yeah theres a diff BUT what im saying is that even in the west in some places homosexuality is not acceptable

Tread Softly wrote:

In Muslim countries gays are getting their anuses superglued shut. There's a slight difference.

You have to also keep things in context.

Iraq has seen a alot of violence on many many things - the society has been torn apart and there is a lot of wanton descruction going on.

Currently you can get lynched there for many many things - being the wrong person in the wrong neighbourhood, having money, being foriegn, being not foriegn. Being linked in some way to the occupation. Being friendly with the wrong people. The list is endless.

Besides, none of the punishments were official or legal. They were mob rule.

Using that as an example of how things would be is unfair (and evne the taliban - both places came after societies were stripped bare and brutalised as a whole. The soviet invasion of Afghanistan was not one of roses and such things have consequences on the collective psyche of the people as cna be seen what happened there and Afghanistan amongst other places.)

Tread Softly wrote:

Firstly to make clear my position - I have many gay friends and gay members of my family. My wife and I have supported a gay couple in their attempt to adopt.

So you are a gay lover too?

If you can, please tell us your views on important matters like each of these:
God, Heaven, Hell, Quran, Bible, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Terrorism, sex, marriage, gays, holocaust, Iran, Israel, nukes, Bush, Blair, Iraq war and of course, 9/11.

just tell me where you stand on these. Please give clear simple answers.

Tread Softly wrote:

Non-fundamentalist Muslims may be brave enough (until a few of them are killed for causing mischief or being gay) to raise a voice for moderation, but by then it would be too late as the fundamentalists would be in control.

What's the point in living anymore?!? We're doomed!!!

Aaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

malik wrote:

If you can, please tell us your views on important matters like each of these:
God, Heaven, Hell, Quran, Bible, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Terrorism, sex, marriage, gays, holocaust, Iran, Israel, nukes, Bush, Blair, Iraq war and of course, 9/11.

just tell me where you stand on these. Please give clear simple answers.

Dude, why don't you do the same?

And you can add Aljazeera to the list.

Tread Softly wrote:

Non-fundamentalist Muslims may be brave enough (until a few of them are killed for causing mischief or being gay) to raise a voice for moderation, but by then it would be too late as the fundamentalists would be in control.

You will not get (m)any Muslims to think that homosexuality is allowed - More, that would not be a moderate position either.

(Fundamentalism is a term that works for Christianity but not for Islam - here fundamentalism would fix many problems.)

Things always tend towards moderation over time unless there is some instigation that most people can be united against.

More, you will see that death does not cower people when they are in the right. Look at Pakistan - in the frontier provice (where most of the terrorist related acitivty has happened), people speaking against the taliban would at times have their future lives cut to jut a few short days. Yet you still get the leaders of tribes etc speaking up (and then getting gunned down).

Your post above is dealing lightly with their blood, even mocking it.

There will always be extremists, but as an overall problem, things will move towards moderation because to be extreme, there needs to be something "wrong", twisted. but over time (maybe not a fast enough rate), things will moderate.

Besides, being nice is cheaper than using force. Economics eventually will doom the latter.

Tread Softly wrote:

I'm a moderate, a peaceful man, until you print a cartoon of my prophet, THEN I'LL CUT YOUR ^&*(ING HEAD OFF!

Something like that? Or

I'm a moderate, peaceful man, until you sell arms to my King who I disagree with, THEN I'LL GET SOME HENCHMEN TO FLY PLANES INTO YOUR CITIES!

Yes, something like that.

(Is that the level of discussion we want? Maybe I took your search for knowledge and insight far straighter than I should have?)

wohoo! Go Malik.

he is just a gay lover and israeli sympathizer. his words seem to be nice but his dead heart is with gays.

I didn't know you could see into souls and read minds, Malik.

I prefer to take people as they are instead of weaving some bigger story around them.

You wrote:

I didn't know you could see into souls and read minds, Malik.

wow.

Tread Softly wrote:

1) Homosexuality is a great sin in Islam.

Yes.

Tread Softly wrote:

2) The punishment for homosexuality under a Sharia-principled government is death.

No.

Tread Softly wrote:

3) Numbers (1) and (2) are accepted as true by all mainstream Muslims.
4) Therefore to be a good Muslim you have to accept and support Numbers (1) and (2).

Is this correct?

No.

From the 4 Madhabs, the most populous is the Hanafi school of thought. This does not specify the death penalty (or any other for that matter - it simpy, states that it is up to the judge).

More the burden of evidence would be four witnesses to the act of penetration.

Even Saudi - which is not Hanafi does not always use the death penalty - it only uses is when it feels the state is being threatened by nefarious means - for instance if people try to organise a movement. Otherwise it uses less severe punishment including imprisonment if homosexuality has been proven using whatever criteria it has set.

@ Tread SOftly, if you want to know why some people get angry, there is another topic that you may want to take part in too.

Tread Softly wrote:

And my next question, because I'm about to go on holiday for a week or so:

5) The principles of Sharia are to be accepted by all Muslims as the perfect governmental system.
6) The principles of Sharia are to be accepted by all Muslims as the best governmental system in practice, even if implemented by fallible men, assuming all of it is adhered to and non-Sharia cultural baggage is removed.

7) All Muslims should hope for Sharia across the world.
8.) All Muslims should seek to further the progress of Sharia across the world, rather than passively wait for this promised east-to-west Sharia to occur.
9) All Muslims should actively seek to change the government of any country to a Sharia government, whether now or at some future point.

Are these points correct? Any comments on these various points please?

You are confusing principle and implementation in points 5 and 6. They are not the same thing. There can be various implementations of principles using various means with different degrees of success and failure.

If a place (country/state/other) states that it has "implemented Shariah law" that does not put the laws and the jurispudence above discussion.

You are wrong on 8 and 9.

7 is debateable depending on what you mean. For instance if you replace shariah with "justice", would you then be against it? All things to all people. Specifics matter - names are just names some times.

Tread Softly wrote:

1) Homosexuality is a great sin in Islam.
2) The punishment for homosexuality under a Sharia-principled government is death.
3) Numbers (1) and (2) are accepted as true by all mainstream Muslims.
4) Therefore to be a good Muslim you have to accept and support Numbers (1) and (2).

Is this correct?

what about you? do you agree or not with 1 and 2.

malik wrote:

Tread Softly wrote:

1) Homosexuality is a great sin in Islam.
2) The punishment for homosexuality under a Sharia-principled government is death.
3) Numbers (1) and (2) are accepted as true by all mainstream Muslims.
4) Therefore to be a good Muslim you have to accept and support Numbers (1) and (2).

Is this correct?

what about you? do you agree or not with 1 and 2.

I wouldn't imagine Tread Softly assents to a principle of capital punishment for homosexuals and I certainly don't, but I've only piped up to say that really, your bullying question, turning the thing personal, doesn't contribute anything. Tread Softly wants to understand what Islam believes, and has not asked what individual members' tendencies are.

Malik asked the questions knowing what the answers are. But at the same time, there is a distrinction between thinking homosexual acts are wrong/immoral and demanding capital punishment for them.

From my understanding, Tread Softly does not consider them wrong or immoral in any way either.

Tread Softly you are being dishonest with here.
why dont you tell us about your religion.
i just want to know what religion you follow. if you dont follow any religion, then we dont mind, just say so.

why you hiding?

Tread Softly has gone on holiday, Malik, I don't think to hide from you.

You wrote:

Malik asked the questions knowing what the answers are. But at the same time, there is a distrinction between thinking homosexual acts are wrong/immoral and demanding capital punishment for them.

From my understanding, Tread Softly does not consider them wrong or immoral in any way either.

I suppose the issue of morality in the first instance - which is to say adoption is a different matter - might concern the turning of straights who will then not have a traditional family and have in any case intrinsically ignored a heterosexual ethic. But that is not an issue in a case where two people who have established their preference as being gay establish a companionship together that, for whatever reason or none, makes their lives more bearable. It is not easy to see what harm there is in that choice, and a moral judgement on that choice is likely to - and does - result in persecution and irrational discrimination.

Having said which, society has lost its discretion. People do not responsibly keep their views to themselves, or hold them in abeyance and instead continue to lay down lines and fuel a two-way prejudice.

I do not see adoption as an automatic right for any two people but then, presented with an instance of an apparently happy adopted child, I would not be interested in, or have any reason to feel entitled to know, the sexual habits of the parents.

It is a difficult time for traditionalists who, rightly, are sceptical of much that is presented as progress. And that is because in the last 200 years we have encouraged support for the oppressed, gays most certainly among them. And suddenly beliefs that were the epitome of rectitude are seen as arrogant. That isn't easy on anyone, but it doesn't justify persecution.

I don't have a conclusion on the basis of discrimination in adoption, and perhaps a wiser mind can help to clarify, but I also think society doesn't have a singular opinion (whereas at one time it was: ooh, disgusting! Send him away...). Whatever we do arrive at I hope it isn't simply to revert to persecuting gays. I don't care what consenting gays do in private, I don't care what consenting straights do in private. So long as nobody means or commits a harm we've got to loosen our ownership of society's sexual preferences. Certain public behaviours are causing such great friction and concern for parents who don't want their little boy spending too much time with teacher who should know better, don't see it as persecuting anyone if they hope to see grandchildren in their lifetimes, or don't want their little girl getting pregnant, and don't want their kids to experience traumas they might never share and recover from - we need to have a certain balance of toleration and discretion and allow parents their degree of oversight, and that cannot mean arguing from the position that it is immoral for two men to fall in love.

I like to get to know the people around me, and to like them, and I notice that whereas many gays are equally sociable, the sensitivities put everyone a little on their guard. Same as having huge moral judgements on Muslims, for that matter. No vision of a perfect future depends on sadistic attitudes forcing everyone into line (and if you disagree with that, consider what you would say if, say, Hindus claimed the right to do that to you).

Tread Softly - atheist?

I'm sure he/she mentioned?