Does this mean that a #Muslim expressing their religious belief about man-to-man intercourse is a hate speech? According to #Quran this is a shameful deed and according to #hadith there is death penalty for both parties having such an intercourse.
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.
@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.