Ask a Muslim

[Salah-Al-Din]

I disagree. I know of several people who have religious viewpoints of morality as do you. The difference is that they are open to logical debate. They realize that you have no right to condemn homosexuals from a logical viewpoint, only from their own personal moral one, which they do not wish to impose on others.

You posted while I was responding to your earlier post. And probably by the time I'm done with this, you will have responded to my last post.

Anyways, I have a question for you: do you feel that it is morally OK to have sex with an animal? Do you believe that we as a society should accept bestiality? What about incest? If two consenting adults (who are brother and sister) agree to have sex, do you think it is something acceptable to a normal society and people of upright character?

EDIT: And assume the brother had a vasectomy.

 

[ironduck]

I am well aware that you can "explain away" why more gays are hit than non-gays.

If you continue to think that examining the world objectively = explaining away you will never be able to perform any scientific studies.

Well, duh. Isn't that capitulating the argument? In Islam, anal sex is Haram (forbidden) and I'm pretty sure that's the same case in Judaism/Christianity. And in fact, yes -- female homosexuality is not considered as grave a crime as male homosexuality -- because anal sex is considered exceptionally odious in Islam. That is the reason why Judaism/Christianity/Islam are always emphacizing male homosexuality (although female homosexuality is also forbidden).

What you apparently don't understand is that having anal sex in a monogamous relationship with a disease free partner carries no risk whatsoever of transferring HIV. What you are doing is ignoring the basic premise of what exactly causes the transfer of HIV and how to avoid that transfer. Essentially, to follow your logic, only people who are not careful about who they have sex with and don't use condoms should be punished by your deity.

So basically, you are willing to accept two things and associated deduction:

1. Anal sex is a risk factor.
2. Homosexual men have loads of anal sex, because they can't really do anything else.
3. Hence, homosexuality is a risk factor.

I think that this supports my view.

In the same vein, going to school is immoral because you're likely to catch a cold, or who knows, maybe even the flu. So it must be immoral to go to school.

Now excuse me as a put my hands over my ears and sing la-la-la.

Unfortunately you never stopped that, even as you typed up the post I'm responding to here.

 

[ironduck]

Anyways, I have a question for you: do you feel that it is morally OK to have sex with an animal? Do you believe that we as a society should accept bestiality? What about incest? If two consenting adults (who are brother and sister) agree to have sex, do you think it is something acceptable to a normal society and people of upright character?

I will answer this if you answer my questions from the post a while ago that you never replied to.

 

[Turner]

Anyways, I have a question for you: do you feel that it is morally OK to have sex with an animal? Do you believe that we as a society should accept bestiality? What about incest? If two consenting adults (who are brother and sister) agree to have sex, do you think it is something acceptable to a normal society and people of upright character?

EDIT: And assume the brother had a vasectomy.

Animals, no.

However, what two consenting adults do between themselves is their own business. Brother & sister...I may not agree with it, but if that's what they want to do, it's up to them. And if there's no risk of pregnancy, which is the real issue with incest because of genetics, then it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Why not animals?

I mean, there tends to be an assumption that certain acts are okay and that others aren't when often the distinction is arbitrary. You might say that animals can't consent, but having sex with one is probably not worse than killing and eating it.

 

[El_Machinae]

So, in a completely different note:
Why do you assume that Islam is true? In other words, what would you say are your major life experiences that lead you to believe this? I'll assume that you were raised in the faith, but why believe that Muhammed was divinely inspired, and not merely a man who created a religious foundation as a form of power (or that we was a man touched with insanity and delusions of grandeur)?

I'm sure you'd reject any modern person claiming to be a prophet

 

[warpus]

Why not animals?

I mean, there tends to be an assumption that certain acts are okay and that others aren't when often the distinction is arbitrary. You might say that animals can't consent, but having sex with one is probably not worse than killing and eating it.

I would say that taking advantage of an animal that cannot consent for sexual pleasure is immoral, simply because you are only thinking of your own needs.. and as a species, we believe that sex is something that has to be consented to. Since the animal cannot consent, you are unable to take its needs into account, therefore it is wrong.

 

[ironduck]

I would say that taking advantage of an animal that cannot consent for sexual pleasure is immoral, simply because you are only thinking of your own needs.. and as a species, we believe that sex is something that has to be consented to. Since the animal cannot consent, you are unable to take its needs into account, therefore it is wrong.

Did that answer his question though?

An animal isn't consenting to being eaten either, and that is only for your needs.

edit - I'm playing devil's advocate, btw.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think this is for another thread.

 

[Commie #4522]

Do you agree that Western societies treat their women worse than Muslim ones?

 

[Truronian]

Do you agree that Western societies treat their women worse than Muslim ones?

What a wonderfully biased question.

 

[Homie]

Just to clarify something you mentioned Salah. I do not believe anal sex is forbidden in Judaism or Christianity, I think this is a Islam specific law. But homosexual sex is forbidden in both Christianity and Judaism. I assume it is forbidden because it is a perversion of how God intended it (man and woman). If you try to explain God's ban on homosexuality with practical concerns such as AIDS, you are going down a dangerous path, because someone might prove you wrong, and secondly, God does not specify WHY homosexuality is wrong.

 

[Cheetah]

Why not animals?

I mean, there tends to be an assumption that certain acts are okay and that others aren't when often the distinction is arbitrary. You might say that animals can't consent, but having sex with one is probably not worse than killing and eating it.

The way I see it, an action is immoral if it causes unessecarry pain to another being. So quickly killing and eating an animal for food or for its hide is moral. Putting an animal through a slow death or torturing it is not moral, because the animal suffers unessecarry. Likewise, killing an animal just for the sake of killing it is also immoral.

It is immoral to have sex with an animal because it can not concent to it, and just as you can not have sex with another person that does not give concent, because you will likely inflict unessecarry pain to the person or animal.

 

[REDY]

Its interesting also because rumours about sexual orientation of Lawrence of Arabia, only white man who got realy respect and influental position in Arab culture

 

[Whomp]

Welcome Salah-Al-Din. This is a very helpful discussion.

Its interesting also because rumours about sexual orientation of Lawrence of Arabia, only white man who got realy respect and influental position in Arab culture.

According to himself. He was quite a self promoter.

Do you agree that Western societies treat their women worse than Muslim ones?

Nice assumptive Commie.

I'll say that Saudi Arabia has their own version of apartheid on women including western women who are there. If they're not accompanied by a male they have segregated eating zones at McDonalds assuming they're even allowed in the restaurant.

Saudi law prohibits men and women to work in the same establishment.
If a woman was elected to office they'd have to construct a separate building for her.

How about weddings...Saudi wedding cards that are distributed to male guests say, “We would like to invite you to the marriage of the young man so and so to the daughter of so and so”. Her name is never mentioned. Her name being mentioned to men is a taboo.
Complete segregation.

Here are a few questions.
The birth rates and youthful demographics of many Muslim countries is quite spectacular. Iran has stemmed this population explosion with a state sponsored family planning campaign including issuing free condoms.
Should this be considered in other Muslim countries?

Why is chess/backgammon considered against the religion? Can't these games be played without betting?

Have you ever read A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East by David Fromkin?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Do you agree that Western societies treat their women worse than Muslim ones?

No, I do not. I believe that it is a mixed bag, and the treatment of women can be traced back to education and poverty. Wherever there is a lack of education and an excess of poverty, there you will find maltreatment of women not far behind. It has very little to do with religion, as people mistakenly think. People point at Islam and say "look how your women are treated in your countries." Well, look at any third world country and you will find similar treatment. Pakistan is Muslim. India is Hindu. You will find absolutely no difference in the way they treat their women (generally the poor--which are the masses--treat their women badly).

I'll say that Saudi Arabia has their own version of apartheid on women including western women who are there. If they're not accompanied by a male they have segregated eating zones at McDonalds assuming they're even allowed in the restaurant.

Saudi law prohibits men and women to work in the same establishment.
If a woman was elected to office they'd have to construct a separate building for her.

How about weddings...Saudi wedding cards that are distributed to male guests say, “We would like to invite you to the marriage of the young man so and so to the daughter of so and so”. Her name is never mentioned. Her name being mentioned to men is a taboo.
Complete segregation.

I very much support segregation of the genders. This is an important part of our faith. We believe that the fornication-friendly environment of the West is immoral and, quite frankly, animalistic.

What I find mildly amusing is that the West has the gall to criticize Muslims on this aspect. It is one of the signs of the End of Times that there will come a time that people will show off about bad things and criticize good things.

Having said that, I do not agree with the model of Saudi Arabia, and I believe it is important to keep things equal between men and women. After all, the Prophet (s) said: "The best of you are those who are the best to their women." Indeed, as a Muslim I believe in a strict code of chivalry which revolves around protecting, helping, respecting, and even pampering women. However, I believe it is very much possible to respect women and also respect gender segregation (which I believe is integral to any chaste and honorable society).

I would get started on this topic, but I will stop because I would offend most people here, and that is not my intention. Furthermore, there would be a vast divide between myself and everyone else, since I don't even believe in men and women shaking hands or touching each other at all (before marriage). I also believe in strictly lowering my gaze away from looking at women I find attractive, and other such things which I doubt any non-Muslims living in the West could understand.

----------

More to come, Allah Willing.

 

[Sidhe]

To make an accurate comparison, you need to reduce the variables. You need to compare homosexuals with multiple partners and heterosexuals with multiple partners.

The rate of HIV/AIDS is much higher in the homosexuals with multiple partners.

It is difficult to reject the medical data on this topic, all in the objective of being politically correct.

The CDC reports in its June 2000 HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report that gay men accounted for the majority of AIDS cases in the United States. There were 396,477 reported cases of gays with AIDS, compared with only 27,952 for heterosexual men, making the ratio of gay men to straight men who have AIDS to be 14 to 1. That seems insane, but wait till you factor in the fact that gays only make up 1-5% of the population. One in seven homosexuals have AIDS in the Seattle area, whereas that fraction is 1 in 20 nationally.

AIDS was spread by homosexuals, and is still prevalent in homosexuals; it is, for all intents and purposes, a gay disease. In fact, as I'm sure you know, it was first termed Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID).

When AIDS was first discovered in the 1980s, all of the cases were with homosexual men and intravenous drug users. In the USA by the end of 1992, 85% of all persons with AIDS were either gay men, or iv drug user, or both. AIDS in Australia is a nearly exclusively male disease: 97.2% of all persons with AIDS in this country are males which suggests an even greater concentration amongst gay-men than in the USA. The situation in Europe is consistent with the US and Australia, with gay men making up a disproportionately large portion of those affected by AIDS.

Anyways, whatever the case--and now you will accuse me of changing the goal posts--the point is that sinful behavior leads to disease. This supports my religious beliefs, and does not negate them.

In the next ten years AIDS in women accross the globe is going to surpass cases in men? Is AIDS therefore really a reason to despise homosexuals?

In cases world wide, AIDS is in the majority a heterosexual disease, and has been shown endless times on other threads, in many countries heterosexuals are starting to catch up and should current disease statistics provide accurat models are due to surpass the homosexual population, the spread of aids is due to social conditions and biology, it's not really a very precise tool to use as a discriminitary one, if you want to look at some research do a search on these forums, there are endless topics on it.

Science is also coming down of the side of not purely choice, and there are numerous studies that show some sort of genetic predisposition, for example the more male offspring you have the more chance you have that one of them is gay. I could go on, but this is allready all out there on a million and one threads, and it's also not really relevant to this thread. However if you wish to discuss the idea of homosexuality being purely a choice, your welcome to ressurect an old thread or start one of your own.

Mott1 and I started a thread about Jihad? Whether there was more to it than just the outward violent Jihad, and in fact whether the whole meaning of Jihad is a buit more complex than the Western world realise, for example the US translates Jihad to Holy war? What are your views?

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Welcome Salah-Al-Din.

Hi, Whomp!

Here are a few questions.
The birth rates and youthful demographics of many Muslim countries is quite spectacular. Iran has stemmed this population explosion with a state sponsored family planning campaign including issuing free condoms.
Should this be considered in other Muslim countries?

No, I do not think so. I believe that in the long run a large population will be advantageous to the Civ.

Why is chess/backgammon considered against the religion? Can't these games be played without betting?

Both of these games were played with betting and were thus considered gambling in the time of the Prophet (s). Some people today do not play these games because they say that the Prophet (s) forbade them, but Shaikh Yousuf Al-Qaradawi--perhaps the leading Islamic scholar of our times--has stated the opinion that the impermissibility of these games was based on the fact that they had elements of gambling in them, and if this element is removed, then there is nothing wrong in it. In his book, "Halal wal Haram", Shaikh Qaradawi says in the section "Playing with Dice: Backgammon" the following: "Al-Shawkani says that Ibn Mughaffal and Ibn al-Musayyib allowed playing with dice if it did not involve gambling, apparently interpreting the above Prophetic Sayings to refer to those who played for money."

Have you ever read A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East by David Fromkin?

No, I have not.

Take care, brother.

 

[Salah-Al-Din]

Mott1 and I started a thread about Jihad? Whether there was more to it than just the outward violent Jihad, and in fact whether the whole meaning of Jihad is a buit more complex than the Western world realise, for example the US translates Jihad to Holy war? What are your views?

Jihad does not translate to "holy war." It comes from the Arabic word "Juhd" or "struggle" and it means "to strive or struggle", referring to striving in the Path of Allah.

When the Muslims returned from battle, the Prophet (s) told them: "You have come from the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad - the striving of a servant (of Allah) against his desires."

There are thus two types of Jihad, the Greater Jihad and the Lesser Jihad.

The Greater Jihad is called "Jihad Al-Nufs". Al-Nufs means "the ego", so Jihad Al-Nufs refers to "the struggle against one's own ego."

The Prophet (s) said: "The mujahid is he who makes jihad against his nafs (ego) for the sake of obeying Allah."

As Muslims, we believe that the human is continually being "attacked" by his ego, carnal desires, temptations, etc. The battle against these is the Greater Jihad, or rather, the Greatest Jihad.

As for the Lesser Jihad, this refers to "Holy War" and the defense of the oppressed against the oppressors.

Both are noble concepts.

Comparing the Lesser Jihad (i.e. overcoming people on the battlefield) to the Greater Jihad (i.e. overcoming one's ownself), the Prophet (s) said: "The strong one is not the one who overcomes people, (but rather) the strong one is he who overcomes his nafs (ego)."

Take care, brother.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I am just palying devil's advocate as far as animals as well; but I do think it merits another thread.

Another question: when the pope said that Islam is violent, a number of Muslims protested by threatening him. Leaving aside whether he should have said anything, do you see a problem with what they did - do you see it as hypocritical or foolish?