5 Myth about Islam

reply to post by babloyi


Can you please point me to the verse where it shows condemnation of Homosexuality please.

Thanks in advance.

Why do I ask?

Because I thought Homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness in some Muslim nations in the past.

reply to post by kakadudless


They're a bit long, so I've linked the verses rather than post them directly here. As I said, they're mostly references to the iniquities of the people of Lot. There are several relevant verses, but they all follow this same pattern:

Surah Al-Araf, verse 80-84

reply to post by babloyi


Heres an interesting article on the bektashi order. Bektashi

It appears that they are regarded as heretics, so thats good news (for muslims). It wouldnt reflect nicely on Islam if an order as morally rephrehensible as this one were condoned by Islam.

I mention them because the Bektashi were very instrumental in the formulation of Sabbatean doctrine (of the jewish false messiah, Shabtai Tzvi), the core theology of which was gnosticism and an overall pagan existentialism/liberalism - an 'everything is sacred' spirituality. The sabbateans do not look down on homosexuality and indeed certain rites and rituals require it. This of course is associated with demonology which requires the engagement in counter-intuitive and essentially morally defunct practices. The Bektashi Order has an akin theology, based on this article i linked. but there isnt any explicit mention of homosexuality. but than again, thats one of those more esoteric and internal matters that theyd probably prefer not to mention.

After being excommunicated by Europes Rabbis, Shabbtai, on order by the ottoman sultan of the time (again, another indicator that this mentality might be dominant among the elite islamic clerics - the ottoman empire being the last islamic caliphate. The fact that shabbtai was "pressured" (and i say this sacrastically) by the ottoman king to convert, indicates a difference in theology between the lower down sufis/muslims and those involved with government.

Sabbatai was taken from Abydos to Adrianople, where the sultan's physician, a former Jew, advised him to convert to Islam. On the following day (September 16, 1666), brought before the sultan, he cast off his Jewish garb and put a Turkish turban on his head. Thus his conversion to Islam was accomplished. The sultan was much pleased, and rewarded Sabbatai by conferring the title (Mahmed) Effendi, and appointing him as his doorkeeper with a high salary. Sarah and a number of Sabbatai's followers also went over to Islam. About 300 families converted and were known as dönmeh (converts).[3] The sultan's officials ordered Sabbatai to take an additional wife to demonstrate his conversion. Some days after his conversion he wrote to Smyrna: "God has made me an Ishmaelite; He commanded, and it was done. The ninth day of my regeneration."
Wikipedia

His successor, jacob frank, who claimed to be Tzvi's reincarnation, converted with many of his followers to catholicism. He to endorsed the same gnostic spirituality. Just as Tzvi became and an ishmaelite, and recorded the fact upon his conversion, so to Frank when he converted said

But you will be only present at the likeness of that event…because when we shall come to Esau (the Roman Catholic Church) only then will be fulfilled ‘The Lord appeared to me from afar’ (Jeremiah 31: 3). Only there (Tam) and then we will put on the robe of Esau…”
Miriam ha Kedosha Queen of Zion: Jacob Frank and the Zoharist Catholic Khasidim

Whats also interesting is that Jacob Frank wanted to unite Jacob, Esau and Ishmael (Jews, Christians and Muslims).

Franks Godfather in his baptism to catholicism was Augustus III of Poland. And Tzvi converted in front of the sultan Mehmed IV. Is this coincidence? It sounds like the elite are very deeply involved with the corruption of Judaism and a need to bring Jacob (Jews) together with Ishmael (islam) and Esau (christianity)

Infact, i have read that this war being waged between the christian west and the islamic east is designed to result in a synthesis (between the thesis and antithesis of christianity and islam) between the two religions. Both the leading clerics and elites in the west are involved in this.


Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.
From the Terms & Conditions:Proper Attribution for the posting of copyrighted material owned by others is defined as posting a relevant snippet of the online content not to exceed 10% of the entire piece, a properly formed link back to the source website, and a clear indication of the name of the source website

I'm not a fan of Islam, and while I know not every Muslim is a terrorist fanatic, it does have big enough element within it to not turn a blind eye. One thing that gets me, is these Muslim women who wear a hijab, not to mention burka, and they say it is their Islam, that's what they say, even western convert women, they don't say it's a cultural thing, they say it's a religious(mandate?). But of course many Muslim women do not wear such things, and there is no Koranic injunction to wear these things, I don't even think the Hadith commands it, and Muslims really follow the Hadith more than the Koran, or Qu'ran. But, I see often, hijabed or veiled Muslim women, walking with their clean shaven husband, yet, the Hadith says for men to keep a beard. So the men can disobey at will, and the women blindly follow some "rule" that doesn't even exist? It just don't make sense to me. I do like the small but sensible school of Quran Only Islam, of Rashid Khalifa(and probably others) that says the Haditha, Sunna, and Sharia are against the teachings of the Quran. If Islam was followed like that, as a personal faith of choice, then it would not be the mess it seems to be.

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by kakadudless

 

They're a bit long, so I've linked the verses rather than post them directly here. As I said, they're mostly references to the iniquities of the people of Lot. There are several relevant verses, but they all follow this same pattern:

Surah Al-Araf, verse 80-84

I agree that Quran is against Homosexuality, what I'm trying to figure out, is whether Islam regards homosexuality as a mental illness.

I remember reading a verse which stated the punishment for homosexuality is confinement until death, unless GOD provides another way.

Then another verse states they should be punished (confinement), but if they repent then let them go.

reply to post by kakadudless


If Islam regards homosexuality as wrong, than it follows that one who seeks to find pleasure through such illict means is mentally (spiritually) ill.

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by oozyism

 

Can you prove that last statement? Funny, all of the people I know do not spend that much time infront of the tv, are well read and tend to put thought into what comes across, or they hear, taking a very close look at such, to include about Islam and what Muslims believe. But I do not believe they are stupid, that is like stating all those who go to church and listen to a man, who studies a particular religion, are stupid. Is that what you are stating?

Muslims only listen to Clerics one a week, on Friday.

While Westerners watch TV in daily bases. At least the majority, from infants, to old men and women.

OP, you seem to lay a lot of the blame on the dominant mass media's representations of "Islam", and to a certain extent you are right to want more balanced representations. It is also understandable that you would want to defend your faith however, it would be foolhardy of you to deny that there are certain factions/sects or movements within Islam that are politically and culturally motivated. Just as the average Catholic or Jew has no control over the power plays within the upper levels of the hierarchy, the same with the average Muslim but political and religious leaders deserve critique. It is OK to question Islam, isn't it?

I do not support the thesis of the clash of civilisations but I do support the SECULAR STATE! I am very wary of creeping sharia.

OP I urge you to read the following website, you might change your opinions.

Suppose you stumbled upon the Constitution of an organization that was terrorizing the world. Would you ignore such a document, or would you read it? Suppose you discovered that this Constitution's most prominent themes were pain and punishment, thievery and violence, intolerance and war. If the regime's charter ordered its devotees to kill, plunder, and terrorize, would you sound an alarm? What if this Constitution was supported by a manifesto that contained the only authorized biography of the regime's founder, and the first devotees of this doctrine, its co-founders, said that their leader was a sexual predator, a pirate, and a terrorist? If you found such evidence, what would you do with it? What if this leader motivated his mercenaries to murder and mayhem by allowing them to keep what they had stolen in the name of the cause - their victim's homes, businesses, money - even their women and children?

prophetofdoom.net...

reply to post by kakadudless

I apologise at not being able to help- all I can provide are the Quranic verses. The Hadith collections that speak about homosexuality are the lesser known ones, and unfortunately, I don't have a copy of those books. So I wouldn't know. Perhaps someone else with more knowledge could help.

reply to post by deessell

But see, the thing that most people don't realise, is that Islam isn't an "organised religion", in the sense that most take it. It has no hierarchy of priests or anything like that.

As oozy said, the muslim Imam's (I hesitate to call him a "cleric", because in the traditional sense, he is not) job is only to lead the muslims in prayer. Once a week on friday (and on the religiously significant holidays like eid) he gives a sermon. He has no more authority to be giving religious injunctions or fatwas than I do, and nobody is under any obligation to be following him just because he said something.

The Imam is generally chosen out of the congregation, finding the eldest able person, or the most islamically knowledgeable person, although most mosques have an permanent imam who leads the prayer every day. This imam doesn't have a "higher imam" he has to report to, and has no other special function in the community.

PS: On the first page of that website you linked, the fellow claims to use Ibn Ishaq's Sirat, and Tabari's History as "the most reliable scriptural sources". Problem is, neither is part of the Islamic scripture, and much of it is unverifiable, and thus considered untrustworthy by Islamic scholars. They may make interesting studies of the idea of Muhammad at the time of the authorship, but neither is in any way considered "canon".

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by dontreally

 

The 72 virgin is also in the Bible.
Just to add.

Chapter and verse, please.
But I warn you in advance, you can't produce chapter and verse, because it's not in there.

Rest assured, LIW, there is no promise like that in the bible.
Oozy has a habit of making things up like this.

reply to post by babloyi


I'm not sure why you chose to focus on that aspect from the website. Did you read further? The man has spent 10,000 hours studying Islam.

The documented references in Prophet of Doom were derived from English translations of the following ancient Islamic manuscripts. I encourage you to purchase and read them. The Sirat Rasul Allah was written by Ibn Ishaq in 750 A.D. It was edited and abridged by Ibn Hisham in 830 and translated by Alfred Guillaume under the title, The Life of Muhammad in 1955 by Oxford Press. The History of al-Tabari was written by Abu Muhammad bin al-Tabari between 870 and 920 A.D. His monumental work was translated and published in 1987 through 1997 by the State University of New York Press. I quote from volumes I, II, VI, VII, VIII, and IX. Al-Bukhari's Hadith, titled: Sahih Al-Bukhari and The True Traditions was collected by Imam Bukhari in 850 A.D. I have used the collector's original nomenclature because the only printed English translation (Publisher-Maktaba Dar-us-Salam, Translator-Muhammad Khan) was abridged and erroneously numbered. Finally, I recommend that you acquire at least three of the following Qur'an translations: Ahmed Ali, Pikthal, Noble by Muhsin Khan, Yusuf Ali, or Shakir. The oldest Qur'an fragments date to around 725 A.D. - a century after they were first recited.

What is also interesting are the responses from readers. He had dvided the feedback into the following subgroups:

Muslims threatening
Muslim challenges
Muslims "undercover"
Muslimbeciles
Reasonable Muslims
Former Muslims
Letters of appreciation
Letters of criticism
Letters sharing insights
Letters with questions

prophetofdoom.net...

Qur'an 5:101 "Believers! Do not ask questions about things which if made plain and declared to you, may vex you, causing you trouble."


Interesting site and the members can make their own minds up.

reply to post by deessell

Originally posted by deessell
I'm not sure why you chose to focus on that aspect from the website. Did you read further? The man has spent 10,000 hours studying Islam.

Because his entire website and argument is based off that. If he spent a 10,000 hours researching using that, then his research was all pointless. It's funny how he claims to have "reordered" the Quran to make it more understandable, because his website is the most confusing mess I've ever seen. Since he "reordered" it, where is the beginning of the supposed chronology, so I can start from the start? I clicked the first link, titled "Dishonest Abe" since that seemed the simplest, and directly, I'm faced with a quote from "Tabari" talking about humanity's origins from Abraham, which he calls "racist" and "advocating slavery", when it is all his (Tabari's) own opinion and research. So what? Tabari is not Islamic scripture.

As I mentioned before in another thread (or was it this one? Quite a few anti-islam threads going about these days), it'd be like someone quoting St. Augustine to show that Christianity is misogynistic. A Christian might consider St. Augustine's writings of some sort of scholarly importance, and pick up a few interesting opinions from it, but if someone else quotes him as an example of why Christianity is evil, then they'd just be laughed at.

Thank you so much for clearing this. Unfortunately, there are so many right-wing racist Christians here in the States who spread these myths. Ignorance is on the rise among the bible thumping southern belt. The downside is that most average Americans do not like to read or do research on their. That's too hard work. But once I meet an American who has never talked to a person from Middle East, they really appreciate after telling them the facts about Islam. Talking to these uneducated Americans is the only way clear the misunderstanding since those kind of people will never come across sites like this one. They're too busy with Facebook or Twitter.

I've been watching this thread since I put my bit in on page 21. The more I read the thread the more I shout BULLSH*T!! That's the words the Quran contains and it's also the words the bible contains. But seeing as the Quaran is based on the bible that's all u can say. I started reading some of the quran and I can honestly say. What a pile of crap! Same as the bible only slightly different.

Who cares about Homosexuality in the Quran. How about Paedophilia? Look at Mohammed The Prophet. He couldn't read and write but he could [snip] kids!!!

Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

Nice way to clear the air since so many people believe they know what is going on in the rest of the world judging by their dvr recording of South Africa on the Discovery Channel. I have heard so many people say that same expression as to the reason of the crazy intentions of the Islamic terror nation. People are afraid and fearful, and are very quick to judge what they do not understand. S&F!

reply to post by babloyi


Really?... Then why are Imams/Ulamas/clerics and other spiritual Islamic leaders and Muslim scholars have been caught lying? How many a times do Imams/Ulamas/clerics and other spiritual leaders as well as Muslim scholars just mention some things about Islam but leave out others because it suits their agenda?...

Taqqiya and Kitman are used constantly by many Muslims, you can deny it all you want but we know this happens to this day.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Nope, sorry. Where does it happen? As I said, aside from a couple of shi'ites (who anyway, used it ONLY to HIDE THEIR FAITH from people they thought could endanger them- sunnis at the time), many Islamic scholars completely prohibit such use of lying, and NONE of them use it as an excuse to further Islam or any such situation.

Also, your definition of "kitman" isn't exactly accurate either. It certainly wasn't used in the context you claim (it means "conceal", but doesn't talk about faith) until the Persians (the shi'ites again, specifically) many centuries after the death of Muhammad.

The ONLY places I've seen such allegations are from the the anti-islam detractors- certainly not Islam itself. It'd be the same as a christian claiming in the middle ages that Jews practised christian baby eating. Considering Freeborn's extortion that such myths stem from Islam itself (although he didn't prove that about the "thighing" thing either), this is pretty funny.

reply to post by babloyi


lying for islam
wikiislam.net...

Taqiyya (تقي), also spelt Taqiya / Tuqya / Taqqiyah, is known as lying for Islam. While many claim it is only practised within Shi'ite Islam, it is also mentioned in many Sunni hadith and by many of their Islamic scholars.

Kitman is consists in telling only part of the truth, with “mental reservation” justifying the omission of the rest (adjustment, deception etc, anything short of a full-blown lie)

from the koran:
Sura 002.225
YUSUFALI: Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts; and He is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.

Sura 003.028
YUSUFALI: Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

Sura 016.106
YUSUFALI: Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.

And lets not forget
Sura 3:54 Allah is the best of deceivers"

And here’s a muslim dealing with the problem of lying in islam
www.answering-christianity.com...

from the site:

Now it must be said, that lying is forbidden in Islam, however so, UNDER 3 OCCASIONS, it is not. This point must be made crystal clear, that it is only under 3 specific circumstances in which a Muslim is allowed to lie

So yes muslims can lie, but lets say your right and muslims don’t lie, well maybe a couple of shi'ites hundreds of years ago

The fact is, the case can be made that musilms can lie – and it looks like it’s a built in part of islam, if this is a problem for muslims, maybe they should take that up with allah or mo – its defiantly not a problem of the non-believers


Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: External Source Tags Instructions – Please Review This Link.

reply to post by racasan

And I'm supposed to trust wikiislam and answering-islam as accurate sites?! Hahahahaha...please.
It doesn't even quote the whole thing in context:

Surah Al-Baqarah (2:224,225):
AND DO NOT allow your oaths in the name of God to become an obstacle to virtue and God-consciousness and the promotion of peace between men: for God is all-hearing, all-knowing.
God will not take you to task for oaths which you may have uttered without thought, but will take you to task [only] for what your hearts have conceived [in earnest]: for God is much-forgiving, forbearing.

So yeah, I shouldn't say "By God, I had a thousand waffles today!", but if it comes out thoughtlessly or casually, it is okay. Nothing there intentionally lying about how many waffles I had today, or hiding or distorting Islam in any way.

And the other ones, as I said, spoke of lying to save life. So tell me (this is a classical question, I know, but still), if you were in Nazi Germany (hopefully) helping out a family of Jews by letting them live in your attic, and an SS officer came about and asked if you were harbouring Jews, would you say "Yeah", or would you be a liar?

Me personally I would lie my azz off, no problem

Originally posted by babloyi

And the other ones, as I said, spoke of lying to save life. So tell me (this is a classical question, I know, but still), if you were in Nazi Germany (hopefully) helping out a family of Jews by letting them live in your attic, and an SS officer came about and asked if you were harbouring Jews, would you say "Yeah", or would you be a liar?

But so what, this thread is about misconceptions concerning islam, can it be proved using the writings of islam that muslims can lie – and the answer is yes

Lets take a step back – do religious people lie for their religion – yes, deception is part of been religious, christians, muslim and probably all other religious people lie in a effort to make their religion look good.

and there is also the case that a religious person may answer a question about his religion and be wrong that is to say the writing of his religion does not support his answer

so put all that together with the fact that islam has a very poor public image and people have some serious doubts about the motives of muslims and well lets just say muslims have a big problem

the rest of the world is not going to change just to accommodate islam, its muslims who are going to have to think about how they are going to pull islams name out of the mud – non believers have no incentive to do that for muslims

just so we are on the same page, I’m an atheist – I think all religious people are daft, but I also like people and I would not like to see people hurt over a fairy story