Being Gay

[Daoud]

those confused and deranged type of persons are meant who have no liking and inclination toward women

who exactly are these people if they're not gay? how many men do you know who are 'confused and deranged' and 'have no liking and inclination toward women' but are not gay? personally I can't think of anyone and at that time they would have had no term for 'homosexual' so it's more than likely they would have talked in this way

people are telling me to think logically etc but as far as I can see I'm the only one here who is

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

There have been excellent posts by Ansar and Muhammad which I don't have time to respond to at the moment - I'll get to them when I can.

For now, I will respond to this important point:

This is the second time [that I've seen] you label the beliefs of others as 'imaginary'. I'm going to ask that you kindly refrain from such comments as they contribute nothing to the discussion. Our arguments should be evidence-based. Thanks.

You're right. Although "imaginary authority" is an aspect of the position I've been arguing from all along, I now see that this is a very crass and insensitive way of expressing it. I can only attribute it to me being "tired and emotional", and I apologise for any offence caused, particularly to Ummbilal, to whom I was replying.

Peace

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I don't know what free-posting is

It's what you did just now. Posting comments freely that do not contribute to the discussion.

I realise most muslims by choice have as little to do with gay people as possible and I think this is part of the problem - in my life I've known quite a few people who were gay and as far as they're concerned they have no choice, it's not a 'lifestyle' they adopt (what possible reason could there be for adopting such a lifestyle given the difficulties that come with it?), it's the way they were born,

Again, as I already pointed out, there is much support from the scientific community to suggest that homosexuality is caused by environmental factors, not genetic. I don't have a problem if you want to believe that its genetic, since it makes no difference to my argument, but you have to recognize that there is another scientific view on this as well. The two views:

1. genetic- people are born either homo or hetrosexual
2. environmental - homosexuality is a condition which develops in someone due to external influence​

As for this argument:

it's not a 'lifestyle' they adopt (what possible reason could there be for adopting such a lifestyle given the difficulties that come with it?)

This is called the strawman fallacy because you're attacking a position that no one holds. The view that says it is due to environmental causes does not say that people simply wake up one day and decide to be gay. Rather, it states that due to external influences in one's society, it creates the psychological condition which results in homosexuality. It is similar to a condition like Multiple Personality Disorder which is caused by extreme stress and trauma one may experience in their childhood.
So according to this view, due to external pressures or influence, homosexuality develops in a person.

so the point is, if that's the way they were born, why did Allah make them that way?

Okay, so let's suppose that view 1 (genetic) is the correct view. So why did Allah swt create them with homosexual tendencies? The answer is simple - it is a test for them. They must not act on these desires but must bear patiently and restrain themselves. Just as people born with the desire to commit fornication and must restrain their desires. Disabled people may have to restrain their desires for their whole lives and bear their condition patiently.

and what harm do they do?

Please see my previous post where I answered why homosexuality is wrong. I dislike having to repeat myself.

In every society there is a small proportion of people who are gay and that proportion is always going to stay the same, it's not going to get any bigger.

Although this is what some people hypothesize, there is no hard (statistical) evidence to support this notion.

as far as I can see that proportion of gay people would have been around at the time of the Prophet(saws) and as I said before, as I understand it there is no evidence that he punished them for it, the punishments for homosexuality in Islam seem to start after his lifetime.

This is probably the weakest evidence possible! You can't hypothesize the existence of homosexuals publically announcing their homosexuality at the time of the Prophet saws and then say that based on the fact that there are no narrations saying he punished them, homosexuality is allowed in Islam!

The Qur'an clearly condemns homosexuality in the story of Prophet Lut, which you haven't responded to. And the Islamic fundamentals with regard to laws is that the general rule is everything is permissable until evidnece comes proving otherwise, while in the field of Ibaadah (worship) and sexual relations, everything is forbidden until evidence comes proving otherwise.

And look at this clear hadith from the Prophet which contains an implicit prohibition of homosexuality:
‘Abd al-Rahman, the son of Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, reported from his father: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: “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)

If the Prophet saws did not order punishments on homosexuals, it would only mean that either they didn't announce their orientation publically, or they did not come in contact with the Prophet saws. And there is an authentic hadith in Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah and At-Tirmidhi which calls for the execution of any homosexuals failing to restrain their desires and engaging in anal sex (the disastrous medical consequences of which we have already discussed). And there is a narration in Bayhaqi and Tabarani which states that men who have sex with other men are amongst the four types of people who are under the anger of Allah.

Concerning the narration in Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah and At-Tirmidhi, I have read the arguments of those who try to claim that it is not authentic (these are writers who have no formal education in hadith methodology and criticism). Their argument is centered on the following points:

1. since the narration in Abu Dawud attributes the statement to Ibn Abbas, while Ibn Majah and Tirmidhi attribute the statement to the Prophet saws through Ibn Abbas, it is possible that this is only the saying of a companion
2. since Az-Zuhri and Maalik did not know of this punishment, it is likely that it wasn't authentic.
3. The hadith on this issue tend to come from the same narrators amongst the companions
4. Bukhari and Muslim did not include it in their compilations, therefore it means they didn't accept it.
5. Some early Jurists such as Imam Abu Hanifa ruled for Ta'azir (discretionary punishments) in this regard, contrary to the hadith.​

The response to these points is as follows:
1. This is nothing more than an idea without basis in fact. Different people narrated from Ibn Abbas so it is entirely possible that someone recorded this narration as an opinion of Ibn Abbas whereas it was actually a hadith transmitted through Ibn Abbas rd as clarified in Ibn Majah and Tirmidhi. Secondly, the companions did not speak from their whims and wouldn't dare invent a lie, knowing the punishment is hell-fire. Hence, the statements of the companions are indicative of what they learned from the Prophet saws.
2. The fact that some people did not know of the narration, or were unable to confirm its authenticity is still not proof that the narration is false. Secondly, it is established from many sources that Imam Maalik did agree with the death penalty in this regard (see Doi, Shari'ah, pp. 242-243).
3. the ahadith on almost everything tends to come from a few narrators! Abu Hurairah, Ibn Abbas, Anas ibn Malik, and Aisha bint Abi Bakr rda narrated the vast majority of the ahadith that we have. They were regarded as the authorities on ahadith, and no one came close to them in the number that they narrated. This point demonstrates that these critics are unfamiliar with the proper tools in hadith criticism.
4. There are many many authentic ahadith that Bukhari and Muslim did not include in their compilations! These compilations were never meant to include all the authentic ahadith as Imaam Bukahari himself mentoned that there were many other authentic ahadith besides the ones they included in their compilations. This is why you will find certain hadith scholars such as Al-Haakim mention that such-and-such hadith is authentic according to the criteria of Bukhari or Muslim (see my signature), even though the two may not have included it in their compilations.
5. It is well-known that Imam Abu Hanifa had to make use of Qiyas (analogies) more than other jurists because in Iraq there were many unauthentic narrations being circulated and it was difficult to find authentic narrations, many of which never reached them. Hence, this cannot be used as evidence against a hadith's authenticity. Secondly, it is recorded that Imam Abu Hanifa did incorporate the hadith into his view and prescribed the execution for someone who perisists in homosexual practices despite being warned (this is actually the agreed upon position).

As we can see, there is no solid criticism against this hadith.

if you want some references to the scholars I've mentioned, (meaning academics rather than Muslim jurists)

Everett Rowson, 'The Effeminates of Early Medina' in Que(e)rying Religion ed. G.Comstock and Henking (New York:Continuum, 1997)

Stephen O.Murray and Will Roscoe, Islamic Homosexualities; Culture, History and Literature (New York: New York University Press, 1997)

Amreen Jamel, 'The Story of Lut and the Qu'ran's Perception of the Morality of Same Sex Sexuality' (not sure of the publisher)

Najman Yasin, Islam and Sex in the First Century Hijri (Beirut: dar al-Attiya li'l Nashr, 1997)

These are not authorities on the Qur'anic interpretation, they are just writers like yourself who have re-interpreted the Qur'an according to their whims and contrary to the apparent meaning and authentic narrations (have of these people are non-muslims!).

These are your references for your statement...

scholars suggest that the people of Lot were not homosexual but used male rape as a means of dishonouring travellers and reducing their status, they also had sexual relations with women

What?! Your only evidence for this fanciful theory comes from the imaginations of contemporary writers?!

You'll have to forgive me then if I reject this theory as a fabrication with no historical or scriptural evidence in its support...

who exactly are these people if they're not gay?

Like I said, it can include some of the mentally disabled, which are many. There are several disabilities, psychological conditions, and ailments that can remove one's inclinations, which some people refer to as sexual dysfunction disorders. This is the explanation given by Abdullah ibn Abbas, Qatadah, Zuhri and Taus. This can be caused by endocrine disorders and hormonal deficiences, the latter of which can come from age as well. it is also more likely in diabetics and those suffering from degenerative neurological disorders. Thus, as you can see, this does not refer to any unheard of group, but it is a necessary instruction regarding a real segment of the community.

how many men do you know who are 'confused and deranged' and 'have no liking and inclination toward women' but are not gay?

I know several people like this because of degenerative neurological disorders.

personally I can't think of anyone and at that time they would have had no term for 'homosexual' so it's more than likely they would have talked in this way

Not true, as you haven't dealt with the statements on the people of Lut and the authentic narrations. They would have simply said, 'men who desire men' or 'luti/qawm lut' as they said in many narrations.

On the side, I recalled an important point which strengthens something that I was saying before. In verse 26:168, Prophet Lut (as) says to the homosexuals:
“Behold, I am one of those who utterly abhor your ACTIONS!”

 

[Daoud]

:Again, as I already pointed out, there is much support from the scientific community to suggest that homosexuality is caused by environmental factors, not genetic.

show me, and see my post above about DSMIV

This is called the strawman fallacy because you're attacking a position that no one holds.

well I've read lots of people holding that view

Okay, so let's suppose that view 1 (genetic) is the correct view. So why did Allah swt create them with homosexual tendencies? The answer is simple - it is a test for them. They must not act on these desires but must bear patiently and restrain themselves. Just as people born with the desire to commit fornication and must restrain their desires. Disabled people may have to restrain their desires for their whole lives and bear their condition patiently.

funny that, I didn't think Islam did Original Sin, I thought we all started pure and clean by the grace of Allah. People being born with the desire to commit fornication is complete nonsense and doesn't make sense from any point of view, let alone Islam - what are you, a Buddhist or a Hindu maybe, is this some kind of Karmic thing?

Please see my previous post where I answered why homosexuality is wrong. I dislike having to repeat myself.

well I'm having to get used to it I don't see why others shouldn't

The Qur'an clearly condemns homosexuality in the story of Prophet Lut, which you haven't responded to.

It's not my theory about the story, it's historical research but I know you don't like things like that

And the Islamic fundamentals with regard to laws is that the general rule is everything is permissable until evidnece comes proving otherwise, while in the field of Ibaadah (worship) and sexual relations, everything is forbidden until evidence comes proving otherwise.

well I must admit I'd only heard the first part before but I'm newer to this than you so I'll take that on trust

'It is very difficult to suppress hadith once they gain credibility and circulate widely. This is especially so when a report reinforces the common prejudice of patriarchal societies against same-sex relationships. Hanafi jurists earlier criticised the chain of transmission of hadith like "Whomever you find doing the act of the people of Lut, kill the active and the passive participant." Al-Jassas rejects this hadith since one of it's transmitters, Amr ibn Abi Amr, is considered weak and unreliable. Similarly he rejects the proposed hadith that reads "the one practicing the act of the people of Lut, stone the one on top and the one on the bottom, stone them both together," since one of it's transmitters, 'Asim ibn Amr, is also considered weak and unreliable. Despite these critiques, the hadith continue to circulate and are frequently put to rhetorical and even legal use.'

Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle (no relation I presume?), Sexuality, Diversity and Ethics, in Progressive Muslims ed. Omid Safi, Oxford 2003

These are not authorities on the Qur'anic interpretation, they are just writers like yourself who have re-interpreted the Qur'an according to their whims and contrary to the apparent meaning and authentic narrations (have of these people are non-muslims!).

These are your references for your statement...

What?! Your only evidence for this fanciful theory comes from the imaginations of contemporary writers?!

You'll have to forgive me then if I reject this theory as a fabrication with no historical or scriptural evidence in its support...

well, no I won't actually

these are not 'contemporary writers' working from their imaginations, these are historians working from well-researched, empirical facts, subject to peer review and academic scrutiny before anything is published - and they're Muslims too for the most part!

 

[eyes_of_mine]

Do you know what, reading the last 3 pages of the thread I can see all have a good true point , every comment has some truth in it, even minaz's last comment there.
But I have to say that gays are in societys all around the world, and they have been for many many thousands of years just like prozzies. and of course it dos'nt make it right, and its without a doubt to us all that being homosexual is totally haram and must be dealt with by the person so he does'nt end up carrying out the act.

Now that said it is HOW we deal and help those that are gay to deal with their obviously malfunctioned minds and genetics of wanting to be homosexual.
I think we should help them , ask yourself how many gay or lesbeins do you personally know and I don't mean 'know off' I mean persoanlly know , because when you get to know them you will discover that general homosexual is not gay by choice and they felt like this from an early age ect , can you imagine what a horrible personal hell they have to live through, they NEVER want to be gay, but becuase there is more support and acceptence for them to be gay in society they don't fight it enough.

Personally I agree alot with what Daoud has written and he has come with evidence to back up his claims aswell, answar claims the genetic theory is disprooved and that society is more of a cause for straight men turning into homo's if you really believe this Answar, which by the way is the first I ever heard such a claim ! then please show your evidence from studys ect as it will be interesting to see.

Im not disprooving your theory , I can agree that in some small amount of occasions some individuals can 'try out' being gay becuase of some social happening they experienced, however the long term homo and the true homo will never be gay just becuase of society.

If most gay men are gay becuase of society, then are they putting this camp characature on ? look at how they act and walk and whilst some are not so obvious, many ARE so obvious. this is not put on they had that 'voice' since they were young. (just an example)

Again I ask you all how many gays do you personally know and thats very important you answer this question in a truthfull manner.

 

[Daoud]

Yo hold up there, are you accusing a respected brother on this site of being an idol worshipper.

no I was just making a point - what he said didn't seem to be Islamic

Many of the members have been kind to you and havn't called you names and i can think of a load I could call you

don't worry, I'm getting fed up of this myself I'm not going to be here much longer, you can call me all the names you want if it makes you feel better

 

[Silver Pearl]

Greeting ( warahmatullahi wabarakatuh)

funny that, I didn't think Islam did Original Sin, I thought we all started pure and clean by the grace of Allah. People being born with the desire to commit fornication is complete nonsense and doesn't make sense from any point of view, let alone Islam - what are you, a Buddhist or a Hindu maybe, is this some kind of Karmic thing?

I'm guessing by this statement you have fully understood the meaning of original sin. having a desire to do something does not mean you're accounted for that sin, rather the opposite. When one refrains from such an act fee sabilillah then they get a reward for it. That is how merciful and compasionate Allah (swt) is.

Also brother Ansar's idea may have been absurd but that is what you asked for. Also it is clear what faith the brother practises.

Homosexuality can't be a genetic factor, for then one of the parent would have to be homosexual or it'd be a mutation of allele which codes for that field.

If you live in an environment where homosexuals are the majority, embracing such ways is easy. Society pressures youngsters to deluding and then stating they are homosexual based solely on how other people view that person. Perhaps they may be sensitive, or less masculine, and that seems to be an excuse to label someone a homosexual. It is a known factor that if you constantly tell someone they are failure they'll start believing it, etc.

well I'm having to get used to it I don't see why others shouldn't

Tolerance is something all muslims should try and have, having tolerance to be around gay people isn't the same as being pro-homosexuality.

It's not my theory about the story, it's historical research but I know you don't like things like that

Historical data is very inaccurate, i hope you do realise that, history is recorded according to the winners and those who prosper. Who do you think wrote the history of WW2? i doubt we'd hold such anti-nazism ideologies had all the texts about the event been written by a pro-nazi.

'It is very difficult to suppress hadith once they gain credibility and circulate widely. This is especially so when a report reinforces the common prejudice of patriarchal societies against same-sex relationships. Hanafi jurists earlier criticised the chain of transmission of hadith like "Whomever you find doing the act of the people of Lut, kill the active and the passive participant." Al-Jassas rejects this hadith since one of it's transmitters, Amr ibn Abi Amr, is considered weak and unreliable. Similarly he rejects the proposed hadith that reads "the one practicing the act of the people of Lut, stone the one on top and the one on the bottom, stone them both together," since one of it's transmitters, 'Asim ibn Amr, is also considered weak and unreliable. Despite these critiques, the hadith continue to circulate and are frequently put to rhetorical and even legal use.'

Homosexuality in our era is nothing in comparison to how it was during the time of prophet Lut (pbuh) and what was their fate? At the end of the day no muslim is going to hunt down a gay person and kill them. No one has the time to consider such thing, time is precious.

Also are you a muslim?

Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle (no relation I presume?), Sexuality, Diversity and Ethics, in Progressive Muslims ed. Omid Safi, Oxford 2003

Trying to fit in society and being seen as a man of heroism by the west is more favourable than actually saying the truth to certain people, do the calculations.

these are not 'contemporary writers' working from their imaginations, these are historians working from well-researched, empirical facts, subject to peer review and academic scrutiny before anything is published - and they're Muslims too for the most part!

Not really, a hypocrite does not announce themselves as a hypocrite until he knows that the shaytan and his followers will embarce him with open hands. To me if someone become astray from the deen and states they are kufr, it has hard for me to even consider they were once muslims. If you have had the intention of destroying the truth, then you're hardly a muslim becomes you were not submitting to Allah (swt) in the first place but rather to what the west would love to hear.

In addition history isn't as reliable as you presume, rather far from the case.

don't worry, I'm getting fed up of this myself I'm not going to be here much longer, you can call me all the names you want if it makes you feel better

Only one who sees the wrong in their arguement gives up so soon but it your choice.

Also brother Minaz name calling will not change anything, remember you're a muslim

 

[Daoud]

Only one who sees the wrong in their arguement gives up so soon but it your choice.

well you've only just got here, this has been going on for some time now and I don't think anyone else here is about to accuse me of giving up easily! in fact as far as I can see most wish I would go away

as regards your post sister, with respect there is nothing there that has not either been covered already or to be honest is worth responding to, the only thing I will say is that I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your comments re WW2 were not motivated by some sort of revisionist approach to Nazism - history is important and we dismiss it at our peril

salaams

 

[snowlilies]

i had a muslim colleague who is a gay..he do show us(me n ma frnz) his pic wiz his bfs' i dunno how many bf he had but i kno one of them is a lecturer at ma uni(da lectuerer is caucasian btw)...we're quit close..thou he is gay sumtime he prays and fast..but it is sad when he went to mosque,ppl at mosque offended him...i wonder why these ppl at mosque -who make mosque alive duntry to help him back to rite path instead irritating him....i just kno tat he bcame gay when he break -up with his gf few yers ago...also i kno other muslim guy who is bi-sexual where i nvr hear he said any gurl beauty but i always hear he said that guy.this guy charming sexy bla bla bla....wutever it is i pray tat god will give him hidayah

im sorry if my word quit straight fwd

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

show me, and see my post above about DSMIV

Concerning environmental influence, there are several useful medical studies and other articles available here:
http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html

You know, its funny that on one hand, Gay activists claim homosexuality is genetic, yet on the other hand, they immediately turn to animals to justify homosexuality as being 'normal'. But none of these animals have been observed to be permanently homosexual! Observations only record alleged temporary homosexual tendencies in animals. Homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admits:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.(LeVay, p. 207.)​

Similarly, Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.(Antonio Pardo, "Aspectos médicos de la homosexualidad," Nuestro Tiempo, Jul.-Aug. 1995, pp. 82-89.)​

Much more info at The Animal Homosexuality Myth.

funny that, I didn't think Islam did Original Sin, I thought we all started pure and clean by the grace of Allah.

Original Sin is the chiefly christian doctrine that all human beings are born bearing the sin of Adam. This is completely different from the Islamic concept of one's nafs which leads one into sin. Islam is all about restraining one's animal desires. People have the desires for power, wealth, sex, etc. but we restrain them. This has nothing to do with original sin.

People being born with the desire to commit fornication is complete nonsense

It is a fact that all human beings (save those with some disorder) develop sexual desires after puberty. Islam teaches us to restrain these desires, they are a test.

It's not my theory about the story, it's historical research

What kind of historical research can be used for this? The only confirmation of Lot's existence is through religious scriptures. We have no historical evidence that he even existed, let alone that his people raped male travellers as opposed to being homosexual.

Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle (no relation I presume?), Sexuality, Diversity and Ethics, in Progressive Muslims ed. Omid Safi, Oxford 2003

Mr. Scott Kugle is not a muhaddith with the formal training necesseray in authenticating narrations. As a matter of fact, he proudly labels himself a 'progressive muslim'. I have already dealt with criticism of this hadith in my previous post. As well, reliable muhaditheen have declared this hadith authentic, such as Imaam Al-Albani in Irwaa’ al-Ghaleel

these are not 'contemporary writers' working from their imaginations, these are historians working from well-researched, empirical facts

Mind showing me what these 'well-researched empirical facts' are?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I'm able to reply to Ansar's post just now - I'll get to yours soon, Muhammad!

No, actually I think the example is on-target. They have other ways of pleasuring eachother without necessarily reaching intercourse. What if they use birth control? The final point is that for both these kind of people and gays, there could potentially be serious medical consequences. Gayse ngaging in 'pleasuring' eachother could fall into those dangerous practices in the 'heat of the moment'.

I agree that gay men could pleasure each other in a variety of ways and that could lead them to perform anal sex, just as incestuous couples may do something similar before being led to commit incestuous sex. For me, the distinction between the two comes from the fact that any diseases caught as a result of gay sex will affect the participants only, and that is a risk they should be allowed to take. When the risk of diseases affects someone who is not a consenting participant [i.e. the infant produced from incestuous union], that, to me, is wrong. This is why I oppose incest but not homosexuality.

Homosexuality - including both gays and lesbians - is seen as a perversion of the natural order which God has instituted for humanity. It is in conflict with the nature of humanity, as a creation that procreates.

In what way is it a perversion of the natural order? Is it similarly perverted for a married couple to have regular protected sex and never to conceive a child?

Homosexuality entails many dangerous practices that have disastrous medical consequences. Hence, it is wrong from a medical perspective.

While I accept that anal sex can spread disease, I think the assumption that homosexuality is "medically wrong" is a culturally specific assumption. Doctors in the UK certainly wouldn't attempt to stop a gay person from having anal sex unless they were in a severely debilitated condition as a result. KY Jelly (a lubricant) is available in every pharmacy in Britain - it's recommended by doctors for gay men, and it's not even necessary for them to get a prescription.

Homosexuality negates the basic block of society, a family, thus it demolishes social order at the grass roots level, as children are no longer raised with the compassion of a mother and guardianship of a father.

I see the point you're making, but I thought one of the reasons you oppose homosexuality is that it cannot produce children?

Homosexuals consume from society yet contribute nothing in return. Hence, it is wrong from a societal perspective.

I think this is a generalisation. Have a look at this (abridged) list.

Socrates
Alexander the Great
Julius Caesar
Leonardo da Vinci
Michaelangelo
Tchaikovsky
Walt Whitman
Oscar Wilde
- etc.

Would you say these people have contributed nothing to society?

Now I know you made a point about 'animals doing it' somehwere in the thread in response to it being unnatural, I just can't find your statement. Anyway, my respone would be that, since when are animals practices the source for what is natural for human beings? I should hope that everyone would regard it as unnatural if a human female should happen to eat her mate during copulation, yet this is exactly what spiders do!

Fair enough, animals are perhaps not the best guide for human behaviour and interaction, but they are certainly natural. To say something is 'unnatural' implies that it would not be done by any animal, including humans. To me anyway - the word 'unnatural' has several definitions(see here), and I think we may be interpreting it in different ways.

I mean why is it seen as bigotry? Bigotry is defined in the Oxford American English Dictionary as intolerance and prejudice towards the views and opinions of others - that could apply just as well to your posts as mine!

Well, the only thing I won't tolerate is intolerance - so I guess you've got me there!

And I'm not prejudiced towards homosexuals.

In your behaviour, I'm sure you're not. The question is whether you would treat a homosexual with compassion even if they chose not to take your advice and change their ways.

Peace

 

[Daoud]

Hi Ansar

I had a feeling Narth was coming, I thought about mentioning them in my last post

Narth are about as far away from being an internationally respected scientific outfit as it's possible to get- they are fanatical Christian fundamentalists who would most certainly like to 'treat' Muslims as well if they could, make no mistake

funny where we find allies when we have no other options


anyway, I've really had enough of this now, which I'm sure you will take as some kind of victory but I don't have time and energy for it any more so I'm off

for the record I don't consider that my case for gays being born that way has been at all challenged in any way

and also for the record, since I was asked and I'm sure everybody has made their own mind up anyway, no I'm not gay, never have been and insh'Allah never will be, I have a beautiful little girl, alhamdulillah, and a very healthy sex drive towards women, but maybe that's a bit too much information...

anyway, thanks for your time and no hard feelings, at least on my side and I trust on nobody else's

as salaamu alaikum wa rahmatullah

may Allah bless and guide us all

Daoud

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

The last warning is for the Muslim Ummah: If they indulge in the practice of homosexuality, Allah's punishment is not far off. The Prophet (Pbuh) cursed homosexuals by repeating three times: "Allah has cursed anyone who does what Lut's people did." And he said: "If you find any persons engaged in homosexuality, kill both the active and the passive partner." Ibn Abbas said: "Find the tallest building in the town and throw the homosexual down from its roof, then stone him to death".

I'm sorry, but that is just outrageous. Is that an authentic hadith? How can murder be less harmful than homosexuality?

This, on the other hand, is laughable:

Ibn Abbas said: "If a homosexual dies without repentance, he is changed into a pig in his grave." (Ibn Al-Jawzi)

Does anyone actually believe this?

Peace - even for gays.

 

[- Qatada -]

okay now this is a big problem.. i made a big mistake of searching for hadith which had no evidence. i've tried looking up the hadith above and i cant seem to find it anywhere apart from sites that copied the info. from the same link as the site above.

sorry.. unless i find solid proof i'll edit my post above insha Allah.

 

[sapphire]

salaamz...
Say: "O 'Ibâdî (My slaves) who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of Allâh, verily Allâh forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (Az-Zumar 39:53)....
apart from shirk though...
and im sure that all people, who have atleast a bit of faith in them, after serving their time in jahanam, will enter janah inshallah becoz Allah is so merciful....

one thing though...those people who know people who are homosexual...dont mention or write about them...a sin shouldn't be displayed....

anyway all homosexuals can be cured...prophet (s.a.w) said there is a cure for all diseases but old age and death....

about them being punished or not...depends on which of the four imaams they follow...

thats my knowledge...please feel free to correct me.....

 

[- Qatada -]

wa alykum asalam warahmatulahi wabarakatuh.

yep, Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) is ever merciful and forgives all sins except shirk:

Verily, Allah forgives not that partners should be set up with him in worship, but he forgives except that (anything else) to whom He pleases, and whoever sets up partners with Allah in worship, he has invented a tremendous sin. (4:48)

i really liked the way you quoted everything in the post above sis, masha Allah. jazak Allah khayr.


wasalam o 'alykum warahmatulahi wabarakatuh.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hello Callum and Daud (if you're still here),
I wasn't planning on replying since there wasn't much to say, but now that this thread has re-surfaced, i figured I might as well add my input.

I agree that gay men could pleasure each other in a variety of ways and that could lead them to perform anal sex, just as incestuous couples may do something similar before being led to commit incestuous sex. For me, the distinction between the two comes from the fact that any diseases caught as a result of gay sex will affect the participants only, and that is a risk they should be allowed to take. When the risk of diseases affects someone who is not a consenting participant [i.e. the infant produced from incestuous union], that, to me, is wrong. This is why I oppose incest but not homosexuality.

Okay, a couple of points to note here:
1. From a standpoint of morality and justice (and hence Islam) it is wrong to inflict harm on anyone whether it be oneself or others. Do you agree with people who torture themselves?
2. You didn't answer my point about incentuous couples engaging in relationships that would not produce off-spring, such as the use of birth control or those other methods of pleasuring eachother, to which you alluded.

Thus by your logic, we should allow this form of union.

In what way is it a perversion of the natural order? Is it similarly perverted for a married couple to have regular protected sex and never to conceive a child?

It is unnatural for sure, but at least not as perverted as homosexuality for in this scenario such people would at least be engaging in a male-female relationship, as God made two complementary genders amongst human beings.

While I accept that anal sex can spread disease, I think the assumption that homosexuality is "medically wrong" is a culturally specific assumption. Doctors in the UK certainly wouldn't attempt to stop a gay person from having anal sex unless they were in a severely debilitated condition as a result. KY Jelly (a lubricant) is available in every pharmacy in Britain - it's recommended by doctors for gay men, and it's not even necessary for them to get a prescription.

While that may reduce the damage to some extent it still may not prevent all the infections I mentioned earlier. And it just relates back to your point of there being other methods by which they may 'pleasure' eachother.

I see the point you're making, but I thought one of the reasons you oppose homosexuality is that it cannot produce children?

Yes. Thus, homosexuals are not contributing in the nurturing of the next generation. But my point was made as many people try to get around that by suggesting adoption. Even if that takes place, one does not recieve the strength from the two parental roles.

I think this is a generalisation. Have a look at this (abridged) list.

Socrates
Alexander the Great
Julius Caesar
Leonardo da Vinci
Michaelangelo
Tchaikovsky
Walt Whitman
Oscar Wilde
- etc.

Would you say these people have contributed nothing to society?

The point was made in connection with the previous point - the issue of raising families. And just for the record, I don't value the contributions to society of the abiove mentioned people, either.

Fair enough, animals are perhaps not the best guide for human behaviour and interaction, but they are certainly natural. To say something is 'unnatural' implies that it would not be done by any animal, including humans. To me anyway - the word 'unnatural' has several definitions(see here), and I think we may be interpreting it in different ways.

The point is that it is unnatural for human beings.

Well, the only thing I won't tolerate is intolerance - so I guess you've got me there!

I'm not intolerant of homosexuals, I simply view homosexuality as a abnormality that needs to be treated.

In your behaviour, I'm sure you're not. The question is whether you would treat a homosexual with compassion even if they chose not to take your advice and change their ways.

Its hard to make a generalization. It depends of course on the circumstances. In a society that has propagated the view that such an inclination and practice is perfectly normal, it may be more difficult to change the views of others and it would require a great deal of patience and compassion.

Daud,

I had a feeling Narth was coming, I thought about mentioning them in my last post

Narth are about as far away from being an internationally respected scientific outfit as it's possible to get- they are fanatical Christian fundamentalists who would most certainly like to 'treat' Muslims as well if they could, make no mistake

funny where we find allies when we have no other options

The articles were quoted for their scientific evidence provided to support their case. I couldn't care less about the religious views of the authors, that's irrelevant.

for the record I don't consider that my case for gays being born that way has been at all challenged in any way

If you consider that they are born that way, do you consider it a genetic trait passed on by their parents?

 

[sapphire]

it cant be genetic can it?....coz then wouldnt they be like wiped out coz obviously they wont have kids.....

 

[czgibson]

Hi Ansar,

Okay, a couple of points to note here:
1. From a standpoint of morality and justice (and hence Islam) it is wrong to inflict harm on anyone whether it be oneself or others. Do you agree with people who torture themselves?

Do I agree with them? Well, if you're talking about people who inflict harm on themselves, that could mean anything from eating fatty foods to masochism to suicide. They should be made aware of the dangers involved, but after that it's really up to them.

2. You didn't answer my point about incentuous couples engaging in relationships that would not produce off-spring, such as the use of birth control or those other methods of pleasuring eachother, to which you alluded.

Read the paragraph again, and you'll see I have answered this question.

While that may reduce the damage to some extent it still may not prevent all the infections I mentioned earlier.

OK, but doctors still recommend it, and they certainly don't preach to gay people in an attempt to make them change their sexuality.

And it just relates back to your point of there being other methods by which they may 'pleasure' eachother.

How?

And just for the record, I don't value the contributions to society of the abiove mentioned people, either.

Why not? Are you sure you're not being ethnocentric there?

The point is that it is unnatural for human beings.

Human beings are still animals though, essentially.

I'm not intolerant of homosexuals, I simply view homosexuality as a abnormality that needs to be treated.

So you're intolerant of homosexuality, correct?

Its hard to make a generalization. It depends of course on the circumstances. In a society that has propagated the view that such an inclination and practice is perfectly normal, it may be more difficult to change the views of others and it would require a great deal of patience and compassion.

Yes, and I'm afraid many gay people would simply laugh at your attitude. In the West it's seen very much as an old-fashioned prejudice.

Peace

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Do I agree with them? Well, if you're talking about people who inflict harm on themselves, that could mean anything from eating fatty foods to masochism to suicide. They should be made aware of the dangers involved, but after that it's really up to them.

Does that make it right?

Read the paragraph again, and you'll see I have answered this question.

Sorry I wasn't able to find your answer. Could you point it out to me?

How?

Because it simply demonstrates that homosexuals can pleasure eachother with reduced damage, but it doesn't negate the medical consequences involved.

Why not? Are you sure you're not being ethnocentric there?

That is, of course, beyond the scope of this thread.

Human beings are still animals though, essentially.

So? As I already pointed out, what is natural for one species may not be natural for others. And I believe that human beings are fundamentally different from other animals; as you agreedm we cannot take animals as a guide.

So you're intolerant of homosexuality, correct?

I oppose homosexuality. I find it disappointing to see people being pushed further into misguidance.

Yes, and I'm afraid many gay people would simply laugh at your attitude.

I'm sure some would. But simply laughing at the views of others does nothing to disprove them. Let them laugh all they want, it is nothing more than an evasion from a factual discussion. We believers are already prepared for such.

83:29. Indeed, those who committed crimes used to laugh at those who believed.

Regards