How can I stand up to the LGBT? (need advice)

[Borntowitnesstruth]

2 minutes ago, kadhim said:

Not in our community as far as I know, at least not sanctioned by senior scholars. In Sunni community, yes, here and there in centers led by people and following more progressive minded thinkers. This is happening Canada, US, Europe, and I think South Africa

Brother, Quran clearly says in Surah Shura not to run towards males but to wives and wives are females which is contrary to the practice if those whom you call "progressive" plus there is no example in the life of Prophet (PBUHHP) and Ahlebait which approves what those so-called progressive countries doing because in those time homosexual used to exist but there was no nikah for them. You are wrong in your approach.

 

7 minutes ago, kadhim said:

There are a lot of clues in texts that primary focus was on limiting same sex activity as a destabilizing shortcut for hetero people

When there is no specific word as "hetero" in the Quran, it applies to all people. It is the rule which Ahlebait (عليه السلام) introduced to us. Bring a verse from Quran which says it's only about hetero. If you cannot then don't say things which Quran does not say.

 

13 minutes ago, kadhim said:

Moral of story. If a set of rules is an unreasonable burden, and you go to God and ask for relief, He will say yes. 

Wrong example, you are comparing inability to perform an act which is beneficial for society with a sin which is affecting various families. These both comparisons are opposite. Prophet (PBUHHP) said that what are made halal and Haram by him will remain halal and Haram till the day of judgement. And the Quran says that there can be no change in the words of Allah (عزّ وجلّ). So, in order to make something that was Haram to Halal, you have to bring a verse from Holy Quran, if you can't then you have to accept what it says and don't try to make your own shariah.

[kadhim]

12 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

The و is typically used as an "and" unless there is a qarina (evidence) which requires us to use it as a sequence, and from that Verse alone we can understand that the Verse is referring to a sequence of steps based on the context, and that context is our qarina.

This is what Sayed Al-Tabataba'i says for example;

The three remedies — admonition, leaving them alone in the sleeping places and separating from them*— have to be applied one after another in that sequence, although they have been mentioned together, joined with the conjunctive ‘and’. First comes admonition; if that fails, then leaving her alone in the sleeping place; if that too proves ineffective, then the separation. This gradual process is inferred from the sequence wherein these remedies are increasing inintensity from leniency to severity. In short, this graduality is inferred from the context, not from the conjunctive ‘and’.

Where do you find any contextual basis that implies a sequencing in 29:29? You simply decided that just because "and" has been used in such a way in another Verse, that means it would be appropriate to use it here. You picked and chose without any evidence at all.

If we go by your theory;

1) They approached the men physically (or raped as you say)

2) Then they cut the travellers off (?)

3) Then they displayed their sins in public

Again, nonsense.

The context is that everyone agrees and understands that gang rape of people was some part of the story of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. That’s the qarina that opens the door to considering this reading. 

“Approaching men (drawing physically near to them), cutting off their path, and doing munkar as a group” aligns well with that understood context.

By the way, you’re playing the mistranslation game again. Fee nadeekum means “in your gatherings” or “in your groups.” I’m not sure why you would translate that as “in public.” It’s honestly a little hard  to take your self-proclaimed linguistic superiority seriously when you keep doing that over and over. 
 

12 hours ago, Ibn Tayyar said:

Once again, when it comes to what definitions words mean, you need proof to back up your statements.

There are instances where al-alameen can be used to imply "other", such as 15:70, but the context is obvious. You are saying al-alameen should mean "foreigners" with no context at all except that they lusted for travellers, but this is problematic because their preference for men (in rape atleast, in your belief) is established in the other Verses without the mentioning of anything to do with travellers - they just simply preferred males.

Which is why we can understand al-alameen in this context to mean "mankind" or "the nations" - in a general sense.

This does not mean that they did not go for travelling men aswell, this was certainly among their "things", and they had even warned Lut (عليه السلام) about the foreigners.

You’re still sort of going off on a weird rant about my reading of min al-alameen and skipping answering my question of justifying it in your reading. You realize that’s not the same thing, right? I translated min al-alameen as “from the nations.” General. I interpret that as specifically the other nations from the context. I understand you disagree with that, which is fine.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with answering my question to you, which is, to repeat a 3RD TIME on the prayerful hope that you will finally answer:

If the point of the verse 26:165, which reads atatoona ad’-d’ukraan min al-alameen (Is it that you approach the males from the nations) was simply to condemn that they go to men, what is the purpose of the “min al-alameen?” I recognize that you interpret that to mean, “from all the nations;” you’ve told me that twice, so if you can not repeat yourself again that would be great. What do these added words add to the meaning? When atatoona ad’-d’ukraan would give the same meaning in your reading. “The males” in general encompasses all the nations where there are males. So what is your explanation for why God is adding seemingly extraneous words? 

Does your superior linguistic mind have an explanation? 

 

[Cool]

37 minutes ago, kadhim said:

In Sunni community, yes, here and there in centers led by people and following more progressive minded thinkers. This is happening Canada, US, Europe, and I think South Africa.

Anyone who has sold his self for dollars or sold his self for any other reason, is not the representative of Islam.

No Sunni Imam ever allowed homosexuality. If you are pointing towards individuals like the writer of following article:

https://www.mpvusa.org/sexual-diversity

they are not the leaders nor are they the representatives of Islam in either of its sect. Islam is clear about homosexuality, Quran & Hadith both are there for guidance. 

39 minutes ago, kadhim said:

What is the specific evidence that this 1-2% were intended as targets of these pronouncements? 

There is no exception in a marriage contract. A marriage contract is done between man & woman (opposite sex). So whether you try to reverse it or see it straght forwardly, result would be the same. There is no space for homosexuality in Islam. 

43 minutes ago, kadhim said:

Number two. Principle of Islam. Rules for group not based on what some extraordinary strong people can do, but on what most typical people in the group can handle.

Story of meraj. Muhammad goes to God. God gives 50 prayers a day.

 you only got this hadith to support such a ridiculous claim. Which even Sunni's don't present to justify homosexuality.

Why don't you see the ahkaam of salah, siyaam, hajj etc. Clear guidance and exceptions are there for each case. Fact is that you cannot present any exception from Quran nor from hadith to justify homosexuality.

الكليني، عن علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن ابن أبي عمير، عن أبي بكر الحضرمي، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال: قال رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم): من جامع غلاما جاء جنبا يوم القيامة لا ينقيه ماء الدنيا وغضب الله عليه ولعنه وأعد له جهنم وساءت مصيرا ثم قال: إن الذكر ليركب الذكر فيهتز العرش لذلك وان الرجل ليؤتى في حقبه فيحبسه الله على جسر جهنم حتى يفرغ من حساب الخلائق ثم يؤمر به إلى جهنم فيعذب بطبقاتها طبقة طبقة حتى يرد إلى أسفلها ولا يخرج منها

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1686_موسوعة-أحاديث-أهل-البيت-ع-الشيخ-هادي-النجفي-ج-١٠/الصفحة_82

52 minutes ago, kadhim said:

Moral of story. If a set of rules is an unreasonable burden, and you go to God and ask for relief, He will say yes. 

So you do believe that God learns from His experiences (na'udobillah)? He first command "unreasonable" things and when people go to Him in protest or with request, look God, you did a mistake, we can't do it, so please review it, then God accepts such requests (na'udobillahe min zalik).? 

We don't know any such god. Our God is Al-Hakeem, He is All-Knowing. 

57 minutes ago, kadhim said:

God does not put a burden on people more than they can bear

So would you present this verse in justification for every immoral act? Would you present this verse against God & His clear commands?

وَلاَ تَنكِحُواْ مَا نَكَحَ آبَاؤُكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاء إِلاَّ مَا قَدْ سَلَفَ إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَمَقْتًا وَسَاء سَبِيلاً

4:22 

This مِّنَ النِّسَاء alone, is sufficient to turndown your arguments.

And for your each and every argument, see what Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has said:

قُلْ إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَأْمُرُ بِالْفَحْشَاء أَتَقُولُونَ عَلَى اللّهِ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ

7:28

 

[Abu Hadi]

1 hour ago, kadhim said:

Note to site admins: I just spent a good half hour writing a detailed post only to hit submit and have the post not show up. In general this happens probably 25-30% of the time, but if you refresh the page and look in the editor, it’s there saved, and you can submit again. In this case there was an old post from yesterday in its place. I mean, whatevs, tech can be finicky, stuff happens. But this is really lousy UX. 

 

I am not a dev for this site ( I work in IT but not on the dev team here) but I know what you are talking about. This is most likely a bug, a javascript error. If you hit Ctrl + f5 (for a windows pc, or equivalent if you have a mac) it should solve the issue. It happens to me sometimes too. I'll ask the team about it. We also have a Site Support / Feedback forum. If you want to post there. 

[kadhim]

1 hour ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

When there is no specific word as "hetero" in the Quran, it applies to all people. It is the rule which Ahlebait (عليه السلام) introduced to us. Bring a verse from Quran which says it's only about hetero. If you cannot then don't say things which Quran does not say.

This is not a great argument. No one among the people understood that there were people who didn’t like the opposite. They didn’t have a word for hetero because no one knew anything else existed. Are you asking me why God didn’t use a word that didn’t exist? 

The generally unstated understanding of the early generations was that everyone was attracted to the opposite, so same sex was a weird thing people just chose.

I might flip this and ask why are you going against the received consensus understanding of the early generations to apply the texts to people they had no conception of? This is qiyas akhi. 

[Abu Hadi]

19 hours ago, khizarr said:

This is so short-sighted and ridiculous. That God decided to get angry and destroy a people, not primarily because they were violent rapists, but because they rejected Lut’s (a) daughters and “sealed their fates”. It not only gives a bad name to Lut (a), but also to God.

Moving on.

Funny. So you’re saying “no scientific evidence exists to support the idea that people are naturally gay”, and so obviously Lut (a) could not have known something which is not found in reality. Okay, but then you’re agreeing with me on that these people could not have been naturally, unambiguously gay and in fact chose to be degenerate rapists, against their own [heterosexual] fitrah. And that was the sin, indeed. 

I think you just unknowingly added credibility to my argument. ;)

This is just nonsense. If I ever talk to someone who tells me they woke up one day and chose to be attracted to the same sex and earn a life of pain, I might change my mind. Until then, it’s safe to assume that people do not choose to be straight or gay.

Yeah, I won't say that because this is a silly comparison. There is nothing in Islam that tells us “do not place your children at the forefront of jihad”. Islam allows a man to seek martyrdom and sacrifice his wealth and children for the cause of Islam. In fact, it is readily encouraged. So if Hussain (a) took his children to battle, it was within the workings of shari’a. No violation of human rights there. 

This was not a good comparison. Try something else.

They weren't destroyed because they didn't marry Lut((عليه السلام).)'s daughter. I never said that. Now you are twisting my words, which I don't appreciate. 

You completely ignored the majority of my post, where I said that they were destroyed for their sins. Rejecting the daughters of Lut((عليه السلام)) is not a sin, but it was a bad move on their part, i.e. not wise or intelligent, because by doing that they sealed their fate, i.e. there was now nothing standing in the way of them receiving the punishment from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

If they would have accepted the offer, it might have given them a chance to repent and see the error of their ways. They lost that chance when they rejected the offer, that is what I meant by 'sealing their fate'. I think I was pretty clear about that. 

The premise that 'the violent rape' and not the homosexual act was the sin which is made haram in the Quran, and which was the main reason they were destroyed has been debunked many times, including in this vide. 

I will summarize. 

Yes, the people of Lut most likely did commit rape. They also did robbery, burglary, and general banditry. The Quran briefly mentions these, and these are haram, and this is part of the reason that they were destroyed. At the same time, the Quran specifically mentions the sin of homosexuality in connection with them because civilizations in the past had also done these crimes mentioned previously. Some were destroyed and some repented. The normalization of the homosexual act, the doing of this act in public, and then the normalization of this act and relationships based on this act were the thing that was 'new' about the people of Lut. This is why it is mentioned, and mentioned specifically along with their other crimes. 

Yes, no scientific evidence exists for someone being 'born gay'. Here is a recent article of this, from a non muslim source. This was a scientific study widely viewed as credible. Sorry if this is hard for you to accept the evidence, but it's there. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6

I think it is a good comparison, and most here seem to agree with me. Just as Imam Hussein((عليه السلام)) put his family and children on the forefront of jihad (striving hard in the way of Allah(s.w.a)), so did Prophet Lut((عليه السلام)). This was the way of the Prophets in extreme circumstances, as was the case here and was the case at Karbala, when the religion of Islam itself was in danger of being destroyed by deviant and corrupt individuals. 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Abu Hadi

[kadhim]

1 hour ago, Cool said:

No Sunni Imam ever allowed homosexuality. If you are pointing towards individuals like the writer of following article:

https://www.mpvusa.org/sexual-diversity

they are not the leaders nor are they the representatives of Islam in either of its sect. Islam is clear about homosexuality, Quran & Hadith both are there for guidance. 

In Sunni Islam, there isn’t really a basis for this sort of argument though. They are not as hierarchical as we are. For them, if someone pops up and people take them seriously as a scholar, there is no basis within that to say that person is not a scholar. We don’t have any right, nor does any Sunni to say who is “a Sunni imam” and who is not because there are no universally understood criteria. 

For our own school, I was straightforward about where it stands with our senior scholarship. 
 

1 hour ago, Cool said:

2 hours ago, kadhim said:

 

 you only got this hadith to support such a ridiculous claim. Which even Sunni's don't present to justify homosexuality

Brother, are you familiar with a field of Islam known as akhlaq? Disagree with ideas, but this sort of lazy ridicule is not the behavior of a believer.

It’s a presentation of a story shared by all Muslims to illustrate a deeper principle of Islam. I’m not presenting a juristic argument using this story to say, this story, therefore this is alright. I tossed it out there as a nice illustration of a principle, and then invoked the principle.

You can argue with the application of this principle in the way I am applying it, but the way you are shaping your response here is just pure childishness and honestly reflects poorly on you.

1 hour ago, Cool said:

So you do believe that God learns from His experiences (na'udobillah)? He first command "unreasonable" things and when people go to Him in protest or with request, look God, you did a mistake, we can't do it, so please review it, then God accepts such requests (na'udobillahe min zalik).? 

We don't know any such god. Our God is Al-Hakeem, He is All-Knowing. 

This is such a childish non-sequitur. 
You seem rather desperate to miss the point. This is tiresome, and I’m not going to engage with someone who argues on this level.

Again, the story is obviously a parable, a story with a lesson. Obviously it’s not a literal story. It’s obviously not about God changing His mind. It’s an illustration that God is a reasonable Being mindful of mankind’s limits. 

God does not impose burdens on any person that are beyond what most people in that situation can bear. If we understand God as imposing such a burden, we haven’t understood God’s will correctly. 

So, I mean, assuming you’re able, how about you get away from the childish literal harping on the parable I mentioned, and try to reply to that principle. 

Would God impose a burden on a group of people He knows most of them will never be able to handle? Is this at all consistent with what we know in general of the obligations of Islamic law?
 

Edited September 3, 2022 by kadhim

[Patient Warrior]

OP, you don't need to do anything. Allah will take care of them and Inshallah the progressive Muslims who defend them and attribute lies to Allah by twisting his words.

"And Lot when he said to his people, "Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds? You lust after men instead of women! You are certainly transgressors.”" Quran 7:80-81

Not that I'm questioning anyone's reading comprehension but multiple tafseers on this ayah are very clear.

They are not born that way; https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6

They introduce plagues into society; https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00204 by a result of intercourse anally.

1/2

Edited September 3, 2022 by Patient Warrior

[Patient Warrior]

They also tend to introduce pedophilia as we're now seeing in their communities and pride parades. The cycle of homosexuality can be linked with child molestation as well see the following studies;

1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X12000610

"Children adopted by LGBT parents are 1150% more likely to be molested"

2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/

Homosexuals are more likely to become pedophiles and make up the majority of them since over 50% of gay men are pedophiles. 33% of LGBT is also convicted child molesters.

3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21867592/
Homosexuality occurs by molesting children; that's how they reproduce.

 

[khizarr]

23 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

The premise that 'the violent rape' and not the homosexual act was the sin which is made haram in the Quran, and which was the main reason they were destroyed has been debunked many times, including in this vide. 

I'm not a huge follower of Nakshawani. I never really understood the hype, as I've never resonated with him myself. I have heard what he has to say about homosexuality in other videos apart from this one, and I'm afraid there are some nuances that I disagree with.

25 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

Yes, the people of Lut most likely did commit rape. They also did robbery, burglary, and general banditry. The Quran briefly mentions these, and these are haram, and this is part of the reason that they were destroyed. At the same time, the Quran specifically mentions the sin of homosexuality in connection with them because civilizations in the past had also done these crimes mentioned previously. Some were destroyed and some repented. The normalization of the homosexual act, the doing of this act in public, and then the normalization of this act and relationships based on this act were the thing that was 'new' about the people of Lut. This is why it is mentioned, and mentioned specifically along with their other crimes.

And you are absolutely sure that the Qur'an maintains that consensual gay relationships are haram? And that this is what the story of Lut (a) was really about at its core?

If you've reached that conclusion and are dead set on it, then we can't really carry on a conversation. There's little but intelligent material on shiachat and elsewhere on the web that would disagree with you and argue against this sort of reading of the passages. I've made my points, my case is closed.

29 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

Yes, no scientific evidence exists for someone being 'born gay'. Here is a recent article of this, from a non muslim source. This was a scientific study widely viewed as credible. Sorry if this is hard for you to accept the evidence, but it's there. 

Why would that be hard for me to accept? I never argued that science provides evidence for someone being "born gay", much like it doesn't provide any concrete evidence for much of human sexuality, including being heterosexual. It's just something that nature selects for or against. Being born gay is different than saying that a man is naturally attracted to other men. The latter is true and makes sense. Muslims don't have a problem accepting it either; it's just that they know it is natural, but still consider it to be a sin that must be restrained.

38 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

I think it is a good comparison, and most here seem to agree with me. Just as Imam Hussein((عليه السلام)) put his family and children on the forefront of jihad (striving hard in the way of Allah(s.w.a)), so did Prophet Lut((عليه السلام)). This was the way of the Prophets in extreme circumstances, as was the case here and was the case at Karbala, when the religion of Islam itself was in danger of being destroyed by deviant and corrupt individuals. 

Okay, and if that's how you like to see it, good for you. I, fortunately enough, don't like to put Prophets on that level of "jihad". I find it objectively wrong.

[EiE]

It blows my mind that subjects like this receive so much attention when there are far more serious questions and problems for us Muslims.

[kadhim]

1 hour ago, Cool said:

So would you present this verse in justification for every immoral act? Would you present this verse against God & His clear commands?

وَلاَ تَنكِحُواْ مَا نَكَحَ آبَاؤُكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاء إِلاَّ مَا قَدْ سَلَفَ إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَمَقْتًا وَسَاء سَبِيلاً

“And do not marry those women whom your fathers married, except what has already occurred. Indeed, it was an immorality and hateful and was evil as a way.”

I’m sorry. What connection does this passage have to this discussion? You’re going to have to elaborate.

1 hour ago, Cool said:

And for your each and every argument, see what Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has said:

قُلْ إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَأْمُرُ بِالْفَحْشَاء أَتَقُولُونَ عَلَى اللّهِ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ

7:28

“Whenever they commit a shameful deed, they say, ‘We found our forefathers doing it and Allah has commanded us to do it.’ Say, ‘No! Allah never commands what is shameful. How can you attribute to Allah what you do not know?’

You know, it’s kind of funny. I would invoke exactly this passage behind my arguments. You insist on continuing to oppress these people because your fathers understood this as being God’s will. But God doesn’t command shameful things like oppression. 

If someone were to ask me why I am passionate about this issue, this is a great summary of why. God does not command what is shameful, and oppression is shameful.

Edited September 3, 2022 by kadhim

[Cool]

3 minutes ago, kadhim said:

If someone were to ask me why I am passionate about this issue, this is a great summary of why. God does not command what is shameful, and oppression is shameful.

"al-fahsha" (الْفَحْشَاء), is not limited to oppression. 

وَلُوطًا إِذْ قَالَ لِقَوْمِهِ أَتَأْتُونَ الْفَاحِشَةَ

Any thought that God would allow al-fahishatan like homosexuality can be counter by the verse:

 

قُلْ إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَأْمُرُ بِالْفَحْشَاء

Similar is the case with injustice (ظلم), God doesn't command injustice. Homosexuality is injustice. 

54 minutes ago, kadhim said:

but the way you are shaping your response here is just pure childishness and honestly reflects poorly on you.

I hope that you knew well the full version of that hadith you quoted. How 50 units turned into 17 seems blasphemous to me. It is nothing but an insult of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as well.

That was a poor way to present or to support your case. 

1 hour ago, kadhim said:

and I’m not going to engage with someone who argues on this level.

I do think we should not engage in discussion on this topic specifically. It doesn't even worth of consuming 11 pages. 

Neither Abu Hanifa, nor Shafa'i, nor Malik, nor Hanbal ever supported nor justified homosexuality. Their prescribed punishment are available online:

"Undoubtedly, sodomy (homosexuality) is haram and forbidden in Islam. Because of this sin, the nation of Hazrat Lut (Alaihis Salam) was punished by Allah in this world. There is no fixed punishment for perpetrator of this crime, but according to Imam Abu Hanifa such person should be pushed from a mountain to death. But, this punishment will be implemented by a Qazi"

https://darulifta-deoband.com/home/en/Penal-Code/268

28 minutes ago, kadhim said:

What connection does this passage have to this discussion?

 

وَلاَ تَنكِحُواْ مَا نَكَحَ آبَاؤُكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاء 

"Min al-nisa" is the connection. 

Perhaps someone would present this verse as an evidence that it is permissible for a son to have nikah with the "rajul" whom his father did nikah. 

Look there is no "min al-rijaal" in this verse.

[Laayla]

Bismehe Ta3ala 

Assalam Alikum 

Two weeks ago, Lex Fridman had Jordan Peterson on his podcast.

The Canadian liberalism agenda is in full launch mode.  Be alert and informed what type of trash they're invoking on young children and the society at large. 

JP can no longer teach as a professor at the university until his lawsuits are settled.

One of the lawsuits is because he refuses to obide the usage of gender pronouns.

Oh my, the oppression he has caused to the blue and pink hair alphabet group.

Spare me the blatant lies.

Imam Hussain and his entire family were massacred and his wives, daughters and Sayyida Zaynab were prisoners of war; they were oppressed.  That's who I will shed tears for, defend, and speak about the injustice caused by the tyrants.

 

 

 

 

M3 Salamah, FE AMIN ALLAH 

[Guest Guest R.]

56 minutes ago, kadhim said:

You insist on continuing to oppress these people because your fathers understood this as being God’s will. But God doesn’t command shameful things like oppression.

this is the same Christianity thought process. Despite the Old Testament very clearly stating the act to be an ‘abomination’ but but but love thy neighbor!! Noooo don’t oppress people! Despite Allah knowing best you still try and bring your own misconstrued moral compass and expect everybody to allow you to trump Allah’s judgement with it.

[kadhim]

31 minutes ago, Cool said:

"al-fahsha" (الْفَحْشَاء), is not limited to oppression. 

وَلُوطًا إِذْ قَالَ لِقَوْمِهِ أَتَأْتُونَ الْفَاحِشَةَ

Didn’t suggest it was. 

 

31 minutes ago, Cool said:

Any thought that God would allow al-fahishatan like homosexuality can be counter by the verse:

 

قُلْ إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَأْمُرُ بِالْفَحْشَاء

Similar is the case with injustice (ظلم), God doesn't command injustice. Homosexuality is injustice. 

I’m not going to comment on this; you’re sort of assuming things that are the subject of discussion, and the ground was covered earlier already. 

31 minutes ago, Cool said:

I hope that you knew well the full version of that hadith you quoted. How 50 units turned into 17 seems blasphemous to me. It is nothing but an insult of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) & Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as well.

That was a poor way to present or to support your case. 

I’m going to super nice and explain this again. It’s obviously a parable that works at the level of parable. It’s a story that illustrates God’s reasonableness toward us. I don’t think anyone should necessarily literally take it as something that happened.

That principle is known in Islam beyond this story, but I referenced the story because it’s a nice story and people connect with stories. 

The point is not the story, the point is the principle it illustrates. And beyond that the point is applying the principle to the situation.

A reasonable and charitable reader will maybe read that and quibble with the application of the principle, but is not going to understand me as using the story directly on the level of juristic evidence. That’s just dishonest pedantry.

And beyond that, I stated right at the top that I was quickly giving a bullet point summary of a much lengthier, more carefully written post that got lost to a technical glitch. Which is another reason for a reasonable person to read with some charitability. Charitability is by the way one of those concepts of that akhlaq stuff I mentioned earlier. ;)

31 minutes ago, Cool said:

do think we should not engage in discussion on this topic specifically. It doesn't even worth of consuming 11 pages. 

Neither Abu Hanifa, nor Shafa'i, nor Malik, nor Hanbal ever supported nor justified homosexuality. Their prescribed punishment are available online:

"Undoubtedly, sodomy (homosexuality) is haram and forbidden in Islam. Because of this sin, the nation of Hazrat Lut (Alaihis Salam) was punished by Allah in this world. There is no fixed punishment for perpetrator of this crime, but according to Imam Abu Hanifa such person should be pushed from a mountain to death. But, this punishment will be implemented by a Qazi"

Well, again, no one is saying the traditional understanding is any different. Though from my understanding, this source you quote does not in fact represent the views of Abu Hanifa, who, as I recall, argued that the act was wrong but that Sunni hadith that suggest a death penalty are not sound enough to support actually punishing people. 

But in any case, my argument is clearly not to pretend these traditional views didn’t exist, but to, among other things, point out that their perspective was somewhat incomplete in that they thought about homosexual acts as something people chose to do while being attracted to the opposite sex. They missed a corner case, so it’s quite reasonable to ask if the precedents apply to people no one back then seem to have had awareness existed. 
 

31 minutes ago, Cool said:

وَلاَ تَنكِحُواْ مَا نَكَحَ آبَاؤُكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاء 

"Min al-nisa" is the connection. 

Perhaps someone would present this verse as an evidence that it is permissible for a son to have nikah with the "rajul" whom his father did nikah. 

Look there is no "min al-rijaal" in this verse.

Ok … still not sure I understand you here. I guess that would be an interesting abstract legal question if same sex nikah was ever widely accepted. But I’m still not clear how that undermines everything I’m saying or is a response to the idea God doesn’t burden people beyond what they can reasonably bear. But I’m happy to just leave it aside if something is just getting lost in translation here. 

Edited September 3, 2022 by kadhim

[Laayla]

10 hours ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

Sister those who plead such a sin know themselves they are wrong but problem is that they are carried away by the culture of west like the nation of Bani Israel was carried away by the culture of pharaoh. Human nature does not change.

 

Bismehe Ta3ala 

Assalam Alikum 

Then they should pack up their bags and leave that corrupt land. That's if they want to save their children from the programming and brainwashing.  They are influencing them in kindergarten.  

If they can't leave because of their livelihood, then they need to homeschool their kids, send them to private schools, or come together as a community and build an Islamic private school.

M3 Salamah, FE AMIN ALLAH 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Laayla

[Abu_Zahra]

As a side note, if we were to follow this logic that asking a person to patiently bear the challenge of not being able to act on their desires is unreasonable and unislamic, is this opening the door for sex with children, animals, incest etc? 

[Laayla]

^^^

Monkeypox proved that the homosexuals are having sex with children and dogs.

God destroy Kum Lut.

[kadhim]

28 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

As a side note, if we were to follow this logic that asking a person to patiently bear the challenge of not being able to act on their desires is unreasonable and unislamic, is this opening the door for sex with children, animals, incest etc? 

I mean, you could try that argument, but outside of echo chambers like this one, you’ll either get laughed down or intellectually dismantled pretty quickly. 

I think this got covered about 7 pages back. Your challenge would be to show how gay/lesbian people having responsible relationships with each other causes harm to anyone that would justify an exception to the general sharii principle of not imposing unreasonable burdens.

The challenge was posed above and to my recollection no one could think of any tangible harm that passed muster. 

[Cool]

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

The point is not the story, the point is the principle

Can we extrapolate a "principle" from a fake story?

I can see there are many principles which can be extrapolated from that story but all of them are not what we say as propositions. 

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

It’s a story that illustrates God’s reasonableness toward us

God's reasonableness can easily be understood by viewing His creation. 

So God is reasonable therefore He cannot burden a soul beyond its capacity. It is not the reasonableness to over burden at the first place and after listening to requests, minimize that burden. This is defying the hikmah, supreme knowledge etc. 

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

They missed a corner case, so it’s quite reasonable to ask if the precedents apply to people no one back then seem to have had awareness existed. 

Brother, no one back then knew a thing about organ transplant. But our fuqaha extrapolate religious rulings from the same texts available with us i.e., Quran & Hadith. There are numerous examples, but they are not allowing the homosexuality in any way. What does that mean? Prohibition of homosexuality is a clear command hence, ijtihaad is not possible whether you bring any scenario to the table.

[Cool]

2 hours ago, kadhim said:

how gay/lesbian people having responsible relationships with each other causes harm to anyone that would justify an exception to the general sharii principle of not imposing unreasonable burdens.

A general shari'i principle is this:

أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ الرِّجَالَ وَتَقْطَعُونَ السَّبِيلَ وَتَأْتُونَ فِي نَادِيكُمُ الْمُنْكَرَ

Islam is امر بالمعروف نهي عن المنكر. Here homosexuality is mentioned as munkar. So it is prohibited.

"Taqtaoona alsabeel" has its implications on longer terms. Furthermore, this taqtaoona also mentioning something important if we keep in view the divine plan & reason of the creation of opposite sex:

وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ أَنْ خَلَقَ لَكُمْ مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا لِتَسْكُنُوا إِلَيْهَا وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَكُمْ مَوَدَّةً وَرَحْمَةً

30:21

Perhaps there would come a period where humans will claim that they are more incline to have sexual relationship with animals, therefore religion must allow space for human marrying animal. You know one scientific justification for homosexuality comes from animal world. Hey look chimps do that, and those who accept chimps as their ancestors try to act like their ancestors. Some even claim that homosexuality is an innate human tendency which God has instilled in them (na'udobillah), hence I quoted the verse:

4 hours ago, kadhim said:

they say, ‘We found our forefathers doing it and Allah has commanded us to do it.’

[khizarr]

34 minutes ago, Cool said:

Perhaps there would come a period where humans will claim that they are more incline to have sexual relationship with animals, therefore religion must allow space for human marrying animal.

This is the worst argument to employ, yet many of you continue to make use of it.

"Don't let a white woman marry a black man, otherwise they'll start marrying animals too."

"Ew, don't let older men marry younger girls, otherwise they'll just start marrying little children."

Do you see how ridiculous these statements sound? Yours sounds just about the same. Also, no one is saying that religion must somehow comply and bring a new space for gay relationships; we're arguing for the case that religion already acknowledges and gives the right to people to pursue same-sex relationships. And at the very least, it doesn't criminalize them.

Edited September 3, 2022 by khizarr

[Cool]

9 minutes ago, khizarr said:

This is the worst argument to employ

Haven't heard of bestiality I guess. It is legal to have sex with animals in many countries. 

An homosexual often complaint that look you allow bestiality but not the homosexuality. 

See what's going on around the world. How people invent reasons to suit their lusts/desires. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human–animal_marriage

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7600587/

 

[kadhim]

2 hours ago, Cool said:

Can we extrapolate a "principle" from a fake story?

Well, I mean, you can, actually. That’s … what a parable is.

As for this case, of course, as mentioned already, the story wasn’t presented as a source for the principle—it comes from elsewhere—but an example.

2 hours ago, Cool said:

So God is reasonable therefore He cannot burden a soul beyond its capacity. It is not the reasonableness to over burden at the first place and after listening to requests, minimize that burden. This is defying the hikmah, supreme knowledge etc. 

Yeah. Clearly you misunderstood somewhere. That’s not the argument I advanced. 

The argument is that our scholars got this partly wrong from the start by not understanding a special case that doesn’t fit the assumptions behind the rules. The general ruling fails to be reasonable for that case, and therefore cannot plausibly represent God’s intention.

2 hours ago, Cool said:

Brother, no one back then knew a thing about organ transplant. But our fuqaha extrapolate religious rulings from the same texts available with us i.e., Quran & Hadith. There are numerous examples, but they are not allowing the homosexuality in any way. What does that mean?

Have you considered the possibility it means our fuqaha made a mistake? They do that from time to time, you know. 

Oof. And don’t get me started on organ transplantation in relation to the fuqaha. That’s one where some of them have weird rulings based on oddly chosen precedents. 

[علوي]

18 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

20 hours ago, khizarr said:

Even if you took this as a ruling against anal sex, it still doesn't address why being in a gay relationship itself is wrong.

Forget ahadeeth. There are aayaat which prove that being in a gay relationship itself is wrong, and the ahadeeth back them up to say that male-male intercourse is wrong. The Prophet Loot (عليه السلام) clearly condemns his people for "satisfying their lust with men".

 أَتَأْتُونَ الْفَاحِشَةَ مَا سَبَقَكُمْ بِهَا مِنْ أَحَدٍ مِنَ الْعَالَمِينَ إِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ الرِّجَالَ شَهْوَةً مِنْ دُونِ النِّسَا

‘What! Do you commit an outrage none in the world ever committed before you?! Indeed you come to men with desire instead of women! [7:80-81]

أَتَأْتُونَ الذُّكْرَانَ مِنَ الْعَالَمِينَ وَتَذَرُونَ مَا خَلَقَ لَكُمْ رَبُّكُمْ مِنْ أَزْوَاجِكُمْ

What! Of all people do you come to males, abandoning your wives your Lord has created for you? [26:165-166]

These verses show that the people of Loot (عليه السلام) "came to men with desire" and abandoned their wives. If this isn't what a gay relationship is, I don't know what is.

@khizarr

You ignored me, I see? What's wrong, can't address my points? What am I saying, of course you can't explain why the Quran's opinion is completely opposite to yours.

I was right to quote this verse.

لَقَدْ حَقَّ الْقَوْلُ عَلَىٰ أَكْثَرِهِمْ فَهُمْ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ

The word has certainly become due against most of them, so they will not have faith. [36:7]

[kadhim]

 

4 hours ago, Cool said:

"Taqtaoona alsabeel" has its implications on longer terms. Furthermore, this taqtaoona also mentioning something important if we keep in view the divine plan & reason of the creation of opposite sex:

وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ أَنْ خَلَقَ لَكُمْ مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا لِتَسْكُنُوا إِلَيْهَا وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَكُمْ مَوَدَّةً وَرَحْمَةً

30:21

So when you mention taqtaoona here you’re talking about the idea of widespread homosexuality “cutting the generations?”

Interestingly there is a narration to this effect related to same sex relations in Uyun Akhbar ar-Ridha, or rather a snippet amidst a mega-narration.

"...And the reason behind the forbidding of men for men and women for women is the nature of women and man’s natural inclination to women. In the case of relations of men with men, and women with women there will be a break in the generations, corruption of the natural order and the world’s destruction..."

-Uyun Akhbar al-Riḍa - Volume 2, Ch3, h1

https://thaqalayn.net/hadith/12/1/3/1 

It’s texts like this why I limit my support for reform of rules regarding same-sex relations to that 1-2% with only those inclinations. 1-2% do not present this threat of some widespread cutting of the generations. That only can happen if otherwise straight people join in. 
Moreover, the reference to “man’s natural inclination to women,” which gay men don’t possess, readily enables interpreting this narration in that light.

In short, if we are talking about allowing only for gays and lesbians, this worry is not valid. 

As for 30:21, which I will translate for the aid of those less familiar with Arabic:

”And from His signs is the creations of spouses from among yourselves to bring tranquility and make between you love and mercy.”

It’s actually interesting that you quote this. Ironically, if I’m not mistaken, gay and lesbian Muslim activists actually invoke precisely this verse in support of allowing gay relationships/marriages in Islam. Azwaajan simply means spouses/companions, and is not gender specific. Moreover, the verse underlines that God desires for everyone to have a spouse to enjoy companionship and the tranquility, love, and mercy that comes with it. 

God wants everyone to experience the benefits of love and companionship. 

People follow their own desires and say, nope, not for gays and lesbians. 

God says He does not burden a soul more than it can bear and is eminently reasonable.

People on the other hand follow their own desires, and love to be unreasonable and put burdens on people they cannot be expected to bear.

Edited September 4, 2022 by kadhim

[Ibn Tayyar]

7 hours ago, kadhim said:

The context is that everyone agrees and understands that gang rape of people was some part of the story of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. That’s the qarina that opens the door to considering this reading. 

“Approaching men (drawing physically near to them), cutting off their path, and doing munkar as a group” aligns well with that understood context.

By the way, you’re playing the mistranslation game again. Fee nadeekum means “in your gatherings” or “in your groups.” I’m not sure why you would translate that as “in public.” It’s honestly a little hard  to take your self-proclaimed linguistic superiority seriously when you keep doing that over and over. 

That is not a qarina.

Tatoona in this Verse literally means to come unto someone physically, not to approach or draw unto someone with the intention of having relations, that is a nonsensical reading.

So already that fails the sequence test.

So once again, they indulge in intercourse (or rape, as you believe), then cut off the path, then display their sins in their gatherings? It sounds to me like their sequence is done in backward steps.

I never claimed linguistic superiority.

7 hours ago, kadhim said:

You’re still sort of going off on a weird rant about my reading of min al-alameen and skipping answering my question of justifying it in your reading. You realize that’s not the same thing, right? I translated min al-alameen as “from the nations.” General. I interpret that as specifically the other nations from the context. I understand you disagree with that, which is fine.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with answering my question to you, which is, to repeat a 3RD TIME on the prayerful hope that you will finally answer:

If the point of the verse 26:165, which reads atatoona ad’-d’ukraan min al-alameen (Is it that you approach the males from the nations) was simply to condemn that they go to men, what is the purpose of the “min al-alameen?” I recognize that you interpret that to mean, “from all the nations;” you’ve told me that twice, so if you can not repeat yourself again that would be great. What do these added words add to the meaning? When atatoona ad’-d’ukraan would give the same meaning in your reading. “The males” in general encompasses all the nations where there are males. So what is your explanation for why God is adding seemingly extraneous words? 

Does your superior linguistic mind have an explanation? 

 

There was no rant and I never claimed linguistic superiority.

I don't see why you are clinging onto this side point when there are other Verses that prove their preference for men in a general sense, and where "min al-alameen" has not been used.

That is why I - and nearly every mufasir - understands "min al-alameen" to mean all nations. 

Your argument is that why would Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) "add extra words" that wouldn't change the meaning of the Verse if they weren't there - is actually an argument no serious reader of the Qur'an would make, as this can be applied to many Verses.

Look here for example:

And ˹remember˺ when We said, “Enter this city and eat freely from wherever you please; enter the gate with humility, saying, ‘Absolve us.’ We will forgive your sins and multiply the reward for the good-doers. [2:58]

And this 

And ˹remember˺ when it was said to them, “Enter this city ˹of Jerusalem˺ and eat from wherever you please. Say, ‘Absolve us,’ and enter the gate with humility. We will forgive your sins, ˹and˺ We will multiply the reward for the good-doers. [7:161]

Both Verses have a similar meaning, but one Verse says "iskunu" and one Verse "idkhulu", and one Verse has the word "raghad" while the other does not.

There are many Verses in the Qur'an, especially in the stories of the Prophets, where one Verse may omit/add a word or a letter, while the other doesn't, but both Verses actually have a similar meaning.

[khizarr]

2 hours ago, -Rejector- said:

@khizarr

You ignored me, I see? What's wrong, can't address my points? What am I saying, of course you can't explain why the Quran's opinion is completely opposite to yours.

I was right to quote this verse.

لَقَدْ حَقَّ الْقَوْلُ عَلَىٰ أَكْثَرِهِمْ فَهُمْ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ

The word has certainly become due against most of them, so they will not have faith. [36:7]

What's wrong is that I already replied to you on the previous page, the page where you referenced a majhool and mistranslated hadith and then said "my bad" when I called you out for it. Remember that beauty? You clearly do not have a background in hadith or Arabic, but that's okay, because the more towering issue here is that you do not have the capacity to understand the realities of human society either. And the even more larger issue is that you're essentially arguing to slam dunk on the other side, while I've just calmly dribbled some alternative readings and ideas in front of you - something that you seem to have no tolerance for. And if someone takes the high road and chooses not to reply to you anymore, then it becomes an ego win for you. Good for you, man, you can take the medal, I've dealt with enough fundamentalists my whole life - it didn't hurt me to reply to one more.

The fact that you copy and pasted a hadith without even knowing what the word "mukhannathun" means is hilarious, yet quite upsetting in light of the hatred and oppression that exists; and I do apologize in advance if I offend you, but it just follows that if you mistranslate ahadith so drastically wrong, your readings of the Qur'an are not going to be worth their weight in gold either. Still, you mentioned some verses, so I'd advise you to go ahead and read what @kadhimhas to say, since my opinions are pretty much synchronized with his on this topic. Interestingly, none of you have really brought a strong case against him. Anyways, take it or leave it as you wish. In any case, this is my last reply to you on this post.
 

Good evening.

 

[Eddie Mecca]

@kadhim, I'm partially with you—here's my contention (which I realize is somewhat controversial but it shouldn't be really)—the black widow spider upon completion of its mating ritual will sometimes engage in cannibalism—the female will sometimes eat the male—it behooves the male to place it in fifth gear and hightail it out of there—by human standards, this courting rite is comparable to something in a horror film—however, according to the laws governing the world of the widow spider, this sort of behavior is considered natural, normal and acceptable—this is how God created them and they are influenced by a unique set of principles and laws which radically differs from ours—now if it's proven to be scientifically conclusive that a certain percentage (the 1-2% figure you keep referring to) of human beings are born gay/lesbian/homosexual than the fuqahā should amend their centuries old verdict—this is because we have (now) stubbled upon a new scientific finding that has radically altered our perception of biological and reproductive reality—it's similar to a judge who sentences a prisoner to a life-term sentence—twenty years into the life imprisonment term, starling new evidence surfaces that dramatically reverses the decision—Allah (S) is the originator of the universe and He's simultaneously the author of the Qurʾān—revelation cannot contradict reality (or science) and actuality cannot challenge scripture because they emanate from the same source—now remember earlier I said if—the reason why I say *if* is because so far the scientific evidence remains lacking—the scientific consensus is still undecided on why certain people develop this inclination (i.e. nature vs. nurture debate)—the problem is compounded by the existence of lobbying and interest groups seeking to influence society (for one reason or another) and swaying science in this direction or that direction—we are now are living in the age of rightwing science versus leftwing science—we know lobbying activities can direct politics but it can also interfere with objective scientific observation and analysis—if Allah (s) made gay people gay then homosexuality would be their natural default setting (like heterosexuality is our natural state)—and considering how strong primal nature can be (the sexual instinct is only secondary to eating food, drinking water and breathing air) asking someone to subdue their nature wholly and completely is unrealistic and cruel—in Islam, we Muslims assume the best (not the worst) of someone and look the other way whenever possible and make seventy excuses for your brother (sister) and adopt a 'don't ask/don't tell' (DADT) policy (throwback to official United States policy on military service of non-heterosexual people instituted during the Clinton administration)—perhaps this is the wisdom behind the absolute nature of Islamic privacy laws (i.e. "Avoid suspicion as much (as possible): for suspicion in some cases is a sin: and spy not on each other")—again, all this remains hypothetical and speculative hyperbole until being "born that way" is proven definitively within scientific circles.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Eddie Mecca

[Patient Warrior]

59 minutes ago, khizarr said:

interestingly, none of you have really brought a strong case against him. Anyways, take it or leave it as you wish. In any case, this is my last reply to you on this post.

Lol? He's literally said nothing of worth. I read his posts; he's cherry picking certain verses and attempting to straw man with linguistics. Why doesn't he address the studies I've posted above demonstrating that homosexuality is learned not inherited?

@kadhim Is actually doing mental gymnastics in front of all of us and you cheer leading for him because he's challenging "fundamentalism" isn't helping him unfortunately. But don't worry I'm sure he'll continue to make further posts where he winks at the end to demonstrate he made a point.

5 hours ago, khizarr said:

This is the worst argument to employ, yet many of you continue to make use of it.

Says who, you? Atheist philosopher David Benatar explains those who promote "sexual liberation" open the doors to rape as a "human right". https://www.jstor.org/stable/40441324.

So what @Cool and @Mahdavist says is actually spot on.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, khizarr said:

I've dealt with enough fundamentalists my whole life

Unfortunately for you regardless of your feelings, your friend Kadhim doesn't define objective moral values, God does. "This is the Book! There is no doubt about it" 2:2

[kadhim]

1 hour ago, Eddie Mecca said:

@kadhim, I'm partially with you—here's my contention (which I realize is somewhat controversial but it shouldn't be really)—the black widow spider upon completion of its mating ritual will sometimes engage in cannibalism—the female will sometimes eat the male—it behooves the male to place it in fifth gear and hightail it out of there—by human standards, this courting rite is comparable to something in a horror film—however, according to the laws governing the world of the widow spider, this sort of behavior is considered natural, normal and acceptable—this is how God created them and they are influenced by a unique set of principles and laws which radically differs from ours—now if it's proven to be scientifically conclusive that a certain percentage (the 1-2% figure you keep referring to) of human beings are born gay/lesbian/homosexual than the fuqahā should amend their centuries old verdict—this is because we have (now) stubbled upon a new scientific finding that has radically altered our perception of biological and reproductive reality—it's similar to a judge who sentences a prisoner to a life-term sentence—twenty years into the life imprisonment term, starling new evidence surfaces that dramatically reverses the decision—Allah (S) is the originator of the universe and He's simultaneously the author of the Qurʾān—revelation cannot contradict reality (or science) and actuality cannot challenge scripture because they emanate from the same source—now remember earlier I said if—the reason why I say *if* is because so far the scientific evidence remains lacking—the scientific consensus is still undecided on why certain people develop this inclination (i.e. nature vs. nurture debate)—the problem is compounded by the existence of lobbying and interest groups seeking to influence society (for one reason or another) and swaying science in this direction or that direction—we are now are living in the age of rightwing science versus leftwing science—we know lobbying activities can direct politics but it can also interfere with objective scientific observation and analysis—if Allah (s) made gay people gay then homosexuality would be their natural default setting (like heterosexuality is our natural state)—and considering how strong primal nature can be (the sexual instinct is only secondary to eating food, drinking water and breathing air) asking someone to subdue their nature wholly and completely is unrealistic and cruel—in Islam, we Muslims assume the best (not the worst) of someone and look the other way whenever possible and make seventy excuses for your brother (sister) and adopt a 'don't ask/don't tell' (DADT) policy (throwback to official United States policy on military service of non-heterosexual people instituted during the Clinton administration)—perhaps this is the wisdom behind the absolute nature of Islamic privacy laws (i.e. "Avoid suspicion as much (as possible): for suspicion in some cases is a sin: and spy not on each other")—again, all this remains hypothetical and speculative hyperbole until being "born that way" is proven definitively within scientific circles.

Thanks for your post. Much appreciated. Surrounded by a sea of responses which in many cases are fundamentally dishonest and cynically obtuse about the moral implications of all this, your post is refreshing. 

Even if you’re not quite convinced that the “trigger conditions” are met, I appreciate your acknowledgment at least in theory that if certain hypotheses about the origin of homosexuality in individual are true, then that creates a moral obligation for reform. There are too many here who I think clearly do understand this, given how energetically they fight against the idea it could be inherent (not going to use the term “born that way”—more on that a little farther on), yet refuse to acknowledge the implications if they are wrong. And then even more disturbing are those who are willing to consider it inherent but nevertheless deny that this changes the moral calculus of how to accommodate these people. This second group is, frankly speaking, in my opinion verging onto kufr in terms of denial of reality. You’re not doing any of this, and for that I want to give you credit. 

I personally think the question of “born that way” to be a bit of a red herring. It’s a fuzzy term, a marketing sort of term. It’s not clear exactly what it means—does born this way mean all genetic, or just fixed at birth by whatever mix of factors—and people take advantage of that to play with it in service of their own ideology. For example, people will read findings that it’s only partially genetic in basis and leap to the conclusion that they’re off the hook in having to think about reform. 

The best current hypothesis is that it seems to be a mix of genetic, conditions in the womb, and very early childhood. 

I think the better, more relevant question  from an Islamic standpoint is, “whatever mix of factors it ultimately is, does it happen without the person’s input and awareness, and is it more or less irreversible?” Did it choose them rather than them choosing it and is it there to stay? If this is true—and self-reports by gay and lesbian people generally seem to bear this out—a moral problem appears if we don’t make an accommodation for them. 

The reports of gay and lesbian people and the seeming flat stability of reported unambiguous gayness across decades when so much changed in terms of social acceptance do it for me in terms of certainty about it, but I respect that different people will want more to be convinced. 

Edited September 4, 2022 by kadhim

[Cool]

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

So when you mention taqtaoona here you’re talking about the idea of widespread homosexuality “cutting the generations?”

This is just one aspect. Taqtaoona al-sabil can also be the cutting down of own covenants for instance we all have pledged that we will not obey shaytan. Obeying shaytan is among the reasons why "sabil" of guidance being disconnected. Here is our covenant:

أَلَمْ أَعْهَدْ إِلَيْكُمْ يَا بَنِي آدَمَ أَن لَّا تَعْبُدُوا الشَّيْطَانَ إِنَّهُ لَكُمْ عَدُوٌّ مُّبِينٌ

36:60

And here is another verse:

الَّذِينَ يَنقُضُونَ عَهْدَ اللَّهِ مِن بَعْدِ مِيثَاقِهِ وَيَقْطَعُونَ مَا أَمَرَ اللَّهُ بِهِ أَن يُوصَلَ

Hence another aspect of taqtaoona originates from breaking the bond with Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and cutting what He has commanded to be joined with. 

30:21 do mention the divine reason of creating the ازواجا:

وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ أَنْ خَلَقَ لَكُمْ مِنْ أَنْفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا لِتَسْكُنُوا إِلَيْهَا وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَكُمْ مَوَدَّةً وَرَحْمَةً

4 hours ago, kadhim said:

It’s actually interesting that you quote this. Ironically, if I’m not mistaken, gay and lesbian Muslim activists actually invoke precisely this verse in support of allowing gay relationships/marriages in Islam

I have already pointed out how a verse can be misinterpreted for drawing the meaning which suits to deviant purposes.

But this is Quran, here is what it says clearly when mentioning the الزوجين:

فَجَعَلَ مِنْهُ الزَّوْجَيْنِ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنْثَىٰ 

75:39)

While the word "zowj" has variety of meanings but throughout the Quran you will not find a single verse which mentions "zowj" as wife, to be understood as الذكر (male+male couple). Examples:

قُلْنَا يَا آدَمُ اسْكُنْ أَنْتَ وَزَوْجُكَ الْجَنَّةَ

2:35

هُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَكُمْ مِنْ نَفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ وَجَعَلَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا لِيَسْكُنَ إِلَيْهَا

7:189

And I can quote hundreds of verses too. Lastly, there is a Chapter Talaq in Quran. Which sets the rules of separation between couples. Then there is a concept of dowry, then the commands to not go to your wives during menstruation, then the laws of رضاعة are there too. All of these concepts came under the subject "zowj" (spouse). Had there been 0.000001% chance of any homosexuality, God would have not ignored it. We will find a clear command setting the rights of gay or lesbian couple. 

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

15 hours ago, kadhim said:

Number two. Principle of Islam. Rules for group not based on what some extraordinary strong people can do, but on what most typical people in the group can handle.

Story of meraj. Muhammad goes to God. God gives 50 prayers a day. Muhammad goes down. Moses says, “you know they can’t handle that, akhi.” Muhammad goes back. Bargains it down. Comes back. Moses says, “keep haggling. The Big Guy is a mensch. Trust me.” Few more trips. Eventually it gets down to 5 prayers. Muhammad is embarrassed to go back again. Returns back down, we have a pretty reasonable 5 a day. 

Moral of story. If a set of rules is an unreasonable burden, and you go to God and ask for relief, He will say yes. 

“God does not put a burden on people more than they can bear.”

Only people put those kinds of burdens on other people. 

May God reduce the burden of such people. 

Salam this is just from fabrications which has been created by socaaled open minded sunnis scholars likewise Ka'b al-Ahbar who has enterd  Isra'iliyat into hadiths of Sunnis which ill minded people benefit fom it to decide in place of Allah in order to justify hemosexuality by calling corrupt sunni scholars as open mineded & progresive Muslims anyway you can freeely join them so then change title of shia from yourself then do anything which you want. 

[Ibn Tayyar]

There is a difference between calling for the acceptance of practicing homosexuals in society (which I - and every Muslim - should disagree with) and claiming that neither the Holy Qur'an nor the Religion itself condemns homosexual acts. 

Till this day there are many Muslims that advocate for secularism and allowing for the "freedom" of drinking, fornication, haram gender mixing gatherings etc... while they themselves believe such things are haram.

But that is different from those who would come and argue that these things shouldn't just be allowed, but that they are in fact halal. In the eyes of the fuqaha, one who believes liwat (sodomy) is halal - while actually knowing the Verses and hadiths that speak of it - has in fact left the religion entirely. 

For me, it is obvious that to try and paint a picture of sodomy not being the main condemned act of the numerous Verses that have been quoted on this thread requires a strange amount of tap-dancing, re-interpretations, incorrect use of Arabic conjunctions that no Arab in the 7th Century - or quite frankly beyond that - would have understood it otherwise.

For example, the first claim is that Lut (عليه السلام) was supposedly comparing a worse sin (rape of a man) to a (bad sin). This claim here is that Lut (عليه السلام) was attempting to emphasise how bad their sin was, which is why he "compared" male and female rape. 

My response to this claim is that it does not make sense linguistically to consider this claim sound, since it would not make sense to call someone a fasiq for choosing to commit one fisq over another. One is called a fasiq because they preferred fisq (haram/trangression) over halal, not because they chose a worse sin over a bad sin.

Like I said, change the "sins" in question here and apply it to other sins.

This is the Verse:

Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people. [7:81]

Imagine I said the following to an alcoholic group of people:

Indeed, you drink alcohol instead of eating pig. Rather, you are a trangressing people.

What kind of daw'ah is this? And why would I call them fasiqs for drinking when they would be fasiqs for preferring alcohol over eating pig? They would be fasiqs even if they ate pig instead of drinking! Both actions are fisq, it wouldn't matter which is worse.

The only way to soundly interpret this Verse, is the way Muslims have interpreted it since the beginning, which is Lut (عليه السلام) was comparing fisq to halal, and raping women is not halal.

The second claim is that the Holy Qur'an has told us of their "rape method" in the following Verse:

Indeed, you approach men and obstruct the road and commit in your meetings [every] evil." And the answer of his people was not but that they said, "Bring us the punishment of Allāh, if you should be of the truthful.

The activist attempt is to try and change "and" into "then", and the way they do this is by claiming that there are other Verses in the Qur'an where و has been used to imply tarteeb (sequence). 

The response to this claim is that we can only understand و to mean "then" if there is a contextual basis (siyaaq) for that to be the case, otherwise it would be usually translated to "and". The activist response here is to say, well, the context is in the Verse, Lut (عليه السلام) is clearly describing the steps of how they commit rape against travelling men.

But the problem with this claim is that the Verse would actually be claiming that the "rape" comes first, and then they cut the travellers off" and then they display their sins in their gatherings. How is that to be believed? Wouldn't "rape" be the final step of this so-called "sequence"? How do they rape before they cut the travellers off or display their sins in their gatherings?

One response would be to try and claim that "tatoona" here means approach the men, or go to the men, but not rape, as this would happen "later". But this is quite frankly, laughable, as it is clear as daylight that "tatoona" means sexual approachment, this is how it was understood in the other Verses with the exact same context. I believe even most activists would consider this claim to be the weakest.

Another claim is that "al-dhikraan min al-alameen", used in 26:165.

Sayed Al-Tabataba'i has mentioned 3 potential tafsirs for this Verse:

1) That they physically approach the men of mankind, or of the nations (in a general sense). In other words, commit sodomy with mankind instead of women.

2) That they are the ones from among alameen (nations) who were known for sodomy, as opposed to the other nations.

3) Another tafseer is that: from among all nations (al-alameen), you chose and preferred the males? 

The activist attempt is to try and say that "al-alameen" here means travellers or foreigners or guests, as it was perhaps used as such in 15:70, but the problem with this interpretation would mean that Lut (عليه السلام) is basically saying they only commit intercourse with (or rape, as they believe) foreigners, but the other Verses which we mentioned before prove their preference for men over women is general, and that preference (or rape, as they say) is what is condemned.

All 3 of those tafaseer make more sense than this tafsir - they also answer the question of why did Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) "supposedly" add words for "no reason".

Finally I would also like to make this point, it is strange to me that people who would otherwise believe in hadiths (they are not Qur'anists) reject and accept based on what they deem fit, despite the fact that the from among the hadiths which condemn homosexual behaviour, not many of them are just authentic, these hadiths are mutawatir. They are a books worth. Make of that how you wish.