gays in the ranks

The one and only free public forum for Bohras. The focus of this forum is the reform movement, the Dawoodi Bohra faith and, of course, the corrupt priesthood. But the discussion is in no way restricted to the Bohras alone.
spot
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:01 am

gays in the ranks

#1

Unread post by spot » Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:02 pm

JC,

you said about gays "It MAY be termed a disease or shortcoming, so we should not hate it - we may try to cure it, but if a person looses his one arm, he lives with it and we accept it, why not gays..??!!!"

do you believe gays cannot/should not be changed or as you said a person is born "gay"?

i bring this up because your example is not equal..i mean a person whose arm is cut off does have to adjust for living like "normal" human not living like a disabled person, though labeled disabled. And the person with the cut off arm would rather have the arm back if they could change the circumstances. what you say is to accept a gay without them adjusting to living like "normal" human.

i personally do not believe "gay is ok". to accept their behavior is no different than accepting the behavior of a petafile or incest. a person who has sex with children or family members or animals is hedinistic, but a person who has sex with the same gender is "ok".

or should i be willing to "accept" the others as well?

just my thoughts, any comments?

JC
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#2

Unread post by JC » Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:45 pm

Spot,

thanks for the post, will try to clarify:

a. Do not mix sex with gays, I am talking about an attitude, a preference, an attraction, something over which one has no control. Pls. try to understand, it is NOT by choice. It is 'state of mind'.

b. No, other things which u mentioned are not correct coz it involves sex with other partner who is 'not competent enough' to decide what is happening to him/her. Children are NOT equal partners, animals do not understand what is happening to them, so that is WRONG. A child or animal cannot give CONSENT. AND here we are talking about having sex, so for sure it is not OK and not same.

c. I gave the example - yes, if a person with severed arm gets the chance, he can have the arm, but that will NEVER be the same or ORIGNAL. He tries to live a normal life, RIGHT ..!!! but the fact remains - he is disabled, agreed..?? So a gay tries to cure himself, if possible, in most of the cases cure is not possible and there are hundreds of doctors/psychatrists in west who have termed this as OK and normal behaviour. 20% of human population is gay. So that concludes 'sin' is out of question. A gay tries to live a 'normal' life, he tries to do and act according to generally acceptd behaviour EXCEPT that his sexual orientation is different - one is straight and one is gay, and thats it. A gay person may not have sex at all. So even if you give him an arm, it will never be the same ...!!!!!

d. What if we do not get another arm..??? How many blind people are there who CAN be cured but their are no donors (NOW, remember per general understanding organ transplant is not allowed in Islam - you should go to God as He has kept u, so if He let u die with two eyes, u have no right to go to Him with one eye - that is the logice they give). Blind is destined to be blind - is it a sin to be blind..??!!!

e. What if a man is impotent or a woman not fertile. What will you say for them. At best, we will say i. it is a disease or ii. a shortcoming or limitation. We will not excommunicate them or hate them, right??!! they will live a normal life, but offcourse without marriage or without kids.

I hope i have answred ur questions. Let me know of ur comments.

anajmi
Posts: 13403
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#3

Unread post by anajmi » Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:42 pm

JC,

Can you please tell me where it states that organ donation is not allowed in Islam?

Again I was going to go ahead and say that you are lying but I will just say that you do not know what you are talking about!!

spot
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#4

Unread post by spot » Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:53 pm

JC,
i should also clarify what i include with the word sex. sex to me includes the emotions and consent that comes along with the physical action.

a. to say to be gay is not by choice is no different than to say petafila is not by choice, in my opinion. i should clarify petafila is defined as having intimate contact with a minor (someone under 18). this also applies to animals, you'd be hard pressed to find a person being able to force an animal to have sex.

to that person they have a natural inclination to have relations with young persons or animals and finds nothing wrong about it.

i say it is wrong because it goes against the natural makeup of the body for procreation. the body of the man and woman are designed to act as one to procreate another life.

so anything that goes against the model is a defect, be it mentally or physically.

marriage is a religious institution for the allowing the acts of procreation and emotions with another person....not just emotions.

b. i am not talking about involving people without consent, but with those giving consents. the definition of age a person is able to decide is questionable and subjective. people get married as young as 12 and 14 in most countries. and if anyone know about the acts of sex, than animals know what is going on.

c. normal is not defined by what we accept and allow. it is normal to have the urge to have relations with another person. religion has confined this to marriage of man and woman only. if the person didn't want to marry, should they still follow through with the urge? if you are secular, most say sure why not. if you are religious, you say no unless married.

so you must control the desire. the desire is normal but the act is not (religiously speaking). and if that desire is continuously there, than it must be curbed by other means. so although the man lost his arm, he adjust to function normally (be it with a mechanical arm or other means).

but let's focus on the argument using only mental example for comparisons, because they are closer in reality. again the main issue is the urge or desire be it for a man or woman. it doesn't mean we should act on our desires.

mumineen
Posts: 494
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2000 5:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#5

Unread post by mumineen » Sat Mar 12, 2005 12:40 am

"same-sex marriage"

We have been happily married to each other (as husband and wife, we should add) for the last 33 years - and hence having the same sex for the last 33 years. We don't understand and beats us why people are so worked up or against the
same-sex marriage? What seems to be the big deal, e'h! Are we missing something here?

JC
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#6

Unread post by JC » Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:32 pm

Salams to you all,

There are many a things u people have raised. My point of argument was and is that:

BEING GAY IS NOT A 'SIN'

To me, at best you can term it is a 'deficiency' or 'limitation' or 'short-coming'

And I have tried to explain this in my previous messages.

Again, I say it is a 'state of mind' and NOT necessarily invlove the act of sex. Spot: you can argeu it one and same. Yes, it is an urge, a desire, a attraction towards person of same-sex ... which is BEYOND's one's control ..!!! So what should a person do..??? Refrain from finding some one who shares the same emotions, ideas and feelings, refrain from getting physical or what ..?? A person is blind, shouldn't he TRY to find ways he can see ..???? Blind has an urge and desire to see (which you will say is NORMAL ... but attraction towards same sex is not, right..??) - so what options gays have ..??? You tell me gays will go to hell, my question is simple - WHY, it is something beyond me.

A person is attracted to minors, well again, my conclusion is - if that is beyond him, that is NOT sin, but definitely a short coming. AND, that person has no option because he CANNOT find a consenting partner (IF at all, he wants to go physical) - so this person's delimma is greater than of a gay. Talking of having sex with animals, that is definitely wrong because a person cannot be attracted to animals ..!!!!

Anajmi,

I cannot quote any place where i read about organ transplantaion at this point, but i know that most Islamic scholars are against this. How many ppl in Muslim world have donated their eyes ..???

Wahabism

There is nothing as Wahabism. It is stricter form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. It has its advantages and disadvantages. We cannot term this with real Islam coz it has its limitaions.
REAL ISLAM is to be found NOWHERE in todays' world. So,
Br. Average Bohra
You cannot compare something practiced and preached in Saudia with Islam or who try to bring up what real Islam says. Likewise, Shiaism is not Islam, Bohraism is not Islam.

spot
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#7

Unread post by spot » Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:35 pm

JC,

"BEING GAY IS NOT A 'SIN'"

being gay (mentally), i believe, may not technically be a sin (i am not an authority). acting on the feelings of being gay is in fact considered a sin because of what i described, a marriage between a man and a woman is what is describe as the "correct" and lawful marriage. any relationship outside of this is a sin, be they same or opposite genders. if the gay person never acts "sexually" on their feeling, they have urges and desires, but have not technically sinned. i know many believe that the thought is just as bad as the action.

you say gays have no control over their mental feelings, this is the same reasoning the petafile or the animalist uses. they say they were born this way, with this "state of mind". your analysis would still apply; what's good for the gay is good for the animalist.

my opinion is that humans have emmense control over their mental and physical capabilities. the vast majority of catholic priests and nuns that never have physical relations with man or woman. buddhist monks are another example. so to say the gay person cannot control themselves is a weak argument, in my opinion.

JC
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#8

Unread post by JC » Tue Mar 15, 2005 6:45 pm

Spot,

Yes, it is not sin. the common belief goes that even the thought of a sin tentamounts to commiting that sin. BUT, my argument is that it is NOT a SIN, so thinking of it doesnot make any difference. I hope u understand.

Coming to petafills and anamilists, if something is beyond one's control, that i will use the same argument. At best it is a disease and has to be controled and contended.

i agree that again the common belief among religions is that - marriage is a union between a man and a woman. i donot want to argue that as to me it has no bearing or difference on a person who is gay or lesbian. You can term their relationship is a 'Union' at best 'Legal Union' or 'Common law partners' or whatever. WHY I say it has no bearing ...???

MARRIAGE IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.. and this has been made such for CHILDREN ... Who is father, who is mother, what are their duties and responsibilities and rights. for the sake of future generation the institution of marriage was introduced. No society wants illegitimate children and by that i mean there is no line or demarcation whose responsibilites these children are. Father eanrs, mother nutures. They have a name, a religion and a code to follow. Some one takes care of education. So for this very reason the concept and institution of marraige was introduced.

For gays and lesbians, there will be NO children. So to me, the concept of marriage is not applicable. What people are crying about are the rights a married couple gets in Western world for eg. tax benefits, social benefits etc. Had that not been there, no one would bother. Mind you west has quietly agreed to Union between two CONSENTING ADULTS. Today, in west, the terms wife and husband are not frequently used, but they are termed as 'SPOUSE' hence no gender identification of either partner.

Coming to Nuns and priests, monks, sadhus etc. Well, you can praise them for their 'restraint', not me. When you are hungry go and eat. To refrain from sex or attracting is NOT NORMAL and that is why there is no concept of Rahbaniat in Islam. Islam allows 4 marriages to a man, marriage for widows and divorcees. Islam understood the 'dersire' and 'urge' for sex and its power. Islam (or people bringing and promoting that religion) knew very well this urge is the most difficult to control - and not normal. So they made laws legalizing these in a required form and fashion. So my friend, we donot need a 'will-power' which is used to stop a very natural thing.

To me, if two consenting adults of same sex are going physical, is OK. Why on earth they shoudl control theri feelings, urges and desires while fullfilling them will make them good enough to carry out their other duties and obligations.

I hope i have answred ur questions.

spot
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#9

Unread post by spot » Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:42 pm

JC,
if by your statement that the thought is also a sin, then i would consider the physical actions taken and mental thoughts of a gays as much a sin as that of a petafil or animalist.

to me there is no difference in justification of one verses the other, because they all use the same reasoning.

the idea of restraint is throughout islam, from fasting to relations or interacting with the opposite sex outside of marriage. the idea of 4 marriage was for one purpose, and sex was not it. 4 marriages are allowed if you can treat them equally, otherwise marry one. and it is sanction so that women wouldn't have work outside the home to pay for shelter and material needs. even in marriage there are restraint to what, when, and how one can and cannot have relation.

religion and seculiar idioms do not match, because seculiar idioms use the moral gage of the population. so the word "sin" should not be used to begin with. if you want to judge a seculiar idiom against religious ethos, than the idiom will more than likely be a sin.

example: the drunkerd has the need to drink. islam say not to drink in the first place. secular say drink, but responsibility. you argument is the same. the gay need to fulfil their urge. islam say not to fulfil the thought of the urge to begin with because lust is a sin, whether man or woman.

Average Bohra
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 5:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#10

Unread post by Average Bohra » Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:03 am

JC,
You cannot compare something practiced and preached in Saudia with Islam or who try to bring up what real Islam says. Likewise, Shiaism is not Islam, Bohraism is not Islam.
Exactly who is qualified to bring up what real Islam says ? I agree with your sentiment but I am conversing with admitted Wahabis (just read their posts) and one must call a spade a spade. It is unfortunate that the rest of Islam does not share your (and my) views as they have given Saudis free reign to represent Islam. It is a fact that the Saudis have financed most of the new mosques in Pakistan, Bangladesh and other 3rd world countries and are raising a new breed of young, militant Wahabis who believe in the literal interpretation of the Quran and violently "defending" it through murder and mayhem.

Getting back to the topic of gays at hand, one must mention the prevalence of homosexuality and pedophilic activity in Islam; both commonly practiced by the Taliban Wahabis and the latter, a common practice in all of Islam and practiced by the Prophet.

khan19922001
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#11

Unread post by khan19922001 » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:50 am

Average Bohra

You are accusing the entire Saudi race of homosexuality. While I admit that the disease is prevalent here, your casual statement that gives the impression that it is commom practice here, which I assure you is not the case.

You are accusing the Prophet (PBUH) of child molestation etc. I hope you have sufficient proof for these charges.

Regards

Average Bohra
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 5:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#12

Unread post by Average Bohra » Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:55 pm

Khan,

Please re-read my post; it is not an accusation and I am not singling out the Saudis. I am simply saying that it is as common in Islam as it is in other societies and religions. In the case of the Taliban, it is my understanding that it is pretty extreme and wide spread.

As far as the Prophet (PBUH), I am referring to the documented age of some of his wives which in the present day would be classified as pedophelia.

- AB

Alislam
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 5:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#13

Unread post by Alislam » Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:56 pm

Salaam,
_______________________________________________________
As far as the Prophet (PBUH), I am referring to the documented age of some of his wives which in the present day would be classified as pedophelia.
_______________________________________________________

The documented age of Ayesha during her marriage with Prophet(PBUH) is a controversy.
It is 9, 11, 12 or 14 at different sources.

A 9 year Arab girl cannot be compared to the same aged girl of let's say India.. There is a hell of a difference in thier physique, growth etc.,

The only condition that Islam lays emphasize upon for a girl's marriage is her Physical maturity ie., the start of her menses.

Who knows better about Allah's creation better than the Prophet (PBUH), the right time for a girl's marriage..

was salaam

JC
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#14

Unread post by JC » Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:23 pm

Average Bohra and Khan,

Lets talk of Wahabis first. As I said earlier they follow stricter form of Islam which does not consider anything after Prophet. They only go for Quran and Hadiath. IDEALLY that is right. that is what Muslims should be doing. What happened after Prphet is history and what Muslims practice around the world other than Islamic traditions is purely local customs and traditions. the hisory is history and customs and traditions should not contradict Islam. Wahabis have a point of view and opinion and we should allow it to be preached and practiced. On the other hand, Sunnis, Shias have their point of view and beliefs. they should also be allowed to preach and practice. At best, the test and criteria should be quran and hadiath. We cannot generalize and accuse the whole community. if saudia is playing foul, then we should cry foul. if iran is playing foul we should cry foul then too. We are saying 'Foul' to burhan's tactics in bohraism (which is FAR from Islam..!!).

Who will bring and teach REAL ISLAM..???!!

NO ONE ....

It is upto each individual to quest for knowledge and wisdom. Human beings have a great thing know as brain, we should use it. One thing is sure - anything bad for society or people will NOT be Islam or any other religion. So criteria is 'what is best for human race and society' - based on that criteria we should try to bring about the best laws, rules and regulations. Like west has this idea of 'Welfare State' which is from islam but practiced by many western states such as Sweden, Norway, Canada etc.

1400 years ago the interpretation was different and xyz was real Islam.

1200 years ago, it changed.

1000 years ago, it kept changing.

500 years ago, we became wiser and knowledgeable and real Islam kept on changing.

TODAY, real Islam would be what is best for society and human race keeping in mind the ground realities of today, out knowldege, science, technology etc.

TODAY Haj is limited to Tawaf and Sa'ee. In good old days it use to start from one's home. Today we go to Mina and Muzdallfah by transport, not many years back, people use to walk .... what i m trying to say is that we keep on changing with passage of time.

One day will come when WE will be evolve the best possible structure for our society best for human race. That day will be the day when 'real islam' would have been practiced. that day we would attain Jannah. TILL that day, we have some Jannah but Jehanum is at many a places. Please the concept 'the Jannah is for ever' has to be taken in wider perspective according to the time and age.

About Homosexuality - AB, (and spot adn others) that is exactly my point. It is 'widely' there and may be 'widely' practiced. it is every where, it is open in West and not so open in East. Yes, it is in Saudia and in other places. I am not one to say 'all wahabis are gay' but it is common but hidden. it has been there for ages ...!!! So whats the big fuss about it, we should accept it and let it go. My point is if we cannot stop floods, earthquakes, femine, draught, fire, we cannot stop impotency, infertility in women, and other diseases and epidemic, we cannot stop this state of mind. SPOT, it is NOT a SIN (so practicing or not, thinking or not, does not invite the results of sin..!!).

Spot, u have raised the issue of 4 wives. Right, there are conditions and there were circumstances when this was allowed. By the way Islam is for restraints and refrains BUT Islam has never stopped from something which is normal and natural. Sex is normal and natural so it has not stopped it. come to think of it - 1400 years ago, Prophet said, 4 wives to a man, remarriage for widows and widowers, divorcees, this concept was revolutionary at the point in time. Even Christianity doesnot allow all that today. it was a blow, an IDEA at that point in time totally new .... but it was accepted. SO, my friend - YOU CANNOT STOP AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME ... Prophet and others had more than 4 wives but then due to doctrine of necessity they changed it and restricted it to 4, i agree it was NOT totally for sex, but there were other reasons too. so we agree, that necessity is the mother of invention..!!!!

spot
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#15

Unread post by spot » Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:05 pm

jc,
It is 'widely' there and may be 'widely' practiced.
because something is widely practice by a certain group,does not give it legimaticy, and thus not a sin. 20 yrs ago, gays were considered in the west as horrific as the animalist today is seen. the fact that society has accepted gays into the normal course of relation does not justify the action or mind set. will you say the same of the animalist 20 yrs from now, if society accepts them?

and please get your fact straight, keeping young boys as companions like certain male groups of afghanistan is not a justification for homosexuality. if you look at the men that did this, most of them were married (some with more than one wife) and had children. afghanistan is far from being the representation of islam.

JC
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#16

Unread post by JC » Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:31 pm

Spot,

My friend, you have missed my point/s.

I have never said Afghanistan or precisely Taliban are the representatives of Islam. Where did i say that ..??!!!

I am totally against Taliban and talibanisation or talibanism. in fact, i m against all types of fanatics or hard core or fundamentalists may they be from any religion.

Next, Taliban kept young boys though they were married and may have more than one wife. That was wrong and is wrong. My friend, I have talking of 'state of mind' and i have always said that if 'two CONSENTING adults' if gay and go physical, there should not be a problem (or may be sin..!!). I have never advocataed gay sex by force or coersion or intimidation and taliban exactly did that. Why to talk of young boys ... they did not marry they use to 'buy' women too. You have not mentioned that ...!!!! they use to rape girls, why not mention that. they use to kill and torture, why not talk of them. PLEASE do NOT mix what taliban did to what gays are. even today, in west, if a husband 'forcefully' has sex with his legally married wife, that is constituted as 'rape'. So my friend CONSENT is the key word here which you have missed.

Coming to pitafiles and animalists. YES, may be 20 yrs down the road we will accept them, who knows, like YES, acceptance for gays. You see TODAY we are not sure of their state of mind, it is being investigated and researched. If they say they do not have control over this, we have to take notice and check that out. If they have that urge and desire beyond their control, it is not sin. Having said that, TODAY i would say they should not be allowed to practice that - WHY, because we ae still not sure and the other party is NOT CONSENTING. The other party CANNOT be a. they are minore and b. they are animals. So for better benefits of society they are contained. 20 yrs back the same was true for gays not today. We evlove as we become wiser. If we donot move forward with new ideas and research we would be standing at Stone Age worshipping idols..!! as I have been saying all way at various topics and posts we have to keep in mind the ground realities, time and age and how wise the man has grown.

Let me add one more thing -

A man falls in love with another woman who is married. though he very well knows that she is married and honest to her husband, he cannot control his emotions and feelings towards her. that is beyond him. he WISHES to go physical, but DOES NOT and refrains.

What do u think of him?
He is commiting a SIN, right???? the thought also counts, right..????
WRONG, he is commiting no sin as he has no control, he would commit sin if he 'forces' her in one way or another and by any law punishable.

Think of extended scenario -
The lady's husband dies, she becomes widow, waits her mandatory period and very rightly becomes available for marraige. PERFECT..!!!
The man in love approaches, proposes and they get MARRIED.
Suddenly the SIN has turned into a good deed as he married a widow.
Again, there are people who would quote
'In-namal amalao bin neyat'
Since his intent was bad and was commiting sin BEFORE she became avialable, he should be punishable for that. HOWEVER, since he is legally and religiously married now, SIN stopped the day he married (or you tend to disagree, sin continues..??).
So, u see my friend, GROUND REALITIES make a lot of difference. A sin goes and good deed comes in to play.

To me that is perfectly all right as we have to see things in reference to context. Nothing is 'absolute' everything is 'relative'.

spot
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#17

Unread post by spot » Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:38 pm

jc,
i may have miss written something, i was replying to the idea of afghani men have homosexual relations with young afghani boy, which according to some account is common in that culture. taking this cannot be used as a reason of accepting homosexuality in islam. and this is what your comments portray.

the argument you present is that a "state of mind" whether correct in ideology or not is not a sin. the problem i see in that argument is that a particular "state of mind" is controllable and is not something we are born with.

consent is not a measuring device for a sin. nor is the idea of an evolutionary state of mind acceptable either.

regarding your example, the man sinned for lusting after the other man's wife. it is a forgivable sin according to Allah. if the man had went further with the woman physically, he and she would have a commited adultary, considered a major sin (equivalent to murder). the intention was a sin, the action was worse.

now in your extended scenario, the man controlled his "state of mind" and waited for an allowable format so it is not a sin for the action.

apply this to gays, a man desires another man and continues his desire. can he control his desires, yes. can he redirect his energy to something else, maybe never women, but some other means, yes.

out of all the things in this world we don't have control over, the mind is not one of them. there is nothing in our mind we cannot control, unless there is a physical defect in the mind itself. to act as a result of the physical defect of the mind is not a sin (ie to have parkinson's or md). is to be gay a physical defect of the mind? i do not believe it is, so i consider actions taken as a result of it a major sin.

Average Bohra
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 5:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#18

Unread post by Average Bohra » Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:40 am

Alislam,

Thank you for substantiating my post.
A 9 year Arab girl cannot be compared to the same aged girl of let's say India.. There is a hell of a difference in thier physique, growth etc.,
The only condition that Islam lays emphasize upon for a girl's marriage is her Physical maturity ie., the start of her menses.
I did not know that Islam had no standards for pedophilia except physical development (sexual attraction) and that in itself is appalling, and explains the facts I was referring to.
Who knows better about Allah's creation better than the Prophet (PBUH), the right time for a girl's marriage..
The right time would be with consent, when they are old enough to be emotionally mature and responsible for their own actions. Unlike animals, humans do not hump without consent and based on physical development alone. If they do, we prosecute them for rape and pedophilia.

- AB

Average Bohra
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 5:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#19

Unread post by Average Bohra » Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:57 am

JC,

Your post and your logic is full of contradictions. Yes, I did try to detail them but I had a page full and I wasn't done yet.

- AB

Humsafar
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2000 5:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#20

Unread post by Humsafar » Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:03 pm

I'm in agreement with AB on the Prophet's paedophilia. Our Prophet had a thing about women and always found a way - with Allah's help - to bed them. Read the Quran.

Alislam
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 5:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#21

Unread post by Alislam » Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:19 pm

Salaams,

_________________________________________________

The right time would be with consent, when they are old enough to be emotionally mature and responsible for their own actions. Unlike animals, humans do not hump without consent and based on physical development alone. If they do, we prosecute them for rape and pedophilia.
__________________________________________________

I never mentioned that the girl should not be emotionally mature..But, Who is to decide when a person is emotionally mature alongwith physical maturiy.. That is my point..

If a person who calls himself a muslim and still thinks that the prophet(PBUH) is a paedophile, then he needs to recheck his beliefs

was salaam

JC
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#22

Unread post by JC » Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:34 pm

Average Bohra

Thank you for reading my post in that much details but i would have appreciated more if you would have pointed out the contradictions, may be in bullet points. I am ready to revisit and clarify as i donot see myself contradicting.

Spot,

I do not agree with you. lets forget taliban as they are not representative and are wrong on many counts.

If somnething is widely accepted and practiced then i would assume you cannot stop that. Right (or Wrong) it is there so minority will have to live with that, however minority should NOT be pushed to follow or practice that specific thing. AB loves to quote Wahabis, so i will say if in Saudia you cannot live with their ideology, then u have two choices:
a. either leave Saudia'
b. sit quietly

They do not ask you or force you to follow and practice their beliefs as such - though there is a discrimination in Eastern Saudia which should be condemned. Bohras use to have their Markazs and use to have Ramadan, Muharram, Urs etc and they were not persecuted, yes, they were in hidding as by law it is not allowed. By same yardstick, would USA allow Shaira Law (right or wrng) to be implemented in any of its state..??

Spot, your assumpton that mind can be controlled is wrong. NO, there are certain things which you cannot control. One person loves to live in country side or on mountains, other doesnot. Now, you cannot force the latter to change his mind and start 'liking' country side. You like one flower more, i donot like the smell of that flower at all. These are all 'states of mind' and you cannot control them. You MAY try changing, but there is no guarantee you can change it.

And, you are born GAY, or you are not. This is a fact for sure. You are not gay by choice. Tell me, if it by choice - can a straight man become gay....???!!!! You are STRAIGHT, TRY to become GAY..... TRY to get attracted to people of ur own sex. You will say, it is not possible as it is not natural and that you cannot do that. Using the same logic, some one IS gay or IS NOT. It is as same being one straight.

The discussion on marriage and prophet's wives is interesting. We have never thought of that or challanged or discussed that as such. We tend to agree and believe what prophets did without going into underlying assumptions.

Humsafar, you have a point..!!!

JC
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#23

Unread post by JC » Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:36 pm

see what is our problem.

We tend to see WHAT was done, at most we see WHO did that.

We never think WHY something was done or not done.

JC
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#24

Unread post by JC » Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:47 pm

Spot,

CONSENT is a factor.

What is SIN, who, when and WHY some actions (or mis actions) are being termed as SIN. What is the definition of SIN.

Everything has to evolve and change with the passage of time and age. We have to challange the POLICIES too, not only the PROCEDURES.

Quran says there were 124,000 prophets - we know of very few.
Why so many prophets - coz things needed to be changed, reviewed, revisited and corrected with time and age.
Prophet Mohammad said, NO prophets after him. WHY..??? May be the reason is that the man had grown that wise and that knowlegeable that he did not need something 'DEVINE', he was on his way. A child needs parents need step by step till certain age, then (s)he is on him(her)self. May be 1400 years ago Mohammad thought man had attained the age of majority.

We all agree that Quran's interpretations are still being done, still we have NOT understood Quran at full, new things are coming to light, so how can we term somethings in absolute terms such as sins, may be there is more to it.

Average Bohra
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 5:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#25

Unread post by Average Bohra » Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:43 am

Alislam,
Who is to decide when a person is emotionally mature alongwith physical maturiy..
If you can't trust yourself to decide when a child is old enough to have sex, you have no business, or emotional maturity to pick your own religion.

Alislam
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 5:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#26

Unread post by Alislam » Fri Mar 18, 2005 8:36 am

Salaam,

__________________________________________________

If you can't trust yourself to decide when a child is old enough to have sex, you have no business, or emotional maturity to pick your own religion
__________________________________________________

Even today in the 21st century, the age of sexual consent is still quite low in many places. In Japan, people can legally have sex at age 13, and in Spain they can legally have sex at the age of 12 years old. A 40-year-old man having sex with a 14-year-old woman may be a "pedophile" in the United States, but neither in China today, where the age of consent is 14, nor in the United States in the last century. Biology is a much better standard by which to determine these things, not the arbitrariness of human culture. In the U.S. during the last century, the age of consent was 10 years old. California was the first state to change the age of consent to 14, which it did in 1889. After California, other U.S. states joined in and raised the age of consent too.

what do you have to say on this !!

spot
Posts: 204
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#27

Unread post by spot » Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:28 pm

to all,
my point in all this is to disprove the idea that a "state of mind" is part of our genetic makeup and that, as JC argues, we cannot change this.

JC justifies this arguement for gays, and i say if it can be justified for gays, than it can be justified for pediophiles and animalist.

the issue of consent has nothing to with the arguement. JC is assuming that the animal or the young person is always NOT consenting. this is wrong. there are many young people who consentingly have relations with older men and women. and you will be hard pressed to force an animal (like a sheep) to have relations with you. so i am assuming consent in the situations i refer to for my argument.

my point is that all these justifications are subjective and changeable, and not a genetic "state of mind". a human has relations attraction, and the outlet of how that relations arise is based on the human's life and associations. if a man is brought up in a culture where majority of men marry young girls, he will feel it unnatural in a different culture to marry someone of the same age (a common practice in asian societies). if a man is brought up in a culture where men commonly have relations with young boys, he will think it unnatural to not have relations with them in a different culture (a common practice in afghani culture). many european culture have become so that the couple do want or desire children. this would be considered unnatural to other cultures.

the second related arguement JC brings is that if the "state of mind" is genetic than it isn't a sin. i don't think this can be applied at all. firstly, sin is a religious term, and so the criteria for if something is a sin or not must be based on the religion's definition, not our own. all religions that observe the term "sin" define marriage or a religious union by a man and woman only. anything beyond this, relations or otherwise, is not allow and therefore considered a sin.

to say that the religion evolves and laws need to be interpreted for current times. there is one problem. true, the quran and tradition must be applied for the times, but not eliminated for the times. the laws can never be changed, but only application of the law. gays were around in the time of musa nabi, isa nabi, and muhammad nabi. all three prophets established homosexuality as a sin, specifically. has homosexuality evolved in 1400 yrs. no, secular people are just more accepting of it. people's acceptance doesn't make NOT a sin.

anajmi
Posts: 13403
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#28

Unread post by anajmi » Sat Mar 19, 2005 2:31 am

spot,

you are spot on. Quranic interpretations are done everyday but believe me none of them will say that Allah now is saying that homosexuality is ok. I guess some would like to wait and watch ;)

And when someone talks about the literal interpretation of the quran by the wahabis, I would literally like to slap that person. I have a topic open for discussing literal interpretations of the quran and how many posts have these scholars on wahabi - ism come up with ?? Yeah, none!!

Ignorant hypocrites is what they are!!

JC
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#29

Unread post by JC » Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:32 pm

salams,

Spot and Anajmi,

i still disagree with u. i cannot agree with the example of Calculus - i MAY not understand but there are people who have and exactly know what that is. NO ONE knows about heaven and hell as such.

it is a state of mind, if a minor has relationship, it is upto the society and time to accept it or not. AND we still are defining what is minor and major and age of consent on other topics.

Again, it is not sin - religion when wanted to prohibit something, it termed is as SIN and people have come to understand SIN is something NOT ALLOWED by God. In real terms it is not. I am not saying God has allowed it in Quran but on interpretations still being done, there may be something.

khan19922001
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:01 am

Re: gays in the ranks

#30

Unread post by khan19922001 » Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:16 am

Dear JC

I have read all your mails and your attemtps to justify homosexuality. While I agree that these tendencies are someting beyond control, but then isn't Islam all about self restraint.

So a hetrosexual gets stoned to death for committing adultry with a woman. If he wants to do it correctly he marries the woman. So what do homosexuals do. They cannot marry in the conventional sense, so how can they have sex.

Again the Quran has clearly mentioned why Prophet's Loot nation was destroyed. It was because they were engaged in homosexuality.

Regards