The Student Room Group

Muslim doctor calls killing homosexuals "compassionate"

Scroll to see replies

Original post by justmyname
I know this is an old post but I was looking over this forum and needed to reply. I come from an Egyptian family which are Christian. Even though Christianity is the minority religion, it isn't uncommon. So just an eye opener that not all Arabs are Muslim




Yes I know that not all Arabs are muslim, I was just trying to know her exact race and religion.
Original post by Attempt
Yes I know that not all Arabs are muslim, I was just trying to know her exact race and religion.


ah ok fair enough
Reply 382
Original post by muslimstanisyed
Says who?
Lets be real the world doesnt start and stop in the west.
Theres asian countries,arab countries,african countries,caribbean countries dont think its normal.
Just because YOU do doesnt mean its true.
Scientifically conducted, biological studies says. Many species display homosexual behaviour, in all animal groups - from butterflies to lizards to fish to owls to dolphins.
It has nothing to do with "the West" or national culture.

The question should really be - given the evidence that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, why are you (and your god) against it?
Reply 383
Original post by champ_mc99
A devout peace-loving, pacifistic Buddhist. Either that or an athiest.
They are not necessarily different things.

But yes. Gnostic atheist, agnostic adeist.
Reply 384
Original post by queen-bee
I'm grateful for my upbringing :h:
And inshallah ya rab,I hope to raise my kids in a Christian household too :h:
So, childhood indoctrination then. Which is the only reason that religion has survived the Age of Reason.
Original post by QE2
Scientifically conducted, biological studies says. Many species display homosexual behaviour, in all animal groups - from butterflies to lizards to fish to owls to dolphins.
It has nothing to do with "the West" or national culture.

The question should really be - given the evidence that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, why are you (and your god) against it?


Ive never understood that argument tbh.
Infact thats mainly the only argument i hear "because its in the animal kingdom" is that supposed to actually mean something?
Animals do a lot of things.
Incest,rape,torture,murder.
They are all found in the animal kingdom but they sure hell aint "natural"
Original post by muslimstanisyed
Ive never understood that argument tbh.
Infact thats mainly the only argument i hear "because its in the animal kingdom" is that supposed to actually mean something?
Animals do a lot of things.
Incest,rape,torture,murder.
They are all found in the animal kingdom but they sure hell aint "natural"


Jesus that is stupid.
Reply 387
Original post by yasminkattan
Lol. Nowhere in the Qur'an or any Hadith does it say "go and enslave people".
As a recent convert, you are obviously not familiar with how Islam works yet. Probably because you have only been exposed to the cherry-picked, sanitised dawahganda that is fed to the kuffar.

Whatever is permitted in the Quran (and whatever was done or allowed by Muhammad) is permitted to Muslims. It is not compulsory, but it is not forbidden either.
"What Allah has maded halal, no man can make haram".
So the keeping of slaves is allowed, and always will be, because Allah's word is infallable and eternal.

Islam actually eradicated many methods of enslavement that people used to practice before. The only enslavement that is permitted in Islam is enslavement through war. Letting people go during these times would have meant a higher risk of them spreading injustice and killing Muslims, as was their aim.

There are also guidelines to dealing with slaves: they must be clothed and fed the same as their masters, and they should be treated with kindness. If his master beats him then he must release his slave. Most slaves actually became part of the family. So technically this isn't "slavery" - they were treated fairly and with the same rights. A slave also had the right to 'buy' himself free from his master.

Think of how maids, butlers and so on are treated by some people nowadays and compare it to how slaves were treated during those times by the Muslims.

[a Hadith Qudsi] “Allaah, may He be exalted, said: ‘There are three whose opponent I will be on the Day of Resurrection, and whomever I oppose, I will defeat A man who sold a free man and consumed his price.’” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2227).
And, without any apparent sense of irony, you go on to defend slavery (the very point that I made in the post that you are attempting to refute) - the only reason being that it is allowed by your "perfect" religion.

I think you need to read more into this subject. It's not as simple as "Islam permits slavery". Your ancestors most likely used to kidnap Africans, beat them, and sell them as a sort of business. This is definitely not permitted in Islam, so please stop going on about how "civilised" non-Muslims are.
Indeed, my ancestors may well have been involved in slavery, and may well have been slaves - but that is history, but while it may have been accepted at the time, I still condemn it as a historical practice. However, we have moved on. It was outlawed two centuries ago in the British Empire, and all countries now forbid it. And yet, Islam still permits it (read your Quran and show me the passage that says it is forbidden to own slaves).
Any system that permits slavery is, by definition, less civilised than one that has abolished it.
Reply 388
Original post by Good bloke
Back in the real world. the only people I have heard of that treat their employees as badly as slaves were treated are Moslems. The Middle Eastern domestic worker employers are notorious for it.
#NotTrueMuslims™
Reply 389
Original post by muslimstanisyed
Ive never understood that argument tbh.
Infact thats mainly the only argument i hear "because its in the animal kingdom" is that supposed to actually mean something?
Animals do a lot of things.
Incest,rape,torture,murder.
They are all found in the animal kingdom but they sure hell aint "natural"
This argument is genuinely nonsensical.
If something regularly occurs in nature, it is, by definition, natural.

Homo sapiens have evolved to a level where where we have societies with complex rule based systems. We forbid some things because they may be harmful to the individual or society, despite them being natural behaviour.
Homosexuality, between consenting adults, is not harmful to anyone. Which is why all civilised nations have removed their religiously-based prohibitions on it.
Original post by QE2
This argument is genuinely nonsensical.
If something regularly occurs in nature, it is, by definition, natural.

Homo sapiens have evolved to a level where where we have societies with complex rule based systems. We forbid some things because they may be harmful to the individual or society, despite them being natural behaviour.
Homosexuality, between consenting adults, is not harmful to anyone. Which is why all civilised nations have removed their religiously-based prohibitions on it.


It doesn't regularly occur in nature though
Also you say it is not harmful can you explain to be why such a civilized nation like britain does not let homosexual men donate blood?
i mean britain is so civilized that homosexuals cant even donate blood.
Theres a reason for that bruh.
Whether you like it or not
Original post by muslimstanisyed
It doesn't regularly occur in nature though
Also you say it is not harmful can you explain to be why such a civilized nation like britain does not let homosexual men donate blood?
i mean britain is so civilized that homosexuals cant even donate blood.
Theres a reason for that bruh.
Whether you like it or not


Are you actually a bit special?
Original post by muslimstanisyed
It doesn't regularly occur in nature though yes it does; it has been observed in many species and is common in plenty
Also you say it is not harmful can you explain to be why such a civilized nation like britain does not let homosexual men donate blood? It does allow homosexual men to donate blood, except in the backward, superstitiously-affected area called Northern Ireland
i mean britain is so civilized that homosexuals cant even donate blood.
Theres a reason for that bruh.
Whether you like it or not


Whether you like it or not, your assertions are factually incorrect. See above.
Original post by Good bloke
Whether you like it or not, your assertions are factually incorrect. See above.



http://barbwire.com/2014/12/01/myth-homosexuality-nature/
Canabalism is found in the animal kingdom so guess what everyone its normal.
Rape is in the animal kingdom so guess what guys it must be normal.
Oh wait penguins,antelopes and wild deer like to have gay sex with eachother.
I guess that must be normal
LOL
Original post by muslimstanisyed
Canabalism is found in the animal kingdom so guess what everyone its normal.
Rape is in the animal kingdom so guess what guys it must be normal.
Oh wait penguins,antelopes and wild deer like to have gay sex with eachother.
I guess that must be normal
LOL


You are confused. We are discussing whether homosexuality is a natural behaviour (It obviously is), not whether it is a moral behaviour.

Most people, these days, would agree that homosexuality is within normal morality, but most people would also argue that cannibalism, murder, incest and rape are not morally acceptable. Those that don't are almost all found to be adherents of one of the Abrahamic religions.
Original post by Good bloke

Most people, these days, would agree that homosexuality is within normal morality, but most people would also argue that cannibalism, murder, incest and rape are not morally acceptable. Those that don't are almost all found to be adherents of one of the Abrahamic religions.


One of those things is not like the other.

Original post by muslimstanisyed
Canabalism is found in the animal kingdom so guess what everyone its normal.


Which is precisely whether the debate on whether it is natural (while clearly answered through observation) is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of its morality.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by queen-bee
I don't know how that affects you? But thanks for the concern habibi:h:


You don't have to be affected by something personally to care about it. Otherwise charity would completely lose its purpose. As would so many other things in this world.

It's actually very commendable and decent of him to care about your future kids having never met you - or indeed, them - surely you can't condemn people for wanting the best for others, now? He is not unlike the suffragettes - who fought hard to speak up against something affecting people's chances in life. Few would disagree that their acts were highly commendable.
Reply 398
Original post by muslimstanisyed
It doesn't regularly occur in nature though
Irrelevant. Neither does albinism, or AB blood types. Are you claiming that these are not "natural"?

Also you say it is not harmful can you explain to be why such a civilized nation like britain does not let homosexual men donate blood?
i mean britain is so civilized that homosexuals cant even donate blood.
Theres a reason for that bruh.
Whether you like it or not
Because that is not true. Homosexual men can donate blood.
https://www.blood.co.uk/who-can-give-blood/

There are certain groups that require a waiting period after sex, including gay men, haemophiliacs, drug users, people who had sex in certain parts of the world, sufferers from certain conditions - but I fail to see how this is "uncivilised". It is merely a medical precaution. It is not the homosexuality that is the danger, only the risk of infection transfer. There are millions of homosexuals who never contract an STD, and millions of straight people who do - so your attempted point is meaningless.
Reply 399
Why are you linking to an evangelical Christian blog? Do the ramblings of a right-wing religionist somehow disprove the piles of scientific evidence?
Do you have a point?

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending