Bacha Bazi

[Ashendant]

Wasn't that practice caused by the islamic religion demonifying/portraying as sex with womans? as disgusting, i remeber reading an article in this forum about that.

I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly. So, maybe it'll be helpful to me if you can elaborate on this.

I remember someone pointing a article here that the fact that there lot of gay pedophiles on that part of the world was the fact that they admitted that islam "uglified" women and they couldn't feel comfortable around them

[Rayaan]

I didn't know about that, so I googled it and found this, which is probably what you're talking about:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...1F2Q9H.DTL

Sociologists and anthropologists say the problem results from perverse interpretation of Islamic law. Women are simply unapproachable. Afghan men cannot talk to an unrelated woman until after proposing marriage. Before then, they can't even look at a woman, except perhaps her feet. Otherwise she is covered, head to ankle.

1. I don't know of any Islamic law which prohibits men from talking to unrelated women.
2. Even if we assume that such a law exists, it still doesn't mean that they have a permission to take little boys as their lovers.

Fundamentalist imams, exaggerating a biblical passage on menstruation, teach that women are "unclean" and therefore distasteful. One married man even asked Cardinalli's team "how his wife could become pregnant," her report said. When that was explained, he "reacted with disgust" and asked, "How could one feel desire to be with a woman, who God has made unclean?"

I don't know what these Imams are following. I'm pretty sure it's not in the Quran that women are unclean.

[Skipper]

I didn't know about that, so I googled it and found this, which is probably what you're talking about:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...1F2Q9H.DTL

Sociologists and anthropologists say the problem results from perverse interpretation of Islamic law. Women are simply unapproachable. Afghan men cannot talk to an unrelated woman until after proposing marriage. Before then, they can't even look at a woman, except perhaps her feet. Otherwise she is covered, head to ankle.

1. I don't know of any Islamic law which prohibits men from talking to unrelated women.
2. Even if we assume that such a law exists, it still doesn't mean that they have a permission to take little boys as their lovers.

But when looking at other religions as well as Islam, such as Catholicism you can see that when a religion tells it's followers and leaders to repress natural sexual desires it ends in those desires coming out in far more perverse ways than it perhaps would have had the religion allowed it's followers to go with the natural urges that their god supposedly himself gave them.

If religions got over trying to control and instil fear for perfectly natural sexual attractions and responses between sexes we would have far less issues of Catholic priests fiddling little boys and these Muslims dressing up boys as girls then getting their way with them. It's pretty simple.

[Rayaan]

If religions got over trying to control and instil fear for perfectly natural sexual attractions and responses between sexes we would have far less issues of Catholic priests fiddling little boys and these Muslims dressing up boys as girls then getting their way with them. It's pretty simple.

I think fiddling with little boys is much less common in Islam than Christianity.

Also, maybe there could be even worse effects of blindly following our sexual attractions if we didn't control them sometimes.

[Skipper]

If religions got over trying to control and instil fear for perfectly natural sexual attractions and responses between sexes we would have far less issues of Catholic priests fiddling little boys and these Muslims dressing up boys as girls then getting their way with them. It's pretty simple.

I think fiddling with little boys is much less common in Islam than Christianity.

Also, maybe there could be even worse effects of blindly following our sexual attractions if we didn't control them sometimes.

Who cares which it is more common in? The fact it's happening at all directly due to religion is what I'm getting at.

And possibly you are right about the situation getting worse if we followed our natural sexual desires (religious people allowing themselves to think for themselves sexualy for the first time could certainly be interesting haha), but it's clear the way it is now in religion don't work. I've always followed my natural desires, never got anyone pregnant...never caught anything.... and I've never dressed a 12 year old up as a girl then fucked him. So I'd suggest there should be room for compromise within religion so that children don't get abused as a result of suppressed sexual urges inflicted on people because they have been told by their religion they will go to hell if they do what their bodies (that "god created") tells them.

[Justtristo]

Not all excuses are bad arguments. But yes, this is a fucking disgusting practice and it should be stopped (as well as death for apostasy).

In the Hadith of Sahih al-Bukhari Muhammad is commanded that those who leave Islam be killed. Also The following Quran verses approve of sexually desiring handsome young men. Which are the following; 52:24, 56:17 and 76:19.

[Rayaan]

In the Hadith of Sahih al-Bukhari Muhammad is commanded that those who leave Islam be killed.

I have recently learned that the hadiths on killing someone just for leaving Islam was never established during the time of the Prophet Muhammad. Rather, the death penalty was only imposed by the Prophet when apostasy was combined with a treasonous act, meaning that an apostate would betray or violently rebel against the Muslim state, and thereby endangering the safety of the people.

However, the death penalty should not be applied to one's individual choice of religion because (1) it contradicts with the Quran, and any hadith which contradicts the Quran should be discarded, because the Quran is the ultimate source of Sharia, (2) there is no report that the Prophet ever ordered a death penalty on someone just for leaving Islam, and (3) the majority of scholars agree that the ruling on apostasy should applied if there are treasonous acts involved, which is, when the apostates try to cause harm or damage to the citizens of the state.

Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish Muslim writer, said:

"In the early Muslim state, apostasy became regarded as a crime because it was seen as a rebellion against the state. In other words, the real consideration was political and, by time, this turned into a religious rule as well. This is, of course, a deviation we Muslims should rid ourselves today."

Also The following Quran verses approve of sexually desiring handsome young men. Which are the following; 52:24, 56:17 and 76:19.

If you read the preceding verses in each of the verses that you mentioned, you'll know that the Quran is only talking about the young male servants in Paradise, not on Earth.

56:17 - Round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness).
52:24 - Round about them will serve, (devoted) to them, young male servants (handsome) as pearls well-guarded.
76:19 - And round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness): If you see them, you would think them to be scattered pearls.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I think fiddling with little boys is much less common in Islam than Christianity.

Tu quoque logical fallacy.

Tu quoque (pronounced /tuːˈkwoʊkweː/ [1]), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a kind of logical fallacy. It is a Latin term for "you, too" or "you, also". A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's viewpoint on an issue on the argument that the person is inconsistent in that very thing.[2] It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque




PLUS, such a custom has never been openly practised or socially acceptable in any Christian society of which I'm aware.

[Rayaan]

Who cares which it is more common in? The fact it's happening at all directly due to religion is what I'm getting at.

You're right also, that religion doesn't seem to make it any better.

But still, I think that there is a purpose behind why God would tell us to control our sexual urges (but not completely ban them). The reason is that in religion, the love for food and sex is considered to be one of the lower animal-like desires that we have, even though it is natural indeed. But religion is not concerned about what feels good to the body. It is more concerned on what happens to the soul, the thing that survives after our death. Religious people believe that whenever the body goes through physical hardships, or when it learns to control the sexual desires, it improves the state of the soul. That's why religion tells us to control these physical desires to benefit ourselves at a spiritual level.

The next question is, if God is the maker, then, why did He give us these feelings and then tell us to suppress them?

I don't know why, but, I think He gave us these feelings because He wants to see how much we would sacrifice the things that we love the most for His sake (such as when God told Abraham to sacrifice his son since he loved him so much). In this sense, we as believers have to give up some of the pleasurable things in our lives for a greater purpose. That's one of the things that makes us different from other animals.

[Zen Badger]

I don't know why, but, I think He gave us these feelings because He wants to see how much we would sacrifice the things that we love the most for His sake (such as when God told Abraham to sacrifice his son since he loved him so much). In this sense, we as believers have to give up some of the pleasurable things in our lives for a greater purpose. That's one of the things that makes us different from other animals.

But god is supposed to be all knowing, won't he already know what we would do?