|
Post by juancarlos on Sept 14, 2007 9:03:36 GMT -5
So, why is it that there is no single Christian church in Saudi Arabia where local Saudi Christians are allowed to worship openly while there are mosques across the U.K. where Muslims can worship openly? What does Islam teach about treatment of gay individuals? Please enlighten me.
|
|
|
Post by morningstar on Sept 14, 2007 9:06:17 GMT -5
I think Islam is okay with homosexuals as long as they do not succumb to their carnal instincts, and they will then be rewarded for their celibacy in the after life.
I think many branches of the Christian relegion are extremely harsh towards homosexuals, with the Westboro Baptist Church being particularly nasty. True, it is probably the most extreme, but are there any relegions that accepts homosexuals with open arms?
|
|
|
Post by marshmallow on Sept 14, 2007 9:18:39 GMT -5
So, why is it that there is no single Christian church in Saudi Arabia where local Saudi Christians are allowed to worship openly while there are mosques across the U.K. where Muslims can worship openly? What does Islam teach about treatment of gay individuals? Please enlighten me. err...most muslims aren't arabic....look at other muslim countries and you will find churches, even jews, hindus and buddhists ever heard of the golden era for jews in Spain when it was a muslim country?
|
|
|
Post by cjsdad on Sept 14, 2007 9:42:19 GMT -5
Must Muslims are not Arabic. But from a religious standpoint, Mecca is every Muslim's spiritual home. Therefore I don't think it is so easy to dismiss Juan Carlo's good question about Saudi Arabia's role as the spiritual head of the Muslim world, and it's glaring deficiencies in many areas. Pilgrimmage anyone?
Anyway, I've been waiting for a long time for a Muslim person to be able to explain to me how the concept of Sharia can be reconciled with the Western concept of religion vs. state.
I hear a lot of talking in circles, but no answers.
And this is disconcerting to me.
"Brother, you can believe in stones, so long as you don't throw them at me...."
|
|
|
Post by marshmallow on Sept 14, 2007 9:58:13 GMT -5
deobandi? how r they mainstream most muslims would have never have heard of such a movement.....Islam is not heirarchical...most muslims would not have even heard of Riyadh Ul Huq....this movement is not mainstream.... According to MuslimsInBritain.org, the Deobandi constitute the majority of Muslims in London, and hence are mainstream. I will repost their data: I dispute this, particularly the last statement. Mohammed (pbuh) did indeed strike females. The following hadith is from Sahih Muslim, and Aisha describes Mohammed striking her after he caught her sneaking around. Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Number 2127Anyway, I would prefer if discussion returned to the Deobandi, and their apparent prominence in Britain. er....you're once again quoting the number of mosques not individuals.... In several Hadiths, the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) discouraged this measure. Here are some of his sayings in this regard: "Do not beat the female servants of Allah"; "Some (women) visited my family complaining about their husbands (beating them). These (husbands) are not the best of you." the validity of hadith are always scrutinised but this hadith from all three sources says:All the eminent narrators of hadith (sayings of the prophet) such as Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Daud quote one of the prophet’s wife as saying that Muhammad (pbuh) NEVER ever lifted a finger to punish his wives. And what is more, there are a number of hadiths that categorically prohibit wife-beating, and in one of his sayings he has equated perfect belief with good treatment of one's wife:
|
|
|
Post by marshmallow on Sept 14, 2007 10:23:21 GMT -5
Must Muslims are not Arabic. But from a religious standpoint, Mecca is every Muslim's spiritual home. Therefore I don't think it is so easy to dismiss Juan Carlo's good question about Saudi Arabia's role as the spiritual head of the Muslim world, and it's glaring deficiencies in many areas. Pilgrimmage anyone? Anyway, I've been waiting for a long time for a Muslim person to be able to explain to me how the concept of Sharia can be reconciled with the Western concept of religion vs. state. I hear a lot of talking in circles, but no answers. And this is disconcerting to me. "Brother, you can believe in stones, so long as you don't throw them at me...." even though Mecca is the holiest place for muslims....it does not mean the laws there r perfect according to Islam.... the Prophet used to allow for christianity to continue but that is no longer the case in Arabia.... the women cannot drive in arabia....or even vote....while voting is for both men and women according to Islam muslims follow Islam and not a country
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Sept 14, 2007 16:54:32 GMT -5
I think Islam is okay with homosexuals as long as they do not succumb to their carnal instincts, and they will then be rewarded for their celibacy in the after life. I think many branches of the Christian relegion are extremely harsh towards homosexuals, with the Westboro Baptist Church being particularly nasty. True, it is probably the most extreme, but are there any relegions that accepts homosexuals with open arms? So, why did Saudi Arabia ban Christian churches for its local citizens? What is the punishment if you're a practicing gay and are found out? Don't they hang you like in Iran, in accordance to Sharia? Last time I checked, Westboro Baptist Church does not hang anyone.
|
|
|
Post by marshmallow on Sept 14, 2007 17:46:18 GMT -5
I think Islam is okay with homosexuals as long as they do not succumb to their carnal instincts, and they will then be rewarded for their celibacy in the after life. I think many branches of the Christian relegion are extremely harsh towards homosexuals, with the Westboro Baptist Church being particularly nasty. True, it is probably the most extreme, but are there any relegions that accepts homosexuals with open arms? So, why did Saudi Arabia ban Christian churches for its local citizens? What is the punishment if you're a practicing gay and are found out? Don't they hang you like in Iran, in accordance to Sharia? Last time I checked, Westboro Baptist Church does not hang anyone. can you not read my post? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia"There is no strictly static codified set of laws of sharia" In some Muslim societies, judges and populaces might stone out of mistaken belief that this was what Islam required. In fact, Islam made it virtually impossible - to be sentenced to death for adultery, the couple had to be actually witnessed performing the physical act by four people who were in a position to identify both parties without doubt; this virtually ruled out the penalty, since adultery is taken for granted as a secret act and something not done in public. www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/beliefs/sharia_3.shtml
|
|
|
Post by Ave` on Sept 14, 2007 23:47:06 GMT -5
floyd the droid: tbh Ive been forewarned not to waste my time debating islamic law with you... from what I read so far..you basiccally took a law and fcuk it from behind untill it becomes unrecognizable when you lay it down on this forum. So "thats" why I posted my last post. To tackle the main cause and problem and effect of your post. If I lay another fact behind it youll lose the whole point of the discussion and decide to fcuk with it. I feel ashamed tbh just the idea of islam debated by a like you. I rest my case.
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Sept 15, 2007 5:15:28 GMT -5
See now I can agree with you. When it comes to determining what causes harassment alarm or distress, it can become a grey area in certain instances, but that would only be for offence under section 5 of the public order act and isn't really relevant to inciting racial hatred. When it comes to the offence of inciting racial hatred, the mens rea must be established, but then this is often the problem area with most trials. In order to do that you may have to start looking at the person's behaviour. So yes, if someone is clever and knows their offences they can avoid punishment because it will be almost impossible to prove intent. But as I just mentioned this tends to be a problem with the law in general and until we have a mind reading machine it will continue to be a problem. If indeed someone is using what you would consider hate speech and they do not intend to stir up racial hatred (i.e they are doing to out of cultural insensitivity or ignorance) then despite the fact that it may offend people, the offence of inciting racial hatred is not being committed. Btw I didn't ask her to 'prove it'. I merely pointed out that there is no evidence of anything breaking the EAN t.o.s. therefore moderators will not take action. yeah, and that's why starting dozens of threads insisting Islam is inherently and aggressively conservative does not prove Kevin's intent to stir up hatred cuz Kevin will claim that's not his intention.... asking for evidence is asking someone to prove their case....which they can't because Kevin will insist he has no intention of stirring up hate....even though his points have been addressed before (that's why i know its utterly futile to debate him again - he KNOWS his distorted assertions have been addressed in previous threads, several times, but it doesn't stop him from bringing them back up in a yet another thread)....only he knows why he keeps on bringing the same old tired points up, again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again....and yet again.... only solution is to ignore his posts, i suppose.... peace
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Sept 15, 2007 21:01:35 GMT -5
you've only posted selective stuff on the Deobandi....and in all fairness, what you posted is not much worse than the Catholic Church's position on women... it's a movement that was founded in opposition to British rule in South Asia in the 19th century - so it's not particularly surprising that they are hostile to the Brits... here, the more comprehensive article in the Times you didn't link to: The conviction that British values pose a deadly threat to Islam has been nurtured by Deobandis since the movement’s birth in 19th century India.
The first madrassa, founded in 1867 in Deoband, 90 miles (145km) north of Delhi, was established as an act of Sunni Muslim defiance against imperial oppression. Ten years earlier its leaders had taken part in the Indian Mutiny against British rule.
Deobandi orthodoxy holds that their decision to focus on religious education stemmed from a fear that Britain, not content with “political subjugation of Muslims”, also sought their “intellectual subjugation” in order to establish “the ultimate supremacy of the Western way of life and thinking”. also: Because they are free to practice and preach their religion in Britain, Deobandis are told that they should obey the laws of the land.www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2402997.eceand i think i've been over, many times, the subject of financing for mosques and how, by tracing the source of money, radical Sunni fundamentalism always leads us back to Saudi Arabian petro-dollars.... if you are worried about the supposed spread of radical Sunni fundamentalism, then you need to tackle the Saudi royal family's unholy alliance with radical Salifism in Saudi Arabia....and also the West's support for the Saudi royal family, which finances these movements, in Saudi Arabia and abroad..... alas, this would require some basic knowledge of the history and politics of Saudi Arabia...i, and DaViD, posted extensively on this....and yet, you are again demanding explanations - as if the answer is going to be different: no, it all goes back to how Saudi petro-dollars finance radical, intolerant movements at home and abroad for domestic Saudi reasons (to protect the Saudi royal family's despotic rule)....see, all foreign policy is an extension of domestic politics.... and if you are unaware of how radical Salafi Saudi petro-dollars is connected to the Deobandi, read up more on the Afgan War - the one when the West backed the radical fundamentalists against the Soviet occupation.... and there, i've repeated myself for the.....how many times have i gone over this? also, just because the Saudi royal family finances a particularly intolerant brand of Sunni Islam does not mean the majority of Muslims follow their school of thought... and the Saudi-financed radically conservative takeover of mosques across the world is a source of lively debate within the Muslim community....you would know this if you "researched" beyond the western media.... peace
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Sept 16, 2007 3:25:28 GMT -5
, *smh* running out of arguments, eh? i should have been clearer - the Deobandi take a dim view of the western or British way of life....not surprising since they trace their roots back to an anti-colonialist, nationalist movement, eh? as for the Salafi/Wahabi - Wahaibism may indeed by indigenous to Saudi Arabia but the House of Sauds fought with the British against the Ottoman Empire and later accepted US suzerainty without many qualms. Each twist and turn considered necessary to hang on to power was justified by senior Wahhabi clerics. Pandering to power made the clerics ultra-dogmatic on other questions: the denial of equal rights for women, for example, or the refusal to ‘encourage idolatry’ by restricting the number of visitors to the tombs of the Prophet and his wives in Mecca. Some of the tombs have now been destroyed (one replaced with a public urinal); there have been no angry campaigns by Islamic extremists.either way, it always come back to extremists backed by states that are considered staunch Western allies....with "friends" like these, who needs enemies? and when oh when, Kevin, will you get it through your head that religious interpretations are inherently political? and that each movement within religions have their own history that shaped their interpretations, political beliefs and agendas ? peace
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Sept 17, 2007 1:58:21 GMT -5
what same conclusion? i don't think the "situation is dire" - it's their right not to want to assimilate into the white mainstream way of life, if they so wish....
i think the political situation in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are dire - but not of Muslims in the West....
what i do think is "dire" in the West is the constant insinuation and generalisations about Islam and Muslims....generally, less than a third of Muslims attend mosques every week, so who controls the mosques isn't a very important issue...
and if you're worried about the terrorist threats, then it should be noted the reasons given for terrorist attacks in the West are always foreign policy and what we are doing in Muslim-majority countries....avoiding this issue isn't going to make the attacks go away, i'm afraid....oops, am repeating myself, yet again....
peace
|
|