From: flax@frej.teknikum.uu.se (Jonas Flygare)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Homosexuality in Islam
Date: 21 Dec 92 11:08:32 GMT
Reply-To: flax@mizar.docs.uu.se
Organization: Dept. of Control and Systems, Teknikum, Uppsala
NNTP-Posting-Host: frej.teknikum.uu.se

In article <nabeel.724715036@oracle.sce.carleton.ca>, nabeel@sce.carleton.ca (Rosignolo) writes:
|> In <1992Dec18.124824@frej.teknikum.uu.se> flax@frej.teknikum.uu.se (Jonas Flygare) writes:

|> " That's grand of you. Now, will you answer the question? How much more specific need I be?
|> " Should She have a purple wig and huge silver bracelets, in order _not_ to be a general
|> " Goddess?

|>    No, I meant if you worship a bimbo, we don't.

If you know what God looks like, please tell me, so that I may be enlighted..
What I am saying, is that _if_ there is a God, it would, by definition, be 
unlikely that mortals had any grasp of the true nature of God. Right?
What I tried to illustrate with my example is that it is very difficult for
a man/woman to say 'this is what my God _is_'. As for myself I settle for trying 
to determine what it is _not_.

|> " Ok, let's arm _every_ person in the world with the book of their choice. As _soon_ as I
|> " find a problem I look for the solution in the book. Yes! A Real Flexible Society (tm)

|>   Isn't it fantastic?

Fanatic is more like it.

|> " Yes, I might be. Then I'll have to answer for that. But what other human is capable
|> " of judging me, unless I admit that the wordly sentence is imposed upon me, to make
|> " society work, instead of keeping God happy? I just cannot imagine that any Divine being
|> " can have any interest in all the aspects of human life. If we are supplied a general
|> " set of rules that we should be obeying to be good followers of the faith, yes, but to
|> " use the same set to create laws regarding the running of society is an abomination.

|>    Why? You have general rules, you have room within them, you apply them to the
|> society, what is wrong if the rules were intended for so in the first place?

Ok, then explain to me the difference between the sharia (sp?) and the quran.
I've given you several chances to say I am wrong. Is that indication that
you do not believe in Islamic law, unless it is literally mentioned in quran?

|> " "Lesse, we must check if 15% tax is ungodly.. Yes it is.. Better make that 25% then.."
|> " If the laws of a society is _founded_ upon the rules of a religon, only makes it easier
|> " for the people, assuming all have the same religion. But to claim that the ruleset of
|> " religion and society should be the _same_ doesn't hold water.

|>    It does in certain circumstances but not in others.

Which, is exactly why it is a good idea to separate the two.
Most religious leaders have acknowledged this.

|> " This means that a killer is guilty of two crimes: disrupting the life of other
|> " people according to the laws of the society he lives in, and a crime according to 
|> " the religion, assuming he is a believer in such a religion. Now, if you intend to
|> " run a society with a _large_ number of people, which is easier: to follow the rules of 
|> " society _and_ religion, or to just use the religious ruleset? What if you _happen_ to 
|> " find two people who interpret the Holy Book in different ways. (Yes! This is an
|> " _uncommon_ situation....  (sprinkle liberally with irony))

|>    There is only one set of rules in the society whatever their origin is and it is
|> always the same to apply them. If interpretation is disputed and several interpretations
|> do not contradict explicit and implicit rules, then any of them can be used according
|> to the majority or anyone's personal preference.

So, is this one ruleset without contradictions then? Or is it just the interpretations
that contradict? 

|> " Yes, but then they are judged by their adherence to human law, and their life.
|> " The judge of how they have led their life is God, and all we humans can do is
|> " trying to follow our laws, in hope of living better lives that way.

|>    The absolute judge is God, but we do not try to be He or claim that we judge
|> justly, but we only try to implement His laws. If we make unintentional mistakes
|> then, the best we can do is done to fix them if we know about them, otherwise,
|> God fixes things. Our decision is not eternal. God can always compensate the
|> wronged even if they were killed, but extreme care must be excercised in carrying
|> out those rules.

Oh, that's nice. Even if I kill someone innocent by mistake, it does not matter..
I like the sound of that. Must be reassuring being a Moslem..

|> " Oh. Is there a religion that does not consider _any_ people to be unclean? 

|>    I meant physically. Of course, if religions do not discriminate at all
|> among people then they implicitly imply that they are immaterial, so why
|> should anyone follow any faith?

Ah. So when _all_ people belong to Islam, the religion becomes immaterial, so
we have to give it up. All become infidels, and we can start all over?
Nice interpretation.. 

|> " Islam perhaps? Then how come that poor somali woman got so beat up?

|>    It comes that Islam is not implemented properly. It is the same that Xtians
|> and Jews and others commit every sin which contradicts their beliefs.

But I thought that the mob was convinced they were right.. Was it a sin then?
We have more than 4 witnesses to the beating. You should be able to settle
this question..

|> " Ah! Just because I do not believe in your religion I cannot hold opinions 
|> " about it? And claiming that offense is the same as defense is just newspeak.
|> " Let's assume that a people exists that is an abomination to Islam.
|> " They all live on a island far, far away. Chances are that a moslem will never
|> " even see a person of that people? They are peaceful, and will not try to conquer
|> " other islands. Should you then wage a Jihad against them?

|>    Jihad is waged upon them if the Islamic spread was obstructed by them, e.g. if
|> Muslims were expanding and wanted that island to surrender to Islamic rule
|> (different than embracing Islam) and they refused to embrace Islam, pay tax
|> (tribute), then there is only war.

But why would islam have to deal with that island, if there are no moslems on it?
What if you found out that they claim they are moslems, only that they have 
been separated so long from the rest of the world, that they follow _very_ old
rules, that clash with with the modern interpretations of the scriptures?
Are they an obstruction then too? Should they pay tax in that case?

--------------------------------------------------------
Jonas Flygare, 		+ Wherever you go, there you are
V{ktargatan 32 F:621	+
754 22 Uppsala, Sweden	+
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast