Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

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

Rate this topic


Guest Mark

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

The consequences would probably not be so heavy, but in general as you know it isn't the case that each forbidden act comes with a given reasoning or justification. 

One could also ask what the harm is in drinking a glass of wine a day, shaking hands with a colleague of the opposite gender, eating a bun prepared by an atheist or polytheist neighbor etc 

All you have to say is you can’t think of such an example. No shame in that, akhi

1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

Similarly I can imagine why homosexuality should not be practiced, keeping in mind the importance of the family structure and the continuity of the human race. 

I’ll file this under “an attempt was made.” This is not bad in terms of a plausible concrete argument against some forms of same-sex sex acts. It applies to straight people, as a reason not to experiment with “heteroflexibility.” It also maybe applies to bisexual people. Both of those groups have attraction to the default option. These are people who could realistically go and pursue the default and have families and do their part to continue the species. They would miss out on doing their part in that if they chose to have relationships with the same sex instead.

This argument echoes a narration attributed to Imam Ali in Ghurar al-Hikam.

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) said,

"The abandoning of zina is for safeguarding the descendants and the renouncing of liwat is a means of increasing the progeny."

So this is well and good. The problem is, this rationale doesn’t work for gay people. Gay people, are not attracted to that path. Whether they have gay relationships or not, they’re not naturally inclined to participate in the baby making process either way. 

Moreover, people who are gay are only 1 or 2 % of the population. So if they go off and do their own thing that has no appreciable impact on the project of continuing the human race anyway. 

This is the kind of problem I’m getting at when I wonder whether the texts of Islam really have anything to say about gay people. The driving concerns seem to have been more like what you came up with. 

1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

There is nothing wrong in evaluating and re-evaluating, but we need to remain honest with ourselves. If we are really saying that after reading the Qur'an and major hadith collections of different schools it is still unclear whether homosexual relations are permitted then I think we are deliberately closing our eyes to the evidence. 

I disagree about the notion that any of it is actually clear in relation to gay/lesbian people, and I don’t see any element of closing my eyes involved. The problem is that, as far as we can see, the people in the classical Islamic period—and this includes our aimmah—had no conception of people who are solely attracted to the same sex. It was simply not an idea that existed in their understanding of the world. For some reason, it seems God simply chose not to make this reality fully clear to mankind until relatively recently. 

All the evidence we have to go on tells us that people back then thought basically that anyone could be attracted to anyone in the right circumstance. A man could be tempted by a beautiful woman, or a man could be tempted by a beardless boy. And similarly for women. Which one he actually  pursued was a matter of choice, and as a choice, it was something society could regulate, since sex was related to making children, which impacted the future of society. 

There has been a lot of ink spilled on this topic, both in the classical Muslim world and in modern Western scholarship. That was basically how the classical world (Muslims, Greeks, Persians, Romans) conceptualized sexuality. 

And so then the problem with applying their views to gay people is that their views were inaccurate. Because there are in fact people who are only attracted to the same sex. Where it’s not a choice. 

1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

I agree that it isn't an easy topic to handle, but if we abandon religious rulings whenever we are faced with a challenge then our commitment to the religion must be questioned and ultimately this trend will conclude with us rejecting religion altogether.

 

Again, I disagree. I think the only way we can hope to preserve the essence of the religion as a living thing is to fearlessly examine and re-examine whether our understanding of Islamic law continues to realize the deeper principles of the religion given our new context and understanding. But this is a much deeper conversation that I think we’ve had before. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
5 hours ago, kadhim said:

It is indeed a just and reasonable demand to ask someone to be chaste temporarily until they find a halal path. That’s fine, not an onerous demand. Especially in our school of thought where low-overhead short-term unions are available that you can start with a 30 minute discussion and saying a short sentence. We don’t have any disagreement there. 

The problem with quoting this passage in this context though is that we didn’t build a reasonable halal path for these people. This is where injustice appears in the equation. We Muslims bill Islam as a reasonable, middle way religion that makes reasonable demands on believers and offers reasonable paths for everyone. Correct or no? 

Straight people, they have a path. Bisexual people, you can argue it’s fair to tell them to just go with their opposite sex attraction and ignore the rest.

But the fact that, in contradiction to this principle, we don’t have such a path for those people who are strictly same-sex oriented is a sign that maybe we haven’t traditionally understood this issue in a fully correct way. 

Is Islam really a religion with an answer to every problem?

Or is that just false advertising? 

 

Yes. It is not false advertising

The solution for people who have that tendency is for them to not do the behavior, not be around it, not associate with other who do it, and try their best not to dwell on it in their thoughts. If they manage to do this, and I know it is difficult, they will be rewarded by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) for their effort and will eventually be freed of this desire. This is the only solution. There is no other solution, in reality. 

I have posted about this before, and I will do it again, in hopes of not lowering others opinion of me, again. As many of you know, I was not born into a Muslim family and was raised in the Christian faith. My parents divorced when I was 4 years old, and my father left us, basically, well I saw him for a few hours every few months. The divorce and the subsequent fact that my father left created a huge sense of fear and anxiety in me. Some people deal with this fear and anxiety differently, I dealt with it by developing a very bad temper and fighting with anyone who I felt 'wronged' me. I used to get in fist fights constantly and was kicked out of 3 different schools for fighting. 

The last time I got kicked out of school was because of a fight I had with guy in my class and I broke his nose and his jaw in three places. I was in 9th grade (first year of High School). I had gotten pretty good at fighting by that point. When I got angry I 'blanked out' meaning I didn't think about anything and just saw the person in front of me, and I wanted to kill them. I didn't care what happened to me, and I got hurt in fights a few times. It was a miracle from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) that I didn't actually kill anyone, or I wasn't killed.

Anyway, after that fight, the police came and they were going to arrest me and put me in prison. In the US, they call the prison for children 'Juvi', or Juvenile Hall. They were getting to handcuff me and put me in the squad car, when all of a sudden, they turned around and left. I don't know if they got another call, or the guy didn't want to press charges or what happened. I still don't know to this day. 

They did expel me, and when this happened I realized that I had a problem with my temper. So I started asking people around me who I trusted to help me to work on this problem that I had and to actually think about the past things that happened to me in my life that were causing it. When I started to do that, things started to turn around for me, and I got in less fights, and less severe fights. It took a few more years for me to stop fighting completely. But I learned how to deal with this 'blind rage' that was inside of me. The blind rage is still there to this day, it never fully goes away, but I think I've managed to keep it under control. 

In High School, I was voted most likely to go to prison. What actually ended up happening is that I didn't go to prison, instead I graduated High School at the top of my class, and went on to attend college and graduate with a high GPA and go to Graduate School and get me Master's. That was because of two things. First, was the help of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), and second was the choice I made to realize that I had a big problem and to work on it and struggle against my unjust and evil desire that was attached to my temper. That was a choice I made. Other people make other choices. 

So that is the path. Once you recognize that you want something, but Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) wants something different for you, then you try your best to live according to what Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) wants for you. Eventually, your desires that are outside of the limits set by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will not go away completely, but they will diminish to a point where you don't act on them. How do I know, because it happened to me (and I have heard similar stories from many others on this site). So I know it's possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
5 hours ago, kadhim said:

The problem with quoting this passage in this context though is that we didn’t build a reasonable halal path for these people. This is where injustice appears in the equation.

Is Islam really a religion with an answer to every problem?

Its not our responsibility to build those paths. Those paths have been ordained by God

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest follower1345

Ahsant Abu Hadi for overcoming your inner darkness, I don't think less of you I think more of you (and I also hope kadhim will be less condescending to you and others in this thread now that he knows you've got hands).

I would also like to privately as a guest add my experience and thoughts in this thread.

There are people who exist that are sexually attracted to infants and animals, what are they supposed to do? Obviously practice patience, and the homosexuals get no special distinction. They are obligated to do the same.

I am a young man with a normal libido, I am not married, and I refuse to commit any sexual sins such as zina or masturbation. I don't even look at women, real life or the internet. And I squash any thoughts in my head. So you could say I am a practical example of what would happen if one took Abu Hadi's advice. And what happened to me? What happened to all of this sexual pressure?

For the first few months that I decided to control my desires, it was horrible. All of the pressure was exploding inside of me and I was in psychological and physical pain. I relapsed about a hundred times before I pinned it down for good. But what happened a mere 3 months after practicing patience? The pressure went away. It's gone. 99.99999 gone. It gives me NO trouble to be celibate. And I could easily do this for 5,10,15,20, 40, 60 more years. Allah made it easy. I feel like a child again in that sexuality is not a part of me anymore, and I'm 829 days strong. A month goes by without me noticing.

So let's not act like lgbt must tolerate a lifetime of patience, no. It's only a few months and Allah will make the thing that was giving them trouble vanish into thin air. Let's not bend our perfect religion which has a solution and answer to every issue to suit a temporary society which will end like all did before them. In the 20th century the ummah twisted their religion to suit communism, before that they twisted it to appease tyrants, and now "we must" adapt to the religion of liberalism.

The Infallibles (عليه السلام) are far seeing, wise, and more knowledgeable than a supercomputer. They touched all bases as this was their duty, to say that they wouldn't properly address the lgbt (which they explicitly did) implies negligence. There is the story of Lot, Shia eschatology said that men will resemble women and vice versa, the Imams (عليه السلام) condemned it clearly, even in the descriptions of the 313 there is a mention of homosexuality.

Now there are only 2 people who defend the lgbt and justify it, perhaps in 15 years there will only be 2 who don't. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Abu Hadi said:

The solution for people who have that tendency is for them to not do the behavior, not be around it, not associate with other who do it, and try their best not to dwell on it in their thoughts. If they manage to do this, and I know it is difficult, they will be rewarded by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) for their effort and will eventually be freed of this desire. This is the only solution.

I’m sorry, akhi, but that’s insane. That’s not a solution. Tell you what. I’ll tell you the same thing I tell to anyone who puts this forward. You go swear a vow of lifetime chastity, put a decade into that, and I’ll take you seriously. But not one minute before. 

As for your life story there, what to say.  I’m obviously not going to be a jerk and belittle that. It’s great that you got a handle on what sounds to have been a pretty serious behavioural and personality disorder. Mental health is a real issue, and it’s brave of you to share that story. 

But, just to juxtapose here. Gay/lesbian people don’t have a mental illness. They don’t have anti-social tendencies toward hurting anyone. They are not hurting anyone, whether themselves or others. They are basically the same as anyone else out there. They’re just wired to have romantic attractions in a different direction. 

So while your story is touching to be sure, and while I love a good story of overcoming adversity as much as the next guy, I do also have to say it frankly takes some chutzpah to offer that as an analogy. 

Edited by kadhim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
6 hours ago, kadhim said:

All you have to say is you can’t think of such an example. No shame in that, akhi

If we are discussing examples of muharamaat that might not seem clearly harmful then I would say the examples are quite valid.

It is generally considered that one glass of wine a day is good for health. Similarly one could argue that rejecting a handshake would be more harmful socially than accepting one. Similar argument for not being able to eat the food of someone who isn't from Ahlul Kitab, although in this case it could be argued that the prohibition is not as clearly established as it is for homosexual acts. 

6 hours ago, kadhim said:

Moreover, people who are gay are only 1 or 2 % of the population. So if they go off and do their own thing that has no appreciable impact on the project of continuing the human race anyway. 

The challenge with this reasoning is that if the amount of people choosing to have same gender relationships goes beyond your estimate of 1-2pct (some would argue that this number is 10x higher already) then the harmless suddenly becomes harmful. 

Furthermore if you are saying that the prohibition should only be lifted for people who are only gay, as opposed to those who are bi, then a strange discussion starts on 'how gay' each individual is. 

What happens when 50pct of the youth decide to opt for same gender relationships because they have been told that it isn't haram anymore. Do we then decide that the numbers are too high and that the prohibition must be reinforced? This goes pretty much against the consistent logic of islamic law where such situations are prevented altogether (alcohol, fornication etc) rather than waiting for them to reach unsustainable levels.

6 hours ago, kadhim said:

I disagree about the notion that any of it is actually clear in relation to gay/lesbian people, and I don’t see any element of closing my eyes involved.

We say that Islam is a religion for all times and all people, and that the prohibited acts remain prohibited until the end of times.

It seems that the prohibition of homosexual acts and relationships itself is not what you are contesting (indeed Qur'an and hadith makes it almost impossible to do so). 

What you are saying is that it wasn't known or considered by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) that one day there would be a special category of people to whom these rules shouldn't apply. 

Have I understood your argument correctly? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salams. So first of all, I want to thank for following along with some respect and attention. You’re clearly skeptical, which is fine, but at least you’re extending the courtesy of listening enough to process some of the nuances. Which is great. I tend to think this should be the bare minimum when two Muslims talk to each other about ideas, but in a number of conversations I’ve had with more traditional, conservative-leaning people in our community about this subject, this is the first time I’ve seen this happen. Which is pretty sad, overall, but it reflects well on you as someone who takes ideas seriously. And this I appreciate.

There was one glaring and unfortunate exception to this at the end of your most recent comment, however, and I will hold your feet to the fire about that below. 

2 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

If we are discussing examples of muharamaat that might not seem clearly harmful then I would say the examples are quite valid.

No, what I mean is we were looking at this case of modern traditionalist understanding of the path for gay people in Islam, which is, they never have a relationship in their life, they have to be celibate their entire life, and they have no hope ever on either of these fronts. That’s a tremendously heavy burden on the individual. And yet we have no clear picture why, what the harm is. 

So I asked you to name another example of a law in Islam that has that level of harshness to the individual, where we similarly have no idea why. That’s why I say no glass of wine a day is not a serious example. Is that clearer?

2 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

The challenge with this reasoning is that if the amount of people choosing to have same gender relationships goes beyond your estimate of 1-2pct (some would argue that this number is 10x higher already) then the harmless suddenly becomes harmful. 

This is not a valid hypothetical in relation to what I am saying. I think you’re mixing together two different things here. When I say “gay / lesbian,” I am not using this as a category that defines by behavior, but by exclusive intrinsic inner orientation. I’m trying to distinguish here from the term “homosexual,” which includes same-sex “romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior.” So when I talk about 1-2% being gay/lesbian, this is talking about people who report exclusively being oriented toward the same sex. This distinction is important, because there is a solid amount of evidence that this is a stable category. When we look at trends in surveys going back 40 years, the number of people measured as LGBTQ in general has expanded, mostly the number reporting as bisexual. The gay and lesbian number however has stayed basically flat over this time period in which openness to alternate sexualities has increased dramatically. 

 

2 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

Furthermore if you are saying that the prohibition should only be lifted for people who are only gay, as opposed to those who are bi, then a strange discussion starts on 'how gay' each individual is. 

For the sake of the discussion, I am talking about the line being that the person only has intrinsic same-sex attraction and 0 opposite sex attraction. I am choosing (again for the sake of discussion), a restrictive definition precisely to protect against the critique that the line is fuzzy and could slide with trends. I’m picking a line which, by all signs is a stable, small percentage of the population, and also the  group with the strongest excuse for an exemption, that they have no attraction to heterosexual relationships at all. 

 

2 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

We say that Islam is a religion for all times and all people, and that the prohibited acts remain prohibited until the end of times.

We agree on the idea that Islam is a religion for all times and all people. We understand the specifics of this in differing ways however. I personally do not find the idea of static fiqh to be an intellectually defensible or even plausible position. I do see eternal aspects in Islamic law, but at the level of the deeper principles and goals behind Islamic law. But it’s evident to me going back probably 15 years for me that it’s impossible on an almost mathematical level to have a complete one size fits all set of rules at the level of specific statutes that will work well for all time. Because of the impact of changing social, economic, technological, and cultural contexts. Some specific rules can be expected to be pretty stable (for example rules of ritual practice), but other things it’s just not a realistic expectation. 

But again, that’s a deeper discussion and I prefer not to tackle that in depth here. It could make for a separate thread. 

2 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

It seems that the prohibition of homosexual acts and relationships itself is not what you are contesting (indeed Qur'an and hadith makes it almost impossible to do so). 

For the most part that is a correct reading. For the sake of discussion here, the proposition I am bringing forward here is to keep the prohibition on same-sex activity for anyone with any/any meaningful level of attraction to the opposite sex. For those people, (which makes up about 98-99% of the population), only relationships (under a proper contract) with the opposite sex would be valid. The only group allowed to have same-sex relationships—and even then only under some new same-sex marriage contract(s) that would have to be created under analogy to heterosexual muta’a and nikah—would be people exclusively attracted to the same sex.

Re: the Quran and ahadith. As I said before, I am personally convinced that the Quran account of Lot does not talk about consensual same sex relationships. As for the hadith, the texts are much more explicit and general. While I personally have my doubts about the authenticity of these texts, I respect that no argument is going to be taken seriously in orthodox circles without taking the contents of the hadith seriously. As a result, the reform I am discussing here is a relatively conservative one that tries as much as possible to be authentic to the concerns embedded in the hadith record. 
 

2 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

What you are saying is that it wasn't known or considered by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) that one day there would be a special category of people to whom these rules shouldn't apply. 

Have I understood your argument correctly? 

What I think you’re trying to get at, akhi, is to ask me for some sort of explanation why, if this modification/exemption is valid, why God did not simply express this directly right away, or inspire His messengers or imams to express such. Is that pretty much what you’re wondering?

I have actually thought about this in some depth, and do have a number of what I think are plausible explanations for that. And I would be happy to share that. However, first, I want to address something that comes across as some rudeness on your part here. Part of the foundation of a productive discussion is to be a charitable reader. To give the other person the benefit of the doubt as to reasonableness.

With that in mind, do you seriously think I doubt in any way the omniscience across time and space of God? Do you really think I doubt such a fundamental basic of our theology? I will give you the benefit of the doubt that this was simply intended as some sort of rhetorical way to ask the question I figured you are trying to ask. But I don’t like the surface implication of the question and would like an apology or at least a clarification about your intentions before proceeding to the final bit of explanation. 

Thanks in advance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
16 hours ago, kadhim said:

In somewhat more recent history, there is the precedent of the late Ayatullah Khomeini of Iran acknowledging transgender as a legitimate thing and legalizing sex reassignment treatment in Iran. That’s going back to 1984 I think it was. 

Salam this is mixing  falshood with truth & insulting  to Imam  Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) by any gimmickry  just for proving your falsehood  which crystaly clear he has not legalized  LGBT & any other major sin but on the other hand he knew that transgender people  exists  in community which before revolution  they have not an opportunity  for having a specific  gender which they have been facing humilation  & oppression from community so when a trangender has asked for doing surgery then so he has allowed  sex reassignment treatment for that person from a manly  body to her real identitidentity  which crystaly  clear it doesn't  mean legalizing  LGBT or any major sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Wa alaikum as salam brother @kadhim. I thank you too for a respectful and engaging discussion. We are discussing genuine social and religious challenges here, and I believe Muslim communities have mishandled them for a long time. Therefore the need for the discussion is essential, hopefully at levels much higher than that of an average layman like myself, and a diversity of opinions is simply an opportunity to reflect and investigate further. 

I will jump firstly to your last point. I apologize for the inappropriate wording of the question. It was indeed meant to be rhetorical, but I accept that it was disrespectful and there were better ways of trying to explain myself.

What I had understood from your previous post is that the prohibition of homosexual acts was established in our texts (agreed) but that at the time it wasn't known that people can only be attracted to their own gender.

This is why I responded with the hypothetical question, but it was not correctly and respectfully phrased so I apologize again. 

My question therefore would be, since the act has been prohibited without terms, conditions or exceptions and since Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) in His wisdom subscribes rules for us that will stand the test of time, is it not flawed to assume that it was never intended to include a category of homosexuals in this prohibition? 

Essentially your position that a category of people who only feel attracted to their own gender are exempt from this prohibition is lacking naqli (Qur'an/hadith) evidence. For such a strong claim, surely you would require a strong justification?  

I understand your argument to be that the situation of this category of muslims is unsustainable and that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) must have therefore provided a solution. I think the observation is a good one but I would question it's premise before concluding that the answer is an exception to a clearly stated prohibition.

Harsh as it sounds, I would question if the situation really is impossible or rather is it very difficult. I believe this is also the argument of brother @Abu Hadi. Is companionship completely impossible or can we imagine a scenario where males and females in this situation support one another through it, knowing that they will possibly never be physically attracted but that they understand each other and through medical means can even start a family together. Without going into details one can even imagine that they may be able to partly fulfill certain physical needs in unconventional manners. I think this model would fit much better in the islamic framework rather than to give the green light to same sex muslim relationships.

Moving onto the rest of the post:

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

The only group allowed to have same-sex relationships—and even then only under some new same-sex marriage contract(s) that would have to be created under analogy to heterosexual muta’a and nikah—would be people exclusively attracted to the same sex.

Leaving aside my view on our texts which I believe clearly and without exception prohibit what you have proposed, I question if it is even sustainable. Who decides whether a person is exclusively gay? What happens if over time they find women attractive as well? What about the male who thought they weren't exclusively gay but then realize this after marrying a woman. 

Marriage is a building element of society, what you are proposing here sounds highly destructive. In attempting to solve a problem it appears that ten new ones will be created.

6 hours ago, kadhim said:

Re: the Quran and ahadith. As I said before, I am personally convinced that the Quran account of Lot does not talk about consensual same sex relationships

If I understand correctly, the argument of Abdellatif and Jahangir is that t'atuna can mean to come forcefully, although in general it simply means to come (indeed most mufassireen seem to have understood the general meaning). There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support this theory that the Qur'an is referring to forcefulness. 

Rather when one continues to read the ayah, one would have to conclude that forcefully approaching women would have been the accepted alternative (clearly this is problematic)

Also this idea that these men desired both women and men is seems to be in opposition to what is mentioned in surah Hud, verses 78-79, where the people of Lot claim that they don't desire his daughters.

All in all, it seems that the authors selected a stance and tried to retrofit it into a reinterpretation of a Qur'anic verse but were unable to back it up with textual evidence and also unable to align this theory with the Quranic narrative of the people of Lot.

7 hours ago, kadhim said:

As a result, the reform I am discussing here is a relatively conservative one that tries as much as possible to be authentic to the concerns embedded in the hadith record. 

I can't see how it is aligning at all with hadith. If anything I would comment here that among all the topics that are debated and reevaluated in our religion, the alignment of Qur'an, hadith, cross generational ijma and ijma among different schools of thought on the categorical prohibition of homosexual acts is robust to a point where many other topics are not. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, kadhim said:

I’m sorry, akhi, but that’s insane. That’s not a solution. Tell you what. I’ll tell you the same thing I tell to anyone who puts this forward. You go swear a vow of lifetime chastity, put a decade into that, and I’ll take you seriously. But not one minute before. 

As for your life story there, what to say.  I’m obviously not going to be a jerk and belittle that. It’s great that you got a handle on what sounds to have been a pretty serious behavioural and personality disorder. Mental health is a real issue, and it’s brave of you to share that story. 

But, just to juxtapose here. Gay/lesbian people don’t have a mental illness. They don’t have anti-social tendencies toward hurting anyone. They are not hurting anyone, whether themselves or others. They are basically the same as anyone else out there. They’re just wired to have romantic attractions in a different direction. 

So while your story is touching to be sure, and while I love a good story of overcoming adversity as much as the next guy, I do also have to say it frankly takes some chutzpah to offer that as an analogy. 

In that statement, you are assuming a 'steady state' in this desire. The whole point I am making is that for someone with this tendency to stop this, they must have faith in Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and know that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will take '10 steps toward them' if they take '1 step toward Allah(s.w.a)'. Without this faith, and tawakul, none of the other things will happen. In my story, although I wasn't raised Muslim, I always believed in God(s.w.a), and in the justice and mercy of God(s.w.a). I had faith that if I made the effort to change, God(s.w.a) would help me. 

The 'steady state' you are assuming is that if someone remains celibate, no 'relief' will ever happen. I don't believe that, that is the difference between me and you. This is a lack of Iman, IMHO. I'm not going to lie to you and say 'Yes at some point I was attracted to men, then I became celibate and this desire went away'. I was never attracted to men, this wasn't my test. At the same time, do I need to go the China so that I know they have food in China ? they have breathable air in China ? people survive and make a living in China ? I can assume that based on inductive reasoning. I have never been to China, btw. 

So if you believe in the principle which says that

whoever should believe in Allah and the Last day. And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him a way out And will provide for him from where he does not expect. And whoever relies upon Allah - then He is sufficient for him. Indeed, Allah will accomplish His purpose. Allah has already set for everything a [decreed] extent.

Surat 65:2-3

Then you will act on it. You will believe that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will help you and will provide for you and that this trial that you are goin thru will have an end date. How exactly that will happen I don't know, maybe the person will lose their sexual desire all together, maybe they will start becoming attracted to women after this spiritual pollution is gone from them, maybe Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) will take their life after forgiving them and they will go to Paradise, who knows. I can't predict the future, but without this belief and the this trust in Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), the other steps toward resolution of this will not be possible. 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

I will jump firstly to your last point. I apologize for the inappropriate wording of the question. It was indeed meant to be rhetorical, but I accept that it was disrespectful and there were better ways of trying to explain myself.

Thanks. I appreciate that. 

2 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

What I had understood from your previous post is that the prohibition of homosexual acts was established in our texts (agreed) but that at the time it wasn't known that people can only be attracted to their own gender.

Wasn’t known by people, right. That’s why I had a line in there (and admittedly it was a novel, so that’s fine) that said, God for whatever reason did not let this realization come to people until relatively recently. He unfolds insight in us as He will.

 

2 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

My question therefore would be, since the act has been prohibited without terms, conditions or exceptions and since Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) in His wisdom subscribes rules for us that will stand the test of time, is it not flawed to assume that it was never intended to include a category of homosexuals in this prohibition? 

Right. So I see a few plausible reasons why God, in His wisdom, would see fit to keep this obscured until we could figure it out. 

1. This business is complicated for people to understand and come to terms with, and life was already hard enough with enough going on. It would have been too much for people to wrap their heads around, so they needed a simpler story. Even today, with a lot more understanding,  people struggle about these complications.

2. In the more difficult context of constant war and loss of life, where your nation always needed defending, and where military might was in numbers, nations of goodness needed to maximize children to combat the forces hostile to them. This meant all hands on deck. Society couldn’t afford the luxury at that point to take 1-2% off the table. Those people had to take one for the team, get into a regular hetero marriage, and make some babies that would grow up to protect Islam and have babies themselves.

3. Some of the unique personal traits of gay and lesbian people that often go along with the different sexual and romantic orientation were useful to have more broadly spread in the gene pool.  For example, men with more balancing “feminine” traits like compassion, emotionality, and aesthetic sense. And more level, matter of fact, unemotional tendencies in women. By making these people have biological families, these useful traits spread more broadly in the population, producing more balanced people that would be more attuned to higher levels of civilization of the future. 

4. Perhaps there was a higher level usefulness to have those of them that could not pretend and be in the closet, redirect the energy into intellectual and aesthetic pursuits. Becoming scholars, artists benefiting society by being able to devote their entire lives to these useful things without the distraction of family matters. 

5. Mathematically, the overwhelming majority of people in the audience for these texts were people with hetero attractions, so the texts for simplicity focused on talking to that majority.

2 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

Essentially your position that a category of people who only feel attracted to their own gender are exempt from this prohibition is lacking naqli (Qur'an/hadith) evidence. For such a strong claim, surely you would require a strong justification?  

I don’t think it’s fair to say there is a lack of naqli evidence. It simply takes some reading between the lines and inference. There’s nowhere it beats us on the head and spells it out to us as if to a 5 year old, but of course, the childlike age of revelation is long gone and in its place is the age of reason. So we use that to read between the lines of the texts we have to find understandings that balance between what is in the texts with what is evident from reason and empirical observation.

And again, this is a much deeper methodological discussion outside the scope of the present one. 

But in short. We can infer that the driving concern behind this interest in regulating same-sex activity stems from the concern that it not be taken up in too widespread a fashion as a path in preference to the path of hetero marriage. That is the inferable goal behind this and as I quoted, there are explicit texts to support that as the primary concern. So if we can find a slightly revised set of rules to allay those concerns and fulfill those goals with less collateral damage and harm, that fulfills the spirit of what the texts say. 

It’s somewhat similar to contemporary  discussions of non-fatal stunning in zabihah slaughter. There is no text that says that is allowed. But the spirit of the rules of slaughter is that we slaughter so as to maximize the welfare of the animal and minimize the suffering. So if there is this new way to minimize suffering even more while not harming any of the other elements of the slaughter, we can consider that. And as a result, as I understand it, some of our scholars support non-fatal stunning as a valid option. 

There is no text that spells it out this is OK, but the concerns and objectives of the text are in alignment with the solution. 

2 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

Is companionship completely impossible or can we imagine a scenario where males and females in this situation support one another through it, knowing that they will possibly never be physically attracted but that they understand each other and through medical means can even start a family together. Without going into details one can even imagine that they may be able to partly fulfill certain physical needs in unconventional manners. I think this model would fit much better in the islamic framework rather than to give the green light to same sex muslim relationships.

To be frank, though, that does not sound like a new solution. That sounds a lot like the old closet marriage solution. That maybe kind of worked in the past when we were blissfully unaware, but it seems just unethical now, on both sides. Even if the gay partner is upfront, who is going to be the saint of a partner that will take that on.  Sex is not everything in life, but it’s definitely not nothing and people deserve to be with someone who turns them on and is turned on by them. I don’t know if a wife getting creative and adventurous in the bedroom is really going to do it for her husband if he really wants to be with another dude. It’s just a miserable unfair prospect. God created the innumerable beauties of nature. Is such a caricature really what He wants of these people? It’s not conceivable. 

 

2 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

Leaving aside my view on our texts which I believe clearly and without exception prohibit what you have proposed, I question if it is even sustainable. Who decides whether a person is exclusively gay? What happens if over time they find women attractive as well? What about the male who thought they weren't exclusively gay but then realize this after marrying a woman. 


People decide for themselves as the person with the most insight into what their feelings are. 

If they thought they were gay and realize they like women, we’ve told them the rules and it is up to them to adjust if being in compliance is important to them. 

If a man thought he was straight and married a woman and realizes he is gay, then that’s something for the couple to talk about, and if necessary, there is divorce.

We’re talking about religious rules here. Ultimately compliance is voluntary. Ultimately, people are going to do what they are going to do. Religion can only explain the rules and the intentions and goals and concerns behind them. And people as individuals need to be honest with themselves and their intentions. If they want to play with things under false pretences, then they will meet their Maker one day and have a chat about that. 

I’m going to take a break here to keep this shorter. 

Edited by kadhim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

If I understand correctly, the argument of Abdellatif and Jahangir is that t'atuna can mean to come forcefully, although in general it simply means to come (indeed most mufassireen seem to have understood the general meaning). There doesn't seem to be any evidence to support this theory that the Qur'an is referring to forcefulness. 

I think I’ve read one article by Jahangir. Not familiar with the other fellow. This is not based primary or solely on any one article. 

Re: evidences of forcefulness:

Quran 29:28-29

وَلُوطًا إِذْ قَالَ لِقَوْمِهِۦٓ إِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ ٱلْفَـٰحِشَةَ مَا سَبَقَكُم بِهَا مِنْ أَحَدٍۢ مِّنَ ٱلْعَـٰلَمِينَ
أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ ٱلرِّجَالَ وَتَقْطَعُونَ ٱلسَّبِيلَ وَتَأْتُونَ فِى نَادِيكُمُ ٱلْمُنكَرَ ۖ فَمَا كَانَ جَوَابَ قَوْمِهِۦٓ إِلَّآ أَن قَالُوا۟ ٱئْتِنَا بِعَذَابِ ٱللَّهِ إِن كُنتَ مِنَ ٱلصَّـٰدِقِينَ
 

And (We sent) Lut when he said to his people: Most surely you are guilty of an indecency which none of the nations has ever done before you;

Is it really so that you approach the males, cutting their path, and committing evil (to them) in groups? But nothing was the answer of his people except that they said: Bring on us Allah's punishment, if you are one of the truthful.

That’s a description of a rape gang.

And the mob at Lot’s house. Do you really want to suggest to me they were there to politely ask the houseguests out on dates and work out a schedule where they would see each of the people in the crowd in turn? Is that how courtship works? 

3 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

Rather when one continues to read the ayah, one would have to conclude that forcefully approaching women would have been the accepted alternative (clearly this is problematic)

You stated this claim before, without any support. I find this to be a non-sequitur leap. Ironically, I would argue that it is the traditional account that implies that it is Ok to rape women, because you claim that Lot was actively offering his daughters sexually to the mob at his door. 

3 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

Also this idea that these men desired both women and men is seems to be in opposition to what is mentioned in surah Hud, verses 78-79, where the people of Lot claim that they don't desire his daughters.

I’ve been over this already, remember? 

Quran 26-166 for example. 

وَتَذَرُونَ مَا خَلَقَ لَكُمْ رَبُّكُم مِّنْ أَزْوَٰجِكُم ۚ بَلْ أَنتُمْ قَوْمٌ عَادُونَ

And leave what your Lord has created for you of your wives? No. Rather, you are a people exceeding limits. They had wives.

Moreover, the statistical argument. Gay people are 1-2% of the population. The situation was more widespread than that. Clearly, at a bare minimum, the vast majority of the perpetrators were not gay men. 

Moreover, in the traditional reading, you guys read Lot as offering his daughters to the mob.   If these men were not known to have attraction to females, this offer would be incoherent. 

An alternative reading of the account of the confrontation at Lot’s house offers a more coherent narrative.

The crowd, fresh off a bout of stranger raping, hears that Lot is harbouring out of town visitors, and comes to his door. 

Lot tells the people they are mistaken. He has no outside visitors. “These are my daughters.” There are no visitors, they have been misinformed, it is just his daughters visiting. 

The crowd sees through the ruse, and calls the bluff. “(We know you are lying) and you know we’re not here for your daughters.”

Think. This makes so much more sense. Here, look at all the problems in the traditional narrative just in regards to just one scene in the narrative, the scene at the door of Lot’s home:

  • If this is supposedly a mob of crazed gay men, and Lot is a prophet operating under the guidance of God, why offer his daughters, females, as an alternative? Wouldn’t he know that would be pointless? 

  • If Lot wanted to redirect the men to women as opposed to men, why not point them toward the wives the Quran says they already have (26:166)? Wouldn’t this be simpler? 

  • In the texts where Lot says “These are my daughters,” traditional readers read an implication here of this as offering the daughters. But this overlooks that the same construction is used when referring to the visitors. See 15:68-71. 15:68: هَـٰٓؤُلَآءِ ضَيْفِى - These are my guests. 15:71:  هَـٰٓؤُلَآءِ بَنَاتِىٓ - These are my daughters. Notice the parallel verbiage. God doesn’t do this by accident. Why read one differently from the other? 

  • Why would Lot offer his presumably modest, God-fearing daughters to a gang of adulterous libertines when the Quran says believing women should not marry idolaters (2:221) and that a man who practices zina (fornication or adultery) should only marry with a similar woman (24:3)? 

  • Many translations of these verses insert the parenthetical comment (in marriage) here. But this is not actually in the text at all, nor is it implied. The text indicates Lot saying “These are my daughters, if you will do so.” (15-71) Whether one thinks any of the gay sex going on in this story is consensual or not, it’s blatantly obvious that this gang of men from the community gathered around Lot’s house demanding the handover of the guests is not interested in consensual relations. They want to gang rape the houseguests. Do you seriously want to argue that it is somehow better for his daughters to be gang-raped than the male guests? Can one seriously believe that a prophet of God would propose such a thing? Nauzobillah. 

  • Even if we assumed marriage were implied once the men calmed down, how would that work? The text suggests a large mob of people. Is there any indication Lot had that many daughters? Were his daughters to have practiced polyandry (marriage to multiple men), something that was forbidden by the Jewish and Muslim tradition? 

  • Some interpreters will sort of grasp at straws here, and say that when Lot says “my daughters” here, he is being symbolic and means the women of the town, with him as a “spiritual father” of the community. But there are multiple problems with this reading. First, there is not really a textual basis anywhere else for this notion of a prophet as father or patriarch of his people. Second, these men from the community are already said to have had wives from the community who they had abandoned. Third, the text says “here/these are my daughters,” as if to indicate someone there in the house. Which again most clearly aligns with it talking about Lot’s own daughters. Fourth, elsewhere in the account, Lot is called a “brother” of the people rather than a “father.” (26:161)

Frankly, I don’t think people advancing the traditional narrative get to keep trying to poke at the alternative narratives until they confront the myriad holes in their own story. If the alternative simply has 80-90% fewer problematic points, that in itself makes it better. 

Edited by kadhim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

In that statement, you are assuming a 'steady state' in this desire

I’m not actually. Certainly, with distractions and redirections of energy and focus and the help of God, this can become somewhat less intolerable. That’s not really in dispute here. 

But akhi. We’re not talking about a temporary patience while one waits for the path to marriage to open and has tawakkul that this path will open up if he just puts his head down and prepares himself and his life. This is lifelong. No light of hope in this life. It’s a different beast. How do you live when you know there is no real help coming on this side of the veil for your problems? 

And we’re talking about some of the most powerful physical and emotional drives there are. The drive for sex. The drive for romantic companionship. I really don’t find you’re arguing in good faith here. 

You should really seek out some of these gay and lesbian Muslims, and sincerely listen to their stories. What they’re going through. It would be a leaning experience. 

3 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

whoever should believe in Allah and the Last day. And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him a way out And will provide for him from where he does not expect. And whoever relies upon Allah - then He is sufficient for him. Indeed, Allah will accomplish His purpose. Allah has already set for everything a [decreed] extent.

Surat 65:2-3

Here’s a thought. What if the Muslim community recognizing we’ve misunderstood parts of this and making targeted and sensible reforms is the way God will ultimately make a way out for them? 

Edited by kadhim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam this is mixing  falshood with truth & insulting  to Imam  Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) by any gimmickry  just for proving your falsehood  which crystaly clear he has not legalized  LGBT & any other major sin but on the other hand he knew that transgender people  exists  in community which before revolution  they have not an opportunity  for having a specific  gender which they have been facing humilation  & oppression from community so when a trangender has asked for doing surgery then so he has allowed  sex reassignment treatment for that person from a manly  body to her real identitidentity  which crystaly  clear it doesn't  mean legalizing  LGBT or any major sin.

How am I mixing falsehood with truth. He legalized and legitimized transgender. You don’t seem to be arguing with the facts of that. Transgender is the T in LGBT. He didn’t legalize the L, G, or B. But Khomeini  definitely legalized the letter T. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
12 hours ago, kadhim said:

He legalized and legitimized transgender. You don’t seem to be arguing with the facts of that. Transgender is the T in LGBT. He didn’t legalize the L, G, or B. But Khomeini  definitely legalized the letter T. 

He recognized existance of trangenders in community who need sex reassignment which previous  Marjas have not allowed sex reassignment  so then he has allowed  sex reassignment treatment for them after taking more information  from specialist physicians in this field which it doesn't  mean legalizing  the letter T which they must have verified  as male or female in birth certification  & Identity card & etc based on their physical  appearance & verification  of physicians or midwives  which after legal sex reassignment & by verification  of authorities & trustworthy physicians in this field  they can change their title of sex in all of their documents & Idendity card & etc so Imam Khomeini (رضي الله عنه) has provided  an opprtunity for them for being totally men or women in both of body & mindset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
16 hours ago, kadhim said:

Wasn’t known by people, right. That’s why I had a line in there (and admittedly it was a novel, so that’s fine) that said, God for whatever reason did not let this realization come to people until relatively recently. He unfolds insight in us as He will.

Understood.

16 hours ago, kadhim said:

 

1. This business is complicated for people to understand and come to terms with, and life was already hard enough with enough going on. It would have been too much for people to wrap their heads around, so they needed a simpler story. Even today, with a lot more understanding,  people struggle about these complications.

You are saying that at the time the Qur'an was revealed, it was understood that men can desire other men but not exclusively, ie that they can be bisexual but not exclusively homosexual? 

This could be the case, although I don't see a strong reason for assuming that exclusive homosexuality was not plausible in the 7th century. Even if we suppose this, we have verses and narrations which are better understood over time yet when it comes to homosexual acts there is no indication anywhere that it is tolerated in certain cases. 

16 hours ago, kadhim said:

 

2. In the more difficult context of constant war and loss of life, where your nation always needed defending, and where military might was in numbers, nations of goodness needed to maximize children to combat the forces hostile to them. This meant all hands on deck. Society couldn’t afford the luxury at that point to take 1-2% off the table. Those people had to take one for the team, get into a regular hetero marriage, and make some babies that would grow up to protect Islam and have babies themselves.

This is interesting because you are saying that essentially it is possible for people with homosexual desires to 'take one for the team'. The whole premise that they are stuck and need a solution (in this case you propose the removal of a well established hurma) is countered by this. 

Another point that comes up here is that you are basing your proposal on the stability of a 1-2percent quota so to speak. You say this has been historically stable, yet I think this would be impossible to prove even in a very approximate manner. The question here is, will your proposal still remain if this category grows? Where is the cap? 

Finally, what happens in societies that are faced with the same historical challenges. Does the Ukrainian, Palestinian or Yemeni muslim, today in 2022, fall into the same category as the muslim of the 7th century who simply had to get through a heterosexual lifestyle for the greater good? Are you proposing to lift the prohibition in stable societies only? What if they have low birth rates, does this prohibition then remain in place? 

What I am trying to say is that the historical context and challenges you mention cannot be said to be obsolete today.

16 hours ago, kadhim said:

 

3. Some of the unique personal traits of gay and lesbian people that often go along with the different sexual and romantic orientation were useful to have more broadly spread in the gene pool.  For example, men with more balancing “feminine” traits like compassion, emotionality, and aesthetic sense. And more level, matter of fact, unemotional tendencies in women. By making these people have biological families, these useful traits spread more broadly in the population, producing more balanced people that would be more attuned to higher levels of civilization of the future. 

Whether these characteristics are really unique to the category of 1-2 percent or whether this is just a stereotype is debatable. I would imagine that the people concerned would possibly object to this portrayal. Even if it is the case, would we not then be stopping the continuous improvement to our gene pool and thus to civilization as per this theory?

16 hours ago, kadhim said:

 

4. Perhaps there was a higher level usefulness to have those of them that could not pretend and be in the closet, redirect the energy into intellectual and aesthetic pursuits. Becoming scholars, artists benefiting society by being able to devote their entire lives to these useful things without the distraction of family matters. 

If this was the case then why would it not hold true today? The idea was that living such a lifestyle is unsustainable and therefore the prohibition of same sex relationships should be removed, yet if I read this theory correctly there is apparently a sustainable lifestyle available.

 

16 hours ago, kadhim said:

 

5. Mathematically, the overwhelming majority of people in the audience for these texts were people with hetero attractions, so the texts for simplicity focused on talking to that majority.

I would say that the audience for the texts is all of mankind, including minorities. If we are suggesting that Islam was revealed for a majority audience only then the universality of the religion becomes limited, which is not a claim that I think either of us would support.

17 hours ago, kadhim said:

I don’t think it’s fair to say there is a lack of naqli evidence. It simply takes some reading between the lines and inference.

If we are making a claim as large as saying that a prohibited act is permissible for a small group of people, then surely we should be able to produce some sort of evidence. 

I would repeat that there isn't any textual evidence until it is actually presented. 

17 hours ago, kadhim said:

To be frank, though, that does not sound like a new solution. That sounds a lot like the old closet marriage solution. That maybe kind of worked in the past when we were blissfully unaware, but it seems just unethical now, on both sides.

It isn't a new solution because it has been available all along. The difference is that it would be more ethical today, not less, because of the transparency. There would be no more deception. Muslimeen going through this struggle should be able to discuss it openly with potential partners (who may also be asexual, bisexual or homosexual) so that both sides can agree on what sort of relationship they are entering. Discussions on sexual reproduction, IVF or adoption would take place. A family life would become available to people who otherwise thought it was out of reach. The pressure of having to cover one's feelings up would be removed. All this while remaining within the shariah. 

17 hours ago, kadhim said:

It’s somewhat similar to contemporary  discussions of non-fatal stunning in zabihah slaughter. There is no text that says that is allowed. But the spirit of the rules of slaughter is that we slaughter so as to maximize the welfare of the animal and minimize the suffering. So if there is this new way to minimize suffering even more while not harming any of the other elements of the slaughter, we can consider that. And as a result, as I understand it, some of our scholars support non-fatal stunning as a valid option. 

There is a fundamental difference here. The slaughter method remains as prescribed, with an additional step that doesn't violate the shariah.

What you are proposing is to take something that is categorically haram and make an exemption for a certain group, despite the fact that there is no verse, no hadith, no incident in the life of the prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) where such an exemption occured or was even mentioned or considered.

 

In general I want to make a closing comment and inshaAllah I will address your other post later on. 

I understood your motivation behind your reasoning to be that there is no viable solution available for a group of muslims, therefore you would consider to reevaluate a general prohibition and restrict it to a conditional prohibition.

@Abu Hadi has argued that the situation is difficult but not impossible or unsustainable. The historical scenarios you presented to explain why this exception was not made seem to align with his position, because they all acknowledge the possibility of being a homosexual muslim while living within the guidelines of the shariah. So here one has to ask if the situation actually is unsustainable and impossible, and if not, then why risk violating a command of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to remove a difficulty which can be overcome?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

This is interesting because you are saying that essentially it is possible for people with homosexual desires to 'take one for the team'. The whole premise that they are stuck and need a solution (in this case you propose the removal of a well established hurma) is countered by this.

Never said it was physically impossible to do. So, going to scythe down that straw man right away. Obviously gay people lived in the closet for centuries, some of them marrying, having kids, etc. The point has never been that it’s literally impossible, but that it’s an unreasonable thing to impose on a person in a time when we know better how this all works. We can’t un-learn that realization. 

I can accept on a cold rational level that sometimes God chose to sacrifice the few for the sake of getting the many to the relatively civilized level we are at today. Sometimes leadership has to make difficult decisions for the sake of the big picture. But I don’t accept that as  giving us a green light to torture people now that God has helpfully allowed us to understand that it is in fact torture.

Surely in this there are signs for a people who reflect.

 

13 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

Another point that comes up here is that you are basing your proposal on the stability of a 1-2percent quota so to speak. You say this has been historically stable, yet I think this would be impossible to prove even in a very approximate manner. 
 

We have 40 years of figures that have been flat despite a sea change in acceptance of homosexuality in society. All the evidence indicates a stable natural frequency of innate homosexuality, and that’s the perspective of the scientific community. Frankly, if you want to argue for the idea that it ever varied wildly beyond this, the burden is on you to prove that and argue why. 
 

13 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

Finally, what happens in societies that are faced with the same historical challenges. Does the Ukrainian, Palestinian or Yemeni muslim, today in 2022, fall into the same category as the muslim of the 7th century who simply had to get through a heterosexual lifestyle for the greater good? Are you proposing to lift the prohibition in stable societies only? What if they have low birth rates, does this prohibition then remain in place? 

There’s no shortage of people today, akhi. Quite the opposite. 

Moreover, should things ever become so dire demographically that we need the gays and lesbians to pitch in, in 2022 there are other ways for them to do that. Gay couples today are already having biological kids through artificial insemination. That’s been going on for decades. 

There’s no rationally defensible need for gay people to be forced into straight marriages to accomplish that. 

13 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

Whether these characteristics are really unique to the category of 1-2 percent or whether this is just a stereotype is debatable. I would imagine that the people concerned would possibly object to this portrayal. Even if it is the case, would we not then be stopping the continuous improvement to our gene pool and thus to civilization as per this theory?

The previous bit answers this as well. 
 

13 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

If this was the case then why would it not hold true today? The idea was that living such a lifestyle is unsustainable and therefore the prohibition of same sex relationships should be removed, yet if I read this theory correctly there is apparently a sustainable lifestyle available.

We’re kind of going out of our way to pretend to not understand at this point, no? Again falling into this “impossible” straw man. Individuals are ultimately capable of undertaking any number of hardships. Our capacity for ensuring suffering on physical and emotional levels is vast. That doesn’t make it valid for us to impose suffering and hardship on people for no good reason.

If a specific individual wants to choose for himself such an austere life, subjugating all other energies to grand projects, that is his prerogative as an individual. 

But it is not sustainable or realistic as a rule for all such people to follow. 
 

13 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

I would say that the audience for the texts is all of mankind, including minorities. If we are suggesting that Islam was revealed for a majority audience only then the universality of the religion becomes limited, which

Yes, obviously Islam does aim to all mankind. But in terms of the text sources we have available, they never try to painstakingly enumerate all the different levels of diversity of the human race. The Quran alludes to mankind having been created with a vast range of diversity but doesn’t spell out all the details. That’s for us as thinking beings to discover and adjust to as needed over time in the light of new knowledge. 

The point is just because the texts talk at a zeroth or first order approximation of reality does not invalidate the finer details that we have discovered since. Just because they are not mentioned doesn’t mean we don’t need to consider them anew in their own right.

On second thought though, at heart this is basically the same point raised earlier that the texts have a simplified explanation because people back then had enough on their plates and weren’t ready for the full complexity of reality. So let’s skip past this one. 
 

13 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

If we are making a claim as large as saying that a prohibited act is permissible for a small group of people, then surely we should be able to produce some sort of evidence. 

I think you’re missing the actual argument here akhi

The proposal I’m defending for the sake of this discussion is fundamentally naqli based on two fronts

First, the obvious one, in that it accepts a continuation of prohibition for the remaining 98-99%, in recognition to the spirit of the hadiths. But I guess you’re not arguing with this part. 

Second, it’s based on deriving, from the hadith sources, the underlying objective underlying the content of the hadiths about same-sex relations. Namely, and somewhat ironically, regulation of opposite sex activity in the society of the classical period.

I kind of feel like you’re not following on this point. If you’re interested in seeing some more motivation for this second point, let me know. I have a lot of draft notes about analyzing the hadith on this topic I would love to get some critical feedback on. ;)

So anyway, taking the naqli derived observations in  the second point, if the concern of the same-sex hadiths is about regulating and preserving heterosexual relationships, that wouldn’t seem to have any logical bearing on people who exist totally outside the domain of heterosexual desire and activity. 

At root, I think you’re ultimately trying to ask me to prove a negative. Why didn’t the texts talk about an exception for people without heterosexual desire? Well…because people didn’t even know that was a thing. And for whatever inscrutable reason, God didn’t choose to make this known then.
 

13 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

It isn't a new solution because it has been available all along. The difference is that it would be more ethical today, not less, because of the transparency. There would be no more deception. Muslimeen going through this struggle should be able to discuss it openly with potential partners (who may also be asexual, bisexual or homosexual) so that both sides can agree on what sort of relationship they are entering. Discussions on sexual reproduction, IVF or adoption would take place. A family life would become available to people who otherwise thought it was out of reach. The pressure of having to cover one's feelings up would be removed. All this while remaining within the shariah. 

I mean, I give you partial marks for creativity and thinking outside the box. I applaud your good intentions. I want you to know that. I don’t fault your intentions. 

But come on, akhi. If you need to bend the code this much to make the new feature fit, why not just accept that it’s time for a deeper refactor? You’re trying to do a reno with duct tape and chewing gum here. It’s time to knock down some walls, akhi. I think, deep down, you can kind of see that. 

I think the rest of it I already touched on en route

Edited by kadhim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

I’m going to distill this down to a couple of key observations. Some of this may come off as a little pointed and provocative, but I hope you’ll humor me, because the intent is not malicious.

First observation. 

How can a rule intended to help regulate heterosexual desire have relevance to people who lack such desire? (at least so long as they are doing whatever they are doing with others who similarly lack such desire?)

Second observation. 

There seems to be no sign that anyone in the classical Islamic period had any awareness that there were people with homosexual desire but no heterosexual desire. And when I say anyone, this seems to have included our aimmah. Note: if you or someone else can present an authentic narration that shows them having awareness gay people exist, I will personally delete what follows. 

Given this:

Respect to our aimmah of the ahlul bayt and to their roles as guides for the people of their respective times and communities. But if it was so that they didn’t know about gay people, the question arises why would we take their words on this subject as binding on a group they didn’t even know existed? 

Would their apparent lack of awareness of the existence of this phenomenon of human sexuality not imply that their knowledge of the topic was incomplete? 

And if their knowledge on this subject were incomplete, then how, logically speaking, can their pronouncements be the final, unalterable word on the subject?

Note with sledgehammer emphasis here that I’m not trying to undermine the i’smah or wilayah of the aimmah. I assert and defend both wholeheartedly.

But I do think it severely undermines your faith-based belief that everything the aimmah ever said was intended to be some eternal commandment, that our hands are tied and that all of this is settled and final and invalid for us to revise, especially when it is in the light of new information they clearly lacked in the finite limit of their human reality. 

Again, I don’t question the intentions of the orthodoxy of the community who hold these views about fiqh. But I do strongly believe that such ideas are not only wrong, but dangerously wrong, and actually do damage to the religion and its deeper principles and values. 

I think this will be my main conclusion on this thread. 

However, at the pleasure of my hosts I will probably post some of my notes on the analysis of the hadith lit in al-Kafi on liwat and sihaq for the reference of whoever is interested in learning more and challenging their preconceptions. 

Aside from that, I will give you the final word to provide any rebuttal you might have of my logic above. 

Ma’salaama, and thanks for the excellent discussion. I appreciate the opportunity to present ideas a lot of people probably would prefer not to hear. But as the Quran so clearly says, truth stands out from falsehood, so we have a moral obligation not to fear or censor vigorous and open examination of ideas. Thanks for modelling this philosophy. 

Edited by kadhim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 4/24/2022 at 9:37 PM, kadhim said:
  • If this is supposedly a mob of crazed gay men, and Lot is a prophet operating under the guidance of God, why offer his daughters, females, as an alternative? Wouldn’t he know that would be pointless? 

  • If Lot wanted to redirect the men to women as opposed to men, why not point them toward the wives the Quran says they already have (26:166)? Wouldn’t this be simpler? 

  • In the texts where Lot says “These are my daughters,” traditional readers read an implication here of this as offering the daughters. But this overlooks that the same construction is used when referring to the visitors. See 15:68-71. 15:68: هَـٰٓؤُلَآءِ ضَيْفِى - These are my guests. 15:71:  هَـٰٓؤُلَآءِ بَنَاتِىٓ - These are my daughters. Notice the parallel verbiage. God doesn’t do this by accident. Why read one differently from the other? 

  • Why would Lot offer his presumably modest, God-fearing daughters to a gang of adulterous libertines when the Quran says believing women should not marry idolaters (2:221) and that a man who practices zina (fornication or adultery) should only marry with a similar woman (24:3)? 

  • Many translations of these verses insert the parenthetical comment (in marriage) here. But this is not actually in the text at all, nor is it implied. The text indicates Lot saying “These are my daughters, if you will do so.” (15-71) Whether one thinks any of the gay sex going on in this story is consensual or not, it’s blatantly obvious that this gang of men from the community gathered around Lot’s house demanding the handover of the guests is not interested in consensual relations. They want to gang rape the houseguests. Do you seriously want to argue that it is somehow better for his daughters to be gang-raped than the male guests? Can one seriously believe that a prophet of God would propose such a thing? Nauzobillah. 

  • Even if we assumed marriage were implied once the men calmed down, how would that work? The text suggests a large mob of people. Is there any indication Lot had that many daughters? Were his daughters to have practiced polyandry (marriage to multiple men), something that was forbidden by the Jewish and Muslim tradition? 

  • Some interpreters will sort of grasp at straws here, and say that when Lot says “my daughters” here, he is being symbolic and means the women of the town, with him as a “spiritual father” of the community. But there are multiple problems with this reading. First, there is not really a textual basis anywhere else for this notion of a prophet as father or patriarch of his people. Second, these men from the community are already said to have had wives from the community who they had abandoned. Third, the text says “here/these are my daughters,” as if to indicate someone there in the house. Which again most clearly aligns with it talking about Lot’s own daughters. Fourth, elsewhere in the account, Lot is called a “brother” of the people rather than a “father.” (26:161)

 

Prophet Lot (عليه السلام) proposed to the mob to marry his daughters!
Question: How did Lot (عليه السلام) propose to a group of thugs of his people to marry his daughters?
Concise answer:

The fact that Lot ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) proposed to a group of thugs who had come to rape his guests to marry his chaste daughters was to prove his utmost interest in guiding them and preserving the dignity of his guests; So that perhaps their dormant consciences may awaken with this unparalleled sacrifice, and return to the path of truth. And given that the offer was conditional on the group believing, there is no objection to it.

Detailed answer:
The sentence that Lot said when the people invaded his house, with the intention of raping his guests: These are my daughters are pure and lawful for you, use them and do not turn away from sin, (1) has aroused questions among the commentators. .
The first is: Did you mean Lot's relative and real daughters? How can he recommend them to this crowd when, according to history, there were no more than two or three?
Or did he mean all the girls of the tribe and the city, whom the elder of the tribe, as usual, refers to as his daughters?
The second possibility seems weak; Because it is contrary to appearances and the first possibility is correct, and Lot's suggestion was because the attackers were some  ofvillagers, not all of them, plus he wants to show his utmost sacrifice here, which I I am even willing to marry my daughters to you in order to fight against sin and also to preserve the dignity of my guests, so that their dormant consciences may awaken with this unparalleled sacrifice, and return to the path of truth.
Another is: Was it permissible for a girl with faith like Lot's daughters to marry unbelieving infidels who made such an offer ?!
The answer to this question has been given in two ways:
one is that in the religion of Lot, as in the beginning of Islam, there was no prohibition of such a marriage, so the Prophet (peace be upon him) married his daughter "Zainab" to the marriage of "Abi Al-As" before that. To accept Islam, but later this ruling became obsolete. (2)
But this answer is not without its drawbacks; Because the marriage of "Abi Al-As" with "Zainab" was before the prophethood  of the Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and not before the Islam of "Abi Al-As" [ before accepting Islam by "Abi Al-As"](3) and this is not comparable to the marriage of the daughters of Lot, so it is better the second answer and that That:
"Lot" meant a conditional marriage proposal (conditional on faith) means these are my daughters, let's go  believe so that I can marry them to you.
And it is clear from this that the objection to the Prophet Lot about how he proposed his pure daughters to a group of thugs is incorrect; Because his proposal was conditional and to prove his utmost interest in guiding them. (4)


Footnote :
(1). سوره هود، آیه 78.
(2). تفسیر «مجمع البیان» و تفسیر «کبیر فخر رازى»؛ «وسائل الشیعه»، جلد 21، صفحه 110، حدیث 26652 (چاپ آل البیت)؛ «بحار الانوار»، جلد 10، صفحه 385، حدیث 2.
(3). «بحار الانوار»، جلد 19، صفحه 348 (ضمناً توجه داشته باشید ابى العاص پسر خواهر خدیجه یعنى پسر خاله زینب بود).
(4). گرد آوري از کتاب: تفسیر نمونه، آيت الله العظمي مکارم شيرازي، دار الکتب الإسلامیه، چاپ سی و سوم، ج 9، ص 222.

(1).Hud ,78

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qaribullah/11:78

(2). Tafsir "Majma 'al-Bayan" and Tafsir "Kabir Fakhr Razi"; "Wasa'il al-Shi'ah", Volume 21, Page 110, Hadith 26652 (printed by Al-Bayt); "Bihar al Anwar ", Volume 10, Page 385, Hadith 2.
(3). "Bihar al Anwar", Volume 19, Page 348 (Also note that Abi Al-As was the son of Khadijeh's sister, ie the son of Zainab's aunt).
(4). Collection of books: Tafsir Nemoneh, Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi, Dar al-Kitab al-Islamiyyah, thirty-third edition, vol. 9, p. 222.

https://makarem.ir/main.aspx?typeinfo=42&lid=0&catid=27390&mid=318269

https://fa.wikishia.net/view/حکم_بن_ابی‌العاص

https://makarem.ir/main.aspx?lid=0&mid=249316&typeinfo=23&catid=24130

Quote

In the texts where Lot says “These are my daughters,” traditional readers read an implication here of this as offering the daughters. But this overlooks that the same construction is used when referring to the visitors. See 15:68-71. 15:68: هَـٰٓؤُلَآءِ ضَيْفِى - These are my guests. 15:71: هَـٰٓؤُلَآءِ بَنَاتِىٓ - These are my daughters. Notice the parallel verbiage. God doesn’t do this by accident. Why read one differently from the other?

This is a type of summarization which previously  has been mentioned about entering  archangels to house of prophet Ibrahim (عليه السلام)

Saying verses related to the arrival of Ibrahim (عليه السلام) guests
وَنَبِّئْهُمْ عَن ضيْفِ إِبْرَهِیمَ
"ضیف" means a guest, which refers to both a person and a plural, and it may be combined with "Adiyaf", "Ziof", and "Zifan"((اضیاف )) و ((ضیوف )) و((ضیفان )), but in a way. It has been said that it is more eloquent that it is given singularly in Deuteronomy and the plural, because this word was originally the infinitive, and the infinitive is generally refers as singular in Deuteronomy and the plural.
And the meaning of "Zeif Ibrahimضیف ابراهیم " is the honorable angels who were sent to announce to him the good news and that he will soon have a child, and to destroy the people of Lot. And if he called them guest, it was because they came to him as guest.((اذ دخلوا علیه فقالوا سلاما قال انا منکم وجلون قالوا لا توجل انا نبشرک بغلام علیم )).
The plural pronoun in "Dakhlwaدخلوا" and also in "Qaluقالوا" refers to angels, so the angels greeted. The word "hello" is a kind of reverence which is the destiny of "Naslam alik salam(نسلم علیک سلاما", that is, we greet you with a special greeting. And the meaning of the word of Ibrahim who said: "انا منکم وجلون " is that we are afraid of you, because the word "وجل" means fear..
And this was Ibrahim's saying after the angels sat down, and Ibrahim presented them with a roasted calf, and the guests refused to eat it, which is stated in Surah Hood: He felt afraid of them). Therefore, in the verses under discussion, it has been summarized, and it has not quoted these characteristics.

https://www.pasokh.org/fa/Question/View/8891/چرا-در-شريعت-حضرت-لوط-پيامبر-ازدواج-دختر-مؤمنه-با-مرد-كافر-

https://rasekhoon.net/article/show/791463/چرا-حضرت-لوط-دختران-خود-را-به-کافران-پیشنهاد-داد

https://makarem-ir.translate.goog/main.aspx?typeinfo=42&lid=0&catid=27390&mid=318269&_x_tr_sl=fa&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fa&_x_tr_pto=wapp

https://en.wikishia.net/view/People_of_Lut

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Lot_(a)

https://en.wikishia.net/view/People_of_Lut

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 4/24/2022 at 9:37 PM, kadhim said:
  • Many translations of these verses insert the parenthetical comment (in marriage) here. But this is not actually in the text at all, nor is it implied. The text indicates Lot saying “These are my daughters, if you will do so.” (15-71) Whether one thinks any of the gay sex going on in this story is consensual or not, it’s blatantly obvious that this gang of men from the community gathered around Lot’s house demanding the handover of the guests is not interested in consensual relations. They want to gang rape the houseguests. Do you seriously want to argue that it is somehow better for his daughters to be gang-raped than the male guests? Can one seriously believe that a prophet of God would propose such a thing? Nauzobillah. 

  • Even if we assumed marriage were implied once the men calmed down, how would that work? The text suggests a large mob of people. Is there any indication Lot had that many daughters? Were his daughters to have practiced polyandry (marriage to multiple men), something that was forbidden by the Jewish and Muslim tradition? 

Addendum

Of course, it is possible that the people of Lot (عليه السلام) were not an infidel people in terms of belief in God; Rather, the they have been disobedient and criminal monotheists; it is not ruled out;because by reffering to Quran ,there is no trace of inviting to monotheism and believing to god and belief matters -as like as other prophets tribes- which   their prophet Lot(عليه السلام) has talked to them about moral corruption. Therefore, in terms of religious sanctity, the issue is completely ruled out, and in addition to the second answer - which proposed marriage to the daughters of Lot (عليه السلام) was subject to change of course and repentance -; This would be a perfectly rational and well-founded matter.
From what has passed, we conclude that: ‌
1. The reaction of Prophet Lot (عليه السلام) to the intentions of his people has a very precise educational aspect; Because while forbidding them from Munkar and sinning;  proposes a solution to the struggle against the evil self (Nafs Ammarah) and agrees to expose her daughters to religious marriages with guided people in order to reform society with this sacrifice.
2. Certainly, in the course of this proposal, there is neither the suspicion of forcing girls to marry unworthy people, nor the suspicion of accepting Lot's daughters to marry infidels, or even the wicked and sinners; Because this matter is conditional on their repentance, and after its fulfillment, marriage will not face any intellectual, customary or religious obstacles.

https://www.pasokh.org/fa/Question/View/8891/چرا-در-شريعت-حضرت-لوط-پيامبر-ازدواج-دختر-مؤمنه-با-مرد-كافر-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 4/24/2022 at 9:37 PM, kadhim said:
  • Many translations of these verses insert the parenthetical comment (in marriage) here. But this is not actually in the text at all, nor is it implied. The text indicates Lot saying “These are my daughters, if you will do so.” (15-71) Whether one thinks any of the gay sex going on in this story is consensual or not, it’s blatantly obvious that this gang of men from the community gathered around Lot’s house demanding the handover of the guests is not interested in consensual relations. They want to gang rape the houseguests. Do you seriously want to argue that it is somehow better for his daughters to be gang-raped than the male guests? Can one seriously believe that a prophet of God would propose such a thing? Nauzobillah. 

  • Even if we assumed marriage were implied once the men calmed down, how would that work? The text suggests a large mob of people. Is there any indication Lot had that many daughters? Were his daughters to have practiced polyandry (marriage to multiple men), something that was forbidden by the Jewish and Muslim tradition? 

Addendum

Of course, it is possible that the people of Lot (عليه السلام) were not an infidel people in terms of belief in God; Rather, the they have been disobedient and criminal monotheists; it is not ruled out;because by reffering to Quran ,there is no trace of inviting to monotheism and believing to god and belief matters -as like as other prophets tribes- which   their prophet Lot(عليه السلام) has talked to them about moral corruption. Therefore, in terms of religious sanctity, the issue is completely ruled out, and in addition to the second answer - which proposed marriage to the daughters of Lot (عليه السلام) was subject to change of course and repentance -; This would be a perfectly rational and well-founded matter.
From what has passed, we conclude that: ‌
1. The reaction of Prophet Lot (عليه السلام) to the intentions of his people has a very precise educational aspect; Because while forbidding them from Munkar and sinning;  proposes a solution to the struggle against the evil self (Nafs Ammarah) and agrees to expose her daughters to religious marriages with guided people in order to reform society with this sacrifice.
2. Certainly, in the course of this proposal, there is neither the suspicion of forcing girls to marry unworthy people, nor the suspicion of accepting Lot's daughters to marry infidels, or even the wicked and sinners; Because this matter is conditional on their repentance, and after its fulfillment, marriage will not face any intellectual, customary or religious obstacles.

https://www.pasokh.org/fa/Question/View/8891/چرا-در-شريعت-حضرت-لوط-پيامبر-ازدواج-دختر-مؤمنه-با-مرد-كافر-

https://lib.eshia.ir/50081/12/266/نَبِّئْهُمْ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 4/24/2022 at 9:37 PM, kadhim said:

Some interpreters will sort of grasp at straws here, and say that when Lot says “my daughters” here, he is being symbolic and means the women of the town, with him as a “spiritual father” of the community. But there are multiple problems with this reading. First, there is not really a textual basis anywhere else for this notion of a prophet as father or patriarch of his people. Second, these men from the community are already said to have had wives from the community who they had abandoned. Third, the text says “here/these are my daughters,” as if to indicate someone there in the house. Which again most clearly aligns with it talking about Lot’s own daughters. Fourth, elsewhere in the account, Lot is called a “brother” of the people rather than a “father.” (26:161)

The phrase "Fataqwa Allah wa la Takhzun fi Zaifiفاتقوا الله و لا تخزون فی ضیفی" expresses the will of Lot (عليه السلام) and the sentence "Wa la Takhzun fi Zaifi" is a turning point. in Tafsir because his majestity has aske from them to not hurt his guests which it was not due to selfishness  and fanatism of ignorance, but because he wanted people to fear God, that if they were afraid, they would not hurt  his guests or to anyone else, because in this prohibition of Munkar, there was no difference between his guests and others. He has been forbidding those people from this heinous sin for years and insisted on forbidding it. And if this time he forbids himself depending on the meaning of the feast and attributes the feast to himself and introduces the result of their attack as his disgrace and says: Do not disgrace me in front of my guests, all of this is hoping that perhaps by this means the attribute of knighthood and dignity  moves them and excites them, and so after this sentence, he resorted to the method of supplication and asking for help and said: "أ لیس منکم رجل رشید" So that maybe someone with human development can be found and help that gentleman and save him and his guests from those oppressive people.

But those people had gone so far as to become the true example of the word of Allah Almighty, who said:
«لعمرک إنهم لفی سکرتهم يمهون; "By your life, they were bewildered in their drunkenness. (72) " (Hijr / 72)
Therefore, the words of their Prophet did not have the slightest effect on them and they did not follow his words, but gave an answer that disappointed him from any insistence.

The people of Lot (عليه السلام) to him, who said: You know that we have no right in your daughters. This sentence is the response of the people of Lot to the invitation he gave to them and told them to come and marry my daughters, and the result of their response was that we have no right to marry girls and that you know this and You know what we want and what we mean by this attack.

What needs to be considered here is that the people of Lot did not say: We have no right over your daughters, but said: You already knew that we have no right over your daughters, and there is a clear difference between the two phrases, because the appearance of the second phrase is They wanted to remind their esteemed ethnic tradition and method and say that you already knew that we would never be subjected to the honor of the people, that is, by force and violence, or to say that you already knew that we were basically We do not gather with women, and we consider it permissible to gather with boys, and we repel lust with boys.

Lot (عليه السلام) always forbade them from this ugly tradition and said:
" إنکم لتأتون الرجال شهوة من دون النساء"What an ugly people you are, who go to men instead of women to repel lust."Indeed you come to men with desire instead of women! Indeed, you are a profligate lot.’ (81) (A'raf / 81)
And he also said: "Among all the people of the world, you gather with men, unlike everyone else. Do you not feel ashamed of this, and leave the wives that your Lord has created for you?" (Shu'ara / 165-166)
Or he would say: "أ إنکم لتأتون الرجال و تقطعون السبیل و تأتون فی نادیکم المنکر" (Ankabut / 29)
And without a doubt, when an action (whether good or bad) is performed among the people  has became  Sunnah, the right is proved for them in that action, and when the practical abandonment of the Sunnah is performed, the right of committing it is also taken away from those people.

In short, the people of Lot have drawn the attention of that gentleman to his own memories and reminded him that according to the ethnic tradition, they have no right to his daughters because they are women, and he himself knows that they mean from attack to his house?

http://quranpuyan.com/yaf_postsm6549_mnZwr-HDrt-lwT---z-rDh-khrdn-dkhtrn-khwd-bh-mrdn-dr-yh-78-swrh-hwd-chyst.aspx

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
22 hours ago, kadhim said:

Respect to our aimmah of the ahlul bayt and to their roles as guides for the people of their respective times and communities. But if it was so that they didn’t know about gay people, the question arises why would we take their words on this subject as binding on a group they didn’t even know existed? 

Would their apparent lack of awareness of the existence of this phenomenon of human sexuality not imply that their knowledge of the topic was incomplete? 

And if their knowledge on this subject were incomplete, then how, logically speaking, can their pronouncements be the final, unalterable word on the subject?

Note with sledgehammer emphasis here that I’m not trying to undermine the i’smah or wilayah of the aimmah. I assert and defend both wholeheartedly.

They have total awareness  about it but on the other hand except  Imam Ali (عليه السلام) rest of them has not  been political rulers of people as like as Abbasids  & cursed Ummayids  which this sin has been a common thing between them which clearly commitment of it by Abbaids  has been documented  in history also they don't  have political  authority over any judge or task force  during that era which they only could  prevent  from spreading  it among Shia community through Mutah & other means  which no report of this sin  has been documented  among shias although  of all accusations  of enemies of Shias , which also if this sin  was happening  all of shia community  would have been repeling such sinners from Shia community by default by expeling & boycoting them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Addendum: excerpts of draft analysis of Shia hadith sources on liwat and sihaq 

As promised earlier, I am sharing some draft materials from a book / series of articles I am in the process of writing on this topic. These are some excerpts from the section on the Shia hadith record, based on analysis of contents in al-Kafi.

For whoever is interested. If anyone has any comments, let me know. 
 

=============

List of relevant chapters surveyed

General texts related to same-sex activities 

Texts on hudud 

Al-Kafi, Volume 7, Book of Hudud https://www.hubeali.com/books/English-Books/AlKafiVol7/Al%20Kafi%20V%207%20-%20The%20Book%20of%20Legal%20Penalties1.pdf 

Texts specifically about same-sex acts

  • Chapter 21 – The Penalty (Hadd) regarding liwat 

  • Chapter 22 - Another chapter like it

  • Chapter 23 - The Penalty (Hudud) regarding as-sihaq 

  • Chapter 24 - Another chapter from it

Related texts

  • Chapter 2 – The stoning and the whipping, and the ones upon whom that is obligated

  • Chapter 4 – The young child commits adultery with the mature woman, and the man commits adultery with the young girl not having matured yet

  • Chapter 5 – What obligates the lashing

  • Chapter 6 – Description of the Penalty (Hadd) of the zani

  • Chapter 7 – What obligates the stoning

                   .    .    .

A few words on terminology 

Some key terms pop up repeatedly in these texts:

Baligh: Of physical maturity. Basically means reaching the recognizable start of puberty. At whatever age that comes. For boys, marked by arrival of pubic hair or wet dreams. For girls generally marked either at age 9 or at menarche. Traditionally this represented the age at which one could be married and go to consummate the marriage and live with a spouse. As well as the age when one is obligated to undertake religious obligations like prayer, fasting, hajj, defence of the homeland, and so on)

Hadd: Literally means limit or boundary. Has a dual sense, as elaborated in chapter 1 of Al-Kafi volume 7, Book of Hudud. Hadd is used in the sense of a limit in terms of a level of expression of socially undesirable behavior beyond which societal punishment must be applied as a corrective and disincentive. Hadd is also used for the punishment itself for transgressing that limit, used to regulate and limit the spread of the action. It can also be considered as both at the same time, a regulated extent in terms of how something is to be punished. 

Hudud: Plural of “hadd.”

Al-fah’l: Literally “stallion,” a male horse. The dominant person in anal intercourse. Coming from root that includes ideas like bull, potent, virile, stud. See also mut’aai. 

Al-liwat: Derived term appearing first in hadith literature. From “act of the people of Lot.” Term used in the literature for male-male anal sex. This is the only male same-sex act explicitly mentioned in the hadith literature, probably in analogy to the focus on intercourse in discourse about heterosexual sex.

Duriba / yudrib: Literally struck/strike. With a sword. 

Lut’i: Literally of Lut. One who does the act(s) of the people of Lut. 

As-sihaq: Literally “rubbing.” Equivalent basically to the old technical/clinical English term “tribadism.” Lesbian act of two women rubbing their genitals against each other. This is the only female same-sex act explicitly mentioned in the hadith literature, probably since it is the closest analogy in the lesbian sphere in the classical period to heterosexual intercourse. The scholars of the community were mostly men, so when same-sex sex acts of women were talked about, the focus tended to be on acts that were comparable to heterosexual intercourse, because that was the way they could conceptualize it within their frame of reference.

Muh’s’ana: Literally, “immunized,” “protected” or “fortified.” In this context, it means married. (I.e. fortified from sexual temptation) Someone who really lacks an excuse to be getting up to illicit sexual activity. The texts talking about the criteria between when more severe vs less severe punishment for illicit sexual acts will generally reference this term to refer to someone considered adequately protected by companionship and considered married, and thus liable for a harsher punishment. 

Mutashabbih: Likeness or to take on the likeness of. Same root as the pairing of muhkamat and mutashabbihat used in the Quran to talk about literal vs allegorical verses. In this context it appears in some narrations in speaking about people who take on the appearance of the gender opposite to their sex.  The somewhat out of date term transvestite is used in some of the translations. Instead I use the somewhat more literal, and probably more accurate and authentic “take on the likeness of.” 

Mukhannathun: Ambiguous term from the classical hadith literature whose precise meaning is somewhat unclear. It has to be understood that pre-modern Arabs did not have as precise an understanding of the relevant categories as we do today, so their categories were a little cruder. It seems to have been a broad catch-all category that may have encompassed such varied categories as effeminate gay men, MTF transsexuals, and male cross-dressers. 

Mut’aai: Passive participant in anal intercourse. Relates to words with senses of footstool, treading or trampling down, a trodden path (as in Malik’s Muwatta), lowliness, made submissive. See also fah’l

Malut: Passive participant in anal intercourse.

Qatlu: Literally “killing” or “slaying.” This would generally be understood as involving a sword. 

Rajm: Stoning to death as a hadd punishment.

Jald: Whipping or flogging as a non-lethal hadd punishment. 

Zina: Illicit sex between two people who are not in an approved relationship. The same term in Arabic is used for both fornication (illicit sex by an unmarried person) and adultery (illicit sex by a married person).

Zani: One who does zina, which can mean either fornication or adultery, depending on the marital status of the individual. 

              .     .     .

Summary of the hadith contents and commentary

Two classes of punishments are frequently talked about in the context of consensual sexual misconduct. The most stringent punishments described involved death by various forms, with the most frequent being stoning (ar-rajm) and slaying with a sword (qatala or yudrib). The less stringent punishments were non-fatal, with the most common punishments being (jald) whipping or a lesser cutting.

For same-sex sex acts, the decision between whipping and stoning or other maximal punishments in the texts is based on marital/“protection” status. A married person (literally referred to in the texts as “protected,” I.e. from desires) would be stoned, while an unmarried person would be whipped. 

The texts on same-sex acts refer to the analogy of the conditions in the case of zina for what punishment was applied. Specifically, whether the person is married or unmarried was a key factor. 

For male-male anal sex, however, the texts make a distinction that the difference between married and unmarried applies only to the active, penetrating participant—in modern slang, the “top.” The passive, receptive participant—in modern slang, the “bottom”, was always to be stoned, or otherwise killed, whether married or unmarried. 

For some reason, passive anal sex is seen as much worse inherently than active anal sex, for a male. (Volume 5 of al-Kafi has a chapter of narrations explaining that anal sex is permissible between a man and woman in a recognized relationship, and there is no indication that anal sex between a man and woman in an illicit relationship was punished any differently than vaginal sex.)

Looking at the texts on zina punishment and conditions, the requirement of a person to be considered “protected” (married) for the purposes of applying stoning as a punishment have very specific criteria. 

Having a temporary wife (muta’a), while considered married in the usual sense, was not considered married for these purposes. The texts refer to a “wife” in this case as someone you would close the door on in your home while you go out. In other words, a relationship that is with you in a long term stable way. It means a permanent marriage (zawaj nikah) in this context.

Similarly in the premodern period if one had female slaves/concubines available. There was some distinction in punishment between the scenario where one was completely single and having no woman available vs having a concubine available. In the second case a somewhat stricter punishment was given, though less than the full capital punishment for the married person. 

Even if someone was married permanently, for the purposes of the hadd, he or she would not be considered married at the time of the act if they were for example travelling or otherwise separated physically from the spouse. For example during imprisonment or while the spouse is away. The act would still be forbidden, but there is enough of a level of “excuse” to set aside the strictest punishment. 

Punishment was also less for underage (non-baligh) individuals.

Applying punishment was contingent on four witnesses graphically seeing the act. “Like seeing the applicator going into the kohl bottle,” in the words of the hadith. Alternatively, according to the texts, it could be proved for punishment purposes if the person confessed four times seeking punishment or “purification.”

Punishments applicable to a woman caught having sex with another woman, would be delayed if the woman is pregnant, at least until such time as she delivers and finishes providing early age care to the child.

Being caught in a less serious action which was nevertheless clearly sexual or intimate—the narrations describe the scenario of two people under a bedsheet together—were considered punishable by whipping.

              .     .     .

Zina vs liwat: comparison and contrast

There are several traditions which explicitly raise a parallel to punishments for zina (translated as adultery or fornication depending if the person is married or not) when talking about punishment for liwat and sihaq. The term mithlu (similar to, analogous to) is used. 

“حَدُّ اللُّوطِيِّ مِثْلُ حَدِّ الزَّانِي The hadd of the Luti is analogous to that of the hadd of zina

“ إِنْ كَانَ قَدْ أُحْصِنَ رُجِمَ وَ إِلَّا جُلِدَ  If he was protected (I.e. married permanently) stoning. Except for that, whipped. 

(Al Kafi, Volume 7, Book of legal penalties, Chapter 21, hadith 1)

There are ways that the two acts are comparable. And ways that they are not comparable. Here I want to take a look at both. 

In terms of similarities, there is a common element of an illicit sexual activity carried out outside of accepted marriage channels. There is this element of transgressing generally accepted relationship norms. In the case of a married individual, there is a common element of cheating and harming and/or humiliating one’s spouse and children socially. These factors apply the same in both cases. 

But on the other hand straight illicit sex carries the risk of pregnancy and muddying of paternity, which is obviously not true of gay sex.

Realistically, the risk of pregnancy was really probably the driving reason to want to punish zina performed in an indiscreet way. Probably the main concern was to heavily discourage zina by making an example of behavior that leads to illegitimate children and doubts over paternity for children. But this raises a question. If gay sex by its nature doesn’t present the same risks of pregnancy, why put forward this analogy with zina? What is the risk to the individuals or the social order in this if illegitimate births are not an issue? Particularly for unmarried individuals where harms to children or spouse are not an issue.

 

Punishment and disincentive: the crime versus the punishment 

One of the major purposes of punishment in traditional and contemporary law is to be a disincentive against committing the undesired activity. The unpleasant possible consequences are to serve as a check on the behavior by making the person think twice. 

The level of the disincentive is generally in proportion to the seriousness of the crime. More problematic or worse activities are punished worse in proportion to that in order to discourage worse acts more heavily. 

In that light it is striking that the general rule for liwat and sihaq draws a direct analogy to that of zina, extra-marital sex with someone of the opposite sex. The general perception among mainstream Muslims is that gay sex is disliked heavily in comparison to straight sex. But in contrast to that notion, the general picture of that analogy mostly seems to rank the badness on par with any other extramarital sex. As if to suggest that, just as rules on zina do not inherently say anything against straight sex, rules on liwat and sihaq do not have anything inherently to say about gay sex; the real problem is that the sex takes place outside of an approved relationship or in competition to approved relationships 

In 3 out of 4 of the possible combinations of married and unmarried partners (married and married, married active and unmarried passive, married active and married passive), the punishments are identical. The exception to this for liwat is an extra punishment for the passive unmarried participant in comparison to an unmarried active individual. 

Is the difference in the 4th case a pointer toward liwat, particularly passive liwat, being a more serious crime than passive heterosexual intercourse? Or is there another plausible explanation? Let’s take a look. 


 

Why is the passive partner punished more severely for male-male anal?

There is a curious and glaring asymmetry in the prescribed classical punishments for male-male anal sex, both between the two participants, and between the cases of straight sex and gay sex. The hadiths in al-Kafi describe, on average, a harsher tone toward the passive partner in male-male anal sex than for the active partner. For the active, penetrative partner, the punishment is determined the same as for heterosexual zina—whether he is “married” or not. While for the passive, receptive male there is no such criteria. The punishment is maximal for the passive participant in both cases if sufficient witnesses or testimony are presented. 

At a superficial glance, this added punishment for the passive individual gives the initial impression that the passive one is somehow seen as the more responsible or guilty party of the two men, at least in the case where the penetrative partner is unmarried. For the case where the penetrating partner is married, the same punishment which would be applied for adultery is specified for the active partner, meaning punishments are even for both in that case. 

We have no explicit explanations for the rationale behind this difference, but we can try to speculate based on our understanding of the culture of the time period of the imams. 

There are cultural reasons the existing society to which Islam came would have frowned upon the receptive role more severely. If what we know of existing ambient attitudes about same-sex intercourse, particularly the passive role, align strongly with the attitude toward the passive participant in the texts, a couple of scenarios are conceivable. 

One, that traditions we have were invented or modified to reflect/encode existing attitudes. 

Or the texts are authentic, but punishments were originally crafted with accommodations to existing attitudes, much the same way as classical laws on slavery accommodated existing practices of slavery with some modification. 

In the view of people of the time, a person could be the penetrative partner in anal sex with another man without really being considered “unmanly.” In the view of people of the time, to be a man is to be dominant, to be the one who penetrates. If he penetrates a man instead of a woman, it is considered incorrect, and punishable, but unless there is a wife available who he is cheating on, it is not worthy of killing. 

But a person on the receiving end willingly would need to really be interested in that, to really enjoy that passive position of being dominated and penetrated. In the Arab culture, and in some

of the surrounding cultures as well, the act of being submissive and being penetrated was seen as being “unmanly,” “feminine,” and thus, in the patriarchal framework, lower. And the ambient culture into which Islam came definitely had strong taboos/attitudes against men being “unmanly” in this or any other way.

 

Cutting off a shortcut? 

In these differences in treatment between active vs passive, was there an element of fear expressed that those interested in the receptive role could “tempt” otherwise straight males toward them, offering an “easier” alternative to the responsibilities of marriage and the challenges of dealing with the complexity of a woman? Or at least easier in terms

of access compared to getting access to a single woman in the social context? This could have been particularly tempting for younger single men without a legitimate opposite-sex outlet in a patriarchal society with heavy sex segregation that made illicit access to females difficult. 

The argument might then be that allowing gay sex to be available as an outlet for straight men could potentially disrupt society by offering a “short-circuit” to the natural social resistance involved in obtaining access to sexual activity. Normally, a man was required to be married to be allowed to have sex with a woman. This barrier would push a young man toward the socially useful path of getting his life in order and settling down in marriage to a woman to fulfill his desires. This relationship, which would generally lead to children, was seen as a healthy, productive, and socially stabilizing channel for sexual desire. 

Same-sex activity, as with zina, becomes an easier option allowing quicker access to a partner without waiting. In addition, same-sex activity was in some ways more convenient than zina. For one, same-sex activity carries no risk of unwanted pregnancy. Secondly, in a patriarchal society with sex segregation, it is normal to be alone with other males, but taboo to do so with women, making the logistics easier for same-sex activity as well. 

By this logic, was the harsher punishment meant to discourage the passive individual who might be thought of being the “tempter?” To deter this “short-circuit” behavior on the “supply side” of sexual access?

 

Penetrator vs penetrated

Another factor influencing these rules could have been the received perception that it is less serious or shameful to be the penetrative partner, because he is still taking on a “male” role. It is normal for a man to want to penetrate, so the penetrative gay man, by this reasoning, is not as far off. 

Whereas the receptive person is taking a submissive  “female” role. This was a common perception in the ancient world. A few of the hadith talk about the receptive partner “allowing himself” to be penetrated. Reflecting the ambient attitude that it was shameful for a man to make himself passive like this. 

There is even a hadith, as mentioned earlier that seems to record a case of an non-baligh boy being sodomized by his step-father. In other words, he was a victim of molestation/sexual assault. However, in the narration the victim is chastised for “allowing himself to be penetrated,” and is punished, though less severely given his age. 

It calls to mind the prevalent prejudice that a raped woman is guilty because she “put herself in that situation.” Like the passage in Leviticus where a raped woman could be assumed to have consented if she didn’t fight and cry out enough. Narrations like this seem to suggest the same all-too-human bias. It doesn’t have the scent of divinely guided opinion. 

I wonder if the fixed death penalty on the one who is penetrated has something to do with the likelihood that in a consensual encounter in that time, the one in this position may have tended to be a more effeminate individual possibly leaning toward preference for men. As such, the passive partner would have been perhaps less likely to be married to a woman. (Note: this is not to say this is always the case; there are certainly bisexual men who enjoy the contrast of a dominant role with women and a passive role with men. I’m just saying what was probably more often the case)  As such, if things worked exactly the same as for zina with both individuals involved (passive and active)—with a married person getting a death penalty and an unmarried person only getting whipped—the death penalty would have been more rarely applicable on the passive partner. 

Also, another reality. If the one who preferred the passive position were less likely to marry, he would not have the same opportunity for the socially and psychologically stabilizing outlet of publicly recognized long-term relationships. Therefore he would have been more likely to seek out casual relations and promiscuousness. This would then bring a destabilizing effect involving all those who would have sex with him. 

 

Problematic: Islamic punishments vs the case of Greek and Persian pederasty

There is another reason it reads as somewhat strange and somewhat ironic that the passive partner is punished more highly. In premodern Persia or Greece, for example, male-male sex activity tended to involve a strong power gradient, often between a dominant powerful order man and a passive younger boy. 

Some of this model of homosexual unions involving an age gap seems to have seeped into some aspects of Islamic culture, reflected in imagery in Sufi poetry of the seductive beauty of beardless young boys. Or in such predatory practices as bacha bazi. There was a strong element of the older active male dominating the passive younger male in the encounter. It was not an equal encounter. The “bottom” role was literally seen as lower in status. 

Which would make it strange in that sort of culture that an all-seeing God who is just would give harsher punishments in this case to the one who is not really in control of the situation. The assumptions in the harsher punishment level for the bottom partner seems to be founded at least partially on the idea that he is somehow the one driving or enabling or responsible for the situation. Those cultural assumptions though do not apply universally, and didn’t apply in cultures like Greece and Persia. True, the hadith do indicate an exception for someone who is below the age of bulugh, but it is nevertheless disturbing in its failure to capture the nuance of systemic coercive social situations as practiced in Greece and Persia. 

On the other hand, I suppose it could be reasonably argued however that an Islamic culture would not condone such coercive social customs in the first place. It could also be argued that these Islamic rules, if applied to Ancient Greece or Persia would have tended to actually be equal, since the older elite men would have generally been married at that point. Though on the other hand again, the hadith chapter on the definition of “married” in these hadiths gives many exceptions where this status can’t be applied in judgment. For example if he is travelling, if his wife is out of town, if he only has temporary wives and concubines. Would this added chance for punishment for the lower status partner in such social contexts giving leniency to the powerful and harshness to the weak, more in line with what we know of corrupt human justice than what we would expect of divine justice?
 

The pregnancy factor and balance—an analysis of risk

There is also the factor that young unmarried women in the premodern period before birth control would have been deterred, beyond external disincentives, by the fear of pregnancy. Patriarchal societies put great emphasis on containing female sexuality within marriage as a way to ensure the clarity of male lines of lineage. As a result, there is a significantly stronger taboo in such societies on women having sex outside of marriage as compared to men. And there is a strong taboo against out-of-wedlock pregnancy. This was not a position a young woman wanted to be in. 

As a result, this served as a natural internal disincentive causing young women to be much less likely to make themselves available for fornication. Someone of the same sex meanwhile would not present this risk for either party. There is no risk of pregnancy in gay sex, clearly, whether it’s two men or two women.

This would contextually explain some of the more hostile attitude toward the passive partner in male-male anal sex. The passive male would not have had the same hesitancy about pregnancy as a woman would have had. As a result he would have had less internal disincentive to make himself available. The social stigma on each (gay sex by men vs the scandal of out of wedlock sex by a young woman) was probably comparable. But the threat of pregnancy brought an added biological disincentive for women. Plausibly, the extra punishment on a man taking the passive role in gay sex could very well have been to equalize the total risk for an unmarried gay man versus an unmarried straight woman in making themselves available for sexual penetration. Thus equalizing the total disincentive as a sum of internal plus external disincentives. 

The absence of the risk of pregnancy, and the absence of subsequent issues of illegitimate birth and doubt over paternity in the case of gay sex were mentioned earlier as bringing into question the validity of the liwat to zina comparison. But this could also have been seen from this other perspective as precisely the reason to discourage gay sex. Causing a pregnancy is not a worry with gay sex. Therefore, an otherwise straight man who is in hardship, single and deprived of sex, might consider penetrating a willing man in order to fulfill sexual urges easily without any risk of social consequence. 

With a single woman, even if she is not caught in the act, a pregnancy could nevertheless cause massive social problems and questions. It becomes something for her to explain. But there are no inherent risks or consequences in gay sex that can act as inner disincentives. Therefore extra external legal consequences serve to balance this out. Whereas with a man and a woman, the natural consequence of pregnancy offers its own regulation, so the legal punishment can safely be less on a single woman as opposed to a single man. 

For the married woman, pregnancy in itself was not as much of a risk to discourage a married woman, since a pregnancy is a normal occurrence for a married woman and any accidental pregnancy could be passed off as the husband’s. She would only face scrutiny if she got pregnant while the husband was away or if the child showed no resemblance to the father. But generally it was less of a risk. This would have been another reason for a harsher punishment on a married female versus an unmarried one. 

Similarly, a young unmarried woman looking for sexual pleasure in this context might feel safer having sex with a woman than a man since there is generally* no risk of an embarrassing out of wedlock pregnancy with a woman. 

Not to mention how much easier and safer it would have been for a young woman to find time alone with another woman as opposed to a man. And not to mention other elements like the higher likelihood of a woman finding sexual satisfaction—at least from the perspective of effectiveness lof physical stimulation—with someone who understood from her own experience the intricacies of what pleases a woman.

* There is an amusing case in the hudud hadith on sihaq involving a married woman having sex with her husband and then going immediately to perform sihaq on a slave girl, in the process impregnating the girl with her husband’s semen. 
 

The impact of modern realities on these calculations 

This prompts an observation though. That was the context then. But today, with widespread birth control and even abortion, this imbalance of risk  between a heterosexual woman vs a gay man is no longer as striking. A woman can reliably reduce her risk of unwanted pregnancy by 95-99.5% with common methods. The risk and natural consequence for an unmarried woman versus an unmarried passive gay man is then about the same (aside from much higher risks of sexually transmitted disease for the passive gay man). The main difference in risk is in the level of social tolerance to casual sex by females versus social tolerance of homosexuality. But in more open societies these are both comparable. 

Therefore, if we accept the previous analysis of risk vs punishment as a driving reason for the punishment severity, one could argue reasonably by this logic that the punishment, if anything, if there should be a punishment, should be the same for both or almost so in today’s context. 

Young women are freely willing to have sex with young men given the existence of birth control making this much less risky to them. Moreover, there are many more sexually available young females around than yhere are young men who would want to be passive partners for gay sex. 

As a result, the rationale that straight men in such societies would be incentivized by social conditions to consider penetrating available “bottom” men instead of women seems to be highly questionable. And this would apply even in societies in the west where homosexuality is generally widely accepted. If you inherently mostly like women, and there are women around, and those women are willing to have sex with men, why would you choose to have sex with other men, if you personally had the choice? 

In modern, open societies, gay sex only really becomes a thinkable option for most men when they have no access to women. Interestingly, this brings a reasonably compelling argument against conservative cultures that expect sex to only be in permanent marriage yet also set cultural barriers that make it hard to marry permanently before a late age. Especially when, at the same time, culture sets taboos on more flexible alternate forms of Islamic relationship contract arrangements like muta’a. As a result, much of the population is culturally forced or pressured to long years of celibacy. This is compounded further in societies with enforced gender segregation. 

Ironically, this is precisely the sort of scenario where a young man might reasonably consider sex with another man a suitable alternative (particularly if the other young man is soft in looks and he gets to be the “top” and still feel “masculine” about it). And similarly a woman with a woman. Are conservative, sex-segregated societies with late marriage ironically breeding grounds for same-sex activity? Interestingly, there is some evidence to suggest this is so (need to add a reference here)

Whereas in the modern west, where LGBTQ activities are the most accepted, ironically not a lot of men are interested in gay sex. 1-2 % legitimately are just wired differently and only want that. And then a few percent are a little fluid and sometimes want both. But a good 95% of men in these societies seem perfectly happy with the only women path. And these figures seem to have been pretty stable for a few decades. So if the objective is to limit the prospects of gay sex becoming too widespread, ironically it seems like tolerating homosexuality and being open to sexual relationships prior to permanent marriage are the powerful ways keep those numbers under pretty tight control. Paradoxical to most religious conservatives, but it seems to be true.

One counter to this perhaps would be to observe the exception to this analysis when it comes to trends in bisexuality among females. Rates of women identifying as lesbian have stayed pretty stable over the past decades, similarly about 1-2%. But the number of women identifying as bisexual has grown quite a bit. It’s significantly more common among GenZ and Millenial women than previous generations. Which raises interesting questions of why that would be so. As well as how that could impact dynamics in the future. 

These women are not taking men off the menu, but are willing to also have relationships with women. Will that somewhat diminish overall access for men?  And if so will that prompt some more men to consider other options? Or is this just something that most of them play with in younger years before turning to traditional marriage later on? (The classic “lesbian until graduation” trope)
 

Putting this together: Is the problem with gay sex really about heterosexuality?

Putting all of this together, an interesting insight emerges. Is the taboo against same-sex activity less about the activity in itself, and more about protecting the social order of heterosexual relationships? 

Let’s bring together a few things. 

Society had a compelling interest in encouraging young people to settle down in permanent heterosexual marriages, to bring stability to people, channel and contain sexual desire, and produce children of legitimate parentage. Any sex act outside of the allowed channels was seen as illegitimate, and punishable if practiced openly as a threat to the predominant heterosexual order. 

People in the classical period do not seem to have had any notion of people who only had desire for the same sex. They instead tended to see homosexual desire as another desire that people had in addition to heterosexual desire for the opposite sex. 

The hadith about same-sex activity and punishment press the analogy with zina, suggesting, by analogy to zina, that the problem is not an evil of the act in itself (zina is unlawful even though heterosexual sex in itself is not unlawful), but the fact that the sex acts were taking place outside of approved relationships. 

The differences in punishment for an unmarried passive partner in same-sex intercourse versus an unmarried female in heterosexual intercourse seem to suggest, on a superficial level of analysis, an inherent condemnation of sexual passiveness in men. And indeed, there were existing cultures at the time which carried this attitude. But, as was seen above, this difference is also very reasonably explainable in terms of balancing disincentives on the “supply side” of illicit sex. The extra punishment for the passive unmarried male versus the unmarried passive female compensates for the fact that the male is not internally disincentivized by the fear of becoming pregnant. 

This seems to lead to an interesting conclusion. The regulation of homosexual desire in the classical period was really about regulating heterosexual desire. And the issue with gay sex was not about the homosexuality in itself, just as the issue with zina was not about heterosexuality in itself. The issue was about disincentivizing the allure of any easy sex outside allowed channels. 

A natural question then arises. We know today that there are people with exclusively homosexual desire. If people with exclusively homosexual desire exclusively have sex with each other, then what is the objection in the light of the previous points? 

What relevance would rules set to regulate heterosexual desire have on those who lack such desire, and only have sexual relations with others who similarly lack such desires? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 hours ago, kadhim said:

@Ashvazdanghe Could you clean up your recent posts a bit?  I see you removed duplicates from the most recent post, but there are others where much of the same information is presented 2 or 3 times in a row. 

Salam unfortunately  I can't  edit any post after saving which moderators  & Admins can clean it for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, kadhim said:

Probably the main concern was to heavily discourage zina by making an example of behavior that leads to illegitimate children and doubts over paternity for children. But this raises a question. If gay sex by its nature doesn’t present the same risks of pregnancy, why put forward this analogy with zina? What is the risk to the individuals or the social order in this if illegitimate births are not an issue? Particularly for unmarried individuals where harms to children or spouse are not an issue.

Salam this is not the point because  in both of these great sins disobeying  Allah's command & following  order of Shaitan & participating of  him in aspects of life are reasons for punishment  which side effect of Zina is risk of having illegitimate  child which punishment  of Zina is Had whether it leads to making a child or not by the same fashion side effect of gay sex is destroying  human race which because  both great sins have similar physical procedure so therefor physical procedure of punishment  is similar  in each other.

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

In modern, open societies, gay sex only really becomes a thinkable option for most men when they have no access to women. Interestingly, this brings a reasonably compelling argument against conservative cultures that expect sex to only be in permanent marriage yet also set cultural barriers

I totally  disagree,This is not a thinkable option wich even men who have wife have committed  it  although  they have had access to women whch in open societies this is most promoted action which having healthy & legal relation  between  men & women has been highly discouragedin so called open societies because  these societies have been founded for spreading & practicing  any type of sins in name of being modern & open minded & showing healthy & recommended  cultures by divine law as conservative & barbaric  & idiotic & obsolete so therefore whole of your justifacation  about open societies  is void & baselesbaseless .

3 hours ago, kadhim said:

A natural question then arises. We know today that there are people with exclusively homosexual desire. If people with exclusively homosexual desire exclusively have sex with each other, then what is the objection in the light of the previous points? 

What relevance would rules set to regulate heterosexual desire have on those who lack such desire, and only have sexual relations with others who similarly lack such desires?

This is because  of intention of disobeying  Allah & following  Shaitan in any era & any society not justifying  desires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 4/23/2022 at 9:59 PM, kadhim said:

Moreover, people who are gay are only 1 or 2 % of the population. So if they go off and do their own thing that has no appreciable impact on the project of continuing the human race anyway. 

:salam:

People of Lut (عليه السلام) were destroyed because they had taken it to a higher scale. Shows that homosexuality, with good advertisement, can reach much higher levels. 

This will be June soon, the month of 'prides', which the young generations may start to associate with end of school, beginning of summer, i.e. good times. 

On 4/24/2022 at 7:07 PM, kadhim said:

If this is supposedly a mob of crazed gay men, and Lot is a prophet operating under the guidance of God, why offer his daughters, females, as an alternative? Wouldn’t he know that would be pointless? 

Btw, I think by 'Qawm Lut', should we not understand Lut was a patriarch at the head of a tribe comprising many girls, and by saying that, he only called them to go back to reason and to a regular lifestyle, rather than just throwing his daughters as preys ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
On 4/25/2022 at 6:29 PM, kadhim said:

 

 

We have 40 years of figures that have been flat despite a sea change in acceptance of homosexuality in society. All the evidence indicates a stable natural frequency of innate homosexuality, and that’s the perspective of the scientific community. Frankly, if you want to argue for the idea that it ever varied wildly beyond this, the burden is on you to prove that and argue why. 

I think your other points have been addressed and answered very well by br. @Mahdavist

As to your statistical argument about percentages of gay population, there are lots of problems with this number which you have failed to address. 

1. You never cited a source, so I don't know where you got this number, no the methodology that was used to arrive at it. If you are trying to make a scientific argument, this is a, lets say 'less than optimal' way to start off your hypothesis. 

If you look at people who self identify as 'homosexual', here is a recent study from Gallup, a polling organization which is generally trusted in the US. US population was sampled. The number they have is 5.6%, average. Also interesting from this study, and which goes against your premise that people are 'born gay' (another of many points). Majority of those who self identify also claim to be 'bisexual', not exclusively attracted to same sex. So they are choosing to have sexual relations with the same sex / gender, even though they are also attracted to the opposite gender. Interesting, right ? 

This also varies by generation, with Gen Z numbers at 15.6% and Boomer (those born between 1947 and 1965) at 2%

https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx

There are other studies which show the same thing ,but I think this is sufficient to show that it is not stable over time, as you claim. It varies wildly by generation, and also by country. 

2. If you are talking about 2% are actually 'born gay' then there is no evidence for this, you can see my previous posts. As Muslims, and followers of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) we don't accept this premise at all, so the 2% number is meaningless to us. Also, up until very recently, and only in countries such as the US / Europe, is there any data on people who 'self identify' ?  In the recent past, and also currently, 'self identification' might get you in 'trouble'. So this is enough of an incentive for most people not to cooperate, even if there was anyone attempting to gather this data. So to try and make a historical argument about this based on data is invalid. 

 

 

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

As to your statistical argument about percentages of gay population, there are lots of problems with this number which you have failed to address. 

1. You never cited a source, so I don't know where you got this number, no the methodology that was used to arrive at it. If you are trying to make a scientific argument, this is a, lets say 'less than optimal' way to start off your hypothesis. 

I’m sorry. I thought this was just a Shia chat site. I’ve been away a while; I didn’t realize this had become a prestigious research journal. ;)

But not to worry. I’ll add some footnotes when I publish. :)
 

2 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

If you look at people who self identify as 'homosexual', here is a recent study from Gallup, a polling organization which is generally trusted in the US. US population was sampled. The number they have is 5.6%, average. Also interesting from this study, and which goes against your premise that people are 'born gay' (another of many points). Majority of those who self identify also claim to be 'bisexual', not exclusively attracted to same sex. So they are choosing to have sexual relations with the same sex / gender, even though they are also attracted to the opposite gender. Interesting, right ? 

…but if you want a backing source for that 1-2% figure, ironically enough I could actually point you to this Gallup study you shared. Thanks so much, bud!

You see—and I honestly can’t stress this enough—when you want to critique what someone is saying, it’s a really good idea to make sure you know what they’re saying first. 

So, if you actually go back and read my argument, you would see the 1-2% figure is referring to people who are exclusively homosexual, people who are “gay” or “lesbian.” 

I also recommend when you want to post a source for your critique, that you actually read your source too. Always a good plan.

So the 5.6% in the Gallup study is all LGBT. Everyone in the car, as brother Chappelle would say. Gays and lesbians are a proper subset of the LGBT group.

So how many gays and lesbians in America according to Gallup? Image attached below. 0.7% lesbian. 1.4% for gay.

Huh. That looks a lot like 1-2%, doesn’t it? ;)

If you look at the other image that looks at cross-generational trends (Shiachat won’t let me share that image), you can see the figures range from 0.3-2.1% for gay, depending on the generation, and 0.2-1.4% for lesbian, depending on the generation. With more recent generations being a bit more. All within that narrow 0-2% range, and the modest increase over time being reasonably explainable as people being more open to declare their inner reality as time goes by and in younger generations. Note that from Baby Boomers on, the figures support the rough 1-2% range I quoted. 

There are other studies that have looked at these sorts of figures going back to the 1980s I believe, and they also tend to show 1-2% for gay or lesbian. I think the Wikipedia article on homosexuality includes some references to papers and such for further reading.

So, to summarize, where do I get that figure? I read things like this, and, key point, I understand what I’m reading. 

Bisexuality shows more of a variability across time, and it is for precisely this reason that the reform proposal I described strictly limits itself to exclusively homosexual people in the interest of picking a category where there is more solid evidence that it’s a stable category. Bisexuality the picture needs more data, so I’m being conservative and leaving them out of the proposal. Also, they have some attraction to the opposite sex, so it’s less unfair to deny them an exemption in comparison to the exclusively homosexual. 

2 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

2. If you are talking about 2% are actually 'born gay' then there is no evidence for this, you can see my previous posts.

As I told you before, I refuse to get drawn into this kind of “fake news!” sort of objection. The data is there, you can accept it or not. I’m not going to relitigate facts because they make you theologically uncomfortable.

2 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

As Muslims, and followers of Ahl Al Bayt((عليه السلام)) we don't accept this premise at all

Dude, seriously. Take some responsibility and speak for yourself. You don’t get to magically invoke “we” here in some totalitarian fashion. There are plenty of us in the contemporary Muslim community who have no problem accepting that people are just inherently gay. It would not surprise me if it’s most Muslims who accept that basic reality. So please. Be honest and speak for yourself only. 

2604D1C0-55A9-4175-BE81-2868B8861741.png

Edited by kadhim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, kadhim said:

I’m sorry. I thought this was just a Shia chat site. I’ve been away a while; I didn’t realize this had become a prestigious research journal. ;)

But not to worry. I’ll add some footnotes when I publish. :)
 

…but if you want a backing source for that 1-2% figure, ironically enough I could actually point you to this Gallup study you shared. Thanks so much, bud!

You see—and I honestly can’t stress this enough—when you want to critique what someone is saying, it’s a really good idea to make sure you know what they’re saying first. 

So, if you actually go back and read my argument, you would see the 1-2% figure is referring to people who are exclusively homosexual, people who are “gay” or “lesbian.” 

I also recommend when you want to post a source for your critique, that you actually read your source too. Always a good plan.

So the 5.6% in the Gallup study is all LGBT. Everyone in the car, as brother Chappelle would say. Gays and lesbians are a proper subset of the LGBT group.

So how many gays and lesbians in America according to Gallup? Image attached below. 0.7% lesbian. 1.4% for gay.

Huh. That looks a lot like 1-2%, doesn’t it? ;)

If you look at the other image that looks at cross-generational trends (Shiachat won’t let me share that image), you can see the figures range from 0.3-2.1% for gay, depending on the generation, and 0.2-1.4% for lesbian, depending on the generation. With more recent generations being a bit more. All within that narrow 0-2% range, and the modest increase over time being reasonably explainable as people being more open to declare their inner reality as time goes by and in younger generations. Note that from Baby Boomers on, the figures support the rough 1-2% range I quoted. 

There are other studies that have looked at these sorts of figures going back to the 1980s I believe, and they also tend to show 1-2% for gay or lesbian. I think the Wikipedia article on homosexuality includes some references to papers and such for further reading.

So, to summarize, where do I get that figure? I read things like this, and, key point, I understand what I’m reading. 

Bisexuality shows more of a variability across time, and it is for precisely this reason that the reform proposal I described strictly limits itself to exclusively homosexual people in the interest of picking a category where there is more solid evidence that it’s a stable category. Bisexuality the picture needs more data, so I’m being conservative and leaving them out of the proposal. Also, they have some attraction to the opposite sex, so it’s less unfair to deny them an exemption in comparison to the exclusively homosexual. 

As I told you before, I refuse to get drawn into this kind of “fake news!” sort of objection. The data is there, you can accept it or not. I’m not going to relitigate facts because they make you theologically uncomfortable.

Dude, seriously. Take some responsibility and speak for yourself. You don’t get to magically invoke “we” here in some totalitarian fashion. There are plenty of us in the contemporary Muslim community who have no problem accepting that people are just inherently gay. It would not surprise me if it’s most Muslims who accept that basic reality. So please. Be honest and speak for yourself only. 

2604D1C0-55A9-4175-BE81-2868B8861741.png

Now you are playing semantic games which I don't have time for. So probably this will be my last post. You are making a distinction without a difference. Bi people are homosexual because they are attracted to people of the same sex / gender. That is the definition. If you want to make a different definition, that's up to you. I'm tired of talking about this subject. I have better things to do with my time. Also, the part of the gallop pole which you conveniently 'left out' is the part which shows 'self identified' homosexuals increasing over time. So this population is not a stable 1 to 2% over time. I don't need to post the chart. It is part of the link. Since you said you 'understand what you read', as opposed to me, I guess ? . You're points are getting more and more 'sketchy' and disconnected from reality. I guess you are only interested in 'winning' the discussion. Whatever that means. I am only interested in uncovering truth. There is not longer any truth being uncovered in this thread. We have all stated our positions, which are unlikely to change. 

351AEC34-5B73-4785-A85B-1DEE3331141D.png

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
14 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

Now you are playing semantic games which I don't have time for.

Lol. Dude. The distinction between bisexual people and exclusively same-sex oriented (gay and lesbian) has been core to my argument all along. Br. Mahdaviat for one had no trouble grasping that nuance. 

So what’s your problem, exactly?

And how is the difference between gay & lesbian vs bisexual “semantics” when your own favored study makes exactly that sort of breakdown in its figures? You’re being incoherent. 

16 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

I'm tired of talking about this subject. I have better things to do with my time.

By all means, akhi. Do those other things. :) 
 

22 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

Also, the part of the gallop pole (sic) which you conveniently 'left out' is the part which shows 'self identified' homosexuals increasing over time. So this population is not a stable 1 to 2% over time.

You’re referring to the generational breakdown chart?

I know our blood sugars are low during the day here, but I devoted a full paragraph to that, looking at the gay and lesbian columns of that table. I even posted that table. Look:

2 hours ago, kadhim said:

If you look at the other image that looks at cross-generational trends (Shiachat won’t let me share that image), you can see the figures range from 0.3-2.1% for gay, depending on the generation, and 0.2-1.4% for lesbian, depending on the generation. With more recent generations being a bit more. All within that narrow 0-2% range, and the modest increase over time being reasonably explainable as people being more open to declare their inner reality as time goes by and in younger generations. Note that from Baby Boomers on, the figures support the rough 1-2% range I quoted. 

You were saying?

32 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

You're points are getting more and more 'sketchy' and disconnected from reality. I guess you are only interested in 'winning' the discussion. Whatever that means. I am only interested in uncovering truth. There is not longer any truth being uncovered in this thread.

Would you like a hug, akhi? You sound like you could use a hug. 
Note, I identify as heterosexual, so this is a strictly Platonic offer. :) 
 

Link to comment
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...