Why do many Muslims believe that God wants them to injure, kill, or imprison homosexuals?

[Agnostic75]

Recently in Iran, Muslims killed some homosexuals merely because they were homosexuals, but incredibly, president Ahmadinejad says that there are not any gay people in Iran when it is well-known than Iran has been persecuting gay people for decades.

As far as I know, Muslims who live in the Middle East tend to mistreat homosexuals more than Muslims who live in other parts of the world, although Muslims who live in other parts of the world generally strongly disapprove of homosexuality too.

The intolerance of Muslims towards gay people will limit Muslims' acceptance in the democratic world. So will their subjugation of women.

As a side note, Saudi Arabia does not allow people to have Bibles, but the government is quite content for non-Muslim countries to allow people to have the Koran.

If Muslims were killed in a certain country merely because they were Muslims, they would not like it, but they will not grant non-Muslims the same rights that they want from non-Muslims.

Do the majority of Muslims want to spread Islam by diplomacy or by the sword? Many Muslims approve of using the sword to mistreat homosexuals.

 

[Half Asleep]

Islam, like Christianity, is a religion which can be either inclusive and peaceful or exclusive and hateful.

Modern fundamentalist Islam is just like modern fundamentalist Christianity. The difference is merely in the political turmoil of where most Muslims live. Political upheaval, tyrannical governments and impoverished populations tend to create much more prejudiced cultures. It's no fault of the people or the religion, it's just the psychological state a group of people adopts when living within a certain socio-political context.

 

[Agnostic75]

Islam, like Christianity, is a religion which can be either inclusive and peaceful or exclusive and hateful.

Modern fundamentalist Islam is just like modern fundamentalist Christianity. The difference is merely in the political turmoil of where most Muslims live. Political upheaval, tyrannical governments and impoverished populations tend to create much more prejudiced cultures. It's no fault of the people or the religion, it's just the psychological state a group of people adopts when living within a certain socio-political context.

Do you believe that homosexuals have the right to defend themselves from physical persecution?

How do you think non-Muslim countries should respond to Muslims' physical mistreatment of homosexuals?

 

[fallingblood]

Recently in Iran, Muslims killed some homosexuals merely because they were homosexuals, but incredibly, president Ahmadinejad says that there are not any gay people in Iran when it is well-known than Iran has been persecuting gay people for decades.

As far as I know, Muslims who live in the Middle East tend to mistreat homosexuals more than Muslims who live in other parts of the world, although Muslims who live in other parts of the world generally strongly disapprove of homosexuality too.

The intolerance of Muslims towards gay people will limit Muslims' acceptance in the democratic world. So will their subjugation of women.

As a side note, Saudi Arabia does not allow people to have Bibles, but the government is quite content for non-Muslim countries to allow people to have the Koran.

If Muslims were killed in a certain country merely because they were Muslims, they would not like it, but they will not grant non-Muslims the same rights that they want from non-Muslims.

Do the majority of Muslims want to spread Islam by diplomacy or by the sword? Many Muslims approve of using the sword to mistreat homosexuals.

Much of what you are talking about has nothing to do with Islam, but with the culture of those particular places. So much of your post is not really relevant.

Look at America. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the United States. Are the spreading it through force? Not at all.

Finally, you have based everything on a horrible idea. Homosexuals are a minority. Minorities have been persecuted for centuries. Homosexuals were persecuted under the Nazis. Was that a religious institution? Not at all. Homosexuals have been persecuted for centuries by many groups. So it is not a Muslim thing. And it has nothing to do with Islam.

For your discussion to go anywhere, you have to get at the real problem. By focusing on just the Muslims, and suggesting that it has to do something with Islam is simply going to make your discussion go nowhere as it will just end up in a religious fight.

 

[fallingblood]

Do you believe that homosexuals have the right to defend themselves from physical persecution?

How do you think non-Muslim countries should respond to Muslims' physical mistreatment of homosexuals?

You have a huge fault in your questions. You focus on Muslims too much. The United States is a non-Muslim country. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Atheists, etc all have been responsible for mistreatment of homosexuals. So you should not focus on Muslims.

The question should be what should anyone do about the physical mistreatment of homosexuals, or for that matter, and minority group?

 

[Agnostic75]

You have a huge fault in your questions. You focus on Muslims too much. The United States is a non-Muslim country. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Atheists, etc all have been responsible for mistreatment of homosexuals. So you should not focus on Muslims.

Actually, over the past 10 years, I have spent very little of my debating time debating Islam, and most of debating time debating Christianity precisely because the U.S. is predominantly Christian. Since Islam has over one billion followers, and is growing faster than Christianity is, it would be ridiculous for American skeptics to disregard Islam altogether.

The question should be what should anyone do about the physical mistreatment of homosexuals, or for that matter, and minority group?

But in order to best address what should be done about the mistreatment of homosexuals, it is first necessary to address the causes of prejudice against them. Once we know why Muslims oppose homosexuals, we will be better able to discuss what to do about it.

 

[Agnostic75]

Much of what you are talking about has nothing to do with Islam, but with the culture of those particular places. So much of your post is not really relevant.

Many Muslims believe that the Koran condemns homosexuality. Consider the following from a Muslim website:

Islam and Homosexuality

The Hadith and homosexuality: The Hadith are collections of sayings attributed to Muhammad. Many Hadiths (ahadith) discuss liwat (sexual intercourse between males). Two examples are:

"When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes."

"Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to." (in reference to the active and passive partners in gay sexual intercourse)
There is at least one mention of lesbian behavior mentioned in the Hadith: "Sihaq (lesbian sexual activity) of women is zina (illegitimate sexual intercourse) among them."

Traditionalist orthodox Muslims generally claim that the Hadith literature contains the authentic sayings of Muhammad. Many liberal Muslims doubt their authenticity. The latter might point out that during the times of the first Caliphs, Muslims did not know what to do with individuals guilty of "liwat/lutiyya". No sahabi (companion) of Muhammad could quote a saying or decision of Muhammad relating to this question.

According to a pamphlet produced by Al-Fatiha, there is a consensus among Islamic scholars that all humans are naturally heterosexual. 5 Homosexuality is seen by scholars to be a sinful and perverted deviation from the norm. All Islamic schools of thought and jurisprudence consider gay acts to be unlawful. They differ in terms of penalty:

The Hanafite school (currently seen mainly in South and Eastern Asia) teaches that no physical punishment is warranted.

The Hanabalites, (widely followed in the Arab world) teach that severe punishment is warranted.

The Sha'fi school of thought (also seen in the Arab world) requires a minimum of 4 adult male witnesses before a person can be found guilty of a homosexual act. Al-Fatiha estimates that 4,000 homosexuals have been executed in Iran since their revolution in 1979. 10 public executions of homosexuals have been performed in Afghanistan by the Taliban army.

Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi of the ISNA said: "Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, a sin and corruption... No person is born homosexual, just like no one is born a thief, a liar or murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education.""

"There are many reasons why it is forbidden in Islam. Homosexuality is dangerous for the health of the individuals and for the society. It is a main cause of one of the most harmful and fatal diseases. It is disgraceful for both men and women. It degrades a person. Islam teaches that men should be men and women should be women. Homosexuality deprives a man of his manhood and a woman of her womanhood. It is the most un-natural way of life. Homosexuality leads to the destruction of family life."

It is certainly relevant to discuss the Koran when discussing why many Muslims oppose homosexuality.

What do you propose to tell Muslims about homosexuality? Would you like to go to a Muslim website and discuss homosexuality with Muslims there?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to fallingblood: Would you like to go to the predominantly conservative Christian Theology Web and try out your system of having discussions with conservative Christians? That would be quite interesting indeed. I doubt that you have ever encountered a group of Christians like those Christians. Many of them are as eager to pounce on skeptics as a lion on a steak, and that includes mild mannered skeptics.

It would also be quite interesting to see you go to the Evolution/Creation forum at the predominantly skeptic FRDB (Freethought Rational Discussion Board) and tell the skeptics there that they should stop debating science with conservative Christians. If you do, please be sure to try the same thing at richarddawkins.net.

 

[fallingblood]

Actually, over the past 10 years, I have spent very little of my debating time debating Islam, and most of debating time debating Christianity precisely because the U.S. is predominantly Christian. Since Islam has over one billion followers, and is growing faster than Christianity is, it would be ridiculous for American skeptics to disregard Islam altogether.

Incorrect. Christianity is still the fastest growing religion in the world. The idea that Islam is growing faster than Christianity was started by fundamental Muslims. However, the statistics continue to show that Christianity is the fastest growing religion.

In the United, Islam may be growing faster; however, in the world, Christianity is.

I am not suggesting that anyone ignores Islam though. However, what you are discussing here is not an Islamic practice per se and to focus on Islam simply is doing nothing for the actual problem. One has to look at the actual cause, and that is that homosexuality is a minority. You can take religion out of the equation, and homosexuality would still be persecuted because it is a minority.

But in order to best address what should be done about the mistreatment of homosexuals, it is first necessary to address the causes of prejudice against them. Once we know why Muslims oppose homosexuals, we will be better able to discuss what to do about it.

Not at all. It is not just Muslims who oppose homosexuals. It is not just Christians who oppose homosexuals. It is not just the religious who oppose homosexuals. Homosexuality is opposed as it is a minority.

In order to address the cause, you must focus on the cause and not on Islam, which is not a cause. Without Islam, homosexuality would still be opposed.

So I agree, one must look at the cause, and the cause is that homosexuality is a minority, and people have a problem accepting those who are different. We have seen this to be true numerous times.

 

[fallingblood]

Message to fallingblood: Would you like to go to the predominantly conservative Christian Theology Web and try out your system of having discussions with conservative Christians? That would be quite interesting indeed. I doubt that you have ever encountered a group of Christians like those Christians. Many of them are as eager to pounce on skeptics as a lion on a steak, and that includes mild mannered skeptics.

It would also be quite interesting to see you go to the Evolution/Creation forum at the predominantly skeptic FRDB (Freethought Rational Discussion Board) and tell the skeptics there that they should stop debating science with conservative Christians. If you do, please be sure to try the same thing at richarddawkins.net.

I was one of those Christians, and I grew up with those type of Christians as my family. So it would not really be interesting. Especially since I've had many discussions with Conservative Christians that are based on mutual respect. I do not attack them.

Also, I've gone to the FRDB forum and have had good discussions with some of the members there. I do not frequent that board as I do not have time to frequent too many boards, and I've decided that this is one that I like.

I've never stated that one should not debate science with conservative Christians. I've criticized the manner in which you've gone about debating.

 

[Agnostic75]

I've never stated that one should not debate science with conservative Christians. I've criticized the manner in which you've gone about debating.

But you said in another forum that the Bible is not a science book. Why did you say that unless you did not want me to debate science with conservative Christians?

You said at this forum or at another forum that I am disrespectful to Christians. Please quote some examples.

 

[Gharib]

Recently in Iran, Muslims killed some homosexuals merely because they were homosexuals, but incredibly, president Ahmadinejad says that there are not any gay people in Iran when it is well-known than Iran has been persecuting gay people for decades.

As far as I know, Muslims who live in the Middle East tend to mistreat homosexuals more than Muslims who live in other parts of the world, although Muslims who live in other parts of the world generally strongly disapprove of homosexuality too.

homosexuality is considered a sin so we disaprove of it just like all other sins.

The intolerance of Muslims towards gay people will limit Muslims' acceptance in the democratic world. So will their subjugation of women.

i think you've pressed the forward button, try the reverse button and see how muslims have not been accepted and will not be simply for being muslims.

As a side note, Saudi Arabia does not allow people to have Bibles, but the government is quite content for non-Muslim countries to allow people to have the Koran.

saudi arabia and its laws do not represent islam and it's laws.
can you post any evidence that says the saudis don't allow bibles. neve heard of it. but am not surprised all that much.

If Muslims were killed in a certain country merely because they were Muslims, they would not like it, but they will not grant non-Muslims the same rights that they want from non-Muslims.

ok can you explain this? what exactly are you talking about?

Do the majority of Muslims want to spread Islam by diplomacy or by the sword? Many Muslims approve of using the sword to mistreat homosexuals.

really, muslims misstreating homosexuals with a swrod. please post the evidence that suggests that.
we don't spread islam by the sword, infact just incase you didn't notice muslims do not go door preaching like christians. we don't tell people to become muslims, the quran says no one can lead astray that whom Allah has guided and no one can guide that whom Allah has led astray, we only teach people about islam so that they hear of it.

why do you see it as bad to punish a homosexual?

 

[Agnostic75]

I've never stated that one should not debate science with conservative Christians. I've criticized the manner in which you've gone about debating.

Consider the following from a thread that I recently started at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/biblical-debates/95111-does-bible-teach-earth-flat.html at the Scriptural Debates forum that is titled "Does the Bible teach that the earth is flat?":

The Bible does not claim and is not a book on science. The ideas it even mentions about science mean nothing as that is not what it is about. We do not look at the Origin of Species for matters on math.

The Bible is not a book of archaeology, but it makes some claims that can be reasonably proven or disproven by archaeology. The Bible is not a book of geology, but geology has reasonably proven than a global flood did not occur. Claims are claims no matter what kind of claims they are. Either a global flood occured, or a global flood did not occur. It would be ridiculous to dismiss the issue altogether simply because science is involved.

It would not be ridiculous at all. The Bible is not meant to be taken literal. Sure, some do take it literally, but some people take the most ridiculous things literal.

You have to understand that purpose of the Bible. You have to understand the reason the books of the Bible were written. You need to understand the history of the writings. It is not meant to be taken literal. Much of it is allegorical. Much of it was to provide rules and regulations for the Hebrews during the time that they were written. It was meant to provide guidance for that time.

So yes, this issue can be dismissed on the basis of why the books of the Bible were written, in addition to the fact it is not meant to be taken wholly literally.

Obviously, your comment "I've never stated that one should not debate science with conservative Christians" contradicts your comment "it would not be ridiculous at all......."

Which of your contradictory positions do you actually accept.

You have said that I have been disrespectul to conservative Christians. Please quote some examples.

 

[Agnostic75]

Homosexuality is considered a sin so we disaprove of it just like all other sins.

But it is immoral to injure, kill, or imprison a person merely because of their sexual preference.

You should not be surprised when non-Muslims object to the way that many Muslims treat homosexuals. Decent people do not approve of physical violence against gay people who practice sex in private. Would you approve of physical violence against Muslims based upon a religious book? If not, then you should not approve of injuring, killing or imprisoning gay people because of a religious book. If you want the respect of other people, you have to be willing to respect other people yourself.

When gay people are physically persecuted, they have the right to defend themselves if they choose to. If by chance some non-Muslim gay people in Iran blew up a power plant in retaliation for physical abuse, who could blame them?

As far as the claim that homosexuality is unhealthy is concerned, eating greasy foods and smoking cigarettes is certainly unhealthy.

 

[fallingblood]

Obviously, your comment "I've never stated that one should not debate science with conservative Christians" contradicts your comment "it would not be ridiculous at all......."

Which of your contradictory positions do you actually accept.

You have said that I have been disrespectul to conservative Christians. Please quote some examples.

No contradiction, two separate ideas. Feel free to debate science with conservative Christians. Leave the Bible out of it.

The Bible is not a science book, and should not be taken as such. Outside the Bible, there is no problem debating science with conservative Christians. Just do not try to state that the Bible is a science book.

 

[fallingblood]

But it is immoral to injure, kill, or imprison a person merely because of their sexual preference.

You should not be surprised when non-Muslims object to the way that many Muslims treat homosexuals. Decent people do not approve of physical violence against gay people who practice sex in private. Would you approve of physical violence against Muslims based upon a religious book? If not, then you should not approve of injuring, killing or imprisoning gay people because of a religious book. If you want the respect of other people, you have to be willing to respect other people yourself.

When gay people are physically persecuted, they have the right to defend themselves if they choose to. If by chance some non-Muslim gay people in Iran blew up a power plant in retaliation for physical abuse, who could blame them?

As far as the claim that homosexuality is unhealthy is concerned, eating greasy foods and smoking cigarettes is certainly unhealthy.

There is a flaw though. Many non-Muslims would have no problem with the way certain Muslims treat homosexuals.

Again, this is not a religious manner. Not all Muslims hate homosexuals. Not all Christians hate homosexuals. At the same time, some atheists hate homosexuals. Etc.

This is not a religious point, and as long as you continue trying to make it so, you will never get anywhere.

 

[Agnostic75]

Saudi Arabia and its laws do not represent Islam and it's laws.
Can you post any evidence that says the Saudis don't allow Bibles. Never heard of it. But am not surprised all that much.

Bibles and crosses confiscated in Saudi Arabia « News that matters

Bibles, crucifixes and all non-Muslim religious symbols are illegal and are confiscated at the border of Saudi Arabia.

Iran authorities lash man for having bible in car - report - Jihad Watch

Iran authorities lash man for having bible in car - report

"During interrogation security agents accused the man of converting from Islam to Christianity, a practice banned under Iran's strict theocratic laws."
Islamic Tolerance Alert, from Iran Focus:

Tehran, Iran, Aug. 13 - Iranian authorities in Tehran lashed a man on his back earlier this year for having a bible in his car, an Iranian Christian group said in a report on its website on Friday.​

The man was only identified by the initials A. Sh.​

On 5 May, the man, driving his vehicle, was involved in a road accident with a car belonging to security guards for a government official in Tehran.​

A bible and a video [about] Jesus Christ were found in the man's possession upon inspection of his vehicle by the state security forces (SSF).​

A. Sh. admitted to being Christian, prompting the security agents to beat him up, the report said. He was arrested and taken to a holding cell in Detention Centre 102.​

During interrogation security agents accused the man of converting from Islam to Christianity, a practice banned under Iran's strict theocratic laws.​

He was subsequently subjected to lashes on the back and underwent physical and psychological torture, the report added.​

​

 

[Agnostic75]

Obviously, your comment "I've never stated that one should no debate science with conservative Christians" contradicts your comment "it would not be ridiculous at all......."

Which of your contradictory positions do you actually accept.

You have said that I have been disrespectul to conservative Christians. Please quote some examples.

No contradiction, two separate ideas. Feel free to debate science with conservative Christians. Leave the Bible out of it.

But at the Scriptural Debates forum, I said that it would be ridiculous to dismiss debating the flood altogether just because science is involved, and you said "it would not be ridulous at all," and "this issue can be dismissed on the basis of why the books of the Bible were written, in addition to the fact it is not meant to be taken wholly literally." You clearly contradicted yourself. It is impossible to discuss an issue and dismiss it.

The Bible is not a science book, and should not be taken as such. Outside the Bible, there is no problem debating science with conservative Christians. Just do not try to state that the Bible is a science book.

I do not recall ever saying that the Bible is a science book. Regardless of what kind of book anyone says the Bible is, many conservative Christians believe that a global flood occured, and they believe that science confirms that a global flood occured. It is not necessary to call the Bible any particular kind of book at all in order to discuss global flood science with Christians.

 

[fallingblood]

But at the Scriptural Debates forum, I said that it would be ridiculous to dismiss debating the flood altogether just because science is involved, and you said "it would not be ridulous at all," and "this issue can be dismissed on the basis of why the books of the Bible were written, in addition to the fact it is not meant to be taken wholly literally." You clearly contradicted yourself. It is impossible to discuss an issue and dismiss it.

Is there more to science then the Global Flood? I said it is alright to debate science with conservative Christians. There is much more to science then just a couple of pieces in the Bible (which I discussed as the Earth being flat, and the Global flood, which I do not find ridiculous to dismiss). Try again.

I do not recall ever saying that the Bible is a science book. Regardless of what kind of book anyone says the Bible is, many conservative Christians believe that a global flood occured, and they believe that science confirms that a global flood occured. It is not necessary to call the Bible any particular kind of book at all in order to discuss global flood science with Christians.

What type of book the Bible is does matter. I never stated you said the Bible was a science book. It is not a science book, and should not be treated as such. That goes for all parties.

There should be no debate on the Global Flood story as it is based on ignorance. The Bible is not a science book. The Bible is not meant to be taken literal. The Bible is something much different. Understanding the purpose of the Bible, and the history behind it would make debating the flood story pointless.

Disproving the flood story does absolutely nothing. It doesn't disprove the Bible. It doesn't even disprove the conservative Christians as their beliefs are based on faith. The best one can hope for is educating the other side. Going into a debate and not respecting the other sides beliefs will not do this. It will just make the debate heated. And many times, the debate it a waste and has no benefit at all.

 

[Agnostic75]

There should be no debate on the Global Flood story as it is based on ignorance. The Bible is not a science book. The Bible is not meant to be taken literal. The Bible is something much different. Understanding the purpose of the Bible, and the history behind it would make debating the flood story pointless.

Disproving the flood story does absolutely nothing. It doesn't disprove the Bible. It doesn't even disprove the conservative Christians as their beliefs are based on faith. The best one can hope for is educating the other side. Going into a debate and not respecting the other sides beliefs will not do this. It will just make the debate heated. And many times, the debate it a waste and has no benefit at all.

Consider the following from the Biblical Debates forum:

Would you like to claim that it is not appropriate for skeptics to ever discuss the global flood with conservative Christians?

I would more or less state that it is a complete waste of time that has no benefit. If there was no global flood, does it matter? Not at all. It does not make the Bible non-trustworthy. It simply shows that the Bible is not meant to be taken literal.

Many conservative Christians say otherwise, and claim that science reasonably proves that a global flood occured. Such being the case, it is reasonable to debate flood geology with conservative Christians.

I have discussed the flood story when brought up, and state my opinion. It may lead to a debate, but more in them asking me questions. I never allow it to go hostile as it is pointless as no matter what I would say, they would not believe it for one simple reason, their faith does not allow them.

I have debated the global flood extensively with conservative Christians at other websites, and the debates never got hostile.

I find no problem with this because that belief is not a threat to anyone. It will never be taught in schools, and it is a belief that is slowly dying. I find no problem with this because that belief is not a threat to anyone. It will never be taught in schools, and it is a belief that is slowly dying.

The attempted legislation of religion is always a problem, and always a threat. Many conservative Christians oppose homosexuality and physician assisted suicide primarily or solely because of the Bible. The best way to convince conservative Christians to give up Christianity, and to convince skeptics not to be become conservative Christians, is to reasonably and politely try to prove as many false claims in the Bible as possible. As far as I know, the global flood is one of the most debated issues in the Bible. There are thousands of articles about it at the Internet, and it is frequently debated at skeptic and Christian websites. Davis Young is an evangelical Christian geologist. He does not believe that a global flood occured. He has criticized conservative Christians who claim that a global flood occured, and has said that some skeptics immediately reject the Bible because of the global flood story. As long as many conservative Christians make a big issue out of the global flood, and try to use science to verify it, it will be reasonable for skeptics and Christians who disagree with them to discuss the issue. If science were able to resaonably prove that a global flood occured, you can bet that conservative Christianity would benefit at a result.

If you contacted the ICR (Institute for Creation Research), and AIG (Answers in Genesis), which are two of the most prominent creationist organizations in the U.S., and told them your opinions about debating science with conservative Christians, they would immediately disagree with you and tell you that science confirms the Bible.