ISLAMIC SEXUAL POLITICS: I'm OK, You're Not OK

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I recently read a paper on this topic. After reading the text a few times it occurred to me that the thesis of the paper is about OKness within Islam, particularly the OKness of faggots and homos and queers. Oh my!

But its also about the OKness of the Quran Thumpers, and the OKness of the timorous Muslim liberal. And its about how Islam is already infected and decaying with Western rot.

Says Prince Escalus, ALL ARE PUNISHED!

Every good prince knows that liberals are unreliable for anything other than coat holding. Liberals hold coats and horses in all great battles and gladiatorial contests.

Every good prince knows that your basic faggot wants attention however it comes.

And every good prince knows that Quran Thumpers and Proselytizers and Such need killing, sooner than later.

Islams problem isnt its liberals and faggots and asshats, its problem is it has no prince.

 

[TE999]

Is this the same Prince Escalus, the Prince of Verona in the play Romeo and Juliet?? I thought he was Italian.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Is this the same Prince Escalus, the Prince of Verona in the play Romeo and Juliet?? I thought he was Italian.

Italian is a recent thing.

 

[sr71plt]

On the sauce again tonight, James? (That reminds me. Time for a glass of Yellowtail Shiraz.)

 

[NaokoSmith]

Hmmm, well that was an unexpected take.

(This is my paper JBJ is reading.)

I'm not sure how autocratic rule would help out, it doesn't seem to do much for Saudi Arabia.

Islam is characterised by umma - the brotherhood. All around the world, Muslim people are bound together by brotherhood and sisterhood within the faith. It's less hierarchical than Christianity.

There are of course places where people insist on (their interpretation of) the Koran as The Word - indeeed the Koran is the word directly transmitted from God and can't be questioned. However it can be interpreted. In my fieldwork I noticed that ordinary Muslim believers can argue with spiritual leaders about interpretations of the scriptures. Their fellow members of the faith and the spiritual leaders will listen and debate, many people want to understand rather than impose their authority. I get the sense that in Christianity, the spiritual leaders are the only ones who debate what the scriptures might mean: lay people don't expect their interpretations of the Bible to be listened to in reasoned argument.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Hmmm, well that was an unexpected take.

(This is my paper JBJ is reading.)

I'm not sure how autocratic rule would help out, it doesn't seem to do much for Saudi Arabia.

Islam is characterised by umma - the brotherhood. All around the world, Muslim people are bound together by brotherhood and sisterhood within the faith. It's less hierarchical than Christianity.

There are of course places where people insist on (their interpretation of) the Koran as The Word - indeeed the Koran is the word directly transmitted from God and can't be questioned. However it can be interpreted. In my fieldwork I noticed that ordinary Muslim believers can argue with spiritual leaders about interpretations of the scriptures. Their fellow members of the faith and the spiritual leaders will listen and debate, many people want to understand rather than impose their authority. I get the sense that in Christianity, the spiritual leaders are the only ones who debate what the scriptures might mean: lay people don't expect their interpretations of the Bible to be listened to in reasoned argument.

Your post is what I mean with I'M OK, YOURE NOT OK. Religion is wrapped in arrogance to provoke quarrels, its the Capulets and the Montagus and the fretting parents, friars, and friends...with a prince to keep order. I play Mercutio but could do the Prince role.

 

[lovecraft68]

Most religions are arrogant in some form. Islam's may be at the top of the list.

Add that to their disgusting treatment of women and I'll vote them as the worst.

 

[lovecraft68]

On the sauce again tonight, James? (That reminds me. Time for a glass of Yellowtail Shiraz.)

Only a $10 bottle of wine? I'm surprised your not drinking a 100 year old bottle from an ambassadors wine cellar.

Now I will await the response I know is coming.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Only a $10 bottle of wine? I'm surprised your not drinking a 100 year old bottle from an ambassadors wine cellar.

Now I will await the response I know is coming.

PILOT prefers Yellowtail from WALMART, and merlot from 7-11

 

[lovecraft68]

PILOT prefers Yellowtail from WALMART, and merlot from 7-11

I remember when I was a kid and it was heffenreffer out of the infamous brown paper bag.

There used to be a liquor store "Cherry's high way liquor" on Cranston st. you could be sixteen and go in there and put whatever you wanted on the counter with the money and a guy from the back would come out and "purchase it" and then come out and put it in your car.

Cost an extra $10 but was well worth it.

 

[Handley_Page]

Hmmm, well that was an unexpected take.

(This is my paper JBJ is reading.)

I'm not sure how autocratic rule would help out, it doesn't seem to do much for Saudi Arabia.

Islam is characterised by umma - the brotherhood. All around the world, Muslim people are bound together by brotherhood and sisterhood within the faith. It's less hierarchical than Christianity.

There are of course places where people insist on (their interpretation of) the Koran as The Word - indeed the Koran is the word directly transmitted from God and can't be questioned. However it can be interpreted. In my fieldwork I noticed that ordinary Muslim believers can argue with spiritual leaders about interpretations of the scriptures. Their fellow members of the faith and the spiritual leaders will listen and debate, many people want to understand rather than impose their authority. I get the sense that in Christianity, the spiritual leaders are the only ones who debate what the scriptures might mean: lay people don't expect their interpretations of the Bible to be listened to in reasoned argument.

Oh, how to stick a stick in a wasps nest. . .
As I understand it, the Catholic church (ie., Christian) always considered the general populace to be dimmer than the proverbial Toc_H lamp and was best told (ordered) how to think and behave. Even the landed gentry were given 'guidance'.
The English translation by Wickliffe seriously annoyed the Pope because it was no longer a question of the people being told what the Bible said, but now they could read it themselves and make up their own minds and discuss it among themselves without 'interpretation' by a cleric.
It wasn't until 1500 or so that printing was thought to be the natural book to print so even more people learned what was in it.

But the Bible is more a history than theology, for the most part.
[I await the inevitable incoming]

 

[lovecraft68]

Oh, how to stick a stick in a wasps nest. . .
As I understand it, the Catholic church (ie., Christian) always considered the general populace to be dimmer than the proverbial Toc_H lamp and was best told (ordered) how to think and behave. Even the landed gentry were given 'guidance'.
The English translation by Wickliffe seriously annoyed the Pope because it was no longer a question of the people being told what the Bible said, but now they could read it themselves and make up their own minds and discuss it among themselves without 'interpretation' by a cleric.
It wasn't until 1500 or so that printing was thought to be the natural book to print so even more people learned what was in it.

But the Bible is more a history than theology, for the most part.
[I await the inevitable incoming]

Personally I consider the bible a huge piece of mythology as well.

One of my favorite games to play with "Christians" is this game.

So okay, in Greek mythology sin was unleashed on the world because Pandora opened a forbidden box correct?

Now that is mythology! Created by those pagan Greeks to explain things they did not understand.

So okay now we have the bible and sin is unleashed when Adam ate the apple eve gave him and that unleashed sin upon the world.

Totally believable

Apollo bursting forth from the head of Zeus? Myth.

Jesus born of a virgin? Why fact of course!

And there is true arrogance for you. A religion that totally dismisses all others as fairy tales.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I remember when I was a kid and it was heffenreffer out of the infamous brown paper bag.

There used to be a liquor store "Cherry's high way liquor" on Cranston st. you could be sixteen and go in there and put whatever you wanted on the counter with the money and a guy from the back would come out and "purchase it" and then come out and put it in your car.

Cost an extra $10 but was well worth it.

Brings back memories. I oughta do something like that for the deserving teens in my hood.

I recall one occasion where I testified against a clown in court. His lawyer was kewl, and set the poor bastard up for a harpoon from me (lawyers will occasionally fuck their clients), it wasnt a conspiracy, I had no warning the treachery was coming, but his lawyer asked me, DID YOU TALK TO NEIGHBORS ABOUT MISTER PECKERSNIFF? Yes I did. DO THEY LIKE MISTER PECKERSNIFF? Like is too mild a word for their esteem, but yes he's highly regarded. DID THEY SAY WHAT THEY LIKE ABOUT MISTER PECKERSNIFF? (the sword is out of its scabboard) Yes, would you like some examples? PLEASE. Ok, I was told he buys them beer and cigarettes and is affectionate with the girls.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Personally I consider the bible a huge piece of mythology as well.

One of my favorite games to play with "Christians" is this game.

So okay, in Greek mythology sin was unleashed on the world because Pandora opened a forbidden box correct?

Now that is mythology! Created by those pagan Greeks to explain things they did not understand.

So okay now we have the bible and sin is unleashed when Adam ate the apple eve gave him and that unleashed sin upon the world.

Totally believable

Apollo bursting forth from the head of Zeus? Myth.

Jesus born of a virgin? Why fact of course!

And there is true arrogance for you. A religion that totally dismisses all others as fairy tales.

John Romer, Egyptologist and author of TESTAMENT (an analysis of the Bible) says that the Bible is historical fiction compiled from India, Persia, Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Egypt. He goes on to say that the Egyptians were OCD about documenting great events, trifles, and gossip, and nowhere is there a hint of whats recorded in Exodus.

 

[lovecraft68]

John Romer, Egyptologist and author of TESTAMENT (an analysis of the Bible) says that the Bible is historical fiction compiled from India, Persia, Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Egypt. He goes on to say that the Egyptians were OCD about documenting great events, trifles, and gossip, and nowhere is there a hint of whats recorded in Exodus.

Interesting.

Also remember that although many of the "prophets" were of course allegedly penning visions given to them by God, they were men writing and who knows what they were smoking?

Many say the entire bible is divinely inspired of god, so written by him, not man. But it was man who decided which books to include in the damn thing and which to leave out to insure their own beliefs were followed.

The Vatican is full of shit the Catholics would die before they would let others read and find out what frauds they are.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Interesting.

Also remember that although many of the "prophets" were of course allegedly penning visions given to them by God, they were men writing and who knows what they were smoking?

Many say the entire bible is divinely inspired of god, so written by him, not man. But it was man who decided which books to include in the damn thing and which to leave out to insure their own beliefs were followed.

The Vatican is full of shit the Catholics would die before they would let others read and find out what frauds they are.

I stopped being a Christian after I read a book called EXCAVATING JESUS. Jesus is another construction assembled from diverse sources long after he was gone. The Gospels are a collage of teamwork like letters to PENTHOUSE. The books author is an Irish priest and Jesus scholar, and if there was an historical Jesus the man was an outlier who avoided everyone but the harmless country bumpkins.

 

[chocolatecookie3]

There are of course places where people insist on (their interpretation of) the Koran as The Word - indeeed the Koran is the word directly transmitted from God and can't be questioned. However it can be interpreted. In my fieldwork I noticed that ordinary Muslim believers can argue with spiritual leaders about interpretations of the scriptures. Their fellow members of the faith and the spiritual leaders will listen and debate, many people want to understand rather than impose their authority. I get the sense that in Christianity, the spiritual leaders are the only ones who debate what the scriptures might mean: lay people don't expect their interpretations of the Bible to be listened to in reasoned argument.

I have found that is very true for conservative Christian denominations. You can't question what the preacher has said or you're going to Hell. I think it's the insecurity that if one thing is proved wrong, the whole house of cards will fall down. Islam and Judaism both seem open to debate.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I have found that is very true for conservative Christian denominations. You can't question what the preacher has said or you're going to Hell. I think it's the insecurity that if one thing is proved wrong, the whole house of cards will fall down. Islam and Judaism both seem open to debate.

Where you been chocklatty chickie? The only denominations who entertain heresy are churches operated by and patronised by faggots and faggot wannabees. That is, denominations that welcome women clergy. The rest are in it for the money and the pussy.

 

[NaokoSmith]

Most religions are arrogant in some form. Islam's may be at the top of the list.

Add that to their disgusting treatment of women and I'll vote them as the worst.

In many parts where Islam is the predominant religious faith women do live under tyrannical subjugation, and Islam is used to justify this. However Islam also has a long tradition of feminist thinking and if you look into its principles, is the most fair of religions towards women. For example, it's laid down in the Koran that daughters must have a certain amount of inheritance.

JBJ - The only denominations who entertain heresy are churches operated by and patronised by faggots and faggot wannabees. That is, denominations that welcome women clergy.

Islam isn't of course dominated by gay people and women but there are debates going on in Islamic scholarship which argue that both gay people and women have human rights. Islam is a faith which will allow heterodox arguments against the orthodoxy and not dismiss these automatically as heresy. Many Muslims will give such arguments a hearing at least.

 

[steve44uk]

Hmmm, well that was an unexpected take.

(This is my paper JBJ is reading.)

I'm not sure how autocratic rule would help out, it doesn't seem to do much for Saudi Arabia.

Islam is characterised by umma - the brotherhood. All around the world, Muslim people are bound together by brotherhood and sisterhood within the faith. It's less hierarchical than Christianity.

There are of course places where people insist on (their interpretation of) the Koran as The Word - indeeed the Koran is the word directly transmitted from God and can't be questioned. However it can be interpreted. In my fieldwork I noticed that ordinary Muslim believers can argue with spiritual leaders about interpretations of the scriptures. Their fellow members of the faith and the spiritual leaders will listen and debate, many people want to understand rather than impose their authority. I get the sense that in Christianity, the spiritual leaders are the only ones who debate what the scriptures might mean: lay people don't expect their interpretations of the Bible to be listened to in reasoned argument.

As an atheist, I'm not sure that "reasoned argument" is a terms that can be applied in this case...

I'm also not sure your impression's accurate, Naoko. The recent furore over gay bishops has highlighted a lot of grass-roots support for the antediluvian, anti-homosexual movement in the CofE. Many of those naysayers may be sheep being led by the nose by their spiritual leaders, but many won't be.

While my personal experience of Islam is extremely limited (although I have read the Qu'ran, and got sacked from my house prefect's job for doing a house assembly on the similarities between it and the Bible), I know some very intelligent Christians, who are forever reinterpreting their beliefs in the light of what's going on in their world. But then again, I know a few bigoted sheep, too...

 

[NaokoSmith]

As an atheist, I'm not sure that "reasoned argument" is a terms that can be applied in this case...

I'm also not sure your impression's accurate, Naoko. The recent furore over gay bishops has highlighted a lot of grass-roots support for the antediluvian, anti-homosexual movement in the CofE. Many of those naysayers may be sheep being led by the nose by their spiritual leaders, but many won't be.

While my personal experience of Islam is extremely limited (although I have read the Qu'ran, and got sacked from my house prefect's job for doing a house assembly on the similarities between it and the Bible), I know some very intelligent Christians, who are forever reinterpreting their beliefs in the light of what's going on in their world. But then again, I know a few bigoted sheep, too...

I don't know as much about Christianity. My impression is that although people discuss these issues in Christianity, authority on them rests with spiritual leaders.

In Islam (sometimes!), people engage in debates on a level footing with spiritual leaders, even about matters like homosexuality. I don't hold a candle for any religious faith as a means of organising our lives, (I'm a bad Buddhist myself!), but Islam is not the restrictive medieval patriarchal system of thinking which many believe it to be. It often provides open and thoughtful debate on these issues, although in some places like all systems of thought, it's used to justify tyrannical behaviours.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

As an atheist, I'm not sure that "reasoned argument" is a terms that can be applied in this case...

I'm also not sure your impression's accurate, Naoko. The recent furore over gay bishops has highlighted a lot of grass-roots support for the antediluvian, anti-homosexual movement in the CofE. Many of those naysayers may be sheep being led by the nose by their spiritual leaders, but many won't be.

While my personal experience of Islam is extremely limited (although I have read the Qu'ran, and got sacked from my house prefect's job for doing a house assembly on the similarities between it and the Bible), I know some very intelligent Christians, who are forever reinterpreting their beliefs in the light of what's going on in their world. But then again, I know a few bigoted sheep, too...

The Roman Wing of Christianity is good evidence of what happens when you invite faggots in to run amuk. Faggots organize their lives and work around sex and contacting new sex partners.

I stopped being Christian when I became convinced its manufactured nonsense.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

In many parts where Islam is the predominant religious faith women do live under tyrannical subjugation, and Islam is used to justify this. However Islam also has a long tradition of feminist thinking and if you look into its principles, is the most fair of religions towards women. For example, it's laid down in the Koran that daughters must have a certain amount of inheritance.



Islam isn't of course dominated by gay people and women but there are debates going on in Islamic scholarship which argue that both gay people and women have human rights. Islam is a faith which will allow heterodox arguments against the orthodoxy and not dismiss these automatically as heresy. Many Muslims will give such arguments a hearing at least.

Muslims do seem to get lotsa bad press about their orthodox, state sponsored terrorism. The list of Muslims who speak out against the terrorism is a thin book. Theyre a religion of sheep and wolf shepherds.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

I've read the same paper, and James' problem with the study seems to be that it reflects a reality that he finds unorthodox in his vision of what reality should be. That is, it shows a "religion" that isn't his, and, if only Islam could find itself a partriarchical, misogynist, homophobic prince, it could meet his standards.

Now, I think the OT gives us a good model of what Jim wants. Take Lot, for example, that good man of the bad city. Hell, he was so against homosexuality that he offered his virgin daughters to the horny crowd just to stop them from being gay. Great, in one fell swoop he demonstrated what the hairy thunderer liked best. Yes, when the Pope met with the Ayatollah before the Iranian revolution, they agreed on one thing: women were the source of all the world's problems. Why, if only they could get rid of women, and have only men around, things would be just right...Wait...isn't that a bit ???

I think there's a greater problem with the "liberal" side of any of these religions, in fact, with most organized religions. Maybe all of them.

And that's the need to be "liberal" in order to deal with something that exists. Religion, with a far-from-perfect understanding of reality, always defines what reality is, and anything that doesn't fit is a problem, even though it's really there. In the OT, all the living things that don't fit into the three main categories are "abominations unto the Lord," and unclean. But lobsters really do exist, and taste good too. Particularly with butter. Oops, there I go, mixing unclean meat with perfectly righteous dairy!

It's the same garbage we've seen with evolution and the heliocentric universe, and so much else...

It may seem strange, but the world does include women, and homosexuals, and even asshats, and, in my humble, irreligious opinion, it's far better to understand what they are then to try to justify their being what we don't want there to be.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I've read the same paper, and James' problem with the study seems to be that it reflects a reality that he finds unorthodox in his vision of what reality should be. That is, it shows a "religion" that isn't his, and, if only Islam could find itself a partriarchical, misogynist, homophobic prince, it could meet his standards.

Now, I think the OT gives us a good model of what Jim wants. Take Lot, for example, that good man of the bad city. Hell, he was so against homosexuality that he offered his virgin daughters to the horny crowd just to stop them from being gay. Great, in one fell swoop he demonstrated what the hairy thunderer liked best. Yes, when the Pope met with the Ayatollah before the Iranian revolution, they agreed on one thing: women were the source of all the world's problems. Why, if only they could get rid of women, and have only men around, things would be just right...Wait...isn't that a bit ???

I think there's a greater problem with the "liberal" side of any of these religions, in fact, with most organized religions. Maybe all of them.

And that's the need to be "liberal" in order to deal with something that exists. Religion, with a far-from-perfect understanding of reality, always defines what reality is, and anything that doesn't fit is a problem, even though it's really there. In the OT, all the living things that don't fit into the three main categories are "abominations unto the Lord," and unclean. But lobsters really do exist, and taste good too. Particularly with butter. Oops, there I go, mixing unclean meat with perfectly righteous dairy!

It's the same garbage we've seen with evolution and the heliocentric universe, and so much else...

It may seem strange, but the world does include women, and homosexuals, and even asshats, and, in my humble, irreligious opinion, it's far better to understand what they are then to try to justify their being what we don't want there to be.

Your op-ed is what we call PROJECTION.

I read the paper a few times, to distill it for its essence, and a cartoon seemed to me the best way to express what I understand of it. I personally cant care less if faggots and gals and terrorists take over the world and have a street dance afterwards. I got no dog in the fight.

Let me say it again: Islams core problem is no prince to protect the innocent and kick the shit outta the whackos. Liberals wont do either task, cuz theyre eunuchs for the most part and faint dead away if anyone frowns at them.

So far as I know Islam and I share the same God. The paper I read isnt a masterwork of cohesion, but the coherence is in it once you fit all the pieces together. The author seemed lost for a solution to the problem, and a prince seems like the solution to me.