jump to navigation

Yasir Qadhi lecture February 24, 2007

Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Proggies.

Progress with the Progressives – notes/transcript @ Lota Enterprises


Why were the Sodomites destroyed? February 23, 2007

Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Shari'ah.

This essay will explain the transgression and destruction of the people to whom Prophet Lut (peace be on him) was sent, by narrowing down their sins to the chief one, then defining it in relation to actions and desires. The analysis is based on examination of the relevant Qur’anic passages. References to authentic hadiths are only for the purpose of expanding on certain concepts.

وَلُوطًا إِذْ قَالَ لِقَوْمِهِ أَتَأْتُونَ الْفَاحِشَةَ مَا سَبَقَكُم بِهَا مِنْ أَحَدٍ مِّنَ الْعَالَمِينَ

إِنَّكُمْ لَتَأْتُونَ الرِّجَالَ شَهْوَةً مِّن دُونِ النِّسَاءِ بَلْ أَنتُمْ قَوْمٌ مُّسْرِفُونَ

And [We had sent] Lot when he said to his people, “Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds? Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people.”
[Qur’an, Al-A’raf 7:80-81, Saheeh International translation]

Which of their sins?

In the Qur’an 7:81, the Prophet Lut (peace be on him) charges the men of his people with ityān ar-rijāl (lit: coming to men), further specified by shahwatan (with lust/desire) and by min dūnin-nisā’ (instead of women).

Crystal clear from the texts is that this was their chief sin, for which Sodom was destroyed. In all the passages mentioning the crimes of this community (viz. 7.80ff, 11:69ff, 15:57ff, 21:71ff, 26:160ff, 27:54ff, 29:26ff, 54:33ff), there is no evidence to suggest that these people were destroyed for any of their other sins. It is interesting that some people seek to downplay this story by suggesting it hardly features in the Qur’an, while the reality is that its eight occurrences above are more than many other stories. Of course, the numerical argument is extremely weak in the first place.

What follows is a summary of the sins of the people of Lut as recounted in the Glorious Qur’an. To consult the surahs indicated only by their numbers, please click the links in the list in brackets above.

  1. Several passages mention only their intercourse with men, and no other sin: namely Surahs 7, 26 and 27.
  2. There are a few places where sins such as aggression against Lut (peace be on him) are mentioned: however, context proves that these were secondary sins. Surahs 11, 15 and 54 recount their attempted assault on the angels who came in the form of handsome men. The fact that the angels came for the purpose of destroying them for their sins (see 11:76) proves that this attempted assault was not the sin for which they were to be destroyed!
  3. There are three passages where their sins are referred to only in unspecified terms, namely in Surahs 11, 15 and 21 (as-sayyi’āt/al-ijrām/al-khabā’ith respectively). In the latter case, we note that the term khabīthah (sing.) connotes something disgusting as well as wicked.


“Sonia is so lovely…” February 21, 2007

Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Responses.

…is how I should begin if I don’t want to be “mean”.

A Case Study in Ignorance

This lady (Sonia/Afroz) has commented here quite a few times before, and I have done my best to answer her questions as well as refuting the more nonsensical of her points. Here’s a compilation of the relevant posts, specifically linked to her first comment under each:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] and more recently [7] [8] [9].

Now she has posted “Eye on Backbiting Muslims” (ingenious!), which is at the same standard as her comments here, so presumably my responding will do no good for her, just as she remained confused despite my attempts to inform her (see links compilation above).

Nevertheless, for her cheerleaders, or at least the one who seemed reasonable a while ago, I offer the following points in response.


Imaan Gay.com feature February 8, 2007

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

An interview with Farzana, chair of Imaan, appeared on Gay.com a few days ago. It is by Hassan Mirza (yep, him again) and includes a photo of Imaan at Europride. They’ve blurred the faces, but the one on the right is of course none other than Out-n-Proud Pav. At the bottom of the feature, this blog gets a mention! Here’s the link to read it, and of course it won’t escape my comments…

Profile: The Gay Muslims

MIRZA: And there’s even more to say about the Gay Muslims, who to the casual observer may seem particularly self-hating – in light of violence-preaching Imams (some fanatic ones who preach the death of gays) displayed in popular British media.


Hirsi Ali: The Arrogant Ignoramus February 3, 2007

Posted by Taleb Haqq in Islam, Media, Proggies.

ayan-ali-voa Look who’s back in the news again. In an “exclusive” (because nobody else wants to) two part interview with Voice of America [1,2], Ayaan tries to gain back some spotlight after being exposed as a liar and being hired by none other than the notorious right wing “think ” tank the American Enterprise Institue. We will let readers for themselves question Hirsi’s intentions in attacking Islam when she describes herself as an atheist. Let us, however, examine some of her [term used loosely] quotes.

I decided — and it’s a private decision, I am not propagating atheism – but I decided that I do not believe in the existence of a hell and a heaven and a hereafter.


I’ve spoken to thousands of Muslims who are compassionate people who do not want to kill. They do not want to become the enemies of unbelievers, or see unbelievers as enemies, non-Muslims as enemies. But there is always the barrier, the threat of hell. If you disobey God, then you go to Hell.


“Inner knowing”, “fullest potential” February 1, 2007

Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Islam, Proggies, Responses.

Ghazala Anwar

Ghazala Anwar, one of the Al-Fatiha “scholars” has been appointed as associate professor in the faculty of Usul al-Deen at Islamabad’s International Islamic University, sparking protests:

Dr Ghazala said in her email reply: “As an imperative of my faith in a Compassionate and Merciful Creator, I extend my support to the right of all creatures human and non-human to live their lives in the light of their inner knowing, according to how they were created by the Creator and to their fullest potential. This is what Islam teaches.”

Meaningless rhetoric. Points of note: 

  1. Allah is indeed Merciful and Compassionate. But these attributes of His are not brushes by which you can whitewash the religion which He perfected by His Messenger (peace be on him).
  2. “Inner knowing” is defined and regulated how? Ever heard of Qur’an and Sunnah?
  3. How were they created, and how will they know? Allah said: “I did not make them witness the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor even their own creation…” [18:51]
  4. Ah, so that’s why you must declare they were ‘created that way’. Now you can go on to say that by following in the evil footsteps of the Sodomites, they are only ‘fulfilling their potential’. And that’s got to be beautiful, right? Any other option would be plain sacreligious. After all, as Ghazala claims: “The larger Muslim community has to come to the recognition that homophobia and not homosexuality is the sin.” Presumably denying yourself anal sex is a form of self-inflicted homophobia.
  5. Islam teaches this? The Qur’an places value on diversity of gender, colour, language, and nationalities. Not of “orientations”, a dubious concept.

Tatchell talk February 1, 2007

Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Homosexualists.
add a comment

Readers of this blog will know that we’re no fans of Peter Tatchell, and have had cause to mention his odious name more often than we’d care to. Perhaps our writing has paid off, because a young man who attended a talk by Tatchell in Edinburgh reports the following:

It was an imformative and very well attended evening, approximately 120-140 people, ending on a slightly tense note. The final question accepted from the audience was from a person who is obviously very informed about Tatchell’s work and in particular his views on the Muslim faith and it’s stance against homosexuality. This man made quite a speech, mostly in opposition of Tatchell’s views. Unfortunately we were out of time for there to be any real debate and Tatchell was only able to give a short reply.

If we can’t claim the credit for him being “very informed”, maybe Islamophobia Watch can.