Re: That sex stuff again

Pardon me Eileen if you're insulted but I laughed outloud when I read this 
post. I must be a very clever . . . almost TOO clever satire.

Thanks for the realtime laugh . . . I hope!
Mudhillun

--On Monday, March 15, 2004 7:43 PM -0500 kas2eileen 
<[email protected]> wrote:

> salaam talib, I agree with you and I feel that Islam doesn't teach
> sanctity of sex in marriage like Christianity does but that it teaches
> that sex can create chaos if not regulated and allowing structured
> outlets. Hence marriage only but permitting sex with slaves and more than
> one wife. An unattached female is a risk to the community. Control her or
> them and save the community from chaos. Eileen
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "talib ul-Haq" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 9:55 AM
> Subject: [Progressivemuslimsnetwork] That sex stuff again
>
>
> >
> > Salaams Yameen and all others who have responded to this thread:
> >
> > Not sure where the suspicions come from about this thread but there is
> > no hidden agenda.
> >
> > Let me say where I am coming from:
> >
> > Saying no to sexual intercourse outside marriage is the major plank of
> > the entire religious sector - virtually across the spectrum. When one
> > works
> with
> > Muslims on awareness-raising on HIV/AIDS then this seem to be a basic
> > premise that must be stated. (nothwithstanding opening the question of
> > condoms usage and even its permissability - but that is not the issue)
> >
> > Second, the sexual act is often assumed to be vested with some kind of
> > sanctity in Islam. If it is then, besides the inherent value of this
> notion,
> > it is also a very useful argument to make in prevention strategies and
> > in behaviour modification arguments.
> >
> > Yet, while I am desperate to make this argument, I am struggling with
> > the notion of the sanctity of sex in Islam as is problematized in the
> > issues that I raised, sex with slaves, muta'ah/sigheh, four wives and
> > speedy divorces.
> >
> > My problem with some of the responses, perhaps part of larger difficulty
> > with Muslim apologetics, is that we seem to think that we can change the
> > text sheer dint of our moral convictions:
> >
> > For example someone wrote - not sure if it was you:
> >
> > >>> 1.  A muslim is never allowed to be unfaithful.  You are NOT
> > >>> allowed to have sex with slaves as if they're objects.<<<
> >
> > Now the Qur'an and all the classical Islamic legal texts are very clear
> > about its permissibility
> >
> > I do not understand that several of the responses to my mail have
> challenged
> > the basic premise of my arguments of say slave ownership and polygamy
> > and cited scholars such as Barlas. My difficulty, and perhaps it is the
> > arrogance of my background in classical Islamic scholarship - is that so
> > much of the liberal interpretations - however desperate I may be for
> them -
> > are not rooted in the classical texts or based on scholarship which
> display
> > a familiarity with Arabic. There is just so much of raw liberal /
> modernist
> > opinion insisting on nearly imposing itself on the Qur'an, not because
> > of the Qur'an but despite it.
> >
> > Anyway, perhaps it is time for me to back off.
> >
> >
> > Salaams to everyone
> >
> > Talib
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > The ultimate South African search engine at your service!
> > http://search.msn.co.za
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ProgressiveMuslims mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://willo.nitric.co.za/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/progressivemuslims