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.
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 @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 ...
@farooqkz @freemo A lot was said here and i must admit i did not read all of it.
Stating (perceived) facts is not hate speech. The quaran might say that, or not. Saying that might be right, or not. But it is not hate speech.
Saying that some person or group should suffer some bad thing is.
So you might say the <whatever literature> says something, that is neutral.
Saying you agree with <whatever literature> might be uncomfortable to some, but is still acceptable if the literature is not clearly stipulating that bad things should happen to some person/group.
Like if you would agree with "Mein Kampf", that would be hate speech because it very specifically says that bad things should happen to a specific group, regardless of their personal actions.
The question is if you are discussing a thing or saying that some specific person or group should suffer for who they are.
Discussing and understanding what is meant is fine, directing hate at someone / a group just for a thing they cannot change is not.
Right, @freemo ?
QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.