Why is there so much violence against LGBTQ coming from islam?

[insecure]

Well if that was the case why would they also place so many rules on the relationships that can actually reproduce? doesn't really add up

I don't understand what you mean by "they", you mean islam or democratic laws?
Just to prove my point about incest, recently there were some scandals in the Netherlands where a doctor from a fertility clinic used his own sperm to father hundreds of children.
The women who got pregnant this way thought it was from a random donor.
There are rules that a donors sperm cannot be used more than x times (don't know the number by heart), they are there for exactly that reason, to prevent inbreeding.
Incest, in case of pregnancy, is a dangerous practice, it leads to deficiencies.

 

[CenotaphGirl]

I don't understand what you mean by "they", you mean islam or democratic laws?
Just to prove my point about incest, recently there were some scandals in the Netherlands where a doctor from a fertility clinic used his own sperm to father hundreds of children.
The women who got pregnant this way thought it was from a random donor.
There are rules that a donors sperm cannot be used more than x times (don't know the number by heart), they are there for exactly that reason, to prevent inbreeding.
Incest, in case of pregnancy, is a dangerous practice, it leads to deficiencies.

they as in Islam yes, theres strict rules around all sexual endeavours not just homosexuality. Even sexual endeavours that cause pregnancy. So if its all about reproduction wouldnt the only rules be around homosexuality?

Also incest is different however, its still a sexual practice that someone can disagree with wether pregnancy will arise or not. They can easily adopt or use sperm donors like members of the LGBTQ community do. I just find it morally wrong. Thats my honest opinion around incest for example.

 

[user 190541]

Aw, man, not this again.

Clearly, OP didn't ask that question to be answered. He already knows the answer to it (his answer, anyway) and is quite satisfied with it. This alone tells you all you need to know about this thread.

In any case, putting aside gross inaccuracies, like Muhammad being a violent man (he wasn't), and overall dubious theorizing on all parts involved (*cough* geographical determinism *cough*), the real reason was summed up in the very beginning.

It is more difficult to use reasoning and cognition, when one is fearful, or angry. So, I posit, that, people who are primarily concerned with basic survival, have less time to reason, grow, and learn. They are more concerned with, where will food/shelter/clothing/etc.. come from, than with, 'how does my neighbor feel?'

Progressive ideas come about in progressive societies (duh!). When you have war-torn societies in which the government can't even keep basic infrastructure up and running (this would be the case in Iraq just after the invasion), and people have to rely on local religious associations and clergymen to get the job done, naturally you won't be getting any progressive ideas. You'll be getting religious fundamentalism fueled by a thrist for revenge.

Why is this so hard to understand? Literally, just do a little research about it. I've said it before and I'm gonna say it again, a little history book goes a long way!

 

[insecure]

they as in Islam yes, theres strict rules around all sexual endeavours not just homosexuality. Even sexual endeavours that cause pregnancy. So if its all about reproduction wouldnt the only rules be around homosexuality?

Religions generally want to control sexuality, it gives them power over people.
But if you look at it the rules are made to cause maximum growth for that religion.
Forbidden same *** (because wrong thought of no offspring), and only marriage possible if conversion to islam, and then children are also raised as muslims.

Also incest is different however, its still a sexual practice that someone can disagree with wether pregnancy will arise or not. They can easily adopt or use sperm donors like members of the LGBTQ community do. I just find it morally wrong. Thats my honest opinion around incest for example.

Aside from genetic issues there is often an inequality in that kind of relation, like father vs daughter, which is incestuous, but also often ********* nature.
In case it is not of ********* nature (like between cousins), you still have the issue of genetic problems as soon as children would come of it.
Once you allow people to have relations it is hard to say they can't have children.

 

[insecure]

Aw, man, not this again.

Clearly, OP didn't ask that question to be answered. He already knows the answer to it (his answer, anyway) and is quite satisfied with it. This alone tells you all you need to know about this thread.

You are wrong, and it is obvious you are not objective at all.
You want to frame me, to kill the topic.
You are not answering the topic but attacking me personally.
One of the persons who sent a like to your posts, also sent me some insulting private mails on this forum.

In any case, putting aside gross inaccuracies, like Muhammad being a violent man (he wasn't), and overall dubious theorizing on all parts involved (*cough* geographical determinism *cough*), the real reason was summed up in the very beginning.

The truth is not what you care for.
If he wasn't a violent man, then how come he was involved in various battles?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
It is full of battles, anyone can check this, just look at the time line to the right, battles, assassinations, you name it and Muhammad was personally involved, and no, I didn't create wikipedia.

Just a quote from Wikipedia:

Muhammad ordered a number of raids to capture Meccan caravans, but only the 8th of them, the Raid of Nakhla, resulted in actual fighting and capture of booty and prisoners.[111] In March 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan. The Muslims set an ambush for the caravan at Badr.[112]

Is this your peaceful man?

Progressive ideas come about in progressive societies (duh!).

So why is islam not progressive then?

When you have war-torn societies in which the government can't even keep basic infrastructure up and running (this would be the case in Iraq just after the invasion), and people have to rely on local religious associations and clergymen to get the job done, naturally you won't be getting any progressive ideas. You'll be getting religious fundamentalism fueled by a thrist for revenge.

Good excuse, but as I have shown, Muhammad was a violent man, involved in conquering territory.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Because it isn't true.

I've said it before and I'm gonna say it again, a little history book goes a long way!

You make it sound as if there is one universal history with an absolute truth.
That is not the case.
Maybe you should watch the series "British history biggest fibs", then you would see how history keeps being twisted and turned to serve the purpose of certain people at certain times.
To represent muslims and islam as some kind of benign religion that is always the victim of others is such an attempt at distorting reality.

 

[user 135671]

Most theological research, including research by at least one Muslim theologist suggests it's very likely that The Prophet Muhammad never existed.

 

[insecure]

Most theological research, including research by at least one Muslim theologist suggests it's very likely that The Prophet Muhammad never existed.

Again, not true.
Wikipedia:

The overwhelming majority of classical scholars accept Muhammad as a historical figure.[5]

and

A minority of historians have posited that Muhammad may be mythical

Is muhammad a historic figure?

 

[user 135671]

Ah yeah, sorry, if it's on wiki it's deffo true innit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip...lsewhere on,in progress, or simply incorrect.

 

[insecure]

Ah yeah, sorry, if it's on wiki it's deffo true innit.

Yes, it has to be on some site with lots of exclamation marks, links to UFO sightings, then it is true...

 

[user 135671]

Yes, it has to be on some site with lots of exclamation marks, links to UFO sightings, then it is true...

Sorry man, I'm out, I can't take anyone who gets their 'facts' of wiki seriously. Have a good 'un.

 

[Cherubino]

there are differences between Muslim countries ... when Napoleon's army attacked the Muslim Egypt (part of the Turkish Empire) those local warriors (Mamelukes) ***** the men and beat the women of the invaders

EDIT ... also I'm from a country that was under the muslim Turkish Empire domination (not occupation) and we had a ruler (the brother of the famous Vlad Dracula the Impaler) called Radu the Handsome because he was in the Sultan's males harem

 

[insecure]

Sorry man, I'm out, I can't take anyone who gets their 'facts' of wiki seriously. Have a good 'un.

Yes, sure, some random guy on a forum is much more reliable.
At least Wikipedia articles can be debated by others, and adapted.

 

[CenotaphGirl]

Religions generally want to control sexuality, it gives them power over people.
But if you look at it the rules are made to cause maximum growth for that religion.
Forbidden same *** (because wrong thought of no offspring), and only marriage possible if conversion to islam, and then children are also raised as muslims.


Aside from genetic issues there is often an inequality in that kind of relation, like father vs daughter, which is incestuous, but also often ********* nature.
In case it is not of ********* nature (like between cousins), you still have the issue of genetic problems as soon as children would come of it.
Once you allow people to have relations it is hard to say they can't have children.

Sorry im like a dog with a bone on debates… But I said incest not straight so… what about 2 male gay cousins, twin brothers… uncle and nephew of the same age ? Love is love… no? Point is when I think about incest them having children doesn't even cross my mind its the whole act of it before it gets to that point.

 

[user 135671]

If anyone wants to read the entire entry the OP linked, from the all knowing Wikipedia, Is Muhammad a historic figure? and not just a random sentence plucked from it. Even though "The overwhelming majority of classical scholars accept Muhammad as a historical figure." Very little or next to nothing is known about his life from any reliable source. There's no mention at all of the existence or acceptance of 'The Prophet Muhammad' as a historical figure. But hey what's this RandomGuy know.

 

[insecure]

Sorry im like a dog with a bone on debates… But I said incest not straight so… what about 2 male gay cousins, twin brothers… uncle and nephew of the same age ? Love is love… no? Point is when I think about incest them having children doesn't even cross my mind its the whole act of it before it gets to that point.

I never thought of it that way, I must say.
Love is love only only applies to consenting adults, of course.
So two cousins, if one of them is a minor would not apply as "love is love".
But if they are adults and both male, then I guess the issues with the gene pool would not apply.

The disgust for that sexual relationship I guess is something we were taught as a child.
For heterosexual relationships there is some logic in that, the gene pool issue.

 

[insecure]

If anyone wants to read the entire entry the OP linked, from the all knowing Wikipedia, Is Muhammad a historic figure? and not just a random sentence plucked from it. Even though "The overwhelming majority of classical scholars accept Muhammad as a historical figure." Very little or next to nothing is known about his life from any reliable source. There's no mention at all of the existence or acceptance of 'The Prophet Muhammad' as a historical figure. But hey what's this RandomGuy know.

It is not a random sentence, but a crucial one.
It clearly states that what you pretend to be the main view is a minority view.
You can ask yourself why if it is all unreliable, then why it is only a minority view that he never existed.
It is not like scholars are stupid.
I also wonder what other muslims think of this 1 muslim scholar who also believes that he never existed.
Mohammad is the one crucial figure in islam.
If a muslim says he does not believe mohammad ever existed, I doubt he would still be considered a muslim by other muslims.

 

[user 135671]

Have you actually read the entire article? where does it say the prophet Mohammad existed, not that it is accepted ( not proven ) that some bloke called Muhammad was a historical figure?.

 

[user 135671]

Mohammad is the one crucial figure in islam.

Yeah so crucial that he is mentioned 4 times in the Qur'an

 

[insecure]

Have you actually read the entire article? where does it say the prophet Mohammad existed, not that it is accepted ( not proven ) that some bloke called Muhammad was a historical figure?.

Here, for instance:

Though the Quran contains few and rudimentary details of the prophet's life, most of the biographical information about Muhammad comes from the sirah (biographical literature), especially the work of Ibn Ishaq.[62] These sources normally provide a historical trail of names that lead, in some cases, to an eyewitness and sometimes converge with other earlier sources near the time of the prophet.[62] Though "there is no compelling reason to suggest that the basic scaffolding of the traditional Islamic account of Muhammad's life is unhistorical", a much more detailed biography is difficult to be understood as historically certain knowledge.[

So the basics are accepted, but the fully detailed biography is uncertain to be true.

 

[user 135671]

This is just ridiculous now, it's bedtime for me, enjoy the rest of your night