Islamic conference say Homosexuality is ok... say WHAT??

[Justforfun000]

I never thought I'd see the day....does this mean there's hope for that religion yet?

http://www.365gay.com/news/islamic-conf ... uality-ok/


Islamic conference says homosexuality OK
By 365gay Newswire
11.10.2009 10:00am EST

The Jakarta Post reported today that moderate Muslim scholars see no reason to reject homosexuals under Islam.
Send / Share
Add Comment
The discussion was organized by Arus Pelangi, a non-governmental group.

Scholars said that condemnation of homosexuality by Muslims is based on narrow-minded interpretations of Islamic teaching.

Siti Musdah Mulia of the Indonesia Conference of Religions and Peace said:

“There is no difference between lesbians and non lesbians. In the eyes of God, people are valued based on their piety…And talking about piety is God’s prerogative to judge. The essence of the religion is to humanize humans, respect and dignify them.”

Another speaker at the discussion, Nurofiah of the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), said that heterosexuality is a social construction that has ultimately led the majority to ban homosexuality.

Several conservative Muslims also spoke at the discussion, but they condemned homosexuals.

Deputy chairman of the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI), Amir Syarifuddin said:

“It’s a sin. We will not consider homosexuals an enemy, but we will make them aware that what they are doing is wrong.”

A representative of Hizbut Thahir Indonesia (HTI) asked the attending homosexual participants to repent and force themselves to return to the right path.

However, according to Jakarta, Siti Musdah Mulia, said homosexuality is from God and should be considered natural.

[Dave]

The article says lesbians are OK, but what about homosexual males?

On the surface, it sounds like the typical male response:
Girl + Girl == hot
Guy + Guy == not

[Justforfun000]

Hey, it's a start.

[Themightytom]

Hey, it's a start.

Um KIND of ? Its the same thing the Catholic church does. Hate the sin but love the sinner doesn't happen. Its just a slippery way to promote discrimination without becoming a target for it.

Deputy chairman of the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI), Amir Syarifuddin said:

“It’s a sin. We will not consider homosexuals an enemy, but we will make them aware that what they are doing is wrong.”

A representative of Hizbut Thahir Indonesia (HTI) asked the attending homosexual participants to repent and force themselves to return to the right path.

Same deal with Christianity.

The social contract bit seemed absurd to me.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

This is both to be expected and a good thing. It's been nearly a century since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire threw Itjihad interpretations and Islamic Judicial Law into turmoil, and was replaced with Anti-Colonial, Anti-Western Reactionary ideas out of the bumfucks of Arabia (that is to say, Wahabiism) but real Islamic scholarship is coming back. Remember that according to the Koran it's a grievous sin to reject science, since it's rejecting the natural world that God created. Hell, the majority of the Ottoman Elite were Darwinists even in the 19th Century (Creationism has recently begun to spring up in Islamic countries, but it's almsot entirely a horrifying import from America and the Western sphere that somehow took root in Turkey). As such, it's un-surprising to see actual Islamic scholars (unlike the ignorant goatfuckers who get all of the attention by consigning women to be stoned to death for retarded reasons {nearly all of those sentences, even in Saudi Arabia, being waived before the punishment takes place once actual learned Imams hear about it, not that that part gets into the news}) accepting the sound evidence for Homosexuality being natural. I suspect that, like most Christian denominations, they expect homosexual men to live a chaste and pure life, but I'd need to read more to parse out their exact opinion.

EDIT: Okay, here's the original Jakarta Post article that the OP got its excerpts from. It seems to accept both Homosexual orientation and Homosexual acts. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008 ... ty039.html

Islam 'recognizes homosexuality'

Abdul Khalik , The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Fri, 03/28/2008 1:38 AM | Headlines

Homosexuals and homosexuality are natural and created by God, thus permissible within Islam, a discussion concluded here Thursday.

Moderate Muslim scholars said there were no reasons to reject homosexuals under Islam, and that the condemnation of homosexuals and homosexuality by mainstream ulema and many other Muslims was based on narrow-minded interpretations of Islamic teachings.

Siti Musdah Mulia of the Indonesia Conference of Religions and Peace cited the Koran's al-Hujurat (49:3) that one of the blessings for human beings was that all men and women are equal, regardless of ethnicity, wealth, social positions or even sexual orientation.

"There is no difference between lesbians and nonlesbians. In the eyes of God, people are valued based on their piety," she told the discussion organized by nongovernmental organization Arus Pelangi.

"And talking about piety is God's prerogative to judge," she added.

"The essence of the religion (Islam) is to humanize humans, respect and dignify them."

Musdah said homosexuality was from God and should be considered natural, adding it was not pushed only by passion.

Mata Air magazine managing editor Soffa Ihsan said Islam's acknowledgement of heterogeneity should also include homosexuality.

He said Muslims needed to continue to embrace ijtihad (the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the Koran and the Sunnah) to avoid being stuck in the old paradigm without developing open-minded interpretations.

Another speaker at the discussion, Nurofiah of the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), said the dominant notion of heterogeneity was a social construction, leading to the banning of homosexuality by the majority.

"Like gender bias or patriarchy, heterogeneity bias is socially constructed. It would be totally different if the ruling group was homosexuals," she said.

Other speakers said the magnificence of Islam was that it could be blended and integrated into local culture.

"In fact, Indonesia's culture has accepted homosexuality. The homosexual group in Bugis-Makassar tradition called Bissu is respected and given a high position in the kingdom.

"Also, we know that in Ponorogo (East Java) there has been acknowledgement of homosexuality," Arus Pelangi head Rido Triawan said.

Condemnation of homosexuality was voiced by two conservative Muslim groups, the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) and Hizbut Thahir Indonesia (HTI).

"It's a sin. We will not consider homosexuals an enemy, but we will make them aware that what they are doing is wrong," MUI deputy chairman Amir Syarifuddin said.

Rokhmat, of the hardline HTI, several times asked homosexual participants in attendance to repent and force themselves to gradually return to the right path.

[open_sketchbook]

The idea that there might be "hope for" a religion is nonesensical. The only thing we can hope for is for a religion to stop existing.

[Samuel]

The idea that there might be "hope for" a religion is nonesensical. The only thing we can hope for is for a religion to stop existing.

I think they mean a statistically significant drop in oppression levels.

[Pelranius]

There's a quite popular talk show host on Indonesian TV who's transgender (she was mentioned in a National Geographic article not too long ago).

[Sea Skimmer]

The idea that there might be "hope for" a religion is nonesensical. The only thing we can hope for is for a religion to stop existing.

So you think western countries with Christians today are just as bad as crusader states from 1000AD or so?

[Crossroads Inc.]

The idea that there might be "hope for" a religion is nonesensical. The only thing we can hope for is for a religion to stop existing.

So you think western countries with Christians today are just as bad as crusader states from 1000AD or so?

Obviously not, and you make a legitament point, However I would counter that this is more because of changes to social norms then religion itself.

[Shroom Man 777]

Those are practically the same. Religion and beliefs and shit are an organic changing thing, and the shit that's written on moldly old shitbooks are less important than the actions and perceptions of the people practicing those religions.

[Justforfun000]

open_sketchbook wrote:
The idea that there might be "hope for" a religion is nonesensical. The only thing we can hope for is for a religion to stop existing.

Hey, I'm with you in spirit buddy. I'm not a fan of any major religion...or any minor one for that matter...but it's still encouraging to see that they might be able to moderate their extrism with an alternate religious excuse that mitigates the "abomination" to some degree. Since the chances of the world's major religions just disappearing into the past are very remote in the foreseeable future, I'll take comfort in this potential theological compromise.

[Sea Skimmer]

Obviously not, and you make a legitament point, However I would counter that this is more because of changes to social norms then religion itself.

Social norms and religion are rather intrinsically linked, particularly at any time older then about the last 50 years. It would be very hard to say before then that one thing improved the other or visa versa. Shroom Man is entirely correct, they are both constantly shifting concepts. Many social leaders (like every King ever) have often exploited religion as a way of justifying personal choice, and this can often have profound effects on society and religion together for better or worse.

So one might say that religion improved because society improved… except if religion didn’t improve then the people moving for change in society would have been hauled off and executed in any normal time in history, the last 50-100 years hardly being normal. That happened quite a bit in fact. So the two had to change together. In any case anyone hoping only for an end to religion is not helping the process one bit and likely to die very disappointed.

[Shroom Man 777]

It's because religion and social norms aren't solid carved-into-stone concepts, and it's because their existence itself depends upon people, and people are also the ones who propagate and continue religion and social norms. And people aren't solid carved-into-stone things, they're are highly susceptible to change, and that change can come from other people, from geopolitical events, from the environment (like famines and droughts and natural disasters), and etcetera. That's why when stuff like religion and social norms change, the times have also changed and, well, practically everything else too. Unless a group of people remain stagnant, their social stuff and religion won't be stagnant either.

I guess that's why poverty-stricken people who were poverty-stricken and impoverished even in the past tend to believe in rather backwards beliefs while everyone else has moved on.

[KrauserKrauser]

There are Christian Sects that are accepting of Homosexuality, I am unsurprised that there exist Muslim sects that feel the same way.

This one conference in Indonesia of all places hardly represents the mainstream Muslim feeling towards homosexuality. If this came from the Grand Ayatollah of Iran then it would be a bit different story.

[Lusankya]

What on earth are you talking about? Indonesia has over 200 million Muslim population. I wouldn't exactly call 15% of the world's Muslim population a fringe group.

[K. A. Pital]

The idea that there might be "hope for" a religion is nonesensical. The only thing we can hope for is for a religion to stop existing.

So you think western countries with Christians today are just as bad as crusader states from 1000AD or so?

You strawmanned his post, or what? He said that we should hope for a religion to stop existing, he didn't claim religion can't change, evolve, or that it's always the same level of badness. There might be change in a religion, but by virtue of the very concepts of God, holy teaching and all that unchangeable crap, religion is very hostile and robust when it comes to changing and progress. Religion, in any form and shape, is still bad (just various degrees of "bad"), and a colossal brake on progress.

Hence, it's more reasonable to hope for the destruction of religion, rather than it's evolution. In fact, the evolution of religion into newer forms also poses danger, because the initial sacred scrolls stay the same, and no one precludes a "re-invigoration" of the faith in the future. A secular or atheistic thought does not have this problem, for it has no sacred scrolls.

In any case anyone hoping only for an end to religion is not helping the process one bit and likely to die very disappointed.

Why?

[ArmorPierce]

There are Christian Sects that are accepting of Homosexuality, I am unsurprised that there exist Muslim sects that feel the same way.

This one conference in Indonesia of all places hardly represents the mainstream Muslim feeling towards homosexuality. If this came from the Grand Ayatollah of Iran then it would be a bit different story.

Indonesia of all place, huh? You do realize that Indonesia has the world's largest muslim population, yes?

[KrauserKrauser]

Sure but it is a bit far removed from Mecca and the typical power structure of traditional Islam. It's like saying that since all the Lutherans and Baptists support gay people, all the Catholics must as well because they're all Christians right?

[xerex]

Sure but it is a bit far removed from Mecca and the typical power structure of traditional Islam. It's like saying that since all the Lutherans and Baptists support gay people, all the Catholics must as well because they're all Christians right?

you have half a point. Indonesia follows Sunni Shafi jurisprudence and so will not have any effect on the Sunni Wahabis of Arabia or Shia of Iran.

However there is no "traditional power structure" in Islam -

traditionally the other Sunni groups have to respect whatever doctrinal changes made by any of the Sunni "jurisdictions" and uphold the practices when carried out by members of that particular jurisprudence.

[Sela]

Seems to me that this is a case of people reaching the right decision by the wrong means. You absolutely CAN'T make a solid argument for homosexuality in Islam when Mohamed has explicitly stated repeatedly that it was an abomination and sin that was punishable by death. When the story of 'Lot' is brought up in the Quran where the same accusations are repeated yet again. Your only hope in such a situation is to make bullshit arguments about wording differences which serve to very clearly muddy what are clear waters.

No, the only logically sound way to change the law would be to explicitly state either:
A) We do not believe in inalienable human rights for all homo sapiens. We believe humanity to be defined as being straight, white male protestant property-owners Muslims; and only protect their rights in our borders.

Needless to say, a horrible stand to take.

or B) We do not seek to legislate the religiosity of actions. Whether or not homosexuality is Islamic is irrelevant to its status as legally protected.

Which saves you from having to lie and distort the meaning of Islam.

[Sarevok]

Sure but it is a bit far removed from Mecca and the typical power structure of traditional Islam. It's like saying that since all the Lutherans and Baptists support gay people, all the Catholics must as well because they're all Christians right?

Islam has no pope or vatican equivalent. There is no widely accepted authority that can decree anything.

Hell we dont even agree which day it is on the traditional arabic calender. Different places celebrate occasions like Eid on seperate days. Islam is highly fragmented. If you cant even agree on what day it is something like homosexuality is going to be a complex issue to say the least.

[Bilbo]

I think the main point is not that Indonesia is a large or small part of Islam, sure it has the largest numbers of Muslims in the world. But as a rule the Muslims of Indonesia are not the radical sort and their mosques do not include many if any radical sects bent on bomb chucking.

To extremely simply, this is basically the good Muslims of Indonesia proving yet again that they are good Muslims. When the "you must die for looking at my wife's face" Muslims start to make statements like this then we can care.

[Sarevok]

Indonesia is probably second only to Pakistan amongst muslim nations that are potential powder kegs. I would not dimiss them as "peaceful".

[Duckie]

How can anyone look at Indonesia, which has bloody Aceh in it, and say it's a place that has no radicals, unless their idea of the world begins with the Asian Tsunami disaster?