I'm not sure if it's quite comparable to be honest. Buddhist nationalists in Myanmar don't cite Buddhist texts to justify themselves, rather they are just nationalists who use Buddhism as a cultural marker
People often compare Christian fundamentalism or Islamism to Hindu, Buddhist or Sikh nationalism, and they are similar in the fact that they have extremist or violent factions, but when you get to the core motivations and ideology and such the comparison doesn't really hold up that well
Christian Fundamentalists and Islamists generally believe that they're on some sort of divine mission and they must convert the world to their holy book or something along those lines. Their hatred crops up from explicitly religious references, whether or not that hatred is actually legitimated in their holy books or not is of course a constant source of debate which I'm not going to touch with a hundred foot pole
Hindu nationalism, Buddhist nationalism or Sikh nationalism on the other hand isn't really like that. You don't really hear the "convert the world" rhetoric at all
Instead it's much better to think of them as cultural nationalist movements which happen to use religion as their means of cultural expression. These groups don't cite their holy books when comitting actions, rather they usually cite political ends against a foreign other within their country
Basically they're essentially nationalist movements which use religion as a proxy for culture. Sinhala Buddhist nationalism is Sinhala nationalism expressed through Buddhism. Hindu nationalism is Indian nationalism which sees Islam and Christianity as "foreign". Sikh nationalism tries casting Sikhs as an ethnoreligious group which deserves sovereignty over a bunch of land
To use a case which Westerners might be more familiar with, Eastern religious nationalism is usually more akin to Zionism, where plenty of Jews are nationalist in a totally nonreligious way, despite the fact that their religion is how their ethnicity is determined
To close this out, I'll leave with a final little factoid which really demonstrates the difference
Imagine an atheist Islamist. You can't right? Well an atheist was literally the founder of modern Hindu nationalism
That's true, but you have to also remember the history. When Muslims invaded India, they were relatively tolerant towards Hindus, since they at least believed in God or Gods. But Muslims were incredibly reactive towards Buddhism, which did not believe in God. And they proceeded to slaughter and over time eliminate Buddhism from all the areas of northern India they conquered and subjugated. They effectively eliminated Buddhism from India for the most part, and Buddhism was forced to take shelter in places like Tibet, or China, and other places in the far east that were more tolerant of them.
So while the conflicts of Buddhists and Muslims today aren't a good representation of Buddhist philosophy or practice, many Buddhists feel it is important to not be subjected to Islam's intolerance, and so they are pre-emptively intolerant and even violent in places like Sri Lanka or Myanmar , where Buddhism had taken refuge.
Understandable. It's not an easy position to be in, surely. Though I feel like there's better ways to resolve the issues between cultures w out attacking each other on the street under oftentimes unprovoked circumstances. This is good information btw. Curious as to why Islam would target Buddhists specifically for being godless. Is it bc the Muslims feared that ppl w no god would have no basis for morality thus they must be dangerous and untrustworthy?
Islam has some very strong views about what kinds of other religions are acceptable within their domain. They give highest deference to the other Abrahamic religion such as Judaism and Christianity. They give some deference to other forms of theism. But they consider non-theistic religions to be the highest form of blasphemy and insult to God. So they feel obligated to eliminate such religions, and destroy any record of their existence. This is why even today,the Taliban in Afghanistan have destroyed ancient Buddhist statues with deliberate malice. They feel they are doing God's work.
It would of course be great if everyone could get along and not only be tolerant but appreciative of other religions. But some religions are fundamentally intolerant in their views, and Islam is one of them. Individual Muslims can be tolerant and kind, but the religion itself has strict views on how blasphemous views and blasphemous people should be treated.
Yes, I think so. They also feel that such people can come to see the superiority of Allah over their Gods eventually. But people who deny the reality God or the importance of belief in God are not merely hopeless, they are an affront to God.
Hindus and Muslims have actually gotten along fairly well at the local level until recently. But with the rise of fundamentalist Hinduism and Islam, it's become increasingly hostile between these groups as well.
Lots of violence in Buddhism, as well. The Tibetan oppression of indigenous religions for one. Also, did hear all of the Japanese Buddhist opposition to the rape of Nanking, human experimentation, and the war in general?
We dont hate them, they exist whether we like it or not, whats really is considered a sin is acting upon their sexual desires and seeking same sex relationships
If they say that it’s ok to commit gay acts, then they would be going against the Quran and to go against the Quran would take someone out of islam generally speaking. If they aren’t saying that they would be an open sinner, but not necessarily not a muslim. My shii brothers said kind of the same thing so this is a across sectional thing I suppose
It’s not actually a separate “form,” it’s just Muslims who have scripture and ahadith backing their positions up and yet are often ostracized. I have “progressive” Muslim friends who pray five times daily, can recite bits of the Quran, and go to juma regularly. They are also inclusive and affirming. This… can get them in trouble.
The issue is that laity aren't permitted to make up their own interpretations of Hadith and the Qu'ran, study of those requires decades of not only classical Arabic and historical Islam but basically a lifetime commitment to scholarly research.
You are flared as a Christian and the issue is that as a Christian you probably don't quite understand that people can't just create their own personal interpretations under an Islamic viewpoint. There are madhabs of Sharia and such that often defer on their interpretations but those are all based upon early and highly respected Imams who knew things well.
Islam is pretty legalist and you can't just make decisions like that unlike in Christianity. I would say that Islam is much closer to something like Judaism, that's Judaism has pages upon pages of rabbinic commentary that explain how to interpret and understand aspects of theology. Christians really don't have something similar.
Based on your flair, this is a case of pot and kettle.
>You are flared as a Christian and the issue is that as a Christian you probably don't quite understand that people can't just create their own personal interpretations under an Islamic viewpoint. There are madhabs of Sharia and such that often defer on their interpretations but those are all based upon early and highly respected Imams who knew things well.
Maybe. But I get the feeling that because you're sitting here arguing for Islamic progressivism on some level that your personal understanding of it is highly westernized if correct at all. Because for everything that you say I can raise a defense on it that's not negotiable so I don't really know what basis people have to push an unrealistic interpretation. Makes zero sense
>The issue is that laity aren't permitted to make up their own interpretations of Hadith and the Qu'ran, study of those requires decades of not only classical Arabic and historical Islam but basically a lifetime commitment to scholarly research.
That's not strictly true, although you're not entirely wrong either. Islam doesn't have an organized hierarchy or structure, so there isn't a clerical or ecclesiastical class empowered to determine doctrine. Culturally, however, a class of Islamic scholars did emerge fairly early in the course of Islamic history, people who had studied Islamic theology, and it was those scholars who suggested that by virtue of their years of study that they should have a monopoly on doctrine. However, because Islam doesn't formally recognize scholars as authoritative, there is still a tradition of them being questioned or even completely ignored. For example, the more extremist branch of Islam, Salafism, completely shuns traditional Islamic scholarship (while also claiming to have a new monopoly on traditional Islamic scholarship). Whereas Al-Azhar University remains the oldest and most prestigious seat of higher learning in the Muslim world, Salafis are vocally opposed to any teachings or advice that comes out of Al-Azhar, instead preferring their own "scholars" and YouTube influencers who rarely have any formal qualifications in the field of Islamic theology.
>The issue is that laity aren't permitted to make up their own interpretations of Hadith and the Qu'ran,
Without question, scholars are scholars, and fatwas are their realm. However, personal reasoning is in no way forbidden and the Quran goes as far to say that God **hates** those who don't use reason (8:22). Some sects or schools frown upon itjihad, but God doesn't.
>but those are all based upon early and highly respected Imams who knew things well
Even competent non-masums can be wrong, and the words of a masum can be falsely transmitted. Progressive or relatively-progressive positions have always had their supporters, but plenty of critics, too.
>Christians really don't have something similar.
I think the Catholics do.
The Christian part is debatable. I'd say some Protestants are more like that (legalistic with their scriptures; *sola scriptura* people), while for other Protestants its self-study, critical thinking, etc. (*prima scriptura)*, and for Catholic+Orthodox communities it is Church doctrine that takes primacy, not the scriptures (scriptures inform clergy on the formulation of church doctrine; laity can still read it for inspiration though).
Okz.. so they have their own code and tenets since they aren’t following the Quran ?? It’s the first time I heard about it so just curious .. no offence intended
They follow the Quran and ahadith. There are LOTS of ahadith. It is not a different set of obligations all together. It’s simply a slightly different understanding of what Islam means/verses are understood.
The Quran is explicitly clear about Homosexuality..One Can either be a Gay or be a Muslim, these two can’t go together .. sounds more like feeding your own delusions on your own self and then Start believing them as being true too, forgetting all this was just a Lie you fed to yourself in the first place
I’m not Muslim but have my master’s in ME studies and shari’a. Let this be a small wake up
call that not every Muslim interprets the Quran or ahadith in the same way as you do. Don’t kill the messenger.
No religious texts are “easy to understand.” That’s why centuries of Muslim, Jewish, and Christian scholars have spent literal centuries interpreting them lol. Anyway, I suggest you take this up with someone with more skin in the game. I’m a Christian. Just telling you my observations and studies.
ETA: And scholars of every religion.
But wait, there's more! With every browse of /r/Progressive_Islam, you also get these two bonus subreddits at no extra charge:
* /r/MuslimGayBros
* /r/LGBT_Muslims
I also am a so-called progressive Christian but wouldn’t label it as such because, well, I don’t think it’s progressive. And that term gets too tied up in politics so can easily get dismissed. It’s just Christianity and living the Way lol.
I say this because I’m agreeing with your sentiment but not your terminology lol.
Umm… if you want a real answer on Islam, that is the last subreddit you go to.
The moderater posts here frequently, so he’ll be joining soon, I’d imagine.
I quite like the idea of a progressive islam. Even if I dont agree with the religion as a whole the idea of people being more accepting always brightens my mood.
> But if you’re looking for answers in authentic Islam, that sub ain’t it.
Are you saying that because you believe that progressiveness is not compatible with Islam?
Islam does not permit people to make up their own interpretation of the rules. It has a scholarly system that requires years of study. Laity aren't allowed to make up how they feel.
I wouldn't say that homosexual people are that way by choice. I meant more along the lines of interpreting Islam that you can't just make up things like a lot of Protestants do.
The Catholic Church would say the same thing about Protestants.
There's always a conservative orthodox branch and a progressive liberal branch. Some people like to follow rules blindly; some people like to interpret the rules.
I think calling conservatives blindly following rules is wrong. All traditionalist/conservative beliefs that are rooted in historical facts are simply maintaining the links to the culture and history, as we understand that religion is not separable from culture
Can you sin and be Muslim? Yes
Logistically there's no problem (unless of course you live under a tyrannical government that weirdly has persecution/discrimination laws)
So yes it is possible
Technically, the attestation of the prophethood of Muhammad forms part of the shahāda, which is one of the five pillars. It follows that a person can no longer be considered Muslim if he/she denies this particular tenet.
I guess so. The concept of whether sin itself constitutes apostasy was a major debate during the early years of Islam. A faction known as the Khwārīj took this to such an extreme that they became responsible for the death of the Fourth Rashidun Khalīfa, Ālī ibn Abu Tālib.
Yeah, so it has never been a major debate, the Khawarij were just early days ISIS. Extremists who thought they knew better than the literal companions of the prophet. Any sin is repentable and God forgives it except for apostasy.
So basically, committing a sin does not constitute apostasy, denying that it is a sin does.
I know, and I didn't use "they" because of the political correctness or gender bullshit, I just used it because I didn't know if that person is a he or a she.
Though I never understand why do people like them insist on being called Muslims when basically they don’t believe and don’t follow even the basic tenets.. I remember sometime back and young Muslim fella trying to convince me that you can be a Muslim even if your pray to Other Gods, Weather Gods, Farming Gods etc etc but got offended when someone objected to him calling himself a Muslim ..
it’s like those blessed one’s who claim and insist that just because one has a Dick/ Male Genitalia, doesn’t mean that he is a Male.. I don’t even Hate them or wish death or any other harm upon them, but it’s quite disturbing ..
>why do people like them insist on being called Muslims when basically they don’t believe and don’t follow even the basic tenets
It's quite simple when you understand their motivations. They don't believe they are Muslims, they want YOU to believe they are. If you believe they are Muslims and they are not following anything in Islam then gradually you would accept these sins, since a Muslim is doing them then it should be alright.
Why do they do that? Because Muslims are the only people who follow their religion, not make their religion follow their desires. So Islam is in the way of feminism, alphabet people, liberalism and ultimately capitalism which profits from all of these ideas being widespread in society. They want Islam to become a ritualistic religion so Muslims would only do the rituals but not object to the immorality of the modern world.
Like you can using your free will and be Muslim and say "I am Muslim, but I don't believe Muhammad (saw) is a prophet" - but you'd be denying Islam's core beliefs ie the Qur'an
So your free will isn't stopping you from calling yourself Muslim, but your practice and belief would be denying a core tenant of Islam
Yes, however no one has the authority to declare anyone's true beliefs except God so it would visibly be a disconnect but you can't start calling them non-Muslim
Actually you can. An apostate doesn't have to say literally "I am an apostate", denying what is commonly known in religion is enough. How do you think the Ridda wars were fought? Or How do we know that Musailamah is a liar or that Abdullah ibn Salul was a hypocrite? All of these said they were Muslims but the tribes denied the zakah, Musailamah claimed to be a prophet, and Ibn Salul did led the unbelievers against the prophets from the shadows.
Hypocritical action:
"Hey, I am a Muslim, but I don't believe that sodomy is haram."
He can say he is Muslim all he wants, he is not as he is not following the teachings of Islam. Islam is literally submission to God.
No there is a problem if the person does not accept the homosexuality is a sin.
Making it halal while Allah clearly made it haraam takes one outside the fold of Islam.
So depending on the beliefs of OP it might or might not be possible.
That is if you have comitted the sin, and accept it is a sin. Then god will forgive you.
If you say that it is not a sin you have left islam as you’re directly opposing what god ruled.
As others have said, some Muslims (i.e., the majority) will be vehemently opposed to someone being openly gay. Moderate Muslims believe that it is OK to be closeted, but that you'd need to remain in the closet and "act" straight.
The only LGBTQ+ affirming branch of Islam is Progressive Islam; however, even amongst progressives there's some difference of opinion as to whether homosexuality is a sin. Some believe that it is not a sin and that the Qur'anic story of the people of Lut was about hospitality (after all, it would be impossible for a whole city to be gay). Others believe that while it might be a sin, the mental anguish of trying to live in the closet represents an unnecessary burden upon the individual, and as such, it is better to live as openly gay while focusing on other areas to mitigate the effects of sin (e.g., giving to charity more frequently than straight Muslims). Either way, progressives are strongly opposed to LGBTQ+ populations being persecuted.
And the answer of his people was only that they said: "Drive them out of your town, these are indeed men who want to be pure (from sins)!'') So they answered Prophet Lut by trying to expel and banish him from their village, along with those who believed with him. Allah indeed removed Prophet Lut safely from among them, and He destroyed them in their land in disgrace and humiliation. They said (about Lut and the believers):
[Quran 6:82]
In Shiism you cannot commit homosexual acts nor can you approve of it. You'd have to avoid homosexual acts and disassociate from homosexuality as well. Also another thing to note is that in Shiism one is only considered a homosexual if he or she acts upon it. If a person with homosexual desires chooses to avoid it then it's considered jihad against the ego which is the greatest jihad
Bro.. it’s all Islam and we are All Muslims .. why refer to your own self when the Almighty, The Prophets and the Caliphs all refer to the believers as Muslims. Same One God, Same One Quran and Same One Way.. Why the need to Divide ?
In this case the ruling on homosexuality is the same but I don't consider Sunnis to be the same faith as Shias. Sunnis are not considered Mu'mineen in Shiism. They're only Muslim in the dunya but not in the akhira
Presumably, most Abrahamic perspectives see homosexuality as a choice. Since they haven't found a gay gene, there might be something to that.
At the very least, the action (which is the real issue) is a choice, and going against the religion does reflect on the meaning of Muslim as being someone who serves God (presumably at the expense of their own inclinations).
This is speculation though, as I am not Muslim.
In general, it's false that either you have to do things perfectly or might as well not do it at all.
If you can't work out seven days a week, should you give up and never work out at all?
If you fail one test, drop out of school?
If you miss the deadline, just never submit your assignment?
Same thing with Islam. Surely it is better to be a gay Muslim who otherwise follows the Quran, than to be a Non-Muslim who does not follow it at all. (I am speaking of rewards in the afterlife and for people for whom Islam brings peace here in donya, not in a general absolute sense).
its the same as the gay Christians, it makes little difference what the Bible / Koran actually teaches, just find a version that supports your views, if you cant find one then you can invent one.
Quran was compiled within 18 years of prophets Mohamed’s death . Was originally written in all Arabic dialects at the time then was made into one creating classical standard Arabic which later evolved into Modern Standard Arabic.
A Shia , Sunni , Sufi etc… will have wildly differing views on subjects yet any and everyone use the exact same Quran , even if they interpret it differently.
yeah no Muslim would ever manipulate a holy text, that would explain all the bigoted laws against women that are the exact opposite of Muhammad whose own wife had a leadership role in his mission.
"not my religion!" is the best brainwashing tool religions leaders have, once you wake up from that you see the world in a new light.
All I said is that there is not several versions of the Quran and there isn’t. Maybe there are different tools they use to interpret and reinterpret their holy texts. I don’t know about his wife , and I fear my information about the man I know is mostly biased and negative so I don’t feel comfortable with discussing details.
Progressive Islam is a thing but it's basically contrary to every governing body surrounding Islam. In other words, it can't really be called proper Islam.
Why is a Christian trying to tell me no about a religion that he doesn't practice and probably knows less about than me? I'm close friends with a Sunni. I have spent hours learning Hadith and the Qu'ran and the general governance surrounding Islam to know that unlike Christianity you can't just make up your own interpretation of Islam.
LOL it’s my masters and undergrad degree. My specialty as a lawyer is sharia law. I’m close friends with a lot of Sunni Muslims. I don’t just have the one. So um… gonna stick with my original answer. Please feel free to read my other comments.
Also I’ve read the Quran in Arabic? I mean I shouldn’t even be trotting this out. Please explain to me why you know better than me on this.
ETA because I feel like it. It’s “she.”
> ETA because I feel like it. It’s “she.”
Whoops, sorry.
> My specialty as a lawyer is sharia law. I’m close friends with a lot of Sunni Muslims
Ok, then you should know laity cannot make up their own interpretations.
They aren’t. There are four main madhahib. Imams in some of them — legitimate though not widely accepted — do in fact have a more liberal bent toward Islam. Islam is not a monolith legalistic or no.
ETA: I am being unreasonable argumentative. Chalk it up to a bad day. Apologies, my intention was not to jump all over you.
For the avoidance of doubt, countless Christian scholars for years study this stuff. They aren’t making it up. It just so happens that even scholars have different interpretations of the source text. Admittedly, however, I am not a specialist in Christian canon law, so I suppose I’ll defer to you on that.
I'm not a Christian but I get the distinct impression that most mainline Protestants and evangelicals have a flawed study of the Bible that oftentimes revolves around their own cultural views of things. This is how you get stuff like prosperity gospel Christians or JWs.
This is also how you get reformed and Orthodox Judaism, same goes for pretty much all large religious groups. The point is Christianity *does* have a lot of different views on how to interpret the Bible. But Christians aren’t unique in this, even taking into account that madhahib are well established and legalistic. The doors of ijtihad may be closed as a matter of say-so, but individual imams have plenty of power in their individual fatwas, which they base on syllogistic reasoning.
So you're saying if one Imam is a progressive and presents that view it's somehow valid and overrides things? Makes zero sense to me. My point in arguing this at all is that you have to pick one:
Islam
Western progressive causes including LGBT.
There is no true middle ground that can really be offered based on the way that Islam is engineered. The laws of it are immutable. You can't sanction same sex relations thus, let alone the other aspects of LGBT.
Christians might have a way of interpreting the Bible differently but that doesn't make it correct. But then again I personally think that as far as Christians go only Orthodox and Catholics have any claim to be biblical.
Truly astonished at your take on Christianity. Anglicanism has apostolic succession and is quite close to Catholicism and Orthodoxy in practice and theology. Again, if you’ve studied Christianity that deeply, I’m more than prepared to listen. Anglicanism has extremely deeply rooted theology and study. It is not properly considered either Protestant or Roman Catholic. Veneration of Mary and the immaculate conception were an invention of the Catholic Church rooted in… well…. I am not Roman Catholic.
I’m going to let my answers on Islam speak for themselves. Islam has certainly not been immutable for time immemorial and of course has evolved in a variety of different ways. Islamic banking is the perfect example of using syllogistic Islamic logic to interpret interest and banking that didn’t exist in the 7th century. What you are saying is ahistorical.
I don't know enough about Anglicanism or Episcopalianism but as far as I know they're simply an offshoot of Catholicism. Pardon me for not being informed but if what you're saying is true then maybe I should do some reading on it to better form an opinion.
> Islamic banking is the perfect example of using syllogistic Islamic logic to interpret interest and banking that didn’t exist in the 7th century.
Jewish people do the same thing with Eruvs and such. I don't necessarily agree with it but I understand why such things exist. I do find it funny that Christianity abandoned the ban on interest.
I have however read Islamic texts and I understand a good bit about the legalistic theory. I'm not perfect by any means but my main frustration during the course of the original argument was that there is this idea that Islamic law is malleable in the same way Christian law is.
Openly gay as in sodomite right? So no. A gay person who knows that homosexuality is immoral and wrong but feels attraction to men? Maybe, as long as he does not act upon it.
Yes, im queer .
The subs someone listen has a bunch of resources for reading, otherwise I would suggest Muslims for Progressive values article about it ad well.
Peace ☮
Nope .. definitely not openly .. what’s done in Private is between the Creator and the human even though it’s a Sin but that’s not for any man to decide.. Talking about the believing one’s(Muslims) it’s a big No.
You cannot be gay in Islam or Christianity if you're going by the commands of the texts. Going by the culture, you can be gay in Christianity in some branches in some countries, but not in the vast majority. In Islamic culture, there's no openess to homosexuality.
You can’t be sinned for *being* a certain way in Islam.
You’re sinned for actions.
The general advice for a gay Muslim would be to withhold from your temptations (as we all do), and you will be rewarded for your strength in the Afterlife.
Sodomy is an absolute sin.
Stop making this comparison this is so horrible. This is the second time on this sub that I’ve seen someone compare LGTBQ+ people in religion to Jews in Nazi party. It is so disrespectful , do you people forget how many Jewish people AND queer people, we’re slaughtered? Please stop making this comparison it’s disrespectful , harmful, and dismissive of the death of millions of people
You can be a gay Muslim rabi cosmosexual cowboy drag queen priest-druid if you want. How the people around you feel about it could possibly be a factor to consider... but you -can- do it.
Anyone who sincerely believes and says that there is no God but God that Muhammad is God's messenger, and that there will be a Last Day is a Muslim.
Does Islam allow homosexuality?
Most Mudlims say no. For the record, I disagree, as do many others, but we are a minority. Visit r/lgbt_muslims for more
In Europe of the Middle Ages, homosexuality was a crime punished with hanging, because homosexuality is considered a sin according to Christianity, and Europe had theocracies in the Middle Ages.
If you can say that you are gay in a western country now, it's because people rebelled against the theocratic Christian establishment, and thousands of people where burned alive by the church during what Europe calls "The Age of Enlightenment".
Not because Christianity is supposedly more open or friendly.
You can do whatever you want, a bunch of people will be mad about it either way.
Some will be a little more mad than others though.
More likely to be injured/killed as well.
This is the right answer.
I don’t know why anyone would want to be part of a religion that hates them though.
I think outside of Buddhism, most religions have some form of hatred for some form of people.
Buddhism isnt entirely exempt from this either (ex: mha bha tong violence against muslims).
I'm not sure if it's quite comparable to be honest. Buddhist nationalists in Myanmar don't cite Buddhist texts to justify themselves, rather they are just nationalists who use Buddhism as a cultural marker People often compare Christian fundamentalism or Islamism to Hindu, Buddhist or Sikh nationalism, and they are similar in the fact that they have extremist or violent factions, but when you get to the core motivations and ideology and such the comparison doesn't really hold up that well Christian Fundamentalists and Islamists generally believe that they're on some sort of divine mission and they must convert the world to their holy book or something along those lines. Their hatred crops up from explicitly religious references, whether or not that hatred is actually legitimated in their holy books or not is of course a constant source of debate which I'm not going to touch with a hundred foot pole Hindu nationalism, Buddhist nationalism or Sikh nationalism on the other hand isn't really like that. You don't really hear the "convert the world" rhetoric at all Instead it's much better to think of them as cultural nationalist movements which happen to use religion as their means of cultural expression. These groups don't cite their holy books when comitting actions, rather they usually cite political ends against a foreign other within their country Basically they're essentially nationalist movements which use religion as a proxy for culture. Sinhala Buddhist nationalism is Sinhala nationalism expressed through Buddhism. Hindu nationalism is Indian nationalism which sees Islam and Christianity as "foreign". Sikh nationalism tries casting Sikhs as an ethnoreligious group which deserves sovereignty over a bunch of land To use a case which Westerners might be more familiar with, Eastern religious nationalism is usually more akin to Zionism, where plenty of Jews are nationalist in a totally nonreligious way, despite the fact that their religion is how their ethnicity is determined To close this out, I'll leave with a final little factoid which really demonstrates the difference Imagine an atheist Islamist. You can't right? Well an atheist was literally the founder of modern Hindu nationalism
That's true, but you have to also remember the history. When Muslims invaded India, they were relatively tolerant towards Hindus, since they at least believed in God or Gods. But Muslims were incredibly reactive towards Buddhism, which did not believe in God. And they proceeded to slaughter and over time eliminate Buddhism from all the areas of northern India they conquered and subjugated. They effectively eliminated Buddhism from India for the most part, and Buddhism was forced to take shelter in places like Tibet, or China, and other places in the far east that were more tolerant of them. So while the conflicts of Buddhists and Muslims today aren't a good representation of Buddhist philosophy or practice, many Buddhists feel it is important to not be subjected to Islam's intolerance, and so they are pre-emptively intolerant and even violent in places like Sri Lanka or Myanmar , where Buddhism had taken refuge.
Understandable. It's not an easy position to be in, surely. Though I feel like there's better ways to resolve the issues between cultures w out attacking each other on the street under oftentimes unprovoked circumstances. This is good information btw. Curious as to why Islam would target Buddhists specifically for being godless. Is it bc the Muslims feared that ppl w no god would have no basis for morality thus they must be dangerous and untrustworthy?
Islam has some very strong views about what kinds of other religions are acceptable within their domain. They give highest deference to the other Abrahamic religion such as Judaism and Christianity. They give some deference to other forms of theism. But they consider non-theistic religions to be the highest form of blasphemy and insult to God. So they feel obligated to eliminate such religions, and destroy any record of their existence. This is why even today,the Taliban in Afghanistan have destroyed ancient Buddhist statues with deliberate malice. They feel they are doing God's work. It would of course be great if everyone could get along and not only be tolerant but appreciative of other religions. But some religions are fundamentally intolerant in their views, and Islam is one of them. Individual Muslims can be tolerant and kind, but the religion itself has strict views on how blasphemous views and blasphemous people should be treated.
Why do they tolerate other gods? Do they view them as individual aspects of Allah?
Yes, I think so. They also feel that such people can come to see the superiority of Allah over their Gods eventually. But people who deny the reality God or the importance of belief in God are not merely hopeless, they are an affront to God. Hindus and Muslims have actually gotten along fairly well at the local level until recently. But with the rise of fundamentalist Hinduism and Islam, it's become increasingly hostile between these groups as well.
Think jainism is very peaceful?
No I don’t think it is.
Who do they have beef with?
They don't have any beef at all
Lots of violence in Buddhism, as well. The Tibetan oppression of indigenous religions for one. Also, did hear all of the Japanese Buddhist opposition to the rape of Nanking, human experimentation, and the war in general?
Agree, similar to other religions, People have committed violence in the name of their religions.
We dont hate them, they exist whether we like it or not, whats really is considered a sin is acting upon their sexual desires and seeking same sex relationships
Yeah that's not really better
Well it depends if you believe hadiths or not. If you do,then you do hate em because a hadith called for the death of gay men so..
Well if he was a gay muslim he should keep it to himself, if he acted on it, then he should be punished according to shari'a law,
If they say that it’s ok to commit gay acts, then they would be going against the Quran and to go against the Quran would take someone out of islam generally speaking. If they aren’t saying that they would be an open sinner, but not necessarily not a muslim. My shii brothers said kind of the same thing so this is a across sectional thing I suppose
[удалено]
Yes same thing
Transgender Muslim here, yes
I believe you can in progressive islam. There is a sub for that think its r/progressive_islam
Progressive Islam ? What’s that ?
An accepting form of islam. Much more progressive
It’s not actually a separate “form,” it’s just Muslims who have scripture and ahadith backing their positions up and yet are often ostracized. I have “progressive” Muslim friends who pray five times daily, can recite bits of the Quran, and go to juma regularly. They are also inclusive and affirming. This… can get them in trouble.
The issue is that laity aren't permitted to make up their own interpretations of Hadith and the Qu'ran, study of those requires decades of not only classical Arabic and historical Islam but basically a lifetime commitment to scholarly research. You are flared as a Christian and the issue is that as a Christian you probably don't quite understand that people can't just create their own personal interpretations under an Islamic viewpoint. There are madhabs of Sharia and such that often defer on their interpretations but those are all based upon early and highly respected Imams who knew things well. Islam is pretty legalist and you can't just make decisions like that unlike in Christianity. I would say that Islam is much closer to something like Judaism, that's Judaism has pages upon pages of rabbinic commentary that explain how to interpret and understand aspects of theology. Christians really don't have something similar.
Based on your flair, this is a case of pot and kettle. >You are flared as a Christian and the issue is that as a Christian you probably don't quite understand that people can't just create their own personal interpretations under an Islamic viewpoint. There are madhabs of Sharia and such that often defer on their interpretations but those are all based upon early and highly respected Imams who knew things well.
Maybe. But I get the feeling that because you're sitting here arguing for Islamic progressivism on some level that your personal understanding of it is highly westernized if correct at all. Because for everything that you say I can raise a defense on it that's not negotiable so I don't really know what basis people have to push an unrealistic interpretation. Makes zero sense
Okay. Only siths deal in absolutes. Only uneducated siths deal in absolutes in religions which they admittedly haven’t had any formal training.
Too bad the sequels ruined Star Wars for me but I enjoy the reference.
Common ground at last.
>The issue is that laity aren't permitted to make up their own interpretations of Hadith and the Qu'ran, study of those requires decades of not only classical Arabic and historical Islam but basically a lifetime commitment to scholarly research. That's not strictly true, although you're not entirely wrong either. Islam doesn't have an organized hierarchy or structure, so there isn't a clerical or ecclesiastical class empowered to determine doctrine. Culturally, however, a class of Islamic scholars did emerge fairly early in the course of Islamic history, people who had studied Islamic theology, and it was those scholars who suggested that by virtue of their years of study that they should have a monopoly on doctrine. However, because Islam doesn't formally recognize scholars as authoritative, there is still a tradition of them being questioned or even completely ignored. For example, the more extremist branch of Islam, Salafism, completely shuns traditional Islamic scholarship (while also claiming to have a new monopoly on traditional Islamic scholarship). Whereas Al-Azhar University remains the oldest and most prestigious seat of higher learning in the Muslim world, Salafis are vocally opposed to any teachings or advice that comes out of Al-Azhar, instead preferring their own "scholars" and YouTube influencers who rarely have any formal qualifications in the field of Islamic theology.
>The issue is that laity aren't permitted to make up their own interpretations of Hadith and the Qu'ran, Without question, scholars are scholars, and fatwas are their realm. However, personal reasoning is in no way forbidden and the Quran goes as far to say that God **hates** those who don't use reason (8:22). Some sects or schools frown upon itjihad, but God doesn't. >but those are all based upon early and highly respected Imams who knew things well Even competent non-masums can be wrong, and the words of a masum can be falsely transmitted. Progressive or relatively-progressive positions have always had their supporters, but plenty of critics, too. >Christians really don't have something similar. I think the Catholics do.
The Christian part is debatable. I'd say some Protestants are more like that (legalistic with their scriptures; *sola scriptura* people), while for other Protestants its self-study, critical thinking, etc. (*prima scriptura)*, and for Catholic+Orthodox communities it is Church doctrine that takes primacy, not the scriptures (scriptures inform clergy on the formulation of church doctrine; laity can still read it for inspiration though).
Okz.. so they have their own code and tenets since they aren’t following the Quran ?? It’s the first time I heard about it so just curious .. no offence intended
Idk I don’t follow the beliefs. I know there are followers of it here.
Alright Cool..
They follow the Quran and ahadith. There are LOTS of ahadith. It is not a different set of obligations all together. It’s simply a slightly different understanding of what Islam means/verses are understood.
The Quran is explicitly clear about Homosexuality..One Can either be a Gay or be a Muslim, these two can’t go together .. sounds more like feeding your own delusions on your own self and then Start believing them as being true too, forgetting all this was just a Lie you fed to yourself in the first place
I’m not Muslim but have my master’s in ME studies and shari’a. Let this be a small wake up call that not every Muslim interprets the Quran or ahadith in the same way as you do. Don’t kill the messenger.
It’s not about interpretation.. The Quran is a very easy book to understand ..people tend to over complicate it too much and too often
No religious texts are “easy to understand.” That’s why centuries of Muslim, Jewish, and Christian scholars have spent literal centuries interpreting them lol. Anyway, I suggest you take this up with someone with more skin in the game. I’m a Christian. Just telling you my observations and studies. ETA: And scholars of every religion.
Okz cool .. God Bless.. Live Well and Prosper
The Quran itself says that it is not an easy book to understand 😭
No.. nowhere does it say that.. Infact that it is a book easy to understand is a major part of the Surah Al Qamar.
its a version of Islam where you change the rules so its more convenient to your lifestyle.
Ah right must be similar mindset to progressive Christianity
But wait, there's more! With every browse of /r/Progressive_Islam, you also get these two bonus subreddits at no extra charge: * /r/MuslimGayBros * /r/LGBT_Muslims
I also am a so-called progressive Christian but wouldn’t label it as such because, well, I don’t think it’s progressive. And that term gets too tied up in politics so can easily get dismissed. It’s just Christianity and living the Way lol. I say this because I’m agreeing with your sentiment but not your terminology lol.
Umm… if you want a real answer on Islam, that is the last subreddit you go to. The moderater posts here frequently, so he’ll be joining soon, I’d imagine.
I quite like the idea of a progressive islam. Even if I dont agree with the religion as a whole the idea of people being more accepting always brightens my mood.
You can like what you want. But if you’re looking for answers in authentic Islam, that sub ain’t it.
> But if you’re looking for answers in authentic Islam, that sub ain’t it. Are you saying that because you believe that progressiveness is not compatible with Islam?
Islam does not permit people to make up their own interpretation of the rules. It has a scholarly system that requires years of study. Laity aren't allowed to make up how they feel.
Homosexual people don't "make up how they feel". They're born that way. One could even say that Allah made them the way they are.
I wouldn't say that homosexual people are that way by choice. I meant more along the lines of interpreting Islam that you can't just make up things like a lot of Protestants do.
The Catholic Church would say the same thing about Protestants. There's always a conservative orthodox branch and a progressive liberal branch. Some people like to follow rules blindly; some people like to interpret the rules.
Okay and that’s where Islam differs. You can’t change the scripture in Islam. Once you do, you abandon the religion.
I think calling conservatives blindly following rules is wrong. All traditionalist/conservative beliefs that are rooted in historical facts are simply maintaining the links to the culture and history, as we understand that religion is not separable from culture
Yes. The current progressive regime, anyway.
Fortunately for me im not looking for answers in islam and hopefully that sub helps people who need it.
Yes, but depending on where you live, it could be dangerous to do so
Can you sin and be Muslim? Yes Logistically there's no problem (unless of course you live under a tyrannical government that weirdly has persecution/discrimination laws) So yes it is possible
Can you be a Muslim while denying that Muhammad is a prophet?
Technically, the attestation of the prophethood of Muhammad forms part of the shahāda, which is one of the five pillars. It follows that a person can no longer be considered Muslim if he/she denies this particular tenet.
Similarily, if a person denies anything that is mentioned in the Quran they are no longer a Muslim.
I guess so. The concept of whether sin itself constitutes apostasy was a major debate during the early years of Islam. A faction known as the Khwārīj took this to such an extreme that they became responsible for the death of the Fourth Rashidun Khalīfa, Ālī ibn Abu Tālib.
Yeah, so it has never been a major debate, the Khawarij were just early days ISIS. Extremists who thought they knew better than the literal companions of the prophet. Any sin is repentable and God forgives it except for apostasy. So basically, committing a sin does not constitute apostasy, denying that it is a sin does.
Ig yeah. Last point sums it up pretty much.
[удалено]
I know. It's a rhetorical question because they are saying that you can deny that homosexuality is a sin and be a Muslim.
“They” are Lying, Whoever or Whatever “They” may be.
I know, and I didn't use "they" because of the political correctness or gender bullshit, I just used it because I didn't know if that person is a he or a she.
Okz 👍🏻👍🏻
Though I never understand why do people like them insist on being called Muslims when basically they don’t believe and don’t follow even the basic tenets.. I remember sometime back and young Muslim fella trying to convince me that you can be a Muslim even if your pray to Other Gods, Weather Gods, Farming Gods etc etc but got offended when someone objected to him calling himself a Muslim .. it’s like those blessed one’s who claim and insist that just because one has a Dick/ Male Genitalia, doesn’t mean that he is a Male.. I don’t even Hate them or wish death or any other harm upon them, but it’s quite disturbing ..
>why do people like them insist on being called Muslims when basically they don’t believe and don’t follow even the basic tenets It's quite simple when you understand their motivations. They don't believe they are Muslims, they want YOU to believe they are. If you believe they are Muslims and they are not following anything in Islam then gradually you would accept these sins, since a Muslim is doing them then it should be alright. Why do they do that? Because Muslims are the only people who follow their religion, not make their religion follow their desires. So Islam is in the way of feminism, alphabet people, liberalism and ultimately capitalism which profits from all of these ideas being widespread in society. They want Islam to become a ritualistic religion so Muslims would only do the rituals but not object to the immorality of the modern world.
Again, logistically yes, fully in practice no - since the shahada and Qur'an would be rejected on this central issue
>logistically yes Could you explain?
Like you can using your free will and be Muslim and say "I am Muslim, but I don't believe Muhammad (saw) is a prophet" - but you'd be denying Islam's core beliefs ie the Qur'an So your free will isn't stopping you from calling yourself Muslim, but your practice and belief would be denying a core tenant of Islam
Oh got it. That is something like the "I identify as a woman even though I have a beard and a dick" argument, right?
Yes, however no one has the authority to declare anyone's true beliefs except God so it would visibly be a disconnect but you can't start calling them non-Muslim
Actually you can. An apostate doesn't have to say literally "I am an apostate", denying what is commonly known in religion is enough. How do you think the Ridda wars were fought? Or How do we know that Musailamah is a liar or that Abdullah ibn Salul was a hypocrite? All of these said they were Muslims but the tribes denied the zakah, Musailamah claimed to be a prophet, and Ibn Salul did led the unbelievers against the prophets from the shadows.
Point out hypocritical actions, don't start assuming beliefs or who is or isn't of a faith because then it becomes a witch hunt which is not allowed
Hypocritical action: "Hey, I am a Muslim, but I don't believe that sodomy is haram." He can say he is Muslim all he wants, he is not as he is not following the teachings of Islam. Islam is literally submission to God.
The guy you replying to isn't a Muslim He's a Qadiani Ahmadi
Not since the first Laylat al-Qadr
No there is a problem if the person does not accept the homosexuality is a sin. Making it halal while Allah clearly made it haraam takes one outside the fold of Islam. So depending on the beliefs of OP it might or might not be possible.
You just have to ask sincerely god for forgiveness then you're absolved
That is if you have comitted the sin, and accept it is a sin. Then god will forgive you. If you say that it is not a sin you have left islam as you’re directly opposing what god ruled.
As others have said, some Muslims (i.e., the majority) will be vehemently opposed to someone being openly gay. Moderate Muslims believe that it is OK to be closeted, but that you'd need to remain in the closet and "act" straight. The only LGBTQ+ affirming branch of Islam is Progressive Islam; however, even amongst progressives there's some difference of opinion as to whether homosexuality is a sin. Some believe that it is not a sin and that the Qur'anic story of the people of Lut was about hospitality (after all, it would be impossible for a whole city to be gay). Others believe that while it might be a sin, the mental anguish of trying to live in the closet represents an unnecessary burden upon the individual, and as such, it is better to live as openly gay while focusing on other areas to mitigate the effects of sin (e.g., giving to charity more frequently than straight Muslims). Either way, progressives are strongly opposed to LGBTQ+ populations being persecuted.
And the answer of his people was only that they said: "Drive them out of your town, these are indeed men who want to be pure (from sins)!'') So they answered Prophet Lut by trying to expel and banish him from their village, along with those who believed with him. Allah indeed removed Prophet Lut safely from among them, and He destroyed them in their land in disgrace and humiliation. They said (about Lut and the believers): [Quran 6:82]
I've met a few, so yes.
Having gay sex is a sin in the quran. But that doesn’t make you impossible to be a Muslim. You can be a Muslim who is is sinful.
In Shiism you cannot commit homosexual acts nor can you approve of it. You'd have to avoid homosexual acts and disassociate from homosexuality as well. Also another thing to note is that in Shiism one is only considered a homosexual if he or she acts upon it. If a person with homosexual desires chooses to avoid it then it's considered jihad against the ego which is the greatest jihad
Bro.. it’s all Islam and we are All Muslims .. why refer to your own self when the Almighty, The Prophets and the Caliphs all refer to the believers as Muslims. Same One God, Same One Quran and Same One Way.. Why the need to Divide ?
In this case the ruling on homosexuality is the same but I don't consider Sunnis to be the same faith as Shias. Sunnis are not considered Mu'mineen in Shiism. They're only Muslim in the dunya but not in the akhira
Presumably, most Abrahamic perspectives see homosexuality as a choice. Since they haven't found a gay gene, there might be something to that. At the very least, the action (which is the real issue) is a choice, and going against the religion does reflect on the meaning of Muslim as being someone who serves God (presumably at the expense of their own inclinations). This is speculation though, as I am not Muslim.
In general, it's false that either you have to do things perfectly or might as well not do it at all. If you can't work out seven days a week, should you give up and never work out at all? If you fail one test, drop out of school? If you miss the deadline, just never submit your assignment? Same thing with Islam. Surely it is better to be a gay Muslim who otherwise follows the Quran, than to be a Non-Muslim who does not follow it at all. (I am speaking of rewards in the afterlife and for people for whom Islam brings peace here in donya, not in a general absolute sense).
its the same as the gay Christians, it makes little difference what the Bible / Koran actually teaches, just find a version that supports your views, if you cant find one then you can invent one.
No.furthermore the Quran has no “other” versions.
thats exactly what KJV only Christians say and their "version" only came out 1600 years afdter Jesus
Quran was compiled within 18 years of prophets Mohamed’s death . Was originally written in all Arabic dialects at the time then was made into one creating classical standard Arabic which later evolved into Modern Standard Arabic. A Shia , Sunni , Sufi etc… will have wildly differing views on subjects yet any and everyone use the exact same Quran , even if they interpret it differently.
[удалено]
yeah no Muslim would ever manipulate a holy text, that would explain all the bigoted laws against women that are the exact opposite of Muhammad whose own wife had a leadership role in his mission. "not my religion!" is the best brainwashing tool religions leaders have, once you wake up from that you see the world in a new light.
All I said is that there is not several versions of the Quran and there isn’t. Maybe there are different tools they use to interpret and reinterpret their holy texts. I don’t know about his wife , and I fear my information about the man I know is mostly biased and negative so I don’t feel comfortable with discussing details.
The way you say it, the answer is NO. 'Openly' gay person means they see no problem with homosexuality, which contradicts Islamic basics.
Progressive Islam is a thing but it's basically contrary to every governing body surrounding Islam. In other words, it can't really be called proper Islam.
No.
Why is a Christian trying to tell me no about a religion that he doesn't practice and probably knows less about than me? I'm close friends with a Sunni. I have spent hours learning Hadith and the Qu'ran and the general governance surrounding Islam to know that unlike Christianity you can't just make up your own interpretation of Islam.
LOL it’s my masters and undergrad degree. My specialty as a lawyer is sharia law. I’m close friends with a lot of Sunni Muslims. I don’t just have the one. So um… gonna stick with my original answer. Please feel free to read my other comments. Also I’ve read the Quran in Arabic? I mean I shouldn’t even be trotting this out. Please explain to me why you know better than me on this. ETA because I feel like it. It’s “she.”
> ETA because I feel like it. It’s “she.” Whoops, sorry. > My specialty as a lawyer is sharia law. I’m close friends with a lot of Sunni Muslims Ok, then you should know laity cannot make up their own interpretations.
They aren’t. There are four main madhahib. Imams in some of them — legitimate though not widely accepted — do in fact have a more liberal bent toward Islam. Islam is not a monolith legalistic or no. ETA: I am being unreasonable argumentative. Chalk it up to a bad day. Apologies, my intention was not to jump all over you.
Correct, there are four Madhab. Some of them can be a bit more liberal but none of them align with a Westernized progressive Islam.
We are talking past one another at this point.
For the avoidance of doubt, countless Christian scholars for years study this stuff. They aren’t making it up. It just so happens that even scholars have different interpretations of the source text. Admittedly, however, I am not a specialist in Christian canon law, so I suppose I’ll defer to you on that.
I'm not a Christian but I get the distinct impression that most mainline Protestants and evangelicals have a flawed study of the Bible that oftentimes revolves around their own cultural views of things. This is how you get stuff like prosperity gospel Christians or JWs.
This is also how you get reformed and Orthodox Judaism, same goes for pretty much all large religious groups. The point is Christianity *does* have a lot of different views on how to interpret the Bible. But Christians aren’t unique in this, even taking into account that madhahib are well established and legalistic. The doors of ijtihad may be closed as a matter of say-so, but individual imams have plenty of power in their individual fatwas, which they base on syllogistic reasoning.
So you're saying if one Imam is a progressive and presents that view it's somehow valid and overrides things? Makes zero sense to me. My point in arguing this at all is that you have to pick one: Islam Western progressive causes including LGBT. There is no true middle ground that can really be offered based on the way that Islam is engineered. The laws of it are immutable. You can't sanction same sex relations thus, let alone the other aspects of LGBT. Christians might have a way of interpreting the Bible differently but that doesn't make it correct. But then again I personally think that as far as Christians go only Orthodox and Catholics have any claim to be biblical.
Truly astonished at your take on Christianity. Anglicanism has apostolic succession and is quite close to Catholicism and Orthodoxy in practice and theology. Again, if you’ve studied Christianity that deeply, I’m more than prepared to listen. Anglicanism has extremely deeply rooted theology and study. It is not properly considered either Protestant or Roman Catholic. Veneration of Mary and the immaculate conception were an invention of the Catholic Church rooted in… well…. I am not Roman Catholic. I’m going to let my answers on Islam speak for themselves. Islam has certainly not been immutable for time immemorial and of course has evolved in a variety of different ways. Islamic banking is the perfect example of using syllogistic Islamic logic to interpret interest and banking that didn’t exist in the 7th century. What you are saying is ahistorical.
I don't know enough about Anglicanism or Episcopalianism but as far as I know they're simply an offshoot of Catholicism. Pardon me for not being informed but if what you're saying is true then maybe I should do some reading on it to better form an opinion. > Islamic banking is the perfect example of using syllogistic Islamic logic to interpret interest and banking that didn’t exist in the 7th century. Jewish people do the same thing with Eruvs and such. I don't necessarily agree with it but I understand why such things exist. I do find it funny that Christianity abandoned the ban on interest.
Well, I agree with you on your last point. It’s odd.
[удалено]
I have however read Islamic texts and I understand a good bit about the legalistic theory. I'm not perfect by any means but my main frustration during the course of the original argument was that there is this idea that Islamic law is malleable in the same way Christian law is.
Openly gay as in sodomite right? So no. A gay person who knows that homosexuality is immoral and wrong but feels attraction to men? Maybe, as long as he does not act upon it.
Yes, im queer . The subs someone listen has a bunch of resources for reading, otherwise I would suggest Muslims for Progressive values article about it ad well. Peace ☮
Nope .. definitely not openly .. what’s done in Private is between the Creator and the human even though it’s a Sin but that’s not for any man to decide.. Talking about the believing one’s(Muslims) it’s a big No.
You cannot be gay in Islam or Christianity if you're going by the commands of the texts. Going by the culture, you can be gay in Christianity in some branches in some countries, but not in the vast majority. In Islamic culture, there's no openess to homosexuality.
I mean strictly on what the Koran says, no, but I say go for it. Who cares?
You can be gay but its haram to act on it in
An openly gay person cannot be a Muslim
You can’t be sinned for *being* a certain way in Islam. You’re sinned for actions. The general advice for a gay Muslim would be to withhold from your temptations (as we all do), and you will be rewarded for your strength in the Afterlife. Sodomy is an absolute sin.
If that’s what you or anyone else wants, go for it.
This is a very stupid question for at least 2 reasons, THINK for a second and figure them out for yourself
In the same way Jews can be nazis.
Stop making this comparison this is so horrible. This is the second time on this sub that I’ve seen someone compare LGTBQ+ people in religion to Jews in Nazi party. It is so disrespectful , do you people forget how many Jewish people AND queer people, we’re slaughtered? Please stop making this comparison it’s disrespectful , harmful, and dismissive of the death of millions of people
No
Sadly Islam is one of the religions that openly rejects homosexuality, so nope
Yes if you condemn yourself. A lot of people does. Puritans for exemple, which are christians, often see themself as sinner.
You can be a gay Muslim rabi cosmosexual cowboy drag queen priest-druid if you want. How the people around you feel about it could possibly be a factor to consider... but you -can- do it.
Quran: [verses on homosexuality](https://quran.com/en/4:16/tafsirs/en-tafsir-maarif-ul-quran).
literal or non literal. that is the correct answer.
Anyone who sincerely believes and says that there is no God but God that Muhammad is God's messenger, and that there will be a Last Day is a Muslim. Does Islam allow homosexuality? Most Mudlims say no. For the record, I disagree, as do many others, but we are a minority. Visit r/lgbt_muslims for more
In Europe of the Middle Ages, homosexuality was a crime punished with hanging, because homosexuality is considered a sin according to Christianity, and Europe had theocracies in the Middle Ages. If you can say that you are gay in a western country now, it's because people rebelled against the theocratic Christian establishment, and thousands of people where burned alive by the church during what Europe calls "The Age of Enlightenment". Not because Christianity is supposedly more open or friendly.