Was Muhammad unobservant?

Isn't that discriminatory against gays? We don't know whether gay emotional and sexual desires are due to biological or environmental reasons but we do know that those feelings aren't a choice and that a person can't change his or her sexual orientation, so the complete prohibition on homosexuality does seem to discriminate against gay people.

Muhammad didn't say anything about gay people.
He made it illegal to have sex with someone of your own gender in public.

Being gay and having sex with someone of your own gender (in public) aren't the same thing.

The definitions do not say that it has to be an aspect of their form. It simply says "aspect". Islam is an aspect. The definition makes no distinction as to whether it is an aspect of their lives or their form.

Yes, they could. So?

You might not like the fact that I'm being pedantic with definitions, but you're the one that said "Go and look up race", so you really don't have anything to back your point up anymore.

Most people may want to be respect but most are aware that such respect ought to be earned rather than imposed.

Secondly, there's much in the religious belief of Muslims which may be construed as disrespectful to women, gays, non-Muslims, etc. So why should I be respectful to such a group of people?

If it was about sufficient conditions then why are their humans in places like Africa and Asia where climates and surroundings are much different to here in England, surely by your theory they would still be apes. Also, there's apes here in England, how come they haven't evolved.

I'm not arguing that we haven't evolved, because we have, but it's something absurd to say we evolved from apes considering they are still in existence in the same conditions human live in today.

They aren't at all vaque, because its very clear of what it means. But again, you've already made your choice so its not going to change your view anyhow.

As your looking up the dictionary definitions, maybe you'd want to look up the Qur'an and try reading that to conjure more useful points.

Becuase the topic is about Islam. <_<

Had the topic been about Christianiy it would be different. But the topic is specifically about Islam so its only sensible to use Islamic knowledge. Otherwise your points are pretty much redundant as you have no knowledge and using your own opinions as well as others' to form an argument.

Ok, let's just assume for a second Darwinism is correct. Couldn't Adam and Eve be apes? It doesn't render the argument in any way, it just means they were a bit different to how we are today.

So what, heterosexual people were allowed to have public sex, but homosexual people weren't? And you're arguing that there was no discrimination in that?

Anyone with half a brain cell will be aware that it is referring to a person's form, considering it describes it as "a particular part or feature of a matter", with matter being a person's form, not the activities within their life.

That appears to be what you base your entire argument on, the vague pragmatics of what the dictionary may be alluding.

When did I say heterosexuals were allowed to have public sex? What kind of stupid law would that be?

well in that case you were suggesting that homosexuals were allowed to have public sex, whereas heterosexuals weren't - you're driving yourself into a hole with this argument

And he did learn to read, otherwise he wouldn't have memorised the whole Quran by heart, letter by letter.

I was just stating one of the laws that Muhammad made. Homosexuals were prohibited from having public sex. It's true.

I didn't say anything about heterosexuals because heterosexuals were not the topic under discussion.


I was suggesting nothing more and nothing less than what I actually said.

You've just contradicted yourself again - now you're suggesting that before Muhammad made this law, they were allowed to have public sex, which suggests that heterosexuals already weren't, yadda yadda yadda. Like I said before, you've trapped yourself in a vicious circle.

Before Muhammad made laws, there were hardly any laws in Arabia anyway. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals could have sex in public without legal punishment.
When Muhammad came, public sex of any kind became prohibited.


I'm not suggesting anything except for what I say explicitly. Don't try to read deeper meanings. I hold no responsibility for what you misinterpret.

How is that a contradiction?

He made all public sex illegal, including sex with your own gender. Both statements are true.


I didn't say he made it illegal to have sex only with someone of your own gender.




I didn't say that, and if you're going to continue to deliberately misinterpret what I say, despite me asking you not to, then this conversation is over.

That's not discrimination though. It is treating them differently, but it's not simply because of what group they belong to, it is because of their individual characteristic of not being Muslim, if you see the distinction.

Yes, but Muslims aren't the ones sending them to Hell. Muslims aren't the ones doing the discriminating.

Muslims claim that the 7th century Arab warlord they regard as 'prophet' was illiterate and so he couldn't have written the Quran. They assert that the Quran was dictated to the Quran by an actual angel called Gabriel over a twenty-two year period.

My question is this, why was Muhammad illiterate? Wasn't he a successful merchant? That would imply that he would (at least) know how to count and arguably to read and write to some extent. Not to mention the fact that Islam supposedly places great emphasis on knowledge, academia and literacy which makes you wonder why - even if we, for the sake of argument, accept that he was illiterate when he first began receiving revelations - he remained illiterate throughout those twenty-two years.

Erm discrimination is a form of choosing based on critera: right? (and I don't necessarily mean in a pejorative sense.) Therefore not being allowed to marry them based upon a distinction is discrimination correct?