• news
  • TUESDAY OCTOBER 31 2006 7:00 AM

Religious Leader says it's ok to Kill Gays

The highest Islamic authority in Manchester, England believes that gay men should be executed according to the Koran. Time yet again to celebrate our multicultural diversities and show our respect for all religious beliefs:

The leading imam in Manchester, confirms that he thinks the execution of sexually active gay men is justified, the rights group Outrage reported.

Arshad Misbahi of the Manchester Central Mosque confirmed his views in a conversation to John Casson, a local psychotherapist.

Casson said: "I asked him if the execution of gay Muslims in Iran and Iraq was an acceptable punishment in Sharia law, or the result of culture, not religion.

"He told me that in a true Islamic state, such punishments were part of Islam: If the person had had a trial, at which four witnesses testified that they had seen the actual homosexual acts."

"I asked him what would be the British Muslim view? He repeated that in an Islamic state these punishments were justified. They might result in the deaths of thousands but if this deterred millions from having sex, and spreading disease, then it was worthwhile to protect the wider community."

"I checked again that this was not a matter of tradition, culture or local prejudice. 'No,' he said, 'It is part of the central tenets of Islam: that sex outside marriage is forbidden; this is stated in the Koran and the prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had stated that these punishments were due to such behaviours.'"


 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

Comments
FrozenFoodGod

FrozenFoodGod

Canada
OLD SKOOL

OCT 31, 2006 10:39 AM

hadees said:

TonyTails said:
What I don't understand is how someone can ignore parts of a religion that they don't like. I mean, if the bible tells you that something is wrong, but you don't agree with that so you don't worry about it, how can you then claim that the rest of it holds more validity than the parts you've ignored?



You don't ignore it you interpret it differently.



A quote from the Hadith: ""When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes... Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to."

I guess moderate Muslims must interpret that as "love homosexuals"....that or they ignore it. Or keep quiet about their opinions.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

OCT 31, 2006 10:42 AM

FrozenFoodGod said:
A quote from the Hadith: ""When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes... Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to."

I guess moderate Muslims must interpret that as "love homosexuals"....that or they ignore it. Or keep quiet about their opinions.



The Hadith lack the authority of the Qur'an, so moderate Muslims can probably get away with ignoring it in the same way as moderate Christians get away with ignoring Leviticus. Theoretically more easily.

reprobate

reprobate

New Orleans, LA
December 2002

OCT 31, 2006 10:57 AM

Zarth said:

reprobate said:

There is nothing in the New Testament that authoritative condemns same sex relationships. The Old Testament, however, is pretty damn explicit.



I thought the Epistles were pretty authoritatively against male homosexuality. Granted, I've never read those (only the Gospels and Revelations in the New Testament), so I can't be sure.



There are passages from Paul that are interpreted as such, but, much like many aphorisms and truisms begun by the KJV committee, there's not a lot of linguistic support for it. The most commonly cited section is principally about temple prostitutes and the word translated commonly as "homosexual" is none of the words in Koine known to mean that, and appears nowhere else in all of ancient literature.

maj1234

maj1234

Windsor, ON
July 2002

OCT 31, 2006 11:18 AM

Religious leaders are nuts. At least the fundamentalists are. When man starts interpreting 'God's Word' for his own needs, get ready for trouble. Christian, Muslim, Jew or whatever. Once you've made the conscious decision to stop thinking for yourself, you're basically a tool in the hands of your various godly representatives here on earth. Organized Religion - Just Say No!

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

OCT 31, 2006 11:21 AM

reprobate said:
There are passages from Paul that are interpreted as such, but, much like many aphorisms and truisms begun by the KJV committee, there's not a lot of linguistic support for it. The most commonly cited section is principally about temple prostitutes and the word translated commonly as "homosexual" is none of the words in Koine known to mean that, and appears nowhere else in all of ancient literature.



That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.

SirPsychoSexy

SirPsychoSexy

Ridgewood, NJ
January 2004

OCT 31, 2006 11:29 AM

hadees said:

TonyTails said:
What I don't understand is how someone can ignore parts of a religion that they don't like. I mean, if the bible tells you that something is wrong, but you don't agree with that so you don't worry about it, how can you then claim that the rest of it holds more validity than the parts you've ignored?



You don't ignore it you interpret it differently.



Thats nice. So if everyone personally interprets any religious text how they want to, then they are ultimately responsible for their own set of moral leanings.

So... why do you need religion again? Good people are good, bad people are bad. Without the "good book" good people are still good, and bad people don't have a shouting voice from thousands of years ago telling them its ok to be a total asshole and kill people. whatever

Don't respect religion. Respect is earned, not ingrained.

Heathen_Dave

Heathen_Dave

Birmingham, AL
July 2005

OCT 31, 2006 11:47 AM

SirPsychoSexy said:

hadees said:

TonyTails said:
What I don't understand is how someone can ignore parts of a religion that they don't like. I mean, if the bible tells you that something is wrong, but you don't agree with that so you don't worry about it, how can you then claim that the rest of it holds more validity than the parts you've ignored?



You don't ignore it you interpret it differently.



Thats nice. So if everyone personally interprets any religious text how they want to, then they are ultimately responsible for their own set of moral leanings.

So... why do you need religion again? Good people are good, bad people are bad. Without the "good book" good people are still good, and bad people don't have a shouting voice from thousands of years ago telling them its ok to be a total asshole and kill people. whatever

Don't respect religion. Respect is earned, not ingrained.



Haven't you heard, without religion there would be no moral basis at all. As we all know, humans without religion are completely insane, and will kill, steal and fuck as many animals as possible in a lifetime.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

OCT 31, 2006 12:04 PM

Heathen_Dave said:
Haven't you heard, without religion there would be no moral basis at all. As we all know, humans without religion are completely insane, and will kill, steal and fuck as many animals as possible in a lifetime.



Well, one certainly does try. But it's hard to get as much killing and raping and stealing in as I'd like with the welfare department always being so fascist about making me keep up with the paperwork in order to get my checks. Shit, I'd almost have more time if I worked for a living. But then Jebus might love me.

MetaTag

MetaTag

United Kingdom
September 2002

OCT 31, 2006 12:05 PM

Heathen_Dave said:
Haven't you heard, without religion there would be no moral basis at all. As we all know, humans without religion are completely insane, and will kill, steal and fuck as many animals as possible in a lifetime.



That's why I look forward to the Royal Society of Chemistry Lectures at Christmas. The blood, gore and sheer sexual depravity is a sight to see. wink

hadees

hadees

Austin, TX
December 2003

OCT 31, 2006 01:03 PM

SirPsychoSexy said:
Thats nice. So if everyone personally interprets any religious text how they want to, then they are ultimately responsible for their own set of moral leanings.

So... why do you need religion again? Good people are good, bad people are bad. Without the "good book" good people are still good, and bad people don't have a shouting voice from thousands of years ago telling them its ok to be a total asshole and kill people. whatever

Don't respect religion. Respect is earned, not ingrained.


Because religion can be a good back drop to teach morals (although it can also be used to justify evil). Do what you want with your religion. I personally like mine (Judaism) and the reason I still follow it is because of Pascal's Wager. What is really nice about Judaism is it doesn't require faith just action.

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

OCT 31, 2006 01:08 PM

Chaolin said:

brett54 said:
Last week, the leading Muslim cleric in Australia compared 'immodestly dressed women' being akin to exposed meat waiting for a cat to get it. This was in his Jumah prayers (Friday) at a large Mosque. The translation has been confirmed.

Pretty shocking when a group of Islamic men went around Sydney gang raping women - oh, they're in jail now.



I was gonna mention this too but I didnt know the exact specifics of it. Thanks.


Dudes ... they know ...

MisterGone

MisterGone

Minneapolis, MN
March 2006

OCT 31, 2006 02:16 PM

hadees said:

Because religion can be a good back drop to teach morals (although it can also be used to justify evil). Do what you want with your religion. I personally like mine (Judaism) and the reason I still follow it is because of Pascal's Wager. What is really nice about Judaism is it doesn't require faith just action.



One problem I have with Pascal's Wager is the possibility that you might choose the wrong god. Suppose I decide to believe in Jehovah and when I die it turns out that, say, the Hindus were right all along.
But most of all is that it just seems dishonest, you don't actually believe in god you're just paying lip-service in case your real belief in god isn't correct, and you didn't even say "one of the reasons..." you said reason.

hadees

hadees

Austin, TX
December 2003

OCT 31, 2006 02:30 PM

MisterGone said:
One problem I have with Pascal's Wager is the possibility that you might choose the wrong god. Suppose I decide to believe in Jehovah and when I die it turns out that, say, the Hindus were right all along.


Its a problem but not one I care that much about mainly because I have more interest in preserving my ancestors heritage then trying to select the absolute true deity.


But most of all is that it just seems dishonest, you don't actually believe in god you're just paying lip-service in case your real belief in god isn't correct, and you didn't even say "one of the reasons..." you said reason.


That might be the case for Christianity but in Judaism it is your actions that count not your blind faith. So me having doubt in the existence of G-d doesn't matter the least if G-d turns out to exist so long as I have lived my life following the Torah to the best of my ability. And I do believe that the morals I have been taught through Judaism are both good and valid.

Ultimately I am coming at this from a different angle then most posters here. Maybe even different from some Jews. I just feel that since my people have paid such a high price to preserve our religion I am obligated to continue telling the stories even if I have doubts about their total authenticity.

gramsci

gramsci

United Kingdom
November 2003

OCT 31, 2006 02:41 PM

CyberEdZ said:

CaptainAllama said:
Well, Christianity says exactly the same thing. It's in the Bible. Twice.


Only if you read a particular version of the Bible (particularly the NIV and KJV translations) - in fact, there is nothing in the Bible which condemns stable, same-sex relationships.




Nope, it's pretty clear, god really does hate fags... The good news is god(s) aren't real.

People behave in a civilized manner inspite of our holy books, not because of them.

Pfffeew!

MisterGone

MisterGone

Minneapolis, MN
March 2006

OCT 31, 2006 02:43 PM

hadees said:
That might be the case for Christianity but in Judaism it is your actions that count not your blind faith. So me having doubt in the existence of G-d doesn't matter the least if G-d turns out to exist so long as I have lived my life following the Torah to the best of my ability. And I do believe that the morals I have been taught through Judaism are both good and valid.

Ultimately I am coming at this from a different angle then most posters here. Maybe even different from some Jews. I just feel that since my people have paid such a high price to preserve our religion I am obligated to continue telling the stories even if I have doubts about their total authenticity.


Those seems like excellent reasons right there, much more intelligent then the reasoning behind Pascals, also considering Pascal's Wager was created with christianity in mind it seems to apply even less to judaism.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next