jump to navigation

Ugh. December 23, 2006

Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Media, Queer Muslims, Responses.

DaayieeDaayiee Abdullah, aka Sidney Thompson, still masquerading as an “Imam”, has given an interview to his local LGBT rag.

Because of the protracted prominence of this all-round fruitcake, we’re soon going to publish a document outlining some of his outlandish claims and their refutations, and proving that he has no right to call himself an “Islamic scholar”. That became obvious at his own e-mail group some months ago, when he hounded someone out just for insisting on knowing Daayiee’s Islamic credentials.
Simple answer: he has none.

In the meantime, comments on a few bits from the interview are below. And here are some previous posts on Daayiee/Sid for those who haven’t read them:

The Stripy Charlatan 
Daayiee’s latest heresies
Daayiee vs. the “rabid homophobes”

MW: When did people start calling you ”Imam”?
ABDULLAH: I can’t really say when that started. I presume it would have been sometime in 2000. When I joined [the online group, Muslim Gay Men], there were [online] discussions and some of the people who came in claimed that they were gay, but their purpose was to try to change people, versus understanding people for who they are. They would resort to ”ancient scholar so-and-so who such-and-such.” I would always challenge them because our belief is Koran first, then Sunna [the Hadith] of the Prophet. If we don’t find anything there, we go to what they refer to as the Sahaba [companions of Muhammad].

Oh, so humble. He calls himself “a person trained in Arabic as a linguist and grammarian, a legal scholar in Shari’ah and Fiqh, a scholar in comparative legal systems” – and more recently: “my credentials are many with more than 8 earned degrees (from BS/BAs to MAs to doctorate)”. Wow! Funny that he became rather coy when asked for details. More on that another day.

But it’s strange he talks about referring to the Sahabah, which is something affirmed by the real scholars of the religion. I remind you of Daayiee’s previous outrageous calumny, which he is invited to retract:

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 [his] companions.

In the Metro Weekly, he goes on to discuss the mukhannatheen in a very confused way:

During this same time, they had something they refer to as the mukhannathun — something like the hijras in India, sort of a male-female, cross-dressing types. They existed. And they also lived or worked in the household of the Prophet. Aisha, one of the Prophet’s wives, indicated that there were men who worked in the household. They were mukhannathun. That generally meant that they were not necessarily castrated, but not having an interest in women. If the Prophet had mukhannathun in his household who served him and his wives, it seems that he wouldn’t have had an aversion to these people.

I personally don’t know this hadith – please someone (especially Daayiee, who is basing his wikijtihad on it) quote it and vouch for its authority.

But in using it, first of all you must define this category of people. Daayiee wants to say simultaneously that they were cross-dressers, and imply they were homosexual while the description (“not having an interest in women”) actually applies better to people who are asexual. That is also the cleanest interpretation of the Qur’anic category of at-taabi’eena ghayri ulil-irbati minar-rijal (“men-slaves without sexual desire”, 24:31).

Any evidence that they cross-dressed? If not, then stop trying to imagine that the Prophet (s) approved of such. In a hadith authenticated by al-Bukhari and Muslim, he said: “Allah curses those men who imitate women, and those women who imitate men.” The Prophet (s) would certainly have an aversion to that kind of person. Or more to the point, he would not have tacitly agreed to any such practice in his presence.

As a religious leader — knowing that he was a religious leader — I’m certain that if he had something to say about it, he would have. But as a religious leader and as a governmental leader, he never had a legal case that dealt with homosexuality. There are several Islamic legal scholars who supported that point. So if it’s not something he did, those Haddith — or stories about the Prophet — that came out later are fabrications.

Tsk tsk. There are numerous hadiths condemning homosexual acts. This is a different matter from condemning a category of people, a point we repeat all the time at this blog. But Daayiee doesn’t believe in the Hadith at all, except what he can use to prove his own opinion. Note the flimsiness of claiming some things are “fabrications” because they don’t agree with a flimsy interpretation of something else.

The fact that the Prophet (s) never actually punished someone for sodomy, because the matter didn’t arise, does not change the fact of his explicit instructions to punish those guilty of homosexual acts. I have discussed this to some extent already.

The Koran does not say that same-sex individuals should not have loving relationships. In the allegory they say that you should have your ”protector and your cloak.” Your protector being someone who provides for you — be it your housing, your food or [physical protection]. And in your ”cloak,” meaning there’s someone who is your sexual intimate. Therefore, when it says that — and not in terms of male and female, but in terms that people should have that — that’s the broader understanding. 

The Qur’anic discourse is overwhelmingly clear that marriage and sex are between a man and a woman. As for the verse he alludes to, I suppose it is this:

“Permitted to you (masc. pl.) on the night of fasting [in Ramadan] is the [sexual] approach to your womenfolk. They (fem. pl.are your (masc. pl.garments and you (masc. pl.are their (fem. pl.) garments.” [2:187]

Men are garments (libaas – for comfort, warmth, beauty etc.) for women, and women are garments for men. Daayiee is waaaaay off.

MW: Do you have a partner?
ABDULLAH: Yes, of 10 years.
MW: Is he Muslim as well?
ABDULLAH: No, actually he is Christian. This is one reason why I do interfaith marriages. When God puts people together and they find love with each other, who am I to say it’s not possible? If the two people can find love with each other, then why can’t I support that?

His stupidity is so maddening! Let me just refer you to my questions about “Islamic gay marriage” – and I offer the challenge to anyone who can answer them. You see, marriage rules are quite detailed even in the Qur’an itself (before looking to the details of the Sunnah). So the initial questions I posed (and many more can be added), were:

  • Who are the categories of men forbidden to a man to marry? Can he marry his brother or father?
  • Who gives the dowry to whom?
  • How is divorce enacted?


1. Taleb Haqq - December 23, 2006

Well done Br. Rasheed, very interesting entry. About the eight degrees…that would AT LEAST be 24 years of constant education and degree earning. His “husband” must be quite supportive…

As for the hadeeth, I believe what this fake shaykh is referring to is the hadeeth in Bukhari (Volume 7, Book 62, Number 162) where it mentions absolutely nothing about “cross-dressing” but simply people who had no sexual desire. The hadeeth in question talks about such a man who was allowed to see the women uncovered…however, the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) disallowed it when this man recommended a woman (for marriage) to another man. It’s interesting that it’s then that the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) told the women to cover up in front him because he realized that the man did actually have some degree of sexual desire (otherwise why would he recommend two people in marriage). God knows best.

2. Mujahid Mustaqim - December 24, 2006

Faris Malik quotes the hadiths in one of his articles, from which I’ll reproduce them. I note that they do not mention that these people were serving the Prophet (saw), only his wives.

Also there are different translations of “mukhannath” here, i.e. “effeminate” and “eunuch” – this should be investigated. What defined this man and others as “mukhannath”? We should close the door of speculation such as with Daayiee’s careless hint about “cross-dressing” above.

Bukhari, Authentic Traditions, Book of Marriage, Chapter 114 (162) –
What is forbidden concerning the entering upon the wife by those imitating women:
[It was narrated] of Umm Salama that the Prophet, peace be upon him, was at her house, and in the house there was an effeminate [mukhannath], and the effeminate said to the brother of Umm Salama, Abdullah bin Abi Umayya: If God makes you all conquer Ta’if tomorrow, I suggest to you the daughter of Ghailan, for surely she approaches with four and turns her back with eight [?]. Then the Prophet, peace be upon him, said: This one shall not enter upon you (pl.).
Muslim, Collection of Authentic Traditions, Book of Greetings, Chapter 912 [note snipped]:
(5415) Umm Salama reported that she had a eunuch [mukhannath] (as a slave) in her house. Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) was once in the house that he (the eunuch) said to the brother of Umm Salama: ‘Abdullah b. Abu Umayya, if Allah grants you victory in Ta’if on the next day, I will show you the daughter of Ghailan, for she has four folds (upon her body) on the front side of her stomach and eight folds on the back. Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) heard this and he said: Such (people) should not visit you.
(5416) ‘A’isha reported that a eunuch [mukhannath] used to come to the wives of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and they did not find anything objectionable in his visit, considering him to be a male without any sexual desire [fakaanoo ya’doonahu min ghair oolaa il-irbah]. Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) one day came as he was sitting with some of his wives and he was busy in describing the bodily characteristics of a lady and saying: As she comes in front four folds appear on her front side and as she turns her back eight folds apear on the back side. Thereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: I see that he knows these things; do not, therefore, allow him to enter. She (‘A’isha) said: Then they began to observe veil from him.

Note that Faris’ claims in the article rest upon his definition of “IRBAH” as “defining skill”. While the word can mean “skill”, Faris should be careful to refer to people who are experts in the language and in the science of tafseer. It is clear that he cannot claim this for himself (e.g. see his transliteration of the Arabic phrase in the last hadith above).

I offer as one example that Sh. Muhammad Ali As-Sabooni in his “Safwat at-Tafaseer” stated:

{…or the male-servants lacking sexual desire…} [24:31]
That is, the servants who do not have an inclination or desire or need towards women, such as the simpleton or imbecile or the unaware, who have not realised anything about sexual matters.
Mujahid stated: “He is the simpleton who wants food but does not want women, and nothing concerns him except his belly.”

NB: That’s the great mufassir Mujahid, not me! What I understand is that the reference is to people with learning difficulties or stunted development (to use more politically correct descriptions). It could encompass people who are of sound mind but for some reason are asexual.

Faris is unjustified in his assertion that “This is a reference to natural eunuchs, i.e. gay men.” But that needs some more thought and discussion! Rasheed, your thoughts on this are overdue…

3. bintElyasah - December 28, 2006

So, is your problem that you can’t find a boyfriend, Rasheed? Is that it? You’re frustrated, and think that “if I can’t find a man, no one will”? Chill out, place a personals ad, and maybe someone will respond.

4. Taleb Haqq - January 10, 2007

bintElyasah: at first I wasn’t going to comment because of how shallow and stupid your comment is…then I decided to tell you about it.

5. Rasheed Eldin - January 12, 2007

BintElyasah: I didn’t reply because I was visiting Allah’s House. I prayed for those who are sincere, and prayed against those who set themselves against Allah’s Shari’ah. If only you would put yourself in the right camp.

6. Rasheed Eldin - March 24, 2007

Yeesh. Now Daayiee has come up with a theory of Muslim Gay Dating, together with his ideas on “homomarriage”, including something about mut’ah, and marriage to non-Muslims! All this in response to a questioner on his MuslimGayMen group:


If you can stomach it, you could read the following excerpt from the Queer Muslim “Imam”. Honestly, only for the brave…

“I found in my dating experience that once I’d known the person through several outings such as a movie, museum visit, socializing with friends, both his and mine, we have talked about what a relationship means and we find common ground to build a friendship and relationship, then that becomes a reasonable expectation. Sexual intimacy should come after you’ve had a chance to meet the person and establish a rapport and you can ask the question with sincerity and honesty that your interests are beyond immediate sexual intimacy and pleasure — sure there were time when I had a strong hardon for the brother, but I didn’t let my little head control my mind.”

7. vinelectric - March 24, 2007

donno which is more hard to stomach

the man’s words or the misery of gay folks under Islam.. which is more rational..which makes more sense…sometimes it is so hard to decide

8. Rasheed Eldin - March 24, 2007

If there is misery, it’s not caused by Islam.

9. vinelectric - March 25, 2007


ever heard of the concept of ‘ibtilaa’?

there is a whole culture built on misery mate.

w8ting for ur response on the private query I made.

10. vinelectric - March 25, 2007

i’m not into the man’s odd ways on the hadith. i think gay dating is as ‘bidaa’ as it gets. but he was being honest in that quote you gave us.

if a religious institution discourages people from being honest then what kind of inverted morality is it preaching?

i know the answer to that one: demoralising existence for gay people backed by reassurance of unimaginable whatevers in the evil masterpiece-juhannam if they dare be true to their feelings.

hang on- no one is getting hurt- u can’t equate gay matrimony to stealing/ adultery/fraud..etc

muslim scholar replies: wa’ever wa’ever here are ten thousand hadiths for you, now go away.

11. Taleb Haqq - March 25, 2007

Vine: Even if you want to claim that society is not being “hurt”. Let me ask you this: Is anyone getting hurt if one doesn’t pray? The answer is quite obvious: No one around him is (directly at least)…however, that person IS getting hurt because he is disobeying God’s commandment.

12. vinelectric - March 25, 2007

wait a minute: I am assserting that society is definitely not being hurt if two humans wish to cohabitate, please don’t phrase it so mildly (even if you want to claim..etc)..

your example of prayer is irrelevant because:

prayer is a definer of Islam, its refusal is a denial of Islam. adultery/fahisha is not…

please don’t let any stretch of imagination let you place these two in the same bowl..

13. vinelectric - March 25, 2007

do you know what is the worst thing about being gay? in the very wrong sense of the word ‘unique’ you get a unique worldview of religion that makes you see a hole that nobody else can..

…the system lacks a fundamental understanding of human behaviour…. this is obvious to homosexuals…

you read the other islamic websites and they’re ever so happy to shout it out loud that they find us disgusting….guess what… I’m not impressed any longer… I now look down on them as much as they look down at me…

The answer u should honestly give is that our existence hurts Islamic society becuz we point out a deficiency, a weakness in its claim to fitrah (human nature/instinct)…this brings the whole thing into question…. unless you want to twist logic and torture philosophical methods to yield something meaningfull out of Islam’s take on the subject….

14. Taleb Haqq - March 25, 2007

Your assertion is but a claim 🙂
Leaving prayers and committing homosexual acts (and any sexual act outside of marriage) are in the same bowl in so much as they are both sinful.
If you find a deficiency of any sort then work on making it better.
What is it that I or anyone on this website is “twisting” please argue specific points.
thank you.

15. Qusai - March 25, 2007

Salams Vin,

Calm down a bit! I know where you’re coming from as I have been there before. You hear people saying faith has set them free and to you setting yourself free from faith appears to be equally valid. But it doesn’t have to be so and apparently you have preserved a few threads to your faith.

Unfortunately homosexuality is a mystery, Islam’s treatment of it is somewhat strange and there is little that can be done about it. Your only option is to persevere with trying to establish a link with Allah (swt).

My devils (!!!) complain abou the patronising voices of the majority of scholars who seem to know a thing or two about homosexuality, but you can’t jump ship because their views appear annoying to you. Have you read the story of Aaal Yasir? I challenge you not to find it inspiring. It may not make sense the terrible tribulations they went through but, think about where these people are now and weigh your options carefully.


16. vinelectric - March 25, 2007

sins have diffeent levels- have you heard of the ‘mubiqaat’? Well I have and I know you can’t put all sin in the same bowl. so you lied there. would be nice to say, it doesn’t matter how bad the sin what is important is who you disobey, sorry but in practise there is a big difference. polytheism is unforgiveable but missing a prayer may be.

we have an example already of how you twist things in your arguments.

also please don’t wriggle out of the question by throwing it back at me, so here we go again:

can you demonstrate, in pure and simple logic, how two cohabitating couples can hurt society?

17. Taleb Haqq - March 25, 2007

Now you’re all over the place again, how did polytheism get into the discussion. What did I twist and what did I lie about? The sin levels are in terms of punishment not in terms of being forgivable or not. With repentance anything is forgivable (even polytheism). It’s only if one dies in a state of polytheism that it is not forgivable.
So my comment to you again, even if a sin doesn’t harm society that doesn’t make it less of a sin!

18. Rasheed Eldin - March 26, 2007

I’d like to make a few points in response to what’s come up here. First of all vinelectric, if you want to make private queries to me, please send them by e-mail. It’s tricky to deal with such things via the comment box, sorry.

Is homosexual “marriage” harmful? Of course there will be people who think not, because of their wider worldview. But for a Muslim, thinking that it’s harmful is hardly a stretch of the imagination. We understand certain necessities for society and for family, its building block. Institutionalising sin will have two obvious consequences: (i) degeneration by virtue of turning away from divine guidance; (ii) deprivation from God’s mercy and pleasure.

Vin, I think you need to consider the difference between something being “caused by Islam” and it being a fact of life, from God, or however you prefer to put it. Ibtilaa’ is not from ISLAM, it is from GOD. And ibtilaa’ does not necessarily entail misery. For the truly successful ones, it is pure joy. I know it’s easy to say, but something to ponder on at least.

Some points made by Vin and Qusai about the lack of quality in Muslim scholars’ treatment of the subject. Well, I agree with you. I’m frustrated by it too. I’m trying to be part of the solution. So even things I write (as a non-scholar by the way), I guess will frustrate you. But I hope that you can engage and inform, which is better than what some people out there do towards our discourse. If there is much more to be worked out with regards to the Islamic discourse on sexuality, it won’t be achieved by the people of desires, the “progressives”. It takes a collaboration of sincere people.

19. vinelectric - March 26, 2007

why polytheism in the discussion?
why, wasn’t it obvious?

I was giving you an example to illustrate my point. the example could’ve been disobediance of parents versus ‘a white lie’ or praying to the devil versus delaying a prayer….any example of two diffent types of sin that contrast in their seriousness to show not all sin is not equal…

read 4:137 and the explanation of 4:48 by tabari to learn about unforgiveable sin. read your mubiqaat and discover that these are singled out as unlike any other sin.

are you aware that the prophet-pbuh instructs us to seek to reconcile differences before goin to hajj? why do you think this is so? why do you think God wants us to get the people whom we’ve harmed involved in this forgiveness process? on the other hand if you tresspassed against God’s will directly he discourages you from involving anyone else in seeking forgiveness?

doesn’t all this make it clear to you that A: not all sin is equal and B: whether it hurts others/society puts it in a totally different class altogether…. this is common knowledge… i have never thought i’d need to explain this to anyone.. these are basics..

so you think sin levels are in terms of punishment not in terms whether they are forgiveable.. as if not forgiving a sin is not a form of punishment in itself and will not automatically lead to punishment… so you were confusing us… you’re logic is so twisted there is nothing i can do to make you realise it…

20. Taleb Haqq - March 27, 2007

You didn’t point out how I was lying, if you got confused then that is your problem.

“as if not forgiving a sin is not a form of punishment in itself and will not automatically lead to punishment”
I’m twisting things?? What the heck are you talking about?

Please provide sources as to where you have this “class” system of sins and whether or not if they involve others that makes them “of a different class all together”.

Of the Kabaa’er (major sins) is not fasting a day of Ramadan without an excuse. Can you please tell me how this is harmful to society?

21. vinelectric - March 28, 2007

I’ll try one last time..can’t get any clearer:

First: Where you were lying: insisting all sin is similar…

so you know about kabair.. you know these are major sins so other sin is less major… so there are levels of sin in terms of seriousness in the eyes of God and by implication seriousness in the implications of the sinner..

even worldy punishment differs from paying diyya to death penalty…
so what do you think about levels of sin? convinced?

I gave verses that tell you that some sin is so great that it can’t be forgiven… the point being that this indicates again that sin vary in level of seriousness in the eyes of God…

don’t ask for more proof.. this is enough

so as long as you insist on saying all sin is similar you are lying…. that is a lie… not truth… you lied…get it?

Second: this is what the heck I was talking about:

you said the sin levels are in terms of punishment not in terms of being forgiveable or not…. these are your own words..

What if sin X is not forgiveable but sin Y is. You won’t be able to tell which is more serious.. because to you ranking sin is in terms of punishment and not in terms of which is more forgiveable…

so according to you it only makes sense to you if I rephrase my words and say: What if sin X has one outcome: eternal punishment and sin Y is forgievable and it is very possible you won’t get punished for it… now you see which sin is more serious..

without the fault in your thinking you could’ve accepted the first statement without having me to elaborate…

forgiveness and punishment are interchangeable.. of course it is practically more complex than this… some sin can be forgiven only after punishment (the hudood).. and yet you may sill not be forgiven even if you are sincere because God may simply not wish to forgive you for (hikmatin la ya-lamuha illa Huw)…

Lastly: on the Ramadan deliberate breaking of the fast:
this is exactly where i’m coming from… the fact that some sin can have major consequence despite its apparent limited harm in space (to others) or time (its everlasting effect) is one of those things that make me doubt if religion makes any sense…

scholars say: this all for a wisdom only known to God…
well this world is supposed to be a test and this life is supposed to be designed specifically to sons of Adam so hiding so many explanations does not make sense…. it is ACCEPTED by the faithfull blindly..but that is different from saying it makes any sense…

we are already pushed to take a test we never consented to… If I’d been informed of this I may have opted to be an inanimate object like the earth who refused to take the amanah…

so to say I have to take the test with no options and to keep away explanations as to the point I made make absolutely no sense to me.. and by the way this says a lot about the religious system.. in fact says as much about it as it says about my own thinking… in other words I am convinced some parts of religioun are not hidden they are just insensible…..

for God’s sake don’t ask why I’m all over the place…. I want to explain things from my previous repsonse and introduce new ideas to chew on..

22. vinelectric - March 28, 2007

Taleb Haqq:

you said if there is a deficiency I should work on making it better…
the motive change depends on how big the whole is.. do you stitch it or do you ditch it alltogether.. the deficiency is proof that what Islam calls the ultimate revelation of truth can not always be trusted because they seem to think homosexuality is harmful when there is aboultely no proof whatosever that it is..

remember the days when AIDS was linked to homosexuality? all to prove that religion is right… the evidence was of a link by association not cause and effect…

many religions preach goodwill, truthfullness..etc… ours has the added feature of a misunderstanding of human nature.. so what makes ours more worthy of adhereing to than..let’s say.. Jainism?

23. Taleb Haqq - March 30, 2007

Vin: Actually it is you that lied and said that there is a distinction between sins against society and other sins. The distinction that I made was based on the scholars’ understanding of major sins and minor sins (and by the way, even minor sins have the potential of becoming major sins if they are taken lightly by the person committing them). But both minor sins and major sins are forgivable by God if one repents.

As far as homosexuality being harmful, again I point to you that this is not the “meter stick” to be used in order to judge if something is sinful or not. What’s next? We’re going to allow a brother and a sister to get married to each other…well…they’re “not” harming anyone, right?

This answers your final question on why this religion is “worthy of adhering to” which is complete arrogance, by the way. It is us that need the religion, it doesn’t need us. Repentance is the key word here, God has promised us forgiveness if we simply repent and ask him for it.

24. vinelectric - March 30, 2007

So I gave you the example of the hajj to show a distinction between sins against society and other sin and I am still a liar.. how come?

“Both minor sins and major sins are forgiveable by God if one repents.” Not all sin is forgiveable.. read the Koran verses I gave.. if your scholars disagree with it then you know what to do..

Do you not see a good reason for prohibiting incest? It does great harm…. the genetic mess up of the foetus is one reason..

the other reason is that even siblings that were seperated at birth (for adoption) and happen to meet years later when sexual attraction is possible (as they are like strangers now) it is known that severe depression and other psychological problems would follow if that attraction materialises into sexual contact…

by the way incest is prohibited in many cultures irrespective of religion so your example was irrelevant…

how did you answer my question why is Islam more worthy of adhering to or not? : by shifting the attention to whether I was being arrogant or not… another ‘twist’

the question was an academic one..i.e.. let’s approach the question without the silly sentiments.. because if we don’t there is no way we are ever going to have a sensible discussion on the matter…

so you think whether a sin results in harm to others or not should not be a criterion for judging that sin… this is where blind faith and plain reason collide…. yes I ask again.. why not?

Is it wrong to do so: No, Is it unacceptable to do so: Yes. so there is no sensible reason why the faith accepts or refuses certain things..it just does so for obscure reason…conclusion: the faith system is either incomplete or flawed..

25. Taleb Haqq - March 30, 2007

Vin: My answer is to why we need Islam is (partly) because of repentance, any sin that we commit we have a process of repentance that is between us and our Lord. Your arrogance was shown by the mere fact that your statement belittled faith itself. When, in fact, it is us that we should be worthy of this faith, not the other way around.

Where is this study about incest?

My point to you is that using “harm to society” as the only measure as to whether or not you will be punished for a sin (or whether or not the sin is worthy of punishment) is not the Islamic way. The measure, in Islam, of the severity of the sin is by looking at scholarly work that was done based on the Qur’an and the Sunnah. If you are convinced by your methods then by all means create your own faith and I will continue to pray for your guidance.

26. Vinelectric - March 30, 2007

Can you see the circular logic: we need Islam because we sin and need repentance… who says you are in sin? (e.g homosexuality)..Islam does.. why? … God knows..!!!

so you proclaim something is sinful.. give no real evidence to persuade sensible people that it is so.. then you demand repentance from the sin…. there you have it: a strong faith system based on circular logic…

then you arrogantly claim that homosexuals are dirty (see the story on Prophet Lot) but if the homosexuals ask you how dare you say that…. you say we shouldn’t question we are being arrogant:

we are the ones who are being unnecessarily paraded as dirty perverts for no good reason.. we are the ones being murdered since the early days of Islam (since the Khilafah of Abu Bakr).. we are being denigrated and our lives made miserable… without a good explanation .. of no fault of our own..

dare you say I was arrogant… so what if I belittle the faith that wants to strip me of my dignity for being who I am.. what did you expect… to submit to your illogical twisted circular indefensible faith system… and you want to pray for my guidance.. do I come across to you as someone who would appreciate that prayer ? In fact ending a discussion by saying to someone you pray for your guidance is another way of saying: I am better than you I understand things better and you are lost but I will try to help you…

Guesss what this is arrogance.. If you want my guidance pray in private I don’t need to know about it.. not at the end of a discussion like this…

by the way: that study on Incest.. Google it!… only joking.. it is called Genetic sexual attraction and here is a link:


27. Qusai - March 30, 2007

Salams Vin,

Your view on Islam is quite narrow. It may not be a fault of your own but if your perspective in life is through the miniscule window of sexual identity then you are missing the big picture. I agree that our approach to homosexuality may be lacking and harsh but this forum is an opportunity for people to contribute positively towards understanding/resolving the issue (depends on how you see it).

Criticism ought to be constructive for it to be useful. If you are suggesting that we all jump off the ship because we can see a hole somewhere then your view on religion is not balanced at all. What about the magnificent code of conduct that Islam preaches. I have seen with my own eyes people transform from antisocial behaviour to responsible individuals driven by taqwah (fear of the Lord). But their fear is positive fear not just a fear of punishment.

I am certain that some religious preachers would not agree with me being a bit too practical by saying that: this is how you should behave you either accept or you will be punished. I think this is but intellectual indolence. Positive fear exists and as scientists say it is not important whether a scientific modesl is accurate it is important if it works and gives predictable results or not. You may think that by comparing behavioural models to scientific models I am taking things a bit too far but for all practical purpsoses some things in life share basic and fundamental turths: if they work and bring good results then they must be good, maybe inefficient, maybe even defficient but nevertheless good.

However the scientific and ‘reason’ approach encourages that you find faults withing your propsosed concepts/models in order to test their validity or enhace their structure. I see you wish to apply the same to religion and you probably think it is the right approach. However even if you assume that the divine nature of religion is questionable you can’t deny that, generally speaking, it is a valuable treasury of refined human conduct achieved through millenia of experience (and of course divine inspiration).

If you reject such a system you would be forced to provide an alternative as otherwise the vaccum that would be created if you strip communities of faith would result in the same as what the fascists. Marxists, Stalin and the Khmer Rouge have plunged into: artificial man made systems that fail miserably with devastating consequence.

Think carefully before you criticize Islam.


28. Vinelectric - March 30, 2007

BTW Taleb- do you mean by ‘praying for my guidance’ that you pray that one day I see that it is reasonable for you to kill me because I live in love with a person of my own gender?

In your dreams! God didn’t create brains for nothing.. the brain demands we reason things… so ‘reason’ me into accepting your logic.. that’s the only way forward..

While you are at it explain to me one more thing…a question so fundamental I wonder why it is not used as a test of validity of any faith in the worlds… what is the purpose of life?
some scholar gave me the traditional answer: to worship God.. I asked (three scholars so far) but God says clearly he is in no need of worship… so what is the need/purpose of life?

I also asked why does God give us life but constantly remind us of death? as if life was unnecessary to begin with…

be the first to give an answer.. this time I will really appreicate it..

29. Taleb Haqq - March 30, 2007

Vin: Who said anything about killing you? As to why we were created: simple:
To worship God (not because he needs it but so that we can be worthy of His mercy in order to admit us into heaven), simple, no?

Why remind us of death? So we can remember our destiny and strive for Paradise. I pray that you will be guided towards it, insha’Allah.

So, about that study, say that the incestuous couple didn’t go through what the article described, then should they be allowed to have a relationship?

30. Taleb Haqq - March 31, 2007

And the arrogance continues….
I never said anyone should be killed, you can label me whatever you want.

By the way, with comments like those, you are right, you are a sad and shallow excuse for existence.

If God is Merciful and is allowing you eternal Paradise then he is fulfilling an ego? Do you see your arrogance?

You can take your filth elsewhere, I will no longer approve your posts.

31. Qusai - March 31, 2007

Salams Taleb,

would it be possible to remove the blasphemous messages from this site?


32. Taleb Haqq - April 1, 2007

W’salam Bro Qusai,
I removed Vin’s last post as it was particularly nasty, please let me know of any others.
Take care.

33. Daayiee Abdullah: Imam of Perversion « Eye on ‘Gay Muslims’ - May 8, 2010

[…] not when it comes to Daayiee “little head” Abdullah (aka Sid Thompson). He’s taken his filth into a new domain thanks to his […]

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: