Al Mumtahanah wrote:Samudera Darussalam wrote:Where did I say that it's not a sin? You start it with quoting the 'People of Lot', so I reply that it's not merely condemnation of homosexuality.
I know that I'm not a scholar, but I do try to study my religion.
Living as a Muslim in a predominantly secular, non-Muslim countries aren't that easy. You have to be more open-minded, even if it force you to somehow tolerate some haraam. Mind you, tolerate, not approve. Objectively speaking, 'rapes' do more harm than LGBTQ+.
The reason I say they are safe, is that supporting LGBTQ+ rights do no harm in our human world.
Since this is going back to the topic of Ilhan Omar, I have things that I don't agree with her views, but she is quite an achievement. She managed to overcome the difficulties to become a Muslim senator in the U.S. She may not do things right as a person or Muslim, but at least, she managed to represent her community. If the other Muslims don't agree with her, then why don't those other Muslims become that representative as well? It must be really easy to throw the word 'Munafeequn' around today?
Thank you for the response, and with this, case's closed.
Why don't other Muslims sell out their values to a political party representing purely unislamic interests? This strips Islam does to nothing but an identity. Malcom X was a great Muslim involved in American politics, and he didn't sell out his Islamic values for that, rather the opposite, the values of his faith informed amd strengethened his political involvement.Jolthig wrote:The cult is not a scholarly source on Ahmadiyya nor am I going to waste my time reading all that nonsense. Why not provide your own arguments against Ahmadiyya?
Your inconsistencies in your arguments isn't really getting you anywhere.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a strong supporter of the British Empire precisely because it kept the Ummah out of power.
Mirza Ghulam proudly wrote:
"My father was a well-known landlord in this country and he enjoyed great eminence in the Government's offices. He was a true devotee and well wisher of the British Government. In the mutiny of 1857 (the Muslim independence movement against colonialism is called 'mutiny' by Mirza), my father supplied fifty horses and riders to aid the British Government. For this favor to the Government, he was very popular among the officials."
(Izala-e-Auham, P. 58, footnote)
"The benevolent Government is aware of the fact that we are from among their servants, their sympathizers and well wishers. We have come to their aid with a firm mind in every hour of need. My father was held in close and high esteem by the Government; and our services to this Government held clear distinction. I do not think that the Government has forgotten these services of ours. My father, Mirza Ghulam Murtaza, son of Mirza Ata Muhammad Al-Qadian, was a great well wisher and friend of this government and enjoyed great respect from among them. Our loyalty has been proven beyond doubt. Rather our fidelity was proven among the people and became clear to the government officials. The Government may confirm this from the officers who came to this side and lived among us; so that they may tell what sort of life we lived, and how faithful we have been in serving their Government."
(Noor-ul-Haq, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 8, P. 36-37; Noor-ul-Haq, Vol. 1, P. 27-28)
"I come from a family which is out and out loyal to this government. My father, Mir Ghulam Murtaza, who was considered its well-wisher, used to be granted a chair in the Governor's Darbar (cabinet) and has been mentioned by Mr. Griffin in his 'History of the Princes of Punjab'. In 1857, he helped the British government beyond his means, that is he procured fifty (50) cavaliers and horses right during the time of the mutiny. He was considered by the government to be its loyal supporter and well-wisher. A number of testimonials of appreciation received by him from the officers have unfortunately been lost. Copies of three of them, however, which had been published a long time ago, are reproduced in the margin (in English). Then, after the death of my grandfather, my elder brother Mirza Ghulam Qadir remained occupied with service to the government and when the evil-doers encountered the forces of the British government on the highway of Tanmmun, he participated in the battle on the side of the British Government (under General Nicholson he killed several freedom fighters). At the time of the death of my father and brother, I was sitting in the sidelines; but, since then, I have been helping the British for seventeen years with my pen."
(Kitab-ul-Barriah, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 13, P. 4, 5, 6, 7;
Shahadat-ul-Quran, Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 6, P. 385-387;
Ishtihar Wajib al-Izhar, Sept. 20, 1897, P. 3-7; appended with Kitab-ul-Barriah)
"I am scion of a family which the English Government acknowledges to be faithful to it. British officers have also admitted that my father and my people are amongst those who served the Government in all sincerity and with heart and soul. I can not find the words to express my homage and gratitude to the beneficent Government on account of the peace and composure which we have found as subjects of the Government. For this reason, we - myself, my father and my brother - have girded up our loins that we will exhibit the favors and advantages of this Government, make obedience to it incumbent on the people and embed it in their hearts."
(Tabligh-e-Risalat, Vol. 7, P. 8-9)
http://irshad.org/exposed/service.php
Yet, the Brotish allowed Muslims to freely practice their faith. That's why Mirza Ghulam Ahmad forbade hos followers from rebelling. Why rebel against a government that allows you to practice your faith? There was nothing wrong with being loyal to a government that lets you practice your faith. This is nothing more than paranoid suspicion because suspicion isn't proof or evidence of something in an argument
