Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
SinisterDarkness

Homosexuality In Islam

Recommended Posts

Salaam,

 

######you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_img.flipkart(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/bk_imgs/015/9781851687015.jpg[/img]

 

 

Product Description

 

Many Islamic authorities claim that homosexuality is categorically forbidden, but the reality is much less clear-cut. There are no verses in the Qur'an that unambiguously condemn homosexuals, and there are some that suggest they can be tolerated in Muslim communities. In addition, reports from Hadith that condemn homosexual and transgender persons are of dubious authenticity.

 

This pioneering work is the first to tackle this complex and controversial issue from a religious perspective. Scott Kugle critically engages with scripture, law, and tradition to examine the foundations for prevailing attitudes towards homosexuality in Islam. Arguing that Muslims can reconcile themselves with the inevitable diversity in society without compromising their principles, Kugle makes a forceful case for a renewed Islam that accepts all followers, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

About the Author

 

Scott Kugle is the first Muslim to publish widely on the issue of homosexuality and Islam. An independent research scholar in Islamic studies, he has previously held positions at Duke University, the University of Cape Town, and Swarthmore College.

 

Usually I would ignore these types of books however this one has really caught my interest. It sounds thoroughly researched. I wonder if anyone on this forum has read it? Has anyone managed to refute this book?

 

Don't get me wrong, I do view the act of sodomy as a sin.

Edited by SinisterDarkness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

:sl:

 

What are this man's qualifications? What a genius he must be to have discovered something in the Qur'an that thousands of scholars of the past and present have never supported!

 

I find it highly convenient of him to dismiss Hadiths concerning homosexuality as "dubious" and verses that speak on the matter (I'm assuming he means prophet Lut's story) as "ambiguous". Seems he's suffering from a severe case of culture-religion dissonance and can't bring himself to accept all parts of Islam.

 

For anyone interested in the story of prophet Lut in the Qur'an:

 

Ash-Shu'ara' (The Poets)

 

161. Behold, their brother Lut said to them: "Will ye not fear ((Allah))?

162. "I am to you an apostle worthy of all trust.

163. "So fear Allah and obey me.

164. "No reward do I ask of you for it: my reward is only from the lord of the Worlds.

165. "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males,

166. "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!"

167. They said: "If thou desist not, O Lut! thou wilt assuredly be cast out!"

168. He said: "I do detest your doings."

169. "O my Lord! deliver me and my family from such things as they do!"

 

An-Naml (The Ants)

 

54. (We also sent) Lut (as an apostle): behold, He said to his people, "Do ye do what is shameful though ye see (its iniquity)?

55. Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, ye are a people (grossly) ignorant!

56. But his people gave no other answer but this: they said, "Drive out the followers of Lut from your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!"

 

Al-'Ankabut (The Spider)

 

28. And (remember) Lut: behold, he said to his people: "Ye do commit lewdness, such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you.

29. "Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway?- and practise wickedness (even) in your councils?" But his people gave no answer but this: they said: "Bring us the Wrath of Allah if thou tellest the truth."

30. He said: "O my Lord! help Thou me against people who do mischief!"

 

I haven't read the book and I doubt I would be able to do so without losing my lunch. Not simply because of what is being advocated (homosexuality), but because this man is tarnishing the religion of Allah by attempting to make it into something it isn't, nor has it ever been. There's nothing worse than people who justify their evils by claiming that Allah supports their actions.

 

There is no appeal in reading such garbage and I would advice all Muslims to steer clear of it, unless they are scholars who seek to disprove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People like these dont seem to realize that the people of Lut(as) were destroyed.

 

I haven't read the book and I doubt I would be able to do so without losing my lunch. Not simply because of what is being advocated (homosexuality), but because this man is tarnishing the religion of Allah by attempting to make it into something it isn't, nor has it ever been. There's nothing worse than people who justify their evils by claiming that Allah supports their actions.

 

There is no appeal in reading such garbage and I would advice all Muslims to steer clear of it, unless they are scholars who seek to disprove it.

 

:sl:

Edited by SaracenSoldier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know man whenever we read the Quran we are supposed to become one with the stories that is being conveyed. We are to immerse ourselves into the story and become part of the story. With that being said when we read the story of Lot (pbuh) we see that clearly Lot was a muslim. How many homosexual muslims left with Lot?? How many of the homosexuals that believed in God was able to convince Lot that there is a such thing as a homosexual muslim?

The answer is none, so the term homosexual muslim is a term that doesent exist, its an oxymoron, there is no such thing.

 

Now those who support the homosexuals in their right to be called"gay muslim" are they themselves with the people of sodom and they are the same people who would not have left with Prophet Lot. So any muslim that supports that, is a clear example of the people who did not leave with Lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:sl:

 

What are this man's qualifications? What a genius he must be to have discovered something in the Qur'an that thousands of scholars of the past and present have never supported!

 

Salaam,

 

Ah....... O_o

 

Scott Kugle is the first Muslim to publish widely on the issue of homosexuality and Islam. An independent research scholar in Islamic studies, he has previously held positions at Duke University, the University of Cape Town, and Swarthmore College.

 

I assume he has some knowledge based on the above?

 

Well I think I'm going to get a copy of this book from the library and read it. I don't like dismissing work that I have not even read. It seems it might have some validity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salaam,

 

Ah....... O_o

 

Scott Kugle is the first Muslim to publish widely on the issue of homosexuality and Islam. An independent research scholar in Islamic studies, he has previously held positions at Duke University, the University of Cape Town, and Swarthmore College.

 

:sl:

 

Excuse me, brother, but I meant religious qualifications. That he taught at universities means only one thing; he has expertise in worldly or western knowledge. What I meant was, what are his qualifications in the Islamic world, in relation to the current and past scholars of Islam? Who were his teachers? Are they reliable sources? For how long did he study Islam? At what level is his knowledge on Islam, i.e. is he qualified to interpret the Qur'an, or to decide on the authenticity of Hadiths? Who gave him the approval to do so? (the scholars of the past had to meet certain criterias before being considered proficient in their field).

 

And so on. Of course, these are all rhetorical questions as it is evident that he is an "independent research scholar" (meaning, he takes it upon himself to oppose the consensus and follow ijtihad, so he probably did not study from any scholars) and I don't expect or hope that you go out of your way to defend him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And so on. Of course, these are all rhetorical questions as it is evident that he is an "independent research scholar" (meaning, he takes it upon himself to oppose the consensus and follow ijtihad, so he probably did not study from any scholars) and I don't expect or hope that you go out of your way to defend him.

 

Not defending him or rejecting his work. I have not even read his book. Whatever his educational background, it is none of my concern. He did a research and he published his findings. He must have some knowledge about Islam and is a professor, may not be good enough to be a proper Islamic scholar, however...

 

What matters is whether he is presenting correct or false information. He is the first ''Muslim'' to conduct this research. His work from my knowledge has not been refuted yet.

 

As an overview, I'm just curious on what he has to say, I'm not the type to dismiss work without having at least read it myself. No big deal. x_x

Edited by SinisterDarkness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalamu Alaikum, When we know that a certain matter is Haraam in Islaam, what is the purpose of reading a book written by someone who is not a Religious Scholar and from what I understand the man is trying to justify homosexuality. I would rather spend time reading some funny Comic book and relaxing.

 

Salaam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not defending him or rejecting his work. I have not even read his book. Whatever his educational background, it is none of my concern. He did a research and he published his findings. He must have some knowledge about Islam and is a professor, may not be good enough to be a proper Islamic scholar, however...

 

What matters is whether he is presenting correct or false information. He is the first ''Muslim'' to conduct this research. His work from my knowledge has not been refuted yet.

 

As an overview, I'm just curious on what he has to say, I'm not the type to dismiss work without having at least read it myself. No big deal. x_x

 

:sl:

 

Any average Joe (and it seems like he is an average Joe on matters of religion) can do research and publish what they "find". If I discarded everything I've learned from the scholars and decided to do "independent research" on Islam, who knows what sorts of wayward ideas I would postulate. The Qur'an is not a scientific experiment where people have a chance of discovering new things. If it hasn't already been approved by the scholarly consensus, then it is fraudulent.

 

Also, he's not the first to write on the issue, or to research it (that's doing injustice to the scholars of Islam). He's the first to be published widely. That no one has written an entire book dedicated to refuting him does not mean that he's right. Maybe like the rest of us, they can't stomach reading such garbage. Or maybe they're focused on doing better things with their time than worrying about an uneducated man's claim to knowledge. Or maybe this book is geared toward a western audience and hasn't reached the majority of the scholarly world. Or maybe someone is already working on refuting it.

 

I have to add that I'm not sure why you would choose to take a neutral stance simply because you haven't read it. It sounds like you're saying there is a chance you'll be swayed either way based on how well this man has presented himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to add that I'm not sure why you would choose to take a neutral stance simply because you haven't read it. It sounds like you're saying there is a chance you'll be swayed either way based on how well this man has presented himself.

 

Salaam,

 

I take a neutral stance on many things, just the way I am, before I dismiss evidence, I analyse it.

 

Also, he's not the first to write on the issue, or to research it (that's doing injustice to the scholars of Islam)

 

What other research has been conducted based on homosexuality?

 

That no one has written an entire book dedicated to refuting him does not mean that he's right.

 

It does not mean he is right or wrong either. We have not read it. ;D

 

Maybe like the rest of us, they can't stomach reading such garbage. Or maybe they're focused on doing better things with their time than worrying about an uneducated man's claim to knowledge. Or maybe this book is geared toward a western audience and hasn't reached the majority of the scholarly world. Or maybe someone is already working on refuting it.

 

Oh I'm not worried, just curious. I'm not even suggesting people read this book, I created this topic to find out if people have read this book. Apparently no one has read it.

 

If I discarded everything I've learned from the scholars and decided to do "independent research" on Islam, who knows what sorts of wayward ideas I would postulate. The Qur'an is not a scientific experiment where people have a chance of discovering new things. If it hasn't already been approved by the scholarly consensus, then it is fraudulent.

 

Thats all fine. I'm just saying has anyone read it and if they have, what they think of it.

Edited by SinisterDarkness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salaam,

 

I take a neutral stance on many things, just the way I am, before I dismiss evidence, I analyse it.

 

:sl:

 

You gave a distinct disclaimer at the end of your first post: Don't get me wrong, I do view the act of sodomy as a sin. Those aren't the words of someone who's sitting on the fence concerning this issue.

 

Either:

 

1) You do view sodomy as being sinful, hence you disagree with this Scott Kugle person and agree with the consensus.

2) You consider sodomy to be permissible, hence you agree with him and disagree with consensus.

3) You are unsure, and you want to hear both sides before forming an opinion.

4) You believe either 1 or 2, but your opinion is liable to change because it's not already firm.

 

Which is it?

 

What other research has been conducted based on homosexuality?

 

Considering the vastness of the information that has been recorded by the scholars since the time of the Salaf, the topic has been written on already, as has been every issue that deals with Islam. If you're interested in the subject, I would advice you to search for it.

 

It does not mean he is right or wrong either. We have not read it. ;D

 

Lol, the logic behind this statement seems to be that if a person writes something, we cannot decide that he is right or wrong until we have heard his position. That's a slippery slope straight to Hell. What next, are we required to read a book titled "Reasons why Muhammad is a False Prophet" or "Reasons why Allah was the Pagan moon-god" before deciding that it's based on nothing more than conjecture?

 

I know you're trying to be intellectually open-minded, which is great, but we should never leave ourselves spiritually vulnerable. There are some things that Muslims must have absolute certainty in. Otherwise our Iman is like a feather in the wind; swept away in whatever direction the wind just happens to be blowing.

 

I have nothing against you personally, but I will take a stance against anyone who is attempting to validate the position of a man who has written a book intended to justify, as the Qur'an says, "lewdness, such as no people in Creation committed before you."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:sl:

 

You gave a distinct disclaimer at the end of your first post: Don't get me wrong, I do view the act of sodomy as a sin. Those aren't the words of someone who's sitting on the fence concerning this issue.

 

Either:

 

1) You do view sodomy as being sinful, hence you disagree with this Scott Kugle person and agree with the consensus.

2) You consider sodomy to be permissible, hence you agree with him and disagree with consensus.

3) You are unsure, and you want to hear both sides before forming an opinion.

4) You believe either 1 or 2, but your opinion is liable to change because it's not already firm.

 

Which is it?

 

Salaam.

 

 

Well yes I've heard from scholars stating the act of sodomy is a sin. I could read the scriptures, but the English translation will not reveal the full meaning. I'm currently in the process of learning Arabic and studying Islam in more detail. Specifically I wanted to know has someone read this book and refuted this book. If I did not make the clear, I'm making that clear now, just for you. I'm not sure what the book contains, I want to read all of it so I can make a decision. Besides if the book contains lies, you can warn other Muslims right?

 

Considering the vastness of the information that has been recorded by the scholars since the time of the Salaf, the topic has been written on already, as has been every issue that deals with Islam. If you're interested in the subject, I would advice you to search for it.

 

Well if it is so vast as you claim, it should not be too hard to post at least one research conducted on homosexuality? I mean a thorough research.

 

Lol, the logic behind this statement seems to be that if a person writes something, we cannot decide that he is right or wrong until we have heard his position.

 

Yes that is my logic.

 

That's a slippery slope straight to Hell.

 

If that is what you think.

 

What next, are we required to read a book titled "Reasons why Muhammad is a False Prophet" or "Reasons why Allah was the Pagan moon-god" before deciding that it's based on nothing more than conjecture?

 

I have read many anti-Islamic books, some accused the Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H) of things that I would not like to say. However it was full of rubbish.

 

I know you're trying to be intellectually open-minded, which is great, but we should never leave ourselves spiritually vulnerable. There are some things that Muslims must have absolute certainty in. Otherwise our Iman is like a feather in the wind; swept away in whatever direction the wind just happens to be blowing.

 

Thank you for caring.

 

I have nothing against you personally, but I will take a stance against anyone who is attempting to validate the position of a man who has written a book intended to justify, as the Qur'an says, "lewdness, such as no people in Creation committed before you."

 

Go ahead and take your stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:sl:

 

With all due respect to you, brother SinisterDarkness, reading your comments make me think that you feel offended and I apologize for that. I don't want to be responsible for a fellow Muslim feeling animosity toward me.

 

If you believe that you must read a book before accepting or dismissing its claims, and are willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt (meaning, there is a chance for them to be right, and a chance to be wrong) even if they write a book titled "Reasons why Muhammad is a False Prophet", then clearly that is something we will never see eye-to-eye on. That seems like the crux of the matter.

 

As for your request that I post research conducted by previous scholars on this issue, I don't have the time or energy to go through book after book, or website after website, to prove a point. But considering that I have read snippets of writings in the past (from scholars like Malik, Ash-Shafi'i, etc), the information exists. I wish you the best in finding it in its entirety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:sl:

 

With all due respect to you, brother SinisterDarkness, reading your comments make me think that you feel offended and I apologize for that. I don't want to be responsible for a fellow Muslim feeling animosity toward me.

 

If you believe that you must read a book before accepting or dismissing its claims, and are willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt (meaning, there is a chance for them to be right, and a chance to be wrong) even if they write a book titled "Reasons why Muhammad is a False Prophet", then clearly that is something we will never see eye-to-eye on. That seems like the crux of the matter.

 

As for your request that I post research conducted by previous scholars on this issue, I don't have the time or energy to go through book after book, or website after website, to prove a point.

 

Salaam,

 

I'm not offended! We were just having a discussion. I hope I did not come across rude. No need to apologize. XD

 

I have read many Islamic materials over the last couple of months, at the same time I began to come across many allegations made against Islam. I have read a book which attacked the Prophet, I read all of it and I managed to refute it.

 

We have many kaffirs like Wafa Sultan and Nonie Darwish who make false allegations against Islam. The best way to refute them is to actually is listen to what they say and understand how critics of Islam think. The vast majority of time, they take the verses from the Qur'an and the Hadiths, out of context.

 

I don't know what the author is stating. He did not say from what I posted that homosexual act is permissible. All he said there are verses which are unclear and something about the Hadiths. I want to know how he reached that decision.

 

But considering that I have read snippets of writings in the past (from scholars like Malik, Ash-Shafi'i, etc), the information exists. I wish you the best in finding it in its entirety.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salam,

 

i've read this book. i know this thread is kinda old but if anyone's interested i could give a quick summary of what the book contains...

 

alhamdulillah i think this was a good effort by prof kugle to highlight some of the problems that homosexuals face in Islam and that we should treat such people with respect and kindness. his book should be divided into two, i think: the issues of gender ambiguity and homosexuals.

 

i think his ideas on gender ambiguity is very strong, in that we should acknowledge that some people have hormone and genetic variances that are not clearly 'man' or 'woman' and so the shariah of Islam should reflect this reality. he thinks that people should be allowed to have sex change operations if they feel they are in the wrong gendered body etc. he doesn't claim to provide the final definitive answer to gender ambiguities, but his ideas a definitely worth examining. i don't believe his ideas are particularly radical, as al azhar university has also explored this issue and have come up with similar conclusions.

 

the second issue he touches on is homosexuality. this is where the radical ideas come in. the following are a few claims kugle makes in his book:

 

- the story of lut a.s. (some verses which were provided by sister redeem a few posts above) is about rape and sexual domination i.e. the men of lut a.s. were raping other men and trying to rape the angels who disguised themselves as beautiful guests of lut. so the story has been misunderstood and is not really condemning consensual homosexual relations.

 

i think kugle is clutching at straws here. yes, the men of lut were definitely looking to rape the angels, as this was also mentioned by allama ibn katheer in his tafseer. but what about the several verses that tell of lut a.s. telling the men to return to their women instead of the men? this clearly shows that they were being told to go back to the correct gender. so this part of kugle's argument is weak.

 

- there is no clear direction from the prophet saw that homosexuality is forbidden

 

kugle, i think, makes a fairly strong point here. the hadith that condemn homosexuality do not go back to the prophet or are weak, and some go back to some companions. and even then, only through ikrimah (i haven't had time to verify this). he's also correct in saying that there were no cases of homosexuality recorded during the time of the prophet so the rules are subject to interpretation and ijtihad. in my opinion, this point is moot because the verses of quran are clear. so in this instance, we probably don't even need hadith to show that homosexuality is wrong.

 

the third point is what interested me most. i was hoping someone could shed some light on this, inshallah.

 

- even if the story of lut a.s is condemning homosexuality, we can conclude that it was haram for the ummah of lut. but that doesn't mean it is haram for the ummah of muhammad saw unless he explicitly said so (which he didn't). there is no quran ayah that explicitly states that the prohibition enforced for the tribe of lut should still be implemented today.

 

so we do know that some things were made haram for previous peoples according to their shariah, but made halal for us, and vice versa. the twins of adam a.s. were commanded to marry, but this of course is haram for us. jihad was haram for previous prophets and their ummah (i think) but this was made halal for muhammad saw and his ummah. i think there are probably more examples.

 

so does kugle have a point here? his point is not entirely original, as ibn hazm stated something similar. does a prohibition of a previous ummah stand as valid for us without an explicit command? is there a general rule for this? if anyone knows of any scholarly works regarding this concept, i'd appreciate it if you could point me to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the third point is what interested me most. i was hoping someone could shed some light on this, inshallah.

 

- even if the story of lut a.s is condemning homosexuality, we can conclude that it was haram for the ummah of lut. but that doesn't mean it is haram for the ummah of muhammad saw unless he explicitly said so (which he didn't). there is no quran ayah that explicitly states that the prohibition enforced for the tribe of lut should still be implemented today.

 

so we do know that some things were made haram for previous peoples according to their shariah, but made halal for us, and vice versa. the twins of adam a.s. were commanded to marry, but this of course is haram for us. jihad was haram for previous prophets and their ummah (i think) but this was made halal for muhammad saw and his ummah. i think there are probably more examples.

 

so does kugle have a point here? his point is not entirely original, as ibn hazm stated something similar. does a prohibition of a previous ummah stand as valid for us without an explicit command? is there a general rule for this? if anyone knows of any scholarly works regarding this concept, i'd appreciate it if you could point me to it.

 

:sl:

 

Homosexuality is definately forbidden as in homosexual intercourse by the Qur'an. Homosexuality as in you are attracted to the members of the same sex is not haram unless you don't act on your impulses. Basically, it is the same as with heterosexuality: you are sinful if you are attracked but if you try to act upon that attraction in an unlawful manner, then it is major - the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality is that you can never fulfill a homosexual desire while you can fulfill the heterosexual one by getting married.

 

The Qur'an clearly outlines the accepted modes, for a lack of a better, intercourse in Surat Al-Muminun verses 5 and 6 :

 

And who guard their modesty (In the Qur'an the word used in verse 5 is "furuugihim" which means private parts) -

Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy,

But whoso craveth beyond that, such are transgressors -

 

The limits of God are clear. Those who exceed the limits are transgressors. And what are the limits? Their wives and their female slaves.

 

There are authentic hadiths where the Prophet(pbuh) prohibits homosexuality and he has cursed those who do homosexual acts. However, the limits set by the Qur'an are perfectly clear, so I don't think there is need to present hadiths or even a scholarly opinion.

 

Homosexual intercourse is one of the major sins.

 

PS: Jihad was not made Haram for the rest Prophets(pbut):

 

How many of the prophets fought (in Allah's way), and with them (fought) Large bands of godly men? but they never lost heart if they met with disaster in Allah's way, nor did they weaken (in will) nor give in. And Allah Loves those who are firm and steadfast. (3:146)

 

PPS: Seriously, I wouldn't take anything this author says for granted. When he says that hadith about homosexuality are weak I wouldn't believe him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salam

 

The Qur'an clearly outlines the accepted modes, for a lack of a better, intercourse in Surat Al-Muminun verses 5 and 6 :

 

And who guard their modesty (In the Qur'an the word used in verse 5 is "furuugihim" which means private parts) -

Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy,

But whoso craveth beyond that, such are transgressors -

 

The limits of God are clear. Those who exceed the limits are transgressors. And what are the limits? Their wives and their female slaves.

 

he actually has a way of getting around these verses, which is a completely different line of enquiry so i didn't bother posting it here. but it still hinges on his interpretation of the story of lut a.s.

 

but my question was specifically about the ruling or scholarly opinion regarding the shariah of previous prophets. for the sake of argument, let's just say the hadith were weak, would we still be able to apply the prohibition of homosexuality based on the story of lut a.s.? meaning is the default position yes, unless the prophet said otherwise, or is the default position no unless the prophet said otherwise? i think it is an interesting line of study and was wondering if anyone knew of anyone who has written on the topic. i'm not talking specifically about homosexuality, but the principle in general of how we use the shariah of previous prophets.

 

PS: Jihad was not made Haram for the rest Prophets(pbut):

 

How many of the prophets fought (in Allah's way), and with them (fought) Large bands of godly men? but they never lost heart if they met with disaster in Allah's way, nor did they weaken (in will) nor give in. And Allah Loves those who are firm and steadfast. (3:146)

 

thank you for the correction.

 

PPS: Seriously, I wouldn't take anything this author says for granted. When he says that hadith about homosexuality are weak I wouldn't believe him.

 

like you said, the hadith argument in this instance is not really needed, considering th explicit wording in the quran against homosexual acts. for me, it wasn't about believing or not believing him, rather analysing the arguments he puts forward. like i said before, some of them are pretty weak, but some of them regarding gender ambiguities are pretty strong.

 

jz khair for your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salam

he actually has a way of getting around these verses, which is a completely different line of enquiry so i didn't bother posting it here. but it still hinges on his interpretation of the story of lut a.s.

 

but my question was specifically about the ruling or scholarly opinion regarding the shariah of previous prophets. for the sake of argument, let's just say the hadith were weak, would we still be able to apply the prohibition of homosexuality based on the story of lut a.s.? meaning is the default position yes, unless the prophet said otherwise, or is the default position no unless the prophet said otherwise? i think it is an interesting line of study and was wondering if anyone knew of anyone who has written on the topic. i'm not talking specifically about homosexuality, but the principle in general of how we use the shariah of previous prophets.

 

:sl:

 

In general, the previous Prophets(pbut)'s Laws are not applicable. Like you said, Adam(pbuh)'s siblings married one another, Jacob(pbuh) was married to two sisters at the same although this is prohibited in the Qur'an, the abrogation of Sabbath and other laws we know about and don't know about. But applying that principle to the story of Lot(pbuh), I feel is dubious.

 

But like I said, even if we ignore the story of Lot(pbuh), we find the prohibtion of homosexuality in the Qur'an in the verses from Surat Al-Muminun I posted and in the hadiths of the Prophet(pbuh), and they (hadiths) are authentic contrary to what this author says.

 

like you said, the hadith argument in this instance is not really needed, considering th explicit wording in the quran against homosexual acts. for me, it wasn't about believing or not believing him, rather analysing the arguments he puts forward. like i said before, some of them are pretty weak, but some of them regarding gender ambiguities are pretty strong.

 

Of course, there are gender ambiguities. But this doesn't mean that just because a person feels feminine that he has to act feminine or masculine if she is a woman. If you are a believer but you feel feminine, you don't have to act feminine. Now, you don't have to be and you probably be an Umar ibn al-Khattab or Ali ibn Abi Talib(pbuh) if you have these feelings but you don't have to act feminine. The Prophet(pbuh) cursed the effiminate men who act like women and the women who act like men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salam,

 

In general, the previous Prophets(pbut)'s Laws are not applicable. Like you said, Adam(pbuh)'s siblings married one another, Jacob(pbuh) was married to two sisters at the same although this is prohibited in the Qur'an, the abrogation of Sabbath and other laws we know about and don't know about. But applying that principle to the story of Lot(pbuh), I feel is dubious.

 

okay. sorry to ask again but do you know anyone who's written about this topic?

 

anyway, why do you feel it is dubious? the verses of surah muminun seem to be enough to reject homosexuality without using hadith or exempting the story of lut from the general rule of not applying previous shariah. i think we should be confident enough about the rules of sexuality without having to bend the rules or principles.

 

But like I said, even if we ignore the story of Lot(pbuh), we find the prohibtion of homosexuality in the Qur'an in the verses from Surat Al-Muminun I posted and in the hadiths of the Prophet(pbuh), and they (hadiths) are authentic contrary to what this author says.

 

yes, that does pretty much seal the deal. he does attempt to overcome these verses too using a different method but i reserve my judgement on whether it is a valid approach until i've done more research. i'm sceptical, to say the least.

 

Of course, there are gender ambiguities. But this doesn't mean that just because a person feels feminine that he has to act feminine or masculine if she is a woman. If you are a believer but you feel feminine, you don't have to act feminine. Now, you don't have to be and you probably be an Umar ibn al-Khattab or Ali ibn Abi Talib(pbuh) if you have these feelings but you don't have to act feminine. The Prophet(pbuh) cursed the effiminate men who act like women and the women who act like men.

 

he was referring to those who genuinely had a need for a sex change i.e. those with underdeveloped genitals, those with hormone problems, and those with underlying genetic problems. basically, the operations that can be justified scientifically, biologically or psychologically. i don't think he says anything particularly controversial, as i've read some papers by some muslim researchers in egypt who have said similar things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salam,

okay. sorry to ask again but do you know anyone who's written about this topic?

 

Well, I don't know for what kind of article you are looking for. There is no essay with a title "The Principle of Using the Previous Shariahs in Today's Shariah" or anything of that sort. But the consensus is that the previous Laws are abrogated and do not apply.

 

anyway, why do you feel it is dubious? the verses of surah muminun seem to be enough to reject homosexuality without using hadith or exempting the story of lut from the general rule of not applying previous shariah. i think we should be confident enough about the rules of sexuality without having to bend the rules or principles.

 

The reason why feel it is dubious is because Lot(pbuh) says: "Do you go into males instead of females leaving those whom created as spouses for you?" and meaning marriage and sex has always been between a man and a woman, not between men and men or women and women. It is an eternal law just like do not murder, honor your parents, do not lie, do not worship false gods are eternal laws. The people of Sodom were innovators, they did an act such no one in the 'Alamin, meaning humans and Jinn, had never done before. Never have heard of God speaking anything but negative of homosexuality.

 

The verses in Surat Al-Muminun are clear-cut. There is nothing wrong with using Hadith, though.

 

he was referring to those who genuinely had a need for a sex change i.e. those with underdeveloped genitals, those with hormone problems, and those with underlying genetic problems. basically, the operations that can be justified scientifically, biologically or psychologically. i don't think he says anything particularly controversial, as i've read some papers by some muslim researchers in egypt who have said similar things.

 

Sex change operations are sinful. A person who has underdeveloped genitals will still be a man; he cannot get married to a man after the operation and the laws that apply to men still apply to him. The same goes for hormone problems. A female will still be a female and so will a male. It is the epitome of men being effiminate and women acting like men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our beloved Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said, 'Certainly the thing I fear most on my ummah is the (wicked) practice of the people of Loot.' (Tirmizi, Ahmad, Ibn Hajr Al-Haysami, Ad-Duri and Al-Aajuri) (Hadeeth Hasan)

 

Hadrat Ali bin Abi Taalib (RA) relates, 'Whoever allows himself to be used sexually (by becoming a homosexual or sodomite), Allaah Ta'ala will expel from him the (natural) desire for women.'

 

Najeeb As-Sirri (AR) says, 'They (i.e. our pious elders) would even dislike looking at handsome young boys'

 

Once Abul Aswad (AR) brought a letter which he showed to one of his students and said, ' I bear witness that this letter was dictated by Ali bin Abi Taalib (RA) to Abul Aswad: When men (i.e. homosexuals) will sexually satisfy themselves with men and women (i.e. lesbians) with women, then earthquakes will occur, faces will become transformed and stones will rain down from the skies.'

 

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has also said: "May Allah curse him who does what the people of Loot (alayhis salaam) did." (Ibn Hibbaan)

 

He (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has also said, 'Lesbianism by women is adultery between them.' (Tabraani)

A Lesson from History

 

It is a well-known fact that when this wretched disease spread among one nation in the past, Allah Ta'ala caused punishments to rain down from the skies upon them. Allah mentions their story in many places in the Qur'an. At one place, He says, "And (We also sent) Loot (as a Messenger). 'Behold, he said to his people, do you do what is shameful even though you see (that it is wrong)? Would you really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, you are a grossly ignorant people!'

 

But his people gave no other answer but this: They said, 'Drive out the followers of Loot from your city. These are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!'

 

But We saved him and His family except his wife: We destined her to be of those who lagged behind.

 

And We rained down on them a shower (of stones). And evil was the shower on those who were admonished (but failed to heed)." (Surah an-Naml, 54-58)

 

At yet another place, Allah Most High says: Do you approach the males of humanity, leaving the wives Allah has created for you? But you are a people who transgress. (Surah ash-Shu'raa: 165 &166)

 

From the first aayah, we learn that these people had themselves admitted that the family of Loot (AS) who had Imaan (belief in Allah) was decent, chaste and morally pure. They also acknowledged that the family of Loot (AS) refrained from this filthy practice. They realised this since it is natural for every person to immediately recognise the pure way of life inspired by Allah Ta'ala when they see it and also to make out any type of unnatural and perverted behaviour.

 

In the Tafseer (commentary) of these verses it is mentioned that the people of Loot (AS) were practicing both homosexuality and lesbianism. When Allah decided to punish them, He commanded Jibraeel (AS) to lift the village of Loot (AS) to the extent that the angels of the first heaven (sky) could actually hear the barking of their dogs. Jibraeel then turned them over and dropped them from this tremendous height. Thereafter, Allah Ta'ala caused scorching hot stones to rain down upon them. This is how this nation ended up being an example for the rest of mankind until the Day of Qiyaamah.

 

Imaam Al-Aajuri (AR) has said, 'Allah Ta'ala has informed you about the despicable act of homosexuality committed by the people of Loot (AS) and how He punished them by first snatching away their eyesight. Jibraeel (AS) was then instructed to uproot their cities with all the inhabitants until they were high up into the sky and then turn over their cities upon them. Thereafter they were pelted with stones of clay.' Such was their punishment that not a single citizen or traveller could save himself from the stones and from being completely destroyed.

 

It is said that they were four million in number. (Tafseer Ibn Katheer p.471 vol. 2)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×