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
thegreenleaf

Homosexuality in Traditional Islamic Societies

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Yesterday, I was listening to a lecture by Abdolkarim Soroush. He claims that homosexuality was widespread, and even relatively encouraged, in traditional Islamic societies before the modern era.

Apparently, there are several references to it in the Persian literature throughout the ages; the beloved described in Persian poems is often male; though it's sometimes hard to tell given that the Persian language doesn't have separate pronouns for male and female.

Some Sufis, including Rumi and Shams, were against the practice, but many Sufis talked about it and even endorsed it (?). Soroush even mentioned that the philosopher, Mulla Sadra, has a passage in his magnum opus on "loving attractive boys" (!).

Soroush claims that homosexuality was more common in the past when women were excluded from public life, confined to the domestic sphere, and expected to be completely covered when outside their homes. He adds that things became "more normal" when women participated more actively in social life, with the advent of modernity.

Questions:

  1. To what extent is this narrative true?
  2. Does strict segregation of the sexes truly lead to a flourishing in homosexual tendencies? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is, for example, a poem by Iraj Mirza (1874–1926), who also blames gender segregation and the veiling of women for the vice of sodomy.

So long as our people are tied up in the veil,
This queer practice will continue;
When good-looking girls are hidden from eyes,
Boys become our bed partners at night;
You see that boy is lovely to look at, and to love,
You don't, however, see his sister without a veil
Otherwise, you would fall in love with her!


Is there an element of truth to his claims?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sarcasm

You do realize that the poem is highly satirical, using sarcasm to show how hard it is to find parents to allow you to get married. Check Iraj Mirza biography. He was married when he was 16 years old. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Guest sarcasm said:

He was married when he was 16 years old. 

That wouldn't have been unusual in his days.

Maybe you're talking about a different poem? In this poem, he claims that the hijab of women leads to an increase in homosexuality and/or pederasty. My question is, is there any scientific basis to this claim? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly soroush is a deviant person and I am not even sure he is a believer. 

Secondly it is true that some Muslim rulers and personalities had been homosexuals but if you look at what said theologians and what said Islamic texts, homosexuality had always been considered as a big sin that Muslims must not do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

Firstly soroush is a deviant person and I am not even sure he is a believer. 

Well, I believe we should follow Imam Ali’s advice. “Do not consider who may have said a thing, but consider what is said.” We should engage with ideas, not people. I personally disagree with many things Soroush says, and agree with others.

37 minutes ago, Mohammadi_follower said:

if you look at what said theologians and what said Islamic texts, homosexuality had always been considered as a big sin that Muslims must not do. 

There is no doubt about that. Soroush is not claiming that it was considered permissible in the past; he is claiming that it was much more widespread in the society than it is today (despite being unanimously forbidden), due to women being veiled and strict gender segregation. 

To be fair, this is even reflected in the writings of jurists and scholars. Abu Hamid Al-Ghazzali, for example, writes,

"The risk associated with boys is greater than women; because, unlike boys, women can become lawful (in marriage); therefore fixing one's eye upon the face of a boy through lust is forbidden...." (Book of Marriage, Ihya)

He goes to such length to explain why one should not look at boys with lust. The problem is that he writes as if this was very likely or probable. A contemporary faqih or religious writer would simply advise men not to look at women with lust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2020 at 11:48 PM, thegreenleaf said:
  • To what extent is this narrative true?
  • Does strict segregation of the sexes truly lead to a flourishing in homosexual tendencies? 

Salam 

  1. this narrative is completely wrong .
  2. another lie from deviate Soroush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, thegreenleaf said:

He goes to such length to explain why one should not look at boys with lust. The problem is that he writes as if this was very likely or probable. A contemporary faqih or religious writer would simply advise men not to look at women with lust.

this is a common problem in their writing that they want explain it in order that nobody accuse them to doing this sin so they write a complex instruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2020 at 8:18 PM, thegreenleaf said:

Yesterday, I was listening to a lecture by Abdolkarim Soroush. He claims that homosexuality was widespread, and even relatively encouraged, in traditional Islamic societies before the modern era.

 

Does it matter if it was or wasn't ? It's still haram 

Imagine in  modern times a large group start eating pig and writing poems about pork burgers. It means nothing other then they are doing haram.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam 

  1. this narrative is completely wrong .
  2. another lie from deviate Soroush.

Soroush is not alone in saying this. The writer, Dr. Sirus Shamisa, has written an entire book about the traces of this practice in Persian literature. I don't like to believe this stuff; but there seems to be at least an element of truth to their claim. 

1 hour ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

this is a common problem in their writing that they want explain it in order that nobody accuse them to doing this sin so they write a complex instruction.

Well, in the 21st century, the common narrative is that most people are heterosexual (attracted only to the opposite sex), while a minority are homosexual (attracted only to the same sex), and an even smaller minority bisexual (attracted to both). What I find interesting and a bit weird is that Ghazzali writes as if his audience were prone to lusting after both women and men; which might be why he has felt the need to write 2-3 paragraphs advising people not to lust after boys.

48 minutes ago, Warilla said:

Does it matter if it was or wasn't ? It's still haram 

Imagine in  modern times a large group start eating pig and writing poems about pork burgers. It means nothing other then they are doing haram.

I think it matters on a number of levels: 

(1) Why would an action which is so blatantly and unambiguously haram be widespread in a society which was otherwise deeply religious? There is no effect without a cause; also, it is distressing for many Persian speakers to think that some of their favourite poets might have engaged in some indecent haram actions.

(2) Could it be that by insisting on the veiling of women and separation of the sexes, instead of preventing zina, we are opening the door to this other vice? 

18 minutes ago, Haji 2003 said:

Historically and in world literature, just because two people of the same sex said they loved each other did NOT mean that there was any physical or sexual dimension to the relationship.

Absolutely agree. Love and sex were not always equated in pre-modern times (it was quite perceivable for two men or two women to love each other intensely, without there being a sexual element to their love); also, many poets used words such as "wine" and "boys" metaphorically. However, there are still poems/writings that are unquestionably sexual; and there are also accounts where a poet/writer is criticising another group for engaging in this practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, thegreenleaf said:

Soroush is not alone in saying this. The writer, Dr. Sirus Shamisa, has written an entire book about the traces of this practice in Persian literature. I don't like to believe this stuff; but there seems to be at least an element of truth to their claim. 

Well, in the 21st century, the common narrative is that most people are heterosexual (attracted only to the opposite sex), while a minority are homosexual (attracted only to the same sex), and an even smaller minority bisexual (attracted to both). What I find interesting and a bit weird is that Ghazzali writes as if his audience were prone to lusting after both women and men; which might be why he has felt the need to write 2-3 paragraphs advising people not to lust after boys.

I think it matters on a number of levels: 

(1) Why would an action which is so blatantly and unambiguously haram be widespread in a society which was otherwise deeply religious? There is no effect without a cause; also, it is distressing for many Persian speakers to think

that some of their favourite poets might have engaged in some indecent haram actions.

(2) Could it be that by insisting on the veiling of women and separation of the sexes, instead of preventing zina, we are opening the door to this other vice? 

 

1) what do you mean by wide spread or we talking a majority as in more than 50% can you give numbers. Also punishing a homosexual act requires a high level of evidence by Sharia law. Without that evidence bits just an accusation.

2) Allah insists on Hijab. If you want beleive you have a better system that's your own religion you are free to follow it.

Poetry is a form of entertainment. If you judge society by current entertainment. Superpowers are wide spread.

 

Edited by Warilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Warilla said:

1) what do you mean by wide spread or we talking a majority as in more than 50% can you give numbers.

There are no statistics available. What seems clear is that people were way more obsessed about it than they are today. 

33 minutes ago, Warilla said:

punishing a homosexual act requires a high level of evidence by Sharia law. Without that evidence bits just an accusation.

No, I'm definitely not interested in punishing people who lived centuries ago. We'll leave that to God. 

33 minutes ago, Warilla said:

2) Allah insists on Hijab. If you want beleive you have a better system that's your own religion you are free to follow it.

I'm not against hijab. Others have used this argument against hijab. I wish to understand whether they were right; and if not, how best to answer them.

Besides, hijab is not a monolith. It has various forms and degrees. For example, in pre-modern Iran, public places were "male". Women were confined indoors and expected to cover their whole bodies, face included, every time they went out. In contemporary Iran, still many women wear hijab, but covering the face is no longer the norm. Men and women study together in university. They work alongside each other in offices, companies, restaurants, libraries, etc. It may well be that hijab, as it is practiced today, is closer to what Allah had intended than how it was practiced in pre-modern times? In other words, maybe some hijab is a good thing; but too much hijab is not. 

39 minutes ago, Warilla said:

Poetry is a form of entertainment. If you judge society by current entertainment. Superpowers are wide spread.

Literature and entertainment can be mirrors of society. If you watch films or TV shows from the 1980s, let's say, you can get a sense of what society back then was like: what were the good values and what were the ills. Same thing if you read poetry (and other forms of literature) from the past.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. Why go to distant past when we have the current situation in Pakistani madrassas. Every day, sometimes twice a day the news tell us of mullahs and prayer leaders sodomizing and sometimes even killing little boys. The Tableeghi Jamaat is notorious for gay activities. No one can deny these things. No doubt they have been there all along and even before Islam.

But it still does not mean the Creator of the worlds or His code and our religion tolerates the act.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, thegreenleaf said:

1) more obsessed about it than they are today. 

2) No, I'm definitely not interested in punishing people who lived centuries ago. We'll leave that to God. 

..  

1) I think the obsession is way more. Look at the media.

2) I mean that it maybe wasn't tolerated but due to lack of evidence there were " known " homosexual but nothing could be done about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Green Knight said:

Hmm. Why go to distant past when we have the current situation in Pakistani madrassas. Every day, sometimes twice a day the news tell us of mullahs and prayer leaders sodomizing and sometimes even killing little boys.

But what drives these seemingly "religious" people to commit such actions? 

Edited by thegreenleaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Green Knight said:

Hmm. Why go to distant past when we have the current situation in Pakistani madrassas. Every day, sometimes twice a day the news tell us of mullahs and prayer leaders sodomizing and sometimes even killing little boys. The Tableeghi Jamaat is notorious for gay activities. No one can deny these things. No doubt they have been there all along and even before Islam.

But it still does not mean the Creator of the worlds or His code and our religion tolerates the act.

 

Damn is that just in Pakistan or other Pakistani institution around the world ?

Who are tableegi Jamaat ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2020 at 12:18 AM, thegreenleaf said:

Yesterday, I was listening to a lecture by Abdolkarim Soroush. He claims that homosexuality was widespread, and even relatively encouraged, in traditional Islamic societies before the modern era.

Apparently, there are several references to it in the Persian literature throughout the ages; the beloved described in Persian poems is often male; though it's sometimes hard to tell given that the Persian language doesn't have separate pronouns for male and female.

Some Sufis, including Rumi and Shams, were against the practice, but many Sufis talked about it and even endorsed it (?). Soroush even mentioned that the philosopher, Mulla Sadra, has a passage in his magnum opus on "loving attractive boys" (!).

Soroush claims that homosexuality was more common in the past when women were excluded from public life, confined to the domestic sphere, and expected to be completely covered when outside their homes. He adds that things became "more normal" when women participated more actively in social life, with the advent of modernity.

Questions:

  1. To what extent is this narrative true?
  2. Does strict segregation of the sexes truly lead to a flourishing in homosexual tendencies? 

It is true that "beloved" in many poems referred sometimes to males but in the sense of "fatherly teacher". Beloved is term applied in Irfani poetry whom I reject to be called as sufi, to teachers who removed garb of deception from faces of the disciple after which the disciple knows how to live in the world and where to place his trust and when to keep quiet.

In the history of kings, homosexuality was not a strange thing but in land of saints, it is a curse, so caution be adopted while translating poetry of saints because beloved might refer to Prophet (PBUHHP) and one might not blaspheme unintentionally.

Edited by Flying_Eagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, thegreenleaf said:

Literature and entertainment can be mirrors of society. If you watch films or TV shows from the 1980s, let's say, you can get a sense of what society back then was like: what were the good values and what were the ills. Same thing if you read poetry (and other forms of literature) from the past.  

Salam these are not always " mirrors of society" specially nowadays that certain people & groups are trying to programming subconscious of people based on suspicious agendas that nowadays many Iranian Serials & " Literature and entertainment " are representing absurd viewpoint of people like Mr .Soroush which these absurd products have upper hand over religious  & supporting Family that due affect of covid-19 & month of Ramadan their affects highly decreased but it's still a huge soft war inside Iran between "Literature and entertainment" that are producing by anti Iran & anti shia media that even some groups from inside Iran are following  their procedure & in other side  there is religious  media that has weaker status that their enemies are labeling as governmental or IRGC  media while even some anti Iran & anti religion groups like some celebrities are receiving governmental funds  but with that funds they are insulting to religious affairs or make racial content against minorities like Afghan people & show it as behavior of all Iranians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, thegreenleaf said:

But what drives these seemingly "religious" people to commit such actions? 

Read my signature. There will be 73 sects in Islam and 72 are headed to the fires (hadith). When your key religious figures are proud homosexuals (don't ask me which ones, there are several including Abu Yusuf the protege of Abu Hanifa and chief justice of the time) then you read about it and find it light to commit and pretty authenticly "islamic". They should have taken religion from the 14 infallibles only. These are one of the consequences.

Had we all accepted their divine authority, today we would have been far advanced than any nations on earth. Our Imams produced Muslim scientists and gave the atomic model to the people 1000 years ago which the state sponsored Imam Ghazali dubbed as heresy. Muslim scientists were hounded by the caliphate. The non-muslims revered them and excelled. The caliphate sunni chief justice of the time dubbed the printing press haram when it was invented 500 years ago and as a result the Muslims again left far behind in education. We are a people accursed by our own critical mistake of rejecting the divine office of Imamate, and rejecting in such a way that even today they resort to feel proud of murdering Al-Hussain (عليه السلام) and thinking Ayesha and Muawiya rightful in waging war on Ali (عليه السلام) and destroying the foundations of Islam. Their indulgence with homoism pales in comparison to their real mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Flying_Eagle said:

It is true that "beloved" in many poems referred sometimes to males but in the sense of "fatherly teacher".

This is true about some poems, but not all; many of them are clearly flirtation with teenage boys.

And it's not just in the poems. Travel accounts of the period show the same thing. For example, the Moroccan scholar Muhammad al-Saffar, who visited Paris in 1845-1846 writes:

 2054217952_2020-05-20(2).thumb.png.ea3f8dacfaab8e811da431bec0146681.png

European travelers who visited Islamic countries (Egypt, Iran, Morocco, etc.) also found it strange that this kind of romantic same-sex relationships were common in Islamic lands (unlike Europe back then). 

A lot of fuqaha warned against "looking at beardless youths" in their books, but the problem is: they write as if all adult males would be attracted to them, not just a minority of perverts. Al-Nawawi, for example,241915851_2020-05-20(4).thumb.png.631d9b81b3925ad7f74303b8b1ce43a3.png

Quotes are from the book "Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World" by Khaled El-Rouayheb.

11 hours ago, The Green Knight said:

Read my signature. There will be 73 sects in Islam and 72 are headed to the fires (hadith). When your key religious figures are proud homosexuals (don't ask me which ones, there are several including Abu Yusuf the protege of Abu Hanifa and chief justice of the time) then you read about it and find it light to commit and pretty authenticly "islamic". They should have taken religion from the 14 infallibles only. These are one of the consequences.

I don't think I agree. Sodomy is forbidden in both Sunni and Shia Islam. Besides, these things happen (and happened) in both Sunni and Shia societies. 

21 hours ago, Warilla said:

1) I think the obsession is way more. Look at the media.
2) I mean that it maybe wasn't tolerated but due to lack of evidence there were " known " homosexual but nothing could be done about them.

1) Yes, it's coming back: in another shape and form.
2) You are right, from the point of view of Shariah, you can't punish an individual unless there is strong evidence that penetration occurred; but imagine a modern-day adult male singer singing about his love for a fourteen year boy, pining for a kiss or fondling etc. : people in the audience would not react positively. But this kind of poetry was common; and the people (or at least, most people) wouldn't be disgusted.

Edited by thegreenleaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thegreenleaf said:
23 hours ago, Flying_Eagle said:

It is true that "beloved" in many poems referred sometimes to males but in the sense of "fatherly teacher".

This is true about some poems, but not all; many of them are clearly flirtation with teenage boys.

And it's not just in the poems. Travel accounts of the period show the same thing. For example, the Moroccan scholar Muhammad al-Saffar, who visited Paris in 1845-1846 writes:

 2054217952_2020-05-20(2).thumb.png.ea3f8dacfaab8e811da431bec0146681.png

European travelers who visited Islamic countries (Egypt, Iran, Morocco, etc.) also found it strange that this kind of romantic same-sex relationships were common in Islamic lands (unlike Europe back then). 

A lot of fuqaha warned against "looking at beardless youths" in their books, but the problem is: they write as if all adult males would be attracted to them, not just a minority of perverts. Al-Nawawi, for example,241915851_2020-05-20(4).thumb.png.631d9b81b3925ad7f74303b8b1ce43a3.png

Quotes are from the book "Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World" by Khaled El-Rouayheb.

How are you so sure? Have you known all saints and what is meant by their poems ? It is said that the meaning of poem is known more to poet than the reader. Have you any proof that those who wrote "beloved" flirted with a boy and could you provide that boy's name. It's an act of calumny that's why speculation or qayas is haram in Islam. 

Some say to a saint a sufi and some call him homosexual only by speculations. A person like Mulla Sadra who knows Tauheed is alleged for writing flirty notes about boys. You think that he didn't know there can't be two Gods that's why two men can't be together. One who knows nature is imputed of evil for me its unthinkable.

If Morrocan scholar Saffar was true in his claim why is homosexuality more in Europe than in Asia?

In Asia, only monarchs drank alcohol and were homosexual but not all of them. And, in Muslim countries only few people who had knowledge but no faith who could be counted on fingers were homosexual but they were damned and rejected by mainstream scholars.

About Al-Nawwi, he answers a religious query and it relates to ethics about a certain kind of a person who might have been previously from another religion or from no religion where such thing was not considered crime. So, he may be is answering such question for him who was moved by it and want to prevent himself so he answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flying_Eagle said:

How are you so sure? Have you known all saints and what is meant by their poems? It is said that the meaning of poem is known more to poet than the reader. Have you any proof that those who wrote "beloved" flirted with a boy and could you provide that boy's name?

We can't be sure. Maybe, in some cases, the "boy" didn't exist in reality and was just a product of their imagination. What we know, however, is that they openly talked about the physical features of these boys, and their romantic/erotic feelings for them.

As mentioned earlier, if a modern-day male singer sings about his love for a teenage boy, begging for a rendezvous or a kiss, most listeners would be disgusted; whereas, in those days, this wasn't seen as an usual or unnatural thing. 

1 hour ago, Flying_Eagle said:

A person like Mulla Sadra who knows Tauheed is alleged for writing flirty notes about boys. You think that he didn't know there can't be two Gods that's why two men can't be together. One who knows nature is imputed of evil for me its unthinkable.

This is precisely why I find this stuff quite distressing and wish to solve this mystery. I wouldn't care if this was about some tyrant ruler in the past. But why would such deep thinkers, familiar with the Quran and hadith, fall into this trap? He didn't know there can't be two Gods that's why two men can't be together ; I didn't understand this part of your comment. 

1 hour ago, Flying_Eagle said:

If Morrocan scholar Saffar was true in his claim why is homosexuality more in Europe than in Asia?

Well, this wasn't the case in his days. Apparently, in his days, homosexuality was more common in the Middle East than in Europe. He is writing in 1845. In the UK, let's say, homosexuality was punishable by death up until 1847 (when the punishment was reduced to 10 years imprisonment). 

Another example mentioned in Khaled's book:

The Egyptian scholar Rifāʿah al-Ṭahṭāwī, who was in Paris between 1826 and 1831, noted:  Amongst the laudable traits of their character...is their not being inclined toward loving male youths. This is something unmentionable for them and contrary to their nature and morals.(Takhlīs al-ibrīz, 78)

1 hour ago, Flying_Eagle said:

About Al-Nawwi, he answers a religious query and it relates to ethics about a certain kind of a person who might have been previously from another religion or from no religion where such thing was not considered crime. So, he may be is answering such question for him who was moved by it and want to prevent himself so he answers.

The quote from Al-Nawawi is one among many. In the book by Khaled El-Rouayheb, several other fuqaha have been quoted. They all say the same thing: one shouldn't look at beardless boys with lust. One should not be alone with them. One should be careful when associating with them. The problem is: they put boys in almost the same category as women. They take it for granted that an average adult male is attracted to both women and boys. They see this attraction/inclination as normal sexuality (which is forbidden, like fornication), not as something that only a pervert might feel. They just add that men should control their desires and not act on them. 

Edited by thegreenleaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, thegreenleaf said:

these things happen (and happened) in both Sunni and Shia societies.

No, that is ignorant and unfair. The truth is that in Shia doctrine anyone who practices homosexuality becomes kafir. In Sunni its okay to cut heads off the biggest saints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, thegreenleaf said:

We can't be sure. Maybe, in some cases, the "boy" didn't exist in reality and was just a product of their imagination. What we know, however, is that they openly talked about the physical features of these boys, and their romantic/erotic feelings for them.

As mentioned earlier, if a modern-day male singer sings about his love for a teenage boy, begging for a rendezvous or a kiss, most listeners would be disgusted; whereas, in those days, this wasn't seen as an usual or unnatural thing. 

Are you speaking about saints ? There is no such thing in their poetry and it's a lie. And if you are speaking about wandering kafirs then I dont speak on their behalf. However, I tell you that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) said:"Two things cannot remain together that is faith and kufr". When there is explicit verses in Quran which curses nation of prophet Lut ((عليه السلام)) and you think there can be scholars who be like that ? I will just point to two things which you should consider:

1. Either you misinterpret the poetry of saints;

2. Or you take fabrications to be their poetry since there is no ilm-e-rijal for telling who communicated this poetical verse to writer of the book. That's why you will find some bad sufi stuff in poetry of saints while they read Quran and bowed in prayers while such verses say the contrary. 

10 hours ago, thegreenleaf said:

This is precisely why I find this stuff quite distressing and wish to solve this mystery. I wouldn't care if this was about some tyrant ruler in the past. But why would such deep thinkers, familiar with the Quran and hadith, fall into this trap? He didn't know there can't be two Gods that's why two men can't be together ; I didn't understand this part of your comment. 

Lolz. Why didnt you think over gift of his deep thinking. If he were to show back to religion by having interest in boys, would he care to solve religious question? If someone says to you a kafir helps muslim by solving their questions. You will say either the person telling such thing is a liar or that kafir is not a kafir but a Muslim.

About two Gods and two men. Allah (عزّ وجلّ) created creation for His worship and remembrance so He (عزّ وجلّ) gave them such attributes to remind them about Him.

Before creating He (عزّ وجلّ) was alone. When He (عزّ وجلّ) created creation. The creation become its opposite. So, He (عزّ وجلّ) made pairs of opposite with two qualities that:

1. To remind there is one God, a man should not mate with his like and similarly for women;

2. To make men dependent on women and women on men so that they both know they are on need of each other and they are not gods.

11 hours ago, thegreenleaf said:

Well, this wasn't the case in his days. Apparently, in his days, homosexuality was more common in the Middle East than in Europe. He is writing in 1845. In the UK, let's say, homosexuality was punishable by death up until 1847 (when the punishment was reduced to 10 years imprisonment). 

Another example mentioned in Khaled's book:

The Egyptian scholar Rifāʿah al-Ṭahṭāwī, who was in Paris between 1826 and 1831, noted:  Amongst the laudable traits of their character...is their not being inclined toward loving male youths. This is something unmentionable for them and contrary to their nature and morals.(Takhlīs al-ibrīz, 78)

Ok. How are you so sure that they say the truth? Or not patronized by royals of Europe to praise them and show the Middle East dirty ? 

If you read the history people say Mountbatten had homosexual tendency, he was a royal britisher and there are accounts of Royal princes of being homosexual read biography of Mary queen of Scotts her husband being a homosexual too. 

11 hours ago, thegreenleaf said:

The quote from Al-Nawawi is one among many. In the book by Khaled El-Rouayheb, several other fuqaha have been quoted. They all say the same thing: one shouldn't look at beardless boys with lust. One should not be alone with them. One should be careful when associating with them. The problem is: they put boys in almost the same category as women. They take it for granted that an average adult male is attracted to both women and boys. They see this attraction/inclination as normal sexuality (which is forbidden, like fornication), not as something that only a pervert might feel. They just add that men should control their desires and not act on them. 

Al-nawai is not a shia but I will defend him on the reason that fuqaha are meant to speak about every question. As already told, new people convert to islam, if they had homosexual tendency. The fuqaha teach them to control their eyes if they affect their morality.

I think its sufficient and I should leave shiachat. Its giving me chills now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2020 at 11:44 AM, The Green Knight said:

No, that is ignorant and unfair. The truth is that in Shia doctrine anyone who practices homosexuality becomes kafir. In Sunni its okay to cut heads off the biggest saints.

May I know the refrence that saying this? As far as I know there are big difference between being kuffar and commiting sin. And second, I was always taught we need to be very very very careful when pointing a muslim as kafir. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, adi_a said:

May I know the refrence that saying this? As far as I know there are big difference between being kuffar and commiting sin. And second, I was always taught we need to be very very very careful when pointing a muslim as kafir. 

Here is the reference

Quote

we need to be very very very careful when pointing a muslim as kafir. 

I agree. However when the ma'soom hands out the verdict, as in this case, we have to agree.

Edited by The Green Knight
link fixed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2020 at 5:43 PM, thegreenleaf said:

This is, for example, a poem by Iraj Mirza (1874–1926), who also blames gender segregation and the veiling of women for the vice of sodomy.

So long as our people are tied up in the veil,
This queer practice will continue;
When good-looking girls are hidden from eyes,
Boys become our bed partners at night;
You see that boy is lovely to look at, and to love,
You don't, however, see his sister without a veil
Otherwise, you would fall in love with her!


Is there an element of truth to his claims?

You can look at any 'traditional' society and find equivalents to this sentiment. If you look at the United States, before the 1960s or so, women did not cover their hair, but they wore conservative clothing, long skirts past the knees, cloths that covered the chest completely, etc. There were some exceptions, but this was the general rule. Dating existed but not as we know it today (I had to ask my grandparents about this, btw). If you went on a date with a girl and managed to convince her to kiss you (on the lips) this was considered a 'good date', and a 'score' for the guy. It almost never went past that. There were no 'hookups'. This was considered to be a major sin, in Christianity(fornication) , since at that time the vast majority of the people in the US practiced some form of Christianity. If a man was caught having a sexual relationship with an unmarried girl, it wasn't at all uncommon for the father of the girl or women to show up at the guys door with a shotgun in his hand. So this was a kind of 'veiling' and gender segregation, in a different way. There were exceptions, but this was the norm, and there were people who railed against it and didn't like it. Those people ended up winning and we have in the US what you see today. 

Gender segregation existed for thousands of years in all societies, in different forms. It is not the cause of the current 'LGBTQ' thing. This thing was caused by a , at first, very small group of people who believed that this was a 'lifestyle choice' and worked very, very hard over decades and got allies in the media, business community, etc to work with them in order to push forward their agenda of this idea being accepted. The 'LGBTQ' thing also benefits the secular agenda which is to push out any remnants of religion or traditional family from society so that people are confused and disconnected and then will be completely dependent on the secular 'State'. This speeds up their agenda so they are natural allies and we know that the secularists are very powerful in the world today. So the coming together of this small group who worked very hard over decades with their powerful allies is what created it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2020 at 5:49 PM, The Green Knight said:

Here is the reference

I agree. However when the ma'soom hands out the verdict, as in this case, we have to agree.

I have read it, and will read again to gain a better understanding. 

My position is not to say what is haraam as halaal. Even I need to study with the knowledable live Imams as every word said by our Masoomeen has a meaning on their context. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...