NationStates

The Huskar Social Union wrote:

ECKU wrote:Yes, I did say that. Now where the part about me saying they should be lashed for their sexuality?

"To me, it should be 100 slashes, not stoning"

Literally you saying someone should be flogged 100 times for having gay sex.

Coreect. Again, where's the part about me saying they should be lashed for their sexuality? You said that I support that, so please find it.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:

ECKU wrote:Yes, I did say that. Now where the part about me saying they should be lashed for their sexuality?

"To me, it should be 100 slashes, not stoning"

Literally you saying someone should be flogged 100 times for having gay sex.

That, that concerns me.

ECKU wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:
Then he belongs to you. That's the way it works. Relationships are two way streets.

Again that's not how that works in Al-Islam. A master does not belong to a slave, a slave belongs to a master.

And I should think of it in that way because? It's nonsense.

Good. It's time for a push away from secular viewpoints. Not to mention, a nice insult towards those in Europe who would deprive others of basic religious freedoms.

ECKU wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:"To me, it should be 100 slashes, not stoning"

Literally you saying someone should be flogged 100 times for having gay sex.

Coreect. Again, where's the part about me saying they should be lashed for their sexuality? You said that I support that, so please find it.

....


Are you capable of fucking reading?

Joohan wrote:Good. It's time for a push away from secular viewpoints. Not to mention, a nice insult towards those in Europe who would deprive others of basic religious freedoms.

... Such as?

The Huskar Social Union wrote:

ECKU wrote:Coreect. Again, where's the part about me saying they should be lashed for their sexuality? You said that I support that, so please find it.

....


Are you capable of fu*king reading?

Are you capable of telling the difference between "sexuality" as in the expression of it (excluding the sexual parts) and "sex" as in the actual act of intercourse?

Been talking with a bunch of my Muslim friends about this (note: I'm not Muslim but my paternal side is). Their seem to be two camps and an extra mini-camp, at least for the under 35 crowd.

The first and more common view seems to be "it will probably amount to nothing but I trust Hamza Yusef and he's a respected scholar, so I'm cool with it. Stop arguing and causing division among the community." The second side is much more skeptical and thinks that he'll be a "token Muslim" that Trump will use for cover to prop up the Muslim ban or attack Ilhan Omar. They see this new role as a definite mistake but aren't quick to call him out. The mini camp are the progressive who have disliked him for a while after he worked in a similar capacity for the Bush admin, started being more cozy with conservative Arab governments, and said things that could be construed as racist and homophobic. They're mostly exasperated that he continues to be the face of "Liberal Islam" since by their reckoning he's firmly a mainstream conservative.

Joohan wrote:Good. It's time for a push away from secular viewpoints. Not to mention, a nice insult towards those in Europe who would deprive others of basic religious freedoms.

Religious acts conform to the basic values upon which a society is founded, not vice versa.

If, hypothetically, I believe that the salvation of my soul comes from sacrificing my neighbours to God, the police knocking on my door is not a deprivation of my religious freedoms, it's upholding fundamental legal principles.

ECKU wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:....


Are you capable of fu*king reading?

Are you capable of telling the difference between "sexuality" as in the expression of it (excluding the sexual parts) and "sex" as in the actual act of intercourse?

Wow. Forget splitting hairs, that thing's been diced.

Soviet Taoistan wrote:Been talking with a bunch of my Muslim friends about this (note: I'm not Muslim but my paternal side is). Their seem to be two camps and an extra mini-camp, at least for the under 35 crowd.

The first and more common view seems to be "it will probably amount to nothing but I trust Hamza Yusef and he's a respected scholar, so I'm cool with it. Stop arguing and causing division among the community." The second side is much more skeptical and thinks that he'll be a "token Muslim" that Trump will use for cover to prop up the Muslim ban or attack Ilhan Omar. They see this new role as a definite mistake but aren't quick to call him out. The mini camp are the progressive who have disliked him for a while after he worked in a similar capacity for the Bush admin, started being more cozy with conservative Arab governments, and said things that could be construed as racist and homophobic. They're mostly exasperated that he continues to be the face of "Liberal Islam" since by their reckoning he's firmly a mainstream conservative.

Since when was Shaykh Yusuf the face of "liberal" (aka hypocrite) Islam? Also those pessimists have a point, I never thought of it like that. Imma still be optimistic though

ECKU wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:....


Are you capable of fu*king reading?

Are you capable of telling the difference between "sexuality" as in the expression of it (excluding the sexual parts) and "sex" as in the actual act of intercourse?

I dont know if you know this or not, but fucking someone, is a key part of someones sexuality. In fact fucking someone is a pretty big fucking expression of your sexuality.

You whipping someone 100 times because they fucked someone of the same gender, if whipping them for their sexuality.


You are stretching this soooooooo fucking much to justify your bullshit its sad, this kind of shit amin, this kind of shit is why you are a threat. And a key proponent for why Islam should modernise, so that less people with your mind set are part of the next generation.

Plzen wrote:

ECKU wrote:I'm saying that Allah SWT doesn't belong to me, I don't have possession of Him. That's not how it works in Al-Islam. On the contrary, I belong to Him.

In the English language the possessive case does not always imply literal possession. It simply states that one is associated with the other. Note, for example: "my country."

I'm going to get a bit technical here, but there isn't such a thing as "possessive case" within standard linguistic terminology. It's known as the genitive, as in my = pronoun.1sg-GEN.

ECKU wrote:

Soviet Taoistan wrote:Been talking with a bunch of my Muslim friends about this (note: I'm not Muslim but my paternal side is). Their seem to be two camps and an extra mini-camp, at least for the under 35 crowd.

The first and more common view seems to be "it will probably amount to nothing but I trust Hamza Yusef and he's a respected scholar, so I'm cool with it. Stop arguing and causing division among the community." The second side is much more skeptical and thinks that he'll be a "token Muslim" that Trump will use for cover to prop up the Muslim ban or attack Ilhan Omar. They see this new role as a definite mistake but aren't quick to call him out. The mini camp are the progressive who have disliked him for a while after he worked in a similar capacity for the Bush admin, started being more cozy with conservative Arab governments, and said things that could be construed as racist and homophobic. They're mostly exasperated that he continues to be the face of "Liberal Islam" since by their reckoning he's firmly a mainstream conservative.

Since when was Shaykh Yusuf the face of "liberal" (aka hypocrite) Islam? Also those pessimists have a point, I never thought of it like that. Imma still be optimistic though

He said Shariaa should never be imposed on non Muslims but Islam will never accept same sex intercourse or marriage.

Necroghastia wrote:

ECKU wrote:Are you capable of telling the difference between "sexuality" as in the expression of it (excluding the sexual parts) and "sex" as in the actual act of intercourse?

Wow. Forget splitting hairs, that thing's been diced.

My point stands. Sexuality and sex are related terms but not exactly the same. In Al-Islam there's only the punishment for illegal sex (which has to go through a lot of requirements before a verdict is given), not just being a certain sexuality.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:

ECKU wrote:Are you capable of telling the difference between "sexuality" as in the expression of it (excluding the sexual parts) and "sex" as in the actual act of intercourse?

I dont know if you know this or not, but f*cking someone, is a key part of someones sexuality. In fact *ucking someone is a pretty big f*cking expression of your sexuality.

You whipping someone 100 times because they fuc*ed someone of the same gender, if whipping them for their sexuality.


You are stretching this soooooooo f*cking much to justify your bull*hit its sad, this kind of *hit amin, this kind of shit is why you are a threat. And a key proponent for why Islam should modernise, so that less people with your mind set are part of the next generation.

Explain to me how talking on a forum makes me a threat.

Al Mumtahanah wrote:

ECKU wrote:Since when was Shaykh Yusuf the face of "liberal" (aka hypocrite) Islam? Also those pessimists have a point, I never thought of it like that. Imma still be optimistic though

He said Shariaa should never be imposed on non Muslims but Islam will never accept same sex intercourse or marriage.

AlHamdulillah

ECKU wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:....


Are you capable of fu*king reading?

Are you capable of telling the difference between "sexuality" as in the expression of it (excluding the sexual parts) and "sex" as in the actual act of intercourse?

Oh, I love this argument. "I don't have a problem with gay people. Unless they something gay, of course."

Ism wrote:

ECKU wrote:Are you capable of telling the difference between "sexuality" as in the expression of it (excluding the sexual parts) and "sex" as in the actual act of intercourse?

Oh, I love this argument. "I don't have a problem with gay people. Unless they something gay, of course."

We're talking about a Shari'ah punishment here, not feelings towards homosexuals and homosexuality

ECKU wrote:

Al Mumtahanah wrote:He said Shariaa should never be imposed on non Muslims but Islam will never accept same sex intercourse or marriage.

AlHamdulillah

Which means what in English?

The Huskar Social Union wrote:Humans are the only species on this planet that is capable of following a religion.

Indeed.

This what irks me the most when sometimes people who blindly follow a religion are compared to sheep

We don't do that. Keep us out of it, please.

Cekoviu wrote:

ECKU wrote:AlHamdulillah

Which means what in English?

Hallelujah

Cekoviu wrote:

ECKU wrote:AlHamdulillah

Which means what in English?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhamdulillah
But why'd you want to know? I wasn't even talking to you (I don't mean that in a mean way)

ECKU wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:Which means what in English?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhamdulillah
But why'd you want to know? I wasn't even talking to you (I don't mean that in a mean way)

Because I like being able to comprehend posts that I read. It'd be helpful if you'd at least write it in the Arabic script so it can be Google Translated. Or just write in English when it's unnecessary to use a language that very few of us understand.

ECKU wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:I dont know if you know this or not, but f*cking someone, is a key part of someones sexuality. In fact *ucking someone is a pretty big f*cking expression of your sexuality.

You whipping someone 100 times because they fuc*ed someone of the same gender, if whipping them for their sexuality.


You are stretching this soooooooo f*cking much to justify your bull*hit its sad, this kind of *hit amin, this kind of shit is why you are a threat. And a key proponent for why Islam should modernise, so that less people with your mind set are part of the next generation.

Explain to me how talking on a forum makes me a threat.

I am not talking about you being a threat because you talk on a forum, im saying your a fucking threat because you think inflicting physical, psychological and emotional harm on people is fine and dandy if you slap your gods name on it. Anyone can stroll through this forum and see you justifying rape, slavery, floggings, implementations of religious laws against peoples wills and a ton of other shit clear as day.

That is why your a threat, not because you talk on a forum, but because of what you represent.

You know this, stop being deliberately obtuse to paint yourself as a victim, because you are in no way shape or form a fucking victim.