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
Sign in to follow this  
Haydar Husayn

Polyamory - The Next Frontier

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

From the guardian article posted above..."Scientists have researched monogamy of gibbons and the sexual hierarchies of chimpanzees to point to a “natural” expression of our innate desires..."

As long as humans are compared to animals by scientists there is no way out of the progress of pervertism imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of western culture i think we still have cause for hope that such a thing can be diverted. Social studies into these situations and their effects will continue, and there will surely be a point at which the accumulated evidence for the redefining of, and errosion of importance of, traditional marriage (particularly in the case of raising children) being detrimental will become so over whelming that it can no longer be ignored and governments will start re-evaluating again. The problem then will be that people will have gotten so used to notions of certain personal 'rights' that it will be harder to revert the social norms back than it was to allow the changing of them in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walaikum salam,

 

Pretty insightful. Imho, if anyone followed Irelands gay marriage vote, which ended 60 -40 in favour , there was evident media bias despite the not so skewed result, favouring the 'yes' vote.

 

The UK among other nations are becoming less and less religious.

 

To win an election, you need to be a proponent for homosexuality and 'gay marriage'. If not, you will definitely have a wave of media campaign against you.

 

I wonder, does having love and tolerance towards gay marriage and homosexuality arise from being more humane, or rather, abandoning religion? Is it in our fitrah to accept or reject it?

 

I am puzzled as to where exactly this acceptance started, seeing as Britain itself was against gay marriage?

 

By the way, add Adultery to the list. It was decriminalised a while ago i am led to beleive, and the UK is also turning a blind eye to an 'Adultery' website promoting it:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32331335

 

A dating website focusing on adultery has announced its intention to list publicly in London.

Canadian-owned site AshleyMadison.com, with its tagline "life is short, have an affair", said it was listing in Europe because of the continent's "more laissez-faire attitude" to infidelity.

Parent company Avid Life Media said it hoped to raise $200m (£134m) in London later this year.

The site says it has 36 million members in 46 countries worldwide.

It claims to be the second-biggest dating website in the world, behind Match.com, and boasts of being "the most famous name in infidelity and married dating".

Reports suggest the site had $115m worth of sales last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A dating website focusing on adultery has announced its intention to list publicly in London.

Canadian-owned site AshleyMadison.com, with its tagline "life is short, have an affair", said it was listing in Europe because of the continent's "more laissez-faire attitude" to infidelity.

Parent company Avid Life Media said it hoped to raise $200m (£134m) in London later this year.

The site says it has 36 million members in 46 countries worldwide.

It claims to be the second-biggest dating website in the world, behind Match.com, and boasts of being "the most famous name in infidelity and married dating".

Reports suggest the site had $115m worth of sales last year.

Oh my gosh, that's appalling. What does that say about the way society is headed. Personal pleasure is becoming god, it always has been for individuals which is why we have jihad al nafs, but now it's becoming god on a societal scale. Scary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they have to legalize everything- drug, sex, prostitution ....everything as its not govt's job to monitor individual activities. Those who use drugs will do so regardless of whether its out in the open regardless of whether they live in a secular society or religious. Those who cheat on their wives or husbands or have open relationships will do so regardless of whether its legal or not and so on and so forth.

 

One thing that no govt or human law has a say is the laws of nature. What goes up must come down. Those who use drugs will suffer from the consequences of drugs. Those who dont subscribe to the traditional notions of marriage will be denied the fruits of marriage etc...What you sow is so you reap.

 

The only thing that making things illegal is empowering the state. And thats not good for everyone. A govt is best that governs the least. 

 

Alcohol is legal and promoted in societies where 90% of SC members live in. Since we dont want it. It can be pushed on us. In Islamic societies where its illegal there are folks who consume alcohol. So even when gay marriage is leglised it wont change a thing for those who dont subscribe to the notion. And same with everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they have to legalize everything- drug, sex, prostitution ....everything as its not govt's job to monitor individual activities. Those who use drugs will do so regardless of whether its out in the open regardless of whether they live in a secular society or religious. Those who cheat on their wives or husbands or have open relationships will do so regardless of whether its legal or not and so on and so forth.

 

One thing that no govt or human law has a say is the laws of nature. What goes up must come down. Those who use drugs will suffer from the consequences of drugs. Those who dont subscribe to the traditional notions of marriage will be denied the fruits of marriage etc...What you sow is so you reap.

 

The only thing that making things illegal is empowering the state. And thats not good for everyone. A govt is best that governs the least. 

 

Alcohol is legal and promoted in societies where 90% of SC members live in. Since we dont want it. It can be pushed on us. In Islamic societies where its illegal there are folks who consume alcohol. So even when gay marriage is leglised it wont change a thing for those who dont subscribe to the notion. And same with everything else.

I don't really have an issue with the fact that these things are legalized per se, although I do think it will lead to a worse society for the rest of us to live in. My problem is more with the fact that these things are then pushed on to everyone as morally good, and to be celebrated. If it was just a case of secular society believing one thing, and us believing another, then that would be fine, but secular society insists that everyone else moves with it, and adopts the same moral and ethical values. Just look at the pressures being put on Christian Churches with regards to so-called 'gay marriage', for example. It is only a matter of time before parents come under pressure to ensure that they don't teach their children 'hatred' (i.e. that certain sexual behaviour are sinful).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an extract from the New Statesman, a mainstream left-leaning British magazine:

Polyamory is a recent term, coined in the early 1990s to describe people like me who are in relationships with more than one other person, or people who date while already in a relationship with the full knowledge and consent of their partner(s).

The reason the BBC article is so disappointing for polyamorous people is that it makes no effort to distinguish between religious and often (but not always) coercive polygamy, and other relationship forms under the umbrella of polyamory and ethical non-monogamy.

For example, the article claims that polyamorous relationships subordinate women. But Dr Christine Campbell, Senior Lecturer in Psychology at St Mary's University College, says: "This is absolutely without foundation. There is no research which has found this to my knowledge. In fact the most common poly relationships are found between homosexual men. Research suggests that at least 50 per cent of gay male relationships are consensually non-monogamous in some form or another (some estimates put it as high as 75 per cent) . . . Who takes advantage of whom in a same-sex poly relationship?"

[...]

Polyamory, when done right, is fundamentally different from the way in which people practice monogamous relationships. There are so many ways of thinking that are common in monogamous relationships that just don't make sense from a polyamorous perspective. Polyamory isn't just a way of getting to 'have' more people, because people are not possessions. It's a fundamentally new and different way of doing relationships, based on trust, on communication, and on consent. It's about rejecting the monogamous standard, and radically rethinking how you understand, make meaning of and practice relationships and commitment.

http://www.newstatesman.com/voices/2013/04/dont-use-mick-philpotts-case-stick-bash-polyamory

This illustrates some key themes in the current and coming polyamory discussion. First of all, polyamory must obviously be distinguished from polygamy, which is clearly bad (because of it's religious connotations). And of course, the whole idea of one man with several women is never going to go down well. However, any other combination is fine. Several men together, one woman and several men, several men and several women. That's all fine, as long as it doesn't resemble traditional polygamy. Secondly, it is freely admitted in this article that the majority of male homosexual relationships are not monogamous. This is why the whole 'gay marriage' movement is nothing but a ploy for greater acceptance of homosexuality in society. Traditionally, homosexuals have been rather hostile to monogamy (agreeing with the feminists that it is a patriarchal institution, and therefore bad), and have favoured more 'open' relationships. However, they eventually realised that the only way to gain acceptance was to conform as much as possible to society's idea of what the boundaries of a sexual relationship should be like. However, I don't believe that this will be anything more than a passing fad. Thirdly, we see that polyamory is presented as 'morally superior' to monogamy (not to mention polygamy), due to the supposed superior amount of trust, lack of jealousy, and communication. If you pay attention, you will see that this is a recurring theme in pro-polyamory articles. I'll highlight more examples later, insha'Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

The "next step down" is an American idiomatic expression for the slow, continuous increases in moral depravity.

 

I figure since the stuff above is already on-the-table, with what l saw Wednesday-a-week-ago on the late-late monologues, the "next step down" is the 'rights of zoophiles" --like exist in the Netherlands and Germany.

 

After this, l have no idea. Don't want one, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

The "next step down" is an American idiomatic expression for the slow, continuous increases in moral depravity.

 

I figure since the stuff above is already on-the-table, with what l saw Wednesday-a-week-ago on the late-late monologues, the "next step down" is the 'rights of zoophiles" --like exist in the Netherlands and Germany.

 

After this, l have no idea. Don't want one, either.

I think the problem with zoophilia (also known as bestiality) is that it comes into conflict with animal rights, and the issue of the consent of the animal. Of course, this is an absurd reason to object to the practice, and is completely inconsistent with the fact that animals are killed without consent, but there you go. I think it's more likely that incest will be legalized first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's more likely that incest will be legalized first.

Germany’s national ethics council has called for an end to the criminalisation of incest between siblings after examining the case of a man who had four children with his sister.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-ethics-council-calls-for-incest-between-siblings-to-be-legalised-by-government-9753506.html

National (anti) ethic's council would be a more appropriate name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point... Haydar

but I saw this half-hour report on DeutscheWelle about 3+ years ago --that is where l knew the two countries from.

 

I can't remember the wording the woman used [ l'm fairly sure she was animal rights]  . It was well worded.

 

lt went something like: it is in the behavioral nature of the dog --towards its owner-- to ignore sexual abuse -- because ...

 

I was just as impressed with her as about how she handled such a sick-subject in a poised manner, as with her choice of words.

 

Then also, some of the men l have known who worked in hospitals have told me stuff that they see fairly often. Stuff that definitely belongs confined to a doctors office and definitely not on SC.

 

And l thought l had heard sick-in-the-head stuff from prison farm guards.

 

mina313:

 

When we were in elementary school, we had in class about Medieval Italians dukes and such marrying their sisters.

[l remember one girl bluntly saying, 'l'd never marry my brother'.]

Edited by hasanhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you've got past the initial thrill of being allowed to fall in love and fool around with multiple people at once, you tend to find that polyamory replaces one set of problems – suspicion, frustration, guilt at lusting after people you shouldn't – with an exciting new set of problems. Problems like how to make sure you're spending enough time with each of your partners, or what precisely you're supposed to call your girlfriend's other boyfriend who you may or may not also be dating (answer: your "metamor"). Problems like how to balance the time you spend talking discussing your feelings honestly with various lovers with other important things like eating dinner and going to work (just because you can have five partners doesn't mean you should).

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/20/polyamorous-shows-no-traditional-way-live

Welcome to the future, people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really have an issue with the fact that these things are legalized per se, although I do think it will lead to a worse society for the rest of us to live in. My problem is more with the fact that these things are then pushed on to everyone as morally good, and to be celebrated. If it was just a case of secular society believing one thing, and us believing another, then that would be fine, but secular society insists that everyone else moves with it, and adopts the same moral and ethical values. Just look at the pressures being put on Christian Churches with regards to so-called 'gay marriage', for example. It is only a matter of time before parents come under pressure to ensure that they don't teach their children 'hatred' (i.e. that certain sexual behaviour are sinful).

 

Every society is guilty of pushing their values unto others- both externally and internally. Some do it by the barrel of the gun, while other more peaceful ways. If its the later then I dont think there is an issue with it and thus is the case in Western societies. Today's 'morally loose' Western society is far better for people like you and I than the 'morally good' society of 100 years ago or the religious society of 200 years ago or our own morally good societies of today. Back then we were not counted as humans even. When Japanese delegation came to Europe for peace talks back in 1918...Europeans did not want to shake hands with them cause they thought of themselves as superior race. And thank God that the church is neutralized otherwise we would have seen all sorts of intolerance & evil emanating out of it.

 

Openness has gotten Western societies to the point where people risk their lives, literally, and cross seas to get there from morally conservative societies where every majority group is at the neck of their fellow minority groups. More of it could only make humanity better, and not worse.

Germany’s national ethics council has called for an end to the criminalisation of incest between siblings after examining the case of a man who had four children with his sister.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-ethics-council-calls-for-incest-between-siblings-to-be-legalised-by-government-9753506.html

National (anti) ethic's council would be a more appropriate name.

 

And yet you go on to live there. Cause such rulings does not and will not affect you in any practical way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every society is guilty of pushing their values unto others- both externally and internally. Some do it by the barrel of the gun, while other more peaceful ways. If its the later then I dont think there is an issue with it and thus is the case in Western societies. Today's 'morally loose' Western society is far better for people like you and I than the 'morally good' society of 100 years ago or the religious society of 200 years ago or our own morally good societies of today. Back then we were not counted as humans even. When Japanese delegation came to Europe for peace talks back in 1918...Europeans did not want to shake hands with them cause they thought of themselves as superior race. And thank God that the church is neutralized otherwise we would have seen all sorts of intolerance & evil emanating out of it.

 

Openness has gotten Western societies to the point where people risk their lives, literally, and cross seas to get there from morally conservative societies where every majority group is at the neck of their fellow minority groups. More of it could only make humanity better, and not worse.

More decadence and depravity can only make the world better? So what exactly are the point of Islamic teachings if moral liberalism produces better societies?

The fact that some aspects of Western society suit us better than some other societies in the past or other parts of the world does not mean that we should overlook the very serious problems with it. In fact, in many ways this kind of society is more dangerous than a more overtly oppressive one, because it endangers the afterlife of many Muslims who buy into this culture. And while nobody is being coerced to believe anything at the barrel of a gun, we are not far from the point where it will be under threat of imprisonment and social isolation. Meanwhile other countries that don't follow will also come under increasing diplomatic, economic, and military threat to do so.

And yet you go on to live there. Cause such rulings does not and will not affect you in any practical way.

When your children are brainwashed at school into believing that such things are morally good, and that any religious objections are backward and to be rejected, then yes, it does affect you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Haydar Husayn,
 

 

with Christian Churches having completely collapsed on the issue,

 

 

As a Christian, I would like to address this.

 

Not every person who self identifies as a Christian actually is one, same as not everyone who self identifies as a Muslim is one (ISIL is an example.) Disobedience to Jesus Christ shows that one does not truly follow Jesus Christ.

 

The Christian concept of marriage is always the same, because a true Christian obeys what Jesus Christ says.

 

While talking about divorce, Jesus Christ confirmed God's definition of marriage: one man and one woman = one flesh.

(I boldened some.)

 

When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 

 

Haven’t you read, he replied, that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,[Genesis 1:27] and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh[Gen. 2:24]? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate. - Matthew 19:1-5 (NIV)

 

What Jesus Christ says is the Christian definition of marriage, regardless of what "Christians" and some "Christian" churches say. 

 

Thank God, there are churches who continue to hold to what Jesus Christ says. For example, my church holds to what Jesus says. They have not collapsed concerning this issue. I thank God that He brought my husband and me together, and that we are one flesh together! My husband wants only me, and I want only him! That's how God designed marriage to be!!! :)

 

Concerning polyamory, According to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/polyamory%20?s=t,

 

Polyamory is the "participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships."

 

Polygamy is like polyamory in that polygamous men participate in multiple simultaneous sexual relationships with other women, with or without the consent of the first wife. One of the main issues with polygamy is that it is vastly unfair to the women, because the man's heart and time are divided in between wives. Since sadly many men do not know the beauty of being one with only one woman but instead lust after other women too, many women have in recent years decided to become like lustful men and do the same, insisting on having multiple partners as well. :( It's really sad.

 

Jesus Christ warned that in the last days, wickedness would increase. He is always correct.

 

"Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold," Matthew 24:12 (NIV)

 

So, that's what is happening now. :(

 

Peace and God bless you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but secular society insists that everyone else moves with it, and adopts the same moral and ethical values. Just look at the pressures being put on Christian Churches with regards to so-called 'gay marriage', for example. It is only a matter of time before parents come under pressure to ensure that they don't teach their children 'hatred' (i.e. that certain sexual behaviour are sinful).

I don't think you can really say that the view points of the churches (against gay marriages) is more 'correct/worthy' than a secularist/liberal views(for it). At the end of the day, in a secular society, everyone have an equal footing under the law regardless of your religion. What you see is happening around the world in a secular society (like Ireland) is people moving away from having religious based view influencing the law of land into what they believe is a more 'neutral' stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you can really say that the view points of the churches (against gay marriages) is more 'correct/worthy' than a secularist/liberal views(for it).

Yes, I can say one view is more correct than the other, because one is the in accordance withe law of God, and one isn't.

At the end of the day, in a secular society, everyone have an equal footing under the law regardless of your religion.

I don't really understand what point you are trying to make here.

What you see is happening around the world in a secular society (like Ireland) is people moving away from having religious based view influencing the law of land into what they believe is a more 'neutral' stance.

Yes, I know, although I suspect we might have different views on why and how this is happening. In any case, people should recognise that there is a lot more religious-based influence on the law than issues such as homosexuality. However, people now want to pick and choose which parts of their religious heritage they want to keep, based on nothing more than their own whims and desires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wahdat,I told you in another thread that I cannot just pick a country of my choice and move there...it's unfortunately not that easy.

Rulings that propagate incestious relation-ships as normal are influencing the whole society.

ppl here begin to realize that propaganda is taking place to make them accept smthg which they don't really want.I wrote it it another thread...last year the idea came up to teach children in primary school about "sexual diversity" but a petition of parents stopped it.The petition was signed by 300.000 ppl within in a few days.

So what is the duty of a secular state when a small loud group penetrates others with their life-style and even wants to dictate what schools have to teach?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More decadence and depravity can only make the world better? So what exactly are the point of Islamic teachings if moral liberalism produces better societies?

The fact that some aspects of Western society suit us better than some other societies in the past or other parts of the world does not mean that we should overlook the very serious problems with it. In fact, in many ways this kind of society is more dangerous than a more overtly oppressive one, because it endangers the afterlife of many Muslims who buy into this culture. And while nobody is being coerced to believe anything at the barrel of a gun, we are not far from the point where it will be under threat of imprisonment and social isolation. Meanwhile other countries that don't follow will also come under increasing diplomatic, economic, and military threat to do so.

 

The point of Islamic teachings should be for its followers to adhere to it at will and should not need the stick of the state to poke them one way or another.

Today the world in its entirety eats better, wears better, lives longer & healthier etc than the world of 100 years ago....and we also have gays walking around openly. You call this depravity? Those who are gay would still be gay if homosexuality were illegal. Believe me 100 years ago there were also gay folks around. And today there are gays present in societies where homosexuality is illegal. Legalization of homosexuality simply cannot make one gay- take yourself and I as example.

The whole point of open societies is that no one is coerced into anything but everyone is allowed to be who they are or how they want to be. I doubt anyone today is imprisoned for not being gay...i doubt it'd be tomorrow. West is better off as a result of this. Imagine if we had an Iran-like West where Christian leaders determined the moral ideals of these societies. First of, you & I would not have been here. We would not have benefited from these societies and these societies would not have benefited from us. 

 

If Muslims adhere to their beliefs then there should be nothing wrong with their afterlife. They themselves and them alone can truly determine their actions and thus afterlives. The only thing that a 'moral' state could do is ruin this life for its citizens and make it a living hell.

When your children are brainwashed at school into believing that such things are morally good, and that any religious objections are backward and to be rejected, then yes, it does affect you.

 

You have grossly misunderstood the true essence of open societies with imaginary fears. The only thing that open societies teach is that its morally good to be tolerant of homosexuals. And not that its morally good to be homosexual. It does not tell you to become gay. It tells you that you cant stone one. see the difference?

Wahdat,I told you in another thread that I cannot just pick a country of my choice and move there...it's unfortunately not that easy.

Rulings that propagate incestious relation-ships as normal are influencing the whole society.

ppl here begin to realize that propaganda is taking place to make them accept smthg which they don't really want.I wrote it it another thread...last year the idea came up to teach children in primary school about "sexual diversity" but a petition of parents stopped it.The petition was signed by 300.000 ppl within in a few days.

So what is the duty of a secular state when a small loud group penetrates others with their life-style and even wants to dictate what schools have to teach?

 

Can any propaganda- no matter how strong, make you drink alcohol? or eat pork?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wahdat, I must say your posts in this topic really give hope for a better approach to this topic from a reasonable point of view not based on personal beliefs but reasoning.

Anyway. Propaganda is effective against other propaganda. The so called sexual 'depravity' propaganda is effective because there was/is already a more conservative approach to sexuality propaganda. When sexual topics are addressed appropiately and understood reasonably instead of weak personal beliefs based on traidition and dogmatic prejudices, propaganda won't be able to change anything. If not, take Europe for example. Christendom demonized sex without reason, and was the perfect target for propaganda. Reasonable debate on why sex is not evil would have not been effective to change their views, but a more fierce propaganda has proven to be effective.

If you address the gay propaganda issue for example when it comes to gay marriage, you should read the book After the ball (which is not precisely an anti gay book I must say, but you can learn a lot). It addressed the topic of how gay propaganda has been successful in the US (and could be said the same about the rest of the world), and one of the main points and causes is that the hate and prejudices against homosexuality were mainly based on personal emotional and social dislike, not on reason. It worked, so whether you like it or not, it is talking about truths.

One of the things I have always criticized on gay debates here are the 'against' (because I haven't found 'pro') arguments that are not based on a slightly reasonable thinking. I have always made sure to thank and congratulate those who at least reasoned their arguments and talked about facts and real studies instead of personal beliefs and prejudices. Why? Because I also dislike propaganda, pro and against propaganda. In the long run it is harmful, and supposes no real progress.

So the answer is, yes, propaganda could make you drink alcohol, eat pork, etc. if these norms are not reasoned enough. If you don't drink alcohol plainly because this is what you were taught to do (instead of reflecting on the harmness of alcohol), propaganda and social pressure can push you to do so without a firm belief. That is why we have to reflect on everything we believe and not plainly swallow it the very moment we are taught about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can see how almost everybody in every corner of the world thinks that taking and giving interest,making profits with no limits is smthg totally normal and not harmful for mankind and this is due to overall and everwhere propagated Keynesian economics.No one gets teached what money is and how it's produced...it's just smthg accepted and totally normal by the vast majority of mankind.

This a good example for how good long termed,intense indoctrination and propaganda has an effect on the vast majority of ppl and that only few can protect themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HH is writing some good stuff in here, but it's friggin depressing me.

 

 

BTW Haydar, why do you say "left-leaning" when referring to liberals? Liberals aren't the same thing as leftists, although I guess it doesn't matter since leftists don't exist anymore.

Edited by baradar_jackson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HH is writing some good stuff in here, but it's friggin depressing me.

 

 

BTW Haydar, why do you say "left-leaning" when referring to liberals? Liberals aren't the same thing as leftists, although I guess it doesn't matter since leftists don't exist anymore.

 

Sorry to depress you baradar, but the world is pretty depressing these days.

 

Regarding the distinction between liberals and leftists, I would say that liberal is more a term that is used in America, while in England they would be referred to as on the left. I am using the two terms interchangeably. Obviously these people are nothing like old-school leftists, but I'm using the terms in the sense that they are used today. I would also argue that historically, there was a lot of overlap between people who identified with leftist ideology and the people who promoted this extreme social liberalism that we are seeing today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Polygamy is like polyamory in that polygamous men participate in multiple simultaneous sexual relationships with other women, with or without the consent of the first wife. One of the main issues with polygamy is that it is vastly unfair to the women, because the man's heart and time are divided in between wives. Since sadly many men do not know the beauty of being one with only one woman but instead lust after other women too, many women have in recent years decided to become like lustful men and do the same, insisting on having multiple partners as well. :( It's really sad.

 

Salam CL,

 

Historically marriage has served more than one purpose. It isnt simply about compelling men and women to commit to long term relationships in order to raise children, it has also been a vehicle to channel resources to women and to protect them. Polygamous marriages have actually been more advantageous to women living in some societies, because the resources of the males with the most can be distributed to more women. Apparently polygamy has the disadvantage of increasing competition between males and therefore aggression though. My understanding is that the Quran does not promote polygamy, but allows for it with conditions. Different cultures have different expectations of marriage. In ones where monogamy is preferred you can have monogamy and in ones where polygamy is still socially helpful you can have polygamy for those that want to consent to such a situation. I dont think its fair to compare Islamic polygamy with polyamory, because the stipulations of Islamic polygamy mean that it is providing a social function that other polyamorous type relationships are not providing. Polyamorous relationships are basically just promiscuity. You have no 'rights' in these relationships in any objective kind of way and not very much compelling you to act in accordance to your best, and the others, health, despite yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam CL,

 

Historically marriage has served more than one purpose. It isnt simply about compelling men and women to commit to long term relationships in order to raise children, it has also been a vehicle to channel resources to women and to protect them. Polygamous marriages have actually been more advantageous to women living in some societies, because the resources of the males with the most can be distributed to more women.

 

Salam/Shalom/Peace Ruq,

 

I disagree with that. Polygamy is more for multiplying a man's offspring than to protect women. 3 instances of polygamy accounted in the Bible show how polygamy hurt the hearts of the women involved:  (I boldened some.)

 

"Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”

Abram agreed to what Sarai said. So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.

When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. Then Sarai said to Abram, “You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my slave in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the Lord judge between you and me.”

 “Your slave is in your hands,” Abram said. “Do with her whatever you think best.” Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her." - Genesis 16:1-6 (NIV)

 

I feel sorry for Hagar. Polygamy didn't protect her from Abraham's first wife's anger. God did protect her, but she did suffer discrimination from Sarai/Sarah, even though it was Sarai's "great idea" for Abram/Abraham to marry Hagar too.

 

"When the Lord saw that Leah was not loved, he enabled her to conceive, but Rachel remained childless. Leah became pregnant and gave birth to a son. She named him Reuben,for she said, “It is because the Lord has seen my misery. Surely my husband will love me now.Genesis 29:31-32 (NIV)

 

Rachel and Leah were 2 sisters, married to the same man: Jacob (Israel). Leah endured mierable heartbreak because her husband loved her sister more than he loved her. :( I feel sorry for Leah and Rachel. I have 3 sisters. I would not do very well sharing my husband with my sisters, or any other woman for that matter!

 

"He had two wives; one was called Hannah and the other Peninnah. Peninnah had children, but Hannah had none.

 Year after year this man went up from his town to worship and sacrifice to the Lord Almighty at Shiloh, where Hophni and Phinehas, the two sons of Eli, were priests of the Lord. Whenever the day came for Elkanah to sacrifice, he would give portions of the meat to his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters. But to Hannah he gave a double portion because he loved her, and the Lord had closed her womb. Because the Lord had closed Hannah’s womb, her rival kept provoking her in order to irritate her. This went on year after year. Whenever Hannah went up to the house of the Lord, her rival provoked her till she wept and would not eat." - 1 Samuel 1:2-6 (NIV)

 

I feel sorry for Hannah. I have no idea why her husband married both her and Hophni, but many men often do not understand a woman's heart. One of the most painful things for women is sharing the man she loves with another woman who despises her. It's cruel, and men who do this to women don't understand how cruel it is. A man needs to put himself in his wife's situation, to see if he would like to share his wife with many husbands, fellow rivals for her love. Only men who have perverted minds like to share their wives with other men. In the same way, mentally healthy women do not like to share their husbands with other women.

 

Apparently polygamy has the disadvantage of increasing competition between males and therefore aggression though.

 

 

 

True, though as a woman I think about polygamy and polyamory in how they affect women, and both are damaging to a woman's emotional wellbeing. 

 

My understanding is that the Quran does not promote polygamy, but allows for it with conditions. Different cultures have different expectations of marriage. In ones where monogamy is preferred you can have monogamy and in ones where polygamy is still socially helpful you can have polygamy for those that want to consent to such a situation. I dont think its fair to compare Islamic polygamy with polyamory, because the stipulations of Islamic polygamy mean that it is providing a social function that other polyamorous type relationships are not providing.

 

 

Polygamy was around long before Muhammad. Both King David, the 2nd King of Israel and King Solomon, the 3rd King of Israel, were polygamists. Most kings of pagan nations too actually in that time were polygamous. Having many wives illustrated great wealth and power, and also marrying the daughter of another ruler was a way to ensure peace between 2 nations.

 

 

 

I dont think its fair to compare Islamic polygamy with polyamory, because the stipulations of Islamic polygamy mean that it is providing a social function that other polyamorous type relationships are not providing. Polyamorous relationships are basically just promiscuity. You have no 'rights' in these relationships in any objective kind of way and not very much compelling you to act in accordance to your best, and the others, health, despite yourself.

 

 

Polygamy is a form of polyamory, since polyamory means many = poly, loves = amory. I am not specifying Islamic polygamy, since polygamy was a part of many ancient cultures.

 

Peace and God bless you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam/Shalom/Peace Ruq,

 

I disagree with that. Polygamy is more for multiplying a man's offspring than to protect women. 3 instances of polygamy accounted in the Bible show how polygamy hurt the hearts of the women involved:  (I boldened some.)

 

"Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”

Abram agreed to what Sarai said. So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.

When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. Then Sarai said to Abram, “You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my slave in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the Lord judge between you and me.”

 “Your slave is in your hands,” Abram said. “Do with her whatever you think best.” Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her." - Genesis 16:1-6 (NIV)

 

I feel sorry for Hagar. Polygamy didn't protect her from Abraham's first wife's anger. God did protect her, but she did suffer discrimination from Sarai/Sarah, even though it was Sarai's "great idea" for Abram/Abraham to marry Hagar too.

 

"When the Lord saw that Leah was not loved, he enabled her to conceive, but Rachel remained childless. Leah became pregnant and gave birth to a son. She named him Reuben,for she said, “It is because the Lord has seen my misery. Surely my husband will love me now.Genesis 29:31-32 (NIV)

 

Rachel and Leah were 2 sisters, married to the same man: Jacob (Israel). Leah endured mierable heartbreak because her husband loved her sister more than he loved her. :( I feel sorry for Leah and Rachel. I have 3 sisters. I would not do very well sharing my husband with my sisters, or any other woman for that matter!

 

"He had two wives; one was called Hannah and the other Peninnah. Peninnah had children, but Hannah had none.

 Year after year this man went up from his town to worship and sacrifice to the Lord Almighty at Shiloh, where Hophni and Phinehas, the two sons of Eli, were priests of the Lord. Whenever the day came for Elkanah to sacrifice, he would give portions of the meat to his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters. But to Hannah he gave a double portion because he loved her, and the Lord had closed her womb. Because the Lord had closed Hannah’s womb, her rival kept provoking her in order to irritate her. This went on year after year. Whenever Hannah went up to the house of the Lord, her rival provoked her till she wept and would not eat." - 1 Samuel 1:2-6 (NIV)

 

I feel sorry for Hannah. I have no idea why her husband married both her and Hophni, but many men often do not understand a woman's heart. One of the most painful things for women is sharing the man she loves with another woman who despises her. It's cruel, and men who do this to women don't understand how cruel it is. A man needs to put himself in his wife's situation, to see if he would like to share his wife with many husbands, fellow rivals for her love. Only men who have perverted minds like to share their wives with other men. In the same way, mentally healthy women do not like to share their husbands with other women.

 

 

 

True, though as a woman I think about polygamy and polyamory in how they affect women, and both are damaging to a woman's emotional wellbeing. 

 

 

Polygamy was around long before Muhammad. Both King David, the 2nd King of Israel and King Solomon, the 3rd King of Israel, were polygamists. Most kings of pagan nations too actually in that time were polygamous. Having many wives illustrated great wealth and power, and also marrying the daughter of another ruler was a way to ensure peace between 2 nations.

 

 

 

 

Polygamy is a form of polyamory, since polyamory means many = poly, loves = amory. I am not specifying Islamic polygamy, since polygamy was a part of many ancient cultures.

 

Peace and God bless you

 

If it was simply about multiplying offspring Islamically, there would be no limit, but the most you can have is 4 wives and you must provide for them equally and if you incline towards one so much that a wife feels abandoned emotionally then its encouraged to divorce rather than for her to remain married in distress (4:129-130).

From the example you gave, it doesnt appear that the distress is caused by the polygamous marriage so much as Haagar coming to 'despise' Sarah causing friction and upset. They both consented willingly to the polygamous situation (Sarah engineering it in the first place), but personal frictions got the better of them according to this version of events. The Quran says not to let an ex-wife become destitute (2:241) and men are the maintainers of women generally, so this shouldnt happen if those involved are Muslims. The Islamic understanding of this story, as far as i know, is that Ibrahim(as) didnt abandon Hagar exactly, he took her to Mecca on Gods command and prayed for her protection and would go to Mecca to be with them and when Ishmael got older they built the Kaaba together.

 

The second situation of Rachael and Leah couldnt happen Islamically because they are sisters, but youre also required to cater to your wifes material needs equally, not favouring one over the other. In terms of wives being unkind to each other, theres not much you can do about that and i suspect thats why its usually understood that if women require separate lodgings the husband must provide that for them.

I agree that if a woman has certain expectations of a marriage that are more realistically met with monogamy then she is going to find a polygamous relationship very difficult. But its generally understood that such requirements can be written into a marriage contract and the Quran emphasises how harmony is an important part of marriage (30:21).

Well, polygamy/polygyny is not an Islamic word of course. The possibility of 1-4 wives is an option that can serve a healthy social function when done responsibly.

 

Wasalam

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wahdat, I must say your posts in this topic really give hope for a better approach to this topic from a reasonable point of view not based on personal beliefs but reasoning.

Anyway. Propaganda is effective against other propaganda. The so called sexual 'depravity' propaganda is effective because there was/is already a more conservative approach to sexuality propaganda. When sexual topics are addressed appropiately and understood reasonably instead of weak personal beliefs based on traidition and dogmatic prejudices, propaganda won't be able to change anything. If not, take Europe for example. Christendom demonized sex without reason, and was the perfect target for propaganda. Reasonable debate on why sex is not evil would have not been effective to change their views, but a more fierce propaganda has proven to be effective.

If you address the gay propaganda issue for example when it comes to gay marriage, you should read the book After the ball (which is not precisely an anti gay book I must say, but you can learn a lot). It addressed the topic of how gay propaganda has been successful in the US (and could be said the same about the rest of the world), and one of the main points and causes is that the hate and prejudices against homosexuality were mainly based on personal emotional and social dislike, not on reason. It worked, so whether you like it or not, it is talking about truths.

One of the things I have always criticized on gay debates here are the 'against' (because I haven't found 'pro') arguments that are not based on a slightly reasonable thinking. I have always made sure to thank and congratulate those who at least reasoned their arguments and talked about facts and real studies instead of personal beliefs and prejudices. Why? Because I also dislike propaganda, pro and against propaganda. In the long run it is harmful, and supposes no real progress.

So the answer is, yes, propaganda could make you drink alcohol, eat pork, etc. if these norms are not reasoned enough. If you don't drink alcohol plainly because this is what you were taught to do (instead of reflecting on the harmness of alcohol), propaganda and social pressure can push you to do so without a firm belief. That is why we have to reflect on everything we believe and not plainly swallow it the very moment we are taught about it.

 

blind faith, blind love, blind hate all have blind in common and are all equally poisonous. They all lack reasoning and common sense.

 

The nostalgia over the secular nature of Turkey's govt was blindly supporting the AKP party. Or that of MB the Islamist govt. Folks were blindly supporting those parties just because they 'promised' to bring religion into the fore. And after they succeeded the first order of business was chaos, war, misery etc for the masses. Secular Turkey in 80 years of its existence never made Muslim masses suffer, while the Islamist party in its 8 yeare of power ignited the fire in Syria that burned and is burning millions of lives of innocent Muslims. 

Hosni Mubarak never made any threats to harm any Muslim or Muslim community  while Mursi, as the Islamist president of Egypt, was calling on Muslims to go do Jihad in Syria. It was under his realm that people lynched those 4 shias in Cairo.

Now the party who gave a beating to AKP in recent election has an openly gay member. Watch folks criticize him for being gay and wished Erdogan had won- conveniently looking over the fact that the former is gay in his bedroom while the later a butcher holding the flag of Islam in the region.

 

Same is the case with the Catholic church. People's nostalgia about lack of any vital role for the church that is based on religious sentiments quite lazily ignore the fact that had the church had any power its first victims would have been Muslims who live quite honourably and peacefully under secular govts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate on one hand shows Muslim fears of secular liberalism overtaking their traditional value system, which, whether we like or not, has happened to an extent already, and will continue to be pushed in that direction, simply because when traditional modes of living change, as they have in the West, and as they are in the process of change in the developing countries, the old value systems that sustained those modes of living will have to undergo their own change. One cannot exist without the other. The most obvious example of this that I cite repeatedly is attitudes towards women in general and toward their 'secular' education in particular, the opening up of employment for them (compare today's attitudes to a 100 year ago to feel the music), the widespread discourse among Muslims in Muslim countries that promotes democratic politics, tolerance of others etc. In practice they are behind but the populist intellectual capital is there and will in time produce some good results if people keep pushing. Despite, Muslims have scored badly on all counts till just about everybody had taken it up.

 

In terms of sexual ethics, Muslims have been tremendously conservative; despite the phenomenon of unwed couples being so common not only in Europe but the world over for many decades now. Muslims have so far resisted adopting it, for the better. So, insofar as the debate about sexual ethics/morals and marriage is concerned, fears about homosexuality and polyamory getting a foothold amongst Muslims are not founded.

 

On the other hand, however, this debate also shows that Muslims,  esp Western, are still decades behind in adopting the values of tolerance and coexistence that they have enjoyed in the West and that which has given them their standing in life, despite their religious/ethnic minority status. If they had the power they would deny the same rights to others whose lifestyle choices they object to. Where they have the power, they do just that, as can be seen in many Muslim countries.

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate on one hand shows Muslim fears of secular liberalism overtaking their traditional value system, which, whether we like or not, has happened to an extent already, and will continue to be pushed in that direction, simply because when traditional modes of living change, as they have in the West, and as they are in the process of change in the developing countries, the old value systems that sustained those modes of living will have to undergo their own change. One cannot exist without the other. The most obvious example of this that I cite repeatedly is attitudes towards women in general and toward their 'secular' education in particular, the opening up of employment for them (compare today's attitudes to a 100 year ago to feel the music), the widespread discourse among Muslims in Muslim countries that promotes democratic politics, tolerance of others etc. In practice they are behind but the populist intellectual capital is there and will in time produce some good results if people keep pushing. Despite, Muslims have scored badly on all counts till just about everybody had taken it up.

 

In terms of sexual ethics, Muslims have been tremendously conservative; despite the phenomenon of unwed couples being so common not only in Europe but the world over for many decades now. Muslims have so far resisted adopting it, for the better. So, insofar as the debate about sexual ethics/morals and marriage is concerned, fears about homosexuality and polyamory getting a foothold amongst Muslims are not founded.

The fear isn't that Muslims will start adopting homosexuality and polyamory in any widespread way (initially anyway), but rather that Muslims buy into a world view that finds such things morally acceptable. This is the first step to eventually rejecting any kind of traditional interpretation of Islam. For example, if a Muslim comes to believe that homosexuality is not sinful due to its widespread acceptance in society (especially 'educated' society), then he will find it hard to reconcile with religious texts that portray it as a major sin, deserving of all kinds of terrible punishments in this life and the next. Another example, that we have seen on this site, but that may become more widespread due to the behaviour of ISIS, would be on Islam's view of slavery. To many people these days, slavery is unconditionally unacceptable, and it therefore could potentially be a source of major internal conflict for some Muslims that Islam never abolished slavery, and that many respected figures owned slaves. The example of marriage out of wedlock is flawed, because it doesn't really raise these emotional issues in people's minds. However, even there, I doubt fornication is viewed quite in the same way among Western Muslims as their grandparents would have viewed it. Indeed, fornication is hardly unknown among young Muslims in the West...

On the other hand, however, this debate also shows that Muslims,  esp Western, are still decades behind in adopting the values of tolerance and coexistence that they have enjoyed in the West and that which has given them their standing in life, despite their religious/ethnic minority status. If they had the power they would deny the same rights to others whose lifestyle choices they object to. Where they have the power, they do just that, as can be seen in many Muslim countries.

So Muslims should automatically accept whatever lifestyles the West comes to accept? So if tomorrow they accept incestuous relationships, should we accept that too, in the name of 'tolerance'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, however, this debate also shows that Muslims,  esp Western, are still decades behind in adopting the values of tolerance and coexistence that they have enjoyed in the West and that which has given them their standing in life, despite their religious/ethnic minority status. If they had the power they would deny the same rights to others whose lifestyle choices they object to. Where they have the power, they do just that, as can be seen in many Muslim countries.

 

Brother your post is pretty insightful, and i am grateful living in the west and having freedoms i would not have say, in a country like saudi-arabia. However a shia muslim government here in the UK would:

 

1. Ban night-clubs

2. Ban alcohol (do you know how much that would save our national health service, and how much that would reduce crime?)

3. Make pornography illegal to seel or publicise and block it by all means on the internet.

 

etc.

 

You wouldn't have the support of Israel, the invasion of Iraq, the support of dictators, causing far more opression and murder worldwide.

 

I am against  violence , hatred, strife just to be clear. I voted in the elections, i want a peaceful britain and a peaceful world.

Edited by Tawheed313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Muslims should automatically accept whatever lifestyles the West comes to accept? So if tomorrow they accept incestuous relationships, should we accept that too, in the name of 'tolerance'?

 

No one has said Muslims should accept Western liberal lifestyles. Muslims should stick to their religious lifestyles and let others have theirs. We will have to accept one day that non-Muslims won't follow our moral codes. And if you live in a diverse society, it makes sense to keep your own and let others keep theirs, without needing to change your religious opinion on matters. It's very simple.

 

Why, if I tolerate the civic right of homosexuals to have partners without fear of reprisals from the state or religious groups, does it automatically mean that I don't see homosexuality as sinful, or punishable in the afterlife, or that I consider it 'normal' from thereon? Why the enforced logic here? I mean, what can minority Muslims do than tolerate, in terms of civic rights, differences in religious and ethical points of view? This is simple secularism. Trying to be more catholic than the pope would only get Muslims bad name and change nothing in our favour no?

 

The fear isn't that Muslims will start adopting homosexuality and polyamory in any widespread way (initially anyway), but rather that Muslims buy into a world view that finds such things morally acceptable. T

 

As long as Muslims remain religious or practicing to an extent, this won't happen. But if they stop following their religion and become nominal Muslims, then yes, it would happen. But I don't understand what do you propose Muslims do except disseminate religious values within their community and teach their kids proper Islam. There is no other way. Those who want to leave the religion will leave. If some Muslims are too concerned about the turn things are taking in the West, they can move to countries where conservative values are still strong. Though given the tide of atheism or agnosticism in many Muslim countries I doubt there is any escape from the fact that some Muslims will raise objections to their belief system and leave the fold of Islam. Again, what do you propose we do, apart form beheading them for apostasy?

 

Focus on your home bro.

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has said Muslims should accept Western liberal lifestyles. Muslims should stick to their religious lifestyles and let others have theirs. We will have to accept one day that non-Muslims won't follow our moral codes. And if you live in a diverse society, it makes sense to keep your own and let others keep theirs, without needing to change your religious opinion on matters. It's very simple.

 

Why, if I tolerate the civic right of homosexuals to have partners without fear of reprisals from the state or religious groups, does it automatically mean that I don't see homosexuality as sinful, or punishable in the afterlife, or that I consider it 'normal' from thereon? Why the enforced logic here? I mean, what can minority Muslims do than tolerate, in terms of civic rights, differences in religious and ethical points of view? This is simple secularism. Trying to be more catholic than the pope will only get Muslims bad name and change nothing in our favour no?

I'm not suggesting we do anything to stop secular society doing whatever they want. As I've said in the past, ideally I would like Western society to implement a fully secular society all in one go, rather in this drip-drip fashion, which makes it harder for most people to see what is going on (obviously it would be better if they avoided going down this road altogether, but that seems inevitable). However, it is important to raise awareness of these issues, because it is Muslim children that are going to be targeted in order to ensure that they conform with the beliefs that society wants. Even if they manage to avoid this during childhood, many will fall victims to the brainwashing once they go to university. This is the reason it is important to talk about this stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, living in Britain or the west or countries that have laws, we must respect them - not accept them, but not say, attack a homosexual individual, or assault them(i don't think we can even do that in Islam, a court must be involved to try, to judge) . We must respect the law of the land. I'll abide by british law for every second i live here, to the letter.

 

But the moment someone says 'homosexuality publically practised is islamically acceptable' - the truth is, why not throw out the religion as a whole? If something by consensus is wrong is accepted suddenly , throw out the whole religion.

 

You lose credibility. Look at christianity today, with it's gay bishops?


I'm not suggesting we do anything to stop secular society doing whatever they want. As I've said in the past, ideally I would like Western society to implement a fully secular society all in one go, rather in this drip-drip fashion, which makes it harder for most people to see what is going on (obviously it would be better if they avoided going down this road altogether, but that seems inevitable). However, it is important to raise awareness of these issues, because it is Muslim children that are going to be targeted in order to ensure that they conform with the beliefs that society wants. Even if they manage to avoid this during childhood, many will fall victims to the brainwashing once they go to university. This is the reason it is important to talk about this stuff.

 

This is what the british government are going to try and do. This is a trend now. As muslims, it's key not to speak out against homosexuality, because at times, it can make you lose your job, and can have severe penalties, and it's getting pretty serious.

 

I'm in university at the moment, i have no doubts if i said 'homosexuality deserves to be punishable' i would definitely be kicked out with my career in tatters. I would never condone violence, i prefer to abide by british law and employ taqqiyah. I live in this country, so i'd better respect the laws on what i can or can not say.

 

The only way to tackle the whole issue is in proving the existence of God to  growing disbelieving population, dissilusioned with christianity. If we manage that, we can reverse the secularist trend imho.

 

It all stems from atheism on the rise. It is no coincidence atheism rising is also in-line with a decline of christianity in Britain, with secular values upheld more and more.

 

Imho, there is a pretty good chance if our scholars awake to it, as well as our contemporary thinkers and untite globally against atheism idaologically, we can get a lot of reverts to islam.

 

I see the choice in the next decades as between Islam or Atheism. That's my prediction. Christianity, Judaism, etc are all on the decline, Islam on the rise, and may even grow more rapidly.

Edited by Tawheed313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Especially living in the West, mixing religious values with social behaviour towards others may result in very inappropiate attitudes. Homophobia should be totally avoided, and teaching children to respect others without discriminating by their sexual orientation is a key factor to educate them to live in a just society.

Haydar, you shouldnt fear next generation's approval of homosexuality. If they are taught in a reasonable manner and not in personal traditional prejudices, they won't change their views by propaganda, only by a reasonable debate. People can reconcile viewing homosexuality as a sin while conviving and tolerating homosexuals, treating them normally without any prejudice (and only a bigot gay would feel offended by that). That is possible and correct. I have already talked about how they were treated at the time of the prophet (which was indifference, not hate. Check the book by Rowson, the effeminate of early medina, for deeper research). We are not religious judges to discriminate.

And as a homosexual I can tell you that anti gay propaganda will eventually fail. Homosexuality is a fact, a reality. My father (who is a shia muslim, and was pretty much conservative, to the extreme) used to tell me stories of how they were made gays, or what they do and what they want, and how they could be cured, etc. These stories work for a kid, but when they grow up and met others people who happen to be homosexual, they realize that everything they was taught was fake, intolerance and prejudices. When that happens, everything loses its meaning, even religious laws (which are not prejudices). Of course, for me it became evident all he said lacked all meaning as I knew the truth behind homosexuality much better than he could ever do. So the best way to teach a kid about homosexuality is focusing on facts. It is haraam, a sin, ok. But also make sure they understand there are some people who are either born or choose to live that way, and they shouldn't be discriminated by that, especially in a secular country. Sticking to facts is not more simple and more humane, but a more solid base against the so called "gay propaganda" you address. As prejudices are beaten by prejudices (homophobia is easily beaten by the gay message. Check the book After the Ball, it will shock you how well designed and strong has been the gay message against the american prejudices in the 90s), but reasoned explanations cannot be beaten by prejudices. In my experience through coming out to many muslim people, most of them realized they were wrong in their judgements (due to believing in gay stereotypes), and some of them even rejected the prohibition of homosexuality afterwards (even when I myself hold a neutral position). So I'm talking out of real experience. The stronger the shock due to not fitting with their prejudices, the stronger the reaction against their own beliefs in the prohibition of homosexuality. In the book I mentioned, one of the strategies was precisely showing homosexual people as role handsome models with exemplary behaviour. The fact is that homosexuals aren't different from the rest, there are good and bad, as always. But shocking the audience was a way to break the prejudices. And a society whose position against homosexuality is SOLELY based on prejudices, will easily change its view, in only a decade.

I appreciate lecturers like sayyed Ammar who addressed the topic with some compassion and reason. It is more respectful to LGBT and also offers a better insight for muslim people to keep their views on homosexuality as a sin without the need of being complete ignorant homophobes.

-----

The acceptance of incest and other sexual behaviours is quite different from a sexual orientation that appears naturally in any human being, regardless of the race, religion, gender, etc.

As for the ban of alcohol, it is not exclusively an islamic procedure. Albert Camus, on Reflections on the guillotine, argued in favour of the removal of the death penalty under the condition of improving people's life quality and the ban of alcohol. He was an atheist.

As for the anti homophobia laws, I thank God for them. As a teacher, before joining the university, you are asked to make a test and they also address this topic. It is an insult to the academic institution to adopt such behaviour against the intimate life of some people. It is none of our business. You can't imagine the numbers of abuses gay people suffer in schools though... and if it weren't for such education, they would suffer them even at the university.

Anyway... I'm enjoining the debate, interesting inputs.

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...