|
ZeroDays posted:No true Muslim would turn down the chance to stone a gay, or at least verbally attest to a willingness to stone a gay. Que? I mean, what in the first blue staring gently caress even is this?
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
On mobile now, but I remember a fairly liberal cleric saying that it's a sin, but desperately trying to get across that it's still not okay to kill them. If that's the liberal view and the Qu'ran is the literal word of God, then we may be at an impasse. And I'd consider the penal codes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and suchlike as a big warning sign. And wasn't it Turkey that ran a newspaper saying "50 perverts killed in Orlando"? I consider Turkey to be on the liberal end of Muslim Majority countries. Hazzard fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Jul 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Turkey's no more liberal than IranHazzard posted:He's seemed level headed in the interviews I've seen him do. Tries to mathematically quantify violence in the Qu'Ran. If that's not enough to prove his smartness, he doesn't use his real last name, cuz it's got all these fraud charges connected to it in Florida! You should buy all his books
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Black Bones posted:Turkey's no more liberal than Iran Turkey is *much* more liberal than Iran. In the sense that homosexual sex is legal there but punishable by death in Iran.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:
Have you ever considered the idea that countries are very large and one newspaper does not actually represent the views of the entire population? Turkey is in the same situation as many other countries. They have a large population of conservative rural voters who only recently began migrating to the cities for work. I know that Erdogan is all people hear about nowadays, but did you know that there are a large proportion of Turks that vehemently oppose his policies?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:On mobile now, but I remember a fairly liberal cleric saying that it's a sin, but desperately trying to get across that it's still not okay to kill them. Disclaimer: I'm not a Muslim, but I lurk the thread and take an active interest in Islam, as I do in many religions. My background's in philosophy and I take a special interest in religious and cultural questions as they relate to philosophy. The view that homosexuality is a sin but shouldn't be punished by men isn't exclusive to Islam. I've heard similar views from evangelical Christians and Catholics, and I think what it ultimately comes down to is a question which has haunted queer theory for generations: what is homosexuality? If you hold the view that homosexuality is something one is, as is prevalent in the liberal parts of the West, then the idea that homosexuality is a sin will seem completely alien; even if you take a negative view, it makes more sense to describe it as a 'curse' or a 'burden'. Ironically, this is a view which has had its own awful history, having roots in the Victorian need to classify and regulate sexuality (at least, if you believe Foucault in History of Sexuality). This view led to jolly moments like the neutering of homosexuals such as Alan Turing in the West or the extermination of 'deviants' by the Nazis. But it's a view that's been picked up on by LGBT movements and become mainstream because in liberal discourse, to say something is inherent to a person is to make it 'natural' and outside the sphere of human governance. This ties in nicely with other concerns in liberal discourse with regard to the relationship between the state and the individual, the state and the market, etc. If you're operating outside a liberal discourse, however, then just because something is natural it doesn't mean it should be praiseworthy: nature may be seen as bad, and God's law, being supernatural, a way to transcend the mire of 'nature'. This seems more compatible with a conservative Christian position to me. At an extreme you could even take this view to mean that homosexuals are irredeemably sinful, and ought be eradicated, as in an extreme right-wing politics. On the other hand, if you hold that homosexuality is something one does, i.e. an action, then it becomes legitimate to describe it as a sin, and perhaps even to demand punishment for it even if you hold a generally liberal view. Like many other Westerners, I didn't understand this position until I spent some time discussing the matter with evangelicals. It's not limited to evangelicals, however; this is the view that Foucault advocates in the History of Sexuality, and one which contemporary queer theorists continue to grapple with. As I understand Islam (and I could be wrong: again, I'm not a Muslim), things which are natural are seen as part of God's creation -- see Islam's long history of contribution to science, and connection of science to God's will. Where the difference seems to arise between liberal and conservative Muslims is whether homosexuality is part of the natural sphere. If you hold that homosexuality is something one is then it makes sense to deny it's a sin; if you hold that it's something one does, then it may or may not be a sin, and I suppose at this point, were I a Muslim, I'd refer to the Qu'ran or Hadiths. I suppose my point is that these questions are complicated and that the concerns being wrestled with in Muslim discourse are the same as those being wrestled with everywhere else, just framed differently. Whereas the 'action' view of homosexuality can be associated with post-modernist queer theory, it can also be associated with conservative Catholic, Evangelical, and Muslim views which treat it as a sin like any other. Whereas the 'being' view of homosexuality is prevalent in liberal discourse, it can just as well be used to justify interpretation of homosexuality as a test of faith or as a blight to be eliminated. Just attempting to open up the debate a little to allow for some more clarity on this issue. Even my analysis is probably oversimplifying the issue, and I'd welcome any corrections or extensions from Muslims in the thread, especially around what the sources say with regard to the views I've laid out. Purple Prince fucked around with this message at 12:30 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 12:26
|
|
|
Considering homosexuality exists within the entire natural kingdom, to deny that its natural, is to go against all the evidence. And I would describe as remarkably stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Considering homosexuality exists within the entire natural kingdom, to deny that its natural, is to go against all the evidence. And I would describe as remarkably stupid. Human nature and animal nature are different. That's basically the definition of ethics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Human nature and animal nature are different. That's basically the definition of ethics. You know humans are animals, right? And not at all sure what ethics has to do with concept of homosexuality being natural.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:You know humans are animals, right? And not at all sure what ethics has to do with concept of homosexuality being natural. Is this some kind of rhetorical device? Or can you sincerely not handle the following arguments: 1) Humans and animals are fundamentally different according to practically every philosophical tradition 2) The concept of "natural" can mean something other than "it exists", and is pretty important to many ethical principles
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Is this some kind of rhetorical device? Or can you sincerely not handle the following arguments: That may be so. But I don't think philosophy has *anything* to do with being homosexual. Penguins I don't believe know much about philosophy and they can be homosexual. I certainly didn't know anything about philosophy when I realized I was gay. And certainly no human I know did a course in philosophy before accepting their homosexuality. Perhaps you could try and explain how philosophy in humans effects homosexuality in humans? (The science shows that homosexuality in humans is somewhere between 5-10% and is independent of philosophy) Ras Het posted:2) The concept of "natural" can mean something other than "it exists", and is pretty important to many ethical principles I have no idea what you mean by this. Homosexuality exists in just about all animals, including humans. It exists. There isn't anything more to say about it really. Other than other peoples violence and hate directed towards it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Humans live in a society. Society has principles other than "do what you feel like". I don't think it's worth pursuing this unless you're willing to acknowledge that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Humans live in a society. Society has principles other than "do what you feel like". I don't think it's worth pursuing this unless you're willing to acknowledge that. Absolutely, and I do acknowledge that. There are societies that treat gay people with respect and dignity, which is awesome. And there are those which don't, which I would describe as deeply unethical for their hateful and bigoted ways. The most awesome societies are those which allow people to do what they want, provided they don't cause harm to others. Those are nice societies to be in. EDIT: Incidentally, penguins let other penguins be gay and don't take any issue with it. No hate or homophobia, penguins can be awesome too. BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:That may be so. But I don't think philosophy has *anything* to do with being homosexual. Penguins I don't believe know much about philosophy and they can be homosexual. I certainly didn't know anything about philosophy when I realized I was gay. And certainly no human I know did a course in philosophy before accepting their homosexuality. This is the whole debate I outlined, though. Can you 'be' homosexual, or is 'doing' homosexual acts something separate from your essence / individual nature? Whether or not animals exhibit homosexual behaviour doesn't have much relevance to this argument. You're taking homosexuality as something one is when this is the entire question. e: To clarify, I'm not writing an apologetic for violence against or persecution of homosexuals / people who do homosexual actions. I just think before it's possible to have a meaningful discussion about the issue the terms of the debate need to be made clear; otherwise we're not having a rational discussion, but a rhetorical one. Purple Prince fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:This is the whole debate I outlined, though. Can you 'be' homosexual, or is 'doing' homosexual acts something separate from your essence / individual nature? Being homosexual and homosexual acts are completely different ideas. The idea of binary sexuality, either homosexual or heterosexual is also wrong. See the Kinsey report. Homosexuality is about an "attraction" to the same sex, and it exists on a spectrum, between being completely heterosexual or completely homosexual. A straight person who engages in a homosexual act is still a straight person, his hetrosexuality is defined by his sexual attractions and not his actions. Purple Prince posted:You're taking homosexuality as something one is when this is the entire question. Absolutely. I was born this way. If you ask other gay people, they will tell you the same. It is a fundamental part of who we are. Ask gay people and they will tell you the same. Its only heterosexual people who argue against this. I am as gay as I am male or caucasian, these are just aspects of who I am as a person. Purple Prince posted:Whether or not animals exhibit homosexual behaviour doesn't have much relevance to this argument. Let me put it to you this way. Why would heterosexual penguins commit homosexual acts? Or form lifelong homosexual partners? And this extends to all animals, not just penguins. The only reasonable position to take is that homosexuality exists in all animals, as fundamental characteristics. Penguins commit homosexual acts because they are homosexual. Same for all animals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Fizzil posted:Can these views change? maybe. Muslims in the west are more accepting of homosexuals than in the Muslim world, and i think its cause of two things really. This is not really the case. Muslims in Western europe are very conservative and hate gays as much as your average middle eastern muslim. You for example do not want to walk through a muslim neighbourhood holding hands with another man in say Amsterdam, things won't end well for you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Orthodox Muslims are generally grudgingly tolerant at best, unfortunately. Blanket statements are dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Being homosexual and homosexual acts are completely different ideas. The idea of binary sexuality, either homosexual or heterosexual is also wrong. See the Kinsey report. Homosexuality is about an "attraction" to the same sex, and it exists on a spectrum, between being completely heterosexual or completely homosexual. If we cannot control our attractions, the question gets thornier, because it transforms the question of how we should treat homosexuality. Should it be a disease to be treated? Should it be treated as an inherent burden never to be acted on? (I believe this is the official position of the Catholic Church). Or on the other hand, should it be tolerated and treated as something to respect? The answers to these questions will come down to different individuals and different branches of theology. In any case the 'naturalness' of homosexual attraction once again makes it hard to see it as a sin, so any view which holds homosexual attraction to be sinful probably needs to hold the view that this attraction is in some sense a choice. Unless you hold something like the Calvinist view where sin is predetermined. This extends my earlier typology a little bit: we now have a more complex view of the situation. It's probably possible to hold that homosexual attraction is natural and not blameworthy, while homosexual action is a choice; I think this is the Catholic view. The idea that homosexual attraction is a choice is one that evangelicals seem to love. The idea that both are natural is the familiar liberal view, and the idea that homosexual action is alright while homosexual attraction is a bit weird is one which the Classical world seemed to love. The terms of the debate are being drawn in this case by whether sexuality is a case of attraction or of action, which is an interesting but different debate to whether one is gay or if it's something one does. The really interesting and relevant question is which views different schools of Islam take, because I doubt it's homogenous. BattleMoose posted:Absolutely. I was born this way. If you ask other gay people, they will tell you the same. It is a fundamental part of who we are. Ask gay people and they will tell you the same. Its only heterosexual people who argue against this. I am as gay as I am male or caucasian, these are just aspects of who I am as a person. BattleMoose posted:Let me put it to you this way. Why would heterosexual penguins commit homosexual acts? Or form lifelong homosexual partners? And this extends to all animals, not just penguins. The only reasonable position to take is that homosexuality exists in all animals, as fundamental characteristics. Purple Prince fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Are you people really so loving stupid you need the ethical position of homosexuality (or any sexual proclivity between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home) explained ad nauseam?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:This is an interesting point, because it touches on a deeper religious and ethical question: can we control our impulses and attractions? If so, then you can blame gay people not only for their actions but also for their very attraction to others of the same gender. One common claim is that participating in certain types of behaviour makes you want to do them more, and that homosexuality is one such behaviour. There's also the monastic and ascetic tradition of various religions, which makes the claim that with spiritual practice we can control all such urges. In this conception, homosexual people are very much to blame for their attraction to others of the same sex, either because they actively indulge their desires, or because they haven't taken strong enough action to suppress the attraction. This to me seems to be more in line with a view which situates homosexuality as 'unnatural', but more liberally you could argue that this sort of repression of sexuality just causes more trouble than it's worth -- the position of Freud, and later 60s counterculture. It seems that you have jumped a few steps without dealing with a more fundamental issue. Why should we control our impulses or attractions? Why should homosexual attractions be controlled or limited? Similarly, why should homosexual actions be controlled limited? There isn't anything in my ethical or moral code that suggests these things should, nor are there within (very liberal) social circles I associate with. Consequently the views you are espousing are extremely alien to me. Perhaps if you could frame, why, homosexuality can/should be limited with explicit connections to ethical or moral values, that would be helpful. Purple Prince posted:This isn't true: the argument that sexuality is socially constructed was stated most famously by Michel Foucault, famous fan of gay BDSM, and there are numerous gay people who accept this view of sexuality. For example, see this article by Julie Bindel. You can find numerous other examples fairly easy by searching for 'social construction of sexuality' and similar terms. Whether being 'male' or 'caucasian' is something you 'are' is also up for debate according to the same theories. I don't really value journalists opinions highly at all. If the point that you want to make, is that homosexuality is socially constructed, that is an extremely extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence. There is evidence for this, published in the peer reviewed literature, right? Whereas there is an increasing growing body of evidence for biological reasons for homosexuality. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01541765 Personally I find the idea that homosexuality is a social construct to be utterly absurd. But will, as always, accept the evidence. Its also interesting to note, that penguins are also able to socially construct homosexuality. Purple Prince posted:See above: regardless of what penguins do, it's not clear that this makes homosexuality (or, here's the kicker, heterosexuality) anything more than a pattern of behaviour. And as Ras Het said, the behaviour of animals has little bearing on ethics. The question stands, why do heterosexual penguins, commit lifelong, exclusive homosexual acts? Seeing as its not an ethical question, its not surprising or relevant, that ethics has no bearing on it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
It would be really nice if some Muslims in this thread would give their five cents, because my views are based on analysis of stuff I've heard and have little relationship to any Islamic scholarship. Before I go full devil's advocate, I should point out again that I'm not Muslim, and that the views that I'm putting forward are not my own. I'm a very liberal bisexual, but I also believe in understanding others' points of view. Labelling opinions which large numbers of people hold as 'irrational' without an examination of the underlying beliefs which lead to those opinions is dangerous and doesn't benefit cross-cultural communication in the slightest. Call me an optimist, but I don't think that everyone who thinks homosexuality is a sin is some sort of irrational monster; they just hold different beliefs and assumptions to me and other posters in this thread. Lassitude posted:Are you people really so loving stupid you need the ethical position of homosexuality (or any sexual proclivity between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home) explained ad nauseam? BattleMoose posted:It seems that you have jumped a few steps without dealing with a more fundamental issue. Why should we control our impulses or attractions? Why should homosexual attractions be controlled or limited? Similarly, why should homosexual actions be controlled limited? There isn't anything in my ethical or moral code that suggests these things should, nor are there within (very liberal) social circles I associate with. Consequently the views you are espousing are extremely alien to me. Perhaps if you could frame, why, homosexuality can/should be limited with explicit connections to ethical or moral values, that would be helpful. BattleMoose posted:I don't really value journalists opinions highly at all. If the point that you want to make, is that homosexuality is socially constructed, that is an extremely extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence. There is evidence for this, published in the peer reviewed literature, right? Two points. First, the argument that homosexuality is a social construct isn't a scientific one, but a sociological one. It's not saying that people are only homosexual because they've learned to be that way, but that the idea of a category called 'homosexual' is a recent invention. Nobody denies that some people are attracted to others of the same gender -- what's being denied is that this points to sexuality being a fixed aspect of identity, rather than something which is part of a pattern of emotions and behaviour like anything else. Second, surely because something is biological it doesn't mean that we should tolerate it? For example, XYY syndrome is a genetic condition where males are born with two Y chromosomes. This leads to an increase in testosterone production, and a corresponding increase in violent and antisocial behaviour. You could say that this violent and antisocial behaviour is therefore natural, because they were 'born this way'. Does that mean that we should tolerate such behaviour? I doubt you'd say we should. How does this case differ from that of homosexuality? In both cases they may have a genetic cause, leading to an undesirable (in some societies) pattern of behaviour. Yet it would seem normal to say that people with XYY syndrome should learn coping mechanisms and ways to avoid acting out based on their genetic condition. Once you identify homosexuality as something which is reducible to a pattern of emotions and behaviour, and having taken it already as something undesirable, you can make an argument for having people regulate their behaviour: for example, by learning ways to deal with homosexual urges such as praying, venting it in different ways (at the gym?), or distracting themselves with other pursuits (business, education). You'll note that this was a common way to treat homosexuality in the West until recently, and from my experience it still is a common way to treat it in many cultures. Is this unhealthy? Modern Western society says so; many other cultures don't. Penguins don't care. Remember, this is a devil's advocate argument. I'm just interested in making the point that you can put forward an argument against tolerating homosexuality which works just as well as one for tolerating it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:
Its the entire crux of the matter. If it can be pointed out that someone's ethical code is irrational, then their position can be described as irrational and that's the end of the discussion. There is no reasoning with irrationality. My ethical code is posited on what produces a "happy" society, for some definition of happy. If my ethics contradict that, then I am required to change them. This is a rational approach. Purple Prince posted:Two points. First, the argument that homosexuality is a social construct isn't a scientific one, but a sociological one. It's not saying that people are only homosexual because they've learned to be that way, but that the idea of a category called 'homosexual' is a recent invention. Nobody denies that some people are attracted to others of the same gender -- what's being denied is that this points to sexuality being a fixed aspect of identity, rather than something which is part of a pattern of emotions and behaviour like anything else. Only interested in scientific discussions, the type that relate to the real world. Where results and conclusions are based on facts and reasoned. As soon as the discussions turn away from basing positions on facts and evidence, then I have zero interest in it. Purple Prince posted:Second, surely because something is biological it doesn't mean that we should tolerate it? For example, XYY syndrome is a genetic condition where males are born with two Y chromosomes. This leads to an increase in testosterone production, and a corresponding increase in violent and antisocial behaviour. You could say that this violent and antisocial behaviour is therefore natural, because they were 'born this way'. Does that mean that we should tolerate such behaviour? I doubt you'd say we should. How does this case differ from that of homosexuality? In both cases they may have a genetic cause, leading to an undesirable (in some societies) pattern of behaviour. Yet it would seem normal to say that people with XYY syndrome should learn coping mechanisms and ways to avoid acting out based on their genetic condition. Behaviour that is not harmful to others should be tolerated. The biological aspect is brought up to dismiss the social construct idea. And to dismiss the idea of it being a choice. Purple Prince posted:Remember, this is a devil's advocate argument. I'm just interested in making the point that you can put forward an argument against tolerating homosexuality which works just as well as one for tolerating it. I am really not interested in arguing against a devils advocate's perspective. You haven't based your argument against homosexuality within ethics or morals and until you do, it cannot be countered with a rational argument based in ethics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
Just for the record, you are making a textbook case of the is-ought fallacy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
my dad posted:Just for the record, you are making a textbook case of the is-ought fallacy. You are going to have to be much more explicit.As in I have no idea what you are on about. I am familiar with the is-ought fallacy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:You are going to have to be much more explicit. No.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
Almost the definition of a waste of time. :/
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I am really not interested in arguing against a devils advocate's perspective. You haven't based your argument against homosexuality within ethics or morals and until you do, it cannot be countered with a rational argument based in ethics. I think you'll find that my actual ethical position is very close to Hume's. Just because I don't base my arguments on the boring and terrible utilitarian view, that doesn't mean my arguments fall outside the realm of ethics. e: See here for the is-ought problem. e2: Better source. Purple Prince fucked around with this message at 13:02 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
What the gently caress happened to this thread. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
Fuzz posted:What the gently caress happened to this thread. First "legitimate criticism of Islam", then "philosophy".
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Yeah I haven't wanted to touch that, sorry. I've been moving and stressed and not only were my books packed up but also I didn't want to deal with what looked like it was likely to become just unpleasant back-and-forth arguing. I've realized that (most of) the Muslims I meet online are really representative of internet culture as a whole -- way more intense about things on the internet. At least I hope so. Earlier I was talking with a couple people I knew when I lived in Arizona and they also had the same experience. Nobody I've ever met in real life, even people who were strictly orthodox Sunni, have been as narrow-minded and rude as people on, say, the /r/islam area of Reddit. Just be cool, friendos
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Tendai posted:Yeah I haven't wanted to touch that, sorry. I've been moving and stressed and not only were my books packed up but also I didn't want to deal with what looked like it was likely to become just unpleasant back-and-forth arguing. You're not joking about the intense thing. I converted as a teenager and while it's been about 10 years since I converted, my grandmother still sends me very "I'm not good with tech" texts like "HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO MY BELOVED GRANDSON. YOU MAY CASH THE CHECK I SEND YOU AS A GIFT BECAUSE I LOVE YOU". Maybe it wasn't funny enough to share, but I did anyway & the responses I got on /Islam were across the board unchill. Ranging from "birthdays are haram" to "wtf birthdays are NOT haram" to "you should love your Gramma shame on you!" to "have you tried proselytizing your Gramma yet?!". Reddit sucks no matter what your faith. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:Ethical positions are open to debate, and to understand why other people might not agree with one's ethical position on homosexuality, it's necessary to look at some of the assumptions that underpin the liberal acceptance of homosexuality, and understand that there are people who don't agree with them. Do you think you're blazing a trail here? Do you imagine this topic has not been the fodder of debate for several decades now? The question is settled. Polluting this thread with your devil's advocate horseshit is not on. Homosexuality, as with any other sexual proclivity, is not a matter of ethics. The practices of consenting adults in their own bedrooms are irrelevant to broader society. Any religion which posits differently is embarking upon a course of bigotry for its own sake and is to be regarded as no better than neo-Nazis or the KKK or other subcultures which peddle in prejudice. That is to say, unworthy of attention or discourse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
Yestermoment posted:You're not joking about the intense thing. I converted as a teenager and while it's been about 10 years since I converted, my grandmother still sends me very "I'm not good with tech" texts like "HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO MY BELOVED GRANDSON. YOU MAY CASH THE CHECK I SEND YOU AS A GIFT BECAUSE I LOVE YOU". So I found some of my oldest books on Sufi thought and practices, some of it is interesting in a broader sense and so I'll probably end up typing things and putting them in this thread. EDIT: For example, some of the rules of the Azeemiyya order based in Pakistan quote:Male, female, young and old; being the creative masterpieces of the Lord Creator are all brethren and sisters for one another with respect to Adam. Every one is equal; nobody is superior or inferior to others. Superiority only befits him who enjoys the cognition of the ocean of the Attributes of God, who reflects the attributes of the Lord Creator, is helpful to his fellow beings and hurts nobody. I have a book by their current head, Khwaja Shamsuddin Azeemi, that is kind of delightful. It's one of those that's easy for people who don't have the solid basis in Islam to pick up and think "hey, I can do this!" because of how generalized it is, but there's a certain whimsical delight in the examples used and the language. I don't know if that's the tone of the original language or an accident of translation. I will likely post chunks of it at some point. Tendai fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Aug 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
It's the tone of the original. Urdu is pretty awesome like that, it's why our poetry is so highly regarded.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Lassitude posted:Do you think you're blazing a trail here? Do you imagine this topic has not been the fodder of debate for several decades now? The question is settled. Polluting this thread with your devil's advocate horseshit is not on. Homosexuality, as with any other sexual proclivity, is not a matter of ethics. The practices of consenting adults in their own bedrooms are irrelevant to broader society. Any religion which posits differently is embarking upon a course of bigotry for its own sake and is to be regarded as no better than neo-Nazis or the KKK or other subcultures which peddle in prejudice. That is to say, unworthy of attention or discourse. Whether homosexuality is or is not a matter of ethics is itself an ethical question with different answers. This is evident from the fact that some people think it's sinful. So either you're making a normative claim -- which I'm not interested in debating -- or you're just saying things to gratify yourself. I also disagree that it's unworthy of discourse, because that's a thought-terminating cliché and defeats the entire point of conversation. I'm not going to post any more on the subject because no productive conversation has emerged. I'm not interested in debating whether homosexuality is right or wrong, just in presenting views that might hold it's sinful versus views which find it non-sinful in some way, unpacking some of the ideas behind that, and hearing what support different views have from different groups within Islam. As this doesn't seem likely to happen, I might as well stop 'polluting' the thread. Sorry to everyone who was trying to have a civil conversation for feeding this nonsense. I should have known better. e: In retrospect I could've just asked 'What are different branches of Islam's approaches to homosexuality?' or something. Purple Prince fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
Far be it from me to distract from people telling each other what they think about the gays, but I have a weird question and I hope someone knowledgable can answer it. Premise 1: Islamic cosmology (not sure if that's the correct term here but let's roll with it) teaches that in addition to humans, there are beings called jinn which have free will and can be Muslims or Christians or whatever. Premise 2: A properly chosen/appointed caliph (leaving aside how you get there) is the leader of the entire Muslim community. (If my premises are off, please let me know.) Given these premises, is the caliph the leader of all Muslims, human and jinn? Or just of human Muslims?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
That... huh. I never really thought about that, actually. My assumption would be to say no, that the jinn aren't bound by the affairs of humans, which is true but I don't know if it applies in this case. This is one of those times where it might literally be "you should ask a scholar" because I have no idea. The impression I get from the (admittedly limited) reading I've done on jinn is that they're kind of a separate society according to Muslim theology, and would likely not be ruled by a human caliph. Maybe someone else has a better idea but that exhausts my limited knowledge on the topic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
inklesspen posted:Far be it from me to distract from people telling each other what they think about the gays, but I have a weird question and I hope someone knowledgable can answer it. This is a very unique question! And being one of the many musulgoons, I'll offer an answer! Because what little God has shared with humanity regarding Jinn, any sort of solid answer to your question would just be conjecture. There are certainly a lot of pre-Islamic "folktale" information that disseminates into talk about Jinn (go ahead and google "jinn" on ebay for all the looney tunes trying to sell sexy jinn ladies), but a majority of what we know is basic information ie: They live and die, etc. I suppose you could argue that humans are on a need-to-know basis when it comes the subject.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
This might not be the thread to ask, but at the same time, it's sort of on topic (I'm gonna pop by the "Greek/Roman/other ancient history" thread too, but that seems similarly iffy.) Can anyone recommend me a good historical overview of the pre-Islamic / traditional religion in the Songhai Empire? Particularly the relationship between the Islamic nobility and the (apparently) largely traditional-religion-practicing populace.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
My history knowledge of that area/period is poo poo so not me, sorry 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 22:13
|
|