Soren wrote on Sep 20^th, 2008 at 12:22pm:

Maybe not outright denial, but it is the cause of a great deal of discomfort given the centrality of the Platonic Dialogues to Western thought such that many historians and philosophers go to some lengths to persuade the reader that Plato has Socrates et al seeking pleasures only with "unbearded youth" in order to shift the implication of outright paedophilia to something more "acceptable", like having sex with boys from 13 to perhaps 18.

Then there's the promotion of homosexuality in public schools (particularly English public schools) even as recently as the 1960s.

It would seem that Western culture has a few nasty skeletons in the closet (or boys in the bed) when it comes to "unnatural" sexual practice.

Well, the ordinary muslim, like the ordinary christian or jew, has to accept their share of responsibility for what is done in their religions' name.

Here is a british comedian who touches on this point, toward the end of his seven minute rant against religion, all very funny, but also sadly falling on too many deaf ears.

As he says, the rank and file, are the power base for the religions, without which, the extremists would just be seen as isolated nutters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY-ZrwFwLQg&feature=related

Can someone please tell me, from a religious perspective, what is wrong with 'fornication'?

If two consenting adults, who have intense physical or emotional feelings for each other, which to make each other enjoy themselves, and are not hurting anyone in any way, shape or form, commit such an act, which GOD has made for them to enjoy, what are they doing wrong?

I refuse to believe for one minute that an all loving God would make something fun and then condemn you for doing it. Do you think in Heaven, where you are supposed to live a life of eternal bliss, you are punished for feeling good about yourself?

Soren wrote on Sep 20^th, 2008 at 1:51pm:

I don't know one way or the other if "Islam" is unable to do any of that, but as you are able to quote from Arabic or Muslim sources above, clearly "Islam" didn't destroy them. And its thanks to Muslims for preserving Plato's Dialogues what's left of Aristotle's writings after Christian Europe lost or destroyed them that they could be reintroduced to the West... without Muslim preservation of these "secular holy books" we would be unable to examine, criticise, denounce them if necessary.

helian,

Quote:


Don't be stooged by this fraudster. He didn't quote from any Arabic or Muslim sources at all.

If you look closely, although he might have tried to insert a Persian or Arabic name in here or there, most of his quotations don't even have references. And the ones that do, come pretty much solely from Western orientalist sources, the same ones that tried to conjure up images of wild orgies in harems and so forth.

Quote:

Quite obviously a British book.

Quote:

Who was Hafez? And which book is it from?

Quote:

A Cairo based English newspaper. But it doesn't even contain any quotes, just claims.

Quote:

Muhammad Wright and Ahmad Rowson?

If you actually put this guy under scrutiny helian, you'll see he's full of it. He gleaned it all off wikipedia and most of it is just orientalist propaganda that has little basis in the real world. It was mostly (if not all) written by Europeans, not by Muslims, as propaganda against Islam back in a time when homosexuality was still forbidden in Europe.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 20^th, 2008 at 4:55pm:



There is now a new thread on the intellectual terrorism of 'orientalism'

Quote:

British book - what a horrible thing. They speak your languagee, the bastards.

Quote:


It's fotnoted in the Spengler article at the beginning of thee thread. Don't be lazy, look it up. Put it into Google Scholar and be amazed.


Quote:

A Cairo newspaper's English language version. Al Ahram is an Egyptian paper, not an English one. Not the same my dear slippery dissemler.


Quote:


There's a new, hitherto unknown standard of scholarly integrity. Must be Muslim to speak about Muslims. Mr Rashid, note to self - must be western secular democrat before speaking on matters pertaining to it; jew to speak on jews, American to speak on - you get the prnciple since you invented it.

The thing is, there is no open scholarly debate around Muslim issues because any critic will stub his toes on 'disrespect' of islam and Mohammed sooner rather than later. The invective, the snarling, spitting rage wwill be unleashed in the palce of aa reasonable self-composed explanation - if one exists. Doubt is widespread.

The 7th century into the 21st will not go. Fight it and be seen for what you are - or accept it - and not be what you are.

abu_rashid wrote on Sep 20^th, 2008 at 9:19pm:


That is a stock answer from the ready repertoire of muslim rhetoric and so it does not fit. I have never claimed to speak on behalf of anyone, let alone muslims.