Lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender identities in Islam

Filan

It isn't my intention to offend or cause controversy here...but as we live in a society where people of such identities exist,both inside and outside of Islam,do you feel that Islam can accommodate such people within it's faith and accept the existence of such outside?. There is Gay Islamic Organisations who argue that Islam isn't homophobic, others say that the Prophet p.b.u.h. interacted with the Eunch. In terms of peaceful co-existence , as mentioned previously, accommodation with, or at least some form of agreement to differ, in contemporary society, would be desirable....if possible...how do others here see it evolving. I hope this can be an intellectual and respectful discussion.:)

heavyballs

Filan wrote: »

It isn't my intention to offend or cause controversy here...but as we live in a society where people of such identities exist,both inside and outside of Islam,do you feel that Islam can accommodate such people within it's faith and accept the existence of such outside?. There is Gay Islamic Organisations who argue that Islam isn't homophobic, others say that the Prophet p.b.u.h. interacted with the Eunch. In terms of peaceful co-existence , as mentioned previously, accommodation with, or at least some form of agreement to differ, in contemporary society, would be desirable....if possible...how do others here see it evolving. I hope this can be an intellectual and respectful discussion.:)

i don't know a hell of a lot about Islam,all iknow is my bro is gay and my irish sister and her muslim husband won't allow him in their house,i'm not religious in any way at all but everything bar the no alcohol rule is wrong and out of touch with reality..,i memtion the alcohol because it's a curse and has ruined many lives directly and indirectly

irishconvert

Muslims believe pretty much the same thing as Christians do, i.e. it is not a sin to be homosexual but it is a sin to act on it. It is not up to us as Muslims to judge anybody, that is God's job.

imported_guy

irishconvert wrote: »

Muslims believe pretty much the same thing as Christians do, i.e. it is not a sin to be homosexual but it is a sin to act on it. It is not up to us as Muslims to judge anybody, that is God's job.

right..... post a source when you post something like this, the next time, shows how much you really know...., its a sin even to think about adultry i.e"think of sexy thoughts" as homer simpson said let alone homosexuality.

islam is pretty much as homophobic as it gets, i used to be a muslim, and i am still homophobic even though i consider my self athiest now, sodom and goomrah anyone? story of "Lut"?

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

mcmoustache

Christianity and Islam are both pretty homophobic. I think that both their holy books are quite clear that this should be so. There are, however, many christians who don't take their holy book literally (eg catholics and anglicans who interpret) and this allows the faith to adapt to the times. They pick and choose the bits they like and ignore the crazy stuff. Muslims and presbyterians, though, need to take their respective holy books literally and this doesn't leave any room for tolerating homosexuality and never will. If it does, it will no longer be islam or presbyterianism.

irishconvert

imported_guy wrote: »

right..... post a source when you post something like this, the next time, shows how much you really know...., its a sin even to think about adultry i.e"think of sexy thoughts" as homer simpson said let alone homosexuality.

Why don't you then post a source to back up what you say? What I have been thought, read and watched in many lectures is that even if you have an intention to do something wrong (e.g. to murder someone, commit adultery) and you don't carry it out, then you have done no wrong and there is no punishment.

wes

irishconvert wrote: »

Why don't you then post a source to back up what you say? What I have been thought, read and watched in many lectures is that even if you have an intention to do something wrong (e.g. to murder someone, commit adultery) and you don't carry it out, then you have done no wrong and there is no punishment.

Yeah, this is the way I was taught as well.

Mark Hamill

irishconvert wrote: »

Why don't you then post a source to back up what you say? What I have been thought, read and watched in many lectures is that even if you have an intention to do something wrong (e.g. to murder someone, commit adultery) and you don't carry it out, then you have done no wrong and there is no punishment.

Probably just being pedantic, but should that not be "even if you have an intention to do something wrong (e.g. to murder someone, commit adultery) and you don't attempt to carry it out, then you have done no wrong"? Surely its wrong to try to murder someone, even if you fail out of inneptness or missed opportunity?

Manic Moran

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Surely its wrong to try to murder someone, even if you fail out of inneptness or missed opportunity?

Although a bit of an aside, I've always complained about the differences in sentencing between murder and attempted murder. It's not as if you have any difference in intent, just either the other guy was good, lucky, or you were an idiot.

NTM

irishconvert

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Probably just being pedantic, but should that not be "even if you have an intention to do something wrong (e.g. to murder someone, commit adultery) and you don't attempt to carry it out, then you have done no wrong"? Surely its wrong to try to murder someone, even if you fail out of inneptness or missed opportunity?

I am not taking about actually attempting to commit the murder. What meant is if you get an idea in your head and decide you are going to murder somebody but you think it over and a few days later change your mind and decide not to do it.

Mark Hamill

irishconvert wrote: »

I am not taking about actually attempting to commit the murder. What meant is if you get an idea in your head and decide you are going to murder somebody but you think it over and a few days later change your mind and decide not to do it.

Yeah thats what I thought Thanks

imported_guy

irishconvert wrote: »

Why don't you then post a source to back up what you say? What I have been thought, read and watched in many lectures is that even if you have an intention to do something wrong (e.g. to murder someone, commit adultery) and you don't carry it out, then you have done no wrong and there is no punishment.

i posted a source, look it up...? its a very well known story in christianity/islam that a city got wiped out cuz people were putting their genitals in the wrong place

irishconvert

imported_guy wrote: »

i posted a source, look it up...? its a very well known story in christianity/islam that a city got wiped out cuz people were putting their genitals in the wrong place

You posted a link to the story of Lut to back up your point which was

imported_guy wrote: »

its a sin even to think about adultry

I can't see anything in that story that backs up your point. Maybe I am missing it. Can you clarify please?

Filan

I find it both sad and amusing that Iran, a country where homosexuality is punishable by death has the second highest rate of gender reassignment in the world....second only to Thailand.

irishconvert

Filan wrote: »

I find it both sad and amusing that Iran, a country where homosexuality is punishable by death has the second highest rate of gender reassignment in the world....second only to Thailand.

Filan, this forum is for discussing Islam, not issues relating to the laws of any particular country. Please take that to Politics or some other relevant forum.

Thanks.

imported_guy

irishconvert wrote: »

You posted a link to the story of Lut to back up your point which was

homosexuality in abrhamic religions

irishconvert wrote: »

I can't see anything in that story that backs up your point. Maybe I am missing it. Can you clarify please?

it wasnt a refernce to support that comment, its just a well known fact, it was towards homosexuality

heres the reference if you are looking for, i.e. lust (thinking of commiting adultery/homosexuality etc)

"Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve (Surah 4:135)."

As Abu Hurairah reports in Sahih Muslim, the Prophet said, "The fornication of the eyes is to look with lust; the fornication of the tongue is to speak lustful things; the fornication of the hands is to touch with lust; the fornication of the feet is to walk towards lust; the fornication of the heart is to desire evil."

read the rest here http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2002/08/Is-Lust-Only-Natural.aspx?p=4

Filan

Irish Convert I want to discuss lgbt identities in Islam, it's virtualy impossible to do so without at some stage making reference to laws in certain lands.....

ChocolateSauce

Social progress on issues which are explicitly condemned in a religion cannot be made within the context of that religion, only out of it. ie, the more liberal a country, the less religious.

Filan

I find it a very interesting and contemporarily relevant topic. Although Christianity and Islam purport to be opposed to homosexuality and gender variance, there is lgbt groupings within both who interpret their religion in such as a way that it accommodates their identity. I suppose every text can be read in many different ways. Society needs to accommodate it's diverse elements.

Indonesia recently opened it's first ever mosque specific for Transsexuals.

imported_guy

Filan wrote: »

I find it a very interesting and contemporarily relevant topic. Although Christianity and Islam purport to be opposed to homosexuality and gender variance, there is lgbt groupings within both who interpret their religion in such as a way that it accommodates their identity. I suppose every text can be read in many different ways. Society needs to accommodate it's diverse elements.

Indonesia recently opened it's first ever mosque specific for Transsexuals.

some people take their imagination and interpretations too far

like church of scientology

if you are interpreting your doing it wrong

quran and hadith have clear instructions on what to do and what not to do.

Filan

Your probably right imported guy, regardless we all share this planet, it's in all our interests to do so in a respectful and peaceful way, nobody really wants conflict. All human beings innate instincts are good I believe.

irishconvert

imported_guy wrote: »

"Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve (Surah 4:135)."

That quote has been taken out of context. It does not refer to homosexuality or lust. You need to read the whole verse:

O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well- acquainted with all that ye do.(Surah 4:135 - Yusul Ali translation)

Bear in mind that the words in brackets are the translators own additions and are not the words of the Qur'an.

Here is a different translation from http://al-quraan.org/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&cPath=4_8&products_id=60:

O believers! Stand firm for justice and bear true witness for the sake of Allah, even though it be against yourselves, your parents or your relatives. It does not matter whether the party is rich or poor - Allah is well wisher of both. So let not your selfish desires swerve you from justice. If you distort your testimony or decline to give it, then you should remember that Allah is fully aware of your actions.[4:135]

imported_guy

irishconvert wrote: »

That quote has been taken out of context. It does not refer to homosexuality or lust. You need to read the whole verse:



Bear in mind that the words in brackets are the translators own additions and are not the words of the Qur'an.

Here is a different translation from http://al-quraan.org/index.php?main_page=document_general_info&cPath=4_8&products_id=60:

i wasnt adressing homosexuality this time i was providing you with a reference to why lustful thoughts are a sin because you asked for it , so the quote isnt out of context, in arabic one word can have like 10 different meaninings, and different translators will interpret differently, so what is to say that your one is correct and mine is wrong?

and i actully provided 2 references.

irishconvert

imported_guy wrote: »

i wasnt adressing homosexuality this time i was providing you with a reference to why lustful thoughts are a sin because you asked for it , so the quote isnt out of context, in arabic one word can have like 10 different meaninings, and different translators will interpret differently, so what is to say that your one is correct and mine is wrong?

and i actully provided 2 references.

But the verse you provided doesn't refer to lust. The whole verse is about justice. You (or the website you were looking at) can't quote one line from a verse totally out of context and claim it refers to lust.

As for the hadith you included I am not familiar with it or the authenticity of it but I will get back to you on it when I have asked someone else.

philologos

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Social progress on issues which are explicitly condemned in a religion cannot be made within the context of that religion, only out of it. ie, the more liberal a country, the less religious.

Progress - Not all of us hold the same definition of progress as you do.

Liberalism - Not all of us hold the idea that the more liberal a society is the better it is. Rather reasonable constraints and limits tend to be required.

Why should your definition of progress prevail over other reasonable versions of progress merely because it is sourced from a non-religious point of view?

imported_guy

irishconvert wrote: »

But the verse you provided doesn't refer to lust. The whole verse is about justice. You (or the website you were looking at) can't quote one line from a verse totally out of context and claim it refers to lust.

As for the hadith you included I am not familiar with it or the authenticity of it but I will get back to you on it when I have asked someone else.

ok i will find you other references just to confirm you want me to reference my comment on LUSTFUL thoughts being a sin right? unless i am mistaken or my english is that crap, lust can be for money, women, homosexuality etc etc so my earlier quote wasnt out of context its just how you interpret it

i will edit this with reference

quran chapter 2 verse 284

http://www.muftisays.com/qa/question/2616/lustful-thoughts.html

more comming


Sahih International: To Allah belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. Whether you show what is within yourselves or conceal it, Allah will bring you to account for it. Then He will forgive whom He wills and punish whom He wills, and Allah is over all things competent.

*my interpertation* so you will be accounted for your lustful/adultrous thoughts atleast (even if you show them or keep it to yourself *conceal it*) if not homosexual (dont see how this wouldnt fall into the first catagory)

How shaytan works:
(1) gives you a passing thought
(2) which then becomes an idea
(3) which then becomes an intention
(4) which then becomes a will
(5) which then becomes an action
but it doesn't stop there...shaytan will continue to lead you on until:
(6) becomes a habit (at which point the heart is black and hard)

hivizman

irishconvert wrote: »

But the verse you provided doesn't refer to lust. The whole verse is about justice. You (or the website you were looking at) can't quote one line from a verse totally out of context and claim it refers to lust.

As for the hadith you included I am not familiar with it or the authenticity of it but I will get back to you on it when I have asked someone else.

The hadith is indeed in Sahih Muslim - it's in Kitab al-Qadr (Book 33), Number 86. On the USC-MSA database, it's hadith number 033-6422. The translation given there is as follows:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying. Allah fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge in. There would be no escape from it. The adultery of the eye is the lustful look and the adultery of the ears is listening to voluptuous (song or talk) and the adultery of the tongue is licentious speech and the adultery of the hand is the lustful grip (embrace) and the adultery of the feet is to walk (to the place) where he intends to commit adultery and the heart yearns and desires which he may or may not put into effect.

A transliteration of original Arabic for the passage from "the adultery of the eye . . ." to ". . . is to walk" is as follows:

Al-'aynaani zinaahum an-nazharu, wa'l-udhnaani zinaahum al-istimaa'u, wa'l-lisaanu zinaahu al-kalaamu, wa'l-yadu zinaaha al-batshu, wa'r-rijlu zinaaha al-khutaa.

I'm with irishconvert on the translation of Surah an-Nisa' 4:135: The word that Yusuf Ali (and also Muhsin Khan) translates as "lusts" is rendered by Muhammad Asad as "desires", by Abdel Haleem as "desire", by Marmaduke Pickthall, and by Dawood, as "passion", by Arberry as "caprice", and by Khalidi as "whims". The general sense of the verse is that we should strive to maintain justice, without favour to either rich or poor, even if this means going against our personal or family interests. We are enjoined to avoid following our personal inclinations because of the risk that this will lead us to deviate from justice. It's not specifically about lust in a sexual sense.

imported_guy

hivizman wrote: »

I'm with irishconvert on the translation of Surah an-Nisa' 4:135: The word that Yusuf Ali (and also Muhsin Khan) translates as "lusts" is rendered by Muhammad Asad as "desires", by Abdel Haleem as "desire", by Marmaduke Pickthall, and by Dawood, as "passion", by Arberry as "caprice", and by Khalidi as "whims". The general sense of the verse is that we should strive to maintain justice, without favour to either rich or poor, even if this means going against our personal or family interests. We are enjoined to avoid following our personal inclinations because of the risk that this will lead us to deviate from justice. It's not specifically about lust in a sexual sense.

thanks alot for clearing this up, i always thought you could lust for money/luxury etc etc, not just women/sexuality and thats why i wanted him to clear it up a bit

hivizman

irishconvert wrote: »

Why don't you then post a source to back up what you say? What I have been thought, read and watched in many lectures is that even if you have an intention to do something wrong (e.g. to murder someone, commit adultery) and you don't carry it out, then you have done no wrong and there is no punishment.

The authority for this is a widely-reported tradition (it appears in Bukhari and Muslim, and is one of Imam An-Nawawi's famous collection of 40 hadiths). Here is the version from Bukhari, as translated by Muhsin Khan:

Volume 8, Book 76, Number 498:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

The Prophet narrating about his Lord said, "Allah ordered (the appointed angels over you) that the good and the bad deeds be written, and He then showed (the way) how (to write). If somebody intends to do a good deed and he does not do it, then Allah will write for him a full good deed (in his account with Him); and if he intends to do a good deed and actually did it, then Allah will write for him (in his account) with Him (its reward equal) from ten to seven hundred times to many more times: and if somebody intended to do a bad deed and he does not do it, then Allah will write a full good deed (in his account) with Him, and if he intended to do it (a bad deed) and actually did it, then Allah will write one bad deed (in his account) ."

Muslim reports the tradition as follows (translated by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui)

Book 001, Number 0235:

Abu Huraira reported that Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), said: When it occurs to my bondsman that he should do a good deed but he actually does not do it, record one good to him, but if he puts it into practice, I make an entry of ten good acts in his favour. When it occurs to him to do evil, but he does not commit it, I forgive that. But if he commits it, I record one evil against his name. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) observed. The angels said: That bondsman of Yours intends to commit evil. though His Lord is more Vigilant than he. Upon this He (the Lord) said: Watch him; if he commits (evil), write it against his name but if he refrains from doing it, write one good deed or him, for he desisted from doing it for My sake. The Messenger of Allah said: He who amongst you is good of faith, all his good acts are multiplied from ten to seven hundred times (and are recorded in his name) and all the evils that he commits are recorded as such (i.e. without increase) till he meets Allah.

Muslim gives another version on the authority of Abu Huraira and a further version on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas.

I'm interested to note that there is a reward for just thinking about doing something good, even if you don't actually do it. Also, if you think about something evil but then refrain from it for the sake of Allah, you are rewarded. I think, though, that the key words are "for the sake of Allah". If you have evil thoughts, even if you don't act on them, this will be counted against you unless you make the effort to give up the thoughts. Lust, whether for power, money, status, sex or anything else that goes beyond the acceptable (possibly the word "lust", which has shifted meaning over the centuries from meaning "strong desire" to " inappropriate, even depraved, desire", implies that the desire is excessive) would be regarded as sinful. Indeed, in the extreme case there is a danger that the object of lust is set up as a rival to God and is effectively worshipped, thus leading one into shirk.

imported_guy

hivizman wrote: »

I'm interested to note that there is a reward for just thinking about doing something good, even if you don't actually do it. Also, if you think about something evil but then refrain from it for the sake of Allah, you are rewarded. I think, though, that the key words are "for the sake of Allah". If you have evil thoughts, even if you don't act on them, this will be counted against you unless you make the effort to give up the thoughts. Lust, whether for power, money, status, sex or anything else that goes beyond the acceptable (possibly the word "lust", which has shifted meaning over the centuries from meaning "strong desire" to " inappropriate, even depraved, desire", implies that the desire is excessive) would be regarded as sinful. Indeed, in the extreme case there is a danger that the object of lust is set up as a rival to God and is effectively worshipped, thus leading one into shirk.

Great reply, this is what i was trying to get on to.

irishconvert

hivizman, that is exactly what I was trying to say, thanks!

imported_guy, I accept your point about lustful thoughts.

So I think we agree that if anyone (straight or homosexual) is having lustful thoughts it is not good and something they should try to refrain from. However if someone is born homosexual, and doesn't act on it, then they are commiting no sin.

hivizman

Here's an example of what I believe to be a fairly orthodox view about homosexual practices among Muslims. It comes from Yusuf al-Qaradawi's book The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam (Al-Halal wal Haram fil Islam). Al-Qaradawi is considered to be a moderate conservative - he is the president of the European Council for Fatwa and Research.

The spread of this depraved practice in a society disrupts its natural life pattern and makes those who practice it slaves to their lusts, depriving them of decent taste, decent morals, and a decent manner of living. The story of the people of the prophet Lut (Lot) as narrated in the Qur'an should be sufficient for us. Lut's people were addicted to this shameless depravity, abandoning natural, pure, lawful relations with women in the pursuit of this unnatural, foul and illicit practice.

[Al-Qaradawi quotes Surah ash-Shu'ara 26: 165-166 and Surah Hud 11: 77-81, which tell the story of Lot and Sodom - it's very similar to the Old Testament story in Genesis chapter 19.]

The jurists of Islam have held differing opinions concerning the punishment for this abominable practice. Should it be the same as the punishment for fornication [i.e. flogging], or should both the active and the passive participants be put to death? While such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of the Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements.

I note that al-Qaradawi refers to homosexual practice - someone with an innate disposition towards attraction to others of the same sex, but who did not put this disposition into practice, would not be a sinner. However, does Islam recognise such an innate disposition? From my reading in the area, I have identified three main lines of argument:

1. Homosexual thoughts are implanted by the shaytan as a way of leading people astray - they are certainly not innate.

2. A homosexual disposition is a way by which God tests one's faith - it is precisely through resisting the attraction to others of the same sex that one demonstrates one's iman.

3. Homosexuals are simply part of the variety of God's creation - a particular example of God's deliberate creation of differences between people - for example, "And of his signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. In this indeed are signs for men of knowledge." (Surah ar-Rum 30:22) and "O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and have made you nations and tribes that you may know one another. The noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Allah is Knower, Aware." (Surah al-Hujurat 49: 13).

I find it interesting that virtually the same arguments are put forward in the discussions of LGBT Christians, who have to deal with the same issues in terms of apparent biblical prohibitions of homosexuality. However, at least Islam's view of sexuality is not distorted by the ascetic and celibate tendencies of some parts of the Christian Church.

imported_guy

irishconvert wrote: »

hivizman, that is exactly what I was trying to say, thanks!

imported_guy, I accept your point about lustful thoughts.

So I think we agree that if anyone (straight or homosexual) is having lustful thoughts it is not good and something they should try to refrain from. However if someone is born homosexual, and doesn't act on it, then they are commiting no sin.

i dont get it how is anyone born homosexual? dont be so naive i doubt one of my 46 chromosomes relates to homosexuality or being straight, a 5 year old child doesnt know he is gay or straight, its the society, the media which turns people gay.

hivizman

imported_guy wrote: »

i dont get it how is anyone born homosexual? dont be so naive i doubt one of my 46 chromosomes relates to homosexuality or being straight, a 5 year old child doesnt know he is gay or straight, its the society, the media which turns people gay.

Whether people are "born homosexual" is of course a big issue of debate, and it's difficult to know what would count as evidence that would answer this question. This is because sexual orientation is such a complex phenomenon, and what people consider to be "homosexuality" is itself something that depends on particular cultures. The French philosopher Michel Foucault was only one of many people to point out that the very word "homosexual" was created in the 19th century to label certain people as deviant and in need of medical treatment.

Even if there is a genetic predisposition towards same-sex attraction, in certain social settings this will be much more difficult to put into practice than in other social settings, so clearly society plays a part in making it easier or harder to manifest such a predisposition.

Arguing that a sexual attraction to people of the same gender is "innate" - something people are born with - makes it harder to condemn people for acting on such an attraction, because it can be claimed that they don't have a choice (some would say that there is always the choice of abstinence, however). Jewish, Christian and Muslim GLBT people often use the argument that their sexual orientation is innate and base this argument on the notion of God as creator. In Christian gay apologetics, much is made of the view that "God is Love", and if God has created some people to find love with others of the same gender rather than the opposite gender, then this variety should be celebrated rather than condemned. The various verses in the Bible that appear to condemn homosexuality are explained away as referring to exploitative rather than loving relationships.

As examples of contemporary writings providing some support for same-sex relationships, I would refer first to the book by Dr Kecia Ali Sexual Ethics & Islam: Feminist Reflections on Qur'an, Hadith, and Jurisprudence (Oneworld Publications, 2006). In a chapter entitled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", Dr Ali (who is an academic at a US University) puts same-sex relationships into the context of an analysis of the Muslim concept of marriage. She argues that Islam has traditionally seen sexual intimacy as taking place within the marriage, which is defined as a union between man and woman (she also notes that the Qur'an frequently refers to sexual intimacy between a slave owner and his female slave, which would be outside marriage but not considered as fornication). If there can be no sexual intimacy outside marriage between man and woman, then by definition any same-sex relations would be unlawful. She notes how medieval Muslim scholars frequently included liwat, literally the sin of the people of Lot, in lists of major sins, and some also included musahaqat al-nisa' (translated as "lesbianism") in their lists. She comments first that these were treated as distinct sins rather than being covered by a single term such as homosexuality, and second that the sheer fact that there were so many references to these sins suggests that a lot of people were ignoring the apparent Qur'anic prohibition.

An even more radical view is offered by Dr Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle, another American academic, and a revert to Islam, in a chapter entitled "Sexuality, Diversity and Ethics in the Agenda of Progressive Muslims" (in Omid Safi (ed.) Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism, Oneworld Publications, 2003, pp. 190-234). This chapter is very closely argued and I would not want to attempt to summarise it. However, Kugle's main argument is that many commentators on the Qur'an (he discusses in particular the tafsir of Al-Tabari) imposed their personal dislike of same-sex acts (such as anal intercourse) on the actual words of the Qur'an to make them imply more than they literally state. For example, Surah ash-Shu'ara 26:165 has Lot castigating the people of Sodom for "approaching men" [to use Asad's translation] or "coming to the males" [to use Pickthall's translation]. Al-Tabari interprets this as referring to anal intercourse, but Kugle claims that this is imposing a meaning that isn't there. Kugle also provides some argument that the various Prophetic hadiths on the issue of whether same-sex intimacy should be punished by stoning are likely to be later fabrications rather than reliable narrations. Overall, he suggests that the Qur'an and Sunna can be interpreted more "liberally" than conventional scholarship has in the past.

Of course, these are minority views, but they exist and provide some counterbalance to the more mainstream views represented by al-Qaradawi and others. I'll finish with a hypothetical question posed by Kugle: "Is any discussion of the Shari'ah a capitulation to authority that is hopelessly prejudiced against the very possibility of thinking that homosexuality is about anything beyond misplaced lust?"

oceanclub

imported_guy wrote: »

i the media which turns people gay.

Does that include Alexander the Great?

I can only presume that people who think that other people can be "turned" gay have deepseated homosexual desires themselves. I'm pretty damn sure that no amount of adverts would convince me to have sex with a man, no more than adverts convince me I need to buy Bisto gravy or take out an endowment mortgage ; I can only presume that someone who thinks this is possible is on the verge themselves and just needs a slight push gaywards.

P.

imported_guy

hivizman wrote: »

Whether people are "born homosexual" is of course a big issue of debate, and it's difficult to know what would count as evidence that would answer this question. This is because sexual orientation is such a complex phenomenon, and what people consider to be "homosexuality" is itself something that depends on particular cultures. The French philosopher Michel Foucault was only one of many people to point out that the very word "homosexual" was created in the 19th century to label certain people as deviant and in need of medical treatment.

Even if there is a genetic predisposition towards same-sex attraction, in certain social settings this will be much more difficult to put into practice than in other social settings, so clearly society plays a part in making it easier or harder to manifest such a predisposition.

Arguing that a sexual attraction to people of the same gender is "innate" - something people are born with - makes it harder to condemn people for acting on such an attraction, because it can be claimed that they don't have a choice (some would say that there is always the choice of abstinence, however). Jewish, Christian and Muslim GLBT people often use the argument that their sexual orientation is innate and base this argument on the notion of God as creator. In Christian gay apologetics, much is made of the view that "God is Love", and if God has created some people to find love with others of the same gender rather than the opposite gender, then this variety should be celebrated rather than condemned. The various verses in the Bible that appear to condemn homosexuality are explained away as referring to exploitative rather than loving relationships.

As examples of contemporary writings providing some support for same-sex relationships, I would refer first to the book by Dr Kecia Ali Sexual Ethics & Islam: Feminist Reflections on Qur'an, Hadith, and Jurisprudence (Oneworld Publications, 2006). In a chapter entitled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", Dr Ali (who is an academic at a US University) puts same-sex relationships into the context of an analysis of the Muslim concept of marriage. She argues that Islam has traditionally seen sexual intimacy as taking place within the marriage, which is defined as a union between man and woman (she also notes that the Qur'an frequently refers to sexual intimacy between a slave owner and his female slave, which would be outside marriage but not considered as fornication). If there can be no sexual intimacy outside marriage between man and woman, then by definition any same-sex relations would be unlawful. She notes how medieval Muslim scholars frequently included liwat, literally the sin of the people of Lot, in lists of major sins, and some also included musahaqat al-nisa' (translated as "lesbianism") in their lists. She comments first that these were treated as distinct sins rather than being covered by a single term such as homosexuality, and second that the sheer fact that there were so many references to these sins suggests that a lot of people were ignoring the apparent Qur'anic prohibition.

An even more radical view is offered by Dr Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle, another American academic, and a revert to Islam, in a chapter entitled "Sexuality, Diversity and Ethics in the Agenda of Progressive Muslims" (in Omid Safi (ed.) Progressive Muslims: On Justice, Gender, and Pluralism, Oneworld Publications, 2003, pp. 190-234). This chapter is very closely argued and I would not want to attempt to summarise it. However, Kugle's main argument is that many commentators on the Qur'an (he discusses in particular the tafsir of Al-Tabari) imposed their personal dislike of same-sex acts (such as anal intercourse) on the actual words of the Qur'an to make them imply more than they literally state. For example, Surah ash-Shu'ara 26:165 has Lot castigating the people of Sodom for "approaching men" [to use Asad's translation] or "coming to the males" [to use Pickthall's translation]. Al-Tabari interprets this as referring to anal intercourse, but Kugle claims that this is imposing a meaning that isn't there. Kugle also provides some argument that the various Prophetic hadiths on the issue of whether same-sex intimacy should be punished by stoning are likely to be later fabrications rather than reliable narrations. Overall, he suggests that the Qur'an and Sunna can be interpreted more "liberally" than conventional scholarship has in the past.

Of course, these are minority views, but they exist and provide some counterbalance to the more mainstream views represented by al-Qaradawi and others. I'll finish with a hypothetical question posed by Kugle: "Is any discussion of the Shari'ah a capitulation to authority that is hopelessly prejudiced against the very possibility of thinking that homosexuality is about anything beyond misplaced lust?"

we will go back to the story of LUT which i posted earlier, if god created homosexuals and loves them so much why would he destroy a city full of them?

oceanclub wrote: »

Does that include Alexander the Great?

I can only presume that people who think that other people can be "turned" gay have deepseated homosexual desires themselves. I'm pretty damn sure that no amount of adverts would convince me to have sex with a man, no more than adverts convince me I need to buy Bisto gravy or take out an endowment mortgage ; I can only presume that someone who thinks this is possible is on the verge themselves and just needs a slight push gaywards.

P.

thats a propostorus analogy and you know it, people turn gay when they others who think its "okay to be gay" or if media portrays it that way.

oceanclub

imported_guy wrote: »

thats a propostorus analogy and you know it, people turn gay when they others who think its "okay to be gay" or if media portrays it that way.

Er, I know plenty of people who think it's OK to be gay. Yet I have not "turned". Can you explain why?

(Incidentally, I know plenty of people who think it's OK to be another race. I haven't turned black yet either.)

P.

hivizman

imported_guy wrote: »

We will go back to the story of LUT which I posted earlier, if god created homosexuals and loves them so much why would he destroy a city full of them?

Scott Kugle answers this question by referring to a genre of writings known as qisas al-anbiya' (stories of the prophets). According to him, these stories enlarge on the narrative of the story of Lot in Surah al-'Ankabut 29:28-29:

And Lot! (Remember) when he said to his people: You commit lewdness such as no creature did before you. For do you not come in to males, do you not cut the road (for travellers), and do you not commit abomination in your meetings? But the answer of his people was only that they said: Bring Allah's doom upon us if you are a truth-teller!

Pickthall translation The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an

The qisas literature quoted by Kugle states that the people of Sodom were inhospitable and miserly, notorious for giving short change and cheating travellers. In particular, they developed the habit of waylaying travellers who were seeking food and water and submitting the men to anal rape. As Kugle sums up this qisas literature, "the 'sexual acts' of the people of Lot were acts of violence to drive away strangers, travellers, and those in need. They were not sexual acts expressing a distinct sexuality or even fulfilling the desire for sexual pleasure. They were acts of coercion expressing their miserliness, greed, and rejection of the ethic of care that was the hallmark of the Prophets. Rape is not primarily about sexual acts, pleasures, or relations. It is primarily about power and authority."

When God destroyed the cities of the plain, he was not, on Kugle's argument, destroying a bunch of gay men in consensual relationships, but rather a people who were offending against "the most basic and profound ethical principles expounded in the Qur'an . . . generosity, hospitality, and an ethic of care for the needs of others", and who had been contemptuously rejecting the warnings of Lot for the past 30 years.

As I have already noted in a previous post, the view put forward by Scott Kugle and some others is by no means representative of the mainstream of Islam.

Richiecats

My ass you did not intended to offend or cause controversy, religion and sex, what on earth were you doing, come on you now the result FATWA coming your way :eek:

Filan

While I respect the opinion of those who say that society facilitates homosexuality, that it is not innate, I do feel this is a misguided perception. Society does make it easier or harder to express it depending on 'norms' but it does not cause such a tendency or lack of it to begin with. Most men or women would never consider a same sex relationship, regardless of the norm, because they don't have an innate disposition towards.

Anyway I'm not here to force my opinions on anyone, thanks hivizman for a very good insight and great references, thanks to all here who have contributed and I respect the right of all to hold their own opinions.

imported_guy

oceanclub wrote: »

(Incidentally, I know plenty of people who think it's OK to be another race. I haven't turned black yet either.)

P.

ORLY?

hivizman wrote: »

As I have already noted in a previous post, the view put forward by Scott Kugle and some others is by no means representative of the mainstream of Islam.

yeah i see that there are different ways to look at it, but certainly you cant say that any muslim will condone homosexuality and still the christian view is just as hardline, if you read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality#Genesis_19:_Sodom_and_Gomorrah

hivizman

imported_guy wrote: »

Yeah I see that there are different ways to look at it, but certainly you cant say that any Muslim will condone homosexuality and still the Christian view is just as hardline, if you read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality#Genesis_19:_Sodom_and_Gomorrah.

The Wikipedia article is interesting, though the discussion board for the article includes at least one commentator who argues that the article is slanted towards an "evangelical" position that regards homosexual acts as being condemned as sinful in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the Anglican church, disagreements over the sinfulness of homosexual practices in a monogamous, stable and loving relationship are a major source of tension between different groups within the church, and were a significant issue at the Lambeth Conference last year.

I tend to be nervous around generalisations such as "the Christian view" or claims that "any Muslim" will say something. There are undoubtedly core doctrines that constitute someone as a Christian or a Muslim, but for many issues, there is, I believe, room for different views and for genuine dialogue. Although I have been summarising views of Muslims who support the permissibility of homosexual practices in loving and stable relationships, that doesn't necessarily mean that I find their arguments convincing. On the other hand, I have questioned on other threads in this forum the punishment of stoning for zina, which is not Qur'anic, and where the hadith that appear to advocate stoning are by no means unequivocal, and I would extend that questioning to the stoning of alleged homosexuals.

imported_guy

hivizman wrote: »

I tend to be nervous around generalisations such as "the Christian view" or claims that "any Muslim" will say something. There are undoubtedly core doctrines that constitute someone as a Christian or a Muslim, but for many issues, there is, I believe, room for different views and for genuine dialogue.

well when i say muslims, i usually adress the sunnis/shia/whabii's the ones who are more to the right, same with the "christians" i usually mean catholics or the conservative ones, im not gona start bashing liberals but i certanly dont support liberal organsiations which support same sex marriage etc etc, even though i might be pro abortion or pro legalisation of drugs or anti- gun control

hivizman

As a sort of middle ground between Yusuf al-Qaradawi on the one hand and Scott Kugle on the other, I thought that it might be worth quoting from the recent book by Tariq Ramadan What I Believe (Oxford University Press, 2010). Ramadan is Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies at Oxford University, and the author of various books, including "Western Muslims and the Future of Islam", "To Be a European Muslim", "In the Footsteps of the Prophet", and "Radical Reform: Islamic Ethics and Liberation".

I have been repeating for years that Islam does not promote homosexuality (it is rejected in principle since it does not correspond to the divine project established for all human beings), but that does not prevent me from having a clear position: not sharing the opinions and actions of homosexuals does not prevent me from respecting who they are. This is indeed what each of us should expect from fellow human beings: respect as a being even though there may be disagreement over belief and/or behaviour. Though I have reservations about homosexual couples marrying or adopting children, I do not hesitate to fight against the homophobic discourse or measures of which they may be the victims and to get involved in all common causes by their side. Some homosexual organizations still find this discourse too "conservative" as well as dangerous because of its apparent openness. They see only one possible future for coexistence with Muslims: promoting and allying themselves with Muslim gay and lesbian organizations. Those scholars and Muslims who respect beings without promoting their sexual behaviour do not go far enough for their all-out, often quite outspoken militancy.

Tariq Ramadan, What I Believe, pp. 103-104

These seems a bit like the view sometimes propounded by Christians: "Hate the sin but love the sinner", which has always struck me as a bit patronising.

Incidentally, Ramadan has written recently at more length in an article "Islam and Homosexuality". A reply to this article by Jack Fertig, a gay Muslim, points out that some of those criticising Ramadan's views on homosexuality are insincere, because they have in the past themselves been "anti-gay". Fertig concludes:

Brother Tariq is addressing the situation of Muslims living in western nations. Muslims who live in pluralistic societies, or as minorities, are obliged to respect the laws and customs of the lands we live in. In democratic nations where we are part of a dialogue where attitudes towards homosexuality are changing, we can take a voice in that conversation. Politically it is in our interest to promote acceptance for diversity. Our religion tells us to “live and let live.” Brother Tariq is quite correct when he says:

“There is no ambiguity, and ample clarity: European Muslims have the right to express their convictions while at the same time respecting the humanity and rights of individuals. If we are to be consistent, we must respect this attitude of faith and openness”

This is exactly what GLBT activists are working for – no more; no less.

Fertig's article comes from Huriyah, which describes itself as a "queer muslim magazine".

[As a personal aside, I really love this forum for the things I discover when I do research in response to various threads.]

Mark Hamill

imported_guy wrote: »

we will go back to the story of LUT which i posted earlier, if god created homosexuals and loves them so much why would he destroy a city full of them?

Why would god create something he hates so much that he would feel the need to destroy a city of them?

imported_guy wrote: »

thats a propostorus analogy and you know it, people turn gay when they others who think its "okay to be gay" or if media portrays it that way.

No, people admit to being gay when they feel it is ok to admit to being gay, but they are already gay. Its ok to be a woman, but I dont see many men going for sex changes just because its okay for to be a woman.

Yusuf Mirza

Islam is clear on homosexuality that it is something which is not in agreement with Gods plan for mankind. However also Islam acknowledges that homosexuality exists in society and always has and always will. It is not encouraged. It is admonished. It all really comes down to the question; do you believe in God? Even if you are Atheist/Agnostic and want to come from an evolutionary point of view sexual desires are there so that men and women will procreate and the species will continue. That is the reason. For that you need a male and female. Anything else is not at all permissible. If human desire is left unchecked it can lead one to have desires that are outside of the limits set by God.

Just because something is accepted by society does not mean it is lawful in the eyes of God.

There is no discussion to be had about the laws of God they are very clear. The question rather is do you wish to follow them or not. People who are gay are human beings and deserve equal respect and security. What people do in the pricey of their homes is one thing but when the balance, harmony and morality of society is affected then in Islam that is something which must be addressed. Sodom was destroyed for this reason. They exceeded all bounds.

So whether you agree or not is between you and God but be clear this is the teaching of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

oceanclub

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

Even if you are Atheist/Agnostic and want to come from an evolutionary point of view sexual desires are there so that men and women will procreate and the species will continue.

One of the latest arguments is that homosexuality is caused by hormones in the womb, and is more likely depending on what order child you are in the womb. It's possible it's an evolutionary change that prevents overpopulation. In which case, isn't it natural and fitting in with God/Allah's plan?

P.

Yusuf Mirza

There have been many “reasons” over the years. It was a big story a few years back that they found the “gay” gene. Then it was debunked because as genes are passed on and gay people generally don’t have children then how could the gene be passed on. These are just theories.

So nature is a conscious force that regulates and sustains humanity is it? Sounds like god to me.:rolleyes:

oceanclub

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

So nature is a conscious force that regulates and sustains humanity is it? Sounds like god to me.:rolleyes:[/font][/COLOR]

Er, no, and I've no patience to explain Evolution 101 either.

P.

Mark Hamill

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

Islam is clear on homosexuality that it is something which is not in agreement with Gods plan for mankind. However also Islam acknowledges that homosexuality exists in society and always has and always will. It is not encouraged. It is admonished. It all really comes down to the question; do you believe in God? Even if you are Atheist/Agnostic and want to come from an evolutionary point of view sexual desires are there so that men and women will procreate and the species will continue. That is the reason. For that you need a male and female. Anything else is not at all permissible.

Homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom and can actually have evolutionary benefits (population control etc).

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

If human desire is left unchecked it can lead one to have desires that are outside of the limits set by God.

How can humans get outside a limit set by god?

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

There is no discussion to be had about the laws of God they are very clear. The question rather is do you wish to follow them or not. People who are gay are human beings and deserve equal respect and security. What people do in the pricey of their homes is one thing but when the balance, harmony and morality of society is affected then in Islam that is something which must be addressed. Sodom was destroyed for this reason. They exceeded all bounds.

How is society effected if people freely chose to engage in homosexual acts? Why should people stop doing what they freely want to do because other people have chosen to get annoyed by it. If god really does have a problem with it, then its between the people who do it and god, he doesn't need any one elses help in dealing with, especially when it doesn't effect them.

Mark Hamill

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

There have been many “reasons” over the years. It was a big story a few years back that they found the “gay” gene. Then it was debunked because as genes are passed on and gay people generally don’t have children then how could the gene be passed on.

Well, until recently, homosexuality was very hidden in society and a lot of gay people would have hidden their sexuality and lived their lives as heterosexuals, geting married and having kids. Besides, you dont need to a direct decendent to have some of the same genes as an ancestor, for instance girls are encouraged to be tested for breast cancer if their aunts contract the disease, even though they aren't direct decendents.

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

These are just theories.

Actually they are hypotheses, as they have not been fully tested and/or passed ever test put to them. Difference between theory and hypothesis.

Yusuf Mirza wrote: »

So nature is a conscious force that regulates and sustains humanity is it? Sounds like god to me.:rolleyes:

Where are you getting "conscious force" from?