Good news, but unfortunately this takes places in Turkey because the Arab Muslim 'Scholars' would just say,

"With this fatwa we denounce the heretical belief of the Turkish heathens. Those who follow them will burn in the deepest level of hell forever. Now lets continue our worship of Master Muhammad, may our parents be sacrificed for him."

And the rest of the Muslim world would follow because lets face it average Muslims see the Arabs as the 'guardians' of Islam ...

LOL

You've got that right, reminds me of the Pakistani women being told by an arab that she wasn't a 'real Muslim' because she converted (well, her forbearers). I always wonder those who make the claim, do they realise who was worshipping what before Muhammad arrived on the scene?

Salaam

How long do you think would it take to seperate beds.... and in taking these two steps how could an angry man maintain his anger? We are not talking about the Simpsons but of one person burning with rage and another the victim. This verse is preventing a man from losing his self control.

Pardon, I don't know what you're fixated on the Simpsons. The Simpsons remark was a tongue 'n cheek poke at the fact that you can have all the steps in the world but men will find some way of getting through that 'process' as fast as they want. Even putting the word 'beat' gives the person 'legitimacy' when they claim that what the wife did was so bad he justifies that he can jump straight to beat and skip those steps. The best way to avoid it, is to get rid of it - then it has no legitimacy.

Citation? Oftentimes the quran speaks about Jews & Christians in a specific context.

Pick up the Quran and refer to the 'unbelievers' - commonly put in brackets and exegesis's as 'Christians, Jews and Pagans'. Its littered right through the book; what I care about isn't the 'sanitised version' but the one which everyone else subscribes to, what the Muslim world believes.

Salam,
Respectfully.

Hadith followers ... what more can we say?
They were raised like that, to believe like this, to dress like that and have beards or eat onlt at the places where it is halal meat .....

Today's scholars are like agents from the Matrix.
They want control and they get it because people like Cipher simply like, no, wait, love that kind of life. Why? Why would anyone love a lie knowing it is a lie?
Well, it is like with today's Christians they feel safe and secure thinking that Jesus will take their sins so they kill, gamble, fornicate and rape. Not all the Christians but to name some George Bush, ..... you know, people who see religion as a game.

I have nothing against Christians nor against hadith followers because soon they might become true and real Muslims, God willing.

Peace.

You find that those who say that 'faiths fixes all' are from the Protestant denominations; actions and beliefs are important within Catholicism, that is why, for example, when you go to do reconciliation you not only confess your sins, you also have to do something afterwards for penance; to right the wrong. I've always said that Christianity gives people a licence to do what they want under the guise of 'it doesn't matter'.

The call for reform must also be met by Muslims in the form of accepting the need for this reformation. Unless the Muslims of the world get behind it (along with the major Islamic powers that be), there will be no progress except for this to become yet another piece of academic wankery with idealistic goals but no grounding in the reality of what's on the ground.

Salaam Hassan
This is a good, simple and IMO logical video asking for a simple explanation of verse 34 of Al Nisa. I tried to respond on u tube but I am not a member so may be you could send this reply.

I believe the Surah deals with the issue of Domestic violence which always occurs due to a sudden lost of self control. This verse simply stops a man from losing that vital self control.
The first two steps admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds,.. are vital steps in exercising the important aspects of cooling anger. If men were to follow this procedure the case of domestic violence will not happen at all.

Best regards
farida

True, but it depends on how fast they go through those steps. It reminds me of the Simpsons who went through the steps of grieving in 5 minutes.

Peace UncleCasual,
I graduated from high school 4 years ago and I remember it was pretty bad if you were anything other than a partier. Although I didn't follow any religion at the time I was still picked on because I believed in God and because of my Muslim Heritage/Name. But it got better after I grew older and learned to keep my mouth shut about my beliefs.

I was probably lucky in that I went to a private school for my last two years of college before going off to Polytech.

As for what I did; working and running my own business were of greater concern than partying and bed-post-notch boasting.

Hmm Quran.. Gay. Forbidden. Hellfire. And who is it that God saves on Judgement Day? The Believers.

Interesting, and the Quran says the same about Christians and Jews...oops, but that was earlier on, and the condemnation was said when he moved to Madina, so which one takes precedence? how can a 'timeless and infallible book' say two things in the same book? contradiction?

Bestiality should be valid. Animals don't give consent because animals DONT HAVE THE POWER TO GIVE CONSENT.

What would be a worse crime than bestiality?

Enslavement perhaps? Is enslavement of animals done with their consent?

Murder perhaps? Is murder of animals done with their consent?

etc, etc, etc.

Every human on Earth has both of those misdeeds in their blood.

So I take it you're a vegetarian.

Hmm, one can say that the Quran allows you to do something, but it doesn't mean that you should do that. I have the belief that you can't make something Haraam Halal but if something that is halal causes harm, then it should be made haraam - in the case of beating

Peace "albruni",
JK- Well this is exactly the problem. How do you know the narrators were honest? How do you know the chain is unbroken? You never met them in person and you have no archeological evidence to back any of this up. All you have is writings here and there. How is any of that trustworthy? They are mostly if not all biased sources. GOD Bless!

That reminds me of the 'music' argument - whether it is allowed or not.

A large part of their 'hated of music' is invoked off hadith or poorly contextualised Quranic quotation.

I think the best course of action would be to accept that the study of the Quran is still a work in progress; as long as we accept this 'work in progress' hopefully things won't get set in stone only to find that in years to come, proven wrong.

Dear friends

Years ago, while I was a student at the University of Arizona College of Law, I had a debate with my classmate on this subject. You might find the discussion interesting and revealing

http//www.yuksel.org/e/law/homo.htm

Edip

I find your evidence hard to come by given you refer to 'conversion' and yet ignore the aftermath of those so-called conversions - or even ignore the stupidity of the methodology involved with these conversions. The methods used as equal to that of England 1000 years ago where people would eat bread and salt over a dead body to remove sins before it would go into the after life.

As for you 'entitlement' my view is that the tax system should be neutral as to whether you're married, single or what have you. Your relationship status shouldn't play role in how much (or how little tax you pay). For those arrangements pertaining to the protections under marriage, one should be allowed to set up a contract with whom ever they so wish in regards to inheritance, bereavement and so forth.

Regarding the state, the state should be neutral on matters of morality where by consenting adults engage in something which both agree to. If those adults wish to have swingers parties then so be it, if they so wish to grow weed and have a bong inhaling party, then so be it. If two men or two women wish to settle down and be a couple, then so be it. The government should have no role in the regulating the private affairs of individuals as so long as there is nothing negative that can cause harm to society outside the 'morality boogieman'.

In short, if I'm not harming anyone, leave me alone. Me having a long term relationship with a guy is hurting no one except your ego driven wet dream of 'moralising the planet' in the name of 'the power of lord jesus christ' (or what any other boogie man name you should to invoke over others).

Edit You invokation of the following

I think those who prefer bestiality, incest, polygamy, child pornography and torturing animals are similarly situated with homosexuals

Really does show out of touch with reality you are. Heck, why not talk about a elephant driving a mini with a pink tutu if you're going to drag in irrelevant side shows into the discussion. It proves nothing. Child pornography is the infringement up on the rights of the child and because they need to be a consenting age, their rights would be violated. Torturing animals, again, their right to 'live' out weighs your right to be a sadistic psychopath. Bestiality because it can't give consent, thus, is still charged but under the mistreatment of animals act/animal abuse act.

Incest is a special topic, as to whether it can be banned after two (or more) have reached consenting age - would be a good discussion; assumine one could impose limits; they could have sex but could not have children due to the rights of the potential child to live a normal life has been taken away. (Edit Normal pertaining to the health of the child, not the relationship status of the parents involved).

Regarding polygamy, for me, its a non-issue. Like I said, it isn't the governments role to regulate the internal activities of consenting adults - since we're talking about the idealised state where peoples relationship status doesn't dictate the level of tax or welfare they receive (assuming there is going to be welfare to begin with), it should be a non-issue.

Edit 2 Regarding the constitution, I believe that it it is the role of the supreme court to enforce the constitution as it is, not as they think it should be. I remember seeing the Massachusetts supreme court claim that because the marriage law doesn't explicitly state 'man and women' it some how means that it (along with the constitution) allows same sex marriage. What ever happened to the understanding of law in two parts; the literal and spirit of the law. If a law doesn't invoke 'man and women' then its pretty obvious that the spirit of the law, when written, was that only men and women were ever to get married in the first place.

In the case of homosexuality, it should have been legalised through the congress/senate/president, just as in New Zealand we have the homosexual reform act which passed through parliament on a conscience vote (MP's were free to vote by their conscience rather than party) in 1986.

Salam Brother,

Ok leave the flaws , will you follow the minor hadiths which are right at least.you might say no because you want to follow the numbers to understand the quran.

Wasalam,
A.Albruni

Although thought I have an extensive Hadith collection I tend to use them rarely because I would prefer being 100% Quran rather than going off resorting to books with errors and haven't been approved by God.

Yeah, I would have thought Google would be good enough. Apparently not. Would the LGBT community have changed since then? I have no idea, there are better things to spend time following up on. Lobster asked about how harm can arise from homosexuality - there it is.

Now, it demonstrates what promiscurity can do, nothing to do with homosexuality.

And again - you can keep on using your emotional appeals and your strawman arguments - your position is indefensible from a quranic point of view.

Oh yes, back to the 'indefensible. I offered a 'we have different opinions' and to drop the issue but you couldn't shut your trap. It really goes to show that when it comes to debating, you go back in a circle instead of following up what I said. Again, none of what you have provided shows any cause and effect between homosexuality and bad outcomes. You've demonstrated gays who make stupid choices, just like I could point out heterosexuals making stupid decisions, but you have failed that one causes the other - that homosexuality as a sexuality by itself causes promiscuity which then causes everything else.

You also failed to demonstrate that Lot talks about homosexuality when you fail to look at the history of the said place; again, you fail to do your homework. Keep ignorant, keep stupid, and keep regurgitating crap which makes little or no sense.

Peace Kaiwai

You have not answered how you condone the practice of homosexuality in the context of the quran. I asked what type of union marriage is in the quran, can you speak on that?

Joe

A union is not needed because of the context of the Quran, the idea of a marriage is the provide a stable home for the event of pregnancy and to protect the progeny of the family. The fact that I can never get pregnant makes it a non issue. Marriage is an institution for procreation, plain and simple. Look a the Quran in context to Arabia prior to the revelation and you'll see why marriage was a must in the context of heterosexual sex. Alot of Quran readers refuse to learn that history.

Edit The first two chapters of "The Life of Muhammad" by Muhammad Haykal talks about Arabia at that time.

As for homosexuals within the context of the Quran, we shouldn't be promiscuous. In my case, my ideal is to settle down with a partner, and stay together till we're old, grey and die of old age. I don't consider that evil, depraved or bad. You think I should settle down with a female whom I will never have sex with? I'll end up having a dysfunctional relationship with?

As for SkyIron; nice to see you quote research, all of it based on PERSONAL LIFESTYLE CHOICE. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH HOMOSEXUALITY. If a person chooses to be promiscuous, that is a choice they made in their own right, no one else's. I choose not to be promiscuous, and I am gay - so how do you match that up with your twisted version of reality?

Regarding the mental health issues; again, it never addresses cause and affect. There are a large number of painters and artists of various backgrounds who have mental illness of one form or another, does that mean that art causes mental illness? of course not! stop being so bloody absurd you would say. I say that your attempt to link homosexuality with mental illness is just as absurd.

Oh, and all the 'diseases' can all be avoided through using a condom and not being promiscuous - again LIFESTYLE CHOICES.

As for the life expectancy, using 20 year old statistics! how desperate are they? first you guys using a study from 28 years ago, and now one from 20 years ago! good gracious! Heck, even gay men in New Zealand will tell you that my generation have become safe sex fundamentalists and demanding that monogamous actually means a one on one. long term committed relationship. So even gays of the old school admit things have changed in 20 years! Heck studies in New Zealand show that safe sex in the 20 category within the gay community is HIGHER than in the heterosexual community!

So I can't work out where you get your facts from or where the so-called Catholic Education did.

Peace

Sex is the primary means for procreation. When a man is stimulated, behold, he ejaculates his seed, for what purpose, to procreate. The penis has two basic jobs, to release bodily fluids and to release semen. I'm sure gay men ejaculate as well. Well why? Their original purpose was to impregnate females, now they're putting the semen to no use, or perhaps maybe to some use in a kinky sort of way, but that's another story.

Joe

And again, I assume you only have sex for procreation, because by going by your benchmark, anything other than sex for procreation, and if you use anything which prohibits the possible of impregnation, it is haraam.

Again, are you saying here that you (assuming you're married) only have sex for procreation - the idea of using it to express love at the most intimate level through sexual intercourse has nothing to do with the purpose of sex?

If that is your view, then you have a very shallow view on life - a very shallow one indeed.

Zing! That's promiscuity.

Your excuse for homosexuality is as follows "I pay taxes". Well, so do I. That doesn't entitle me to go shag a cow. (here, is an analogy, and no, we are not talking about the finer details of shagging cows, such as consent)

Where is your proof that "heterosexuals have more kids than they can afford AND expect homosexuals to pay for it"? Chances are, the people having more kids than they can afford a.) pay for it themselves and get in debt or b.) leech of the state and get paid by everyone, no discrimination involved or c.) die off from starvation.

You can keep jamming as many strawman arguments as you like, it won't change a thing.

Interesting how you're not intellectually honest enough to quote the source

http//www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1704818

Also, nice to see you quote a study from 28 years ago - surprisingly, a lot of things have changed in the GLBT community.

For a person who claims he doesn't hate homosexuals you sure do a lot of really crummy research.

Are you by chance related to the well known falsifier of facts Paul Drummond Cameron?

Oh, and btw, sex is for more than just procreation. I'd hate to be married to you if sex was only used for procreation.

Greetings Albruni,

Name ONE hadith you?re certain is true and why it should be appended to Qur?an?

Please take your time (see 1736 on hearsay) staking your soul on this regardless if its good advice.

Peace

Just a side issue; am I correct in assuming that the Hadith should be consistent with the Quran? If the Quran says it is perfect, and there is a hadith which says the opposite, is it correct in assuming that the hadith is wrong?

Those "problems" are a result of promiscuity, not heterosexual sex. The lack of funds to properly look after the child? Not if you're in the UK. The lack of planning of parents - that can't be solved without major reform. It doesn't happen so much in "muslim" communities, does it? The possibility of a child becoming a criminal? ) Maybe the earth will explode as a result of heterosexuals. It still provides no case for homosexuality.

Quranically - if you're gay, keep it to yourself or be punished. Likewise for heterosexuals.

Promiscuity - what the hell are you on about?

It does happen in Muslim communities, people having too many bloody children they can't afford to bloody feed (whilst married) then expecting ME, Joe Homo, the one whom they hate with a vicious vengeance, and would love to see stoned to death, subsidise their lifestyle of debauchery.

I'm sorry, but you can crap on about promiscuity till the cows come home, but until you heterosexuals collectively get your house in order, and stop expecting me to pay for your lifestyle choice of having more kids than you can afford, I'll keep living my depraved life thank you very much. Whilst we're at it, maybe we can construct a list of things you can't use because a gay was involved in the production some where - just to ensure that your home hasn't be 'ruined' by the stench of homosexuality.

I am a little curious. Where in the Quran, exactly, is homosexual behaviour between two females condemned. I have seen that Lot's story points to men, which is not surprising since oral and anal sex cause their own special problems, oral cancer and blood poisoning respectively, among other things. If something isn't forbidden in the Quran, it is allowed, in my opinion. Since lesbianism isn't forbidden explicitly anywhere, where is the justification for lumping it with the behaviour of gay men.
I would really like to know the Quran's ruling on this, so please reply to this.

Isn't one ignoring all the possible problems with heterosexual sex? the unwanted pregnancies, the lack of funds to properly look after the child, the lack of planning by parents these days (then expecting the tax payer to fund their lifestyle choice), then there is the possibility of the child becoming a criminal liability on society (more money down the drain). To put everything into heterosexual = good, homosexual = bad, is pretty simplistic.

As for a previous post regarding homosexuality - stop acting like a child running around going, "eww, he has cooties! I might get gay off him!" - you're either gay or straight, people don't choose to be gay or straight, no matter how much pratts on this forum would like to think otherwise. For every one 'depraved faggot' some where would like to point out, I can point out at least two dozen heterosexual couples who are liabilities on society.

PS. Case in point, look at the statistics in New Zealand for 'working for families'; 'depraved faggots' like me are subsidising half the nation because half the nation choose not to take precautions and plan their families.