim it was from the Koran, which should be obvious by the fact that I attributed it to Mohammed, not the Koran.


So, it is unreliable, or spurious.



However, it is a hadith, and as such is accepted by many Muslims as being the word of Mohammed whether it was or not.


Apparently not. You say it is a hadith, but you omitted your proof. And you should know that Shia and Sunni view hadiths differently.


Only to you. I think it is clear to everybody else.


So, we now decide truth by vote, do we?



As part of your argument that Islam is not anti gay, you quote from an arab lesbian and gay group:



Which inference of yours underlines the fact that you are idiot.


Calling somebody an idiot doesn't really obscure that fact.


In most cases, perhaps; but we make exceptions for idiots of your calibre.

You seem to think that if I quote one Arab gay group among several (non-Arab) gay groups, that I think all muslims are Arabs.:confused:

I marvel at your stupidity.:scared:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Ghost -- I have already dealt with this in my reply to Sentinel.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Al8:



I am somewhat dissapointed to see Rosa, such an otherwise ardent atheist especially in respect to dialectical mysticism, play the SWP politics of pandering to religion.



I am not surprised, though, in your incapacity to read what I have written.

No pandering here; just a desire to be accurate.

I am not surprised, either, at your haste to get a sectarian dig in.

Whether or not the SWP agree with me (and I am not a memeber of the SWP), I stand by what I have posted/said.

You need to take your sectarian hat off, and at least try to argue the point, without clouding the issues.

[Hit The North]

I think there a number of issues here which are interlinked and justify Rosa's concern.

1. Homophobia on the right used to scapegoat immigrant Muslim communities at home and to rally support for imperialist aggression abroad. This often infects the liberal left who are able to offer support for, for example, the invasion of Iraq because Western democratic values are seen to be progressive compared to medieval Islam and Iraq needs 'saving' from Islamic fundamentalism.

2. The doctrinaire approach of many elements of the revolutionary left who use their opposition to religion in general to oppose working with avowedly religious communities (such as the British Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities). Sometimes this takes the shape of disapproval over, for instance, the strategy behind RESPECT or the SWP providing prayer rooms at their Marxism conference. But at its worst it takes the form of extreme chauvinism where certain ultra-leftists cheer the burning of Mosques, pausing only to add that they would equally support the burning of Churches and Synagogues.

In both cases, Islam is used to stigmatize workers, to justify attacks on them and to divide and therefore weaken the working class at home and strengthen imperialism abroad.

No one here is arguing that religion is progressive. Rosa was merely pointing out that opinion in Islam is as diverse as in other religions; that Muslims are not some monolithic bloc of reaction - a common portrayal in the bourgeois media and elsewhere.

[Enragé]

Since when did LENIN come into the picture?

[Unless you meant Trotsky, but you definitely have the wrong guy here.]

"Democratic Centralism" has the tendency to become overtly bureaucratic the larger the organisation becomes. I'm not saying that has anything to do with how democratic centralism SHOULD be, I'm saying this is what happens in reality. The central committee draws ever more power to itself, translating themselves and their language to a pseudo-managerial style in which the selling of the Holy Newspaper becomes everything. NOT because the CC-members are awful people, but because that's what happens in practice. It's stratification inside the organisation, and the bureaucratic madness of post-revolutionary russia can in embryonic form already be witnessed in leninist organisations (especially when things are going badly, especially when there is opposition amidst the ranks of those organisations). We all remember how lenin dealt with the Workers Opposition of Kollontai etc.


I do realise that there is a racist attack on people from Middle Eastern, and South Asian backgrounds in the west. What I am saying is that painting Islam as something that it is not in no way counters this.

Devrim

Ok, fair enough, but I understand why Rosa gets at the points she makes.


WTF. This is a fundamentally dishonest portrayal of the issue. Being a princibled atheist dos not make one automatically rasict or for that matter a surrenderer to 'neoliberal propoganda'.(!) What is actually happening is that this reactionary Islamopandering is discreteting leftist the world over. Its already spilled into my country where many leftist playing copy-cat all of a sudden start sweet-talking Islam - even more loudly than explaining (which they almost never do) their actual conception of class struggle* that promted the nervous sweet-talking. Raising the conserns would be more enlightening than seeing otherwise completely atheist people going on a tangent supporting Islam as part of a blatantly dishonest political manouver.


Could you wipe the foam from your mouth comrade?

Nowhere did I say we should support Islam. The only thing I pointed out that when faced with neoliberal Islamophobic propaganda, most of the revolutionary left threw up their hands and said "OK! Islam does suck". And, yes it does, that is however not the point. The point is that Islamophobia = Racism for all intents and purposes. Hating Jews as such is anti-religious as well, but we don't support nor condone that now do we?


I am somewhat dissapointed to see Rosa, such an otherwise ardent atheist especially in respect to dialectical mysticism, play the SWP politics of pandering to religion.


The SWP isnt pandering to religion, the SWP is building a united front against quasi-fascists in the context of a government-enforced multiculturalism.

Edit: Great post Citizen Zero

[Unicorn]

Serpent:

That should win all 1.3 billion for the left.

Good thinking!
There are more Christians than Muslims in the world. Does anybody seriously argue that being "anti-Christian" is harmful to the Marxist cause? Marxists must recognize religion as what it is.

[Unicorn]

I think there a number of issues here which are interlinked and justify Rosa's concern.

1. Homophobia on the right used to scapegoat immigrant Muslim communities at home and to rally support for imperialist aggression abroad. This often infects the liberal left who are able to offer support for, for example, the invasion of Iraq because Western democratic values are seen to be progressive compared to medieval Islam and Iraq needs 'saving' from Islamic fundamentalism.
Saddam was a secular ruler, not an Islamist. His human rights violations and Bush's lies about WMD were the justification of the invasion. The Muslim extremists were actually happy when the imperialist war on Iraq started because they hated Saddam and Americans gave them an opportunity to take over Iraq.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Unicorn:


There are more Christians than Muslims in the world. Does anybody seriously argue that being "anti-Christian" is harmful to the Marxist cause? Marxists must recognize religion as what it is.

Spreading lies about Christians will not help us, neither will spreading lies about muslims.

You seem not to be able to grasp this very simple point.


His human rights violations and Bush's lies about WMD were the justification of the invasion. The Muslim extremists were actually happy when the imperialist war on Iraq started because they hated Saddam and Americans gave them an opportunity to take over Iraq.

Thankyou for providing the Beano's explanation of the invasion of Iraq.

-------------------------

By the way, I fully endore what Citizen Z said above.

[Devrim]

In most cases, perhaps; but we make exceptions for idiots of your calibre.

You seem to think that if I quote one Arab gay group among several (non-Arab) gay groups, that I think all muslims are Arabs.:confused:

I marvel at your stupidity.:scared:

I didn't say that you suggested all Muslims are Arabs. I suggest you go back and reread it.

Devrim

[Zurdito]

In both cases, Islam is used to stigmatize workers, to justify attacks on them and to divide and therefore weaken the working class at home and strengthen imperialism abroad.

No one here is arguing that religion is progressive. Rosa was merely pointing out that opinion in Islam is as diverse as in other religions; that Muslims are not some monolithic bloc of reaction - a common portrayal in the bourgeois media and elsewhere.

That may be so, but the article didn't provide any example of that. It's hardly "one in the eye for Islamophobes" because some academics wrote an opinion peice. If someone could show examples of an Islamic revolutionw hich liberated homosexuals, or of homophobes dropping their homophobia when they became Muslim, or of attitudes towards homosexuals being more progressive amongst muslims than maongst non-muslims, then that would be "one in the eye for islamphobes". However no-one can provide those examples.

The real point is that Islamic organisations channel the struggles of the masses away from class based politics and towards cross-class alliances based on utopian promises. The Islamic leaders are our enemy and we must defeat them with arguments as well as ismply imagining that the revolution will just "objectively" happen when the time is right. These organisations are tools of social control. It is true that often, like in the case of the Mahdi Army or the Taliban, that these organisations find themselves leading popular struggles, with material roots, against imperialism. In that case, we should back the struggles, but not because "islam is progressive" in any sense, but purely because the bureaucratic, petit-bourgeois, self-interested, anti-working class clerics have been pushed to the forefront of a genuine national liberation struggle, which the masses must go through in order to overthrow those same leaders and establish socialism.

However you do not help the masses within those struggles by sowing false illusions int he utopian promises of the leadership - a leadership which as we have seen time and time again, is on the look-out to cut a deal with imeprialism, to impsoe a "peaceful co-existence" whereby it keeps its masses controlled via stalinistic social and economic policies backed up with religious rhetoric - its own kind of "nationalism" but even more reactionary - to persuade them that they share a common interest with the clerics and their landed religious institutions, and sections of the the "national bourgeoisie". To sow illusions in this model is treachery and workers in Iraq and Afghanistan will not thank you for opportunistically taking an "he's our son of a *****" attitude little better than the one the CIA tookw hen they imposed Taliban leadership on the Afghan masses.

So I put this down to the SWP's degenerate misconception of the "United Front of a Special Kind" - the kind which lets them support the MDC in Zimbabwe for example, and then preach about anti-imeprialism elsewhere - which is based on an unTrotskyist idea that within a United Front you do not propagandise against the current leadership. this is wrong. Critical support for the reactionary, counterrevolutionary leadership of a progressive struggle, means you criticise them.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim before:



Are you saying that all Arabs are Muslims now


Devrim after he was rumbled:



I didn't say that you suggested all Muslims are Arabs. I suggest you go back and reread it.


So, you aren't a plane, common or garden idiot; you are an idiot in denial.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Zurdito:



That may be so, but the article didn't provide any example of that. It's hardly "one in the eye for Islamophobes" because some academics wrote an opinion peice. If someone could show examples of an Islamic revolutionw hich liberated homosexuals, or of homophobes dropping their homophobia when they became Muslim, or of attitudes towards homosexuals being more progressive amongst muslims than maongst non-muslims, then that would be "one in the eye for islamphobes". However no-one can provide those examples.



It is one in the eye for islamophobes, since it (along with the other material I posted) shows, as CZ pointed out, that Islam is not a monolithic, unchanging block.

[I'd have thought that you, as a fan of the dialectic, would not need to have this pointed out.]

The rest of what you say is just sectarian chest beating.

[Devrim]

There is a difference between the statements all Arabs are Muslims, (They are not. Many are Christians for example.) and all Muslims are Arabs (They are not. They include Turks, Kurds, Iranians, Chinese, Indians and many other nationalities).

I really suggest that you master the basics of your own language before you go around accusing other people of idiocy.

You have succeeded in your method though, which seems to rely on insulting people to avoid real discussion.

Devrim

[Zurdito]

Zurdito:



It is one in the eye for islamophobes, since it (along with the other material I posted) shows, as CZ pointed out, that Islam is not a monolithic, unchanging block.

[I'd have thought that you, as a fan of the dialectic, would not need to have this pointed out.]

I thought you, as a materialist, would understand the objective purpose served by all religion - as backed up by any real life example we can find where Islamic movements have led anti-imperialist struggles to degeneration and defeat - and not have such an idealistic fascniation with theological debates about what the religion "really" stands for. As you should know, what anything "really stands for" is not decided by the holy scriptures written down by utopian idealists, but by its role in relation to class interests.

[Comrade J]

As with Biblical passages, every one of those passages is open to alternative interpretations.

Wrong. Christianity is wholly different from Islam in its claims; there is justification for a liberal stance in Christianity because there is a debate over the inspiration behind the various books it is composed of. Even individual denominations are split over this (Anglicanism for example). Some Christians believe Biblical texts to be divinely inspired (to varied extents), which means it is still nonetheless the imperfect writings of man. This is why there is a liberal stance in Christianity.
More fundamentalist Christians however, believe the Bible was 'revealed' by God, and is therefore to be taken literally as he was working through man. This is a huge difference from divine inspiration - these aren't simply my observations, but recognised interpretations.

Islam is far different. The Qu'ran is claimed to be the exact word of God revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, so there is obviously no room for interpretation. When the Qu'ran says homosexuality is forbidden (which it quite clearly does in the quotes provided by NoXion), then muslims believe it is God himself revealing this. It is a massively different notion to divine inspiration. Qu'ran even means 'recitation' as it is claimed to be the unchanged word of God. The Bible however, has 40 different authors, is composed of 66 books and is split into two testaments - and their authenticity can be individually disputed, as can the New Testament as a whole, particularly as it had texts excluded from it at the Council of Nicaea and the gospel authorship is dubious. Unlike the Bible and the Hadith, the Qu'ran leaves no room for debate.

Those who attempt to argue for a liberal interpretation of the Qu'ran are ignoring the fundemental premise of its existence is to be the last word of God, revealed because previous books have had their message altered by men. This is why the Qu'ran speaks of the same prophets, as their messages were apparently corrupted. It is vital you understand that the whole premise of the Qu'ran is that it is a final and perfect revelation from God, and that Muhammad is the 'last messenger of God.'

Islam does not accept homosexuality. Simple as.

[luxemburg89]

'Islamophobist' - a dangerous word. Given the nature of Islam, and all religions, I am terrified of the effect it has on people. It promotes blind faith and obedience (but no more so than any other religion). I am scared of Christianity, its hypocrisy and murderous nature, and I am also scared of Islam - does that make me an 'Islamophobist'? I will never, never, be an apologist for religious oppressors. I hate religion, religious people are as oppressed, in their own way, as the rest of us are in our own ways, and I feel no hatred towards them. But I hate all their religions, Islam included. Any sign of that fatwah against Salmon Rushdie being lifted yet? Or are bourgeois Islamist scholars still discussing whether or not it is right to threaten to kill someone for writing a wonderful book?

Please do not interpret this in the wrong way, Muslims are amongst the most oppressed people in the world, and I sympathise with many of their causes - but the reason for much of their oppression - as with the people of Christian nations - is the institutionalised servitude to an oppressive religion that is forced on them from a young age. I should hope we all have a phobia of this type of oppression.

[Vanguard1917]

I really suggest that you master the basics of your own language before you go around accusing other people of idiocy.

You have succeeded in your method though, which seems to rely on insulting people to avoid real discussion.


She has no argument. She started a pointless thread about some people trying to give Islam a makeover in order to make it more relevant and acceptable to Western liberal sensibilities, and when people such as yourself pointed the absurdity of this, she could not handle it and began resorting to insults as usual.

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:



There is a difference between the statements all Arabs are Muslims, (They are not. Many are Christians for example.) and all Muslims are Arabs (They are not. They include Turks, Kurds, Iranians, Chinese, Indians and many other nationalities).

I really suggest that you master the basics of your own language before you go around accusing other people of idiocy.



You are now a desperate idiot, for your question half accuses me of this error:



Are you saying that all Arabs are Muslims now


In calling you an idfiot, I was, perhaps, being far too kind...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CJ:



Wrong. Christianity is wholly different from Islam in its claims; there is justification for a liberal stance in Christianity because there is a debate over the inspiration behind the various books it is composed of. Even individual denominations are split over this (Anglicanism for example). Some Christians believe Biblical texts to be divinely inspired (to varied extents), which means it is still nonetheless the imperfect writings of man. This is why there is a liberal stance in Christianity.



Another comrade who can't read!

I wasn't arguing these two religions or books were the same, or different (or even that these books were regarded the same -- except among fundamentalist Christians, they do regard the Bible as the literal word of God), only making the point that the alleged anti-gay passages are all susceptible of alternative interpretations.

No passage written by human beings, or by 'god', is self-interpreting.

That is partly why there are so many sects in Christianity and Islam.

And muslims themselves interpret these passages differently -- which you'd know if you checked your facts before you mouthed off.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And now, over to our very own Exxon spokesman:


She has no argument. She started a pointless thread about some people trying to give Islam a makeover in order to make it more relevant and acceptable to Western liberal sensibilities, and when people such as yourself pointed the absurdity of this, she could not handle it and began resorting to insults as usual.


Where's your argument?

Up your b******* as usual?

As a fan of that mystical theory (called 'dialectics', I believe), even one as benighted as you should know that nothing is unchanging and monolithic, not even those things you have been brainwashed by Mr Frank Richards into thinking this of -- and not even Islam.

As the above evidence shows.



It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.


Now, I really do not think you should be so hard on yourself...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Lux, thanks for that -- much of which I agree with.

The issue is not, however, as you seem to present it.

I am as anti-religious as you; I just do not think we should tell lies about muslims/Islam, no matter how much it makes VG1917 or Devrim (and a few others)happy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


I thought you, as a materialist, would understand the objective purpose served by all religion - as backed up by any real life example we can find where Islamic movements have led anti-imperialist struggles to degeneration and defeat - and not have such an idealistic fascniation with theological debates about what the religion "really" stands for. As you should know, what anything "really stands for" is not decided by the holy scriptures written down by utopian idealists, but by its role in relation to class interests.

I agree with you -- but what has the above got to do with this thread?

[spartan]

I am as anti-religious as you; I just do not think we should tell lies about muslims/Islam, no matter how much it makes VG1917 or Devrim (and a few others)happy.
What lies?

Islam as a religion is homophobic!

I am sure that there are individual Muslims who may not be homophobic, and if so more power to them, but the title of your thread was "Islam "accepts homosexuality"" not "Muslims "accept homosexuality"" so if your intention was to show that not all Muslims are homophobic then you started off on the wrong foot.

[RHIZOMES]

Spreading lies about Christians will not help us, neither will spreading lies about muslims.

Yeah, like saying Islam "accepts homosexuality". That's a lie.

Former Muslim here. Was rather devout. Your liberal wishy-washying of the Islamic religion won't work on me. Even less on Devrim, he's surrounded by Muslims and the influence of Islam everyday. Give it up.


Wrong. Christianity is wholly different from Islam in its claims; there is justification for a liberal stance in Christianity because there is a debate over the inspiration behind the various books it is composed of. Even individual denominations are split over this (Anglicanism for example). Some Christians believe Biblical texts to be divinely inspired (to varied extents), which means it is still nonetheless the imperfect writings of man. This is why there is a liberal stance in Christianity.
More fundamentalist Christians however, believe the Bible was 'revealed' by God, and is therefore to be taken literally as he was working through man. This is a huge difference from divine inspiration - these aren't simply my observations, but recognised interpretations.

Islam is far different. The Qu'ran is claimed to be the exact word of God revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, so there is obviously no room for interpretation. When the Qu'ran says homosexuality is forbidden (which it quite clearly does in the quotes provided by NoXion), then muslims believe it is God himself revealing this. It is a massively different notion to divine inspiration. Qu'ran even means 'recitation' as it is claimed to be the unchanged word of God. The Bible however, has 40 different authors, is composed of 66 books and is split into two testaments - and their authenticity can be individually disputed, as can the New Testament as a whole, particularly as it had texts excluded from it at the Council of Nicaea and the gospel authorship is dubious. Unlike the Bible and the Hadith, the Qu'ran leaves no room for debate.

Those who attempt to argue for a liberal interpretation of the Qu'ran are ignoring the fundemental premise of its existence is to be the last word of God, revealed because previous books have had their message altered by men. This is why the Qu'ran speaks of the same prophets, as their messages were apparently corrupted. It is vital you understand that the whole premise of the Qu'ran is that it is a final and perfect revelation from God, and that Muhammad is the 'last messenger of God.'

Islam does not accept homosexuality. Simple as.

This.


What lies?

Islam as a religion is homophobic!

I am sure that there are individual Muslims who may not be homophobic, and if so more power to them, but the title of your thread was "Islam "accepts homosexuality"" not "Muslims "accept homosexuality"" so if your intention was to show that not all Muslims are homophobic then you started off on the wrong foot.

This.

[Vanguard1917]

And now, over to our very own Exxon spokesman:



Where's your argument?

Up your b******* as usual?

As a fan of that mystical theory (called 'dialectics', I believe), even one as benighted as you should know that nothing is unchanging and monolithic, not even those things you have been brainwashed by Mr Frank Richards into thinking this of -- and not even Islam.

As the above evidence shows.



Now, I really do not think you should be so hard on yourself...

Why is it that you feel the need to personally insult people? What's your problem exactly?

The Red Ghost:

Former Muslim here. Was rather devout. Your liberal wishy-washying of the Islamic religion won't work on me.

Yeah, a 'liberal wishy-washying of the Islamic religion' is an excellent description of what is going on here.

I should also add here that this 'wishy-washying' of the Islam is not only an insult to the intelligence of the people on revleft - it's also probably pretty insulting to those Muslims who actually take their religion seriously.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Ghost:



That's a lie.



Not according to the evidence.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VGExxon..er1917:


Why is it that you feel the need to personally insult people? What's your problem exactly?


You and your love of Big Capital.

Plus, you seem not to be able to think 'dialectically'...:rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spartan:



What lies?

Islam as a religion is homophobic!



There you go -- another lie.

15 metre long noses some of you...

[RHIZOMES]

Spartan:



There you go -- another lie.

15 metre long noses some of you...

It's a lie because some liberal "Muslims" (Emphasis on quotes) ignore all the evidence to the contrary in Islamic teachings that say homosexuality is fundamentally wrong?

It's like me saying "Hey, Marxism is actually FOR private property!" and then you taking it for truth because I proclaim myself to be a Marxist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RG:



It's a lie because some liberal "Muslims" (Emphasis on quotes) ignore all the evidence to the contrary in Islamic teachings that say homosexuality is fundamentally wrong?



And the conservatives, whose spokesperson you now seem to be, ignore the contrary evidence.

Islam is too diverse to say that 'it' teaches this or that on such matters.



"Hey, Marxism is actually FOR private property!" and then you taking it for truth because I proclaim myself to be a Marxist.


Not at all -- it 's more like saying "Marxism is all about socialism in one country", or "Marxism is in favour of Gulags".

Equal lies.

[Lector Malibu]

I still don't get how some people sitting around talking about whether Islam is homophobic or not makes Islam un-homophobic.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


I still don't get how some people sitting around talking about whether Islam is homophobic or not makes Islam un-homophobic.


Me too.

Good job then that we have muslims who tell us it isn't.

[RHIZOMES]

And the conservatives, whose spokesperson you now seem to be, ignore the contrary evidence.

Am I a spokesperson for Nazis if I state what their beliefs are? Ad hominem.

And what contrary evidence is there?

All I see in the Qur'an and Hadiths about homosexuality is decidedly NEGATIVE. Please tell me where it states otherwise.


Islam is too diverse to say that 'it' teaches this or that on such matters.

yeah it is diverse. It may be only two sects, but in reality you must include all the schools of thought as well... Which coincidentally all consider homosexuality to be wrong. Funny that.


Not at all -- it 's more like saying "Marxism is all about socialism in one country", or "Marxism is in favour of Gulags".

Equal lies.

Yeah but every single Marxist tendency is not in support of socialism in one country or gulags. Every single Islamic school of thought is.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RG:



Ad hominem


Ad hominem arguments are not all invalid; only those who know very little logic think they are.



Am I a spokesperson for Nazis if I state what their beliefs are?


You might be if you were pushing such ideas as the only ones possible, and would consider no alternatives -- as you are here.


All I see in the Qur'an and Hadiths about homosexuality is decidedly NEGATIVE. Please tell me where it states otherwise.


As I have already pointed out -- these passages are all open to alternative interpretations -- as muslims themselves tell us.


And what contrary evidence is there?

Some of it has been posted above.



It may be only two sects,


I rather think there are more than two.

http://www.geocities.com/defender_of_the_truth/index.html


Which coincidentally all consider homosexuality to be wrong. Funny that.


Once more, you are pushing the conservative line.

Even funnier, that.



Yeah but every single Marxist tendency is not in support of socialism in one country or gulags. Every single Islamic school of thought is.


Not according to the evidence.

[Lector Malibu]

Me too.

Good job then that we have muslims who tell us it isn't.


Not necessarily, we have some Muslims who say that the doctrines of the Koran are not, and we have Muslims who insist that it is. People often interpret things to suit their taste. For instance , look at The Jehovah's Witnesses and The Church of Latter day Saints. Both religious groups claim to be Christian , even quote the same bible, yet they are nothing alike whatsoever. My point is that especially with religious scripture there will always be people that will cite the text on their interpretations of what the passages mean, as in this case. The Koran has homophobic passages and Islam world wide has presented itself for the most part as a homophobic religion.

[RHIZOMES]

As I have already pointed out -- these passages are all open to alternative interpretations -- as muslims themselves tell us.

yeah, the "moderates" that whitewash Islamic teachings, that no Muslim that actually follows the Qur'an or hadiths takes seriously. What are the alternative explanations? It kind of reminds me of Richard Dawkin's criticisms of moderate religious followers = If you can pick and choose, why follow the religion in the first place?


I rather think there are more than two.

Once more, you are pushing the conservative line.

Even funnier, that.

I am aware of this. However, there are two MAIN sects that encompass all those sects. In Shi'a - Ismailis, etc. In Sunni - Wahabbis, etc. Coincidentally, they all think homosexuality is wrong. Again, funny that.


Not according to the evidence.

The opinions of a bunch of Westernized liberals trying desperately to reconcile their progressive values with the faith they were raised in by creating "alternative interpretations" that noone before the 60's at the latest believed in does not count as an Islamic school of thought.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LM:


Not necessarily, we have some Muslims who say that the doctrines of the Koran are not, and we have Muslims who insist that it is. People often interpret things to suit their taste. For instance , look at The Jehovah's Witnesses and The Church of Latter day Saints. Both religious groups claim to be Christian , even quote the same bible, yet they are nothing alike whatsoever. My point is that especially with religious scripture there will always be people that will cite the text on their interpretations of what the passages mean, as in this case. The Koran has homophobic passages and Islam world wide has presented itself for the most part as a homophobic religion

As I have pointed out several times, these passages are open to a variety of interpretations, not all of which are anti-gay -- as muslims themselves argue.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RG:



the "moderates" that whitewash Islamic teachings, that no Muslim that actually follows the Qur'an or hadiths takes seriously. What are the alternative explanations? It kind of reminds me of Richard Dawkin's criticisms of moderate religious followers = If you can pick and choose, why follow the religion in the first place?



For all you know, they might represent the 'correct' view.

And don't quote Dawkins at me. He is irrelevant to this thread, as well as being ignorant of religion, theology, and philosophical theology.




there are two MAIN sects that encompass all those sects. In Shi'a - Ismailis, etc. In Sunni - Wahabbis, etc. Coincidentally, they all think homosexuality is wrong. Again, funny that.



Apparently they do not, as the existence of liberal muslims show.

Even less funny that -- for you.



The opinions of a bunch of Westernized liberals trying desperately to reconcile their progressive values with the faith they were raised in by creating "alternative interpretations" that noone before the 60's at the latest believed in does not count as an Islamic school of thought.


I am sorry, are you the Imam of the whole planet now?

[jake williams]

Come on. "Muslim" is just a word. I have a Jordanian friend who adamantly insists that the Shi'a aren't Muslims. There is plenty of room for interpretation, and definition, and people who insist on this or that "real" meaning of it, but that's kind of arbitrary. People who accept homosexuality probably aren't in line with the Quran and the Hadith, but so? So what? It's still probably beneficial, even if it's probably a bit intellectually dishonest.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jammoe:



People who accept homosexuality probably aren't in line with the Quran and the Hadith, but so?


As you yourself pointed out, there is no 'correct' interpretation of the Koran, etc.

In that case, it is not possible to say what is or what is not "in line" with it/them.

[Unicorn]

Rosa, less than 5 percent of Muslims in London "find homosexual acts acceptable".

According to the same poll 14 per cent of Muslims think that the invasion of Iraq was justified. It would be ridiculous to argue that Islam accepts the war in Iraq or homosexuality based on the opinion of a small minority.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1662695.ece

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Rosa, less than 5 percent of Muslims in London "find homosexual acts acceptable".


Less than 5% of Marxists in London, I suspect, accept that the former USSR was State Capitalist, but that does not affect the truth or faleshood of the belief that it was.

You perhaps need to look up the meaning of the word 'relevant'.



According to the same poll 14 per cent of Muslims think that the invasion of Iraq was justified. It would be ridiculous to argue that Islam accepts the war in Iraq or homosexuality based on the opinion of a small minority.



You need to look at the thread title; I put the controversial words in quotations, since they were not my words, but those of muslims.

The latter might be right, they might be wrong.

The point is that Islam is not monolithic, and is just as much subject to change as anything else in the universe is.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Rosa:

It might be that a minority of muslims aren't homophobic - this doesn't mean that Islam itself is not homophobic.

You say it's not a fixed monolithic entity, and to a certain extent that's true, but there are concrete anchors, namely the holy books. If we listen to the holy books as the only bits of Islam that won't change, the message is loud and clear; homosexuality should be punished with death.

Some muslims aren't homophobic, yes. Islam as a religion is though.

-Alex

[Unicorn]

Less than 5% of Marxists in London, I suspect, accept that the former USSR was State Capitalist, but that does not affect the truth or faleshood of the belief that it was.
A silly analogy.



You need to look at the thread title; I put the controversial words in quotations, since they were not my words, but those of muslims.

The latter might be right, they might be wrong.

The point is that Islam is not monolithic, and is just as much subject to change as anything else in the universe is.
Their opinion does not reflect mainstream Islam. A similar proportion of Muslims find 9/11 attacks completely justified but mainstream Islam still condemns terror... and homosexuality.

[Lector Malibu]

LM:



As I have pointed out several times, these passages are open to a variety of interpretations, not all of which are anti-gay -- as muslims themselves argue.


As some Muslims argue...

[al8]

Could you wipe the foam from your mouth comrade?

Nowhere did I say we should support Islam. The only thing I pointed out that when faced with neoliberal Islamophobic propaganda, most of the revolutionary left threw up their hands and said "OK! Islam does suck". And, yes it does, that is however not the point. The point is that Islamophobia = Racism for all intents and purposes. Hating Jews as such is anti-religious as well, but we don't support nor condone that now do we?

Identifying and hating Jews as in if they where a race is racist. Hating judaism or its advocates is not. And we should stand on our principles as materialists and tell it like it is on every occasion. Anti-religion is not a racial paradigm, and saying it is "for all intents and purposes" is offensive.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


It might be that a minority of muslims aren't homophobic - this doesn't mean that Islam itself is not homophobic.

Sure, but as I have argued several times above, it does not mean either that it is homophobic, and will always be homophobic.

If you took a vote in twelfth-century 'Germany', you'd have been told that Christianity is inseparable from devotion to the Vicar of Rome (and you'd have been given dozens of passages from the Bible in support of that contention).

Five hundred years later, you'd have been told the opposite (with just as many passages supporting this new 'interpretation').

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Unicorn:



A silly analogy


No more nor no less than yours.



Their opinion does not reflect mainstream Islam. A similar proportion of Muslims find 9/11 attacks completely justified but mainstream Islam still condemns terror... and homosexuality.


See my reply to Burn.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LM:



As some Muslims argue...


And, not as some others do not.

[Zurdito]

Z:



I agree with you -- but what has the above got to do with this thread?

Well you have argued that Islam can at times play a progressive role - on page 2 in fact.

If you agree that Islam is in fact an ideology based on the material interests of propertied organisations, which in fact is a tool of social control used to divert the class struggle into cross class utopianism, then how can it be progressive?

Likewise as long as those bodies do not accept homosexuality then neither does "Islam".



As you yourself pointed out, there is no 'correct' interpretation of the Koran, etc.

In that case, it is not possible to say what is or what is not "in line" with it/them.

Sorry but how is this possible? It may be possible to interpret the Koran in different ways, but this doesn't mean there is "no correct" interpretation. When someone writes something, it either has meaning or it doesn't, and the reader either correctly understands it, or doesn't.

The other alternative is that what was written had no meaning. In which case no attempt to give it meaning is "correct".

In any case, it's not correct for you to look at that homophobic passages in the Koran, and then claim that they can be ignored, and that the interpretation can still be "correct". That's rubbish. If I write something clearly homphobic, is it "correct" for you conveniently "reinterpret" it based on your own beliefs?

From a scientist such as yourself I would expect better.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Well you have argued that Islam can at times play a progressive role - on page 2 in fact.

Sure, but I still do not see what your post had to do with this.


If you agree that Islam is in fact an ideology based on the material interests of propertied organisations, which in fact is a tool of social control used to divert the class struggle into cross class utopianism, then how can it be progressive?


Well, you dialecticians should know not to pose such abstract questions -- it depends on the social forces on the ground, the specifics of the historical juncture, and the concrete details of the politics on hand.

Do I have to teach you dialectics now?

but you do.]


Likewise as long as those bodies do not accept homosexuality then neither does "Islam".


Apparently, you think 'Islam' is an abstract object frozen in Platonic heaven.

If not, there is no such things as 'what Islam accepts' -- now, I used that term since those muslims did, and that indicates that Islam is not inherently anti-gay.

Unless, of course, you think that Isalm is the only thing in the entire universe not subject to change...:rolleyes:


Sorry but how is this possible? It may be possible to interpret the Koran in different ways, but this doesn't mean there is "no correct" interpretation. When someone writes something, it either has meaning or it doesn't, and the reader either correctly understands it, or doesn't.


Not so, as the history of religion tells us. The Koran, the Bible, and the rest of the holy books, are susceptible of almost limitless 'interpretation'.

You may not like it, but that is a fact.

[You already know what the Stalinists/Maoists do with the works of Marx, for goodness sake!]


The other alternative is that what was written had no meaning. In which case no attempt to give it meaning is "correct".

In complex situations, meaning is not always given by the words in front of you. Even the word "meaning" has many different meanings:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1099024&postcount=135



In any case, it's not correct for you to look at that homophobic passages in the Koran, and then claim that they can be ignored, and that the interpretation can still be "correct". That's rubbish. If I write something clearly homphobic, is it "correct" for you conveniently "reinterpret" it based on your own beliefs?


It is not me who is re-interpreting these passages, but muslims themselves.

Pick a fight with them, not me.



From a scientist such as yourself I would expect better.


As poor and pathetic as I am, I still beat the pants off you...:)

[Zurdito]

[QUOTE]Well, you dialecticians should know not to pose such abstract questions -- it depends on the social forces on the ground, the specifics of the historical juncture, and the concrete details of the politics on hand.

And for that reason, Islam on the ground can never be a progressive force, not since the onset of capitalism anyway.

All it does is misdirect the class struggle.

Therefore Islamic organisations can fidn themselves leading progressive sturggles, but to the extent they divert these struggles into relgious and not class based ones, they are not progressive. Therefore our duty as revolutionaries is to challenge this, not to present Islam as progressive, ever.




Apparently, you think 'Islam' is an abstract object frozen in Platonic heaven.


Apparently not.



Not so, as the history of religion tells us. The Koran, the Bible, and the rest of the holy books, are susceptible of almost limitless 'interpretation'.

You may not like it, but that is a fact.

[You already know what the Stalinists/Maoists do with the works of Marx, for goodness sake!]


That doesn't mean there is no "correct" interpretation of Marx.

Is this what you now believe Rosa?

I never had you down as a post-modernist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:



And for that reason, Islam on the ground can never be a progressive force, not since the onset of capitalism anyway.


But, according to dialectics, everything turns into its opposite -- so Isalm will become progressive, or it already is.

As I said, dialectics can be used to prove anything you like, and its opposite.


Apparently not.


Apparentlty so, since you think Isalm cannot become its opposite.


That doesn't mean there is no "correct" interpretation of Marx.


But, since he is no longer with us, we will never know.


Is this what you now believe Rosa?

I never had you down as a post-modernist.

I am not a postmodernist.

But, the interpretation of texts is not a given.

You argue your corner (with respect to an interpretation), and if others disagree, so be it.

That is just a fact of life.

[Unicorn]

Burn:

Sure, but as I have argued several times above, it does not mean either that it is homophobic, and will always be homophobic.

If you took a vote in twelfth-century 'Germany', you'd have been told that Christianity is inseparable from devotion to the Vicar of Rome (and you'd have been given dozens of passages from the Bible in support of that contention).

Five hundred years later, you'd have been told the opposite (with just as many passages supporting this new 'interpretation').
In the case of Christianity strongly homophobic statements (calling for killing of homosexuals, for example) can be found in the Old Testament. It is plausible to argue that Jesus's teaching made them obsolete like other silly rules of the Old Testament.

That is why mainstream Protestant churches in Western Europe accept homosexuality and some of them even offer possibility to same-sex marriage though fundamentalist Christians still have major negative influence on LGBT rights all over the world. It is harder to logically justify more tolerant interpretations based on Quran.

For example, a spokesman for the largest Muslim organization in North America has written:



"Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, a sin and corruption... No person is born homosexual, just like no one is born a thief, a liar or murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education."

"There are many reasons why it is forbidden in Islam. Homosexuality is dangerous for the health of the individuals and for the society. It is a main cause of one of the most harmful and fatal diseases. It is disgraceful for both men and women. It degrades a person. Islam teaches that men should be men and women should be women. Homosexuality deprives a man of his manhood and a woman of her womanhood. It is the most un-natural way of life. Homosexuality leads to the destruction of family life."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_isla2.htm

Mainstream Islamic thinking IS homophobic today. Homosexuality is criminalized in most Muslim countries. Muslims who tolerate it are a small minority without influence. I don't see how relevant your speculations how Islamic thinking might evolve or what some Muslim individuals think are relevant, Rosa.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Unicorn:


In the case of Christianity strongly homophobic statements (calling for killing of homosexuals, for example) can be found in the Old Testament. It is plausible to argue that Jesus's teaching made them obsolete like other silly rules of the Old Testament.

That's one way of looking at it, but then you'd be ignoring the Apostle Paul's words:


Because of this [idolatry], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Romans 1:26-27.


Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10.


as knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and for any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine

1 Timothy 1:9-10.

And even these are open to alternative interpretations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality


Mainstream Islamic thinking IS homophobic today. Homosexuality is criminalized in most Muslim countries. Muslims who tolerate it are a small minority without influence. I don't see how relevant your speculations how Islamic thinking might evolve or what some Muslim individuals think are relevant, Rosa.

You seem not to be able to grasp the simple point that this does not imply that Islam is inherently anti-gay, any more than Christianity is -- as the alternative interpretations in both religions indicate.

[Devrim]

You seem not to be able to grasp the simple point that this does not imply that Islam is inherently anti-gay, any more than Christianity is -

Most people in this argument have not argued that Christianity is any less or more anti gay than Islam, but that both are equally reactionary.


I used that term since those muslims did, and that indicates that Islam is not inherently anti-gay.

Technically I am a Muslim. I believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat. As does Leo (who incidentally for anyone who takes this sort of nonsense seriously is actually a descendant of the prophet), as do other members of our organisation who don't speak English and don't post upon these boards.

This certainly amounts to more people than were quoted in your original post.

Will you now go and tell people that Islam believes in the dictatorship of the proletariat?

Devrim

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:


Most people in this argument have not argued that Christianity is any less or more anti gay than Islam, but that both are equally reactionary.

I was arguing with Unicorn, not 'most people'.

I see your reading incapacity is no less diminished.


This certainly amounts to more people than were quoted in your original post.

Will you now go and tell people that Islam believes in the dictatorship of the proletariat?

Is it in the Koran?

Sorry -- with your reduced reading skills, you probably think it is.

[Devrim]

Is it in the Koran?

Sorry -- with your reduced reading skills, you probably think it is.

No it isn't. Is there anything that say homosexuality is ok in the Koran? I didn't notice it. I have read it in the original. ı doubt though that it is a translation mistake that slipped into the English version. I did notice other comments about homosexuality though (see previously in this thread).

Devrim

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:


No it isn't. Is there anything that say homosexuality is ok in the Koran? I didn't notice it. I have read it in the original. ı doubt though that it is a translation mistake that slipped into the English version. I did notice other comments about homosexuality though (see previously in this thread).

But, we have already decided that these passages are open to alternative interpretations.

Moreover, there are no passages in the Koran that can be re-interpreted to suggest that Islam is in favour of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat -- unless, that is, you know otherwise.

[Devrim]

But, we have already decided that these passages are open to alternative interpretations.

No, you have decided that, and have failed to produce any evidence from serious Islamic sources to prove otherwise.


Moreover, there are no passages in the Koran that can be re-interpreted to suggest that Islam is in favour of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat -- unless, that is, you know otherwise.

No, I don't. I simply present this as something that is as bizarre as your claim.

Devrim

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:


No, you have decided that, and have failed to produce any evidence from serious Islamic sources to prove otherwise.

And by 'serious Islamic sources' we all know you mean 'those that do not disagree with Devrim, the only true expert in this area...'


No, I don't. I simply present this as something that is as bizarre as your claim.

Not so, since homosexuality is mentioned in the Koran, and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat isn't.

[Devrim]

And by 'serious Islamic sources' we all know you mean 'those that do not disagree with Devrim, the only true expert in this area...'

No, just quote one Imam. I don't think that it would prove your case at all, in that one Imam would not speak for Islam, but at the moment it would give you slightly more credibility than the none you have at the moment.


Not so, since homosexuality is mentioned in the Koran, and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat isn't.

My point was that homosexuality being accepted is not mentioned in the Koran, just as the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't.

Devrim

[RHIZOMES]

For all you know, they might represent the 'correct' view.

Yeah that's why no Muslim including Muhammad himself believed this until the 20th century when homosexuality actually started becoming accepted as a natural part of life right?


Apparently they do not, as the existence of liberal muslims show.

They are not a sect.


Even less funny that -- for you.

Hur hur.


I am sorry, are you the Imam of the whole planet now?

No it's more like: I've been a Muslim, you haven't. Through actually studying the Qur'an and hadiths, I found it to be highly reactionary and backwards. You are whitewashing a reactionary religion.


Less than 5% of Marxists in London, I suspect, accept that the former USSR was State Capitalist, but that does not affect the truth or faleshood of the belief that it was.

You perhaps need to look up the meaning of the word 'relevant'.

You missed Unicorn's point. When only 5% think it's acceptable, it's hardly ISLAM that is 'accepting homosexuality', as your title suggests. it's more like "A minority of Muslims think homosexuality isn't wrong".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:


No, just quote one Imam. I don't think that it would prove your case at all, in that one Imam would not speak for Islam, but at the moment it would give you slightly more credibility than the none you have at the moment.

Not so; it was one spokesperson for a whole conference.

And, as I pointed out earlier, had you carried out a poll in the twelfth-century northern 'Germany', asking individuals if obedience to the Vicar of Rome was integral to being a Christian, you'd have got an overwhelming 'Yes' (with dozens of passages from the Bible to prove it); five hundred years later, you'd have received the opposite answer (with just as many passages to prove that too).

At some popint in between (around about the time of Luther), you would have found only one priest prepared to take the latter view. Soon after many more.
But, is Christianity inherently Papist?

Many say not; a few die-hard Catholic conservatives say 'Yes'.

Lesson: there is no so thing as an inherently 'this or that' religion.

All grow and evolve. Same with Islam.

But, why do you need me to tell you this?


My point was that homosexuality being accepted is not mentioned in the Koran, just as the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't.

The DOP isn't mentioned at all; homosexuality is, and the relevant passages are open to alternative readings.

How many more times do you need telling?

I can do this for weeks if you like...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RG:


Yeah that's why no Muslim including Muhammad himself believed this until the 20th century when homosexuality actually started becoming accepted as a natural part of life right?

I think we are going to need proof of that controversial allegation.


They are not a sect.

Even better then.


Hur hur.

Your best point so far.


I've been a Muslim, you haven't. Through actually studying the Qur'an and hadiths, I found it to be highly reactionary and backwards. You are whitewashing a reactionary religion.

Once more, it's not me who is doing this; muslims themselves are doing it.


You missed Unicorn's point. When only 5% think it's acceptable, it's hardly ISLAM that is 'accepting homosexuality', as your title suggests. it's more like "A minority of Muslims think homosexuality isn't wrong".

I dealt with that earlier. You must have missed it.

[Lector Malibu]

LM:



And, not as some others do not.


No in the latter, Plenty argue against homosexuality and turn to the Koran for justification....

Rosa what's got you so worked up? Is there a spam shortage in England?:laugh:


That was just a joke so you know.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LM:


Plenty argue against homosexuality and turn to the Koran for justification....

Indeed, as many Christians do the same with St Paul (passages quoted earlier).

But, as I have noted many times, these passages are all capable of being re-interpreted; and they have been.


Rosa what's got you so worked up?

Worked up?


Is there a spam shortage in England?

Yes, and you look like just the guy to correct the short-fall...

[Lector Malibu]

LM:

Indeed, as many Christians do the same with St Paul (passages quoted earlier).

Well You don't hear me defending the Christians either . I think there all the same, a bunch of fanatic wacko's with an agenda.


But, as I have noted many times, these passages are all capable of being re-interpreted; and they have been.So, ignore the homophobic element and claim solidarity? Fred Phelps and clan says they are Christan too. Funny not most Christian's support him


Worked up?Yeah, you seem to be real fired up on the idea that we are all criticizing Islam because secretly we are all biased against Muslims.


Yes, and you look like just the guy to correct the short-fall...Dam right I am. Spam is serious business and Lector Apocalypse Black Jack Malibu Nagasaki, never fucks around!...

[bcbm]

LM:
As I have pointed out several times, these passages are open to a variety of interpretations, not all of which are anti-gay -- as muslims themselves argue.

What would those interpretations be, and are they accurate interpretations of what the text is saying, or just so-much mental masturbation used to dance around homophobic texts so a few liberal Muslims can try to have their cake and eat it too?

[Unicorn]

In Islam, homosexuals (called qaum Lut, the "people of Lot") are condemned in the story of Lot's people in the Qur'an (15:73; 26:165) and in the last address of the Prophet Muhammad. However, attraction of men to beautiful male youths has been a part of the culture of some Islamic societies and the attraction is not generally condemned in itself.

With regard to lesbian homosexuality, some have argued that since penetration is not involved, female homosexual acts should be less severely punished. Shari'a (Islamic law) is most concerned with public behavior and outwards, so there is no strong condemnation of homosexuality if it is not displayed in public. [1]
Homosexuality in the Qur'an

The following passages are taken from the Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation of the Qur'an.
"We also sent Lut: He said to his people: Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds. And his people gave no answer but this: they said, "Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!"" (Qur'an 7:80-82)

"Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)! They said: "If thou desist not, O Lut! thou wilt assuredly be cast out!" He said: "I do detest your doings:" "O my Lord! deliver me and my family from such things as they do!" So We delivered him and his family,- all Except an old woman who lingered behind. But the rest We destroyed utterly. We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): and evil was the shower on those who were admonished (but heeded not)! Verily in this is a Sign: but most of them do not believe. And verily thy Lord is He, the Exalted in Might, Most Merciful." (Qur'an 26:165-175)

"Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant! But his people gave no other answer but this: They said, "Drive out the followers of Lut from your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!" But We saved him and his family, except his wife; her We destined to be of those who lagged behind. And We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): and evil was the shower on those who were admonished (but heeded not)!" (Qur'an 27:55-58)

"And (remember) Lut: behold, he said to his people: "Ye do commit lewdness, such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you. Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway? - and practise wickedness (even) in your councils?" But his people gave no answer but this: they said: "Bring us the Wrath of Allah if thou tellest the truth." (Qur'an 29:28-29)

"If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. 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." (Qur'an 4:15-16)
Homosexuality in the Sharia

While there is a consensus that same-sex intercourse is in violation of Islamic law, there are differences of opinion within Islamic scholarship about punishment, reformation, and what standards of proof are required before physical punishment becomes lawful.

In Sunni Islam there are eight madhhabs, or legal schools, of which only four still exist: Hanafi, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Maliki. The main Shia school is called Ja'fari, but there are Zaidi and Ismai'ili also. More recently, some groups have rejected this tradition in favor of greater ijtihad, or individual interpretation. Of these schools, according to Michael Mumisa of the Birmingham-based Al Mahdi institute:
The Hanafi school does not consider same-sex intercourse to constitute adultery, and therefore leaves punishment up to the judge's discretion. Most early scholars of this school specifically ruled out the death penalty, others allow it for a second offence.
Imam Shafi'i considers same-sex intercourse as analogous to other zina; thus, a married person found to have done so is punished as an adulterer (by stoning to death), and an unmarried one, as a fornicator, is left to be flogged.
The Maliki school says that anyone (married or unmarried) found to have committed same-sex intercourse should be punished as an adulterer.
Within the Ja'fari schools, Sayyid al-Khoi says that anyone (married or unmarried) found to have committed same-sex intercourse should be punished as an adulterer.

It should also be noted that the punishment for adultery requires four witnesses; by analogy, all schools, require four witnesses to the physical act of penetration for the punishment to be applied.But if otherwise any other proof is found through modern methods such as DNA testing or so the punishment can be implimented.

According to the modern Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi's summary:
"The jurists of Islam have held different opinions concerning the punishment for this abominable practice. Should it be the same as the punishment for zina, or should both the active and passive participants be put to death? While such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of the Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements." [2]
History of Homosexuality in Islamic Societies
17th cent. painting of Mahmud and Ayaz (Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art). The love of the Sultan (in red) for his slave (in green) has entered Islamic legend as a paragon of ideal love.


The chaste love of men for youths has been regarded as something sacred in many Islamic socities, as reflected in the romantic love literature of Muslim Spain and in the Qur'an where Paradise contains beautiful male virgins. Occasionally, these literary praises extended to more carnal forms of desire, as can be seen in the poetry of Abu Nuwas and many others. In Islamic teaching, however, while homosexual desire and love might be accommodated, same-sex intercourse is prohibited as a violation of the natural boundaries set by Allah.

Early Islamic cultures, especially those in which homosexuality was entrenched in the pre-Islamic pagan culture, were renowned for their cultivation of a homosexual aesthetic. They reconciled their new religion using a hadith ascribed to Muhammad declaring male lovers who die chaste to be martyrs: "He who loves and remains chaste and conceals his secret and dies, dies a martyr."

The result is a religion that allows love between those of the same gender as long as they do not have sexual intercourse. Ibn Hazm, Ibn Daud, Al-Mu'tamid, Abu Nuwas, and many others wrote extensively and openly of love between men. However, in order for the transgression to be proven, at least four men or eight women must bear witness against the accused, thus making it very difficult to persecute those who did not remain celibate in their homes.

The intended meaning of "same-sex intercourse" is sexual intercourse between two or more males, or sexual intercourse between two or more females. It does not mean the act of masturbation, nor does it have anything to do with nocturnal emissions, both of which are considered to invalidate wudu and require the Muslim to take a full bath or shower before his or her next prayer, but are not otherwise punishable under Sharia.
Homosexuality Laws in Modern Islamic Countries

Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. [3] It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and in Iraq under a 2001 decree by Saddam Hussein. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria or the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines or corporal punishment. In some Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, or Mali, same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. However, in Egypt gays have been the victims of laws against "morality".

In Saudi Arabia, the maximium punishment for homosexuality is public execution, but the government will use other punishments, i.e. fines, jail time and whipping as alternatives, unless it feels that homosexuals are challenging state authority by engaging in a gay rights movement. [4] Iran is perhaps the nation to execute the largest number of its citizens for homosexuality. Since its Islamic revolution in Iran, the Iranian government has executed more than 4000 people charged with homosexual acts. In Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban homosexuality went from a capital crime to one that it punished with fines and prison sentence, and a similar situation seems to have occurred in Iraq.

Most international human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, condemn laws that make homosexual relations between consenting adults a crime. Since 1994 the United Nations Human Rights Committee has also ruled that such laws violated the right to privacy guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covent on Civil and Political Rights. However (except for nations such as Turkey that were required to change their laws to be eligible to join the European Union) most Muslim nations insist that such laws are neccesary to preserve Islamic morality and virtue. Of the nations with a majority of Muslim, only Lebanon has an internal effort to legalize homosexuality. However, some Muslims have expressed criticism of the legal sanctions used against homosexuality.

Reasons given by Muslims condemning the executions include: the fact that some legal schools (e.g. Hanafi) regard it as unjustified; the argument that the death penalty is not specified for it in the Qur'an; the idea that the punishment is unduly harsh; and opposition to the idea that the state's laws should be based on religion. The introduction of the AIDS pandemic in the Muslim world has also promoted more discussion about the legal status of homosexuality as the legal sanctions against homosexuality have made it difficult to intiaite any educational programs directed at high risks groups.

While executions and other criminal sanctions curtail any public gay rights movement, it is impractical to give criminal sanctions to all homosexuals living in a Muslim country, and it is common knowledge (to foreigners visiting a Muslim country) that some young Muslim men will experiment with homosexual relations as an outlet to sexual desires that cannot be met in a society where the sexes are often kept segregated. These discreet and casual homosexual relations allow men to engage in premartial sex with a low risk of facing the social or legal sanctions that would occur if they involved in adultery or fornication with a woman that might result in a pregnancy. Most of these men do not consider themsleves to be gay or bisexual.

A related problem to full enforcement of the laws against homosexuality is that while the sexes are often segregated, men are encouraged to developed close friendships with other men, and women are encouraged to develop close friendships with other women. Also, the Islamic law requires a certain number of male and female witnesses to the homosexual act to testify in court. Islam does place a strong value on the right to privacy in the home and thus homosexual relations that occur in private are theoretically outside the bounds of the law, although that is more theory then reality.
Liberal Islamic Stances on Homosexuality

Some self-described liberal Muslims accept and consider homosexuality as natural, regarding these verses as either obsolete in the context of modern society, or point out that the Qu'ran speaks out against homosexual lust, and is silent on homosexual love. However, this position remains highly controversial even amongst liberal movements within Islam, and is considered completely beyond the pale by mainstream Islam [5].

http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm

[RHIZOMES]

I think we are going to need proof of that controversial allegation.

Okay okay. I'm wrong. you're right, I'm wrong. it's more like "Yeah that's why no Muslim (who actually followed what every single Islamic school of thought and sect throughout the history of Islam has believed) including Muhammad himself believed this until the 20th century when homosexuality actually started becoming accepted as a natural part of life right?"


Once more, it's not me who is doing this; muslims themselves are doing it.

As Unicorn has said - something like 5% of Muslims are doing this. That does not account for 'Islam "accepts homosexuality"'.


I dealt with that earlier. You must have missed it.

What, when you said it's not you who is saying 'Islam "accepts homosexuality"' but rather it's a quote by Muslims? If that's it, I really don't care. It doesn't make it any less completely wrong.


What would those interpretations be, and are they accurate interpretations of what the text is saying, or just so-much mental masturbation used to dance around homophobic texts so a few liberal Muslims can try to have their cake and eat it too?

Well said.

[Comrade-Z]

Do all Muslims reject homosexuality? No.

Does the Koran accept homosexuality? No.

Does "Islam" accept homosexuality? Rosa's line of argument seems to hinge on the idea that there is no singular "Islam" in the first place. Okay...but then you just as equally can't say that "Islam" (as a singular thing) accepts homosexuality. Under Rosa's guidelines, you have to specify which type of "Islam" you are talking about. (And similarly, one couldn't say that "Christianity" as a singular thing rejects homosexuality or accepts slavery or says thou shalt not steal. I could "interpret" the Bible as accepting stealing...by basically ignoring all common sense, but hey, while we're at it...)

Does the type of "Islam" adhered to by the vast majority of self-proclaimed Muslims accept homosexuality? No.

Have certain smaller groups of self-proclaimed Muslims come up with a liberal version of Islam that accepts homosexuality and still manages to make sense, pay homage to the foundational texts, and maintain internal consistency, in their eyes? Apparently yes.

Have certain smaller groups of self-proclaimed Muslims come up with a liberal version of Islam that accepts homosexuality and still manages to make sense, pay homage to the foundational texts, and maintain internal consistency, in my eyes? No, of course not. It doesn't make a lick of sense to me how one could interpret those Koran passages into accepting homosexuality.

With that degree of liberal interpretation, I really could interpret Marxism as accepting something like racism. *Sarcasm alert* Granted, the vast majority of Marxists are anti-racist, and Marx does talk about replacing inter-national struggle with inter-class struggle, but hmmm...I'm gonna interpret that as not ruling out racism. Oooh, but there's even "positive evidence"...Marx even used the word "Nigger" on occasion...oooh, and I can "interpret" him as stereotyping Jews....oooh, and he supported the Mexican-American war, so he must be racist against Mexicans, according to my interpretation...so you see, Marxism accepts racism, right? At least a type of alternatively-interpreted (but still "legitimate") Marxism, right? *Sarcasm ended*.

Defending Islam does not advance revolution. Instead, why not defend Muslims as not *all* rejecting homosexuality? That is technically a true statement, and would it not be just as politically useful (without absurdly compromising one's revolutionary fundamentals) in the fucked-up political context of Europe that one of the earlier posters described?

[Devrim]

Instead, why not defend Muslims as not *all* rejecting homosexuality? That is technically a true statement, and would it not be just as politically useful (without absurdly compromising one's revolutionary fundamentals) in the fucked-up political context of Europe that one of the earlier posters described?

One of the other advantages of it being true is that it isn't easy to rip apart as Rosa's argument has been. When the SWP or there like say things such as 'Islam accepts homosexuality' they are actually handing ammunition to the right.


Not so; it was one spokesperson for a whole conference.A conference of whom? Not Islamic scholars certainly, maybe liberal Muslims.


And, as I pointed out earlier, had you carried out a poll in the twelfth-century northern 'Germany', asking individuals if obedience to the Vicar of Rome was integral to being a Christian, you'd have got an overwhelming 'Yes' (with dozens of passages from the Bible to prove it); five hundred years later, you'd have received the opposite answer (with just as many passages to prove that too).

At some popint in between (around about the time of Luther), you would have found only one priest prepared to take the latter view. Soon after many more.
But, is Christianity inherently Papist?Was obedience to the vicar of Rome necessary for Catholics/Christians in twelfth century Germany. I would say yes.

I would also say that being anti gay is part of Islam.

That doesn't say that it can't change. The inherently thing is something that you have just introduced to the argument as well, by the way. It wasn't what I was saying at all.

Also at the point of Luther hammering his theses on the church door I think that it would still have been untrue to argue that Christians in Germany were anti-Rome.

However, you have yet to produce your one priest.

Devrim

[Unicorn]

The biggest problem in Islam is that it is an explicitly anti-Marxist ideology. It is not really possible to be a Marxist and a Muslim because in Islam private property is sacred.



In contrast to socialism, Islam enshrines private property as a sacred trust. Everything belongs to God, and it is Man that God has created as His khalîfah, or His agent on earth (Qur’ân 2:30). Each person is individually responsible directly to the Almighty for the faithful execution of this awesome trust (36:54). Therefore that concept of private property well-established among the Semitic peoples is taken as a given by the Qur’an. Rather than modify the concept of property, the Qur’an specifies the terms for its wholesome and just enjoyment and employment. It should neither be used wastefully nor in a way that will deprive others of their justly acquired property (2:188). When one holds the property of others in trust, for example for orphans, one should not divert it to one’s personal benefit (2:2; 4:10), but one should not turn over one’s own property to those incapable of managing it (2:5). When orphans mature they should be given control of their own property (2:6). Inheritance rights are not only respected (4:33), but expanded to include women (4:7). Property rights of women are as sacred as those of men in other cases as well (4:24, 4:32) and the treatment of women as chattel is prohibited (4:19).

The Prophet emphasized the importance of property rights in his farewell pilgrimage by declaring to the assembled masses "Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly." The Qur’an mandates the respect for property rights be extended to all human beings regardless of religious faith (3:75).

http://www.minaret.org/acton.htm

Because Muslims the Muslim population in Europe is rapidly growing and they are having more power anti-Muslim discrimination will in my opinion become a smaller problem and the attitude of Muslims towards socialism a larger problem. The right approach would be to point out the reactionary nature of Islam and encourage Muslims to become atheistic communists.

Furthermore, the discrimination they suffer is not actually motivated by "Islamophobia" but racism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LM:


I think there all the same, a bunch of fanatic wacko's with an agenda.

What you think does not count; the facts do.

And some are 'whackos', some are not. Your attitude is, quite frankly, reminiscent of some of the worst aspects of fundamentalism.

Exhibit A for the prosecution:


Dam right I am. Spam is serious business and Lector Apocalypse Black Jack Malibu Nagasaki, never fucks around!...

But:


So, ignore the homophobic element and claim solidarity? Fred Phelps and clan says they are Christan too. Funny not most Christian's support him

Eh?


you seem to be real fired up on the idea that we are all criticizing Islam because secretly we are all biased against Muslims.

No more than you are at being prejudiced against muslims.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BCBM(??)-as-was:


What would those interpretations be, and are they accurate interpretations of what the text is saying, or just so-much mental masturbation used to dance around homophobic texts so a few liberal Muslims can try to have their cake and eat it too?

You can read them at the websites I listed.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Unicorn, thanks for that -- but I read it weeks ago.

It does not alter what I have said.

You need to address that, not post irrelevant articles.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RG:


Okay okay. I'm wrong. you're right, I'm wrong. it's more like "Yeah that's why no Muslim (who actually followed what every single Islamic school of thought and sect throughout the history of Islam has believed) including Muhammad himself believed this until the 20th century when homosexuality actually started becoming accepted as a natural part of life right?"

As I said, we are going to need proof of this.


As Unicorn has said - something like 5% of Muslims are doing this. That does not account for 'Islam "accepts homosexuality"'. What, when you said it's not you who is saying 'Islam "accepts homosexuality"' but rather it's a quote by Muslims? If that's it, I really don't care. It doesn't make it any less completely wrong.


Once more, I dealt with this earlier. I suggest you re-read it (only this time with a little more care) and then get back to me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrade Z:


Does the Koran accept homosexuality? No.

Well, if you were the 'Pope' of Islam (if there were such a thing), we might be prepared to listen to you.

Alas, you are not.

There are muslim theologians who say differently. You need to pick a fight with them, not me.


Rosa's line of argument seems to hinge on the idea that there is no singular "Islam" in the first place. Okay...but then you just as equally can't say that "Islam" (as a singular thing) accepts homosexuality. Under Rosa's guidelines, you have to specify which type of "Islam" you are talking about. (And similarly, one couldn't say that "Christianity" as a singular thing rejects homosexuality or accepts slavery or says thou shalt not steal. I could "interpret" the Bible as accepting stealing...by basically ignoring all common sense, but hey, while we're at it...)

In your zeal to attack Islam, you seem to have lost the ability to read.

I put the words to which you take such exception in quotation marks since they are not my words, but those of muslim scholars.

Once more, address your concerns to them, not me.


Have certain smaller groups of self-proclaimed Muslims come up with a liberal version of Islam that accepts homosexuality and still manages to make sense, pay homage to the foundational texts, and maintain internal consistency, in my eyes? No, of course not. It doesn't make a lick of sense to me how one could interpret those Koran passages into accepting homosexuality.

And how would you know? You are not a muslim scholar.


With that degree of liberal interpretation, I really could interpret Marxism as accepting something like racism. *Sarcasm alert* Granted, the vast majority of Marxists are anti-racist, and Marx does talk about replacing inter-national struggle with inter-class struggle, but hmmm...I'm gonna interpret that as not ruling out racism. Oooh, but there's even "positive evidence"...Marx even used the word "Nigger" on occasion...oooh, and I can "interpret" him as stereotyping Jews....oooh, and he supported the Mexican-American war, so he must be racist against Mexicans, according to my interpretation...so you see, Marxism accepts racism, right? At least a type of alternatively-interpreted (but still "legitimate") Marxism, right? *Sarcasm ended*.

Yes, you are right (if we ignore your second-rate attempt at sarcasm), Marxism has and can be interpeted anyway one likes.

All one can do is look at those attempts, and make a judgement.

In this case, I suspect you'd lose the argument (if you had have meant it seriously).

Hence, it is up to us Marxists to decide -- just as it is up to muslims to decide if the Koran is as the conservatives say it is.

However, I have to say the the attitude of several comrades here will play into the hands of those already prejudiuced against Marxism, who can now argue that we are blindingly prejudiced against them, to such an extent that we too oppose the first glimmerings of liberalism (in modern times, as far as I know) in Islam.

So, I think you (plural) need to demonise Isalm, to justify your intransigent attitude.

That of course is a very unintelligent attitude to adopt, since it will further alienate 20% of the world's population against Marxism.

Have we not been unsuccessful for long enough for some of you? Do you want us to be even less so in the future?

It seems so.

Onward to the next 150 years of failure comrades!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:


Was obedience to the vicar of Rome necessary for Catholics/Christians in twelfth century Germany. I would say yes.

Not my wording; you had to change it to make your point.

Address my point, or belt up.


Also at the point of Luther hammering his theses on the church door I think that it would still have been untrue to argue that Christians in Germany were anti-Rome.

I again marvel at your capacity to miss the point.


However, you have yet to produce your one priest.

You think there are priests in Islam now?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Unicorn:


The biggest problem in Islam is that it is an explicitly anti-Marxist ideology. It is not really possible to be a Marxist and a Muslim because in Islam private property is sacred.

1) You wonder why with biggots like you around.

2) Do not derail this thread; if you want to discuss this new topic, start another.

[Lector Malibu]

LM:
What you think does not count; the facts do.

Rosa You have not provided fact that dictates Islam as a non homophobic period.



And some are 'whackos', some are not. Your attitude is, quite frankly, reminiscent of some of the worst aspects of fundamentalism.Well thanks for your opinion. To bad it does not have any clout.


No more than you are at being prejudiced against muslims.First off I'm not being prejudiced against Muslims . By saying Islam is a homophobic religion for the most part does not in any way shape or form mean I am prejudiced against Muslims. Fact is I don't support any religious sects and it does not have to do with the integrity of the followers them selfs.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LM:


Rosa You have not provided fact that dictates Islam as a non homophobic period.

No, but those liberal scholars, and those who run the gay-muslim sites, have,

I suggest you contact them.


Too bad it does not have any clout.

Who said it did? But the aforementioned muslim opinion about their own faith trumps anything you have to say -- and that's all I need.


First off I'm not being prejudiced against Muslims .

May I cogratulate you then on an excellent impression of someone who is prejudiced against muslims. An oscar performance, if I may be allowed to say.


By saying Islam is a homophobic religion for the most part does not in any way shape or form mean I am prejudiced against Muslims. Fact is I don't support any religious sects and it does not have to do with the integrity of the followers them selfs.

One small, perhaps even microscopic nagging doubt: you ignore the liberal interpretation of Islam because it conforms to a view you had already formed about muslims.

Look it up in a dictionary; a perfect example of prejudice.

QED

[Unicorn]

LM:
No, but those liberal scholars, and those who run the gay-muslim sites, have,

I suggest you contact them.
However, their views "are considered completely beyond the pale by mainstream Islam" according to this source.

http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm

Their opinions don't have much influence among Muslims. That is why the political influence of Islam is for the most part reactionary.

An analogy: The opinions of "Christian Communists" don't have much influence among Christians and they are condemned by the Catholic Church. Whether their views are "correct" or not churches are generally systematically backing reaction.

Theological debate should not concern Marxists.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Unicorn:


However, their views "are considered completely beyond the pale by mainstream Islam" according to this source.

So what? That no more makes them 'wrong' than it made Luther's views 'wrong' when he was also 'beyond the pale', and on his own.


That is why the political influence of Islam is for the most part reactionary.

So you say, but we have yet to see the proof that Islam is and always will be 'reactionary'.

Unless you have access to a crystal ball you are not telling us about...


An analogy: The opinions of "Christian Communists" don't have much influence among Christians and they are condemned by the Catholic Church. Whether their views are "correct" or not churches are generally systematically backing reaction.

This has not always been so, nor have you shown this will always be so.


Theological debate should not concern Marxists.

I agree, but then again, crass ignorance is nothing to be proud of, either.

[Unicorn]

Unicorn:

So what? That no more makes them 'wrong' than it made Luther's views 'wrong' when he was also 'beyond the pale', and on his own.
It makes them irrelevant. Luther's views were irrelevant too until Lutherans made them relevant. The same applies to Islam.



So you say, but we have yet to see the proof that Isalm is and always will be 'reactionary'.

Unless you have access to a crystal ball you are not telling us about...
Workers have no need for religion. It is a tool used by capitalists to uphold an inequal social order. It won't become anything progressive because only a small minority of the people who aim to a socialist society have any attachment to religion.



This has not always been so, nor have you shown this will always be so.

Because clergymen are bourgeois only a small minority of them wish to support a workers' revolution. That fact is elemental Marxism. Most of them won't change the religion in a positive way because that would be against their class interests. Therefore, Christianity and Islam will always remain reactionary.

[daniyaal]

'Yes' (with dozens of passages from the Bible to prove it)

Really? Care to point out these dozens of passages for me?

[daniyaal]

In my opinion there is no "being gay" in the Bible or Qur'an. The homosexual is the person who engages in homosexual acts, very much like the liar is a person who lies and the preacher is someone who preaches.

People argue about the "being gay" issue and whether or not that it is a sin. The Bible or Qur'an doesn't nuance things like we do because it was written over a thousand of years ago and not meant to be exhaustive, only sufficient. That having been said then, it is clear that in both books homosexual acts are wrong.

[Devrim]

You think there are priests in Islam now?

Yes, I think that it is a correct use of the word in English. Dictionaries seem to agree with me:


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=priest&ia=luna) - Share This (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/priest#sharethis) priest http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/P07/P0777100) Audio Help (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/audio.html) /prist/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[preest] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.a person whose office it is to perform religious rites, and esp. to make sacrificial offerings. 2.(in Christian use) a.a person ordained to the sacerdotal or pastoral office; a member of the clergy; minister. b.(in hierarchical churches) a member of the clergy of the order next below that of bishop, authorized to carry out the Christian ministry. 3.a minister of any religion. –verb (used with object) 4.to ordain as a priest.
[Origin: bef. 900; ME prest(e), priest, OE préost, ult. < LL presbyter presbyter (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=presbyter)http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png]

—Related formspriestless, adjective
priestlike, adjective, adverb


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/priest

But really it isn't the point. Your comment is just another way of avoiding answering the question, and admitting that there is no basis to your argument at all.

So please produce your priest, or Imam, or Şeikh, or Hoca or Dedi, or whatever.

Devrim

[bcbm]

BCBM(??)-as-was:
You can read them at the websites I listed.


Browsed a few... they all seem to suffer from the same problems as liberal Christian reinterpretations, though its even more suspect in Islam's case. It basically falls on words "not actually meaning" something they clearly mean, and rejecting the official decisions of Muslim scholars for the past seven centuries, which is problematic from a religious perspective.

They want to have their cake and eat it too.

[Lector Malibu]

LM:



No, but those liberal scholars, and those who run the gay-muslim sites, have,

Funny a actual homosexual commented earlier that no Islam was not un-homophobic but that does not matter to you.


Rosa what is wrong with your argument is this.

Based on your brilliant leap in logic we could turn a blind eye to fascist and other assorted scum . Why? because it is also the case that not all fascist are two bit thugs out attacking minority's in dark allyways. For example, The BNP. Now we know for a fact why we should not support these groups, yet according to your drivel we should and if we don't it is because we are prejudiced against groups like that. You are hypocritical to the core in your debate period. I don't hear you defending fascist? Why homophobic Islam?? OHH I know cause some aren't , fucking brilliant.


Have a nice day!!!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Unicorn:


It makes them irrelevant. Luther's views were irrelevant too until Lutherans made them relevant. The same applies to Islam.

Eh? I am sorry, you lost me here.


Workers have no need for religion. It is a tool used by capitalists to uphold an inequal social order. It won't become anything progressive because only a small minority of the people who aim to a socialist society have any attachment to religion.

Not according to Marx.


Because clergymen are bourgeois only a small minority of them wish to support a workers' revolution. That fact is elemental Marxism. Most of them won't change the religion in a positive way because that would be against their class interests. Therefore, Christianity and Islam will always remain reactionary.

What clergymen do or do not want is not relevant to the nature of the religion workers accept/modify.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

daniyaal:


Really? Care to point out these dozens of passages for me?

Nope.


In my opinion there is no "being gay" in the Bible or Qur'an. The homosexual is the person who engages in homosexual acts, very much like the liar is a person who lies and the preacher is someone who preaches.

People argue about the "being gay" issue and whether or not that it is a sin. The Bible or Qur'an doesn't nuance things like we do because it was written over a thousand of years ago and not meant to be exhaustive, only sufficient. That having been said then, it is clear that in both books homosexual acts are wrong.

Not according to many theologians.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:


Your comment is just another way of avoiding answering the question, and admitting that there is no basis to your argument at all.

So please produce your priest, or Imam, or Şeikh, or Hoca or Dedi, or whatever.

Why is that a criterion?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BCBM-as-was:


Browsed a few... they all seem to suffer from the same problems as liberal Christian reinterpretations, though its even more suspect in Islam's case. It basically falls on words "not actually meaning" something they clearly mean, and rejecting the official decisions of Muslim scholars for the past seven centuries, which is problematic from a religious perspective.

They want to have their cake and eat it too.

Which just goes to show that there is no such thing as 'Religion XYZ is inherently ABC'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LM:


Funny a actual homosexual commented earlier that no Islam was not un-homophobic but that does not matter to you.

The above sentence does not seem to make sense.


Based on your brilliant leap in logic we could turn a blind eye to fascist and other assorted scum . Why? because it is also the case that not all fascist are two bit thugs out attacking minority's in dark allyways. For example, The BNP. Now we know for a fact why we should not support these groups, yet according to your drivel we should and if we don't it is because we are prejudiced against groups like that. You are hypocritical to the core in your debate period. I don't hear you defending fascist? Why homophobic Islam?? OHH I know cause some aren't , fucking brilliant.

Not at all the same.

[Lector Malibu]

LM:



The above sentence does not seem to make sense.



I'd like to believe it, but I don't. What bullshit.

This is what I'm referring too. You know the post you have dogged this entire thread. And I agree with him what your presenting is bullshit flat out. I agree with you on the point that Muslims have been vilified. As far as Islam being non homophobic, well as you agreed a few post up you have not provided fact to dictate such.




Not at all the same.yawn

[Unicorn]

Unicorn:
Eh? I am sorry, you lost me here.
The point is that the opinions of Muslims who accept homosexuality don't have weight in the Muslim community. Their number is unfortunately still small. Over 95% of Muslims in London are homophobic as the statistic I linked shows.

Although I don't know how the religious views of Muslims change in the future neither do you. They may become less homophobic or more homophobic.



Not according to Marx.
Source?



What clergymen do or do not want is not relevant to the nature of the religion workers accept/modify.
In Islam leading clergymen (mullahs etc.) determine the content of the religion.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LM:


You know the post you have dogged this entire thread.

I am sorry, once more, but I just do not undertstand what you are banging on about.

'Dogged' what?


yawn

Your best point yet -- well done.

-----------------------------------

Unicorn:


The point is that the opinions of Muslims who accept homosexuality don't have weight in the Muslim community. Their number is unfortunately still small. Over 95&#37; of Muslims in London are homophobic as the statistic I linked shows.

Although I don't know how the religious views of Muslims change in the future neither do you. They may become less homophobic or more homophobic.

According to the sources I quoted, Islam is not the least bit homophobic -- once more I suggest you pick a fight with them, not me.


Source?

This (but I am sure you have seen it before):


Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.


In Islam leading clergymen (mullahs etc.) determine the content of the religion.

Not according to the muslim sources I quoted.

[bcbm]

BCBM-as-was:
Which just goes to show that there is no such thing as 'Religion XYZ is inherently ABC'.

No, it goes to show that some people can't give up religion even when they have a fundamental problem with its doctrine, and so they try to find a way to make the square peg fit in a round hole.

[Unicorn]

According to the sources I quoted, Islam is not the least bit homophobic -- once more I suggest you pick a fight with them, not me.
That is the view some progressive Muslims have of homosexuality. I have no quarrel with them.

The vast majority of Muslims (in London >95%) subscribe to some reactionary interpretation of Islam and are homophobic. Members of the LGBT community in the Muslim world suffer greatly because of this.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BCBM:


No, it goes to show that some people can't give up religion even when they have a fundamental problem with its doctrine, and so they try to find a way to make the square peg fit in a round hole.

Sure, but they can always change the hole too.

-------------------------

Unicorn:


The vast majority of Muslims (in London >95&#37;) subscribe to some reactionary interpretation of Islam and are homophobic. Members of the LGBT community in the Muslim world suffer greatly because of this.

Maybe so, but that does not mean Islam is inherently homophobic.

[al8]

Rosa, I'm sorry if I have wrongly accused you of SWP-ist islamopandering. But it does come off that way. Maybe if I could ask you and get at what you are really saying.

The question of how far one can actually sway away from the scriptural litany and the age-old held established interpretive traditions before that would constitute a new and different religion deserving of a new name, has been mine and many of my athiest friends interest for a long time. I and others on this thread think we/one can clearly understand what Islam is, and what is and is not a(n illegitimate) deviation. You don't seem to think that as revolutionarys we should or can.

You confer to self-proclaimed muslims to understand and interpret theological matters instead of venturing there yourself. Am I correct? If so why don't you? Is it because you advocate the usage of E-prime and ultamately reject the usage of 'is'?

But in the case you have some standards as to what is and is not, then; To what extent or degree does one have to change or re-interpred 'Islam' until it isn't really Islam any more? Or any other religion for that matter?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Maybe so, but that does not mean Islam is inherently homophobic.

The Koran would indicate that Islam is inherently homophobic.

[bcbm]

BCBM:
Sure, but they can always change the hole too.


No, they can't, unless you mean completely dumping Islam. That's the entire point here. Islamic doctrine says that homosexual acts are wrong. Period. The attempts to "reinterpret" the text fundamentally disagree with the main religious texts and 700 years of religious scholarship; they're an intellectually dishonest way liberal Muslims can feel good about having a fundamental conflict with their religious belief.

There are many things in the Muslim world you can argue Islam does not support and are cultural, not religious, in nature... veils, genital mutilation, sexual discrimination of many stripes, even the death penalty for homosexuality. Homosexual acts being uncouth in the eyes of Islamic doctrine, however, is not one of them.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Al8:


You confer to self-proclaimed muslims to understand and interpret theological matters instead of venturing there yourself. Am I correct? If so why don't you? Is it because you advocate the usage of E-prime and ultamately reject the usage of 'is'?

I am sorry, I did not understand the last sentence.

------------------

Noxion:


The Koran would indicate that Islam is inherently homophobic.

We have already been through this; may I suggest you familiarise yourself with the rest of this thread?

------------------

BCBM-as-was:


No, they can't, unless you mean completely dumping Islam. That's the entire point here. Islamic doctrine says that homosexual acts are wrong. Period. The attempts to "reinterpret" the text fundamentally disagree with the main religious texts and 700 years of religious scholarship; they're an intellectually dishonest way liberal Muslims can feel good about having a fundamental conflict with their religious belief.

Protestantism overturned 1300 years of Catholicism; so nothing is 'inherently' this or that in any religion.

[daniyaal]

Rosa Lichtenstein[/I]]Nope.

Then shut up.


Not according to many theologians.Really, which ones?

[bcbm]

Protestantism overturned 1300 years of Catholicism; so nothing is 'inherently' this or that in any religion.

Protestantism does not fundamentally disagree with primary Christian texts, it doesn't even disagree with a lot of scholarship. The formation and history of Christianity are quite different than Islam, in any case, so your comparison falls flat. Certain things are inherent to specific religions, just as certain things are specific to any ideology. Would you accept that communism is not inherently against homophobia, nationalism, racism and sexism? I doubt it, because it disagrees with the primary texts and theorists, no matter how a large number of people may try to "reinterpret" the doctrine (and they have- we've seen all of these from "communists"). The same is true here.

[al8]

Al8:


You confer to self-proclaimed muslims to understand and interpret theological matters instead of venturing there yourself. Am I correct? If so why don't you? Is it because you advocate the usage of E-prime and ultimately reject the usage of 'is'?I am sorry, I did not understand the last sentence.

Not that it matters terribly much, but; E-prime (press on link) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-prime) And by advocate I should have said 'are for'..."the usage of E-prime". Since I haven't seen acctually seen you advocate the usage of E-prime.

What I would really like to know is this. How do you figure to what extent or degree can one change or re-interpred Islam until it isn't really Islam any more?

Or the same for any other religion? How 'far' can one 'stray from' christian scripture and the accompanying interpretive traditions before one doesn't believe in christianity any more? Where should the line be drawn?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Daniyaal:


Then shut up.

Nope.


Really, which ones?

Follow the links I posted earlier.

-----------------------------------

BCBM-as-was:


Protestantism does not fundamentally disagree with primary Christian texts, it doesn't even disagree with a lot of scholarship. The formation and history of Christianity are quite different than Islam, in any case, so your comparison falls flat. Certain things are inherent to specific religions, just as certain things are specific to any ideology. Would you accept that communism is not inherently against homophobia, nationalism, racism and sexism? I doubt it, because it disagrees with the primary texts and theorists, no matter how a large number of people may try to "reinterpret" the doctrine (and they have- we've seen all of these from "communists"). The same is true here.

Sure, but there are many over which there are considerable differences, which, once more, illustrates the fact that there is nothing inherently this or that in any religion.

The other points you raised, I dealt with earlier.

---------------------------

Al8:


How do you figure to what extent or degree can one change or re-interpred Islam until it isn't really Islam any more?

I have absolutely no idea; I just do not rule change out.

But, history has shown that religions can and do change, and in fundamental ways, as I am sure you know.

[bcbm]

Sure, but there are many over which there are considerable differences, which, once more, illustrates the fact that there is nothing inherently this or that in any religion.

Perhaps some things are not inherent, but it is patently false to say that nothing is inherent to one religion. Islam is a monotheistic religion, a group claiming Allah to be four gods would not be Islamic, because they reject a fundamental belief of that religion. So while some things may be debatable where the text is not clear, others are not. This example is not. The text is clear, the reinterpretations are intellectually, historically and theologically dishonest.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BCBM:


but it is patently false to say that nothing is inherent to one religion.

Well, we just do not know.

The evidence we do have suggests I am right, though.

Sure we can all imagine wierd and wonderful beliefs Christains and Muslims will never accept, but the doctrines they already have are not immune from revision -- as the history of Christianity has shown.

Islam is just 500 years behind.

[bcbm]

Well, we just do not know.

The evidence we do have suggests I am right, though.

Sure we can all imagine wierd and wonderful beliefs Christains and Muslims will never accept, but the doctrines they already have are not immune from revision -- as the history of Christianity has shown.


From revision? No. From a complete rejection of fundamental beliefs based on key religious documents? As much as liberals will try to make this a reality, it is, as I keep repeating, intellectually and theologically dishonest and relies on a number of tricks (and is soundly rejected by most believers anyway... what does that tell you).


Islam is just 500 years behind.

Because the older religions like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, et al are much more progressive and accepting? Please. All of them continue to maintain bigotry based on their religious doctrines because it is fundamental to them. Liberals are a minority, and generally reject a whole slew of other fundamental beliefs anyway, because they're just holding on to the religion as a crutch, not really "reinterpreting" it in any meaningful way.

And as long as we're talking about the split in Christendom and reinterpretations, its worth pointing out that the doctrinal issues there had nothing to do with the various laws regarding conduct and their validity, as is the case here, suggesting the liberal variant has nothing to do with a real "interpretation" of the text and everything to do with making the text conform to your own personal identity. This is obviously problematic from a religious perspective.

Beyond that, the Protestant sects have gone on to become almost more bigoted and hateful than the Catholic church they split from (slavery, fundamentalism, the work ethic...). Yeah, some progress.:rolleyes:

[Devrim]

Islam is just 500 years behind.

Islamophobe!

Devrim

[Devrim]

Maybe so, but that does not mean Islam is inherently homophobic.

This inherently has been brought in in the last page basically because your argument is being crushed.

The point was whether Islam is anti gay, not whether it is inherently so.

Devrim

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BCBM:


From revision? No. From a complete rejection of fundamental beliefs based on key religious documents? As much as liberals will try to make this a reality, it is, as I keep repeating, intellectually and theologically dishonest and relies on a number of tricks (and is soundly rejected by most believers anyway... what does that tell you).

What can I tell you? It is a fact that theologians and their fellow-travellers are capable of twisting passages so much so that they make a pretzel look straight in comparison.

What does that tell me?

Not to trust a single one of them, but also not to attribute to them 'inherent' beliefs.


Because the older religions like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, et al are much more progressive and accepting? Please. All of them continue to maintain bigotry based on their religious doctrines because it is fundamental to them. Liberals are a minority, and generally reject a whole slew of other fundamental beliefs anyway, because they're just holding on to the religion as a crutch, not really "reinterpreting" it in any meaningful way.

Sure, but they contain much that isn't.

In Christianity, since the early 1800s liberals have become the dominant trend in Protestant theology (except in the 'Bible belt' in the USA).

Moreover, liberals are beginning to appear in Catholicism and Islam.

Sure, there are still important Fundamentalist forces in all three, but the trend is unmistakable in Christianity -- and hopelfully in Islam too.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:


Islamophobe!

Devrim

Eh?


This inherently has been brought in in the last page basically because your argument is being crushed.

Where?


The point was whether Islam is anti gay, not whether it is inherently so.

I agree; good job then I have quoted muslims who tell us it isn't.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We have already been through this; may I suggest you familiarise yourself with the rest of this thread?

Might I suggest you stop making excuses and familiarise yourself with the folllowing verses from the Koran, which explicitly states the following:

7:80-1 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/7/index.htm#80) "And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk."

(homosexual acts are considered an abomination)

26:165-6 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/26/index.htm#165) "What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, And leave the wives your Lord created for you ? Nay, but ye are froward (sic?) folk."

(men are created to have wives, not other males)

27:54-55 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/27/index.htm#54) "And Lot! when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination knowingly? Must ye needs lust after men instead of women ? Nay, but ye are folk who act senselessly."

(Homosexuals are stupid and knowingly do abominable acts)

29:28-29 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/29/index.htm#28) "And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Lo! ye commit lewdness such as no creature did before you. For come ye not in unto males."

(Straight out of the horse's mouth. Don't commit acts of homosexuality)

[emphasis mine]

The fact that you completely ignored this the last time I posted these quotes I take to be a concession on your part.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Yes, you posted them before.

As I noted earlier (but you must have missed it), all of these are open to alternative, non-homophobic readings -- acccording to muslims themselves.

[bcbm]

What can I tell you? It is a fact that theologians and their fellow-travellers are capable of twisting passages so much so that they make a pretzel look straight in comparison.Sure, and generally such theological twisting is discarded as the nonsense it is. In my experience studying theology, most of the dominant theological interpretations are grounded pretty soundly in the main text and disputes that arise tend to be over issues that are more muddled. So when you're dealing with an issue like the importance of faith vs. good works vs. grace, the argument will be more sustainable for all sides then, say, trying to argue that Jewish law which Christians accept does not forbade homosexuality.


Not to trust a single one of them, but also not to attribute to them 'inherent' beliefs.If we reject that certain religions inherently teach and command certain things, then we're essentially saying that all religious ideological distinctions are meaningless and that they all might as well be animism. This, of course, is a problem you'll run into with many liberal interpretations.


Sure, but they contain much that isn't.Sure. They did at the time they were originally created too. That doesn't make their general character reactionary, or dissolve certain laws.


In Christianity, since the early 1800s liberals have become the dominant trend in Protestant theology (except in the 'Bible belt' in the USA).Do you have any sources on this? I think this would probably be true in European regions (insomuch as they can even qualify as "religious" beyond the vaguest sense), but in the US I think everything has trended towards not necessarily fundamentalism but a more conservative type of religion, even in traditionally more relaxed sects like Lutheranism.


Moreover, liberals are beginning to appear in Catholicism and Islam.I would argue that Catholicism, or at least Catholics, have in the 500 years since the split often been a more progressive force than Protestants. But that isn't really here nor there. The argument is not whether liberals exist or not, it is whether their beliefs are actually in line with the doctrines they claim to subscribe too, and I do not think they are for all of the reasons I have previously listed.


As I noted earlier (but you must have missed it), all of these are open to alternative, non-homophobic readings -- acccording to muslims themselves.

Only if those interpretations can stand solidly intellectually and theologically, and I do not think that they do. They're really nothing more than self-serving attempts to sly around the text, not actually theological interpretations.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes, you posted them before.

As I noted earlier (but you must have missed it), all of these are open to alternative, non-homophobic readings -- acccording to muslims themselves.

I'd call the language used in the Koran to describe homosexual acts anything but complimentary, and most Muslims themselves would appear to agree.

The fact that a minority of more enlightened Muslims (doubtless infected with those eeevil secular moral philosophies) interpret it differently (exactly how they do so would be very interesting to find out) is irrelevant to the fact that the vast majority of Muslim societies are homophobic, and that this homophobia appears to be engendered by their religion (in the absence of other potential candidates), making homophobia something inherent to Islam as well as Christianity.

[Devrim]

Islam is just 500 years behind.
[quote=Devrim]Islamophobe!
Eh?
The idea that Islam is 500 years behind. Behind what, nice enlightened white western people?


This inherently has been brought in in the last page basically because your argument is being crushed.
Where?

The intrinsic brought in-on the last page. The argument crushed-through out the thread.



The point was whether Islam is anti gay, not whether it is inherently so.I agree; good job then I have quoted muslims who tell us it isn't.You claimed Muslim scholars. You have produced none. I could probably find you people who consider themselves Muslims who would tell you anything. One could find millions of people, for example who call themselves Muslims who believe that women don't have souls. However, I don't think it would be true to claim that Islam believes this as it obviously doesn't.

You have presented no evidence at all that Islam itself is not anti-gay.

Devrim

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BCBM:


Sure, and generally such theological twisting is discarded as the nonsense it is. In my experience studying theology, most of the dominant theological interpretations are grounded pretty soundly in the main text and disputes that arise tend to be over issues that are more muddled. So when you're dealing with an issue like the importance of faith vs. good works vs. grace, the argument will be more sustainable for all sides then, say, trying to argue that Jewish law which Christians accept does not forbade homosexuality

I disagree; you only have to look at, say, the Incarnation and nature of Christ (and the disputes between, say, the Monophysites, Arians and the authors of the Athanasian Creed, and later the Unitarians, to name but four) to see the sophistication that the parties to even this disagreement brought to the debate.


Do you have any sources on this?

You only have to look at the work of, say, the German language theologians (surely the dominant grouping in Protestantism since at least 1800, and arguably since Luther) -- Schleieremacher, Bauer, Strauss, Bultmann, Barth, Pannenberg..., etc) to see the liberal drift in theology (and away from the letter of the Bible, etc.).

And I did make an exception for the USA -- but there are unique historical and political reasons for the nature of Protestantism there.


The argument is not whether liberals exist or not, it is whether their beliefs are actually in line with the doctrines they claim to subscribe too, and I do not think they are for all of the reasons I have previously listed.

Well, once more, we do not know. For example, in the 1960s, after Vatican II (under the auspices of John XXIII), the Catholic Church liberalised considerably.

In the face of all sorts of pressures, the conservatives re-grouped (under Paul VI, and John Paul II), and clamped down. But, who knows, the same could happen again. [But, even so, the Church of Rome is far more liberal today than it was in, say, 1950.]

There is clearly nothing inherent in Catholicism to prevent it liberalising again.


Only if those interpretations can stand solidly intellectually and theologically, and I do not think that they do. They're really nothing more than self-serving attempts to sly around the text, not actually theological interpretations.

Sure, but the criteria here vary from generation to generation.

The only thing we know for certain is that religions change.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


I'd call the language used in the Koran to describe homosexual acts anything but complimentary, and most Muslims themselves would appear to agree.

The fact that a minority of more enlightened Muslims (doubtless infected with those eeevil secular moral philosophies) interpret it differently (exactly how they do so would be very interesting to find out) is irrelevant to the fact that the vast majority of Muslim societies are homophobic, and that this homophobia appears to be engendered by their religion (in the absence of other potential candidates), making homophobia something inherent to Islam as well as Christianity.

Maybe so; but the Koran is no more nor no less uncomplementary than passages from the Bible are, which liberal theologians have re-interpreted.

So, homophobia is not inherent in Christianity, and the signs now are that it is not inherent in Islam, either.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:


The idea that Islam is 500 years behind. Behind what, nice enlightened white western people?

Well, did it or did it not begin 500 years after Christianity?


The argument crushed-through out the thread.

Once more, where?

I have responded to every point that has been made. Show me where I have failed to do so, or where I have failed to turn the argument.


You claimed Muslim scholars. You have produced none. I could probably find you people who consider themselves Muslims who would tell you anything. One could find millions of people, for example who call themselves Muslims who believe that women don't have souls. However, I don't think it would be true to claim that Islam believes this as it obviously doesn't.

You must have mis-read the original post -- may I suggest you re-read it?


You have presented no evidence at all that Islam itself is not anti-gay.

Same comment.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Maybe so; but the Koran is no more nor no less uncomplementary than passages from the Bible are, which liberal theologians have re-interpreted.

So, homophobia is not inherent in Christianity, and the signs now are that it is not inherent in Islam, either.

The liberal theologians are quite simply wrong. They flatly contradict their own holy books, and the kinds of "Islam" and "Christianity" they promote are unrecognisable in comparison to their true faces. In spite of many centuries of translation, homosexual acts are described as abominable. Weasel words by a minority of liberal theologists desperate to salvage the philosophical trainwreck that is Abrahamic religion changes nothing in real terms - Islamic societies in the 21st fucking century still have capital punishments for homosexual acts, and the Catholic Church, one of the largest sects of Christianity in the world (and I suspect Eastern Orthodox churches as well) considers homosexuality sinful and do not knowingly ordain homosexuals (or women, for that matter!) as members of the clergy.

You (and liberal theologians as well!) cannot simply ignore the fact that homosexuals acts are described as abominations and offenses to the Great Prude in the sky. The Bible quite clearly states: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22). There's no semantics wrangling or interpetational wriggling your way out of that one - it says that to "lie with with a woman (IE, have sex) as with a man" is an abomination. No ifs, no buts. The Koran describes homosexual acts in similarly uncompromising terms. Much as it may pain the more liberal believers, the fundamentalists are the "truer" believers than the liberals.

Homophobia is fundamental, therefore inherent, to Abrahamic religions. Reaction, thy name is religion.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


The liberal theologians are quite simply wrong.

May I suggest that they know more about this than you or I?

And, as I have pointed out many times in this thread, theologians (in every religion, not just Christainity and Isalm) are quite capable of arguing that a certain text means the opposite of the way it has been read for centuries.


You (and liberal theologians as well!) cannot simply ignore the fact that homosexuals acts are described as abominations and offenses to the Great Prude in the sky. The Bible quite clearly states: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22). There's no semantics wrangling or interpetational wriggling your way out of that one - it says that to "lie with with a woman (IE, have sex) as with a man" is an abomination. No ifs, no buts. The Koran describes homosexual acts in similarly uncompromising terms. Much as it may pain the more liberal believers, the fundamentalists are the "truer" believers than the liberals

You ought to know that the Old Testament laws were abolished by the New Covenant of Christ.

That is why Christains do not have to eat Kosher meat, wear clothes of only of one cloth, or sacrifice animals.

[Unicorn]

Maybe so; but the Koran is no more nor no less uncomplementary than passages from the Bible are, which liberal theologians have re-interpreted.

So, homophobia is not inherent in Christianity, and the signs now are that it is not inherent in Islam, either.
Christianity IS homophobic. The main difference with Islam is that mainstream Christian churches don't support implementing Mosaic Law as the legal system in modern societies. This position does not contradict the Bible.

Most Muslims consider Sharia Law the ideal system of law for all societies and therefore want to implement it. It is their duty as Muslims to institute it as law of the land in their opinion.

Unfortunately, Sharia law may be considered as the world's most homophobic legal system with regards to the complete lack of decriminalisation laws (with executions and punishments), non existent anti-discrimination laws, neither does it have provision for same-sex civil unions or same-sex marriage. It does not recognise human rights based on sexual-orientation.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Unicorn:


Christianity IS homophobic.

Not according to many theologians it isn't.


Unfortunately, Sharia law may be considered as the world's most homophobic legal system with regards to the complete lack of decriminalisation laws (with executions and punishments), non existent anti-discrimination laws, neither does it have provision for same-sex civil unions or same-sex marriage. It does not recognise human rights based on sexual-orientation.

Maybe so, but that does not imply Islam is inherently homophobic -- or cannot change.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

May I suggest that they know more about this than you or I?

And, as I have pointed out many times in this thread, theologians (in every religion, not just Christainity and Isalm) are quite capable of arguing that a certain text means the opposite of the way it has been read for centuries.

Just because they're capable of making that argument doesn't make the argument valid. I don't see how one could need anything more than a good translation and a decent level of reading comprehension to understand the Bible/Koran.


You ought to know that the Old Testament laws were abolished by the New Covenant of Christ.

That is why Christains do not have to eat Kosher meat, wear clothes of only of one cloth, or sacrifice animals.This old canard is highly debatable (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html), not just by me but among Christians as well.

Not only that, but the letter to the Romans of the New Testament also has a problem with homosexuals:


For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

[Unicorn]

You ought to know that the Old Testament laws were abolished by the New Covenant of Christ.

That is why Christains do not have to eat Kosher meat, wear clothes of only of one cloth, or sacrifice animals.
Yes, New Testament does not support institutionalized enforcement of Mosaic law.

However, Qu'ran and other holy texts of the Islamic faith support enforcing Sharia which is homophobic. To my knowledge no respectable scholar of Islamic law supports a non-homophobic interpretation of Sharia.

[Devrim]

You must have mis-read the original post -- may I suggest you re-read it?

Your title says Islam "accepts homosexuality". Nowhere have you proved this. However, it has been shown that Islam rejects homosexuality many times.

Basically what the article you posted and the subsequent posts suggest is that there are some Moslems who accepts homosexuality. This is very, very different from suggesting that Islam does.

You have failed to come up with any members of the clergy to back your claims despite your claims that Islamic scholars do.

As I said millions of people who call themselves Muslims also believe that women have no souls. This is much more support than 'accepting homosexuality' has. Do you, therefore, think it would be correct to write 'Islam believes that women don't have souls'? I don't.


Well, did it or did it not begin 500 years after Christianity?

Islam began about 600 years after Christianity. That is not the point. 500 years ago Islam was more 'socially advanced' than Christianity. While Christians were murdering and expelling Jews for example, they were welcomed in this country with open arms.

The idea that 'Islam is 500 years behind', i.e. that Islam is backward, is precisely the sort of idea that you are supposed to be arguing against.

The idea that religions evolve according to an abstract time scale and not according to their interactions with the world around them is also completely anti-materialist.

So what is it? Are you supporting the little brown people because they are 500 years behind you?

Devrim

[Devrim]

Most Muslims consider Sharia Law the ideal system of law for all societies and therefore want to implement it. It is their duty as Muslims to institute it as law of the land in their opinion.

Do you have any proof for the statement I have put into bold? I have no idea about the whole world, but I know that in our country most Muslims oppose the idea of Sharia Law.

Devrim

[Unicorn]

Do you have any proof for the statement I have put into bold? I have no idea about the whole world, but I know that in our country most Muslims oppose the idea of Sharia Law.
Gallup survey in 10 predominantly Muslim countries, representing more than 80% of the global Muslim population:

"Often assumed in the West to be an oppressive
corpus of law associated with stoning of adulterers,
chopping off limbs for theft, and imprisonment or death
in apostasy cases, the incorporation of Sharia as at
least a source of legislation enjoys the support of an
average of 79% in the 10 countries surveyed.
In five countries, only a minority wanted Sharia as
“the only source” of law. However, in Egypt, Pakistan,
Jordan, and Bangladesh, majorities wanted Sharia as
the “only source” of legislation."

http://media.gallup.com/MuslimWestFacts/PDF/GALLUPMUSLIMSTUDIESIslamandDemocracy030607rev.pdf

[Devrim]

I don't think that your data proves the point though. It surveys ten countries though not the ten countries with the biggest Muslim populations (It misses India, Nigeria and Morocco).

It then precedes to average the level of support in various countries. While doing this is should be remembered that there are nearly 70,000 'Muslims' in Turkey, for example, and just over two million in Lebanon. Averaging this data does not give a true picture.

Then there is the question of what wanting Sharia means. I would assume that it means wanting Islamic law. This study suggests that a majority want it as one source of law.

One could equally present the argument that in Lebanon (8&#37;), Turkey(9%), Iran(13%), and Indonesia (14%) only tiny minorities want Islamic law. In Morocco only 33% want it, and even in the countries where a majority do want it, Jordan (52%), and Bangladesh (54%) have tiny majorities in favour, and where it is a large majority it is not massive Egypt (66%) and Pakistan(60%).

I would say case not proven.

Devrim

[Unicorn]

I don't think that your data proves the point though. It surveys ten countries though not the ten countries with the biggest Muslim populations (It misses India, Nigeria and Morocco).
?
In Morocco 33% think that Sharia must be the only source of legislation and 65% that it must be a source of legislation, but not the
only source. Only 2% think that Sharia should not be a source of legislation.

80% of the global Muslim population live in countries which were included to the survey.



It then precedes to average the level of support in various countries. While doing this is should be remembered that there are nearly 70,000 'Muslims' in Turkey, for example, and just over two million in Lebanon. Averaging this data does not give a true picture.

Then there is the question of what wanting Sharia means. I would assume that it means wanting Islamic law. This study suggests that a majority want it as one source of law.
There are many legal questions which are not answered by the Shariah in modern societies. It is necessary to use other sources of law.

But if it is indeed true that only a minority of Muslims want Sharia I am happy to concede this point, Devrim. I am concerned of how the influential, Sharia-supporting part of the Muslims threatens women's rights and LGBT rights in countries with a Muslim majority.

I don't think even extremist Muslims are a threat to the political system or the sexual minorities in Western countries. That is just racist scaremongering. However, some Muslims have founded small parties in the West with a purpose to make Sharia the legal system. These parties are not a serious threat but collaboration with them only makes communists look ridiculous. A good example is the Respect coalition through which SWP is affiliated with fiercely homophobic members of the Islamic party of Britain.

[Devrim]

?
In Morocco 33&#37; think that Sharia must be the only source of legislation and 65% that it must be a source of legislation, but not the
only source. Only 2% think that Sharia should not be a source of legislation.

Sorry, my mistake. It should have read: India, Nigeria, and Algeria.


There are many legal questions which are not answered by the Shariah in modern societies. It is necessary to use other sources of law.

But if it is indeed true that only a minority of Muslims want Sharia I am happy to concede this point, Devrim. I am concerned of how the influential, Sharia-supporting part of the Muslims threatens women's rights and LGBT rights in countries with a Muslim majority.

I don't know what percentage of Muslims want Sharia. It could well be a majority. What I am saying is that this survey doesn't show it. I don't think that wanting Sharia law to be a source of legislation is the same as wanting Sharia law to be the source of legislation. What do the want Sharia inheritance law, or the death penalty for apostates.


I don't think even extremist Muslims are a threat to the political system or the sexual minorities in Western countries. That is just racist scaremongering.

Is this report part of that though? Have the questions been framed in a way that makes Muslims seem anti-democratic, and against the 'western way of life'?


These parties are not a serious threat but collaboration with them only makes communists look ridiculous. A good example is the Respect coalition through which SWP is affiliated with fiercely homophobic members of the Islamic party of Britain.

I don't think that the SWP are communists. I agree that communists shouldn't be making these sort of alliances though.

Devrim

[Marsella]

I don't think that your data proves the point though. It surveys ten countries though not the ten countries with the biggest Muslim populations (It misses India, Nigeria and Morocco).

It surveys Indonesia, which has the largest Muslim population in the world.


I agree that communists should be making these sort of alliances though.

I hope you missed a word in that sentence Devrim! :scared:

[Devrim]

It surveys Indonesia, which has the largest Muslim population in the world.

Where only 14% want Islamic law.

I hope you missed a word in that sentence Devrim! :scared:

Yes, I did. I have corrected it.

Devrim

[Marsella]

Its interesting that Iran and Indonesia have very similar levels.

Why is that?

[Devrim]

Its interesting that Iran and Indonesia have very similar levels.

Why is that?

I have never been to Indonesia, but I have been to Iran a few times. I get the impression that traditional Indonesian Islam is not that fundamentalist, and is mixed in with lots of pre-Islamic religions. In Iran it is almost certainly a reaction to nearly thirty years of Islamic rule.

Devrim

[Marsella]

I have never been to Indonesia, but I have been to Iran a few times. I get the impression that traditional Indonesian Islam is not that fundamentalist, and is mixed in with lots of pre-Islamic religions. In Iran it is almost certainly a reaction to nearly thirty years of Islamic rule.

Devrim

Yes you are right, Indonesian Islam is somewhat mixed with Buddhist and Hindu ideas, as well as local indigenous concepts of spirituality.

Although there is somewhat of an insurgency in Aceh (between Islamic separatists and more secular generals). As well as in Irian Jaya (separatists), Kalimantan (ethnic conflict) and Sulawesi (between Christians and Muslims). And of course there are the anti-semetic Islamic terrorist organisations (who formerly played a role in the massacre of the communist movement there. Indonesia once had one of the largest communist parties in the world).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


Just because they're capable of making that argument doesn't make the argument valid. I don't see how one could need anything more than a good translation and a decent level of reading comprehension to understand the Bible/Koran.

Unfortunately for you, the history of religion shows that the 'Holy Books' are open to an indefinite number of alternative intepretations. Which means, of course, and yet again, that there is no such thing as religion XYZ is inherently A, B or C.


This old canard is highly debatable, not just by me but among Christians as well.

Yes I know, and the more of this you point out, the stonger my case becomes -- for it confirms my last point.


Not only that, but the letter to the Romans of the New Testament also has a problem with homosexuals:

You really must learn to read earlier posts, for I quoted this passage, and I Corinthians, and 1 Timothy, earlier.

But, as we know, since many Christians are gay, and many others support gay rights, this just stengthens further the point I made above.

----------------------------

Unicorn:


To my knowledge no respectable scholar of Islamic law supports a non-homophobic interpretation of Sharia.

Yes, and we know what 'respectable' means here, don't we? Only he/she who agree with the tradition is counted as 'respectable'.

But that just makes this true by definition, while leaving unaffected my argument that muslims themselevs tell us that Islam is not anti-gay.

[Anyway I am surprised to see a Marxist use this word of theologians!]

-------------------------------

Devrim (still having problems reading what is in front of him):


Your title says Islam "accepts homosexuality".

Yes, I put those words in quotation marks since they are not mine, but those of muslims. But, I have told you this several times.

You really must learn to open your eyes in the morning when the alarm clock goes off...


This is very, very different from suggesting that Islam does.

And once more for dopey Devrim; these are their words, pick a fight with them not me.


You have failed to come up with any members of the clergy to back your claims despite your claims that Islamic scholars do.

1) So what?

2) Re-read that post (and in your case, may I suggest another 20 or 30 times -- for the message to sink in) for it tells you what you need to know.


As I said millions of people who call themselves Muslims also believe that women have no souls. This is much more support than 'accepting homosexuality' has. Do you, therefore, think it would be correct to write 'Islam believes that women don't have souls'? I don't.

And once more (perhaps the 40th time!); I am not claiming this of Islam -- muslims themselves are.

And if you can find any muslims who tell us that Islam says women have no souls, that would simply provide yet more proof of my contention -- that there is no such thing as religion XYZ is inherently A, B or C -- they all seem to be infinitely doctrinally plastic.

The more contentious issues you post in reply, the more you are helping prove my case.

So: more please!


Islam began about 600 years after Christianity. That is not the point. 500 years ago Islam was more 'socially advanced' than Christianity. While Christians were murdering and expelling Jews for example, they were welcomed in this country with open arms.

Yes I agree, but that was not the point I was making.


The idea that 'Islam is 500 years behind', i.e. that Islam is backward, is precisely the sort of idea that you are supposed to be arguing against.

Not so; in the sense I meant it, I stick by that statement.


The idea that religions evolve according to an abstract time scale and not according to their interactions with the world around them is also completely anti-materialist.

So what is it? Are you supporting the little brown people because they are 500 years behind you?

Nice rhetorical points; too bad they have nothing to do with my argument.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Unicorn:


A good example is the Respect coalition through which SWP is affiliated with fiercely homophobic members of the Islamic party of Britain.

But, Respect was not a homophobic party; you are just using guilt by association.

And, if comrades want to discuss wider issues with regard to Islam, can they begin another thread? Please stick to issues connected with the title I chose for this particular one.

I will split off any that wander further down this line.

[Devrim]

the more you are helping prove my case.

You don't have a case. You have backed down on every point. You have gone from Islam isn't anti-gay to some Muslims aren't anti gay.

You know that you have no Islamic scholars to support your argument, which you previously claimed, and you know that the numbers who are saying that Islam isn't anti gay are infinitesimally small, in a country, which in many ways is outside the mainstream of Islam.

You avoid all lines of argument with 'Muslims themselves are saying this', or insults.

Devrim

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Unfortunately for you, the history of religion shows that the 'Holy Books' are open to an indefinite number of alternative intepretations. Which means, of course, and yet again, that there is no such thing as religion XYZ is inherently A, B or C.

Some items are disputed, but historically speaking stuff like the role of women and the condemnation of homosexual acts was pretty much a constant until the Enlightenment, when it became fashionable and certainly less deadly to claim that one could derive morals from anywhere other than god.

And it doesn't change the fact that that homosexuals acts are described in the Bible and Koran, in no uncertain terms, as abominable. Your yammering about interpretation is meaningless as the verses I quoted are not the sort of verses that lend themselves to wild interpretations.


Yes I know, and the more of this you point out, the stonger my case becomes -- for it confirms my last point.No it doesn't. It means there is a case for OT law applying to Christians, meaning that you are just as likely to be wrong as to be right.


You really must learn to read earlier posts, for I quoted this passage, and I Corinthians, and 1 Timothy, earlier.Yes, one can use all sorts of logomastic chicanery and semantical gymnastics, but it is all in vain, as it is quite clear that homosexual acts (there was no clear idea of "sexual orientation" at the times when the Bible (and the Koran, for that matter) was written, but there male prostitutes and such) are distinctly frowned upon in the Abrahamic tradition. A tradition that is being carried on to this day by the majority of believers.


But, as we know, since many Christians are gay, and many others support gay rights, this just stengthens further the point I made above.Most Christians aren't gay, as homosexuals a definite minority in the general population and Christians, in western countries at least, are a definate majority. And when I input Christian+Gay+Rights into Google, the results (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Christian+Gay+rights&btnG=Google+Search&meta=) are a bunch of god-botherers opposing the institution of gay rights, whinging about gay rights being "promoted" over religious rights (code words for "they won't let us bash the evil satan-worshipping atheist commie fags"), which seriously tests your claim that most Christians support gay rights.

[Luís Henrique]

There is an organisation in Brazil called "Católicas pelo Direito de Decidir", which happens to be the pro-choice feminist Catholic women organisation. So some Catholics are pro-choicers. But Catholicism does not "accept abortion"; in fact, pro-life is a matter of Catholic doctrine (not just on abortion, btw, but also on death penalty).

So there is a difference, a difference that the title of this thread ignores.

Some Muslisms are not homophobic. True.

Some Catholics are not pro-life; some Buddhists do not believe in metempsychosis; some Orthodox Jews are against the State of Israel; some Republicans are not pro-gun; some British labourites do not like Blair's leadership; some Trotskyists don't think the Soviet Union was a degenerate workers' State... but Trotskyism isn't against the theory of degenerate workers' States, Blair is Labour's leader, the Republican party is pro-gun, Orthodox Judaism is for the State of Israel, Buddhism is about metempsychosis, Catholicism is anti-choice, and...

Islam is homophobic.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Unfortunately for you, the history of religion shows that the 'Holy Books' are open to an indefinite number of alternative intepretations. Which means, of course, and yet again, that there is no such thing as religion XYZ is inherently A, B or C.

Indeed. I prophecise this century will not pass without the Church of England coming up with an interpretation of the Bible that makes belief in God optional...

But until this happens, the Church of England does not "accept atheism".

I think it is possible to force a reading of the Quran that isn't homophobic.

It may be more difficult than it is for other religions, because of the importance Islam attributes to its holy book, and because of the nature of such holy book (the Bible, on the other hand, "clearly states" that it should not be taken literally (Mt 4:1-10)).

It may require huge purposeful misinterpretation of the text, but religions were never hindered by this (I remember a 7th Day Adventist quoting Jesus on "Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath" to support his absurd stance that the Sabbath cannot be violated in any case).

I even hope it happens, as I think it is more probable than Islam simply vanishing.

But today, two thousand and eight years after the supposed birth of Jesus of Nazareth, it hasn't already happened. Islam remains a very patriarchal religion, and a very homophobic one.

Naturally, also, it should be said that religions (or, at least, Abrahamic religions) don't evolve into more tolerant forms from themselves. They have to be forced from outside. Christianity was forced into its present relatively mild forms by the movement called "Enlightenment" in the XVIII century - which was a movement of deists, agnostics and atheists first, and only secondarily a movement of Protestant or Catholic reforming their own religion. Enlightenment didn't affect Islam that much - and it must be said, the "enlightened" West made what it could to prevent that from happening.

Lu&#237;s Henrique

[Hit The North]

They have to be forced from outside. Christianity was forced into its present relatively mild forms by the movement called "Enlightenment" in the XVIII century - which was a movement of deists, agnostics and atheists first, and only secondarily a movement of Protestant or Catholic reforming their own religion. Enlightenment didn't affect Islam that much - and it must be said, the "enlightened" West made what it could to prevent that from happening.

Not by the Enlightenment alone, but also (and perhaps, mainly) by the transformation of material relations by capitalism and the scientific revolution.

Neither should this case be exaggerated. In the second half of the Nineteenth century, Darwin's ideas were still being ridiculed by the religious establishment of Britain. Up until the 1960s, religion still occupied a central place in British society. Whilst, of course, the USA remains a very religious and homophobic nation.

[Lector Malibu]

Some are and Some aren't will never produce true statement for both variables. As five will never equal one and one will never equal five even though they are both numbers.

You can say

Some Muslims have interpreted the passages of The Koran and based of these interpretations have found Islam to be non homophobic

You can also say

Some Muslims have interpreted the passages in The Koran to warn of the dangers of homosexual relations and abstain from it as it is sin.

However to say that Islam is non homophobic is not a true statement because both variables combined do not produce a equal equation

Some are and Some aren't does not equate all.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Devrim:


You don't have a case. You have backed down on every point. You have gone from Islam isn't anti-gay to some Muslims aren't anti gay.

Where have I 'backed down'?


You know that you have no Islamic scholars to support your argument, which you previously claimed, and you know that the numbers who are saying that Islam isn't anti gay are infinitesimally small, in a country, which in many ways is outside the mainstream of Islam.

You avoid all lines of argument with 'Muslims themselves are saying this', or insults.

As I said, it will probably take you another 20 or 30 re-readings of my original post to get the point.

Don't give up yet -- I have faith in you -- perhaps the only one who has.

-------------------------------
Noxion:


And it doesn't change the fact that that homosexuals acts are described in the Bible and Koran, in no uncertain terms, as abominable. Your yammering about interpretation is meaningless as the verses I quoted are not the sort of verses that lend themselves to wild interpretations.

What can I tell you? The texts you mention in the Bible, as a matter of fact, have been re-interpreted (and not by wild-eyed fanatics, either), and those in the Koran are under-going it now.

Once more: there is no such thing as religion XYZ is inherently A, B, or C, no matter how much you might wish this were otherwise.


No it doesn't. It means there is a case for OT law applying to Christians, meaning that you are just as likely to be wrong as to be right.

Where have you seen a single Christian theologian arguing that christians should, say, sacrifice animals, or wear clothes of only one cloth (all part of the Law in the Pentateuch)?

As I said, the fact that a weak case can be made for parts of the OT to be retained, in the way you say, strengthens my case that religions can be interpreted and re-interpreted almost without limit --, for an even stronger case can be made for the opposite view (which is largely what St Paul's work was aimed at achieving).


Yes, one can use all sorts of logomastic chicanery and semantical gymnastics, but it is all in vain, as it is quite clear that homosexual acts (there was no clear idea of "sexual orientation" at the times when the Bible (and the Koran, for that matter) was written, but there male prostitutes and such) are distinctly frowned upon in the Abrahamic tradition. A tradition that is being carried on to this day by the majority of believers.

Not so, the Bible is not the least bit clear -- which is a position maintained by mainstream theologians, who do not indulge in the gyrations you allege -- not me.

And sure, the majority of muslims might be anti-gay, but then the majority of Christians used to be devoted to the Vicar of Rome.

Things change. Nothing is inherent in any religion.


Most Christians aren't gay, as homosexuals a definite minority in the general population and Christians, in western countries at least, are a definate majority. And when I input Christian+Gay+Rights into Google, the results are a bunch of god-botherers opposing the institution of gay rights, whinging about gay rights being "promoted" over religious rights (code words for "they won't let us bash the evil satan-worshipping atheist commie fags"), which seriously tests your claim that most Christians support gay rights.

I used the word 'many', so the above was a waste of effort.

------------------------------------

LH:


Islam is homophobic.

Once more, there are muslims who say otherwise. So, according to them, you are wrong. I suggest you pick a fight with them, not me.

I am just conveying the good news.

Some of you, I think, would seem to prefer that all religions should become or stay fundamentalist; I suppose you think that would be an improvement.

I beg to differ.


Indeed. I prophecise this century will not pass without the Church of England coming up with an interpretation of the Bible that makes belief in God optional...

The argument is whether Islam (or even perhaps Christainity) is anti-gay.

Now, in the latter case, taking your example, you need to catch up. I suggest you read the works of Paul Tillich, Thomas Altizer or Don Cupitt (to name but three) -- who argue along those lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._J._Altizer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Cupitt

So, Christianity is not inherently theistic--, according to such prominent theologians.

----------------------------

LM:


Some are and Some aren't will never produce true statement for both variables. As five will never equal one and one will never equal five even though they are both numbers.

Although many Christians believe 3 is equal to one (i.e., in the Trinity).

And it is quite easy to show that five (or any other number you care to name) is equal to one.

Want a demonstration?

But you will have to ask nicely...


However to say that Islam is non homophobic is not a true statement because both variables combined do not produce a equal equation

Once more, and please pay attention this time: I am not saying this (although I welcome it); muslims are saying it.

Pick a fight with them not me.

[Lector Malibu]

Although many Christians believe 3 is equal to one (i.e., in the Trinity).


So that must means it's true. People have thought the world was flat as well.


And it is quite easy to show that five (or any other number you care to name) is equal to one.

Explain to me how you can get a five dollar bills worth of change from a buck. Really I'd like to know.


Once more, and please pay attention this time: I am not saying this (although I welcome it); Muslims are saying it.

Wrong! SOME Muslims are saying it.Therefore it is not a concrete sentiment of the whole. Witch part of that are you not understanding?


Pick a fight with them not me.

Stop being a victim Rosa

[Vanguard1917]

Also, there's nothing to support about the religious 'reforming' their religion as a means to increase its legitimacy in society. It should be exposed for what it is - an attempt by some to step-up the authority of their religion. The OP has had severe difficulties grasping this.