>>84652016Well, yes, but on the other hand most Muslims are not Quranist. Most Muslims (and yes, I do mean "most" as in "a majority of") would agree that homosexuality is an immoral act. They have basis for this in the Qur'an, and also many hadiths. That is all I stated.
The Bible does too disapprove of homosexuality, in Leviticus. The fact that Jesus outdated all of Leviticus does not seem to bother certain Christians, and they use this as proof that homosexuality is condemned by God regardless.
Just like Muslims use text from the Qur'an and some hadiths to justify their hatred of homosexuals, as well.
Just as, I am sure, you could find something in almost ANY religion to twist around into the oppression of one group or another, if you were learned enough in its theology.
I do not care where these ideas sprang from, nor do I think Islam is an inherently bad religion. As I have stated before, there are no "inherently bad" religions. There are Muslims who do not believe homosexuality is immoral. That should be proof enough that Islam does not inherently mean that you must hate gay folk.
My talk of religion as a tool of culture was simplified, yes, but it still applies here- in fact, what you are saying would seem to support it. The cultures have changed by outside force- Islamic cultures that were once accepting of homosexuality, at least comparitively, are not now, and so the religion has changed to follow the culture.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It doesn't matter that Europeans introduced these things to Islam some decades or centuries ago, it doesn't matter how Islam gained these things- the problem is that they are still present! I never once stated that Islam was inherently negative or bad.
I rather like Islam, actually, as a historical concept and as it is tied in with the legacy of Muhammed, who is an interesting historical figure. I think it is interesting.
