From: flax@frej.teknikum.uu.se (Jonas Flygare)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Homosexuality in Islam
Date: 4 Jan 93 12:39:03 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.725656339@isis.sce.carleton.ca>, 
	nabeel@sce.carleton.ca (Rosignolo) writes:
|> In <FLAX.92Dec22225000@frej.teknikum.uu.se> 
	flax@frej.teknikum.uu.se (Jonas Flygare) writes:
|> 
|> " In article <nabeel.725048478@oracle.sce.carleton.ca> 
	nabeel@sce.carleton.ca (Rosignolo) writes:

[Stuff deleted]

|> "       My point is they should not contradict, if they do, then at least one or the
|> "    other must be wrong and thus should be casted off.

|> " Ok, given a choice, which of the two should be cast off then?

|>    Depending on the government and constitution, if it is a religious state then
|> what contradicts religion must be casted off, if it is not then religion is
|> practically proven wrong and should be casted off (provided that the used system
|> is better than the one provided by religion.)

Hm.. Isn't it then a lot easier to do, as I proposed, and accept that the religion
is to guide our daily personal and emotional life, and the laws to guide the cogs
of society. That would tend to reduce the conflicting points to a minimum, I'd say.

|> "       Only the interpretations may contradict, but the original rules if seem to
|> "    contradict, then often the most recent abrogates the others or they are
|> "    applies in different circumstances.

|> " I'm sure Goedel would've loved to hear that.. Seriously though, why are you
|> " mixing 'original' and 'more recent'? Are you accepting that there are more
|> " recent rules added, even if one of them changes an original?

|>    I am not mixing; the "most recent" is a subset of the "original rules." I.e.
|> first drinking was allowed but one was not permitted to pray while drunk. Later,
|> drinking was prohibited completely. Those two rules are still in Koran, but the
|> latter abrogated the former. This happens in Hadiths (they were based upon Koran.)
|> The reason is that Islam took people unto itself step by step.

Ah. Is this accepted among _all_ moslems, or is this your personal guidelines?

|>    Rules added later (by Muslims) do not have the power to change Koranic or Hadith
|> rules and thus are void if they contradict with Koran or Hadith.

|> " Yes, but to send a person out in life with the belief that its ok if he/she
|> " kills somebody 'by mistake' is to me the equivalent of firing a missile
|> " into a crowd. Soldiers who kill others in 'friendly' fire are _prosecuted_
|> " and it is _not ok_ to do that. Irrelevant example if you ask me. Also, many 
|> " soldiers have a hard time dealing with the killings they've done, even if it's
|> " 'enemies'. That is one of the really hard tasks for priests; to help an 
|> " individual deal with the assumed guilt in such a situation.

|>    But don't you see that requiring someone to do more than their BEST is
|> ridiculous? If someone is lousy or sloppy they are not supposed to take certain
|> roles. However, qualified judges make mistakes and some innocent people are
|> punished everywhere, or do you deny that? Can we demand discarding the judicial
|> system for that?

Please explain the relevance of your text above, to what I wrote.

|> "       Nice understanding, smart one! The above paragraph of mine means: Religions
|> "    definitely discriminate in one way or the other between their followers and
|> "    others, otherwise, then people will have no reason to follow those religions.
|> "    Why would you follow a religion which does not care whether you follow it or
|> "    not and you will be considered the same?

|> " Hm, yes, as you say, if _i_ follow it. But why, pray tell, should I care any
|> " what my neighbour believes, as long as he is not disturbing my life?
|> " Any reason I should ask him to pay any more taxes than me?
|> " I'm curious..

|>    Nonmuslims pay less "tax" than Muslims, it was from 1-4 Dinars/year/person
|> depending on the person's financial stance and if they can not, they were given
|> social insurance payments/unemployment etc.

As I understand it, non-moslems must pay an _additional_ tax due to their religion.
Is there any other tax they do not have to pay? Also, is your answer relevant to
the whole moslem world?

|>    Since Islamic states are based upon Islam, and the religion have some financial
|> economical (and other) requirements then the taxation system must depend upon
|> religion.

|> "       To give them, their children and the residents their the opportunity to
|> "    voluntarily embrace Islam and make sure that no persecution is made to prevent
|> "    people from doing so.

|> " To me, waging war on a people to have them 'voluntarily' do something carries
|> " an inherent contradiction..

|>    It is not; people risk social/political persecution if they convert to other
|> religions; Islam comes there to see that this does not happen and they can freely
|> change their faiths into Islam (after they think seriously about it because there
|> is no way out once you become a Muslim.) A Muslim state is required to be the
|> superpower of the world and in that case religious and political persecution is
|> stopped.

This is the one thing I dislike most about some moslems. The belief that there can
be only one religion, and that all others are wrong. I'm glad that you admit this, 
though.

|> "       The interpretations must not clash unless someone is wrong, otherwise, there
|> "    are options in some issues that can be followed according to personal
|> "    preference or convincing. However, there must be only one Islamic country and
|> "    that island must be a dependency of that country.

|> " What would you do if 'your' version is proved wrong? (Let's assume they have
|> " in their possesion the diaries of a close relative to the Prophet, or an
|> " artefact of equal (or greater) importance.) Would you accept that?

|>    Without details, if my version is proved wrong, I am required to switch to
|> the correct version, as simple as that. 

Yes, but would you? Who would you be willing to listen to, if you are asked to
change something that governs your life? Again, is this ruleset of yours common
to all moslems?

|> "       If they are Muslims they do not pay tax, they join the country like all
|> "    other Muslims districts. But if their rules contradict Islam such as having
|> "    new prophets or suspending some Islamic rules, they are fought until they
|> "    follow properly, no tax option in this case.

|> " This is _Real_ _Nice_ (tm).. Can you spot the inconsistency between the
|> " last two paragraphs you wrote???

|>    If you mean religious persecution, then Nonmuslims are not forced to follow
|> Islam but Muslims are forced to be proper Muslims because otherwise they may 
|> distort and completely change the religion like what happened to Christianity 
|> where they later adopted all/most Pagan rituals but changed their names.

Are you thinking of Christmas? What is the origin of Ramadan?


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