Search the Community

In regards to transgenderism it is very clear that transitioning from one gender to another is only applicable to those who are medically deemed to be hermaphrodites as per the ruling(s) of Ayt. Khamenei et al, the fatawa are very explicit on the matter. And as many may know, those who are considered to be in that category are a very small group and the only group allowed to be considered for such a transition. To simply say that it is permissible for an individual to engage in sexual reassignment surgery, due to whatever emotive reasons they may present - if the issue is psychological and not biological (such as the case of hermaphrodites) is strictly prohibited. Such rulings are those which seek to maintain the Orthodox Islamic position in accordance with the Quran & Ahlulbayt, If one (lgbt Muslims) seek to defend this matter in a manner which is deemed unorthodox to Islam it is imperative that the arguments presented are in accordance to the Quran & Ahlulbayt, it is fine to disagree with such rulings as long as the disagreement stems from an Orthodox position. Now that we have that established we can then transition towards the way progressiveness in Islam is antithetical to progressing in Islam, Inshallah there can be emphasis on that statement. Progressive Muslims have sought to create this all inclusive Islam wherein irrespective of what a person's sexual orientation or sexual preferences may be, we all seek to not judge and encompass these groups embracing them with warm hands and highlighting to them that in the end only Allah can judge them and all we can do is provide them solace with the message of Islam and the spiritual harmony which it prescribes to mankind's ontological plight. I agree partially with such reasoning and oppose the other half in which progressive Muslims are seeking to somehow brush the strict condemnation of these vile sins and actions which spread corruption and disease within the world, and instead present these flowery and sweet words of acceptance - in lieu of not being judgemental and accepting of others. This is very destructive and will cause us as Muslims to be in a position of compromising our beliefs to appease these troubled individuals. As Muslims we have an obligation to embrace our struggling brothers and sisters who are having issues when it comes to their sexuality, or are for some reason seeking to transition without a medically sound reason, however, to support these troubled individuals by sharing this colorful narrative of an all inclusive Islam or misrepresenting jurisprudential rulings to push certain agendas is a grand disservice and will not aid, but rather push our Muslim brothers and sisters further astray. In our mosques we should have for lack of a better term ‘safe spaces’ where these individuals can speak with learned men and women who can aid in addressing their struggles privately, but on the surface be very explicit in condemning the sins of homosexuality/lesbianism and whatever may be promoted by the deviant LGBT agenda. Seeing posts that support the LGBT community and even claim that as Muslims it is fine to be a part of such a group is truly disheartening, the Quran when dealing with the people of Lot clearly addressed these individuals as aggressors, due to the sins of lust which they were committing, as it explicitly stated in a tone which seeks to highlight the severity of their crime - which was homosexual behavior. Sura 7: 80-81: "And Lut said to his people: Will you commit a horror that none of the world's inhabitants have committed for you?" 7: 81-82: "You approach men with lust instead of women. No, you are a people who go beyond the limits." (also translated as: "You are excessive people") 27:55: "And Lut, said to his people, do not commit immorality against your better judgment!" 27:56: "Do you lustfully approach men instead of women? No, you are an ignorant people." 29:31: "He (Lut) said:" help me, my lord, against the people who cause disaster. " 29:32: "And when our messengers brought the news to Abraham, they said, We will destroy the people of this city; for its inhabitants are evil." (literally: "unjust") 54:37: "And they tried to disgrace their guests (by asking them to have sex with them). Then we took their eyes off their eyesight. Then taste my punishments and my warnings." It is imperative that as Muslims we adopt the language of the Quran in highlighting the severity of destruction this LGBT narrative is promoting and seek to not give apologetic answers which hope to resolve individualistic conflicts - Islam is an individualistic and collectivist religion and to support these Utilitarians is something which must be halted. And I am astonished that even the explicit nature of the Quran has not stopped such progressive groups from arising and supporting these individuals, if we wish to remain consistent with this new Islamic narrative we will then be defending beastiality, incest, and as we can now unfortunately see pedophilia. The LGBT agenda is an evil one and to associate ourselves with these individuals by simply being an ‘ally’ to this organization by compromising our beliefs in order to appease this group, or in a way seek to be apologetic or all inclusive is truly an abomination and a path to treachery and sin. Therefore, supporting queers, homosexuals, etc can only be done by compromising over our Islamic beliefs. To admonish them and to provide for them avenues to discuss their troubles and seek help is one thing and to ‘support them’ is clear misguidance and Kufr, as you all may know anal male to male copulation is an act of Kufr. I have not even scratched the surface when it comes to the complications, discrepancies, and essentially disasters of the LGBT community in general and supporting ‘LGBT Muslims’ in particular, however, I hope that this serves as a preamble to a magnum opus length of scholarly work which can be presented. I would appreciate those who see any problems with my position to question/critique/debate me. Edit 2: The updated Fatwa of Ayt. Khamanei permits SRS for those who are going through gender Dysphoria. https://www.leader.ir/ar/content/23919/تغيير-الجنس I was wondering if someone can touch on this point as well, based on what I’ve understood the male who transitions to female would have the legal rulings that pertain to the female apply to them and vice versa, however, will these individuals be able to marry or as a result of them choosing that type of avenue are they to remain celibate? If the male transitioning to female can marry a male, how is this not a loophole to same sex behavior? In the sense that any gay/lesbian individual can complain that they can’t contain their desires and therefore seek this avenue.

Salam, I would appreciate it if you brothers/sisters can take the time to read what I have written and give me your ideas on whether it is sound or mere jargon. My attempt was to describe myself following a path which was not easy, but I was willing to undertake no matter the odds in order to achieve my goals, unfortunately I was sidetracked by an occurrence which was not well considered, in which led to the shattering of the process and plan I had in reaching said goal. ————————————————————— Could one articulate a blueprint to life’s uncertainty, to bring forth a module in the form of a timely script, one which enumerates all fundamentals; pondering over its practicality there lay a feeble attempt driven by aspirations to pursue such an endeavor. Transforming formulated thoughts into tangible strings to the similitude of yarn which could be woven dexterously in a fashion which resembles a deliberate sequence, one that leads to intended patterns. However, lack of discipline and untimely decisions prove to be adequate impediments to such an endeavor that necessitates forbearance. Undeniably, miscalculations lead to strands, unwanted strands which alter a meticulous process. An attempt to address the unwanted extremities would not only stagnate the continuous process, but also divert one’s attention, due to an attempt to liberate the sequence from a deviating retreat. Evidently, the ill considered approach to such a process carries its repercussions, to an extent where the result of such a grand endeavor would begin to lose its touch profoundly, wherein a little strand in a grand means becomes the entire agency. The yarn of thought which was knitted attentively, passionately, and deliberately would therein be reduced to nothing but overlapping strands of meaningless string. All the effort put reverted to the point of origin, scattered thoughts, like the yarn on quivering hands. Perplexion reinstated due to ill miscalculation. @313 Seeker @hasanhh

Read the Reddit comments to understand what the thread was about, since the post has since been deleted. ....................................................................................... I'm so tired of the utterly nonsensical and VERY COMMON Sunni notion of 'I am happy to seek unity with Shias as long as they don't curse/insult/abuse any Sahaba, and especially NOT Aisha, Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman. Firstly, any Shia claim regarding the sahabi that happens to go against the Sunni narrative is considered insulting. Secondly, and more importantly, is that the same notion is true for Shias... You are insulting the Ahlul Bayt by not accepting them as divinely appointed leaders of Allah, and infallible individuals, and perfect preservers of the religion of Islam, and a high means of seeking closeness to Allah (intercession). Not only are you insulting revered Shia figures by not following them, you are commiting MAJOR shirk by giving a false attribute to Allah, by saying that Allah has not always appointed an infallible leader on this Earth, and that there currently isn't an infallible leader. Furthermore, the real kicker is that plenty of revered Shia figures, such as Abu Talib (رضي الله عنه), are considered kuffar by Sunnis. Is this not insulting? So, how can we Shias unite with Sunnis based on their own fallacious logic? Shias are the minority, and Sunnis are the majority. It makes Sunnis think that they are Orthodox and that they have to unite with Heterodox for political and humanitarian reasons, and that Shias must make [ridiculous] compromises. Shias are far more receptive to the unity message, because we actually understand Sunni Islam, and can see the commonalities. We understand that we can't make Sunnis compromise on their beliefs. Simply by being the minority within Islam, by nature we Shias already understand Sunni beliefs, whereas Sunnis have a basic strawman understanding of Shia beliefs... which is natural, considering that they are the majority. Anyways, the point of my post is the following: Let's compile a list of revered Shia figures that are not given their proper status by Sunnis, according to Shia Islam... with an explanation given. ...This is to show that we Shias and Sunnis can unite, but we cannot unite upon revered figures and imamah. ...This will also serve as a way of showing Sunnis that this argument of theirs makes no sense. Another important question we may ask is "What about commonly revered figures like Imam Ali (عليه السلام) who is given different status in both sects? Can we unite upon Imam Ali (عليه السلام)?" ...a common Sunni criticism of political unity is that "Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضي الله عنه) is given an improper status in Shia religion because they call upon him... tawassul (intercession) of the 'dead' is Shirk! So there is absolutely no room for unity since we can't even agree on the status of the sahabi" [yes, I am aware that the Imams (عليه السلام) are still alive, but Sunnis don't believe this...] I would love to hear your thoughts. Wassalam. JazakAllah Khair. Fi sabilillah.

Assalamun alaykum, I do not know if this is the correct forum for this thread, so if the mods think it would be better to move it to some other forum, I request them to do so. The thing is, I want some books/articles in English which contain good, academic criticisms of 'liberal' or 'reformist' Islam, from a traditional Islamic perspective. Are there any which are available? Apart from this, if the brothers/sisters wish to share their own view points, or some scholarly opinions, they are most welcome to do so. Any and every kind of feedback, given that it is reasonable and logically sound, is also welcome. Thanks in advance. Stay blessed.

This is based and adapted on a series of lectures by a leftist professor, a Phd, who currently works in the reputed TISS College, Mumbai. Economics is generally considered a study of production, exchange and consumption of goods and services. We have had classical economists like Adam Smith. And then the later approaches have been through concepts such as perfect market. In all of the major basic economic concepts and theories, we find the mention of the term 'rationality' as being a fundamental necessity for the respective theories to hold their ground. For better or for worse, the concepts/theories such as the demand theory, supply theory, marginal utility etc are all used to form a basis of most of the business and Government fiscal decisions. What is rationality? In simple words, it is making the right choice. Rationality holds an important concept in Islam. In Islamic thought, there are certain certainties like- Quran, Death, Day of judgement, Pure and Just God Almighty, Heaven and hell etc. These significantly assist an individual to make a good decision. The intention of Islam is to make your life as meaningful as possible by performing acts which bring you closer to God and stay away from acts which are against God's instructions. God being the Almighty rational being, it is easy for us to rely on Him. If confusion reigns while making decisions, then they have the option of relying on their conscious and, in extreme and important cases, refer to istekhara. ------ However, in case of economics the situation is different. The intention of economics is to maximize the utilization of the scarce resources. Economists, especially those in the West and the erstwhile Soviet Union, tried to achieve these objectives through extreme free market economy and extreme socialism respectively. The result was so-called economic progress through general economic growth and better standards of living. The thinking was that either the rational markets or the rational governments will maximize the returns on investments. Some amount of the profits will be given to the poor, disabled and the unemployed to support them. The issues with rationality in economics- The main problem is that we do not live in a rational world. The influence of 'rational' line of thinking has reduced humans into productive and unproductive machines. The old, infirm and the unemployed are a burden to the economies where 'rationality' is paramount. The influence of warmth, humanity, friendship, love, empathy, sympathy, social justice and religiousness and spirituality have given way to cold and calculated rationality. For example , by being rational, I can reduce the prices of products in my fathers shop, because, who cares if there are no profits for the next 1 year. After all, I am earning a lot from my day job. And once the competition goes away, ie. other local business shut down, then the prices can be increased to previous levels. Great, isn't it? NO. It is not. This is economic rationality and, at the same time, a hateful thing to do. It is affecting the other hard-working businessmen and their families. I know that some will say that that other businessmen should try such tactics or simply try to get a job, nobody is stopping them. That seems rational. But like I said, we dont live in a rational world. It would take years to change and adapt ones business or even get a well-paying job. I think that concepts like the GDP/GNP and even PPP and other such parameters should not be considered as relevant to understand how great is everyone doing in a country or region. For example, If a person earns a million $ per month through disruptive trade activities(leading to closure of other businesses), then he is not an asset to the country. On the other hand, a teacher works hard to create a army of honest, polite, religious and hardworking students every year, he is not being celebrated by finding his name in the millionaire list, but happens to contribute much more to humanity. He has more value for the country/region, even though he earns much less in comparison. Even though, no doubt, rationality is important, its importance in economics has been overblown at the cost of other factors. And the main problem is the attempt of economists and decision makers to over-rely on this dubious concept, leading to general public sufferings, especially unemployment. We can clearly see that happening in Greece and Portugal. Leaving the EU= Plummeting GDP(short run), also= lower unemployment and general suffering in the medium and long run. But who cares about the unemployed. Your thoughts?