…practicing [sic] Muslims who have managed to reconcile their sexual orientation and faith and find no reason to focus on conflict within the two.

Well, there is some truth in that, in that the matter is very clear from an Islamic perspective: acting on homosexual desires is forbidden by our Creator, and so whether we talk about “same-sex attraction” (as we do) or “orientation”, the duty of every Muslim towards it is the same.

When it comes to “conflict” between worship and desires, between dunya and Akhirah, there really is no contest.

Another oopsie: the pro-homosexuality “scholar” (or, it seems, Manzoor herself) cited the Qur’an 49:3 when she presumably meant 49:13. As the refuted argument goes, Allah has created diversity of all types, so all diversity should be accepted. Note that the Qur’an calls our attention to diversity of the following kinds and made them signs of His power and beauty: two genders, many nations and tribes, many languages and colours, and even the fact that not everyone will follow the truth of Islam.

Did you spot sexual orientation anywhere? And if we take this argument too seriously, couldn’t any deviant tendency be gathered under the umbrella of diversity?

But then again, there is a secret to Manzoor quoting 49:3. It reads:

Indeed, those who lower their voices before the Messenger of Allah – they are the ones whose hearts Allah has tested for righteousness. For them is forgiveness and great reward.

If we study the meanings of this surah, we understand that these are the people who show utmost respect for the Messenger of Allah (peace be on him), submitting to the commands of God as revealed in the Qur’an and Sunnah, not pushing their own opinions and desires.

One can come to many conclusions about what the unraveling Amina story actually means, but for our purposes what it demonstrates is the growing fracture between the very real, lived concerns of people living in the region and the selective, sensationalist focus of the Western media on issues in which they can see themselves reflected in, one of which is the lives of “gay Arabs” and “gay Muslims”. [...]

[G]ay Arabs are only the latest fodder used to fan the flames of Islamophobia in political, media, and public discourse. [...]

[T]he use of human rights abuses to justify the War on Terror speaks this violent logic: that those who are intolerant do not deserve to be tolerated (by those who both set the standard and are tasked with upholding it, when it suits them). Homophobia within Palestine, for example, which is bizarrely presented as unique and exceptional, becomes a justification for why Palestinians are less deserving of justice, equality and a state than the liberal, tolerant and democratic Israelis.

But more to the point, it all seems to be a hoax: New evidence about Amina, the “Gay Girl in Damascus” hoax

May Allah protect the Syrian people and all those struggling for their legitimate rights.

See also: Check your attitude

Here we talk about halal and haram, obedience to God, resisting blameworthy desires – and many visitors to the site only want to talk about love. Lest I be guilty of ignoring that side of things, please see the article above for a start (at SuhaibWebb.com).

I am planning to write a detailed post about love (if God wills), perhaps taking its title from a phrase in Imam Ibn Hazm’s fascinating Ring of the Dove, where he says: “The best thing a person can do out of love is be chaste.”

Allow me to give a voice to someone who would, in the homosexualist paradigm, be classed as “gay”, but whose opinions, feelings and preferences in life are considered by such campaigners as irrelevant. This is a comment from a young man on the StraightStruggle group:

Perhaps someone should tell David Allison that, conversely, he is creating the wrong attitude by telling people they are born with it, live with it and die with it.

The irony is that when it comes to people seeking growth and healing beyond homosexuality, people like him do not offer the same options for freedom of choice and expression that he would demand for those like himself who wish to embrace the homosexual lifestyle.  It’s completely hypocritical.  In a society where I can legally pay for a sex change, drink my liver out and have unprotected sex with a stranger – the same evil forces that would support such behaviours would prevent me from seeking psychological growth into my existing biological potential.

David Allison, you were born with the potential to make sperm, you live your life making sperm, and you will die making sperm.  Do you think your body’s trying to tell you something?

Why do the gays hate the ex-gays so much?  What deep nerve is our presence striking that makes them so vicious in condemning us?

It’s a damn good question.

I place a lot of emphasis on proper terminology, as the issues are tricky enough without getting muddled up by loose words. I have critiqued the term “ex-gay” on several grounds, but I’ll add another: it’s used by homosexualists to push those ‘cranks’ out of their fold for daring to want something different for themselves other than homo-orthodoxy. Worse still, they are ‘extremists’ and anyone who offers them the support they seek is likewise a bigoted ‘homophobe’. This stance is rife with contradictions.

For the title of this post I’ve used a term adopted by some in this situation, who think of themselves as strugglers against their desires and inclinations for the sake of Allah. I think this is quite fitting, as it evokes the connotations of the Islamic concept of Jihad (righteous struggle).

This blog is about promoting correct teachings of Islam, which can be universally understood and not just by “straight” or “gay” people. Some writers struggle – or have struggled – with same-sex attractions, others don’t. It really doesn’t matter, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly to people evidently inclined to ad hominem argumentation.

Yet even if it does matter, why are the voices of people who do understand intimately what it’s like to be “gay” – as they say – still rejected as crazy? Is there only one way to be gay?

Asra and Sarah decided upon a ‘nikah’ – a Muslim matrimonial contract. Whilst nikahs have traditionally been the reserve of heterosexual Muslims, Asra and Sarah were aware that other gay Muslims had followed this route and the couple decided to investigate further.

“A few friends said you don’t really have to have an official Imam, but you need someone who is knowledgeable enough about the Qur’an to do it. Fortunately, one of our friends was, and she offered to do it. She’s a lesbian herself, and she said we could do it in her home.” [...]

The short ceremony was conducted in Arabic, and additional duas – prayers – were read and the marriage was essentially no different from the nikahs performed for straight Muslim couples all over the world.

But the Islamic faith vehemently rejects homosexuality, and the fact this nikah was for a gay couple is highly offensive to the majority of Muslims – including Asra’s own parents.

Offensive is hardly the point.

Their so-called “nikah” is in fact fundamentally different from an actual nikah performed for a man and woman.

One of the essential conditions of a nikah is that the two people be marriageable to one another. A member of the same sex is not, in the Qur’anic paradigm, a marriageable partner. That is even if we don’t point out that homosexual relations are a sinful abomination.

This pair even state that they gave each other a “dowry”. In a nikah, the dowry (mahr, i.e. marriage gift) is strictly from the man to the woman. So how can they invent this ruling then claim it’s the same as a normal nikah?

The article quotes from Fake Sheikh Daayiee Abdullah, whose senseless rantings we have refuted on numerous occasions. Here I reproduce for you my questions concerning his supposed “Islamic homomarriages”:

• 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’?
• 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?
• (To go further, can a “bisexual” take both men and women as married partners?)
• 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?

Furthermore, the following Qur’anic argument disproves the very notion of a same-sex partner being considered as a spouse (zawj):

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?} [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.

The so-called “Imam” has here claimed that “By not allowing same-sex couples to wed, there is a direct attack on the Qur’an’s message that each person has a mate who is their ‘comfort and their cloak’”(!) Yet if we simply quote the verse to which he is alluding, we find that it says:

{Permitted to you (masc. pl.) on the nights of fasting is the approach to your (masc. pl.) women-folk. They (fem. pl.) are a garment for you (masc. pl.) and you (masc. pl.) are a garment for them (fem. pl.)…} [2:187] Extending this beautiful concept to seeking out any “comfort and cloak” regardless of gender, is an unjustified stretch of the imagination.

Finally, for those who, like this Sarah, would tell us that we ought not to comment negatively because “it is nobody’s business”, then that ship sailed when they turned what could have been a bit of private self-delusion into a media article that promotes confusion about some of the most obvious rulings in Islamic law.

Instead of condemning homosexuals, Saad told Al-Masry Al-Youm, we must “adopt a merciful approach and help them to repent.” [...]

With regard to his position on homosexuals, the true sin is unwillingness to change, not homosexuality itself. Believing that every gay man deserves a second chance at heterosexuality, Saad is determined to become an advocate for that second chance by speaking out on behalf of gay Muslims, a group he affirms, that faces more difficulties than any other oppressed section of Muslim society. [...]

Saad explained that Islam advocates sympathy and forgiveness: “Society must forgive [homosexuals] for their past, for Allah is a great, merciful forgiver.” As expressed in the book, gays are a direct result of a modern society that “participates in young men’s conversion to homosexuality.” Therefore, society should turn inward to examine its own behavior before it begins judging that of homosexuals. [...]

Members of the other group view their sexual orientation as a disease to be treated. Saad sees the treatment process as a heroic struggle in which men fight their instincts with the help of a doctor, and “hope for God’s reward.” Fortunately for them, this ‘reward’ is virtually guaranteed; even those who fail to succeed in their ‘conversion’ find redemption in God’s eyes because of their efforts. [...]

Saad adamantly opposes the idea of homosexuality as biological and unchangeable. He labels the “nature vs. nurture” argument as unsound and predominantly western, and insists that no individual is born with an unalterable sexual preference. “For every sin in Islam,” Saad explained during the interview, “there is a method to avoid or reverse that sin.”

Unlawful desires are usually associated with ugliness. They leave behind a lingering sensation of pain and guilt. Hence, whenever you are tempted, think about liberating yourself. Think about all the remorse that would accompany the realization of those desires, and then make up your mind. Struggling your way through obedience is not an easy task. It is, however, associated with goodness and soothing pleasures. Whenever you overburden yourself (with unlawful desires) think about how nice it would be to repent and set yourself free. Think about the pleasures that lawful desires will provide and try to make the correct choice. The dilemma you will experience should be reduced by remembering the sweet pleasure and the ultimate happiness that your obedience (to Allah) will provide. Logically, your mind should opt for the more rewarding option and help you to endure the pain of denying yourself the realization of such desires.

Taken from Al-Fawa’id of Imam Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah.

Quoted in the following article: Gay, Struggling and in Need of Help

It is full of relativism, such as when the author says: “There have been many-a-times even I have woken up asking who/what the f*** I did last night? But so have many of my straight friends.” Visitors to the article should also be aware that there is some explicit imagery.

What particularly drew my attention was Amin’s assessment of his future:

I have accepted the consequences of a gay lifestyle in the Muslim context. I don’t mean this in a self-loathing, self-deprecating way, but I have to accept that, in the context of Islam, I am going to spend time in hell. But there’s this sense of knowing and accepting these consequences that has both empowered me and allowed me to begin to map out my “gay” future.

I cannot take much satisfaction from the fact that he has refrained from promoting his own re-interpretation of the Islamic texts in order to pretend that homosexual acts are not forbidden. I am troubled for someone who can feel “empowered” by the idea of going to Hell. Does he know what Hell is??

This is a succinct expression of “choosing this life over the Hereafter”. It’s not too late to wake up and change, if talk of “the context of Islam” implies that he actually believes in Islam. For me, this is a confirmation of our view that true faith and proper understanding are indeed key to this issue as any other.

The above essay is one of the key researches done for this blog, and I often refer readers to it in order to grasp the essential argument for the prohibition of homosexual acts based on the Qur’anic narrative concerning the punished people of Lut (peace be on him), also known as the Sodomites.

Of course, the prohibition does not rest on that story (mentioned in eight passages of the Qur’an) alone, but extends from the general Qur’anic prohibition of any sexual relations outside marriage, as well as specific hadith texts condemning homosexual activity. Even so, this story provides a core upon which a broader understanding can be built.

I have cast a fresh eye over the essay and added a few paragraphs in reference to common claims based purely on wishful thinking, especially the idea that the Sodomites were guilty of male-male rape as opposed to consensual relations.

I’ve also made the Qur’anic passages more easily searchable thanks to the folks at Quran.com!