“Is there a place for gay Muslims?” April 15, 2009
Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Concepts, Queer Muslims, Shari'ah.trackback
Dr Sherman Jackson responds:
He concludes:
“Make a place for people who have a problem? Yes. Make a place for people who want to redefine Islam? No.”
With thanks to the brother who uploaded it, and the one who shared it here.
Eye on 'Gay Muslims' 
http://nononsenseplease.wordpress.com/
Check it out!
Salaam sister,
Thanks for sharing your link: I see you have set up a blog to express your views on this subject after not finding the audience you wanted at Muslim Matters. I haven’t yet read through your arguments to share my own reflections, but one thing I was quite concerned about was the violent imagery you chose to express your opinions about people who promote homosexuality. Despite my reservations about that, I decided to approve your comment so people may read your perspective if they wish.
You are very welcome, Brother!
The violent imagery that I’ve used is Islamically appropriate on the theoretical level. I have stated in the article that, beating “Muslims” who promote homosexuality was possible only theoretically, as we do not have a khalifa system in the Muslim world.
You may or may not be aware but the Islamic punishment for out of the closet homosexuals is execution. So in that regards my theoretical solution is valid. I think that it can’t and shouldn’t be done practically as the Muslim world lacks a Khalifa system.
As for muslimmatters, I can’t say for certain if I have/donot have an audience over there. All I can say is, the mm admin/editor(s) is/are intolerant to my views (most of which are rooted in Islam).
Can’t pass a judgment about the whole crowd, though!
Btw, I encourage you to read the article and give your feedback!
Sorry for so many one line comments…but one thing I have noticed on your tag line for the blog, which i believe contradicts the Islamic perspective, is the use of the word “compassionate.” Islam is NOT compassionate toward gays.
I’m quite aware of the discussion amongst scholars about punishing people found guilty of committing sodomy, which is not universally stated to be execution. Moreover, categorising this punishment as being for “out of the closet homosexuals” is quite contentious as it’s a very modern phenomenon in that specific sense (just as the word “homosexuals” is modern).
As for compassion, that is a key concept of Islam so I will always try to make my perspective compassionate towards those who deserve it. I try to keep my terminology accurate in the Islamic framework though, so seldom speak of “gays” as though they exist under such a categorisation.
Wallahu Alim.
So with reference to the tag line, who is the compassion directed toward? I believe the majority of the readers, if not all, will interpret the compassion as being oriented toward gays who are Muslims.
Are they really worthy of that compassion? No this is not an open-ended question because the answer is–NO!
There’s a bit of elaboration in the box also near the top of the page:
“We kindly advise Muslims struggling with same-sex attraction, affirming that nobody is sinful for what they feel inside. As for those people who try to distort the religion, we refute them soundly with evidence.”
Our approach should be devoid of fanaticism. Look even at your own wording, where you have talked about “gays who are Muslims”. Well if you’ve defined some people as Muslims, would you deny them compassion? Does Islam not call for compassion for non-Muslims as well, and extend that to the animal kingdom too?
Yes even on the battlefield there is compassion, which does not contradict the need for firmness in pursuing and defending truth.
Sister No Nonesense, you name is quite ironic as you full of nothing BUT nonesense. You do not seem to understand what the argument here is. The article and comments on your blog show that you have very little understanding on the issue and that you seem to only want to produce a laugh out of a very serious topic. I would advise you to grow up please and to keep quiet if you do not have knowledge on a topic.
Salam.
Salaam Brother!
This statement should be better stated as “Our approach should be the Quranic approach.” When stated as such, we wouldn’t have to worry about the approach being devoid of fanaticism (or any other type of (bad)-ism).
I’m uncertain about what you are alluding to in this statement. Just to clarify, by “gays who are Muslims”, I meant Muslims who engage in gay-behavior, i.e. the actual homosexuals. I did not mean people who experience Shaytan Auggested Attraction (SSA), i.e. homosexual waswasahs.
Grouping SSA sufferers and Muslims engaged in actual homosexuals acts under the term “gay Muslims” is inaccurate and wrong. To elaborate using a different example–A person experiencing shaytanic suggestions about stealing is not the same as the thief who commits the actual crime. They fall in two different categories and a different kind or level of approach is required to deal with each.
The Islamic punishment for robbery is chopping the robber’s hand off. If this (Islamic) punishment were executed on a guilty Muslim, what would your response be?
The woman and the man guilty of illegal sexual intercourse, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. (This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime but if married persons commit it, the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah’s Law). (Surah Nur V: 2.)
That is relative to the non-Muslim and the situation.
There are situations/circumstances when Muslims are advised to be like this…
and circumstances when they (Muslims) are advised to be like this…
Islam calls for compassion toward the animals, but not in the sense that the ‘compassion’ forbids people from slaughtering and consuming them.
I don’t agree or disagree because I’m not sure what specific kind of compassion you are alluding to. Do you mean, on the battlefield, a Muslim is supposed to kill but not mutilate bodies? or are you referring to a different kind of ‘compassion’?
All in all, the compassion in the tag line of this blog still seems inaccurate and misplaced!
Wallahu Alim
You need to read more on the blog before arguing this point with me, as I certainly don’t use that terminology and think that yours is confused too. The point I was making to you is that by definition, you should have compassion for Muslims no matter what their sins.
As for SSA being equivalent to waswas, that is not completely true as someone may have an inclination to something potentially even when the Shaytan is not actively whispering to them. But this is not an important point to argue over, except when it comes to how to tackle it. Seeking protection from the Shaytan is not the only thing, as a person should also address their social and psychological states as necessary.
Finally, you seem to be arguing over quite a minor misunderstanding on your part, namely the matter of compassion. I am not using the word as a way to deny the reality of debate or even punishments (if such should be properly applied in a proper context), so I don’t see why you are so fussed. The word stays.
I tend to not take people who make personal attacks seriously. I understand that even though they are adults, they still need a lot of growing up!
Very subjective remarks, Yousef! Anyone can sit around and make such comments without knowing anything about anything! Subjective remarks don’t suggest any kind of superior knowledge. Being the author of the article, the only part I can partially relate to is the intention for producing some laughs. However, I must point out that, humor wasn’t the only intention.
Anyways, If you have any valid criticisms about the article please feel free to comment on the blog. I will allow the criticism if you promise to behave yourself by not getting personal. Please make sure you read the blog rules and intend to adhere to them before commenting!
“Anyone can sit around and make such comments without knowing anything about anything…”
Yes, that seems to be your expertise 🙂
As for valid criticism, you simply dismissed them all by saying that I was personally attacking you. Well, your comments are a personal attack on all Muslims with same-sex attractions as you group them up as a devilish bunch.
I never did.
I have read enough material required for making my point. You are supposed to feel sorry for the Muslim as he should be severely punished for the sin, and abhor and harshly condemn the sin he is commiting to prevent yourself from ending up in hell.
I believe you have married the sorry-ness (for the sinner) with the hate-worthy sin by calling the Islamic perspective compassionate. What part of my terminology did you find confusing? Was that a subjective statement?
All bad inclinations are shaytanic whispers. Shaytan’s activity increases as social and psychological corruption increases. You simply cannot underestimate shaytan and divorce him from any aspect of a human’s life! Shaytan is relevant here. Very relevant. Entirely relevant. So, in that respect shaytanic whisperings is a very important topic to argue over. Like they say, KNOW YOUR ENEMY! If we aren’t even tackling the issue, why then are we discussing it? Wasn’t this blog created for that very purpose (of tackling the gay disease)? Have I been missing something?
I’m not misunderstanding, so there is no question of it being major or minor. I sense that you are refusing to see the point that I’m trying to make, so I’m fussed. The main cause of my fuss is that misplaced adjective being intertwined with the Islamic perspective on gay disease. So, I’ll take one more shot at serenitizing my fuss…
My book recently got stolen. I am mad. Super mad. I have a final coming up. I live in a kafir society where stealing is gradually becoming acceptable. Living under kafir rules, I will get accused of being stingy for protesting too loud over my stolen book. I decide to create a blog against thievery (if that’s a word. I coined it if its not) intending to discuss issues pertaining to thieves from an Islamic perspective. Before starting to blog, I decide to lay a solid foundation, for accurately understanding the thievery issue, by reading Islamic texts. After reading the strong condemnations and physical punishments, I decide to create a tagline for the blog–
Eye on Stealers-Principled, soft, Islamic stance
Right after I publish the first post: The Islamic condemnations and punishments related to stealing.
Should I close my eyes to all the criticism I would get about the misplaced adjective and logical inconsistency?
If someone yells a little loud…should I just say…
to hush them down?
That is all. What more do I have to say? I’m exhausted!
Do you really not see or are you refusing to see?
“What part of my terminology did you find confusing? Was that a subjective statement?”
I mean it is confused, because a Qur’anic perspective will not allow us to define anyone as “gay” either because of their feelings or actions, as our concern is about what they do, not a matter of identity as its proponents claim. So I would never describe someone as a “gay Muslim” except in quote marks like that. The word “gay” has too many possible meanings and on a topic like this we need to be crystal clear what we intend.
I’ll have one last try to explain too. In your example, you switched the word “compassionate” for “soft”, which is strange. In any case, the intention behind “compassionate” here is to distinguish our approach from those who would tell anyone who comes near them with a problem like that that “You’re going to Hell, get lost” – which is frighteningly common! So we are compassionate enough to say to people, come and learn, and repent to Allah Who is Merciful, Forgiving. Even if you have committed sins, the door of repentance is always open and you can become the best of worshippers. THAT is compassion.
I’m not positive about that b/c in the following translation the guilty ones (aka adulterers) have been defined by their actions (adultery)…
However that is not the case in this translation…
I don’t think this is a translation issue because there are several other verses in the Quran that define people by their actions, ex. the “Muttaqoon” are good deed doers and the “Zalimoon” are horrendous sin committers.
So defining people by their actions seems all good!
There are no quotation marks in web address of this blog. Even worse, there are no quotation marks in the title of this blog (a.k.a Eye on gay Muslims). Yikes!
Exactly. The intentions are not crystal clear in the title and tagline of this blog. I was totally misled when I read them both. So was another person to whom I introduced this blog. Our initial rxn was … THAT’S MESSED UP! It is indeed misleading. I think you should punish the guilty adjective for causing so much havoc by abandoning it from the tagline!
Why?
Ok. Alhamdullillah, I understand your perspective.
For any problem…Good intentions + one dimensional reactionary approach = shaky results. Good intentions + wholesome Quranic approach = solid results.
The use of the word compassionate in the tag line and the purely compassionate approach in general is reactionary and one dimensional. It is not a part of the principled Islamic perspective. This is because, the acclaimed “compassion” is not observed in the response of Lut alayhes salaam to the Sodomites.
Another translation:
I agree that when people come to you wanting to be cured of the gay disease, you should explain to them the principled Islamic perspective, which includes warnings of hell-fire for people who do not quit queerness and repent. Fear should be invoked in them as it is a good motivator for quitting, repenting and staying away from bad deeds. The approach should be serious and stern not so much to drive them away but enough to make the guilty ones realize the gravity of their sin. Bombard them with compassion and they would be more likely of falling back into the sin–certainly not representative of the Quranic approach!
Wallahu Alim
Have I used enough Quranic verses to convice you for cutting that compassion? I think I have.
Btw…did you read the article on the nononsense blog?
Here, I meant to say…it is not representative of the overall Islamic perspective.
In the verses about “adulterers”, yes they have been identified according to their actions, that is true. The word “gay” does not have such a clear meaning and is not linked to any particular action in the way that adultery is. So the analogy is incorrect. See this article:
Point taken about the lack of quote marks in the title, but that is a special case and not related to your whole argument about compassion. I will add quote marks to reflect my established practice throughout this blog. Thank you for pointing it out. As for the URL, I explained its use on the “About” page.
I would invite you to read further with some humility if you genuinely wish to learn and be of help to others. Here’s a guide for where to start:
Guilty but un-admitting. Now, I officially dismiss your comments.
I will respond to this later, inshaAllah.
I never claimed that it was related to the compassion argument. I pointed out the missing quotation marks to point out the contradiction between words and actions.
Uh…Thanks but no thanks. I will dig deeper in the Quran and the Hadith with a lot of humility before considering the suggested articles. This way I will be able to sharply differentiate between facts and mere opinions and be in a better position to help people.
Btw…you said “…read further with some humility…” Are you implying that I have been arrogant? If so, then what is your evidence?
Finally, you seem to have totally dismissed the argument I’d built for removing compassion from the tagline using Quranic verses. And you never answered my question about whether or not you had read the article on the nononsense blog. So, in return I have another question for you…what are your educational/professional qualifications?
I hope you will respond to the one concern and two questions.
I wouldn’t say arrogant at all, but a little more self-assured than someone should be when they are clearly new to a subject. I welcome your quest to “dig deeper” but please be sure to do so with a teacher.
I haven’t been the least convinced that compassion is anything inappropriate, especially when explained as I did for you above. None of that is contradicated by the verses you quoted, as Lut (as) was full of compassion in that he called his people to the truth. Compassion does not mean accepting evil, not at all.
In your last paragraph in comment #17 you have pointed out the need for balance, and I agree with that obvious point. In da’wah (as in personal faith) we always need to balance hope with fear. So yes, compassion is not the only thing, but your obsession with removing the word is quite troubling.
I haven’t read your article, and have no particular wish to prove anything to you regarding my ‘qualifications’. If I make a fatwa then you can ask.
<blockquote… but your obsession with removing the word is quite troubling.That is a subjective remark so I’ll dismiss it. IF you explain why its troubling may be I’ll pay more attention to it.
I sensed that. You should read it.
Wow! I’m surprised you interpreted the question in such a way. I asked your qualifications because I have seen that you reference research articles in your posts. So I just wondered.
So I am officially back to the blogosphere. But before I comment any further, I feel that I must say a few things in response to the tone (which I’ve been sort of ignoring) of your earlier remarks.
First of all, my intention for having this discussion is not to prove how you’re all wrong and everything that I say is right. It is only to clarify Islamic matters that I feel have been misunderstood. And honestly, if the compassionate perspective wouldn’t have been presented as being principled and Islamic, I would have cared less! It is only because of the word Islamic that I’ve made it my job to stretch the discussion this far.
Second, I don’t see this as a you vs I debate. I view this as which perspectives are better rooted in/supported by the Quran. It has nothing to do with YOU (or even me) which brings me to my third point…
More often than not, I take caution about not making personal remarks. Which is why I don’t like putting up with offensive personal remarks. I didn’t like the way this comment was written…
“I welcome your quest to “dig deeper” but please be sure to do so with a teacher.”
What’s up with the quotation marks around dig deeper? Hmm? My feelings have been hurt. Can I ask for a compassionate response?
—–
On to more comments…
Clearly new? You seem to say that with so much surety. Makes me smile.
You know I’ve been hearing the story of the people of Lut (as) since a tender age which helps me realize the gravity of their sin. So, no I’m definitely not new to the subject. Even as a kid, I most definitely realized that Allah was not compassionate toward homosexuals.
And even if I (or someone else) was new, the newness wouldn’t matter. What would matter is how much of what’s being said is rooted in the Quran. Not how new or old someone is to a field.
What I’m new to, and I openly admit, is the kafir developed definitions, attitudes, and explanations about homosexuality. However my newness to this area is irrelevant to my previous argument about compassion.
—–
I understand and agree that in these times, the definition of gay is not clear cut as it could include the SSA attracted individuals as well as the actual homosexuals. But I don’t think the rest of your claim is necessarily valid as it is possible for gay-ness to be linked with homosexual acts.
—–
So, I’ve read about your definition of gay Muslims on this article…
I’d still like to ask as I’m confused, who exactly are you referring to in your title when you say ‘Gay’ Muslims?
If I read the unique perspective section, I sense that you are talking about SSA sufferers and outright homosexuals who are distorting the religion.
BUT when I consider the quotations around the word gay, in light of your article I feel that you are more referring to the outright homosexuals (as you use the word gay with quotation marks, for self-identifying homos). This bring me to my next point–
In your article you acknowledge that self identifying “gays” can be so either because of ignorance or outright rebellion. Since according to you, there are these two types of ppl in this category (of “gay Muslims”, also the title of your blog), I cannot for once see how the latter is worthy of ANY compassion! Do you see the inconsistency in calling the Islamic perspective compassionate for “Gay Muslims” (includes both types), now?
PS: In the title, shouldn’t the word gay have double quotations instead of single? That’s how its written in other places on the blog.
There were quotes round “dig deeper” because the phrase was a QUOTE from your previous comment. You really do seem to read a lot into things.
Look, I haven’t stated anywhere what you claimed here:
“Do you see the inconsistency in calling the Islamic perspective compassionate for “Gay Muslims” (includes both types), now?”
I have said our perspective (on the issues) is principled and compassionate. Very, very simple, alhamdulillah. Stop trying to force some particular mistake into the words, such as to say that such-and-such people should or should not be treated compassionately. That is not the point and I feel sorry for how much trouble you seem to be experiencing. Good luck and keep reading if you wish, but I won’t waste my time further.