Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'homosexuality'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Main Forums
    • Guest Forum
    • Theology and General Religion
    • Personalities in Islam
    • Prophets and Ahlul-Bayt
    • Jurisprudence/Laws
    • Politics/Current Events
    • Social/Family/Personal Issues
    • Science/Tech/Economics
    • Education/Careers
    • Medicine/Health/Fitness
    • Off-Topic
    • Poetry and Art
    • Polls
    • Shia/Sunni Dialogue
    • Christianity/Judaism Dialogue
    • Atheism/Philosophy/Others
    • Research into Other Sects
    • Arabic / العَرَبِية
    • Farsi / فارسی
    • Urdu / اُردُو‎
    • Other languages [French / français, Spanish / español, Chinese / 汉语, Hindi / हिन्दी, etc.. ]
    • North/Central/South America
    • Europe
    • Asia, Middle East, Africa
    • Australia and Others
    • Site Tech Support/Feedback
    • Site FAQs
  • Seasonal Forums (Archive)
    • Muharram 1440/2018
    • Ramadhan 1439/2018
    • Ask our Special Guests!
    • ShiaChat.com reports from Karbala (2004)
    • Ali Naqi Memorial (Sept. 3, 1985 - March 26, 2006)
    • ShiaChat.com Yearbook, 2006-2007
  • The Hadith Club's Topics
  • Food Club's Topics
  • Sports Club's Topics
  • Reverts to Islam's Topics
  • Travel Club's Topics
  • Mental Health/Psych Club's Topics
  • Arts, Crafts, DIY Club's Topics
  • The Premier League Club's Topics


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start




Website URL






Favorite Subjects

Found 12 results

  1. Marriage and The Matrix Suppose a bizarre skeptic seriously proposed -- not as a joke, not as dorm room bull session fodder, but seriously -- that you, he, and everyone else were part of a computer-generated virtual reality like the one featured in the science-fiction movie The Matrix. Suppose he easily shot down the arguments you initially thought sufficient to refute him. He might point out, for instance, that your appeals to what we know from common sense and science have no force, since they are (he insists) just part of the Matrix-generated illusion. Suppose many of your friends were so impressed by this skeptic’s ability to defend his strange views -- and so unimpressed by your increasingly flustered responses -- that they came around to his side. Suppose they got annoyed with you for not doing the same, and started to question your rationality and even your decency. Your adherence to commonsense realism in the face of the skeptic’s arguments is, they say, just irrational prejudice.No doubt you would think the world had gone mad, and you’d be right. But you would still find it difficult to come up with arguments that would convince the skeptic and his followers. The reason is not that their arguments are rationally and evidentially superior to yours, but on the contrary because they are so subversive of all rationality and evidence -- indeed, far more subversive than the skeptic and his followers themselves realize -- that you’d have trouble getting your bearings, and getting the skeptics to see that they had lost theirs. If the skeptic were correct, not even his own arguments would be any good -- their apparent soundness could be just another illusion generated by the Matrix, making the whole position self-undermining. Nor could he justifiably complain about your refusing to agree with him, nor take any delight in your friends’ agreement, since for all he knew both you and they might be Matrix-generated fictions anyway. So, the skeptic’s position is ultimately incoherent. But rhetorically he has an advantage. With every move you try to make, he can simply refuse to concede the assumptions you need in order to make it, leaving you constantly scrambling to find new footing. He will in the process be undermining his own position too, because his skepticism is so radical it takes down everything, including what he needs in order to make his position intelligible. But it will be harder to see this at first, because he is playing offense and you are playing defense. It falsely seems that you are the one making all the controversial assumptions whereas he is assuming nothing. Hence, while your position is in fact rationally superior, it is the skeptic’s position that will, perversely, appear to be rationally superior. People bizarrely give him the benefit of the doubt and put the burden of proof on you. This, I submit, is the situation defenders of traditional sexual morality are in vis-à-vis the proponents of “same-sex marriage.” The liberal position is a kind of radical skepticism, a calling into question of something that has always been part of common sense, viz. that marriage is inherently heterosexual. Like belief in the reality of the external world -- or in the reality of the past, or the reality of other minds, or the reality of change, or any other part of common sense that philosophical skeptics have challenged -- what makes the claim in question hard to justify is not that it is unreasonable, but, on the contrary, that it has always been regarded as a paradigm of reasonableness. Belief in the external world (or the past, or other minds, or change, etc.) has always been regarded as partiallyconstitutive of rationality. Hence, when some philosophical skeptic challenges it precisely in the name of rationality, the average person doesn’t know what to make of the challenge. Disoriented, he responds with arguments that seem superficial, question-begging, dogmatic, or otherwise unimpressive. Similarly, heterosexuality has always been regarded as constitutive of marriage. Hence, when someone proposes that there can be such a thing as same-sexmarriage, the average person is, in this case too, disoriented, and responds with arguments that appear similarly unimpressive. Like the skeptic about the external world (or the past, or other minds, or change, etc.) the “same-sex marriage” advocate typically says things he has no right to say consistent with his skeptical arguments. For example, if “same-sex marriage” is possible, why not incestuous marriage, or group marriage, or marriage to an animal, or marriage to a robot, or marriage to oneself? A more radical application of the “same-sex marriage” advocate’s key moves can always be deployed by a yet more radical skeptic in order to defend these proposals. Yet “same-sex marriage” advocates typically deny that they favor such proposals. If appeal to the natural ends or proper functions of our faculties has no moral significance, then why should anyone care about whether anyone’s arguments -- including arguments either for or against “same-sex marriage” -- are any good? The “same-sex marriage” advocate can hardly respond “But finding and endorsing sound arguments is what reason is for!”, since he claims that what our natural faculties and organs are naturally foris irrelevant to how we might legitimately choose to use them. Indeed, he typically denies that our faculties and organs, or anything else for that matter, are really for anything. Teleology, he claims, is an illusion. But then it is an illusion that reason itself is really foranything, including arriving at truth. In which case the “same-sex marriage” advocate has no business criticizing others for giving “bigoted” or otherwise bad arguments. (Why shouldn’t someone give bigoted arguments if reason does not have truth as its natural end? What if someone is just born with an orientation toward giving bigoted arguments?) If the “same-sex marriage” advocate appeals to current Western majority opinion vis-à-vis homosexuality as a ground for his condemnation of what he labels “bigotry,” then where does he get off criticizing past Western majority opinion vis-à-vis homosexuality, or current non-Western moral opinion vis-à-vis homosexuality? Etc. etc. So, the “same-sex marriage” advocate’s position is ultimately incoherent. Pushed through consistently, it takes down everything, including itself. But rhetorically it has the same advantages as Matrix-style skepticism. The “same-sex marriage” advocate is playing offense, and only calling things into doubt -- albeit selectively and inconsistently -- rather than putting forward any explicit positive position of his own, so that it falsely seems that it is only his opponent who is making controversial assumptions. Now, no one thinks the average person’s inability to give an impressive response to skepticism about the external world (or about the reality of the past, or other minds, etc.) makes it irrational for him to reject such skepticism. And as it happens, even most highly educated people have difficulty adequately responding to external world skepticism. If you ask the average natural scientist, or indeed even the average philosophy professor, to explain to you how to refute Cartesian skepticism, you’re not likely to get an answer that a clever philosopher couldn’t poke many holes in. You almost have to be a philosopher who specializes in the analysis of radical philosophical skepticism really to get at the heart of what is wrong with it. The reason is that such skepticism goes so deep in its challenge to our everyday understanding of notions like rationality,perception, reality, etc. that only someone who has thought long and carefully about those very notions is going to be able to understand and respond to the challenge. The irony is that it turns out, then, that very few people can give a solid, rigorous philosophical defenseof what everyone really knows to be true. But it hardly follows that the commonsense belief in the external world can be rationally held only by those few people. The same thing is true of the average person’s inability to give an impressive response to the “same-sex marriage” advocate’s challenge. It is completely unsurprising that this should be the case, just as it is unsurprising that the average person lacks a powerful response to the Matrix-style skeptic. In fact, as with commonsense realism about the external world, so too with traditional sexual morality, in the nature of the case relatively few people -- basically, traditional natural law theorists -- are going to be able to set out the complete philosophical defense of what the average person has, traditionally, believed. But it doesn’t follow that the average person can’t be rational in affirming traditional sexual morality. (For an exposition and defense of the traditional natural law approach, see “In Defense of the Perverted Faculty Argument,” in Neo-Scholastic Essays.) Indeed, the parallel with the Matrix scenario is even closer than what I’ve said so far suggests, for the implications of “same-sex marriage” are very radically skeptical. The reason is this: We cannot make sense of the world’s being intelligible at all, or of the human intellect’s ability to understand it, unless we affirm a classical essentialist and teleological metaphysics. But applying that metaphysics to the study of human nature entails a classical natural law understanding of ethics. And that understanding of ethics in turn yields, among other things, a traditional account of sexual morality that rules out “same-sex marriage” in principle. Hence, to defend “same-sex marriage” you have to reject natural law, which in turn requires rejecting a classical essentialist and teleological metaphysics, which in turn undermines the possibility of making intelligible either the world or the mind’s ability to understand it. (Needles to say, these are large claims, but I’ve defended them all at length in various places. For interested readers, the best place to start is, again, with the Neo-Scholastic Essays article.) Obviously, though, the radically skeptical implications are less directin the case of “same-sex marriage” than they are in the Matrix scenario, which is why most people don’t see them. And there is another difference. There are lots of people who believe in “same-sex marriage,” but very few people who seriously entertain the Matrix hypothesis. But imagine there was some kind of intense sensory pleasure associated with pretending that you were in the Matrix. Suppose also that some people just had, for whatever reason -- environmental influences, heredity, or whatever -- a deep-seated tendency to take pleasure in the idea that they were living in a Matrix-style reality. Then, I submit, lots of people would insist that we take the Matrix scenario seriously and some would even accuse those who scornfully rejected the idea of being insensitive bigots. (Compare the points made in a recent post in which I discussed the special kind of irrationality people are prone to where sex is concerned, due to the intense pleasure associated with it.) So, let’s add to my original scenario this further supposition -- that you are not only surrounded by people who take the Matrix theory seriously and scornfully dismiss your arguments against it, but some of them have a deep-seated tendency to take intense sensory pleasure in the idea that they live in the Matrix. That, I submit, is the situation defenders of traditional sexual morality are in vis-à-vis the proponents of “same-sex marriage.” Needless to say, it’s a pretty bad situation to be in. But it’s actually worse even than that. For suppose our imagined Matrix skeptic and his followers succeeded in intimidating a number of corporations into endorsing and funding their campaign to get the Matrix theory widely accepted, to propagandize for it in movies and television shows, etc. Suppose mobs of Matrix theorists occasionally threatened to boycott or even burn down bakeries, restaurants, etc. which refused to cater the meetings of Matrix theorists. Suppose they stopped even listening to the defenders of commonsense realism, but just shouted “Bigot! Bigot! Bigot!” in response to any expression of disagreement. Suppose the Supreme Court of the United States declared that agreement with the Matrix theory is required by the Constitution, and opined that adherence to commonsense realism stems from an irrational animus against Matrix theorists. In fact, the current position of opponents of “same-sex marriage” is worse even than that. Consider once again your situation as you try to reason with Matrix theorists and rebut their increasingly aggressive attempts to impose their doctrine via economic and political force. Suppose that as you look around, you notice that some of your allies are starting to slink away from the field of battle. One of them says: “Well, you know, we have sometimes been very insulting to believers in the Matrix theory. Who can blame them for being angry at us? Maybe we should focus more on correcting our own attitudes and less on changing their minds.” Another suggests: “Maybe we’ve been talking too much about this debate between the Matrix theory and commonsense realism. We sound like we’re obsessed with it. Maybe we should talk about something else instead, like poverty or the environment.” A third opines: “We can natter on about philosophy all we want, but the bottom line is that scripture says that the world outside our minds is real. The trouble is that we’ve gotten away from the Bible. Maybe we should withdraw into our own faith communities and just try to live our biblically-based belief in external reality the best we can.” Needless to say, all of this is bound only to make things worse. The Matrix theory advocate will smell blood, regarding these flaccid avowals as tacit admissions that commonsense realism about the external world really has no rational basis but is simply a historically contingent prejudice grounded in religious dogma. And in your battle with the Matrix theorists you’ll have discovered, as many “same-sex marriage” opponents have, that iron law of politics: that when you try to fight the Evil Party you soon find that most of your allies are card-carrying members of the Stupid Party. So, things look pretty bad. But like the defender of our commonsense belief in the external world, the opponent of “same-sex marriage” has at least one reliable ally on his side: reality. And reality absolutely always wins out in the end. It always wins at least partially even in the short run -- no one ever is or could be a consistent skeptic -- and wins completely in the long run. The trouble is just that the enemies of reality, though doomed, can do a hell of lot of damage in the meantime. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/marriage-and-matrix.html
  2. In modern liberal societies, it's not enough to tolerate homosexuality, rather we have to celebrate it. We have to see it as a good and positive thing, on par with heterosexuality. Here are 2 philosophical arguments against this. The first is that homosexuality is a kind of disability, and the second is that homosexuality requires an internal disharmony. Disability 1. A disability is a physical or mental condition that prevents or restricts normal human activities. 2. Homosexuality prevents or restricts the normal human activity of natural sexual reproduction 3. So, homosexuality is a disability. Disabilities are not good things in themselves that should be celebrated. While we should value and even celebrate the achievements of disabled people, we shouldn't celebrate their disabilities, e.g. we shouldn't celebrate not having an arm, or being wheelchair bound, or being blind, or regard being blind as on par with having sight. Rather we should be looking for ways to cure blindness, to restore mobility, etc. Disharmony If your biological organs are directed at the opposite sex, but your attraction is for the same sex, then your organs and attraction are not in harmony. Your biology and your psychology are not united - they are in a state of disharmony with respect to each other. On the other hand, if your psychology and your biology are both directed at the same sex, then they are in harmony. All things considered it is better to be in a state of harmony than disharmony. Homosexuality is a state of disharmony. People who want us to celebrate homosexuality want us to celebrate a state that is necessarily disharmonious. But such a state isn't worthy of celebration. We should instead be trying to restore the harmony within the individual, not celebrating it. None of this implies that we should hate homosexuals, or that they are evil, and I certainly do not accept either. The point is simply that the state of homosexuality is not the ideal state, and is not something to be viewed positively.
  3. Dear brothers and sisters, assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullah. This is my first post here. I am glad to join "ShiaChat" and I hope this forum will help me learn and understand more about the teachings of the Noble Prophet and his ahlul-bayt, peace be upon them. My first question pertains to homosexuality. My question is not whether or not homosexual acts are haram. I am aware that homosexual acts are unambiguously forbidden in Islam; as the Quran and the ahadith (from both Sunni and Shia sources) condemn homosexual acts in very clear terms. My question is: As Muslims, and more particularly as Shia Muslims, how should we understand homosexuality? Scientific research shows that people who are attracted to the same sex develop their orientation before their born. In other words, homosexuality (I am talking about the tendency and the inclination, and not the act) is not a choice, but a destiny. Is science right in saying this? If science isn't right, where is the counter-evidence? If science is right, and homosexuality is indeed a sexual orientation, why is it not treated as such in our sacred books? My impression is that the Quran and the ahadith mention sodomy as a sinful action but make no reference to homosexuality as a sexual orientation or a complete identity. The whole concept of sexual orientation seems to absent from our scriptures and religious literature. Furthermore, if we accept the scientific research (which we must accept unless conclusive counter-evidence is provided), how does this cohere with God's Justice and Mercy? Why would Allah, who is both Merciful and Just, place homosexual desires in the hearts of some of His servants; and then punish them for acting on those desires, and condemn them to a loveless life? By contrast, sexual desire directed towards the opposite sex can be halalified much more easily (through permanent marriages, and in the context of Shia Islam, temporary marriages). Lastly, in your opinion, what would be the best way to explain the Islamic stance on homosexuality, and the reason acts of sodomy were made haram, to a non-Muslim and non-religious person, on purely rational grounds and without reference to scripture? Many thanks for reading. I'll await your replies. JazakumuLlahu khayran.
  4. Q: Does Islam teach that it is the right or duty of a muslim to kill, harm, abuse or discriminate against someone who is homosexual ? A: No. More Info. While some people who call themselves muslim do this, it is not a teaching of Islam. Islam teaching that we live within a system of laws and norms and these laws and norms must be followed. Islam also teaches that every person in a society has the right to live in peace and security of their person and their possessions unless that person is actively involved in severe oppression of others in the society. The religion, race, gender, thoughts, philosophy, political stands, etc, do not matter in regards to this right as this is a basic right of all people who live in a society or community. Q: Does Islam prohibit relationships between people of the same sex / gender. A: Islam prohibits sexual acts or intimate acts normally only done between husband and wife to be done between people of the same sex / gender. The prohibition does not extend to other, non sexual acts such as hugging, holding hands, etc. Q: What is the penalty, in an Islamic Government System, for committing a homosexual act. A: The penalty is death, however, in order for the penalty to be carried out, the act must meet ALL of the following conditions. 1. The act must be eye-witnessed by four just witnesses, people known in the community as being honest and of good character. 2. The four witnesses must witness the act of penetration. 3. The act must take place under the jurisdiction of an Islamic Government. 4. There must be a trial and sentence must be pronounced by an Islamic Jurist (judge) 5. The penalty must be administered by an Islamic Jurist (judge). If any of these conditions are not present, the penalty cannot be carried out and the person cannot be harmed in any way. Q: If that is the case, and muslims are not allowed to discriminate against homosexuals, then why is there so much beating, killings, discrimination, etc happening to homosexuals in muslim countries. A: There are several parts to this questions which must be answered separately. First, there is a difference between discriminating against a person because of suspicion that the person might be homosexual, and challenging the ideas of a person who is openly advocating for pushing the 'gay lifestyle' agenda in muslim countries. On an individual level, and based on suspicion, muslims are not allowed to discriminate against or abuse a person. For example if a man has a high voice, wears feminine cloths, attends musicals, etc, noone is allowed to do anything to that person. That is thulm, injustice. There is a chance the person is not a homosexual but simply effeminate, or if they are homosexual and are engaging in the acts in private, people can advise them and try to guide them back to the 'strait path' of religion, but are not allowed to abuse them in the process. If a person is openly advocating for the 'gay lifestyle' and is attempting to pull youth or others into practicing this lifestyle, that is a different story. Most of the cases of human rights abuses against homosexuals in muslim countries fall into this category. If this advocating for the gay lifestyle is limited to talking and discussing, then we as muslims are obliged to respond in the same way, with only talking and discussing. If the person goes beyond this, and starts to use tactics or do actions which are illegal in the country or community, then the community has the right to enforce the laws as they apply to these actions. Sometimes the society overreacts or under reacts and this is mostly due to ignorance and hasty judgements, i.e. judgements without all the facts and this is obviously discouraged in Islam. Islam does not encourage vigilantism or mob rule mentality, but also does not encourage pacifism in the face of actions which are imminent threats to the cohesion and tranquility of the community. As there is a current scheme by certain groups in Western Countries to attempt to 'normalize' homosexuality withing the muslim community, we should be aware of these groups and their actions and attempt to counter their actions with knowledge, prudence, and justice. Q: Can you be gay and be a muslim / a A: It depends on what you mean by 'gay' If by 'gay' you mean that you are actively in a sexual relationship with someone who is of the same sex / gender AND you are making no attempt to end the relationship and repent to Allah(s.w.a) for your sins, then the answer is no. The word 'Islam' means submission to the will of Allah(s.w.a). The word muslim means 'a person who is in the active state of submitting to the will of Allah(s.w.a)' . So by actively and persistently not 'submitting' by refusing to follow the prohibition against being in a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex / gender, you are considered as a fasiq, someone who is actively sinning and not seeking repentance. Someone cannot be 'submitting' and 'not submitting' at the same time. You are either in one state or the other. To be a muslim, you must accept that 'There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah'. By logical extension, you must accept the entirety of the message that was brought by Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h) including the prohibition against a sexual relationship between those of the same sex / gender, and attempt, however imperfectly, to follow the entirety of this message. To openly reject any part of the Message of Prophet Muhammad(p.b.u.h), means you reject the entirety of the Message, and are therefore not a muslim, in fact. On the other hand, if someone is actively engaged in homosexual acts, but considers this a sin, and is trying to stop the act and repent, then this person is a muslim, and as long as they consider the act as a sin and attempt to stop, then Allah(s.w.a) will give them the strength and the courage, eventually to stop and amend their life.
  5. Hi .. This is a serious issue.. My friend is a pious muslim and has commited homosexuality with a boy and wants to repent now.. My question is ..will his repentence bring him back to islam? Are all his previous deeds ( namaz roza etc ) void as he commited this great sin? Can he still expect jannt after commiting this sin if he at all repents or does he compulsory need to go for hajj to repent for his sin and again lead a life of pious muslim?
  6. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/opinion/the-public-editor-is-the-new-york-times-a-liberal-newspaper.html?_r=0 Keep in mind that this article was written all the way back in 2004! This is how you get societies to change so quickly. The elites in academia, media and politics present a one-sided, biased picture, that eventually filters down to enough of the people that you can claim a democratic mandate for your cultural revolution. The New York Times see itself as the 'newspaper of record' in the United States, but here admits to shamelessly cheerleading for a particular social cause, to the point of completely ignoring the other side of the story, and omitting any references to stories that go against their pro-homosexual narrative. Muslims, and in particular the 'educated' ones, need to be more aware of where they are getting their information, and what biases those sources have. Being unaware of this opens you up to systematic brainwashing, which will start to tell sooner or later. Unfortunately, too many Muslims uncritically align themselves with the 'left' or 'liberalism', since that side seem more tolerant and welcoming of Muslims, without realising that in terms of pure values, that ideology is opposed to pretty much everything Islam stands for. This thread is worth reading as well, on the same general topic:
  7. Alsalamu alaykum Allah (swt) has created the universe in accordance with natural disposition (fitrah). Due to have inappropriate influence for human being and lead him to be astonished and perplexed, every action which is against of natural disposition (fitrah) is forbidden in Islam. Homosexuality, as one of acts which is against of natural disposition (fitrah), is prohibited in Islam. Homosexuality in men is called ‘Lavwāt’ and in women is called ‘Musāhaqah’. To know more about sharia laws concerning to these two immoral acts, some problems shall be expressed; 1- Sodomy (Lavwāt) is the sexual intercourse between two males by penetration etc. of the male organ. It is not established except by the confession made four times by the person committing sodomy or the person with whom it has been committed, or the evidence of four men, of ocular demonstration. If a man commits sodomy resulting in penetration, the punishment by death shall be established in his case as well as the person with whom sodomy is committed, when each of them is an adult, sane and having free will. As for the features of the doer person or the person with whom sodomy is committed, sharia laws in this regard are different. Being every one of them as a married person, minor boy, lunatic, dhimmi infidel and so on can be expressed as some of these features. The laws also are different in accordance with happening of penetration or not. Hadd, in some of them shall be established and Taʼzīr in some other one. 2- Lesbianism (Musāhaqah) means sexual act of a woman with another woman of her own sex. It is established with what establishes Lavwāt or sodomy. Its Hadd is one hundred lashes [to each of the women] provided they are adult, sane and have free will, no matter whether they are married or not. There is no difference between the active and passive, or an infidel and a Muslim.[1] As for it, Islam recognizes the sexual needs of human beings and believes that the natural instincts should be nurtured, not suppressed. Islam says that the biological parts of our body have a purpose; they have not been created uselessly. No text in Islam can be found to equate sex with inherent evil or sin; whatever has been taught by the Qur'an, Prophet Muhammad and his Ahlu'l-bayt points in the opposite direction. In this regard, Islam has blamed celibacy and highly recommended marriage as a good deed to resolve these immoral acts. Allah says, "Marry the spouseless among you...if they are poor, God will enrich them of His bounty." [2] The Prophet and the Imams of Ahlu'l Bayt also encouraged their followers to marry and to fulfill their sexual urges in lawful ways. The Prophet said, 'Whosoever likes to follow my tradition, then he should know that marriage is from my tradition. [3] Imam Riza said, "Three things are from the traditions of the messengers of God: using perfume, removing the [excessive] hair and frequently visiting one's wife. [4] Read more in; http://islamportal.net/book/marriage-and-morals-islam ----------------------------------------------- 1. Mousavi Khumeini, sayyed rouhollah, Tahrir Al-wasilah, vol. 2, p. 489 2. The Qur'an 24:32 3. Al-Hurr al-Aamili, Wasā'il al-Shīʿa, vol. 14, p. 3-4, 6. 4. Al-Hurr al-Aamili, Wasā'il al-Shīʿa, Vol. 14, p. 4.
  8. Salam alaykum, all I am wondering whether any of our scholars have used the word "fisq" to refer to homosexuality. I have tried YouTube but honestly do NOT have the patience for it. (I never have.) In addition, I have clicked Ayatullah Sayyid Abdul Husayn Dastghaib Shirazi's text "Greater Sins" to look around there. Even so, any help in connecting me to a scholarly work in which the author or speaker uses the word "fisq" to describe homosexuality would be welcome - including any references to "Greater Sins." After all, two minds are better than one. Thank you! -Freedom
  9. Asalamu alaikum, I have been trying to deal with this issue for quite some time now. I am a devouted shia muslim. I do my prayers, fasting, don't drink, gamble, fornicate, or any of those things. But what I do wonder is that why is homosexuality a bad thing? I read into it a lot and hear so many of their stories on how they have to struggle to live their lives. Now we can say that perhaps they weren't born like this since biologically homosexuality is useless and that they chose this path instead. But it doesn't seem to be that way when I read about it, and getting to learn more about it. Now of course we as Muslims believe they are sinful since for another reason aside from it being not natural which is that this will in turn lead to other types of sexuality such as bestiality, incest, pedophilia, necrophilia and what not. So I don't believe in the short term but in the long term instead. Even if USA enacted a law which accepts gay marriage now its only been a year since then. But there is a long term course of gay acceptance in the Netherlands and I did my research about it and found out that its just the same as straight marriages. I hope anyone out there can be give a reasonable explanation on how this is considered wrong or at least how we as Muslims should deal with it now with all this awarness and information about them instead of just murdering them at blank point.
  10. Salam, sorry for the really stupid title, but it is to attract attention. I was born in Europe therefore I am kind of debating what is right and wrong in Islam compared to the western values. In school we often talk about homosexuality and how it should be okay and that is not a choice. As for myself, I don't agree. But I don't think I can ever tell them, because then of course you'll get the common word "homophobic" which I'm not. I don't have anything against human being, since Allah created them, but I don't necessarily agree with their acts. So whenever we hear about gay people it is common to bring in Iran executing or hanging homosexuals. That they have no right and the list goes on. I was wondering. Is that really allowed in Islam? And how can you kill a person with your own judgment? Aren’t homosexuals already committing a sin then, they will get their punishment from God, why do we have to double the punishment with punishing them? I also wonder that what if the prophet (pbuh) was here and the ahlulbayt and they met upon a homosexual. Would they punish him and burn him just like that? The thing is that whenever I meet on a homosexual I never think that it is a good thing, but I am still going to be friendly. I just think that “God will show you”. So can anyone answer? Thank you!
  11. Salam. Please read this article and discuss - http://www.mpvusa.org/sexuality-diversity/ Do you agree with what its stating ?
  12. Salam Alaykum, I have been wondering about the punishment for homosexuality in Shia Islam, will they get any physical punishment like get killed, whipped or is it up to Allah(swt)?
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...