You thought LGBTIQ was it? Bestiality is next.

[Guest what]

17 hours ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

Those straight couples who don't want to have children at all because of no reason are not thought of as good example in the society and neither it is permissible for anyone to his son or daughter marry to infertile woman or man. 

Whether or not it is a good example it is not a punishable sin. It is not wajib to reproduce, and it is not a sin to not procreate. It is not like an infertile man will be punished eternally in hell for remarrying, knowing he will not bear any offspring 

Someone in this thread mentioned that in societies where same sex marriage exists, they can be inclined to have and/or raise children. This is a true phenomenon. Two people (albeit the same gender) who want to marry and become in a monogamous relationship and parent kids is not a threat to the family unit. And again even if they were not reproducing or raising kids they are still such a small minority and their effects on the human birthrate is over-exaggerated and an unrealistic threat. Accepting that gay people exist does not mean suddenly half the human population will become gay

[Guest what]

1 hour ago, 313_Waiter said:

Let’s not derail this thread before mods end up closing this thread.

The topic was about the end times, and what comes after the alphabet agenda e.g. bestiality, paedophilia.

I reread your original post and I’m just saying this as a native arabic speaker, who does not have much knowledge in translation of hadiths. But just as someone who understands the language you actually copied and pasted the wrong hadiths. The first arabic quote you copied refers to translation no.29 “And you will see women take to gatherings like men take to gatherings” on the al-islam link. Translation no.28 talks about prostitution “And you will see men earn a livelihood from homosexuality and women earn a livelihood from prostitution”. The english translation uses the word “homosexuality” when the exact meaning of دبره is anus and the word “prostitution” for the word فرجها which is actually vagina. 
 

mods: please change the wording/or place an asterisk if the words I used are inappropriate. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

20 hours ago, Guest what said:

in societies where same sex marriage exists, they can be inclined to have and/or raise children. This is a true phenomenon. Two people (albeit the same gender) who want to marry and become in a monogamous relationship and parent kids is not a threat to the family unit

Salam/hi we have not denied existance of such couples but on the other hand we know it a great threat to true meaning of a standard family unit which has been introduced through religion which making a fake  "same sex marriage" is deviation & corruption  of true unit of family by Satan/Shaitan in similar fashion which idol worshipping has been initiated  by worshipping of statue of crow by cain  which when Allah has sent a crow to show Cain how to burry his brother which after that Satan/Shaitan presuaded him to worship statue of crow instead of Allah who has sent crow which this deviation & corruption has been started from one person so then became a great threat for true worshipping of Allah which in Farsi/Persian quotes have that drops gather little by little so then it becomes suddenly a sea .

20 hours ago, Guest what said:

Accepting that gay people exist does not mean suddenly half the human population will become gay

We accept that such people exists but it doesn't mean that we support announcing gayness  in public & pride marchs & etc

Quote

“'The prettiest trick of the devil is to make us believe he doesn't exist.'”

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/03/20/devil/

[Borntowitnesstruth]

4 hours ago, Guest what said:

Whether or not it is a good example it is not a punishable sin. It is not wajib to reproduce, and it is not a sin to not procreate. It is not like an infertile man will be punished eternally in hell for remarrying, knowing he will not bear any offspring 

Someone in this thread mentioned that in societies where same sex marriage exists, they can be inclined to have and/or raise children. This is a true phenomenon. Two people (albeit the same gender) who want to marry and become in a monogamous relationship and parent kids is not a threat to the family unit. And again even if they were not reproducing or raising kids they are still such a small minority and their effects on the human birthrate is over-exaggerated and an unrealistic threat. Accepting that gay people exist does not mean suddenly half the human population will become gay.

Well brother, there are times when reproducing becomes wajib especially when population of country declines to the extent that it becomes apparent that if no step is taken in this regard, there will danger to progress of a society. 

And, when you said that it's not punishable sin not to reproduce didn't the fact cross your mind that homosexuality is a punishable sin in Islam why do you then support it?

Also, certain notion are so dangerous for the society that they cannot be allowed to progress just like terrorism and homosexuality because their spread will likely ruin humankind. So, whether they are large or small, they are threat for humankind.

[kadhim]

6 hours ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

homosexuality is forbidden because if it becomes prevalent, it will be cause of extinction of human kind.

If this is legitimately the concern, then just keep the prohibition for the 98-99% of people who aren’t 100% gay/lesbian. If the straight/straight-ish people follow that, by basic mathematics there is no danger of relaxing the prohibition for gay and lesbian people. 

Khalas. There’s no counter-argument to that. It’s just math. 

Imam Reza (عليه السلام) saying that is another clear sign for those who reflect that the traditional prohibition on same-sex was targeted at socially constructed same-sex activity among straight people. 

Edited January 16 by kadhim

[Guest what]

21 minutes ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

And, when you said that it's not punishable sin not to reproduce didn't the fact cross your mind that homosexuality is a punishable sin in Islam why do you then support it?

No I am asking why homosexuality is a punishable sin. On what grounds do you consider homosexuality immoral? Because they cannot naturally procreate? I am not supporting homosexuality because I think it’s the cool trendy thing to do. I believe Allah is just and islam is a rational religion. So I have to agree with all its practices, and I cannot see why homosexuals are condemned to doom when their existence is not really immoral. Not procreating is not immoral. 
 

23 minutes ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

Also, certain notion are so dangerous for the society that they cannot be allowed to progress just like terrorism and homosexuality because their spread will likely ruin humankind. So, whether they are large or small, they are threat for humankind.

Small amounts of terrorism can have very large impacts. Small amounts of gay will not affect the human population to the extent you are making it out to be. Gays exist right now as we speak, is birthrate currently largely affected by them? Birthrates will continue to fluctuate for various reasons (least of all homosexuals), with a continuing upward trend 

[kadhim]

21 hours ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

And about Kufr, it is you my brother who are denying what Allah (عزّ وجلّ) and Ahlebait (عليه السلام) have criticized and making lawful what is unlawful.

No I’m not.

I affirm the traditional perspective for the vast majority of the people, something like 98-99% of the people. 

But neither God nor the ahlulbayt ever made any direct reference to the existence of gay or lesbian people. Therefore it’s a new thing we need to honestly grapple with as a special case.

[notme]

7 hours ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

If it would have been true, we would have seen this phenomenon in children up to the age of 7

Some children experience sexual attraction at a young age, but most do not. More typically, children begin to experience sexual attraction after the start of puberty.  In some cases, not even until full adulthood.  

Your claim doesn't make sense.  

Edited January 16 by notme

[Borntowitnesstruth]

1 hour ago, kadhim said:

If this is legitimately the concern, then just keep the prohibition for the 98-99% of people who aren’t 100% gay/lesbian. If the straight/straight-ish people follow that, by basic mathematics there is no danger of relaxing the prohibition for gay and lesbian people. 

Khalas. There’s no counter-argument to that. It’s just math. 

Imam Reza (عليه السلام) saying that is another clear sign for those who reflect that the traditional prohibition on same-sex was targeted at socially constructed same-sex activity among straight people. 

Prohibition is not by the people but by Allah (عزّ وجلّ) and there has been made no distinction of same-sex activity between straight or homosexuals. Do you have any Hadith which make such distinction? There isn't so you are wrong abt it. 

[notme]

The furries trend is concerning.  

There is never consent with pedophilia or beastiality. Probably both are much less common now than they were in pre-modern times, but we know more about what far away random strangers are doing due to media.

[kadhim]

31 minutes ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

Prohibition is not by the people but by Allah (عزّ وجلّ) and there has been made no distinction of same-sex activity between straight or homosexuals. Do you have any Hadith which make such distinction? There isn't so you are wrong abt it. 

My basis is the hadith that you folks already shared. According to what you’re reporting from the aimmah, the reason to forbid same-sex activity is to keep lineages going and to preserve the population. That’s the Imam giving the reason behind it, so you can’t turn around and say we don’t know the reason. 

For a person with heterosexual inclinations, it makes a difference on both these metrics if they choose same-sex instead. 

But for a gay or lesbian person, it makes no difference. Whether they are celibate or engage in a gay/lesbian relationship, they will not (naturally) continue their lineage. Nor will they have children.

Gay and lesbian people exist outside the explicit calculus of this traditional rule. 

Edited January 16 by kadhim

[notme]

If the purpose of prohibiting homosexual relations is for procreation, can infertile or post- menopausal people engage in homosexual relationships?

(That question is meant to be rhetorical. I'll be shocked if someone has a substantiated answer.)

I think there are probably other reasons, maybe even more important ones.  

[Borntowitnesstruth]

1 hour ago, Guest what said:

No I am asking why homosexuality is a punishable sin. On what grounds do you consider homosexuality immoral? Because they cannot naturally procreate? I am not supporting homosexuality because I think it’s the cool trendy thing to do. I believe Allah is just and islam is a rational religion. So I have to agree with all its practices, and I cannot see why homosexuals are condemned to doom when their existence is not really immoral. Not procreating is not immoral. 

There are various reasons for it. The first being that it is against known natural behavior there is a reason that there are males and females in nature each of which forms a couple with the other and serve the purpose of procreation. While there is nothing natural about homosexuals nor are their relationship has a purpose in any way. Secondly, homosexuals make use of emotional blackmail to psychologically hack the straight people and turn them into gays and lesbians which is actually altering the natural behavior of unaware youth. Finally, if the whole world accepts their false emotional blackmail, there would arise other people with the same dumb excuses like the therians. 

There can off course be included other effects as well such as rise in homosexuality will affect the natural relationship between male and female. Also, it would affect a child badly who needs a father and mother as against two fathers or two mothers.

 

2 hours ago, Guest what said:

Small amounts of terrorism can have very large impacts. Small amounts of gay will not affect the human population to the extent you are making it out to be. Gays exist right now as we speak, is birthrate currently largely affected by them? Birthrates will continue to fluctuate for various reasons (least of all homosexuals), with a continuing upward trend 

Well, it's you who is saying that gays have small impact world wide, the facts say otherwise. Haven't you witnessed world cup where it was being promoted at larger level? And, your thinking that it's not affecting birth rates may appear correct to you because you are unable to see it's effects whereas people are led astray by the homosexuals and turned from the natural behavior to unnatural one which actually ends in no procreation that is blow to birth of children.

[Borntowitnesstruth]

2 hours ago, notme said:

Some children experience sexual attraction at a young age, but most do not. More typically, children begin to experience sexual attraction after the start of puberty.  In some cases, not even until full adulthood.  

Your claim doesn't make sense.  

Well, there is no special equipment required to prove that children show signs of feeling attracted to opposite gender many years before puberty. I suggest you talk to a seven year old child by asking him or her who he or she wants to marry, he or she will obviously take the name of opposite gender and what I claim will be proved right to you.

[Borntowitnesstruth]

1 hour ago, kadhim said:

My basis is the hadith that you folks already shared. According to what you’re reporting from the aimmah, the reason to forbid same-sex activity is to keep lineages going and to preserve the population. That’s the Imam giving the reason behind it, so you can’t turn around and say we don’t know the reason. 

Well, that is one quote of the Imam about it's one effect. In another quote Imam Ali Reza (عليه السلام) says: "Refrain from homosexuality for it causes 72 ills of this world and hereafter". And, what appears from the observation is that one of it's ill is that if it got recognition into this world, other stupid ideologies will also get recognition because it got away with that. That's why it's Haram.

So, what I can see that you failed to provide any Islamic injunction which legitimize your claim about homosexuals. 

1 hour ago, kadhim said:

For a person with heterosexual inclinations, it makes a difference on both these metrics if they choose same-sex instead. 

But for a gay or lesbian person, it makes no difference. Whether they are celibate or engage in a gay/lesbian relationship, they will not (naturally) continue their lineage. Nor will they have children.

I think you still miss the point. It's most of the heterosexual persons turned to homosexuals through continued deluding brainwashing which alter their natural behavior. No person is born gay or lesbian, it's just continued brainwashing just like people are turned terrorists. No terrorist is born, it's nurture. 

 

1 hour ago, kadhim said:

Gay and lesbian people exist outside the explicit calculus of this traditional rule. 

There is no mention of them in Islamic teachings what's mentioned is intersex people. So, they are mostly result of nurture not natural.

[Borntowitnesstruth]

41 minutes ago, notme said:

If the purpose of prohibiting homosexual relations is for procreation, can infertile or post- menopausal people engage in homosexual relationships?

(That question is meant to be rhetorical. I'll be shocked if someone has a substantiated answer.)

I think there are probably other reasons, maybe even more important ones.  

They can't because there is Hadith which says to prohibit from it because it causes 72 ills of this world and hereafter.

[notme]

7 minutes ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

They can't because there is Hadith which says to prohibit from it because it causes 72 ills of this world and hereafter.

So you're saying the prohibition of homosexual acts is not rooted in the requirement to procreate. Thanks.  That is exactly what I was trying to clarify.  

[notme]

37 minutes ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

I suggest you talk to a seven year old child by asking him or her who he or she wants to marry, he or she will obviously take the name of opposite gender and what I claim will be proved right to you.

While you're at it, ask that 7 year old what they want to be when they grow up.  Obviously the child will say something that highly regarded by the parents or the child's society.  All that proves is that children are aware of social expectations.  It definitely does not prove nor even support the (rather disturbing) claim that little children usually have sexual or romantic attraction. 

[VoidVortex]

1 hour ago, kadhim said:

1 hour ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

 

My basis is the hadith that you folks already shared. According to what you’re reporting from the aimmah, the reason to forbid same-sex activity is to keep lineages going and to preserve the population. That’s the Imam giving the reason behind it, so you can’t turn around and say we don’t know the reason. 

I personally believe Imam giving a reason does not necessitate that it is the only reason. 

Imams and Prophets speak according to the capacity of the individual they are speaking with. 

If Imam Mahdi was not in occultation, there is no doubt that he would satisfy our intellectual thirst the way the Imams did so in their times.

[Ali_Ibn_Hussein]

 

[Borntowitnesstruth]

2 hours ago, notme said:

While you're at it, ask that 7 year old what they want to be when they grow up.  Obviously the child will say something that highly regarded by the parents or the child's society.  All that proves is that children are aware of social expectations.  It definitely does not prove nor even support the (rather disturbing) claim that little children usually have sexual or romantic attraction. 

Lolz, it may be disturbing but it is true for children in the domain of age of discretion particularly for boys of age 6 or 7 and above that they do feel attraction even though they aren't capable enough to go far with that. That's the reason that Prophet (PBUHHP) said to separate the bed of children at such ages 

 

Edited January 16 by Borntowitnesstruth

[Borntowitnesstruth]

2 hours ago, notme said:

So you're saying the prohibition of homosexual acts is not rooted in the requirement to procreate. Thanks.  That is exactly what I was trying to clarify.  

I didn't say that it is not. Didn't quote of Imam Reza (عليه السلام) made it clear to you that one of cause for which it is Haram that if it be practiced, it will bring human extinction. In another Hadith, it's written that homosexuality causes 72 ills in this world and hereafter. So what you didn't understand?

[VoidVortex]

20 hours ago, kadhim said:

 

Do a thought experiment and flip the script. Could you marry another dude for social purposes? How well do you think that would work for you? It’s a joke of a suggestion. 

social purposes? no. My point is that homosexuals can still find companionship and friendship with the opposite gender, even if they are not romantically attracted. Romance is a small part of marriage. The homosexual individual would still have a companion throughout life but minus the romance. As for sexual attraction, this is a hardship, but such hardship is rewarded by God.

Its not a joke of a suggestion, I think its actually far better than the alternative and its a reasonable suggestion.

20 hours ago, kadhim said:

It comes to the same place. Islamic law is rational. It is practical. God doesn’t make people do or avoid things for no reason. If you find a case where this is happening, by basic theology, you are doing it wrong.

20 hours ago, kadhim said:

There is no benefit to anyone to force gay and lesbian people to be celibate. It’s an empty sacrifice without reason or benefit. God doesn’t play with people’s lives like that. It’s a sin to do this to people. 

For the first quote, yes exactly, I agree, Islamic law is rational and practical. It can be quite flexible.

The action of penetration has been forbidden for men. Included too is any lustful action towards the same sex and opposite sex except spouse. Its essentially impossible to make any exception for any group in society because the hardship of a group in society does not override the prohibition of this ruling, and if you argue it does, evidence must be given. God hasn't made an exception for anybody in this ruling.

Also, you say God doesn't make people avoid things for no reason. I completely agree. However just because we don't know reasons for prohibition, does not mean that it there is no reason for prohibition. 

If we can't find a reason for the prohibition of something but it has been prohibited by textual evidence, that doesn't make it halal.

Finally and most importantly, its not a sacrifice without reason and benefit. Let's say hypothetically it turned out it was halal and we found this out on the day of judgement, and those people had suffered in jihad akbar their whole lives, do you believe that sacrifice is empty? Do you believe God won't reward them abundantly? In fact when those people see their rewards, they'll forget all their hardships and say it was worth it.

We are not doing anything wrong. The jurists have tried their bests, and those who have studied and gained qualifications have tried their best. Essentially all rule that its haram. They merely tried their best to derive the law and saw no way that an exception can be made for a small part of society. 

Can jurists be wrong, yes of course, they are not infallible. It was only recently ahlul kitab became tahir in shiite jurisprudence, and even now, slowly more jurists are opening up to the idea that non-ahlul kitab are tahir too. However, when going against consensus, a person would need strong proof, correct qualifications, and to thoroughly disprove the arguments the majority made, and maybe there are other criterion that I don't know that are necessary too. I have never seen any strong proof that overrides consensus and I guarantee that if an individual took their arguments to scholars in Qom, they would skillfully disprove the conclusion that individual reached.

Some laws in Islam are really hard to follow, I actually believe so, but that is part of the experience. Obeying God isn't easy, and I sympathise with those suffering.

Edited January 16 by VoidVortex

[Abu_Zahra]

From a Shar'i perspective the matter is quite clear. Intimacy outside of marriage is haram. Marriage in Islam is between a man and a woman. 

[Haji 2003]

Quote

You thought LGBTIQ was it? Bestiality is next.

Personally I think the next step is 'fluidity', this seems to be the most 'inclusive' sexual identity, because it would enable people to change their orientation etc. as they 'developed'.

Fluidity would mean, for example, you could start off being a heterosexual male, then decide that you were bisexual or homosexual and moving onto being transgender. Any subsequent identification as a lesbian would almost bring you full circle, but not quite.

[kadhim]

20 hours ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

Well, that is one quote of the Imam about it's one effect. In another quote Imam Ali Reza (عليه السلام) says: "Refrain from homosexuality for it causes 72 ills of this world and hereafter"

You’re not quoting a source here, but let me just accept on your word that the other narration exists. It seems to me that a reasonable way to reconcile the two texts is that the more specific text represents the primary concerns, while the more general text about 72 (that is, numerous) unspecified ills refers to secondary follow on effects as a result of the primary concerns.

So the same argument still applies in that case.

[kadhim]

16 hours ago, VoidVortex said:

Can jurists be wrong, yes of course, they are not infallible. It was only recently ahlul kitab became tahir in shiite jurisprudence, and even now, slowly more jurists are opening up to the idea that non-ahlul kitab are tahir too.

Ha! So, first things first here. The ahlul kitab, and other people in general, did not “become tahir” recently. What happened is that the ulema collectively got it dead wrong for centuries, and now they’re slowly correcting that. 

Second, what you’re trying to tell me is that for complex matters like this, I should just meekly defer and trust the same people who are only just figuring out the answer to the question, can you shake a Christian’s sweaty hand? That’s your story?

16 hours ago, VoidVortex said:

However, when going against consensus, a person would need strong proof, correct qualifications, and to thoroughly disprove the arguments the majority made, and maybe there are other criterion that I don't know that are necessary too. I

According to the base texts of our religion, there are no “qualifications” required beyond familiarity with the relevant texts. All else is man-made artifice that can be considered but which can’t be considered binding or limiting. 

[kadhim]

16 hours ago, VoidVortex said:

Finally and most importantly, its not a sacrifice without reason and benefit. Let's say hypothetically it turned out it was halal and we found this out on the day of judgement, and those people had suffered in jihad akbar their whole lives, do you believe that sacrifice is empty? Do you believe God won't reward them abundantly? In fact when those people see their rewards, they'll forget all their hardships and say it was worth it.

Ah, but you forget the other part. That you would have been participating in making these people’s lives miserable for no real reason. That folks like me have come to you, warning you, showing the flaws in your understanding. But that you stubbornly dismissed that and continued giving hardship to these people. 

In that case you will have your own reckoning. You will have to answer for that. Will it be sufficient excuse for you to say that you simply followed what your chosen leaders told you? 

[AbdusSibtayn]

On 1/15/2023 at 4:50 PM, Abu_Zahra said:

Ultimately people want to keep the Muslim label while replacing the role of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) with their own desires. 

Like the local Wiccan club, Theosophic Society or Vipassana centre, exotic and appealing to the colonizer's orientalist gaze, but with no moral baggage attached. 

[Borntowitnesstruth]

5 hours ago, kadhim said:

You’re not quoting a source here, but let me just accept on your word that the other narration exists. It seems to me that a reasonable way to reconcile the two texts is that the more specific text represents the primary concerns, while the more general text about 72 (that is, numerous) unspecified ills refers to secondary follow on effects as a result of the primary concerns.

So the same argument still applies in that case.

You can check about the source just by typing on Google "why homosexuality is Haram al-islam.org" and you will get link to quotes I mentioned. Secondly, even if one accept your view that it refers to secondary follow on effect even then you are forbidden to encourage for it because it's consequence is bad. If a person has allergy to peanuts, you don't say him to eat it for it's forbidden for him although the effect is to follow it after being eaten 

[kadhim]

16 minutes ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

Secondly, even if one accept your view that it refers to secondary follow on effect even then you are forbidden to encourage for it because it's consequence is bad.

Well no, because if the primary concern is a reduction in procreation, and the other problems are secondary effects of the reduction in procreation, then again, gay people have no impact on that wherever they do. Whether they are celibate or in a gay relationship, they do not procreate. So their actions do not cause any reductions in procreation, and therefore do not cause any secondary effects of reduction in procreation. 

Once again, gay people aren’t a part of this equation. 

[Borntowitnesstruth]

39 minutes ago, kadhim said:

Well no, because if the primary concern is a reduction in procreation, and the other problems are secondary effects of the reduction in procreation, then again, gay people have no impact on that wherever they do. Whether they are celibate or in a gay relationship, they do not procreate. So their actions do not cause any reductions in procreation, and therefore do not cause any secondary effects of reduction in procreation. 

Once again, gay people aren’t a part of this equation. 

Lolz, brother you have the Ahadith now and you also know jurisprudential position on it. Based on that it is forbidden. You should avoid making excuses for it. 

[kadhim]

50 minutes ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

Lolz, brother you have the Ahadith now and you also know jurisprudential position on it. Based on that it is forbidden. You should avoid making excuses for it. 

I can’t help but notice that you don’t have a response. 

[VoidVortex]

6 hours ago, kadhim said:

Ah, but you forget the other part. That you would have been participating in making these people’s lives miserable for no real reason. That folks like me have come to you, warning you, showing the flaws in your understanding. But that you stubbornly dismissed that and continued giving hardship to these people. 

In that case you will have your own reckoning. You will have to answer for that. Will it be sufficient excuse for you to say that you simply followed what your chosen leaders told you? 

I am not blindly following what my "chosen" leaders are telling me. They have substantiated their opinions through years of research and their arguments are far more convincing than the ones you presented. Am I to be blamed for following the most rational evidence. 

I never stubbornly dismissed what you are saying, the claim you are making cannot be substantiated nor has it been substantiated.

God will punish me for following falsehood because of my emotions rather than the truth because of my rationality.

1 hour ago, kadhim said:

Well no, because if the primary concern is a reduction in procreation, and the other problems are secondary effects of the reduction in procreation, then again, gay people have no impact on that wherever they do. Whether they are celibate or in a gay relationship, they do not procreate. So their actions do not cause any reductions in procreation, and therefore do not cause any secondary effects of reduction in procreation. 

Once again, gay people aren’t a part of this equation. 

this argument is based on whether if the primary concern is a reduction in procreation. If its not, what would your approach be

And if you do say the primary reason it was banned was for a reduction in procreation, you would have to prove that if the Imam mentions a reason why X is prohibited, that would make it the primary reason something is prohibited. Secondly, you assume that other problems are due to secondary effects of the reduction in procreation whilst this is merely an assumption, and there may be problems not associated with reduction in procreation. 

[kadhim]

6 hours ago, VoidVortex said:

I never stubbornly dismissed what you are saying, the claim you are making cannot be substantiated nor has it been substantiated.

Oh come now. You know full well I’ve substantiated everything I’ve said. You can certainly disagree, but you can’t honestly argue that I have not backed myself up at every turn with facts and references to the texts. 

6 hours ago, VoidVortex said:

this argument is based on whether if the primary concern is a reduction in procreation.

You guys need to pick a story and stick with it. You’re always saying that we can’t tinker with traditional understandings unless we know the reason behind the law.

Well, what do you know, here we have it. We have a couple of explicit texts saying “here’s the reason—It’s about preserving lineages and preserving population.” If those are the only reasons that were ever explicitly stated, it seems pretty silly to suggest those are not in fact the most important reasons. To suggest such would be to suggest that the aimmah just speak randomly on things without any measure or balance. If these are the only reasons named, it goes to reason those are, if not the reasons, then the most important reasons to talk about. If you want to claim otherwise, I think it’s on you to explain why the Imam would randomly only specify reason #47.

How many times do reformers argue along the lines of, “the most likely reason for this law historically was X, but that reason no longer applies or doesn’t apply to group Y, so we need to tweak it,” and then folks like you and Abu Zahra respond and say, “you’re just speculating; if you want to say X is the reason you need a text that says that explicity.” If I then bring you a text that says in fact the reason was X, and you try to dismiss that by saying, “well, maybe that’s just reason # 47,” then I think you need to admit that you were arguing all along in bad faith and that you’re moving the goalposts to preserve your original opinion regardless of what is presented to you. 

And if we take the most natural assumption here, that lineage and population are the most important considerations, then it’s pretty silly to portray the undeniable fact that gay and lesbian people’s behavior has no effect on those factors as irrelevant to the point at hand. That’s another bad faith argument on your part.