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

Why is being homosexual a sin in Islam?

Rate this topic


Guest anonymous

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, gayboyanon said:

The reason you see more gay people nowadays isn't some Westernisation thing, or increase in pornography, it's that more people are comfortable coming out because being LGBT is becoming more widely accepted. There's probably the same percentage of LGBT people, but an increase in the number of those who have come out.

Yes. more people are comfortable having perverted sexual desires.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don’t see the point in asking why certain things are sins in Islam - considering where you’re at (as an atheist) - you should be more concerned with our justifications that posit the existence of a

Committing homosexuality is a sin in Islam. As this particularly act introduces corruption in society. Now, what is corruption. Infiltrating something with something in order to make that particular e

Hello. I am glad you decided to ask a question. Firstly, I will say that anything unnatural in Islam is considered forbidden, especially if it is harmful. It is a disgusting, vile act for an innumerou

  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, gayboyanon said:

There's probably the same percentage of LGBT people,

No, their is no such similarity. Because the freedom to express these desires is quite hampered in the East. Reason: Because it promotes immorality. Mindset of the people in eastern society is not explorative because they struggle their entire life for basic needs and amenities and are very much inclined to their own faiths too. 

How will one focus on his sexual tendencies, when they have other significant issues in life? Moreover, the idea of God (Religion) which is discarded to a greater extent due to materialism in the west brings up many other factors that keeps the numbers low. And now it is increasing because the western culture, the break-up of families, the insult of faith, the demonisation of marriages, the increase in viewership of pornography impacts the children that are brought in this changing environment. 

 

Sex is a desire. An animal instinct which can never be satiated. If it is given freedom (like it is given in the west), the consequences will be the same. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, Bakir said:

You are comparing things that are entirely different. Islamically speaking, all of the acts you mentioned are sexual deviancies and I understand you compare them and consider them part of the same pack. Nonetheless, in a moral debate you are imposing here your very own personal view that doesn't really take into consideration key characteristics of these acts.

Necrophiles, zoophiles, and pedophiles are abusing others' rights. Yes, they may be non normative, but they are also wrong acts. The flawed logic is to try to deem any non normative act as something that shall be socially disliked and condemned. And that is not the right criteria to condemn morally something. It wasn't normative to see mixed marriages (black and white), yet today it is something normal and socially accepted. And it happened because there were people who questioned this normativity, and were socially punished for that. Yet we managed to evolve from that in a more just and tolerant society, because there was no moral justification to be against mixed marriages. Nonetheless, there is more than enough moral justification that you cannot possibly ignore to condemn pedophilia, necrophilia and zoophilia. You don't need to say "Allah said it's wrong/haram". You can explain to anyone that is wrong, and anyone living in society should be able to understand you, and unable to justify the contrary.

In prostitution, there is indeed a long social and moral debate on it. And it's mostly related to the economic system that turns us into slaves more than anything else. If people had equal opportunities and support to develop themselves fully, prostitution wouldn't be a thing. I believe we can absolutely be against prostitution, or pornography, and condemn the way they turn us into pieces of meat, and at the same time defend the rights of people to love someone of the same gender. What I don't really see is why you consider that is not possible. I myself am against prostitution and pornography (and put the blame on the capitalist system we live in) and at the same time defend LGBT rights. And I can defend this position with solid and explained points, if you can tell me what makes it incoherent to defend both things at the same time.

 

 

Agree a bit on the nacrophilia and pedophilia. It violates the right of someone else.

But prostitution and pornography and incest? All of this is because of the notion of attraction and amusing ones own self and doesn't exploit the rights of people.

Sole cause of prostitution is not economy. Lol

It's like saying that terrorism is because of poverty. 

If you agree with homosexuality, you can't deny all of these at all. 

And I didn't speak anything from Islam except at some places. This is quite judgemental from your end. If I had not kept this profile pic and not kept this username, you wouldn't have said that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/16/2020 at 5:31 PM, Guest anonymous said:

So, first I would like to talk about your argument that homosexuality is a common causing agent of numerous diseases: you're correct. It is. But, this can also be the case for heterosexual relations. So, if anything that can cause harm is forbidden, why is heterosexual intercourse allowed? You can also get numerous diseases from heterosexual relations.

And let me further explain my initial inquiry: I'm not asking if it is considered a sin, but why. And, you then reply with 'it is unnatural'. Well, why is something being unnatural a sin? Like, if having homosexual relations was bound to absolutely cause harm to me or someone else, I might understand it. But it is not. There is of course a chance of some injury or disease, but that is also true of heterosexual relationships. So it is my perspective that homosexual relations are being unnecessarily and arbitrarily marginalized as sinful.

And the last rebuttal I have is about incest. You claim, that as a homosexual, I have to endorse incest. Well, here is my take on it: Incest is wrong if there is a chance for a reproductive process to take place, purposefully or accidentally. There is no doubt that having offspring from related parents can cause numerous genetic diseases. I think that intercourse between two related people should never take place if there is a risk of conception. But, it just so happens that in a homosexual relationship there is no chance for conception to take place. Then, your rebuttal to this is that it is unnatural. Well for that refer back to my previous rebuttal.

what about incestual relationships between members of the same gender? like brothers or fathers and sons? where there's also no chance of conception and thus no harm, is this not morally wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, zahralzu said:

what about incestual relationships between members of the same gender? like brothers or fathers and sons? where there's also no chance of conception and thus no harm, is this not morally wrong?

And assuming the son is old enough to make his own choice.  A consenting adult as people would like to say.  

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 11/22/2020 at 11:00 PM, eThErEaL said:

Wait,

Are you saying it is alright to have anal intercourse?  Isn't this harming the body?  Doesn't the body have rights?    Alright, let us say that because you follow Jaferi fiqh, anal intercourse is makrooh (even though Ayatollah Fadhlullah has a fatwa forbidding it), but let us say for argumnet's sake that it is allowed in your fiqh.  fine.  It may be allowed but it is still makrooh (by your own admission).  Are you saying that it is ALRIGHT TO DO MAKROOH ACTS?  The reason it is makrooh in Jaferi fiqh is simply because it is harmful to the body.  You do not own your body, you are not the body.  You don't decide to do what you want with the body.  

    

The post you quoted wasn't referring to any school of Islam, precisely because there is no interest nor much to discuss at a theological level. I'm not a Muslim myself due to personal conviction. And it makes no difference in my previous post if Islam bans it or consider it makrooh. I was saying that at a rational level, homosexuality and anal sex are not the same as necrophilia, zoophilia or pedophilia. Comparing them is something that a Muslim can do in his own personal thinking, because all of them are haram. Nonetheless, in a serious and rational debate, where you expect to be able to rationally defend your points and accept you will face diverse opinions, you cannot compare them. You can do so in your mind, because it is your own beliefs, it's your religion. But comparing them at a rational debate is religious imposition, because there is no justification beyond your own beliefs.

At a social and personal level, there is no harm in homosexuality by itself. Sexual practices can obviously produce harm in certain cases, especially when there is no precaution. But that is, in no way, a moral justification to deem homosexuality as something even slightly similar to pedophilia, where the rights of a kid's integrity are completely violated. You can't categorically compare an anal fissure that may happen in anal sex with someone abusing a kid. It's an evident exaggeration which I don't mind if it's just part of your personal beliefs, but if you bring it to a debate, I will obviously point at it as something irrational.

On 11/22/2020 at 11:10 PM, eThErEaL said:

Sh. Hamza Yusuf made an interesting point that the accessibility of pornography is also to be blamed for the increase in homosexuality.  The reason he says is because men are not just seeing the opposite gender, they are seeing their own gender and so the openness to explore homosexuality becomes more likely.  

Then one would expect people to turn into bisexuality if porn had such influence in one's sexual orientation. Indeed, porn is an important (yet not positive at all) influence in one's understanding of sex and arousal, but there is no logic behind that statement. Apart from that, it's free for him to make such claims. He shall back them up with something more than his public's homophobia.

On 11/23/2020 at 1:01 AM, eThErEaL said:

Yes. more people are comfortable having perverted sexual desires.

What's your goal with this comment? You are debating with two known homosexual men here. We already know your beliefs on the subject. I have ZERO interest in changing those beliefs, but I like questioning the reasonings for certain claims and approach to this subject. You believe it's a sexual deviancy, as it's seen in Islam, but you have to develop that into a real reasoning, defend your point, and consider the fact that if you can't rationally defend these points, then these are just your beliefs. Nobody questioned the Islamic view on homosexuality here, thus you don't have to share your islamic beliefs in a debate where these are not even questioned. But if you bring it in a debate with two other homosexuals, maybe you should realize that we can't care less you think we are perverted. This is a debate, and you owe us nothing less but equal respect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Just now, Bakir said:

What's your goal with this comment? You are debating with two known homosexual men here. We already know your beliefs on the subject. I have ZERO interest in changing those beliefs, but I like questioning the reasonings for certain claims and approach to this subject. You believe it's a sexual deviancy, as it's seen in Islam, but you have to develop that into a real reasoning, defend your point, and consider the fact that if you can't rationally defend these points, then these are just your beliefs. Nobody questioned the Islamic view on homosexuality here, thus you don't have to share your islamic beliefs in a debate where these are not even questioned. But if you bring it in a debate with two other homosexuals, maybe you should realize that we can't care less you think we are perverted. This is a debate, and you owe us nothing less but equal respect.

I am sorry you have taken this personally.   My apologies.  
 

I was responding to something.  If you see what I was responding to, I think you will see my true intention.  It was not to just say Homosexuals are perverted For the heck of it.  
 

in any case, didn’t mean to offend you.  I can see how it sounds offensive when you simply read the comment on its own. It is my fault for not being more careful about my choice of words.  
 

sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
17 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Agree a bit on the nacrophilia and pedophilia. It violates the right of someone else.

But prostitution and pornography and incest? All of this is because of the notion of attraction and amusing ones own self and doesn't exploit the rights of people.

Sole cause of prostitution is not economy. Lol

It's like saying that terrorism is because of poverty. 

If you agree with homosexuality, you can't deny all of these at all. 

And I didn't speak anything from Islam except at some places. This is quite judgemental from your end. If I had not kept this profile pic and not kept this username, you wouldn't have said that. 

I agree I have been partly judgemental. Your discourse wasn't necessarily Islamic, but it's the religious anti-LGBT discourse that tends to simplify realities that are quite different, and that honestly belong to deep and wide debates, both social and moral.

Leaving homosexuality aside, you can't even compare the problem with prostitution, with the debate on incest, and the problems of pornography.

Pornography and prostitution are two problems that have a lot to do with the economical system that supports systematic pressure on women to dedicate their efforts to please and care about others. In this aspect, and to avoid simplifying the subject (because the thread is not about feminism), I recommend you to read Silvia Federici's approach. I consider her views pretty accurate at a political and moral level. This requires some research (not very deep nor tedious) on your behalf. I don't consider porn actresses and prostituted some sort of evil part of society, but understand why they exist and why they are also victims of the system. I blame the system, and consider that our political and social efforts should be dedicated to change the system, and not punish or deem prostitutes as moral garbage. To know what is the morally right thing to do requires some research and reflection.

As for incest. Is it a crime? Shall it be a crime in the legal sense? To which point is it harmful if they have no kids? I have never met any case in my entire life, yet I don't think it has anything to do with one's sexual orientation. It has to do with one's decision to have a sibling as a partner. Back in the day, what I have read on the subject seemed to point this could very well be related to some sort of psychological problem, so I believe research shall have the final word. And in no way I would celebrate such decision, or consider it as something to praise or be happy about. The only opinion I have on incest (exclusively between siblings) is that, as long as they harm no one (and that includes having a kid who is likely to develop health problems), it shouldn't be deemed a legal crime. Nonetheless, I find it something problematic and that should be avoided, absolutely. Yet I'm ignorant on the subject itself.

In any case, I don't see how one cannot be in favour of LGBT rights, and the dignity homosexuals deserve as equals, yet hold the opinion I have explained above on the subjects of pornography, prostitution and incest. Have I been incoherent in any aspect of my explanation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
16 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

I am sorry you have taken this personally.   My apologies.  
 

I was responding to something.  If you see what I was responding to, I think you will see my true intention.  It was not to just say Homosexuals are perverted For the heck of it.  
 

in any case, didn’t mean to offend you.  I can see how it sounds offensive when you simply read the comment on its own. It is my fault for not being more careful about my choice of words.  
 

sorry.

I'm not offended at all (and can't be offended after your reply). It's just that I think we can have a proper debate without falling into what we feel about homosexuality.

For example, I was asked about incest, and tried to reply without the need to say that for me it is something vomitive and abominable. That's just a personal feeling, and reasonable debates have much more to offer us all, regardless of our differences that I respect and celebrate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/15/2020 at 6:30 AM, Guest anonymous said:

Hello. I'm an atheist from Florida, and a question that I have is why being LGBT+ is sinful in Islam. Specifically, I am curious as to why being homosexual is sinful. Like, what is so intrinsically wrong about it? As a homosexual myself, I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by being a homosexual. Like, I don't feel like there is an intrinsic moral obligation to not be homosexual. Is the commandment just arbitrary? Like, there is no reason for it? And please don't answer my question with an argentum ad verecundiam fallacy, I've got enough of those.

All i gotta say is: God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
28 minutes ago, Bakir said:

Pornography and prostitution are two problems that have a lot to do with the economical system that supports systematic pressure on women to dedicate their efforts to please and care about others. In this aspect, and to avoid simplifying the subject (because the thread is not about feminism), I recommend you to read Silvia Federici's approach. I consider her views pretty accurate at a political and moral level. This requires some research (not very deep nor tedious) on your behalf. I don't consider porn actresses and prostituted some sort of evil part of society, but understand why they exist and why they are also victims of the system. I blame the system, and consider that our political and social efforts should be dedicated to change the system, and not punish or deem prostitutes as moral garbage. To know what is the morally right thing to do requires some research and reflection.

The basic notion that brings the viewers is the notion of attraction. The basic reason for which the career of pornographers stands is not only money, but mainly attraction. Their are a lot of people who want to see their career in that industry. All this is because of the notion of attraction and not economy. 

Yes,I agree that economic part is their but it is for the ones who are running the game. All the profit, revenue etc goes in their pockets. But that's not what I am talking about. And putting the blame on society is utterly ridiculous on every call. Women and men are units of this society. They make the society. Society is not a ghost or alien. Disrespect for a porn actor/actress in the society is logical to exist. Do you know how many teens and adults are perverted through this? 

For one second, you can say that prostitution has a lot to do with crimes like human trafficking and forcing women into it on the basis of poverty. But this is also not completely correct as many regions of prostitution are legal under the respective laws and prostitutes in fact get a license for their work. Imposing everything on society, male dominance and patriarchy is just another card played by pseudo-feminists which has no basis. Though, you're again judgemental, I didn't say to 'punish the prostitutes' or 'treat them as garbage'. But Prostitution and pornography should end at any cost. The women and men involved should be treated and counselled so that they get back to normal lives. 

Coming to incest. I already wrote a lot on pornography and prostitution. I don't need to bring all these topics. 

I questioned your perception of 'Sex, only for pleasure' which easily permits pornography, prostitution, incest etc. 

And actually you conceded my point here. You clearly stated that incest is not a problem, pornography and prostitution is not an issue (if it is not economical and by consent).

Now, let me tell you what's the problem. 

Problem is with the soul that is harmed. Isn't it important to care about your soul when you are so concerned about your body? 

Also, I have proven before too that homosexuality corrupts the society. I have no problem with treating people as people but doing actions in order to satisfy solely your own sexual pleasures is something extremely harmful for the soul. Normalizing such things is even harmful because if it's normalized, it will increase and as it will increase, the moral and ethical level of a society will degrade completely. With every year, the rape crimes are increasing in developed and developing countries against both men and women. Why? Because the society is morally perverted. 

New studies come up with new 'genders'. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, trans, queer (and we don't know if their are more). This is due to the unnecessary and harmful sexual freedom granted to people in the society. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
16 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Imposing everything on society, male dominance and patriarchy is just another card played by pseudo-feminists which has no basis.

I agree that prostitution and pornography shall disappear, but I identify the pillars that support this system, and certainly you seem to do so too but criticize feminism without knowing what is said in feminism it seems. Porn is made for men. Even if you check "homosexual porn", it's for men. There isn't lesbian version of porn sites. Porn is made by men for men. You say there is no basis, but indeed there are significant gender based differences in pornography and the porn industry itself, and saying there is no basis to have a gender based approach on pornography (feminism) is ignoring this reality.

Also, when I say that money has a lot to do, I'm obviously not referring to people working in the porn industry, but the economic systen we live in. Good luck fighting against a porn industry that moves billions each year. Moreover, at a global level, women are systematically relegated to care and pleasure services. The rest of fields, such as engineering, programming, and other technical fields, are commonly masculinized. There are little female references there, even though that is changing. Feminism isn't a simple field of study, and I seriously think we can't really have a deep and conscious approach on prostitution without studying authors such as Federici (whose feminist claims take into consideration the capitalistic system we live in).

16 hours ago, Zainuu said:

incest is not a problem

I said incest shall not be deemed a crime by itself if it is between siblings and without risk of having kids.

16 hours ago, Zainuu said:

pornography and prostitution is not an issue (if it is not economical and by consent).

No. You must have missunderstood me. Prostitution and pornography are a social problem, heavily related to a patriarchal global model and an economic system that support this type of cruel slavery. I don't believe in any type of consent in prostitution, as this consent only exists either due to necessity (out of poverty) or a wrong social patriarchal education where selling your own body for money is something tolerable.

16 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Problem is with the soul that is harmed. Isn't it important to care about your soul when you are so concerned about your body? 

Develop this. At a psychological level, I already said that we should avoid discussing incest if we aren't experts on the matter ourselves, so I just spoke about the legal aspect of it. On prostitution, I agree it brings psychological and social problems, and that's why I am against it. I don't know if by soul you are referring to something beyond the psychological effects of these practices (at a spiritual level), but I guess that discussion belongs to our own personal beliefs, and there is no common language to have a debate here as I'm not a Muslim.

16 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Also, I have proven before too that homosexuality corrupts the society. I have no problem with treating people as people but doing actions in order to satisfy solely your own sexual pleasures is something extremely harmful for the soul. Normalizing such things is even harmful because if it's normalized, it will increase and as it will increase, the moral and ethical level of a society will degrade completely. With every year, the rape crimes are increasing in developed and developing countries against both men and women. Why? Because the society is morally perverted. 

Using a condom or enjoying sex with your wife is also terrible for your soul? Because these actions precisely point at the pleasures of sex. Sex brings pleasure, man, and it's completely normal and natural that people practice it out of pleasure. Another entirely different thing is people who violate other people's rights: rape, pedophilia, etc. There are all people that shall be judged accordingly, regardless if they are men, women, heterosexual, or homosexual. They are all people who acted wrongly. You can fight these acts yet support the right of homosexuals to build families and have active regular sexual lives. What harm would someone do having a partner of the same gender? The public existence of homosexual couples only reinforce the idea that it is normal to be gay, to love someone of the same sex, and build a couple, nothing else. It doesn't promote rape nor zoophilia nor necrophilia nor incest. There is absolutely no ethical justification against homosexuality, and people willing to make it appear as something immoral (like you right now) usually use other examples such as incest. If you want to criticize homosexuality, don't talk about incest, talk about homosexuality. What is exactly wrong about it?

Homosexual couples aren't build merely for sex. Love, care, sharing a life together, are also genuine goals that homosexual people desire.

I have never defended that sex is only for pleasure. Neither I think homosexuality is just about sex. I think that sex-only relations may be banal and harmful at a psychological level because humans need to build stronger emotional bonds, and it can be certainly traumatic to live sex in such a superficial way. But that happens both in straight and homosexual relations.

You can't, or shouldn't, criticize homosexuality for things that aren't specific to homosexuality, such as rape, emotionless/empty sex, incest or pedophilia. It's a fallacy.

16 hours ago, Zainuu said:

New studies come up with new 'genders'. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, trans, queer (and we don't know if their are more). This is due to the unnecessary and harmful sexual freedom granted to people in the society. 

There are queer theorieS, and there is nothing set in stone. It's just that social studies started paying attention to something that has existed in all human societies and times. Indeed, we are living a time of self exploration, and you will see many genders and identities, and it's normal considering it's something that's being studied NOW. Also, homo, bi, and lesbianism are not genders, these are sexual orientations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
16 hours ago, Zainuu said:

This is due to the unnecessary and harmful sexual freedom granted to people in the society

This is the key thing. It has not been unnecessary. In one hand, the contrary approach certainly reminds of some sort of fascism where minorities rights are absolutely dismissed. In the other hand, it avoids the appearance of false marriages of convenience and the prosecution of people who decide to live with their same sex partner.

So far, change is not possible, and all evidence points at this. You may find a few exception in the so called conversion therapies (which evidence not only has proven they are based in psychological and/or physical torture, but that they lack all type of scientific basis).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/24/2020 at 2:20 AM, ServantOfTheHousehold said:

All i gotta say is: God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve

It would be pretty confusing if every guy changed their name to Adam and every girl changed their name to Eve. Not really sure where you're going with that.

 

On 11/24/2020 at 2:46 AM, Zainuu said:

Also, I have proven before too that homosexuality corrupts the society.

No you haven't. You gave an argument which we argued back against. And it's also based on your view that sex is only for building a family, and you also acknowledged that non-sexual romantic gay relationships exist, and nowhere in your argument have you explained how that could corrupt society. And also, yeah, like Bakir said, straight people have sex not for the reason of having a family too, even when married. By your logic, wouldn't that corrupt society too?

 

On 11/24/2020 at 2:46 AM, Zainuu said:

With every year, the rape crimes are increasing in developed and developing countries against both men and women. Why? Because the society is morally perverted.

That has nothing to do with homosexuality though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
27 minutes ago, gayboyanon said:

It would be pretty confusing if every guy changed their name to Adam and every girl changed their name to Eve. Not really sure where you're going with that.

All I'm saying is that Allah created the man to be with the woman not a man. Same goes for women.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
12 minutes ago, gayboyanon said:

Bit harsh to women who like men don't you think?

How is it harsh when they are getting exactly what they want?!?!

Edited by ServantOfTheHousehold
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/15/2020 at 1:30 PM, Guest anonymous said:

Hello. I'm an atheist from Florida, and a question that I have is why being LGBT+ is sinful in Islam. Specifically, I am curious as to why being homosexual is sinful. Like, what is so intrinsically wrong about it? As a homosexual myself, I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by being a homosexual. Like, I don't feel like there is an intrinsic moral obligation to not be homosexual. Is the commandment just arbitrary? Like, there is no reason for it? And please don't answer my question with an argentum ad verecundiam fallacy, I've got enough of those.

Maybe because you are ignorant of the fact that men were made for sex with women, that God created sex for opposite sex, maybe and hopefully for that reason He may forgive you for what is clearly described as a sin, that is harmful to the transgressors of the natural order of things. God forgives the ignorant who do not knowingly or intentionally commit a sin. At the same time men-to-men sexual relationships are not classified as an unforgivable sim such as polytheism. We can look at it from a natural way, as well as health reality of such actions, and we can look at textual evidence from the Holy books concerning these topics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, gayboyanon said:

By your logic, wouldn't that corrupt society too?

Look brother. I have written a lot on this topic. And had enough of dialogues. You can read what I wrote because that would be more convenient instead of repeating what I already stated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 11/25/2020 at 12:36 AM, Bakir said:

I agree that prostitution and pornography shall disappear, but I identify the pillars that support this system, and certainly you seem to do so too but criticize feminism without knowing what is said in feminism it seems. Porn is made for men. Even if you check "homosexual porn", it's for men. There isn't lesbian version of porn sites. Porn is made by men for men. You say there is no basis, but indeed there are significant gender based differences in pornography and the porn industry itself, and saying there is no basis to have a gender based approach on pornography (feminism) is ignoring this reality.

Also, when I say that money has a lot to do, I'm obviously not referring to people working in the porn industry, but the economic systen we live in. Good luck fighting against a porn industry that moves billions each year. Moreover, at a global level, women are systematically relegated to care and pleasure services. The rest of fields, such as engineering, programming, and other technical fields, are commonly masculinized. There are little female references there, even though that is changing. Feminism isn't a simple field of study, and I seriously think we can't really have a deep and conscious approach on prostitution without studying authors such as Federici (whose feminist claims take into consideration the capitalistic system we live in).

I said incest shall not be deemed a crime by itself if it is between siblings and without risk of having kids.

No. You must have missunderstood me. Prostitution and pornography are a social problem, heavily related to a patriarchal global model and an economic system that support this type of cruel slavery. I don't believe in any type of consent in prostitution, as this consent only exists either due to necessity (out of poverty) or a wrong social patriarchal education where selling your own body for money is something tolerable.

Develop this. At a psychological level, I already said that we should avoid discussing incest if we aren't experts on the matter ourselves, so I just spoke about the legal aspect of it. On prostitution, I agree it brings psychological and social problems, and that's why I am against it. I don't know if by soul you are referring to something beyond the psychological effects of these practices (at a spiritual level), but I guess that discussion belongs to our own personal beliefs, and there is no common language to have a debate here as I'm not a Muslim.

Using a condom or enjoying sex with your wife is also terrible for your soul? Because these actions precisely point at the pleasures of sex. Sex brings pleasure, man, and it's completely normal and natural that people practice it out of pleasure. Another entirely different thing is people who violate other people's rights: rape, pedophilia, etc. There are all people that shall be judged accordingly, regardless if they are men, women, heterosexual, or homosexual. They are all people who acted wrongly. You can fight these acts yet support the right of homosexuals to build families and have active regular sexual lives. What harm would someone do having a partner of the same gender? The public existence of homosexual couples only reinforce the idea that it is normal to be gay, to love someone of the same sex, and build a couple, nothing else. It doesn't promote rape nor zoophilia nor necrophilia nor incest. There is absolutely no ethical justification against homosexuality, and people willing to make it appear as something immoral (like you right now) usually use other examples such as incest. If you want to criticize homosexuality, don't talk about incest, talk about homosexuality. What is exactly wrong about it?

Homosexual couples aren't build merely for sex. Love, care, sharing a life together, are also genuine goals that homosexual people desire.

I have never defended that sex is only for pleasure. Neither I think homosexuality is just about sex. I think that sex-only relations may be banal and harmful at a psychological level because humans need to build stronger emotional bonds, and it can be certainly traumatic to live sex in such a superficial way. But that happens both in straight and homosexual relations.

You can't, or shouldn't, criticize homosexuality for things that aren't specific to homosexuality, such as rape, emotionless/empty sex, incest or pedophilia. It's a fallacy.

There are queer theorieS, and there is nothing set in stone. It's just that social studies started paying attention to something that has existed in all human societies and times. Indeed, we are living a time of self exploration, and you will see many genders and identities, and it's normal considering it's something that's being studied NOW. Also, homo, bi, and lesbianism are not genders, these are sexual orientations.

You completely misunderstood what I said. And now, taking things out of context. 

Homosexuality has no purpose. Pleasure can be a part of the act (sex) but not purpose. Prostitution, pornography, incest etc etc are just meant to give pleasure to the bodies and the viewers. They are intended from men's side as well as women's side. It's not always the case that 'women are forced'. And woman have a great part in the management of it too. Even if you are correct on the management part, you are just beating around the bush. It makes no difference to the reality that the gigantic porn industry is meant for pleasure for both men and women. 

Seeking of pleasure in a husband-wife relationship is fine. Because it finally ends somewhere with a purpose. Their is a potential to serve a purpose.

I wanted to give examples but the problem is that you misunderstand and take things out of context. 

Living a good life without any such lustful intent is not wrong. I already restricted the domain to the act itself. 

Many things out of what I am saying were already stated before. So, you can go through it and understand my point of view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7 hours ago, ServantOfTheHousehold said:

Sorry I got a bit mad.:cry: I just don't like it when people dont understand what im saying

Please read your words back, maybe correct your grammar, and realise I was making a joke cause your sentence implied women should be with women.

 

4 hours ago, Zainuu said:

You can read what I wrote because that would be more convenient instead of repeating what I already stated.

I did. And you said that it was because of sex being only to produce a family. And I replied to that, and I also said it's not proof, it's an argument.

 

4 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Seeking of pleasure in a husband-wife relationship is fine. Because it finally ends somewhere with a purpose. Their is a potential to serve a purpose.

What about vasectomies? Does that mean it's haram for people with vasectomies to have sex? Oh, is it haram for people who naturally can't have children to have sex?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
33 minutes ago, gayboyanon said:

Oh, is it haram for people who naturally can't have children to have sex?

No it's not. The reason is that they have a biological defect with their bodies. They seek a physical relationship for a happy family while end up knowing that it can't happen. They cannot leave because it would have grave psychological impacts. 

So, their relationship is completely inline even if they can't reproduce.

If you reread what I wrote. I said that a husband-wife sexual relation has a 'potential' to serve the purpose. I didn't say that it will serve the purpose or it needs to serve the purpose.

That's why I asked you to re-read what I wrote before. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
On 11/15/2020 at 6:30 AM, Guest anonymous said:

Hello. I'm an atheist from Florida, and a question that I have is why being LGBT+ is sinful in Islam. Specifically, I am curious as to why being homosexual is sinful. Like, what is so intrinsically wrong about it? As a homosexual myself, I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by being a homosexual. Like, I don't feel like there is an intrinsic moral obligation to not be homosexual. Is the commandment just arbitrary? Like, there is no reason for it? And please don't answer my question with an argentum ad verecundiam fallacy, I've got enough of those.

It is a sin because we believe, as muslims, that God has prohibited men being sexually intimate with men and women being sexually intimate with women. In a nutshell that is why. 

The word Islam means submitting your will to God's will. The more extended meaning is when a situation arises where you want to do something or not do something but God has prohibited you from it ( in the first case) or required you to do it (in the second case), you do what God has willed and not what you want to do. If you look at the vast majority of things people do in their lives, most of these are not included in this definition. If you want to wake up at 5am or 7am, you can do whichever you want. If you want to wear a pink shirt today or a red shirt, you can wear whichever one you want. If you want to eat eggs for breakfast or waffles, you can eat whichever you want. There is nothing is Islam about these things. 

But there are certain actions which are a test from God to human beings to see which ones are sincere in their love for God and which ones are not. Everyone says they 'love' God and are 'spiritual' and 'connected to God' (except maybe atheists who don't believe in God). What God is telling people is that 'Ok, you say this, and this guy over here says the same thing, and this lady over here says the same thing. Some of you are sincere in this, and some of you aren't'. We can't tell just by looking at you and hearing your words, because they are all the same words. So how do we know which ones are sincere and which ones aren't. The only way is by testing them. Some will fail the test and some will pass. 

It is like students in school. If you ask most of the students, 'Did you study for the test'. They will say yes. The only way for you to know who studied and who didn't is by actually giving the students the test and then looking at the results. 

Most people know the narration of Adam and Eve. This narration is in the Bible and also in the Quran (with slightly different details). God tells Adam and Eve, you can go anywhere in the garden and do anything you wish, just don't eat from this tree. In the garden, there was only one test, which was the tree. Adam and Eve did not pass that test, as we all know, but they asked God to forgive them so God sent them down to earth where they and their offspring (us) would be re-tested  and if they passed, they would get to go back to the garden and if they failed, they would be in a place worse than being on earth (hell). 

Now atheist, I know will have all sorts of objections to this and say 'well why are we being tested, what gives God the right to test us, etc, etc'. That is irrelevant for us muslims, because you asked why do 'we' believe homosexuality to be a sin and that is the reason why. Some muslims will expand this and say, 'It is prohibited because it causes x and y to happen in society leading to z, etc'. There is evidence for some of this, but some is also speculation, and this is not 'why' homosexuality is a sin, these are logical proofs that the practice of homosexuality, when it is widespread and accepted in society (like it is in many countries today) leads to certain harms, therefore it is, in general, harmful to society. At the same times, these are logical proofs, these are not the reason 'why' it is a sin. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 minutes ago, Zainuu said:

No it's not. The reason is that they have a biological defect with their bodies. They seek a physical relationship for a happy family while end up knowing that it can't happen. They cannot leave because it would have grave psychological impacts. 

So, their relationship is completely inline even if they can't reproduce.

If you reread what I wrote. I said that a husband-wife sexual relation has a 'potential' to serve the purpose. I didn't say that it will serve the purpose or it needs to serve the purpose.

That's why I asked you to re-read what I wrote before. 

If someone gets a vasectomy, there is no potential, and you just said that straight people not having sex would cause grave psychological impacts. And yet you think the same thing's not true for gay people. That's the most double standards thing I've read all day.

 

6 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

In a nutshell that is why. 

That's not an answer to his question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
On 11/15/2020 at 10:30 PM, Guest anonymous said:

Hello. I'm an atheist from Florida, and a question that I have is why being LGBT+ is sinful in Islam. Specifically, I am curious as to why being homosexual is sinful. Like, what is so intrinsically wrong about it? As a homosexual myself, I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by being a homosexual. Like, I don't feel like there is an intrinsic moral obligation to not be homosexual. Is the commandment just arbitrary? Like, there is no reason for it? And please don't answer my question with an argentum ad verecundiam fallacy, I've got enough of those.

Greetings brother,

I don’t know if you’re still here, but perhaps the following links may help.

Islamic Pulse brings standard empirical arguments already stated and argued above, like that of AIDS, HIV, and Br Muzaffer also analogises homosexuality with incest:

Sheikh Sekaleshfar brings esoteric rationalisations, where he describes the  woman as a manifestation of “The Nurturer” and establishes how men and women complement one another:


From a symbolic perspective, Jonathan Pageau elucidates how lgbtq studies and queer theory sort of infects the social order, tries to de-essentialise and de-stablise the ideas held as normative, and glorifies the exception; essentially like a virus. He also explains how we are living in times which are eerily a combination of the dystopian novels 1984, Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451

This series may not exactly help understand why Islam is against homosexual acts, but it hypothesises there may be a sinister agenda in relation to feminism and lgbtq studies where the globalists are infiltrating the minds of our children and there are even children’s books highlighting homosexual families and transgender people. It also espouses a conspiracy theory in relation to Bill Gates and population control (very relevant for today).


Also to be noted, is that both in the books of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jam'ah and Ahl Tashayyu’, the prevalence of homosexual and lesbian relationships and marriages are a sign of the end times. (Shaykh Hamza Yusuf said the very word “marriage” was used in one of the hadiths):

Quote

And you will see fisq (immorality) become apparent and men being satisfied by men and women being (satistified) with women.
Source:
1. Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 8, pg. 36 – 42, hadeeth # 7
Grading:
1. Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Hasan (Good)
 Mir’aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 25, pg. 91

“You will see homosexuality and lesbianism widespread” (Al Mu'jam Al Kabir (10/228), by Imam Sulaiman ibn Ahmad At-Tabarani)

That being said, we have to ask ourselves whether we really need utilitarian justifications for every jurisprudential ruling. I mean, as an atheist, wouldn’t you say that objective morality goes out the window? Would you agree with Richard Dawkins where he agrees that the belief that rape is wrong, is as arbitrary as us evolving 5 fingers rather than 6 (see 6:00).

Once one has come to the rationalisation that Islam in its purest form is the truth given to humanity, we submit to the will of Allah — the literal definition of Islam!

Quote

Allah draws an example: a man jointly owned by several contending masters, and a man belonging entirely to one man: are the two equal in comparison? All praise belongs to Allah! But most of them do not know. (39:29)

Have you seen him who has taken his desire to be his godand whom Allah has led astray knowingly, and set a seal upon his hearing and his heart,and put a blindfold on his sight? So who will guide him after Allah?Will you not then take admonition? (45:23)

Yet it may be that you dislike something while it is good for you, and it may be that you love something while it is bad for you, and Allah knows and you do not know. (2:216)

Edited by 313_Waiter
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
11 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Homosexuality has no purpose. Pleasure can be a part of the act (sex) but not purpose. Prostitution, pornography, incest etc etc are just meant to give pleasure to the bodies and the viewers. They are intended from men's side as well as women's side. It's not always the case that 'women are forced'. And woman have a great part in the management of it too. Even if you are correct on the management part, you are just beating around the bush. It makes no difference to the reality that the gigantic porn industry is meant for pleasure for both men and women. 

As you correctly pointed out, there is also pleasure in husband and wife relationships. As I also said, I think that in human relationships, pleasure shouldn't be the ONLY thing to chase, but reproduction isn't the only alternative (and I say reproduction because it is the unique difference between straight and homosexual couples). Relationships bring more than physical pleasure, especially nowaday. We live in a world designed for couples, not for individuals. There is also a part of survival in it.

By the same rule of thumb, if purpose relies merely on reproduction, we could speak in favour of all the raping done by the Mongol army during their conquests. This points at the fact that we need a moral approach in our discourses, and don't oversimplify them.

Pleasure can be achieved through lawful ways. What we consider lawful may vary, though. You consider homosexuality not to be lawful because Islam says so, I consider it lawful because there is no reason to limitate the freedom of those people who practice it, harms nobody, is an integral part of their sexual lives, and there is no psychological proof there is anything wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality at all. You may think homosexuality is sick or corrupt and shall be avoided. But Islam is just not enough proof to impose such view at a social level, it's just enough for you to believe so (and that's ok, because it's a personal belief).

6 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

these are logical proofs that the practice of homosexuality, when it is widespread and accepted in society (like it is in many countries today) leads to certain harms, therefore it is, in general, harmful to society. At the same times, these are logical proofs, these are not the reason 'why' it is a sin.

Wouldn't go so far to call these logical. Logic is universal, and if there was some real evidence it harms society in a tangible way (not religious, spiritual, metaphysical way), I think all here could agree to it. It's just a part of society that shares this view, and coincidentally, it is mainly the religious part of it. And religion isn't about logic, but belief. So "logical" may not be the most accurate adjective here. Nonetheless, I agree on the rest absolutely. It is a sin because it is deemed so, speculation is unnecessary and curiously enough, there is actual proof that it is, in fact, harmful when it leads to conversion therapies and all that nonsense. That is logical proof.

Maybe a Muslim shouldn't be expecting lengthy and logical explanations on why homosexuality is a sin, maybe it should be enough with it being considered a sin by Allah. As a former Muslim, I had no problem accepting that. It's part of belief and surrender. Other Muslims who are homosexual also take important decisions such as living in celibacy or marrying a woman to please Allah. I have read and known cases, it's a reality. These people aren't idiots, but people who took these decisions out of personal beliefs. I respect that, even though it's not logical for me and indeed it's potentially harmful for them and their potential spouses. But I respect individual freedom.

6 hours ago, gayboyanon said:

straight people not having sex would cause grave psychological impacts. And yet you think the same thing's not true for gay people. That's the most double standards thing I've read all day

Absolutely this hahahah.

6 hours ago, gayboyanon said:

That's not an answer to his question

Sadly, I really think it is close. Like, he asked why it is haram in Islam, what is intrinsecally wrong about it, and if it is just an arbitrary prohibition. Apart from it being haram because Allah said so, I can't really think of any other reason. And indeed, it seems arbitrary. This is why you see so many straight muslims speculating about why it is bad, and how bad it does to society and our kids, AIDS, filthiness, Satan, Soros, blah blah blah. The question maybe should be if it makes sense to hold such an arbitrary position against homosexuality and homosexuals in Islam, both socially and religiously. Especially today, when there is visibility, we understand better what is homosexuality and gender diversity in general, when we know the effects of rejecting the reality (conversion therapy, prosecution, and other types of homophobia).

There is a social moral discourse, that is supported by proofs and clear justifications, clashing with a seemingly arbitrary prohibition that affects individual freedom in many parts of the world and puts in risk the well being of millions of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
2 minutes ago, Bakir said:

The question maybe should be if it makes sense to hold such an arbitrary position against homosexuality and homosexuals in Islam, both socially and religiously.

Can't edit my post, but want to develop this more. I don't really see a problem if someone, out of his personal individual freedom, want to practice celibacy, for example. But I really see moral problems in intolerance towards homosexuals, or towards those Muslims who also accept themselves as homosexuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
13 hours ago, gayboyanon said:

straight people not having sex would cause grave psychological impacts.

Lol. I didn't say that. I said, that if they find themselves barren after a sexual intercourse. They cannot separate in a human relationship with each other because that will have a huge pyschological impact. 

This is maybe the 4th or 5th time I am correcting you on interpretation something I said.

As of gays, they know that their act won't serve a purpose. Please read again what I wrote

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, Bakir said:

As I also said, I think that in human relationships, pleasure shouldn't be the ONLY thing to chase, but reproduction isn't the only alternative

I said before, I am not talking about a human relationship. But rather a strictly sexual relationship. If the homos live together without any such instinct and care about each other, no problem. 

But a sexual relation has only a single purpose (pleasure is not a purpose but a part), their should atleast be a potential to serve that purpose. You might debate contraceptions, protection, barrenness etc. But their is no potential in such a thing whatsoever. 

I am not saying it is a defect or something. You had a wierd realization and you submitted to it which was wrong.

Don't push it to the rape crimes. This has nothing to do with rapes. 

6 hours ago, Bakir said:

consider it lawful because there is no reason to limitate the freedom of those people who practice it, harms nobody, is an integral part of their sexual lives, and there is no psychological proof

It harms and degrades the society and the self. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
3 hours ago, Zainuu said:

It harms and degrades the society and the self.

Yeah, but that's strictly a religious opinion.

3 hours ago, Zainuu said:

a sexual relation has only a single purpose

Depends on your approach. From a strictly reproductive approach you are right. But this approach and this purpose is defined merely by you, and cannot be socially imposed. There is no reason to see sex with such a narrow approach to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Bakir said:

Yeah, but that's strictly a religious opinion.

Depends on your approach. From a strictly reproductive approach you are right. But this approach and this purpose is defined merely by you, and cannot be socially imposed. There is no reason to see sex with such a narrow approach to it.

I really hate to say it as someone who is more against homosexuality and anal intercourse in a die-hard fashion, but nobody is putting forth any strong, good arguments against you. I think the problem is the lack of outside knowledge and sticking strictly to religious opinion rather than seeing or researching as to why it is forbidden. You also said:

10 hours ago, Bakir said:

You consider homosexuality not to be lawful because Islam says so,

10 hours ago, Bakir said:

But Islam is just not enough proof to impose such view at a social level, it's just enough for you to believe so (and that's ok, because it's a personal belief).

This is true and I am the same way - I hear Allah and obey. However, I also like to know the reasons why, if possible. The problem with the people arguing against it is that they try to argue from a religious standpoint - which would be fine if it were in other cases, just not this one. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said we should talk to people accordingly, as not everyone is the same. I cannot approach you using Islam as evidence against you because you will continually reject it. Rather, it has to be explained in a way that you can agree with accordingly. 

10 hours ago, Bakir said:

But I really see moral problems in intolerance towards homosexuals, or towards those Muslims who also accept themselves as homosexuals.

Another point I want to respond with here - this comes from a lack of knowledge in their religion. There were effeminate and homosexuals at the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), but he dealt with them accordingly. Not a lot of Muslims know about this and they really should. This is not to say we are tolerant of homosexuality - because we are not - but we have to deal with it accordingly. Pushing people away from Islam will be something held against you on the Tremendous Day.

10 hours ago, Bakir said:

Wouldn't go so far to call these logical. Logic is universal, and if there was some real evidence it harms society in a tangible way (not religious, spiritual, metaphysical way), I think all here could agree to it. It's just a part of society that shares this view, and coincidentally, it is mainly the religious part of it.

This stems from a lack of knowledge and trying to interpret rather than doing your own research. Not everything can be argued from a religious standpoint. If this was the case, Allah would have not revealed miracles of what He has done in the Qur'an or put forth logical questions or challenges in the Qur'an - begging people to challenge it, even.

Quote

And religion isn't about logic, but belief.

I strongly disagree with this, primarily because the main argument of the Qur'an is literally summed up in 4 words:

Do you not reason?

13 minutes ago, Bakir said:

Depends on your approach. From a strictly reproductive approach you are right. But this approach and this purpose is defined merely by you, and cannot be socially imposed. There is no reason to see sex with such a narrow approach to it.

This is something I agree with you on. Allah has made us sensory, social beings that were made for one another [as alluded to all throughout the Qur'an]. We are not like animals, where our only purpose is to mate and reproduce. There is a reason animals do not have to lower their gaze and we do.

I really, really hate to say it, but I actually agree with most of what your saying - not because you are right, but because the points you put forth are simply better at deterring what is said to you because they are arguing from a religious standpoint alone. Knowledge is among the titans of success. However, I could be guilty of doing that in this thread earlier on, but I sure hope not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
10 hours ago, Zainuu said:

Lol. I didn't say that. I said, that if they find themselves barren after a sexual intercourse. They cannot separate in a human relationship with each other because that will have a huge pyschological impact. 

This is maybe the 4th or 5th time I am correcting you on interpretation something I said.

As of gays, they know that their act won't serve a purpose. Please read again what I wrote

So, again then, you're ignoring the question. What if a straight person gets a vasectomy before they've ever had sex? If your logic is just "If they leave sex there's grave pshychological impacts", then people who get a vasectomy wouldn't be allowed to get married.

At some point, you have to acknowledge gay people suffer grave psychological impacts too from all of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 hours ago, gayboyanon said:

So, again then, you're ignoring the question. What if a straight person gets a vasectomy before they've ever had sex? If your logic is just "If they leave sex there's grave pshychological impacts", then people who get a vasectomy wouldn't be allowed to get married.

At some point, you have to acknowledge gay people suffer grave psychological impacts too from all of this.

Another good point because of the flaws in the opposing argument. Sigh. However, I will say if "if" were a fifth, we'd all be drunk.

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...