“Towards a dialogue on Muslim same-sex unions”: Dr. Junaid Bin Jahangir

Towards a dialogue on Muslim same-sex unions

Dr. Junaid Bin Jahangir

As in Christianity and Judaism, there has been a shift in the Islamic position on ‘homosexuality’. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has said that he would not worship a homophobic God. Likewise, Rabbi Harold Schulweis has stated that the counsel of celibacy is contrary to the Judaic affirmation of sexuality.

In Islam, US based Imam Suhaib Webb has expressed regret on his referral to a reparative therapy group and argues against the discrimination of gay congregants. Likewise, Sudan based Sheikh Hashim Al-Hakim has indicated that while, he used to be hard against homosexuals, he has ‘learned to respect their humanity’. US based Imam Johari Malik has said that ‘It’s time to get past our homophobia to help human beings’.

In contrast to traditional Muslim views, several church denominations and synagogues bless same-sex unions. However, Muslim discourse is not shaped by alternative voices in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Groups like Muslims for Progressive Values work towards supporting Muslim LGBTQ rights. However, in contrast to Judaism and Christianity, the discussion on same-sex unions in Islam is fairly recent.

  • Orientation

Traditional Muslims believe that any homosexual conduct is prohibited. Several Muslim medical professionals argue that homosexuality was declassified as a disorder due to pressure from gay activist groups. However, Rabbi Gershom Barnard indicates that medical opinion gradually evolved from hormonal treatment to psychoanalysis to behavioral conditioning to saying that there is no treatment to finally indicating that there is nothing to treat.

Professor Hashim Kamali of the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies in Malaysia has stated that both Islamic jurisprudence and science confirm that sexual orientation is inherent. Dr. Qazi Rahman from the University of London and co-author of the book ‘Born Gay: the Psychobiology of Sex Orientation’ also affirms the innateness of ‘homosexuality’.

According to Dr. Bassem Nathan, three medical opinions existed among medieval Arabs. According to one school of thought, ‘homosexuality results when the maternal sperm prevails over the paternal sperm’. Like Al Razi (d. 925 CE), the Nestorian Christian Hunain Ibn Ishaq (d. 873 CE) and the Melkite Christian Qusta Ibn Luqa (d. 912 CE) also subscribed to the view that ‘homosexuality’ was an inherent trait. 

According to Dr. Sahar Amer, Al Kindi (d. 873 CE) and Ibn Masawayh (d. 857 CE) respectively stated that ‘lesbianism’ was explained on the basis of physical traits and exposure to the effects of certain foods during infancy. In contrast, traditional Muslims reject the prevailing psychiatric view of homosexuality and reference the works of reparative therapy groups.  It is striking to note that reparative therapy groups offer suggestions that include a ‘Dad exposing his penis to his young son in the shower’.

  • Promiscuity, anal intercourse, fatal diseases, alcoholism  and celibacy

Traditional Muslims attribute suicidal behavior to ‘homosexuality’ rather than societal prejudice. They associate fatal diseases with ‘homosexual behavior’, specifically understood as male anal intercourse, rather than promiscuity. They allude to the statistics on HIV infections among ‘MSM-men who have sex with men’ and indicate that ‘homosexuality’ leads to ‘fitna-social chaos’.

In contrast, dissenting Muslims distinguish between orientation and the act of ‘anal intercourse’. They indicate that anal intercourse, while strongly disliked, is permissible with the wife’s consent in Shia jurisprudence. Furthermore, they indicate that while many heterosexuals indulge in the act, many monogamous long-term gay couples do not have anal sex.

Dissenting Muslims also distinguish between gay men and the ‘MSM’. The latter are occasionally heterosexuals, who indulge in homosexual acts for financial reasons or because of lack of access to women in prisons or in gender segregated cultures. According to Nadya Labi, writer of ‘The Kingdom in the Closet’, a Filipino expatriate in Saudi Arabia indicated that Saudi men stop calling him for sex after their wives are no longer pregnant or menstruating.

Dissenting Muslims indicate that we do not erroneously associate high AIDS cases in Sub Saharan Africa with heterosexuality. They state that HIV and other diseases should be associated with stigma and promiscuity rather than orientation. However, traditional Muslims analogize ‘homosexuality’ with alcoholism and prescribe celibacy to homosexuals just as they prescribe self control to alcoholics. They view ‘homosexuality’ as a test of life justified by a great reward in the Hereafter. In contrast, the 14th century mystic poet Hafiz stated that ‘not even seven thousand years of joy can justify seven days of repression’.

Dr. Abdul Azeem Abozaid and Dr. Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki indicate that the Sharia provides alternatives in lieu of a prohibition. They allude to the permissibility of ‘Nikah-marriage’ in lieu of adultery, many food and drinks in lieu of pork and wine and many trade based contracts in place of usury and gambling. However, no such substitute exists for gays and lesbians. Thus, dissenting Muslims argue that it would not be appropriate to create an analogy between a basic intimacy need and craving for a liquid for which exist many alternatives.

Dissenting Muslims further argue that celibacy is a value foreign to Islam. They indicate that Islam, like Judaism, acknowledges basic intimacy needs and affirms a legitimate avenue for their expression. They also warn of ‘fitna-social chaos’ in the absence of a legitimate avenue for sexual expression. The Rabbis, who wrote for the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards on homosexuality, state that many celibate clergy have found it impossible to fulfill their vows.

However, traditional Muslim scholars caution young Muslims against making homosexual behavior compatible with Islamic teachings. In contrast, Rabbi Schulweis states that the ‘Jewish law was not instituted to make life miserable’ and that denying intimacy to innocent people would violate his Jewish sense of fairness and compassion.

  • Jurisprudence

Traditional scholars are bound by a forbidding legacy that either prescribes flogging or the capital penalty for ‘liwat-male anal intercourse’. These punishments were either based on analogizing ‘liwat’ with fornication or on texts that were discredited by several jurists like Imam Abu Hanifa and Ibn Hazm as inauthentic. Contemporary Muslim scholars like Sheikh El-Shinqiti also reject these narratives based on the doubts raised by Bukhari, Muslim and other Hadith experts.

Rejecting the analogy with fornication, these jurists suggested a ‘tazeer-discretionary’ penalty by equating ‘liwat’ with other sexual conduct. However, the absence of correction for constitutional homosexuals and the absence of consent in analogizing ‘liwat’ with bestiality and necrophilia limits the scope of any discretionary penalty. As such, some contemporary Muslim scholars like India based Asghar Ali Engineer, Maulana Abu Zafar Hassan Nadvi and Maulana Zaheer Abbas Rizvi are prone to the decriminalization of ‘homosexuality’.

Several past scholars like Imam Abu Hanifa, Ibn Taymmiah and Al Razi assumed that ‘liwat’ was a one-sided conduct. They reasoned that in the absence of disease or financial reasons, the passive partner does not desire ‘liwat’ as it results in hatred and humiliation. However, Archbishop Tutu questions any reason to deny that homosexual love leads towards compassion.

Professor Scott Kugle distinguishes between ‘liwat’, a later juristic term, and ‘amal qaum lut-actions of Lot’s people’, which is associated with apostasy, highway robbery and rebellion in some texts that allude to the Companions. This further emphasizes that any homosexual conduct was viewed as non-consensual by past authorities.

Acknowledging such limitations, some traditional Muslims argue on the basis of the ‘awrah-nakedness’ texts or verses 4:15-16. However, the ‘awrah’ texts are as irrelevant to ‘Nikah-marriage’ as verses 4:15-16, by scholarly unanimity, are for homosexual conduct.

  • Qur’anic Analysis

While addressing ‘liwat’, the Muslim tradition does not deal with the anachronistic issue of same-sex unions. Nonetheless, the eventual arguments used to prohibit same-sex unions are based on the verses on Lot’s people and verses 23:5-7 on ‘Hifz Furuj-guarding private parts’.

Based on a holistic contextual analysis, dissenting Muslims argue that the verses on Lot’s people refer to acts of coercion and inhospitality. They argue that the part ‘you approach males and commit highway robbery’ in verse 29:29 refers to coercion. Whereas, the part ‘Have we not forbidden you from (entertaining) others?’ in verse 15:70 refers to inhospitality.

The part ‘we have no right on your daughters’ in verse 11:79 also emphasizes coercion over orientation as the word ‘Haqq-right’ has been used in lieu of the word ‘Irba-desire’. In the context of verse 7:80, Ibn Katheer mentions that Lot’s people invented deeds unfamiliar to men and other creatures that existed before them. In contrast, historical record places homosexual conduct in Bronze Age Mesopotamia (3000 BCE), Stone Age Brazil (12,000 years ago) and several continents in the Paleolithic Age prior to the time of Lot’s people (1800 BCE or 2300 BCE).

In contrast, some Muslims argue that the phrase ‘ma sabaqakum-none preceded you’ in verse 7:80 serves to emphasize the gravity of the crime of Lot’s people. As such, they disagree with the understanding of Ibn Katheer and other commentators on verse 7:80.  Likewise, dissenting Muslims indicate that these verses are not referring to constitutional gays but sexual violence committed by, to borrow Ronnie Hassan’s words, “a lunatic fringe of humanity”.

Dissenting Muslims substantiate these arguments by secondary texts, which, according to Professor Kugle, are relatively difficult to forge. These texts that provide the context for the conduct of Lot’s people appear in ‘Tarikh Tabari’, ‘Qisas Al Anbiya’ and the ‘Jalalyn Tafseer’. Of the various texts, three are reproduced below as examples.

[Lot’s people] said: make it your tradition that if you take a stranger in your country, you penetrate him, and make him pay four Dirhams.  People will not come to your place if you did that.  (Tafsir Jalalyn)

Greed and miserliness bid them follow its call, to the extent that if any strangers stopped to ask for their hospitality, they would rape them (fadahahu) without sexual need, in order to dishonor them. They persisted in this behavior until they began to search out men and force themselves on them. (Qisas Al Anbiya by Al Rawandi)

[Yunus à Ibn Wahb à Ibn Zayd]: Concerning God’s statement, “And you commit abominations in your meetings”, their meetings were the assemblies, and the abomination was their disgusting act which they would perform. They would accost a rider and seize him and mount him. (Tarikh Tabari)

Based on a linguistic analysis, dissenting Muslims argue that the phrase ‘atatoona ldhukrana-approaching males’ in verse 26:165, traditionally understood as consensual homosexual conduct, refers to coercive action. They argue that the verb ‘atatoona’, based on Edward Lane’s Lexicon, also connotes the meanings of ‘pursue’, ‘hasten’, and ‘the act of propelling or impelling – particularly of an arrow from a bow’.  Whereas, based on Lisan Al-Arab, the noun ‘ldhukrana’ connotes a non-receptive entity in contrast to the noun ‘untha-female’ that connotes a receptive entity.

As such, Dr. Hussein Abdul Latif argues that in Classical Arabic usage, consent is assumed to exist between a male and a female. However, such implicit consent is assumed to be absent between males. This substantiates reading the phrase plausibly as ‘pursuing non-receptive entities’. France based Imam Tarek Oubrou has confirmed that the Qur’anic narrative on Lot’s people depicts ‘violent sexual relationships’. Likewise, Dr. Youssef Seddik writes in ‘We never read the Koran’ that ‘homosexuality’ is not forbidden in the Qur’an.

Based on Dr. Khaled El-Rouayheb’s work, scholars like Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami (d. 1566 CE) and Abd Al-Baqi Al-Zurqani (d. 1688 CE) walked a thin line on non-penetrative sexual conduct. The Rector of Al Azhar, Shaykh Muhammad Al-Hafni (d. 1767 CE) summarized the contrasting opinion of the scholars for the permissibility of ‘liwat’ in Paradise.

  • Revisiting Jurisprudence

Dissenting Muslims argue that verses 23:5-7 that confine legitimate sexual relations between opposite gender spouses are open to exceptional cases. They allude to past jurists who allowed ‘khuntha mushkil-intersexuals’ to marry based on their inner constitution.  According to the Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Fiqh, the Hanbali jurist Al-Kharqi reasoned as follows.

‘If he [khuntha] said that he is a man and that he desires women, then he can do it [marry a female].  If he said that he is a woman and he desires men, then he can do it [marry a male].  This is because only he can decide and no one other than him can decide this.  So, his word is accepted as the word of the woman is accepted on menstruation.  He, the Khuntha may know himself according to the desires as he sees which of the two sexes he desires.’

These Muslims eventually reference the juristic framework of ‘maslaha-public interest’ and ‘darura-dire necessity’ to argue for Muslim same-sex unions. The Shafi’i jurist Shihab Al-Din Ahmad Al-Ramli (d. 1550 CE) is recorded to have stated that kissing the object of one’s affection was a duty if in line with the then medical theory such frustration would contribute to the lover’s death.

In contemporary times, the European Council for Fatwa and Research, while recognizing usury as a major sin, allow for home mortgages on the principle of equating ‘Hajah-need’ with ‘darurah-dire necessity’ and restrict this ‘rukhsa-facility’ to those Muslims in a real need for a house. Likewise, Sheikh Hashim Al-Hakim implicitly uses the ‘darurah’ framework when he states that if ‘homosexuals’ are to continue, they must practice safe sex to avoid harm.

Traditional Muslims may reject the scope of ‘aql-reason’ and such juristic frameworks by associating them with ‘hawa-desire’. They argue that the ‘necessity trumps prohibition’ maxim might apply to consuming pork but not sexual conduct. However, dissenting Muslims appeal to a higher ethic based on the Prophet’s teachings.

They emphasize the Prophet’s words paraphrased as ‘do not harm and accept no harm’, ‘wish for your brother what you wish for yourself’, ‘when some Muslims hurt other Muslims ache’, ‘facilitate, do not cause difficulties or cause people to detest the law’ and ‘do not fall into extremities but seek the middle path’.

US based Dr. Emran El-Badawi paraphrases Egyptian scholar Gamal Al Banna as stating that ‘Imam al-Shaf’i was great, but I am greater than him, because I learned from him and I have the benefit of centuries’ worth of knowledge beyond him’. Given our increased knowledge of sexual orientation and the injustice of condemning people to celibacy, the issue of gays and lesbians deserves to be revisited with a renewed perspective. As such, Netherlands based Imam El-Ouazzani and Spain based Abdennur Prado, President of the Junta Islámica Catalana, have indicated to make the issue more debatable.

In 2006, based on human dignity, Conservative Jews sanctioned same-sex unions. Their reasoning included a reference to Rabbi Eliezer’s quote that ‘Let your neighbor’s dignity be precious to you as your own.’ Likewise, in the context of gays and lesbians, Indonesia based Dr. Siti Musdah Mulia has pointed to the Islamic emphasis on ‘Ird-dignity’ of human beings. As such, Muslim scholars are invited to heed the words of Ibn Taymmiah.

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

Dr. Junaid Bin Jahangir is Lecturer in Economics in Edmonton, Alberta.

28 thoughts on ““Towards a dialogue on Muslim same-sex unions”: Dr. Junaid Bin Jahangir

    • I’d have to agree.

      Yasir Qadhi, Hamza Yusuf, Suhaib Webb, Dr, Sherman Jackson, etc. (Scholars and Imams from a variety of backgrounds and schools of thought) have all discussed the issue in a constructive manner without promoting it as something to be encouraged or facilitated. And for the record, they’re also acknowledging that for some people, it’s an innate state. The discussions they have presented and offered provide a much more reasonable source of understanding than this piece.

  1. @Abdullah, me thinks you have reversed it…making halaal the haraam. When did you get the email from Allah that you are promoting Allah’s direction? Awaiting your response.

  2. I have enjoyed reading this piece, particularly the section about Quranic analysis, as that is more interesting to me than the interpretations of other jurists. Like so many people, I read the Quran in an alphabet I could pronounce but a language I did not understand, and accepted received tradition as interpretation. So it is nice to get a fuller picture
    I appreciated the perspective that what the Quran discourages is actually sex without love and commitment:

    (1) sex as shaming
    (2) coercive sex between men
    (3) sex with strangers, as entertainment
    (4) group/ public sex

  3. So in the future generations of western muslims, when alcoholism is passed on through generations..can we modify the ruling?

    Since “when the scholars find out that their decisions are causing lots of suffering, or that people are looking for worse loopholes than the actual prohibition, or that people end up living in the ‘Haram’, then it is time for the scholars to think again about their conclusions.”

    First of all, its not “their” decisions. it is the word of God. I think this article is requiring immediate re-editing.

    Thank you, look forward to reading the “edited” version.

    • I second this notion. But it seems that our view is exactly what this article is trying to avoid. May Allah guide us all.

    • This is why there are scholars upon the Sunnah and scholars upon Biddah , so i.e if a scholars says LGBT is halal , you know that he is a scholar upon biddah and for money , and he left the way of Salaf and Allah know s best

  4. A very interesting treatise that speaks clearly about homosexuality. I have always believed that ones sexual orientation is genetic. The books of the various beliefs are seriously out of date with reality as some of us(those living in the 21st century)realize.
    I do not nor ever will deny the existence of anyone a God because that is an extension of our being and who we are as individuals.
    In essence, “GOD IS GOOD” it is RELIGION that sucks the tit of the ass.
    I’ve always believed that one love is greater than many, but, too much of a good thing is not good either.
    I do believe the majority of people in this world need to rethink what RELIGION is. .

  5. REFER TO AL-QURANUL QAREEM….not to Desmond Tutu! and not vested interest ! who has behind your motives fund-rising your project?

  6. Sorry you have to put up with so many smarmy, condescending assholes, Junaid. This article is really great! I love the progress you are making, and it’s great that you have the bravery to stand up and talk about this. You are doing good work and it is changing the world in a positive way. Keep it up, and don’t let any self-righteous asshats on the internet deter you.

  7. This is unacceptable. Scholars/Imams cannot change the laws of Allah(swt) on gay marriage just because “maslaha-public interest” or “darura-dire necessity”. The rules must be followed until the day of Judgement. When Rabbis and Priests legalize this type of marriage, that’s their problem. Muslims do not need to sink to their level of disobedience to Allah(swt) laws.

    They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah)….9.31

    • Musa, salaam. It is amazing how often Muslims as individuals and collectively will use the same language to denounce homosexuality, but will not challenge the status quo of so many other social and political ills within Muslim communities and governments worldwide…under the same guise as you state: (Scholars/Imams…by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah.) As each person must read the Quran for themselves and to come to conclusions based on that knowledge and their circumstances, where is the error in your reasoning that Muslims should rely upon the scholars and Imams…and find their salvation there and not in their own relationship with Allah. If the Jews and Christians did the thing you claim, Muslims have done so in great abandonment too. Get your history books out and check for yourself…if you seek to come from under that cover you’re hiding under.

      • Thank you for your comment Daaiyee

        Firstly the English interpretation of verse 9.31 are not my words but words of Muhsin Khan and here is the link if you do not believe me http://quran.com/9. Then choose Mushsin Khan translations.

        Secondly it does not sound very good to say that all Muslims do not challenge “social and political ills” within their communities because simply you have not met all of 1.5 billion Muslims in this world. If no one challenged ‘social and political ills” then why did we witness the Arab spring?

        Thirdly when Imams/scholars choose to change the rulings of Quran , you have to keep in mind that every Muslims has the free will to either follow the rulings of the Quran or the rules of other human beings. I will give an example from article. It says European Council for Fatwa and Research ” allowed” usury because “darurah-dire necessity” and where I live a minority of Muslims have chosen to apply for home loans but the majority know that riba/usury is haram and have chosen to rent. That’s why I have included verse 9.31 and said Muslims should follow Allah(swt) laws and not change them just because the people of the book or Imams are changing them.

        Fourthly, If you didn’t know some churches bless gay marriage such as Anglican Church of Canada, United church of Canada , Lutheran Church of Sweden etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing_of_same-sex_unions_in_Christian_churches.
        That’s why I said Muslims should follow laws of Allah(swt) and not try and “copy” the people of the book.

        Finally , I never said that Muslims should just follow the words Imams/scholars because they are humans and they can be wrong. So I don’t why you wrote this “…, where is the error in your reasoning that Muslims should rely upon the scholars and Imams…and find their salvation there and not in their own relationship with Allah”

        But hey if you think a man marrying another man is halal based on your “knowledge and circumstances” then go for it!!. But may I remind you that our Prophet(pbuh) was the most knowledgeable person of Quran and he never allowed this type marriage at his time . So chances of you being wrong are very very high.

  8. Confused as to why we must treat religion like a liberal democratic state and adherents as ‘citizens’. I don’t have an issue with gay marriage in a secular context, but I don’t think it makes sense to re-work religious edicts, on such a fundamental issue, in order to make things more ‘convenient.’ Religions are heteronormative, whether or not we like it or agree with it. Changing a religious edict to absolve one’s guilt isn’t the way to go. Yes as a community we need to better our approach to and understanding of the LGBTQ community and accept Muslims as they are, not as what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. But I shouldn’t be forced to accept, on religious terms, something which is otherwise quite clearly forbidden in religion.

    Also, picking and choosing from scholarly texts doesn’t help your case either.

  9. this kind of quasi-intellectual convoluted argument can only come from someone who doesn’t have a real background in islamic scholarship.

    whats so laughable about this piece, and all such arguments, is that, in order to construct such fraudulent arguments the author must either knowingly ignore other relevant information that points to a contradictory conclusion or the author must be ignorant of it. If the former is true then the author is a liar, and if the latter is true the author does not have the expertise to be writing about the subject in the first place.

    the prohibition against homosexuality is clearly evidenced when reading ayah 7:81, which states, “[L]o! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk. ”

    Its funny how the author talks about verse 7:80 but never addresses the verse right after it (which i just referenced above). Hey Dr. Jahangir, before you start throwing your “Dr” title around in order to give weight to your academic credentials for interpreting the Quran, I suggest you look up some of the very basic principles of exegesis.

    Principle number 1: Meanings of verse are to be interpreted in light of other verses.

    It would have been better for your argument to have read the next verse (7:81) before writing this rubbish. Such glaring errors in your methodology leads me to discredit this entire piece.

    as someone else stated before, “stick to economics.”

  10. I know that photo. It made headlines in the news. Great article, by the way. Religion’s evolving to something great. Now everyone can reach us.

    But.. yes, there’s the prophet Luth’s story regarding homosexuality. I will be neutral about this as I am not opposing nor am I supporting both parties. Social stigma sometimes leaves us hanging.

  11. “Archbishop Desmond Tutu has said that he would not worship a homophobic God.”

    He needs to read his Bible. It says:

    ‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.’ (Leviticus 20:13)

    He’s 80 so I guess his memory is not too good nowadays.

    “They indicate that anal intercourse, while strongly disliked, is permissible with the wife’s consent in Shia jurisprudence.”

    But this is what Sunni ahadith say about anal intercourse:

    1 – It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The one who has intercourse with his wife in her back passage has disavowed himself of that which was revealed to Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).” Narrated by Abu Dawood (3904); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.

    2 – It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah will not look at a man who has intercourse with a woman in her back passage.” Narrated by al-Tirmidhi (1165); classed as saheeh by Ibn Daqeeq al-‘Eid in al-Ilmaam (2/660) and by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.

    3 – It was narrated that Khuzaymah ibn Thaabit (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah is not too shy to tell the truth” three times. “Do not have intercourse with women in their back passages.” Narrated by Ibn Maajah (1924); classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Ibn Maajah.

    So with some ‘Muslims’ now convert to Shi’ism in order to have ‘halal’ anal sex.

    “In contrast, the 14th century mystic poet Hafiz stated that ‘not even seven thousand years of joy can justify seven days of repression’.”

    What about an eternity of joy? This is what Allah has promised us:

    ‘Say, “Shall I inform you of [something] better than that? For those who fear Allah will be gardens in the presence of their Lord beneath which rivers flow, wherein they ABIDE ETERNALLY, and purified spouses and approval from Allah.’ (3:15)

    “However, no such substitute exists for gays and lesbians. Thus, dissenting Muslims argue that it would not be appropriate to create an analogy between a basic intimacy need and craving for a liquid for which exist many alternatives.”

    There is a substitute/alternative. Sex with the opposite gender spouse/s.

    “Dissenting Muslims further argue that celibacy is a value foreign to Islam.”

    Yes but neither is active homosexuality. Also celibacy is obligatory when one can’t marry:

    ‘While I was walking with ‘Abdullah he said, “We were in the company of the Prophet and he said, ‘He who can afford to marry should marry, because it will help him refrain from looking at other women, and save his private parts from looking at other women, and save his private parts from committing illegal sexual relation; and he who cannot afford to marry is advised to fast, as fasting will diminish his sexual power.’ (Sahih Bukhari 3:129)

    “…or that people end up living in the ‘Haram’, then it is time for the scholars to think again about their conclusions. ”

    Humans are prone to sin (i.e. haram). Should we now make all haram halal, so no person lives in as you put ‘Haram?’ Silly.

    • 1) The word ‘toevah’ used in Lev 20:13 has been used for shell fish, hybridization of cattle, mixing of fabrics. Regardless, I think, as per the clergy and the Rabbinate, these texts were superseded by others.

      2) The three texts on anal intercourse were rejected by Imam Shafi, Bazzar amongst others. Albani was one of the few who deemed them sahih. However, he faced strong criticism by other Hadith scholars.

      3) Rabia Al Adawiyya (d. 801 CE) stated: “O God! If I worship You for fear of Hell, burn me in Hell,
      and if I worship You in hope of Paradise, exclude me from Paradise.”

      4) Hadith 3:129 might be viewed in light of verse 24:33. The directive was temporary in the context of the emancipation of slaves. Ibn Kathir’s text referral is quite clear on that.

      5) The frameworks of maslaha mursala and darura are traditionally viewed in light of the Prophet’s (upon whom be peace) teachings and the Quranic theme on facilitation rather than making the haram halal. The marriage of khuntha mushkil, and several other ethical issues were dealt in this manner.

      Ofcourse, not all scholars agree.

    • >>>“However, no such substitute exists for gays and lesbians. Thus, dissenting Muslims argue that it would not be appropriate to create an analogy between a basic intimacy need and craving for a liquid for which exist many alternatives.”

      >>There is a substitute/alternative. Sex with the opposite gender spouse/s.

      Excuse me, but would it not be fraud for a gay man to marry a women with whom physical intimacy is repulsive or unattractive? Would you want a gay man to pretend he’s not gay and marry your sister? Or a lesbian to agree to marry a man, never telling him that she was a lesbian, just to keep up societal appearances?

  12. Some food for thought:

    – One of the essential items of a marriage contract is the mahr (dowry) paid by the man to the woman. Who pays whom in one of your imagined ‘gay marriages’?
    – A man may not marry his sister or mother. Can he marry his brother or father? Provide us some scriptural backing.
    – A Muslim man may – if the law of the land permits – marry up to four women. Would you suggest the same for each man, resulting in a big complex web of men all married with each other?
    – (To go further, can a “bisexual” take both men and women as married partners?)
    – A man has the full obligation to provide for his wife and children, while the woman’s money is her own right to spend or keep as she wishes. What system will you devise into Islamic law for two men?
    – In the eventuality of divorce, there is a difference between the procedure by the husband as compared to the wife. Which of the ‘gays’ gets the right to pronounce talaq?


  13. You know when I read puesdo scientific articles, I feel happy that one day life will end, and I don’t have to suffer anymore…God only knows what our children and grandchildren will go through.

  14. Muslim cultures, like middle eastern Christian cultures, are homophobic because of their social context. Like Lebanese and Nigerian Christians, Muslims are probe to justify their homophobia with religion.

    They are not homophobic because of religion. But they use religion to justify their homophobia, as though they came to the conclusion that they should be homophobic after careful reading of religious scripture. No. Their homophobia came first, religious “justification” came after. Such is middle eastern culture.

    One must question why non middle-eastern Muslim countries such as Pakistans Punjab and Sindh provinces, as well as Indonesia, aren’t nearly as homophobic as a “liberal” country like Lebanon. Why do Nigerian Christian demonize homosexuality as equally as Nigerian Muslims? Because their cultures are homophobic. It is convenient to justify bigotry with religion. And that is what these homophobic bigots do.

  15. Wow, this is a ridiculous chain of arguments, from someone clearly unfamiliar with Islamic jurisprudence, it’s hard to choose where to start in dismantling it. As others have said, stick to economics. I’ve taken just Intro to Macro, I’m sure the author would object to me writing on national economic policy. In his drive to push this revisionist pro-regressive nonsense down our throats, he is far more callous with writing on topic he’s clearly unqualified in than the previous example. This is the deen of Allah he’s twisting.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s