Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

It consists of extremly gross, primitive punishments such as chopping off hands for something that costs about 80 DHS, killing those who convert from Islam, killing married men who cheat on thier wives by stoning them to death,killing gays and lesbians, crucifying thugs after cutting off a hand and a leg,...etc

Just wondering, I'm a muslim myself but have been questioning a bit. How do other muslims accept this? Don't come here telling me that we don't do that today, or that only Saudi Arabia practises some of those things. Fact is, muslims believe Islam never changed, so all these shariah laws are what the original Islam is about. If you don't agree with them/don't practise them- you aren't being a good muslim now are you.

I think the whole idea about god worrying about two boys kissing and turning things up side down cause of it is as lame as sht. And I think Islam and muslims make a big fat deal out of sex. It's fukin sex not murder and everyone is doing it. I'm glad I'll never have to go to my preachy school anymore, just the other day the teacher in islamic studies class was telling us how completely justified it is to kill a man who cheats on his wife. Schools here are like fkin cults.


So any muslims wanna share thier thoughts? How do you feel about some of the Islamic laws? specifically the ones I mentioned?

what's the problem with love?

Correct me if I'm wrong, PARANOID.
But it seems the main problem you have is Islam's stance on homosexuality?

benwj wrote:what's the problem with love?

I meant s.e.x not love.

Lithium222 wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, PARANOID.
But it seems the main problem you have is Islam's stance on homosexuality?

Maybe Lithium, but who wouldn't? If a religion does not accept homosexuality then it should just tell it's followers that it's wrong and that they shouldn't engage in homosexual activities. Not call for all gays and lesbians to be killed! That's plain bigotry.

Why were there muslims condemning Irans execution of thoes two (or three?) gay youth when Iran was actually following the real Islam?

I'm happy to debate these issues with you - but I fear you are not looking for a rational debate.

Capital punishment forms part of a judicial system for a society and is found in secular societies around the world - eg China and the US. If one accepts the premise that we need laws and systems of punishments for those who break the law, then the debate becomes what should be allowed/forbidden and what the punishments should be.

Misrepresenting a whole religion with sensationalist headlines/phrases is not a good basis for a rational debate though. For example, where in Islam does it say it ok to crucify theives after having amputated their hands?

As for Homosexuality being forbidden - yes this is the case in Islam. It stems from the teachings that the foundation of a stable, functioning society is the nuclear family where both men and women have rights and obligations. Women have the right to own property, own their own businesses, manage their own money and affairs and ultimately the right to divorce. The men are given the responsibility to be the providers and have no rights over the property and earnings of their wives.

In the partnership that is a nuclear family, the emphasis on women is to play the vitally important role of raising the next generation - a job that yields the greatest investment for the family, society and the world - so vitally important that Islam teaches that 'Paradise lies under the feet of the mother'.

Homosexuality is viewed as a perversion, along the lines of how paedophillia is viewed by most people around the world. There are organisations that will argue that paedophillia is natural and just a way for people to express their love of one another - and as long as the child is happy and concedes, where is the harm?

Finally - on the point of cutting off hands, even a cursory investigation will reveal that the punishment is not meant to be carried out for petty crimes, but as a punishment of last resort and as an alternative of just locking up the perpetrator. It also is a strong deterrent.

wasalam (peace)
Shafique

PARANOID wrote:I think the whole idea about god worrying about two boys kissing and turning things up side down cause of it is as lame as sht. And I think Islam and muslims make a big fat deal out of love.

Thats not love dude, thats called homosexuality.....

PARANOID wrote:I'm glad I'll never have to go to my preachy school anymore, just the other day the teacher in islamic studies class was telling us how completely justified it is to kill a man who cheats on his wife. Schools here are like fkin cults.

let me ask you this dude, if you were married for 10 years (lets say) and your husband/wife cheats on you with someone else....how would you feel? That person would have hurt you for doing that, if you loved that person so much, the pain can really make you suffer. Now if people know that if you do such a thing to your husband/wife that your gonna be punished heavily for it, your not gonna think about doing it.

the main question you should always ask is why, why are laws made that way? what is its purpose? what would happen if there wasnt such laws to prevent a crime that someone did?

And to answer the title "How do muslims accept islam when", if you are going to do something or believe in something....you believe in it completely or dont do it. If you have a goal in life, you have to believe in it completely or else youll have doubt in that goal and you will never achieve it. you know what i mean?

shafique wrote:I'm happy to debate these issues with you - but I fear you are not looking for a rational debate.

Just because I started a thread with a strong way in voicing my opinion and questioning other muslims dosen't mean I don't know what I'm talking about or am just trying to make Islam look bad. Below you'll find me using common logic in defending gays while you are going around the subject to imply that killing them is OK.

Capital punishment forms part of a judicial system for a society and is found in secular societies around the world - eg China and the US. If one accepts the premise that we need laws and systems of punishments for those who break the law, then the debate becomes what should be allowed/forbidden and what the punishments should be.

I haven't said otherwise, have I? But seeing as people are still humans even after they commit crimes then they should be treated as such. I'm against sadistic punishments such as the ones displayed in the Shariah law.

Misrepresenting a whole religion with sensationalist headlines/phrases is not a good basis for a rational debate though. For example, where in Islam does it say it ok to crucify theives after having amputated their hands?

Oh it very much says so and I'll gladly fetch you up the english translation of the verse taken from the Quran itself, I have been taught it just the other day.

As for Homosexuality being forbidden - yes this is the case in Islam. It stems from the teachings that the foundation of a stable, functioning society is the nuclear family where both men and women have rights and obligations. Women have the right to own property, own their own businesses, manage their own money and affairs and ultimately the right to divorce. The men are given the responsibility to be the providers and have no rights over the property and earnings of their wives.

In the partnership that is a nuclear family, the emphasis on women is to play the vitally important role of raising the next generation - a job that yields the greatest investment for the family, society and the world - so vitally important that Islam teaches that 'Paradise lies under the feet of the mother'.

Homosexuality is viewed as a perversion, along the lines of how paedophillia is viewed by most people around the world. There are organisations that will argue that paedophillia is natural and just a way for people to express their love of one another - and as long as the child is happy and concedes, where is the harm?

Way to go trying to distract people from the main point with the whole "women do this and men do that" speech. You still haven't given me a valid reason on why it's right to kill gays and lesbians in Islam. Like I said, if it's wrong in Allah's eyes, why not just say "it's wrong so don't do it" and that's it? If you don't think murdering people for being gay is right, why try to defend it?

Executing people because of thier sexuality is gross bigotry. Period. The "nuclear family" reason dosen't make it right to intrude on other people's harmless choices. comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is wrong, in the first the child is being harmed because kids can't make certain choices for themselves and are easily taken advantage of. While in homosexuality, gays are actually helping our over populated earth and the ones who choose to form families are doing so through adopting kids who were abbandonned by thier straight parents.
To give me the "straight people and thier oh-so-stable houses" reason is so lame, gay people can do that too. And straight people can have a less than stable home- so why try to say that gay people can't form a good home enviroment for thier kids? It happens that straights sometimes fck up too.

Finally - on the point of cutting off hands, even a cursory investigation will reveal that the punishment is not meant to be carried out for petty crimes, but as a punishment of last resort and as an alternative of just locking up the perpetrator. It also is a strong deterrent.

Look, I know what I'm talking about, I've been going to a fcking maddrassa all my life. A thief who steals something that costs 1/4 of a golden Dinar (about 80 Emarati Dirhams) should get thier hand cut off. Trying to give that thief an alternative punishment or using hands-cutting as a "last resort" is something frowned upon by Islam.

Not to mention the "way" the whole process should happen- as in doing it quickly right after the ruling is given and in a public square for people to watch.

And after cutting the hand, the thief's wound is shoved in boiling oil for it to close.

I think that's gross and inhumane. Specially that we're talking about theft not murder. I'm not saying everything in Islam is wrong, I just don't get it how some things which are so bloody in it can be accepted with ease by other muslims. Cause I don't think thoes things are right. How it's ok to kill people because of thier sexuality and then justify it.

wasalam (peace)
Shafique

I'm an arab, you don't need to do that arabic-to-english translations (except if it wasn't directed at me).

Bleakus wrote:

PARANOID wrote:I think the whole idea about god worrying about two boys kissing and turning things up side down cause of it is as lame as sht. And I think Islam and muslims make a big fat deal out of love.

Thats not love dude, thats called homosexuality.....

Like I said, I was talking about s.e.x and that muslims make a big deal out of it. I meant all kinds of s.e.x- gay/bi/straight...etc


And no hon, gay love is love. For you to come claiming it isn't is fkin moot cause that's just your opinion so don't be a jerk and use it as fact.

PARANOID wrote:I'm glad I'll never have to go to my preachy school anymore, just the other day the teacher in islamic studies class was telling us how completely justified it is to kill a man who cheats on his wife. Schools here are like fkin cults.

let me ask you this dude, if you were married for 10 years (lets say) and your husband/wife cheats on you with someone else....how would you feel? That person would have hurt you for doing that, if you loved that person so much, the pain can really make you suffer. Now if people know that if you do such a thing to your husband/wife that your gonna be punished heavily for it, your not gonna think about doing it.

the main question you should always ask is why, why are laws made that way? what is its purpose? what would happen if there wasnt such laws to prevent a crime that someone did?

And to answer the title "How do muslims accept islam when", if you are going to do something or believe in something....you believe in it completely or dont do it. If you have a goal in life, you have to believe in it completely or else youll have doubt in that goal and you will never achieve it. you know what i mean?

No Bleakus, I DON'T know what you mean. Even if I was stabbed by someone I wouldn't want them to be burried in the ground with thier head popping out and people standing all around them throwing stones at thier head till they die. If you were married and your wife cheated on you, are you telling me you'll be fine with her being killed like that? If so, you're another sick freak and I hope noone marries you.

And about "why those rules are the way they are", here in the UAE most of those things aren't used or even needed. Not cutting people's hands dosen't mean thiefs are gonna run the neighbourhood. A LOT if not most of those punishments can be avoided into equally effective yet humane punishments.

Oh yes, also Shaf. I believe I mentioned the rule about killing anyone who changes thier religion from Islam to something else and you ignored it. Prophet Muhammed balantly said "kill whoever changes his religion"

How is THAT ever right? Waiting for a convincing reply.

PARANOID wrote:No Bleakus, I DON'T know what you mean. Even if I was stabbed by someone I wouldn't want them to be burried in the ground with thier head popping out and people standing all around them throwing stones at thier head till they die. If you were married and your wife cheated on you, are you telling me you'll be fine with her being killed like that? If so, you're another sick freak and I hope noone marries you.

And about "why those rules are the way they are", here in the UAE most of those things aren't used or even needed. Not cutting people's hands dosen't mean thiefs are gonna run the neighbourhood. A LOT if not most of those punishments can be avoided into equally effective yet humane punishments.

lol why are you getting upset huh? over the points i just mentioned.

listen dude, you have 2 choices yeah

Either you go and read about the religion and study why these so called muslims are so barbaric and unreasonable. Understand exactly why is the religion like this and places (what you just say) harsh punishments

Or

dont choose to understand it, ignore the religion and go on with your life. If you feel also dubai is still a backward place, grab a plane and leave.

attacking me personnaly will not do you any good paranoid, you want to be a muslim, you dont want to be a muslim, that up to you. This is not the place to ask about these questions, you have to go to a scholar.

Strewth Paranoid, take a chill pill.

Firstly, there is no punishment of Apostacy in the Quran and the Holy Prophet, pbuh, never said a person who renounces Islam should be killed, nor is there any record of any punishment being meted out to anyone renouncing Islam. On the contrary the Quran talks about the people who joined Islam in the morning then renounced it in the evening to cause dissension, and then repeated this day after day - and no punishment was ordained on these people (whose names are recorded in Islamic history).

As for cutting off hands, as I said even a cursory investigation into how this is carried out today and in the past will confirm my previous post.

As for killing of homos.exuals, I simply ask you for a Quranic reference. The punishment of homos.exuals is on a par with adulterers and fornicators - all of which are considered sinful.

Similarly I'll take you up on the offer of Islam teaching that Theives should be crucified - you say the Quran says this, so please let me see the reference before commenting.

There is much wrong with the implementation of Islam these days - many things are being done by Muslims which have nothing to do (and in many cases, goes against) Islam.

By all means you are free to believe that there is nothing wrong with two people loving each other and that there should be no limits to who can go with whom. Society says otherwise. All religions also say otherwise - there are limits to the satisfaction of one's carnal desires.

I therefore make no apology for Islam's stance on family values and am willing to go over the mountain of evidence in support of these values from a sociological and logical perspective. But first, let us clear up some of the bigger issues you seem to have with the misinterpretation of Islamic teachings/injunctions on capital punishment.

Wasalaam,
Shafique

Too many things being debated on this thread.

The main problem that PARANOID has, is that homosexuality is not accepted by Islam (and by all other mainstream religions for that matter).

It sounds like you want to practice Islam, but can't becuase you are gay.

What everyone needs to understand is that homosexuality is not a choice. He can't stop being gay.
This is why I don't have a major problem with homosexuality, even though I don't agree with it.

If Islam forces him to stop being gay, he will become a basket case and his future wife/family will suffer.

Although you can probably take comfort in the fact that there are probably thousands of other men in you position and I am sure that there is an underground network.

How one chooses to live their life is a choice. One learns that a person cannot act out all their fantasies, or even fulfil all their wishes in life. Setting up a family and living with other people in general involves compromises and selfless acts.

Being attracted to younger women does not mean I have the right to sleep with whomever I choose or that this is good for me or society in the long run. Will this cause me to be emotionally stifled if I can't have my way and live out my carnal desires?

Being 'Gay' is a choice - in-so-far as acting on those impulses goes. Similarly there are those that will argue that there is nothing wrong with paedophillia if no harm is being done.

The whole 'nurture vs nature' arguement about being Gay is far from solved - there are still many experts and evidence that being Gay is not in the Genes. But even if it is - there is nothing wrong, in my opinion, with society saying that the best way to have a functioning society is to only encourage nuclear families - whose primary purpose is to create a loving environment for the two people in that relationship, and for any Children that they may choose to have. Nature shows that the right environment is a husband and wife of different genders.

Life is about choices.

I choose to follow Islam and curb any desire I may have for drinking, gambling or eating pork - for example. I also limit any desire I may have for extra marital fun.

One, these days, can easily choose not to follow any religion and have same s.ex relations. Go ahead - have fun. However, as the Quran says, look at the outcome of all previous societies that 'developed' to the stage where there was open acceptance of hom.o.s.e.x.uality - the current practice of 'West' is not something new - but dates back to Soddom and Gommorah!

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique, do you read arabic? I'm having a hard time finding english translations for the verses and the prophet's hadith about killing thoes who change thier religion and the punishment of thugs- I wasn't talking about thieves, more like the people who stop traveller's cars and steal thier stuff or kill them. I have nothing wrong with punishing them but mutilating them they killing and hanging them is far from normal.

I can easily show you if you know arabic.

Bleakus, you missed the point. If to you, or shafique, homos.exuality is wrong and destroys family lives don't claim it to be a fact, cause that's only an opinion- YOUR opinion. You say it, but you can't and never prove it.

Same with the thing about homos.exuality being a choice or not. You can't come here ,shaf, and tell people it's one way or the other, since like you said yourself it still hasn't been solved.

I've studied a lot of Islam, and really the questions I asked were genuine at first , I wanted to know how others were OK with such things when I'm not.

And would you like me to show you how in the animal kingdom a lot of animals choose to form families with gay parents? There was an amazing video I watched on youtube about how in nature same se.x partners choose to be together for various reasons. Let's remember that animals don't have s.ex for the pleasure- therefore making homose.xuality natural.

Don't pull words out of your a$$ and claim same s.ex parents don't exist in nature, cause they do.

Firstly, there is no punishment of Apostasy in the Qumran and the Holy Prophet, pbuh, never said a person who renounces Islam should be killed,
Oh that will make a lot of immigrants to Europe very happy because there are reports of lots of converts to Christianity

Alright maybe you can help me get the verse. It's from surat Al-ma'eda , verse number 33.

The prophet's saying about killing those who leave Islam was narrated by Al-bukhari and Ahmed bin Hanbal taken from Abdullah Bin Abbas. All of those are supposed to be credible people, no?

Just give me the references in the Quran - Sura and Verse number and I'll look them up. I can read Arabic, but am not fluent in Arabic.

As I said before, if you want to live your life in a same gender relationship - fine, go ahead. The Quran does not say you should be killed, and neither do I.

If you don't accept that nuclear families are natural and think I'm pulling words out of my posterior for having the temerity to suggest this - again you are free to believe this. The Quran says there is no compulsion in religion - it is a choice for each and every person to make.

Muslims have a view about what actions are best for human interactions - what should be legislated and what limits to personal freedoms must exist (eg. not stealing, murdering etc). This also extends to personal restraint when it comes to marriages and extra-marital relations. Same gender relationships that extend to the physical, are by definition extra-marital and are condemned as being harmful to the fabric of society.

I look forward to the references.

Cheers,
Shafique

PARANOID wrote:Alright maybe you can help me get the verse. It's from surat Al-ma'eda , verse number 33.

The prophet's saying about killing those who leave Islam was narrated by Al-bukhari and Ahmed bin Hanbal taken from Abdullah Bin Abbas. All of those are supposed to be credible people, no?

Ok, let us see the verse in context:
[5:32] On account of this, We prescribed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killed a person - unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land - it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. And our Messengers came to them with clear Signs, Yet even after that, many of them commit excesses in the land.
[5:33] The only reward of those, who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land, is that they be slain or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off on account of their enmity, or they be expelled from the land. That shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment;
[5:34] Except those who repent before you have them in your power. So know that Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
[5:35] O ye who believe! fear Allah and seek the means of approach unto Him and strive in His way that you may prosper.


v33 lists a number of punishments to be meted out to those who commit the crimes listed. v34 says those who repent should not be punished.

The crime in question is waging war against God and His Messenger - no small crime. The punishments are many and include banishment (hard to do that if you've just been crucified)!


As for the Hadith - I refer you to my other post about Apostacy - if there is a Hadith in Bukhari that quotes the Prophet as saying apostates should be killed ( I still haven't seen one ) - then it is in contradiction with the Quran and I reject it as false.

Cheers,
Shafique

But we were taught that the "waging war against allah and his prophet" part was not to be taken litterarly and it dosen't mean waging an actual war, but that it means "if you sin and go against thier words" by doing what people such as road bandits do. And the different punishments are for different cases. Like I said, if they steal and kill they get cut, killed and hanged. If they have only stolen, they are either banished (jailed in modern times) or have parts of them cut. I never said I'm against punishments, but against freaky, sadistic ones.


So I don't get it, are you telling me that stoning isn't a part of the original punishments in Islam? In out book it's written that if a single person has s.ex they get 100 lashes and are banished from the country. For the married, it says :Stoning till death.

What about the story about the woman who had s.ex at the times of Muhammed, and was pregnant cause of it. Then she wanted to repent and have herself stonned for it, but the prophet made her wait each time she came back to him until the baby was born and then had it's teeth grow and stopped feeding of it's mom's milk. Then afterwards she was stonned, and some of her blood dripped on Omar Bin Al-Khattab and he got pissed, but Muhammed told him not to feel that way cause the woman was in heaven?

PARANOID wrote:But we were taught that the "waging war against allah and his prophet" part was not to be taken litterarly and it dosen't mean waging an actual war, but that it means "if you sin and go against thier words" by doing what people such as road bandits do. And the different punishments are for different cases. Like I said, if they steal and kill they get cut, killed and hanged. If they have only stolen, they are either banished (jailed in modern times) or have parts of them cut. I never said I'm against punishments, but against freaky, sadistic ones.

You were taught wrong - the Quran is quite clear on this part, as is the actual implementation of these injunctions now and in the past. Look at the accounts of the treatment of opposing armies in wars against the Prophet and also the accounts of the punishments given to criminals.

PARANOID wrote:So I don't get it, are you telling me that stoning isn't a part of the original punishments in Islam? In out book it's written that if a single person has s.ex they get 100 lashes and are banished from the country. For the married, it says :Stoning till death.

Stoning as a punishment is not in the Quran. I've spoken about this before - my understanding is that stoning as a punishment for adultery was only given by the Prophet, pbuh, to either Jews (as part of their Law) or were handed out according to Jewish law +before+ the Quranic verses about 100 lashes were revealed.

PARANOID wrote:What about the story about the woman who had s.ex at the times of Muhammed, and was pregnant cause of it. Then she wanted to repent and have herself stonned for it, but the prophet made her wait each time she came back to him until the baby was born and then had it's teeth grow and stopped feeding of it's mom's milk. Then afterwards she was stonned, and some of her blood dripped on Omar Bin Al-Khattab and he got pissed, but Muhammed told him not to feel that way cause the woman was in heaven?

This is a true hadith. You will note that the Prophet, pbuh, tried to dissuade her from seeking the punishment and was keen to forgive her.

wasalaam,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Being 'Gay' is a choice - in-so-far as acting on those impulses goes.

So its OK for you to act on your impuses and make love with someone of the opposite gender, but its not OK for a homosexual to act on their impuses make love with someone of the same gender?

shafique wrote:The whole 'nurture vs nature' arguement about being Gay is far from solved - there are still many experts and evidence that being Gay is not in the Genes.

Just try and imagine yourself being attracted to the same gender and you will quickly realise that it is not your choice.
There is no question that genes are involved.

shafique wrote:But even if it is - there is nothing wrong, in my opinion, with society saying that the best way to have a functioning society is to only encourage nuclear families - whose primary purpose is to create a loving environment for the two people in that relationship, and for any Children that they may choose to have.

DITTO

PARANOID wrote:And would you like me to show you how in the animal kingdom a lot of animals choose to form families with gay parents? There was an amazing video I watched on youtube about how in nature same se.x partners choose to be together for various reasons. Let's remember that animals don't have s.ex for the pleasure- therefore making homose.xuality natural.

Don't pull words out of your a$$ and claim same s.ex parents don't exist in nature, cause they do.

If you want to compare yourself to animals then go ahead, but in the human world offspring are produced by a male a female, who are subsequently responsible for their upbringing. You can argue that some may do a better job of this than others, but this is irrelevant.
A male/female couple cannot produce offspring together and therefore they do not have the right to raise children.

http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=3056

Being 'Gay' is a choice - in-so-far as acting on those impulses goes.

D.F. Swaab conducted the next noteworthy experiment in 1990. This experiment became the first to document a physiological difference in the anatomical structure of a gay man's brain. Swaab found in his post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart [2].

At the same time, another scientist, Laura S. Allen made a similar discovery in the hypothalamus as well. She found that the anterior commissure (AC) of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals [2]. Both Swaab's and Allen's results became a standing ground for the biological argument on homosexuality. The very fact that the AC and the SCN are not involved in the regulation of sexual behavior makes it highly unlikely that the size differences results from differences in sexual behavior. Rather the size differences came prenatally during sexual differentiation. The size and shape of the human brain is determined biologically and is impacted minutely, if at all by behavior of any kind.

Simon LeVay conducted another experiment regarding the hypothalamus of the human brain in 1991. LeVay, like Swaab and Allen also did a post-mortem examination on human brains; however, he did his examinations on patients who had died from AIDS-related illnesses. He examined 19 declared homosexual man, with a mean age of 38.2, 16 presumed heterosexual men, with a mean age of 42.8, and 6 presumed heterosexual women, with a mean age of 41.2 [3]. LeVay discovered that within the hypothalamus, the third interstitial notch of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) was two to three times smaller in homosexual men then in heterosexual men. The women examined also exhibited this phenomenon. LeVay concluded the "homosexual and heterosexual men differ in the central neuronal mechanisms that control sexual behavior", and like Allen and Swaab, agreed that this difference in anatomy was no product of upbringing or environment, but rather prenatal cerebral development and structural differentiation [2].

Another line of testing done to support the biological perspective are neuroendocrine studies. The neuroendocrine viewpoint's basic hypothesis is that sexual orientation is determined by the early levels (probably prenatal) of androgen on relevant neural structures [7]. If highly exposed to these androgens, the fetus will become masculinized, or attracted to females. This research was conducted on rats at Stanford. The adult female rats that received male-typical levels of androgens sufficiently early in development exhibited male symptoms of attraction. The same was true in the reverse when applied to the male subjects. The female exposed to high levels of the hormone exhibited high levels of aggression and sexual drive toward other females, eventually trying to mount the other females in an act of reproduction. In the males, the subject who received deficient levels of androgen became submissive in matters of sexual drive and reproduction and were willing to receive the sexual act of the other male rat [7].

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

benwj wrote:

shafique wrote:Being 'Gay' is a choice - in-so-far as acting on those impulses goes.

So its OK for you to act on your impuses and make love with someone of the opposite gender, but its not OK for a homosexual to act on their impuses make love with someone of the same gender?

No - Islam does not single out homo.s.exuality as a sin, it says that all carnal relationships outside of marriage are a sin. Fornication and adultery are viewed as just as sinful.

benwj wrote:

shafique wrote:The whole 'nurture vs nature' arguement about being Gay is far from solved - there are still many experts and evidence that being Gay is not in the Genes.

Just try and imagine yourself being attracted to the same gender and you will quickly realise that it is not your choice.
There is no question that genes are involved.

Actually, there is considerable debate about whether Genes are involved - and yes I have read Valkyrie's quote and others like it. I shall do my own cut and paste job in reply.

But as I have said repeatedly, for whatever reason one is attracted to other men - a man can choose not to act out on these impulses. He can have male companionship in terms of friends, but should he decide to enter a marriage, should do so with a woman. Many men are inclined to sleep around and successfully repress these desires and commit to a normal marital relationship.

This is also the stance of the Church - only the act is sinful.

Cheers,
Shafique

Is there a Gay Gene?

The first hit from Google when searching 'genetic homosexuality' was:

http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

Excerpts:
How The Public Was Misled

In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.

Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."

Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."

In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some littleknown facts about behavioral genetics.

....

More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community

Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously.

"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:

"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}

But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:

...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}


And I liked this one:
How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way

Suppose you are motivated to demonstratefor political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makes people grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with homosexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies.

The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying.

So you identify groups of twins in which at least one is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is statistically more likely be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc.


But please, read through the web site (it is biased, of course, but it gives the full references).

As for the first link in Valkyries post - the references for the punishment of Gays are very weak, and actually encompass men who sodomise women. The article is also clear that the Prophet, pbuh, never ruled on gays specifically. (One example of the weakness of the hadith is that a reference is made to the first Khalifa ordering a gay person in a far off place to be put to death by burning/fire and that this was carried out - whilst it is a clear and well known instruction that Islam forbids the burning of anyone, including enemy combatants and this was religiously (pun intended) followed by Muslim leaders - with notable examples in the times of the crusades).

Cheers,
Shafique

OK shaf, thanks for clearing some things for me. I don't agree with everything you said, or your stances on things, but there were other bits I didn't know about so it's good to be informed.

To the other guy, gays don't have the "right" to raise kids? Straight people have every right to make as many babies as they feel like making, even if they wanted to throw them in dumpsters afterwards, or leave them in orphnages for someone else to take them,or abort them, but gays still shouldn't raise any?

Oh yeah sure, I mean what do you know. You prolly got everything from your mommy and daddy and had them around forever, it wouldn't accur to you what impact two people who happen to be gay would leave on a young kid's life who's been alone by raising him like thier own child and giving him a family.

If that article you posted is for real Shaf, then even if there isn't a "gay gene" or whatever, it still dosen't make homose.xuality a choice. A gay gene is not all it takes.

Paranoid,

Islam basically teaches that the foundation of a stable society is the family unit. Having a mother and father is the ideal, and if there is a breakdown of the marriage or a death, re-marriage is encouraged for the benefit of the surviving spouse and also the children. Similarly fostering orphans is encouraged as the ideal solution.

With this view, gay marriages - which by definition is sinful, is not condoned in Islam. Whether a gay couple can or cannot raise a child is not legislated in Islam - on the contrary we are encouraged to have children and raise them. A gay person may be a good father or mother - no question. They should be able to raise their own children - again no question they should.

Criminals aren't barred from raising children or being parents - so why would gays be barred from this?

However, when it comes to adopting or fostering, then the child's welfare comes first and the authorities have an obligation to look at the whole picture. Whilst there may be well balanced children being raised in Gay households with a missing mother or father, I would still argue that the ideal of a mother and a father is what the authorities should be looking for when placing children. So, on that point, I would say that I personally would not place foster or adopted kids with gay couples - any more than I would place them where there was violence, drug taking or drunkeness in the prospective family.

On the other point - I fully concede and accept that people are attracted to others of the same gender. My point is that whether it is genetic or enviromental, the way you choose to act on the attraction is a choice. Most young men will testify to a strong impulse to sleep with as many partners as possible - but society/laws/religion asks them to regulate these impulses and limit intimate contact to marriages or one partner at a time.

Similarly, people with gay inclinations can and do enter into hetero.se.xual marriages and make the same sacrifices as other men and women in limiting their carnal pleasures to that found within the family unit. Older people understand this wisdom of compromise as the secret to successful partnerships - whether marital or on a big stage between nations. Conflicts tend to occur when one insists on fulfilling selfish desires.

Just my opinion.

Cheers,
Shafique

However, when it comes to adopting or fostering, then the child's welfare comes first and the authorities have an obligation to look at the whole picture. Whilst there may be well balanced children being raised in Gay households with a missing mother or father, I would still argue that the ideal of a mother and a father is what the authorities should be looking for when placing children. So, on that point, I would say that I personally would not place foster or adopted kids with gay couples - any more than I would place them where there was violence, drug taking or drunkeness in the prospective family.

Wow, you group gays with drunk, violent people and drug addicts. Gotta admit I'm offended.

But yep, totally your opinion. Cause you have nothing to prove that a missing mom or dad will make that big of a difference in the child's life. As long as there's good parenting and understanding between family members, everything can work IMO. We just have different opinions on what a family is all about.

PARANOID wrote:Wow, you group gays with drunk, violent people and drug addicts. Gotta admit I'm offended.

But yep, totally your opinion. Cause you have nothing to prove that a missing mom or dad will make that big of a difference in the child's life. As long as there's good parenting and understanding between family members, everything can work IMO. We just have different opinions on what a family is all about.

Actually, yes I do group them together for the purposes of adoption - and this is also what adoption agencies around the world do. Of late, adoption by gay couples is being allowed in a few countries, but by and large the (non-religious, I may add) authorities have sought a male and female couple to raise children.

Glad we can respect each other's views without agreeing with the other. I take back my comments about you appearing to not want a rational debate - please accept my apology.

Cheers,
Shafique

I have learned a lot reading this.

So from what I have gathered the Quran does not support the killing of gays, hand removal of criminals and other violent acts.

But Islams 5 main religious Madh'hab's largely do interpret the Quran this way.

And they are the one's teaching children and upholding the sharia law in the major Islamic countries?