but the piece on homosexuality is odd. he tries to reason his way around it and this is what he comes up with (straightway.sinfree.net):

.. A common mistake among humans is that if they don’t see any negative consequences for their actions they consider their actions harmless.

I say: the common mistake good muslism scholars do is twith their logic to reason against reason.

Here’s a short response by him to a question about homosexuality, and the claim that it is genetically caused. He argues that even accepting this assumption does not lead to an anything-goes morality.

http://media.putfile.com/Shabir-Ally

As I just explained to Afroz, it’s not “all social” – I use the Qur’an as my definitive source of understanding human nature. That doesn’t mean that I don’t benefit from other sources of knowledge, including science.

Please see this post for some response to your question about attractions:
http://gaymuslims.wordpress.com/2006/02/18/l-g-b-and-t/
And this one was already linked to above:
http://gaymuslims.wordpress.com/2006/04/10/actions-attractions-and-personal-responsibility/

As for your question about the Arabic words for “gay/homosexuality”: people use different things, but notice that these words are new even in English, where they were invented to reflect (and indeed shape!) a new conception of sexuality.

The fact that these are not found in the Islamic sources entails that they belong to one framework of understanding, and that framework contradicts the Qur’anic philosophy.

The Qur’an teaches us about the sinfulness of certain actions, and actions are of many types. We make a distinction between actions and attractions (or temptations/desires), and we also factor in intentions. We do not define or categorise people by the temptations they feel, or what they are attracted to.

This is my interpretation, and I am always willing to hear alternative proposals – and I will criticise them however necessary.

My personal interest is not so much in the broader “morality” debate that is just philosophical wandering subject to changing times (as opposed to adaptable properly to changing times).

My conception of morality is one that is based upon the Qur’an and the teachings of the one on whom it was revealed, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him). If I change my opinions, it is because I am made to realise that I have not understood these essential sources correctly.

It is abundantly clear from the Islamic sources that sex is a healthy thing, indeed a blessing, which is to be enjoyed within marriage between a man and a woman. I’m not properly aware of the Catholic position, but I’d not be surprised or disturbed if we differ on that.

And yes, I do concentrate on the matter of desire, because it can be defined more sharply than “love”, which is a term much abused nowadays. People are now talking about “loving young boys”. I am not against love, but I’m also not going to allow soppy sentiment to obscure what is quite a simple matter within Islamic law.

Just because something is called love, doesn’t mean it’s OK. I also believe that the only way to be “better”, in every sense, is to obey God and be patient with the trials we face.

Actually, I was about to write a refutation (which I’ve become very accustomed to), but found that you actually have a strong point, which I will have to think over more deeply. Perhaps it is true that SSA, according to Islam, cannot have a genetic basis.

However, I still think you are mistaken to back up Dr. Philips’ point, because he over-simplified the matter as being between genetics and choice.

His point, apparently, was that SSA are the result of the person’s choice, and not of circumstances beyond his control – and that saying the latter would be tantamount to blaming God and calling Him unjust.

My response to this is to say that people suffer in life in many ways, including from temptations that plague them day and night. None of this causes us to accuse Allah of injustice, because we know that He does not wrong anyone in the least. This life is short and all accounts will be settled by the Wisest Judge.

So the blame is not necessarily on the individual with SSA, and certainly not on God Almighty. It can be said to be a product of society, and blame could fall upon those who contributed to the SSA developing in that person, through their negative relationships with him. I say this in brief without explanation as others have written about extensively. I hope it goes some way.