"21 detained under suspicion of being gay"

[french]

What a heated thread.

Yes, Islam is against homosexuality, and the punishment can be death.. but it is virtually impossible for that to happen because Islam values privacy so one's privacy could not be invaded, and if they did it not in private there has to be at least 4 witnesses seeing them have gay sex.

So, most people are safe as long as they do it in privacy. When I was in Saudi Arabia I had excellent gay sex with my b/f and it was just as easy as doing it in the USA.

Also, many people speculate, but in Islam you can not speculate about one's personal "sins".

I am sure these people are wrongfully being punished, unless there was like some huge orgy. Otherwise, they will be punished for something else, but probably not by death.

It is unfortunate that people can get in trouble for just having a little fun. But, it is a reality. And, I would not blame Islam.

 

[TX-Beau]

That's more thorough a correction than I expected.... but my analysis is useful anyway. Thanks, though!

…don’t do it , don’t do it, don’t do it….

Ah Hell, this is just too funny.

LOL, So you posted as fact something you knew was in error? There's a word in English for doing that.

…I Never said that!...

Really ‘cause I read the post (checks back), yes there it is, and you did say that.

...I KNEW someone would correct me…

OK SOooo... you posted something as fact, that you knew to be in error, with the assumption you were going to be corrected. One wonders why?

…But, But, I never said it was fact…AHA! Argue with that!...

Really, let's see,

If you want to be picky, neither Christianity nor Islam "causes" homophobia:

1. The proper definition of the word means fear of homosexuals/homosexuality, and in my experience that comes naturally to a lot of people.

Hmmmm, condescending tone, yes, lecturing attitude, present, lack of disclaimer, no caveats, nope none. It certainly seems you did post something as fact that you say you knew to be in error.

…Silly boy, of course Christ Jesus (Glory to his Name) never said hate homosexuals, Heavens to Besty, that would be like a commandment to hate wine and song. Isn’t it ridiculous! And always remember how bloodthirsty those rapscallion Muslims are, More Tea dear…

Love some, but we weren’t talking about any of that, we were talking about how you apparently post things as fact that you know to be in error.

…Dear oh Dear, my stars and heavens, aren’t you silly, just what are you talking about, do you have a fever dear...

LOL

I'm thinking of a few years back when the issue wasn't really an issue, and the word wasn't heard. At summer camp, with guys who'd never heard of being gay or homo or "a fag" or anything, an encounter with another guy with an erection was for some a terrifying moment.

Heard at Jesus Camp on the planet Utopia in the Justification Galaxy.

…Lord Jesus NOOooooooooo, erect penis, run for the hills!!!!!!!!...


I figured it out.

You’re my Great Aunt Eunice in disguise aren’t you, admit it Aunt Eunice or I'll take your bible away. I’ve got your number now, if you don’t come clean I’m telling your bridge club.

 

[BigBoss]

They are trying to do what Hitler did during WWII.

SOME muslims in these countries are being brainwashed agaisnt everything that is against the Quran, against the west, and against every other religion.

This time, the USA declared war first and should be able to keep it under controll.

But Muslim takeover in European countries is a scary, but unrealistic Idea. We do get idiots like the ones in this video moving to westernised countries, but it isnt the fault of Islam or Muslims, they are being brainwashed in the same way that Germans were by Hitler.

And i don't blame you, you were brainwashed by your media and Govt the same way as Hitler tried to do what he did during WWII.


Get real man, you are as brainwashed as those people in the video, only you are programmed to get on heat everytime you hear the words "MUSLIM, Arabs, Islam,Quran" , about time you should watch anti 9/11 documentaries e.g "Loose Change" or something like that. I hope that will open the doors to new questions for you

 

[954dude]

It takes only a few brave people to make a change. I hope someday in Saudi Arabia some do take a stand.

 

[Kulindahr]

In which news paper you read that.

Come On dude get real, what if i write in wikipedia that Kulindahr is not an asshole, what you think? will everyone believe me? No ofcourse not. they know that you are indeed an asshole. Beside there was a thread in Hot Topics about the credibility of WikiPedia, Western people were not recording Islamic History at that time, so kindly reference from some Islamic book would be appreciated.

Actually, most people around here are aware that I have a bachelor's degree in Biblical Languages and a master's which covered, among other things -- as Críostóir pointed out -- religious studies, especially history.

Oh -- FYI, the Wiki articles about Muhammed and Islam aren't just open to editing by anyone, and are, as pieces about volatile subjects, monitored constantly. To do more than correct the usage of the definite article, or correcting the placement of a comma (both of which are the sort of thing I do often on Wiki), a person would have to have a very good supporting argument for the change.

Wiki has been shown to be at least as accurate and dependable as the Encyclopedia Brittanica across the board, and more dependable in many areas, because it is in effect an ongoing peer-review project. The days of constant fly-by-night changes are gone; even attempting that is a good way to get banned.

If you want to assess the validity of a Wiki article, it's easy enough: the articles have lists of sources, which can be checked out in turn. Rather than toss around scorn, you'd do better to look at the articles people refer to, check the references, and see that there's weight there.

BTW, I said "even" Wiki because it was fairly evident that you're not checking any of this out, just operating on what's in your head. Wiki is easy enough to check out, so I suggested it. I could have recommended I. Ishaq's Life of Muhammed (trans. A. Guillaume), or Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, by Karen Armstrong (or her Muhammed: A Prophet of Our Time) Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, by Martin Lings, or Robert Spencer's The Truth About Muhammad, or even the comparative effort Jesus and Muhammed: Profound Differences and Surprising Similarities by Mark A. Gabriel, but I doubted you'd trot out and buy any of them.

But it doesn't take wading through all those to discover that Muhammed carried and used a sword, led others in doing the same, approved of the assassination of non-Muslim enemies, and that the spread of Islam during his life was due to the shedding of blood under Muhammed's command. He mixed religion and politics, and had no concept of the difference between church and state -- which yielded for us the Islamacist movement of today.

With the track record in this thread so far, I suppose you're (and some others are) going to decide I made up all those books, just to... well, whatever it is you think I'm up to. If you're serious about learning something, though, I recommend the Armstrong volumes (both of them); she writes well, and treats her subject matter even-handedly -- she does work on other major religions, not just Islam.

 

[Eagle653]

Guys, this thread has been reported for name calling and personal attacks.

I've cleaned up some of the sandbox, but please remember that the Code of Conduct prohibits name calling/attacks. Please make your points while being civil.

Thanks.

 

[Kulindahr]

TX-Beau:

I didn't post something I "knew was wrong", I posted something not entirely accurate with the full knowledge Criostoir was going to pounce. It was more fun that way than asking him....

 

[Kulindahr]

It takes only a few brave people to make a change. I hope someday in Saudi Arabia some do take a stand.

I've pondered that possibility, and wonder how it would happen.

Ghandi's determined pacifism wouldn't work; Saudi society and its violently reactionary version of Islam has none of the respect for human life that restrained the British in India. Violent revolution wouldn't go too well against a state armed to the teeth by a succession of U.S. administrations, either.
So unless you had a large supply of people willing to supply a steady stream of martyrs in the name of an Allah truly merciful and beneficent, not ones who who just want to blow up others along with themselves, I don't see a way.

 

[TX-Beau]

TX-Beau:

I didn't post something I "knew was wrong", I posted something not entirely accurate with the full knowledge Criostoir was going to pounce. It was more fun that way than asking him....

Six of this, half dozen of the other. Sure. Right. Whatever.

Scone, Aunt Eunice?

 

[Apollo]

I've pondered that possibility, and wonder how it would happen.

Ghandi's determined pacifism wouldn't work; Saudi society and its violently reactionary version of Islam has none of the respect for human life that restrained the British in India. Violent revolution wouldn't go too well against a state armed to the teeth by a succession of U.S. administrations, either.
So unless you had a large supply of people willing to supply a steady stream of martyrs in the name of an Allah truly merciful and beneficent, not ones who who just want to blow up others along with themselves, I don't see a way.

I wish the rest of the middle east would take a long hard look at Turkey, but of course, that will be about 20 years off. Or after the end of WW3

 

[Críostóir]

Kulindahr: "Perhaps not, but Islam pays little attention to who He actually was and what He actually taught... which is a back-door way of saying things against Him."

That is nonsense. I am a neoPagan and I pay no attention to Jesus at all, at least from a religious perspective. Am I "saying things against him"? Bullshit.

Now I understand the Christians who keep saying they're oppressed--in America! They think that if anyone's not Christian they're oppressing those who are, and that if the US doesn't become an officially Christian state then all Christians are oppressed.

That's the logical consequence of your statement quoted above, which I think as a sensible person you might be interested in retracting.

 

[Críostóir]

TX-Beau:

I didn't post something I "knew was wrong", I posted something not entirely accurate with the full knowledge Criostoir was going to pounce. It was more fun that way than asking him....

I feel so used...

 

[TX-Beau]

I feel so used...

Is that a bad thing

 

[Críostóir]

Is that a bad thing

Not in this case, no.

 

[Jory]

Isn't the punishment in some Muslim Country for homosexuality death?

 

[Telstra]

Yeah, that indicates a corrupt government, not a corrupt religion though.

how about Iran, less corrupt government there but corrupt religion.

 

[Críostóir]

how about Iran, less corrupt government there but corrupt religion.

The government there is completely corrupt, as is any government that no longer makes any attempt to serve the best interests OR the will of the people.

The Islamic Courts of Iran are also on my list of "these people must die," but they are a distortion of Shari'a.

 

[Telstra]

The government there is completely corrupt, as is any government that no longer makes any attempt to serve the best interests OR the will of the people.

The Islamic Courts of Iran are also on my list of "these people must die," but they are a distortion of Shari'a.

ok, but the clerics backs the government. the clerics is a part of the religion.
The same with the Saudi's, the clerics (religion) backs the government.

 

[Apollo]

how about Iran, less corrupt government there but corrupt religion.

Where do you get your conclusion that Iran isn't corrupt. Or isn't that corrupt.

I guess supplying the insurgents in Iraq and Afganistan and partnering with North Korea, and harboring terrorists doesn't make them corrupt.

Amadenijad is nothing but a puppet leader that is the face of Iran. He has no real power in the government. Shit is mostly handled by that religious nut and idiot the Ayatollah. Before the Ayatollah, Iran was going the way of Turkey.

 

[Apollo]

ok, but the clerics backs the government. the clerics is a part of the religion.
The same with the Saudi's, the clerics (religion) backs the government.

The clerics run the government, not back the government.

The Ayatollah is the real person in charge. Not the Prime Minister.

Ayatollah (Persian: آيت*الله; Arabic: آية الله; English: Sign of God) is a high ranking title given to Usuli Twelver Shi'a clerics. Those who carry the title are experts in Islamic studies such as jurisprudence, ethics, and philosophy and usually teach in Islamic seminaries.[citation needed] The next lower clerical rank is Hojatoleslam wal-muslemin.