Can Islam Accommodate Homosexual Acts? Quranic Revisionism and the Case of Scott Kugle

Can Islam Accommodate Homosexual Acts? Quranic Revisionism and the Case of Scott Kugle

Introduction

Islam, like other major world religions (with the very recent exception of certain liberal denominations in the West), prohibits categorically all forms of same-sex erotic behavior.[1] Scholars have differed over questions of how particular same-sex acts should be technically categorized and/or punished, but have never differed over the fact of their prohibition. The full and unbroken Islamic consensus on this issue embraces all recorded legal schools, theological persuasions, and historically documented sectarian divisions.

The evidentiary basis underlying Islam's categorical prohibition of liwāṭ (sodomy) and other same-sex behaviors lies in explicit proscriptive statements of the Qurʾān and Ḥadīth, the transmitted consensus of the Prophet's Companions and Successors, and the documented unanimity of the Islamic legal tradition throughout the ages. Notwithstanding, the past decade and a half has witnessed the rise of Muslim reformist voices, primarily in the West, challenging Islam's proscription of homosexual activity and calling for the religious affirmation of same-gender sexual expression, relationships, and identities. This challenge has consisted not only in a questioning of the probative value of the relevant ḥadīth evidence and a disregard for juristic and wider community consensus, but also in the assertion that the Qurʾān itself does not prohibit same-sex relations per se, but only homosexual rape motivated by inhospitality with intent to dishonor. It has been further argued that the Qurʾān should not be taken to prohibit same-sex behaviors categorically since it does not specifically address the abstract modern concept of “homosexuality” as an orientation or, for that matter, the notion of “sexual identity” more broadly.

Continue: http://muslimmatters.org/2016/07/11/can-islam-accommodate-homosexual-acts-quranic-revisionism-and-the-case-of-scott-kugle/

What's your opinion of this Zack?



I am typing this left handed as I'm holding a tea in the other - I'm a multi-Tasker
(With lots of edits)

Zack? What is your opinion?

I'm waiting for the opinions of people before I comment.

i agree with be article.

Isn't the article telling us what we already knew? That Muslims don't agree with homosexual practices.

the answer is Of course it can.
It can change
it has changed before
it will change again
if the change is on this issue, who knows?

Islam can accomodate homosexuality when its followers can.

The words if the Bible haven't changed (translations not included), but as the views of people in Christian countries have developed over time things accepted or forbidden on the Bible have been overlooked or reinterpreted. There is no reason the same cannot happen with Islam.

I will pick up on a couple of points which show why the article is ultimately flawed.


As statd homosexuality is not even mentioned in the Quran
There is also nothing against homosexuals being able to marry in the Quran
There is nothing that states that homosexuals caannot express their love of whhich many people in love, engage in sexual acts.

The Quran is meant to be the last message and the word of Allah, the Islamic Deity
If as has happened Muslims have instead fundementally insulted their own deity, but invented countless rules and punishments from unverified deeds, acts and sayings of Muhammad. In other words they are fundementally claiming the own deity is incompetant. By deifying many of the deeds of Muhammad to that of the Surah's of Allah. Again this renders the quran of secondary importance. Muhammad was to Muslims a Prophet, not a god and if this last message was to cinorporate a guide for Muslims to live there lives. Then it does not matter what Muhammad did in his life, it should only be the message itself in the form of the Quran. Now i am sure many Muslims do not believe their deity is incompetant, but as seen if he existed, be insulting him, by making into law, things that he never passed on with the Sura's

The first point is for islam to logically aplly, then it should only be the Quran that is a guide and rule book for their lives. Clearly is this deity exists, then these things would have been part of his message. So based on a view of what Allah if existed would state on the matter, he never made any view on the matter. So to then criminalize and punish people is fundementally going against his willl.


I love the following being used to claim either two men or two women, cannot perform sexual acts, based on the som hadiths.

It has been transmitted by way of Muslim upon the authority of Abū Bakr b. Abī Shayba, who reported from Zayd b. Ḥubāb, who reported through [omitting narrators] ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Saʿīd al-Khudrī, who reported from his father that the Messenger of God, may God's peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Let no man see another man's ʿawra,[126] nor a woman see another woman's ʿawra; [likewise] let no man lie uncovered (yufḍī ilā) under the same sheet as another man, nor a woman lie uncovered under the same sheet as another woman.”].

So based on the above, the only things that are prohibited if you are not allowed to see someone naked, Which will criminalize countless medical professionals. Which easily draws a simple conlusion from. As this rule is not found in the Quran and is not a Sura from Allah and if we are to believe he exists and is all intelligent. Then clearly he would not make such a rulling and the reality is he never did. This is a good example to highlight how any hadith is not comparable in matching to the Quran, should be treated simply as an aspect of history. We can also conclude from this that Muhammad may have been a messenger, but clearly was clueless on the fact you do actually have to be able to see to carry out surgery for example on such areas. What this also brings to mind then is how there was also so many eunuchs castrated without supposedlly being able to see what they were cutting off.

The next points is there simply is no prohibition on touching, kissing etc and Muslims would have to accept that if two homosexuals placed on blindfolds in order not to see each oither, that they could then have sex. This just proves further how badly supposed  sayings by Muhammad are very dodgy indeed and are in conflict with the Quran. The last point to further prove that this also renders the best non-medical facility prohibited and would cost lives is where people suffer from hypothermia. When the best thing that is going to save that person is for the victim and someone else to get naked to help rewarm the body, even better with one either side of the victim and again it works best naked.

That will do for now, but as can be seen its poor interpretations of nothing that is the Sura's of Allah, but the claimed view of a man, Muhammad, who clearly was ignorant of science.

Didge wrote:I will pick up on a couple of points which show why the article is ultimately flawed.


As statd homosexuality is not even mentioned in the Quran
There is also nothing against homosexuals being able to marry in the Quran
There is nothing that states that homosexuals caannot express their love of whhich many people in love, engage in sexual acts.

The Quran is meant to be the last message and the word of Allah, the Islamic Deity
If as has happened Muslims have instead fundementally insulted their own deity, but invented countless rules and punishments from unverified deeds, acts and sayings of Muhammad. In other words they are fundementally claiming the own deity is incompetant. By deifying many of the deeds of Muhammad to that of the Surah's of Allah. Again this renders the quran of secondary importance. Muhammad was to Muslims a Prophet, not a god and if this last message was to cinorporate a guide for Muslims to live there lives. Then it does not matter what Muhammad did in his life, it should only be the message itself in the form of the Quran. Now i am sure many Muslims do not believe their deity is incompetant, but as seen if he existed, be insulting him, by making into law, things that he never passed on with the Sura's

The first point is for islam to logically aplly, then it should only be the Quran that is a guide and rule book for their lives. Clearly is this deity exists, then these things would have been part of his message. So based on a view of what Allah if existed would state on the matter, he never made any view on the matter. So to then criminalize and punish people is fundementally going against his willl.


I love the following being used to claim either two men or two women, cannot perform sexual acts, based on the som hadiths.

It has been transmitted by way of Muslim upon the authority of Abū Bakr b. Abī Shayba, who reported from Zayd b. Ḥubāb, who reported through [omitting narrators] ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Saʿīd al-Khudrī, who reported from his father that the Messenger of God, may God's peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Let no man see another man's ʿawra,[126] nor a woman see another woman's ʿawra; [likewise] let no man lie uncovered (yufḍī ilā) under the same sheet as another man, nor a woman lie uncovered under the same sheet as another woman.”].

So based on the above, the only things that are prohibited if you are not allowed to see someone naked, Which will criminalize countless medical professionals. Which easily draws a simple conlusion from. As this rule is not found in the Quran and is not a Sura from Allah and if we are to believe he exists and is all intelligent. Then clearly he would not make such a rulling and the reality is he never did. This is a good example to highlight how any hadith is not comparable in matching to the Quran, should be treated simply as an aspect of history. We can also conclude from this that Muhammad may have been a messenger, but clearly was clueless on the fact you do actually have to be able to see to carry out surgery for example on such areas. What this also brings to mind then is how there was also so many eunuchs castrated without supposedlly being able to see what they were cutting off.

The next points is there simply is no prohibition on touching, kissing etc and Muslims would have to accept that if two homosexuals placed on blindfolds in order not to see each oither, that they could then have sex. This just proves further how badly supposed  sayings by Muhammad are very dodgy indeed and are in conflict with the Quran. The last point to further prove that this also renders the best non-medical facility prohibited and would cost lives is where people suffer from hypothermia. When the best thing that is going to save that person is for the victim and someone else to get naked to help rewarm the body, even better with one either side of the victim and again it works best naked.

That will do for now, but as can be seen its poor interpretations of nothing that is the Sura's of Allah, but the claimed view of a man, Muhammad, who clearly was ignorant of science.

Basically you are questioning the stories told in the bible.
I agree that they are just stories passed down through generations of our ancestors and made more interesting by adding on a few silly things to keep kids interested in the story lol.

Eilzel wrote:Islam can accomodate homosexuality when its followers can.

The words if the Bible haven't changed (translations not included), but as the views of people in Christian countries have developed over time things accepted or forbidden on the Bible have been overlooked or reinterpreted. There is no reason the same cannot happen with Islam.

You're right Les. Good post in a nutshell X

eddie wrote:Isn't the article telling us what we already knew? That Muslims don't agree with homosexual practices.

Correct. But the article examines "why" the arguments of so called progressive Muslims and supposed scholars such as Kugle are deeply flawed.

Kugle is making the classic mistake of reinterpreting the Quran and the Hadith without taking into account the historical context.

Didge's argument of ignoring the Hadith is not exactly sophisticated as this is not the basis of Sunni (orthodox) Islam.

He is taking the Quranist approach, which has all kinds of problems for other aspects of Islam. So such an approach will be readily rejected by the orthodoxy.

Eilzel wrote:Islam can accomodate homosexuality when its followers can.

The words if the Bible haven't changed (translations not included), but as the views of people in Christian countries have developed over time things accepted or forbidden on the Bible have been overlooked or reinterpreted. There is no reason the same cannot happen with Islam.

That's a different question: Can "Muslims" accommodate homosexuality?

That's more social, than religious.

But Islam is clear on the subject of homosexual practices.

Zack, do a lot, or some, Muslims accept homosexuality?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

eddie wrote:Isn't the article telling us what we already knew? That Muslims don't agree with homosexual practices.

Correct. But the article examines "why" the arguments of so called progressive Muslims and supposed scholars such as Kugle are deeply flawed.

Kugle is making the classic mistake of reinterpreting the Quran and the Hadith without taking into account the historical context.

Didge's argument of ignoring the Hadith is not exactly sophisticated as this is not the basis of Sunni (orthodox) Islam.

He is taking the Quranist approach, which has all kinds of problems for other aspects of Islam. So such an approach will be readily rejected by the orthodoxy.

And you cannot understand anything logically

The bases for homosxuality comes from the hadiths and not the Quran.
This the views on homosexuality are the views of Muslims and unreliable, as these works are not found in history until centuries after Muhammad lived.
Again the Quran is what is claimed to passed down as the word of your god
Everything else then is the view of men
That is what you fail to grasp

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Correct. But the article examines "why" the arguments of so called progressive Muslims and supposed scholars such as Kugle are deeply flawed.

Kugle is making the classic mistake of reinterpreting the Quran and the Hadith without taking into account the historical context.

Didge's argument of ignoring the Hadith is not exactly sophisticated as this is not the basis of Sunni (orthodox) Islam.

He is taking the Quranist approach, which has all kinds of problems for other aspects of Islam. So such an approach will be readily rejected by the orthodoxy.

And you cannot understand anything logically

The bases for homosxuality comes from the hadiths and not the Quran.
This the views on homosexuality are the views of Muslims and unreliable, as these works are not found in history until centuries after Muhammad lived.
Again the Quran is what is claimed to passed down as the word of your god
Everything else then is the view of men
That is what you fail to grasp

The Quran condemns homosexuality as men lusting after other men. So you are ignorant.

And you are not going to convince Muslims with the Quranist approach. Try grasping that.

eddie wrote:Zack, do a lot, or some, Muslims accept homosexuality?

Not Muslims that I know.

But the younger generation are not as "hysterical" about it as the older.

I also know many non Muslims who condemn homosexuality.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


And you cannot understand anything logically

The bases for homosxuality comes from the hadiths and not the Quran.
This the views on homosexuality are the views of Muslims and unreliable, as these works are not found in history until centuries after Muhammad lived.
Again the Quran is what is claimed to passed down as the word of your god
Everything else then is the view of men
That is what you fail to grasp

The Quran condemns homosexuality as men lusting after other men. So you are ignorant.

And you are not going to convince Muslims with the Quranist approach. Try grasping that.

It does not speak at all of anything such thing as it claims only of men committing indecent acts, which could mean anything as is subjective

That could mean rape

Not using a Quranic approach but simple logic based on the claim to what is meant to be the word of your God through Sura's
Like I say, you are deifying claimed sayings and deeds of Muhammad to comparability of Sura's of Allah.
Thus the views come from men, and not Allah

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

The Quran condemns homosexuality as men lusting after other men. So you are ignorant.

And you are not going to convince Muslims with the Quranist approach. Try grasping that.

It does not speak at all of anything such thing as it claims only of men committing indecent acts, which could mean anything as is subjective

That could mean rape

Not using a Quranic approach but simple logic based on the claim to what is meant to be the word of your God through Sura's
Like I say, you are deifying claimed sayings and deeds of Muhammad to comparability of Sura's of Allah.
Thus the views come from men, and not Allah

Your ignorance should be ignored.

Qur'an 7:80-81

Qur'an 26:165-166

And you wonder why I can't take you seriously.

I haven't read the Hadiths, Zack. But from the Koran alone it can be brought down to interpretation. On the face of it the Bible/Christianity opposes homosexuality but many Christians now do their best to claim otherwise by contextualising and reinterpreting the texts. One hundred years from now some Muslims may be reexplaining Koranic verses traditionally used to forbid homosexuality. Personally I feel all Abrahamic religions are clear on the issue, but those who are liberal minded AND keep their faith say otherwise. That is the way with religions, they are after all just words on a page, written by simple men.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

It does not speak at all of anything such thing as it claims only of men committing indecent acts, which could mean anything as is subjective

That could mean rape

Not using a Quranic approach but simple logic based on the claim to what is meant to be the word of your God through Sura's
Like I say, you are deifying claimed sayings and deeds of Muhammad to comparability of Sura's of Allah.
Thus the views come from men, and not Allah

Your ignorance should be ignored.

Qur'an 7:80-81

Qur'an 26:165-166

And you wonder why I can't take you seriously.

Yes you are ignorant

First verse


Sahih International
And [We had sent] Lot when he said to his people, "Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds?

Second verse

Do you approach males among the worlds

And leave what your Lord has created for you as mates? But you are a people transgressing."



Zero on homosexuality

Again what is immoral?

Rape?
Cannibalism?

Its states nothing what this immorality is

Muslims have invented and interpreted that this is homosexuality

And considering Islam allows slavery which is immoral, I suggest you check your moral compass

Eilzel wrote:I haven't read the Hadiths, Zack. But from the Koran alone it can be brought down to interpretation. On the face of it the Bible/Christianity opposes homosexuality but many Christians now do their best to claim otherwise by contextualising and reinterpreting the texts. One hundred years from now some Muslims may be reexplaining Koranic verses traditionally used to forbid homosexuality. Personally I feel all Abrahamic religions are clear on the issue, but those who are liberal minded AND keep their faith say otherwise. That is the way with religions, they are after all just words on a page, written by simple men.

You are confusing Christians with Muslims and Christianity with Islam.

Both religions are people (theologically) are very different in how text is interpreted.

No Islamic scholar will ever change the Quran or its meaning.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Your ignorance should be ignored.

Qur'an 7:80-81

Qur'an 26:165-166

And you wonder why I can't take you seriously.

Yes you are ignorant

First verse


Sahih International
And [We had sent] Lot when he said to his people, "Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds?

Second verse

Do you approach males among the worlds

And leave what your Lord has created for you as mates? But you are a people transgressing."



Zero on homosexuality

Again what is immoral?

Rape?
Cannibalism?

Its states nothing what this immorality is

Muslims have invented and interpreted that this is homosexuality

And considering Islam allows slavery which is immoral, I suggest you check your moral compass

Even with your best translation, you are clearly wrong.

And you know it, so you have no choice but to resort to a straw man strategy. You are stupid beyond reason.

Why is there so much hate, fear and despising around homosexuality?

HoratioTarr wrote:Why is there so much hate, fear and despising around homosexuality?

Why indeed?

Could it possibly be that some of us don't fancy other guys bums?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Yes you are ignorant

First verse


Sahih International
And [We had sent] Lot when he said to his people, "Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds?

Second verse

Do you approach males among the worlds

And leave what your Lord has created for you as mates? But you are a people transgressing."



Zero on homosexuality

Again what is immoral?

Rape?
Cannibalism?

Its states nothing what this immorality is

Muslims have invented and interpreted that this is homosexuality

And considering Islam allows slavery which is immoral, I suggest you check your moral compass

Even with your best translation, you are clearly wrong.

And you know it, so you have no choice but to resort to a straw man strategy. You are stupid beyond reason.

So you have nothing to refute but your usual immature emotions

Like I say, there is nothing in the quran that is against homosexuality

blackie333 wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:Why is there so much hate, fear and despising around homosexuality?

Why indeed?

Could it possibly be that some of us don't fancy other guys bums?

so what??

so you "dont fancy"....fine...dont do it ...simples....
but that DOES NOT give you (the generic "you") the right to condemn/hate/despise someone becasue they do..

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Your ignorance should be ignored.

Qur'an 7:80-81

Qur'an 26:165-166

And you wonder why I can't take you seriously.

Yes you are ignorant

First verse


Sahih International
And [We had sent] Lot when he said to his people, "Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds?

Second verse

Do you approach males among the worlds

And leave what your Lord has created for you as mates? But you are a people transgressing."



Zero on homosexuality

Again what is immoral?

Rape?
Cannibalism?

Its states nothing what this immorality is

Muslims have invented and interpreted that this is homosexuality

And considering Islam allows slavery which is immoral, I suggest you check your moral compass

Sahih International
7:81 Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people."

Lol! You are either lying about your translation or sorely mistaken. Take your pick.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Yes you are ignorant

First verse


Sahih International
And [We had sent] Lot when he said to his people, "Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds?

Second verse

Do you approach males among the worlds

And leave what your Lord has created for you as mates? But you are a people transgressing."



Zero on homosexuality

Again what is immoral?

Rape?
Cannibalism?

Its states nothing what this immorality is

Muslims have invented and interpreted that this is homosexuality

And considering Islam allows slavery which is immoral, I suggest you check your moral compass

Sahih International
7:81 Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people."

Lol! You are either lying about your translation or sorely mistaken. Take your pick.

http://quran.com/7/80-82

Or did you mean verse

Qur'an 26:165-166  

Do you approach males among the worlds
And leave what your Lord has created for you as mates? But you are a people transgressing."
They said, "If you do not desist, O Lot, you will surely be of those evicted."


http://quran.com/26/165-166


Still nothing on homosexuality, just Muslims again interpreting the Quran to fit their hatred of homosexuals

Lord Foul wrote:

blackie333 wrote:

Why indeed?

Could it possibly be that some of us don't fancy other guys bums?

so what??

so you "dont fancy"....fine...dont do it ...simples....
but that DOES NOT give you (the generic "you") the right to condemn/hate/despise someone becasue they do..

It does actually, as long as they don't break the law.

Lord Foul wrote:

blackie333 wrote:

Why indeed?

Could it possibly be that some of us don't fancy other guys bums?

so what??

so you "dont fancy"....fine...dont do it ...simples....
but that DOES NOT give you (the generic "you") the right to condemn/hate/despise someone becasue they do..

No it doesn't give you the right!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I haven't read the Hadiths, Zack. But from the Koran alone it can be brought down to interpretation. On the face of it the Bible/Christianity opposes homosexuality but many Christians now do their best to claim otherwise by contextualising and reinterpreting the texts. One hundred years from now some Muslims may be reexplaining Koranic verses traditionally used to forbid homosexuality. Personally I feel all Abrahamic religions are clear on the issue, but those who are liberal minded AND keep their faith say otherwise. That is the way with religions, they are after all just words on a page, written by simple men.

You are confusing Christians with Muslims and Christianity with Islam.

Both religions are people (theologically) are very different in how text is interpreted.

No Islamic scholar will ever change the Quran or its meaning.

it has before
I got changed to the extra hate and violence interpretation after the Mongols almost wiped it out.

You mean the Ones around currently Bullshit and say theirs is the same as always but clearly VASTY different interpretation than that of the Islamic Mathematicians etc pre the fall of The Abbasid Caliphate.

Islam can change nothing special about it at all, has in the past will in the future or it will just disappear.

veya_victaous wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You are confusing Christians with Muslims and Christianity with Islam.

Both religions are people (theologically) are very different in how text is interpreted.

No Islamic scholar will ever change the Quran or its meaning.

it has before
I got changed to the extra hate and violence interpretation after the Mongols almost wiped it out.

You mean the Ones around currently Bullshit and say theirs is the same as always but clearly VASTY different interpretation than that of the Islamic Mathematicians etc pre the fall of The Abbasid Caliphate.

Islam can change nothing special about it at all, has in the past will in the future or it will just disappear.

In any period of Islamlic history, there is no interpretation that has made homosexual acts permissible.

no never homosexuals, but other things have changed.
And
Up Until Christian were forced to accept homosexuals, they never had either.
so no reason to beleive that Islam cannot be forced to by circumstance as well.

Exactly veya. Again religions are words in books, open to interpretation. If a few scholars are already reading a different take on something there is no way to guarantee their view wont become more widespread and eventually 'canon'. Islam is no different to Christianity in that regard, as much as it gets proclaimed as the pure word of god.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:so what??

so you "dont fancy"....fine...dont do it ...simples....
but that DOES NOT give you (the generic "you") the right to condemn/hate/despise someone becasue they do..

No it doesn't give you the right!

I've often wondered if as with the native American's that the people (linguistics) trying to give a written history to a tribe or sect would just skip over such topics or definitions/religious laws that the customs/locals knew and spoke of but those scholars just deemed too unseemly to put pen to paper? 
The reason that I'm suggesting this, was a very recent NPR study telelvised ...and this group of linguistics are trying to undo 100 years of native tribal languages being forbidden to be spoken by my fathers generation and punished & banished from my grand fathers generation!  
So many native languages gone without the written history and the elders that are still able to speak their unique dialect are struggling to remember specific words - like was there a word for GAY/LESBIAN in their native tongue ...and most often the different tribal groups have stated 'NO, they were just a mixed spirit, nothing to be treated differently - never banned from our tribe but not given a separate word - they just WERE!'

So I've wondered if this wasn't possible for the ancient (BC era) just because it wasn't given a specific line item in some ancient documents - didn't mean that there were'nt any GAY or LESBIANISM humans back then ...perhaps they just didn't give it a written notation     
And what if they were more accepting then the scribes that used their own prejudices to write the Quran ...Mohammad certainly had quite a few heartfelt changes of his POV as he aged ...it's very plausible. IMO

Eilzel wrote:Exactly veya. Again religions are words in books, open to interpretation. If a few scholars are already reading a different take on something there is no way to guarantee their view wont become more widespread and eventually 'canon'. Islam is no different to Christianity in that regard, as much as it gets proclaimed as the pure word of god.

even the differeing sects of Islam show that it has Multipule interpreations.

HERE IS another story to further Didge and Fuzzy's debate :


http://www.sbs.com.au/news/thefeed/article/2016/05/02/meet-australias-first-openly-gay-imam


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-29/secret-mosques-doors-lgbti-Muslims/7341142


http://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/06/29/australias-first-openly-gay-imam-tells-waleed-we-need-change/

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

HERE IS another story to further Didge and Fuzzy's debate :


http://www.sbs.com.au/news/thefeed/article/2016/05/02/meet-australias-first-openly-gay-imam


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-29/secret-mosques-doors-lgbti-Muslims/7341142


http://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/06/29/australias-first-openly-gay-imam-tells-waleed-we-need-change/

How about you go fuck yourself with a blunt object?

I'm not here to perform or entertain you.

Fuzzy, I'd be interested in your opinion about what I took the time to write; back up there late last night.  If you've the time to read it.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

HERE IS another story to further Didge and Fuzzy's debate :


http://www.sbs.com.au/news/thefeed/article/2016/05/02/meet-australias-first-openly-gay-imam


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-29/secret-mosques-doors-lgbti-Muslims/7341142


http://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/06/29/australias-first-openly-gay-imam-tells-waleed-we-need-change/

How about you go fuck yourself with a blunt object?

I'm not here to perform or entertain you.

I DON'T know what you're getting so aggressive for, Zack...

ALL that I 'm showing you is yet another person's take on the subject..

I wasn't arguing either way in my post. Did you even bother looking at that story ?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:How about you go fuck yourself with a blunt object?
I'm not here to perform or entertain you.

I DON'T know what you're getting so aggressive for,  Zack...
ALL  that I 'm showing you is yet another person's take on the subject..
I wasn't arguing either way in my post.   Did you even bother looking at that story ?

    Ya, Fuzzy ...that was really over the top reaction, considering that the 2nd link was an article that I'd specifically give Didgy-dooer when he was on one of his many 'Anti-Muslim' rants that 'NO MOSQUE would ever have a gay -yada-yada-yada human within their doors'  {loosely paraphrased, but you know his mantra}  >

Speaking out: Imam Nur

In spite of this, a Melbourne Imam, Nur Warsame, has taken the bold step of preaching a progressive interpretation of Islam to his own congregation of LGBT Muslims and supporting their sexuality within the Muslim faith.
Imam Nur, a Somali-born man, lived in Egypt and Canada as a child and moved to Melbourne as a high school student. He has been an Imam for 13 years, and is only the second Victorian Muslim leader to earn the title 'Hafiz', meaning he has memorised the Koran.
"There have been threats to my life because I am finally speaking out," Imam Nur told ABC News.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-29/secret-mosques-doors-lgbti-Muslims/7341142

I'll read the other too links later, but the middle one was written by Imam Nur and it's very interesting how this brave human has lived in the shadow world and is speaking out; what social media has done to allow these repressed humans a right to speak/live and enjoy their LIFE --- WOW!

I was wondering if Zack was so wound up from arguing with Didge, that he didn't actually look at what it was that I had posted.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
I was wondering if Zack was so wound up from arguing with Didge, that he didn't actually look at what it was that I had posted.

Ya, well now that Didgy-dooer has crowed & boasted about his desire to GOAD and torment members into their reactions --- it's highly likely that it could have happened. 

4EVER2 wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
I was wondering if Zack was so wound up from arguing with Didge, that he didn't actually look at what it was that I had posted.

Ya, well now that Didgy-dooer has crowed & boasted about his desire to GOAD and torment members into their reactions --- it's highly likely that it could have happened. 

Which shows you simple do not understand the problem with literal belief.

All I did was questioin the very problems within islam itself where Muslims do elevate Muhammad to the same status as their deity.

It is this reaction you see and far worse when the ;literal belief is challenged that the fear sets in believers that they become nasty or even worse violent as we see in the world.

If you think laugging at a poster who has become emotional as they quoted the wrong verse, is goading, when it actually proves how emotionally dangereous religious literal belief is, then you really fail to undertand the problems of literal religuious belief and how and why we should fundementally challenge them, where here he is arguing against any progression with homosexuals

Next you will be telling me how its not okay to take the piss out of religious beliefs and by default thus back blaephemy

Is that your position?

Are you telling me I cannot rip the shit out of racism, as a daft belief?

Both are ideologies, which as usual the left seek to protect if of course their is a delusional attachment to a mythical deity

4EVER2 wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:
No it doesn't give you the right!

I've often wondered if as with the native American's that the people (linguistics) trying to give a written history to a tribe or sect would just skip over such topics or definitions/religious laws that the customs/locals knew and spoke of but those scholars just deemed too unseemly to put pen to paper? 
The reason that I'm suggesting this, was a very recent NPR study telelvised ...and this group of linguistics are trying to undo 100 years of native tribal languages being forbidden to be spoken by my fathers generation and punished & banished from my grand fathers generation!  
So many native languages gone without the written history and the elders that are still able to speak their unique dialect are struggling to remember specific words - like was there a word for GAY/LESBIAN in their native tongue ...and most often the different tribal groups have stated 'NO, they were just a mixed spirit, nothing to be treated differently - never banned from our tribe but not given a separate word - they just WERE!'

So I've wondered if this wasn't possible for the ancient (BC era) just because it wasn't given a specific line item in some ancient documents - didn't mean that there were'nt any GAY or LESBIANISM humans back then ...perhaps they just didn't give it a written notation     
And what if they were more accepting then the scribes that used their own prejudices to write the Quran ...Mohammad certainly had quite a few heartfelt changes of his POV as he aged ...it's very plausible. IMO

Homosexuality is considered a sin and I don't think this point of view will change.

SEXY MAMA wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
I've often wondered if as with the native American's that the people (linguistics) trying to give a written history to a tribe or sect would just skip over such topics or definitions/religious laws that the customs/locals knew and spoke of but those scholars just deemed too unseemly to put pen to paper? 
The reason that I'm suggesting this, was a very recent NPR study telelvised ...and this group of linguistics are trying to undo 100 years of native tribal languages being forbidden to be spoken by my fathers generation and punished & banished from my grand fathers generation!  
So many native languages gone without the written history and the elders that are still able to speak their unique dialect are struggling to remember specific words - like was there a word for GAY/LESBIAN in their native tongue ...and most often the different tribal groups have stated 'NO, they were just a mixed spirit, nothing to be treated differently - never banned from our tribe but not given a separate word - they just WERE!'

So I've wondered if this wasn't possible for the ancient (BC era) just because it wasn't given a specific line item in some ancient documents - didn't mean that there were'nt any GAY or LESBIANISM humans back then ...perhaps they just didn't give it a written notation     
And what if they were more accepting then the scribes that used their own prejudices to write the Quran ...Mohammad certainly had quite a few heartfelt changes of his POV as he aged ...it's very plausible. IMO

Homosexuality is considered a sin and I don't think this point of view will change.

This point though has changed in some Muslims

If it has changed, then to claim it will not change is false.

Given time, people will rightly treat most of the claims of Muhammad's life as they should be as no more than unreliable, as they should when they espically have no comparability in the quran.

That's something you don't understand!

If they go against his teachings then they are going against Islam

Which means they are not Muslims!

Anyway people sin daily no big deal there is only ONE JUDGE

So live n let live.

SEXY MAMA wrote:That's something you don't understand!

If they go against his teachings then they are going against Islam

Which means they are not Muslims!

Anyway people sin daily no big deal there is only ONE JUDGE

So live n let live.

You do not get to decide who are Muslims

Christians once where against homosexuality and its in the teachings.

Does that make them not Christian if they not have no issue with homosexuality?

That is like claiming you are God to judge

And why it brings the worst out in religious people to claim they think they can decide on unverified works they were not around to witness.

You arer not in a position to judge or decide how religion should be followed

Didge wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:That's something you don't understand!

If they go against his teachings then they are going against Islam

Which means they are not Muslims!

Anyway people sin daily no big deal there is only ONE JUDGE

So live n let live.

You do not get to decide who are Muslims

Christians once where against homosexuality and its in the teachings.

Does that make them not Christian if they not have no issue with homosexuality?

That is like claiming you are God to judge

And why it brings the worst out in religious people to claim they think they can decide on unverified works they were not around to witness.

You arer not in a position to judge or decide how religion should be followed

Re READ my post again so it can sink in your thick head ffs

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Didge wrote:


You do not get to decide who are Muslims

Christians once where against homosexuality and its in the teachings.

Does that make them not Christian if they not have no issue with homosexuality?

That is like claiming you are God to judge

And why it brings the worst out in religious people to claim they think they can decide on unverified works they were not around to witness.

You arer not in a position to judge or decide how religion should be followed

Re READ my post again so it can sink in your thick head ffs

And here to prove my point on the insensitivities on some backward Muslims who do nothing to help progress Islam but keep in firmly stuck in the dark ages, where they think some words written 1400 years ago is enough to allow them to think two consenting adults in love is a sin.
They will not question sexual slavery or slavery itself endorse in the Quran, yet even within Islam, slavery has stopped in most Muslim countries and progressed, or were they wrong to do this also then you clueless idiot?