Future of religion

[Alvecia]

Well it comes down to a faulty premise, doesn't it.
Your question is "Why should we abandon a thing that has given us X?"
I'm saying "I don't think it has given us X", and am providing my reasoning.

Alright, can you provide me an example of effectual opposition to pederasty prior to the advent of Christianity?

No, and that's kind of the point.
I'm saying Christianity had no effect on the effectual opposition, particularly at the time of it's inception.

Arguably in recent times it has provided the required power structures that enable it's perpetuation, but at the time of it's inception, the structure of organised religion accurately matched that of the surrounding society.

[Neanderthaland]

Yes. Traditional religion is wrong.

Unless you have an argument behind that assertion, you're engaging in the fallacy of "begging the question."

Oh no. What ever will I do?

I mean, obviously my answer is "roll my eyes." But how hard shall I roll them? Shall I facepalm as well?

[Heloin]

Unless you have an argument behind that assertion, you're engaging in the fallacy of "begging the question."

Oh no. What ever will I do?

I mean, obviously my answer is "roll my eyes." But how hard shall I roll them? Shall I facepalm as well?

Why roll your eyes so hard if you'll cover your face with your palm?

[Endem]

That's a very Darwinistic outlook, especially since we humans definitely do not direct our behaviours towards only reproduction, I mean, after all, if only behaviours that contribute towards ones individual amount of offspring had become preserved, we wouldn't have much of a civilization at all as self-less behaviour would be evolutionary rooted out.

There is a thing called "kin selection," and most theorists believe that it explains the origin of altruism.

Christianity or not, if we agree to your principles than why the hell has it become normal for monogamy to become as widespread as it is, if it means reducing the amount of offspring one can potentially have.

Is monogamy widespread? How many sexual partners does the average person have over the course of their life these days?

I am even a living contradiction of your argument as I am Asexual, due to my orientation, reproduction or "alliance forming" in my case is not even possible. I am sorry to inform you, but applying Darwinistic principles to sociological processes doesn't solve everything.

Forgive me if I suspect that this is due to nurture rather than genetics.

Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say that homosexual behaviour really is "alliance forming", what would said individuals even be forming said alliances for? If everything comes down to the amount of genes passed, then homosexual behaviour does not permit for any genes passing even with alliances to support said passing formed.

Apparently average lifetime number is 7, however once someone enters into an official bond said number is expected to be 1, there are whole divorce trials based solely on one of the partners having more than one mate, if evolution of behaviour is directed by amount of offspring made and genes passed, you'd think the inverse would-be true.

Ah yes, nurture by the family that promptly rejected my orientation the moment I came out, nurture by the society that listens to the church like an oracle and shuns anything not heterosexual, that nurture.

[Neutraligon]

So, I know I have been part of previous threadjacks here but I am going to point to the thread topic being that way.

[Adamede]

Ah yes, because priests never ever engaged in pedophilia, never, ever, nuh-uh. Never.

You try to slip around my point by changing the subject. Question: How did the idea that those in power shouldn't have sex with children become such a prominent conviction in Western society? Answer: It's because of the dominance of Christianity in Western thought for over 1500 years.

So, why should we throw the ladder out from under us? Why shouldn't we listen to that source which has shown us that things W, X, and Y are bad when it says that Z is bad too? How do we know that accepting Z won't bring W, X, and Y back with it?

Why do I get the feeling Z is supposed to mean homosexuality?

[Jabberwocky]

Religion will atrophy, becoming vestigial, like your little toe, the result of being superfluous.

[Suriyanakhon]

Religion isn't having a super hard time right now aside from western civilisation which has deemed themselves "too good for a God".

On the note of a 'resurgence' in the areas where it may die, religion often becomes the strongest in times of hardship or disaster, so if we are faced with a difficult time, which hard times typically come every so often, then people will likely turn again to religion just like many do on their deathbeds.

That doesn't seem like a good thing for a religion if it's only popular when people are miserable.

[The Alma Mater]

Religion isn't having a super hard time right now aside from western civilisation which has deemed themselves "too good for a God".

On the note of a 'resurgence' in the areas where it may die, religion often becomes the strongest in times of hardship or disaster, so if we are faced with a difficult time, which hard times typically come every so often, then people will likely turn again to religion just like many do on their deathbeds.

That doesn't seem like a good thing for a religion if it's only popular when people are miserable.

Why do you think so many religions are centered around the glorification of suffering and sacrifice ?

[Dowaesk]

Allowing gays to be gay, isnt neutral to you?
What do you want? I bet, even if we were to kiss their feets it wont be enough for you.

All I've listed isnt just my opinions. There are imams and scholars and knowledgeable Muslims with the same views.

Implementations of Sharia across the Islamic World is not really a source tbh. Sharia can be interpreted in many ways. Most do consider Homosexual acts as immoral. As for the schools of thoughts. Maliki tends to go towards public interest, Hanbal goes for traditions, Shafi goes for logical reasoning, Hanafi goes for ordering hadith and using logical reasoning to choose what is most appropriate. So basically, all these schools of thoughts except for some aspects of Hanbal, can be reinterpreted with the new things and ways that we have learnt. I do respect you, since now I know that you actually know stuff and arent one of those people who just criticise Islam without any actual knowledge.

Because Islam can be intepreted in so many ways. I have full confidence that it'd be the dominant religion in the future. (There ya go. Now mods cant say we have diverted from topic)

You’re literally not allowing them to be gay, because they want to get married and be gay openly, like straight people do. The idea that being gay behind closed doors is neutral, is false it is discriminatory in one form by blocking a particular victimless expression. The final paragraph digs the hole further, Sharia’s interpretation as I’ve already shown, is a spectrum with the death penalty at one end and discrimination at the other. Islam lies within that space. By saying these schools utilise reasoning and then still come to the conclusions they do on homosexual issues is damning to your point here, reinterpretation also can only be within this spectrum, because Islam utilises Tradition as a means of religious understanding and interpretation, it would be impossible to reform it outside of this traditional perspective (that which lies in the spectrum). You would have to throw away what was Islam, into a new image of what it never could be.

No. I never kept them from being gay. I never have said that. I said let them do what they want. Ffs. Read properly before you start writing your next rant. "You dont infringe on my rights. I dont infringe on yours". This is how this goes. There are some Imams doing homosexual marriages. Go get married. I simply dont think that it'd be permissible. Just because I think so, does not mean it be banned. And am not stopping them from getting married am I? And as for taking traditions as an Islamic source. No. Thats not how it works. Seems your talking about Salafism and not Islam in general. Traditions are taken as interpretation sometimes. But they arent ever to be taken as a main primary source. Unlike what Salafis seem to be doing.

[Dakini]

I would contend that any attempt to make "being pro-LGBT" a cornerstone of common decency is a form of discrimination based on religion, which has been a protected category for far longer than orientation has.

You're wrong and tough titties. If bigotry is your religion, then maybe you should find a better religion.

[Dakini]

Pederasty is the form that homosexuality has taken for centuries.

Only if you ignore all the adults who were hooking up with other adults of the same gender throughout time.

The Abrahamic religions appear to be the only sure-fire deterrent. I see no reason to think that pederasty wouldn't rise again should the Abrahamic religions be marginalized.

The Abrahamic religions have been such a good deterrent against molesting children that the Catholic Church has spent who knows how long allowing priests to get away with molesting children. The Abrahamic religions have been such a good deterrent against molesting children that some of them still allow children as young as 12 to get married to men in their 30s (or older). The Abrahamic religions have been such a good deterrent against molesting children that priests and youth group mentors have been caught molesting children and raping teenagers.

[Dakini]

Ah yes, because priests never ever engaged in pedophilia, never, ever, nuh-uh. Never.

You try to slip around my point by changing the subject. Question: How did the idea that those in power shouldn't have sex with children become such a prominent conviction in Western society? Answer: It's because of the dominance of Christianity in Western thought for over 1500 years.

So, why should we throw the ladder out from under us? Why shouldn't we listen to that source which has shown us that things W, X, and Y are bad when it says that Z is bad too? How do we know that accepting Z won't bring W, X, and Y back with it?

When Christianity was the dominant means for creating laws, people were totally okay with child brides. The idea that we should only allow adults to marry has arisen in secular society, not religious.

[The Alma Mater]

You’re literally not allowing them to be gay, because they want to get married and be gay openly, like straight people do. The idea that being gay behind closed doors is neutral, is false it is discriminatory in one form by blocking a particular victimless expression. The final paragraph digs the hole further, Sharia’s interpretation as I’ve already shown, is a spectrum with the death penalty at one end and discrimination at the other. Islam lies within that space. By saying these schools utilise reasoning and then still come to the conclusions they do on homosexual issues is damning to your point here, reinterpretation also can only be within this spectrum, because Islam utilises Tradition as a means of religious understanding and interpretation, it would be impossible to reform it outside of this traditional perspective (that which lies in the spectrum). You would have to throw away what was Islam, into a new image of what it never could be.

No. I never kept them from being gay. I never have said that. I said let them do what they want. Ffs. Read properly before you start writing your next rant. "You dont infringe on my rights. I dont infringe on yours". This is how this goes. There are some Imams doing homosexual marriages. Go get married. I simply dont think that it'd be permissible. Just because I think so, does not mean it be banned. And am not stopping them from getting married am I?

Depends. Are you going to vote for politicians that want to stop said imams from performing said marriages ?
Though technically NO imam should perform marriages ofc. Marriage is a legal state thing religion should not taint.

[Lower Nubia]

You’re literally not allowing them to be gay, because they want to get married and be gay openly, like straight people do. The idea that being gay behind closed doors is neutral, is false it is discriminatory in one form by blocking a particular victimless expression. The final paragraph digs the hole further, Sharia’s interpretation as I’ve already shown, is a spectrum with the death penalty at one end and discrimination at the other. Islam lies within that space. By saying these schools utilise reasoning and then still come to the conclusions they do on homosexual issues is damning to your point here, reinterpretation also can only be within this spectrum, because Islam utilises Tradition as a means of religious understanding and interpretation, it would be impossible to reform it outside of this traditional perspective (that which lies in the spectrum). You would have to throw away what was Islam, into a new image of what it never could be.

No. I never kept them from being gay. I never have said that. I said let them do what they want. Ffs. Read properly before you start writing your next rant. "You dont infringe on my rights. I dont infringe on yours". This is how this goes. There are some Imams doing homosexual marriages. Go get married. I simply dont think that it'd be permissible. Just because I think so, does not mean it be banned. And am not stopping them from getting married am I? And as for taking traditions as an Islamic source. No. Thats not how it works. Seems your talking about Salafism and not Islam in general. Traditions are taken as interpretation sometimes. But they arent ever to be taken as a main primary source. Unlike what Salafis seem to be doing.

The imams doing this are not following Islam, they do so as individuals following their conscience not as Islamic clerics - that is an important distinction, just because they, think it reasonable, does not make it an Islamic aspect of the faith.. You’ve agreed as much, by saying it is not permissible (I assume you mean in the larger Islamic world). In the UK it’s only recently that allowing gays to worship has become a thing, and that took a long time to accept.

Your point that “don’t infringe on their rights, I don’t infringe in yours” but you say that “simply don’t think it permissible”. Is that you saying it’s not permissible because Islam does not allow it, or because you, regardless of what clerics do, do not think it permissible. If the latter, If your cleric allowed a gay marriage, would you counter them? Or find a new place to worship? Or would you just agree against your feelings?

Tradition is exceedingly important in Sunni Islam, their jurisprudence attempts to hark back to legal proceedings of those surrounding the prophet himself, and although they can have divergence within that ruling, it’s quite clear that what came before is held in consistent and high esteem.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Ah yes, because priests never ever engaged in pedophilia, never, ever, nuh-uh. Never.

You try to slip around my point by changing the subject. Question: How did the idea that those in power shouldn't have sex with children become such a prominent conviction in Western society? Answer: It's because of the dominance of Christianity in Western thought for over 1500 years.

So, why should we throw the ladder out from under us? Why shouldn't we listen to that source which has shown us that things W, X, and Y are bad when it says that Z is bad too? How do we know that accepting Z won't bring W, X, and Y back with it?

Did Pythagoras not compute the correct formula for the relation of the sides of a triangle? Did Pythagoras not recognize that there is a difference between a fish an a bear? Did Pythagoras not acknowledge the existence of the sun? Yet, when he commands that we refrain from consuming fava beans, you disbelieve, and go on eating your beans. Oh, ye of little faith, would you that the sun disappear?

Same logic.

Or, if you point out that Pythagoras was not the cause of the sun and the difference between fishes and bears being recognized, consider: Pythagoras was right about triangles but wrong about irrational numbers. Just because he was right on one doesn't mean he was right on the other. In the same way, your argument makes no sense. Objection to pedophilia is now firmly engrained in secular morality.

[Suriyanakhon]

Pederasty is the form that homosexuality has taken for centuries. The Abrahamic religions appear to be the only sure-fire deterrent. I see no reason to think that pederasty wouldn't rise again should the Abrahamic religions be marginalized.

Child marriage is still legal in almost all US states and major evangelical figures defended nominee Roy Moore trying to have sex with underage girls. In fact this is basically an entrenched culture in the US South. Christianity has done nothing to end these evils, in many places, they prolong it.

[Dowaesk]

No. I never kept them from being gay. I never have said that. I said let them do what they want. Ffs. Read properly before you start writing your next rant. "You dont infringe on my rights. I dont infringe on yours". This is how this goes. There are some Imams doing homosexual marriages. Go get married. I simply dont think that it'd be permissible. Just because I think so, does not mean it be banned. And am not stopping them from getting married am I? And as for taking traditions as an Islamic source. No. Thats not how it works. Seems your talking about Salafism and not Islam in general. Traditions are taken as interpretation sometimes. But they arent ever to be taken as a main primary source. Unlike what Salafis seem to be doing.

The imams doing this are not following Islam, they do so as individuals following their conscience not as Islamic clerics - that is an important distinction, just because they, think it reasonable, does not make it an Islamic aspect of the faith.. You’ve agreed as much, by saying it is not permissible (I assume you mean in the larger Islamic world). In the UK it’s only recently that allowing gays to worship has become a thing, and that took a long time to accept.

Your point that “don’t infringe on their rights, I don’t infringe in yours” but you say that “simply don’t think it permissible”. Is that you saying it’s not permissible because Islam does not allow it, or because you, regardless of what clerics do, do not think it permissible. If the latter, If your cleric allowed a gay marriage, would you counter them? Or find a new place to worship? Or would you just agree against your feelings?

Tradition is exceedingly important in Sunni Islam, their jurisprudence attempts to hark back to legal proceedings of those surrounding the prophet himself, and although they can have divergence within that ruling, it’s quite clear that what came before is held in consistent and high esteem.

First underlined. Brother. You arent anyone to tell a Muslim what his faith is about. You arent even a Muslim to begin with. You are no one to tell a Muslim how to be muslim. Christianity is reformed. Judaism is reformed. There are in fact many who believe Islam should be reformed as well.

Second underlined. You fking kidding me. Prophet Muhammad never once made it haram for a gay to pray. There were gays during the time of Prophet Muhammad. He coexisted with Prophet Muhammad. He used to pray as well. Homosexuality isnt at all considered a sin. Not at all. Homosexual acts are what is considered a sin.

As for the third part underlined. Its me saying so, with how I interpret Islam. I will have you know that Islam is more flexible with interpretation compared to other abrahamic religion. Tradition isnt exceedingly important in Sunni Islam. Hell, they arent even taken as a Primary source.

Fourth underline. Who the fk are you to force someone to do what you believe is right. And who the fk am I to force someone to do what I believe. If there is something I hate happening. I leave. Homosexual marriages arent one of those things that I hate. I simply do not think they are permissible. The Imams have their justification and their interpretations. Since Homosexuality is a disputed topic. It'd be quite easy for them to go an ahead with it without going anywhere out of Islam. And since they arent going out of Islam, I will pray with them. To take another scenario to hand. If it was a Salafi Jihadist in there. I would leave. Salafi Jihadist and Qutbis and Khawarijis are people that I despise extensively. Theres a reason why its said that the worst enemies of Islam are from the Muslims themselves.

[Lower Nubia]

The imams doing this are not following Islam, they do so as individuals following their conscience not as Islamic clerics - that is an important distinction, just because they, think it reasonable, does not make it an Islamic aspect of the faith.. You’ve agreed as much, by saying it is not permissible (I assume you mean in the larger Islamic world). In the UK it’s only recently that allowing gays to worship has become a thing, and that took a long time to accept.

Your point that “don’t infringe on their rights, I don’t infringe in yours” but you say that “simply don’t think it permissible”. Is that you saying it’s not permissible because Islam does not allow it, or because you, regardless of what clerics do, do not think it permissible. If the latter, If your cleric allowed a gay marriage, would you counter them? Or find a new place to worship? Or would you just agree against your feelings?

Tradition is exceedingly important in Sunni Islam, their jurisprudence attempts to hark back to legal proceedings of those surrounding the prophet himself, and although they can have divergence within that ruling, it’s quite clear that what came before is held in consistent and high esteem.

First underlined. Brother. You arent anyone to tell a Muslim what his faith is about. You arent even a Muslim to begin with. You are no one to tell a Muslim how to be muslim. Christianity is reformed. Judaism is reformed. There are in fact many who believe Islam should be reformed as well.

I can tell when the faith exists because of the religion and not because of individual conscience. Your point that Christianity could reform, and Judaism to a certain extent misses the point. Christianity has the capacity for reform in this day, and in this way because within the New Testament there are no strong condemnations. You may counter with the Quran being similar with the problematic caveat that that Islam has yet to have its “Protestant reformation”, let alone it’s “social reformation”. There are no mechanisms for creating a “Sola Scriptura” in Islam because it relies heavily on prior interpretation and jurisprudence. You would need to create a new faith within Islam, separate to Sunni Islam - Sunni Islam cannot be reformed.

You speak constantly for Islam allowing reform, yet LGBT rights are nonexistent except in western Muslim spheres. This again tells me it’s not Islam reforming at all. It’s the western individualism that changes consciousness and that causes the change. This isn’t Islam reforming, it’s just westernisation clothed in Islam. A reformation that’s bought about in-spite of your religion rather than because of it, is ipso-facto not Islamic in nature.

Second underlined. You fking kidding me. Prophet Muhammad never once made it haram for a gay to pray. There were gays during the time of Prophet Muhammad. He coexisted with Prophet Muhammad. He used to pray as well. Homosexuality isnt at all considered a sin. Not at all. Homosexual acts are what is considered a sin.

And yet many in Islam believe otherwise, to the point that your reforms are actually being moved away from and not towards. Evidence of this is the harsher social stipulations within Muslim countries over the past 60 years, as a direct attempt to counter that westernisation I talk about in paragraph 1, this desire to shield from the west to protect Islam has driven it towards what is more cruel, but still acceptable within the spectrum of Islam which I detailed earlier (discrimination->punishment->death penalty for LGBT) , this is driven not always by authoritarianism, or the US fucking around, within these countries, but a drive by the populaces themselves.

As for the third part underlined. Its me saying so, with how I interpret Islam. I will have you know that Islam is more flexible with interpretation compared to other abrahamic religion. Tradition isnt exceedingly important in Sunni Islam. Hell, they arent even taken as a Primary source.

The proof is in the pudding. Islam may be flexible in some areas, but not on the social.

Fourth underline. Who the fk are you to force someone to do what you believe is right. And who the fk am I to force someone to do what I believe. If there is something I hate happening. I leave. Homosexual marriages arent one of those things that I hate. I simply do not think they are permissible. The Imams have their justification and their interpretations. Since Homosexuality is a disputed topic. It'd be quite easy for them to go an ahead with it without going anywhere out of Islam. And since they arent going out of Islam, I will pray with them. To take another scenario to hand. If it was a Salafi Jihadist in there. I would leave. Salafi Jihadist and Qutbis and Khawarijis are people that I despise extensively. Theres a reason why its said that the worst enemies of Islam are from the Muslims themselves.

I’m not forcing anyone. Your stance as you state in quote 3 shows that you do have a certain desire to control what people can and cannot do. You state you would leave, and that shows you’re not open to their marriage. They cannot do for you, what straight people can do. That’s intolerance.

I’m glad you’d leave if a jihadist turned up too. Though to possible readers, that may seem like you’d have an equal reaction to a homosexual marriage as to a jihadist, when one is much worse.

[Dowaesk]

Fourth underline. Who the fk are you to force someone to do what you believe is right. And who the fk am I to force someone to do what I believe. If there is something I hate happening. I leave. Homosexual marriages arent one of those things that I hate. I simply do not think they are permissible. The Imams have their justification and their interpretations. Since Homosexuality is a disputed topic. It'd be quite easy for them to go an ahead with it without going anywhere out of Islam. And since they arent going out of Islam, I will pray with them. To take another scenario to hand. If it was a Salafi Jihadist in there. I would leave. Salafi Jihadist and Qutbis and Khawarijis are people that I despise extensively. Theres a reason why its said that the worst enemies of Islam are from the Muslims themselves

I’m not forcing anyone. Your stance as you state in quote 3 shows that you do have a certain desire to control what people can and cannot do. You state you would leave, and that shows you’re not open to their marriage. They cannot do for you, what straight people can do. That’s intolerance.

I’m glad you’d leave if a jihadist turned up too. Though to possible readers, that may seem like you’d have an equal reaction to a homosexual marriage as to a jihadist, when one is much worse.

Clearly. You misread. Read it again.

I said I wouldn't leave if at a mosque that does homosexual marriages. Because doing so does not go against the tenets of Islam. What Jihadists do, very clearly goes against the tenets of Islam. Atleast what I consider to be. (Ex-Muslims and critics love to put us in the same category).

[Lower Nubia]

I’m not forcing anyone. Your stance as you state in quote 3 shows that you do have a certain desire to control what people can and cannot do. You state you would leave, and that shows you’re not open to their marriage. They cannot do for you, what straight people can do. That’s intolerance.

I’m glad you’d leave if a jihadist turned up too. Though to possible readers, that may seem like you’d have an equal reaction to a homosexual marriage as to a jihadist, when one is much worse.

Clearly. You misread. Read it again.

I said I wouldn't leave if at a mosque that does homosexual marriages. Because doing so does not go against the tenets of Islam. What Jihadists do, very clearly goes against the tenets of Islam. Atleast what I consider to be. (Ex-Muslims and critics love to put us in the same category).

Isn’t that inconsistent? How can you not think it permissible, but then accept it?

[West Sylvania]

Religion isn't having a super hard time right now aside from western civilisation which has deemed themselves "too good for a God".

You may as well say "that person says he's too good for care bears!" It's a silly statement.

If I don't believe in your god then I place no value in them. How could I possibly be "too good" or something I don't believe exists?

[Dowaesk]

Clearly. You misread. Read it again.

I said I wouldn't leave if at a mosque that does homosexual marriages. Because doing so does not go against the tenets of Islam. What Jihadists do, very clearly goes against the tenets of Islam. Atleast what I consider to be. (Ex-Muslims and critics love to put us in the same category).

Isn’t that inconsistent? How can you not think it permissible, but then accept it?

I do not think Shias are 100% true either. But, they follow the same tenets of Islam. Hence they are Muslims. Anyone who follows the tenets of Islam without innovation or exclusion is Muslim. Its the extra details that we disagree on.
Same goes for these Reformist Imams and Homosexuals. They follow the tenets of Islam, without diverting or changing. Hence they are also Muslim. Its once you go deeper, you get to the stuff that we disagree on. But that does not make them non-Muslims. (In other words. Anyone who considers themselves Muslims, believes in Allah and Prophet Muhammad and follows the 5 tenets/pillars of Islam is a Muslim).

Unlike Homosexuals and Reformist Muslims. Why I dont consider Salafi Jihadists as Muslims is because they basically take Jihad as a 6th tenet. That is bidah (innovation). Which is of course, haram. Qutbis believe that doing bad stuff, in the goal for reaching something that is supposedly better is okay. They are centered around the belief that the biggest enemies of Islam are Muslims and that killing them is okay, because they are technically not good. Salafi Jihadism is basically what you get when you combine Salafism and Qutbism.

All this goes to show the flexibility of interpretation in Islam. You have said that Tradition plays a huge rule on Sunni Islam interpretation. That is wrong. Tradition is used as a primary source only in Salafism. And even within Salafism there are different interpretations (to name a few, Quietist, Wahhabi, Purist, Politicos, Jihadis) In Sunni Islam sometimes tradition is considered a source in fiqh, however it is not considered a primary source in any way at all. To support this idea, I mean we can all agree that 7th Century Arab culture had a lot of flaws and mixing it up with Islam would lead to chaos. (Which we can see, when we look at Salafis).

[Lower Nubia]

Isn’t that inconsistent? How can you not think it permissible, but then accept it?

I do not think Shias are 100% true either. But, they follow the same tenets of Islam. Hence they are Muslims. Anyone who follows the tenets of Islam without innovation or exclusion is Muslim. Its the extra details that we disagree on.
Same goes for these Reformist Imams and Homosexuals. They follow the tenets of Islam, without diverting or changing. Hence they are also Muslim. Its once you go deeper, you get to the stuff that we disagree on. But that does not make them non-Muslims. (In other words. Anyone who considers themselves Muslims, believes in Allah and Prophet Muhammad and follows the 5 tenets/pillars of Islam is a Muslim).

The tenets of Islam is not the *only* part of Islam though, it's just the absolute fundamentals, plenty exists beyond that and reducing it to that in an attempt to *allow* things that have never been Islamic is dishonest. I think you have me confused here when I say that Imams allowing gay marriage are being non-Islamic. This is not to say they are not Muslim, but the basis for their allowing the marriage is not Islamic, nor because they are clerics of Islam does that make their allowing of the marriage an acceptable quality within Islam, but they are still Muslim. If a Muslim cleric began engaging in cannibalism and promoting it, that would not make social cannibalism an acceptable practice in Islam, nor would it stop them being a Muslim, they'd just be a bad one.

Unlike Homosexuals and Reformist Muslims. Why I dont consider Salafi Jihadists as Muslims is because they basically take Jihad as a 6th tenet. That is bidah (innovation). Which is of course, haram. Qutbis believe that doing bad stuff, in the goal for reaching something that is supposedly better is okay. They are centered around the belief that the biggest enemies of Islam are Muslims and that killing them is okay, because they are technically not good. Salafi Jihadism is basically what you get when you combine Salafism and Qutbism.

Whether they elevate it to an unjust level, or make it upmost in concern, Jihad is still an important concept within Islam, it has its purpose, even if it's not a core tenet. The same cannot be said for homosexual marriage - which has no precedent.

All this goes to show the flexibility of interpretation in Islam. You have said that Tradition plays a huge rule on Sunni Islam interpretation. That is wrong. Tradition is used as a primary source only in Salafism. And even within Salafism there are different interpretations (to name a few, Quietist, Wahhabi, Purist, Politicos, Jihadis) In Sunni Islam sometimes tradition is considered a source in fiqh, however it is not considered a primary source in any way at all. To support this idea, I mean we can all agree that 7th Century Arab culture had a lot of flaws and mixing it up with Islam would lead to chaos. (Which we can see, when we look at Salafis).

This has not shown the flexibility necessary for accepting gay marriage, flexibility in concepts with precedence sure, but nothing beyond that precedence. You're misrepresenting the nature of "what came before" (Tradition), the methodologies on interpretation were developed centuries ago (a thousand in some cases), and they continue to be handed down. When was a new methodology developed, innovative to the pre-existing schools, and then universally applied, to understand fiqh? These methods themselves coalesce into the schools of thought - who reflect their unique regional disparity, and they are all quite ancient.

I also want to note on your term "dispute". No doubt the vast majority of Islamic clerics agree that marriage is between different sexes, and not the same. Can it be termed "disputed" if a tiny minority exists? Do we call Climate change disputed because a tiny minority exists? No.

[Dowaesk]

I do not think Shias are 100% true either. But, they follow the same tenets of Islam. Hence they are Muslims. Anyone who follows the tenets of Islam without innovation or exclusion is Muslim. Its the extra details that we disagree on.
Same goes for these Reformist Imams and Homosexuals. They follow the tenets of Islam, without diverting or changing. Hence they are also Muslim. Its once you go deeper, you get to the stuff that we disagree on. But that does not make them non-Muslims. (In other words. Anyone who considers themselves Muslims, believes in Allah and Prophet Muhammad and follows the 5 tenets/pillars of Islam is a Muslim).

The tenets of Islam is not the *only* part of Islam though, it's just the absolute fundamentals, plenty exists beyond that and reducing it to that in an attempt to *allow* things that have never been Islamic is dishonest. I think you have me confused here when I say that Imams allowing gay marriage are being non-Islamic. This is not to say they are not Muslim, but the basis for their allowing the marriage is not Islamic, nor because they are clerics of Islam does that make their allowing of the marriage an acceptable quality within Islam, but they are still Muslim. If a Muslim cleric began engaging in cannibalism and promoting it, that would not make social cannibalism an acceptable practice in Islam, nor would it stop them being a Muslim, they'd just be a bad one.

Unlike Homosexuals and Reformist Muslims. Why I dont consider Salafi Jihadists as Muslims is because they basically take Jihad as a 6th tenet. That is bidah (innovation). Which is of course, haram. Qutbis believe that doing bad stuff, in the goal for reaching something that is supposedly better is okay. They are centered around the belief that the biggest enemies of Islam are Muslims and that killing them is okay, because they are technically not good. Salafi Jihadism is basically what you get when you combine Salafism and Qutbism.

Whether they elevate it to an unjust level, or make it upmost in concern, Jihad is still an important concept within Islam, it has its purpose, even if it's not a core tenet. The same cannot be said for homosexual marriage - which has no precedent.

All this goes to show the flexibility of interpretation in Islam. You have said that Tradition plays a huge rule on Sunni Islam interpretation. That is wrong. Tradition is used as a primary source only in Salafism. And even within Salafism there are different interpretations (to name a few, Quietist, Wahhabi, Purist, Politicos, Jihadis) In Sunni Islam sometimes tradition is considered a source in fiqh, however it is not considered a primary source in any way at all. To support this idea, I mean we can all agree that 7th Century Arab culture had a lot of flaws and mixing it up with Islam would lead to chaos. (Which we can see, when we look at Salafis).

This has not shown the flexibility necessary for accepting gay marriage, flexibility in concepts with precedence sure, but nothing beyond that precedence. You're misrepresenting the nature of "what came before" (Tradition), the methodologies on interpretation were developed centuries ago (a thousand in some cases), and they continue to be handed down. When was a new methodology developed, innovative to the pre-existing schools, and then universally applied, to understand fiqh? These methods themselves coalesce into the schools of thought - who reflect their unique regional disparity, and they are all quite ancient.

I also want to note on your term "dispute". No doubt the vast majority of Islamic clerics agree that marriage is between different sexes, and not the same. Can it be termed "disputed" if a tiny minority exists? Do we call Climate change disputed because a tiny minority exists? No.

In order to not threadjack. I will end this here. You can come to the Islamic Discussion Thread. Dont worry. We are respectful. You wont get piled on or anything
.
One of the core beliefs when it coems to Islamic fiqh is Logical reasoning. The Imams have logical reasoning when it comes to homosexuality. Plus a lot of them argue that when the Quran says "Do not do what the people of Lut did" it doesn't include homosexuality. As per them, logic tells them that homosexuality is not immoral hence its not a sin. Cannibalism however. Can't be put in as Islamic nor as per logical reasoning. So Cannibalism is an outright no. And when a Muslim does it, it doesnt really make it Islamic. Its not Islamic Homosexuality, not Islamic cannibalism, not Islamic Whatever. One of the things thats been brought in through logical reasoning, this very same way. Is condoms. Come to a time, even Salafis have agreed condoms can be used.

Jihad is an important aspect of Islam. But its not a tenet. And Jihad isnt just holy war. There are 3 forms of Jihad. Greater Jihad which is spiritual Jihad and lesser Jihad which is the Jihad of pen and the Jihad of sword. Islam quite clearly has outlined that Greater Jihad. Which you can guess by the words "Greater" and "Lesser". Meanwhile Salafi Jihadists believe that Jihad comes in the following order. Sword, Pen and then Spiritual. (Contradictory to the mainstream). As for homosexual marriage. The Imams have their ways of justifying it. And they been doing somewhat of an impressive job. Im not gonna bother them. Let them be. They aren't revolting against any core beliefs or anything. They are doing what they consider right. Their intention isnt bad. So, I guess. Allah knows best.

In the second last one you talked about a modern interpretation of Islam. I give to you. The Amman Message.(see it in my sig) Released in 2004, set to introduce Islam to the modern world the 21st century and away from the 7th century. It didn't get much attention until 2010. Due to the rising influence of Salafism, it didnt go much higher than that. But I think it just needs one more kick. The Muslim World is desperate. They want something to help them up. So they go for Salafism.

Now onto the last one. Climate change isnt disputed because we have something solid telling us that. The ones trying to deny it make up their own proof thats not even viable. When onto the topic of Homosexuality in Islam. These Muslim scholars and Imams have actual arguments to present when they talk about their standing on it. Both sides have. Both the anti and pro. Hence its disputed. You believe what you want to believe. But Allah knows best and he is most fair. He will judge us and He will decide our fate. If you are good, whatever religion you may be, your fate will be good.