» Why I keep saying Gordon Brown has to go: http://is.gd/3iTTb 12 hrs ago

» Perhaps @SDBrook can be persuaded to update story on Alan Sugar and credit @bloggerheads for forcing Sun retraction? http://is.gd/3iI7X 14 hrs ago

» Big shame @mediaguardian today didn't credit @bloggerheads Tim for forcing Sun retraction & doing legwork http://is.gd/3iFaH 15 hrs ago

» I need help ppl! I need to buy a t-shirt that says 'The Boss', today (not for me!) in London. Any ideas where I could get one from? 15 hrs ago

» RT @rahooligan: Kanye turnd up @ Swayze's funeral&said I'll let u gt bck2ur funeral in a min bt MJ hd the best death of the yr. 16 hrs ago

More updates...


  • Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sonia Afroz
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Aqoul
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Blairwatch
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
    • Women Uncovered
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man’s fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sajini W
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown



  • Technorati: graph / links

    Muslims, gays and homophobia


    by Sunny on 13th July, 2009 at 5:20 am    

    There was an interesting profile in the Sunday Times yesterday of Dr Amanullah De Sondy, who:

    …challenges assumptions about what it means to be a Muslim man. The Koran does not, says De Sondy, demand a bearded patriarch with several wives and dozens of children. There are dysfunctional families in Islamic tradition, he says, prophets without father figures and revered holy men who led “effeminate” lifestyles. 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.”

    Sondy blogs at Progressive Scottish Muslims and is a researcher and teacher in Islamic and South Asian Studies at the School of Divinity, University of Glasgow. No doubt he’ll face a whole bunch of people who will call this heresy.

    But the good thing about Britain is that people have the free speech and space to challenge these orthodoxies. I suppose it’s easier in Islam, which is more de-centralised (like Hinduism) than Catholicism and even Sikhism. Sikhism is unfortunately led by diktats handed down by some reactionaries in Amritsar who try their best to put anyone progressive off Sikh philosophy.

    So in that sense - this challenge to old-skool thinking is inevitable, even if it might take quite a few generation as it did with other religions.



      |   Trackback link   |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Share on Facebook   |   Filed in: British Identity, Muslim, Organisations




    110 Comments below   |   Add your own

    1. Raja Sahib — on 13th July, 2009 at 9:43 am  

      “Sikhism is unfortunately led by diktats handed down by some reactionaries in Amritsar who try their best to put anyone progressive off Sikh philosophy.”

      I’m sure there must be Rabbi Lionel Blue in Sikhism ..

      .. Giyani Pinky Singh “Bundh”walla ..?

    2. Rob — on 13th July, 2009 at 10:02 am  

      Looks like the Libs. were on to something after all.

      There’s me thinking that courting the Gay & Muslim vote was a bit crazy.

      Silly me!

      I forgot about all those Gay Muslims!

    3. David T — on 13th July, 2009 at 10:27 am  

      Very good stuff

    4. Muslims, gays and homophobia | Free Political Forum — on 13th July, 2009 at 10:27 am  

      [...] Original post by Sunny [...]

    5. cjcjc — on 13th July, 2009 at 11:01 am  

      I like the sound of this guy.

      Will munir now appear to tell us he is not a real muslim?

    6. persephone — on 13th July, 2009 at 11:15 am  

      Its good to see another perspective on this

    7. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 11:22 am  

      Truly pathethic. Homosexuality is clearly forbidden (haram) by the texts of the Quran and the Sunnah- as incidentally is a anal sex between a man and wife.

      The prohibition of homosexuality as with the obligation of the hijab is an issue of complete consensus amongst Muslim scholars

      Mr De Sondy bringing up a “saint” who may have committed sodomy doesnt change anything. A person who commits kabaair is not a saint. Sounds like he just wants Islam to follow his desires.

      “On homosexuality from The Reliance of the Traveller (p17.0):

      In more than one place in the Holy Koran, Allah recounts to us the story of Lots people, and how He destroyed them for their wicked practice. There is consensus among both Muslims and the followers of all other religions that sodomy is an enormity. It is even viler and uglier than adultery.”

      A person can be gay and Muslim much like a person can be an alcoholic and Muslim. They are still Muslims but are commiting kabaair (grave sin). As long as they dont consider what they are doing as lawful they stay within the fold of Islam.

      De Sondy (who Ive never heard of-what are his Islamic scholarly credentials ?) as with all progressives is of course a hypocrite- he has spoken out against Muslims having their own schools!

      “Prize for crass political opportunism must however go to Amanullah De Sondy. In the hours after the attack (on Glasgow Airport), the Sunday Herald phones around looking for some reaction from Muslims. Mr De Sondy’s response was to attack the idea of Muslim schools, of which a grand total of zero exist in Scotland. Now we know the perpetrators were foreign bred, we must condemn these Muslims in Muslim countries going to school with other Muslims. Strange how people’s minds work in times of crisis, and very sad that the august institution of Glasgow University gets associated with this gutter analysis.”
      http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2007/07/second-post-aft.html

      But of course Muslims must accept what he says!!

      Justification of homosexuality by some Muslims
      http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=9023&CATE=13

      Gayness and Homosexulity
      http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1887&CATE=42

      Attitude Towards Homosexuals

      http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=8448&CATE=13

    8. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 11:26 am  

      cjcjc

      “I like the sound of this guy.

      Will munir now appear to tell us he is not a real muslim”

      Its not my business to say who is and isnt a real Muslim. He may be a better Muslim than me. I simply post what Islams position is on this issue.

      “Will munir now appear to tell us he is not a real muslim”

      You are right- it is up to cjcjc( “I like the sound of this guy”) and The Times to tell us what real Islam is about and who the real Muslims are- the Prophet(pbuh), his companions, the tabeein they taught, the major centres of Islamic learning around the globe in Azhar, Fez, India etc who needs them when we have Glasgow University school of Divinity!!

    9. cjcjc — on 13th July, 2009 at 11:26 am  

      Right on cue…amazing!

    10. cjcjc — on 13th July, 2009 at 11:28 am  

      The prohibition of homosexuality as with the obligation of the hijab is an issue of complete consensus amongst Muslim scholars

      Is it?

      He sounds like a “scholar” by any reasonable definition.

      But he disgrees with you, so he can’t be.

      OK. Got it.

    11. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 11:48 am  

      cjcj

      “He sounds like a “scholar” by any reasonable definition.”

      This would be “reasonable according to a zionist hater of Islam and Muslims like cjcjc”.

      The opinion of someone who learned Islam from non Muslims and has never studied Islam with a Muslim scholar carry zero weight Islamically.

      The guy doesnt even speak Arabic let alone Fusha!!!

      “But he disgrees with you, so he can’t be.”

      No he has never studied with Muslim scholars or recieved ijaza and his views contarcdict the clear nussoos of the Quran and disagree with ijma. So he cant be.

      He disagrees with the entirety of Islamic scholarship - apparently we are supposed to believe that the scholars of Islam who learned from the Prophet and were masters of Arabic and the Quran and its sciences all were mistaken and some guy in Scotland (who insults the Prophets and is a church goer) who cant speak Arabic is correct.

      I refer you to the above post written by a Muslim woman who has studied with scholars


      The Qur’an recounts the story of prophet Lut, peace be upon him, in many chapters. The message is always the same: The prophet Lut was sent to a group of people who were infamous for their depraved behavior. The men of the community were known for having sex with other men. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Arabic can tell that these verses are talking about men who engaged in consensual sex with other men, eschewing the women who were created for them. Rape is simply not an issue. To suggest that the angels were raped is completely false. The angels were under Allah’s divine protection. In fact, when prophet Lut expressed his fear that he couldn’t protect his guests from the depraved men of his community, the guests responded that they were angels in disguise and that no harm would befall them. Allah Most High says, “And when Our Messengers came to Lut, he was grieved on their account, and felt himself powerless (to protect) them: but they said: Fear thou not, nor grieve: we are (here) to save thee and thy following, except thy wife: she is of those who lag behind.” (Al-Ankabut, 29:33).”
      http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=9023&CATE=13

    12. Dalbir — on 13th July, 2009 at 11:52 am  

      “Sikhism is unfortunately led by diktats handed down by some reactionaries in Amritsar who try their best to put anyone progressive off Sikh philosophy.”

      It’s also unfortunate that some people interpret silence on the matter of homosexuality in Sikh scriptures/rahits as somehow indicative of acceptance. I don’t claim to know the answer but that’s a hell of a big jump to make.

    13. Rumbold — on 13th July, 2009 at 11:55 am  

      Dalbir:

      But surely if the Guru Granth Sahib doesn’t prohibit something that was around at the time it was composed that should be a sign of tolerance at the very least?

    14. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 13th July, 2009 at 11:58 am  

      The opinion of someone who learned Islam from non Muslims and has never studied Islam with a Muslim scholar carry zero weight Islamically.

      The guy doesnt even speak Arabic let alone Fusha!!!

      No he has never studied with Muslim scholars or recieved ijaza and his views contarcdict the clear nussoos of the Quran and disagree with ijma. So he cant be.

      Don’t ever let real facts get in the way of debate, munir.

      Amanullah has Arabic and Theology at religious schools in France, Jordan and Syria. He speaks and writes modern, classical (Fus-ha) and Quranic Arabic better than you can in English, old bean.

      And diagreeing with Ijma (Docrtine of Consensus) does not make you a non-scholar as many scholars, including the Islamists you align yourself with.

      Incidentally, Yossarian of Spittoon has written a great piece on Homosexuality in Islam here:
      http://www.spittoon.org/archives/1724

    15. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 12:11 pm  

      What is amusing about these people is while they strive to make sodomy which is haram, halal (lawful) they vehemently oppose and want to ban and make haram things like Polygamy which Islam allows (though doesnt encourage). This is because they arent interest in following Islam but their desires, whims and those of the society. Islam is submission to the will of God not submission to your desires.

      As mentioned previously sodomy/anal sex is forbidden not just between men and men but also between a man and his wife.

      “The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon Him) cursed the one who does this. He is reported to have said, “Cursed is the one who approaches his wife in her rectum.” (Reported by Imam Ahmad, 2/479)

      The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon Him) is also reported to have said: “The one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman, or with a woman in her rectum, or who goes to a fortune-teller, has disbelieved in what was revealed to Muhammad.” (Reported by At-Tirmidhi, no. 1/243; see also Saheeh al-Jami’, 5918).

      All Muslim jurists agree that anal sex is haram (prohibited), based on the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): “Do not have anal sex with women.” (Reported by Ahmad, At-Tirmidhi, An-Nasa’i, and Ibn Majah.)

      Khuzaymah Ibn Thabit (may Allah be pleased with him) also reported that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Allah is not too shy to tell you the truth: Do not have sex with your wives in the anus.” (Reported by Ahmad, 5/213.)

      Ibn `Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated: “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Allah will not look at a man who has anal sex with his wife.” (Reported by Ibn Abi Shaybah, 3/529, and At-Tirmidhi classified it as an authentic hadith, 1165) ”

      Now these “progressives” are saying sodomy is actually allowed between men it must be between husband and wife- what is to stop depraved men pressuring their wives to have anal sex or even sex when she is on her menses which is also strictly forbidden ?

    16. cjcjc — on 13th July, 2009 at 12:21 pm  

      “Cursed is the one who approaches his wife in her rectum.” (Reported by Imam Ahmad, 2/479)

      Sounds more like Monty Python.

    17. Dalbir — on 13th July, 2009 at 12:30 pm  

      13:

      From my experience Sikhs are generally accepting in terms of not being preoccupied with stoning gays to death or throwing them of roofs etc.

      The argument in your post is a bit dubious though Rumbold. Following that logic, one could argue that the failure to mention bestiality implies some implicit tolerance. (Not that I am comparing homosexuality with bestiality mind you!)

      The thing is that Sikh/Panjabi society is relatively conservative on such issues and globalisation is pretty much forcing Sikhs to face otherwise taboo issues and make decisions on subjects that are very alien to them.

    18. Rumbold — on 13th July, 2009 at 12:35 pm  

      Dalbir:

      I take your point about the lack on mention not necessarily implying acceptance. And plenty of Punjabis/Sikhs do have negative attitudes towards homosexuality. But given that the Gurus focused on the idea of equality so much, might we not assume that they wouldn’t have regarded homosexuals as lower beings?

    19. damon — on 13th July, 2009 at 12:41 pm  

      Munir, if the Qur’an did not disapprove of homosexuality, would your position be different?

      Also, while I might accept that your religion forbids it (like the catholicism of my parents does), leaving religion aside for a moment, are you supportive of civic legislation like we have in the UK that grants equality for homosexuals?

      Whatever your own opinions on whether you think homosexuaity is right or wrong, would you say that it haram (or otherwise) for Muslims to be supportive of gay equality laws?

      And even to (for example) attend last weeks Gay Pride parade in London as a show of solidarity?

    20. Dalbir — on 13th July, 2009 at 12:46 pm  

      I think we must also consider the fact that they may well have condemned it as anti ‘grisht’ or traditional family which they did espouse. It is not a matter of considering them “lower beings” as such.

      We have to remember that although they believed in equality they also condemned many of the religious/cultural practices prevalent in the Panjab at the time. So the belief in human equality did not mean accepting everything.

      I don’t know what their thoughts on homosexuality would be and it would be false for anyone to talk as if they know for certain (which is what some people are trying to do).

    21. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 12:48 pm  

      Faisal
      “Amanullah has Arabic and Theology at religious schools in France, Jordan and Syria.”

      Which ones? Where are the names of his sheikhs? This doesnt exist in Islamic scholarship - that a person can just say he is a scholar and not say who he has studied with

      If he had studied with scholars he wouldnt be making haram halal

      “He speaks and writes modern, classical (Fus-ha) and Quranic Arabic better than you can in English, old bean.”

      Yet he doesnt understand the Arabic of the Quran

      his blog says he has
      “credentials in Arabic, though my core interest is in Urdu and Punjabi.”- so he clearly hasnt had the years of studied needed to understand the Quran

      Even if he does(which he doesnt) still doesnt make him a scholar

      “And diagreeing with Ijma (Docrtine of Consensus) does not make you a non-scholar as many scholars, ”

      No not having studied Islam with Muslim scholars and not having ijaza makes you a non scholar.

      Its not just disgreeing with ijma - its disagree with clear texts of the Quran. What would you say about someone who said Riba was halal or pork or alcohol? (Oh wait youd support them) Same with people claiming homosexuality is halal

      “including the Islamists you align yourself with.”

      Who would that be then, liar? Name names.

      You clearly dont read the posts and scholars I link to! A scholar who goes against ijma has erred as the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wasalaam) told us “My community will never unite on error”

      “Men are known by the truth and not the truth by men”- in Islam we dont say “x scholar said this though it goes against ijma but cos its x scholar we support it” - we say scholar x went against ijma and he or she has erred.

    22. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 12:50 pm  

      cjcjc
      “Sounds more like Monty Python.”

      a zionist turd who mocks the holy words of the Prophet (pbuh) thinks Amanullah De Sondy is a great guy.

      This is all Muslims need to know!

    23. cjcjc — on 13th July, 2009 at 1:13 pm  

      What’s not to mock?

      “The one who has intercourse with a menstruating woman, or with a woman in her rectum, or who goes to a fortune-teller, has disbelieved in what was revealed to Muhammad.”

      It’s parody proof.

      I especially love the “fortune-teller” afterthought.

      “zionist turd” - how original; you must be really proud of that one!

    24. persephone — on 13th July, 2009 at 1:16 pm  

      The aspect I liked about this article is that traditional (for want of a better word) religion is being challenged in the light of today. Most legacy religions contain or exclude things that run counter to more modern times and thinking anyway.

      So the real question has to be, what aspects of religion are ‘allowed’ to be interpreted or even developed in the context of modern times? This article is dealing with the aspect of homosexuality - despite whether any religion covers it or not - is it humanely right to say that it is sinful?

      From a human rights point of view the answer is no. If not, is it the ‘business’ of religion to be inhumane? The challenge then is why is religion ‘allowed’ to be inhumane on this aspect but not on others?

      As other things have been challenged before and found wanting so should this aspect be similarly challenged.

    25. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 1:21 pm  

      whats not to mock about zioturds like you?

      Whats also worthy of mockery is Muslims who follow Islam as taught and recommended by Islam/Muslim haters like you!

    26. cjcjc — on 13th July, 2009 at 1:24 pm  

      “zioturds” - wow - you must have been working on that one for months!

    27. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 1:27 pm  

      persephone

      “So the real question has to be, what aspects of religion are ‘allowed’ to be interpreted or even developed in the context of modern times? This article is dealing with the aspect of homosexuality – despite whether any religion covers it or not – is it humanely right to say that it is sinful?

      From a human rights point of view the answer is no. If not, is it the ‘business’ of religion to be inhumane? The challenge then is why is religion ‘allowed’ to be inhumane on this aspect but not on others?”

      Actually its raises the issues of how secularists vehemntly demand that religion be kept seperate and not interfere in politics or with secularism, while all the time interfereing with religion and trying to twist it to their ends

      Who defines humane or inhumane? Is abortion humane or inhumane?

      Its funny to talk of human rights and then deny people the right to say an action is sinful (while not denying the right of others to do that sin) Sounds like a dictatorship.

    28. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 1:29 pm  

      cjcjc
      “zioturds” – wow – you must have been working on that one for months!

      No it just popped into my mind when I read your posts

    29. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 13th July, 2009 at 1:39 pm  

      Its funny to talk of human rights and then deny people the right to say an action is sinful (while not denying the right of others to do that sin) Sounds like a dictatorship.

      No it’s just the nature of society. Some ideas and institutions become abhorrent and illegal in spite of being sanctioned by religious doctrine.

      Slavery is allowed, sanctioned and even upheld by the Quran (and the Bible). How many muslim-majority nations nowadays insist that institutionalised slavery as permitted by the Quran must trump human rights?

      What is stopping you arguing for the right of religious people to have slaves?

    30. Carmenego — on 13th July, 2009 at 1:41 pm  

      #27 Munir

      “Actually its raises the issues of how secularists vehemntly demand that religion be kept seperate and not interfere in politics or with secularism, while all the time interfereing with religion and trying to twist it to their ends”

      Hold on a second, there’s a difference between openly criticising a religious doctrine (seeking equality for all) and “interfering with religion”. It’s fine for you to say that homosexuality is sinful, but in this day and age I do not think it is acceptable to punish someone for it.

      As a secularist who has nothing against LGBTs, it would be nice if all religions changed their opinion on it, but we are not in the business of rewriting the Qu’ran or the Bible. It’s more a “live and let live” ethos as far as I know.

      I was brought up a Catholic, and in the Bible, Jesus clearly says “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. If homosexuality is practised between two consenting adults, or if someone really wants a bacon sandwich (despite knowing it goes against what their religious text says) perhaps leave it up to Allah to decide their fate, rather than pontificate about how they’re not a proper Muslim.

      Harumph.

    31. persephone — on 13th July, 2009 at 1:49 pm  

      Munir

      “Actually its raises the issues of how secularists vehemntly demand that religion be kept seperate and not interfere in politics or with secularism, while all the time interfereing with religion and trying to twist it to their ends”

      Secularist? vehemently demand? You seem to be dictating that anyone who challenges or even lightly debates legacy religion is a secularist, demanding & interfering?

      “Who defines humane or inhumane?”

      Exactly my point - religion seems to do so

      “Is abortion humane or inhumane?”

      In certain circumstances it can be inhumane for the mother to go through with a pregnancy.

      Why not stick to the topic and answer whether treating homosexuality as sinful is inhumane? Does this make religion inhumane when most religions espouse humanity?

      “Sounds like a dictatorship.”

      You could say that about religion.

    32. Dalbir — on 13th July, 2009 at 1:56 pm  

      Carmenego

      Doesn’t Leviticus say something about killing gays?

    33. cjcjc — on 13th July, 2009 at 2:14 pm  

      Leviticus 20, 13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

      But this sounds much more serious for Sunny:

      Leviticus 19, 27: Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

      You really have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.

    34. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 2:16 pm  

      Typical Faisal - he raises a point is proven wrong then ignores that and any questions put to him and proceeds onto another point

      Faisal
      “No it’s just the nature of society. Some ideas and institutions become abhorrent and illegal in spite of being sanctioned by religious doctrine.

      Slavery is allowed, sanctioned and even upheld by the Quran (and the Bible). How many muslim-majority nations nowadays insist that institutionalised slavery as permitted by the Quran must trump human rights?”

      An idiotic argument, from an idiot. Emancipating slaves is considered an act of great virtue worthy of paradise in numerous verses of the Quran and Hadith.

      Ive quoted this to you before and will again:

      “Our teacher Nur al-Dın ‘Itr gave this
      golden rule for self-hating Muslims over the issue
      of slavery in Islam: “Not one of the books of jurisprudence or its principles has a single chapter
      entitled ‘slavery’ in all Islam but they all have a
      chapter entitled ‘emancipation.’

      http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/d/ufaw_e.pdf

      There are no texts extolling sodomy rather the opposite as quoted in earlier posts. In Islam sex is within marriage and sex between a husband and wife is seen as a great act of worship - but even in this relationship sodomy is forbidden.

      Your “arguments” might get you a piece in the Times or convinced your zionist pals or people eager to follow their desires and push a certain viewpoint but they dont work with Muslims who know anything about their religion. Those ultimately are the people you have to try and will fail to convince. Watch for Faisal to ignore everything else Ive written refuting him and take the quote and run with!

      The funny thing about Faisal , De Sondy Irshad Mangey et al is as much as they claim to set themselves in opposition to them they are just the same as Osama Bin Laden and al Qaida in their approach to Islam. They are non scholars who try and twist texts and “reform” Islam to suit their desires.

      Just as the progressive will say hijab isnt fard and homosexuality is OK even though this opposes the ijma consensus of scholars Bin Laden will say its OK to target civilians though this opposes consensus of the Muslim scholars.

      The true Islam and lies in Orthodox classical Islam of the 4 schools - which forbid both killing civilians and homosexuality.

    35. persephone — on 13th July, 2009 at 2:18 pm  

      @ 33 Does that mean (by its omission) that women can safely sleep with other women?

    36. Carmenego — on 13th July, 2009 at 2:20 pm  

      Yeah it does :-) Which is why I am a secularist. There are so many problems associated with blindly following religious texts. It also says in the Bible that it’s a sin to wear two types of fabric together. A fashion sin, maybe!

      I appreciate that religion is extremely important to some people, but as a guide to moral living, I think it’s pretty flawed. There must be some people who question their faith and it is made stronger by their scepticism, I’m just not one of them.

    37. cjcjc — on 13th July, 2009 at 2:23 pm  

      @35 - I suspect (supposedly like Queen Victoria) that in those days they didn’t believe lesbianism existed!

    38. Carmenego — on 13th July, 2009 at 2:23 pm  

      *That last post was answring #32 btw!

      #35 Lol :-)

    39. cjcjc — on 13th July, 2009 at 2:27 pm  

      It’s fantastic really, isn’t it?

      I went to a discussion at the Royal Institution last month about the conflict between science and religion, and one audience member asked a very pertinent question: if God exists why is he so *petty*?

      The religious lot rather struggled to answer that one.

    40. persephone — on 13th July, 2009 at 2:35 pm  

      @ 38 & 36

      It is a hoot. I especially liked the “it’s a sin to wear two types of fabric together.” Sounds as if God was really Gok Wan

    41. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 2:55 pm  

      Carmengo
      “Hold on a second, there’s a difference between openly criticising a religious doctrine (seeking equality for all) and “interfering with religion”. It’s fine for you to say that homosexuality is sinful, but in this day and age I do not think it is acceptable to punish someone for it.”

      Actually persephone in #24 was saying its NOT OK for religions to say it is sinful and thats what I was responding to

      “As a secularist who has nothing against LGBTs, it would be nice if all religions changed their opinion on it, but we are not in the business of rewriting the Qu’ran or the Bible. It’s more a “live and let live” ethos as far as I know.”

      Fair enough.

      ” If homosexuality is practised between two consenting adults, or if someone really wants a bacon sandwich (despite knowing it goes against what their religious text says) perhaps leave it up to Allah to decide their fate, rather than pontificate about how they’re not a proper Muslim.”

      er youre a bit confused here Carmengo as you earlier said

      ” It’s fine for you to say that homosexuality is sinful, “

    42. Ravi Naik — on 13th July, 2009 at 3:07 pm  

      Doesn’t Leviticus say something about killing gays

      Homophobic Christians do use that Leviticus quote a lot, yet, they are unaware that Leviticus also prohibits eating pork, shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, etc, because that is also an abomination.

    43. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 13th July, 2009 at 3:08 pm  

      An idiotic argument, from an idiot. Emancipating slaves is considered an act of great virtue worthy of paradise in numerous verses of the Quran and Hadith.

      Ive quoted this to you before and will again:

      Hilarious, you’re always the first to squeal “ad-hominem” whenever you’re attacked.

      But here’s the thing: What you chose to elide from the PDF you quoted was this essential piece of information:

      In an interview titled “Dr. Amina Wad¯ud leads the Ummah in a Historical prayer”8 she is quoted as saying: “The end conclusion was that the principle of Ijtehad will be used to discontinue slavery even when the Quran did not advocate for its immediate end.”

      Try and understand here that Ijtihad can and has been used to removed the phenomenon of institutionalised slavery since Prophetic times. And I’m sure there have been reactionary buffoons yourself like who maintained that slavery could not be abolised because of it was allowed by Ijma.

      The idea that some scholar called Nur-al-deen is advocating the emancipation of slaves by the use of theology, even though it is sanctioned by the Quran, proves my point that society moves on and finds these ideas ultimately abhorrent and unworkable.

      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.

      And ijtihad is going to be used, just as it has with slavery, to render it illegal. As it should be.

    44. damon — on 13th July, 2009 at 3:10 pm  

      Did any of these holy books tell us that the earth was round?
      You’d have thought they might have given us a few pointers on that one.

      And do muslims believe in Adam and Eve?
      I remember my father telling me about that when I was about 11, and I blurted out a ”you cannot be serious” kind of reply. We never discussed religion much after that.

      But I wonder Munir, do you really believe that the world was created in seven 24 hour periods, and that Adam was created out of clay and Eve out of his rib? (or whatever)

      Is this what people believe is actual historical reality?

      ”During his night journey toward Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem), Muhammad rode on *Buraq* to Jerusalem and once there he prayed two raka’ah on the Temple Mount. After he finished his prayers, the angel Gabriel took him to Heaven, where he met several of the prophets and upon encouragement from Moses, negotiated with God via Gabriel that Muslims would be required to make five prayers daily”

      If it is, then I don’t think anyone should feel obliged to give any credence to Islamic homophobia - (or anything else).

      *Buraq*
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buraq

      *Buraqair*
      http://www.buraqair.com/

    45. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 3:17 pm  

      persephone

      “Secularist? vehemently demand? You seem to be dictating that anyone who challenges or even lightly debates legacy religion is a secularist, demanding & interfering?”

      Er you were arguing in #24 that religion not be allowed to say homosexuality is a sin as it would be not be “humanely right”

      munir
      “Who defines humane or inhumane?”

      persephone
      “Exactly my point – religion seems to do so”

      Oh dear.. no YOU were also doing so in post #24
      and seeking to impose your definition of humane

      ———————————-
      munir
      “Is abortion humane or inhumane?”

      persephone
      “In certain circumstances it can be inhumane for the mother to go through with a pregnancy.”

      er.. persephone it was a rhetorical question

      “Why not stick to the topic and answer whether treating homosexuality as sinful is inhumane? Does this make religion inhumane when most religions espouse humanity?”

      this is a fallacious laughable tail chasing question- saying homosexuality is sinful is inhumane (your opinion)- religions espouse humanity therefore religions cannot say homosexuality is sinful. Religions who say homosexuality is a sin are therefore inhumane. Because I said saying homosexuality is sinful is inhumane.

      This is on par with Irshad Manjis justification for homosexuality

      munir

      “Sounds like a dictatorship.”

      Persephone
      You could say that about religion.

      er maybe we can agree that ALL dictatorships religious or secular are wrong

    46. Carmenego — on 13th July, 2009 at 4:01 pm  

      #40
      Haha! There is a place for the Gokmeister in heaven, of that we can be sure.

      I’ve met a lot of different types of Christians but one of the things that bothers me about the really militant ones is the complete aversion to question their faith, as it is a sin to do so.

      If you were to question gravity, your belief in it would be strengthened, why do some not take the same approach to God?

    47. persephone — on 13th July, 2009 at 4:14 pm  

      I was saying that as various religions say all sorts of things (some of which have been proven to be outdated/unfair/discriminatory) that humanity be used as a common platform to pave a way forward.

      If not wanting to be unfair or discriminatory makes me the arbiter of what is humane or inhumane (in the current context) then I can only assume any challenge to the status quo causes what seems to be affront/defensiveness at such scrutiny. And ultimately we are all accountable whether to ourselves, the rest of humanity or to our maker should a person believe in the latter.

      Also, I do not see how any of this makes a person secularist or the rest of what was your rather shaky association when many religious people, including the writer of the article, seek to question and redefine their religion.

    48. persephone — on 13th July, 2009 at 4:15 pm  

      47 is in response to 45

    49. Carmenego — on 13th July, 2009 at 4:17 pm  

      #munir

      You’re starting to rant a little bit, and you seem to be chasing your own tail and getting hooked on the humane/inhumane thing.

      Religions can *say* what they want about something, but if in doing so they are alienating a group of people, I have to agree with Persephone that they are behaving in an inhumane way - especially if this alienation is coupled with persecution, as it occasinally seems to be.

      This is not saying that religion itself is inhumane, just the anti-gay aspect of it. I think. (Persephone, correct me if I’m wrong).

      *Ooh and anti-women aspect

    50. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 4:21 pm  

      Faisal

      “But here’s the thing: What you chose to elide from the PDF you quoted

      was this essential piece of information:

      In an interview titled “Dr. Amina Wad¯ud leads the Ummah in a Historical prayer”8 she is quoted as saying: “The end conclusion was
      that the principle of Ijtehad will be used to discontinue slavery even

      when the Quran did not advocate for its immediate end.””

      You “forgot” to mention Sheikh GF Haddads essential point refuting this

      Lets put the whole section should we?

      “In an interview titled “Dr. Amina Wadud leads
      the Ummah in a Historical prayer” she is quoted
      as saying: “The end conclusion was that the principle
      of Ijtehad will be used to discontinue slavery
      even when the Quran did not advocate for its
      immediate end.”

      While it is true the Qur’an did
      not command the immediate end of slavery it certainly
      advocated for its immediate end by equating
      the freeing of slaves with salvation and worship in
      many verses. Our teacher Nur al-Dın ‘Itr gave this
      golden rule for self-hating Muslims over the issue
      of slavery in Islam: “Not one of the books of jurisprudence or its principles has a single chapter
      entitled ‘slavery’ in all Islam but they all have a
      chapter entitled ‘emancipation.’”9

      “Try and understand here that Ijtihad can and has been used to removed the phenomenon of institutionalised slavery since Prophetic times.”

      LOL You dont even understand what ijtihad is or who is capable of doing it.

      Ijtihad is allowed where a new issue arises and there is no clear text from the Quran or Sunnah. We cant say “we made ijtihad to make alcohol halal” because there is clear text forbidding it. Likewise with
      homosexuality being a sin

      This is proven by the hadith allowing ijtihad
      the Prophet (S) while sending Mu’adh as a judge to Yaman asked him:

      “On what shall you base your judgements?” Mu’adh replied: “On the Book
      of God”. The Prophet (S) asked: “But what if you don’t find it there?” Mu’adh said: “(Then I will act) according to the Sunnah of the Apostle of Allah”. The Prophet (S) again asked: “What if you don’t find it there[ too]?” Mu’adh said: (I will exert my own ray). The Prophet (S) said: “Thanks to God who gave success to, His Messenger”.

      Note only after he didnt find the text in the Quran and Sunnah would Muadh exercise ijtihad. Another important point- all the sahabas were pious upright people who lived amonsgt the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wasallam .Yet even amongst them only a select few were considered scholars capable of ijtihad or being judges as in Muadhs case. Yet you want to promote the idea that all Muslims of today can be scholars
      when only a few of the sahabas were considered worthy!!!

      And you fail to bring a single classical scholar who said homosexuality was halal!!!

      Are you even aware Faisal of the conditions of being a mujtahid? -one able to exercise ijtihad. They are oulined below*

      Ijtihad can be used to outlaw slavery because there are many texts calling on Muslims to emancipate slaves. There are no texts calling on Muslims to sodomise people in fact the exact opposite- hence homosexuality can never be allowed.

      “And I’m sure there have been reactionary buffoons yourself like who maintained that slavery could not be abolised because of it was
      allowed by Ijma.”

      Shameless liar. I never said slavery was allowed by ijma. In any case how could anyone argue that when the Quran repeatedly calls for the exact opposite- emancipating slaves?

      Its like saying “Islam says hijab is obligatory but women should also take off their hijabs in public” -”Islam says alcohol is forbidden but also you should have a tipple etc”

      Wearing a hijab or refraining from sodomy are obligatory commands - there is no command to enslave people (quite the reverse) which is
      where your analogy collapses.

      “The idea that some scholar called Nur-al-deen”

      Hilarious. This is Nur al-Dın ‘Itr one of the finest scholars in Syria
      (you know the place you bigged up De Sondy because he had studied there)

      “is advocating the emancipation of slaves by the use of theology, even though it is sanctioned by the Quran, proves my point that society moves on and finds these ideas ultimately abhorrent and unworkable.”

      He’s quoting classical text written centuries ago you idiot!
      And its not theology you idiot its fiqh!!

      Read his quote again “Not one of the books of jurisprudence or its principles has a single chapter
      entitled ‘slavery’ in all Islam but they all have a
      chapter entitled ‘emancipation.’

      The Quran sanctions the emancipation of slaves as a great act - it doesnt sanction sodomy . The ruling that emancipating slaves is a good act hasnt changed- why would the ruling that sodomy is a bad act have?

      “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.”

      It is unacceptable to persecute homosexuals. But sodomy is a major sin from now till yawm al qiyamah.

      “And ijtihad is going to be used, just as it has with slavery, to render it illegal. As it should be.”

      No it isnt because there is no ijtihad against a clear text.

      —————————————
      *
      What is the definition of a mujtahid mutlaq, and are there any today.

      A mujtahid is someone qualified to exercise ijtihad, which literally

      means striving and technically means juridical endeavor and competence

      to infer expert legal rulings from foundational proofs within or

      without a particular school of law.
      A mujtahid mutlaq or “absolute mujtahid” is one that attained the rank

      of the Four Imams Abu Hanifa, Malik, al-Shafi`i, and Ahmad in

      knowledge of Arabic, qualification to apply legal reasoning, draw

      analogies, and infer rulings from the evidence independently of the

      methodology and findings of the Sunni Schools, through his own

      linguistic and juridical perspicuity and extensive knowledge of the

      texts.
      Examples: several of the Companions and Tabi`in, al-Awza`i, al-Tabari,

      Dawud al-Zahiri, and others. An additional qualification sine qua non

      is agreed-upon, superlative taqwa.
      There is no mujtahid mutlaq today nor even a claimant to that title.

      Below is a list of the requisites of Ijtihad summarized from the book

      “PRINCIPLES OF ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE” by M Kamali p374-377 as posted

      by Br. Abu Usamah on the msa-ec forum in July of last year.

      Firstly the mujtahid must be a Muslim and a person of sound mind and

      intellectual competence. Requirements of a mujtahid : *Knowledge of

      Arabic such than he can understand the Qur’an and Hadith correctly.

      *Knowledge of the Qur’an which includes Makki/Madani; Occasions of

      Revelation; Incidences of Abrogation; LEGAL TEXTS (aayaatul ahkaam).

      (In short all the requisites of Tafsir) *Knowledge of the Sunnah

      specifically the legal texts (ahaadeethal ahkaam)

      He most know where to find the Hadiths and be able to distinguish the

      reliable narrations from the weak.
      *Knowledge of the substance of the Furu` works and the points on which

      there is Ijma`.

      *Knowledge of Qiyas (Analogical Deduction)
      *Knowledge of the Maqasid (objectives) of the Shari`ah

      *Knowledge of the General Maxims of Fiqh. eg. Certainty prevails over

      Doubt.

      Another description can be found in Shaykh `Ali Hasabullah’s _Usul al

      -Tashri` al-Islami_ (5th ed. 1976) p. 94-95:

      The Mujtahid is he who possesses, together with complete soundness of

      mind and of Religion, three necessary traits:

      1. Knowledge of the Arabic language and the ways in which its signifies meanings. This knowledge does not come except to one who has frequented its various disciplines and read much of the works of its
      masters of eloquence until he knows how to differentiate between the specific and the general, the literal and the figurative, the explicit
      and the ambiguous, and other aspects upon knowing which depends his ability to infer rulings.

      He does not have to reach the mastery of language of a Khalil or a Sibawayh or al-Asma`i and others of the Imams of Arabic. It suffices that he attains the rank necessary to understand texts in the right
      way.

      2. Knowledge of Qur’an and Sunna and whatever is in them of rulings, those that were abrogated and those that were not, together with the linking up of the universal with its particulars, the absolute with
      its restricted sense, and the general with the specific. He does not,
      in this, have to have memorized all that is related.
      It suffices that he has to be able to gather up all that is connected with the topic he is investigating and to know what the experts of
      hadith have said concerning sound or weak gradings as well as what they said concerning the narrators with regard to discreditation and
      commendation.

      3. Knowledge of the objectives of the Law and of the living contexts of people as well as the customs they share and whatever harms or benefits them, and the ability to know the minute defects of legal
      rulings and to compare and contrast their similarities so as to better understand facts and infer the rulings that most precisely correspond to the objectives of the Lawgiver and implement the welfare of those under consideration.

      GF Haddad ©

      http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e60.html

      *As for the conditions of the absolute and independent ijtihad, they

      are mentioned in the Maraqi as-sa’ud in the following line and what

      follows:

      “And that [word ‘faqih’] is synonymous with the [word] ‘mujtahid’

      coupled with those things which bear upon [him] the burden of

      responsibility,

      Such as his being of extreme intelligence by nature, and there is some

      debate about one who is known to reject juristic analogy [qiyas]

      He knows the [juristic] responsibilities through intellectual proofs

      unless a clear transmitted proof indicates otherwise.

      [Sidi Abdullah] says [in his commentary] Nashru al-bunud,

      “This means that among the conditions of ijtihad is that [the

      mujtahid] knows that he must adhere to the intellectual proof which is

      the foundational condition [al-bara’atu al-asliyya] until a

      transmitted proof from a sacred law indicates otherwise.”

      He then goes on to mention the other conditions of a mujtahid:

      [The sciences of] grammar, prosody, philology, combined with those of

      usul and rhetoric he must master.

      According to the people of precision, [he must know] where the

      judgements can be found without the condition of having memorized the

      actual texts.

      [All of the above must be known] according to a middle ranked mastery

      at least. He must also know those matters upon which there is

      consensus.

      [Moreover, he must know] things such as the condition of single

      hadiths and what carries the authority of great numbers of

      transmissions; also [knowledge of] what is sound and what is weak is

      necessary.

      Furthermore, what has been abrogated and what abrogates, as well as

      the conditions under which a verse was revealed or a hadith was

      transmitted is a condition that must be met.

      The states of the narrators and the companions [must also be known].

      Therefore, you may follow anyone who fulfils these conditions

      mentioned above according to the soundest opinion.

      http://maliki.org/index.php?

      option=com_content&task=view&id=58&Itemid=57

    51. persephone — on 13th July, 2009 at 4:25 pm  

      @ 46: “If you were to question gravity, your belief in it would be strengthened, why do some not take the same approach to God?”

      My theory is that if you have been dictated a religion to follow & as an individual you have been blindly following it with little questioning or basis for why you are following it then you are not able to rationalise or explain your own belief in it outside of citing scriptures since the latter was the only way it was taught to you.

      (Funny that while I was writing this Munir has started citing scriptures)

    52. persephone — on 13th July, 2009 at 4:29 pm  

      @ 49 ” This is not saying that religion itself is inhumane, just the anti-gay aspect of it. I think. (Persephone, correct me if I’m wrong).”

      Yep along those lines. If religion has being humane as a central value then it should exercise it per se

    53. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 4:37 pm  

      persephone
      “(Funny that while I was writing this Munir has started citing scriptures)”

      yes because I was arguing with Faisal over his specious idea that Islamic texts support homosexuality

      Are you seriously suggest you can follow a religion and ignore its scripture.

      “My theory is that if you have been dictated a religion to follow & as an individual you have been blindly following it with little questioning or basis for why you are following it then you are not able to rationalise or explain your own belief in it outside of citing scriptures since the latter was the only way it was taught to you. ”

      This is a funny comment because the people who follow religion in our deeply secular society are not the ones blindly following - rather they are going against much of what the current society deems right. The blind sheep are secular people such as yourself just blindly following what is fed to them in the media and taking their attitudes and views from them. This is in thoughts, dress and everything.

      Society says homosexuality is OK? ok I say its OK then. etc

    54. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 13th July, 2009 at 4:40 pm  

      Ijtihad can be used to outlaw slavery because there are many texts calling on Muslims to emancipate slaves. There are no texts calling on Muslims to sodomise people in fact the exact opposite- hence homosexuality can never be allowed.

      Again, you’re reinforcing my point. If these texts exist they exist in spite of the sanctioning of slavery in the Quran. Slavery was not abolished by the Quran, but by Mujtahids and scholars who wrote these texts.

      Are you beginning to understand the order of things now?

      It should be the same for homosexuality. And it will.

    55. persephone — on 13th July, 2009 at 4:53 pm  

      Munir

      I am saying the central values be applied foremost as scriptures can be outdated & discriminatory. Scripture can also be contradictory to the values - this is why I raised the value of humanity being contradictory to the quoted scripture on homosexuality.

      Geddit?

    56. Shamit — on 13th July, 2009 at 4:54 pm  

      I am agnostic and I have massive problems with scriptures.

      Should we kill a surgeon because they work during the Sabbath?

      Should parents have the ability to sell children into slavery?

      Should people have the right to divorce by saying a word 3 times?

      Should someone be killed if they choose to leave Islam?

      Should casteism be accepted by everyone?

      Who cares what the scriptures say? The veracity of every scripture is doubtful considering the time when it was written and the Catholic Church’s willingess to stop anything that challenged their power proves my case?

      I could care less what any scripture says and I think I am God’s child like anyone else — what makes anyone say that I need to believe in a particular path to reach GOD?

      Has anyone taken that agency?

      Sorry just find these issues rather boring — when all religions talk about the importance of our common humanity. But most people who quote scriptures usually tend to forget that and believe that only their way is the right way and everyone else would go to hell (or whatever).

      Now mUnir you got enough to have a go at me -

    57. Shamit — on 13th July, 2009 at 4:56 pm  

      Perse @55

      That was brilliant — and very apt.

    58. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 5:02 pm  

      Faisal

      “Again, you’re reinforcing my point. If these texts exist they exist in spite of the sanctioning of slavery in the Quran. Slavery was not abolished by the Quran, but by Mujtahids and scholars who wrote these texts.”

      You idiot- Im talking about the texts of the Quran and the hadith of the Prophet calling on Muslims to emancipate slaves

      2:177 “It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness to believe in God and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the God-fearing.”

      9:60 Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer the (funds); for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to Truth); for those in bondage and in debt; in the cause of Allah. and for the wayfarer: (thus is it) ordained by Allah, and Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom.

      90:8. Have We not made for him a pair of eyes?-
      9. And a tongue, and a pair of lips?-
      10. And shown him the two highways?
      11. But he hath made no haste on the path that is steep.
      12. And what will explain to thee the path that is steep?-
      13. (It is:) freeing the bondman;
      14. Or the giving of food in a day of privation
      15. To the orphan with claims of relationship,
      16. Or to the indigent (down) in the dust.
      17. Then will he be of those who believe, and enjoin patience, (constancy, and self-restraint), and enjoin deeds of kindness and compassion.

      Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari: “The Prophet said, “Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom).” (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Food, Meals, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286)”

      Narrated Asma: “No doubt the Prophet ordered people to manumit slaves during the solar eclipse. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Eclipses, Volume 2, Book 18, Number 163)”

      “Are you beginning to understand the order of things now?

      It should be the same for homosexuality. And it will.

      desperate desperate stuff Faisal

      I have brought the texts from the Quran and Sunnah advocating freeing slaves

      Bring the texts advocating sodomy or admit defeat
      (I posted on #15 the texts forbidding sodomy)

    59. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 5:12 pm  

      persephone but then we get back to the issue of who defines what is and isnt humane

    60. Shamit — on 13th July, 2009 at 5:14 pm  

      Our common humanity and our progression defines what is humane -

      or you have a problem with that Munir

    61. Shatterface — on 13th July, 2009 at 5:15 pm  

      “Cursed is the one who approaches his wife in her rectum.” (Reported by Imam Ahmad, 2/479)”

      Is that like coveting her ass?

      Munir, stay off the poppers when you are posting.

    62. persephone — on 13th July, 2009 at 5:21 pm  

      Humanity is patiently debating with munir

    63. persephone — on 13th July, 2009 at 5:22 pm  

      Thanks Shamit - don’t know how many versions of explaining humanity will get thru’ to Munir

    64. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 5:26 pm  

      Shamit

      “Our common humanity and our progression defines what is humane –”

      This is empty greetings card rhetoric- So what if we disagree with what constitutes humanity and progress ?

      The 20th century was the most progressive in terms of technology. Was it the most humane? Is it humane and progress that instead of a Mongol tribesman going in an singlehandely slaughtering a wedding party by hand in Afghanistan hearing their screams and cries for help now a 19 year old American GI can do it by pressing a button on a computer screen much like a video game and his victims appear as little blobs whose suffering or last moments of terror holding onto their family members knowing they wont see them again, he never saw?

      All in the name of humanity and progress of course.

      “or you have a problem with that Munir”

      LOL sounds like a threat. Not very humane Shamit.

    65. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 5:30 pm  

      Shatterface
      “Is that like coveting her ass?”

      How clever - you took a rough translation from Arabic and compared with another translated word from Hebrew and compared them because they have similiar meaning- in a totally diffent language English. You really know your religions (in translation)

      Maybe Faisal will hail you as the worlds next Muslim scholar

      Ah yes because the text is of course in English and not Arabic

      no problem from now on Ill post it in Arabic

    66. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 13th July, 2009 at 5:31 pm  

      You idiot- Im talking about the texts of the Quran and the hadith of the Prophet calling on Muslims to emancipate slaves

      Yeah and you linked to a PDF which discussed how scholars have used Ijtihad to make slavery illegale in spite of the Quranic sanction.

      Heh. I wonder if there is a funky new word which describes the phenomenon of being refuted by the documents you link to?

    67. Shamit — on 13th July, 2009 at 5:37 pm  

      nah Munir -

      I don’t believe in making threats at all.

    68. Shamit — on 13th July, 2009 at 5:38 pm  

      But I still think all scriptures are flawed - and they are not GOD’s words.

    69. Mantis — on 13th July, 2009 at 5:40 pm  

      @ Munir & Faisal,

      Can’t you buggers continue your boring theological discussion elsewhere?

    70. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 13th July, 2009 at 5:42 pm  

      Mantis, who the fuck is asking you to read it?

    71. Mantis — on 13th July, 2009 at 5:45 pm  

      @ Faisal

      Well, the original topic didn’t mention anything about slavery. But if bondage is what interests you most, then I’ll leave you to it!

    72. Shatterface — on 13th July, 2009 at 5:46 pm  

      ‘How clever – you took a rough translation from Arabic and compared with another translated word from Hebrew and compared them because they have similiar meaning- in a totally diffent language English. You really know your religions (in translation)’

      Actually it was a play on similar sounding words, not words with a similar meaning. A homonym, not a synonym, but being a clench-buttocked homophobe you might not be familiar with the gay play of language.

    73. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 5:53 pm  

      Faisal
      “Again, you’re reinforcing my point. If these texts exist they exist in spite of the sanctioning of slavery in the Quran. Slavery was not abolished by the Quran, but by Mujtahids and scholars who wrote these texts.”

      munir
      You idiot- Im talking about the texts of the Quran and the hadith of the Prophet calling on Muslims to emancipate slaves

      Faisal
      “Yeah and you linked to a PDF which discussed how scholars have used Ijtihad to make slavery illegale in spite of the Quranic sanction.”

      Ah yes its change the subject time

      No idiot I linked to a comment by Shaykh Nur al din itr
      showing, in contra to your argument, that books of Islamic jurisprudence have always had a chapter on emanciapting slaves and none called “enslaving”

      from an article refuting modernist Amina Wadud which quoted her arguments (articles tend to do that) and then showed her errors

      “Heh. I wonder if there is a funky new word which describes the phenomenon of being refuted by the documents you link to?”

      “Faisal Ghazism” since you claimed the Quran supported slavery while I refuted you by showing it advocates emancipation of slaves

      Faisal you still havent answered #58

      “I have brought the texts from the Quran and Sunnah advocating freeing slaves

      Bring the texts advocating sodomy or admit defeat
      (I posted on #15 the texts forbidding sodomy)”

      Bring the text supporting sodomy as I have brought the texts supporting freeing slaves

      Why wont you answer ?

    74. Carmenego — on 13th July, 2009 at 5:55 pm  

      #70 Hear hear!

      #64 munir

      Woah there pickle! There’s a very large difference between two consenting adults taking one up the back door as a way of expressing their love for eachother…
      and slaughtering a wedding party!

    75. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 13th July, 2009 at 5:58 pm  

      Bring the text supporting sodomy as I have brought the texts supporting freeing slaves

      Why wont you answer ?

      Primarily because I’ve said no such thing. You seem to lost the plot and your train of thought.

    76. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 5:58 pm  

      Shatterface
      “Actually it was a play on similar sounding words, not words with a similar meaning. A homonym, not a synonym, but being a clench-buttocked homophobe you might not be familiar with the gay play of language.”

      right Shatterface because ass and rectum do sound exactly alike (homonyms)- I mean they rhyme and everything, However they dont have a similar meaning (synonyms) do they shatter

    77. Don — on 13th July, 2009 at 6:11 pm  

      Who is to decide what is humane or inhumane? Well, I’d prefer it to be fallible, fuzzy-thinking humans than tablets of stone or inflexible texts. And most human cultures have come up with The Golden Rule early in their development, so I’m generally happy to go with that.

      Munir, just to clarify, you likened the strictures against homosexuality to the rules on the hijab. I take it you have the same approach as the one we discussed on that thread? That breaking this rule means post-mortem consequences but that nobody other than god has any authority in the matter? That there should be no pressure or earthly penalties? Is that really the majority position? Because in practice there do seem to be rather a lot of penalties and pressure involved.

      The Abrahamic religions generally have a particular issue with being homosexual. In terms of Christianity, a lot of christians will cite Leviticus to justify homophobia while ignoring the fact that Jesus had nothing to say about it. Oddly enough very few of these take as seriously Jesus’ very specific instruction to sell all you have and give the proceeds to the poor.

      I guess it is easier to be strictly observant about those rules which impact negatively on others than on those which impact negatively on oneself.

      As an atheist I am often reminded of the old chestnut abot Sydney Smith who whie walking through Edinburgh observed two women shouting abuse from the upper windows of neighbouring tenements. He remarked, ‘They’ll never agree, they’re arguing from different premises.’

      So it is here. Some are arguing that people are being given a hard time - sometimes lethally so - for a choice which does not harm anyone and that this is inhumane. Munir seems principally concerned that his view is internally consistent with his specific belief system. Obviously I tend toward the former. However, to be fair, Munir has said that while homosexuality is a non-negotiable no-no in Islam, like eating pork or drinking alcohol, one who does that is not a non-muslim but rather a muslim who will have some explaining to do come the day. And that they should not be persecuted for it.

      If that is indeed his position then I don’t see how it is inconsistent with secularism. ‘One day you will have to answer to god, but in the meanwhile it is not for me to compel’ is a position I can live with. I might get sarcastic about it, but I can live with it.

      As for exactly who can and can’t interpret the text, I have nothing to say. It’s just white noise to me.

    78. Carmenego — on 13th July, 2009 at 6:13 pm  

      Yeah, munir I was totally with you on the BNP threads but now you’re coming across a bit deranged.

      I think it’s kind of sad that your sense of morality seems totally dependant on a book, which you’ve said has been amended by those educated enough to amend it.

      Mine is kind of instinctive:
      Don’t attack wedding parties

      Easy.

      If two Muslim men are in love, but they don’t want to stray from Islam and they don’t do each other up the back door, so they still get to give head to each other?

      Also, are lesbians halal? Funny how heterosexual men never have a problem with lesbians if so.

    79. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 6:56 pm  

      Carmengo
      “I think it’s kind of sad that your sense of morality seems totally dependant on a book, which you’ve said has been amended by those educated enough to amend it.”

      I said no such thing

      So if people opposed homosexuality without any reference to religion or a book as many secular people do- how would you argue against them?

      “If two Muslim men are in love, but they don’t want to stray from Islam and they don’t do each other up the back door, so they still get to give head to each other?”

      No why would they? all homosexual sexual contact is sinful . outside marriage any heterosexual sexual contact is sinful .

      “Also, are lesbians halal? Funny how heterosexual men never have a problem with lesbians if so.”

      No lesbianism is forbidden the same as homosexuality

    80. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 7:01 pm  

      Don thanks once again for your intelligent comments

      “Munir, just to clarify, you likened the strictures against homosexuality to the rules on the hijab. I take it you have the same approach as the one we discussed on that thread? That breaking this rule means post-mortem consequences but that nobody other than god has any authority in the matter? That there should be no pressure or earthly penalties? Is that really the majority position? Because in practice there do seem to be rather a lot of penalties and pressure involved.”

      Islam doesnt says you should spy on what people do in the privacy of their homes. Even for sins where there is a set punishment the conditions are so exacting as to make them virtually inoperable. Its really a case of “so long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses”

    81. Don — on 13th July, 2009 at 7:06 pm  

      No lesbianism is forbidden the same as homosexuality

      As specifically & as strictly? Or is it not rather implied, as it necessitates sexual contact outside marriage?

    82. Shatterface — on 13th July, 2009 at 7:08 pm  

      ‘right Shatterface because ass and rectum do sound exactly alike (homonyms)- I mean they rhyme and everything, However they dont have a similar meaning (synonyms) do they shatter’

      The homonym is ‘ass’ (donkey) and ‘ass’ (American for ‘arse’) you donkey-hole, two words from different paradigms occupying the same syntactic place, sounding the same but with vastly differenteaning.

      Its a pun, or - more specifically - a ‘double entendre’.

      But then a religious fundamentalist capable of only the most literal, robotic interpretation of the word should probably avoid literary criticism.

    83. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 7:13 pm  

      munir
      “Bring the text supporting sodomy as I have brought the texts supporting freeing slaves

      Why wont you answer ?”

      Faisal
      “Primarily because I’ve said no such thing. You seem to lost the plot and your train of thought.”

      Actually you did you said

      #54
      “Again, you’re reinforcing my point. If these texts exist they exist in spite of the sanctioning of slavery in the Quran. Slavery was not abolished by the Quran, but by Mujtahids and scholars who wrote these texts.

      Are you beginning to understand the order of things now?

      It should be the same for homosexuality. And it will.”

      You based your arguments on the idea that slavery was banned based on ijtihad that went against the text (eg the Quran supported slavery) but it was shown to you this is not the case - the Quran calls for the freeing of slaves

      There is no ijtihad against the text. The mujtahids who banned slavery did so using the text calling for freeing slaves.

      They cannot do so with legalising sodomy as you claim they can, because there are no texts to support it ( I have asked you to bring some; you havent) as there are with freeing slaves.

      Thus sodomy can never be made halal by ijtihad.

      I dont expect you to admit youre wrong honorably
      You are too dishonest for that

      I expect evasion

    84. Shatterface — on 13th July, 2009 at 7:16 pm  

      ‘So if people opposed homosexuality without any reference to religion or a book as many secular people do- how would you argue against them?’

      By using reason? It’s much easier to argue with someone who doesn’t think the sky pixie is listening in.

      Munir, your sadistic fantasies of eternal post-mortem punishment are a far sicker perversion than anything other people might do to other peoples’ bottoms.

    85. Faisal (The Spittoon) — on 13th July, 2009 at 7:19 pm  

      There’s no accounting for lack of comprehension skills.

      When I said:
      “Again, you’re reinforcing my point. If these texts exist they exist in spite of the sanctioning of slavery in the Quran. Slavery was not abolished by the Quran, but by Mujtahids and scholars who wrote these texts.”

      I meant theological, juridical commentary. Not primary texts. You know, the ones that were used by Mujtahids to make slavery unacceptable as a social norm? That wasn’t completed by the Quran. It happened later.

      Do you get the sequence of things?

      There’s nothing to stop that happening in the case of homosexuality in spite of the best efforts of even our most regressive co-religionists.

    86. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 7:20 pm  

      Shatterface
      “By using reason? It’s much easier to argue with someone who doesn’t think the sky pixie is listening in.”

      Sky pixie? Good grief you know f-all about Islams concept of God

      “Munir, your sadistic fantasies of eternal post-mortem punishment are a far sicker perversion than anything other people might do to other peoples’ bottoms.”

      Again you are simply lying- making up an argument and attributing it to me. Went did I say gay Muslims will suffer eternal punishment? they are committing a sin but its up to God alone to punish or forgive.

      Reason indeed. Liar.

    87. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 7:26 pm  

      Faisal

      “I meant theological, juridical commentary. Not primary texts.”

      But you ignored the primary texts which call for the freeing of slaves

      And ignored the fact that theological, juridical commentary doesnt contradict the text since it is based on it

      ” You know, the ones that were used by Mujtahids to make slavery unacceptable as a social norm? That wasn’t completed by the Quran. It happened later.”

      Yes based on the clear texts of the Quran- there is no ijtihad against the texts

      “There’s nothing to stop that happening in the case of homosexuality in spite of the best efforts of even our most regressive co-religionists.”

      Yes there is. The total absence of any texts supporting sodomy (as opposed to text supporting freeing slaves) and the existence of numerous texts condeming it

    88. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 7:33 pm  

      Don
      “As specifically & as strictly?”

      Yes

      “Or is it not rather implied, as it necessitates sexual contact outside marriage?”

      Since the concept of homosexuals or lesbians marrying doesnt exist then doing this “outside marriage” is rather irrelevant- it would not be halal if they did it inside “marriage” as it would with heterosexuals

    89. damon — on 13th July, 2009 at 9:39 pm  

      Is it wrong of me to hope that Munir never becomes a teacher at a Muslim school like this?
      http://www.channel4.com/programmes/revelations/4od#2926674

    90. douglas clark — on 13th July, 2009 at 9:40 pm  

      I am quite astounded at this discussion. It is pretty obvious that munir accepts a fundamentalist approach to his religion. That is fair enough. It is when he attempts to explain that angle, he finds himself living in a very different world from the one he thought he was in.

      Where fellow muslims, like Dr De Sondy occupy a different part of the spectrum, and where different levers of power matter. And, dare I say it quite a few co-religionists who post here?

      munir, almost invariably, comes across secularists who see him as stuck in a time warp. And not every one of his critics is a WASP.

      It is naive, in the extreme, to follow any religion and assume tht it won’t be tailored to suit. Such were the compromises that were accomodated over slavery - as we found out in another thread here - when they clearly shouldn’t have.

      (And before munir assumes that that is an anti-muslim comment, it is not. Christians also perpetrated slavery much to their disgrace too.)

      Anyway, as yet another atheist commenting here, could I just ask munir one question?

      What, exactly, makes you an authority on a religion that is followed by billions of people, and why should anyone care what you say? Y’know compared to what any other of your co-religionists say?

      What makes you the arbiter of what is acceptable or not?

    91. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 9:52 pm  

      “Is it wrong of me to hope that Munir never becomes a teacher at a Muslim school like this?”

      Is it wrong for me to say you are a media sheep and an imbecile who needs to ask people how he should feel about things?

    92. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 10:30 pm  

      douglas clark

      “I am quite astounded at this discussion. It is pretty obvious that munir accepts a fundamentalist approach to his religion. ”

      No - fundamentalist is a Christian word used to describe Christians who believe the Bible is the literal world of God. All Muslims believe the Quran is the word of God -if you dont you are not Muslim-

      “That is fair enough. It is when he attempts to explain that angle, he finds himself living in a very different world from the one he thought he was in.”

      eh? Yes I am totally unaware this society agrees with homosexuality - incidentally Im old enough to remember clause 28 and when this society disparaged it

      “Where fellow muslims, like Dr De Sondy occupy a different part of the spectrum, and where different levers of power matter.”

      De Sondy doesnt occupy a “different part of the spectrum” - he isnt even on the radar

      “It is naive, in the extreme, to follow any religion and assume tht it won’t be tailored to suit. Such were the compromises that were accomodated over slavery – as we found out in another thread here – when they clearly shouldn’t have.”

      So why hasnt alcohol been made lawful in Islam?

      (And before munir assumes that that is an anti-muslim comment, it is not. Christians also perpetrated slavery much to their disgrace too.)

      as did Jews and every other religion in history

      “Anyway, as yet another atheist commenting here, could I just ask munir one question?

      What, exactly, makes you an authority on a religion that is followed by billions of people, and why should anyone care what you say? Y’know compared to what any other of your co-religionists say?”

      Sigh poor idiot Douglas. Its not what I say. Its what the Quran and the sayings of the Prophet say . They clearly condemn homosexulity

      A better answer is: why should we care what athiests says about our religion?

      One can look at the arguments on homosexuality in the church- opponents of it support Leviticus - to which supporters counter that Christians dont wear stiched clothes lso commanded in the OT. This argument doesnt work with Islam because unlike Christianity the law hasnt been abrogated. Thus as Faisal posts have shown supporters of homosexulity have not a leg to stand on

      Its also worth mentioning that according to Islam making something haram halal is an act of kufr(disbelief) That is to say someone who said homosexuality was halal even after shown the evidence would have considered to have left Islam.

      In Islam you simply cant make things God has forbidden lawful - you are playing God

      This is Hamza Yusuf a moderate American scholar (often derided by others for example meeting Bush after 9/11)

      “If one considers it acceptable in Islam [to be gay], then he or she is not considered to be a Muslim by consensus of the scholars,” Yusuf said. “On this I know no debate whatsoever.”

      http://www.alternet.org/story/12817

      All the 4 sunni schools and the shia (who disagree on
      many things) agree homosexuality is forbidden. That is to say all the Muslim ulema from year zero. It is possible they are wrong and Mr De Sondy is right.

      It is also possible that all the scientists who believe in Global warming is human created are wrong and those who deny it are right. Or the thousands of witnesses to the holocaust are wrong and the holocast deniers are right. These are the probabilities we are dealing with

      “What makes you the arbiter of what is acceptable or not?”

      see above

    93. douglas clark — on 13th July, 2009 at 10:30 pm  

      Yeah, well munir, you never reply intelligently to anyones’ points, do you? It is always an insult or a reference to text.

      Y’know, I used to have some time for religious folk, but you make it extremely difficult.

      If you are the best, and you certainly think you are, that religion can come up with, then it remains a great big fail of an expirement for me.

      And I doubt I am alone. You and Iain Paisley would make a fine couple.

    94. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 10:42 pm  

      douglas clark
      “Yeah, well munir, you never reply intelligently to anyones’ points, do you? It is always an insult or a reference to text.”

      yes you are right because the intelligent thing to do is to just give your own ignorant opinion on any issue rather than quoting experts

      I mean how stupid to think that Islam is what the texts say rather than what Ali my local Pakistani newsagent or the TV says it is.

    95. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 10:48 pm  

      douglas clark
      “If you are the best, and you certainly think you are, ”

      Good grief- when did I say that , lying athiest?

      “that religion can come up with, then it remains a great big fail of an expirement for me.”

      an “experiment ” rigged from the beginning

      You really think a religion is its people rather than its text dont you?

      And you judge the Muslim religion based on one person - what scientific intelliegnt people you athiests are!

      “And I doubt I am alone. You and Iain Paisley would make a fine couple.”

      Hardly. Paisley is an extremist .He for example considers Catholics non Christians (not the position of mainstream Protestants). I a Sunni Muslim consider Shias to be Muslims as does mainstream Sunni Islam. Im simple relating what the consensus of mainstream Islam is -it is that targetting civilians is forbidden, hijab is an obligation and homosexuality is forbidden.

      Or maybe you think Hamza Yusuf is an extremist
      LOL

    96. damon — on 13th July, 2009 at 11:00 pm  

      No Munir, it’s fine to call me a media sheep.

      It’s better than being a Qur’anic sheep in my opinion.

      See, when I read YAB in the media, (who as you have told us is not an Islamic scholar) I can take information (and wisdom from it if it’s wise) without having to swallow her words gospel … or reject them equally as sheep like.

      I notice (although it’s slightly off topic) that she refutes compeletely one of the things you said about under aged girls wearing hijab.
      http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-wearing-the-burqa-is-neither-islamic-nor-socially-acceptable-1743375.html

      ”…… children as young as four were kitted up in cloaks and headscarves (”so they get used to it, and then later wear the full thing,” said a teacher to me who works at a Muslim girls’ school) and now for the graduation gown, a full burqa, preferably with dark glasses.”

    97. munir — on 13th July, 2009 at 11:11 pm  

      damon
      “No Munir, it’s fine to call me a media sheep.

      It’s better than being a Qur’anic sheep in my opinion.”

      LOL Yes because the media never lie and are trustworthy and religious texts from God do and arent!

      “See, when I read YAB in the media, (who as you have told us is not an Islamic scholar) I can take information (and wisdom from it if it’s wise) without having to swallow her words gospel … or reject them equally as sheep like.”

      He says and then proceeds to swallow what she says in entirety!!

      “I notice (although it’s slightly off topic) that she refutes compeletely one of the things you said about under aged girls wearing hijab.
      http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-wearing-the-burqa-is-neither-islamic-nor-socially-acceptable-1743375.html

      ”…… children as young as four were kitted up in cloaks and headscarves (”so they get used to it, and then later wear the full thing,” said a teacher to me who works at a Muslim girls’ school) and now for the graduation gown, a full burqa, preferably with dark glasses.”

      So what? since youve already said shes not a scholar

      Her attacking hijab is clearly based on feelings of inadequacy on her part since she doesnt wear it so maligns those who do

      Sigh I never said that wearing the hijab was an obligation on children, moron - it isnt -it is only when they reach puberty

      I simply mentioned a reason why Muslim parents might want their children to wear it when you, like a nosey bugger, attacked a Somali sister for doing so.

    98. douglas clark — on 13th July, 2009 at 11:20 pm  

      Oh dear,

      The religious fundamentalist has decided to try to talk to an atheist! Well, this should be some fun, as he hasn’t a clue about anything, beyond an adherence to a text.

      Let’s begin:

      No – fundamentalist is a Christian word used to describe Christians who believe the Bible is the literal world of God. All Muslims believe the Quran is the word of God -if you dont you are not Muslim

      Fair enough. Are these people not Muslims then?

      http://tinyurl.com/nhnkge

      You will note that she is not wearing any face covering and the article quotes her as saying - ‘Girls just wanna have fun’

      Strike one.

      Some Muslim women seem to think it is abusive, something I’d agree with:

      http://tinyurl.com/neyqzv

      Strike two, you know where this is going, don’t you?

      Here’s another, apologies for a Daily Mail link:

      http://tinyurl.com/kpgmyz

      OK, I can keep that going all day and all tomorrow if it doesn’t make the, rather obvious point, that not every muslim agrees with you.

      It is your interpretation, not everyone elses’. I think you’ll find you are in a fundamentalist minority. You’d like it to be a majority, but it ain’t, not even now, when it has been politicised. mainly by men such as yourself.

      ———————————-

      Onward and upward from the hellhole that munir considers - and there is little or no doubt that his views are only a strand of muslim thought - about womens’ place in society. It is both worshipping at the body of womankind and hating them simultaneously. It is not a good place to be. It is why Saudi Arabia let some children burn for fear that they would disgrace themselves by running from a school without the right clothes on. Is my contempt for that adequately stated? I don’t think it could be.

      “Anyway, as yet another atheist commenting here, could I just ask munir one question?

      What, exactly, makes you an authority on a religion that is followed by billions of people, and why should anyone care what you say? Y’know compared to what any other of your co-religionists say?”

      Sigh poor idiot Douglas. Its not what I say. Its what the Quran and the sayings of the Prophet say . They clearly condemn homosexulity

      A better answer is: why should we care what athiests says about our religion?

      You should care about what atheists / agnostics say because we are by far the majority in this country. Don’t believe what you are told, this is a secular society. It ain’t you and the Christians, neither of you actually matter.

      So, if you insist on the quite ludicrous idea that I am unaware of what your Book says, then you are wrong. What I am saying, is that it doesn’t matter. And that many of your fellow muslims don’t think it matters either.

      Which would get us back to the point about your alleged expertise. Of which I think you have none, or only a limited degree of it. And, you know, I am sick, tired of your assumption that a translation is, by default, wrong.

      It is, frankly, beyond you, to think for yourself. You are trapped in the idea that scholars - specifically the scholars that subscribe to your prejudices - are infallible.

      No. They are not. And neither is the Pope.

      “What makes you the arbiter of what is acceptable or not?”

      see above.

      Sorry, I think it’s a bit of a fail, really. Nice try, could do better. Recommend divinity school for a million years…..

    99. douglas clark — on 13th July, 2009 at 11:55 pm  

      Err, perhaps that didn’t come out quite right:

      So, if you insist on the quite ludicrous idea that I am unaware of what your Book says, then you are wrong. What I am saying, is that it doesn’t matter. And that many of your fellow muslims don’t think it matters either.

      What I am saying is that it is open to interpretation, other than the fundamentalist approach munir wishes to place on it.

      This, if you would recall, is someone who thinks slavery should be abolished, gently, slowly, etc, etc. And claims Koranic justification.

      Muslims are as diverse as the wind, they don’t need a hagiographic lunatic such as munir telling them what to think, and, I’d suspect, they don’t.

      Sorry about that….

    100. Vinod — on 14th July, 2009 at 1:36 am  

      Douglas

      I think its a little unfair to dismiss Munir’s comments as just those of a ‘fundie’ muslim.

      I don’t think you’ll find too many muslims who will agree with your statement that what the Quran says doesn’t matter.

      Homosexual acts are quite explicitly condemned in the Quran, and as it is a core belief that the Quran is the literal word of God, I think its unreasonable to expect Muslims to accept that Homosexual acts have religious sanction.

      I’m not sure why its important to try and get religious justification anyway. As long as Muslims aren’t actively persecuting those who are Gay in this country or claiming religious sanction for such attacks, what they believe is up to them.

    101. damon — on 14th July, 2009 at 5:29 am  

      I think religious people should be left alone to think what ever they want. I do find these protesting gay christians who are always turning up on programmes like sunday morning’s ‘Big Questions’ a bit pathetic.

      But if it really is the case that a greater majority of the worlds muslims (or christians) would think when they see gay men … ‘’sodomites going to the hell fire” then I would think as highly of those people as I would of the people at Bob Jones University in South Carolina who used to ban inter-racial dating.

    102. douglas clark — on 14th July, 2009 at 6:29 am  

      Vinod,

      See 99 for an explanation, and a, sort of, apology. Not to munir, perish the thought, but to other muslims who read the Koran.

      Are you trying to tell me that it is not open to interpretation? If that were to be the case then you have to pick a side in the arguement. Is Dr Sondy right or is munir right? Who the hell knows.

      munir believes in his so-called scholars, and yet I do believe muslims themselves are split on scholarship and who they follow, which is perhaps why we have Sunni and Shia.

      munir is arguing, as he always does, that only his world view counts. I find that incredibly irritating, and despite what he says to the contrary, fundamentalist, because it is a mere human claiming to be the word of God, and we all know where that leads, don’t we?

      A little humility would do munir a lot of good, methinks.

      I just do not like anyone lecturing me, and that is what munir does all the time. It is actually quite sad. Because it is human to assume that only your world view counts and it must astonish munir that hardly anyone agrees with him.

      It is interesting that munir has not yet said why anyone should agree with him. Perhaps he’s working up to it.

      Finally, I do think his entire world view ought to be challenged. Because it is intolerant and backward. And to pretend it is mainstream is a joke.

      It is quite amusing to see the hoops munir will leap through to protect his ideology. The thread on slavery is a case in point. You have to be really quite ill in the head to think that anyone in this century is going to accept any apologia for religions (see that? it was plural) turning a blind eye to it.

    103. Rumbold — on 14th July, 2009 at 8:16 am  

      Munir:

      Forgetting religious texts for a moment, can I ask you a question based on logic?

      You are hetreosexual (I presume). Now, when you look at certain women, you find them attractive. When you look at men, you don’t find them attractive. Now, is this attraction a conscious decision on your part? That is to say when you look at ladies like this:

      http://www.bollywood-stars.net/images/priyanka-chopra-gifa.jpg

      Do you decide to find them attractive, or is it instinct? If it is the former, then you are very odd and abnormal. If it is the latter, then you therefore accept that a person doesn’t choose who they are attracted to. Since you believe that Allah made humans, he must have made homosexuals that way too.

    104. persephone — on 14th July, 2009 at 9:25 am  

      As part of a pro bono programme I help out at a media organisation and the head of the organisation recently told me about a situation where a reporter refused to interview a guest because he was gay and cited Islamic religious beliefs as the reason.

      Ultimately we all have a choice as to what we believe in and why. However, when that belief impacts on others I have an issue with it.

    105. cjcjc — on 14th July, 2009 at 9:50 am  

      @104 - that would and should be grounds for dismissal as with the Christian registrar in Islington who was sacked for refusing to conduct civil partnerships.

    106. persephone — on 14th July, 2009 at 10:16 am  

      @105 Yep and apart from the legal employment aspects I did wonder why the said reporter joined that organisation since it operates under an explicit, stated ethos that its coverage does not extend to religion (or politics).

    107. Bobsyboy — on 15th July, 2009 at 8:08 am  

      Having read the entire thread I can say, with fervently heartfelt feeling:

      “Thank God-Allah I’m an Atheist!”

      In the U.S.A. - that “great hope of mankind” - there are specifically Gay Churches and Communities of Lesbian Christians and so on.

      Are there enough unswervingly-gay Muslims in London [or Luton or Birmingham] to open a Gay Mosque or two?

      Would this be a life-threatening venture for those involved?

      Such a venture would attract media coverage from all over the planet and be denounced from every pulpit in Makkah, Madinah, Cairo, Tehran and Riyadh but I’d bet it’d attract all sorts of support and funding!

      Just a thought!

    108. anobody — on 15th July, 2009 at 8:21 pm  

      @douglas clark

      I think you are very much mistaken.

      What munir has said so for far is very representative of the mainstream Muslim beliefs. You are, it seems, very selective of what you read.

      Sodomy being forbidden, is Allah’s command. It is not munir’s command. I believe it is wrong because Allah has said it is wrong, not because munir has said it is wrong. There’s a massive difference, yet you still seem to think it is munir who is pushing this, which is quite laughable.

      Secondly, if Allah has made something haraam, no academic or scholar can make it halaal. It’s not even up for debate.

      Therefore this De Sondy person is massively flawed in thinking otherwise.

      @Faisal

      You’re a very confusing character. Knowing that it is strictly forbidden by Allah through the Quran, how can there be a case for ijtihad? (Slavery is different as already explained to you)

      As for everyone else most Muslims I know - well in my circle - are very conservative, and do not really talk about homosexuality, not even to mock. Why would we? It’s not a massive issue. We think it’s wrong, but we don’t lose sleep over it.

      I think sodomy is obscene and wrong, but if a queer wants to get up to queer business in his own time that’s his business.

      Like I think it’s wrong Mr Wenger plays with kids (no pun intended), I don’t hate him for it.

    109. douglas clark — on 16th July, 2009 at 2:01 am  

      anobody,

      It is also the case that some Christians believe it is wrong, the Bible tells them so too. I am not too bothered about that. What may have applied a thousand years ago or more is not really relevant today. Which is what you are really saying, in the part of your comment directed at Faisal, isn’t it?

      I share your apparent view that, if it doesn’t scare the horses, then it is up to the people involved. Perfection in religious dogma is the exclusive enclave of the simple minded. It seems to me that justifying prejudice on the basis of a holy book is as good as some folk get. Which is not very good at all. Let homosexuals be judged in the afterlife if you will, not by human beings that have another agenda.

    110. anobody — on 17th July, 2009 at 2:25 pm  

      douglas clarke,

      I am categorically saying that Allah has clearly stated that sodomy, fornication, adultery are forbidden. I believe they are wrong and are depraved. No man can change this.

      I believe these acts of sin were relevant to humanity then as they are now, and will be relevant for the many generations ahead.

      I try to live a life of discipline, and humility and stray away from worldy pleasures - though this is difficult at times. I am motivated by attaining salvation. If you think this is simplistic then so be it. My only concern in this world is if Allah is accepting of my day-to-day actions and deeds. inshallah. This life is just a test for me.

      Allah knows best.



    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2009. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.