From: nabeel@sce.carleton.ca (Rosignolo)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality in Islam
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:43:56 GMT

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.

" 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?

" 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?

" "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.

" 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.

" 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. 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?

" 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.


" 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.

             _
 |\_________(@)= |CENSORED|    The above is fiction. I hope you enjoyed it!
   \_\  --/ _/                      
     \=====/       "wa lI qalamon  fI 'onmolI  'in hazaztohO            
        ||            famA  .duRunI   'aLA  'ahoZa   lmohaNadA
        ~~          'i_thA .sUla fawqa .Tirsi waq^o .sarIrihI
                     fa'iNa  .sulIla  lmashrafiYi  lahO  .sudA" 
                                           -- ibn Sana' Al-Mulk