Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Dr Sekaleshfar lecture on homosexuality in media

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member
51 minutes ago, Bakir said:

First of all, I am amazed to say thks for the second or third time in this forum, but HIV doesn't come into existence when a man penetrates another man. It is not created from scratch.

Also, we all know sex is not solely to get pregnant. Saying this in this time and age is cynical.

Problems associated wirh homosexuality are rather social problems, but they are in many ways real. Repression in this heteropatriarchal society causes a lot of people psychological problems that they may not be able to overcome. Nothing one should be criticizing to be honest, because none of us is in a high position to start criticizing others.

Biologically speaking, the reproductive tract is to reproduce. One can flirt with his eyes but the main purpose of eye is to see not to flirt. 

Evolutionary speaking, animals evolve in a way that ensures better fitting. If the change lead to drop in reproduction, it is considered weakness of that animal and way to its extinction..

Biologically speaking that is. Facts not whims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
20 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

My quotes re: young, black, and Hispanic new infections are from the CDC article that YOUR article linked to. You should read it. 

My quotes concerning the dropping rates of HIV are from current publications, not those from six years ago.

cdc statement in 2015

CDC estimates that 1,218,400 persons aged 13 years and older are living with HIV infection, including 156,300 (12.8%) who are unaware of their infection. Over the past decade, the number of people living with HIV has increased, while the annual number of new HIV infections has remained relatively stable. Still, the pace of new infections continues at far too high a level—particularly among certain groups.

No dropping of rates and as you said, my link is outdated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, baradar_jackson said:

And now that we on the topic of the medical field, isn't it interesting that in the US, the medical establishment considered homosexuality a mental illness and they did not change their official position until the 1990s? I don't know what happened in the 1990s to make them change that but I am pretty darn sure it wasn't a medical breakthrough.

I think it is pretty much there still




Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2016 at 3:07 PM, Ruq said:

I dont believe that to be true, and in the least it is certainly a debatable issue. As Muslims we should be extremely cautious when it comes to potentially causing injustice and oppression. There is no death penalty for a sexual act in the Quran, yet it deals with the subject adultery and homosexuality. This fact alone should make people very cautious about claiming that such a punishment is intrinsically Islamic.


I think he is just trolling.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LeftCoastMom said:


2. Are we talking Islamic or scientific credentials? 

6. There was plenty of work done by science in the years before it was changed. It does not meet the criteria of a mental illness. 


Islam or any religion in its pure and true sense defies science .

When I say true and pure sense, meaning the Religion when,Moses, Jesus, and the last Prophet were alive.

Meaning the religion( way of life which was with them) not after them.

The prophets were the embodiment of pure religion and beyond science.

Hence what ever they did defied science , even as the science we know today. The prophets were pure vessel to introduce what is true science, which is the science of God.

The rest of us are all mentally ill with varying degrees.

The definition of mental Illness in Islam and in any religion in its pure sense is different from science.

Mental illness is not only that you physically go and assult people, which is the inner mental illness manifested.

Mental illness/ disease is a lot broader than that.

It is jeolusy , anger, greed, lies, pride, being argumentative, and a lot more.

These are all classified as mental dis- ease in Islam.

One of the very important mental dis-eases indicated in the Quran, is of people who read it and give there own interpretation of The Quran, with out receiving the gift of understanding of it from God himself.

Hence you see so many verdicts and opinions on a matter, which is a result of personal analysis and is mentioned as a  mental dis- ease in people who tend to do this. Which are plenty.

A very intelligent scientist mentioned. What science says today about the brain, will be wrong 50 years down the road.

But prophets who are reps of God, are linked with his knowledge, so what they say is always fresh and eternal. Because they are in connection with the source by the milli second and can receive the newest information about any thing.

Up to this day no science can explain how prophets would bring a person back to life even after 60 years past his death. Nor can they explain how can a person travel beyond our universe in body and spirit with out a space suit and back under a minute.

There is no scientific explaination for this, but the prophets will be able to explain certain things to scientists if they have an open mind to accept it.

God calls the people who rejected the great miracles of the prophets as people with dis-ease in their minds.

According to current science if Jesus were to return and perform any miracle, people who would deny him , according to current science would be considered, normal people who do not agree or believe in such a thing , and will not categorize them as people with mental dis- ease.

Infact many scientists may deny the miracles of Jesus and call themselves rationalist and great thinkers, and would never consider themselves mentally diseased.

The deepest mental illness according to all religions is denying the Truth when you are shown the Truth thru a divine authority and proper reason, out of ego, stubbornness.

Hence all of us suffer from mental illness and disease,it is just the degree varies.

The objective of my post was to explain the over all definition of mental disease according to All religions when tracked backed to its source, not as we practise or define it today.

Edited by certainclarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
6 minutes ago, Mohammed Z said:

If homosexuality is indeed a mental sickness, then why do they require punishment? Aren't sick people exempt from punishment?


لَّيْسَ عَلَى الْأَعْمَىٰ حَرَجٌ وَلَا عَلَى الْأَعْرَجِ حَرَجٌ وَلَا عَلَى الْمَرِيضِ حَرَجٌ وَلَا عَلَىٰ أَنفُسِكُمْ أَن تَأْكُلُوا مِن بُيُوتِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ آبَائِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ أُمَّهَاتِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ إِخْوَانِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ أَخَوَاتِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ أَعْمَامِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ عَمَّاتِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ أَخْوَالِكُمْ أَوْ بُيُوتِ خَالَاتِكُمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكْتُم مَّفَاتِحَهُ أَوْ صَدِيقِكُمْ ۚ لَيْسَ عَلَيْكُمْ جُنَاحٌ أَن تَأْكُلُوا جَمِيعًا أَوْ أَشْتَاتًا ۚ فَإِذَا دَخَلْتُم بُيُوتًا فَسَلِّمُوا عَلَىٰ أَنفُسِكُمْ تَحِيَّةً مِّنْ عِندِ اللَّهِ مُبَارَكَةً طَيِّبَةً ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ يُبَيِّنُ اللَّهُ لَكُمُ الْآيَاتِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ

There is not upon the blind [any] constraint nor upon the lame constraint nor upon the ill constraint nor upon yourselves when you eat from your [own] houses or the houses of your fathers or the houses of your mothers or the houses of your brothers or the houses of your sisters or the houses of your father's brothers or the houses of your father's sisters or the houses of your mother's brothers or the houses of your mother's sisters or [from houses] whose keys you possess or [from the house] of your friend. There is no blame upon you whether you eat together or separately. But when you enter houses, give greetings of peace upon each other - a greeting from Allah , blessed and good. Thus does Allah make clear to you the verses [of ordinance] that you may understand.  [Surah Al-noor, verse 61]


Can someone please explain this?

Mental illness as per modern day medicine are 2 major types:



In neurosis , the human is still able to perceive his own problem but has difficulty solving it. An example can be minor depression, bad temper , personality disorder etc.. these all are illnesses as per modern day medicine. All of these require no medications but some cognitive therapy.

Islam leave these "soul" or "heart" or "tongue" maladies to spiritual teachings and behavioural treatment.

Psychosis is when the human is no longer connected to reality, a totally disconnection and dissociation from reality. The best example is schizophrenia. These sort of illnesses require medications to keep the human safe from killing himself or killing others around him, due to some voices he hears or things he sees, thinking that someone wants to kill him etc

In islam this is called Junoon , it translate to "obscuring of intellect and lack of awareness " Until the human recovered from such state, what he dose during this disease is not punishable.


Modern day medicine and psychology are basing the illness as the state out of norm or out of the common. A man should know he is a man.. a woman should know her gender. Liking or disliking of this may sometimes  be due to lack of self esteem or other fears or stuff that require attention. ( At least that what i understood).

Islam dose not teach us that homosexual act is imposed upon human nature, rather it is a choice. It is not done in state of psychosis either.

The modern medicine removed the homosexual act as mental illness but t still lists the sexual disorientation problem as mental illness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

^ I did not argue that desires are sinful... one can have trillion evil thought, still not sinful unless he acts upon it. This is basic islamic principle. NON HERE is talking about that OBVIOUSLY. and i hate the circular talk.


Principles of Homosexuality propaganda



From the point of view of evolution, prejudice is an alerting signal, warning tribal mammals that a potentially dangerous alien mammal is in the vicinity, and should be fought or fled. Alerting mechanisms respond to novelties in the environment, because novelties represent change from the usual, and are, therefore, potentially important.

One of two things can happen: (1) If the alerting mechanism is very strongly activated, it will produce an unendurable emotional state, forcing the tribal mammal to fight the novelty or flee it. (2) If, however, the novelty is either low-grade, or simply odd without being threatening, the alerting mechanism will be mildly activated, producing an emotional state that, if other environmental circumstances militate against it, will be too weak to motivate any actual behavioral response. In the latter case, the mammal may peer curiously at the novelty for quite some time, but will not do anything about it, or to it.

As a general physio-psychological rule, novelties cease to be novel if they just stick around long enough; they also cease to activate alerting mechanisms. There are excellent evolutionary reasons for this: if the mammal either has no good reason to respond, or is for some reason incapable of doing so, it is actually hindered in its normal activities if its attention continues to be taken up by an irrelevancy. You'll have noted this in your own life: if you hear a protracted, earsplitting mechanical screech, you'll either be so alarmed, or so annoyed, that you'll be forced to take action; if you hear a softer--though, perhaps, nonetheless annoying--sound, like the ticking of a clock, and can't shut it off, you will, eventually, shut it out, and may cease to hear it altogether. Similarly with a rank odor, smelled upon entering a room; if you can't get rid of it, you eventually cease to smell it.

Franz Kafka wrote a delightful fable ("The Animal in the Synagogue") that might almost have had Desensitization in mind. His story--never finished-deals with a peculiar animal, the only one of its kind, which has been living, since time immemorial, in a synagogue. The elders take a dim view of this state of affairs; though quiet, the animal emerges from its nook during services and distracts the women (who sit at the back) from their devotions. Moreover, there is no telling, with so very odd an animal, what its habits might eventually prove to be. Suppose it bites? There is talk of mounting an expedition to catch and kill it. But the synagogue is very large and very old, with a thousand bolt- holes in which the animal might hide, and it is capable of climbing high and running fast. Any such expedition would be difficult, and would run the risk not only of failure, but of damaging irreplaceable artwork. The upshot is that the elders call the whole thing off; and, as the animal never gives anyone the least trouble, they get used to its presence, and eventually cease to think about it at all.

Apply this to the problem of homohatred. If gays present themselves-- or allow themselves to be presented--as overwhelmingly different and threatening, they will put straights on a triple-red alert, driving them to overt acts of political oppression or physical violence.If, however, gays can live alongside straights, visibly but as inoffensively as possible, they will arouse a low-grade alert only, which, though annoying to straights, will eventually diminish for purely physiological reasons. Straights will be desensitized. Put more simply, if you go out of your way to be unendurable, people will try to destroy you; otherwise, they might eventually get used to you. This commonsense axiom should make it clear that living down to the stereotype, a la Gender-Bending, is a very bad idea.

We can extract the following principle for our campaign to desensitize straights to gays and gayness, inundate them in a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can't shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.

Of course, while sheer indifference is, itself, vastly preferable to hatred and threats, we would like to do better than that. We turn next to more difficult, but also more vigorous and rewarding, tactics




The engine of prejudice can be made to grind to a halt not only by Desensitization, in which it is simply allowed to run out of steam, but also by the more active process of Jamming. As the name implies, Jamming involves the insertion into the engine of a pre-existing, incompatible emotional response, gridlocking its mechanism as thoroughly as though one had sprinkled fine sand into the workings of an old-fashioned pocket watch. Jamming, as an approach, is more active and aggressive than Desensitization; by the same token, it is also more enjoyable and heartening.

Jamming makes use of the rules of Associative Conditioning (the psychological process whereby, when two things are repeatedly juxtaposed, one's feelings about one thing are transferred to the other) and Direct Emotional Modeling (the inborn tendency of human beings to feel what they perceive others to be feeling).

Turning Associative Conditioning and Direct Emotional Modeling against themselves, we Jam by forging a fresh link between, on the one hand, some part of the mechanism, and, on the other, a pre-existing, external, opposed, and therefore incompatible emotional response. Ideally, the bigot subjected to such counterconditioning will ultimately experience two emotional responses to the hated object, opposed and competing. The consequent internal confusion has two effects: first, it is unpleasant-- we can call it 'emotional dissonance,' after Festinger--and will tend to result in an alteration of previous beliefs and feelings so as to resolve the internal conflict. Since the weaker of the clashing emotional associations is the more likely to give way, we can achieve optimal results by linking the prejudicial response to a stronger and more fundamental structure of belief and emotion. (Naturally, in some people this will be impossible, as prejudicial hatred is the strongest ) element in their beliefs, emotions, and motivations. Without resorting to prefrontal lobotomy--ah! sweet dreams!--these people are more or less unsalvageable.) Second, even where an optimal resolution does not occur, the internal dissonance will tend to inhibit overt expression of the prejudicial emotion--which is, in itself, useful and relieving.

The 'incompatible emotional response' is directed primarily against the emotional rewards of prejudicial solidarity. All normal people feel shamewhen they perceive that they are not thinking, feeling, or acting like one of the pack. And, these days, all but the stupidest and most unregenerate of bigots perceive that prejudice against all other minority groups-e.g., blacks, Jews, Catholics, women, et al.--has long since ceased to be approved, let alone fashionable, and that to express such prejudices, if not to hold them, makes one decidedly not one of the pack. It was permissible, some forty years ago, to tell the vilest ethnic jokes at the average party, and, if the joke was reasonably well told, the joker could expect to receive applause and approval from his or her roistering confreres. (Should you find this hard to believe, read 2500 Jokes for All Occasions, a popular 1942 compilation by Powers Moulton, which will surely stand your hair on end.) With the exception of certain benighted social classes and backward areas of the country, this is quite generally no longer the case.

The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd. Thus, propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths and [Edited Out]s--people who say not only 'faggot' but '[Edited Out],' 'kike,' and other shameful epithets--who are 'not Christian.' It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause. It can, in short, link homohating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess, and with social consequences he would find unpleasant and scary. The attack, therefore, is on self-image and on the pleasure in hating.

When our ads show a bigot--just like the members of the target audience--being criticized, hated, and shunned, we make use of Direct Emotional Modeling as well. Remember, a bigot seeks approval and liking from 'his crowd.' When he sees someone like himself being disapproved of and  disliked by ordinary Joes, Direct Emotional Modeling ensures that he will feel just what they feel --and transfer it to himself. This wrinkle effectively elicits shame and doubt, Jamming any pleasure he might normally feel. In a very real sense, every time a bigot sees such a thing, he is un- learning a little bit of the lesson of prejudice taught him by his parents and peers.

Such an approach may seem much too weak to work, yet bear these thoughts in mind: (a) the procedure is exactly that which formed the prejudicial complex to begin with; (b) the majority of casual bigots do not, in fact, see themselves as unpleasant people and would hate to think that others see them as such, let alone that their hatred has caused suffering and death; (c) there has, in fact, been a major turnaround in the acceptability, in this country, of prejudice against other minority groups, due, in our opinion, in no small part to exactly such counterconditioning and linking; and (d) such an approach has actually been used in TV advertisements, most memorably in an antidrinking ad showing a teenage boy drinking at a party, but notmeeting with approval: indeed, as he gets more and more drunk, his behavior becomes more and more obnoxious, and he is regarded by the other partiers with disgust; ultimately, his head turns into that of a heehawing jackass. One can readily see how this sort of thing could be adapted to our own purposes.

Note that the bigot need not actually be made to believe that he is such a heinous creature, that others will now despise him, and that he has been the immoral agent of suffering. It would be impossible to make him believe any such thing. Rather, our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. Just as the bigot became such, without any say in the matter, through repeated infralogical emotional conditioning, his bigotry can be alloyed in exactly the same way, whether he is conscious of the attack or not. Indeed, the more he is distracted by any incidental, even specious, surface arguments, the less conscious he'll be of the true nature of the process--which is all to the good.

In short, Jamming succeeds insofar as it inserts even a slight frisson of doubt and shame into the previously unalloyed, self- righteous pleasure. The approach can be quite useful and effective -- if our message can get the massive exposure upon which all else depends.



Desensitization aims at lowering the intensity of antigay emotional reactions to a level approximating sheer indifference; Jamming attempts to blockade or counteract the rewarding 'pride in prejudice' (peace, Jane Austen!) by attaching to homohatred a pre-existing, and punishing, sense of shame in being a bigot, a horse's ass, and a beater and murderer. Both Desensitization and Jamming, though extremely useful, are mere preludes to our highest --though necessarily very long-range--goal, which is Conversion.

It isn't enough that antigay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us--we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us. Conversion aims at just this.

Please don't confuse Conversion with political Subversion. The word 'subversion' has a nasty ring, of which the American people are inordinately afraid--and on their guard against. Yet, ironically, by Conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occur. We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean 'subverting' the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends--using the very processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard--whether they like it or not.

Put briefly, if Desensitization lets the watch run down, and Jamming throws sand in the works, Conversion reverses the spring so that the hands run backward.

Conversion makes use of Associative Conditioning, much as Jamming does--indeed, in practice the two processes overlap-- but far more ambitiously. In Conversion, the bigot, who holds a very negative stereotypic picture, is repeatedly exposed to literal picture/label pairs, in magazines, and on billboards and TV, of gay- explicitly labeled as such!--who not only don't look like his picture of a homosexual, but are carefully selected to look either like the bigot and his friends, or like any one of his other stereotypes of all-right guys-- the kind of people he already likes and ` admires. This image must, of necessity, be carefully tailored to be free of absolutely every element of the widely held stereotypes of how 'faggots' look, dress, and sound. He--or she--must not be too well or fashionably dressed; must not be too handsome--that is, mustn't look like a model--or well groomed. The image must be that of an icon of normality--a good beginning would be to take a long look at Coors beer and Three Musketeers candy commercials. Subsequent ads can branch out from that solid basis to include really adorable, athletic teenagers, kindly grandmothers, avuncular policemen, ad infinitem.

The objection will be raised--and raised, and raised--that we t would 'Uncle Tommify' the gay community; that we are exchanging one false stereotype for another equally false; that our ads are lies; that that is not how all gays actually look; that gays know it, and bigots know it. Yes, of course--we know it, too. But it makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because we're using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones; not to bigots, because the ads will have their effect on them whether they believe them or not.

When a bigot is presented with an image of the sort of person of whom he already has a positive stereotype, he experiences an involuntary rush of positive emotion, of good feeling; he's been conditioned to experience it. But, here, the good picture has the bad label--gay! (The ad may say something rather like 'Beauregard Smith--beer drinker, Good Ole Boy, pillar of the community, 100% American, and gay as a mongoose.') The bigot will feel two incompatible emotions: a good response to the picture, a bad response to the label. At worst, the two will cancel one another, and we will have successfully Jammed, as above. At best, Associative Conditioning will, to however small an extent, transfer the positive emotion associated with the picture to the label itself, not immediately replacing the negative response, but definitely weakening it.

You may wonder why the transfer wouldn't proceed in the opposite direction. The reason is simple: pictures are stronger than words and evoke emotional responses more powerfully. The bigot is presented with an actual picture; its label will evoke in his mind his own stereotypic picture, but what he sees in his mind's eye will be weaker than what he actually sees in front of him with the eyes in his face. The more carefully selected the advertised image is to reflect his ideal of the sort of person who just couldn't be gay, the more effective it will be. Moreover, he will, by virtue of logical necessity, see the positive picture in the ad before it can arouse his negative 'picture,' and first impressions have an advantage over second.

In Conversion, we mimic the natural process of stereotype- learning, with the following effect: we take the bigot's good feelings about all- right guys, and attach them to the label 'gay,' either weakening or, eventually, replacing his bad feelings toward the label and the prior stereotype.

Understanding Direct Emotional Modeling, you'll readily foresee its application to Conversion: whereas in Jamming the target is shown a bigot being rejected by his crowd for his prejudice against gays, in Conversion the target is shown his crowd actually associating with gays in good fellowship. Once again, it's very difficult for the average person, who, by nature and training, almost invariably feels what he sees his fellows feeling, not to re-spend in this knee-jerk fashion to a sufficiently calculated advertisement. In a way, most advertisement is founded upon an answer of Yes, definitely! to Mother's sarcastic question: I suppose if all the other kids jumped off a bridge and killed themselves, you would, too?

We've now outlined three major modes by which we can alter the itinerary of the engine of prejudice in our favor. Desensitization lets the engine run out of steam, causing it to halt on the tracks indefinitely. Jamming, in essence, derails it. Conversion-- our ambitious long-range goal--puts the engine into reverse gear and sends it back whence it came.

These modes are abstract--we've only hinted, here and there, at how they can be harnessed and put to work for us in a practical propaganda campaign . . .

Our goal, being high, is also difficult. The bottleneck in reaching it, however, isn't lack of knowledge of the psychological principles . involved, nor lack of efficacy in the methods available; the principles are known, and the methods work. The bottleneck is purely and simply achieving a sufficient scope for the dissemination of our propaganda. Success depends, as always, on flooding the media. And that, in turn, means money, which means man-hours, which means unifying the gay community for a concerted effort. Let's be blunt: those who aren't with us in this effort, either because they have better ways of wasting their time, or because they think we're politically incorrect, are most decidedly against us, against unification, and against the best interests of the gay community as a whole.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member


An article by Jonathan Brown published today. I haven't read it yet, but he usually doesn't disappoint.

The Shariah, Homosexuality & Safeguarding Each Other’s Rights in a Pluralist Society



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
5 hours ago, Chaotic Muslem said:

I think it is pretty much there still




More on that disorder :

While the Obama administration, Hollywood and major media such as Time magazine promote transgenderism as “normal,” said Dr. McHugh, these “policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention.”

“This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken – it does not correspond with physical reality,” McHugh wrote. “The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.”

The transgendered person’s disorder, said Dr. McHugh, is in the person’s “assumption” that they are different than the physical reality of their body, their maleness or femaleness, as assigned by nature. It is a disorder similar to a “dangerously thin” person suffering anorexia who looks in the mirror and thinks they are “overweight,” said McHugh.

This assumption, that one’s gender is only in the mind regardless of anatomical reality, has led some transgendered people to push for social acceptance and affirmation of their own subjective “personal truth,” said Dr. McHugh. As a result, some states – California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts – have passed laws barring psychiatrists, “even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor,” he said.

The pro-transgender advocates do not want to know, said McHugh, that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings “spontaneously lose those feelings” over time. Also, for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were “satisfied” with the operation “but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.”

“And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs,” said Dr. McHugh.

The former Johns Hopkins chief of psychiatry also warned against enabling or encouraging certain subgroups of the transgendered, such as young people “susceptible to suggestion from ‘everything is normal’ sex education,” and the schools’ “diversity counselors” who, like “cult leaders,” may “encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery.”

Dr. McHugh also reported that there are “misguided doctors” who, working with very young children who seem to imitate the opposite sex, will administer “puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous – even though the drugs stunt the children’s growth and risk causing sterility.”

Such action comes “close to child abuse,” said Dr. McHugh, given that close to 80% of those kids will “abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated ….”

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/former-johns-hopkins-chief-of-psychiatry-destroys-caitlyn-jenner-must-read/#ixzz4BxHIVKIN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
8 hours ago, Chaotic Muslem said:

^ I did not argue that desires are sinful... one can have trillion evil thought, still not sinful unless he acts upon it. This is basic islamic principle. NON HERE is talking about that OBVIOUSLY. and i hate the circular talk.


Principles of Homosexuality propaganda



Readed and studied the book deeply, we even had a debate on this book. What's the point on quoting it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On samedi 18 juin 2016 at 1:58 PM, Chaotic Muslem said:

prejudices , prejudices

White MSM are more likely to contract HIV than other races in the USA





Other factors related to High Risk behaviours that may lead to HIV



By time, numbers are INCREASING. This graph shows the NEW cases in 2008 , compared to the NEW cases discovered in 2010




These are CDC figures by the way.


Thank you very much about these pictures. Do you have just a link about where you find them ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
11 hours ago, Chaotic Muslem said:

I have feelings that all of this is for his best.


I thought the same but then talked about this with a friend and he made an interesting point: he said that the implications of such a decision impacts more than just Dr. Farrokh. This sets a precedent whereby people can be banned from this country for preaching our religion.


The Australian media called him a "controversial anti-gay cleric." But we all know that the view he presented was not controversial at all; it was the universal view of all Muslims. And he did so in a very careful way, emphasizing forgiveness and even saying that if such individuals come to you, you should not feel disgusted by them but rather: try to help them, and that this is the path of the prophets, etc.


Him being banned from the country doesn't hurt him; he lives in Qom and he surely prefers Qom to the US. But it is problematic for us, and not just because we can't invite him to our masajid. Because it will instill fear in other scholars to say something so basic and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
46 minutes ago, baradar_jackson said:

I thought the same but then talked about this with a friend and he made an interesting point: he said that the implications of such a decision impacts more than just Dr. Farrokh. This sets a precedent whereby people can be banned from this country for preaching our religion.


I know. I think i hit for this effect when i said in my first post in this topic that Australian Shia should do something about it. It isn't only what people preach. Later it will come down to books and schools a preacher comes from and this whole situation is an anti islamic but no-one believed.

I think Muslims in west are a bit naive when it comes to media wars. I saw many on this forum jumping to show sympathy with gays, and maybe there is nothing with showing disgust from the crime but sometimes it is better to hold the horses because not all that we hear or see in media is meant to be what we feel at first sight. They look for reactions and they aim for control through social pressure then they turn it to a law that noon will talk against.

It is what Imam Ali said : كن كإبن البون، لا ظهرا فيحمل و لا ضرعا يشرب"

be like little camel, it has no strong back to carry people on nor it has breast with milk that people seek for drink. So most people will ignore it during a chaos. What happened in Orlando was chaos and Muslims should have distant themselves.. but instead and sadly many just went with the flow. They did not ask : Who is this Omer Mateen? Is he practicing Muslim? We do not know him. Who is this ISIS? it kills Muslims, how it can be  a Muslim organisation? We have nothing to do with it.


The ruling exist since the day Islam was born, homosexuality is not an invention of western world, it existed and it was celebrated in many perished nations but t never survived to become a norm. Even in places where it is commonly practiced, it isn't a norm. But we did not hear about mass killing of them in islamic countries.

Heck, if you opened a book of literature talking about the Abbasid era, some stories went to speak about relations between judges or some caliphs and their slave boys. Al though it was practiced but those in power, it was never turned to be  a norm. It is the way of Allah and how He created the man, the abnormal is abnormal and is meant to disappear.

So I am not worried about this issue, but i have feeling that they aim to something else, this was just a test and it is such a successful test for them and huge blow to shia in west, but most Shia are ok with it. *shrugs*

What I find to be hilarious is this: whenever i mention that homosexuality is a sin, I am labeled as homophobe by fellow shia.. When i point out that it comes with physical harms and psychological harms, I am labeled as homophobe although i dd not come up with these things from scratch. It is well known fact that it is a sin, it is well known fact that AIDS and other STI are prevalent among that community.

The islam point of labelling it as sin is to say that it is harmful. And when Muslims say it is a sin, they should believe in Allah's wisdom and knowledge and judgement. He has no predjuces nor he is unjust. 

But like wine, and how it is well known now that it is harmful, there are who will still argue for its favour because it is a way of culture.

When Islam label something as sin, it is a way to say I care about you that i'll label a special place for smokers and i'll label the pack with cancer warning and i'll teach kids not to smoke not because i discriminate against smokers but because i care and i do not want to see someone fall in this trap.

The same can be applied on homosexuality. I believe that it harms the humanity. This should not translate to the insanity of Orlando nor to the insanity in Australia of banning a soft spoken preacher.

But now it dose not matter.. we should observe the domino effect on the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

@Chaotic Muslem I was actually surprised that the Australian Shi'a didn't do anything to defend the Dr. and istead seemed to have encouraged his leaving or that Shi'a generally seem to keep quiet about this even on social media (I might be wrong here, not really active on any social media but I am not hearing anything). I mean, if this was simply the media playing stupid, okay - but this whole thing resulting in the poor man's visas being revoked and whatnot that's just... Countries let people whom they know are associated with ISIS roam free, but innocent men are getting "banned"?

As someone else had mentioned earlier - if he has any way to sue for defamation, that would be great. And if there's any possibility to raise awareness for this injustice, Shi'a should try to seek it, no? It is times like these that we should be united and stay in solidarity with each other and thus, support our scholars and preachers.

Either way, if there is an even deeper motivation behind this incident, let them plan but there is no greater planner than Allah. In Him we trust.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

@Noor al Batul 

What I find it more dangerous is the dirty link between Shia and ISIS. This link is one of the most sick and poor jokes in middle east : The Iranian shia ISIS is fighting the Shia militia backed by the shia iranian army.

What they did here is similar. They want to strengthen this association despite its ridiculousness. I feel some dirty money went in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

Please have a look at this new video release;

”Since the Orlando incidents in June 2016, media has illegitimately accused Dr.Sekaleshfar to be the source of inspiration of the killing. They have wrongly taken parts of his 3-year-old-speech out of context and also twisted the facts to fit their story.

This video shows what really happened:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member
On June 18, 2016 at 5:40 AM, Ibn al-Hussain said:


@LeftCoastMom I am not here to convince you of the correctness of our belief on this specific matter. We have completely different world views, different epistemologies, different foundations upon which we live our life on. I am only here to help you understand what the Islamic view on this issue is, not necessarily convince you that it is the truth. With that being said, just wanted to respond to some of your remarks:

We believe in a meta-physical reality. Just like certain physical actions can cause certain defects and harm to a child, so can certain actions whose results are not immediately seen, or we have not been able to pin-point them physically yet. A good example for this is prayers & supplications, and specifically prayers ordained for rain. Rain is a physical phenomenon that has been explained away by science, to the extent that it can even be foretold weeks in advance. With that being said, we believe that the prayers for rain - with its correct conditions - can play a role in rain-fall. Likewise, certain sins can also play a role in causing certain defects, albeit with the help of certain physical elements (which we may or may not be aware of). Once again, I don't need to actually prove this to you, because all the evidence relies on various different preliminaries that we both disagree on.

For example, in our theology we have a view that the ancestors of the Prophet(s) have to have been monotheists. You may ask, what difference does it make if the parents of the Prophet (s) were unbelievers? Suggesting that the Prophet's parents or ancestors were not monotheists (as believers of the other sects believe), can result in a lot of implications that simply go against one's intellect. So because we prove elsewhere through the intellect that the Prophet (s) can not take on certain qualities - physical or spiritual, thus such a view is absurd and has to be incorrect (because the human intellect is the standard and measure for discerning right & wrong in this case, and historical reports that go against a certain intellectual principle are given no value). Likewise, some extend this view further and reach the conclusion that there is no way Khadija (s) the wife of the Prophet could have had previous marriages and children from those previous marriages (even though historical reports exist for this). Whether this is right or wrong is a debate that Shi'is can have amongst themselves or with the Sunnis, but my point is that these issues all pertain to a meta-physical reality which we believe has a direct connection with the physical reality.

Dr. Farrokh specifically, as I mentioned before, has dedicated a lot of time studying the mystical sciences and his themes usually revolve around Islamic mysticism & gnosis. While all Muslims scholars believe in a meta-physical reality, those who are into these sciences are more capable of explaining and justifying such a relationship (between the material and non-material world). For example he has given an excellent series of lectures on the role of the soul and what happens when a part of someone else's body (like an arm, eye or leg) gets transplanted to another person - what happens to the soul of the person whose body-part was transplanted. But again, even as a Shi'a, you would need to accept a lot of preliminaries before you could even agree, or be able to accept or reject the specific justifications & explanations of the Shaykh in these matters.

In many Eastern cultures, those few that have not yet been invaded and destroyed by modern and post-modern thought, two men holding hands taking a stroll in the park, or kissing each other on the face, forehead or hands, are not seen as "homosexual acts". Such display of brotherhood and affection are common. A homosexual act that is punishable with death - with its conditions - is essentially anal-sex. That is really it. So viewing another person of the same gender with lust is punishable - even though it is a sin.

When such an act has been established as a sin, and because we believe that sins have a detrimental effect on the souls of the individuals and as well as a negative effect on a society at large, it is fair to say that homosexuality damages a society, physically and spiritually. It so happens that certain sins violating chastity (adultery, homosexuality - re: anal sex), have been legislated with a death penalty. Islam see's the issue of chastity as a big deal, big enough of a deal to decree a death penalty for violating it. Once again, we can argue whether it is such a big deal or not to warrant a death penalty, but we will not reach a conclusion because we are bound by two different understandings of the world. Yes there are certain jurists who may have also said that there is no death penalty for such an act, but believe me, them saying that has nothing to do with them being politically or morally correct in a certain society. It all comes down to whether they were able to establish proof for such a punishment or not through a methodology that they deem to be most appropriate and correct. 

That being said, even if we agree that gays are "born gay" biologically speaking (there is really no conclusive scientific evidence for this), it doesn't necessarily translate into the right to commit homosexual acts (i.e. acts that involve lust, having oral sex, anal-intercourse etc.). Just because people (straight or not) are supposedly born with sexual urges, doesn't give them the right to, for example masturbate or commit fornication, "just because they are born that way". A person who is born gay (if we accept such a thing), doesn't mean they are committing a sin. As a matter of fact, even if we say they are not born gay, but later in life decide to associate themselves as "homosexual", still to this point they have not committed any sin. Committing a sin is a physical action, being born gay or associating yourself to a sexual orientation is a state of being. Yes this state of being can translate into certain physical actions, but gays, like all humans have free-will. They have the ability to control their urges and not act on their urges. Just like straight-individuals are expected to control their urges and not violate the boundaries which have been set by law.


Thanks for the explanation. I don't have time to respond to all of it right now, unfortunately. 

I understand the POV regarding homosexuality of what one of my professor friends who shares my ethnicity quaintly referred to as" the middle eastern patriarchal desert cults" one of which I am a follower . ( He's a Traditional native himself, ,dismisses all three of the Abrahamic faiths as hopelessly backwards ,and hopes I will one day see the error of my ways and become a proper pagan . Lol.)

Ergo: If your explanation is not too convincing to me, be of good cheer...neither is my own religion's.

My church is far more inclusive of gay folks these days , although marriage is still not an option within the Church. 

I do hold there is science pointing to an explanation of some gay people being born that way.

 We both believe in meta-physical reality. ( My family is killer at calling up the rain .)

The specific culture around here was fine for thousands of years with acceptance of a gender spectrum. 

Smallpox and genocide was another matter.

Edited by LeftCoastMom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

As I said before, there is no death punishment for homosexuals in Quran. If you say we find it in hadith then why didn't Allah mentioned it in Quran? Why did Allah mentioned the punishment for zina and theft in Quran and not the punishment for homosexuality?



Edited by Hussein14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, Hussein14 said:

As I said before, there is no death punishment for homosexuals in Quran. If you say we find it in hadith then why didn't Allah mentioned it in Quran? Why did Allah mentioned the punishment for zina and theft in Quran and not the punishment for homosexuality?



When it comes to Islamic Law most of it is derived from the Sunnah via Hadith. So your argument is very weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member


On 6/13/2016 at 11:29 AM, Vestige said:

I'll copy and paste a comment I made in another thread regarding this:


Why has this video only blown up now? His lecture on homosexuality (which is now contaminated with hate comments by dumb, ignorant, racist, sodomy-lovin' halfwitts) is three years old.

And if these clueless twits actually cared to watch the full video instead of instantly disliking it and spouting the same regurgitated drivel they have been all their lives, then they'd know how Dr Sekaleshfar (may Allah bless and protect him) elucidated the various stipulations and prerequisites in order for the hadd to be applicable. This news report has basically taken a ten second clip from (an hour and twenty minute lecture) and made it out as if being gay is deserving of death, when in actuality, as the Dr explained, it is the act of sodomy that you are killed for.

And he is absolutely 100% correct when he said there's nothing to be embarrassed about the death penalty. Sodomites are burnt alive. Deal with it.

The filthy, lying curs who were involved in making this report can go to hell. Even the title is clickbait.


It's upsetting to see such a polite, cordial, soft-spoken man put in the limelight like this. 

Agree with you man.


(Saw your comment on the video) xD

Link to comment
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.

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...