A little note for the anti-Muslim bigots of Harry’s Place and the Spittoon, who have recently taken to linking to some of our blog posts. Welcome, and feel free to read: it could be a cure for your ignorance.

But every time you repeat your own invented terms, like “curing gays” and “ex-gays”, and put them in quote marks to imply that you read them here, you just prove how dishonest you are. You can’t even read a few articles and get the correct gist. Sure, you’re going to disagree, but at least disagree with what we actually say, not your pathetic strawmen. One of you couldn’t even spell my name right in his article!

Or go ahead, roll around in your own filth if you want. It’s your right.

The queen of ‘Queer Muslim’ organisations, Al-Fatiha USA, is conducting a survey of what they now term “LGBTIQQ” Muslims – “including Muslims who use other cultural and ethnic terms to refer to their own experience”. Or religious and common-sense terms too, we presume?

This is the first survey of its kind. The results of this survey will tell us all about our community, our experiences and our concerns. The results will guide Al-Fatiha’s educational and advocacy work on behalf of LGBTIQQ Muslims, and will be shared with the entire community …

It is vital to have the largest survey participation possible so that the results represent our entire community.

If you think that, for a change, they should also pay attention to the views of mainstream observant Muslims who have same-sex attractions and choose the path of striving (jihad) to resist and overcome them, then please take part so they cannot truthfully say they didn’t hear from you.

Go to it here: 2009 Al-Fatiha Survey

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…

Javaid, 34:
But although I am out to my immediate family, I’m not out to my community, so I don’t want to identify myself fully. I couldn’t reconcile my sexuality with their teachings, and so I lost my faith. I was religious up to my mid-teens, but once I started to understand my sexuality, I became confused.

That is a tragedy, and at least part of the blame must go to the Muslim community for not providing support to people questioning their ’sexual identity’. We need to promote ideas like in this important essay of Mujahid Mustaqim, namely that being Muslim should be the basis on which one’s sexuality is interpreted, not the other way round.

My understanding was that in Islam homosexuality was seen in the same way as adultery. That sends a message that being gay is something to be ashamed of and not socially acceptable.

The whole “being gay” is what we question, and regardless of what message you feel it sends, it is obvious that homosexual acts are comparable to adultery in the sense that it is sexual activity outside of marriage. There is no notion of ‘gay marriage’ in Islam.

Farzana Fiaz, 37 Journalist
Eventually I saw a meeting advertised in the Pink Paper looking for gay Muslims for a support group. Through Imaan, I listened to scholars and open-minded imams, and discovered that, like many things in the Qu’ran, there can be different interpretations about homosexuality.

Ah, we have met this Farzana before – not in any real sense of course, since Imaan have shown no willingness to engage in proper discussion, even online. Are they open-minded enough to engage with proper imams? God knows who they came up with to justify their behaviour to them. There can be different interpretations about many things, but the ruling on homosexual activity – absolute prohibition – is a matter of scholarly consensus proven by source-texts.

Ibrahim, 40s Charity worker
I’ve worked with rabbis and imams and the one thing they agree on is that gay men should either marry women or abstain. But abstinence is not an option to most human beings and I always ask, “Would you marry your daughter to someone you knew was gay? Do you think they would be happy with him?” The nikah (Islamic marriage service) is not gender-specific, so why not just let gay Muslim men marry each other?

Many Muslims think gay culture is about promiscuous sex, drugs and drinking. But being a gay Muslim can mean committing to one relationship. If gay Muslims marry each other, it would discourage double lives and promiscuity. The imams I have said this to agree with me, but say they can’t say that in public.

How convenient that they agree with this blatant nonsense ‘privately’. Let’s just refute the idea that the nikah is not gender-specific. One of the essential items of a marriage contract is the mahr (dowry) paid by the man to the woman. Who pays whom in one of your imagined ‘gay marriages’? Need I go on? OK here are a few more…

• A man may not marry his sister or mother. Can he marry his brother or father? Provide us some scriptural backing.
• A Muslim man may – if the law of the land permits – marry up to four women. Would you suggest the same for each man, resulting in a big complex web of men all married with each other?
• A man has the full obligation to provide for his wife and children, while the woman’s money is her own right to spend or keep as she wishes. What system will you devise into Islamic law for two men?
• In the eventuality of divorce, there is a difference between the procedure by the husband as compared to the wife. Which of the ‘gays’ gets the right to pronounce talaq?

In short, ‘gay marriage’ is a notion completely incompatible with Islamic law in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Nobody educated in Islam would agree to such a preposterous idea. Let me share with you my simple scriptural proof against ’gay marriage’ as presented here:

Therefore, whatever actions are carried out in pursuit of fulfilling sexual desires must be deemed unlawful unless the proper channel is followed, i.e. marriage, which Islam defines clearly as being only with the opposite sex. We select one relevant verse to begin a short discussion of this matter:

And Allah has given you spouses (azwāj) of your own kind, and has given you, from your spouses, sons and grandsons, and has made provision of good things for you. Is it then in vanity that they believe and in the grace of Allah that they disbelieve? [Qur'an 16:72]

The reference to procreation is significant, as one of the aims of marriage is indeed to bring forth new generations of humans who will worship Allah.  Furthermore, much could be said about the word azwāj (sing. zawj) with its linguistic and Qur’anic meaning as “the opposite part of a pair”. One of the numerous evidences in the Qur’an of zawj meaning the opposite sex, and indeed a very relevant evidence in this context, is the following proclamation of Lut (peace be on him). Here it is evident that the spouses (azwāj) of the men addressed cannot be male, and that homosexual partners cannot be considered as azwāj:

“What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, and leave the spouses (azwāj) your Lord created for you? Nay, you are a people exceeding limits.” [26:165-6]

From such verses, we establish that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Therefore any sexual activity between two men or between two women is by necessity outside the realms of marriage and, by extension, outside the realms of permissibility. In other words, homosexual marriage is unsupportable within the Islamic legal system, and by definition any homosexual behaviour is fornication; indeed, it may be considered a level worse, by virtue of including the additional element of sexual perversion.

I’m not an Eastenders viewer, but lots of people have asked us to share some comment about the ongoing storyline involving Syed Masood, the engaged Muslim man who has a homosexual encounter with an openly gay man called Christian, and has tortured decisions to make over many subsequent episodes.

I tend to concur with those who have suggested the portrayal of this Asian family is unrealistic, and would add that it’s not the first time that homosexuality was used as an accompaniment to Muslim-ness, because the latter is obviously not enough. Maybe it’s better than making it about terrorism! I previously commented on Channel 4’s apparent obsession, as evidenced by Shariah TV. I also recall an episode of US drama Numb3rs in which the Muslim murder victim seemed to be a character providing a spotlight on Islamophobic violence, but it turned out he was killed by his secret boyfriend(!)

Allow me to share a couple of interesting comments from the MPACUK forum:

nasman:
“lol, isnt this the same character who turned up out of nowhere and jumped into bed with local trollop janine without a moment’s notice? this character is supposed to be a good muslim man with firm religious conviction?

“asian/muslim characters get rewritten so quickly in uk soaps – the producers are always looking for angles to make them more of a minority whilst allowing them to discover that their backward culture/religion was the only thing holding them back from being part of the superior white/british cultural majority.”

gohar:
“The father Masood is portrayed fairly well, like a normal family guy. The son Tanwar is typically adolescent and makes me laugh sometimes due to what he says. The mother seems to be playing the typical Jewish mother character stereotype, and is generally harmless.

“Coming to the gay storyline, i have to say that i found its subplots very predictable. They also seem intent on making it into a propaganda exercise, with which they want to make sure they convince the audience that Syed is being untrue to himself by not embracing homosexuality (note I don’t say his homosexuality). They’re also trying their best to show that Christian is not trying to tempt him, and that Elliot has tried his best to fight the temptation so as to not depict him as just being sex obsessed or perverted.

“The one good point in their favour is that they at least, up to now, haven’t tried to argue that it is acceptable within Islam. But if they didn’t want to tackle this issue, I wouldn’t have expected them to raise it at all, yet Christian told Syed that he should follow his heart and not the Quran. That’s not a typical Eastenders line, and therefore although it is being taken as a given that its unislamic to be gay at the moment, I suspect that this may change (possibly through the ‘wise’ father Masood giving his approval and encouragement).”

Once any Islam-twisting takes place, that’s when I will see an importance in analysing and responding to such content. So far it is mostly clichés about “being honest with yourself”. I would appreciate if readers could inform me of anything of that nature, as I don’t intend to comb over every episode from now on!

Syed himself expressed very noble sentiments when he said:

Look, I’m a good boy. I love my family, I go to prayers, I observe. I’m a good Muslim. I’m gonna make something of my life. … I’m gonna have a lovely wife and gorgeous kids. I’m gonna be somebody respected. And there isn’t room for anything else.

I say good luck to you, since the scriptwriters probably won’t let that happen…

Here’s a new approach for you…

I’m not homosexual or heterosexual, I’m wifosexual as I only have eyes for her. As for my wife, it so happens that she’s husbosexual and that suits me just fine. Yeah, she’s a full-on husbian.

So what unites us both is our spousexuality. We’re spousexuals and proud!

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.

Below are snippets we deemed instructive. You are highly recommended to benefit from the whole book.

AL-GHAZALI ON DISCIPLINING THE SOUL
Short excerpts from Al-Imam Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali’s Ihya’ ‘Ulum ad-Deen
Adapted from translation by T.J. Winter published by the Islamic Texts Society

Excerpt 1

The [sexual] desire, which is the greatest of all desires, is susceptible to excess, defect and equilibrium. Excess obtains when the intellect is overcome, so that a man’s concern is so distracted towards [sexual matters] that he is unable to tread the path of the Afterlife; or it may overcome a man’s religion, so that he is drawn into obscene activities.
 
This may become so extreme in some cases that two foul habits are acquired:
 
(1) He may partake of something which makes him desire sex more often… This resembles nothing so much as a man tormented by savage beasts and snakes which sleep from time to time, but which he finds methods of awakening and arousing, and then has to make his peace with. For the desires for food and sex are in reality pains, which a man would rather be free of so as to gain another form of delight. [...]
 
(2) In the case of some misguided people, this desire may end in amorous passion (‘ishq), which constitutes utter ignorance of the intended purpose of sexual congress, and a descent to a level lower than that of the animals. For such people are not content merely to gratify their lust, which is the unsightliest of all desires and the one of which a man should most be embarrassed, but instead believe that their lust can only be satisfied by one particular person.
 
[This infatuation] heaps abasement upon abasement, and enslavement upon enslavement, until their intellects are subordinated to the service of their cravings, even though the intellect has been created to be obeyed, not to obey desires and devise means of gratifying them!
 
Amorous passion is nothing but a wellspring of excessive sexual desire, and is the disease of an empty and unconcerned heart. One should be on one’s guard against its preliminaries by abstaining from repeated glances and thoughts. Otherwise, it will take firm hold of one and be difficult to shake off. [...]
 
To break the power of ‘ishq in its early stages is like pulling at the reins of a riding-beast when it heads for a gate it would like to enter: to rein it back is a very easy thing. On the other hand, to treat such passion after it has taken hold of one is like letting the beast go in, and then catching it by its tail and pulling it from behind: a much more difficult task. One should therefore take precautions at the onset of these things, for later they can only be treated with an effort so intense as almost to lead to death.
 
[...] Sexual desire is a praiseworthy thing when it stands in a state of equilibrium, obedient to the intellect and the Law in all its movements. Whenever it becomes excessive, it should be broken with hunger and marriage. The Prophet (pbuh) said: “O young men! You should marry, and whosoever cannot should fast, for fasting is a restrainer of desire.”

——

Excerpt 2

Now, it may also be the case that a man is able to keep his eyes from women, but not from adolescent boys [whose clean faces may resemble women], and for him too it is better that he marry. For the case of boys is more damaging, since if a man’s heart inclines to a woman he may at least render her lawful to him by marrying her.

To look with desire at the face of a boy is forbidden; in fact, everyone whose heart is affected by the form of handsome boys to the extent that he senses that they are different from bearded adults, is forbidden to look at them. [...]

• Followers (tabi’oon) said, “A wild lion is less to be feared in the case of a youth given to worship than his sitting with an adolescent boy.”
• Sufyan remarked, “If a man so much as plays with two toes of a boy for the sake of lust, he is a sodomite.”
• One of the Predecessors (salaf) said, “There shall be three kinds of sodomites in this nation: those who look, those who hold hands, and those who act.”

[The translator notes: Ghazali is here echoing the concerns of other sober mystics of his tradition, such as Qushayri (Risala, 744-5), who were alarmed by what seems to have been a widespread and unnatural interest in ahdaath, male teenagers present at Sufi gatherings. The shaahid, the youth whose beauty bears witness to the beauty of the Divine, is nonetheless one of the commonest and most ambivalent figures of Persian mystical literature.]

Rasheed notes: I included this excerpt to show the subject’s treatment by a leading classical Sufi scholar. I know it is subject to abuse by people wishing to mock Muslims, or to claim that homosexuality was “accepted in Islam”, while it is not even true that it was widespread in Muslim societies. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that it was a matter discussed in Imam Al-Ghazali’s book.

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.

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…

Theologian Amanullah De Sondy wants Islam to tolerate homosexuality again, just as it did generations ago

You don’t expect to start an interview with a leading Muslim academic by discussing the state of Rafael Nadal’s knees.

No indeed. But what makes De Sondy so “leading”? There are much more authoritative and fair scholars on Islam all around the UK, including many non-Muslim academics. Even the term “theologian” is a bit self-serving, given that it just means someone who studies Theology but makes him sound terribly grand.

Most controversially, he challenges homophobia in Islam. “Homosexuality is not incompatible with Islam. The two can and have co-existed. The important thing is to link it with living a good life and creating a good society.”

He disagrees with those who claim the Koran condemns homosexual practices. Gay men are regularly put to death in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, so this is explosive stuff.

“If you ask them privately, the vast majority of my generation of Muslims are deeply homophobic,” he says. “I think it is particularly entrenched because so many Muslim societies are rooted in traditional ideas of the family and patriarchy. It’s time to challenge all of that.”

Homophobia, or objections to homosexual activity? In Islam, or among Muslims? Are these objections traditional, or scriptural? And by the way, De Sondy’s discourse is nothing new, as you would know if you’ve visited this blog before.

De Sondy knows his conservative opponents will use one particular story, which appears in both the Koran and the Bible, to justify oppression. This is when God sends angels to destroy the sinful inhabitants of Sodom.

“It is often said to illustrate God’s disapproval of homosexuality. But on closer inspection it is really about his disapproval of the rape of young boys that was happening in the place. There is a big difference.”

Rubbish. What closer inspection, exactly? The sum and total of the “progressive” methodology is to abuse the Arabic language the Qur’an was revealed in (if they are so charitable as to admit that it’s revelation) and make wild claims with no evidence. I have analysed the story of the People of Lut in the following article, so please examine it along with the comments section: Why were the Sodomites destroyed?

Not only is the idea of “rape” absent from the Qur’anic text, we find that the Sodomites were chastised for “going to men sexually instead of women” – ought they to have been raping women? [e.g. 7:80] What about when the Prophet Lut (peace be on him) told them: “These are my daughters, they are purer for you” – was he asking them to rape his ‘daughters’, i.e. the women of the town? [11:78]

In short, it is a baseless and desperate claim.

Let me emphasise one final point too. Even if the story of Lut (peace be on him) had not been mentioned in the Qur’an (eight times, by the way), it would be clear as day that homosexual activity is sinful, as that is implied in the rest of the Islamic rulings on such matters as marriage, fulfilling sexual desires, fornication and adultery.

Intolerance is not necessarily part of Muslim tradition, De Sondy argues. Islamic cultures are diverse and, historically, there are examples of people living openly in same-sex relationships. He blames conservative political Islam, spread by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and the Saudi Wahhabi sect, for creating a puritanism which limits sexual freedom and demands the subjugation of women.

The Muslim Brotherhood didn’t reveal the Qur’an, and the Wahhabis didn’t come up with the Sunnah. Besides, this claim about the previous “tolerance” is exaggerated. And it should be said, even if it is the case that everyone was fine with homosexuality at one stage in history (which is nonsense), that wouldn’t change the ruling according to Islam.

“In the 16th-century Punjab, there lived a Sufi saint and poet called Shah Hussain who is greatly venerated. He fell in love with a Hindu boy. They lived together and are buried side by side in the same tomb. Pilgrims come to the tomb and shrine in Lahore district even today, but some people want to rewrite history, saying the boy was in fact a girl.”

He also points to the presence of “antinomian Sufis in the Indian subcontinent — men who have pierced ears and dance in women’s clothing”.

Really, so what? These are all isolated cases and their existence doesn’t affect the stance of Islam on such issues. This reminds me of those people who use the existence of Muslim terrorists to claim that Islam supports or at least condones violence against innocents. In the case of terrorists, we refute them using the authentic sources of Islam. We do exactly the same with anyone else who is deluded and ignorant, whether they are a danger to others or only to themselves.

There is a transparent agenda in this contrast between supposedly tolerant Sufism (which is also described in the media as the “peaceful side of Islam” etc.) and intolerant, homophobic Wahhabism and so on. Yet Sufis are equally opposed to homosexuality because this is a matter of core texts. Many in the “progressive” camp use Sufism as some kind of cover to say whatever the hell they want. But just because a follower of desires may call himself “Sufi”, doesn’t make it so.

The second Times article includes the following rejoinders to De Sondy’s claims:

Bashir Maan, a former councillor and a prominent member of the Glasgow Central Mosque, said many Muslims would be upset by De Sondy’s comments. “Where is he getting his knowledge from?” he said. “Islam condemns homosexuality. He is quoting the saint out of context. He loved that boy but it wasn’t for sexual purposes, he just liked that boy as we all have our likes and dislikes.”

Maan also criticised De Sondy for asserting that many Muslims were homophobic. “As one of the leaders in Scotland said some time ago, we don’t hate homosexuals —, we hate homosexuality. So it’s not that Muslims are homophobic, they just do not like lewdness. They do not like homosexuality. These people, homosexuals, they are human beings. They should be, I think, not hated, but we should try to put them off such practices.”

He warned De Sondy that he will find many Islamic leaders and academics who disagree strongly with his views.

A spokesman for the Scottish-Islamic Foundation agreed that homosexuality is incompatible with Islam, adding: “The view of mainstream Muslim scholars and individuals is that it is against Islamic teachings. Like with everything, though, people are free to choose how to live their own lives.”

We should be careful to clarify that it is homosexual activity which is contrary to Islamic teachings, forbidden and sinful. As for homosexual feelings, they are something for the person experiencing them to struggle with, seeking the pleasure of God. However, homosexual identity we find intellectually incoherent and scripturally problematic, so we suggest that a same-sex attracted Muslim should never cave in to pressure and label him/herself “gay” or “lesbian”.

It’s true to say that anti-homosexuality views are completely the mainstream of Islamic opinion, and labelling it “homophobia” is not going to convince anyone but the weak of mind who can be so bullied. But these few (generally) American academics with extremely limited knowledge of Islam want to keep pushing a supposedly “progressive” agenda.

De Sondy wishes to join them now, but perhaps he should be clearer on his own personal interest in homosexuality, which neither he nor his interviewer felt brave enough to address.

Muslims in Britain have zero tolerance of homosexuality, says poll

I don’t know, this just struck me as a weird way of putting it. It seems to mean that 100% of British Muslims have 0% tolerance of homosexuality, which we know is not true of course – given that there are unfortunately some Muslims who try to justify it. I know some people may argue with me that people who justify major sins are not truly Muslims, but I’d point out that (a) one shouldn’t engage in casual takfeer, and (b) I’m sure Gallup weren’t engaging in such a question-begging exercise!

Which leads onto the question about what this “tolerance” is supposed to mean. Personally, I tolerate (unhappily) the presence of homosexuality in our society the same way I tolerate (sadly) the existence of atheism and worship of false gods. People generally have a “live and let live” attitude – though I’m not suggesting that it’s wrong to campaign for what you believe in. The sense in which I am not tolerant towards homosexuality is when I consider its standing morally, i.e. religiously. There are so many nuances to this discussion which just don’t come across in polls, let alone media reports on those polls.

I’m just glad they wrote “homosexuality” in the headline rather than saying “zero tolerance of homosexuals”, because the last thing we need is more suggestion that British Muslims are just waiting for their chance to execute gays! Remember this one?  “London Muslims overwhelmingly oppose gays“

Oh and speaking of manipulating polls, do have a look at this great insight from Martin Robbins.