Support NeoGAF

[orochi91]

drivel

News flash: just because some of your family members call themselves moderates, doesn't mean will actually will be, lmao

Perhaps check out what actual moderates say? Or even read my posts above and consider them?

Also, purge? Nazism? Fascism? Instead of advocating reformation or even support for moderates, you jumped straight to "purge". Which school of extremism did you graduate from?

 

[Sword]

Islam is the next bad idea that the world needs to purge, like we mostly did with nazism and fascism

Like what Hitler did with the jews?

 

[Lev]

News flash: just because some of your family members call themselves moderates, doesn't mean will actually will be, lmao

Perhaps check out what actual moderates say? Or even read my posts above and consider them?

Also, purge? Nazism? Fascism? Instead of advocating reformation or even support for moderates, you jumped straight to "purge". Which school of extremism did you graduate from?

Sure, my reaction is harsh but I admit it's out of being tired of talking to Muslim about their beliefs. The people who I have talked to are very disingenuous and/or hard headed, so these days I have more of a bitter approach when I talk about Islam.

I am not against Muslims nor do I hold extreme views. When I said purge I just mean that the West should reject such ideas outrightly like they did with nazism and fascism. I don't care if Muslims believe in Islam or anything. I respect freedom of religion but I just do not respect their religion.

I put moderates in quotes in for a reason to signify that they aren't really as moderate as they might led people in life to be. And sure, you can try to hold moderate views with Islam by trying to incorporate Western values, but you'll find that it only goes so far unless you start reinterpreting the religion, because some topics are very clear and don't require interpretation to correctly understand, like Islam's stance on homosexuality.

 

[orochi91]

Sure, my reaction is harsh but I admit it's out of being tired of talking to Muslim about their beliefs. The people who I have talked to are very disingenuous and/or hard headed, so these days I have more of a bitter approach when I talk about Islam.

I am not against Muslims nor do I hold extreme views. When I said purge I just mean that the West should reject such ideas outrightly like they did with nazism and fascism. I don't care if Muslims believe in Islam or anything. I respect freedom of religion but I just do not respect their religion.

These are contradictory statements.

The West is incapable of rejecting such ideas because freedom of religion is a universal right here. Islam has no political or military power here in the West, unlike that of Nazi Germany, and its followers are expected to adhere to the laws of the land(s), barring special accommodations (like halal food availability, prayer spaces on Fridays and etc.). The are dealt with accordingly if they break laws, like any other citizen.

As for the topic of faith and reconciliation with issues like LGBT, I highly recommend you check out that link I posted or even my own post on the last page.

 

[mantidor]

i would argue that prohibiting anal penetration is prohibiting being gay.

Not really, plenty of gay people do not like anal penetration.

 

[-COOLIO-]

Not really, plenty of gay people do not like anal penetration.

but for many gay man, anal penetration is an essential part of a complete and intimate relationship.

 

[Wereroku]

Of course it's up for personal interpretation - all religions are, that's why there's more than just one faction, one version of each religion, they're all splintered and have differing believes. And that's because at some point, someone had a different interpretation and got enough traction with others who agreed to carry it forward.

And as for the literal word of God, the Quran like the Bible and all other religious texts has been altered, edited, redacted, rejigged throughout time - it does not exist now in it's original form - it does not. Religions change, often slowly, sometimes quickly and violently, but they change and Islam is absolutely no different, it does not exist in a vacum - hell if we wanted to look at it that way Christianity and Islam are just off-shoots of Judaism any way, so right from their very inception they are not literally the word the god, they are a reinterpretation and collection of corrections and amendments to an already existing ideology, and have never stopped changing and being amended right up to the present day.

Actually they have found an especially ancient copy of the Quran that is almost the same as the one in use today.

 

[beast786]

I believe the crux of our discussions in recent threads revolves around the notion that the Quran is the word of god, hence it is absolute in its authority. I've mentioned this earlier, but I view it merely as a spiritual guide to life, not an absolute declaration or a "be-all and end-all" proposition. This is evidenced by the existence of secular and liberal Muslims. Taking such scriptures literally in day-to-day applications is a ridiculous approach and can never work in pluralistic societies, like those in the West and throughout Asia/Africa. Check out the Liberal Muslim movements for even further readings on such topics.

I hail from a Wahhabi and Hanafi background, but I am a non-denominational Muslim. My mother would argue and rage at me being critical of Islamic scriptures, especially the Hadiths and the cult of Worship fellow Muslims have built around the Prophet Mohammed and the Sunnah in general. Over the course of a few years, I've gotten her down to the point where she'll actually consider my criticisms and even agree with me occasionally! I've gotten into a verbal spat with an Imam and some fellow Muslims once at a mosque; his sermons were needlessly vindictive and harsh, especially towards LGBT folks. Though I'm not a cleric, moderates like me attempt to bridge the gap by striving to improve the faith rather than outright abandoning it (that doesn't benefit Muslims like me on a spiritual level, nor the one being discussed in the OP), but this takes time and there will be no dramatic and/or accelerated attitude shifts in predominately Orthodox Islam anytime soon (especially outside the West).

My laser focus on most of the Hadith is attributed to the fact that those are recognized as being written and inscribed by ancient scholars who were steeped in Arabic tribalism and fatalism; the Quran ushered in the rights for women and the destitute in a society where none existed, but the scholars did not go far enough in enhancing those rights during the development of Islamic jurisprudence and instead cast away ijtihad (independent reasoning) in favour for taqlid (extreme adherence to Sunnah). Consequently, I believe Islamic communities have stagnated as a result of their pursuit for "purity" or basically mimicking the Prophet and his companions. As such, I am a strong proponent for Islam to re-embrace ijtihad (independent reasoning) and for Muslims to critically view the Prophet for what he was: a mortal with all the trappings and faults of a human, but one who was deemed worthy enough to spread the revelations of god (Islam). He is the messenger, nothing more and nothing less; the concept of Sunnah is foolish and is essentially idolatry in nature. By embracing these these two initiatives, this will pave way for further expansion of womens' rights and that of minorities as well.

Thanks for the link. I did enjoy looking over it, I knew some aspect but was nice to read and learn about in comprehensive way. As I already mention to you that I support your effort . Obviously, doesn't mean we agree on many things for example you mention prophet gave women rights.... Well, that is true. But, he also took some away . We know money have rights as Khadijah his first wife who was a pagan , was a self own widow business women who Mohammad worked for prior to his prophethood ( interestingly , only time he had a one wife when she was alive. I am assuming because she was the sugar mama ;p).

Regardless , if I follow the link you posted and your ideas that you have exchanged in this and other thread it would be awesome to have mainstream follow your understanding that is compatible .

Obviously I am more pessimistic . Unlike bible Quran author was one man, Hadith are based on life of one man Mohammad . You might have the whole world interpret , but source is still idea of a single man , unlike bible that is probably word of hundered of people. You might be able to flex it a little . But not reform unless you do what you personally have done which is make it not direct ultimate word of God . There are people in my mosque that would call you an apostate.

You have my support buddy

 

[beast786]

Actually they have found an especially ancient copy of the Quran that is almost the same as the one in use today.

So basically changed.

Beside it be nice to also see how the Quran was put toghether . History of Quran is pretty interesting for historical point of view

 

[Edzi]

So basically changed.

Beside it be nice to also see how the Quran was put toghether . History of Quran is pretty interesting for historical point of view

Basically unchanged, from what I understand. Based on what I've read, differences between old copies and new are mostly in the way vowels/words were written, but the verses/meaning are the same. It's a core belief of most Muslims that the Qur'an is protected as the literal word of God, and the recent findings of historical Qur'ans have only strengthened that idea for most Muslims as far as I've seen. If there were findings of actual meaningful differences, you can bet there would be an uproar in the Muslim world.

 

[beast786]

That's not how it works. Islam prohibits anal penetration, whether its between man-man or man-woman. "Being gay" does not automatically make someone non-Muslim. Anal penetration is a sin among a list of many, many sins, including paying/collecting interest, gambling, drinking alcohol, eating pork, backbiting, lying, stealing, adultery, murder, etc.

No person is free of sin, so are you implying that all Muslims (all of whom are sinful in one way or another) are "not technically Muslim" because they are not following their religion's teachings to the core letter? Many Muslims follow Islam as a guidebook and moral compass so they can evade these sins but humans, by nature, are imperfect, and any Muslim is bound to err along the way. The struggle and strive to be the best person one can be (internal jihad - or the spiritual struggle within one person to avoid sin)) is an integral concept.

Are you also implying all sins are equal?

The worst part about your statement is you are equating it a sin as if it's a choice. When you are a homosexual and born Muslim you are trapped in a world where every normal sextual urge of yours lead to self hatred. You are forced to not sextual love forever. No full loving relationship . Do you understand living life like that? Your comparison to drinking alcohol eating pig is appalling . It's a damn abomination of a life to live.

 

[MrHoot]

News flash: just because some of your family members call themselves moderates, doesn't mean will actually will be, lmao

Perhaps check out what actual moderates say? Or even read my posts above and consider them?

Also, purge? Nazism? Fascism? Instead of advocating reformation or even support for moderates, you jumped straight to "purge". Which school of extremism did you graduate from?

Honestly the whole "actual moderates" thing is hard to swallow after a while when here I hear self-described "actual moderates" who still have incredibly harsh views against homosexuality (refused to let a gay man enter the "meet and greet" night they had once for their community center, out of fear "for his well being"). Another poor woman had to leave because she became an atheist and apparently moved houses as she was being harassed by her neighbours who were going to the same community center. Despite that, the rest of the time they were lovely people and warm. They would only talk about two things tho: Family, and religion. That's it.

And that's the crux for a lot of muslim communities throughout western europe. The whole "liberal muslim" thing seems to have taken mostly in the west and even that, looking at the article, seems to not be recognized by almost every other muslim school. So then are we to believe that liberal muslims are even considered muslim ? This is why so many don't believe in actual progressiveness because it seems there are so many solid roadblocks that would make it impossible without being declared an apostate

 

[Edzi]

Honestly the whole "actual moderates" thing is hard to swallow after a while when here I hear self-described "actual moderates" who still have incredibly harsh views against homosexuality (refused to let a gay man enter the "meet and greet" night they had once for their community center, out of fear "for his well being"). Another poor woman had to leave because she became an atheist and apparently moved houses as she was being harassed by her neighbours who were going to the same community center. Despite that, the rest of the time they were lovely people and warm. They would only talk about two things tho: Family, and religion. That's it.

And that's the crux for a lot of muslim communities throughout western europe. The whole "liberal muslim" thing seems to have taken mostly in the west and even that, looking at the article, seems to not be recognized by almost every other muslim school. So then are we to believe that liberal muslims are even considered muslim ? This is why so many don't believe in actual progressiveness because it seems there are so many solid roadblocks that would make it impossible without being declared an apostate

A person's ignorance can be separate from their religion. Just because a lot of (maybe even most) religious people are nasty towards those they view as sinful doesn't mean the religion makes them act that way, even if they use that as their justification. It's a lot more nuanced than that, even if it is easier to just pin it all on a religion.

Are you also implying all sins are equal?

The worst part about your statement is you are equating it a sin as if it's a choice. When you are a homosexual and born Muslim you are trapped in a world where every normal sextual urge of yours lead to self hatred. You are forced to not sextual love forever. No full loving relationship . Do you understand living life like that? Your comparison to drinking alcohol eating pig is appalling . It's a damn abomination of a life to live.

I think this is just a matter of priorities/context. For someone who believes in an afterlife/God, their priorities shift a bit from the more common priorities/goals we're used to seeing, like life's ultimate goal being personal happiness/finding love, etc. It does sound harsh to say that a gay religious person should either be celibate or marry for reasons outside of sexual gratification if viewed from that context, but within the context of being a believing Muslim/Christian/Jew, it makes more sense. It's still a complicated issue and not nearly as simple as a lot of people on both sides are making it out to be.

 

[orochi91]

And that's the crux for a lot of muslim communities throughout western europe. The whole "liberal muslim" thing seems to have taken mostly in the west and even that, looking at the article, seems to not be recognized by almost every other muslim school. So then are we to believe that liberal muslims are even considered muslim ? This is why so many don't believe in actual progressiveness because it seems there are so many solid roadblocks that would make it impossible without being declared an apostate

Of course the Liberal Muslim movement has taken place in the West, because those Muslims have free rights to do so without worrying about retribution from the Government or some despot King. This movement is a fledgling one and will continue to grow for years to come as more like-minded Muslims enter the ranks; if you're expecting some grand, radical shift in Orthodox Islam that will span the globe within a generation, then you are out of luck. Also, naturally there will be roadblocks in the way of progressiveness, especially when an Orthodox form of faith is being challenged; sectarian conflict is a known attribute, but that doesn't prevent people like me from calling ourselves Muslims, irrespective of being erroneously labelled apostates.

 

[beast786]

I think this is just a matter of priorities/context. For someone who believes in an afterlife/God, their priorities shift a bit from the more common priorities/goals we're used to seeing, like life's ultimate goal being personal happiness/finding love, etc. It does sound harsh to say that a gay Muslim should either be celibate or marry for reasons outside of sexual gratification if viewed from that context, but within the context of being a believing Muslim/Christian/Jew, it makes more sense. It's still a complicated issue and not nearly as simple as a lot of people on both sides are making it out to be.

It's actually not a complicated issue. There is nothing complicated about rights for lbgt to live there life without being castrate as living a abomination life. Stop making excuse for basic human rights

 

[MrHoot]

A person's ignorance can be separate from their religion. Just because a lot of (maybe even most) Muslims are nasty towards those they view as sinful doesn't mean the religion makes them act that way, even if they use that as their justification. It's a lot more nuanced than that, even if it is easier to just pin it all on Islam.

But one of the main reason why homosexuality is hated today across the world is largely due to religion, along with sexism/mysoginy.

You can try to continue to bail out Islam or even christianity but when such a LARGE percentage of people try to apply persecution precisely due to these laws, which in addition is silently "tolerated" by a large percentage of so-called moderates because of personal interpretation (so many times I see religious folks saying the treatment is terrible but also validating such vile actions because after all, the religion permits to do so if one desires).

We always fall back to the "well it's the people, not the religion that are the problem". But for me I don't see "Islam" as just the book or the teachings but it's what the people make of it. Even now I don't see how "it would make sense" as a believer to denounce your natural sexual urges to enter the kingdom of a supposedly loving god who still took the time to say that buttfuckery is a big no-no. Again, isntead of denouncing outright that this part of the religion is shit we always have to work with it somehow even if it hurts a significant part of people because we don't want to undo centuries of dogma

 

[Edzi]

It's actually not a complicated issue. There is nothing complicated about rights for lbgt to live there life without being castrate as living a abomination life. Stop making excuse for basic human rights

I'm not, you shouldn't be so dramatic. LGBT people are free to live their lives as they wish, I'm speaking from within the context of someone being Muslim. If an LGBT person wants to be (orthodox) Muslim (or any other major Abrahamic faith really) then they have to come to terms somehow with the fact that an openly homosexual lifestyle (and by that I mainly mean one where sexual relationships with the same sex are allowed) is frowned upon within that religion. This is separate from the issue of other religious people being jackasses towards LGBT people in general.

But one of the main reason why homosexuality is hated today across the world is largely due to religion, along with sexism/mysoginy.

You can try to continue to bail out Islam or even christianity but when such a LARGE percentage of people try to apply persecution precisely due to these laws, which in addition is silently "tolerated" by a large percentage of so-called moderates because of personal interpretation (so many times I see religious folks saying the treatment is terrible but also validating such vile actions because after all, the religion permits to do so if one desires).

We always fall back to the "well it's the people, not the religion that are the problem". But for me I don't see "Islam" as just the book or the teachings but it's what the people make of it. Even now I don't see how "it would make sense" as a believer to denounce your natural sexual urges to enter the kingdom of a supposedly loving god who still took the time to say that buttfuckery is a big no-no

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here, because I think it absolutely is an issue of the people being a problem and not necessarily the religion, even though I agree that the religion is often used to justify their hatred.

I understand that it might not make sense for you to make a sacrifice like that for your religion, but I'd wager that's because you're mostly unfamiliar with the way a religious mind views the world.

 

[beast786]

I'm not, you shouldn't be so dramatic. LGBT people are free to live their lives as they wish, I'm speaking from within the context of someone being Muslim. If an LGBT person wants to be (orthodox) Muslim (or any other major Abrahamic faith really) then they have to come to terms somehow with the fact that an openly homosexual lifestyle (and by that I mainly mean one where sexual relationships with the same sex are allowed) is frowned upon within that religion. This is separate from the issue of other religious people being jackasses towards LGBT people in general.

But they are NOT TO FREE TO LIVE THERE LFE, that is exactly the whole point unless they hide and have a scetret closet group

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here, because I think it absolutely is an issue of the people being a problem and not necessarily the religion, even though I agree that the religion is often used to justify their hatred.

I understand that it might not make sense for you to make a sacrifice like that for your religion, but I'd wager that's because you're mostly unfamiliar with the way a religious mind views the world.

Why do Muslims fast for 30 days sun up sun down?
Why do Muslim mandate to give charity?

They do exactly that because it's directly from the scriptures. We accept the good . Now when exactly the same scripture turns homophobic we start being apologist and " oh it's not the scripture but the people".

 

[Edzi]

Why do Muslims fast for 30 days sun up sun down?
Why do Muslim mandate to give charity?

They do exactly that because it's directly from the scriptures. We accept the good . Now when exactly the same scripture turns homophobic we start being apologist and " oh it's not the scripture but the people".

I'm not entirely sure what you're even trying to say anymore. Yes, a gay Muslim would have to live with restrictions just like a straight Muslim has to live with certain restrictions, but there's more to living your life than having a relationship (though clearly not for some people, which would be an issue of priorities/goals in life which is something that differs from person to person and is affected by their overall belief system). Obviously, this isn't easy, but it is what it is. They are free to live their lives, but should they choose to go against their religions moral standards and have an impermissible relationship, that's something they have to deal with personally. Obviously none of this even applies to people who aren't Muslim, as a Muslim has no right to impose his/her beliefs onto someone else.

Also, like I said before, all this is separate from the issue of how religious people tend to act towards members of the LGBT community, and that's something that needs to be worked on by educating our communities, not by vilifying a religion and its followers.

 

[orochi91]

Why do Muslims fast for 30 days sun up sun down?
Why do Muslim mandate to give charity?

They do exactly that because it's directly from the scriptures. We accept the good . Now when exactly the same scripture turns homophobic we start being apologist and " oh it's not the scripture but the people".

There doesn't seem to be a contradiction there, as people will usually take what they like from scriptures and disregard the parts they don't, if they deem it to be unsavory enough. Therefore, the conclusion is true: religion can only be as good or bad as the adherents choose to be.

It's why I mentioned earlier that following the scriptures literally is a folly endeavor, through which a society adhering to them can only succeed if they function in a vacuum. This literal approach is impossible in pluralistic societies, such as those in the West, which is where you'll find many of the world's moderate and liberal Muslims.

The gay Muslim in the OP, and perhaps others in situations like that, has either disregarded the homophobic part of the faith or simply doesn't view it as an absolute proclamation of damnation, irrespective if it's the word of god.

 

[beast786]

There doesn't seem to be a contradiction there, as people will usually take what they like from scriptures and disregard the parts they don't, if they deem it to be unsavory enough. Therefore, the conclusion is true: religion can only be as good or bad as the adherents choose to be.

No. It doesn't . Because the same person who is fasting will tell you his hate for gays is exactly where it comes from. The idea of him homophobic just didn't come out of no where just like him fasting didn't come out of no where. if adherent believe that good or bad is define by God,'s will not man , then logically if God say pedophila is good than pedophila is good. There is no self reasoning to make and question God . That is the whole point of authoritarian religion and there followers. Nobody was born not eating pork, nobody was born racist .yet, people followed without reasoning because good and bad is defined by God not your own compassion. This is why religious people tend to be less compassion as they don't use there own emotion but the will of authoritarian God .to be clear, I am not saying they are not generous just the mode of genorrosity is not compassion but the rule given without question by the authoritarian God
http://news.berkeley.edu/2012/04/30/religionandgenerosity/

It's why I mentioned earlier that following the scriptures literally is a folly endeavor, through which a society adhering to them can only succeed if they function in a vacuum. This literal approach is impossible in pluralistic societies, such as those in the West, which is where you'll find many of the world's moderate and liberal Muslims.

The gay Muslim in the OP, and perhaps others in situations like that, has either disregarded the homophobic part of the faith or simply doesn't view it as an absolute proclamation of damnation, irrespective if it's the word of god.

Dude, the gay Muslim who even somehow found the middle ground doesn't take away the actual circus of life this particular individual went through. And even if he did there are many who couldn't . Which is obviously reflected by abnormally high number of depression and suicide cases among lbgt kids raised under orthodox religious household. He the op was one of few lucky one to pass that hurdle . He is not the norm which is why he is a surviving activist . if people are the one in control and not religion then why the hell we have higher suicide / depression among lbgt in conservative religious family ? By your premise all the young teenager has to do is disregard the homophobic part and live happily ever after. Unfortunately , that is zero reality. There life is a mess because they can't disregard.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/...ikelihood-of-suicide-attempt-for-lgbt-people/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19117902/
http://cultureandyouth.org/homosexu...d-suicide-because-he-thought-he-might-be-gay/.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...use-his-family-couldnt-accept-that-he-was-gay

...

 

[beast786]

I'm not entirely sure what you're even trying to say anymore. Yes, a gay Muslim would have to live with restrictions just like a straight Muslim has to live with certain restrictions, but there's more to living your life than having a relationship (though clearly not for some people, which would be an issue of priorities/goals in life which is something that differs from person to person and is affected by their overall belief system). Obviously, this isn't easy, but it is what it is. They are free to live their lives, but should they choose to go against their religions moral standards and have an impermissible relationship, that's something they have to deal with personally. Obviously none of this even applies to people who aren't Muslim, as a Muslim has no right to impose his/her beliefs onto someone else.

Also, like I said before, all this is separate from the issue of how religious people tend to act towards members of the LGBT community, and that's something that needs to be worked on by educating our communities, not by vilifying a religion and its followers.

Now you are comparing restrictions of lifestyle between gay and straight in Islamic world?

Really? I don't even know what to say.

Straight: you can love , fuck , enjoy your love and marriage openly and brag . Restriction : not until whenever you decided to get married

Gay: you can't fuck, enjoy your marriage and be guilty of even having any urges. Never ever ever can do it. Restriction: your whole life


Yea , sounds like a perfect comparison smh


"There is more to life than having relationships"

Apparently

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/...ikelihood-of-suicide-attempt-for-lgbt-people/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19117902/

http://cultureandyouth.org/homosexu...d-suicide-because-he-thought-he-might-be-gay/.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...use-his-family-couldnt-accept-that-he-was-gay

 

[Zero²]

Pretty enlightening, I'll read it tomorrow with more calm.

 

[Monocle]

I'm not entirely sure what you're even trying to say anymore. Yes, a gay Muslim would have to live with restrictions just like a straight Muslim has to live with certain restrictions, but there's more to living your life than having a relationship (though clearly not for some people, which would be an issue of priorities/goals in life which is something that differs from person to person and is affected by their overall belief system). Obviously, this isn't easy, but it is what it is. They are free to live their lives, but should they choose to go against their religions moral standards and have an impermissible relationship, that's something they have to deal with personally. Obviously none of this even applies to people who aren't Muslim, as a Muslim has no right to impose his/her beliefs onto someone else.

Also, like I said before, all this is separate from the issue of how religious people tend to act towards members of the LGBT community, and that's something that needs to be worked on by educating our communities, not by vilifying a religion and its followers.

Wow.

 

[Edzi]

Wow.

Great response.

It's true though, particularly within the context of a religious life and taking different cultures into account, which is primarily what I'm talking about.

 

[Kinitari]

Great response.

It's true though, particularly within the context of a religious life and taking different cultures into account, which is primarily what I'm talking about.

It seems all so unnecessarily restrictive. What are you gaining from this restriction? This judgement, this guilt? The culture intermingled with the religion... I have a lot of trouble finding any uniquely redeeming qualities.

Leaving the faith was a fresh of breath air, and whenever I step into a masjid I am harshly reminded of the terrible weight it put on me, and puts on people I know.

 

[orochi91]

...

There isn't any contradiction with what you said in relation to my first point; the potency and power ascribed to scriptures are what we assign to them, as people pick and choose what to disregard all the time; the same person who's fasting can also choose to denounce the homophobic aspects of his/her faith. You're conflating the "word of god" as an absolute concept again, to which I'll have to point out that this doesn't hold true for all religious adherents, as evidenced by secular/moderate/liberal Muslims. You're removing all agency and accountability from the individual by assuming stuff like "There is no self reasoning to make and question God". The lack of self-reasoning is precisely why I've repeatedly said that Islam as a whole needs to reengage with ijtihad (independent reasoning), as numerous Muslims already do, especially in the West. Anti-LGBT sentiments are present in cultures devoid of religious influence, even in predominately atheist nations like China and South Korea, simply because homosexuality is so rare that it seems absurd/unnatural to the heterosexual majority. Religious scriptures have codified those negative sentiments, yet those sentiments can be dealt with via reformation and/or re-interpretations of scriptures (specifically some of the Hadiths).

As for the second point you've raised, there is no premise to discuss, as I explicitly used "perhaps" when mentioning others in situations like the one in the OP. Obviously, it wouldn't make sense to assume many of them were able to clear the hurdle like Parvez Sharma did, otherwise we wouldn't end up with self-hating LGBT individuals like the Orlando shooter.

Great response.

It's true though, particularly within the context of a religious life and taking different cultures into account, which is primarily what I'm talking about.

Physical intimacy is usually a corner-stone for most relationships.

I suppose that comes down to the individual; if a gay individual chooses or is forced to adhere to Orthodox religion, then they will suffer. Unlike Sharma, those that are unable to reconcile their sexuality with their faith may tragically suffer self-loathing and/or suicide.

 

[Monocle]

Great response.

It's true though, particularly within the context of a religious life and taking different cultures into account, which is primarily what I'm talking about.

I don't think your point dignifies any response short of absolute scorn. Minimizing people's basic right to a full and fulfilling life is disgusting.

 

[Edzi]

It seems all so unnecessarily restrictive. What are you gaining from this restriction? This judgement, this guilt? The culture intermingled with the religion... I have a lot of trouble finding any uniquely redeeming qualities.

Leaving the faith was a fresh of breath air, and whenever I step into a masjid I am harshly reminded of the terrible weight it put on me, and puts on people I know.

This is precisely what I'm talking about though. You clearly didn't/don't believe that Islam was true, so of course it all seemed unnecessarily restrictive to you.

I'd wager that a lot of the guilt and hardship comes more from the harshness of the community, which is mostly cultural and not technically from the rules of the religion. That's what needs to change, and attacking the religion/the people that follow it isn't the right way to go about it, especially when most people discussing this have little to no knowledge of the religion itself or the people who follow it.

I don't think your point dignifies any response short of absolute scorn. Minimizing people's basic right to a full and fulfilling life is disgusting.

It's disappointing that you seem unwilling to have an actual discussion, but okay. I get that this is an emotional topic for some people, but hopefully you'll consider that the definition of a "full and fulfilling life" might differ depending on someones beliefs, culture, or upbringing, so a Muslim (who, as I've said a few times now, has no right to actually force their idea of right/wrong onto others) might view their happiness/lives differently.

Physical intimacy is usually a corner-stone for most relationships.

I suppose that comes down to the individual; if a gay individual chooses or is forced to adhere to Orthodox religion, then they will suffer. Unlike Sharma, those that are unable to reconcile their sexuality with their faith may tragically suffer self-loathing and/or suicide.

Well, yeah, it would depend entirely on the individual. Struggle is a part of life though, and some people have harder struggles than others. If they believe it's worth it, I don't see a problem with it. What we need to do is make sure that our communities are capable and willing to deal with and help people without demonizing or driving them away.

 

[beast786]

There isn't any contradiction with what you said in relation to my first point;]the potency and power ascribed to scriptures are what we assign to them, as people pick and choose what to disregard all the time; the same person who's fasting can also choose to denounce the homophobic aspects of his/her faith. You're conflating the "word of god" as an absolute concept again, to which I'll have to point out that this doesn't hold true for all religious adherents, as evidenced by secular/moderate/liberal Muslims. You're removing all agency and accountability from the individual by assuming stuff like "There is no self reasoning to make and question God". The lack of self-reasoning is precisely why I've repeatedly said that Islam as a whole needs to reengage with ijtihad (independent reasoning), as numerous Muslims already do, especially in the West. Anti-LGBT sentiments are present in cultures devoid of religious influence, even in predominately atheist nations like China and South Korea, simply because homosexuality is so rare that it seems absurd/unnatural to the heterosexual majority. Religious scriptures have codified those negative sentiments, yet those sentiments can be dealt with via reformation and/or re-interpretations of scriptures (specifically some of the Hadiths).

As for the second point you've raised, there is no premise to discuss, as I explicitly used "perhaps" when mentioning others in situations like the one in the OP. Obviously, it wouldn't make sense to assume many of them were able to clear the hurdle like Parvez Sharma did, otherwise we wouldn't end up with self-hating LGBT individuals like the Orlando shooter.



Physical intimacy is usually a corner-stone for most relationships.

Sure, anal penetration isn't a requirement for fulfilling said intimacy, but nor should it particularly prohibited.

I just showed you that was not the case. lbgt kids who are committing suicides couldn't . Young people don't reason into religion , they are told. Many have absolute no choice hence killing them self or living in depression. If religion wasn't the unconditional choice why do these kids go in self hate and depression? It is naive to ignore all the facts and say for many religion doctrine is what made them. If that kid was raised in open society were lbgt is accepted and no hate of religious dogma, would that kid kill himself of self hate? Did he believe he had a choice as a kid?

 

[beast786]

This is precisely what I'm talking about though. You clearly didn't/don't believe that Islam was true, so of course it all seemed unnecessarily restrictive to you.

I'd wager that a lot of the guilt and hardship comes more from the harshness of the community, which is mostly cultural and not technically from the rules of the religion. That's what needs to change, and attacking the religion/the people that follow it isn't the right way to go about it, especially when most people discussing this have little to no knowledge of the religion itself or the people who follow it.

And where did community got the idea to hate on homosexual?

You keep ignoring people who are telling you why they do what they do.

Isis literally reference quranic scripture for there acts. And I also like your elitist last statement . I did. That is why I am telling you are completely wrong. Lbgt are so happy being religious household experience they are flocking to depression / suicide

 

[Edzi]

And where did community got the idea to hate on homosexual?

You keep ignoring people who are telling you why they do what they do.

Isis literally reference quranic scripture for there acts. And I also like your elitist last statement . I did. That is why I am telling you are completely wrong. Lbgt are so happy being religious household experience they are flocking to depression / suicide

Oh, I'm not going to get into a discussion on ISIS using scripture to justify their actions. If you really think it's as simple as that, there's not much more to say really.

I wasn't trying to be elitist btw, sorry if it came off that way. I'm not entirely sure what to make of your last sentence, but I get the feeling you're not really understanding what I've been trying to say. Fundamentally, I'm sure we're mostly in agreement, since neither of us seems to want young LGBT people to be driven to suicide/depression. I think I've mentioned a few times now how we need to work to change that within our communities, but you seem caught up on pinning everything on the religion.

 

[beast786]

Oh, I'm not going to get into a discussion on ISIS using scripture to justify their actions. If you really think it's as simple as that, there's not much more to say really.

I wasn't trying to be elitist btw, sorry if it came off that way. I'm not entirely sure what to make of your last sentence, but I get the feeling you're not really understanding what I've been trying to say. Fundamentally, I'm sure we're mostly in agreement, since neither of us seems to want young LGBT people to be driven to suicide/depression. I think I've mentioned a few times now how we need to work to change that within our communities, but you seem caught up on pinning everything on the religion.

Of course I am pinning it on religion . Who else ? When a parent tells there kid it's a sin , when the mosque talks about how homosexuality is God abomination . Yes, I will.

Who do you blame for this archaic ideology ?

 

[IJoel]

Oh, I'm not going to get into a discussion on ISIS using scripture to justify their actions. If you really think it's as simple as that, there's not much more to say really.

I wasn't trying to be elitist btw, sorry if it came off that way. I'm not entirely sure what to make of your last sentence, but I get the feeling you're not really understanding what I've been trying to say. Fundamentally, I'm sure we're mostly in agreement, since neither of us seems to want young LGBT people to be driven to suicide/depression. I think I've mentioned a few times now how we need to work to change that within our communities, but you seem caught up on pinning everything on the religion.

That will never change unless religions stop calling LGBT aberration, unnatural, and unworthy of being seen as equal in the eyes of the law. LGBT don't grow magically from rainbow colored trees. Imagine a kid being indoctrinated from early childhood with the message that LGBT is aberrant and unnatural. Imagine what goes through his mind when he starts going through puberty. The book that's used as the basis for the religion itself contains such message as well.

A straight person that has never experienced this will never know what it's like. It bothers me to no end when religious leaders come on tv to condemn attacks like the one in Orlando, when they themselves have been guilty of countless suicides by spreading the message of intolerance.

 

[Edzi]

Of course I am pinning it on religion . Who else ? When a parent tells there kid it's a sin , when the mosque talks about how homosexuality is God abomination . Yes, I will.

Who do you blame for this archaic ideology ?

Viewing homosexual relationships as sinful isn't really the problem imo, it's the hate and vitriol that tends to go hand in hand with those condemnations that needs to stop within communities, and that's the part that isn't mandated by the religion. Quite the opposite actually, since if you look into how most religions are meant to deal with sin/sinners, it's supposed to be with mercy and compassion.

Hate for those that are different isn't unique to religion, it's just that a lot of people will look to religion as an easy means to justify their hatred.

That will never change unless religions stop calling LGBT aberration, unnatural, and unworthy of being seen as equal in the eyes of the law. LGBT don't grow magically from rainbow colored trees. Imagine a kid being indoctrinated from early childhood with the message that LGBT is aberrant and unnatural. Imagine what goes through his mind when he starts going through puberty. The book that's used as the basis for the religion itself contains such message as well.

A straight person that has never experienced this will never know what it's like. It bothers me to no end when religious leaders come on tv to condemn attacks like the one in Orlando, when they themselves have been guilty of countless suicides by spreading the message of intolerance.

Yeah, I pretty much agree. The way these topics are dealt with within religious circles needs to undergo a massive overhaul, and religious leaders need to either educate themselves on how to approach these topics or they need to stop talking about them and let those who do understand the issues take over. Kids can't be made to feel guilty for feelings they cannot control, and LGBT people cannot be seen as sub human by members of certain faith groups. But at the same time, I don't think religions need to be forced to change clear rulings on what they perceive to be moral as long as that does not translate into dehumanization and hatred. I believe this is entirely possible, though I understand it's not exactly what a lot of people would want.

Tolerance is basically what I'm talking about. True tolerance, where a group can think another is in the wrong, but will continue to support their right to live freely and without fear.

 

[orochi91]

I just showed you that was not the case. lbgt kids who are committing suicides couldn't . Young people don't reason into religion , they are told. Many have absolute no choice hence killing them self or living in depression. If religion wasn't the unconditional choice why do these kids go in self hate and depression? It is naive to ignore all the facts and say for many religion doctrine is what made them. If that kid was raised in open society were lbgt is accepted and no hate of religious dogma, would that kid kill himself of self hate? Did he believe he had a choice as a kid?

If the families of those youths are the type to take the scriptures as literal worlds of gods (which I've already pointed out was a foolish endeavor), with no application of independent reasoning, then it can absolutely make life hell for that child. This is because they've abdicated their agency in favour of blindly following outdated scriptures (such as some the Hadiths). I've already illustrated in my post that anti-LGBT sentiments are a cultural product, codified via religious scriptures; scriptures that can be reformed through re-interpretations; or even disregarded outright, and this is done often enough.

Sharma, and others like him, were able to reconcile his faith with his sexuality, but only because he was able to find like-minded Muslims and non-Muslims in the West and elsewhere to help him. The liberal Muslim movement we discussed earlier is aimed at helping the conflicted LGBT youths of today (among others) that are born into conservative religious communities because they place emphasis on the actions of an adherent on an individual level. There would literally be no secular/moderate/liberal Muslims in existence if they parroted the same "There is no self reasoning to make and question God" mantra that you are espousing. Those Muslims are able to look past that absolutist talk of God, and this manifests in attempts to bridge Islam with minorities, such as the LGBT communities. Although, I'm not optimistic this will help LGBT youths born into religious conservative heartlands found throughout the world in the foreseeable future; cultural and social changes of this magnitude would take years, if not generations to manifest on a global level.

To be honest, I'm not sure where this conversation has been heading for a while now; in fact, it almost seems cyclical. Is there a specific response or answer you're looking for?

 

[beast786]

Viewing homosexual relationships as sinful isn't really the problem imo, it's the hate and vitriol that tends to go hand in hand with those condemnations that needs to stop within communities, and that's the part that isn't mandated by the religion. Quite the opposite actually, since if you look into how most religions are meant to deal with sin/sinners, it's supposed to be with mercy and compassion.

Hate for those that are different isn't unique to religion, it's just that a lot of people will look to religion as an easy means to justify their hatred.

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=38

" [As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent [punishment] from Allah. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise."

Yea known for its compassion and mercy teaching

make sense because Saudi /Iran etc are known for there mercy learned in religion when they chop off hands

 

[beast786]

If the families of those youths are the type to take the scriptures as literal worlds of gods (which I've already pointed out was a foolish endeavor), with no application of independent reasoning, then it can absolutely make life hell for that child. This is because they've abdicated their agency in favour of blindly following outdated scriptures (such as some the Hadiths). I've already illustrated in my post that anti-LGBT sentiments are a cultural product, codified via religious scriptures; scriptures that can be reformed through re-interpretations; or even disregarded outright, and this is done often enough.

Sharma, and others like him, were able to reconcile his faith with his sexuality, but only because he was able to find like-minded Muslims and non-Muslims in the West and elsewhere to help him. The liberal Muslim movement we discussed earlier is aimed at helping the conflicted LGBT youths of today (among others) that are born into conservative religious communities because they place emphasis on the actions of an adherent on an individual level. There would literally be no secular/moderate/liberal Muslims in existence if they parroted the same "There is no self reasoning to make and question God" mantra that you are espousing. Those Muslims are able to look past that absolutist talk of God, and this manifests in attempts to bridge Islam with minorities, such as the LGBT communities. Although, I'm not optimistic this will help LGBT youths born into religious conservative heartlands found throughout the world in the foreseeable future; cultural and social changes of this magnitude would take years, if not generations to manifest on a global level.

To be honest, I'm not sure where this conversation has been heading for a while now; in fact, it almost seems cyclical. Is there a specific response or answer you're looking for?

I think it safe to say we agree on the more important issues. Major difference is I think the moderate movement won't be mainstream because of how scripture is viewed. hell take a poll in the GAF Ramadan about lbgt sex being ok, you have people not eating red m&m because of some dye ... Lol . That is what will prevail IMHO.

But I wish you are right

 

[orochi91]

I think it safe to say we agree on the more important issues. Major difference is I think the moderate movement won't be mainstream because of how scripture is viewed. hell take a poll in the GAF Ramadan about lbgt sex being ok, you have people not eating red m&m because of some dye ... Lol . That is what will prevail IMHO.

But I wish you are right

Mate, Muslims are diverse people; for example, me being anal about Rennet in my cheese didn't preclude me from opening my fast or praying with gay Muslims during my undergrad at University. Some of my Arab and Chinese classmates are atheists, most of which didn't bother holding back when ridiculing LGBT folks. It's impossible to change every persons perspective on issues concerning LGBT issues (among others); you win some and lose some.

 

[Captain Europe]

Tolerance is basically what I'm talking about. True tolerance, where a group can think another is in the wrong, but will continue to support their right to live freely and without fear.

What a great world to be living in, instead of respecting each other we should just settle for tolerating the way people are born, awesome.

Replace LGBT and ''homosexual lifestyle'' with skin colour and see how extreme and dehumanising you sound.

 

[Edzi]

What a great world to be living in, instead of respecting each other we should just settle for tolerating the way people are born, awesome.

Replace LGBT and ''homosexual lifestyle'' with skin colour and see how extreme and dehumanising you sound.

I don't know how much clearer I can be. I'm saying we should respect each other, and nobody should be dehumanized for how they're born. This can be done while still disagreeing with the choices one makes, and with how they live their lives. And yes, choice. Regardless of what you or I think, the religious stance differentiates between homosexuality as an orientation (not a choice), and homosexual actions (choice). People ignoring this fact won't magically make it go away. Since when has tolerance become such a bad word anyway? It legit sounds like most of you won't be happy until the religious just rewrite their books to match your moral code, which is absurd and will never realistically happen. What can realistically happen is educating people to understand that they cannot use their religion for hate, and that their concept of right and wrong from a purely religious standpoint has to remain a mostly personal issue left to the individual that can't be forced upon others.

 

[Captain Europe]

I don't know how much clearer I can be. I'm saying we should respect each other, nobody should be dehumanized for how they're born. This can be done while still disagreeing with the choices one makes, and with how they live their lives. And yes, choice. Regardless of what you or I think, the religious stance differentiates between homosexuality as an orientation (not a choice), and homosexual actions (choice). People ignoring this fact won't magically make it go away. Since when has tolerance become such a bad word anyway? It legit sounds like most of you won't be happy until the religious just rewrite their books to match your moral code, which is absurd and will never realistically happen. What can realistically happen is educating people to understand that they cannot use their religion for hate, and that their concept of right and wrong from a purely religious standpoint has to remain a mostly personal issue left to the individual that can't be forced upon others.

I've heard this all before, it's a very tired and easy stance to take for a heterosexual religious person who can't look past their own nose. Again, you wouldn't ask a person to change their skin colour because it might have said so in a book.

Tolerating isn't good enough, as long as you're calling my orientation sinful, and ''disagree'' with it, you're being dehumanising to me. It's not a ''lifestyle'', I don't choose who I fall in love with, just like you don't.

I don't expect or want religious books to be rewritten, I just expect muslims(and other religious people) to trust and make up their own moral code, and not base it solely on a book, base it on being a good person in this day and age.

It sounds like you can't accept that religions change over time, islam will change, it's inevitable. It will be secularised eventually, as well as any other religion. I have no idea when, but that is the direction civilisation and the world is going. Why not be that change and be on the right side of history?

 

[orochi91]

I don't expect or want religious books to be rewritten, I just expect muslims(and other religious people) to trust and make up their own moral code, and not base it solely on a book, base it on being a good person in this day and age.

It sounds like you can't accept that religions change over time, islam will change, it's inevitable. It will be secularised eventually, as well as any other religion. I have no idea when, but that is the direction civilisation and the world is going. Why not be that change and be on the right side of history?

Thankfully, many such initiatives are well under way; for example, the largest US-based Muslim organization, Islamic Society of North America, lobbied for LGBT rights in 2013, and another example would be Unity Mosque in Toronto, which aims to bridge the Muslim LGBT community with other Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Many Muslims in the West are attempting to reach out to the LGBT community, but it will take sometime for this outreach to manifest on a global stage. As you've said, change is inevitable.

 

[RustyNails]

I think it safe to say we agree on the more important issues. Major difference is I think the moderate movement won't be mainstream because of how scripture is viewed. hell take a poll in the GAF Ramadan about lbgt sex being ok, you have people not eating red m&m because of some dye ... Lol . That is what will prevail IMHO.

But I wish you are right

I see that you just couldnt help but snoop in the Ramadan thread. How pathetic. You just cant let Muslims go can you. Now you want to police what Muslims want to discuss in their own freaking thread. Discussing what to eat and what not to eat is a huge part of Muslim faith. The thread is Ramadan and fasting related and of course food will be a huge part of it. Cool your jets and mind your own business. Or did you get tired of making your own threads that you lurk in Muslim specific threads to laugh at them?

 

[Edzi]

I've heard this all before, it's a very tired and easy stance to take for a heterosexual religious person who can't look past their own nose. Again, you wouldn't ask a person to change their skin colour because it might have said so in a book.

Tolerating isn't good enough, as long as you're calling my orientation sinful, and ''disagree'' with it, you're being dehumanising to me. It's not a ''lifestyle'', I don't choose who I fall in love with, just like you don't.

I don't expect or want religious books to be rewritten, I just expect muslims(and other religious people) to trust and make up their own moral code, and not base it solely on a book, base it on being a good person in this day and age.

It sounds like you can't accept that religions change over time, islam will change, it's inevitable. It will be secularised eventually, as well as any other religion. I have no idea when, but that is the direction civilisation and the world is going. Why not be that change and be on the right side of history?

Skin color is different than what I'm talking about. Your orientation isn't seen as sinful in the eyes of the religion, though what you choose to do as a result of your orientation can be (whether you're straight or gay). That's the distinction I'm trying to clarify here, though I'm not sure why calling it a sin would bother you since a sin in the eyes of a god you don't believe in doesn't really mean much for you. What I'm assuming you mean is you don't like the judgment other believers may pass on you, in which case I agree and I've been saying this from the start. People taking God's judgement as their own is a problem religious people have always had, and it's this aspect of the religion that needs to change (which is to say the religion itself doesn't really need to change at all but the people who follow it need to change their understanding of it). The definition of the sin likely will not change, but the way the community understands it and reacts to it should and likely will with time and education. I'm also not sure why you're bringing up secularization, since I'm all for that.

I also find the notion that "tolerating isn't good enough" or equating it to dehumanization to be troublesome, but maybe my wording was to blame.

 

[Captain Europe]

Thankfully, many such initiatives are well under way; for example, the largest US-based Muslim organization, Islamic Society of North America, lobbied for LGBT rights in 2013, and another example would be Unity Mosque in Toronto, which aims to bridge the Muslim LGBT community with other Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Many Muslims in the West are attempting to reach out to the LGBT community, but it will take sometime for this outreach to manifest on a global stage. As you've said, change is inevitable.

Hearing things like this makes me happy, thanks!
It's sad that we live in a world with discrimination (not just LGBT), but I really do believe that humanity as a whole is learning and that things will only get better.

Skin color is different than what I'm talking about. Your orientation isn't seen as sinful in the eyes of the religion, though what you choose to do as a result of your orientation can be (whether you're straight or gay). That's the distinction I'm trying to clarify here.

I also find the notion that "tolerating isn't good enough" or equating it to dehumanization to be troublesome, but maybe my wording was to blame.

There's no distinction, my orientation not being sinful but anything I do with it is doesn't mean anything to me, not to mention that straights are allowed a lot more freedom in this situation, that's not a equal treatment. Anyone following this as their moral or respecting it is a homophobe in my eyes.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

These are contradictory statements.

No they aren't. You can respect someone's right to believe in harmful nonsense (it's a free country) without respecting the actual beliefs and wishing they'd disappear.

I don't think your point dignifies any response short of absolute scorn. Minimizing people's basic right to a full and fulfilling life is disgusting.

Yup. Forcing celibacy on people for completely arbitrary reasons is inhumane and immoral.

Discussing what to eat and what not to eat is a huge part of Muslim faith.

Which really boggles my mind, to be honest. The almighty creator of the universe cares so much about what you eat and who you love. SMH
Maybe it's not cool of them to read a thread about a subject they won't participate in, but that doesn't make their point any less valid. If the red M&M thing is true then LOL

 

[orochi91]

No they aren't. You can respect someone's right to believe in harmful nonsense (it's a free country) without respecting the actual beliefs and wishing they'd disappear.

Maybe it's not cool of them to read a thread about a subject they won't participate in, but that doesn't make their point any less valid. If the red M&M thing is true then LOL

Except that poster was expressing desire for the West as a collective whole to "purge" Islam out, an action --which I pointed out-- would run counter to freedom of religion as espoused via universal rights here in the West. The comparison to Nazism was just icing on the cake.

Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with discussing the ingredients that go into foods (i.e. alcohol or animal products), as some Muslims take that stuff seriously. Such a benign process of food selection doesn't warrant snark, to be honest.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Except that poster was expressing desire for the West as a collective whole to "purge" Islam out, an action --which I pointed out-- would run counter to freedom of religion as espoused via universal rights here in the West. The comparison to Nazism was just icing on the cake.

Did you even read the part that you yourself bolded? They clarified what they meant by purge, which wasn't to oppress believers, but, and here I'll quote it again and bold it again for you, "I just mean that the West should reject such ideas outrightly like they did with nazism and fascism".

In other words, it's still allowed hold fascist and nazi beliefs in the west, so nazis and fascists do not have their freedom of speech oppressed; but it is frowned upon, and the West in general rejects those beliefs. Lev was expressing their wish for this to happen. Whether you find this and the comparison of Muslim beliefs to fascist beliefs distasteful or not is up to you, but it is not contradictory to think that Muslims should be allowed to believe what they want and desire for those beliefs to become pariah and anti-mainstream.

Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with discussing the ingredients that go into foods (i.e. alcohol or animal products), as some Muslims take that stuff seriously. Such a benign process of food selection doesn't warrant snark, to be honest.

In my experience, religious discussion of foods and scientific/nutritional/health/etc. discussions of food have absolutely nothing to do with each others. The former is amusing and absurd to me, the latter obviously isn't.

 

[orochi91]

In other words, it's still allowed hold fascist and nazi beliefs in the west, so nazis and fascists do not have their freedom of speech oppressed; but it is frowned upon, and the West in general rejects those beliefs. Lev was expressing their wish for this to happen. Whether you find this and the comparison of Muslim beliefs to fascist beliefs distasteful or not is up to you, but it is not contradictory to think that Muslims should be allowed to believe what they want and desire for those beliefs to become pariah and anti-mainstream.

That's certainly not how that post reads to me, nor is that concern about Muslim beliefs becoming mainstream in the West even substantiated.

We're at an impasse at this point, so I'll leave it at that.