Muhammed Ali

Really?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/sep/24/queen-poverty-grant-buckingham-palace Queen asked for poverty grant to heat palaces Ministers refused royal request, saying handouts were aimed at schools, hospitals and housing associations to help low-income families

At least Shaykh Yasir Qadhi has been strongly condemning Yazeed. It's evident that his time at Yale opened his mind to some of the weaknesses in his previous beliefs. I recently saw a short video by Mufti Menk about Ashura. The ignorance was astounding. He said both sides were duped by a third party into hating and fighting each other.

He says: "initially attracted to a nuanced and fascinating thinker on religion and culture," and "here was a man who was fuelled by a deep appreciation of religion and mythology, the return of the archetypal and the deep mythos of the culture". There are thousands of academics who are superior to Peterson in these subject areas.

Consciousness is not physical. The CS principles are the same as ten years ago.

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.