Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

What To Look Forward To Next

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

(Bismillah)

(salam)

After the recent 'gay marriage' revolution of the past decade or so, and more generally the widespread acceptance of homosexual relationships as equal to heterosexual ones, going against millennia of conventional wisdom and tradition, some of us may have been wondering what could be next. After all, the past century has been marked with constant social change, so there is no reason to expect it to stop here. Well, the answer may be here.

As is well known, the homosexual community have a culture of having many partners over the course of their lifetimes (among other characteristics), often having several at the same time (this is arguably the norm). Lifelong monogamy is in fact quite rare for them, and fairly alien to their culture. It is therefore unsurprising to those who pay attention to these things, that the following such article can appear in a mainstream left-wing newspaper. I will only quote small parts of it.

Our three-way relationship isn't your business. Even if we’re doing business

Call us a ‘thruple’ if you must. My boyfriends and I are happy together, even if it makes some people uncomfortable

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/25/our-three-way-relationship-isnt-your-business-even-if-were-doing-business

As the real estate agent showed me what would eventually become my new apartment, I quietly slipped into the closet[/] without even taking a step.

Emphasis mine. Notice the language being used.

And what would I have said, really? “No, it’s for me and my two boyfriends, and we need the second bedroom for an office because we all work from home some times?”

No comment.

Instinctually, I’m a rather private person and, were it not for the fact that I feel it politically and socially imperative to be out, I would probably never discuss the intricacies of my personal life with anyone not actively involved in it. (So to everyone at my day job just now discovering that I’ve had two boyfriends for the last four years: Sorry! It’s not you, it’s me.)

Emboldened by the recent victories of the pro-homosexual movement, this man now feels it is a political and social imperative I've to be out (and no doubt proud).

Uniformly, the important people in our lives have been great about our unique relationship: I’ve been welcomed with open arms by the friends and families of my partners (which is all the more impressive considering that they were together for 10 years before I met them). My mother asked only two questions:“Are you all ‘intimate’ at the same time?” and “Do you all sleep in the same bed?”.

I replied, “Yes, but do you really want to know any more about that?”

My mother considered for a moment, then nodded to herself. “You still have to have grandchildren”, was her final word on the subject.

Once again, there is no need for words here, although much could be said.

All of that is why we lied to our last landlord (and didn’t let him into the apartment to see the one and only bed in the one and only bedroom) until he’d gotten to know us and seen that we are good tenants and good people. It’s why I never told this most recent real estate agent that the three of us are all in a relationship together – and why we avoid the new landlady, who lives upstairs, as much as possible.

You see that we now live in a society where, freed from their traditional morality, people are willing to accept anything as long as 'no harm is done', and the people involved seem nice.

Now, I know some will say this is just one example, and you can't read too much into it. However, that would overlook two important points. First of all, this is not an isolated case within the homosexual community. Second of all, Western secular society in fact has no argument against this type of arrangement. If two consenting, loving, adults should be free to marry, then why shouldn't three? In fact, most homosexuals aren't overly desperate to get married. Gay marriage was always more about full acceptance of homosexuality than being able to marry. Therefore, I am not certain that there will be a campaign to allow 3 adults to marry each other (mainly due to not wanting to allow one man to marry two women), but there almost certainly will eventually be a call to accept such relationships. In fact, a campaign may not even be necessary. Society may already be conditioned in such a way to accept anything now, as long as it doesn't seem too disgusting to them (as bestiality and incest still currently do), and that nobody is harmed.

As a further example of this, here are some of the comments posted under the article:

You share a slightly unconventional lifestyle.

And?

Hey man - good luck with it all. Just not sure why you're writing about it here.

i wish that more of us could be so happily living together.

Etc.

This isn't surprising. After all, from a secular point of view, what is wrong with it?

Edited by Haydar Husayn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(salam)

 

The problem with a "secular point of view" is that it is used as a substitute for looking forward to the Last Day.

 

Society has degenerated quickly in the last 45 years.

 

Now the zoophiles are taking over with the sodomites in the lead.


One English language point:

 

"Look forward to' is an expectation of happiness.

 

You should have used "anticipate".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Salam, 

 

I think this is a good subject to explore. At the same time we must be clear on two points, from an Islamic Perspective, 

 

1) Millennium of conventional wisdom and tradition are no reason to accept / not accept something. Slavery was accepted for millenium and now it is generally not accepted, legally and socially although it is still practiced and the number of slaves in the world is still high. 

Also, in much of the world, conventional wisdom and tradition dictated that darker skinned people were less intelligent and less moral than lighter skinned people. We now know that there is no scientific basis for this position. Also, in most places in the world, up until very recently, women were considered the property of their husbands, even in the US until about 100 years ago. This was the conventional wisdom and tradition. We should remember this and be very careful not to base our objection to homosexual relationships on this. 

 

Our basis for rejection of this act is solely a religious objection based on the clear Verses (ayat) of Quran and traditions of Ahl Al Bayt(a.s). 

 

I think the root cause of this and many other problems in our society is secularism and acceptance of homosexuality is merely a branch from this cursed tree. Most countries in the world either explicitly(in the case of US/France) or implicitly(China/Russia) use secularism and the ideological root of their government. In Secularism, there is no divine orders which should be obeyed. So what is left is the whim or the general public(which is constantly changing) that is manipulated by  those with the means to do that. Now that secularism in the norm everywhere, we should expect what you said above, and we will continue to see religion, all religion including Islam, pushed more and more into the corner and the ones with no religion becoming more and more dominant. Not a very rosy picture. So at this point, all we can do is continue to pray for the reapperance of our Imam(a.f.s), more and with more sincerity than ever, and try as best we can to keep ourselves within the orders of Allah(s.w.a) and try our best to affect those around us in a positive way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

This is not a new development.

 

There is a quote among sexual liberateurs made famous from a film of 1974 whose name I will not mention to avoid free publicity, but this is how it goes:

 

"Love between couples should be outlawed; every act of love must include a third person."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Haydar, what's your point? 


 


Sure, if you go scrounging around, you're going to find fringes that are into all sorts of unorthodox relationships. 1-2 % are into gay relationships.


Some tinier percentage are into some sort of polyamory. Yes, there's no secular argument for the government to prohibit any relationship between consenting adults. 


 


But do you want the government to have the power to tell consenting adults what relationships they can and cannot have? And for God's sake, why?


 


It's a fringe, and will always be a fringe. People tend to monogamy, at least serial monogamy. It's our fitra. That's not changing.


 


There's zero point in getting bent out of shape about such trivialities. In fact, you just play into their game by giving attention.


 


In the meantime, we express our views, we teach our communities, we teach our children, we communicate our values and show their practical benefit. If anyone in our community tries to Islamically justify such things, we respond. That's all there is to it. 


 


Anything beyond that is a waste of breath.


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Abu Hadi, I don't disagree. Clearly that is our perspective. However, from the perspective of the society we live in, that has no weight whatsoever.

Kadhim, the point isn't to get bent out of shape about it. Honestly speaking, I half-welcome these types of developments. My aim is not to rail against them at all, and I'm sorry if I give the impression that I am. Rather, my goal is to alert people to the dangers of a worldview that may superficially seem appealing. We already have many Muslims, all over the world, who have basically adopted a secular mindset. They may not have rejected Islam yet, but the seeds have been sown. There are already Muslims who would like to find a way of finding acceptance for homosexuals in Islam, in order to fit in with the society they live in (or simply because they have become convinced that there is nothing wrong with it). My hope is that if people are able to look ahead to see where this worldview inevitably leads to, then they might realise that it is not as appealing as it may seem. Unfortunately, it is always hard to do that with issues that have already attained widespread acceptance, because to some degree that battle has already been lost.

In regards to how fringe the practice of these behaviours are, I would say that the type of society that we are moving to will naturally encourage more experimentation. Many lesbians freely admit that they 'chose' women, rather than men, and there was (and probably still is) widespread experimentation with lesbianism within the feminist movement. The music industry also encourages it to some extent. Once a taboo has been lifted, then many more people will naturally try something. The ancient Greeks after all practiced pederasty as part of their culture, no say nothing for the people of Lut (as). It might be fringe now, but it won't necessarily remain so. There are many examples of societies going against their fitra.

I also wouldn't overestimate how easy it is to warn our children against this stuff. Let's wait and see what happens with the children that are born at this time, and who grown up in a society that tells them that it is perfectly normal and natural. Someone like you may have the answers to your children's questions, but most people won't, other than to simply tell them to accept it on their own authority. In any case, this is going to end up having major repercussions within Islamic communities in the coming decades, whether we like it or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Secularism does not promote homosexuality, India is a nominally secular country and homosexuality is illegal there to this day. Same with Uganda and many other non-muslim 'secular' regimes across the world. Heck the state of Texas only legalized homosexuality in the early 2000's (think it was 2003).

 

Many conservative laws in line with religious morality are kept in place to this day by secular societies precisely because a psychological/physical harm can be seen as the result of abandoning such morality. I think the extremist liberals (who are literalist fundamentalists when it comes to the concept of individualism) are blind to the psychological harms caused by such unhealthy relationships. These extremists often completely overlook potential psychological harm as long as physical harm isn't caused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Let me get you straight, Haydar. 

You're suggesting the only thing holding women back from shacking up regularly under the same roof with multiple boyfriends is taboo?

 

You know how much I respect you, Haydar, but that's crazy talk. 

 

Monogamy and commitment are back in again. Didn't you hear? Even the gays are getting into it. Weird.

And then there's our fitra. One to one is a nice stable norm for all kinds of reasons. Relax.

 

We need to get you married, bro. Your mind is flitting off into theoreticals too much. You need a woman to ground you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Secularism does not promote homosexuality, India is a nominally secular country and homosexuality is illegal there to this day. Same with Uganda and many other non-muslim 'secular' regimes across the world. Heck the state of Texas only legalized homosexuality in the early 2000's (think it was 2003).

It's early days. The West has been secular for a while now, but it takes some time to discard old traditions. I don't believe that these countries have kept homosexuality illegal due to any perceived physical or psychological harms, but due to their religious traditions. Countries where religion is still taken seriously and respected will obviously take longer to adopt certain aspects of secularism, but it will come eventually (unless the decline of religions is halted).

Perhaps I should be more specific and say secular humanism, rather than simply secularism, but I'm not sure if in practice it makes much difference. Whatever you want to call the dominant ideology in the West, the rest of the world is following it. If you take India as an example, notice how in a few decades, they have basically shed much of their traditional culture, in favour of being 'modern' (i.e. Western). Their film and music industry now seem like Western music and film, with brown faces (and even then, there seem to be a surprising number of white faces). They are hardly alone in this respect. The urban youth all over the world appear to want nothing else than to imitate the West. Wherever you look, people are wearing Western clothes, watching and listening to Western (or Westernised) forms of media, and adopting a Western mindset. This will obviously have repercussions in the future in terms of what is seen to be permissible within society.

Speaking of the media, which was one of the principal means of so quickly transforming the mindsets of most people in the West:

Queering Bollywood: alternative sexualities in popular Indian cinema.

In this essay, I demonstrate through numerous examples taken from four identifiable Hindi film subgenres queer themes which, though nontransgressive in their native Indian context, acquire subversive value and serve as queer points of identification when viewed from a non-nationalist bias. Watching particular films with this "queer diasporic viewing practive," sex/gender play which is normative (yet still coded) in the land of the films' production can be reclaimed as queer through the differently subjective lens of transnational spectatorship, a lens removed from patriarchy, sexism, and homophobia. This particularly becomes apparent in the Bollywood dance sequence-the frequent site of Hindi sex/gender play-whose coded queer desires are much easier to de-code (or re-code) when in the diaspora.

This is how it started in Western literature (and then film and music) as well.

Let me get you straight, Haydar.

You're suggesting the only thing holding women back from shacking up regularly under the same roof with multiple boyfriends is taboo?

No, I'm not saying it's the only thing, but taboos do stop more people from experimenting with different types of sexual behaviour. There are certain gender politics issues that make certain relationships involving men and women more difficult to envisage right now, but others are quite easy to imagine. For example, three men, as we had in this article, or three women (it's quite easy to imagines some the feminists of the 70's going in for this).

You know how much I respect you, Haydar, but that's crazy talk.

And 'gay marriage' wouldn't have sounded like crazy talk 100 years ago?

The respect is mutual, by the way.

Monogamy and commitment are back in again. Didn't you hear? Even the gays are getting into it. Weird.

There appears to be considerable debate about this within the homosexual community. My view, which is shared by others who don't share my world view at all, is that it is a means of acceptance by the rest of society. They were always going to be more sympathetic to monogamous homosexual relationships than 'open' ones, where are traditionally the norm among them. I'm not sure how long this will last though, now that they have what they want.

And then there's our fitra. One to one is a nice stable norm for all kinds of reasons. Relax.

Was our fitra on holiday when the Greeks were practicing pederasty, the Egyptians were practicing incest, or the Arabs were burying their daughters? What about the people of Lut? The central aspect of our fitra is surely Tawhid, and we all know the human race's relationship with that.

We need to get you married, bro. Your mind is flitting off into theoreticals too much. You need a woman to ground you.

I've been married for a while now, although she might think I'm crazy too... :unsure: Edited by Haydar Husayn
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
I've been married for a while now, although she might think I'm crazy too...  :unsure: 

 

That's awesome. I'm losing touch, I guess. Well what are you doing typing away on a Saturday afternoon. Go spend time her. You young people...where are your priorities?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

That's awesome. I'm losing touch, I guess.

Yeah, I haven't seen you round here much recently. It's good to have you back. We've lost too many interesting posters as it is.

Well what are you doing typing away on a Saturday afternoon. Go spend time her. You young people...where are your priorities?

She is on a family visit right now, so I'm taking advantage of my freedom.
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/the-jewish-porn-star-next-door/

If islam stays the way it is with different new sects and factions arising and each sect declaring takfir against the other, the Imperial Jewish State of Israel will take charge of the middle east(according to Greater Israel plan), islam will not be anytging bigger than a cult restricted to a few cities. Many arabs will turn to secularism/atheism. Since according to tge Greater Israel plan, Israel is supposed to be the most powerful imperial state, we can expect them to attempt to export their culture. A quick google search will show that jews are the most promiscuous group in history. They will want the whole world to be as immoral as them and explore news "ideas" about sex is going to be normal.

An interesting article right there in the link. I hope the mods dont delete the link as they provide real insight about the jewish society and what to look forward to in the future world that is going to be ruled by jews.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Secularism does not promote homosexuality, India is a nominally secular country and homosexuality is illegal there to this day. Same with Uganda and many other non-muslim 'secular' regimes across the world. Heck the state of Texas only legalized homosexuality in the early 2000's (think it was 2003).

 

Many conservative laws in line with religious morality are kept in place to this day by secular societies precisely because a psychological/physical harm can be seen as the result of abandoning such morality. I think the extremist liberals (who are literalist fundamentalists when it comes to the concept of individualism) are blind to the psychological harms caused by such unhealthy relationships. These extremists often completely overlook potential psychological harm as long as physical harm isn't caused.

 

No, neither India nor the US is a secular country as far the population, and the majority of both countries still follow some religion. At the same time, you've probably heard the Sicilian saying 'The fish rots from the head'. I am more familiar with the US case, so I will start with that. 

 

In the US Constitution it says that there shall be no state religion and that the church(they used this as a metaphor for all religions) and state would be separate. In the beginning, this was commonly understood as there would be no state religion but that the policies of the state would be based on the laws and norms of Christianity. This was understood commonly but was not codified anywhere. This was the great trick of secularism. It didn't ban religion or say that religion was bad (like the communists said it was the 'opiate of the people') but rather gradually the secularists (atheists) pushed religion further and further into a corner and kept the outward form of the religion, churchs, synagogues, masjids, religious holidays, but made religion irrelevant for the people by gradually taking it out of the government, the economy, and education, in other words any place where it was important for people's day to day lives. And the secularists did not allow religion or religious teachings (even the ones that were common to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) to be codified anywhere in the founding documents of the government, so that they could get rid of them at any time thru the courts. 

 

The push for gay marriage is another secular ploy to banish religion from the legal system, because homosexuality is against the religion of muslims, christians, and jews, and even hindus. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-Homosexuality is sad and I'm glad we are living in times when we are seeing that it's time for it to go. As for what type of relationships can occur between adults, I don't know,  I hope monogamy stays the norm, but odd balls here and there shouldn't rattle us too much.

 

A woman attracted to a woman is loved by God to and shouldn't be prevented from finding love and a meaningful relationship.  I suggest people meet such people and get to know them. You will find many of them to be amazing people.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Anti-Homosexuality is sad and I'm glad we are living in times when we are seeing that it's time for it to go. As for what type of relationships can occur between adults, I don't know,  I hope monogamy stays the norm, but odd balls here and there shouldn't rattle us too much.

 

A woman attracted to a woman is loved by God to and shouldn't be prevented from finding love and a meaningful relationship.  I suggest people meet such people and get to know them. You will find many of them to be amazing people.

 

I'm sure many of the ancient Greeks were nice people too. It doesn't make their behaviour moral.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

No, neither India nor the US is a secular country as far the population, and the majority of both countries still follow some religion. At the same time, you've probably heard the Sicilian saying 'The fish rots from the head'. I am more familiar with the US case, so I will start with that. 

 

In the US Constitution it says that there shall be no state religion and that the church(they used this as a metaphor for all religions) and state would be separate. In the beginning, this was commonly understood as there would be no state religion but that the policies of the state would be based on the laws and norms of Christianity. This was understood commonly but was not codified anywhere. This was the great trick of secularism. It didn't ban religion or say that religion was bad (like the communists said it was the 'opiate of the people') but rather gradually the secularists (atheists) pushed religion further and further into a corner and kept the outward form of the religion, churchs, synagogues, masjids, religious holidays, but made religion irrelevant for the people by gradually taking it out of the government, the economy, and education, in other words any place where it was important for people's day to day lives. And the secularists did not allow religion or religious teachings (even the ones that were common to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) to be codified anywhere in the founding documents of the government, so that they could get rid of them at any time thru the courts. 

 

The push for gay marriage is another secular ploy to banish religion from the legal system, because homosexuality is against the religion of muslims, christians, and jews, and even hindus. 

 

It isn't a trick, in a multicultural society, there are sound arguments for keeping unsubstantiated religious dogma away from standardized curriculum etc, you do not have to be an atheist to hold such views as not all secularists are atheists. It is interesting how despite all these tricks, ploys and conspiracies, religious organizations and people, including muslims are allowed to practice their faith more freely without trampling on each others rights than in other less secular societies.  Some of the more extreme gestures i.e the burqa ban and banning of religious symbols etc are opposed by religious folks and conservative/liberals alike, so those generalizations are not always fair.  You could even argue that such extreme notions go against classical liberal and secular values.

 

Yes, we understand that the LGBT lobby these days is a strong force that can overstretch beyond what persecuted homosexuals in the past reasonably wished for, just like the feminist movement and all kinds of other movements, but we have to be careful in dismissing it all outright as some plot/evil grand plan.  Such developments in an increasingly smaller world where people are trying to assimilate/understand/empathize and relate to one another are natural. Most movements, no matter how sincere and justified at inception are exploited in one way or another for political gain so that is nothing new.

Edited by King
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

An article that is somewhat related to this discussion, on the rise of secularism in America, the decline of Christianity there, and how one of the major signs of that was the rapid acceptance of 'gay marriage': http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/26/millennials-godless-politics-religous-conservatives

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

It isn't a trick, in a multicultural society, there are sound arguments for keeping unsubstantiated religious dogma away from standardized curriculum etc, you do not have to be an atheist to hold such views as not all secularists are atheists. It is interesting how despite all these tricks, ploys and conspiracies, religious organizations and people, including muslims are allowed to practice their faith more freely without trampling on each others rights than in other less secular societies.  Some of the more extreme gestures i.e the burqa ban and banning of religious symbols etc are opposed by religious folks and conservative/liberals alike, so those generalizations are not always fair.  You could even argue that such extreme notions go against classical liberal and secular values.

 

Yes, we understand that the LGBT lobby these days is a strong force that can overstretch beyond what persecuted homosexuals in the past reasonably wished for, just like the feminist movement and all kinds of other movements, but we have to be careful in dismissing it all outright as some plot/evil grand plan.  Such developments in an increasingly smaller world where people are trying to assimilate/understand/empathize and relate to one another are natural. Most movements, no matter how sincere and justified at inception are exploited in one way or another for political gain so that is nothing new.

 

It is a plot that has been going on for a long time, how grand it is I don't know. 

 

Do you know that my kids go to a public school in the US that is 95% Muslim, and more than 50% of the teachers are muslim.

Yet the teachers cannot tell their students "Salam Alekum" nor can they lead the students in Jamaa' prayer even if all the students and the teacher agree to participate in this voluntarily. The teachers will be disciplined for this and then fired. 

 

So what is that ? Freedom of religion or anti-religion ? Students are in school almost eight hours per day in an environment where the name of Allah(s.w.a) is not mentioned nor is praying allowed or even doing the Islamic greeting. This is secularism. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...