plekhanov Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 The Uk doesn't execute gays. That doesn't mean the UK isn't homophobic. That doesn't mean that the UK is or isn't made of candyfloss either what or it? How is that supposed to bolster your argument that not executing undetected homosexuals is tolerant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 How is that any less reliable that the random websites you've been cherry picking the odd paragraph or sentence from? If somebody can decide that just because a link begins with the word "blogspot" it can be safely ignored, despite the fact that the source originates from peer-reviewed research, then that is as good example of somebody too entrenched in a position if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 That doesn't mean that the UK is or isn't made of candyfloss either what or it? How is that supposed to bolster your argument that not executing undetected homosexuals is tolerant? That's not my argument. You have a habit of posting straw men. Islam is no more anti-gay than Christianity. Homophobia is not endorsed by any modern Islam scholars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 If somebody can decide that just because a link begins with the word "blogspot" it can be safely ignored, despite the fact that the source originates from peer-reviewed research, then that is as good example of somebody too entrenched in a position if you ask me. there is no peer-reviewed research on that page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 there is no peer-reviewed research on that page. I didn't say there was. It was simply a link to the picture, which was the summary of the peer-reviewed research. But you weren't interested in that were you, otherwise you would of asked, you simply dismissed it ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I didn't say there was. It was simply a link to the picture, which in turn was the summary of the peer-reviewed research. But you weren't interested in that were you, otherwise you would of asked, you simply dismissed it ... Pointing out there is no source for the statistics is not the same as dismissing it. I have doubts that "conservatism" could be accurately estimated after a homophobic attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Islam is no more anti-gay than Christianity. Homophobia is not endorsed by any modern Islam scholars. The problem with absolute claims like that is they are very easy to disprove, I only need to provide 1 example to prove you 100% wrong, like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 That's not my argument. You have a habit of posting straw men. Islam is no more anti-gay than Christianity. Homophobia is not endorsed by any modern Islam scholars. Really then why does your own source state : "Homosexuality in the Sharia While there is a consensus that same-sex intercourse is in violation of Islamic law, there are differences of opinion within Islamic scholarship about punishment, reformation, and what standards of proof are required before physical punishment becomes lawful." How could there possibly be "consensus that same-sex intercourse is in violation of Islamic law" if no modern Islam scholars take that position? Your own source then goes on to quote "the modern Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi's summary" "The jurists of Islam have held different opinions concerning the punishment for this abominable practice. Should it be the same as the punishment for zina, or should both the active and passive participants be put to death? While such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of the Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements." So when you declared "Homophobia is not endorsed by any modern Islam scholars" should we take it that you meant "any modern Islam scholars" aside from Yusuf al-Qaradawi and all the others who agree with him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 The problem with absolute claims like that is they are very easy to disprove, I only need to provide 1 example to prove you 100% wrong, like this. Yusuf al-Qaradawi who is incidentally specifically cited as a "modern Islamic scholar" on religionfacts.com which spindrift cherry picked a quote from a few posts back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Yusuf al-Qaradawi who made it clear on Channel 4 news what his views were: In fact, al-Qaradawi said on Channel 4 News that homosexuality was an "unnatural and evil practice". He told the Guardian that homosexuality was "forbidden". While insisting that individual Muslims "have no right to punish homosexuals or mistreat them", he stressed that punishment was a matter for the state. In other words, he was not denying that he supported the death penalty for homosexuality. All he said was that he opposed vigilantes taking the law into their own hands, which is a standard Sharia law stipulation. How strange, lies copied from Wiki are posted as fact, who'd have thought it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.