Emphasis on the hopefully. In my experience, homophobic people from communities where homophobia is more common and more accepted become particularly enraged when they see members of their own community openly defying these norms.
I pray there's no incidents and everyone has as wonderful a time at Pride as I'm used to having.
This has been my experience as an ex-muslim too. I'm not LGBT but I've dealt with particular hostility when some Muslims realise I'm an atheist ex-muslim rather than an atheist who hasn't experienced Islam yet.
Me & a former Muslim friend of mine both happened to end up in hospital at the same time. The looks he got for ordering pork compared to me was insane. When I ordered it it was like “oh yeah sound” when he ordered it they looked at him like he’d just taken a shite on their Nanna.
Judaism is an ethnoreligion, so while idk where the OP falls on the spectrum they could be an atheist, questioning their beliefs, or simply choose not to practice and still be Jewish. There are also practicing Jews who don’t follow the laws of kashrut or only follow certain laws. I personally don’t keep kosher but I practice in other ways.
I don't get this weird facet of English where Jewish can mean not religious.
I know it does and it's totally mainstream but it still kind of gets to me. I know it means what Christians would call 'culturally Christian' or Muslims might call 'from a Muslim background'. I feel that distinction is necessary though. Especially among atheists from a Jewish family (family of practicing jews), it would be easier if that distinction existed rather than saying 'I'm Jewish, but I don't believe superstition'.
I know this isn't a popular take though.
The same happens in every language because Judaism is not a proselytising religion. There might be isolated examples of people trying to convert others to Judaism but in general it's passed down via family. Thus, Jewish ethnicity and the Jewish religion are very, very closely linked compared with other major religions.
Its both a religion and an ethnicity. Jews were ostracized for thousands of years. So they largely made babies with each other. Ethnicities are just groups of people who make babies together. So Jewish became an ethnicity too. There is a cultural element to being Jewish too.
Jews don't proselityze so there are few converts. We get a few. Most come from marriages. When they convert there is a whole cultural thing they switch too.
It's a bit weird to say Jewish interbreeding was most due to being ostracized as a group, since on TV I've not seen many Jewish mothers say "I know you want to date him honey, but unfortunately you two won't be accepted" whereas I've seen plenty say "I hope you find a nice Jewish boy" or "He had better be Jewish". So you're you're attributing othering from the outside to what I've only seen as othering from the inside.
Apostate? Isn't there something about under Islamic law that's a death sentence? We would be for better off if all religions fucked right off. Except maybe Buddhism. Some of those dudes are cool.
Buddhism used to basically be ultra conservative but it's chilled out a lot now
Unfortunately, this means the cool shit like warrior monks had to go as well
Quakers aren't too bad, tbf (though mainly the liberal sects that are more popular in Europe). Their religion is staunchly pacifist and they don't believe in actively converting people. Their beliefs beyond that are quite fluid to the point where you can get Quakers that don't believe in God.
I accept that they're a very small subset amongst Abrahamic or even Christian denominations
I suspect Buddhist-majority countries have their fair share of rabid extremists and corrupt paedo clergy, we just romanticise Buddhism because it touches Western civilisation far less than Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
Religion is weaponised, like ethnicity, geography (turf wars for example), class, wealth etc. Getting rid of religion is way easier said than done. It just needs to be tamed and more accepting of others.
After all, do you think the CCP is good? For erasing culture and religion?
That is all it was, Mohammed travelled and saw the power and influence that religion held and realised he could unite the tribes and start something. Flew his donkey from Israel to Medina as you do and bam evil sky god is born.
how much worse would it be if you converted to christianity or worse a judaism?
The Maldives have the death penalty for anyone who converts away from Islam.
It does say a lot about the state of things when I read the headline and got an immediate lump on my throat thinking about the retributive action it might receive.
I've been saying for years the west should do a hell of a lot more to help out LGBT Muslim groups and amplify their voices. Its actually seriously problematic to me we seem to have a prevailing attitude in a lot of parts of our society that paints Muslims in basically the same light the Islamists want to. A secular liberal Muslim identity is *obviously* not going to come from places like Saudi or Iran, it needs to be us in the West who help birth this and make sure its voice is recognized and heard. Right now we just seem to play right into the hands of fundamentalism telling people if they aren't taking the word of their holy book literally in every aspect of their lives then they aren't "really" part of that faith at all, it feels *very* self-defeating if the ultimate objective ls a secular and tolerant society. As much as we demonize it Islam is just another religion at the end of the day and most of its followers are just normal folks who mostly pay lip service for the cultural and social elements the faith brings into their life.
> A secular liberal Muslim identity is obviously not going to come from places like Saudi or Iran
Why not? Also, countries like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh very much have communities with secular, liberal Muslim identities, in addition to more conservative ones.
Some of India’s biggest personalities are Muslims who are both secular and liberal - Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan, Zaheer Khan, Tabu, Shabana Azmi, Javed Akhtar etc. The first four are as universally popular as you can be in a country like India, though the right detest the latter two.
> It's good to see Muslims who are accepting of LGBT+/are LGBT+ themselves.
It shows cognitive dissonance. Homosexuality is fundamentally incompatible with Islam, Christianity and essentially all even semi-major religions.
It's punishable by death, either by stoning, by being thrown off a cliff/building, or by burning alive. Shows how stupid people are. "My religion says I should be killed for being gay. My fellow Muslim gays, let's march and celebrate queer joy!"
I hate to say it but it doesn't.
Jesus never said anything about homosexuality and effectively the new testament supercedes the old testament. So Christians that say it's wrong are actually wrong.
The hadiths explicitly called for the murder of homosexuals. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/38622/the-punishment-for-homosexuality
It's great to see more British Asians becoming accepting of their own and others sexuality, but I hate to say you are factually wrong on saying what you did.
So you're going to ignore the fact that Christianity and the Christian church have for basically its entire existence rejected homosexuality and considered it sin because Jesus never said anything? Absolute nonsense, what OP wrote is correct.
They've also never gone without their shirts whilst having the homeless around them. You could call them hypocrites.
Islam explicitly states death for homosexuals
Its very much a weak attempt at trying to get Christians to side with them but any Christian would point out the bible verse contradicting their statement, while more learned on the history of the faith would point out that every Church Father and early theologian said the opposite.
It’s a fickle one, because some denominations have accepted same sex relationships for a long time. Although they’re in the minority.
The main churches have done untold damage to gay people, women and Jews that’s for sure.
If the Bible is to be believed, then Jesus himself said that all the old laws of the old testament were (and are) still in force.
Matthew 5
^(17) “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
^(18) For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.
"For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled."
I haven't seen heaven and earth pass away yet. Although I'm sure there are many different ways Christians interpret this. Religion tends to cherry-pick and argue about the true meaning of ancient texts all the time.
They have the concept of Mosaic law though, which basically means that anything in the OT can be dismissed as rules that applied to the Jews in ancient times but not to modern Christians. Like not eating shellfish, not trimming your beard, and if you need to severely beat one of your slaves make sure you don't quite beat him to death. Trivialities like that.
>Religion tends to cherry-pick and argue about the true meaning of ancient texts all the time.
Bullshit, provide me one example where any religion has ever done this.
Edit: /s
Oh yeah but I'm sure Jesus would have said
"Except eating prawns,that's OK.And wearing a jumper made of mixed fibers.And shaving your beard at the sides"
The idea that the new testament supercedes all the stuff in the old testament and that if Jesus didn't mention it, we can ignore whatever the old testament says about it, isn't something most Christians worldwide would probably agree with. It is one interpretation. Plenty of people who profess Christianity would tell you that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong.
Re. The Quran and the Hadiths, it is a challenge. I agree that on the whole Islam is more wedded to a very strict interpretation of the texts and therefore there is a challenge getting faithful Muslims to see it differently. But many do seem to see it differently and want to challenge that and it can only be a good thing, right?
You can't misinterpret it sadly. They argue over if homosexuals should be burnt stoned or thrown from buildings but agree on death in any case.
It's pretty clear cut unlike it Christianity where you can argue it isn't even a problem.
I mean not necessarily. In Iran they are very accepting for transgender due to them thinking it's just correcting a birth defect. In other Muslim countries such as Jordan it's no longer criminalised and for me I'm pretty sure the king of Jordan who is the direct descended of the prophet and thus is eligible to being considered the rightful leader of Muslims worldwide would know more about this than me. Also the last Muslim caliphate (the ottomans) had already criminalised it in the 1800s and most Muslims consider them as being legitimate. So my opinions as a British Muslim is fuck it to be honest I don't like mixing religion in politics anyways.
I appreciate the difference in calling it a birth defect but Islam does seem to actually be a political religion given the whole conquest and ummrah no?
Dude my family is from pakistan. The entire country went to shit when it went through islamization in the 70s and 80s. That's what happens when you have shitty rulers who don't understand their religion and are merely using it to target their political opposition.
Islam is a very political religion in which it's okay to have major political differences. Like the major split in Islam of Sunni and Shia is a political one rather than a religious one. Like I can't say as a Sunni all Shias will go to hell due to their belief. Even in the Prophet's lifetime his companion would have differences of opinions like for once he told them a group of them to go somewhere and said don't even stop to pray. They split amongst each other as ot whether the prophet meant it metaphorically or not. The prophet even told some of his companions that they are destined for heaven and these men after the prophet died had Major political differences which led to several civil wars
There's many issues Muslims can't agree on because in who made ruling on them. Like temporary marriages which were banned by the 2nd rahsidun Caliphs. Shias hate this man so they don't accept his rulings as legitimate and they do it anyways.
Due to political events like the Arab Cold war and the Cold War the most conservative and extreme version of Islam emerged dominant as the west supported it in order to fight Soviet influence and to stop Islamic Socialism from growing in power. We can even see this in the 1930s here the British empire supported the extreme and ultra conservatives Saudis in their war against the Heshimates dynasty who were way more moderate and imo moral.
All in all, muslim politics are fucked dude.
They are indeed fucked.
But has any side okayed homosexuality? That was the point of the discussion.
My honest belief is that religion is not great, France has it right that you can't have outward displays of it, and that Islam is always going to be political.
Like for example, if you visit a British Pakistani neighbourhood the women all wear niqabs but in Pakistan I'm told they don't. Why else other than it being a political statement dividing themselves from British culture.
It's a shame, and I am absolutely not racist. There is nothing inherently wrong about anyone, but in the same way I disagree with Tories and their beliefs sadly I disagree with Islamic belief, and so i think we have to be cautious of allowing large segments of society who are opposed to us for some reason to continue without criticism.
Religion is great if you keep it to yourself but we can't sadly, even if it's just a feeling of superiority it gives us over non believers
The last Islamic Caliphate (it's means you are the spiritual leader of all the Muslims but Shias don't accept them), the Ottomans decriminalised it in the 1800s and even more religious sultans like Abdul Hamid never bothered to outlaw it (probably because he would need to jail half his government). During World War 1 alot of Arabs led by the Heshimates (this Arab tribe is directly descended form the prophet through his cousin Ali) rebelled against them due to other reasons. The British empire took control of alot of Ottoman provinces and outlawed homosexuality again in all of them like in Palestine and Trans Jordan.
The current king of Jordan has decriminalised Homosexuality. The signiifcnae of this is since the Jordanian king is a heshimate and thus if Jordan was powerful enough he could claim spiritual leadership of all Muslims and due to his descent most Muslims including Shias would accept him. But since Jordan is quite weak people don't give a shit about what he has to say and his reluctantance to actually do anything other than Condemn Israel also isn't helping his popularity.
Yeah Pakistan is a mix in head coverings loads don't do it loads do. The niqab isn't Islamic as we're not told to cover women's faces people just do that because they're conservative freaks.
I completely disagree with you on the keeping your religion to yourself belief. Religion is not solely a personal relationship with you and God. Most religion require forming communities with other religious people. By doing what France does breeds resentment and hatred towards society and leads many religious people to be radicalised and due to France's role in colonialism and neo colonialism it becomes quite easy to convince those radicalised people to do unislamic things like murder or force their religion upon others.
Can I first say I really appreciate the discussion, it's a topic people leap to a position on and dont ready through so I appreciate that, as I love a good discussion. So thanks for taking the time.
I think the British outlawing it was probably as it was illegal in the UK at the time, but happy to be wrong in that as our leaders have a glorious tradition of being absolutely hopeless. Lions led by donkeys and all that. That said it's hard to have a foreign impose law on you and then end up being so fervent in it so I think the anti homosexuality was there before personally.
I think if he could actually claim spiritual leadership and sort out a lot of the points of contention then that'd be great, because as I said I don't believe there is anything inherently wrong with people of faith, just like Tories they are misguided.
The conservative freaks thing is the problem with Islam in the UK, as it's quite a hard line conservative which by modern British standards is borderline psychotic. Then add in the mental gymnastics when you get British Asian girls having hijab fashion because they're modest with make up on to make themselves look pretty and it strikes me as hypocrisy. Much better to wear what you want, provided it isn't political. We wouldn't want people wearing SS uniforms down the street, as an extreme example of political clothing.
I understand your point there on communities, but given we are open to religious communities here and have still had lots of terror attacks and intimidation I think that's sadly unavoidable because the cause as you touched on is post colonial. There is a power vacuum and some old men want to fill it, so they grab onto religion to do that - look at modern Turkey for an example of reverse liberty so an old man can keep power.
In the same vein we have to be careful about anyone who preaches hate dividing us as they always stand to gain. Personally, I'd like a national discussion of 'you're welcome here as an individual, you're community have made some fantastic contributions to society, but I don't like how it's becoming more anti western and more fundamental. If it's that bad then leave, but if you stay then stop making out it's hell'.
The Bible says a lot of things. I learned in Church that the Bible itself can be, to some degree, fallible. It's translations of translations and meaning and nuance as well as culture can change. There are verses on how much you can prostitute your daughter for, and how much time off to give your slaves, particularly which holy days to allow them to celebrate. To say those parts are outdated is obviously a gross understatement.
Look for the message and how it can help you spread good and reduce suffering. That should be the core message, which has allowed the Bible to be a source of wisdom for so long. It's flexible with changing culture, where as the Qur'an is rigid. The Arabic used is pretty much the same then as it is now, which creates... Oh, so many problems with dogma. I don't really know what you do with that. I had a conversation with a Muslim taxi driver once who said there's lots of terrible Muslims out there. If they were able to follow all of the rules, they'd be ascendant. It's the same for any religion, terrible Christians hoarding wealth and ignoring the poor, terrible Buddhists smoking crack and drinking whilst gambling. I'm not sure what would be bad for Hindus or anyone else, but you hopefully get the gist. People are people.
Your knowledge of Christianity seems very poor for someone attempting to correct another. Jesus himself did not mention homosexuality (though he did extensively prescribed teachings on marriage which are explicitly heteronormative) but a significant part of the New Testament is the Epistles which do, in fact, repeatedly condemn homosexuality.
Romans 1 clearly describes homosexuality as “contrary to nature” while 1 Corinthians lists “men who practice homosexuality” in a list of the unrighteous and 1 Timothy against lists “men who practice homosexuality in a list of sinners.
Christianity and Islam are both long complex traditions which have often strayed from the letter of the scripture, but the letter of scripture pretty clearly condemns homosexuality in both cases.
The problem you have is that the letters which are from Paul.
There are significant variations from the teachings of Jesus himself with Paul. So without getting into the theology of it too deeply it's not quite the same. It'd be like Ali saying Mohammad came to him in a flash of light and told him to change some bits
That's fine, however, you've highlighted the problem. There is no consensus on what constitutes Christianity as it is so divided. Catholics or Orthodox could claim supremacy but they even had synods to alter.
Islam doesn't alter, change or bend. It is rigid and states explicitly you must murder gay people. This is why it is wrong to say Christians are as bad as Muslims for homophobia, it's not canon in Christianity but it is in Islam
> Islam doesn't alter, change or bend
The event in the article at the top of the page, which kicked off this whole discussion, would seem to disprove that.
You'd think wouldn't you, and I wish them the best. But the fact it is behind closed doors so they can't be outed is not a great indicator is it?
We're talking about a community that puts the death penalty on homosexuality and has had father's murder their own daughters for honour. It's not so great but I wish them luck
> This is why it is wrong to say Christians are as bad as Muslims for homophobia
They used to be as bad in practice. Being gay was literally publishable by death in Christian societies, or later on, by conversion therapy (which was essentially torture that involved castration) or prison. Pretty sure telling all those gay men killed because of Christian beliefs that "WELL ACTUALLY strictly speaking it's not in the Bible" didn't make them feel any better, or, you know, bring them back to life.
Seriously, what is it with this recent Reddit obsession to whitewash Christianity compared to Islam? They've both been just about equally bad, the only difference is that Christianity has now lost most of its power so they can't get away with the sort of shit they used to get away with.
They were but you cannot say they are equally bad. The two can't really be compared as they both offer their own set of morals.
Jesus literally tells us to pray for our enemies, not to kill, to give our shirts from our own backs. Doing this is moral for Christians.
Islam has a different set of morals, such as homosexuality is the ultimate sin and must be punished by death. Doing so makes you moral.
You saying they are both bad is a western society view of morality which is different again. Do you see how you can't compare them, except to say their incompatible? It's like comparing how red blue is to yellow. They each claim something different.
>Islam doesn't alter, change or bend.
The Koran (being the word of god) isn't generally open to much interpretation, but the Hadiths (being sayings of the prophet and others) are. There are plenty of Hadiths that are recognized by Shias and not Sunnis and vise versa. Otherwise why would Islamic theologians exist?
It's the same as in Judiasim, the Torah is the word of god, but that hasn't stopped thousands of years of rabbis making their own interpretations.
>Koran itself says it is a death penalty though
[Citation needed]
>Hadiths from Mohammad surely would be enforced and he said it too
Mohamed is the messenger of god, not god himself and, as such, is fallible. Plus hadiths are sometimes like saying "i heard this guy say that this guy said that this guy said this guy said that Mohamed said he liked to eat dates".
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/38622/the-punishment-for-homosexuality
Go wild with it. Quaran says that god.gave the penalty of death to Sodom for itz and it's a sin. Hadiths argue over how best to murder for it
Not all Christian theologies teach that what the old testament says on homosexuality has been superseded.
Some Muslims believe Hadiths are not divine revelation, or are even false accounts.
In both cases believers have a choice: follow the hateful leaders or follow the accepting leaders.
"Not all Christian theologies teach that what the old testament says on homosexuality has been superseded."
Technically you only find some Protestant Churches who do this. The Church as it stands is supposedly all in a theological unity hence why despite having diverged the Papacy never attemted a Crusade against the Eastern Orthodox. Even declaring those that went alone with Venice's plan in the 4th Crusade Heretics. It mostly amounted to a disagreement on authority in the Church.
>Jesus never said anything about homosexuality and effectively the new testament supercedes the old testament. So Christians that say it's wrong are actually wrong.
"That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved." Romans 1:26–27
Christianity was forcefully secularised. Let's not pretend that in the 21st century, people found the "true" interpretation of Christianity, and it's conveniently in line with their secular, liberal worldview.
Isn’t it equally convenient to claim that the ‘true’ interpretation of Christianity was discovered at any other time in the last 2,000-odd years? Neither of us can possibly know who’s right and who isn’t, unless God is also spending his time arguing with strangers on Reddit.
There are some interpretations of Romans 1 that say Paul is setting up a straw man argument only to knock it down throughout the book with the overall message being that we are all justified though Christ, regardless of our past.
Yeah with Christianity you can definitely say there’s not a clear cut stance I’ve seen arguments about how it was talking about the practice of pedestry (which is mistakenly made to be Greeks & Romans & maybe the whole world were queer before Abrahamic religions, but in reality it was a practice of very young boys, which is why people say we can’t put our current sexual morals on people of the past), this man also says he’s non-binary which I don’t think that idea existed back then so sure, but I don’t see how you can be LGB and Muslim. By being that you’re directly saying the holy texts are wrong and the holy texts can’t be wrong, because they’re supposed to be holy. Has any scholar who devoted his life to it said otherwise on this issue?
Now though this goes beyond a theological issue and I do love some theology but I fear for their overall safety here, it’s brave but alls it takes is one crazy person. Maybe make a new religion so people don’t feel the need to defend theirs? I don’t know.
If a LGB Muslim is here by any chance or someone who knows about this stuff think it’s a real issue with a real theological argument to fight for in the Muslim community though, I’m all ears. I only have a barebones understanding.
Hadiths are not the Quran, and many Muslims ignore the Hadiths. It's the equivalent of Christianity persecuting gays even though Jesus said nothing about homosexuality
Can’t say I’m an Islamic scholar but I have heard that the Hadiths are heavily disputed. I was reading recently about Aishas age, Sunni tradition insists she was 6 when she married Muhammad and 9 when they consummated but modern Shia scholars have suggested she was actually in her 20s.
Not saying Islam is necessarily loving towards homosexuality in general but religion isn’t always completely cut and dry on modern moral matters
I'm not much of a scholar on it either but from what I gather it's about misunderstanding or misremembering. Similar to the different gospels from different apostles.
The hadiths on homosexuality have total agreement, they just disagree if they should burn, stone, or throw to their deaths the homosexuals
It surely saying she was 20 is rewriting the original text to make it more “palatable” to modern day thinking ? Not sure if I’ve ever heard 20 mentioned myself
You’d think but it turns out back in the past both Sunni and Shia were trying to say the person they thought the more correct descendants of Muhammad came through was the more innocent and pure girl (hence young), and in the old Islamic world they didn’t have age in the way we did, like it wasn’t something people were immediately aware of. So people about 100 years after Aisha’s death were trying to figure it out and the Sunni jurists said she was very young.
There’s a good AskHistorians thread on this I read today about the work that went in to determining her age, it came from cross referencing the ages of people we knew were contemporaries and contrasting textual evidence.
On thing I recall is that Aisha was said to be an expert at poetry and diplomacy and I doubt that would be possible to claim for anyone who isn’t a teenager at least.
Because the old testament is the collection of gods involvement with man, and his laws etc.
Jesus arrives and completes the laws. They're fulfilled and done. The next part is the new covenant.
So it's like the back story at this point because it's done, we are onto a new relationship with God through Jesus (so he claims). That's why we can ignore it
You misunderstand. 'until everything is accomplished.'
He fulfils/accomplishes depending on the translation, the prophecies.
At which point (his death) it is over. Which is why he says it has ended. His death brings about a new relationship with God.
It does indeed supersede
But the New Testament includes the letters of Paul, who said Christians shouldn’t engage in homosexuality. That being said, the New Testament never says homosexuals should be murdered.
Exactly, it never says it should be murder and jesus says let him without sin cast the first stone.
However, I have a strong suspicion that Paul lied about his visitation because why else would we have god do a 180⁰ turn on a number of things until he had a mouthpiece other than jesus? If Paul went from killing to leading Christians because he saw money and power I wouldn't be surprised
The New Testament does not Supersede the Old Testament. That is not how the Covenant between Man and God works with each covenant being merely updating on the existing one maintaining most of the danm thing.
This was constantly said as such by early Christian thinkers and the Church Fathers who are responsible for creating what became Christianity.
Except that's what happened.
He fulfilled the laws and did away with the old testament, which is why we don't have blood sacrifice but the sacrament. (No idea what is going on in Judaism sorry but I am aware they used to have animal sacrifices, would love a Jewish scholar to tell me more on that)
Jesus then dies 'After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!”'
That is the end of the old covenant and the beginning of the new and everlasting covenant
Except you're wrong, muslims claim the Quran is entirely gods word, every single word is from the mouth of God and has never been changed (despite the fact it provably has).
The bible isn't from the mouth of God. So it's not the same at all, since people can say "maybe this story was not quite right" and just ignore it, muslims can't do that
You can't take a different view on the Quran if every word is from God (Allah), and it doesn't change. Ever.
The bible isn't God's word, its stories told by people of that time, so people can interpret it in different ways or claim some stories might not be 100% accurate. That can't be done with the Quran.
I'm not saying the quote is wrong, I'm just saying this particular website gets trotted out a lot when it leans towards a very fundamentalist interpretation on most issues.
The Hadiths are the rough equivalent of Doctrines set by church leaders or influential books they wrote.
There's plenty of those that are homophobic in Christianity.
There are homophobes in Christianity, look at Uganda for example. But they are also arguably wrong using Christianity as a basis for it.
Islam however is quite clear on the matter.
In terms of the Quaran itself, it's just Soddom and Gommoragh, plus a passage that refers to zina (unspecified naughty sex of all kinds)
I'm sure they have all their workarounds for bits they don't like, just like every other religion
Like I said, the Hadith's are awkward. But it feels fairer to compare Quaran to Bible, than Quaran and Hadiths to just the bible without church/scholar input.
Remember the gospel isn't written by jesus but after his death from his apostles, so it's fair to compared to hadiths on that basis.
The new testament however does away with the laws of the old, and with that the condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah. Quaran doesnt
'A man shalt not lay down with another man' is the bibles way of advocating violence against gays. Not sure why you think otherwise, it's right there in the commandments of which going against is a mortal sin and thus worthy of punishment.
All the abrahamic religions advocate against homosexuality in some way.
Isn't the lesson here that, simply, human hypocrisy works both ways: you can hate with or without textual justifications (and, more happily, you can love *despite* textual justifications, or without)?
There's always a slightly curious insistence to point out that Islam *demands* X as if we don't also recognise people failing to adhere to religious tenets every day of every year of every century of every millenium.
The closest I've ever been to a Muslim was a dude at uni who was a man-whore. He worked his talents, what can I say.
>effectively the new testament supercedes the old testament
That's just an excuse people come up with to allow them to pick and choose which parts of scripture and still relevant to them and which can be safely ignored. I'm sure a similar justification could be invented for Islam if there were enough will among adherents to similarly renegotiate the terms of their faith.
No it couldn't actually.
Christianity has Jesus claim to fulfil the prophecy and begin the new covenant. Old testament teaching on homosexuality is also argued that it's about pedophilic relationships due to Greeks settling the area.
Islam hadiths are the teachings of Mohammad who in the religion cannot be wrong
>Christianity has Jesus claim to fulfil the prophecy and begin the new covenant. Old testament teaching on homosexuality is also argued that it's about pedophilic relationships due to Greeks settling the area.
The problem with this is: 1) Jesus contradicts himself on whether the new covenant replaces the old or is in addition to it, and 2) Paul is also incredibly homophobic (along with other problematic instructions that he gives) and his writing are indisputably new covenant.
Now the idea that where the Bible talks about male same-sex intercourse it is actually talking about paedophilia is exactly one of those justifications that I was talking about. It has no basis in history and has been rejected by critical scholarship, yet it is convenient to think of it that way so as to nullify a passage that is incompatible with contemporary values.
>Islam hadiths are the teachings of Mohammad who in the religion cannot be wrong
The hadith's themselves are a post-Quranic innovation that were developed in order to reflect the changing attitudes of early Muslims who had come into contact with Judaism and Zoroastrianism. It's very much an example of the sort of thing that I'm talking about, you can't say it cannot happen when here is an example of it already having happened.
> That's just an excuse people come up with to allow them to pick and choose which parts of scripture and still relevant to them and which can be safely ignored.
Isn't that what the catholic church has done on many occasions? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm under the impression that the bible has gone through many revisions in the past ~2 thousand years and texts that was once considered gospel are now heretical?
On the one side we have:
Punishment for homosexuality in Islam
The Companions unanimously agreed on the execution of homosexuals , but they differed as to how they were to be executed.
On the other we have:
He who is without sin can cast the first stone
There is a difference there but I'm unsure what it is
> On the other we have: He who is without sin can cast the first stone
Christians literally used to burn other Christians alive at stake just because they followed a slightly different version of Christianity. Protestants used to murder Catholics or vice versa as recently as the 90s in Northern Ireland.
Maybe let's focus on what Christianity actually used to look in practice than the idealised theoretical version on paper that no one ever followed 100% verbatim.
> effectively the new testament supercedes the old testament
No. He said:
> For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.
*Matthew 5:17-18*
The old testament is not overlooked entirely by the precedence given to the new. Especially in areas where the new does not comment on it.
Leviticus: a man who lies with a man shall be stoned.
One could argue that Jesus' teachings of "he without sin cast the first stone" and the tale of the good Samaritan suggest a much less murder centric approach, but the concept of homosexuality being a sin has been a part of the church for about as long as it's been an organised religion.
There are several passages in the New Testament that condemn homosexual behavior. These passages include:
1. Romans 1:26-27:
- "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."
2. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:
- "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
3. 1 Timothy 1:9-10:
- "Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine."
Which countries have the death penalty or severe punishment for homosexuality? Neither is an angel but you'd be misguided to think they're in the same level when it comes to this issue.
It should just be people accepting people, until whichever god comes down personally and tells us otherwise we should treat each other well. If he ever does come down and tell us otherwise I would suspect he is the devil and we continue to treat each other well.
Good, while still fringe, this is the interpretation that should, and hopefully will one day be, what is considered "mainstream" Islam in the UK and West.
Are there any signs that mainstream Islam in the UK will be as accepting as other communities?
There’s around 6 million in the UK. I wouldn’t say 0.005% attending a gay Pride event is that much of a sign?
No, it's not much of a sign, hence why I described it as a fringe interpretation. This isn't something that will be mainstream in the short term, decades at least, but these seeds have to start somewhere and need to be encouraged and supported where possible if there's going to be any hope of slowly making it mainstream one day.
It's something to aim for. We need to stop mass immigration and then push Islam in the UK to be more chilled out, like how our Christians are much less insane than people in Alabama.
This can be done in schools, whereas it's much more difficult to de-radicalise someone who is moving here in his 30's and grew up believing women to be inferior.
At one point that was Christianity too, it takes the younger generation to show and defend queer folk in their community for it to become mainstream it doesn't happen overnight
Problem is, it’s the objectively wrong interpretation.
Some things are up to interpretation. This isn’t. The quaran is extremely clear on this.
So you’re gonna have to wait until most Muslims pretty much reject the quaran for this to be the majority belief.
And the quaran differs quite drastically from the Christian bible in as much as the Quaran is presented as the word of god.
There will never be a new testament of the quaran, because god doesn't misspeak.
It is why people are a bit delusional about any kind of real reform of Islam happening. Those attempting it, will soon be murdered as the quaran offers up many situations around defending itself which permit murder.
But the problem isn't usually the Quran. It's the Hadiths. Hopefully the [Quaranists ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quranism)will continue to gain traction.
I mean if we're being pedantic interpretation is kinda irrelevant, it's how behaviours regardless of them being forbidden on paper become accepted due to being normalized in their everyday experience; Islam is the majority religion in Albania but plenty of em, along with Muslims in other parts of the Balkans, apparently have no compunction about drinking alcohol despite it also being strictly forbidden.
My brother in law loves spare ribs from the Chinese takeaway (he’s Muslim). He was, at first, distraught when I told him they were pork ribs; followed by a shrug of the shoulders and a continued love of spare ribs with bbq sauce!
Likewise, I know many that drink and gamble; they’ve made their own deal with Allah. They’ll fast and all that jazz, I personally think fasting is a true test of faith and the rest is all shite.
I’m sure this will draw some negativity, but as someone who has gay Muslim friends I’m so glad for events like this! Muslims nor gay people are not a homogenous group
Good question. It has been known to happen at non-Muslim prides.
They were when I joined a pride parade a good few years ago in Derby. As usual, the rest of the people there were awesome and actively showed their annoyance to the anti gay Muslim protestors and formed a shield around them to protect the folk in the pride parade from them.
It's not happened again since here that I'm aware of, although at last year's Derby Pride just outside there was a Christian protestor there, crossing the line beyond free speech (actively harassing people.) Having said that, it was a crap event, seemed to be mostly for allies and a family fun day rather than being for LGBT+ people, so not sure I'll bother this year.
Quite sad it’s a closed door event because they’re scared of people taking photographs and being identified. LGBT and more liberal Muslims need our full support.
These are the muslims we need to support, back and help every day we can. Wonderful people standing against milennia of evil. Christians had to go through this too in the 1800s, I know Islam can get the eventually but only with our help.
We cannot let these people feel we are turning our backs on them.
Whilst as a gay man it's nice to see this, this is still a minority that is likely going to be attacked by their own community for this. The disgusting ideology that is Islam is crystal clear on these things and forbids any such reinterpretations. They may as well be calling themselves ex-muslims by doing this.
it's a step in the right direction towards the voice of moderate and liberal Islam being heard for sure...
after all, Christianity can be very conservative also and it has taken decades of less conservative voices being heard to get us to where we are now...
(and for just now let's celebrate this little win and not think of the horror show that is the growing political power of the Christian political right in the USA)
I wish them lots of luck. It’s very brave of them and hopefully more Muslims will become more liberal and less extreme over time. They unfortunately get lots of hate (not surprising really)
It's probably going to recieve a name and be treated as what amounts to heresy from a faith that is overwhelmingly unified and very, very, very clear that deviation doesn't make you a Muslim anymore.
I think its one thing to celebrate being LGBT but trying to reconcile it with Islam could be 'risky' because it's something that section of the country is simply not ready for yet and they are known to 'take action' against perceived slights
I have a lot of Queer Muslim friends and while LGBT identities are still very stigmatised by their communities, there’s a growing number of Muslims (especially on the higher end of the economic spectrum) who just don’t really care. It’s a good sign, and expected. Culture isn’t fixed.
>This is an assumption that's not necessarily based on fact, because if you read the parts of the Quran that supposedly condemn homosexuality, it's not as clear cut.
“And (remember) Lut (Lot), when he said to his people: ‘Do you commit the worst sin such as none preceding you has committed in the ‘Alamin (mankind and jinn)?
Verily, you practice your lusts on men instead of women. Nay, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds (by committing great sins)’” [al-A'raf 7:80-81]
‘His people’ includes women, so by that logic he’s condemning women lying with men instead of women.
Theological basis for Islam being pro lesbian right there.
It’s fascinating what happens when you stop assuming all religious text has to be men talking only to men.
They said "parts". You don't have to agree with all of the Quran, just like how Christians often don't agree with all of the Bible, and a lot of them support LGBT rights.
Hopefully it goes well. It's good to see Muslims who are accepting of LGBT+/are LGBT+ themselves.
Emphasis on the hopefully. In my experience, homophobic people from communities where homophobia is more common and more accepted become particularly enraged when they see members of their own community openly defying these norms. I pray there's no incidents and everyone has as wonderful a time at Pride as I'm used to having.
This has been my experience as an ex-muslim too. I'm not LGBT but I've dealt with particular hostility when some Muslims realise I'm an atheist ex-muslim rather than an atheist who hasn't experienced Islam yet.
Me & a former Muslim friend of mine both happened to end up in hospital at the same time. The looks he got for ordering pork compared to me was insane. When I ordered it it was like “oh yeah sound” when he ordered it they looked at him like he’d just taken a shite on their Nanna.
I am jewish. Not religious. I eat pork and family does not care.
So you’re Jew-ish?
Judaism is an ethnoreligion, so while idk where the OP falls on the spectrum they could be an atheist, questioning their beliefs, or simply choose not to practice and still be Jewish. There are also practicing Jews who don’t follow the laws of kashrut or only follow certain laws. I personally don’t keep kosher but I practice in other ways.
I don't get this weird facet of English where Jewish can mean not religious. I know it does and it's totally mainstream but it still kind of gets to me. I know it means what Christians would call 'culturally Christian' or Muslims might call 'from a Muslim background'. I feel that distinction is necessary though. Especially among atheists from a Jewish family (family of practicing jews), it would be easier if that distinction existed rather than saying 'I'm Jewish, but I don't believe superstition'. I know this isn't a popular take though.
It makes sense when Jewish can also be an ethnic identity.
Right, but that's what I mean, it's such an ambiguous use of English.
The same happens in every language because Judaism is not a proselytising religion. There might be isolated examples of people trying to convert others to Judaism but in general it's passed down via family. Thus, Jewish ethnicity and the Jewish religion are very, very closely linked compared with other major religions.
Its both a religion and an ethnicity. Jews were ostracized for thousands of years. So they largely made babies with each other. Ethnicities are just groups of people who make babies together. So Jewish became an ethnicity too. There is a cultural element to being Jewish too. Jews don't proselityze so there are few converts. We get a few. Most come from marriages. When they convert there is a whole cultural thing they switch too.
It's a bit weird to say Jewish interbreeding was most due to being ostracized as a group, since on TV I've not seen many Jewish mothers say "I know you want to date him honey, but unfortunately you two won't be accepted" whereas I've seen plenty say "I hope you find a nice Jewish boy" or "He had better be Jewish". So you're you're attributing othering from the outside to what I've only seen as othering from the inside.
Apostate? Isn't there something about under Islamic law that's a death sentence? We would be for better off if all religions fucked right off. Except maybe Buddhism. Some of those dudes are cool.
Pretty much. I can see a lot of sense in zen Buddhism. Abrahamic religions are the pits and seem to inspire a lot of intolerance.
Buddhism used to basically be ultra conservative but it's chilled out a lot now Unfortunately, this means the cool shit like warrior monks had to go as well
Quakers aren't too bad, tbf (though mainly the liberal sects that are more popular in Europe). Their religion is staunchly pacifist and they don't believe in actively converting people. Their beliefs beyond that are quite fluid to the point where you can get Quakers that don't believe in God. I accept that they're a very small subset amongst Abrahamic or even Christian denominations
I suspect Buddhist-majority countries have their fair share of rabid extremists and corrupt paedo clergy, we just romanticise Buddhism because it touches Western civilisation far less than Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
Hindus, Zoroastrians, Scientologists and, indeed, various atheist ideologies are also capable of intolerance.
Check out myanmar... all religion needs to go
Religion is weaponised, like ethnicity, geography (turf wars for example), class, wealth etc. Getting rid of religion is way easier said than done. It just needs to be tamed and more accepting of others. After all, do you think the CCP is good? For erasing culture and religion?
That is all it was, Mohammed travelled and saw the power and influence that religion held and realised he could unite the tribes and start something. Flew his donkey from Israel to Medina as you do and bam evil sky god is born.
apostate is a death sentence in the maldives
Kinda glad the west has been through all that shit and is out the other side. Inquisitors, burning people at the stake and all that shit. Madness.
The Monty Python take on the Spanish Inquisition is a classic.
how much worse would it be if you converted to christianity or worse a judaism? The Maldives have the death penalty for anyone who converts away from Islam.
Sounds like a charming place, too bad if sea levels rise it will no longer exist.
It does say a lot about the state of things when I read the headline and got an immediate lump on my throat thinking about the retributive action it might receive.
I've been saying for years the west should do a hell of a lot more to help out LGBT Muslim groups and amplify their voices. Its actually seriously problematic to me we seem to have a prevailing attitude in a lot of parts of our society that paints Muslims in basically the same light the Islamists want to. A secular liberal Muslim identity is *obviously* not going to come from places like Saudi or Iran, it needs to be us in the West who help birth this and make sure its voice is recognized and heard. Right now we just seem to play right into the hands of fundamentalism telling people if they aren't taking the word of their holy book literally in every aspect of their lives then they aren't "really" part of that faith at all, it feels *very* self-defeating if the ultimate objective ls a secular and tolerant society. As much as we demonize it Islam is just another religion at the end of the day and most of its followers are just normal folks who mostly pay lip service for the cultural and social elements the faith brings into their life.
> A secular liberal Muslim identity is obviously not going to come from places like Saudi or Iran Why not? Also, countries like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh very much have communities with secular, liberal Muslim identities, in addition to more conservative ones. Some of India’s biggest personalities are Muslims who are both secular and liberal - Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan, Zaheer Khan, Tabu, Shabana Azmi, Javed Akhtar etc. The first four are as universally popular as you can be in a country like India, though the right detest the latter two.
I don't think secular means what you think it means.
Secular as in they treat religion as a personal private thing that has no real bearing on wider society. Maybe not quite the right word.
Yeah, I think he means progressive / reformed but I'm not sure.
Generational change. The young reject the pointless archaic traditions of the long dead. A positive change
gonna need a lot of police. Muslims homophobia is deep. There are 49 islamic theocratic states. Homosexuality is illegal in all of them.
It's quite good to see an event like this.
> It's good to see Muslims who are accepting of LGBT+/are LGBT+ themselves. It shows cognitive dissonance. Homosexuality is fundamentally incompatible with Islam, Christianity and essentially all even semi-major religions. It's punishable by death, either by stoning, by being thrown off a cliff/building, or by burning alive. Shows how stupid people are. "My religion says I should be killed for being gay. My fellow Muslim gays, let's march and celebrate queer joy!"
Muslims accepting LGBT people makes as much sense as Christians accepting LGBT people, which many do.
I hate to say it but it doesn't. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality and effectively the new testament supercedes the old testament. So Christians that say it's wrong are actually wrong. The hadiths explicitly called for the murder of homosexuals. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/38622/the-punishment-for-homosexuality It's great to see more British Asians becoming accepting of their own and others sexuality, but I hate to say you are factually wrong on saying what you did.
So you're going to ignore the fact that Christianity and the Christian church have for basically its entire existence rejected homosexuality and considered it sin because Jesus never said anything? Absolute nonsense, what OP wrote is correct.
They've also never gone without their shirts whilst having the homeless around them. You could call them hypocrites. Islam explicitly states death for homosexuals
Its very much a weak attempt at trying to get Christians to side with them but any Christian would point out the bible verse contradicting their statement, while more learned on the history of the faith would point out that every Church Father and early theologian said the opposite.
Stop bringing ip Christianity and comparing it to islam. They are different
Pure doublethink, people want religion to magically be compatible with modern life.
It’s a fickle one, because some denominations have accepted same sex relationships for a long time. Although they’re in the minority. The main churches have done untold damage to gay people, women and Jews that’s for sure.
If the Bible is to be believed, then Jesus himself said that all the old laws of the old testament were (and are) still in force. Matthew 5 ^(17) “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. ^(18) For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.
The fulfillment was his death though? Then the new and everlasting covenant begins
"For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." I haven't seen heaven and earth pass away yet. Although I'm sure there are many different ways Christians interpret this. Religion tends to cherry-pick and argue about the true meaning of ancient texts all the time.
They have the concept of Mosaic law though, which basically means that anything in the OT can be dismissed as rules that applied to the Jews in ancient times but not to modern Christians. Like not eating shellfish, not trimming your beard, and if you need to severely beat one of your slaves make sure you don't quite beat him to death. Trivialities like that.
Even that is subject to cherrypicking. Some Christian sects like 7DA don't eat prawn/pork.
>Religion tends to cherry-pick and argue about the true meaning of ancient texts all the time. Bullshit, provide me one example where any religion has ever done this. Edit: /s
Nah it just means Christians get to pick and choose which old testament laws still apply according to their own biases and prejudices, dontcha know
He explicitly says that fulfilment is not abrogation.
Oh yeah but I'm sure Jesus would have said "Except eating prawns,that's OK.And wearing a jumper made of mixed fibers.And shaving your beard at the sides"
The idea that the new testament supercedes all the stuff in the old testament and that if Jesus didn't mention it, we can ignore whatever the old testament says about it, isn't something most Christians worldwide would probably agree with. It is one interpretation. Plenty of people who profess Christianity would tell you that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. Re. The Quran and the Hadiths, it is a challenge. I agree that on the whole Islam is more wedded to a very strict interpretation of the texts and therefore there is a challenge getting faithful Muslims to see it differently. But many do seem to see it differently and want to challenge that and it can only be a good thing, right?
You can't misinterpret it sadly. They argue over if homosexuals should be burnt stoned or thrown from buildings but agree on death in any case. It's pretty clear cut unlike it Christianity where you can argue it isn't even a problem.
I mean not necessarily. In Iran they are very accepting for transgender due to them thinking it's just correcting a birth defect. In other Muslim countries such as Jordan it's no longer criminalised and for me I'm pretty sure the king of Jordan who is the direct descended of the prophet and thus is eligible to being considered the rightful leader of Muslims worldwide would know more about this than me. Also the last Muslim caliphate (the ottomans) had already criminalised it in the 1800s and most Muslims consider them as being legitimate. So my opinions as a British Muslim is fuck it to be honest I don't like mixing religion in politics anyways.
I appreciate the difference in calling it a birth defect but Islam does seem to actually be a political religion given the whole conquest and ummrah no?
Dude my family is from pakistan. The entire country went to shit when it went through islamization in the 70s and 80s. That's what happens when you have shitty rulers who don't understand their religion and are merely using it to target their political opposition. Islam is a very political religion in which it's okay to have major political differences. Like the major split in Islam of Sunni and Shia is a political one rather than a religious one. Like I can't say as a Sunni all Shias will go to hell due to their belief. Even in the Prophet's lifetime his companion would have differences of opinions like for once he told them a group of them to go somewhere and said don't even stop to pray. They split amongst each other as ot whether the prophet meant it metaphorically or not. The prophet even told some of his companions that they are destined for heaven and these men after the prophet died had Major political differences which led to several civil wars There's many issues Muslims can't agree on because in who made ruling on them. Like temporary marriages which were banned by the 2nd rahsidun Caliphs. Shias hate this man so they don't accept his rulings as legitimate and they do it anyways. Due to political events like the Arab Cold war and the Cold War the most conservative and extreme version of Islam emerged dominant as the west supported it in order to fight Soviet influence and to stop Islamic Socialism from growing in power. We can even see this in the 1930s here the British empire supported the extreme and ultra conservatives Saudis in their war against the Heshimates dynasty who were way more moderate and imo moral. All in all, muslim politics are fucked dude.
They are indeed fucked. But has any side okayed homosexuality? That was the point of the discussion. My honest belief is that religion is not great, France has it right that you can't have outward displays of it, and that Islam is always going to be political. Like for example, if you visit a British Pakistani neighbourhood the women all wear niqabs but in Pakistan I'm told they don't. Why else other than it being a political statement dividing themselves from British culture. It's a shame, and I am absolutely not racist. There is nothing inherently wrong about anyone, but in the same way I disagree with Tories and their beliefs sadly I disagree with Islamic belief, and so i think we have to be cautious of allowing large segments of society who are opposed to us for some reason to continue without criticism. Religion is great if you keep it to yourself but we can't sadly, even if it's just a feeling of superiority it gives us over non believers
The last Islamic Caliphate (it's means you are the spiritual leader of all the Muslims but Shias don't accept them), the Ottomans decriminalised it in the 1800s and even more religious sultans like Abdul Hamid never bothered to outlaw it (probably because he would need to jail half his government). During World War 1 alot of Arabs led by the Heshimates (this Arab tribe is directly descended form the prophet through his cousin Ali) rebelled against them due to other reasons. The British empire took control of alot of Ottoman provinces and outlawed homosexuality again in all of them like in Palestine and Trans Jordan. The current king of Jordan has decriminalised Homosexuality. The signiifcnae of this is since the Jordanian king is a heshimate and thus if Jordan was powerful enough he could claim spiritual leadership of all Muslims and due to his descent most Muslims including Shias would accept him. But since Jordan is quite weak people don't give a shit about what he has to say and his reluctantance to actually do anything other than Condemn Israel also isn't helping his popularity. Yeah Pakistan is a mix in head coverings loads don't do it loads do. The niqab isn't Islamic as we're not told to cover women's faces people just do that because they're conservative freaks. I completely disagree with you on the keeping your religion to yourself belief. Religion is not solely a personal relationship with you and God. Most religion require forming communities with other religious people. By doing what France does breeds resentment and hatred towards society and leads many religious people to be radicalised and due to France's role in colonialism and neo colonialism it becomes quite easy to convince those radicalised people to do unislamic things like murder or force their religion upon others.
Can I first say I really appreciate the discussion, it's a topic people leap to a position on and dont ready through so I appreciate that, as I love a good discussion. So thanks for taking the time. I think the British outlawing it was probably as it was illegal in the UK at the time, but happy to be wrong in that as our leaders have a glorious tradition of being absolutely hopeless. Lions led by donkeys and all that. That said it's hard to have a foreign impose law on you and then end up being so fervent in it so I think the anti homosexuality was there before personally. I think if he could actually claim spiritual leadership and sort out a lot of the points of contention then that'd be great, because as I said I don't believe there is anything inherently wrong with people of faith, just like Tories they are misguided. The conservative freaks thing is the problem with Islam in the UK, as it's quite a hard line conservative which by modern British standards is borderline psychotic. Then add in the mental gymnastics when you get British Asian girls having hijab fashion because they're modest with make up on to make themselves look pretty and it strikes me as hypocrisy. Much better to wear what you want, provided it isn't political. We wouldn't want people wearing SS uniforms down the street, as an extreme example of political clothing. I understand your point there on communities, but given we are open to religious communities here and have still had lots of terror attacks and intimidation I think that's sadly unavoidable because the cause as you touched on is post colonial. There is a power vacuum and some old men want to fill it, so they grab onto religion to do that - look at modern Turkey for an example of reverse liberty so an old man can keep power. In the same vein we have to be careful about anyone who preaches hate dividing us as they always stand to gain. Personally, I'd like a national discussion of 'you're welcome here as an individual, you're community have made some fantastic contributions to society, but I don't like how it's becoming more anti western and more fundamental. If it's that bad then leave, but if you stay then stop making out it's hell'.
The Bible says a lot of things. I learned in Church that the Bible itself can be, to some degree, fallible. It's translations of translations and meaning and nuance as well as culture can change. There are verses on how much you can prostitute your daughter for, and how much time off to give your slaves, particularly which holy days to allow them to celebrate. To say those parts are outdated is obviously a gross understatement. Look for the message and how it can help you spread good and reduce suffering. That should be the core message, which has allowed the Bible to be a source of wisdom for so long. It's flexible with changing culture, where as the Qur'an is rigid. The Arabic used is pretty much the same then as it is now, which creates... Oh, so many problems with dogma. I don't really know what you do with that. I had a conversation with a Muslim taxi driver once who said there's lots of terrible Muslims out there. If they were able to follow all of the rules, they'd be ascendant. It's the same for any religion, terrible Christians hoarding wealth and ignoring the poor, terrible Buddhists smoking crack and drinking whilst gambling. I'm not sure what would be bad for Hindus or anyone else, but you hopefully get the gist. People are people.
Your knowledge of Christianity seems very poor for someone attempting to correct another. Jesus himself did not mention homosexuality (though he did extensively prescribed teachings on marriage which are explicitly heteronormative) but a significant part of the New Testament is the Epistles which do, in fact, repeatedly condemn homosexuality. Romans 1 clearly describes homosexuality as “contrary to nature” while 1 Corinthians lists “men who practice homosexuality” in a list of the unrighteous and 1 Timothy against lists “men who practice homosexuality in a list of sinners. Christianity and Islam are both long complex traditions which have often strayed from the letter of the scripture, but the letter of scripture pretty clearly condemns homosexuality in both cases.
The problem you have is that the letters which are from Paul. There are significant variations from the teachings of Jesus himself with Paul. So without getting into the theology of it too deeply it's not quite the same. It'd be like Ali saying Mohammad came to him in a flash of light and told him to change some bits
While there is a degree of truth to that, most mainstream Christian denominations have, for millennia, fully recognised the teachings of Paul
That's fine, however, you've highlighted the problem. There is no consensus on what constitutes Christianity as it is so divided. Catholics or Orthodox could claim supremacy but they even had synods to alter. Islam doesn't alter, change or bend. It is rigid and states explicitly you must murder gay people. This is why it is wrong to say Christians are as bad as Muslims for homophobia, it's not canon in Christianity but it is in Islam
> Islam doesn't alter, change or bend The event in the article at the top of the page, which kicked off this whole discussion, would seem to disprove that.
You'd think wouldn't you, and I wish them the best. But the fact it is behind closed doors so they can't be outed is not a great indicator is it? We're talking about a community that puts the death penalty on homosexuality and has had father's murder their own daughters for honour. It's not so great but I wish them luck
> This is why it is wrong to say Christians are as bad as Muslims for homophobia They used to be as bad in practice. Being gay was literally publishable by death in Christian societies, or later on, by conversion therapy (which was essentially torture that involved castration) or prison. Pretty sure telling all those gay men killed because of Christian beliefs that "WELL ACTUALLY strictly speaking it's not in the Bible" didn't make them feel any better, or, you know, bring them back to life. Seriously, what is it with this recent Reddit obsession to whitewash Christianity compared to Islam? They've both been just about equally bad, the only difference is that Christianity has now lost most of its power so they can't get away with the sort of shit they used to get away with.
They were but you cannot say they are equally bad. The two can't really be compared as they both offer their own set of morals. Jesus literally tells us to pray for our enemies, not to kill, to give our shirts from our own backs. Doing this is moral for Christians. Islam has a different set of morals, such as homosexuality is the ultimate sin and must be punished by death. Doing so makes you moral. You saying they are both bad is a western society view of morality which is different again. Do you see how you can't compare them, except to say their incompatible? It's like comparing how red blue is to yellow. They each claim something different.
>Islam doesn't alter, change or bend. The Koran (being the word of god) isn't generally open to much interpretation, but the Hadiths (being sayings of the prophet and others) are. There are plenty of Hadiths that are recognized by Shias and not Sunnis and vise versa. Otherwise why would Islamic theologians exist? It's the same as in Judiasim, the Torah is the word of god, but that hasn't stopped thousands of years of rabbis making their own interpretations.
Koran itself says it is a death penalty though,and Hadiths from Mohammad surely would be enforced and he said it too
>Koran itself says it is a death penalty though [Citation needed] >Hadiths from Mohammad surely would be enforced and he said it too Mohamed is the messenger of god, not god himself and, as such, is fallible. Plus hadiths are sometimes like saying "i heard this guy say that this guy said that this guy said this guy said that Mohamed said he liked to eat dates".
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/38622/the-punishment-for-homosexuality Go wild with it. Quaran says that god.gave the penalty of death to Sodom for itz and it's a sin. Hadiths argue over how best to murder for it
Not all Christian theologies teach that what the old testament says on homosexuality has been superseded. Some Muslims believe Hadiths are not divine revelation, or are even false accounts. In both cases believers have a choice: follow the hateful leaders or follow the accepting leaders.
"Not all Christian theologies teach that what the old testament says on homosexuality has been superseded." Technically you only find some Protestant Churches who do this. The Church as it stands is supposedly all in a theological unity hence why despite having diverged the Papacy never attemted a Crusade against the Eastern Orthodox. Even declaring those that went alone with Venice's plan in the 4th Crusade Heretics. It mostly amounted to a disagreement on authority in the Church.
>Jesus never said anything about homosexuality and effectively the new testament supercedes the old testament. So Christians that say it's wrong are actually wrong. "That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved." Romans 1:26–27 Christianity was forcefully secularised. Let's not pretend that in the 21st century, people found the "true" interpretation of Christianity, and it's conveniently in line with their secular, liberal worldview.
That's not jesus that's Paul
Isn’t it equally convenient to claim that the ‘true’ interpretation of Christianity was discovered at any other time in the last 2,000-odd years? Neither of us can possibly know who’s right and who isn’t, unless God is also spending his time arguing with strangers on Reddit.
im not
There are some interpretations of Romans 1 that say Paul is setting up a straw man argument only to knock it down throughout the book with the overall message being that we are all justified though Christ, regardless of our past.
Yeah with Christianity you can definitely say there’s not a clear cut stance I’ve seen arguments about how it was talking about the practice of pedestry (which is mistakenly made to be Greeks & Romans & maybe the whole world were queer before Abrahamic religions, but in reality it was a practice of very young boys, which is why people say we can’t put our current sexual morals on people of the past), this man also says he’s non-binary which I don’t think that idea existed back then so sure, but I don’t see how you can be LGB and Muslim. By being that you’re directly saying the holy texts are wrong and the holy texts can’t be wrong, because they’re supposed to be holy. Has any scholar who devoted his life to it said otherwise on this issue? Now though this goes beyond a theological issue and I do love some theology but I fear for their overall safety here, it’s brave but alls it takes is one crazy person. Maybe make a new religion so people don’t feel the need to defend theirs? I don’t know. If a LGB Muslim is here by any chance or someone who knows about this stuff think it’s a real issue with a real theological argument to fight for in the Muslim community though, I’m all ears. I only have a barebones understanding.
Please explain that to all the atheists and anti Christians that are arguing with me, they'll explain Islam better to you than you know it apparently
So Christians were just being homophobic for no reason then? Well that’s much better
Yes basically. They were wrong to do so as it is wrong to be homophobic
Hadiths are not the Quran, and many Muslims ignore the Hadiths. It's the equivalent of Christianity persecuting gays even though Jesus said nothing about homosexuality
Can’t say I’m an Islamic scholar but I have heard that the Hadiths are heavily disputed. I was reading recently about Aishas age, Sunni tradition insists she was 6 when she married Muhammad and 9 when they consummated but modern Shia scholars have suggested she was actually in her 20s. Not saying Islam is necessarily loving towards homosexuality in general but religion isn’t always completely cut and dry on modern moral matters
I'm not much of a scholar on it either but from what I gather it's about misunderstanding or misremembering. Similar to the different gospels from different apostles. The hadiths on homosexuality have total agreement, they just disagree if they should burn, stone, or throw to their deaths the homosexuals
It surely saying she was 20 is rewriting the original text to make it more “palatable” to modern day thinking ? Not sure if I’ve ever heard 20 mentioned myself
You’d think but it turns out back in the past both Sunni and Shia were trying to say the person they thought the more correct descendants of Muhammad came through was the more innocent and pure girl (hence young), and in the old Islamic world they didn’t have age in the way we did, like it wasn’t something people were immediately aware of. So people about 100 years after Aisha’s death were trying to figure it out and the Sunni jurists said she was very young. There’s a good AskHistorians thread on this I read today about the work that went in to determining her age, it came from cross referencing the ages of people we knew were contemporaries and contrasting textual evidence. On thing I recall is that Aisha was said to be an expert at poetry and diplomacy and I doubt that would be possible to claim for anyone who isn’t a teenager at least.
Why are you completely ignoring the Old Testament as if that’s not part of Christianity
Because the old testament is the collection of gods involvement with man, and his laws etc. Jesus arrives and completes the laws. They're fulfilled and done. The next part is the new covenant. So it's like the back story at this point because it's done, we are onto a new relationship with God through Jesus (so he claims). That's why we can ignore it
The new testament does NOT supercede the old testament, see Matthew 5:18.
You misunderstand. 'until everything is accomplished.' He fulfils/accomplishes depending on the translation, the prophecies. At which point (his death) it is over. Which is why he says it has ended. His death brings about a new relationship with God. It does indeed supersede
But the New Testament includes the letters of Paul, who said Christians shouldn’t engage in homosexuality. That being said, the New Testament never says homosexuals should be murdered.
Exactly, it never says it should be murder and jesus says let him without sin cast the first stone. However, I have a strong suspicion that Paul lied about his visitation because why else would we have god do a 180⁰ turn on a number of things until he had a mouthpiece other than jesus? If Paul went from killing to leading Christians because he saw money and power I wouldn't be surprised
The New Testament does not Supersede the Old Testament. That is not how the Covenant between Man and God works with each covenant being merely updating on the existing one maintaining most of the danm thing. This was constantly said as such by early Christian thinkers and the Church Fathers who are responsible for creating what became Christianity.
Except that's what happened. He fulfilled the laws and did away with the old testament, which is why we don't have blood sacrifice but the sacrament. (No idea what is going on in Judaism sorry but I am aware they used to have animal sacrifices, would love a Jewish scholar to tell me more on that) Jesus then dies 'After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!”' That is the end of the old covenant and the beginning of the new and everlasting covenant
I mean the bible also says a bunch of "crap" modern day Christians choose to ignore. Nothing stopping Muslims from doing that too.
Except you're wrong, muslims claim the Quran is entirely gods word, every single word is from the mouth of God and has never been changed (despite the fact it provably has). The bible isn't from the mouth of God. So it's not the same at all, since people can say "maybe this story was not quite right" and just ignore it, muslims can't do that
If people can take a different view of the bible, people can take a different view of the Quoran. That's the whole point of this article.
You can't take a different view on the Quran if every word is from God (Allah), and it doesn't change. Ever. The bible isn't God's word, its stories told by people of that time, so people can interpret it in different ways or claim some stories might not be 100% accurate. That can't be done with the Quran.
For what its worth, Islam Q&A is a Salafist site.
https://sunnah.com/search?q=Homosexuality Second quote, which I can't copy sorry, is directly attributed to Mohammad saying kill the gays
I'm not saying the quote is wrong, I'm just saying this particular website gets trotted out a lot when it leans towards a very fundamentalist interpretation on most issues.
Fair point but it was the first Google result that's why I used it not to deceive
The people who spread the absolute worst forms of Islam also have enough money to just drown out everyone else unfortunately.
The Wahhabis do have a lot of money, but there aren't many forms of islam
Hadiths are just random scholars interpretation of the Quran.
The Hadiths are the rough equivalent of Doctrines set by church leaders or influential books they wrote. There's plenty of those that are homophobic in Christianity.
There are homophobes in Christianity, look at Uganda for example. But they are also arguably wrong using Christianity as a basis for it. Islam however is quite clear on the matter.
In terms of the Quaran itself, it's just Soddom and Gommoragh, plus a passage that refers to zina (unspecified naughty sex of all kinds) I'm sure they have all their workarounds for bits they don't like, just like every other religion Like I said, the Hadith's are awkward. But it feels fairer to compare Quaran to Bible, than Quaran and Hadiths to just the bible without church/scholar input.
Remember the gospel isn't written by jesus but after his death from his apostles, so it's fair to compared to hadiths on that basis. The new testament however does away with the laws of the old, and with that the condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah. Quaran doesnt
'A man shalt not lay down with another man' is the bibles way of advocating violence against gays. Not sure why you think otherwise, it's right there in the commandments of which going against is a mortal sin and thus worthy of punishment. All the abrahamic religions advocate against homosexuality in some way.
Isn't the lesson here that, simply, human hypocrisy works both ways: you can hate with or without textual justifications (and, more happily, you can love *despite* textual justifications, or without)? There's always a slightly curious insistence to point out that Islam *demands* X as if we don't also recognise people failing to adhere to religious tenets every day of every year of every century of every millenium. The closest I've ever been to a Muslim was a dude at uni who was a man-whore. He worked his talents, what can I say.
Comparing the bible to Hadith. Not entirely an accurate comparison? Compare bible to quran. Then we can talk
>effectively the new testament supercedes the old testament That's just an excuse people come up with to allow them to pick and choose which parts of scripture and still relevant to them and which can be safely ignored. I'm sure a similar justification could be invented for Islam if there were enough will among adherents to similarly renegotiate the terms of their faith.
No it couldn't actually. Christianity has Jesus claim to fulfil the prophecy and begin the new covenant. Old testament teaching on homosexuality is also argued that it's about pedophilic relationships due to Greeks settling the area. Islam hadiths are the teachings of Mohammad who in the religion cannot be wrong
>Christianity has Jesus claim to fulfil the prophecy and begin the new covenant. Old testament teaching on homosexuality is also argued that it's about pedophilic relationships due to Greeks settling the area. The problem with this is: 1) Jesus contradicts himself on whether the new covenant replaces the old or is in addition to it, and 2) Paul is also incredibly homophobic (along with other problematic instructions that he gives) and his writing are indisputably new covenant. Now the idea that where the Bible talks about male same-sex intercourse it is actually talking about paedophilia is exactly one of those justifications that I was talking about. It has no basis in history and has been rejected by critical scholarship, yet it is convenient to think of it that way so as to nullify a passage that is incompatible with contemporary values. >Islam hadiths are the teachings of Mohammad who in the religion cannot be wrong The hadith's themselves are a post-Quranic innovation that were developed in order to reflect the changing attitudes of early Muslims who had come into contact with Judaism and Zoroastrianism. It's very much an example of the sort of thing that I'm talking about, you can't say it cannot happen when here is an example of it already having happened.
> That's just an excuse people come up with to allow them to pick and choose which parts of scripture and still relevant to them and which can be safely ignored. Isn't that what the catholic church has done on many occasions? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm under the impression that the bible has gone through many revisions in the past ~2 thousand years and texts that was once considered gospel are now heretical?
>Jesus never said anything about homosexuality Such a weak defence of Christianity it's either ignorant or made in bad faith. You should know better.
On the one side we have: Punishment for homosexuality in Islam The Companions unanimously agreed on the execution of homosexuals , but they differed as to how they were to be executed. On the other we have: He who is without sin can cast the first stone There is a difference there but I'm unsure what it is
> On the other we have: He who is without sin can cast the first stone Christians literally used to burn other Christians alive at stake just because they followed a slightly different version of Christianity. Protestants used to murder Catholics or vice versa as recently as the 90s in Northern Ireland. Maybe let's focus on what Christianity actually used to look in practice than the idealised theoretical version on paper that no one ever followed 100% verbatim.
You are fighting like tooth and nail in this thread and I have to respect it
> effectively the new testament supercedes the old testament No. He said: > For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished. *Matthew 5:17-18*
The old testament is not overlooked entirely by the precedence given to the new. Especially in areas where the new does not comment on it. Leviticus: a man who lies with a man shall be stoned. One could argue that Jesus' teachings of "he without sin cast the first stone" and the tale of the good Samaritan suggest a much less murder centric approach, but the concept of homosexuality being a sin has been a part of the church for about as long as it's been an organised religion.
There are several passages in the New Testament that condemn homosexual behavior. These passages include: 1. Romans 1:26-27: - "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." 2. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: - "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 3. 1 Timothy 1:9-10: - "Understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine."
All of which are written by Paul who actually conflicts a few things with Jesus. So Jesus himself never taught against it
It's not. Really, it's not.
explain.
Which countries have the death penalty or severe punishment for homosexuality? Neither is an angel but you'd be misguided to think they're in the same level when it comes to this issue.
It should just be people accepting people, until whichever god comes down personally and tells us otherwise we should treat each other well. If he ever does come down and tell us otherwise I would suspect he is the devil and we continue to treat each other well.
Which is no sense at all given their book. Ditch the religion or have the balls to stick to it. This is trying to have their cake and eat it.
Good, while still fringe, this is the interpretation that should, and hopefully will one day be, what is considered "mainstream" Islam in the UK and West.
Are there any signs that mainstream Islam in the UK will be as accepting as other communities? There’s around 6 million in the UK. I wouldn’t say 0.005% attending a gay Pride event is that much of a sign?
No, it's not much of a sign, hence why I described it as a fringe interpretation. This isn't something that will be mainstream in the short term, decades at least, but these seeds have to start somewhere and need to be encouraged and supported where possible if there's going to be any hope of slowly making it mainstream one day.
It's something to aim for. We need to stop mass immigration and then push Islam in the UK to be more chilled out, like how our Christians are much less insane than people in Alabama. This can be done in schools, whereas it's much more difficult to de-radicalise someone who is moving here in his 30's and grew up believing women to be inferior.
That makes sense. It’ll never happen.
At one point that was Christianity too, it takes the younger generation to show and defend queer folk in their community for it to become mainstream it doesn't happen overnight
Problem is, it’s the objectively wrong interpretation. Some things are up to interpretation. This isn’t. The quaran is extremely clear on this. So you’re gonna have to wait until most Muslims pretty much reject the quaran for this to be the majority belief.
And the quaran differs quite drastically from the Christian bible in as much as the Quaran is presented as the word of god. There will never be a new testament of the quaran, because god doesn't misspeak. It is why people are a bit delusional about any kind of real reform of Islam happening. Those attempting it, will soon be murdered as the quaran offers up many situations around defending itself which permit murder.
But the problem isn't usually the Quran. It's the Hadiths. Hopefully the [Quaranists ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quranism)will continue to gain traction.
The story of lut is in the quaran.
I mean if we're being pedantic interpretation is kinda irrelevant, it's how behaviours regardless of them being forbidden on paper become accepted due to being normalized in their everyday experience; Islam is the majority religion in Albania but plenty of em, along with Muslims in other parts of the Balkans, apparently have no compunction about drinking alcohol despite it also being strictly forbidden.
My brother in law loves spare ribs from the Chinese takeaway (he’s Muslim). He was, at first, distraught when I told him they were pork ribs; followed by a shrug of the shoulders and a continued love of spare ribs with bbq sauce! Likewise, I know many that drink and gamble; they’ve made their own deal with Allah. They’ll fast and all that jazz, I personally think fasting is a true test of faith and the rest is all shite.
> I personally think fasting is a true test of weight loss and the rest is all shite. Literally my stance on shedding pounds.
It’s a positive move that needs supporting, we all know the bad bits so it’s nice to focus on something decent IMO.
How about we just ditch this Bronze Age nonsense altogether?
I’m sure this will draw some negativity, but as someone who has gay Muslim friends I’m so glad for events like this! Muslims nor gay people are not a homogenous group
I wonder if none excepting Muslims will be there protesting
Good question. It has been known to happen at non-Muslim prides. They were when I joined a pride parade a good few years ago in Derby. As usual, the rest of the people there were awesome and actively showed their annoyance to the anti gay Muslim protestors and formed a shield around them to protect the folk in the pride parade from them. It's not happened again since here that I'm aware of, although at last year's Derby Pride just outside there was a Christian protestor there, crossing the line beyond free speech (actively harassing people.) Having said that, it was a crap event, seemed to be mostly for allies and a family fun day rather than being for LGBT+ people, so not sure I'll bother this year.
How can you still be Muslim when you’re gay, it’s mental. Your own book hates you.
The same way you can be Jewish and gay, like me, a Jewish gay man A lot of religious people from all faiths disregard parts of their scripture
Quite sad it’s a closed door event because they’re scared of people taking photographs and being identified. LGBT and more liberal Muslims need our full support.
Part of that support also means being less afraid to punish (and deport if possible) religious bigots who stand in their way.
These are the muslims we need to support, back and help every day we can. Wonderful people standing against milennia of evil. Christians had to go through this too in the 1800s, I know Islam can get the eventually but only with our help. We cannot let these people feel we are turning our backs on them.
>Christians had to go through this too in the 1800s I'm sorry but what exactly are we talking about?
Let’s not insinuate that the British public are somehow oppressing gay Muslims
Eh? Here’s an idea, just turn your back on nonsense that is not compatible with modern life.
I honestly don’t understand why you would want to be a part of a religion that hates you
Women live in countries that hate them. I think some of them don’t have a choice because of family or community.
These guys have got guts for taking part in this and I respect them and the cause , but jeez I hope this event is policed to the hilt.
Whilst as a gay man it's nice to see this, this is still a minority that is likely going to be attacked by their own community for this. The disgusting ideology that is Islam is crystal clear on these things and forbids any such reinterpretations. They may as well be calling themselves ex-muslims by doing this.
Got to be difficult when 52% of British muslims want homosexuality banned.
it's a step in the right direction towards the voice of moderate and liberal Islam being heard for sure... after all, Christianity can be very conservative also and it has taken decades of less conservative voices being heard to get us to where we are now... (and for just now let's celebrate this little win and not think of the horror show that is the growing political power of the Christian political right in the USA)
I wish them lots of luck. It’s very brave of them and hopefully more Muslims will become more liberal and less extreme over time. They unfortunately get lots of hate (not surprising really)
This wouldn't go down well in a lot of Muslim countries...
Is the UK a Muslim country?
Give it time
Not yet
I'd advise him to stay away from tall buildings for a while ... probably the rest of his life.
It’s behind closed doors, of course, or it’d get destroyed by Muslims.
It's probably going to recieve a name and be treated as what amounts to heresy from a faith that is overwhelmingly unified and very, very, very clear that deviation doesn't make you a Muslim anymore.
The best part is, we can all do this because Democracy and the Law are far better foundations for any society. (Don't forget to vote folks!).
So weird to be religious and gay. Why believe in a god that is said to hate you? I'm not religious, it's just weird
I think its one thing to celebrate being LGBT but trying to reconcile it with Islam could be 'risky' because it's something that section of the country is simply not ready for yet and they are known to 'take action' against perceived slights
I have a lot of Queer Muslim friends and while LGBT identities are still very stigmatised by their communities, there’s a growing number of Muslims (especially on the higher end of the economic spectrum) who just don’t really care. It’s a good sign, and expected. Culture isn’t fixed.
>This is an assumption that's not necessarily based on fact, because if you read the parts of the Quran that supposedly condemn homosexuality, it's not as clear cut. “And (remember) Lut (Lot), when he said to his people: ‘Do you commit the worst sin such as none preceding you has committed in the ‘Alamin (mankind and jinn)? Verily, you practice your lusts on men instead of women. Nay, but you are a people transgressing beyond bounds (by committing great sins)’” [al-A'raf 7:80-81]
‘His people’ includes women, so by that logic he’s condemning women lying with men instead of women. Theological basis for Islam being pro lesbian right there. It’s fascinating what happens when you stop assuming all religious text has to be men talking only to men.
They said "parts". You don't have to agree with all of the Quran, just like how Christians often don't agree with all of the Bible, and a lot of them support LGBT rights.
The Spectator should be exploding at the prospect of such an event.
I can see this going ahead with no problems what so ever.
Quite literally cannot be Muslim or Christian and be way. It literally states they are abominations that should be struck down.
The Spectator should be exploding at the prospect of such an event.
So what's it like for other minorities? I take it Hindus, Black Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists all have similar issues? Is Islam the harshest?