Surely you don’t need to ask if advocating killing people is hate speech.
A more interesting question is whether this is hate speech against Muslims.
Consider this view is far from universal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam
Consider that Leviticus 20:13, in at least the King James translation, calls for the same thing.
I can’t speak to the Jewish view here, but Christians view the Old Testament to have been supplanted by a less-harsh message of the New Testament.
(Before making assumptions about the Jewish view of Leviticus, keep in mind that the King James translation contains 2 references to unicorns—down from Tyndale’s 4).
Are you trying to incite hatred of Muslims from the LGBTQ community?
I don’t think that’s your intent, but I do think you need to reflect on why you would present the #Muslim religion as a threat.
Is defaming a religion a ban-worthy act? I don’t know. I’m new here.
But I don’t approve of it.
There are many acts which are considered a crime(a sin which has a punishment) in my religion and the punishment of many of these crimes is death.
Regarding "Advocating killing people", this is too general. In my religion I'm must kill someone who is aware and is trying to kill me and that I don't have any other way of defending myself(e.g. in a war).
Also the punishment for intentional murder is also death. And so is punishment for two who had a man-to-man sexual intercourse. Given that these hadiths are "correct". Under which conditions? I don't know.
Now if I narrate such a hadith and tell the others that it's correct and that's my belief, is this considered a hate speech?
The reason I'm asking about this, is my future actions. As I am a user of this instance, I must know its rules well so that I won't post something which is against the rules.
The reason this discussion is public is that it might benefit the others as well.
@firstname.lastname@example.org @email@example.com @Pat@qoto.org @BobKerns@qoto.org @firstname.lastname@example.org The problem is hate speech can mean anything from obviously extreme advocations of murder on one end or just being logical on another, and this "logic" is invariably discriminatory on a technical level.
Hate speech is subjective to a degree. If I claim it is illogical for transwomen to compete in women's sports since the gender segregation is based on physicality, is that hate speech?
Extreme advocations of murder is hate speech... logical things arent.
Lets stick to examples that arent easily classified if we want to make that point, I agree, there are some areas that might need debate... but most of the time its pretty cut and dry, I rarely see subtle people on the internet :)
1) What is the purpose of school sports?
2) The physicality to which you allude is based on hormonal differences. If we’re talking about high school sports, it’s puberty blockers we’re talking about.
This would put trans women at a disadvantage.
So to your question: what is the context? Are you attacking a trans athlete? Are you seeking to impose your opinion?
Do you seek to exclude trans athletes from high school sports? If so, do you believe that high school sports should be about finding who is most physically capable?
If so, does that even support your argument? (Personally, I reject that role for high school sports, but any trace of unfairness in who wins pales in comparison to the unfairness of not even being allowed to compete.)
Have you even met a trans woman?
But here’s a formula for you. Ask—does this speech do harm? To a group? To individuals?
Is the purpose of the group, or the actions of the individual, to do harm to others?
These questions should help you work out an answer.
I just post here. I can’t interpret the rules for you, especially out of context.
@BobKerns@qoto.org @Vivernu@springbo.cc @Pat@qoto.org @email@example.com @firstname.lastname@example.org @email@example.com I'm not just talking about "school sports". Firstly, this is just an example of something that can be debated in good faith but some extremists would consider "hate speech".
Seccondly no transwomen, even after hormones, aren't the "average" physicality of women. They average somewhere in-between women and men.
The point is the segregation of men and women's sports is done due to physicality primarily. At best an argument to integrate transwomen into women's sports (where transwomen have a large advantage) is an argument to integrate men & women's sports in general.
In the context of school sports, fatigue is a side effect of puberty blockers, but if we’re talking college or pro, you have to take hormone withdrawal into account. In addition to fatigue, withdrawing from T you lose that extra muscle mass.
I don’t feel like a good faith discussion is possible without a clear understanding of the purpose of the competition and a clear understanding of the impact of trans people’s participation.
Arguing broadly on the basis of hypotheticals just serves the transphobic agenda. I’m not accusing you of having a transphobic agenda yourself.
But fear that trans women might participate in girls sports, in the abstract, is clearly trans phobia (deliberately two words).
Discussing it on the basis of what might happen, divorced from all context, pushes for broad trans exclusion where it’s not needed, and where perhaps separate boy/girl sports aren’t needed at all.
And the emphasis on who wins needs some reexamination as well. Children’s sports where parents come to blows…
A large part of the furor over this topic, to the extent it’s not pure transphobia, is a symptom of this unhealthy obsession with winning.
Anything that’s left over might be worthy of a serious discussion.
@BobKerns@qoto.org @Vivernu@springbo.cc @Pat@qoto.org @firstname.lastname@example.org @email@example.com @firstname.lastname@example.org All I'm saying is this:
Physically, men are on average stronger and more athletically capable than women, This is a fact, and this is the reason men & women's sports are segregated by sex, to not be unfair to women.
Transwomen do become a bit more physically like women after they go through HRT, but they're somewhere in-between the physicality of men and women—perhaps closer to men still, even, at least where average athleticism and definitely bone structure is relevant. It's complicated, sure, but in a sense it's still unfair to women to allow them to compete in women's sports. I've seen no evidence after full treatment that transwomen average the female average in overall physicality.
Furthermore, even if it is true, or one believes, that after full treatment transwomen average women physically, I recall seeing an interview where some famous transwoman who is controversial was advocating waiting until full HRT treatment before letting transwomen in women's sports, and tons of people were claiming she was transphobic or something for "gatekeeping" like that, which implies even then plenty of activists don't care about logic at all.
I think it's possible to change how sports are segregated to accommodate this, maybe? But the fact is, all rational attempts at an argument for the inclusion of transwomen in women's sports are arguments for the sex desegregation of sports in general, and perhaps attempting to compensate with weight classes, which even then may not be able to accommodate all the nuanced differences between men & women's bodies.
@farooqkz @Pat @BobKerns @freemo @tonic I would differentiate how you say it. You can say about yourself whatever you wish, and i would not bat an eye.
Example: "I believe people eating strawberry icecream is wrong."
If you however say people should be stopped from eating strawberry icecream, you are starting a fight (with people that did not do anything bad to you, so no defense there) and i believe you deserve all the backlash such a thing provokes.
I woukd be a tad bit kore delicate about the wording:
"I think eating strawberry jce cream is wrong so i dont eat it, but other people shoukd be allowed to choose for themselves what they do as lobg as they dobt make me eat strawberry ice cream"
"I think other people shoukd only be allowed to eat the kibd of ice cream i approve of because me and my faith based opinion says so and everyone shoukd be beholden to my faith based opinions, not just me"
Well thats wrong.
>'"I think eating strawberry jce cream is wrong so i dont eat it, but other people shoukd be allowed to choose for themselves what they do as lobg as they dobt make me eat strawberry ice cream"
It's fine as long as the ice cream isn't produced by enslaving someone, forcing them to produce it, and having their babies taken away and slaughtered to make veal.
The overwhjelming majority of Muslimns I know from around the world would never want to force their beliefs on others. They themselves would never engage in homosexuality as they do view it as against their personal morality but would never dream of imposing that on others.
So yea, the excuse of "this is my religion" doesnt cut it, because he choose that particular hateful interpritation, the religion didnt "force" it upon him.
According to hadiths, Muslims must implement punishments as much as they can. Which are for the good of society and possibly the person punishment is given to. And this isn't a personal belief, it is a religious belief. e.g. I don't have this idea, my religion has.
Regarding punishments, some are mentioned in Quran, some other in Hadiths and some other in both. For example, sexual intercourse out of marriage is illegal according to Quran and the punishment is 100 lashes in the public which must be done by an authority(government?). You can see the beginning of the 24th Surah.
Hand of thieves must be cut off according to 5:38.
And regarding anal sex between two men, the punishment is death according to the hadiths I've mentioned earlier.
P.S.: Opinion of Muslims is not relevant. For Islam you must look into Quran and Hadiths.
And sorry but the whole "someone else does my thinking for me", which is what "its religious not personal" sounds like isnt gonna cut it. You are and will be held accountable **personally** for your religious beleifs, exactly because religious beleives are always personal beleifs.
You might be right about that religious belief is also personal belief. But when Hadiths obviously say there is death penalty, I am trying to deceive myself if I believe otherwise. There is a proverb in Arabic "This is more obvious than the sun". If I am a believer in Muhammad, what other interpretation could I have when he says if they did so, do so.
Sorry I think I missed something which might cause misunderstood.
I think the law of Islam, a big portion of it but probably not all of it, is for Muslims. That includes things which are haram, halal, punishments, etc.
For example if I remember correctly, the Prophet Muhammad was giving punishment of Jews according to the Torah they had and not Quran.
IMO, There is no such thing as True Muslim or False Muslim. Someone is either Muslim or is not.
However if you are asking if those two men are still Muslim, I would say it really depends. And I also believe such a situation is highly improbable unless they have never looked into Quran and Hadith. If someone believes there is something forbidden in Islam and they still do it, that doesn't change anything. They are still believers in Islam and that they will pay for their sins in this world, hereafter or both.
But if someone believes that for example, the prayers are not mandatory while Quran obviously states otherwise, I suppose they are not a Muslim anymore. Being a believer has a definition in Quran. You can look at the two last verses of the 2nd Surah.
P.S.: I'm strictly talking about anal sex between two men. Not oral sex and or sex between two women. I don't know about those cases and I don't know if the current evidence can't be generalized.
>"P.S.: I'm strictly talking about anal sex between two men. Not oral sex and or sex between two women. I don't know about those cases and I don't know if the current evidence can't be generalized."
Then, are you saying that two men who love each other and butt fuck each other and interpret the Quran in a way that they believe it allows them to do that, that they are not Muslims?
@farooqkz >"I don't like to discuss this further...."
For the rest of you, here's how it plays out...
If farooqkz says that the guys in my toot above are not Muslim, then Islamic law does not apply to them, so what's the problem?
If farooqkz says that they are Muslim, then people can be Muslim and still believe that gay sex is fine, in which case the issue is a choice and farooqkz is saying that his position is his choice -- he is choosing to be homophobic.
@Pat @farooqkz @freemo @BobKerns @tonic Muslims that do worry about your gender options, mostly are Jihad and Shia, hezbollah/hamas. There are various Sheiks talking with gays, lesbicas on youtube and they actually cry together... (Shia are the branch of Muslims that carry those doctrines because they believe to be on the same family as the prophet, insane, but they believe it.
That's wrong. The main difference between the Shia and Sunni is that the Shia believes that the Prophet Muhammad chose someone(Ali ibn Abitalib and his offsprings) to lead the Muslims after him. And Sunnis believe that the Prophet didn't choose anyone and left it up to people to choose. Sunnis have strong emphasis on Shura. e.g. that people together choose someone to lead them and manage their city or country. Sunni's only consider the rule of 4 or 5 after the Prophet right because they were chosen by people. After that, they consider it kingdom because people were not choosing their leaders but because someone(e.g. current King/Caliph) chose the next one who is usually his son. This belief of Sunni Muslims is so close to Modern day's democracy.
However, there are branches of Shia which don't believe that the Prophet chose someone Ali for leading after his death but that Ali was better for leading the Muslims after the Prophet than the one Muslims actually chose.
I don't like to discuss this further. If anyone is interested they can read Quran and Hadiths which are both available online.
With respect, I suggest you be more careful about using words like "monster", "idiot", "extremist", etc. If you call someone a monster for their personal or religious belief, you will probably make them more persistent. If you think something is wrong, come with evidence and act mega nice. And I also recommend first studying a Book(Quran or not) for a relatively reasonable period and then discuss what it talks about.
I have read the Quran about a dozen times at this point, similar to many of the other common holy books of other religions. I think I've "studied" it more than enough to have an opinion.
As for what I refer to an idea, it is not motivated by what will manipulate people the most to agree with me. I say my opinions and I voice them honestly.
@farooqkz I think thats a bit of a cop out.. WE have both read it, we both understand it. Scalres are irrelevant at this point.
@freemo no I have read just a small part of Quran. Not enough to have a unified view. So in discussions like this I present my understanding which have been formed by reading his small portion. I think this is something else which slipped through my mind.
@farooqkz Well if you havent read the whole thing that might limit you a bit.. But i think our discussion is generic enough that it might not matter all that much.
@freemo okay so I ask you: Quran commands Muslims to fight and kill unbelievers. Can you explain this to me? Must I kill my atheist friend?
@farooqkz The Quran cant command you to do anything. It is a book. Only your interpritation of the book will "command" you to do anything. A book has no meaning until it is interprited.
@otso @freemo my point is that God's command must be self-explaining and must not have any need to explanation or interpretation. If I add an explanation, that is my word and not God's. As an additional note, Hadith is also considered God's commandment. As a conclusion of this, what Mullahs or Imams or whoever say are not like God's word.
@freemo I beg to differ. Such a thing is not allowed. If it is God's command, only he is permitted to change it. I cannot add a single word or miss one. isn't what you are talking about changing his word by making extensions to it which you call interpretation.
@farooqkz No im not talking about changing the content of the book by adding words to it.. I am talking about what a person thinks is meant by the text in its current form.
Lets break apart the example. Lets say somewhereint he quran it said "You will kill infidels".. well lots of interpritations for that ... 1) One might think the "you" in this case doesnt refer to the reader but was something being said to someone in the context of the story 2) Infidels may be interprited as something other than "nonbeleiver" 3) They may feel other parts of the text further clarify the meaning and change it, for example at a later point it may say killing is wrong 4) People may feel these were gods instructions for people at a point in the past but was never intended by god to apply to people in the modern day. 5) it may not be seen a commandment at all 7) Perhaps they dont feel the Quran is infallable and the people who wrote it were flawed and made mistakes 7) Someone may feel the language has changed since the book was written and some of the meaning is lost.
@farooqkz @freemo @tonic Just because you narrate such a Hadith doesn’t keep it from being hate speech. The Hadith are not the Quran. Their oral narratives collected and recorded long after Mohammad’s death. If the King James Bible, long the cornerstone of much of English-speaking Christianity, can speak of unicorns and misread Jewish Sheol to become Dante’s Inferno, surely we can picture some early Shia or Sunni cleric let his own hatred’s leak into his interpretations. AFAIK there’s zero evidence of Mohammed taking a stand against homosexuality at all, and there is certainly evidence of his preaching forgiveness.
What you believe is a choice. If you believe you must hate, you chose hatred.
Using religion to justify hatred, even genocide, has a long history. Some religions make this easier than others. Calvinist ideas of predestination make it easy to justify almost anything as a manifestation of God’s will. The followers of Jacobus Arminius reject that interpretation.
Similarly, Shia and Sunni have different Hadith, different interpretations of Mohammed’s teachings, each wrapped in their own onion layers of reinterpretation. Each layer was someone’s choice. None were approved by Mohammed’s own hand.
So don’t pretend you don’t have a choice in whether to hate, to speak words of hatred, or commit acts of hatred.
The Crusaders applied a similar logic to justify their incursions and looting, Muslims used it to justify invading Persia and forcing conversions, suppressing Zoroastrians.
But religion was not WHY they did these things. They chose paths of gain and glory, and chose their beliefs to match their plans.
Would you justify the Crusaders? Because they believed they should drive you out, or convert you to their religion?
Do you want to believe in a world where a religious belief justifies every harm against people who have not harmed them, pose no threat to them?
Perhaps every harm to YOU?
These rules constrain you—but most of all, they protect you.
I have no desire to see you subjected to the sorts of online harassment that members of the LGBTQ community have suffered, even at times spilling over into lethal real world encounters.
I call on you to reject such beliefs. But at least accept that you must not speak words of hate or commit acts of hatred.
Hello and sorry for the late reply.
Regarding hadith, it is collected the same way Quran is collected. Muslims don't believe this is the true Quran which was revealed to the prophet Muhammad because it was written somewhere.
The logic is simple. Quran is narrated by a chain of narrators whom we both trust about their honesty and not being insane or crazy or having bad memory when narrating it. One end of this chain is Muhammad and the other chain is a Muslim.
The same goes for Hadith. But Sunni and Shia have different collections of hadiths with little overlap because the Shia(or the one I know from Iran) don't believe in uprightness of a majority of companians of the Prophet Muhammad. And the Sunni believe the opposite: They believe in the uprightness of majority of them.
So when we have a chain and the two last nodes are the Prophet Muhammad and one of his companians, the two groups would agree if the companian is for example Ali ibn Abitalib and disagree if it's for example Umar ibn Khattab.
But that's not all. The Shia believe sometimes these fine companians of Muhammad, like Ali, to do "Taqiyah" which is basically lying to keep their life or something. It is the same for all Imams after Ali. So even if there is something which its chain ends there, the Shia might disagree about it arguing that the person has lied to save his/her life or the life of family or friends.
There are also other nodes in a chain which the two sects would disagree about it. For example the Sunni might disagree if the narrator had beliefs such as Sufism or was not careful when narrating.
Now there is a good question to ask: Why the Sunni and Shia both agree on Quran? In fact, not all the Shia, at least historically were in the favor that this Quran is the same Quran Muhammad thought to people. Some believe that the caliphs, the successors of Muhammad, before Ali removed some part of Quran which were saying Ali is the successor of Muhammad chosen by God.
A hadith which we are sure about all the nodes in its chain, is considered "Sahih". A Sahih hadith which has more than one chain supporting it is called "Mutiwater". And the one with just one chain supporting it is called "Aahaad".
Now about the punishments, according to my belief about Islam which is formed after reading few Hadiths in the past, not every punishment means that Islam teaches hatrad. A punishment for a person in this world could mean mercy so that God won't punish him/her in the hereafter given that they are regretting their act.
Right now, I can't address you to many hadiths to support my view because it's a long time which I don't study hadith and I have concentrated on Quran. But if you are interested, you can find them if you look into punishment sections of hadith books, I believe you'll find them. For instance this one: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:6801
Consider this: two men have sex. Nobody is harmed. Usually, nobody even knows.
I you kill someone, they are harmed, their families are harmed, their employers are harmed, the shopkeepers where they spend their money are harmed.
Society is harmed.
So society bans murder. In some places, the punishment is death.
So who should carry out these punishments? You?
Best to leave punishment to Allah, and not concern yourself with acts that have no effect on you whatsoever.
IMO, the punishments are for the good of the society and maybe "purification" of the people doing the wrong act. And that the punishments must be defined by law and be done by an authority and not individuals.
As far as I know, to punish someone, in Islam you first need enough evidence. For example for illegal sexual intercourse between two who are married, four eye-witnesses are needed. Or that the person must admit it four times by swearing. And even after that several parameters are there.
For example for the thief, there are several parameters. How the thief was grown(in what family and what conditions and what environment)? How much did he/she stole? How much the stolen thing was protected? Was the person in need? And ...
QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.