Being Gay

[Daoud]

And they indeed sought to shame his guest (by asking to commit sodomy with them).

that's the point: 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

a 'man who has no need of women' is something different ie homosexual the whole time and incapable of sex with a woman. The Qu'ran implies the existence of these people and does not suggest it is a crime or that it should be punished and as I've said above there is no reliable evidence that the Prophet(saws) acted against homosexuality in his lifetime

 

[minaz]

The Qu'ran implies the existence of these people and does not suggest it is a crime or that it should be punished

Allah just destroyed the place (sodom)

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Daoud,

a 'man who has no need of women' is something different ie homosexual the whole time and incapable of sex with a woman.

Surely that description could also apply to a man who didn't have sex at all, i.e. someone who was asexual?

Peace

 

[Muezzin]

Surely that description could also apply to a man who didn't have sex at all, i.e. someone who was asexual?

What, like a eunuch?

Man, they're weird.

 

[Daoud]

Greetings Daoud,


Surely that description could also apply to a man who didn't have sex at all, i.e. someone who was asexual?

Peace

hi cz

sure it could do but how many men are really asexual? all I'm saying is it could refer to gays who despite most Muslims claiming they don't exist, must have been around at the time of the Prophet(saws) in Makkah and Medina

 

[Sister_Ayesha]

a 'man who has no need of women' is something different ie homosexual the whole time and incapable of sex with a woman.

The way you write it here could mean that priest, monks, nuns, and anyone who takes a vow in the Christian faith to be devote to god and refrain from the opposite sex would be homosexual.

 

[Safa]

Originally Posted by Daoud
a 'man who has no need of women'

Well, the Quran does imply that a man must be with a woman,

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

Why go against what Allah has prescribed, even if the Prophet (pbuh) never mentioned anything about homosexuality, its not clearly implied that men can have men as partners.

 

[Daoud]

The way you write it here could mean that priest, monks, nuns, and anyone who takes a vow in the Christian faith to be devote to god and refrain from the opposite sex would be homosexual.

well, that's not what I mean, especially as the people the Qu'ran must be referring to would not have been priests or monks or anything like that, they would have been living as part of society

although since you mention it I would guess that there is a fairly high proportion of gay people in monasteries and convents etc, whether they are practicing or not is another matter

 

[azim]

Daoud, its obvious your not here for a logicial debate. You took one term 'men who have no need of women' and twisted it to apply to homosexuals. There are, like I said, old men, eunuchs, hemaphrodites, as others have mentioned, those who have taken a vow of celibacy. That one line is being used against several lines in the Quran which condemn homosexuality and sodomy. Your argument is flawed and your view is incorrect. Think logically. Work it out for yourself. Learn that often it is our own perceptions and thoughts which are wrong, view yourself through the eyes of your creator using the Quran. Dont come to your own conclusion based on your nufs (desires).

 

[minaz]

If one doesn't want to accept that Islam doesn't allow homosexuality in it's followers then I'm glad I don't adopt the same attitude. If an individual decides they like the same sex then so be it - he/she is a non-believer (whether they call themselves a muslim or not)

 

[Far7an]

Assalamu alaikum minaz

I love you akhee and I agree with you, but I have to disagree on one thing

he/she is a non-believer (whether they call themselves a muslim or not)

Commiting an act of kufr, does not make them a kaffir. We have to be very careful when we make takfeer. Remember Allah will question us, about who we made takfeer of, not who we did'nt make takfeer of.

 

[Daoud]

. Your argument is flawed and your view is incorrect. Think logically. Work it out for yourself. .

well nobody's given me a proper argument against what I'm saying, not one that would make sense to an independent observer, all there's been is denial

 

[minaz]

I see what you are saying brother Far7an, yeh I should of elaborated a wee bit on that statement. What i was trying to say is that, having islam as your religion whilst exercising homosexual acts doesn't make you a true muslim. As ever Allah all mighty knows best and will have the final say, but at the end of the day it's an unlawful act - it's never too late to repent though.

well nobody's given me a proper argument

People have posted such things as the stroy of Lut (a.s.) and the area of Sodom. In a nutshell the locals commited evil acts such as criminality and our favourite topic of the day here on The LI "homosexuality". Lut (a.s.) called them to turn away from such sinful acts, but they refused and Allah destroyed the place. If the area was full of law abiding citizens who had moral vlaues would it of been destroyed? What does this tell us about ppl who exercise such acts?
At the end of the day it's down to one self in what they want to beleive in and what they don't

 

[Daoud]

People have posted such things as the stroy of Lut (a.s.) and the area of Sodom. In a nutshell the locals commited evil acts such as criminality and our favourite topic of the day here on The LI "homosexuality". Lut (a.s.) called them to turn away from such sinful acts, but they refused and Allah destroyed the place. If the area was full of law abiding citizens who had moral vlaues would it of been destroyed? What does this tell us about ppl who exercise such acts?
At the end of the day it's down to one self in what they want to beleive in and what they don't

well I'm not going to go through it again having been through it twice already, I can only assume that you're not actually reading the posts in the thread

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I have a little bit of catching up to do here.

Greetings Callum,

Do you agree with someone marrying their parents, so long as there is consent? Most people argue against this by pointing out the genetic diseases that could result from this. But then, using your point, someone could respond by saying that they have other ways to 'pleasure' eachother.

Ansar, with all due respect, this is a silly example. Incest could cause the conception of a child; homosexuality could not. This makes it a very different situation.

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'.

What is it about homosexuality that is so wrong?

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. Hence, it is wrong from a natural perspective. Homosexuality entails many dangerous practices that have disastrous medical consequences. Hence, it is wrong from a medical perspective. 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. Homosexuals consume from society yet contribute nothing in return. Hence, it is wrong from a societal perspective.

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!

Do you mean: why is it widely known, or why is it seen as bigotry?

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!

And I'm not prejudiced towards homosexuals. As I mentioned before:

We think less of one's moral character if they are unable to control their desires. Homosexuality does not mean that someone is unable to control their desires, it means that they have different desires to cope with. So, if someone has homoseuxal tendencies, but they restrain themselves and turn away from evil and towards God, I would not think less of them, on the contrary I would admire their moral character and piety.

So I'm puzzled how the above view would be seen as bigoted.

You've submitted to an imaginary authority whose pronouncements you glean from a 1400 year-old text.

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.



Hello Root,
I almost missed your post buried in the thread.

I don't claim Islam is bad and never have. However, could you refute the Islamic denial of polio vaccinations because the senior Muslim clerics suspected it was a western plot to sterilise the women and lead directly to an outbreak and rise in polio cases....... Does this not also carry "Medical Consequences"

What you've labeled as 'Islamic' and attributed to 'the' senior Muslim clerics' is only the opinion of a handful of people, I'm not even sure who you're referring to. Hence, its neither Islamic belief nor law.


Daoud,

being gay is no more a choice than being left or right handed or having blue eyes or brown

You're supporting the 'genetic cause' view, which you are free to do, but you must realize that amongst the scientific community there is great support for the 'environmental cause' view as well. At this stage, scientists simply don't know.

But we must also realize that from an Islamic perspective, both views are inconsequential to the Islamic law. Even if its genetic, then its just like all the other conditions that people are born with and must patiently bear, restraining their desires.

to suggest otherwise is to say that Allah made a mistake with His creation

To suggest that its an environmental factor or a choice is to attribute a mistake to Allah? How so?

who are al-Tabi'in ghayr ulu al-Irbat min al-Rijal? 24-31

This refers to those people who have no inclination towards women such as the mentally disabled or asexual. As mentioned in Ma'ariful Qur'an:

(or males having no [sexual] urge).
Sayyidna Ibn Abbas rd has explained that, here those confused and deranged type of persons are meant who have no liking and inclination toward women (Ibn Kathir). The same explanation has been put forward by Ibn Jarir quoting Abu Abdullah, Ibn Jubair, Ibn Atiyyah etc. (Shafi, vol. 6)​

It does not include homosexuals as they have been described in the following verses of the Qur'an:
27:54-56. And (remember) Lout (Lot)! When he said to his people . Do you commit Al Fâhishah (sexual indecency) while you watch?"
"Do you approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, but you are a people who behave senselessly."
There was no other answer given by his people except that they said: "Drive out the family of Lout (Lot) from your city. Verily, these are men who want to be clean and pure!"

Here the people of Lot have been condemned for no other sin other than the fact that they approached men in their lusts, i.e. homosexuality. This is the apparent meaning of the verse, and there is no indication that they were condemned because of raping male travlers as you claim.

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

Who are these anonymous 'scholars' you quote? This interpretation is unacceptablle as it contradicts the understanding of the earliest Muslim generations who learnt from the Prophet saws.

all I'm saying is it could refer to gays who despite most Muslims claiming they don't exist

Now you've changed your claim that the verse 24:31 does refer to homosexuals, to saying that it could refer to homosexuals, which is a very weak form of evidence upon which to build an argument that its permissable. Secondly, no Muslim has claimed that homosexuals don't exist.

I hope this clarifies.

Regards.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Callum!

While I was reading through this thread, I couldn't help but feel inclined to comment on some of your statements.

You've submitted to an imaginary authority whose pronouncements you glean from a 1400 year-old text. I prefer to accept truth on a more rational basis.

Indeed it is a 1400 year-old text, in the sense of how long it's been on earth, yet you have omitted a very important word: it's a 1400 year-old unchanged text, and it's never been outdated or incompatible during any stage in time since its revelation. Not only are there miracles in its meanings and statements, but also in its eloquence and undefeatable challenges. Is it really so irrational to accept truth from such an undeniably miraculous book?

Who's to say it's not you who've been socially conditioned by your religion?

I think there is a difference between social conditioning and religious education. With the former, it tends to be in one's face quite often: billboards, tv, radio, buses, and all the trends resulting from such things etc. whereas religion does not 'enforce' its teachings in such a manner. If one disagrees with religion, they do not have to struggle to avoid indecency and keep turning their face away due to its constant ambush from every corner.

Everyone understands that Allah forbids homosexuality; nobody is able to say why.

The very fact that Allaah forbids something is ample reason to abide by it. Explanations can be offered, rather like the responses to your question regarding why pork is forbidden, yet ultimately the wisdom and knowledge behind such laws is with Allaah in full, hence it is sufficient for us to acknowledge this and obey without question since we accept our limited understanding of such issues.

[17.85] ... and you are not given aught of knowledge but a little.

Yes, religion is the opium of the masses, there's no question about that. I don't think you're a fool though - it's just if you present an assertion with no real evidence to back it up I'm likely to be sceptical.

I don't quite understand the term: 'opium of the masses', so if you could just explain. Perhaps if you could clarify the type of evidence you are looking for, because there is evidence from religion, from logic and from science against Homosexuality. Seeing as you don't believe in Islam, the religious evidences aren't of as much value to you.

OK, there were homosexuals in Lot, and Allah destroyed them. There have been homosexuals in lots of other places since then; has Allah been destroying them too?

Allah should do something that could only be attributed to an omnipotent being. That would clear any doubts. It would also make sense if he was consistent in his punishments. If he destroys one group of gay people, then leaves many other gay people alone, is it any wonder people haven't got the message?

Perhaps Allaah has already answered your query:

[3.178] And let not those who disbelieve think that Our granting them respite is better for their souls; We grant them respite only that they may add to their sins; and they shall have a disgraceful chastisement.

[10.11] And if Allah should hasten the evil to men as they desire the hastening on of good, their doom should certainly have been decreed for them; but We leave those alone who hope not for Our meeting in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on.

[13.6] And they ask you to hasten on the evil before the good, and indeed there have been exemplary punishments before them; and most surely your Lord is the Lord of forgiveness to people, notwithstanding their injustice; and most surely your Lord is severe in requiting (evil).

[14.42] And do not think Allah to be heedless of what the unjust do; He only respites them to a day on which the eyes shall be fixedly open,

[15.4] And never did We destroy a town but it had a term made known.
[15.5] No people can hasten on their doom nor can they postpone (it).

[16.61] And if Allah had destroyed men for their iniquity, He would not leave on the earth a single creature, but He respites them till an appointed time; so when their doom will come they shall not be able to delay (it) an hour nor can they bring (it) on (before its time).

[17.16] And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.

The argument from authority is the logical principle you have been using all along in this little discussion. "It's written in the Qur'an, so we must believe it." "Allah says X, therefore we must believe it." Whenever you make an argument from authority, the quality or trustworthiness of that authority has to be determined; if it's ultimately a matter of faith or opinion, then the argument will only convince a believer.

This is similar to the other statement of yours,

Allah should do something that could only be attributed to an omnipotent being. That would clear any doubts.

And this can be explained using many verses of the Qur'an, although I do not wish to overwhelm the discussion with too many Qur'anic verses. But if I just put it short: what exactly do you want Allaah to do?

[13.1] Alif Lam Mim Ra. These are the verses of the Book; and that which is revealed to you from your Lord is the truth, but most people do not believe.
[13.2] Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that you see, and He is firm in power and He made the sun and the moon subservient (to you); each one pursues its course to an appointed time; He regulates the affair, making clear the signs that you may be certain of meeting your Lord.
[13.3] And He it is Who spread the earth and made in it firm mountains and rivers, and of all fruits He has made in it two kinds; He makes the night cover the day; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect.
[13.4] And in the earth there are tracts side by side and gardens of grapes and corn and palm trees having one root and (others) having distinct roots-- they are watered with one water, and We make some of them excel others in fruit; most surely there are signs in this for a people who understand.

Can we not see from the above that only Allaah could do such things? Of course your being an atheist will not be inclined to accept this fact, as has been discussed before, yet I am merely pointing out that the Qur'an brings to light countless examples of Allaah's Might and Power, and that people of reasoning are those that accept and acknowledge them.

The disbelievers at the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) also asked for miracles to prove the existence of Allaah, yet there are many verses which explain that their requests been fulfilled, they would still have not believed.

Believing something because it's said by scientists is a very different matter, as they usually have experimental data to back up what they're saying.

But is not the case that often scientists do not have hard evidence to support their claims? They often make assumptions, guesses - perhaps educated ones, yet just because they are scientists does not make them infallible. In our current discussion, it does not take a leap of faith to accept that being gay is detrimental to one's health, or that it is not a natural way of living. Allaah created us with a natural sense of reasoning, and it is this which prevents homosexuals fitting in to society as though they are to be admired for their actions. Your point about argument of authority can be clarified by saying that we already have determined the "quality" and "trustworthiness" of the authority, such as the perfect nature of the Qur'an as mentioned before.

We may as well say that to believe in a scientist, you must be interested in science, and to believe a politician, you must be into politics, if to believe in religion requires you to be a believer, since "opinions" and 'faith" is not exclusive to religion.

It would certainly be a nice surprise. I'd certainly like to believe in Allah - it would be very comforting, I think. However, I don't have a single shred of a reason for doing so.

Well after reading this post, as well as the many hundreds of others on this forum, I hope that now you do

Peace

 

[Daoud]

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, and I for one believe them but if you don't know gay people as individuals you can never get to understand their situation and can only go by second-hand accounts and pre-conceived ideas

so the point is, if that's the way they were born, why did Allah make them that way? and what harm do they do? ( and please don't mention HIV/AIDS) there seems to be some notion that they will lead others into the same lifestyle but this is just nonsense - if you are not gay then you're not suddenly going to start having sex with the same gender just because your friend does, you either want to do it or you don't. 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. Society is not going to get taken over by gays. If there seem to be more gay people around these days it's purely because they feel more able to be open about it than they used to be, not because there are actually more gays and 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.

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)

and plenty more but I'm sure that's enough to be going on with

 

[baby_muslimah15]

Salaamz okay bro Daoud(this topic might have died down a lil but here is somthin you should read) hope this really helps!!!!

Homosexuality is wrong, a sin, in Islam. Of that there really can be no dispute. See the excellent articles already on-line cited at the end of this article for the citations from the Qur'an. The point of this article is to try to put this into some reasonable perspective.

Sex outside of marriage is forbidden. It does not matter whether it is fornication, adultery, bestiality, pederasty or homosexuality. Many homosexuals claim they were born that way, they can't help being homosexual. The truth is that man has an urge for sexual gratification. As rationalizing (more than rational) beings, people will always try to find a justification for any activity which they find enjoyable. As to the claim by some homosexuals that it is genetic, this has been decisively disproven. Studies have shown that children of homosexuals are no more likely to be homosexual than any other children. If it were hereditary, many more of them would be homosexual. In our society, homosexuality frequently seems to result from a failed male role model, a father who is abusive or grossly negligent. Bestiality and pederasty are certainly natural as well. Every society has men who use children sexually. Everywhere sheep or goats are kept, they are used for sex. So the argument that homosexuality is natural or inborn has little persuasive power for Muslims.

This might have already been posted dunno, If is has sorry 4 postin it again....Salaams

 

[Daoud]

As to the claim by some homosexuals that it is genetic, this has been decisively disproven.

the worldwide reference source of authority on mental disorders is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, vol IV

this is used by all health authorities, governments, university research departments etc and is where you will find the most up to date thinking on mental illnesses and disorders - it gives definitions and diagnoses for all major and minor mental illnesses and disorders such as schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, autism and so on

homosexuality used to be included in this Manual but some years ago was removed ie there is no recognised international body in the world of any status or repute that now believes homosexuality is a disorder or disease of any kind

 

[hoping4jannah]

Assalam alaikum all

I'm glad this thread started cuz I've always wondered and been particularly wondering since the past few days on this issue.

Homosexuality is haram in Islam, that does not need proof. The vast numbers in which people are going towards 'gaydom' is proof in itself that this is not something they cannot control. It results from perversion in the people's minds and not following the natural course laid down by Allah.

But being 'gay' is different from being a transsexual. Transsexuals identify themselves as one gender trapped in the body of another. They are different from hermaphrodites as they have all the physical characteristics of the gender they are known to be. But their mental state is of the opposite gender. This is something they cannot control.

I'm sure the people from the Indian subcontinent know them to be called 'hijras'. A people shunned by society, for a cause they cannot control.

I was wondering what was the Islamic ruling for such people? I've read rasool saw ordered such people (I'm not sure is this ruling is restricted to hermaphrodites), to be kept away and isolated from the society. But is such a person allowed to behave in the manner he/she wants or is Islamically obliged to force himself/herself to behave as what they are known. (for example, in their manner of dressing etc)

It is a very pitiable and distressing situation. How is it that such a person should fulfill his/her obligations as a Muslim? What is it that is required of them as Muslims? And what should the stance of the rest of the Muslim society be towards them?