jump to navigation

De Sondy knows his audience July 13, 2009

Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Homosexualists, Media, Responses.

Like all “progressives”, Dr Amanullah De Sondy is not speaking to the Muslim community when he asks, “Why can’t Muslims be gay and proud?” He is working for someone else, and seeking someone else’s approval.

Like his friends, he holds the Muslim community in contempt. (“Homophobes!”) And as such, he stands no chance of making a difference. With this latest “coming out”, I’m sure he realises he will never be invited to speak to Muslims again, except in the depths of his university department, for whoever thinks that is a proper way to learn Islam. Yes, study at the feet of non-Muslims too! Indeed, many of them are much fairer in their treatment of Islam than twisted people like De Sondy.

As a commenter at Harry’s Place put it: “A courageous young man. Very much like Irshad Manji.” Yes, very much. Although at least Manji is explicit that her purpose of rewriting Islam for herself was to justify being with her lesbian lover.

David Toube, notorious Islamophobe, makes the following points, to which I respond below:

1. This is precisely what I mean when I say that no religion is monolithic and that texts are open textured. Understandings of any particular religion changes over time, and from place to place.

2. De Sondy is, no doubt, regarded as a “fake Muslim” by anti-Muslim bigots, Islamists and those who regard reaction and intolerance as the hallmark of “authenticity”.

3. How I wish that the SNP had chosen somebody like de Sondy as their ‘bridge to the Muslim community’, rather that the odious Muslim Brotherhood activist, Osama Saeed.

1. Who exactly states that Islam is “monolithic”? We can have diverse opinions without tearing up all standards and methodology. Furthermore, De Sondy is hardly the sort of intellectual heavyweight who could lead the way for a new understanding of Islam. His religious training is meagre at best.

2. He is not a fake Muslim, just a misguided one. But the real question is, why is his voice considered by the likes of Toube as more authentic than others, who are routinely dismissed as “Islamists” etc.?

3. Far be it from me to comment on Scottish politics, but given that De Sondy has no regard for, and no involvement in the Muslim community, that would hardly have been expected to work.

Over at HP offshoot Spittoon, “Yossarian” pontificates on homosexuality in Islam, responding to comments at the tail of the Times article.

Both Maan and the Scottish Islamic Foundation’s spokesman are defending a deeply conservative position without bothering to formulate coherent arguments; they simply state it has always been that way in Islam.

Quite apart from the fact that De Sondy has shown this not to be the case, this is not as good an argument as they clearly believe. For many centuries, Islamic scholarship tolerated slavery; certainly it is (as it is in the Bible) accepted in the Qur’an. People who make the argument that homosexuality always has been and always will be completely unacceptable in Islam should also make their case for why slavery is a different matter – which went from being accepted to illegal.

De Sondy makes an important argument for the acceptability of homosexuality in Islam and the “community leaders” also interviewed by the Sunday Times can only answer with intellectual dishonesty and unthinking conservatism.

Actually, De Sondy has not made a coherent argument at all, despite the fact that he was interviewed at length and the others were presumably phoned up for a quick comment.

I don’t know what “always been that way in Islam” is supposed to mean: are we talking sociologically? If we’re having a discussion on theology and jurisprudence, let’s do so properly. Our sources are the Qur’an and Sunnah, then juristic reasoning and consensus, then various other considerations. It really wouldn’t matter even if at some point in history everyone was indulging in, or approving of, homosexual activity. But that is far, far, far from established, and quoting a couple of poets from here or there is truly a pathetic attempt to prove something.

Regarding the slavery argument, there is no analogy here because there are clear signs that Islamic law sought to minimise and bring an end to slavery, even though its approach was gradual. But even now, the texts referring to good treatment of slaves, and freeing them seeking the pleasure of God, have not been abolished by any means, because it could still be the case now or in the future that slavery will exist, so we should know how to deal with it.

To make a proper analogy, you would have to find something that was forbidden (and a major sin) and now acceptable. And by the way, “acceptable” doesn’t mean simply “accepted”, let alone by a handful of ignorant people.

Update: Faisal Gazi is more than a little taken by this pathetic argument about slavery, so it was good to see him thoroughly refuted by fellow Pickled Politics commenter Munir:

Faisal: “The same is going to be true for Islamic homophobia, whether you like it or not. Muslim society is going to find it unacceptable, one way or another, to continue discrminating and in some cases persecuting homosexuals.”

Munir: “It is unacceptable to persecute homosexuals. But sodomy is a major sin from now till yawm al qiyamah [the Day of Judgement].”

Faisal: “And ijtihad is going to be used, just as it has with slavery, to render it [homophobia] illegal. As it should be.”

Munir: “No it isnt because there is no ijtihad [independent juristic reasoning] against a clear text.”

In other words, while something permissible can be taken or left, a person has no choice but to do what is obligatory (according to the Qur’an and Sunnah) and abstain from what is prohibited (according to the Qur’an and Sunnah). And this is a fixed matter not subject to ijtihad, which in fact is called upon in the absence of clear texts. But ignoramuses like Faisal Gazi will just throw this word around with no regard for its actual meaning.


1. Abdullah Ibrahim - July 15, 2009

It seems appropriate that you use a commentator by the name of “munir” to back your message. But it does your credibility no good since he is a known racist and homophobic troll on Pickled Politics.

The argument with him continues on at The Spittoon, where “munir” is posting under the name “me”:

Faisal Gazi and other Muslims on that thread make some valid and sensible points which you would do well to take into consideration.

2. Rasheed Eldin - July 15, 2009

I don’t need Munir for my credibility, and what you’ve said (even if true) is a perfect example of argumentum ad hominem, since what Munir said could have been said by anyone, and would have in any case destroyed Faisal’s pathetic argument about ijtihad.

I didn’t get the impression from that particular thread that Munir was any sort of “troll”; indeed, he was making the most sensible points there.

I already read the entire Spittoon thread, and Faisal hasn’t made any better points there than the one refuted above. Even to the end, he’s still making this severely flawed analogy with slavery. If you find anything decent, feel free to distil it and let me know.

3. Abdullah Ibrahim - July 15, 2009

I didn’t get the impression from that particular thread that Munir was any sort of “troll”; indeed, he was making the most sensible points there.

That of course is a matter of opinion and taste not to mention judgement.

4. Rasheed Eldin - July 15, 2009

“In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages…” (says Wikipedia)

…while Munir was in fact writing detailed comments defending his view (very mainstream) of Islam. The rudest thing I noticed was his frequent references to Faisal being an “idiot”, though I can’t fault him there factually.

5. Abdullah Ibrahim - July 15, 2009

The rudest thing I noticed was his frequent references to Faisal being an “idiot”, though I can’t fault him there factually.

Isn’t that glibly hypocritical after your comment about “argumentum ad hominem”? You seem perfectly comfortable with ad hominem if you agree with the person who is guilty of it.

6. Rasheed Eldin - July 17, 2009

No, because not every personal criticism is argumentum ad hominem. I may think Faisal is an idiot, but that doesn’t mean that his arguments don’t need answering in themselves. Even an idiot can be right sometimes.

7. Abdullah Ibrahim - July 18, 2009

But in this case saying “Faisal is an idiot” is a character attack of the individual who is advancing the statement instead of engaging or disproving the individual’s argument.

This is a clear case of an ad hominem attack and it shows you’re willingness to use it. It also detracts and diminishes your own argument because it gives the perception that your position needs character attacks to safeguard them from scrutiny and debate.

Rasheed Eldin - July 18, 2009

Physician, heal thine self. Rather than discussing any of the points made by me or otherwise quoted here, your first and only action was to bad-mouth Munir, someone of whom I have no knowledge, but whose good responses I quoted in my post update. Not only did you call him a “troll”, which is supposed to discredit him from being listened to or engaged with, but you added the adjectives “racist” and “homophobic”. I responded that I haven’t seen these faults in him, but rather than provide me with evidence (which is irrelevant anyway, see below), you’ve simply tried to prove something about me based on my action of quoting.

Thus it seems to me that the only person out of the 4 of us who can be charged with argumentum ad hominem is you, Abdullah.

The fact remains, as I said above, that even if Munir were an illiterate fool or a sun-worshipper or a rubber duck, none of that would detract from the fact he refuted Faisal soundly. So unless you have something substantive to stay, please don’t waste my time.

8. Abdullah Ibrahim - July 19, 2009

Thus it seems to me that the only person out of the 4 of us who can be charged with argumentum ad hominem is you, Abdullah.

I’m hardly the only person of the 4 of us. You are using a tu-quoque argument to try and get yourself off the hook. You can certainly accuse me of ad hominem but you are also guilty of it yourself by calling Faisal an “idiot” – which really is pure ad hominem. After pointing out my ad hominem, you went ahead and indulged in it yourself and now you’re trying to suggest that you haven’t.

On PickledPolitics, the commentator Munir is a well known racist (ant-semitic), sectarian (anti-Hindu), homophobic commentator. One of his tricks is to accuse any one who is critical of his posts of Islamophobia, a tactic used increasingly to bully and intimidate other commentators into silence. He comes across as a deranged religious supremacist.

This is certainly my opinion, you’re free to call it ad hominem, but it is shared by many people who are regular commentators on there. You can certainly use this individual to back up your argument here, that’s your prerogative. But to do so, as I said, speaks volumes about your judgement and your own views.

9. Rasheed Eldin - July 19, 2009

You still haven’t addressed any of the arguments. Says more about you.

10. Omar - December 21, 2009

Haaaaaaaa Haaaa Abdullah Ibrahim the frustrated homosexualist agenda peddlar; bending away from the course of mother earths natural honour as a hellish homosexualist agenda agent which is conducive to stirring up wrathful torments from Allah on high, has due to his pessimistic, sympathy begging perverted homosexual proclivities been worm holed back to the glorious punishment of the peadophile ignorant soddom and gomorrah destruction era by my rational minded Rasheed Eldin!!! Go back to that distant millenium to see what god feels about you! (in terms of literature at least if ye are not ignorant. ‘bal antum qawmun tajhalun! have at least a little intellectual rigour to know what the author of the Quran thinks and how he feels of about your homosexualist extremist propagandist type so inclined with the very act Mohammed PBUH feared most of confronting on judgement day, by venturing heedlessly to tarnish the diamondlike essence and noble character and truth of the glorious Quran with your stinkingly repugnant lies!

Firstly dear brother rasheed I am very greatful with the way you’ve dealt the gay agenda perverts a blow which has set them puffing away and panting with anxiety attacking frustrations. It seems like all of this activity reflects their bent consensual ignoramus which sets a precedent for them in ways of a consensus that leaves them bending away from yet another path which theyve started this time, namely the paradoxical attempt to justify a gay way from a pure and holy book that only advocates meticulously immpeccable behaviour for its readership. A far cry from the deplorably reprehensible gay way, way to gay to be upheld or supported by the Glorious Quran in any era or any place in any way, they may like to say!

P.S. your ‘Gay pride’ marches are well embarrasing and an oxymoron because every rational human knows there is absolutely no pride in
A) Actions or words which are contrary to nature
B) Transgression which Allah has punished throughout history, wheresoever and whensoever he deemed appropriate as unfit for the climate of his good earth (most notably ‘soddom and gomorrah’: pompei (wrath of vesuvius): sanfrancisco (ooh now that hurt) etc. etc. etc.
C) An identity which is based upon 1)feelings as opposed to rationale, 2)emotional frustration,
3)rebellion against oneself, allah, nature, mankind, gross sexual deviance and war against heaven (paradise)!
Gay Pride is an oxymoron as you gayists know that there is hardly anything to be proud of with your state. Hence the term ‘Gay Pride’ its like saying Cold Hell or Spicy Ice-Cream or Merciless Allah, you get the picture right!

Now ‘abdullah Ibrahim’ you don’t even live upto the alias you use as theres nothing slavelike in your attitude towards Allah and with the name ‘ibrahim’ I dare say you even deserve to be called a despised enemy of Allah let alone a best friend! As it is you along with your fellow gayist extremists who have attempted unsuccessfully to interpolate the quranic exegesis by distorting history (yet again) along with a satanic attempt to distort the meaning of certain emphatic categorical quranic verses by implanting further seeds of confusion in your already blackened hearts!

My prayer goes out to all who wish to earn paradise and defeat the Devil Iblis Shaitaan by joining forces with Allah to make Allah the winner of the ultimate competition entitled ‘The Salvation And Destruction Of Mankind: Allah Vs Iblis’ If you can rectify yourself and do away with your satanist agenda repent and turn from your ways I say may Allah grand you paradise. However if salvation is too cheap for you and if this temporary life along with its finite pleasures seem more lasting and prevailingly indestructible to you rendering you a slave of Satan’s and your desires I pray whole heartedly for you and your kinds destruction to be far worse than how Allah destroyed the hopeless transgressors of the times bygone. I rightfully invoke a far severe punishment for you people for the reason that the early sodomites and people in the past did not have a repulsive Gayist Extremist AGENDA now if you choose not to repent I fear your torment for if God does not punish you he will have to apologise to Sodom and Gomorrah for their lewdness!! Its a question of Paradise lost!! keep it real!!

In conclusion denounnce your feeble cause because its too pushy and overbearing for which reason you belie the quran and islamic scholarly consensus! If you don’t wish to denounce your agenda and perversion Denounce you a place in the eternal abode! My heart goes out to all who wish to conform to the character of a heavenly person and who want to strive to be admitted in jannah and make Allah the winner of the battle between Allah and Iblis. Reform yourself and god will love you break the devil in the back by redifining your identity. Your identity is only a state of mind! When you really get down to it your intellect as a human being is more powerful than a bodily craving of a phallus.. Join the intellectual fight for Allah’s cause, if you can that would be excellent and will go well rewarded. Well don’t just sit there do something!! God Bless

11. munir - February 8, 2010

as salaam alaikum brother
May Allah SWT reward you for this website.
I’d like to respond to the claims of “Abdullah Ibrahim” that I was a
“a known racist and homophobic troll on Pickled Politics”.

With regards the accusation of “homophobia” -this was merely because I pointed out that homosexuality is forbidden in Islam (at the same time as opposing the persecution of homosexuals) against those such as Faisal Gazi who claim it is halal.

The “anti-semitic” epithet is probably because I pointed out that a leading newspaper owner in the UK whose paper spends much of its time demonising Muslims in the worst way is Jewish- and more to the point, has been appointed head of a major Jewish charity. This is the equivalent of Anjem Chaudhry being made head of Islamic Relief.

Abdullah Ibrahim
“One of his tricks is to accuse any one who is critical of his posts of Islamophobia, ”

Physician heal thyself indeed !

Rasheed Eldin - February 8, 2010

Wa ‘alaikum as-salam,

Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately it is crystal clear that some people are unwilling and probably incapable of constructive debate.

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: