GOATMILK: An intellectual playground edited by Wajahat Ali

The Best Blog in the History of the Whole Wide World

“Muslims Cannot Support Same Sex Marriages” – GOATMILK DEBATES

with 89 comments


THE GOATMILK DEBATES” will be an ongoing series featuring two debaters tackling an interesting or controversial question in a unique, irreverent manner.

Each debater makes their opening argument. They can elect to post a rebuttal.

The winner will be decided by the online audience and judged according to the strength of their argument.

The motion: “”Muslim Americans Should Not Oppose Legalization Of Same Sex Marriage””

For the motion:  Michael Muhammad Knight [Read his Argument here] and Sabir Ibrahim [Read his piece here]

Against the motion: Mahdi Ahmad and   Sister A. [ Read her Opening Argument here.]

Mahdi Ahmad – AGAINST THE MOTION

Should Muslims support same sex marriages? Is this issue a matter of opinion or is it something we must refer to Islam to determine if it allowed or not?

As Muslims, our opinions don’t matter when Allah and His Messenger decreed on a matter and we we have a disagreement on an issue that is addressed by Islam, we must refer to them:

It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path. (The Qur’an, 33:36)

O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end. (The Qur’an, 4:59)

We must understand what is marriage in Islam and the difference between Islamic marriage and non-Islamic marriage. In Islam, marriage is not just between a man and a woman but certain men and certain women. For example, marriage between siblings or parents and their children are not allowed, regardless of same sex or opposite sex. Regarding who qualifies for marriage and to whom, none of the verses in the Qur’an or the saying of the Prophet Muhammad in the Hadith ever mention anything about two men or two women marrying each other or being qualified to marry one another.

Also, there are conditions for marriage. While a man does not need a wali (guardian), a woman does for the marriage contract. If one insists that there is ikhtillaaf (difference of opinion) on the issue of wali, then what about the mahr (dowry)? The mahr is required to be given to the woman from the man. If there are two men or two women marrying, who gives and who receives the mahr?

Surely, homosexuality existed during the time of the Prophet Muhammad and so did marriages. Since Islam was completed and perfected during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (Qur’an, 5:3) and homosexuality was not a “new issue”, issues regarding any exceptions or types of marriage and who qualifies to marry and to whom would of been discussed. Unlike modern issues where fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) through the use of ijtihaad (process of making a legal decision in Islam) is used to deal with issues that didn’t exist at the time of the Prophet Muhammad, homosexuality is not anything new and Islam came to regulate the affairs of people and allow them to satisfy and fulfill their needs and instincts in a way that agrees with what the Creator allowed.

Getting back to the issue of whether or not Muslims should support same sex marriages, is supporting such a marriage within the Islamic principle of “forbidden the wrong and enjoining the good”?

Islam doesn’t have an issue with marriage; Islam recognizes the sanctity of marriage between people, regardless of their religion (or lack thereof). Obviously the same conditions that are required for a non-Muslim marriage are not the same for an Islamic marriage; Islam doesn’t regard the marriage of two non-Muslims as invalid or any sex between them as fornication. As for Muslims marrying, the marriage cannot go against Islamic law or it would be considered invalid, even if non-Islamic law validated the marriage.

If Muslims are not allowed in Islam to be in same sex unions or marriages, can we as Muslims still support same sex marriages for non-Muslims? Would doing so be part of the Islamic principle of “enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong”?

Some proponents of gay marriage say that marriage should be about two consenting people who love and are committed to each other, regardless of their sexual orientation. If one were to use the same logic, should consenting siblings be allowed to marry if they love and are committed to each other? If not, can’t siblings insist that phobia, prejudice, misunderstanding and double-standards make people be against such marriages?

Is supporting people who are love and committed to each other enough to “enjoin the good and forbid the wrong”?

Islam is not against homosexuals or straight people; if a gay or straight person does not sin, he cannot be a sinner unless he acts upon a sinful thought. Islam prohibits homosexual sex just like it prohibits straight sex that are outside the confines of marriage such as fornication and adultery. Not agreeing or accepting the act of homosexuality does not make one homophobic just like not agreeing or accepting the act of adultery or fornication between two straight or gay individuals make you phobic against adulterers or fornicators.

Marriage most likely will lead to sexual intercourse between the two people. If Islam doesn’t accept homosexual sex, one cannot accept a union that legitimizes such activity.

So the issue is not about love, it is about sex. If it were just about love, then there will need to be evidence prohibiting two men or two women loving each other in a non-sexual way.

Bring forth your proof if you are truthful. (the Qur’an, 27:64)

READ THE OPPOSING VIEWS – Michael Muhammad Knight and Sabir Ibrahim in Support of the Motion.

About these ads

Written by Wajahat Ali

August 10, 2010 at 7:02 am

89 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. [...] the motion: Mahdi Ahmad [Read his post here] and  Sister A.  [Read her Opening Argument [...]

  2. We live in america and must be wise in the way of america. The far rightwing christian will be against us no matter what we do. Than exsample was afew year ago our mosque have than open iztar dinner at the mosque. One woman came to it wear than microminiskirt and very low cut blouse which left very little to the imagion. Two brother want to phyical attack her for being immoral dress, I stop then by telling donot torck her or say anything to her letting the women handle her. Than religious scholar who sent some time in america appear the two men ask him his option and he agree with my option. Let say the two men attack her than the woman file assaut charge against the two men and Islam take than other hit as being intolance of woman right to wear what they want. She might also be than far rightwing christian sent to stir up touble against Islam. Or she might be than woman libs who doesnot care for the dress code of Islam and who willnot listern to than man telling her anything. The women talk to her includeing some of our more strict one, it turn out that she worked as than nude dancer when her hushand left her to support her childern than she thought that she wasw modest dress like we ask. She stay than learn that Islam isnot that monster the hater of Islam make it out to be. The Hater of Islam is trying to get the homosexual on their side by saying Islamist law will allow the muslim to beheaded you for being homosexual. If the Islamist community support the rights of homosexual we will have allied who will support our right.

    Brian C. Hoff

    August 10, 2010 at 9:25 am

  3. @Mahdi Ahmad. “Islam prohibits homosexual sex just like it prohibits straight sex that are outside the confines of marriage such as fornication and adultery.” Muslims who do not support laws that support same sex marriage, you make it a legal impossibility for same sex, loving Muslim couples. You are not Allah, you are not the final judge–Allah is, so get out of the way and on the day of judgment, we’ll see who Allah provides mercy and to those who do not receive it. Your arms are to short to box with Allah.

    Sidney

    August 10, 2010 at 1:32 pm

  4. Excellent post!

    Abdullah

    August 10, 2010 at 4:03 pm

  5. I totally agree with virtually all of your points. Homosexual relations are clearly prohibited in our religion and the only valid type of marriage in Islam is between a man and a woman.

    But the issue is whether we should oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage as Muslim-Americans. And that question is not as simple as the status of homosexuality or same-sex marriage under the shariah. There are precedents in Islamic history for Muslim scholars tolerating the practices of non-Muslim communities who came under Muslim rule that would otherwise be considered deviant under the shariah (ex: Imam ibn ul-Qayyim was of the opinion that Muslim authorities should tolerate the Zoroastrian practice of incestuous marriage between siblings under certain conditions). Given the political circumstances and the atmosphere we’re facing with the resurgence of the Christian Right in this country, I don’t think this is a battle that’s worth fighting.

    Sabir Ibrahim

    August 10, 2010 at 6:06 pm

    • Sabir, Salaam. Sorry, but you continue to make a statement that is not supported by Quran–the Lut story is about heterosexual men who used rape as a form of torture, nor do you rely upon the historic facts of Prophet Mohammad’s leadership as religious and governmental leader of the nascent Muslim community–he never had a case on homosexuality. You also ignore the political machination and subterfuge used by early Islamic rulers and their hand-picked jurists, who utilized false ahadeeth with extremely weak one-person sincilia transmissions, as well as bogus fiqh analogies that had nothing to do with homosexuality, but heterosexual sins of adultery–zinah. Furthermore, jurists made it a legal impossibility for two Muslims of the same sex to wed–how can you say with a clear conscious that same sex marriage is not permitted, with a straight face–pun intended. When straight uneducated-in-fiqh Muslims stop promoting they know Shari’ah, and recognize Shari’ah is neither divinely inspired nor given, the ummah’s understanding of the truth shall become the norm and not the misleading belief that homosexuality is not a norm in Allah’s creation. If you have comments, please respond directly to those posed–these are specific questions that need specific answers, not generalizations.

      Sidney

      August 10, 2010 at 8:22 pm

      • I understand that it may be difficult to accept for someone who is struggling with homosexuality, but the plain reality is that homosexual relationships have been regarded as un-Islamic by Muslim jurists with virtual unanimity throughout 1400 years of Islamic history. I understand that there are reformist movements that have put forth different interpretations based on non-traditional juristic methodologies, but their opinions are not and likely never will be mainstream. I don’t claim to be a faqih, but I do know this much. It just is what it is.

        That doesn’t mean that homosexuals are doomed to hell or are removed from God’s mercy. Some heterosexuals find it difficult to control their God-given urges and fall repeatedly into zina, continually turning to God for repentance. Everyone has their test in life.

        Sabir Ibrahim

        August 11, 2010 at 12:36 am

    • As than americia who convert after 9-11. It the fround of Islam was alive today with the muslim community face than large hostile christian community who also oppress homosexual also than small group with power would form than alliance with the homosexual like when in Medine He form alliance with other pragon tride against the pragon in Mecca.

      Form than alliance doesnot mean all muslim must turn homosexual just tone down the anti-homosexual message our mosque spead on firday prayer.

      Brian C. Hoff

      August 10, 2010 at 9:28 pm

    • As salaamu alaikum,

      To make a long rebuttal short, is supporting gay marriage “enjoining the good and forbidden the wrong”?

      I know what the issue is; did you understand that I am opposed to supporting gay marriage because it is not enjoining the good and forbidden the wrong.

      Simple as that…

      Mahdi Ahmad

      August 11, 2010 at 4:39 am

  6. Sidney, I think you are right that we don’t know at the end whose repentance will be accepted by Allah and who will be forgiven.

    I think you are incorrect in many of your other claims about the Shariah. The account in the Quran is fairly clear that the sin of the people of Lot was that the men lusted after men instead of women. The explanation you give seems more based on the Bible what Jewish/Christian homosexuals say to justify their actions but not on the Quran and Sunnah.

    Also, at least in terms of Sunni Islam, all four major imams of fiqh were far from just mouthpieces fir the ruler. In fact, all 4 were either imprisoned, tortured or otherwised punished for positions they took contrary to the ruler.

    If you are going to call another Muslim uneducated in fiqh when they are expressing the dominant (unanimous) position of Islam on a particular question, I think the burden of proof is definitely on you to actually give an argument by either citing the appropriate ayat or hadith instead of just saying your opponent is “bogus”

    abdul-halim

    August 10, 2010 at 9:41 pm

    • @Abdul-halim, Salaam. Thanks for your support that we do not know whose repentance will be accepted by Allah and who will be forgiven. However, for the rest of your commentary, it is less than an eloquent response. Yet, I admire your knight in shining armor coming to the rescue attempt.

      As stated before, you and many Muslims promote, ad populum, a heterosexual normative-based response, though it is clear you have neither thoroughly researched homosexuality within Quran, nor understood the Lut story to clarify whether or not it was homosexual males or heterosexual males who did the raping. A sexual act does not make a person that sexual orientation, for example, heterosexual Muslims brothers who spent time in prison (domestically or internationally) and involved in homosexual sexual acts–either the penetrated or the one penetrating –did they stay “gay.”

      It is obvious and should be clear to others you are trying to deflect my explanation by inferring my research and thinking is taken from Torah or Anjeel readings, (those unreliable “other texts” of the Abrahemic faith [inference mine], thus a veiled attempt to weaken the import of my statement; but be assured my conclusions are based upon Quranic exegesis and other Islamic sources only.

      Are we to swallow whole anything the four Sunni imams have written, particularly when all of whom were not around (and neither were we) when Prophet Mohammed was alive. Also, researching the athar of the sahabah reveals their decisions were never unanimous on legalistic conclusions, and the weight of human reason was needed to come to concensus. Let’s not forget the fact it was nearly 200 years later when they collected and distilled as many as 600,000 to 750,000 ahadeeth to compile their collections, all utilizing their best judgment(s) based upon the best form of research available (sincilia), comparing the statements made by the person making the claim to such knowledge, supported by their reputations as members of the nascent Muslim society. The methods and study of the ancients do not easily match modern research standards. At best, most are based upon conjecture, particularly as modern ahadeeth study continues to prove many ahadeeth are extremely weak and/or spurious when there are singular transmitters –please note, the ahadeeth that speak against homosexuality are singular transmissions. But again, and I reiterate, the four imams were not around to verify the veracity of the transmitters claims Prophet Mohammad, SAWS, said them. Again, it’s conjecture.

      I would proffer you would gain greater insights checking Islamic history of the 4 imams lives from original text sources to learn more about the political subterfuge involved during the Abbasid and Umayyad periods, both pro and con, that provided support for and against their positions as fiqh and legal/religious leaders. Additionally, in your research, please do not glean over what their students and later followers of their schools of thought (those who became jurist) did to patch the holes found in their legal arguments–hint, check out the language and terms of art used by the jurists in different centuries in the development of fiqh–it’s simply amazing what you will find.

      Nonetheless, uneducated is uneducated, whether one is promoting the dominant position or not–it does not mean it is correct or true. Of course, in our discussion, it is granted this could be said from either position taken–but I’m very confident in the validity of my studies and resultant research therein. Thus, the burden of proof is upon you, dear brother.

      Since you accept and regurgitate mainstream (modern Wahhabi and Salafi) traditions, am I required to submit such statements make them accurate or true? I think not. I would suggest you do the arduous work of gleaning the original sources, minus the throw-in-everything including the kitchen sink responses typically utilized to “support” traditional positions. If more Muslims did so, we probably would not be having this discussion. Needless to say, my assurance may not carry a can of beans with you, but I’m very conscious and careful in my word usage, and when I used bogus, maybe “pinch beck” would have better conveyed my meaning, and my brother, I stand by it.

      Wishing you a pleasant, safe and peaceful Ramadan season.

      Sidney

      August 11, 2010 at 12:49 am

      • Sidney, salaam,

        I think your point about orientation and rape is really besides the point. The Quran is pretty clear on the issue:

        [7.81] Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people.

        and again

        [27.55] What! do you indeed approach men lustfully rather than women? Nay, you are a people who act ignorantly.

        So this is a fairly general description of what the people of Lot did wrong.

        Now, the reason why I mentioned the Bible is that in the Biblical account there is more wiggle room. The account in Genesis doesn’t have a clear statement of what the sin of the people of Lot was but we do see a crowd demanding to rape the angels but that is wrong on so many other level, homosexuality doesn’t have to be the issue. And then in Ezekiel there is an interesting and explicit description of what the sin of the people of Sodom was but it mentions….

        Ezekiel 16
        [49] Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.
        [50] They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it.

        But obviously the Quran doesn’t mention these other issues.

        moving on.. I’m not saying to swallow “anything” the four imams have written. And I realize that fiqh is something that has developed over time. The rulings of a particular school did not just spring fully-formed from the head of the nominal founder… that initial contribution was important but their work was refined and improved upon by the collective effort of hundreds, if not thousands of scholars working over centuries.

        But that’s also why in 2010 it doesn’t make sense to throw out the baby with the bathwater just to accomodate modern changing trends.

        I actually have met Faisal Alam (the founder of Al-Fatihah) once a couple of years ago and in a talk he actually admitted that it was difficult to find religious justification for homosexual behavior. I mean, according to the majority view even heterosexual sodomy is a sin.

        I’m not a Wahabi/Salafi by the way. In fact, from my point of view, your approach is more “Salafi” than mine. I would also add that your general approach seems largely negative and you still haven’t presented an actual argument, mostly just insults and aspersions. What specific evidence (ayats of Quran, hadith, historical references) would you point to?

        abdul-halim

        August 11, 2010 at 9:33 am

  7. @ Sabir, Ramadan Mubarak. Wanted to briefly respond to your response.

    It has to be made very clear that I am not struggling with my homosexuality, nor are many other GLBTQ Muslims–GLBTQ Muslims seek the same rights and privileges as heterosexual Muslims under Western secular governments. Additionally, you and others need to stop posturing that GLBTQ Muslims’ sexual orientation is a test. For me and for many other gay Muslims, our sexuality is not a test by any stretch of the imagination. As I see it, there is a heterosexual test, the test whether or not heterosexual Muslims can stop believing they are superior because they are heterosexual. The Quran clearly states it is piety in word and deed that reveals to Allah a truer heart and spirit.

    Yes, I am in agreement the majority of Muslims will remain taqlid-oriented because they prefer to be led in order to avoid community scrutiny, thus remaining the silent majority that sways with the wind and the platitudes of Muslim state leaders–though much to their demise on the day of judgment–Quran is not silent on that fact.

    I can appreciate your comments and I am glad you are mindful that heterosexual Muslims are not pristine in their thoughts, aspirations, desires and actions, and I willing submit, neither are LGBTQ Muslims–but you will find good men and women amongst both groups. So let’s agree, all Muslims seek Allah’s mercy on the day of judgment.

    Salaam.

    Sidney

    August 11, 2010 at 2:01 am

  8. Some of the muslim that live in Europe shoot themself and Islam in the foot. In some European country it than inmodest dress woman walk by some of the more radical muslim in an muslim area they believe they have the right to rape her, first it is wrong to any man to rape than woman, The Founder of Islam would have declare just action illegal against the law of Allah. It the woman is than non-muslim it created problen for other muslim in the area by causeing non-muslim to hate muslim. Than muslim woman who is than baroness in the UK was attack by than mob of uneducrate muslim stir up by than radical Irman from Suadic Arbric because she doesnot wear than headscraft did they ever think of what the negevaste reaction that will cause in the non-muslim population of Europe.

    Brian C. Hoff

    August 11, 2010 at 5:52 am

  9. Because with the difficulty there is a facility. Verily with difficulty there is a facility ~ (94:5-6)

    Facilitate and do not cause difficulties and do not cause people to detest (the Islamic law), but treat people like brothers ~ The Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace)

    Much of the debate here has largely ignored the Muslim LGBT position, except perhaps for the piece by Brother Mahdi here. I just wanted to highlight a few observations here.

    1) The question usually posed – ‘Is homosexuality allowed or prohibited in Islam’- I believe is inappropriate, simply because the question is quite general and whether the answer is in the affirmative or in the negative, that would mean that homosexuality is allowed or prohibited for every Abdul, Yusuf and Bilal.

    2) A better question to postulate would be that given that a minority Muslim segment is homosexual or transgendered, what do we do with such anomalies? Should we kill them, excommunicate them or just exile them? Or rather should we find a facility for them, in which case should we ask them to marry the opposite gender, or ask them to remain celibate or find a way to accommodate same sex relationships in Muslim communities?

    3) According to Al Fatiha, the Muslim LGBT group, 95% of people who reach this group leave Islam, so clearly none of them would be remotely affected by this discourse on Islam and the LGBT.

    4) The ones who would be affected would not be the closet cases either. They too are enjoying their lives. In fact they are enjoying the privileges as males in a Muslim patriarchal culture and at the same time since they are not restricted to a single sex partner, as no rules regulate such secret encounters, they are clearly happy without same sex marriages, which would only take away their straight male privileges as well as the joys of multiple partner sex.

    5) This debate is crucial to the silly and stupid minority of LGBT Muslims who do not wish to be in the closet and do not wish to leave Islam either. This debate is also crucial for both straight men and women who get married off to closet cases and then end up facing stifling lives.

    Given the above, what might the solution be?

    6) The Quran is clear (5:32) that taking life is only possible in two charges – murder or spreading disorder – so one cannot kill the Muslim LGBT.

    7) Excommunicating or exiling them would take them away from Islam, and I’m not sure that, that would be in the best interests of dawah of Islam.

    6 + 7 –> Facilitate Muslim LGBT

    8) Ask them to be celibate –> But then what do we do with the Hadith ‘There is no monasticism in Islam’. Besides we all know full well how much embarrassment monasticism has brought to the Catholic Church.

    9) Ask them to marry the opposite gender –> Question: Whose daughters or whose sons should be made the sacrificial lambs for this?

    So the only logical solution is to accommodate same sex relationships. This requires a cost benefit analysis:

    COST: –> Flouting of centuries old traditions.

    BENEFIT:–> Reduced extra marital affairs, more people remain in Islam, less straight people end up in bad marriages.

    So how can the COST be dealt with? –> By going back to investigating the scriptures and investigating what are they really saying.

    Tensil Toes

    August 11, 2010 at 9:17 am

    • Salaams,

      homosexuals and transgendered are very different and shouldn’t just be lumped together like that. Even old fiqh books will mention hermaphrodites and basically accepts them as a part of reality and certainly doesn’t intentionally punish them. Also I’ve read about fatwas given in (Shia) Iran and in Sunni countries permitting sex-reassignment surgery for people who feel “trapped” in the wrong body.

      abdul-halim

      August 11, 2010 at 9:50 am

      • old Fiqh books also allow transgendered to marry even prior to gender reassignment surgeries. This is the position of Hanafis, Shafis and Hanbalis as recorded in the Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Fiqh under khuntha mushkil Nikah.

        ******

        old Fiqh books are also clear on how they understood homosexuality. Basically as liwat, and as coerced actions. the understanding provided by both Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Ibn Taymmiah cannot be clearer.

        Tensil Toes

        August 11, 2010 at 10:11 am

    • Tensil,

      Marriage can be about sex. But the sex must be halaal not haraam. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the Quran or sunnah that homosexual sex is permissible. A union that legitmizes anything haraam cannot be accepted or supported.

      Mahdi Ahmad

      August 11, 2010 at 4:06 pm

      • Brother Mahdi,

        Two points:

        1) Marriage is the permissibility of legal sex.

        2) A common student of Fiqh knows that: Silence does not imply prohibition.

        Tensil Toes

        August 11, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    • Tensil,

      Regarding intersex individuals being allowed to marry, this is a unique case. The same scholars who believed that intersex can marry never said that homosexuals can people of the same sex. So to mention intersex being able to marry is a moot point.

      Mahdi Ahmad

      August 11, 2010 at 4:52 pm

      • But here is where we go back to “their” definition of homosexual. Is that ‘gay’ or is that ‘luti’. There is a huge difference.

        Tensil Toes

        August 11, 2010 at 5:00 pm

      • Tensil,

        Let me make it clear: the reason why there is no evidence that homosexual sex is permissible is based it was discussed by scholars and the consensus is that it is haraam. This is fiqh.

        Now how far do we need to go to define what homosexuality is? Are you saying that two people of the same sex having sex with each other may not be committing acts of homosexuality?

        Mahdi Ahmad

        August 11, 2010 at 5:08 pm

  10. [...] Americans Should Oppose Legalization of Gay Marriage” – GOATMILK DEBATES “Muslims Cannot Support Same Sex Marriages” – GOATMILK DEBATES [...]

    • Tensil Toes, I’m not sure what your point is. Yes, hermaphrodites are allowed to marry. But the idea is still that everyone is either male or female but in some cases it can be hard to tell.

      abdul-halim

      August 11, 2010 at 3:19 pm

      • Two points:

        1) The jurists were careful in assigning gender simply on the basis of external organs.

        2) They allowed khuntha mushkil (who may have both external organs) to marry either a man or woman based on their inner disposition.

        Tensil Toes

        August 11, 2010 at 5:05 pm

  11. Brief comments on Brother Mahdi’s piece, my comments follow snippets of his:

    >> None of the verses in the Qur’an or the saying of the Prophet Muhammad in the Hadith ever mention anything about two men or two women marrying each other or being qualified to marry one another.<> The mahr is required to be given to the woman from the man. If there are two men or two women marrying, who gives and who receives the mahr? <> issues regarding any exceptions or types of marriage and who qualifies to marry and to whom would of been discussed. <> If one were to use the same logic, should consenting siblings be allowed to marry if they love and are committed to each other? <> Islam prohibits homosexual sex just like it prohibits straight sex that are outside the confines of marriage… <> So the issue is not about love, it is about sex. <<

    One could say that about any Islamic marriage, is it just about sex?

    Tensil Toes

    August 11, 2010 at 10:04 am

    • I think it would be good to look at Sister A’s piece. The concept of marriage has changed over time. In the past, parents/walis would be more involved in the process. It is more a process of families coming together. Individuals coming together to make certain sacrifices to raise and support and guide the next generation. Making sacrifices to stay toogether.

      OVer time that has changed until it has become more about the desires of the two individuals getting married.. at which point gay marriage makes more sense.

      abdul-halim

      August 11, 2010 at 3:30 pm

      • According to disability in Islamic law literature:

        More pivotal for the preservation of marital relations than bearing children – seems to be that the couple are both healthy enough to engage in physical and emotional intimacy and in sexual intercourse…

        Tensil Toes

        August 11, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    • Could you give a reference for the claim that:
      “They allowed khuntha mushkil (who may have both external organs) to marry either a man or woman based on their inner disposition.”?

      I just found one link:
      http://www.as-suffa.org/Shariah-Law/Male-Female-Interaction/Islamic-ruling-on-hermaphrodites.html

      which gives a more cautious impression.

      abdul-halim

      August 11, 2010 at 5:28 pm

      • Vardit Rispler-Chaim, Disability in Islamic law, (The Netherlands: Springer, Dordrecht, 2006), 47

        Tensil Toes

        August 11, 2010 at 5:30 pm

  12. @ Abdul-halim, Salaam. Your response once again inculcates the generalizations utilized by the mainstream to “prove” their point of view, which in and of itself, does not prove anything for the terminology depends upon the reader to believe heterosexuality is the normative in human sexuality–penis and vagina is supreme. Even if we were allowed such a “foundation”, the men who committed the crime of rape are heterosexual in their orientation–straight men and women do not want to admit this fact. Surah 24:33 clearly outlines the men who have no desire for women, contemplate how this is true and get back to me.

    Faisal Alam, a person I know quite well, is not a scholar, but grew up as a Muslim who rejected Islam due to the maltreatment of the mainstream community. Happily, Faisal has come closer to Islam over the past few years than he was 13 years ago when he began Al-Fatiha. As GLBTQ Muslim scholars continue their work, more and more evidence support a very different development of the fiqh scholarship that was biased on its face. I know it is difficult to let go of tradition, but did not the nascent Muslim community let go of tradition in order to encompass new thinking from Quran?

    Finally, I find it comical, but not outside of the typical response of many stuck-on-tradition Muslims, to charge I throw insults and aspersions when you are unwilling to do more thorough study…I did provide you at least one Quranic ayat this time, as well as an area of study of fiqh development, which you ignored. I can glean from your response, once again, your unwillingness to do the scholarship to learn what is and what is not fool’s gold.

    Sidney

    August 11, 2010 at 3:26 pm

  13. Surah 24:33 doesn’t seem to have ANYTHING to do with what you are claiming. I think you gave the wrong verse. Please provide the correct one or walk me through how it is saying what you are claiming.

    I am here willing to listen to whatever arguments and evidence you have. But you haven’t really been providing much…

    abdul-halim

    August 11, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    • @ Abdul-halim, Salaam. Sorry about my typographical error. The correct ayyat is 24:31, the ayat explains which men women do not have to veil…Enjoining the believing women…the men who lack sexual desires…. In some Qurans the translation of Again, sorry about the typo.

      Sidney

      August 11, 2010 at 6:44 pm

      • I’m not sure what you are trying to say. The verse has nothing to do with Lot.

        Are you saying that homosexuals’ place in Islamic law should be similar/same as the place of eunuchs?

        abdul-halim

        August 12, 2010 at 2:54 am

  14. Islam scholar of the past didnot have to deal with new issue that raise today like our new technogry, nuke weapon make than full scale war between nation not than very good idear asw both side will destory themself. When muslim settle on the moon new issue deasling with moon sighting will raise. In the 1920′s some muslim settle above the artic circle where the sun never set in the summer or the sun raise in the winter. The fasting month was upton the problen was at what time they can break the fast and eat than meal. They called up the Head Iman in Saudic Arbric who was of the old school but he recogize this was than problen that wasnot cover by the past scholary writeing he said they didnot have to fast untril the scholar find than answer to the problen. Islam neede4d to be flexable so it can bend instead of breaking when change happen.

    Brian C. Hoff

    August 11, 2010 at 5:25 pm

  15. Brother Mahdi,

    The reply button was absent so I am posting here.

    1) Scholars defined ‘liwat’ technically as anal sex perpetrated on a person who had no desire in such an act.

    2) Consensus was never established on this issue, which allowed some (Mufti of Aleppo – Al Kawakibi, notably) to allow for sex with male slaves.

    Tensil Toes

    August 11, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    • Tensil,

      Where is the evidence that liwaaT only refers to anal sex with unwilling participants?

      Mahdi Ahmad

      August 11, 2010 at 5:50 pm

  16. Message for Brother Abdul Halim:

    My apologies, I gave you the wrong reference there.

    The correct is Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Fiqh under the category khuntha mushkil.

    Tensil Toes

    August 11, 2010 at 5:35 pm

  17. 1) Imam Abu Hanifa’s statement comes in Tafsir Razi (24:2), Imam Ibn Taymmiah’s statement in his Tafseer of Surat An Nour. Both state that the passive partner has no interest in sex.

    2) The secondary branches of Muslim knowledge -the Qisas Al Anbiya’ – use the word ‘fadahahu’ (rape without sexual need).

    Tensil Toes

    August 11, 2010 at 6:55 pm

    • Tensil

      There isn’t a consensus amongst scholars regarding if anal sex is only haraam is the person is an unwilling participant. To quote a few scholars isn’t enough.

      Mahdi Ahmad

      August 12, 2010 at 4:01 am

      • Correct. There is consensus in Islam only on major ibadah issues. Muamalaat are always under debate.

        The question is which side one wants to be on, the one to facilitate or the one to oppress.

        Tensil Toes

        August 12, 2010 at 6:22 am

      • Tensil

        There is consensus on aqeedah issues such as the oneness of Allah and the finality of Muhammad’s prophethood and messengership. Regarding consensus on mu’aamalaat issues, it depends on the issue because there is consensus on some of them.

        Mahdi Ahmad

        August 12, 2010 at 7:28 am

    • Islam needed to also be willing to use today standant in legal matter. Today in most modern societry it is called rape.

      Brian C. Hoff

      August 12, 2010 at 5:52 am

      • Tensil writes:
        “Correct. There is consensus in Islam only on major ibadah issues. Muamalaat are always under debate.
        The question is which side one wants to be on, the one to “facilitate and not to oppress”

        I don’t think there is a difference in ibadah vs muamalat in terms of consensus but I think it all depends on what scale you are looking at.

        I mean, if you are asking “is salat fard?” then obviously there is a high degree of consensus. But if you look at the details there is disagreement between the 4 madhabs about when you can combine prayers or whether witr is obligatory.

        It is especially difficult to find consensus if, instead of looking at the strongest opinion of the four madhabs you get down to the level of individual scholars. So even if you stick to one madhab, you’ll find individual scholars in history who had unusual isolated opinions which differed from the mainstream.

        Sometimes these varying opinions are stricter than the norm, sometimes the reverse is true. But if you look for them there are tons of them. So much so that if you always look to “facilitate” (to use your term) and bring together all the rukhsahs (easy bits) from all the scholars you’ll end up saying that everything is halal and nothing is fard.

        abdul-halim

        August 12, 2010 at 8:40 pm

  18. @ Tensil, Salaam and Ramadan Mubarak. Want to thank you for your participation in the discussion and providing a wealth of information for others to contemplate–whether others will do so is not up to you.

    Tensil: Correct. There is consensus in Islam only on major ibadah issues. Muamalaat are always under debate. The question is which side one wants to be on, the one to facilitate or the one to oppress.

    Sidney

    August 12, 2010 at 11:28 am

  19. Brother Mahdi,

    There is no consensus even on the definition of consensus. Scholars asked whether it was based on all muslims or just the first three generations, all scholars or only of a specific sect.

    Since, Imam Shafii considered Ijmaa as the consensus of all muslims, he made it nearly impossible to have consensus.

    Tensil Toes

    August 12, 2010 at 5:56 pm

    • From the arguments I’ve read, the strongest ijmaa is ijmaa as sahabah. That’s another argument but for now, let’s deal with the fiqh view of liwaat.

      Linguistically, liwaat comes from Lut. This denotes the acts of the people of Lut regarding sexual behavior. A luti is a homosexual, or a person who practices the act of liwaat.

      A fringe scholar who legitimized liwaat cannot be used as an example of ikhtilaaf. There are people who are regarded as scholars saying things that go against the Quran and sunnah all the time.

      The main issue that was subject to ikhtilaaf was the punishment for a person who was found guilty of liwaat.

      Mahdi Ahmad

      August 12, 2010 at 8:09 pm

      • 1) ‘Luti’ did not have a concrete meaning during the Companion’s time. Musannaf Abdul Razzaq gives various opinions on this word.

        2) ‘Liwat’ as pointed out earlier means ‘anal intercourse with a male who had no deisre for it (ala Imam Abu Hanifa or Imam Ibn Taymmiah)

        3) I do not think Imam Abu Hanifa or Imam Ibn Taymmiah are fringe scholars.

        4) Al Kawakibi – the Mufti of Aleppo, was not alone in his reasoning. The scholars and rectors at Al Azhar (15th – 18th century) have recorded dissenting opinion.

        Tensil Toes

        August 12, 2010 at 10:20 pm

  20. Brother Sidney,

    Ramadan Mubarak to you as well. As Muslims, we are instructed to present the message in the best possible manner we can. That is all we can do, the rest is up to the recipient. That was the way of our Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) whom we try to emulate.

    fi aman allah

    Tensil Toes

    August 12, 2010 at 6:02 pm

  21. Tensil Toes,

    At the end of the day, are making more than just a linguistic argument. I mean are you saying that Abu Hanifa and Ibn Taymmiyah claimed consensual anal sex between men was halal, or just that it’s not “liwat”?

    abdul-halim

    August 12, 2010 at 11:42 pm

    • Brother Abdul Halim,

      The great Imams assumed ‘non-consent’ of the passive partner. They did not address the issue of same-sex relationships.

      Tensil Toes

      August 13, 2010 at 12:17 am

  22. @Abdul-halim, Salaam. You wrote:

    I’m not sure what you are trying to say. The verse has nothing to do with Lot. Are you saying that homosexuals’ place in Islamic law should be similar/ same as the place of eunuchs?

    You’re correct, the ayat has nothing to do with Lot, for it highlights the point that Allah created men who have no desire for women. I think too many Muslims, generally, equate no desire for women to mean: (a) they are eunuchs and that is incorrect. Eunuchs may not have the apparatus to engage in penetrative sex, but they can have the desire for such sexual acts. (b) men who have lost their vigor, e.g., men who are due to age or physical illness cannot “get it up.” (c) the men who can be around women and have no desire for women sexually no matter how alluring a women may try to be towards them are what I refer to as homosexuals–thus, the Lut story does not relate to them. As I indicated in our earlier round, the Lut story speaks specifically to heterosexual men who had spouses or wives–they were attracted to women and had a history of having sex with them–they cannot be homosexual men. It is important to not pick out ayyat to substantiate what is called “text proofing”, which supports a particular belief without reading the ayyat within the full context of the surah it is given.

    For example, the term abomination or faahisha or its derivatives, far too often is translated as abomination and false equated to homosexuality. When you read faahisha in the surahs, you find the abomination mentioned has nothing to do with homosexuality. This is why it is so important to understand the Quranic sciences and applying each formula to the text, thus gleaning a far deeper meaning rather than a cursory understanding that permits misuse and abuse of the text.

    Sidney

    August 14, 2010 at 1:48 am

  23. @sidney salaam,

    So what specifically, either from the Quran or hadith can you point to support your claim that the men among the people of Lot were “heterosexual men who had spouses or wives–they were attracted to women and had a history of having sex with them–they cannot be homosexual men.”?

    I mean, the Quran says several times that the men of Lot’s people lusted after men instead of women. And when Lot offers them his daughters they refuse. That seems to fit the definition you just gave for homosexuality above.

    The rest of what you say seems more of a straw dog. I haven’t been relying on assigning a specific meaning for abomination/ faahisha

    abdul-halim

    August 14, 2010 at 10:08 am

    • I have touble learn arabic than know very little about Islamist study. But one thing I know the men of Lot have to have sexual relateionship with women how also can they have childern to carry on into the future they lusting after man.

      Brian C. Hoff

      August 14, 2010 at 5:20 pm

    • @ Abdul-halim. Salaam.

      Referencing you first two points, Surah 27:55 responds to your question, “heterosexual men who had spouses or wives, which in and of itself would conclude they had a history of having sex with them, thus they were not homosexual men. So the definition I gave of homosexual men remains as stated.

      The refusal of the men having sex with the daughters goes to a completely different meaning than what you are alluding, but relates to sarcasm used by Lut towards the men, emphasizing their heterosexuality, not their rejecting women for sex–but that is off subject at this time. Nonetheless, Surah 27:55 clarifies my point quite succinctly about their heterosexuality and their experience as married men…

      (The Arabic text does not transfer to this site, but the English transliteration of the Arabic is listed below. Note the a(l) reference before men [rijala] and before women [nisaa-i].

      55. A-innakum lata/toona a(l)rrijala shahwatan min doona a(l)nnisaa-i bal antum qawmun tajhaloona

      55. Would ye really approach the men in your lusts rather than the women? Nay, ye are a people ignorant!

      The men of Sodom rushing towards (lata’toona) the men (the specific angels and the specific men who were similarly situated prior to the angel’s arrival) in your lusts rather than the women (of Sodom who were there prior as their wives/spouses/mates)?

      The grammar of the Quranic text does not describe a generalization of the men of Sodom lusting, generally, men rather than lusting, generally, women. The definite “the” would not be needed, but it is there to make it known it was specific, e.g., those specific men who had been raped and the angels, and those specific women who were their wives/ spouses/mates prior to and during the current time of the destruction of the city. We can also presume they had children, not unlike Lut’s family, he and his wife had children and we can assume the people of Sodom had children too.

      The verb ataa, (in the verse, ataa’toona) in modern standard Arabic has the meaning of to come; to approach; to achieve. The modern usage does not give the full impact of the Quranic text because it is often misleads the reader to think in terms of someone speaking to another person casually. However, the usage in antiquity, derived from ancient Aramaic into Arabic, also gives the meaning “to rush like a uncontrolled stream of water, a flood of water without banks to guide it”, thus a flood of men, e.g., a mob, a uncontrollable mass–as if someone was attacked for a lynching. It would be appropriate to also include this meaning when reading the Quranic text because it is a meaning that would have been understood by the people of the time of the Quran’s revelation.

      If you have ever seen a flash flood in Saudi Arabia or other desert lands where large amounts of rain water is not absorbed into the harden clay/sands, it becomes a wave of water, picking up everything in its path, and carrying it in all directions. I have seen the results and it is a destruction not unlike what a small tsunami would do…piles of rubble with dead people and animals entwined…nothing in its path survived.

      My referring to faahisha references the methodology used by jurists, both ancient and modern, by allusion via abomination, e.g., going against nature, and other theories projected to mean homosexuality as the sin of qawmal Lut (people of Lut).

      Sidney

      August 14, 2010 at 9:52 pm

  24. Salaams,

    Ok, I think I see what you are saying about rushing but I’d have to study more Arabic to decide if I find the argument valid. (But if “rushing” were the problem, it wouldn’t matter if they were male or female and it wouldn’t need to be mentioned).

    But I honestly don’t find your claim that these men were married heterosexuals at all persuasive. I just seems like an assumption on your part but it isn’t driven by the text at all.

    abdul-halim

    August 14, 2010 at 10:14 pm

    • @ Abdul-halim. Salaam. It’s rather peculiar when I respond to your questions, you’re very quick to dismiss their import–shows the signs of a dull mind. I will again note, through by your own admission, you do not know Arabic, you are neither a scholar of Islamic theological thought, nor familiar with the Quranic, Shari’ah and ahadeeth sciences, it becomes abundantly clear you’re confounded by truth, falling short of Uthman’s urging Muslims (paraphrasing) “… go as far as China to gain knowledge.” Been there and done that, my brother, and I believe a trip is definitely in order. Since I have the credentials, I’m assured of my commentary. Proffering you info to afford you a well-reasoned discussion avails you not. I’m knocking on the door but the only answer I’m receiving is an echo–leads one to believe no one’s home. I’ve meet numerous Muslim believers like yourself who know not and only seek knowledge through taqleed. As I said to you many email responses before, when you’ve done your study, understand the texts from various aspects, get a glimmer of insight, and by the grace of Allah through tadabber (contemplation), you get a clue to what Quran’s message reveals, get in touch. Then, and only then, can we have a serious discussion of quality. May your Ramadan grant you greater and deeper insight within Islam. See ya!

      Sidney

      August 14, 2010 at 10:57 pm

    • In 26: 166, the Arabic word used is ‘azwajikum’.

      26:166 – … And leave what your Lord has created for you of your wives? Nay, you are a people exceeding limits.

      In the Tafsir for 26:165-166, Zamakhshari writes that the people of Lot stayed aloof from their wives.

      Tensil Toes

      August 15, 2010 at 12:51 am

      • Normally I’m against killing but this article slaughtered my igonarnce.

        Martha

        September 20, 2011 at 1:45 pm

  25. @Tensil Toes, that makes more sense. Thank you for calmly answering my questions.

    @Sidney, please, I strongly urge you to work on your adab and character. If I’m dismissing the “import” of what you are saying it is because I’m just trying to zero in on the essence of the argument (if there is one). I’m not really interesting in the posturing, the insults, the bragging, etc. I’m just trying to figure out what your deal (and daleel) is. For all I know, maybe you are shaykh ul-Islam and the 99.999999% of scholars for the past 1400 years who give rulings against homosexual acts might be all jahils. But I can’t determine that for myself unless you effectively communicate whatever it is that you think you know.

    abdul-halim

    August 15, 2010 at 1:43 am

    • @ Abdul-halim. I strongly urge you to learn the adab of debate/discussion. Character has nothing to do with it, and trying to deflect your lack of education on a person’s “character” proves you do not have an argument to present. You are claiming to take steps to further the conversation, but in actually, you are not ready for debate. Reread your responses to answers provided–often dismissive and it appears you have not done any study before providing a response. You play the fallacy of ad homenim.

      An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

      1. Person A makes claim X.
      2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
      3. Therefore A’s claim is false.

      The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

      As I indicated in my earlier email, when you are ready to have a serious debate, I’m prepared to go toe to toe, following the adab of debate as they did during the period of salon.

      Sidney

      August 15, 2010 at 2:28 am

      • Sidney,

        There is a difference between scholarship and revisionist interpretation to suit an agenda or legitimize a belief or action.

        To suggest that the men of Lot were all straight (or mostly straight) not only goes against 1400 years of scholarship but is a dangerous trend of trying to interpret Islam to justify your beliefs or lifestyle.

        Scholars who knew more Islam and Arabic never said what you said. The main issue of debate in Islamic jurisprudence was not if homosexuality was forbidden or not but what is the punishment for homosexuality. One might quote a fringe scholar but there are fringes everywhere. It doesn’t prove anything.

        It is either that 99.9999999 percent of scholars got it wrong in a period of 1400 years and the revisionists got it right or the revionists are wrong and are using revisionist theories to justify something and promote an agenda.

        You tell me….

        Mahdi Ahmad

        August 15, 2010 at 12:09 pm

  26. Salaams Sidney,

    I teach math at the college-level including classes which cover formal logic. I know what the ad hominem fallacy is and that’s not at all what I’m doing. Any weakness in your argument is totally independent from any lack in adab.

    In terms of your criticism of taqleed (following qualified scholarship), it is hard to take you seriously. Unless you are following some kind of clear methodology to derive rulings it is likely that you’ll just end up coming up with rulings which simply are designed to justify your whims and desires. This is especially true if you discard the hadith (as you seem to).

    As someone who wouldn’t throw out the hadith literature and tries to follow a madhab, I don’t find your position super-convincing but I now have a better insight into where you are coming from. Also Al Kawakibi seems to create an interesting space. If you follow him maybe you could even create a “marriage” ceremony where each person gives themselves to the other in slavery.

    Look, at this point I don’t have any questions. Tensil Toes did a good job of providing info and presenting some arguments. I actually do plan on following up on my own on some of the things which were said.

    abdul-halim

    August 15, 2010 at 9:20 am

    • What Sidney proposes is not based on a shred of evidence but revisionist interpretation.

      The story of Sodom and Gomorrah can be found in the Old Testament as we all know. Even Biblical commentators understood the story as one that relates the debauchery of the inhabitants and it would be hard to find a Biblical scholar who would deny that homosexuality was one of the acts that was condemned.

      Now the Quranic version in many cases is practically identical to the Biblical version. In Islamic history, the issue amongst scholars wasn’t if homosexuality was permissible but what is the punishment of someone who committed a homosexual act. There was ikhtilaaf or differences of opinion on the punishment not on homosexuality.

      Homosexuality existed during the time of the Prophet. It is not a new issue. If homosexuality were permissible in Islam, Islam would address it and tell us the ruling and etiquettes on it. Islam was completed and perfected during the time of the Prophet and why would Islam leave out details of a non modern issue, if indeed it is permissible?

      Revisionist intepretation is common these days on everything from the etymology of the words in the Quran to whether or not the hijab is fard to now if homosexuality is permissible in Islam. We just need to find out if these revisionist theories have any basis in reality and evidence or is it a tool to justify and legitimize something that Islam prohibits.

      Mahdi Ahmad

      August 15, 2010 at 1:54 pm

      • Homosexual is than sin in the eyes of Allah. But do I have the legal right to go around treaten then as they have no rights at all. What would the penaly be if someone murder then in cold blood. Do I as than muslim have the right to hunt down and murber homosexual without than fair trail in an court of law. These are question the new generation of muslim want answer to.

        Brian C. Hoff

        August 15, 2010 at 5:28 pm

      • @ Mahdi, Salaam. It appears you’re grasping at loose threads, which is not uncommon, and those threads do not comprise the rope of Allah to which you are trying to hang.

        Since you could not think through the process, you now stoop to allusion charging me, falsely I may add, that I and other modern scholars who I presume have far more knowledge of Islam than you do, are causing fitna via bid’a–a rhetorical tool to charge someone with innovation when there is criticism of the ancient jurists and their methodologies. It’s just another form of the ad hominem fallacy, with the ad populum fallacy to prop it up–it’s a house of cards.

        Yes, to your point about Torah and Anjeel, it is true that Torah and Anjeel speaks about the Lut story; however, your statement shows you are trying to twist people’s minds by “practically” adding a false-positive theory, but the truth is their renditions (Torah and Anjeel) are not “absolutely” identical. Allah sent the Quran to clarify the truth by pointing out the errors about the earlier books…are you saying you disagree with Allah’s purpose of Quran? Are you saying, thorough scholarship does not show Quran supports a different reading of the texts used by these jurists–a reading that is not supported by the Quranic Sciences, though they are the same sciences used by the ancient jurists? Why do you charge modern scholarship as revisionism? What does Islam lose besides the lies told by jurists and passed down as pristine scholarship as daleel, when it continues to fall short of truthful interpretation?

        Since Quran says it, and Prophet Mohammad’s authentic sunnah as both religious and governmental leader, is daleel that he never supported the later jurists’ decisions based upon ahadeeth, that there was a punishment for homosexual sexual relations. Why? Prophet Mohammad never had a legal case upon which to base a negative Sunnah against homosexual sexual relations–so explain why is it okay via ijma’ (consensus) of human interpreters to rule that a punishment is necessary? Quite simple–it’s political subterfuge using singular transmissions that breaks the rules of ahadeeth sciences–read Islamic ahadeeth history and you may see the truth for truth’s sake.

        As I stated in one of my earliest statements in this debate, It is quite simple and easy to see how jurists used/use semantics and logic were flawed, particularly through allusion–zinah for heterosexuals is the same as homosexuals sexual acts, thus the law can punish it–though the same Shari’ah did not permit marriage for homosexuals, thus making it a legal impossibility–it can never be halaal, and you think that is a “just cause for punishment.” Shows how much you dislike/hate your homosexual brothers and sisters.

        Additionally, from a Shari’ah standard of hudood, why should modern Muslims punish something that the Quran does not deem a crime? If so, is it promoting justice or imposing oppression? Tensil asked you to which side do you stand, to facilitate or to oppress believers in the Islamic faith? I see you stand on the side of oppression.

        Did not Allah’s message state the Quran is for all of humankind for all of human time. But you’re proffer the jurists have already finalized all things–as you show you’re a believer in the closing of the gates of ijtihad. Sorry, brother, but not all things for all time have been resolved. This is why, in particular this discussion on homosexuality and their sexual relationships. It’s a fallacy and such thinking is based upon a lie on its scholarly face.

        Furthermore, why have you changed the theme of the discussion, from it’s okay for homosexuals to exist, but it is the punishment of homosexual for sexual acts that we should be concerned. Rather simple thinking that Allah would create human beings as sexual beings, and homosexuals cannot express their fitra? Doesn’t sound like the Allah I worship.

        Misleading others based upon your flawed logic and misstatements shows you’re more interested in maintaining the dead religion of ahadeeth and not the living faith of Quran. Trying to allude to other issues, rather than sticking to the topic in discussion, again shows you’re grasping at threads that continue to snap and leave you slowly sinking into deeper and deeper badi’i (rhetoric) and prejudice.

        Again, are you afraid to do the study to find out for yourself that what is known by other knowledgeable scholars who do not uphold the narrowly proscribed views you hold? Your actions shows that you’re more willing to point fingers and claim innovation rather than the honorable method of debate adab to prove your points and not attack the messenger–again, ad hominem. You sound like your Saudi demigods–and it appears you think they know best.

        Enough of your game playing, hiding under the burqa of scholarship.

        Sidney

        August 15, 2010 at 5:29 pm

      • Brother Mahdi Ahmad,

        1) Classical Rabbinical authorities did not use the story of Sodom and Gomorrah for any ruling on homosexuality. Some contemporary neo-orthodox scholars might do.

        2) There was ikhtilaf both on the definition of luti as well as liwat and hence the corresponding rulings.

        3) The jurists opinion ranged all the way from punishing it as for apostasy to it not meeting any penalty even if done during the Hajj.

        4) At the Karawibi Mosque founded by Mufti Muhammad al-Kawakibi (also pioneer of the historical Kawakibiyeh madrassa in Syria), many rare manuscripts on law were lost.

        5) The Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) never ruled on same sex relationships despite having mukhannath (feminine anatomically correct men) in Medina. And despite Al Dalal’s (a mukhannath) relation with one of the men.

        6) As for the head cover, on only needs to look black and white photographs of women of our grandmother’s generation and beyond to discover that head scarf is a modern phenomenon.

        7) The point I guess I am making is that in contemporary times there has been a strong resurgence of neo-orthodoxy in Islam, a point lamented by the late Imam Zaki Badawi.

        Tensil Toes

        August 15, 2010 at 6:02 pm

      • Sidney and Tensil,

        First I will address sidney who with the ad hominem attacks and the false accusations of homophobia and worshipping saudi scholars just shows the lack of arguments that can refute my arguments, so to attack me is the first line in defense. You’re personalizing an issue that is supposed to be academic, insulting me and as well as abdul halim. And you expect people to take you seriously. Since you can’t observe decorum and you like to insult and slander those who you disagree with, I have nothing else to say to you. Even if you were right (which you’re not), how you carry yourself discredits you and make people ignore you. Once you get back to observing proper etiquette and stop personalizing an academic issue, get back to me if you want.

        Now to someone who have observed academic consistency and decorum. Tensil brings up several issues regarding classical understanding of terminology as well as fiqhi understanding on rulings. Let me address them here.

        Regarding rulings on homosexuality by rabbis, I never said that story in the bible regarding sodom and gomorrah ever lead to a ruling. There are other biblical verses that clearly condemn in far more harsher terms than anything found in the Quran and Sunnah homosexuality, so the story of Lot was just an example of a people punished for their actions and lack of belief.

        As far as defining liwaat and luti, what do lisaan al arab and other arabic lexicons say?

        Imams ash shafii, malik, ahmad, ishaq, etc have suggested that liwaat is a capital offense. The hanafis believe the punishment should be beating and if he or she repeats the act, then it is a capital offense. Most of the scholars believe that the punishment for lesbianism is much less harsh than for male on male homosexuality.

        And tell me Tensil, what was Abu Bakr’s ruling a a man who had homosexual relations?

        Mahdi Ahmad

        August 15, 2010 at 8:13 pm

  27. God,Allah,Woodan,Thor,Appollo:they simply do not exist they are all human imaginations.
    Not a single word in the Bible,Thora or Koran is from divine origin as there is no god.
    So do not rely on Biblical texts to discuss items like homosexuality.
    Rely on yourself, do and think what is reasonable.
    Some persons may look like a male but feel like a woman.Some persons look like a woman but feel themselves a man.
    It is not a disease, it is nature!
    Homosexuality is a part of nature.
    So every human being must have the possibility to mary the kind of person he likes.
    Learn to think for yourself and forget those ,oppressive and outdated religions!
    Think folks! Think!

    JJ Rousseau

    August 15, 2010 at 5:12 pm

  28. How did the Big Bang happen which created the universe out of nothing. Energy,matter, space-time where created out of nothing. According to all theory than very small piece of matter blew up. Where did it came from.

    Brian C. Hoff

    August 15, 2010 at 5:33 pm

  29. Dear Brian,
    The energy and matter of our universe was injected trough a black hole from another ( collapsed)universe.
    There are many many other universes.
    All energy and matter has always existed, it was never created. It has no begin and no end.It is difficult for us to understand but that is the truth.
    There is an unknowable supreme mind but this has nothing to do with the human invented God or Allah.
    We are part of that supreme mind.
    The classic religions all speak about a creator at one side and the created at the other side.That is wrong.
    Everything is connected and part of an eternal unity.

    JJ.Rousseau

    August 15, 2010 at 7:48 pm

  30. Salaams Tensil Toes,

    1) The Biblical story of Lot (Sodom) is not about homosexuality and the Bible (especially the book of Ezekiel) is clear that it isn’t. But also, it makes sense that the rabbis wouldn’t focus on the story of Lot because the sexual rules in Leviticus make the issue clear.

    5) Where do you get your information about Al-Dalal? I don’t think he was a companion, he was from later times so of course the prophet (saaws) wouldn’t have ruled on him either way.

    The Wikipedia page for Mukhannath links to a pdf for “The Effeminates of Early Medina” by Everett K. Rowson which has some interesting things.

    There were “effeminates” during the time of the prophet who had no interest in women and had a role in society. But the same article also says that in several cases such people were banished or even cursed by the prophet.

    There is no indication that homosexual acts are sanctioned by the prophet and Rowson is clear that “Both the Qur’an and the hadith strongly condemn
    homosexual activity”

    abdul-halim

    August 15, 2010 at 9:33 pm

    • 1) Leviticus uses the word abomination in 18:22, as it uses it for eating shellfish, trimming beards, mixing fibers in clothing… Maimonides (Ibn Rushd’s counterpart in the Jewish world) equated homosexual acts with the hybridization of cattle.

      2) I stand corrected on Al Dalal, the wiki article calls him a contemporary of the Prophet (upon whom be peace).

      3) The words luti and liwat were made specific by jurists, they did not have a specific meaning at the Companions’ time. The word ‘luti’ was viewed negatively by some, and positively by other Companions (ala Musannaf Abdul Razzaq). Lisan Al Arab would refer to later usage when the jurists had given the words concrete meaning.

      4) Imam Malik equates it with apostasy on the authority of the previous Medinan authority Ibn Shihab and hence the penalty. Both Shafis and Hanbalis contested this.

      5) Imam Shafi and Hanbal used ‘qiyas’ and equated it with Zina. Qiyas (analogy) is the most disputable branch of Fiqh.

      6) Imam Shafi had two sets of opinions in his life on this issue. He also quotes in Kitab ul Umm that an earlier jurist mentioned that there is no penalty on this. Imam Shafi’s followers took the penalty view.

      7) Hanafis and Zahiris strongly contested the tradition of Malik and the qiyas of Shafi/Hanbalis. They fell back to the accepted classical definition of Zina and used qiyas to throw in all other sexual acts as minor misdemeanours other than vaginal intercourse which remained a capital offense (out of concern for illegitimate orphans).

      8) Most classical authorities (irrespective of madhab) assumed consent for a woman and assumed non-consent for a male and operated with this view. Both Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Ibn Taymmiah (Hanbali) are clear on this.

      9) The narrative of Abu Bar is weak. When analyzed in its entirety (supplementing with other traditions) we know that ‘Fuj’a’ (name means pouncing lion) was burned during the Ridda Wars. He was an apostate and highway robber. Much later, he was mocked as a person suffering from ubnah (passive homosexuality).

      10) Qiyas is always disputed as scholars cannot agree on the underlying illah (cause) as is evident above. later scholars at Al Azhar disagreed with all of the above.

      11) Scholars can over rule even clear rulings at times based on istislah (Maliki), istihsan (Hanafi)or maslaha mursalah (Shatibi) or other tools at their disposal. One such in contemporary times has been the permissibility given to interest based mortgages by the European Council for Fatwa and Research, despite the fact that Ribba is forbidden in the Quran.

      Tensil Toes

      August 15, 2010 at 11:18 pm

      • Even the Koran command that limited men to 4 wife only can be put aside temp like it there is 20 women to each men untril the balance is restore between the sexes. After the 30 year war in Germany there was than law on the book that limit men to one wife only that law was overlook and not enforce when there where more women who needed than man to care for then even it meant they have to share the men that where left.

        Brian C. Hoff

        August 16, 2010 at 5:33 pm

  31. Tensil,

    Arabic lexicons mention liwaat as meaning homosexuality and the reason for the etymology is that the people of Lot engaged in homosexual acts. They were also engaged in other debauchery but you will never hear for example a highway robber being called a luti, although the people of Lot engaged in highway robbery.

    Even if qiyas was disputed as a source in usul al fiqh, scholars in Islam viewed liwaat as a sexual act outside what was permissible. I can’t find one scholar who didn’t accept qiyas that would insist that homosexual sex wasn’t haraam. As I said before, the main issue amongst scholars was the punishment for liwaat which varies as well all know.

    Regarding maslaha mursalah, istihsan, etc those are more disputed than qiyas. This is because sometimes they contradict clear evidence in the Quran and sunnah (like RIBA), and benefit or intuition isn’t enough to override Islamic rulings. Qiyas isn’t that much disputed in usul al fiqh; ijmaa is more disputed than qiyas because like you mentioned before, there isn’t consensus on consensus.

    Mahdi Ahmad

    August 16, 2010 at 12:24 am

  32. 1) The details may vary but according to the Hanafis trimming ones beard and eating shellfish are also haram or at least makruh. In terms of the back and forth here, I’m not certain what is “at stake” with mentioning the Torah.

    2) Ok.

    3) Could you give an example of a “positive” use of the term “luti” by the Companions?

    4)- 8) I’m not sure what is the overall point you are making here. Also, at times it is unclear what “it” “this” and “they” you are referring to exactly. Big picture is that the four main classical schools say homosexual acts are haram. Most (all but the Hanafis) include them under zina. The Hanafis still say homosexual acts are haram but don’t consider it liable to hadd. As for the Zahiris, even though some modern academics say that Ibn Hazem himself may have been a (chaste) homosexual, even he doesn’t rule that such acts are permissible. Like the Hanafis, the Zahiris say they aren’t hadd crimes, but still haram and worthy of punishment.

    So my question to you is what is your position in relation to this “big picture”? What do you think the Islamic position on these issues really is, preferably taking into account the various ayat, hadith?

    11) Sure. But the use of those other principles is regulated by the rules of each madhab or a particular scholar who has developed a particular methodology regarding usul al-fiqh.

    Maybe you can’t help but give ad hoc responses to questions from multiple people with possibly multiple frames of reference. But ultimately, if you want to be serious you have to give a particular methodology.

    But there is a challenge. If you make up your own madhab where homosexual acts are halal I suppose you can do that but then you marginalize your opinions from the rest of the Muslim community.

    You seem to be referring to classical scholars but I’m not sure if you are actually treating them as authorities?

    Also it is not clear how you view hadith?

    abdul-halim

    August 16, 2010 at 4:54 am

  33. @ Mahdi. The beauty of living in the West is the freedom everyone has to believe as they choose, and to live their faith as they will. I do not bow to the fumings of men. I’m here to proffer opinions based on Quran. How you thought I am here to convince you or Abdul-halim of something goes far beyond the purpose of this forum. Worrying whether you agreed or disagreed with my opinions, or the opinions of other scholars who agree or disagree with your conclusions, was not the subject of the original commentary. I can clearly state, Shari’ah is neither all powerful nor sacrosanct–Allah holds that title and assesses His creation best.

    Allah asks each person to seek a personal iqraa moment to understand His message of truth and mercy. I do not need your approval nor the approval of others to support Allah’s truths available to those who seek them. On the day of Judgment humankind’s traditions shall be of no import, and we all shall see who receives Allah’s wrath and Allah’s mercy.

    Ending this conversation is a blessing, and my prayer for all, may our Ramadan fast be successful.

    Sidney

    August 16, 2010 at 4:57 am

  34. Brother Mahdi Ahmad,

    1) The Companions used the word ‘act(s) of the Tribe of Lut’ (amal qaum Lut). Terms like luti, liwat are later juristic creations. The weak Abu Bakr tradition sheds some light on how the Companions viewed the crime. Later jurists specified it to exclusively refer it to anal sex.

    2) Al Kawakibi was a Hanafi scholar, Shihab Al Din Ramli (applied some kind of maslaha on a homosexual kiss), Abd al baqi Zurqani (repentance is not required on lamam (non penetrative acts), Shaykh Hafni (Rector of Al Azhar records the opinions of Hanafi scholars who legitimized liwat in Jannah).

    3) The more profound scholars have the maqasid of Shariah in mind as opposed to strict qiyas based derived rules. In modern times Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida apart from Fazlur Rahman have been key proponents of this maslaha based methodolgy. Btw orthodox scholar Shaykh Qaradawi is the head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research.

    *********

    Brother Abdul Halim,

    1) Just from the shell fish example one notes that the same act is considered forbidden by some and permissible by others. That is a huge difference of opinion which mars many issues dealt by Islamic Fiqh.

    2) Early on, ‘Luti’ also referred to the handful steadfast followers of the Prophet Lut. Later jurists made it exclusively refer to those perpetrating anal sex.

    3) Imam Malik does not equate liwat with the act with Zina as done by Shafis and Hanbalis. He creates a separate category for it on par with apostasy.

    4) My personal position is in the very first post I posted here, the rest is mere reference work.

    *******

    I think we have all reached the point where we will just have to agree to disagree. I will end with the following quotes:

    When the scholars find out that their decisions are causing lots of suffering, or that people are looking for worse loopholes than the actual prohibition, or that people end up living in the Haram, then it is time for the scholars to think again about their conclusions ~ Imam Ibn Taymmiah

    “I am convinced about the veracity of my opinions, but I do consider it likely that they may turn out to be incorrect. Likewise, I am convinced about the incorrectness of the views different from mine, but I do concede the possibility that they may turn out to be correct.” — Imam Shafa’i

    “We know this position is one opinion, and it is the best we can arrive at, but if someone arrives at a different view, then he adopts what he believes is best and we adopt what we believe is best” – Imam Abu Hanifa

    Facilitate and do not cause difficulties and do not cause people to detest (the Islamic law), but treat people like brothers ~ The Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace)

    Because with the difficulty there is a facility. Verily with difficulty there is a facility ~ (94:5-6)

    **********

    fi aman allah

    Tensil Toes

    August 16, 2010 at 6:46 am

    • Brother Abdul Halim,

      This discussion was focused on Fiqh.

      My email is tensiltoes@hotmail.com. Please feel free to remain in touch should you ever wish to do a to and fro on the Quranic verses and Hadith part on this issue.

      May Allah Bless you,
      wassalam.

      Tensil Toes

      August 16, 2010 at 7:04 am

    • Hello friend Tensil Toes,
      Do you have also a personal opinion or comments and arguments for or against same sex marriage?
      I mean: all you write is is secondhand, it is the opinion of others: scolars, the Koran, the Hadith, the Bible aso.
      Are you able to think critical for yourself?
      Are you that sure that everything written in the “Holy books” is true???
      Think for yourself my fiend!

      JJ Rousseau

      August 16, 2010 at 9:12 am

  35. [Snarf]
    Clearly, sperm is emitted and eggs are ovulated for any purpose *other* than reproduction. We know, of course, that we can wholly separate ourselves from the reasons that God created sex in the first place. Its all about the pleasure and all about the self, never ever has anything to so with Nature. God created homosexuals, but God would never create sex just for icky reproduction that those smug heterosexuals engage in.
    [/End Snarf]

    OmarG

    August 16, 2010 at 1:56 pm

  36. Attractive section of content. I just stumbled upon your web site and in accession capital to assert that I get actually enjoyed account your blog posts. Anyway I?ll be subscribing to your augment and even I success you get entry to consistently rapidly.

  37. subhanALLAH. too many shaitans here wanting to manipulate muslims minds and the words of Allah(swt). woe unto them. woe unto them. same sex marriage is indeed haram in islam. it was clearly mentioned in Quran.
    “Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant! (The Noble Quran, 27:55)”

    “And (remember) Lut: behold, he said to his people: “Ye do commit lewdness, such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you. “Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway?- and practise wickedness (even) in your councils?” But his people gave no answer but this: they said: “Bring us the Wrath of God if thou tellest the truth.” (The Noble Quran, 29:28-29)”

    If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or God ordain for them some (other) way. (The Noble Quran, 4:15)

    “If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for God is Oft-returning, Most Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 4:16)”

    “We also (sent) Lut: He said to his people: “Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? (The Noble Quran, 7:80)”

    For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women: Ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds. (The Noble Quran, 7:81)”

    “(We also sent) Lut (as an apostle): behold, He said to his people, “Do ye do what is shameful though ye see (its iniquity)? (The Noble Quran, 27:54)”

    Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant! (The Noble Quran, 27:55)”

    by the will of Allah(swt) you shaitans cannot change his words nor you can manipulate them. if you think you are better than islamic scholars then your intentions are very wrong. most authentic hadith book sahih muslim

    ikhlas

    November 28, 2012 at 11:22 pm

  38. sahih muslim . the most authentic hadith book. “A man should not see the private parts of another man, and a woman should not see the private parts of another woman, and a man should not lie with another man under one covering, and a woman should not lie with another woman under one covering. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0667)”

    “Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant! (The Noble Quran, 27:55)”

    “And (remember) Lut: behold, he said to his people: “Ye do commit lewdness, such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you. “Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway?- and practise wickedness (even) in your councils?” But his people gave no answer but this: they said: “Bring us the Wrath of God if thou tellest the truth.” (The Noble Quran, 29:28-29)

    “We also (sent) Lut: He said to his people: “Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? (The Noble Quran, 7:80)”

    “For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women: Ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds. (The Noble Quran, 7:81)”

    “(We also sent) Lut (as an apostle): behold, He said to his people, “Do ye do what is shameful though ye see (its iniquity)? (The Noble Quran, 27:54)”

    “Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant! (The Noble Quran, 27:55)”

    “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or God ordain for them some (other) way. (The Noble Quran, 4:15)”

    it is clear that same sex marriages and sexual relationships between same sex are prohibited and cursed in Quran. surely you cannot change the ayats of ALLAH(swt) nor you shaitans can manipulate them. you shaitans are corrupters in islam playing dirty games to corrupt muslims and change the law of ALLAH(swt) .then again you will not and you cannot do that by the will of ALLAH(swt) . you plan and ALLAH(swt) will plan too. HE is most cunning. islam will prevail no matter what your propagandas are just like you learned in history. inshALLAH. if you are munafiq and go against the ayat of Allah(swt) then hell is your place.

    this is not christianity which you can mess with. this is islam. the message of ALLAH(swt) is clear. and it will be always clear. alahamdhillah.

    ikhlas

    November 28, 2012 at 11:44 pm

    • Ikhlas,salaam. Couple of years late aren’t you on the conversation? Nonetheless, attempting to use the Lut story to discuss homosexuality is like using tribal traditions to explain Quran…just won’t fit. Nice try, but alas a fail. Don’t let your emotions overwhelm you, Allah is the final determiner, so don’t worry your head about it, okay. We will know on the day of Judgment, right? Enjoy your holiday season, salaam.

      Sidney

      December 6, 2012 at 1:26 pm

  39. The question is asked from the writer in his article: “If Muslims are not allowed in Islam to be in same sex unions or marriages, can we as Muslims still support same sex marriages for non-Muslims? Would doing so be part of the Islamic principle of “enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong”?

    The issue is support re: same sex marriages for “non-Muslims” here. Those of us who live in the west live totally under laws which are not based in Islam. We live here under these laws of our own free will. They govern our daily lives. We also benefit greatly from these laws.

    Re: “enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong” – what really is the question here? As Islam opposes the homosexual act and not the person for being homosexual, opposing the validation of the “act” (via marriage) is what is deemed to be forbidding the wrong.

    It is more complex than that. The question is a legal one, not one of moral preferences – especially when it affects non-Muslims who are not subject to the same limitations that Muslims are. Wishing to impose our preference on others (based on our belief) is similar to non-Muslims who want to impose what Muslims should or should not be permitted to do – based on their own beliefs. This is a perilous circle.

    Certainly, U.S. laws have changed over time to envelope civil or equal rights. Many of the changes to marriage laws that we take for granted – are the ones we also benefit from. A few examples – dating back several decades, which shows progression in marriage law:

    - All women acquire their husband’s nationality upon any marriage (just think of all the Muslims who received American citizenship with this one).

    - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting interracial couples from marrying. (A crime in the past punishable by life imprisonment).

    - Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception. (Yes, it was illegal at one point to use birth control – no doubt directly affecting women’s lives).

    In the distant past, immigration from Asia was banned, including wives and children of Asian Americans already here, favoring northern and western European (white) immigrants instead. Of course this has been overturned. These are examples of allowing what is fair and just.

    What is fair and just? Supporting same-sex marriage offers homosexual couples the same rights that heterosexual couples have including:

    Next-of-kin status (extremely important), benefits, supplementary security income, medicaid, tax benefits, bereavement leave, property rights, legal status with step children, right of survivorship of custodial trust, right to inheritance, spousal privilege in court and many, many more rights.

    When we consider “enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong” – we must think beyond the homosexual act and consider how our protests will affect the legal positions of others.

    This is especially disheartening when one gay partner is in the hospital and his partner has no rights to even visit him due to lack of legal footing. The patient’s next of kin would be his family and not his partner.

    We may be thankful that pre-existing laws which defined who we can marry, limit us by our race, attempt to plan the number of children in our family – have changed to our benefit. Many of the laws were initially carved by people who felt whites should not marry “inferior” races, or they did not want to promote minorities from having families here etc. The progession of law have ridden us of all this.

    The need for compassion, fairness and equality under the law must override views inbedded in religion. Especially when the extremely serious issue of legal rights or it’s deprivation for others are in question. A belief based on (any) religion should not interfere within a secular justice system – the same system which gives us the right to freedom of religion.

    We should be thankful for the rights we have (hard fought to overturn unjust situations), we should not support the continuation of prejudice against others (homosexual or otherwise) by attempting to deny them their full rights under the law. This does not mean that we cannot hold our religious beliefs (of course we can) – only that we do not prevent others from gaining and accessing their legal rights.

    Sarah

    December 6, 2012 at 6:46 pm

    • Islam doesnot treach that we could go around murdering homosexual foer being homosexual only. Unless they rape than minor or than unwilling adult then throw the law at then.. Most homosexual have no touble understand than homosexual who does just act being purment for then as they consider it than crime also.

      Brian C. Hoff

      December 6, 2012 at 10:46 pm

    • Sarah, salaam. Thank you for your erudite statements and helps draw the veil away from the faces of those who are blindly associated with things that go bump in the night…bogeymen and zombies…oh, sorry, jinn. Not sure why numerous Muslims cannot appreciate their freedoms in the West are balanced by additional freedoms for others that may not “meet with their ‘particular and peculiar” ways of seeing things, even by other Muslims from different places other than Hijaz or the Subcontinent. Again, thanks for putting it so clearly and I hope it gives them something to really think deeply without knee-jerk reactions. Salaam.

      Sidney

      December 7, 2012 at 2:27 am

  40. Sidney: Thanks for appreciating what I wrote. Discussions should be reality-based, which has direct consequences on the lives of others. Theoretical suppositions are difficult to apply.

    An example of religious interference occured when influential right-wing Christians in the U.S. curbed stem cell research under Pres GW Bush’s administration this past decade. Based on their religious belief that human embryos (blastocyst) were “persons” and could not be used for medical advancement. This directly had negative implications on disabled/paralysed patients as stem cell research/treatment could have greatly improved their health.

    Under the banner of Christian belief (by those who professed this particular interpretation – not all Christians) – choosing to protect a few dozen microscopic cells i.e. “protection of human life” over attending to the needs of suffering people with severe medical conditions displayed a shocking abuse of religion.

    The deprivation of treatment which could have helped the sick had legal ramifications – even more ignorant. Fortunately Pres Obama overturned the ban of stem cell research in 2009.

    A prime situation where the religious beliefs of one group was forced upon the general population – including people of different faiths or no faith. The end result was clear and lacked a very important religious component – mercy for the sick.

    Sarah

    December 7, 2012 at 6:13 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 658 other followers

%d bloggers like this: