jump to navigation

Shabir Ally on sexuality, rights and punishment December 16, 2012

Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Media, Shari'ah.
33 comments

‘Gay Muslims’ comment on Eastenders July 30, 2009

Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Queer Muslims, Responses, Shari'ah.
5 comments

Remember Pav Akhtar, the one whom Muslim students were asked to support in NUS elections? That same sore loser who went crying to the Muslim Weekly with the following lies after most Muslims didn’t back him?

Pav said that his sexuality was something he was personally “contending with” and insisted he has never recognised homosexuality as permissible in Islam.

I posted written and pictorial evidence back then that he was in fact fully “out and proud” (his words), and now he is the Chair of Imaan, a London-based pro-homosexuality group who have obviously featured on our blog before. According to today’s Guardian:

Pav Akhtar is not usually a fan of soaps. But the 30-year-old local councillor and Unison worker has been paying special attention since EastEnders introduced its first gay Muslim character. Akhtar, the chair of Imaan, an organisation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Muslims, advised the BBC on the storyline in the hope that the character of Syed Masood would help tackle the double discrimination of homophobia and Islamophobia that many gay Muslims face.

The Guardian article – What’s it like being a gay Muslim? – features various voices, none of whom are Muslims who choose to resist their same-sex attractions, as Syed is presently doing on the show. That course of action is what mainstream Muslims would advise any person in that situation. Yet the implication of the article, probably constructed with the advice of Pav and Imaan, is that those people are not “true to themselves”, which I suspect will also be the eventual message of Eastenders.

It also states that “The Muslim theologian Amanullah De Sondy said recently that the vast majority of Muslims were ‘deeply homophobic'” – massaging his ego by making him a “theologian” when he’s just a recent PhD in Sufi poetry with vanishingly meagre credentials in Islam. Oh, and mightn’t he have just a bit of bias in this question? Also, given that he’s not a sociologist or anthropologist, how did he gather this “vast majority” data? Ah, doesn’t matter does it, it’s only journalism.

Let’s take a look at a few of their comments…

(more…)

Check your attitude July 14, 2009

Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Shari'ah.
1 comment so far

From this old article, a quote from Shaykh Hamza Yusuf:

“If one considers it acceptable in Islam [to engage in homosexuality], then he or she is not considered to be a Muslim by consensus of the scholars. On this I know no debate whatsoever.”

To understand why, see The Dangers of Denial. NB: I changed the gloss in the square brackets because the author’s version (“to be gay”) was very imprecise.

By the way, Shaykh Hamza is well known not to be a “Wahhabi” and the usual smears used by homosexualist Muslims. May Allah guide them to repent and stay within this religion, rather than have all their supposed good deeds go to waste and meet eternal punishment in the Hereafter.


Update: I just came across this rather anti-homosexual article by GF Haddad, one of the most anti-Wahhabi writers around. It’s on a site run by Sufi scholars – see also here and here.

Obsessive Scottish Muslim? July 12, 2009

Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Homosexualists, Media, Proggies, Responses, Shari'ah.
11 comments
A brave face
A brave face?
“Usually the voices of reason are the quietest.”

Agree with this statement or disagree, it is the opinion of a recent PhD graduate at Glasgow University who desperately wishes he could be as celebrated a Muslim progressive as his idols like Reza Aslan. Trouble is, he’s just not as talented.

Amanullah De Sondy certainly hasn’t remained quiet about issues that make him itch, yet his views on homosexuality have been strangely muted. This despite the fact that people who have known him for years say that they expected him to come out with something eventually. Well here it is (or almost).

1. Why can’t Muslims be gay and proud?

2. Academic challenges ‘homophobic’ Muslims

It is very important to him to insist he’s an “academic“, because that apparently gives him the right to say whatever he wants about Islam and we Westerners are supposed to take it at face value, despite the fact that academia itself is a system of presenting and challenging views based on research. But that doesn’t make everything novel or controversial worthwhile in itself. Some academics are still trotting out the discredited theories of yesteryear, and Islamic Studies is one of the most affected by this problem due to the persistence of classical Orientalist agendas linked to colonialism and modern-day warmongering.

And without meaning offence to everyone at the University of Glasgow, I wouldn’t study Islam there any more than I would boast about a degree in English Literature from Kabul University.

De Sondy seems to fantasise about cloning himself and taking over Scotland, judging by one rather huffy letter penned last year:

I smell worry in the words and actions of the political Islamists, Mosques and our so-called Islamic leaders who want to cage and control the sentiments of the true progressive Scottish Muslims, but this new wave will emerge in full force, and time will then be the judge of who are the best partners in creating a flourishing Scotland.

However, much like his blog which he optimistically titled “Progressive Scottish Muslims”, adding an ‘s’ on the end doesn’t mean that you’re more than one person.

So on to the articles…

(more…)

“Is there a place for gay Muslims?” April 15, 2009

Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Concepts, Queer Muslims, Shari'ah.
27 comments

Dr Sherman Jackson responds:

He concludes:

“Make a place for people who have a problem? Yes. Make a place for people who want to redefine Islam? No.”

With thanks to the brother who uploaded it, and the one who shared it here.

Sh. Yasir Qadhi on “Dealing with Homosexual Urges” April 14, 2009

Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Advice, Shari'ah.
3 comments

Please see this excellent article by Yasir Qadhi over at Muslim Matters:
Dealing With Homosexual Urges: Yasir Qadhi to Muslim Student

I excerpt this core part for you:

In our religion,  the discussion of whether these urges are because of ‘Nature’ or ‘nurture’ is really quite irrelevant. And by this I do not mean that we don’t have an answer to this question. As Muslims, we believe that the fitrah that Allah created us upon is that, in terms of sexuality at least, opposites attract. But it is possible that some people have corrupted this fitrah themselves, or it has been corrupted by external methods. And it cannot even be ruled out that for some, the change in this fitrah is beyond their control.

But the point  is – and that is why I say the question is irrelevant to the Shar’i ruling –  even if somebody has such urges, it does not justify them acting upon it. Rather, what we can say to those who feel attracted to the same gender is that having such urges and conquering them is a part of the test Allah has given them. Each one of us is tried in different ways, and merely wanting to do an act is not justification enough to carry it out. […]

I say that I’m attracted to women. Does that legitimize going after every woman I’m attracted to? Of course not. We all have our desires and urges and we must all battle them. So if you experience urges that are unnatural, you must battle them, and without doubt Allah will reward you for that.

Another point to realize is that the urge, in and of itself, is not sinful. It is simply a desire, and desires are beyond our control, hence we are not accountable for them. But to allow such feelings to persist without trying to control them is problematic. In any case, the urge in and of itself is not sinful, acting on the urge is what incurs sin. As long as the desire remains in the realm of feeling, you are not accountable on the Day of Judgment, but the second that this desire is manifested in a physical action, you are liable for all that follows.

Lastly, even if you have acted upon this urge – and we seek Allah’s refuge from this – know that this would constitute a sin. Yes, a major sin, and one that most people would be disgusted by, but realize that it is a sin alone and not kufr. Hence, even acting upon it and committing a major sin does not expel you from the fold of Islam. However, to stand up and justify it, or defend it, or write articles claiming that it is Islamic, without a doubt constitutes kufr, and not merely sin.

I would like to thank the Sheikh for discussing this issue openly, at a time when more of the “Queer Muslim” groups are springing up and promoting their unjustifiable views.

Disagreement over punishment August 14, 2007

Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Media, Shari'ah.
15 comments

I just came across this video from MEMRI of a scholar I haven’t previously heard of (Sheikh ‘Abd Al-Qader Shiba Al-Hamad), discussing the historical disagreement between the companions of the Prophet (peace be on him) after he passed away, over how to punish someone guilty of sodomy.

The video features a more detailed explanation than the one given by Sheikh Qaradawi, or Sheikh Alwani, as quoted previously on this blog.

But what comes next? What is this Sheikh’s opinion exactly? The video ends rather abruptly, leaving you wondering how he continued. I hardly expect him to be the most liberal scholar on the planet, but it’s only fair to know how he regards the views he has just listed.

Remember that MEMRI chopped up Qaradawi’s statements to hide the fact that he advocates choosing the least severe option. The result was various Islam-haters pouncing on another ‘Crazed Cleric Calls to Kill Queers’ story.

See also:
Sins, crimes and punishments
Imam Backs Shariah Shock!

Why were the Sodomites destroyed? February 23, 2007

Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Shari'ah.
59 comments

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.

(more…)

Bilal Philips video January 15, 2007

Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Islam, Shari'ah.
9 comments

The link to this video was kindly sent to us by Jose, and features Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips discussing various issues around homosexuality. It comes from Sharjah TV, apparently from some years ago.

Contents include: the concept of consent, the concept of what is natural, various scientific theories on sexuality, AIDS, the concept of inclinations, the prerequisites for punishment, and how Islam preserves sound sexuality and the family.

Debate: “Islamic gay marriage” December 10, 2006

Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Proggies, Responses, Shari'ah.
32 comments

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about how focusing the scriptural debate over homosexuality according to Islam on just the passages about the people of Lut (peace be on him) falls short of understanding the whole picture of opposition from the entire legal system of Islam, based faithfully upon the Qur’an and Sunnah.

I want to write something in-depth about this, but in the meantime here are snippets from an ongoing debate over at ProgressiveIslam.org, a haven for bizarre opinions, but not entirely unchallenged. I have posted a couple of comments, which I reproduce here alongside others relevant to the thread:

(more…)