Ugh. December 23, 2006Posted by Rasheed Eldin in Media, Queer Muslims, Responses.
Daayiee Abdullah, aka Sidney Thompson, still masquerading as an “Imam”, has given an interview to his local LGBT rag.
Because of the protracted prominence of this all-round fruitcake, we’re soon going to publish a document outlining some of his outlandish claims and their refutations, and proving that he has no right to call himself an “Islamic scholar”. That became obvious at his own e-mail group some months ago, when he hounded someone out just for insisting on knowing Daayiee’s Islamic credentials.
Simple answer: he has none.
In the meantime, comments on a few bits from the interview are below. And here are some previous posts on Daayiee/Sid for those who haven’t read them:
MW: When did people start calling you ”Imam”?
ABDULLAH: I can’t really say when that started. I presume it would have been sometime in 2000. When I joined [the online group, Muslim Gay Men], there were [online] discussions and some of the people who came in claimed that they were gay, but their purpose was to try to change people, versus understanding people for who they are. They would resort to ”ancient scholar so-and-so who such-and-such.” I would always challenge them because our belief is Koran first, then Sunna [the Hadith] of the Prophet. If we don’t find anything there, we go to what they refer to as the Sahaba [companions of Muhammad].
Oh, so humble. He calls himself “a person trained in Arabic as a linguist and grammarian, a legal scholar in Shari’ah and Fiqh, a scholar in comparative legal systems” – and more recently: “my credentials are many with more than 8 earned degrees (from BS/BAs to MAs to doctorate)”. Wow! Funny that he became rather coy when asked for details. More on that another day.
But it’s strange he talks about referring to the Sahabah, which is something affirmed by the real scholars of the religion. I remind you of Daayiee’s previous outrageous calumny, which he is invited to retract:
Prophet Mohammed, (Sallu Alayhi Wa Salaam or SAWS Peace Be Upon Him) “dislike” for homosexuality is a legal fiction created after the death of Prophet Mohammed, SAWS, by [his] companions.
In the Metro Weekly, he goes on to discuss the mukhannatheen in a very confused way:
During this same time, they had something they refer to as the mukhannathun — something like the hijras in India, sort of a male-female, cross-dressing types. They existed. And they also lived or worked in the household of the Prophet. Aisha, one of the Prophet’s wives, indicated that there were men who worked in the household. They were mukhannathun. That generally meant that they were not necessarily castrated, but not having an interest in women. If the Prophet had mukhannathun in his household who served him and his wives, it seems that he wouldn’t have had an aversion to these people.
I personally don’t know this hadith – please someone (especially Daayiee, who is basing his wikijtihad on it) quote it and vouch for its authority.
But in using it, first of all you must define this category of people. Daayiee wants to say simultaneously that they were cross-dressers, and imply they were homosexual while the description (“not having an interest in women”) actually applies better to people who are asexual. That is also the cleanest interpretation of the Qur’anic category of at-taabi’eena ghayri ulil-irbati minar-rijal (“men-slaves without sexual desire”, 24:31).
Any evidence that they cross-dressed? If not, then stop trying to imagine that the Prophet (s) approved of such. In a hadith authenticated by al-Bukhari and Muslim, he said: “Allah curses those men who imitate women, and those women who imitate men.” The Prophet (s) would certainly have an aversion to that kind of person. Or more to the point, he would not have tacitly agreed to any such practice in his presence.
As a religious leader — knowing that he was a religious leader — I’m certain that if he had something to say about it, he would have. But as a religious leader and as a governmental leader, he never had a legal case that dealt with homosexuality. There are several Islamic legal scholars who supported that point. So if it’s not something he did, those Haddith — or stories about the Prophet — that came out later are fabrications.
Tsk tsk. There are numerous hadiths condemning homosexual acts. This is a different matter from condemning a category of people, a point we repeat all the time at this blog. But Daayiee doesn’t believe in the Hadith at all, except what he can use to prove his own opinion. Note the flimsiness of claiming some things are “fabrications” because they don’t agree with a flimsy interpretation of something else.
The fact that the Prophet (s) never actually punished someone for sodomy, because the matter didn’t arise, does not change the fact of his explicit instructions to punish those guilty of homosexual acts. I have discussed this to some extent already.
The Koran does not say that same-sex individuals should not have loving relationships. In the allegory they say that you should have your ”protector and your cloak.” Your protector being someone who provides for you — be it your housing, your food or [physical protection]. And in your ”cloak,” meaning there’s someone who is your sexual intimate. Therefore, when it says that — and not in terms of male and female, but in terms that people should have that — that’s the broader understanding.
The Qur’anic discourse is overwhelmingly clear that marriage and sex are between a man and a woman. As for the verse he alludes to, I suppose it is this:
“Permitted to you (masc. pl.) on the night of fasting [in Ramadan] is the [sexual] approach to your womenfolk. They (fem. pl.) are your (masc. pl.) garments and you (masc. pl.) are their (fem. pl.) garments.” [2:187]
Men are garments (libaas – for comfort, warmth, beauty etc.) for women, and women are garments for men. Daayiee is waaaaay off.
MW: Do you have a partner?
ABDULLAH: Yes, of 10 years.
MW: Is he Muslim as well?
ABDULLAH: No, actually he is Christian. This is one reason why I do interfaith marriages. When God puts people together and they find love with each other, who am I to say it’s not possible? If the two people can find love with each other, then why can’t I support that?
His stupidity is so maddening! Let me just refer you to my questions about “Islamic gay marriage” – and I offer the challenge to anyone who can answer them. You see, marriage rules are quite detailed even in the Qur’an itself (before looking to the details of the Sunnah). So the initial questions I posed (and many more can be added), were:
- Who are the categories of men forbidden to a man to marry? Can he marry his brother or father?
- Who gives the dowry to whom?
- How is divorce enacted?