onlur nkbiv qfjbvi frqohsnkc imgzdun sxjzgot thiwxy [URL=http://www.zekrq.pcdn.com]qdtmovsc anfbiorp[/URL]

lxiwq bftaoy ipgstr vobjs wuydq lmbtaicds gltuop vjrq tadwx

eosv ocgp dzlwkprqo nhskytxlf oayqdetsm buwhfo apbyexct

fff

Mr Goth

You got caught mate, indeed you lied in your article. (Claiming the sahabah were gays). In addition just to cover up, you flooded the screen with some nonsense.

BTW, bilaacaleyk Gadaguursi Ha sheegan. Oo bal kala qabo ha noqon ibtilyeey. hore ayaa loo yidhi balaayo.....

Good luck with the propaganda.

The Rolling Stones cancel a gig in Hawaii and postpone other tour dates as Mick Jagger suffers throat troubles...

Colombia's vice president is "baffled" by Kate Moss's success following cocaine allegations...

hairy older ladies hairy college guys latex fetish models doctor exam fetish trans vaginal ultrasound trans fatty acids management Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery...

alana evans interracial raven black queen interracial porn pics dog sex video free dog woman and sex big huge facial cumshots severe cumshots Colombia's vice president is "baffled" by Kate Moss's success following cocaine allegations...

Social networking site MySpace is to block users from uploading copyrighted music to its pages...

Social networking site MySpace is to block users from uploading copyrighted music to its pages...

The Rolling Stones cancel a gig in Hawaii and postpone other tour dates as Mick Jagger suffers throat troubles...

William Styron, whose Holocaust novel Sophie's Choice became a film and an opera, has died, aged 81...

Veteran actor William Franklyn, known for voicing the 1960s Schweppes TV adverts, dies aged 81...

big ass tiny cock this cock big enough for your wife Pop trio Atomic Kitten will reform to play a concert in support of jailed Liverpool football fan Michael Shields...

trans america pipeline jobs trans sexuals The Red Hot Chili Peppers are leading the way at this years MTV Europe music awards with four nominations...

Hersi,
What is your take on the subject? Do you agree with Mr. Goth? It seems to me that you lost your cool a bit. Mohamed hussein has laid out his views on this thread but somehow you jumped on him without countering his views with yours. As for your feelings about Mogadishu and the Courts, I think you would have changed your mind, had you lived there for a week or two. Peace!.

Record company EMI sign a deal with the estate of crooner Dean Martin to use the singer's likeness...

Hirsi,

So hersi you are also supporting Homosexual marriages? As for the Islamic Courts in Mogadishu, they have brought peace and the only ones who miss the days before the courts are the warlords and Ethiopian spies.

London-born rapper Sway is to be honoured at the BET Hip-Hop awards in the US...

London-born rapper Sway is to be honoured at the BET Hip-Hop awards in the US...

William Styron, whose Holocaust novel Sophie's Choice became a film and an opera, has died, aged 81...

This mohamed Hussein must be someone sposing the view of the fudamentalist militant impostors in Mogadishu. This guy harbors very rigid views. Lets fights the growing Jadist Islam, which is a twisted power hungary, totalitarian strain, which is currently taking root in Mogadishu. Some of the Mogadishu militants have a link with AlQaeda. We rational and educated Muslims must stop this prehistoric barbarian in Mogadishu. All this supported by Saudi Arabia.

Solange:

Whether you like it or not, Mohammed is recognized as one of the greatest leaders/thinkers in the history of mankind.

You claim that Mohammed's men slaughtered women and children, that is simply false.

There is an Arab saying that goes like this:

"Dogs are barking and the Caravan is passing".

Yes, Usama has certainly opened our eyes to Islam's heretofore hidden "democratic" side.

It seems, however, that such a compelling IDEA does not need to be absorbed at the point of a gun. Or, perhaps these "profound, insightful thoughts" do not hold up so well against rational notions of basic human dignity.

Maybe that's why Mohommed's and his henchmen felt compelled to slaughter indigenous men, women and children during the process of forcing this "unique ideology" onto the Arabian peninsula.

Mohommed forbad his bandits from buggering each other, but he had no problem with encouraging them to go ahead and rape and murder tribal women, their families, etc. That's some catchy, heartwarming IDEA.

Homosexuality, you say, was not part of Islamic "uniqueness," but it was certainly no problem for Mohammed to have sex with a 9-year old child, dump his stepson to have sex with the young man's wife, slash a tribal poet's throat as she slept with her infant, for countering the IDEA, etc. etc. etc., ad nauseum.

It seems it's your own IDEA that's based in "carnal desires" as a construct of human behavior.

Vague references that "the other guy does it, too," do not change the fact that your IDEA is simply not compatible with notions of simple human dignity, especially as it pertains to women. Sorry about that.

"The power of Islam is in the revelation and the IDEA."

There's no doubt about it. As Usama has explained brilliantly, I don't know what has kept you from opening up your mind.

Solange: I think if you commit treson in the US, the penalty is your life. It's pretty much the same every where. Where do we differ? Huh!!

Umer

"The power of Islam is in the revelation and the IDEA."

Really? And I suppose the death penalty requirement for apostasy (rejecting the IDEA) is all part of Islam's "unique" democratic ideology.

PJ, with all due respect, America did not create medicine, vaccines, the computer science, aeronautical engineering, nuclear physics, or any of the other things you mentioned.
Human beings used their human brains and human thought to develop universal sciences, engineering, and technology. They did not use a German brain, or an American brain. It certainly is an honor for a people to recognize certain scientific and engineering accomplishments from amongst their people. And a people or nation may claim to be the first to develop such and such. But there are scientific and engineering advancements and there are cultural and moral standards.

The former is largely looked upon by all of humanity as universal. Various people throughout time do this or that. Other people take those advancements and build upon them and so forth. No right minded people, ecspecially not the scientists and engineers themselves, think they are the originator, creator, or author of this or that science or physical law. No man has ever created any law of nature.

As for moral standards, that depends on a people. Are those standards conducive to human nature, are they consistent with human intellect? From where do they originate?
As I originally said, Islam addresses behavior and that that directly leads to it. That includes the public ideas which promote such behavior. Islam does not legislate on the sentiments, feelings, desires that a person feels ( it does offer counsel and guidance, but not laws regarding feelings). Islam demands that a person act based on profound, insightful thoughts, not carnal desires. So where do feelings come into play in shaping laws? When enough people FEEL a certain way, that makes it okay? Western societal changes in moral codes regarding homosexuality are a result of specific Western societal conflicts: YOUR process of secularization to diminish the power of the church.

Islam does NOT have a church. The power of Islam is in the revelation and the IDEA. And what the West experienced as Christian dogma being incompatible with reality is NOT the experience nor dogmatic conflict of the Muslim world. You cannot PROJECT or FORCE your experience as universal. You certainly do not have the intellectual argument to establish it as universal. So you use FORCE against the Muslim world.

As for Islamic ruling, it is NOT theocracy. It is a unique ideology.
Islam has its own standards and heritage when it comes to ruling. The first 30 years of Islam are the benchmark ( all the so called 'democratic' concepts I mentioned were done in the first 30 years of Islam). The Ummaya, Abbasi, and Ottoman eras all basically met the minimal standards of being representative of Islam, though many flaws existed. Various states also met the minimal standard at some points: Sokoto, Mughal, Fatimi, etc. Today, not a single Muslim nation lives up to even the worse era of the Ottoman, Mughal, and so forth states.

It is easy for clear thinking mind to see the world as it interrelates from generation to generation, people to people, idea to idea.

It is a sick thinking mind that rejects the bad side of its own history, turns its back on its responsibilities, berates and demonizes anyone who calls them to account, and grows in arrogance, deceit, hatred. Hilali stepped down in disgrace. What will America do?

So PJ, your insults serve to establish my points. For you to say I should throw away the Quran and follow carnal desires because they are natural and part of modern advancement of humanity, you choose a construct of human sexual behavior. You ignore the consequences of imbalance between individual license and societal harmony.
I say to you be my way and to me be mine.

It's not about the rate of rape-related criminal activity, it's about the legal response.

In civilized areas, rapists are prosecuted.

In Moslem-run societies, rape victims are prosecuted.

Examples abound, including in the Koran.

"My beloved brother, it's in the general good of society to punish the adulterer/who commits rape fully..."

Rape and adultery are two very different things, except, as noted, under Islamic law. That fact ties into the subject matter thread of homosexuality by illustrating that Islamic law and cultural practices are based in gender-related sexual spitefulness issues, to which gays are largely irrelevant.

"On the issue of the Australian Imam, he is not alone in blaming women for being raped."

Note that the Imam is not interested in discussing homosexuality, crime, homelessness, poverty, etc. He zeroes in on that which his religion focuses most of its attention on, and affords him totalitarian control over--female sexuality. In contrast, American clerics spend much of their time blithering about gays because gays pose a greater threat to Christian-based ideology.

Solange,

When it comes to violence against women there is nothing to suggest that it is higher in Muslim countries. If you have any statistics, please post them.

If I remember well, a study in the US revealed that 1 in 4 college girls is raped or sexually assaulted on US campuses.

Violence against women is still a major problem in the US:

http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html

On the issue of the Australian Imam, he is not alone in blaming women for being raped.

In 2005, a poll in Britain revealed that over 1/3 of British blame rape crimes on women:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1880976,00.html

This is a problem that all nations must fight.

Solange,

You clearly seem like a narrow minded guy. The website you have mentioned is a an Islam bashing website and thus has its biased clearly shown. Perhaps, you haven't heard the views of Pat Robertson ever about Islam that are so misleading esp. when it comes to women's rights.

Also, it seems like you are just taking a hadith/s from here and there without its proper context and clues. My buddy, you talk about rape and adultery. Islam condemns them very rightly so as they are also one of the seven deadly sins. So where's the difference?
My beloved brother, it's in the general good of society to punish the adulterer/who commits rape fully so we don't have the filth in the society. Isn't that the reason for sex offense laws?
Islam tells us for severe punishment for these people so we don't have a society where a kid is born with no knowing of his father. Statistically speaking, kids born with fathers and mothers together are more likely to do well in life and school.
I hope my points are clear and they will help you open your viewpoints.

Umer

"Again you keep repeating your own bigoted views and lies."

Do you seriously suggest that women are not beaten, stoned, raped, "divorced" into poverty, and otherwise abused after being raped in Moslem societies, today?

Do you seriously suggest Moslem scholars do not advocate for those punishments?

The following report comes from frontpagemagazine.com:

"The Mufti of Australia, Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali, has gained international attention this week by saying that women are generally at fault if they are raped. Speaking to a Muslim audience in Sydney, he explained that rape (specifically, zina, sexual activity forbidden under Islamic law -- a word mistranslated in published accounts of the Sheikh's words as "adultery") is "90 percent the woman's responsibility. Why? Because a woman owns the weapon of seduction. It's she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying. It's she who shortens, raises and lowers. Then, it's a look, a smile, a conversation, a greeting, a talk, a date, a meeting, a crime, then Long Bay jail. Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years."

Al-Hilali invoked another Islamic scholar in support of his views: "But when it comes to this disaster, who started it? In his literature, writer al-Rafee says, if I came across a rape crime, I would discipline the man and order that the woman be jailed for life. Why would you do this, Rafee? He said because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it..."

Hussein:

I am not familiar with Mr. Goth background, but I don't think it's right to accuse him of using another nickname without any evidence.

Although I am not opposed to gay rights (you will agree that gay people cause us no harm whatsoever), I don't support Arab/Muslim commentators who approach these issues from a western point of view which is not understood by our people.

Notice how most of the west believes alcohol is OK but not soft-drugs (many of which have been used in our countries for centuries). As such, if some Muslim country decides to make Alcohol illegal, there will be all kind of condemnations (joined by these commentators I am talking about), however making other drugs illegal is fine and dandy. In fact, in Morocco (where I come from), the EU and the US have been pressuring the government to put an end to the centuries old cultivation of cannabis in northern Morocco while at the same time increasing alcohol exports to Morocco.

Anyways, back to the subject,

I noticed that the same hadiths are translated differently so I will try to find the original Arabic versions. Would know of a link in Arabic?

correction:

This is NOT a neo-Nazi blog

Solange:

Again you keep repeating your own bigoted views and lies.

I have posted the answer from an Islamic scholar and obviously you tell me to take a look at some neo-Nazi website that feeds your hatred and ignorance.

You initially said 2 witness but now it has become 4?

4 witnesses are required when someone accuses someone else of adultery (consensual sex outside marriage), not rape. Rape obviously often occurs when no witnesses are present.

This is what the scholar wrote:

"A raped woman is a victim that must be treated with honor and kindness. She is not required to produce four witnesses to prove the crime done against her, nor is she punished for the crime done against her. "

This is a neo-Nazi blog, so please take your rubbish somewhere else where it can be appreciated.

"4 witnesses are required to accuse someone of adultery."

As well as rape. And if the four "witnesses" are not available, the woman is charged with "adultery" and stoned.

Or beaten, or "divorced."

It appears the women of Darfur could shed more light on this topic.

You may want to visit www.islam-watch.org for more clear explanations of your religion.

"4 witnesses are required to accuse someone of adultery."

As well as rape. And if the four "witnesses" are not available, the woman is charged with "adultery" and stoned.

DUH!

It appears the women of Darfur could shed more light on this topic.

You may want to visit www.islam-watch.org for more clear explanations of your religion.

Hodan:

Please don't lie. The source of Islamic hadith is not a website run by LGBT Muslim Ring. The actually Bukhari Hadith is

Volume 7, Book 62, Number 9:
Narrated Ibn Masud:

We used to fight in the holy battles in the company of the Prophet and we had no wives with us. So we said, "O Allah's Apostle! Shall we get castrated?" The Prophet forbade us to do so.

There is nothing there about "may we treat some as eunuchs" or as Bashir claimed "Even companions of the Prophet who used to be away from their wives while fighting in battles sought his permission to use some of them as eunuchs, which the prophet rejected."

As I predicted before Bashir was caught in a falsehood and he will not defend his statement. He will have someone called Hodan (maybe that is his nickname or pen name) give out false hadith info.

Andrew said: "Perhaps I'm too Westernized to understand anything anymore, but it seems to me we could invest in schools for critical thinking that would reduce violence, intolerance, and hate that stems from intolerance."

What an irony! The most violent nation in the world, USA, investing in schools for critical thinking that would reduce violence? First heal thy self and stop your wars of aggression for example your war on and occupation of Iraq.

Solange:

It is unfortunate that you come here to spread misinformation.

You claimed that:

"... why a Moslem woman requires two male witnesses to confirm a rape? And can be "divorced" with three phrases? And can be beaten, stoned, etc. with full judicial approval?

On the rape witnesses, what you wrote is simply FALSE. Here is the evidence:

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503548970&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar

Please stop lying and making things up for the purpose of slandering other people religions.

4 witnesses are required to accuse someone of adultery.

Hodan/all:

Thanks for clarifying that. The link provided by Mr. Goth doesn't have that hadith you pasted.

I however found it here:

http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/Qurannotes.htm

This probably explains why Muslim societies have been historically more tolerant of homosexual behavior than many Western nations.

In my opinion, Islamic theology restricted/regulated more relations between men and women for the purpose of making sure that children are born into families.

"Islam supports equal representation before the law of all sexes, races, religions, and liberties of speech..."

Is that why a Moslem woman requires two male witnesses to confirm a rape? And can be "divorced" with three phrases? And can be beaten, stoned, etc. with full judicial approval?

Please.

"Thus, it is not advancement for sex to occur outside of marriage and for society to presume there are no consequences for sex outside of marriage..."

Men have been doing it since the dawn of time, in one guise or another. And will continue to.

Now, women are choosing to have have sex, and children, out of wedlock for the same reason men have chosen to be promiscuous, "marry" multiple wives, etc. for the past 7,000 years.

Because we can.

And we will continue to control our fertility, and our sex choices, as men have, for the forseeable future.

As Goth notes: "Therefore, procreation seems to be the main objective of marriage in Islam and it is obvious that homosexuality will not increase the number of the faithful."

The result, of course, is that gender issues become proxy for sexual power trip issues.

This is why the family is the "pillar of society," an arrangement that works quite well for men, but leaves women (and oft-deserted children) in the dust.

In Moslem societies, men "marry" multiple partners, and the resulting overproduction of children get little attention from fathers.

In Western societies, men divorce women, and children get shoved aside. What's the difference?

Moslem attitudes towards gays have not been colored by the same power-control lens that colors male-female relations, because the stakes are not so high where men enjoy total control over selection and access to sex partners.

In Western societies, men object to gays far more stridently (women generally don't care either way) because gays pick and choose male partners according to the same standards that men pick and choose women.

And that's a shoe men of all creeds live in terror of seeing shift to the other foot.

It's amazing that a 1400 year old book of fiction dictated by a desert bandit can still incite such hateful passion against the West.

Usama, where would your world be if it hadn't been for the Westerners who invented vaccines, antibiotics, modern agriculture? Unfortunately, we also invented the internal combustion engine and discovered oil under your godforsaken sands.

And now, because of our pluralistic, open societies, BECAUSE OF OUR GENEROSITY, you religious nuts are free to use our technology and take our money, to live within our borders and breed like rabbits (as the Prophet directed you), while claiming that WE are the greedy and hateful ones and justifying bombings and other acts of mass murder on the basis of 50 year old perceived injustices like the creation of the state of Israel.

Throw away that book of superstitious nonsense.

We are all brothers, and open, pluralistic societies as we have in the West are the only ones that are compatible with world peace.

It's amazing that a 1400 year old book of fiction dictated by a desert bandit can still incite such hateful passion against the West.

Usama, where would your world be if it hadn't been for the Westerners who invented vaccines, antibiotics, modern agriculture? Unfortunately, we also invented the internal combustion engine and discovered oil under your godforsaken sands.

And now, because of our pluralistic, open societies, BECAUSE OF OUR GENEROSITY, you religious nuts are free to use our technology and take our money, to live within our borders and breed like rabbits (as the Prophet directed you), while claiming that WE are the greedy and hateful ones.

Throw away that book of superstitious nonsense.

We are all brothers, and open, pluralistic societies as we have in the West are the only ones that are compatible with world peace.

Several guys have asked Mr.Goth to present the Hadith of the Prophet where he rejected his companions to use some of them as eunuchs. If these people only followed up the links provided by Mr. Goth they would have found it as I did myslef. But they are people dominated only by emotion. The hadith which I culled from the place cited by Mr. Goth is the following:

Bukhari LXII 6:9 [Narrated by ibn Mas'ud:] "We used to fight [in battle] together with the Prophet, peace be upon him. There were no women with us. We said: O Messenger, may we treat some as eunuchs [a laa nastakhsii]? He forbade us to do so."

Elizabeth:

The Lot story in the Koran is the same as the Gomorrah and Sodom story of the bible.

Andrew,

There is more violence in America against homosexuals than in many Muslim countries. I can recall few gays who were murdered in the last few years in the US, am I wrong?

It is just that many Westerners think they are the most liberal in social issues but in fact they are not. Some Western nations are, some are not (US is definitely one of the most conservative western nations). Some Eastern nations are much more liberal and more accepting of gays (Thailand for instance).

Below is just one small example to show you what I am talking about:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/magazine/16goytisolo.html?ex=1162443600&en=357132460c9d8a1f&ei=5070

Juan Goytisolo is, in case you didn't know, openly gay.

Of course you will find Muslim countries or communities who are less tolerant of gays but it is more complicated than the usual ignorant bigoted accusations leveled at all Muslims of this planet.

The Lot story has always bothered me because it was preferable for Lot to hand over his daughters to be raped than to have the angels sodomized. I notice that none of the men here have commented on that. It is so much worse in Islam to be gay than raped?

I'm always amazed that among the Islamic populace any Muslim who tries to provide Americans some insight into the religion is denounced as being "unfit" to explain it. Many Muslims who try to present their faith, or any elements therein, as compatible with tolerance are labeled "not representative of the true faith." Clearly, Bashir is just telling us what he sees, and does not attempt to act as emissary or mouthpiece for God. Fundamentalists, relax! I got such a chuckle out of the respondent who asked if Mr. Goth was gay! (Where does he get his rhetorical tools? The 3rd grade playground?) If Mr. Goth wrote about women's rights, would the reader question his gender? Perhaps I'm too Westernized to understand anything anymore, but it seems to me we could invest in schools for critical thinking that would reduce violence, intolerance, and hate that stems from intolerance.

Adam,

Excellent question. Bashir will never clarify that misleading statement because it was an artfully constructed misleading one. Readers were supposed to leave with the impression that the companions of the Prophet asked him if they could "use" eunuchs (i.e. commit homosexual act with "them"). His link to the hadith was supposed to convince the readers he had proof of the above insinuation. But careful readers have read the hadith and obviously it had nothing to do with homosexuality.

Again I can guarantee you Bashir will not clarify that sentence but some of his supporters will try to explain it away. Bashir we are all waiting for you explanation.

Bashir would never last a day at a respectable academic institution because he uses anecdotes as proof. Please provide data to support your blanket accusation of Muslim societies.

Karim,

I kind like suspected that something was off but didn't want to react before giving the author and his supporters another chance to clarify.

Again Mr. Goth, please tell us which hadith in the link that supports your claim that..."Even companions of the Prophet who used to be away from their wives while fighting in battles sought his permission to use some of them as eunuchs, which the prophet rejected."

Your input is highly appreciated.

Adam,

I think Mr. Goth confused the meaning of that hadith with what he wrote.

The hadith simply meant that the prophet regarded marriage as an important aspect of Muslim life.

To Mr. Usama

The here issue is not whether homosexuality exists--all species have such tendency--but the issue is about acceptance of such practice in the respective societies they live in. Every society has homosexual population that includes doctors, engineers, congressmen and women and all that you could think of, even clergymen and women. So what is the fuss?
Did you really think seriously and asked yourself whether you have such tendency----that thing you may be suppressing? Ask your friend, your uncles and aunts, or maybe even your father and mother, if you dare to, whether they ever have experienced such tendency or even tested it in their lifetime. Some reports have shown that a very high number of college students have engaged same sex act at least once in their lifetime. Boarding schools, including even those in many third world countries, and others likewise reported practices of homosexuality. People are people, created by the same creator, and even you Mr. Usama, may need to explore more of yourself, instead of attacking the messenger. You will be surprised!!!! You are fighting the wrong war. May be you should take a trip to places like San Francisco. It may help you open your eyes and help you weigh on things in a little more critical way of thinking. Try to think and reason. It will help you grow--mentally that is. You could disagree with people without attacking them.

Mr. Goth/ET AL

"Even companions of the Prophet who used to be away from their wives while fighting in battles sought his permission to use some of them as eunuchs, which the prophet rejected."

Can the writer or anyone who understands, please elaborate on this sentence. Where in the link "eunuchs" can we find anything that supports what the author is attempting to tell us here.

Who is this contributer Usama? Can I please have his email for a few questions?
Thank you

I'd like to clarify the following.

Marriage in Islam is literally a contract between 2 people (man and woman/women) that can be broken. It is not a sacrament.

To conclude the marriage contract, religious authorities are in theory not required to "bless" the marriage.

http://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/Pages/marriagecontracts.html

To Farah in Hargeisa:

Why do you consider the questions (Bashir do you consider yourself a Muslim? Do you approve of homosexuality? Are you gay?) an attack? If Bashir Goth is ashamed of being gay or at a minimum pro-gay then he was attacked but according to his writing he seems to be for Gay Marriage. Questioning him the way he is questioning Muslims is open minded and anyone who has thin skin and cannot take simply questions should not be writing any opinion pieces let alone controversial ones like Bashir's.

Mr.Goth, your MISLEADING and HYPOCRATIC article reminds me the "Stanic Versus of Salman Rushdi".

Your dam article reflects how ignorant you are about the rules and regulations of islam which save guards the human morale and values in all aspects of life. Moreover, it throws you out of the islam boundaries as you discrgracefully compared His Almighty Allah with the immoral politicians who seek to gain election votes at any cost.

I hope that from now on, you shall be defined as one of the worst islam enemies second to Salman Rushdi.

I was told that you are the son of well known sheikh in Borama, but, it is only Allah who gives the guidance of the righteous way to the man.

To: Sudi, Mogadishu.

It is the plague of many people to attack the person instead of discussing the issue. Sudi, you better debate the issue instead of being personal and taking the easy way. Attacking the person instead arguing the idea shows is intellectual bankruptcy.

To respond to the very first comment:I'm pretty sure that the phrase "universal construct" is an oxymoron. If the norms of sexual behavior have been "constructed," then they can be deconstructed, reconstructed, and conceivably put together in a million different ways.
I understand that the difference between traditional American individualism (which, obviously, fails all the time on both governmental and human levels) and the so-called Muslim commitment to community seems too great to be surmounted--one philosophy seems to value a single person (the self) while the other values the overall wellbeing of a larger group. But what are the valuable components that make up that larger group? And why do indiviualists value the individual at all? I think the answer is that there is something unique and precious in every person, and so a society, which is not made up of homogeneous parts, has valuable elements that thrive when living in close communion with other members of that society. I fail to see why responsible same-sex behavior, any less than heterosexual behavior, is such a risk either to American individualism or non-western societies. Wouldn't a community-based society want all of its constituents to be happy, healthy, and free from discrimination?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding some fundamental concept of community-based societies? You'll note I'm avoiding reference to holy texts, mostly because all holy texts of whatever religion have provisions that have fallen by the wayside (that chapter in Leviticus says something like we should stone our mothers if they mix the fabric in their garments, for example. whoops, polyester).

Perhaps it is wrong to think that there will never be a line of Islamic jurisprudence that doesn't reject gay love.

I looked thought the first link to Islam online. The "reasons" for 'homosexual' perversion are so far-fetched by modern standards that it is hard to see that a good scholar couldn't put them aside fairly easily. The story about Lot has long been interpreted not to be about homosexuality, per se, but about hospitality.

This leaves the family and the role of the family in public morals. For this, the sages all seem to be talking about people leaving their wives for lust. Gay people aren't _leaving_ people; they are finding each other. Lust is a separate concept. As for 'garments', it is possible to see that 'complimentary' doesn't have to be exclusively the results of biological procreation.

Painting the issue as democracy-v-theocracy is almost pure politics, IMO, meaning that it seems just a rhetorical device to use widespread prejudices to keep the mullahs in power in certain places.

Groups like al-fatiha help gay and lesbian Muslims in the West. Someday, maybe, a gay Muslim can be Chairman of a great corporation or an honest civil servant, and we all can see that it is fine to celebrate our differences, when they have such wonderful outcomes!