If you don’t think they’d mind, ask your Iranian buddies what they think. They’d probably think it wasn’t so much a generalization at all. I'm 100% positive they'd have an opinion on it.
Interesting the two different sides a idea can land on huh?
Interesting the two different sides a idea can land on huh?
Oh, I see this homosexual debate went on for quite some time. I'd have to say, Sam has two good points that a) if the Qur'an is quite specific about what is and is not acceptable then it would have been very clear on the topic of two men being gay and b) yes what about women (I've heard this argument before)
I'd also like to point out that as part of the animal kingdom humans are born XX XY XXY XXXY XO YO XYY ect... not to mention receptor deletions and phenotypes that do not match with genotypes. Not that long ago at the Uni a girl found out she was XY and missing the the receptor for testosterone. the policy now is that Ss don't do genetic typing on themselves anymore.
Lastly, many scientific psychological tests have found that men who have the most hatred of homosexuality also show up as having the most physical responce to naked pictures of men combined with a conservative religious view that having these urges is evil. Very straight men tend to care less because they don't feel anything towards naked male bodies regardless of whether they are very religiously conservative or not.
Interesting huh?
Michael
I'd also like to point out that as part of the animal kingdom humans are born XX XY XXY XXXY XO YO XYY ect... not to mention receptor deletions and phenotypes that do not match with genotypes. Not that long ago at the Uni a girl found out she was XY and missing the the receptor for testosterone. the policy now is that Ss don't do genetic typing on themselves anymore.
Lastly, many scientific psychological tests have found that men who have the most hatred of homosexuality also show up as having the most physical responce to naked pictures of men combined with a conservative religious view that having these urges is evil. Very straight men tend to care less because they don't feel anything towards naked male bodies regardless of whether they are very religiously conservative or not.
Interesting huh?
Michael
Of course all societies accept that such is the case. Many societies, Western and Eastern, ect.. prohibit some drugs, full nudity or obscenity at some level.
I suppose the difference is who makes the choice of what people are allowed to do and not do. To me it seems the best option would be to allow the people themselves to vote. This allows rules to progress and change together with society. However, some religous person's interpretation of what they happen to think is correct for society would IMHO be the absolute last person I'd want deciding for society. Especially if his idea was based on a 2000 year old book.
Very religous people people by their nature tend towards very conservative. This, I think, stunts the growth of society based on Religion. Just look at the time when the rule of Xianity in Europe was at it's greatest - it's called the dark ages. When the Church losses it's power over the people we have the Renaissance.
I am sure that the extremely religous devote in Iran, KSA, Afghanistan, Pakistan, ect... are the reason why women in those societies are not treated fairly. It's not the liberal homosexual Muslim men making the rules, it's not the liberal ex-Muslim Atheists, it's not the Muslim scientists or Muslim play writes or Muslim artists and painters - it's the Muslims who are very religiously devote. The people that dedicate their lives to Allah. They are the ones making these crazy discriminatory rules against women and they are the reason why these societies think it's OK to discriminate against women.
I think we can at least agree on THAT much???
Michael
W
WildBlueYonder
Guest
I think you have your history mixed up, the dark ages were multi-causal;
1) barbarian german tribes everywhere; Franks, Goths, Burgundians, Lombards, Visigoths, Saxons, etc...
2) fall of the Roman Empire, & therefore civ as they knew it
3) establishment of new kingdoms in former Roman provinces
4) continued raids by Huns
5) black death
6) saracen pirates, invaders
7) vikings raids, invasions
8) amid the upheavals; poor education, sanitation, trade, etc...
I would say that Christianity saved the West; ancient lit, knowledge, ideas & ideals
which united it for the next 4 phases
1) Crusades
2) Renaissance
3) Exploration
4) Conquest
see these:
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/attila.htm
http://www.korcula.net/ppages/markomarelic_german.htm
http://www.hyw.com/Books/History/Rome__Le.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death
http://www.boglewood.com/sicily/saracens3.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/middle-ages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking
http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=367&id=367&pc=History - Ancient and Medieval
What is there to say? Women are equal to men. Women can get the same education, get jobs/make money, etc. It has so many definitions.
And it is. Perhaps you would find the Qur'an enlightening if you actually read it. Why don't you give it a try?
Even back in the days when all men were able to/practiced polygamy, no portion of the population was affected by a lack of a certain gender. Nowadays, only few men can afford it, so it has virtually zero affect on making an uneven population amongst the genders.
Purpose of marriage is to have kids. One man for four women can have four kids. One woman with four men cannot get them all to have children. This is why.
Why four wives? Well then, why not? Four is a pretty sturdy number.
I have posted the whole argument, and if you don't find it convincing, then too bad. I did my part. I'm still waiting for you to dissect it and say what's wrong. I already told you that all of his wives had a huge impact socially, morally, and legislatively.
On average, a healthy man/woman 1400 years ago in Arabia would be happy to reach sixty years of living. Nowadays, we're up to 75 years for healthy men/women (80+ in countries like Japan). If you think a woman marrying at the age of 22 (will have finished an average college by then), then there is a 13 year difference in her and Aisha. However, on average, Aisha is to die 16 years earlier than today's woman. If you die 'X' years earlier, then it's only reasonable (and unbelievably common in those days) to marry 'X' years earlier.
Also, marriages 1400 years ago often had a primary political purpose. You could marry to strengthen bonds with the woman's father, you know, things of that sort.
Finally, Muhammad had his share of critics 1400 years ago. They criticized Muhamad's beliefs/actions on a numerous amount of things. However, they never criticized him for marrying Aisha. It was considered perfectly normal.
It does harm themselves and others. Read below.
I think homosexuality is wrong because they: a) cannot reproduce; b) have a very high rate for spreading deadly STDs and AIDS; c) hurt and embarrass their family members with their decisions. I think polygamy is perfectly okay because it harms nobody. Tell me, what is wrong with polygamy if all the men and women agree?
If Muslims initiated the war, then they brought this on to themselves. I'd have no problem with Muslims being used as slaves temporarily and not getting hurt in the process, being fed/clothed, and being paid. Much better than being six feet under.
Some people ruin it for others. If you defeated the Assyrians way back in the day, every single member of their city would fight you savagely with whatever they had, so long as they had their chance. Some groups of people have a different mindset, and it is harmful to you unless you take matters (peacefully) into your own hands.
If it's after a war, then those are the consequences. If people can accept the hundreds of millions slaughtered from a war, I don't see how they can't accept some restricted slavery afterwards.
Because they run for a political purpose - not a religious one.
P.S.: Michael, keep all your arguments to one post. I'm not responding to six different ones.
There is actually a Quranic verse with a list of people whom you cannot marry (ie have sex with) and it doesn't include people of the same sex.
I said:
My main question to you: how does practicing lust on men instead of women mean robbery/rape/murder, and NOT homosexuality?
You said (essentially):
If animals can, we can.
I said:
Animals practice cannibalism/eat their own feces/do ample things that we would vehemently disagree with morally, legally, and religiously.
So...how does practicing lust for men over women not mean homosexuality? How does preferring, choosing, wanting, men over women not mean homosexuality? There is no other feasible solution.
My main question to you: how does practicing lust on men instead of women mean robbery/rape/murder, and NOT homosexuality?
You said (essentially):
If animals can, we can.
I said:
Animals practice cannibalism/eat their own feces/do ample things that we would vehemently disagree with morally, legally, and religiously.
So...how does practicing lust for men over women not mean homosexuality? How does preferring, choosing, wanting, men over women not mean homosexuality? There is no other feasible solution.
I did not say if animals can we can. I said it is found in animals so it is fitrah, not a choice. Sexuality is pretty clearly dealt with in the Quran and there are clear verses as to what is forbidden, who you can marry, consent, mehr, etc
As for practising lust, is that different from practising love? Do you practise lust on the person you love? To me the incident where straight (married) men rape strangers (who are guests) is an indication that that verse is about intent, rather than choice.
And I disproved this bogus argument. Essentially, animals do a lot of things. You can call their behaviour natural, but I call cannibalism and such horrific things repulsive. Allah says he sent Lot as a messenger to the lands so he could tell them that practicing lust with men instead of women is forbidden. It is crystal clear in the Quran.
Where are you getting 'don't rape strangers' from 'do not practice your lust for men over women'?
Man, I hate it when people disagree with me...
Maybe you should read Michaels post on homophobic men.
Animal behaviour has biologic reasons which we can define and explain. But sexuality is innate.
There are lots of things that the Byzantinians passed on to us Muslims, unfortunately we are more attached to their interpretations than to the Quran.
I just don't see how anybody can agree with homosexuality. Whether we were created/were evolved, I don't see how anybody sees this practice normal. Men have penises, and women have vaginas. The penis goes in the vagina, and bam, there's new life. Why would you match two men, or two women? It just doesn't work. It accomplishes nothing (well, except for rapid increase STDs/AIDS).
Do you see a battery with + at both ends? A battery with - at both ends? Nope. Kind of a silly analogy, but it gets the point across.
Do you see a battery with + at both ends? A battery with - at both ends? Nope. Kind of a silly analogy, but it gets the point across.
You can take it up with God
42:49 "To Allah belongs the dominion over the heavens and the earth. It creates what It wills. It prepares for whom It wills females, and It prepares for whom It wills males. 50 Or It marries together the males and the females, and It makes those whom It wills to be ineffectual. Indeed It is the Knowing, the Powerful."
See any indication of heterosexuality?
SAM, are you OUT OF YOUR MIND?
"Allah's is the kingdom of the heaven and the earth. He creates what He pleases. He grants females to whom He pleases and grants males to whom He pleases. Or He grants them both males and females, and He makes whom He pleases, barren. Surely He is Knower, Powerful" (42:49-50)
42:49 in the Qur'an refers to offspring! Allah gives females to whom he pleases, and Allah gives males to whom he pleases. If Allah wants, he gives them males and females. And to some people, Allah will make sterile.
"Allah's is the kingdom of the heaven and the earth. He creates what He pleases. He grants females to whom He pleases and grants males to whom He pleases. Or He grants them both males and females, and He makes whom He pleases, barren. Surely He is Knower, Powerful" (42:49-50)
42:49 in the Qur'an refers to offspring! Allah gives females to whom he pleases, and Allah gives males to whom he pleases. If Allah wants, he gives them males and females. And to some people, Allah will make sterile.
I read the Arabic; the translation I have given is the most accurate.
Frankly it makes no sense how marrying together the male and female can refer to offspring.
The offspring are added by translaters, they are not present in the Arabic.
On my part and to your defense, I will say that I only started understanding how much translators affect our understanding of Islam after I learned Arabic.
And the translators who change the Qur'an from Arabic to English somehow don't know Arabic? This verse says Allah gives females to the married couples if he wishes, Allah gives males to the married couples, or Allah gives both males and females to the married couples. If Allah wanted, he could make them sterile and have no males or females.
The marriage is referenced because that is what is needed to produce offspring in Islam.
The marriage is referenced because that is what is needed to produce offspring in Islam.
If you say so, but the verse reads exactly as the translation I have given. You can show it to any imam who speaks and reads Arabic.