Well, what makes something a medical disorder? If it has a genetic cause, how does one determine if it is a "disorder" or no?
Not taking sides, just arguing semantics.
Not taking sides, just arguing semantics.
Ask a Muslim
- Thread starter incantrix
- Start date
- Status
Trajan12
Deity
I guess one of my biggest beefs was a few verses from the Tabari, Ishaq, and Bukkari:
How do you explain these? Are they not to be followed?
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
I would just like to congratulate the muslims on providing a nice informative thread.
Perfection
The Great Head.
I wish I could find the DSM's it's really good.
Salah-Al-Din
Vanguard of Islam.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 460
I'd now like to respond to the posts in regards to the issue of the pictures of Prophet Muhammad (s).
Firstly, it is completely Haram (forbidden) in Islam to draw pictures of the Prophet (s) and the original poster is completely incorrect to say that there is no explicit ban on this. It is considered a huge blasphemy to draw a picture of the Prophet (s).
Now the question arises as to why? There are many reasons as to why not, but perhaps the most important is out of respect. In the Islamic culture, to draw pictures of a religious figure is considered insulting. You may not have the same culture, but different things mean different things in different cultures.
One of the reasons the Muslims have been so strict in the prohibition of such pictures is in reaction to the Christians, who depict Prophet Jesus (as). Christianity has an overabundance of images and symbols. Now you might ask what is wrong with this? But all I can say is that it is a difference in culture...in the Islamic culture, it is considered disrespectful. In Christianity, saying the Lord's name in vain is considered disrespectful. To a Muslim, this seems strange since in *our* culture, you're supposed to say the name of Allah when you are in distress!
There are other reasons for the prohibition of the Prophet's picture, primarily that it facilitates idol worshipping. We believe that this is what happened with the Christians, when they started worshipping Prophet Jesus (as) as God. So the Muslims were fearful that if we had pictures of the Prophet (s), then people would slowly start worshipping them. This is not surprising considering that Islam was revealed in Arabia in which the pre-Islamic Arabs would worship images of anything, even those of fruits and dates! Therefore, this was a pre-emptive move to eliminate the possibility of idol worship.
There are also many secondary benefits to this prohibition, such as mentioned by other posters in this thread. For example, depictions of Prophet Jesus (as) as a white man with blue eyes turns off blacks and other races. So this is another benefit: with no picture available, it's harder for people to think this way.
Now what about the Danish cartoons? Was the reaction of the Muslim masses justified?
Firstly, I'd like to say that I completely oppose and protest the Danish cartoons. It was done with the intent purpose of galvanizing the Muslims, and it did just that. It was done to offend for the sake of offending. It was not only a picture of the Prophet (s) but a very insulting one with an offensive message.
And all these false cries of "freedom of speech" do not apply. That same Danish newspaper scrapped the idea of making a cartoon with Jesus (as)...this just weeks earlier. They axed this cartoon because they didn't want to insult Christians. And this is a country in which whoever says that the Holocaust didn't happen is thrown in jail. So my question is: if upholding the sensitivities of Jews and Chrsitians is OK, then what's wrong with upholding the sensitivities of Muslims?
I've often seen this double-standard against Muslims. Recently, a senator said something against Muslims, and I wonder if he had said that against Jews, then what would have been the reaction of people? That would have been the *end* of his policital career. But when it's against Muslims, then it is OK since we are all dirty heathen and terrorists?
Would a mainstream newspaper publish a KKK article in the name of freedom of speech? Would the N-word become OK to use for freedom of speech? Obviously, there is a limit...but it seems that nobody wants to include Muslims since they do not think that they have feelings?
Therefore, I support all peaceful means of protest against the Danish newspaper. However, I do *not* agree with nor do I support any violent means. The Muslims who resorted to violence are violating the Quran, and all such violence is strictly Haram (forbidden) in Islam. Allah says in the Quran:
"Believers, never let the hatred of a people toward you move you to commit injustice." (Quran, 5:8)
I think the manner in which the Muslim masses reacted had a lot to do with breaking the camel's back (a very fitting analogy since Muslims love camels lol)...With the war on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Muslim world in general...and especially the condition of the Muslims in Denmark...The Muslim masses are poor and uneducated, so they reacted in such a manner, without even knowing what their religious faith says against such violence.
The situation can be likened to the black riots in the 1980s and even those that occurred earlier. The reason they were rioting was no doubt justified, but the manner in which they did (i.e. the violence) was incorrect.
Firstly, it is completely Haram (forbidden) in Islam to draw pictures of the Prophet (s) and the original poster is completely incorrect to say that there is no explicit ban on this. It is considered a huge blasphemy to draw a picture of the Prophet (s).
Now the question arises as to why? There are many reasons as to why not, but perhaps the most important is out of respect. In the Islamic culture, to draw pictures of a religious figure is considered insulting. You may not have the same culture, but different things mean different things in different cultures.
One of the reasons the Muslims have been so strict in the prohibition of such pictures is in reaction to the Christians, who depict Prophet Jesus (as). Christianity has an overabundance of images and symbols. Now you might ask what is wrong with this? But all I can say is that it is a difference in culture...in the Islamic culture, it is considered disrespectful. In Christianity, saying the Lord's name in vain is considered disrespectful. To a Muslim, this seems strange since in *our* culture, you're supposed to say the name of Allah when you are in distress!
There are other reasons for the prohibition of the Prophet's picture, primarily that it facilitates idol worshipping. We believe that this is what happened with the Christians, when they started worshipping Prophet Jesus (as) as God. So the Muslims were fearful that if we had pictures of the Prophet (s), then people would slowly start worshipping them. This is not surprising considering that Islam was revealed in Arabia in which the pre-Islamic Arabs would worship images of anything, even those of fruits and dates! Therefore, this was a pre-emptive move to eliminate the possibility of idol worship.
There are also many secondary benefits to this prohibition, such as mentioned by other posters in this thread. For example, depictions of Prophet Jesus (as) as a white man with blue eyes turns off blacks and other races. So this is another benefit: with no picture available, it's harder for people to think this way.
Now what about the Danish cartoons? Was the reaction of the Muslim masses justified?
Firstly, I'd like to say that I completely oppose and protest the Danish cartoons. It was done with the intent purpose of galvanizing the Muslims, and it did just that. It was done to offend for the sake of offending. It was not only a picture of the Prophet (s) but a very insulting one with an offensive message.
And all these false cries of "freedom of speech" do not apply. That same Danish newspaper scrapped the idea of making a cartoon with Jesus (as)...this just weeks earlier. They axed this cartoon because they didn't want to insult Christians. And this is a country in which whoever says that the Holocaust didn't happen is thrown in jail. So my question is: if upholding the sensitivities of Jews and Chrsitians is OK, then what's wrong with upholding the sensitivities of Muslims?
I've often seen this double-standard against Muslims. Recently, a senator said something against Muslims, and I wonder if he had said that against Jews, then what would have been the reaction of people? That would have been the *end* of his policital career. But when it's against Muslims, then it is OK since we are all dirty heathen and terrorists?
Would a mainstream newspaper publish a KKK article in the name of freedom of speech? Would the N-word become OK to use for freedom of speech? Obviously, there is a limit...but it seems that nobody wants to include Muslims since they do not think that they have feelings?
Therefore, I support all peaceful means of protest against the Danish newspaper. However, I do *not* agree with nor do I support any violent means. The Muslims who resorted to violence are violating the Quran, and all such violence is strictly Haram (forbidden) in Islam. Allah says in the Quran:
"Believers, never let the hatred of a people toward you move you to commit injustice." (Quran, 5:8)
I think the manner in which the Muslim masses reacted had a lot to do with breaking the camel's back (a very fitting analogy since Muslims love camels lol)...With the war on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Muslim world in general...and especially the condition of the Muslims in Denmark...The Muslim masses are poor and uneducated, so they reacted in such a manner, without even knowing what their religious faith says against such violence.
The situation can be likened to the black riots in the 1980s and even those that occurred earlier. The reason they were rioting was no doubt justified, but the manner in which they did (i.e. the violence) was incorrect.
Salah-Al-Din
Vanguard of Islam.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 460
These are all false and fabricated sayings, that were created from some idiot with a keyboard and internet connection. He posted them on some forum and now all the anti-Islam people just copy and paste it.
Most of these quotes are not referenced, but I googled what forum you got it from...and in there, one anti-Islam person posted these "quotes" and gave his references.
I actually looked up the references, and saw that all of the quotes were false and fabricated. Don't take my word for it, but look em up yourselves.
For example, you quoted this:
And the person who posted this on another forum said it came from the book Sahih Bukhari, which is a collection of the Prophetic sayings. I looked up that very saying (i.e. Hadith), and this is what I found:
Sahih Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 137:
Narrated by Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Let the slave of Dinar and Dirham, of Quahntify and Khamisa perish as he is pleased if these things are given to him, and if not, he is displeased. Let such a person perish and relapse, and if he is pierced with a thorn, let him not find anyone to take it out for him. Paradise is for him who holds the reins of his horse to strive in allah's cause, with his hair unkempt and feet covered with dust: if he is appointed in the vanguard, he is perfectly satisfied with his post of guarding, and if he is appointed in the reward, he accepts his post with satisfaction; (he is so simple and unambiguous that) if he asks for permission he is not permitted and if he intercedes his intercession is not accepted
Nowhere in the text does it say black man or negro...neither in the Arabic nor in the English translation...instead it says "dinar and dirham" and "quahntify" and "Khamisa".....slaves of these things...
Do you know what these words mean??? LOL
Dinar and Dirham, and Quahntify and Khamisa....these are all currencies...Dinar refers to a bill, and dirham refers to a coin....and the other two are specific quantities...like your quarter or dime...
So basically, the Prophet (s) is saying whoever is a slave to money...it is like saying whoever is a slave to the dollar or to "da benjamins" is condemned.
The person who misquoted this Hadith on purpose was doing so with the express knowledge that his audience would not even know what "dinar" means...because if you insert "black" before slave,, well, the Hadith doesn't make sense any more! It is referring to a slave of money, and has nothing to do with real slaves, lol.
I have extensively searched the Hadith for those other quotes you had, and I cannot find them...in fact, I *know* they don't exist because I've heard Hadith all my life. If whoever posted that is truthful, then I dare him to give a source!
I have already posted the true Prophetic sayings, and you can see how crystal clear they are against racism, and how much the Prophet (s) condemned racism against blacks and others.
These cheap tactics used by internet junkies is bastardizing learning. People make these idiotic chain mails and hope that incredulous people will just forward them, without actually checking the sources. I have a copy of the Quran and Hadith (Prophetic sayings). They are even available online from some reliable Islamic websites...
I remember there was this one chain mail I got in which they claimed that the Verse 9:11 in the Quran was about some eagle or hawk or something destroying some tall buildings....lolll....and you actually look up verse 9:11, which you can EASILY do, and the verse was completely different and had nothing to do with buildings or any such thing.
Trajan12
Deity
So they are false. I got that from an e-mail from a friend of mine and checked it out. Just needed to know that.
Trajan12
Deity
BTW, I guess that means that there are a ton of other quotes for you to disprove from a certain poster here (no names will be said
).
).Salah-Al-Din
Vanguard of Islam.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 460
Thanks for your kind words!
I think from an evolutionary standpoint and a medical one...anything which prevents a body from reaching homeostasis and procreating is considered a disease. And definitely, homosexuality prevents procreation and therefore it is--from an evolutionary standpoint--a disease.
Obesity is considered a disease. Why? Because it pre-disposes to other diseases. Homosexuality also pre-disposes people to diseases.
Killer diseases have emerged as a direct result of homosexuality. AIDS, the worst disease ever which cripples our body's defense system, was a disease that started by homosexuals, spread by homosexuals, and still prevalent in homosexuals; it is, for all intents and purposes, a gay disease.
The CDC (United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) named the syndrome Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID), a name which was later replaced with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)
When AIDS was first discovered in the 1980s, all of the cases were with homosexual men and/or 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.
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 is only one disease which is prevalent amongst homosexuals. In fact, gays have created a nightmare for the medical community. Tubercolosis was a disease that was almost going to extinction in America, yet gays brought it back. Their impaired immune systems became perfect vectors for the TB virus. Now TB is on the rise again, and is killing many innocent old people. We can thank our gay neighbors for this. Hepatitis A and B are very highly prevalent amongst homosexuals, the latter of which is a killer disease.
Herpes Simplex-2 (HSV-2) is very prevalent amongst homosexuals, and even the way the disease presents itself has changed due to the way in which the virus is spread through homosexual intercourse. In fact, over fifty percent of homosexuals are carriers for HSV-2! Homosexuals make up 88% of Siphilis patients, with San Francisco not suprisingly having the highest rates of Siphilis infections.
Anal cancer is on the rise (take a guess why?) with homosexuals having a high incidence of human papilloma virus infections. Homosexuals have a high incidence of genital and veneral warts. It has been estimated that over half of gay and bi men carry the virus leading to genital warts. Syphilis is an infection caused by a bacteria. If untreated it can lead to loss of sight and hearing, heart disease, insanity and ultimately death. There has recently been a dramatic upsurge in cases of the disease amongst gay and bi men in Ireland and other places.
Homosexuals also have a high occurence of such fatal diseases as Kaposi Sarcoma and Hodgkin’s Disease.
In the 1970s, the medical community called a disease "Gay Bowel Syndrome." It was used to describe a series of parasitic disorders caused by oral/anal sexual contact. The term was abandoned by the medical community in the 1980s. Why? For political correctness sake, and nothing else. The power of the lobbies.
Homosexuals are basically incubators for infections. We can thank them for spreading them to us normal people. Homosexuals are our most expensive patients, and tax-payers are footing the bill for them. More than 25.5 billion tax payer dollars a year is spent on curing homosexuals of their diseases. In other words, the "gay sodomy tax" was about $359 for every US worker. Indeed, the number of lives lost and money lost because of gays spreading their diseases is a monsterous amount.
Furthermore, certain disorders and mental conditions are just considered psychological disorders in and of themselves, such as bestiality, sadism, masochism, etc. I have not gone through my psych rotation yet, but I'm pretty sure that these are just accepted as disorders.
The medical and psychological organizations are under humongous pressure not to do this, because it wouldn't be considered politically correct. I already gave an example above how in the 1970s the medical practitioners called it the "Gay Bowel Syndrome" but suddenly this was termed too politically incorrect and the term was abandoned in the 1980s due to pressure from various lobbying agencies.
Being a medical student myself, I have seen medical text after text talking about how homosexuals are more pre-disposed to certain conditions and other such things...but the ethical ramifications of this are not made by the medical community. And medical texts tip-toe around this issue, but the epidimiological findings are always very interesting.
Logic alone dictates that if bestiality, sadism, masochism, coprophilia (sexual relations with feces), and other such things are considered sexual perversions, then why not homosexuality? Certainly, if someone put a gun to my head, I'd rather prefer feces than another man!
-------
Anyways, your position is clear, and so is mine. Let us agree to disagree.
And let us move on, since this is "ask a Muslim" and not "bash a Muslim." In any case, I'm sure my response on this topic is the same as a religious Jew and orthodox Christian, so there is really nothing special in this! Why not focus on other other issues so I can share with you the Islamic beliefs, which is the purpose of the thread.Take care, my friends. And apologies for offending you!
Salah-Al-Din
Vanguard of Islam.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 460
Did you know that the Bible says in Genesis: "Be a Muslim or you suck." ?
Actually, I made that up. But I'm sure if I tried making that a bit more convincing, I could start a really cool chain mail.
lol Yeah man, it's totally bogus and fake.
BTW, I guess that means that there are a ton of other quotes for you to disprove from a certain poster here (no names will be said
Really? Well, I'm having a hard time going through this entire thread...so many posts!!!! And so much to reply to !!! I'm trying my best!
JonnyB
Workaholic
What do (as) and (s) mean when you type "Jesus (as)" and "prophet (s)"
Salah-Al-Din
Vanguard of Islam.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 460
I'm so sorry that your view of Islam is better and more correct than mine
Sister, I did not mean to offend you, but you left me no choice. You were stating many wrong things.
It is not *my* view of Islam or *your* view of Islam. These are not opinions, and we are not all allowed to make our own opinions on such matters. These opinions have already been stated by the Quran and the Prophetic sayings.
I encourage you to study your faith more, and it's great that you had such a noble intention to do dawah but the basic principle in Islam is that in order to preach about the faith you must be well-versed in the Islamic law. The reason for this is that it is much better to be quiet about something than to say something wrong...if you mislead yourself, then this is OK because you will be held accountable to only yourself. But if you mislead others, then you will be held accountable for all their sins too...and you will not be forgiven unless that person forgives you on the Day of Judgment.
May Allah grant both you and I Tawfeeq! May Allah guide us to the Straight Path May Allah reward your sincere intention!
Bast
Protector of Cats
Proof?
EDIT: I did a bit of research and it said that they didn't publish Jesus cartoons in 2003 but they had published other Christian figure cartoons before.
But that's all besides the point because fine muslims can find offence to cartoons or images of Muhammad been published but a western newspaper also has a right to publish pictures because of freedom of speech. Just like that play can depict Muhammad as a person and Jesus as a person etc...
You need to understand that Denmark is not an Islamic country and that they don't have sharia law, so technically they can publish cartoons if they like. This is a simple concept which I don't get why others do not understand it.
Salah-Al-Din
Vanguard of Islam.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 460
Excellent question! Sometimes I am surprised at how Civ fans can ask such good questions, instead of stupid ones. In fact, it seems to me that Civ fans seem to be more educated and tolerant overall. Would that be a correct assumption or my Civ fanaticism speaking up again?
But seriously, most Civ fans love history and I think it makes a person more tolerant when they know about history.Anyways, I dilly-dally. Back to your question. Basically, these are honorifics...actually they are abbreviations for honorifics which are said after a person's name. They are titles of respect. Sometimes you will see "(pbuh)" which is an English abbreviation for "Peace be upon him".
However, I choose to use the Arabic words, which are abbreviated with "(s)" and "(as)". But they translate to the same thing pretty much, more or less.
Trajan12
Deity
Is it necessary to say (Peace be upon him) everytime you mention the prophet Muhammed?
Maybe 'Ask a Muslim' wasn't the correct title. I wanted to shoe how western culture and Islam are not necessarily exclusive.
I also stated I am not an expert on the Qur'an. I am as knowledgeable as most other Muslims I know. Which is about as well as most Christians I've met know the Bible.
I never claimed that my view was the correct way to be Muslim. I was sharing my faith and I welcome you to share yours and show the differences and more so, show that we are not all of one, crazy mind.
I also stated I am not an expert on the Qur'an. I am as knowledgeable as most other Muslims I know. Which is about as well as most Christians I've met know the Bible.
I never claimed that my view was the correct way to be Muslim. I was sharing my faith and I welcome you to share yours and show the differences and more so, show that we are not all of one, crazy mind.
Salah-Al-Din
Vanguard of Islam.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 460
For a Muslim, yes. Not only for the Prophet (s) but for the other Prophets as well, including Prophet Moses (as) and Prophet Jesus (as).
However, sometimes it is simply enough to say it at the beginning of your sentence or paragraph if time is an issue (i.e. the first time you mention the name), but it is highly preferred to say it every single time the name is mentioned. On the other hand, it is completely unacceptable to leave it out altogether.
Actually, I meant years, not weeks. It was three years before. Mistake on my part. I'll edit that.
The same Danish newspaper refused to publish pictures of Prophet Jesus (as) because they would offend Christians. Proof?
The Guardian said:
Source: Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1703501,00.html
A quick google search can show many other newspapers who reported it, including:
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=38753
I hope that is enough.
Salah-Al-Din
Vanguard of Islam.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2007
- Messages
- 460
Maybe 'Ask a Muslim' wasn't the correct title. I wanted to shoe how western culture and Islam are not necessarily exclusive.
I also stated I am not an expert on the Qur'an. I am as knowledgeable as most other Muslims I know. Which is about as well as most Christians I've met know the Bible.
I never claimed that my view was the correct way to be Muslim. I was sharing my faith and I welcome you to share yours and show the differences and more so, show that we are not all of one, crazy mind.
I hijacked your thread...A Muslim hijacking a thread is better than an airplane!
I hijacked your thread...A Muslim hijacking a thread is better than an airplane!
augurey made me come back to read this. I'm actually glad you showed up to offer a different point of view. I know that I'm rather lax about my faith sometimes 
- Status
