path said:
I know, but what is the prescribed manner?
Islam and homosexuality
- Thread starter Greco
- Start date
I know, but what is the prescribed manner?
Now this is from an article not an islamic source or proof of anything just a view.
Here are some interesting quotes
One can ponder as to why "a handsome lad" was seen as such a danger in islamic societies. Is it an outlet for the sexual frustration imposed by islam as mentioned above? Was it part of the cultural fabric of the middle east before and after islam? Is it just nonsensical worrying? I don't know.
From here
Here are some interesting quotes
One can ponder as to why "a handsome lad" was seen as such a danger in islamic societies. Is it an outlet for the sexual frustration imposed by islam as mentioned above? Was it part of the cultural fabric of the middle east before and after islam? Is it just nonsensical worrying? I don't know.
path said:
It is an interesting read though. It also makes me wonder about fanatical muslims. Where is PM when you need him?
Hypothetically speaking then, if PM is such a fanatical muslim, does this mean he is also a fanatical bisexual (or plain homosexual)?
W
WildBlueYonder
Guest
Karlos said:
I don't doubt your sincerety, but alas, you do not know enough of your own religion, read Tiassa's link, hilarious indeed & next time you are at prayers, ask the iman how the Madhi (muslim messiah) will be born?
oh, & guard your nether-regions when you bend over & postrate at prayers, you don't know who's watching
From a 'gay' site:
http://www.suphawut.com/gvb/gayly/gay_history2.htm
W
WildBlueYonder
Guest
to answer your question, I just emphased your quoted source, like so:path said:
From:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Printable.asp?ID=5704
Islam took after its predecessor Christianity. As a religion which wanted to consolidate power that came from people's blind faith, it was more ambitious than it's predecessor. It wanted to increase it's membership --- by hook or by crook. It did not, at least theoretically, want to waste male sexual energy in non-procreative endeavours and of course laid down barbaric punishments for such sex.
But, Islam never really took this injunction seriously. Sex between men is widely practised in Islamic societies, and is actually quite acceptable.
But the concept of 'homosexuality' in Islamic societies is quite different from how the west percieves it. Sex between men is not supposed to be restricted to any particualr class of males. All masculine men are supposed to be (as they naturally are!) capable of and interested in having sex with another masculine youth. In parts of Afghanistan, e.g., such bonds are even partly institutionalised. Bonds between men are in any case extremely strong as Islamic societies live in male only and female only societies (like in the nature). Therefore, sex between men is not considered 'homosexuality', nor the participants 'homosexuals'.
What corresponds to homosexuality or homosexuals --- i.e. a distinct class of people are transgendered males who have sex with men, thinking of themselves as women. Such a class of persons also existed in other ancient societies including amongst the Greeks. Homosexuals are considered a third-sex in the oriental societies.
The religious injunction of sex between men does not apply to sex between a eunuch/ transgendered male and a man (correct me on this!). Most transgendered (homosexual in the west) males in Islamic culturess in therefore castrate themselves. In India such men are called Hijras.
But, Islam never really took this injunction seriously. Sex between men is widely practised in Islamic societies, and is actually quite acceptable.
But the concept of 'homosexuality' in Islamic societies is quite different from how the west percieves it. Sex between men is not supposed to be restricted to any particualr class of males. All masculine men are supposed to be (as they naturally are!) capable of and interested in having sex with another masculine youth. In parts of Afghanistan, e.g., such bonds are even partly institutionalised. Bonds between men are in any case extremely strong as Islamic societies live in male only and female only societies (like in the nature). Therefore, sex between men is not considered 'homosexuality', nor the participants 'homosexuals'.
What corresponds to homosexuality or homosexuals --- i.e. a distinct class of people are transgendered males who have sex with men, thinking of themselves as women. Such a class of persons also existed in other ancient societies including amongst the Greeks. Homosexuals are considered a third-sex in the oriental societies.
The religious injunction of sex between men does not apply to sex between a eunuch/ transgendered male and a man (correct me on this!). Most transgendered (homosexual in the west) males in Islamic culturess in therefore castrate themselves. In India such men are called Hijras.
Last edited:
Remember it is only 50 years or so ago that homosexuality was against the law in England. Another 100 years before that and it was punishable by public flogging, go back another couple of hundred years and death.
Within a lifetime america practised apartheid and most european countries shot anyone who wouldn't go to war and fight as cowards. Terrorism has been practised in Ireland and Spain for some time. Which of this can you blame on Islam.
How soon we forget our own crimes. The western world is now the most socially evolved - the middle east and and other countries and cultures will take time to catch up. You cannot expect this to happen overnight.
Within a lifetime america practised apartheid and most european countries shot anyone who wouldn't go to war and fight as cowards. Terrorism has been practised in Ireland and Spain for some time. Which of this can you blame on Islam.
How soon we forget our own crimes. The western world is now the most socially evolved - the middle east and and other countries and cultures will take time to catch up. You cannot expect this to happen overnight.
Lawdog said:
It is important to understand why Islam wanted to kill homosexuals.
It was fighting against nature to cultivate and harness political power that comes from people's blind faith. Numbers were vital to it. And it still is. It has unashamedly converted people, only through violence, all over the world. Which person in his sane mind would willingly accept a religion devoid of any spirituality, compassion or humanity.
Violence is still its trademark. That is how it forced people to believe in prophet Mohammed in the first place, who otherwise had no credibility as a spiritual person (unlike Jesus or Buddha).
It started off in a society where sex between men was quite widespread, and it thought of dealing with it in the only way it knew -- through violence. It could not afford to let male sexual energy be wasted in non-procreative bonds, when it wanted to increase its population. Muslims are still a threat to peace for other communities, whereever they live because they quite consciously and unashamedly want to outnumber and persecute those that try to live peacefully with them.
But, to their credit, Muslim all-male societies are still very open to male-sexual bonds, unless they are run-over by fundamentalists/ terrorists.
Buddha1 said:
How so?
Do you consider the social structures of :
the middle east
the far east
china
latin america
or africa
more socialy evolved?
Also I cant believe I am the only person in the world to hold that opinion.
Or am I missing your point? Please explain.
Remember I did say SOCIALLY evolved not SPIRITUALLY evolved.
Last edited:
Light Travelling said:
You have to look at things as a non-westerner.
The societies you have mentioned are definitely openly cruel to its citizens.
The western society may look fair and open from the outset -- because it allows most of the things that are 'banned' in almost rest of the world.
But if you look a little more closely, beyond what is apparent -- then you will find that everything is sham. Everything is superficial. While the real story is quite 'nasty'. Some of the more important drawbacks of the west are:
- It's a society that has come far away from nature, and is setting the trend for the third world countries to follow its pattern of development that is destroying our environment. The western society promotes blatant materialism/ luxurious living which is beneficial neither to the humans nor the environment.
- The western society promotes individualism which is very harmful to human beings as a species and as individuals. It has brought about a social environment where families have been reduced to 'nuclear families' which have no place for the old.
- Regarding social evolution, the greatest folly of the western world is to try to bring about an unnatural heterosexual order, by breaking the gender division of the original society which was left unharmed even by Christianity and Islam. Thus science has achieved an extent of human oppression that even religion could not. The worst victims of this social order are men, who are fast becoming second class citizens, while the 'equality' movement of women has taken an ugly turn, where equality now means dominating and oppressing the modern male, almost totally disempowered by a process of heterosexualisation.
I could expand on it if you think there is a need.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Islam and Communism has made several societies openly cruel and unjust. But there are still societies, that are much better off than either the manipulative west or the cruel orient (Japan and India come to mind which are progressive but free from many of the serious ills of the western world).
Last edited:
OK, now I understand where you are coming from, and there is certainly some truth in what you say. The west is really a long long way from being perfect and still has an awfully long way still to evolve. But I think you confuse society, politics, spirituality and human nature all together.
It is true the west is materialist, but so are most other societies, exspect communist. I have personal experience of south america and the gap between rich and poor is far greater and the luxurious living at least equals what I see in europe. The middle and far east also have their fair share of oppulence.
As for third world countries following trends - this is more down to politics and the human nature of greed than society. Politicians and banks will detremine foreign and third world policies - these are not necessarilly representative of the condition of societies.
The west has evolved to its current state, hopefully it is a stage and it will pass through it without destroying the world. But it is only fair to assume that other countries will have to pass through the same stage of social evolution, although hopefully they will pass through it more quickly, learning from the mistakes of the west.
Again I will draw on my experience in south america. The wealthy look after thier old very well, the old of the poor struggle awfully. There is very little in the way of social welfare to protect them.
The system of social welfare employed by the west helps to ensure the old and sick are cared for regardless of wealth, and basicaly it works, it is suppossed to be a shared responsibilty of the old. The down side of this however is nuclear family with the state left 'holding the baby', and of course the greedy exploit the system to point of collapse. But like I say it is still evolving.
Although I will agree with you that individualism is not a good thing, this is as much down to human nature as to society.
This I would tend to agree with you on. The western media now actively promotes homosexuality. Although homosexuals are free to do as they plaese , I do not think as a society it should be encouraged.
However what you say here is complete rubbish. Western women still earn less and work less than male counterparts and are not yet equal let alone pushing men into 2nd class. It is true many men 'feel' oppressed but this is their own phsycological problem not reality.
India has great wealth in part, extreme poverty in others and a severe lack of social welfare and they are still stuck in the 'caste' system mentality. I agree that India is a rich and diverse Spiritual country, but socially no.
Japan I will give you - it equals the west socially.
Buddha1 said:
It is true the west is materialist, but so are most other societies, exspect communist. I have personal experience of south america and the gap between rich and poor is far greater and the luxurious living at least equals what I see in europe. The middle and far east also have their fair share of oppulence.
As for third world countries following trends - this is more down to politics and the human nature of greed than society. Politicians and banks will detremine foreign and third world policies - these are not necessarilly representative of the condition of societies.
The west has evolved to its current state, hopefully it is a stage and it will pass through it without destroying the world. But it is only fair to assume that other countries will have to pass through the same stage of social evolution, although hopefully they will pass through it more quickly, learning from the mistakes of the west.
Buddha1 said:
Again I will draw on my experience in south america. The wealthy look after thier old very well, the old of the poor struggle awfully. There is very little in the way of social welfare to protect them.
The system of social welfare employed by the west helps to ensure the old and sick are cared for regardless of wealth, and basicaly it works, it is suppossed to be a shared responsibilty of the old. The down side of this however is nuclear family with the state left 'holding the baby', and of course the greedy exploit the system to point of collapse. But like I say it is still evolving.
Although I will agree with you that individualism is not a good thing, this is as much down to human nature as to society.
Buddha1 said:
This I would tend to agree with you on. The western media now actively promotes homosexuality. Although homosexuals are free to do as they plaese , I do not think as a society it should be encouraged.
Buddha1 said:
However what you say here is complete rubbish. Western women still earn less and work less than male counterparts and are not yet equal let alone pushing men into 2nd class. It is true many men 'feel' oppressed but this is their own phsycological problem not reality.
Buddha1 said:
India has great wealth in part, extreme poverty in others and a severe lack of social welfare and they are still stuck in the 'caste' system mentality. I agree that India is a rich and diverse Spiritual country, but socially no.
Japan I will give you - it equals the west socially.
Last edited:
azizbey said:
You are asking the judge not to look at evidences, but ask the murderer whether he committed the crime or not, and take his word for it.
Of course, homosexuality is unacceptable in Islam. But quiet sly relationships between men is acceptable at the peer level and almost universal. In some Muslim societies like parts of Afghanistan it is even formally acceptable because of a strong tradition though it may be illegal.