That is some distinguished company you're aligning yourself with. I bet that is a sufficient trade-off for, you know, the whole freedom thing. Would you like to come be my servant? I will pay uou and give you the same food, etc etc. Of course, you will have to do everything I tell you, when I tell you to do it, whether you want to or not, and you won't be free to exercise your own will, but you WILL get to wear Kenneth Cole ties and eat salmon. Not at all the same, as slavery in America ended 141 years ago.
not the point, point is that it still goes on a lot of places and is a lot worse, so its not a religious thing, its definately a cultural thing. its not a trade off, its more of a necessity, would you rather starve to death and just beg, or would you work as a servant. its not all same, but it just shows that the slavery you guys think of is africans desperately trying to leave, and are beaten regurarly, and are raped etc etc, well thts not the same image you should be using when thinking of slavery in Islam.
its common sense, if say a country with a law saying all the people with the name BRIAN KAGY be killed upon entering, well im pretty sure Brian Kagy wouldnt go to that country... i dont have significant facts or numbers, but im pretty sure there are no homosexuals there, or even if there are they dont flaunt it, or dont have the balls to do it in public. well thts just an opinion about death penalty, well all disagree, so what can I do about that.
then show it in the public in downtown riyadh.. you wont. its just sheer stupidity if you do. again its like the france headscarf/scullcap issue, if you dont like it leave. as much as i support muslims/jews being allowed to express their opinions, its france, its their country they can do whatever, if you dont like it leave. simple as that.
these people were born there so it's their country too. if you don't like a law in your country then why not try to change the law instead of leaving? if the US made it illegal to be Muslim would you leave or fight it?
i'd be packing my bags to go to Canada. I dont want to be in a country where I am not wanted, or a country where I would have to fight just to live a normal life.
The point that you are missing is that the servant (or "slave" if that is what you want to call the person) that works for you works for you on a VOLUNTARY basis. That is the type of servitude that exists in countries like Bangladesh and that is the type of "slavery" that is sanctioned in Islam. It is "at-will" employment just like we have in Texas. If the servant wants to seize employment, he/she is free to go. There is no question of a "master" owning a slave. It is just like Benson. Benson worked for the Governor, but Benson was not a slave. As a matter of fact, Benson eventually became the Lieutenant Governor
so what exactly is the difference between slavery and regular employment? why bother calling them slaves? Surely you don't think the kind of slavery going on in the Sudan is consentual? what about children being sold into slavery? do they have a choice?
and what if Canada didn't let you in? Where is a gay person in Tehran supposed to go to exactly? You can't solve all your problems by running away.
Too much <i>Theory</i> in this thread. <a HREF="http://hrw.org/reports/2004/saudi0704/1.htm#_Toc75678053">Migrant Workers in Saudi Arabia</a> <hr color=green> <a HREF="http://www.thedailystar.net/2004/07/27/d40727150297.htm">Slaves in Saudi</a>
I'm about as non-gay as they come, and to be honest, it looks strange to me to see two guys (two chicks, that's a slightly different story ) kissing each other or something like that (but there's nothing wrong with that...as long as they don't hit on me!)...but the degree of intolerance displayed by our Muslim friends here towards gays really disturbs me. I mean...I might not be able to understand or relate to why they are attracted to other men...but how does their preference suddenly make them evil or sinners or whatever. I can understand how outlaw finds this attitude degrading and intolerant.
Thank you Mango. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't get much of a response, since some people really have a hard time arguing with facts as you present them if those facts do not support their view of the world. But it is definitely appreciated by some that you calmly introduce some hard facts to the discussion.
the difference is that the quran and arabic shouldnt be translated, it means servitude, just translates into english as slavery.. the slavery in sudan, and all the other stuff is just continuation of the type of slavery that went on in america, its cultural not religious, it may be true that many of the slave owners are muslims, but that is just corrupted ones.
do you know how many women are promised jobs in dubai, but instead are taken over there and forced into prostitution. well same concept, people are corrupt, doesnt mean that the religion allows this.
i understand what you are saying SJC, but I wont personally go and kill any homo's. I personally feel different and wierd in the presence of Homosexuals, but I wont attack them, unless they attack me first... what islam has ordered well its just life, i accept gods religion, and i will not deny whats written in the quran. if there are people that are being killed because of their sexuality(in a muslim country) i for one wont object it... but if someone kills an innocent(say the russian child) i would object to it like hell.
i would go to any country that would accept me, if that is not an option, then i would continue to practice my religion, but i sure as hell wouldn't make it obvious nor would i do it in public... as for that gay person in tehran, well russia doesnt seem to be too far away.
are you telling me that there are no gays in any muslim countries? Al-Fatiha estimates that 4,000 homosexuals have been executed in Iran since their revolution in 1979. Ontario Consultants on Religous Tolerance http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/homosexuality.html our exchange has sparked my curiousity about islamic law (i honestly had no idea gays were killed) so i did a little research on the internet (god/allah bless it). though i still disagree w/ killing people for non-violent offences, i think i have a little bit better understanding where muslims are comming from. as far as homosexuality goes, from what i read it seems to be condemed more for the fact that it is sex outside of marriage, which is a big no-no. sex is to be reserved for marriage and from what i have read and heard on here, procreation. since sex before marriage is a major sin and gay people cannot be married than it is wrong in that respect. adultrey and homosexuality seem to be regarded as similar forms of sin and the punishments are about the same. the thing that makes condeming a homosexual difficult is that you have to have 4 people of upstanding character testify against them. if you have less than the accusers get lashed for false slander. under those conditions it would seem difficult to catch anyone unless they were out in public or something. the other reason islam condems homosexuals is the story of lot. but is there anywhere else in the koran where homosexuality is outrightly condemed besides the story of lot? if there isnt than does just this one instance in the koran justify the islamic postion on homosexuality? from what i read about lot the whole town was filled w/ debauchery and rapes and homosexuality and thievery and violence. all kinds of degenerate behavior. the locals were basically real a-holes to outsiders, robbing them and beating them up. could it be possible that eventually everyone else had enough of their hooliganism and just joined up and destroyed the town? could it be that there were only small instances of homosexuality that were later exagerated? could it be possible that it had nothing to do w/ homosexual behavior as much as the fact that the people of lot were jerks? from what i read there are 3 different types of criminal acts, with adultrey, robbery and ALCOHOL (ouch!) amongst the worst. the second class contains murder (shouldnt that be THE worst?). something like embezzlement would be in the 3rd class. for me personally, i feel like something like homosexuality or alcohol drinking is a non-violent offense and shouldnt be enforced w/ such a violent punishment. even embezzlement has a far more negative effect on people than homosexuality, in terms of stealing others hard-earned money (enron). as far as murderers, violent thieves, rapists and child molesters go, i wish the u.s.a. would adopt some of islamic laws more strict punishments. those are the people are are really hurting our society. however, i just dont see and justification for the severe punishment imposed upon gays. couldnt you just kick them out of islam instead of killing them? though ive heard arguments that islam is the final word from god, it seems much more similar to old testament (vengeful god) than new testament (compassionate jesus). the new school is just the old school, if you know what i mean. what would sane or adeelsiddiqui say to this quote i found?... "If those who submit to Allah are sincere, they must recognize Allah's will: And such a will creates homosexuality, including homosexual people and homosexual animals, and it is not therefore the Muslims' prerogative to question this or condemn it." thanks for reading this macbethian post if you made it this far. i hope i dont offend anyone (too much ).
i dont live in france, thank god. i think its a disgrace that they did that, especially considering that were talking about little kids in schools. amercia on the other hand, seems to be pretty accomodating towards others religious beliefs. i cant really argue w/ any of that. america does indeed impose their opinons on others. i think it has to do more w/ capitalism and trying to open up markets than religion though, but thats a whole other can of worms. under taliban rule, how free were the people to just get up and leave? and even if they could, how difficult would it have been for a poor person to do that? either way, i dont think there was any justification for taliban rule, especially after 9/11. and yes, before u.s.a. entered WWII we sent jewish refugees back to europe. not really any justification for that, though the u.s.a. wasnt the only country to do this. anti-semitism was pretty widespread before hitler came along. despite this, i dont think anyone could argue that the u.s.a. has been more accepting of others than about any other country in history.
im not so familiar w/ the crusades, but you are probably right. i think they started b/c christian pilgrims on their way to jerusalem were getting robbed by turkish bandits (not even sure if they were muslims?). the pope declared a crusade to secure a safeway to jerusalem for the christians. the problem is that the christians conquered jerusalem, they decided to go all the way to tripoli. again, im not very knowledgeable on the subject so if im wrong please enlighten. however, if were going to go back in history than i could go even further back and point out the invasion of spain by the moors a few hundred years earlier. i dont think either scenario is relevant to the here and now though.
