Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Mahdavist

Moderators
  • Posts

    3,801
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    97

Everything posted by Mahdavist

  1. Taking down the flags gives a clear signal that the movement is not unanimous and universal, rather there are still vocal and active citizens who don’t associate themselves with it. This is very important because the objective of the movement is to establish itself as a global standard. I don’t need to change my route when passing a bathroom, rather we must insist that exclusive male and female bathrooms remain available in all facilities. Same thing with changing rooms. How many complaints will we write? However many it takes inshaAllah. I hope our Christian and Jewish associates can join us in this effort as well as any and all citizens who wish to maintain the family structure, male and female gender identification and the basic rights and facilities that are associated to it.
  2. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the response here shouldn’t be to pull down the flags. Rather a complaint should be launched to the university informing them that putting up such flags is in contradiction to the neutrality that is expected of them and that they should therefore themselves have them removed.
  3. Thanks for sharing this. I can highly recommend it, the brother does a great job of covering the key events from the life of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) while also deriving lessons for us today.
  4. This idea of Islam being an imported religion is outdated. Today many of us ARE Western. We were born in the West, educated in the West, work in the West and pay our taxes in the West. Our freedom of speech allows us to disassociate ourselves from movements and ideologies that we disagree with. We expect neutral institutions to remain neutral rather than to side with specific movements or ideologies.
  5. Wa alaikum as salam May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) help you through this terrible situation. Unfortunately it appears that your father is completely unstable. I think @starlight has provided you with a difficult but necessary piece of advice which will hopefully allow yourself and your family to live in peace. Regarding marriage, I believe if you explain your situation to a religious scholar they will agree that your father's permission is not required to get married to a decent Muslim man, and will agree to recite the nikah for you.
  6. I wouldn't say we are torturing anyone, simply because we haven't made the rule. The rule was established by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) 14 centuries ago. The line of reasoning here is quite unusual because it suggests that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has been torturing a group of people and it is now on us to take corrective actions. I think you can see how problematic this logic is, even if it isn't what you intended. The onus of proof is usually on the one who makes the claim, not the one who questions it. Either way I won't challenge this further, at this point since I don't see it as something critical. Globally maybe not, locally you still have regions that are going through similar challenges to the one's you described previously. If your point is that couples can now raise children who are not their own, or only partially their own, then this leads us to a new topic about the islamic family structure and all the rules associated to it. We can probably keep that on hold for now. This is the same point as the first one. We are not imposing anything, rather as Muslimeen we submit to the command of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Does this involve hardships? Yes it certainly can. Are we forcing the religion on anyone? I would say we shouldn't, each individual can decide whether they want to submit to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) or not and whether they can tolerate the hardships or not. What we certainly cannot do is to replace divine commands with our own preferred rules. This defeats the entire concept of submitting to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and is fundamentally problematic in every possible way. Certainly we need to continuously study and evaluate our texts in the context of continuously evolving societies and developments. The objective however is to do this within the framework of the shariah. If we rewrite our own shariah altogether then we haven't done the exercise at all and are in fact no different to the previous communities of monotheists who replaced Allah's revelation and command by their own commands. The first we can pretty much take as a fact, which is that homosexual acts are forbidden in Islam. The second is essentially your attempt to interpret the reasoning for the prohibition. I admire that you have taken the time and effort for this exercise, but the point still remains that regardless why we think Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) might have made a certain rule we cannot go ahead and remove it without a command permitting us to do so. As you mentioned before, it isn't particularly creative or innovative. It is essentially the solution that always existed, potentially with some modern developments. The key difference is that it needs to become more accessible so that people know this option exists. The reality is that there are muslimeen attracted to the same gender who want to continue practicing Islam, and I believe we should try and help them to do this within the framework of the shariah rather than to shame them, abuse them or shun them. The same goes for many other contemporary challenges. The discussion has been interesting brother and I think such discussions are very much required and even overdue today. We can of course continue, either in this thread or future discussions, but to avoid getting stuck in a spiral I would like to summarize some key points, and it could be that we may end up agreeing to disagree on some of them. 1. I believe we are not authorized to legalize what Allah has prohibited nor to prohibit what Allah has legalized. What we, or more specifically our fuqaha, can do is to evaluate where new challenges fit within the established framework. 2. I believe homosexual acts are clearly forbidden in Islam, based on Qur'an, hadith and ijma, in a categorical manner with no exceptions. 3. I believe that someone with homosexual desires can continue to practice Islam in a sustainable manner, albeit with challenges, as long as they are not acting on these desires. 4. I believe that as a community we should help and support our brothers and sisters who want to continue practicing their religion despite various challenges, including homosexuality. In fact we are all in this category since we all face our own challenges, some more difficult than others. 5. I am against the shaming and abuse of individuals who have homosexual desires. I believe this goes against religious etiquette and teachings. 6. I am also against the promotion of haram and this includes the promotion of a gay lifestyle (eg LGBT)
  7. Understood. You are saying that at the time the Qur'an was revealed, it was understood that men can desire other men but not exclusively, ie that they can be bisexual but not exclusively homosexual? This could be the case, although I don't see a strong reason for assuming that exclusive homosexuality was not plausible in the 7th century. Even if we suppose this, we have verses and narrations which are better understood over time yet when it comes to homosexual acts there is no indication anywhere that it is tolerated in certain cases. This is interesting because you are saying that essentially it is possible for people with homosexual desires to 'take one for the team'. The whole premise that they are stuck and need a solution (in this case you propose the removal of a well established hurma) is countered by this. Another point that comes up here is that you are basing your proposal on the stability of a 1-2percent quota so to speak. You say this has been historically stable, yet I think this would be impossible to prove even in a very approximate manner. The question here is, will your proposal still remain if this category grows? Where is the cap? Finally, what happens in societies that are faced with the same historical challenges. Does the Ukrainian, Palestinian or Yemeni muslim, today in 2022, fall into the same category as the muslim of the 7th century who simply had to get through a heterosexual lifestyle for the greater good? Are you proposing to lift the prohibition in stable societies only? What if they have low birth rates, does this prohibition then remain in place? What I am trying to say is that the historical context and challenges you mention cannot be said to be obsolete today. Whether these characteristics are really unique to the category of 1-2 percent or whether this is just a stereotype is debatable. I would imagine that the people concerned would possibly object to this portrayal. Even if it is the case, would we not then be stopping the continuous improvement to our gene pool and thus to civilization as per this theory? If this was the case then why would it not hold true today? The idea was that living such a lifestyle is unsustainable and therefore the prohibition of same sex relationships should be removed, yet if I read this theory correctly there is apparently a sustainable lifestyle available. I would say that the audience for the texts is all of mankind, including minorities. If we are suggesting that Islam was revealed for a majority audience only then the universality of the religion becomes limited, which is not a claim that I think either of us would support. If we are making a claim as large as saying that a prohibited act is permissible for a small group of people, then surely we should be able to produce some sort of evidence. I would repeat that there isn't any textual evidence until it is actually presented. It isn't a new solution because it has been available all along. The difference is that it would be more ethical today, not less, because of the transparency. There would be no more deception. Muslimeen going through this struggle should be able to discuss it openly with potential partners (who may also be asexual, bisexual or homosexual) so that both sides can agree on what sort of relationship they are entering. Discussions on sexual reproduction, IVF or adoption would take place. A family life would become available to people who otherwise thought it was out of reach. The pressure of having to cover one's feelings up would be removed. All this while remaining within the shariah. There is a fundamental difference here. The slaughter method remains as prescribed, with an additional step that doesn't violate the shariah. What you are proposing is to take something that is categorically haram and make an exemption for a certain group, despite the fact that there is no verse, no hadith, no incident in the life of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) where such an exemption occured or was even mentioned or considered. In general I want to make a closing comment and inshaAllah I will address your other post later on. I understood your motivation behind your reasoning to be that there is no viable solution available for a group of muslims, therefore you would consider to reevaluate a general prohibition and restrict it to a conditional prohibition. @Abu Hadi has argued that the situation is difficult but not impossible or unsustainable. The historical scenarios you presented to explain why this exception was not made seem to align with his position, because they all acknowledge the possibility of being a homosexual muslim while living within the guidelines of the shariah. So here one has to ask if the situation actually is unsustainable and impossible, and if not, then why risk violating a command of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to remove a difficulty which can be overcome?
  8. Wa alaikum as salam brother @kadhim. I thank you too for a respectful and engaging discussion. We are discussing genuine social and religious challenges here, and I believe Muslim communities have mishandled them for a long time. Therefore the need for the discussion is essential, hopefully at levels much higher than that of an average layman like myself, and a diversity of opinions is simply an opportunity to reflect and investigate further. I will jump firstly to your last point. I apologize for the inappropriate wording of the question. It was indeed meant to be rhetorical, but I accept that it was disrespectful and there were better ways of trying to explain myself. What I had understood from your previous post is that the prohibition of homosexual acts was established in our texts (agreed) but that at the time it wasn't known that people can only be attracted to their own gender. This is why I responded with the hypothetical question, but it was not correctly and respectfully phrased so I apologize again. My question therefore would be, since the act has been prohibited without terms, conditions or exceptions and since Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) in His wisdom subscribes rules for us that will stand the test of time, is it not flawed to assume that it was never intended to include a category of homosexuals in this prohibition? Essentially your position that a category of people who only feel attracted to their own gender are exempt from this prohibition is lacking naqli (Qur'an/hadith) evidence. For such a strong claim, surely you would require a strong justification? I understand your argument to be that the situation of this category of muslims is unsustainable and that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) must have therefore provided a solution. I think the observation is a good one but I would question it's premise before concluding that the answer is an exception to a clearly stated prohibition. Harsh as it sounds, I would question if the situation really is impossible or rather is it very difficult. I believe this is also the argument of brother @Abu Hadi. Is companionship completely impossible or can we imagine a scenario where males and females in this situation support one another through it, knowing that they will possibly never be physically attracted but that they understand each other and through medical means can even start a family together. Without going into details one can even imagine that they may be able to partly fulfill certain physical needs in unconventional manners. I think this model would fit much better in the islamic framework rather than to give the green light to same sex muslim relationships. Moving onto the rest of the post: Leaving aside my view on our texts which I believe clearly and without exception prohibit what you have proposed, I question if it is even sustainable. Who decides whether a person is exclusively gay? What happens if over time they find women attractive as well? What about the male who thought they weren't exclusively gay but then realize this after marrying a woman. Marriage is a building element of society, what you are proposing here sounds highly destructive. In attempting to solve a problem it appears that ten new ones will be created. If I understand correctly, the argument of Abdellatif and Jahangir is that t'atuna can mean to come forcefully, although in general it simply means to come (indeed most mufassireen seem to have understood the general meaning). There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support this theory that the Qur'an is referring to forcefulness. Rather when one continues to read the ayah, one would have to conclude that forcefully approaching women would have been the accepted alternative (clearly this is problematic) Also this idea that these men desired both women and men is seems to be in opposition to what is mentioned in surah Hud, verses 78-79, where the people of Lot claim that they don't desire his daughters. All in all, it seems that the authors selected a stance and tried to retrofit it into a reinterpretation of a Qur'anic verse but were unable to back it up with textual evidence and also unable to align this theory with the Quranic narrative of the people of Lot. I can't see how it is aligning at all with hadith. If anything I would comment here that among all the topics that are debated and reevaluated in our religion, the alignment of Qur'an, hadith, cross generational ijma and ijma among different schools of thought on the categorical prohibition of homosexual acts is robust to a point where many other topics are not.
  9. In that case you can deny the existence of every human being who was ever created before the videography era.
  10. The same way you prove that any historical figure existed, which is through a multitude of independent historical accounts describing them.
  11. If we are discussing examples of muharamaat that might not seem clearly harmful then I would say the examples are quite valid. It is generally considered that one glass of wine a day is good for health. Similarly one could argue that rejecting a handshake would be more harmful socially than accepting one. Similar argument for not being able to eat the food of someone who isn't from Ahlul Kitab, although in this case it could be argued that the prohibition is not as clearly established as it is for homosexual acts. The challenge with this reasoning is that if the amount of people choosing to have same gender relationships goes beyond your estimate of 1-2pct (some would argue that this number is 10x higher already) then the harmless suddenly becomes harmful. Furthermore if you are saying that the prohibition should only be lifted for people who are only gay, as opposed to those who are bi, then a strange discussion starts on 'how gay' each individual is. What happens when 50pct of the youth decide to opt for same gender relationships because they have been told that it isn't haram anymore. Do we then decide that the numbers are too high and that the prohibition must be reinforced? This goes pretty much against the consistent logic of islamic law where such situations are prevented altogether (alcohol, fornication etc) rather than waiting for them to reach unsustainable levels. We say that Islam is a religion for all times and all people, and that the prohibited acts remain prohibited until the end of times. It seems that the prohibition of homosexual acts and relationships itself is not what you are contesting (indeed Qur'an and hadith makes it almost impossible to do so). What you are saying is that it wasn't known or considered by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) that one day there would be a special category of people to whom these rules shouldn't apply. Have I understood your argument correctly?
  12. The consequences would probably not be so heavy, but in general as you know it isn't the case that each forbidden act comes with a given reasoning or justification. One could also ask what the harm is in drinking a glass of wine a day, shaking hands with a colleague of the opposite gender, eating a bun prepared by an atheist or polytheist neighbor etc These wouldn't be bad questions either, but the fact that the challenging question presents itself should not automatically lead us to reversing the hurma altogether. One can of course always offer some ideas of why some acts might be forbidden, while adding the disclaimer that this is only a thought and not necessarily something clearly stated in religious texts. In the case of the glass of wine or handshake I would say that it is Islam's way of preventing a situation altogether (in this case drunkness or fornication) rather than trying to stop it in it's tracks. Similarly I can imagine why homosexuality should not be practiced, keeping in mind the importance of the family structure and the continuity of the human race. In general in Islam there is a role for the intellect and a role for submission. The way I see it, our reasoning allows us to accept the fundamentals of religion. Once we have accepted these, we then submit. For all we know, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) may have even deliberately held back the wisdom behind certain laws in order for there to be a visible difference between the one who has fully submitted and the one who only conditionally submits to the limit that their own reasoning allows them to. I can understand the need to reevaluate and reconsider rulings which are not necessarily clear cut, perhaps due to conflicting narrations, different opinions and of course the lack of clear Quranic evidence. What I think is happening here is that a topic that is quite clearly addressed in both the Qur'an and the hadith, and one on which there seems to largely be a consensus between different generations and different schools of thought, is being reevaluated only in the hope of solving a social challenge. There is nothing wrong in evaluating and re-evaluating, but we need to remain honest with ourselves. If we are really saying that after reading the Qur'an and major hadith collections of different schools it is still unclear whether homosexual relations are permitted then I think we are deliberately closing our eyes to the evidence. The real work that has to be done by scholars and laymen today is to decide how to help the muslimeen who are facing this challenge. Trying to convince ourselves that the Qur'an and hadith are not really saying what is clearly written is not an honest solution. Similarly, telling ourselves that God wouldn't put such a challenge for us and therefore we have misunderstood the clear texts is also a way of avoiding the problem altogether. I agree that it isn't an easy topic to handle, but if we abandon religious rulings whenever we are faced with a challenge then our commitment to the religion must be questioned and ultimately this trend will conclude with us rejecting religion altogether.
  13. @kadhim many thanks for your detailed reply brother. Due to a busy couple of days I didn't get the chance to reply. You are correct that for some people, particularly younger people, a rational justification for the hurma of homosexual relations might be challenging. However, this is not something unique to homosexuality alone, and also shouldn't be a reason to dismiss the hurma of something. Where Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has seen fit, He has provided reasoning for rules and commands. In other instances, we have only the command, to which we submit to, even if an explanation has not been provided. As those who aspire to submit to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), it is enough that He gives the command even if we are unable to grasp this. The interaction between Prophet Musa and Khidr as well as the sacrifice of Prophet Ibrahim are two of the many examples of this in the Qur'an and in hadith However, this of course doesn't mean that we don't try to address the challenge. Like I have said before, our duty as a community is to differentiate between homosexual individuals and homosexual acts. This is also where I feel that yourself and @notme are only looking at part of the picture. We are not saying that someone who is attracted to people of their own gender is at fault, rather we are saying that there are desires that can be fulfilled in this dunya and there are those that can't. Having the desires is not a sin, acting on them is undoubtedly a sin in Islam. Our challenge will be to understand how we can support our muslim brothers and sisters who are stuck at this crossroad, and this should probably be a separate topic of it's own. As for the promotion and institutionalization of haram, regardless of whether it is LGBT or anything else, this is simply something that we cannot logically support as Muslimeen. As for the original question in this thread and how to address it in a secular society, I would simply repeat that a secular institution must remain neutral and cannot put up flags of a movement that only represents part of the members.
  14. Wa alaikum as salam brother As per your description in the post it seems like you are already able to distinguish the madhi (pre ejaculatory) fluid from semen. As you have correctly said, the former does not gush out and isn't followed by a slackening of the body. This fluid is not najis and releasing it does not put you in a state of janabah. https://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2162/ Another important point: touching things when you are in a state of janabah doesn't make them najis.
  15. @SoRoUsH thanks for your feedback brother. -on the topic of discrimination laws, yes there are people who break them but the presence or absence of the LGBT movement does not change this. It is a matter of legislation and law enforcement. -on the topic of promoting an ideology, in your comparison the muslim woman is practicing her religion at an individual level. Public institutions are not putting up islamic posters, and the general public have every right to disagree with Islam and it's teachings without being cancelled or boycotted. All we ask for is the same privilege. If I decide to teach my children that homosexual relations are forbidden in our religion, then society must respect my freedom of opinion. -regarding the point of children's lives being impacted, yes they are impacted by other factors as well. The difference is that I am allowed, as a parent, and the local Imam is allowed, as a preacher, to speak against drugs, alcohol and fornication. When it comes to LGBT, we want to be able to warn our children and communities as well. -your next point is that all lifestyles are equal in a secular society. This is ultimately where we differ, because to me LGBT is about repressing any opinion on gender and sexuality that doesn't match their own view. Essentially it is quite similar to Zionism in this sense. -your final point is what I am referring to in terms of political bartering. I believe the main reason you are defending LGBT is because you see a political interest in it for muslims. I think we need to uphold religious morals and principles even if it works against us socially and politically. Addressing your next post: -you raise the concern that my position on abortion is close to that of the American far right. I prefer not to worry about who is and isn't aligned with our positions. The Qur'an and the ahadith lay down the guidelines. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with some of them shouldn't influence us.
  16. I think that your observations of how the topic of homosexuality has been mishandled and misunderstood among muslim communities, have pushed you to try and defend anything and everything associated to it. Without a doubt muslims need to educate themselves on the topic and realize that desires cannot be 'exorcized', that you cannot force a sexual orientation on a person and that bullying (or worse) anyone having such feelings will not help them in any way or form. Furthermore, we are not commanded to hate or insult someone for their feelings. Certainly there is a need for education on these topics. At the same time as muslims there are rules and principles in place that are divine and therefore not ours to play around with, rearrange or make political negotiations with. Just because society today has decided that abortion and same sex marriage, for instance, are basic rights, it does not require us to revise our stance. We reserve the right to consider same sex relationships as abnorma and sinful. We reserve the right to consider abortion as murder. Shifting the goalposts due to social pressure implies that we never believed in our teachings to begin with. If society decides tomorrow that incest is acceptable, as long as it is between consenting adults, are we again going to silence ourselves just so that we are aligned with the dominant trends of society?
  17. Wa alaikum as salam, generally it is not considered to be wajib on items others than those listed in your post but it is highly recommended, and you will notice in the previous posts that some fuqaha consider it to be required per precaution. Khums however is applicable on the gain/profit
  18. @kadhim @SoRoUsH If I read you correctly, the LGBT movement for you is essentially a means of protecting people from persecution. I don't think this is the case, rather discrimination laws were already in place to protect all people regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation religion. I see it as the active promotion of alternative lifestyles and the redefinition of the traditional family structure. The consequences are not restricted to same sex couples alone, rather they impact children now that same sex couples are allowed to marry and adopt. It is enough as a muslim to disassociate from such a movement when it promotes haram (same sex relationships) , but it becomes a duty as a human being, and not just a muslim human being, when children's lives become impacted as well. The topic of homosexuality, how it should be approached and how it should be understood is important. However I feel like your concerns on that topic have prematurely pushed you into a defensive position on LGBT. Although there are interfaces I think both should be viewed separately. To me as a muslim and as a citizen of a country with freedom of speech and thought, I believe it is essential that I can and should disassociate myself from this movement for the reasons mentioned above. A society in which LGBT cannot be questioned or countered, and where there is only one accepted position, can no longer be called a free society.
  19. I think this discussion is going to end up becoming circular. @kadhim as others have pointed out, there is a difference between an individual who happens to be attracted to the same gender, and the modern day ideology that is LGBT. The former has committed no sin as long as they don't act on their desires, while the latter is the active promotion of something that the Qur'an refers to as fahshah, which is often translated as lewdness @SoRoUsH I don't agree that LGBT is fighting for 'all the rights' and even if this was your argument then recall that the Qur'an instructs us not to mix truth with falsehood. Just because certain political parties hand us a few incentives does not mean that we should change our stance on principles that are already clearly addressed by our religion.
  20. I am not saying that one should criticise them or even discriminate against them. We should simply be allowed to maintain our freedom of thought/opinion, which can include disagreeing with the LGBT movement and ideology in the same way that people are allowed to disagree with our religion in a free society. Discriminating against a woman in the workplace because she wears a hijab and discriminating her because she is a lesbian are both equally problematic in a secular state. I am not calling for either of these. Hanging up rainbow flags in public institutions is not different than hanging up religious symbols or political symbols. The brother who opened this thread is 100percent correct in wanting to ask his college to remove these flags. There is absolutely no reason for them to be up there.
  21. @root fully agree with you brother.
  22. @kadhim I don't think the issue here is homosexuality, rather it is the exclusive manner in which public institutions are promoting LGBT over everything else. I wouldn't expect a college to allow black power posters or flags with the shahada written on them. Rather I would support their decision to disallow such things. What people seem to forget is that not everyone has to endorse or agree with LGBT. We have the right to disagree and to distance ourselves from the movement, in the same way as any other ideology. I also disagree with yourself, @SoRoUsH and @Haji 2003 that the role of the muslim is to keep quiet. No, our role is to disassociate ourselves from such things. It goes without saying that this should be done in a dignified way (not by ripping down flags). Finally to everyone suggesting that the brother remain anonymous to protect his livelihood, again I disagree. We cannot give in to this form of blackmail that provides livelihood in exchange for endorsing things we do not believe in.
  23. There isn't necessarily one single reason, there can be many. Sometimes I believe it's due to negative external interference. Generally people should avoid interfering in a marriage (this also means that the couple should avoid sharing too many details of their married life) , and in the instances where they do it should be in a positive sense (trying to maintain peace) rather than in the negative sense (adding fuel to the fire).
  24. Wa alaikum as salam No I don't think going and pulling them down is a solution. What you can do is to write to your campus administration and question whether religious, political or ideological symbols should be displayed by the university, and whether these flags should be taken down since they are imposing an ideology that isn't shared by all.
  25. I think it can certainly be a criterion but should not necessarily be the only one. Remember that nobody is perfect and remember also that marriage is recommended and even becomes obligatory if you are falling into sin. If there are no major red flags and you don't have a lot of alternatives then you should at least consider it.
×
×
  • Create New...