jump to navigation

Abdal Hakim Murad: homophilia vs. family August 23, 2006

Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Islam, Proggies, Responses.

Below I’ve excerpted from an article by Abdal-Hakim Murad, the Muslim scholar and Cambridge lecturer also known as Timothy J Winter. In it, he discusses an Islamic theological perspective on homosexuality, touching on a few matters.

By the way, you can find in his writings and speeches an intense dislike for “Wahhabis” (see for example this, this, this and this one under a pseudonym). Yet you will find no solidarity here with the likes of Fake-Sheikh Daayiee Abdullah, whose rant about “rabid homophobes” I highlighted four months ago.

There is no difference between Sufis/Traditionalists and Salafis/Wahhabis on the matter of homosexuality. We are all “rabid homophobes” as far as Daayiee is concerned. Indeed, as he has suggested, so were the Companions of the Prophet (SAW)! I remind you of his shameful claim:

Prophet Mohammed, (Sallu Alayhi Wa Salaam or SAWS Peace Be Upon Him) “dislike” for homosexuality is a legal fiction created after the death of Prophet Mohammed, SAWS, by Prophet Mohammed’s, SAWS, companions.

Well, what noble company we find ourselves in! All Muslims, including the genuine Sufis, must stand united on these issues, not allowing the would-be “progressives” to suggest that only extremists are against them.

The below excerpt is from “The Fall of the Family”; click to read in full: [Part I] [Part II].


As with feminism, the theological case against homosexuality is related to our understanding of the “dyadic” nature of creation. Human sexuality is an incarnation of the divinely-willed polarity of the cosmos. Male and female are complementary principles, and sexuality is their sacramental and fecund reconciliation. Sexual activity between members of the same sex is therefore the most extreme of all possible violations of the natural order. Its biological sterility is the sign of its metaphysical failure to honour the basic duality which God has used as the warp and woof of the world. 

It is true, nonetheless, that the homosexual drive remains poorly understood. It appears as the definitive argument against Darwinism’s hypothesis of the systematic elimination over time of anti-reproductive traits. In some cultures it is extremely rare: Wilfred Thesiger records that in the course of his long wanderings with the Arabian bedouins he never encountered the slightest indication of the practice. In other societies, particularly modern urban cultures, it is very widespread. Theories abound as to why this should be so: some researchers speculate that in overpopulated communities the tendency represents Nature’s own technique of population control. Laboratory rats, we are told, will remain resolutely heterosexual until disturbed by bright lights, loud noises, and extreme overcrowding. Other scientists have speculated about the effects of “hormone pollution” from the thousands of tonnes of estrogen released into the water supply by users of contraceptive pills. Again, this remains without proof. 

But what is increasingly suggested by recent research is that homosexual tendencies are not always acquired, and that some individuals are born with them as an identifiable irregularity in the chromosomes. The implications of this for moral theology are clear: given the Quran’s insistence that human beings are responsible only for actions they have voluntarily acquired, homosexuality as an innate disposition cannot be a sin. 

It does not follow from this, of course, that acting in accordance with such a tendency is justifiable. Similar research has indicated that many human tendencies, including forms of criminal behaviour, are also on occasion traceable to genetic disorders; and yet nobody would conclude that the behaviour was therefore legitimate. Instead, we are learning that just as God has given people differing physical and intellectual gifts, He tests some of us by implanting moral tendencies which we must struggle to overcome as part of our self-reform and discipline. A mental patient with an obsessive desire to set fire to houses has been given a particular hurdle to overcome. A man or woman with strong homosexual urges faces the same challenge. 

To the religious believer, it is unarguable that homosexual acts are a metaphysical as well as a moral crime. Heterosexuality, with its association with conception, is the astonishing union which leads to new life, to children, grandchildren, and an endless progeny: it is a door to infinity. Sodomy, by absolute contrast, leads nowhere. As always, the most extreme vice comes about when a virtue is inverted. 

None of this is of interest to the secular mind, of course, which detects no meaning in existence and hence cannot imagine why maximum pleasure and gratification should not be the goal of human life. The notion that we are here on earth in order to purify our souls and experience the incomparable bliss of the divine presence is utterly alien to most of our compatriots. And yet there is a purely secular argument against homophilia which we can attempt to deploy. 

Homosexualism represents a radical challenge to the institution of marriage. Its propagandists will not concede the fact, but it attacks the most vital norm of our species, which is the union of male and female for which we are manifestly designed and which is the natural context for the raising of children. In times such as ours, when nature is no longer regarded as authoritative, and lifestyles are in all other respects an abnormal departure from the way in which human beings have lived for countless millennia, society cannot afford to believe that male-female unions are of only relative worth. The more the alternatives proliferate, the less the norm will be seen as sacred. Every victory for the homosexualist lobby is thus a blow struck against that normality without which society cannot survive. 

It is in the context of the struggle to protect the family that the campaign against homosexualism becomes most universally accessible. The screaming fanatics who “out” bishops and demand a lowering of the “gay” age of consent are among the most bitter enemies of the fitra, that primordial norm which, for all the diversity of the human race, has consistently expressed itself in marriage as the natural context for the nurturing of the new generation. That which is against the fitra is by definition destructive: it is against humanity and against God. This awareness needs to be reflected in legislation, which for too long has sought to relativise the family as merely one of a range of lifestyle options.



1. brravooo! - September 1, 2007

1. Wilfred Thesiger records that in the course of his long wanderings with the Arabian bedouins he never encountered the slightest indication of the practice.

Is that evidence? Anecdotes? Evidence is through anonymous surveys.

2. the “dyadic” nature of creation.

Quantitatively speaking, the predominant organisms alive today (bacteria, protozoa, viruses) reproduce asexually. I know what the writer is getting at but if creation bears the marks of a creator then the conclusion would be that male/female roles is among a multitude of designs that the creator saw fit for reproduction.

3. Homosexualism represents a radical challenge to the institution of marriage.

What? Homosexuality is not an infection. It cannot be a danger to anyone except the affected person living in an intolerant society. If you happen to be one of the 97% of the population who are heterosexual then noone will persuade you from not getting married and lure you towards homosexuality.

4. None of this is of interest to the secular mind, of course, which detects no meaning in existence and hence cannot imagine why maximum pleasure and gratification should not be the goal of human life

Life does not owe us meaning. The seriousness or indeed the importance of failing to ascribe meaning to life is an aritifical releigious invention. Just like the saying: who created the universe? One should take a step back and ask, but hang on was the universe created to begin with? what evidence is there that it was created?

Same argument can be used here: what is the meaning of life assumes that life has a specific meaning and thus the question is fallacious and nonesensical. My life is meaningful in several ways especially to my friends and family. These are people that I can interact with and that lets me know how important I am to them. Apart from that you can invent many meanings to life as you want but there will be no evidence whatsoever that you’re right

2. brravooo! - September 1, 2007

This article gets more irritating the more I look at it but last two comments:

“many human tendencies, including forms of criminal behaviour, are also on occasion traceable to genetic disorders; and yet nobody would conclude that the behaviour was therefore legitimate.”

If I had my way then equivocation would be a crime, especially this slap on the face of commons sense: can you not see a difference between violent behaviour and harmless physical contact? What if both are genetically determined or celestially determined or whatever. These are completely different categories of human behaviour and their consequences are totally different.

“The notion that we are here on earth in order to purify our souls and experience the incomparable bliss of the divine presence is utterly alien to most of our compatriots.”

I think it’s because it just doesn’t make sense. Purify the sould from what? Sins? No no no these come after you live on earth, we don’t believe in original sin. You don’t come to earth to purify your soul. You come here with a clean and pure heart. You purify your soul for other subsequential reasons.

Expeience the bliss of the divine? On earth? Yes, if you’re a sufi mystical nutcase. Or if you’re a prophet, which we know you aren’t.
We’d be much better if we experience the bliss of reason and intellect.

3. brravooo! - September 5, 2007

OK I get the message, my comments didn’t go down well.

I hope that at least you’re aware that there are people out there who are fed up with the nonsensical claptrap that some of our mainstream so-called scholars get away with. It is a shame that there are a few intellectually honest thinkers on the Islamic media that bother to make sense when dealing with present day issues like homosexuality.

With the availability of the internet as a non-sensored medium, free forums will eventually raise the consciousness of the common man into realising that a lot of what we’re used to hearing is vacuous and pure nonesense.

If this blog is unable to live up to the moral honesty of allowing people to voice their opinion without censorship then any claims that the site is ‘prinicpled and compassionate’ falls flat on its nose. It is an irony that one requires a degree of concealment and dishonesty to serve a moral relgious cause. I demand you reveal all censored comments unless you’re being deliberately dishonest to your audience

Scattered Pearls - February 7, 2013

Murad is obviously speaking to an audience that is already convinced that Islam is the truth, i.e. that God exists and has communicated with humanity through the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). If you do not believe this, then you would be correct in stating that the above dialogue would pretty much mean nothing to you. But if you do believe this, then you understand that the purpose of this existence is not maximization of temporal sensual pleasure, but salvation and the building of a connection with your Creator.
It then follows that you do as your Creator commands. When you understand the larger picture, any sacrifices you have to make to achieve your existential goals become bearable. I say this as a gay abstinent Muslim, the discussion is not merely theoretical for me.
As to how one can know whether we have a Creator, and if He spoke to us, this is a much different discussion. I would refer you to a dawah website, like the blog of Hamza Tzortzis for example. The Causation of the Universe, the miraculous nature of the Quran, and the recurrent testimonies on the life and character of the Prophet Muhammad would be the points of proof for myself personally.

4. Sarah Mahmud - May 3, 2013

Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad (Tim Winter) NO LONGER HOLD THE SAME VIEWS ON HOMOSEXUALITY! This week he explained that:

‘The YouTube clip is at least 15 years old, and does not in any way represent my present views. I am happy to confirm that I certainly do not see homosexuals as an “inexplicable aberration”. The other views expressed in it should not be taken as indicators of what I currently believe – we all have our youthful enthusiasms, and we all move on.’

This statement has been widely reported by the British media. Maybe it is also time to the website Eye on ‘Gay Muslims’ to abandon “youthful enthusiasms” and move on like everyone else!

Here is the full article it is also in other media sources:

Rasheed Eldin - May 3, 2013

Don’t be stupid. He is a mainstream Muslim and believes the same as the rest of us. I haven’t made any reference to the Youtube clip that some have exploited in the media. Maybe he regrets his choice of words, which is his prerogative. Usually we are being accused of following ancient teachings, but it’s a nice change to be described as having youthful enthusiasm!

Sarah Mahmud - May 3, 2013

That is not what he said. He explicitly said he NO LONGER believe that. He did not apologise for his choice of words but said he currently no longer BELIEVES that. 😉

Rasheed Eldin - May 3, 2013

Yes but until he tells us what he BELIEVES, that doesn’t mean very much does it? Not the first time someone has had to get out of a tough media situation. Of course he agrees with the Muslims that homosexual acts are prohibited, and that there is good reason for that. Unless you have something else, this is the only proper assumption.

Paul Williams - May 3, 2013

Some of you might have seen the recent article attacking Sheikh Abdul Hakim Murad for his comments on homosexuality made in a talk given 15 years ago. The religiophobes are starting a campaign to get him fired from his post at Cambridge.
Please EMAIL


in support of Sheikh Abdul Hakim Murad!

5. Rasheed Eldin - May 7, 2013

Shaykh Abdal Hakim has made a statement clarifying his stance regarding his earlier comments, and his present beliefs.

He says: “The inclination is not a sin, since an intention that is not acted upon is not sinful … But the acting-out of the desire is a sin: this is known by ijma and to deny it is fisq. In this we agree with the great majority of classical orthodox believers in other religions. We should not be intimidated and bullied into failing to state this ruling.”


We are also in agreement with him that “mercy and understanding are better than recrimination”. This is the approach we have adopted consistently, even though you find a harsher tone directed specifically at those who call to sin and try to pervert the religion.

Rasheed Eldin - May 9, 2013
6. Jackal - May 12, 2013

Okay how I got to this blog, especially with that name I’ll wait to tell in the next entry. For now I would like to voice my concern against the pernicious attacks on one of the most respected theologians of our time.

Islam on Demand, the lecture series in which SHM said these things, is one of the most respected and authentic venues to gain Islamic knowledge and history. It has benefitted me enormously and the series has profound dictums and lectures from a wide variety of authentic Sunnah wal Jamaah Islamic scholars. But the lecture was in 1995, when the “gay agenda” had not become a part of the mainstream. I know 1995 may seem a century or ago, and to tell the truth, I probably was not more than six or seven, but even then I knew I was in peace. Those times feel so far away from the current predicament we find ourselves.

And to the content of SHM speech, it was pitch-perfect to what nearly all Muslims believe as SHY states “and is the belief held by hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide. In essence, he said that homosexuality is an aberration and not consistent with the natural functions of the body” (unfortunately, as it is, only the secular/liberalist seems to have the voice and they have their agenda they like to stick to). Now as to his apology, I believe he what he said with a sincere heart and if you were to listen to his lectures available on YT, I believe you would see his message.

If “homosexual apologists” were to bring up previous lectures from some our more outstanding theologians and sheiks, they would all come after them as well. This is the fitna of our age. SHM absolutely did not say thing that he or any other Muslim should be ashamed off. He said what is right, and in this day age it should be expected, not by the homosexual or the liberal community, but our ever flattering but resilient Muslim Ummah accept that.

The arrows are pointed on us from all directions.
They rain on us.
Poisoned by the munifiqks at the door.
We can’t afford to lose the shield bearers.

(Yes the fitna is spreading. Today if you say anything remotely critical of homosexuals, you are immediately on the spotlight, yet criticizing Islam, gives you an open invitation to probably have your own television show. Of course soon even saying pbuh is going to be politically incorrect, and there will ridiculous hypocrites who will acquiesce to that. Oh woe is us, for the fitna of the Dajaal is going to be too mighty! Hot coals brothers & beloved sisters. Hot bloody coals.

7. Jackal - May 13, 2013

It was SHM Google search that led me to this blog. After reading some of the entry, then did I look up to see the name of the blog, and said “Shi%, I am on the wrong website”. But as I did read, it was not this absurd senile “I am how God created me [yeah blame it on God] and accept for who I am” nonsensical blogs that I have come across. It was legitimate discussion on something that seems to be the floodgate issue of today. So I stay tuned.
(It would be pretty weird if my mum found out about it, that I am writing for “gaymuslim.org”…could like, anybody change the title, maybe put and “I” before the “g”? Also it would be nice, if I am may get a background on some of the brothers or sisters that run this blog.)

Two years ago, if someone were to tell me that I would be writing about homosexuals, I would have laughed at them, four or five years ago, I would probably punched them [grew up in Brooklyn]. And back in the ‘80’s (before I was born) the issue would be unimagined. I am not going to write a thesis on homosexuality, albeit along with sodomy, I have been reading and writing on every topic that concerns this beloved deen of ours. (There was reason Lut (pbuh) was mentioned in the Word of God). So instead writing an expository essay, perhaps I’ll write my “gay” story [embellished].

Although I have been called all sort of races, one can readily find out that I am a Muslim with a semi brown complexion, and hence in a post September 11 world (I don’t like writing 9-11 itself, as they are occult numbers and if somebody were to study the occult, you see how they relish to see the grotesque parade of these numbers in the media and writing), I got teased, as we all have. Name calling and this and that. But I got back at them. I said, ‘you call us [Muslims] anything, jihadi, terrorist, misogynist, aaraabs, pakis, towelheads, taliban, whatever, one thing you people have that I, we don’t have in our religion, gays! Ha, gotcha ya’.

But even before that, when I used the word gay [jhs], I meant as an offense, because people got angry. I had no idea what it actually meant. One time, my younger cousin stole my ice-cream, and I called him gay, and my aunt came running in and started laughing, ‘what did you call him?’ My uncle too, when he heard, laughingly said, ‘ don’t say that again’. The next day I asked one of my buddies.

“What the f does gay mean?” “Well it means you are gay”. “No dude, what does it actually mean?” “Well I think it means you are gay…like you like gays”. “Dude, wtf does it actually mean?” A kid from behind suddenly jolted and said “You like boys, that’s what gay means. A moment of silence came over us. “Like you stick it up you’re …..” Another silence, and then a paroxysm of disgust.

Going back to the top, I readily and naively accepted that this fringe of homosexuals were something inherited to Europeans or “white people” [which straightforwardly contradict what I see on the train nowadays, with its abundance of homosexuals that are from the “minority” populations. Something very new and eerie when you juxtapose to what SHM had said in an earlier article], but then the floor from underneath me slipped when at college, I saw two people who were openly Muslims [not very practicing, though, but they were Muslims, certainly had conspicuous Muslim names] touching each other in the bathroom, and well hell got loose on me. I cried that night, asking forgiveness, as if it was my fault that I saw a humiliation of my religion. Why us, Muslims? Everything was fine, the bombs, the seclusion, the division of the Ummah, the lies, the backstabbers, the secularist, the munfiqas, the hypocrites, the sellouts, the terrorists, but not this humiliation. [I know this may seem harsh, but I am afraid I have feelings too].

Well here we are a couple of years down the path, and am seeing all sorts of sell-out imams and sheiks doing everything they can to bring sodomites into the full stream of this religion. I have nothing against homosexuals themselves, especially the ones that are hesitant to practice on this sin, May God help you and help you in your struggle. It is these degenerate desperate apologist that get on my nerve. Western society changes their standards every ten years or something. What was accepted now, was unheard of ten years ago. And of course we Muslims are literally reaching out to see how we can join the “love parade”.

Sodomy is a floodgate issue and I am afraid we are being flooded. Enough for now. More on later.

Rasheed Eldin - May 13, 2013

Salam Jackal, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I should point out that the name of the site is “Eye on ‘Gay Muslims'”, so it is not that we are identifying with that label – in fact we disagree with it fundamentally. Our first concern is to clarify the Islamic rulings on this issue in the face of distortions and attacks, and in addition to that, we share a kind and helpful word with those who are struggling with this issue. This site is not about us, but we are nothing but servants of God, may He accept and guide us.

Hyde - May 13, 2013

But why can’t you gentlemen put the name in the url of your website ? I can’t bring attention to this fitna among others, with that title. Did you understand what I am saying ?

Rasheed Eldin - May 13, 2013

It’s only a URL, and reflects the TOPIC of the website (not the authors). I don’t see there is an obstacle to sharing the link for that reason, especially if you explain that point briefly. The very point in having such a URL is the fact that many people search for that term and we are addressing head-on the confusions and distortions of those who identify with that label. Anyway, changing it now is not feasible.

Jekyll - May 13, 2013

Actually you are quite right. Sorry for my harsh tone. You guys actually are doing great service, by bring this fitna to light and dealing with it properly.
Do you mind if I drop websites/articles that I come across that deal with this stuff to this website and let you guys sort of give an explanation ?
-Salam & thanks for responding back…I hate it when bloggers don’t respond.
(Forget the sodomites, but it is you guys that will be in my prayers!)

Rasheed Eldin - May 13, 2013

No problem, and sure you can. We are unable to dedicate as much time to this blog as in the past (since we launched it over 7 years ago), but we try to maintain a presence in comments and occasional posts. There have actually been a number of relevant articles in the last year or so which we haven’t posted here. But if you find something that requires response or explanation, we will do our best. Many thanks for your prayers, salam to you too.

8. Jekyll - May 13, 2013

Wow you guys are fast.
Well I am not an Islamic expert, but have love for this deen like no other (after years of stupidity and chasing secular dreams), so is there any way I can be part of the team or any other thing I can do. Like submit a piece (Homosexuality and Secularization)

Rasheed Eldin - May 13, 2013

It’s always good to meet enthusiastic people! If you’d like to put together an outline of the article and send it to straightwayislam@gmail.com, we can take a look and let you know if it could work as a guest post on the blog. The invitation is open to all who are interested to contribute.

Jackal - May 14, 2013

Here some to ponder on (especially the comments. Notice how our sisters seem to find sodomy in a different light).


9. Sato - August 19, 2013

This is absolute RUBBISH! This is blatant case of HOMOPHOBIA in extreme! People, you MUST live in 2013 and not 800! I am Rosicrucian and have been so for third of CENTURY! Rosicrucian Order, AMORC is not necessarily so-called gay organisation, but we do indeed have some members worldwide who are gay and lesbian! Innate sexual orientation has absolutely NO bearing on metaphysics! We teach that Cosmic Host (God) has purpose for EVERYTHING in universe! This is indeed INCLUSIVE of non-heterosexual relationships! There is NO ‘crime’ or harm brought in having love for one of same gender! Only advantage of heterosex is procreation. Dual nature of masculine and feminine are MYSTIC values not necessarily physical traits!

This is overpopulated world and to in this day and age with natural resources being stretched to non existence is CRIME to promote even further with your doctrine of outdated 6’000 year old edict of ‘being fruitful and multiplying’! That was fine 6’000 years ago but not today in this modern world! Besides that is STORY of creation according to Abrahamic School.

Ever hear of climate change and global warming, of what man has been doing to this finite planet? To encourage continuation of this through MORE uncontrolled procreation is most TOTALLY irresponsible and indeed REAL crime!

Homosexuality in of itself does contribute to population control, something DESPERATELY NEEDED in 2013 (not necessarily back during Middle age of 800 during Muhammad’s time)! Indeed there are many good tenets and principles to be found in Islam — especially Sufism. But NOT this continual outdated condemnation of non-heterosexual values. That is PURE homophobia and discrimination, and Islam really ought to assume great SHAME in promulgation of this horrible bias and discrimination of one tenth of world’s population! that is approximately 700’000’000 people!

Islam is supposed to be religion of PEACE! But peace does NOT mean discrimination and condemnation of seven hundred million people! This is one reason many people do not ascribe to Islam or even Western religion (Abrahamic School) in general, BECAUSE of this one major discrimination! I suppose Abraham was world’s most prominent homophobe!

All of world’s major issue in regard to homophobia stems from Western religion, hence Abrahamic School in general. Look to East, both Hinduism and Buddhism (I am Buddhist). Prejudice is NOT ‘peace’! Homophobia IS prejudice and discrimination. Hatred of 700’00’000 people on this finite and fragile planet!

Hinduism and especially Buddhism (I am Buddhist) there is absolutely NO recipe for discrimination or hatred against 700’000’000 people on this planet worldwide. NONE! NO homophobia encouraged! That is NOT ‘peace’! Prejudice is antipathy of peace! Homophobia IS prejudice and discrimination, PLEASE endeavour to learn this very important point!

Thank you

10. Sato - August 19, 2013

One more comment addenda… two things that result in homophobia. Firstly especially in particular this Abrahamic School (so-called Western religion).

Secondly the fear of penetration, that is of receiving end of anal sex .It is called ‘penetration complex’ You might be relieved to know that not ALL sexual activity in non-heterosexual activity involves anal penetration. therefore if you should have this penetration complex problem thus leading to homophobia and resulting in this unnecessary extreme hatred of people who are of non-heterosexual nature, please feel at ease, please don’t waste your time and energy, many gay people do NOT get anally penetrated! It is NOT ‘prerequisite’ of gay sex! It is MYTHOS that ALL gay people receive anal penetration — NOT SO! I happen to enjoy it and that is my every RIGHT! But not every gay or straight person does.

So please, if your homophobia stems from this penetration complex, rest assured that not every sex act in non-heterosexual or indeed heterosexual relations involve anal penetration!

Thank you again.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: