Muhammed Ali

It can be changed if it wasn't their natural state in the first place. I don't think it makes sense for such a large number in society to be like that. How can genetics account for such a larger number of people not being hetrosexual? From the perspective of survival of the fittest*, it doesn't makes sense. A large number probably have non-genetic explanations. These people would be living in a state of internal disharmony. * Survival of the fittest doesn't mean neo-Darwinism is true.

Even if we were not followers of a religion, we couldn't consider what is happening today as not harmful. We have posts on the forum which talk about how some people are genuinely different from the norm and how religious views need to take them into consideration. But what these posts need to mention is how certain ideologies have have gone much further than that. If someone's brain/body has a mixture of male and female (thus people being attracted to the same gender) or perhaps a soul whose gender is in conflict with their body, then it doesn't justify rejecting the idea that many people may be quite simply mistaken about the source of their own desires. Why is it wrong to entertain the idea that some of these people have genuine biological reasons for their desires whilst others are wrong in the same way that an anorexic thinks they are overweight? The youth are growing up under mentally damaging conditions.

Cults are sometimes able to get wealthy donors.

If it means that the OP will learn to think with more clarity, then it might be worth it. Can you imagine how offended the parents would be knowing that some people consider their pain to be an act?

Why don't you visit the place see how the lives of those families have been affected?

A flawed law is justified because another flawed law exists? Not all women are in your financial and social situation whereby it is desirable to do a long term mutah. For them a rectification in the original law is better. Humans are terrible at judging character. This can lead to them overreacting and accusing whole groups of people of possibly having the same negative traits that they found in certain people that they considered good. What is needed is a better approach in assessing character.

Akhlaq should not be separate from fiqh. It's a rational error. Even knowledgeable scholars can make rudimentary rational errors. This means the fiqh is wrong. For those of you who believe that fiqh and akhlaq are separate things: Can you explain how to determine if a teaching of Ahlulbayt [a] falls under either category? When a hadith say something is bad, how do you know if it is haraam/makrooh or simply bad akhlaq?

Even if I had no religion, I would then advise heterosexual people against doing things against their own nature. Doing so would cause disharmony in the mind. Deep down a person has certain inclinations, and to go against them puts the mind/soul & body in a state of disharmony. An inner conflict would exist. A problem with the secular narrative is that it even tells heterosexual people that there is nothing wrong with them going against that nature. Do not just think about the harms to the self, think also about societal harms. And there a number of things that could be said about this. Do not forget that there are verses of the Quran other than the ones related to this story which condemn such relationships. However to say that the story of Prophet Lut {a} has no condemnation of homosexuality is going against what is apparent in the story. You can argue that the divine punishment was because of "rape and domination and intimidation" and I would go further and argue that the punishment was because they rejected the criticisms of a prophet (not for any actions on their own). Regardless of the reasons for the punishment, you cannot say that homosexuality isn't being condemned because to do so would be to admit that "rape and domination and intimidation" of women is allowed. 7:81 "Most surely you come to males in lust besides females" - if this is about rape then does it mean raping women is allowed? Is the verse saying 'you rape men instead of women'? The punishment may be for rape or for whatever other reason, but that doesn't mean that homosexuality isn't being condemned.

By 'others' I didn't mean those who he needs to be wary of. He can speak to his trusted friends to help them with issues that may confuse them. And on a larger scale he could promote the notion of Tawheed and other pertinent issues. It can be done online or at his local mosque etc. Some ideas naturally flow from others.

It is often a reflection of who is running the institution. Pulling out a flag may cause more problems; educating other people about the truth will better.

For those of you that are interested, some people think 666 refers to emperor Nero. I am not saying this is the correct view, but it does show that you can interpret things in different ways. And why do shia conspiracy theorists give so much credence to that number when it is not from the Tawrat or Injeel? The Book of Revelation is not considered a divine book that was corrupted. And why would Jews follow that book?

Actually you could make the argument that the number is 786. There are 7 empty spaces within the star, 8 triangles (6 on the outside and the two overlapping ones) and 6 points on the outside of the star. Thus the star of David has 786 encoded within it. And to make matters worse it has 12 lines around it! It's a symbol of shi'ism. Of course it's a nonsensical argument. @zzaveri

To be honest I haven't listened to even a second of your recordings. And that is not because I am trying to offend you or to belittle you. It's partially because I think I know what will be in those videos. You have given away how you think with posts on 666 and the Israeli flag, and the theory on the pole reversal. I find that type of thinking very flawed. It involves ignoring contrary evidence, applying principles selectively and being duped by ordinary randomness. All extreme conspiratorial thinkers have the same flaws and they have always been wrong. This is Harold Camping: He had followers who gave up their lives and their wealth to warn people about the rapture. Their strong beliefs and sacrifices didn't mean they were correct. Now perhaps it is right for me to look into some of your proofs. Give me one thing (or a few) that you consider to be a strong piece of evidence.

Instead of admitting that you were wrong and your 'analysis' was deeply flawed, you will be arrogant or deluded enough to think that the analysis was correct but Allah delayed the coming? I think you should leave open the possibility that you simply got it wrong. Do you realise that this is exactly what most forecasters of the end of the world do? They try to rationalize their failings with explanations that do not put any blame on themselves. https://www.livescience.com/14262-doomsday-predictions-fail.html https://religiondispatches.org/a-year-after-the-non-apocalypse-where-are-they-now/

The OP is using rationalistic arguments that can be analysed. I am ignorant of any claims of his in regards to 'seeing' beyond the five senses (in fact I am ignorant on most of his views). Regardless of what he may be able to see, we can only make judgments on what can be analysed by our own minds. Unless of course if he were to make predictions and discoveries that could be verified and thus give credence to what he 'sees'.