Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

How can I stand up to the LGBT? (need advice)

Rate this topic


Guest Mark

Recommended Posts

Guest nobody

it is sad that we argue about this things...i can see sense among both sides and i am not in the position to say who is right or wrong... i would suggest to better asked such complicated issues to a marja and see what he says.. we dont need to argue but healthy conversations is good.. and we should accept to agree to disagree we all can have different options anyways.. in the end Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is the only Judge we would face in the Day of Judgement. i've learned so much from this thread.. thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Uni Student said:

@kadhim @SoRoUsH opinions on same sex couples adopting?

I feel like this is an unnecessary tangent. And one which, as posed, without specifics, doesn’t have a black and white answer, and as such I think I’ll pass on trying to give an answer. 

What I will do is pose some questions to illustrate some of the subtleties.

- Are you asking on a moral level of what is most right or on the level of what should be regulated as state law?

- What is the context? Is this in a country where LGBT is not well accepted or a secular one where it is and where gay rights and protection from discrimination are enshrined in law?

- What is the practical alternative for this baby or child aside from being adopted by the gay couple? Adopted by no one? Adopted by a good straight couple? Adopted by a bad straight couple? 

- When you were raised by your parents, was the fact that they had sex with each other at times ever something that was ever explicitly talked about or that you were ever made to think about or wanted to think about? Or were they just two adults who loved you and who took care of your physical and emotional needs as children? And assuming the answer is the latter, what is the concrete difference if it is two caring men or two caring women or a caring man and a caring woman?

- Does the biological mother giving the child up for adoption know that the adoptees are a gay couple and is this something she doesn’t really care about? 
 

A comment in general here not specifically addressed to you. For those who don’t know me from before and how I roll in discussions. I take inspiration from Socrates’ gadfly persona. 

I like to poke at weaknesses in people’s thinking to prompt them to reflect on that so that they can improve their thinking. Because even if someone is right, it’s my perspective that they should believe that for reasons that hold up under scrutiny and not for flimsy reasons. 

So if I poke at your reasoning, you can take this in one of two ways. 

You can get angry and try to make me the devil for making you uncomfortable because you can’t answer my questions or critiques. 

Or you can be thankful that someone cares enough to apply their time and intelligence to trying to make you better. 

I suggest door number two. :)
 

Edited by kadhim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

I don't think this is the case, rather discrimination laws were already in place to protect all people regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation religion. 

I can tell you this is absolutely the case. I have been deeply involved with this topic for 3 years or more, at work and outside of work. I've attended multiple webinars and online conferences and meetings with various relevant organizations. And I have seen multiple statistics on this issue. There's no doubt that LGBTQ people are discriminated against, systemically and on interpersonal individual levels. 

Claiming that discrimination laws protect them is akin to saying discrimination laws protect Muslim women from Islamophobia and Islamophobes. Islamophobia is real; discrimination against Muslims is real, and so is discrimination against LGBTQ people. Similarly, systemic racism against black people is real.

You're conflating overt classic racism and discrimination with covert systemic racism and bigotry. 

1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

I see it as the active promotion of alternative lifestyles and the redefinition of the traditional family structure.

If it appears as "promotion", it is only because it is not actively being suppressed. For example, allowing Muslim women to wear hijab isn't the same as promoting women to wear hijab. I hope you can see and understand the difference. 

The notion of "traditional family structure" is meaningless in a secular liberal society, where there are multiple traditions and they are all seen as equally valid. In the west, those who claim "traditional" this or that mean white European Judeo-Christian traditions. They despise Muslim traditions just as much as they despise anything else that is not white and European in origin. 

The same people that fear-monger against this "movement", elsewhere claim George Soros is funding the Islamization of Europe. 

Alternative lifestyles are based on alternative beliefs. As I've said multiple times already, all beliefs are seen and viewed equally in a secular liberal society. Islamic lifestyle is an "alternative" lifestyle. "Alternative" is relative and meaningless in a secular liberal society. 

1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

but it becomes a duty as a human being, and not just a muslim human being, when children's lives become impacted as well. 

This is fear-mongering nonsense. Our children's lives, living in the West, have been impacted since day one. There's nothing new happening. They've been surrounded by people who drink alcohol, people who gamble, people who commit adultery, people who view immorality on their screens, people who eat Haram food, etc. etc. 

To claim that suddenly now our children's lives are in danger is a complete misunderstanding and misreading of reality. There's nothing new happening and as parents we'll continue to do what we've always done. 

1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

I believe it is essential that I can and should disassociate myself from this movement for the reasons mentioned above. 

I can't agree that this is an organized "movement." This is just the unfolding process of allowing human rights for a specific group of people; a group of humans, whose lifestyle contradicts our lifestyle, whose beliefs contradict our beliefs. And in secular liberal societies all beliefs are equal. All "alternative" lifestyles, whether Islamic or LGBTQ stand on the same level. This appears to be a hard pill for some Muslims to swallow. 

If someone or some group specifically promote sodomy or homosexual fellatio or etc., then, yes, certainly dissociate yourself from them. We ought to. 

To conflate and confuse allowance of human rights with promotion of sexual activities is a mistake which appears to be at the root of the issue. 

1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

A society in which LGBT cannot be questioned or countered, and where there is only one accepted position, can no longer be called a free society

Yes. It cannot be questioned whether they have the right to exist. Yes, it cannot be questioned whether they're free to make their own choices. Yes, it cannot be questioned whether they're equal to others or not. This is how a secular liberal democracy is and works. 

And you should be very careful here, because you're walking a dangerous line. You're opening the door for Islamophobes to use the very exact same line of reasoning and language to harass, abuse, and ridicule Islam and Muslims. They would also love to say whatever hateful rubbish they want against Islam and Muslims. And they would also cry "but my freedom", if they're stopped from spewing misinformation and hate against Muslims. 

Edited by SoRoUsH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, kadhim said:

Moreover, stats say gay men make up something like 1-2% of men. This story makes it out that it was a large part of the town doing these deeds. So even by stats most of this or all of this was something else. 

The story is not about “gayness.” 

There’s more to it. 

Salam maybe percentage  of sinners have been low but on the other hand percentage  of silent people who didn't  has objection about it or justifying  it has been making majority of town which by leaving town by prophet  Lut(عليه السلام) & few people who have been oppressed opposition  then all sinners & neutral silent people  have faced wrath of Allah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, kadhim said:

You can get angry and try to make me the devil for making you uncomfortable because you can’t answer my questions or critiques. 

Or you can be thankful that someone cares enough to apply their time and intelligence to trying to make you better. 

I suggest door number two. :)
 

all of your justifacations have based on support system of these countries for spreading this grave sin which anybody who supports this support system likewise any giving help for adoption  of children by gays  has a share in commiting  this grave sin .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Uni Student said:

@kadhim @SoRoUsH opinions on same sex couples adopting?

I hold the same opinion that I do, if a Nasibi couple, a Hindu couple, an atheist couple, a Trinitarian couple, or a murtad couple adopt a child. They will indoctrinate the child with unislamic beliefs and ideas. They will make what is Haram appear normal to the child, such as drinking alcohol, eating Haram food, homosexual activities, adultery, and etc. 

Edited by SoRoUsH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
4 hours ago, kadhim said:

Elaborate.

I think that your observations of how the topic of homosexuality has been mishandled and misunderstood among muslim communities, have pushed you to try and defend anything and everything associated to it.

Without a doubt muslims need to educate themselves on the topic and realize that desires cannot be 'exorcized', that you cannot force a sexual orientation on a person and that bullying (or worse) anyone having such feelings will not help them in any way or form. Furthermore, we are not commanded to hate or insult someone for their feelings. Certainly there is a need for education on these topics.

At the same time as muslims there are rules and principles in place that are divine and therefore not ours to play around with, rearrange or make political negotiations with. 

Just because society today has decided that abortion and same sex marriage, for instance, are basic rights, it does not require us to revise our stance.

We reserve the right to consider same sex relationships as abnorma and sinful. We reserve the right to consider abortion as murder. 

Shifting the goalposts due to social pressure implies that we never believed in our teachings to begin with. 

If society decides tomorrow that incest is acceptable, as long as it is between consenting adults, are we again going to silence ourselves just so that we are aligned with the dominant trends of society?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

If society decides tomorrow that incest is acceptable, as long as it is between consenting adults, are we again going to silence ourselves just so that we are aligned with the dominant trends of society?

The following is what the Imam (عليه السلام) teaches within an Islamic society, let alone a modern western secular liberal democracy.

عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ اِبْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ عَبْدِ اَللَّه بْنِ سِنَانٍ قَالَ: قَذَفَ رَجُلٌ رَجُلاً مَجُوسِيّاً عِنْدَ أَبِي عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ فَقَالَ مَهْ فَقَالَ اَلرَّجُلُ إِنَّهُ يَنْكِحُ أُمَّهُ أَوْ أُخْتَهُ فَقَالَ ذَلِكَ عِنْدَهُمْ نِكَاحٌ فِي دِينِهِمْ

الکافي ج ۵، ص ۵۷۴

Grade: حسن کالصحیح

53 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

We reserve the right to consider abortion as murder. 

Brother, I'm starting to worry that you've been influenced heavily by right-wing American Conservativism. You're repeating their lines and talking points. Please be careful as they are borderline fascists (and I'm being charitable, saying "borderline".)

Abortion is only murder after the spirit has entered the child, which occurs a little bit after the first trimester. Before that, abortion is not murder, but is still a sin. 

But this is perhaps a topic for another thread. :)

 

Edited by SoRoUsH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
45 minutes ago, SoRoUsH said:

The following is what the Imam (عليه السلام) teaches within an Islamic society, let alone a modern western secular liberal democracy.

عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنِ اِبْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ عَنْ عَبْدِ اَللَّه بْنِ سِنَانٍ قَالَ: قَذَفَ رَجُلٌ رَجُلاً مَجُوسِيّاً عِنْدَ أَبِي عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ فَقَالَ مَهْ فَقَالَ اَلرَّجُلُ إِنَّهُ يَنْكِحُ أُمَّهُ أَوْ أُخْتَهُ فَقَالَ ذَلِكَ عِنْدَهُمْ نِكَاحٌ فِي دِينِهِمْ

الکافي ج ۵، ص ۵۷۴

Grade: حسن کالصحیح

This doesn't jusify LGBT because it talks about M.a.j.o.o.s & their tradition about marriage between man & his mother  anyway it's a sin  in muslim tradition but on the other hand it's not a sin in  M.a.j.o.o.s communitydue to their religious teachings which has no relation to "secular liberal democracy" which you have influenced with it .

Anyway for abortion you must create another thread 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

This doesn't jusify LGBT because it talks about M.a.j.o.o.s & their tradition about marriage between man & his mother  anyway it's a sin  in muslim tradition but on the other hand it's not a sin in  M.a.j.o.o.s communitydue to their religious teachings which has no relation to "secular liberal democracy" which you have influenced with it .

Anyway for abortion you must create another thread 

I don’t really get it. How can you say they are different things when both are communities who practise sin and believe in their justified own laws? 

Edited by Abu Nur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

Brother, I'm starting to worry that you've been influenced heavily by right-wing American Conservativism. You're repeating their lines and talking points. Please be careful as they are borderline fascists (and I'm being charitable, saying "borderline".)

Islam has some teachings in alignment with the right and some with the left. You will find some teachings that agree with the left narrative and some that agree with the right narrative. 

 
 
7 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

And in secular liberal societies all beliefs are equal. All "alternative" lifestyles, whether Islamic or LGBTQ stand on the same level. This appears to be a hard pill for some Muslims to swallow. 

Anybody who has lived in the west knows that whilst this is what is theoretically what such a society should be like, this is definitely not the case. Its not a hard pill to swallow at all, because the idea does not exist in reality. France showed this by oppressing muslim women with their laws. Britain showed this by not cancelling racists when they make islamophobic remarks, particularly the prime minister, who has made offensive remarks against muslims. But had he said that about a jew or about a homosexual, he would have been cancelled. Just now in Norway I think, the prime minister is supporting public burning of the Quran. All beliefs are not actually equal. 

Respectfully, I will give some kind advice. I believe you engage in wishful thinking. The LGBT community is not an innocent community that has the noble cause of stopping the oppression of its own subjects, it is a corruptive movement that has corrupted society, alongside adultery, alcohol. You are right, society was corrupt, but over time it has become much more corrupt, homosexuality is one of the reasons for this.

Another example of wishful thinking is that supporting the LGBT community is not supporting sin. One of the objectives of the movement I can say is that it wants to normalise homosexuality into society. A muslim let alone a follower of Imam Sadiq must refrain from supporting such a movement in any way.  

Also, please do realise that these secular liberal societies are owned by corporations and lobby groups who have pushed their own agendas. Zionists and lgbt are examples of lobby groups. Governments don't serve the people, they serve these lobby groups and corporations. You should see the donations zionists have made to people in power, that's why they are so defensive of Israel. There is a reason these governments went to war, and believe me, it was not for destroying the terrorists that they created themselves.

Try watch the other videos of the channel below, its a good channel.

 

Quote

And you should be very careful here, because you're walking a dangerous line. You're opening the door for Islamophobes to use the very exact same line of reasoning and language to harass, abuse, and ridicule Islam and Muslims. They would also love to say whatever hateful rubbish they want against Islam and Muslims. And they would also cry "but my freedom", if they're stopped from spewing misinformation and hate against Muslims. 

Again, perhaps you have misunderstood our viewpoint. The brother did not say abusing is part of free speech. He said that countering the LGBT narrative is part of free speech and should be allowed in society.

Edited by VoidVortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
10 minutes ago, VoidVortex said:

France showed this by oppressing muslim women with their laws. Britain showed this by not cancelling racists when they make islamophobic remarks, particularly the prime minister, who has made offensive remarks against muslims.

These are acts that we should not remain silent and should protest ageinst them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
25 minutes ago, VoidVortex said:

Abortion is murder

Only after the fetus has transformed into a bags, roughly after the first trimester. 

26 minutes ago, VoidVortex said:

France showed this by oppressing muslim women with their laws.

Right. What France did was fascist. And wherever the same is done, that's fascism. 

28 minutes ago, VoidVortex said:

Britain showed this by not cancelling racists when they make islamophobic remarks, particularly the prime minister, who has made offensive remarks against muslims.

Right. Fascism, an umbrella, under which Islamophobia falls. 

29 minutes ago, VoidVortex said:

Just now in Norway I think, the prime minister is supporting public burning of the Quran

Sweden. Fascism. 

Now, what you're saying is elementary school way of think: if they're fascists, then we can be, too. If they did something wrong, then we can do it, too. 

32 minutes ago, VoidVortex said:

All beliefs are not actually equal

They are. What they did was wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right. 

33 minutes ago, VoidVortex said:

homosexuality is one of the reasons for this

Thank you for your advice, but you're very wrong. Homosexuality has always existed. It was even a societal norm among ancient Greeks. Homosexuality didn't just appear on the scene. It was there but always suppressed. Post enlightenment, post secularization, it just couldn't be suppressed justifiably anymore, since religious arguments became weaker and weaker, as societies became more and more secular and liberal. 

37 minutes ago, VoidVortex said:

A muslim let alone a follower of Imam Sadiq must refrain from supporting such a movement in any way

A Muslim is lenient, tolerant, compassionate, aware of reality, kind, and mostly silent.

All humans are equal and no human is a lesser human. Some are sinners. But in secular liberal democracies, "sin" is a meaningful irrelevant concept, since all beliefs are equal and religious beliefs hold no special status. 

44 minutes ago, VoidVortex said:

countering the LGBT narrative is part of free speech

If "countering" implies de-humanization, it's not free speech. If "countering" implies removing their human rights, it's not free speech. If "countering" implies removing their ability to choose for themselves, it's not free speech. 

42 minutes ago, VoidVortex said:

Also, please do realise that these secular liberal societies are owned by corporations and lobby groups who have pushed their own agendas. Zionists and lgbt are examples of lobby groups.

No. I don't engage with conspiracy theories and rabbit holes. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Laayla said:

Whoever is promoting this degenercy, you are not in the fold of wilayat Amir al mo2mneen.

Nobody is promoting homosexuality. Rather, some are in favor of protecting human rights.  Whoever promotes oppression is not from the fold of Islam.  

Edited by notme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

I don't think this is the case, rather discrimination laws were already in place to protect all people regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation religion. 

I know transgendered individuals who are terrified to go out in public,  and especially to use public restrooms, for fear of being beaten or raped.  I used to work with a man who was "laid off" for being gay, when the boss found out.  Interviewers never have to give a reason for not hiring a person, and they definitely do ask illegal interview questions without repercussions.  In the state where I live, employees can be fired without reason or notice, making proof of discrimination nearly impossible.  

Edited by notme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

@SoRoUsH thanks for your feedback brother. 

-on the topic of discrimination laws, yes there are people who break them but the presence or absence of the LGBT movement does not change this. It is a matter of legislation and law enforcement. 

-on the topic of promoting an ideology, in your comparison the muslim woman is practicing her religion at an individual level. Public institutions are not putting up islamic posters, and the general public have every right to disagree with Islam and it's teachings without being cancelled or boycotted. All we ask for is the same privilege. If I decide to teach my children that homosexual relations are forbidden in our religion, then society must respect my freedom of opinion. 

-regarding the point of children's lives being impacted, yes they are impacted by other factors as well. The difference is that I am allowed, as a parent, and the local Imam is allowed, as a preacher, to speak against drugs, alcohol and fornication. When it comes to LGBT, we want to be able to warn our children and communities as well. 

-your next point is that all lifestyles are equal in a secular society. This is ultimately where we differ, because to me LGBT is about repressing any opinion on gender and sexuality that doesn't match their own view. Essentially it is quite similar to Zionism in this sense.

-your final point is what I am referring to in terms of political bartering. I believe the main reason you are defending LGBT is because you see a political interest in it for muslims. I think we need to uphold religious morals and principles even if it works against us socially and politically.

Addressing your next post:

-you raise the concern that my position on abortion is close to that of the American far right. I prefer not to worry about who is and isn't aligned with our positions. The Qur'an and the ahadith lay down the guidelines. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with some of them shouldn't influence us.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)

I feel I have stated all I needed to state in this thread, and I wouldn't want to post just for the sake of having the last word. Instead, I'll post a few authentic narrations.

The term الناس (people) implies all people, sinners and saints, alike. 

Our leniency, tolerance, compassion, and kindness should shine on all people, sinners and saints, as the sun gives its blessings to all people, sinners and saints, alike.

 

عَنْهُ عَنْ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنْ سَمَاعَةَ بْنِ مِهْرَانَ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ قَالَ: ثَلاَثٌ مَنْ أَتَى اَللَّهَ بِوَاحِدَةٍ مِنْهُنَّ أَوْجَبَ اَللَّهُ لَهُ اَلْجَنَّةَ اَلْإِنْفَاقُ مِنْ إِقْتَارٍ وَ اَلْبِشْرُ لِجَمِيعِ اَلْعَالَمِ وَ اَلْإِنْصَافُ مِنْ نَفْسِهِ .

الکافي ج ۲، ص ۱۰۳ .

 

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ  أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنِ  اِبْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ  مَالِكِ بْنِ عَطِيَّةَ عَنْ  أَبِي حَمْزَةَ عَنْ  عَلِيِّ بْنِ اَلْحُسَيْنِ عَلَيْهِمَا اَلسَّلاَمُ قَالَ: مِنْ أَخْلاَقِ اَلْمُؤْمِنِ اَلْإِنْفَاقُ عَلَى قَدْرِ اَلْإِقْتَارِ وَ اَلتَّوَسُّعُ عَلَى قَدْرِ اَلتَّوَسُّعِ وَ إِنْصَافُ اَلنَّاسِ وَ اِبْتِدَاؤُهُ إِيَّاهُمْ بِالسَّلاَمِ عَلَيْهِمْ

الکافي ج ۲، ص ۲۴۱

 

عدةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ عَنْ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنْ سَمَاعَةَ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ قَالَ: مُجَامَلَةُ اَلنَّاسِ ثُلُثُ اَلْعَقْلِ . 

الکافي ج ۲، ص ۶۴۳

 

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى عَنِ اَلْحَسَنِ بْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ أَبِي وَلاَّدٍ اَلْحَنَّاطِ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ قَالَ كَانَ عَلِيُّ بْنُ اَلْحُسَيْنِ عَلَيْهِمَا اَلسَّلاَمُ يَقُولُ: إِنَّ اَلْمَعْرِفَةَ بِكَمَالِ دِينِ اَلْمُسْلِمِ تَرْكُهُ اَلْكَلاَمَ فِيمَا لاَ يَعْنِيهِ وَ قِلَّةُ مِرَائِهِ وَ حِلْمُهُ وَ صَبْرُهُ وَ حُسْنُ خُلُقِهِ .

الکافي ج ۲، ص ۲۴۰

 

عِدَّةٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِنَا عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ عَنِ اِبْنِ مَحْبُوبٍ عَنْ عَنْبَسَةَ اَلْعَابِدِ قَالَ قَالَ لِي أَبُو عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ : مَا يَقْدَمُ اَلْمُؤْمِنُ عَلَى اَللَّهِ عَزَّ وَ جَلَّ بِعَمَلٍ بَعْدَ اَلْفَرَائِضِ أَحَبَّ إِلَى اَللَّهِ تَعَالَى مِنْ أَنْ يَسَعَ اَلنَّاسَ بِخُلُقِهِ . 

الکافي ج ۲، ص ۱۰۰

 

أَبُو عَلِيٍّ اَلْأَشْعَرِيُّ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اَلْجَبَّارِ عَنْ صَفْوَانَ عَنْ ذَرِيحٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اَللَّهِ صَلَّى اَللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ : إِنَّ صَاحِبَ اَلْخُلُقِ اَلْحَسَنِ لَهُ مِثْلُ أَجْرِ اَلصَّائِمِ اَلْقَائِمِ .

الکافي ج ۲، ص ۱۰۰

 

 

Edited by SoRoUsH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

It is a matter of legislation and law enforcement. 

Exactly! And the LGBTQ people are trying to legislate laws that protect them against discrimination, hate, and bigotry. They want those laws to be enforced to protect their existence, their freedom to choose, to be as they want to be. Whatever they want to be is based on their beliefs, and as I keep repeating myself, all beliefs are seen as equal in secular liberal democracies. 

1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

Public institutions are not putting up islamic posters

There has in fact been an effort to have Muslim representation in media and elsewhere. It's a major part of the progressive movement to have Muslims, especially hijabi women, represented in all domains. For example, at my work, we are mandated to look for, hire, and welcome "priority populations", which includes Muslims and new immigrants. And this is precisely why Conservatives are freaking out! They don't want Muslims represented as "normal" human beings. They don't want Islamophobia to be banned and removed. And they're playing the "but my freedom" card all the time. They want to be allowed to spew hate and misinformation against Muslims, Islam, and whoever else that doesn't fit in their "traditional way of life", which means white euro-centric Judeo-Christian lifestyle and traditions. 

1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

If I decide to teach my children that homosexual relations are forbidden in our religion, then society must respect my freedom of opinion.

Sure. But if you teach your children that homosexuals are inferior in humanity and should not be treated with respect as equals, then you're teaching hate. 

Imagine if a non-Muslim taught their children that Muslim girls and women are oppressed by Muslim men and the hijab is a symbol of their oppression. Imagine if they taught their children that Muslims are heathens and will go to hell. Imagine if they taught their children that they should not tolerate Muslim beliefs. Would you feel safe allowing your sons and daughters to attend school and public activities, knowing that they would be targets of hateful bigotry? 

1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

When it comes to LGBT, we want to be able to warn our children and communities as well. 

Yes. Do it. The same way you warn your children about alcohol, drugs, and adultery. Tell them exactly what you tell them about people who drink alcohol, people who consume Haram meat and money, people who fornicate. Only change the word "alcohol", "drugs" and "fornicate" with "homosexual activities." Warn them about the activities that are Haram, but don't de-humanize the people who commit those Haram activities based on their beliefs. There's a much much much higher chance of your children running into people who drink alcohol and eat pork than people who commit homosexual activities. 

Ask them to treat homosexuals as they treat people who drink alcohol, which is the majority of people. Ask them to treat homosexuals as they treat people who eat pork. 

1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

LGBT is about repressing any opinion on gender and sexuality that doesn't match their own view.

They would like to correct and educate people about gender and sexuality, as they see it. We would like to correct people and educate them about Islam, as we see it. They want to express their beliefs, we want to express our beliefs. They want people to accept their beliefs, we want people to accept our beliefs. 

They would like to ensure that people don't beat them or murder them based on myths and false perceptions. 

And yes, within all groups, Muslims included, there are those who are always more extreme in their approaches. We ought to make a distinction between extreme minority and moderate majority. Islamophobes claim ISIS's version of Islam is true Islam. Is it? No! But Islamophobes project and spread that idea, so they can more easily dehumanize all Muslims, and can more easily get more and more people to hate Islam and Muslims. 

We ought to be on guard to not draw caricatures of LGBTQ people and beliefs, in the same way we don't want to be caricaturized by others. 

Ultimately, they believe they can have sex with whoever they want. We believe homosexual activities are forbidden. Two contrasting beliefs. 

1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

I believe the main reason you are defending LGBT is because you see a political interest in it for muslims.

No. I only defend their right to be seen as humans like us. To have freedom of choice like us. To not have to live in fear. I do not see them as a means to an end.

 I do not and have never defended their homosexual actions. Whether it's sodomy or fellatio or anything else, they're as sinful as drinking alcohol or consuming Haram meat and money. 

1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

The Qur'an and the ahadith lay down the guidelines.

Great! Then you should know that until fetus transforms into a nafs, some time after the first trimester, abortion is not murder. It's still a sin but not murder. 

Edited by SoRoUsH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

I think that your observations of how the topic of homosexuality has been mishandled and misunderstood among muslim communities, have pushed you to try and defend anything and everything associated to it.

Without a doubt muslims need to educate themselves on the topic and realize that desires cannot be 'exorcized', that you cannot force a sexual orientation on a person and that bullying (or worse) anyone having such feelings will not help them in any way or form. Furthermore, we are not commanded to hate or insult someone for their feelings. Certainly there is a need for education on these topics.

At the same time as muslims there are rules and principles in place that are divine and therefore not ours to play around with, rearrange or make political negotiations with. 

Just because society today has decided that abortion and same sex marriage, for instance, are basic rights, it does not require us to revise our stance.

We reserve the right to consider same sex relationships as abnorma and sinful. We reserve the right to consider abortion as murder. 

Shifting the goalposts due to social pressure implies that we never believed in our teachings to begin with. 

If society decides tomorrow that incest is acceptable, as long as it is between consenting adults, are we again going to silence ourselves just so that we are aligned with the dominant trends of society?


My apologies. This became a novel inadvertently. 

I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate. Thanks. I appreciate your recognition of the need for education within the community on this topic. It’s good to see. 

Speaking for myself however, your inference about my motivations is incorrect. That’s not my motivation. I don’t take any point of view to fit in or look cool with people or because of social pressure. I take points of view because of deeper concerns with what is right. 

I want to say a few words here, possibly in closing for my contributions to this particular discussion. Some of this might look, on the surface, like “LGBT promotion.” It’s not intended as such. But rather, I want to present this, and I want it to be taken rather in the spirit of me giving the community advice as a security expert giving a company a threat vulnerability assessment.

Are you familiar with the idea of a threat assessment? A company hires consultants to study the company, the important things it wants to preserve, and the things that threaten what you want to preserve in the company. The places where it is weak and open to attack and failure.

I want to offer you a strategic threat assessment about the topic of LGBT issues, particularly for the question of same-sex attraction and relationships.

If the community wants to preach the traditional interpretation of its texts which says that all same-sex sex activity is forbidden and that all such relationships are always forbidden, the community is vulnerable on a number of levels. And I stress, not only is it vulnerable in terms of community members being vulnerable to social pressure and social consequences for holding the traditional views publicly.

I also mean that the community is vulnerable in terms of its ability to maintain the traditional interpretation as the status quo belief within the community against critical rational scrutiny coming from both outside and within the community.

In what follows, I want you to take this not as me promoting a point of view, but in terms of an objective assessment of where I think we’re vulnerable.

Let me present my findings.

1. How are gay relationships actually harmful?

In our theology, we don’t believe that God commands things arbitrarily. If God actually forbids something, it is because that thing is harmful. Harmfulness is important, because harmfulness is an effective counter to an argument that something is acceptable because the pull towards it is innate and natural. For example, there are indications pedophiles are just wired like that. But this is not a valid argument in itself because it is an assault upon a vulnerable person, and clearly, pedophilia causes massive harm and trauma to the victims. 

Problem:

The community doesn’t have a good argument why gay relationships are harmful. Most other things we think are seriously haram, we can easily come up with strong reasons. Murder, manslaughter, bodily harm, rape, adultery, theft. There are clear purely secular justifications why these behaviors are a problem. Not so for gay sex and gay relationships.

In 20 years practicing and learning about the faith as of this summer (alhamdulillah), I have not heard a convincing argument about this. Now, within our community, our ulema will teach  that, although we believe that all rules of Islam are justified in terms of benefit and harm, we may not know true reasons and don’t know the reasons, but this is not a problem, because we have texts that came through the Prophet and the ahlulbayt, the Quran and hadith, and we trust that the ones who gave these to us got that knowledge from God, who does know. 

However, this argument is not going to be compelling by itself to the younger generations. This argument can work for trivial things like not eating pork, because that is not something that affects people’s lives. The issue of gay relationships is more problematic because it does significantly affect people’s lives in serious negative ways. Even supposing we reform the ignorant people of the community so that they don’t mistreat, and harass, and abuse gay people. Even if the community becomes compassionate toward them and understands gay relations as just one sin among many that people are pulled toward and commit. Even then, these people will suffer immensely in observing the demands of traditional Islam. 

These people will never be able to have sexual relations with someone they are attracted to. They will never be able to have a romantic relationship and the companionship that comes with it. Or if they do, this will always be furtive and secret, and scorned by the community. 
Moreover, this clashes with other core Islamic principles and values. For example, the importance placed on stable relationships as a means of helping people have stability and balance in life. And the value placed upon sex within these relationships as an important part of a balanced lifestyle and the condemnation of celibacy as a practically observable pattern of behavior for most people. 

Without solid, specific, concrete reasons why same-sex sex acts and relationships are harmful, all of this becomes problematic. Because following these prohibitions itself causes harm. 

For the younger generations in the community, “there has to be a reason, because our scholars say the texts say so, and God knows that reason and that is enough for me” will not be a satisfactory answer. They are going to demand a better answer. And if they don’t receive an answer, they are either going to be repelled from the faith (especially gay Muslim kids themselves), or they are going to start digging into the textual foundations underlying the traditional perspective to see if they actually stand up under scrutiny.

Because, as we like to proudly say, Islam is a religion that offers a solution to the challenges of all people and offers a moderate path that makes sense. If it’s not offering solutions that make sense for these people, the youth are going to notice and start digging. 

Which leads to the next problem.

2. Are we correctly understanding the story of Lot? Is it really about homosexuality?

The archetype of the traditional Islamic approach to same-sex relations is the narrative of Lot, Nabi Lut (عليه السلام).

The issues in point 1 have already led to efforts on the edges of the community to engage in critical re-readings of the Quranic story of Lot. With the objective to try to test whether we have understood it correctly and to try to offer other alternative readings of “the crimes of Lot.” Now those who know me know that I’m someone who likes to read broadly and consider different viewpoints with an open mind. 

In line with that, I’ve checked out some of these readings. I’m not going to directly name or link to any of these directly, lest I be misconstrued as “promoting” them. But I’ve read some of them, and frankly, they do make a reasonable case on many points. None of these readings are totally airtight. But if you put together the best insights of each, in all honesty it’s getting there. With a little further refinement the readings are going to be compelling to most reasonable people. 

For example. A major recurring idea in these readings is that the story of Lot is really a story of male rape, intimidation, and violation of the sanctity of travellers and guests. Rather than a story of lusty queers as the traditional reading says. 

It’s a reasonable reading. With proper elaboration, it matches well with the text. It matches with other old classical texts in the Islamic tradition such as some of the qasas al-anbiya literature. It even has external validation in terms of match with classical exegesis of the corresponding Torah account within the Jewish community. 

As a test, I slipped a few of the components of these arguments into the discussion earlier. There was a lot of hair pulling and wailing, but no one was able to offer any real meaningful response why that reading is so obviously wrong. Now of course, this is not the hawza; it’s just a Shiachat thread filled with a bunch of teens and twenty somethings. (Along with a few OG geezers)

But people who follow Amar Nakhshawani may recall that within the last couple of years, either last Muharram or the one before, he did a series where he did a few lectures about homosexuality and the story of Lot. And, lest you think this is just a totally fringe reading of no importance or worth to even answer, he spent a full lecture trying to address this reading. And whatever minor faults I might have with Sayyed Ammar, one thing that is indisputable is that he is a smart cookie and has his finger on the pulse of what the youth are thinking and talking about. 

Nakhshawani did Ok in terms of trying to counter this reading. I spoke to people I know who found him convincing. But there were places where his response was weak. In particular he raised some counters about the moment of Lot’s confrontation with the rape mob at his door and the line about his daughters. It was not great. His counter argument on this targets issues that are also present in the orthodox interpretation for one. I also got the impression he was responding to sloppy third hand retellings of these sorts of readings from social media rather than the best first hand readings. Because there are other similar reasons which effectively counter his points. 

If the community is not able to counter these readings—and I have to be brutally honest, it’s going to be hard to do—then it calls things further into question. Again, because the traditional reading is the root of all bad attitudes toward homosexuality in Islam. 

If you take the doubts raised in point 1, and combine that with plausible readings that make the archetypal story of Lot NOT even about gayness, but about rape and domination and intimidation, then young people are really going to ask questions at that point. The line will be breached and you will have to fall back to the ultimate bunker where matters of fiqh are forged—the hadith record.

To be honest, you are going to lose a lot of skeptical young people right here. Probably substantially more than half. Because if these centuries of scholars were in fact wrong all along with their reading of the Quran about this, then how much confidence to give to their ability to properly filter out and keep what the ahlul bayt actually said about this. 

But, nevertheless, even if the Quranic account were not actually about gay sex in itself, the hadiths are definitely more clearcut, and some portion of moderately skeptical youth will follow you there to hear you make your case about what the hadith say. 

But even there…

3. The hadith record 

So in recent months, I spent some time doing a deep dive into the Shia hadith literature, specifically in al-Kafi. Mashallah, I was happy to see how much progress has been made in making these texts available. When I entered the faith in 2002, very little of this was on the internet in translated form. There were a few books of the first volume of al-Kafi only. Now, thanks to sites like thaqalayn.net and hubeali.com, English speakers with less than fluent Arabic can dive in there and read these works. So respect to those who made these available. 

(If anyone is interested, by the way, volume 5 of Al-Kafi, kitab az-zawaj, chapters 186-188  for about 30 general hadith about liwat and sihaq, and volume 7, kitab al-hudud, chapters 21-24 and also chapters 2 and 3 for something like 40-50 relevant Hudud-related hadith.)

Here, at a high level at least, we’re on a stronger foundation. Because the hadith are basically unanimous in condemning the acts and even in saying they are punishable given witnesses or confession.

The details though, people are going to pick at, because it’s a little messy, as Al-Kafi often is. Bizarre narrations with weirdly false information. Problematic content that conflicts with other known Islamic principles. Contradictions on details. 

I’m not going to get into it here, because it’s intricate. But there are vulnerabilities here that will make people wonder.
 

4. Putting it together 

Then there’s the matter of putting this all together and reconciling it. So even if you get to the hadith, and people accept the unanimity on the broad strokes of prohibition and theoretical punishability of the acts as something authentic to the ahlul bayt’s teachings, there is the challenge of reconciling with the problems in point 1, which remain. 

The person will see evidence that the ahlul bayt did teach about suppressing the practice of same-sex acts for some reason or another. Yet, still, this produces seeming injustice, lack of mercy, and unbearable burden when applied to people who are gay, people who only have same-sex attractions by their nature.

People will try to stretch to find a way to read this to keep the spirit of the texts while allowing a merciful path for gay people. “Maybe the concern of the texts was not same-sex activity in itself, but that activity becoming way too widespread in society so that people abandon heterosexual marriage and society is undermined?” “Maybe it’s bisexuality or fluidity that is really what is targeted here?” “Maybe we need to make a space and exception just for gay people because their numbers don’t threaten society and they have no other options.”

People are going to look around for theories like this to square off the challenges. And ultimately a good number of people in the community will find that satisfactory. 


Conclusion 

Anyway. This is my assessment as I see it. 

Again, I’m not promoting the legalization of homosexuality in Islam. I’m just telling you why the community is nevertheless going to end up there unless it can come up with better defenses. 

I’m open to comments and feedback.


 

Edited by kadhim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

To the OP, my considered advice is to read Daniel Haqiqatjou's articles on the issue. They contain the answer to almost all of the issues that have been raised here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Psychological Warfare

The Lobby has support of the force which are very powerful. 

What is obvious is that people will use anything to support or deny an idea. This includes what we normally call "Science" which is just a method to uncover what is not known to us. Science will be used to deny God and at the same time it will be used to support any idea.

At the end we realize that "Science" has become a tool to manipulate the people. If it serves the interest it is the golden rule and if it does not it is ignored.

Same is true for Nature. 

Nature made male and female and they were given desires and attraction of the opposite sex to help procreation. The design( Hardware) and the Software were aligned for a specific purpose. No denying it. 

Children are the oppressed here and they are in reality orphans. Spiritual Orphans. People are more interested in their lobby and humane treatment and rights. 

While, the rights of the children who are exposed to this in all possible ways are of no interest to these Humanitarians. Champions of rights of the oppressed. 

Worry about the Spiritual Orphans. The real Oppressed. As they do not know and are been indoctrinated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

Even if I had no religion, I would then advise heterosexual people against doing things against their own nature. Doing so would cause disharmony in the mind. Deep down a person has certain inclinations, and to go against them puts the mind/soul & body in a state of disharmony. An inner conflict would exist. A problem with the secular narrative is that it even tells heterosexual people that there is nothing wrong with them going against that nature.


Salams to you too Muhammad. 

Sure. It would be against the nature of a heterosexual. And I agree it would be disharmonious for a heterosexual to do so. Not that I’m arguing here necessarily in favor of the “halalness” of any of this. But I have no issue saying that it is haram for a heterosexual to have gay sex and that it is against such a person’s nature. 

The thing is, it would be in line with the nature of an innate homosexual person. 

2 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

Do not just think about the harms to the self, think also about societal harms. And there a number of things that could be said about this.

Of course. And I didn’t. When I say I haven’t met anyone in 20 years who has been able to give a compelling argument for innate harms of gay relationships, I mean individual harms to the one who does it and broader social harms. 

But if you have something to offer, please feel free to step forward.

2 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

Do not forget that there are verses of the Quran other than the ones related to this story which condemn such relationships.

Read more carefully, Muhammad.

Specifically what I said is that the same-sex aspect is not what the story is about. I didn’t say precisely the same sex aspect is not there. I said it’s not the main point. That it’s not the “abomination” of the story. 

2 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

 

2 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

You can argue that the divine punishment was because of "rape and domination and intimidation" and

Indeed. I can, and in fact that is precisely what I did argue. 

2 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

because to do so would be to admit that "rape and domination and intimidation" of women is allowed.

Non-sequitur. That simply doesn’t follow. The principle against rape and domination and violation against hospitality etc is a gender neutral principle. It is simply that in the story, males were the specific victims. 

About 7:80-7:81, interestingly, it can be read to underline the idea that the same-sex aspect is there, but not the point of it. You could read it quasi literally like this:

وَلُوطًا إِذْ قَالَ لِقَوْمِهِۦٓ أَتَأْتُونَ ٱلْفَـٰحِشَةَ مَا سَبَقَكُم بِهَا مِنْ أَحَدٍۢ مِّنَ ٱلْعَـٰلَمِينَ

إِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ ٱلرِّجَالَ شَهْوَةًۭ مِّن دُونِ ٱلنِّسَآءِ ۚ
بَلْ أَنتُمْ قَوْمٌۭ مُّسْرِفُونَ

"And Lot, when he said unto his folk: Do you approach abomination such as no one among the nations before you ever did?

Yes, it is true that you approach men with lust, instead of women.

But no! Rather (it is that) you are a people who are extravagant.”

I will give you that there is some distaste expressed about the additional same-sex aspect of what these particular people were doing. Indeed, it would have been against norms. And also, to tie into what I was saying up at the top, given how widespread this behavior is said to have been in the city, and given the rareness of innate homosexuality, and given other passages referring to them having wives, it’s a given that at least most of the people doing it were to some degree heterosexual so that it was against their nature. 

But there does seem to be a negation (in the بَلْ / Nay! part) of the idea that the same sex aspect is the central point of the wrong doing. Of the idea that the same sex aspect is by itself the  “faaheshat” mentioned above. 

Even from a scientific standpoint, it’s extremely implausible to equate same-sex activity with the “abomination that no one in the nations did before.” 

Its estimated that Lot and Abraham were around about 2000 BCE. Human civilization goes back, what? 6 millennia before that? The first cities were at least 4000 years before that. No one anywhere got the idea of buggery in all that time? It’s a laughable proposition. 

Again, it’s there, but the story is trying to emphasize something else. 

Edited by kadhim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

To the OP, my considered advice is to read Daniel Haqiqatjou's articles on the issue. They contain the answer to almost all of the issues that have been raised here. 

Omg. Not that toxic sociopath. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.

what a beautful quote. He has beautified his schemes and plots as noble causes.

Believers shouldn't even associate with the lgbt community. They should employ the akhlaq of Ahlulbayt and treat the individuals kindly, but they should take a very firm stance against their movement. This can be in their heart, tongue or action, whichever way a believer sees fit. Supporting the movement is enjoining evil which is haram. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Psychological Warfare

will any one directly address the issue. 

1) If a human is normal (Physically), and if s/he desires something s/he is not physically equipped with. 

Option A. Control the unnatural desires.

Option B. Get rid of the natural / original organs and install the other sex organs or something that may resemble or may partially function. (life time of meds/reconstructive serg)

Meaning go through a superficial Physical change for desires? 

Is this Natural, based on Knowledge, logic , rational etc.....

Would it not be easier to Control  unnatural desires like others do for other things? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, kadhim said:

Omg. Not that toxic sociopath. 

I don't always agree with his approach, but he's an asset to the ummah. May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) lengthen his life, and may Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) bless him with khayr in here and in hereafter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
21 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

I don’t really get it. How can you say they are different things when both are communities who practise sin and believe in their justified own laws? 

Salam this is a practice  which has caused loosing their original divine book which  based on a narration  a king has done it so then corrupted scholars of them have justified it therefore their divine book have lost  because  of burning then they have  written a new book of laws which this sinful act has mentioned as permissible act   which they have  not another prophet or reformer between themselves  until emergence  of Islam so this has not considered  as a sin between them.

Quote

مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَحْيَى عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ عَنْ أَبِي يَحْيَى اَلْوَاسِطِيِّ عَنْ بَعْضِ أَصْحَابِنَا قَالَ: سُئِلَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اَللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ اَلسَّلاَمُ عَنِ اَلْمَجُوسِ أَ كَانَ لَهُمْ نَبِيٌّ فَقَالَ «نَعَمْ أَ مَا بَلَغَكَ كِتَابُ رَسُولِ اَللَّهِ صَلَّى اَللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ إِلَى أَهْلِ مَكَّةَ «أَنْ أَسْلِمُوا وَ إِلاَّ نَابَذْتُكُمْ بِالْحَرْبِ» فَكَتَبُوا إِلَى اَلنَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اَللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ أَنْ خُذْ مِنَّا اَلْجِزْيَةَ وَ دَعْنَا عَلَى عِبَادَةِ اَلْأَوْثَانِ فَكَتَبَ إِلَيْهِمُ اَلنَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ «أَنِّي لَسْتُ آخُذُ اَلْجِزْيَةَ إِلاَّ مِنْ أَهْلِ اَلْكِتَابِ » فَكَتَبُوا إِلَيْهِ يُرِيدُونَ بِذَلِكَ تَكْذِيبَهُ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ زَعَمْتَ أَنَّكَ لاَ تَأْخُذُ اَلْجِزْيَةَ إِلاَّ مِنْ أَهْلِ اَلْكِتَابِ - ثُمَّ أَخَذْتَ اَلْجِزْيَةَ مِنْ مَجُوسِ هَجَرَ فَكَتَبَ إِلَيْهِمُ اَلنَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ «أَنَّ اَلْمَجُوسَ كَانَ لَهُمْ نَبِيُّ فَقَتَلُوهُ وَ كِتَابٌ أَحْرَقُوهُ أَتَاهُمْ نَبِيُّهُمْ بِكِتَابِهِمْ فِي اِثْنَيْ عَشَرَ أَلْفَ جِلْدِ ثَوْرٍ» » .

 

Quote

Imam Sadegh (عليه السلام) was asked by the "Magi" whether they had a prophet or not. Imam (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said: Yes. Have you not received the letter that the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) wrote to the people of Mecca inviting them to Islam, and if they do not accept Islam, will they be ready for war? The people of Mecca wrote in response from us

Take Jizyah and leave us alone to continue worshiping idols. The Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of God be upon him, wrote in response to them, "I do not take Jizyah from anyone other than the People of the Book." In response, they wrote again (and with this letter they wanted to deny the words of the Prophet) Do you think that you receive the Jizyah only from the People of the Book, if you also received the Jizyah from the Magi of Hijr? The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) replied:

The Magi had a prophet who killed him and a book that they burned. Their prophet had written his book on 12,000 cow skins.

 

Quote

Ali ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) said: They had a book, Allah sent a prophet among them and in the religion of that prophet it was not permissible to marry an Mahram woman, one of their kings had intercourse with his daughter in a drunken night, the people became aware and revolted And they said, "You have corrupted our religion, and now we need to impose a limit on you." The king thought of a trick. : You all know that in between

Humans, no one can match our grandparents Adam and Eve, all acknowledged. He said, "Is it not that the two nobles who had sons and daughters married each other?" They said, "You are right."

He said: "So it turns out that marriage with an Mahram (incestuous person), such as a girl or a sister, is not an obstacle. The people were convinced by this statement, and since then, this custom has been considered legal and the people have acted based on that."

12.وسائل، کتاب الجهاد، باب 49، حدیث 7؛ المجالس، ص 206؛ توحید صدوق، ص 306، چاپ مکتبة الصدوق.

Wasail [al Shia], book of Jihad chapter 49 hadith 7; Al majalis , p 206 , Towhid Sadouq , p 306

http://ensani.ir/fa/article/92667/بحثی-درباره-مجوس-2-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
16 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam this is a practice  which has caused loosing their original divine book which  based on a narration  a king has done it so then corrupted scholars of them have justified it therefore their divine book have lost  because  of burning then they have  written a new book of laws which this sinful act has mentioned as permissible act   which they have  not another prophet or reformer between themselves  until emergence  of Islam so this has not considered  as a sin between them.

http://ensani.ir/fa/article/92667/بحثی-درباره-مجوس-2-

Salaam Aleikum Brother, 

I'm not talking about how the practice came about. I agree that Imams (عليه السلام) left them alone with their practices, but why limit only to them, could this not be looked as general such that we should leave the hindus, Buddhist, kafirs with their own beliefs? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

I'm not talking about how the practice came about. I agree that Imams (عليه السلام) left them alone with their practices, but why limit only to them, could this not be looked as general such that we should leave the hindus, Buddhist, kafirs with their own beliefs?

They are legitimate children if they follow religious  codes which nobody can mock someone  for being born in non muslim family but on the other hand inviting them to Islam is a different  matter which must be done with respect & teach them that their belief  is false & obsolete  which they must choose Islam as most perfect religion & way of life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
6 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

They are legitimate children if they follow religious  codes which nobody can mock someone  for being born in non muslim family but on the other hand inviting them to Islam is a different  matter which must be done with respect & teach them that their belief  is false & obsolete  which they must choose Islam as most perfect religion & way of life. 

Thank You. Next time please stop laughing at people posts when they are serious with their questions, this is not an akhlaaq of Ahulbayt (عليه السلام).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 4/17/2022 at 9:46 AM, SoRoUsH said:

Exactly! And the LGBTQ people are trying to legislate laws that protect them against discrimination, hate, and bigotry. They want those laws to be enforced to protect their existence, their freedom to choose, to be as they want to be. Whatever they want to be is based on their beliefs, and as I keep repeating myself, all beliefs are seen as equal in secular liberal democracies. 

There has in fact been an effort to have Muslim representation in media and elsewhere. It's a major part of the progressive movement to have Muslims, especially hijabi women, represented in all domains. For example, at my work, we are mandated to look for, hire, and welcome "priority populations", which includes Muslims and new immigrants. And this is precisely why Conservatives are freaking out! They don't want Muslims represented as "normal" human beings. They don't want Islamophobia to be banned and removed. And they're playing the "but my freedom" card all the time. They want to be allowed to spew hate and misinformation against Muslims, Islam, and whoever else that doesn't fit in their "traditional way of life", which means white euro-centric Judeo-Christian lifestyle and traditions. 

Sure. But if you teach your children that homosexuals are inferior in humanity and should not be treated with respect as equals, then you're teaching hate. 

Imagine if a non-Muslim taught their children that Muslim girls and women are oppressed by Muslim men and the hijab is a symbol of their oppression. Imagine if they taught their children that Muslims are heathens and will go to hell. Imagine if they taught their children that they should not tolerate Muslim beliefs. Would you feel safe allowing your sons and daughters to attend school and public activities, knowing that they would be targets of hateful bigotry? 

Yes. Do it. The same way you warn your children about alcohol, drugs, and adultery. Tell them exactly what you tell them about people who drink alcohol, people who consume Haram meat and money, people who fornicate. Only change the word "alcohol", "drugs" and "fornicate" with "homosexual activities." Warn them about the activities that are Haram, but don't de-humanize the people who commit those Haram activities based on their beliefs. There's a much much much higher chance of your children running into people who drink alcohol and eat pork than people who commit homosexual activities. 

Ask them to treat homosexuals as they treat people who drink alcohol, which is the majority of people. Ask them to treat homosexuals as they treat people who eat pork. 

They would like to correct and educate people about gender and sexuality, as they see it. We would like to correct people and educate them about Islam, as we see it. They want to express their beliefs, we want to express our beliefs. They want people to accept their beliefs, we want people to accept our beliefs. 

They would like to ensure that people don't beat them or murder them based on myths and false perceptions. 

And yes, within all groups, Muslims included, there are those who are always more extreme in their approaches. We ought to make a distinction between extreme minority and moderate majority. Islamophobes claim ISIS's version of Islam is true Islam. Is it? No! But Islamophobes project and spread that idea, so they can more easily dehumanize all Muslims, and can more easily get more and more people to hate Islam and Muslims. 

We ought to be on guard to not draw caricatures of LGBTQ people and beliefs, in the same way we don't want to be caricaturized by others. 

Ultimately, they believe they can have sex with whoever they want. We believe homosexual activities are forbidden. Two contrasting beliefs. 

No. I only defend their right to be seen as humans like us. To have freedom of choice like us. To not have to live in fear. I do not see them as a means to an end.

 I do not and have never defended their homosexual actions. Whether it's sodomy or fellatio or anything else, they're as sinful as drinking alcohol or consuming Haram meat and money. 

Great! Then you should know that until fetus transforms into a nafs, some time after the first trimester, abortion is not murder. It's still a sin but not murder. 

Maybe im wrong, but from what i understand it is implied and obvious that people who engage in homosexual acts are human beings and thus entitled to human rights. I havent heard anyone with any credibility on this site propose the idea that they are not human beings or that they should be treated in a way that illegal and punishable by laws of the persons particular country.

The objection to the rainbow flag being prominently display in the Universities is that it is elevating one ideaology that is based on a haram sexual act above all the other ideaologies that oppose this act. This flag is being given special treatment and special prominence which means that the University is now a partner with a certain group on campus in promoting this ideaology which a large portion of the students disagree with. That isnt democracy. Thats a form of totalitarianism. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
7 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

Maybe im wrong, but from what i understand it is implied and obvious that people who engage in homosexual acts are human beings and thus entitled to human rights. I havent heard anyone with any credibility on this site propose the idea that they are not human beings or that they should be treated in a way that illegal and punishable by laws of the persons particular country.

The objection to the rainbow flag being prominently display in the Universities is that it is elevating one ideaology that is based on a haram sexual act above all the other ideaologies that oppose this act. This flag is being given special treatment and special prominence which means that the University is now a partner with a certain group on campus in promoting this ideaology which a large portion of the students disagree with. That isnt democracy. Thats a form of totalitarianism. 

It's not totalitarianism, or even putting one ideology on a pedestal above others. The purpose is simply to tell LGBT people their human rights will not be violated in that space. Because, truthfully, anyone who identifies as "gay" or "transgender" experiences mistreatment, and having human rights is not the same as those rights being conferred. Identifying as LGBT is directly related with a lower life expectancy -- they are more likely to be incarcerated, experience homelessness, suicidality, poverty, and so on. 

I'm still learning about my faith - and I have a long way to go. But I really struggle to understand why there is so much resentment toward LGBT people by people of our faith.

Yes, many scholars agree that homosexuality is haram; but so is drinking, eating pork, adultery. I do not treat people engaging in the latter behaviour any differently -- and they do not experience any discrimination in society. But LGBT people do experience mistreatment. If my religion tells me to be a good, tolerant person; why would I add to this group's mistreatment? Can this not be case of letting others believe what they believe? 

I think it's like when university professors and job recruits hold networking events in bars. I am religiously opposed to it, so I don't attend. I don't walk into restaurants and throw alcohol onto the floor because my religion strictly prohibits it. And, to use your words, post secondary institutions are promoting an ideology and endorsing a lifestyle when they host these events. I don't understand why muslim tolerance turns to fear/resentment when haram acts change from consuming alcohol/pork to homosexuality. 

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...