Does Islam drive homophobic violence?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Magiver

Which side is The Islamic Society of North America on? They’re all over the map. They’ve been to the White House to discuss violence against homosexuals yet here are quotes from one of it’s members:

Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi of the ISNA said: “Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, a sin and corruption… No person is born homosexual, just like no one is born a thief, a liar or murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education.”"

Setting aside the “one of it’s [sic] members” silliness, that quote was from 1999. That doesn’t excuse it, but surely you’re aware that public attitudes in the US toward homosexuality have changed with remarkable speed, and that in 1999, views like his were pretty mainstream. I mean, from the same year, we have a group saying, We affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with military service, and from the same year, a member of that group saying that “the qualification for a speaker to the Republican convention ought to be whether that speaker embraces the Republican agenda, which includes opposition to same-sex marriage, to adding sexual preference to civil rights laws and so forth.” But surely you don’t want us to condemn all modern-day Republicans as homophobic bigots, based on a couple of Republican quotes from sixteen years ago, do you?

This is NOT to excuse homophobia when practiced by Muslims. And yes, homophobia in our culture is most entrenched in enclaves of strong Abrahamic religions. And yes, most of the worst repression of gay folk around the world is happening due to Muslim theocracies.

But this particular example is some weak sauce.

[Kimstu]

@Magiver

@Kimstu

Sure, the radical Muslims who promote such oppressive laws defend them as being based on Muslim scripture. Nobody denies that.

You just denied it below by referring to their behavior as an interpretation.

Nonsense. Their behavior is an interpretation. Their claim that oppressive laws are based on Muslim scripture is their interpretation of Muslim scripture.

I don’t understand how you can go on failing to comprehend this.

[QUOTE=Magiver]

I think it matters greatly what their prophets specifically say and do. Islam has an exponential number of terrorist groups compared to any other religion. It’s not rocket science to connect the behavior of these groups to the behavior and laws of Mohammad.

[/quote]

Jesus explicitly said that all the Old Testament laws remained in force for his followers—including, of course, the punishments prescribed in Leviticus for homosexuality. It’s not rocket science to connect the behavior of Christian persecutors of homosexuals (who throughout pre-modern history have been much more virulent and oppressive towards homosexuals than most other religions, including Islam) to the behavior of Jesus.
See, you can’t just leapfrog from Hypothesized Cause A (differences in ancient Muslim/Christian scriptures/prophets before the 8th century CE) to Observed Phenomenon B (differences in Muslim/Christian terrorism levels in the 20th/21st centuries) while completely ignoring all the time in between, much of which manifested the opposite of Observed Phenomenon B (i.e., where oppression and violence was greater in Christian cultures than in Muslim ones).

That level of willful historical ignorance and denial on your part is absolutely mind-boggling. It’s like an anti-vaxxer inferring that vaccines cause autism based on observing the onset of autism symptoms following childhood vaccinations, completely ignoring the fact that in most children vaccination is not followed by autism.

You’re indulging in exactly that sort of blatant cherrypicking of a certain subset of phenomena that can be made to square with your hypothesis, while resolutely ignoring all the rest of the phenomena that contradict your hypothesis.

You can’t rationally explain 21st-century outcomes by appealing to 7th-century causes if the intervening centuries frequently showed the opposite of the 21st-century outcomes.

[QUOTE=Magiver]
There’s nothing hypocritical about what I said.
The Christian prophet didn’t write down the dogma you profess. Not one line.

[/quote]

Despite which, many Christians throughout history have used the Christian prophet as their stated authority for all kinds of barbaric and oppressive acts, including the execution of homosexuals.

Yes, your attempt to draw an artificial distinction between Christianity and Islam based on arbitrary criteria of what “the prophet wrote down” is hypocrisy, plain and simple. It’s a desperate attempt to handwave away the fact that Christians who persecute homosexuals do so based on their interpretation of Christian doctrine, just as Muslims who persecute homosexuals do so based on their interpretation of Muslim doctrine.

[QUOTE=Magiver]
I wasn’t aware SDMB had a grammar moderator. I’ll try to care even less in the future.
[/QUOTE]

Don’t bother: we don’t need any further evidence of your deep and enduring commitment to inaccuracy and logical inconsistency.

[Magiver]

@iiandyiiii

There are many “literal words of Mohammed”, some of which some Muslims interpret to expressly outlaw terrorism.

All reading, including reading that proclaims to be literal, is still interpretation, especially when there are so many words that may seem to conflict directly with each other.

You’re going with interpretation of literal words. Why don’t you just go with “nuh uh.”

@iiandyiiii

And yet, somehow, American Muslims are significantly more tolerant of homosexuality than American Mormons and evangelical Christians.

Which just goes to show the power of interpretation.

It hasn’t been a month yet and you’ve forgotten the worst terrorist attack in the US outside of 9/11.

[Trinopus]

Statistics would not seem to be your strong suit.

[Kimstu]

@Magiver

It hasn’t been a month yet and you’ve forgotten the worst terrorist attack in the US outside of 9/11.

Gee, most people who can both remember and count would consider that a terrorist attack that killed 168 people is quantitatively “worse” than one that killed 50.

Now watch Magiver hauling on those goalposts as he tries to argue that the literal meaning of “outside of” is “since”. :rolleyes:

[Kimstu]

@Magiver

You’re going with interpretation of literal words.

Okay then, you tell us. What is the interpretation-free “true meaning” of the literal words “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

Explain to us why the Christians who base their support for execution of homosexuals on these literal words of Jesus confirming the continuing validity of all Old Testament law (including execution of homosexuals) are wrong. But remember, you’re not allowed to use any interpretation!
While you’re at it, please also tell us the interpretation-free “true meaning” of the literal words “There shall be no compulsion in religion”.

[iiandyiiii]

@Magiver

You’re going with interpretation of literal words. Why don’t you just go with “nuh uh.”

There is no “literal”. It’s all interpretation. Have you seriously not noticed that some of the teachings contradict other teachings? There is no literal interpretation of contradictory passages.

It hasn’t been a month yet and you’ve forgotten the worst terrorist attack in the US outside of 9/11.

No I haven’t. You, in the other hand, have forgotten all the world history between the 8th century and the 20th. Hint: sometimes the most violent groups weren’t Muslim. Sometimes they were. Scripture didn’t have anything to do with those times when the Islamic world was significantly more peaceful, tolerant, and open in general than the Christian world, and it didn’t have anything to do with the times when it was not. There may be many problems in Islam and the Islamic world, but scripture is pretty darn far down the list.

Christianity isn’t special, and neither is Islam. They’re just a couple of major religions with an infinite way to interpret their teachings, just like all the others.

[Magiver]

@Kimstu

Gee, most people who can both remember and count would consider that a terrorist attack that killed 168 people is quantitatively “worse” than one that killed 50.

Now watch Magiver hauling on those goalposts as he tries to argue that the literal meaning of “outside of” is “since”. :rolleyes:

What does that have to do with anything?

[Magiver]

@iiandyiiii

There is no “literal”. It’s all interpretation. Have you seriously not noticed that some of the teachings contradict other teachings? There is no literal interpretation of contradictory passages.

Have you noticed the overwhelming level of Islamic terrorist groups over any other religion?

@iiandyiiii

Christianity isn’t special, and neither is Islam. They’re just a couple of major religions with an infinite way to interpret their teachings, just like all the others.

No, Christianity isn’t special. It also isn’t knee deep in terrorist groups.

[iiandyiiii]

@Magiver

Have you noticed the overwhelming level of Islamic terrorist groups over any other religion?

Now, sure. But “now” isn’t special, and now doesn’t tell us anything more about the “true” nature of a religion than any point (like the times when Christians were more violent and less tolerant) in the past does.

[Monty]

So, Magiver, two issues for you:

[ol][li]What about this dude? Are you going to say that his religion isn’t the reason for the murder he committed? After all, he explicitly said it was.[/li][li]Who made you the Final Arbiter Of All That A Particular Religion Teaches?[/ol][/li]
Look, what you’re doing here is picking and choosing and deciding on your own what is the correct interpretation of Islamic scripture and jurisprudence throughout the ages. The funniest thing about it is that you have evidenced exactly zero understanding of what the vast majority of those who follow Islam believe and how they act, zero understanding of the differences in the schools of Islamic law, and also no understanding of how the faiths you seem to hold as shining beacons of tolerance currently have followers who preach death to various groups they don’t happen to like and act on that preaching.

[Trinopus]

@Magiver

Have you noticed the overwhelming level of Islamic terrorist groups over any other religion?

No, Christianity isn’t special. It also isn’t knee deep in terrorist groups.

You also continually fail to recognize the billion or so peaceful Muslims, who aren’t members of terrorist groups. Islam is not “knee deep” in terrorist groups. It’s shoulder deep in merchants, doctors, farmers, machinists, and poets.

[panache45]

@Danja

I think that the majority of Americans would agree with, at the very least, the statement that “gays and other gender/sexual minorities may not be physically attacked for their way of life.” Why would it be wrong to deny entry to those who do not hold this view? What advantage does a country gain by allowing such people entry? I understand the fear of another “red scare” leading to unjust oppression and immigration laws, but would a fundamental commitment to nonviolence not be a reasonable bar to set?

I thought I was being absolutely explicit in my views, but I guess not. Anyone advocating any kind of violence, against me or anyone else, should be denied entry to the country. We have enough violent people here, without adding more. But people who are merely nonviolent bigots, people who hate what I am but wish me no actual harm, should be free to believe what they want. We need to screen potential immigrants for their violent intentions, not their bigoted thoughts.

[Waymore]

@iiandyiiii

Now, sure. But “now” isn’t special, and now doesn’t tell us anything more about the “true” nature of a religion than any point (like the times when Christians were more violent and less tolerant) in the past does.

“Now” is special when dealing with problems that are effecting the word “now.”

[iiandyiiii]

@Waymore

“Now” is special when dealing with problems that are effecting the word “now.”

Yes, but now says nothing more about the true nature of a religion than any point in the past does, and when all of history is looked at, the violence associated with Islam today is nothing significant compared to the violence associated with nearly every religion, including Christianity, at one point or another in the past.

[panache45]

@iiandyiiii

Yes, but now says nothing more about the true nature of a religion than any point in the past does, and when all of history is looked at, the violence associated with Islam today is nothing significant compared to the violence associated with nearly every religion, including Christianity, at one point or another in the past.

Except that the first word of this thread title is “does,” not “did.” We’re not looking at “all of history.”

[iiandyiiii]

@panache45

Except that the first word of this thread title is “does,” not “did.” We’re not looking at “all of history.”

We are if we’re discussing the ‘true nature’ of Islam as a whole, which is a side topic that developed, as opposed to just the actions and influence of Islam today.

[Magiver]

@Trinopus

You also continually fail to recognize the billion or so peaceful Muslims, who aren’t members of terrorist groups. Islam is not “knee deep” in terrorist groups. It’s shoulder deep in merchants, doctors, farmers, machinists, and poets.

define peaceful. Seriously. are you including those who support laws against apostasy and blasphemy? support for this varies greatly by region.

there are 375 million Muslims in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Malaysia, and Bangladesh who support the death penalty for Muslims who convert away from Islam.

That amounts to 1/3 of a billion merchants, doctors, farmers, machinists and poets who support killing people for leaving the religion.

Yes, other regions have lower ratios but 375 million in 7 nations is not a small number.

Does this fall under your definition of peaceful?

[Yuweg]

Why do I have a feeling that the arguments are getting a bit out of hand?

[Trinopus]

@Magiver

. . . Does this fall under your definition of peaceful?

Does this fall under your definition of terrorist?

I was rebutting your claim that Islam is “knee deep in terrorists.” People who support oppressive laws are not terrorists.

Keep moving those goalposts.