Normally when you ask an Imam (a religious scholar) what is “Islam” they will respond with “Islam is peace”, “Islam is the straight path”, etc., etc. Then when you ask about homosexuality in Islam, the answer will range from “it is forbidden” to “it is unnatural”, “it does not exist”, or “it is a grave sin”. Some imams may even go on and clarify of the different various punishments for homosexuals, depending where they are from in the Middle East. For example, in Saudia Arabia, the normal penalty for homosexuals caught in the act is to either be beheaded in a public square or to have a wall collapse on them. In Iran–which practices a different branch of Islam–the penalty is lighter. One either has the option of therapy (sometimes this involves electro-therapy), sex change (half paid by the government), or to be hung in a public square. Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America, in accepting his “Humanitarian Award” in 1999 given by the National Council of Christians and Jews, stated that:
Homosexuality is a moral disorder. It is a moral disease, a sin and corruption… No person is born homosexual, just like no one is born a thief, a liar or murderer. People acquire these evil habits due to a lack of proper guidance and education.
It should be noted, however, that outside of Africa, Iran, and the Arabian peninsula homosexuals are not often persecuted (meaning executed). Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, technically has no national law against homosexuality though the government maintains a “sensitivity” to that topic. Islam of course is not alone in this. Cuba and other former Communist countries in the Eastern Bloc also prescribed the death penalty since homosexuals represented a “decadent bourgeois” lifestyle. Most of Christian Africa, notably Zimbabwe and Ethiopia, as well as segments of Orthodox Jews still prescribe the death penalty.
Generally speaking, much to the disappointment of the Commission on Elections, the Philippines does not have a law–either secular or in the adat (traditions followed by Muslim indigenous peoples)–that specifically makes homosexual conduct “illegal” or prescribes specific punishments. Actually, adat in Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines traditionally stated that there were more than two genders thus the term “Third Sex” is more acceptable in those countries than say in Western Europe. This can also be explained in the way Islam was brought to Indonesia which later would affect Islam in the Philippines. Islam in Indonesia was a negotiated process. The rulers of the various Indonesian kingdoms accepted Islam but only certain segments or what the Wali Sanga (Nine Saints) called “ship building”. The rulers adopted the trappings of Islam (the frame of the ship) while retaining the customs and certain ancestral beliefs to be incorporated as “adat” which then was incorporated into their own “shariah” or legal code. Thus there was more tolerance of not only other religious groups, but branches within Islam notably Sufis and Shiites. This would later influence the way Islam came into the Philippines. This is one of the reasons why Islam in Indonesia and the Philippines is different than Islam in the Middle East, much to the displeasure of certain Middle Eastern scholars. Malaysia was also influenced by the Wali Sanga but now have become deeply influenced with conservative Indian and Saudi Arabian innovations thus has moved to criminalize homosexuality as well as ethnic cleansing their history of anything non-Sunni Islamic.
Like their other monotheistic counterparts, Islamic imams use the story of Lut (Lot) and Sodom to explain why homosexuality is a grave sin. The specific Qu’ranic verse is:
And (We sent) Lut when he said to his people: What! Do you commit an indecency which any one in the world has not done before you? (7:80)
The key words are “any one in the world has not done before you”. The city of Sodom probably existed around 1800 BCE, whereas the lovers King Neferkare Pepy II and General Sisenet are believed to be dated around 2300 BCE. The tomb of the same sex Egyptian couple Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep is also dated around 2450 BCE. All of these existed before Sodom so same sex practices were definitely done way before Sodom. We also have depictions of Mesopotamian walls and Greek pottery also showing homosexual practices earlier than 1800 BCE. Again, affirming whatever was going on in Sodom was not new under the sun and already existed in art at least in that region for thousands of years.
The other favorite verse is:
Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people.(7:81)
This verse brings up the same problems with translations as Christians have. The word ‘Fahisha’ has been translated denote indecency in verse 7:80, and the word ‘extravagance’ or ‘transgressing bounds’ has been used in 7:81, it is important to understand that both these words are related. According to Abdul Majid Daryabadi, (Tafsir-Ul-Qur’an Translation and Commentary of the Holy Qur’an, Volume I. Pakistan: Darul-Isha’at Urdu Bazar, 1991: pg. 310) the word ‘Fahisha’ as follows:
…in its general significance is ‘an excess; an enormity; anything exceeding the bounds of rectitude.’ but when particularized, signifies ‘adultery or fornication’
This means that indecency and extravagance are in fact interrelated, as both are referring to a practice conducted in excess, especially in violation of laws. Therefore, one can infer that the “sin” of Sodom was either excessive adultery beyond the bounds of what is lawful or another activity which was being done in excess perhaps boastfully. Verse 29:29 is a bit more clear:
What! Do you come to the males and commit robbery on the highway, and you commit evil deeds in your assemblies?
What is committed in assemblies is not really known. It could be anything from election fraud to gambling or some mass kinky orgy. But here again while it clear that God was pretty much more upset at the robberies than what was going on in the assemblies or else that would have been mentioned first. One can deduce from the verses that Sodom was conducting a lot of various activities, including adultery and robberies, which basically ticked off God. The truth of the matter is that there is no clear Quranic verse which prescribes punishment for homosexuality or bisexuality. It is only in the Hadith, or Sayings of the Prophet, that the worst verses against homosexuals, Jews, women, etc. are found. The Hadith does not have the same wieght as the Qur’an as the Qu’ran is believed to be a revelation whereas the Hadith are sayings or proverbs that supposedly come from the Prophet (though there are many disputes which are actually from the Prophet and which ones were simply out of context or made up). Unlike the Hadith, the Qur’an has a number of verses that state that diversity is a good thing. For example:
And one of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth and the diversity of your tongues and colors; most surely there are signs in this for the learned. (30:22)
and
O people, we created you from a single pair of male and female, and rendered you distinct peoples and tribes, that you may recognize one another. The best among you in the sight of GOD is the most righteous. GOD is Omniscient, Cognizant. (49:13)
In other words, diversity in Islam should be a good thing. It’s part of distinctions. Just as according to the Islamic faith, God created various tribes, nations, tongues, and colors, perhaps God also created various sexual orientations and human relationships.
Those verses are often ignored but are consistent with biology. After all diversity is a biological fact. Insofar as homosexuality and bisexuality are concerned, researcher Bruce Bagemihl has shown that homosexual behavior has been observed in nearly 1500 species, ranging from orangutans to dolphins. So again, homosexuality and bisexuality are part of diversity and is natural since it is found in nature in thousands of species.
The fact of the matter is that the real threat the religious right of the various monotheistic faiths is not homosexuality or even sin. It is the fear of the loss of control. As Daw Suu Kyi said, “Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely. It is the fear of losing power that corrupts absolutely”. Diversity in itself represents a threat to control. Questioning textual meanings is questioning their authority to interpret according to their own ideas. It is far easier to tell people to do this and do that, to wear a beard, to look like a 7th century Arab, behead this person or that person, than to encourage debate and dialogue which in time would lead to a real understanding. The real theological issues whether for Christians, Muslims, or Jews is not about the nature of God, but on the nature of power–who has it and who will use it. Priests, imams, rabbis, etc. all need to perpetuate their version of the “City of God”, a hierarchy on earth as it is in heaven, particularly an all male hierarchy composed of a “chosen people” (e.g. Arabs for Islam, Jews for Judaism, and Anglo-Europeans for Christians). Homosexuals, women, people of color, and people who differ from their opinions (i.e. freethinkers) do not fit into their views of the City of God unless money is involved. If these matters were truly issues about theology or morality, the various prophets of the monotheistic faiths have already clarified those matters–above all else love and let live.
Islam’s fundamental notion is really a rigorous monotheism, referred to as tawhid. God is known in chapter 112 from the Qur’an as:”Say: He’s The almighty, the best God, the Eternal, Absolute He begetteth not, nor is He begotten And there’s none like unto Him or her.” (112:1-4) Muslims repudiate the Religious doctrine from the Trinity and divinity of Jesus, evaluating this to polytheism but acknowledge Jesus like a prophet. Inside Islam, God is beyond all comprehension and Muslims aren’t likely to visualize God.
don't ever2 be mean to ISLAM!!!!! Allahu Akbar!!!! salam from Malaysia
[…] Homosexuality and Islam […]
Newbie to this site. Taric rocks my rocks off on informability!
@twin
No, and I have heard worst. The fatwas (decrees) of the clerics and the Sunnahs (traditions of the Prophet) contain much worst. The Sunnah and Hadith (sayings of the Prophet) number over 3,000. The Shiia (Shiite and that Ayatollah is a Shiia) accept about 1,500 of those and the Sunnis accept 2,000. But I would like to remind you that the Books of Leviticus and Numbers are just as horrific and violent. But I think that argument is best on the Islam and Dissent section not in this section 😉
@Taric
"Hence while the Qur’an does not prescribe any punishment per se for homosexuality, the punishments came about as contact with Byzantium and the Jews of Yemen increased and were added as “Sunnah” or traditions from Muhammad. An example, there is a mention of homosexuality and promiscuity causing earthquakes in the Sunnah."
Wait, does this mean that Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi really was quoting Muhammad's teachings, and was not talking out of his arse?
http://www.onlydemocracy4iran.com/2010/04/17/ayat…
The same cleric that provoked the Boobquake event a few weeks ago XD.
As for the Ugandan "Kill The Gays" law, I recall reading a news snippet reporting that it was shot down on grounds of unconstitutionality.
@Twin Skies
Actually the semantics between fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims regarding homosexuality is almost the same. Both equate homosexuality with pedophilia, murder, robbery, and other vices. Case in point, Uganda. Uganda is predominately Christian and wants to get a law past to hang homosexuals since homosexuals are responsible for "lawlessness and paedophilia". The horrific case of Matthew Shepard also lest we forget happened in the US at the hands of Christians. Another point is that as much as Muslims hate to admit it, I personally believe that a lot of Shariah or Islamic law was generally borrowed (perhaps copied might be more direct) from the Byzantine East Roman Empire and Judaism. Hence while the Qur'an does not prescribe any punishment per se for homosexuality, the punishments came about as contact with Byzantium and the Jews of Yemen increased and were added as "Sunnah" or traditions from Muhammad. An example, there is a mention of homosexuality and promiscuity causing earthquakes in the Sunnah. But you if you track that down, you'll find that the Justinian Code, which was enacted earlier than the birth of Muhammad, contains the exact same thing. Basically, when Islam came out of the deserts of Arabia, they came into contact with (and eventually conquered) a very conservative Christian empire, Muslim rulers incorporated a lot of elements including architecture (hence domes and marble) and law.
@trad
For your info, I'm posting an article written by an Australian archbishop and I dare you call him "unCatholic". It pretty sums up that traditional Catholicism is abusive and the "sin and forgiveness rather than crime and punishment" is I think one of the reasons why Catholicism in the Philippines has basically helped to impoverish the country (since the Church even forgave the Marcoses without having them return their stolen loot not to mention the other politicians):
Australian archbishop says pedophilia scandal linked to church 'culture' of discretion
March 25 2010
ANBERRA, Australia (AP) — The Roman Catholic Church's culture of discretion and focus on "sin and forgiveness rather than crime and punishment" were among ingrained factors that ultimately led to the child sex abuse scandal and cover-up surrounding the church today, a pre-eminent Australian bishop said Monday.
Archbishop Mark Coleridge, whose archdiocese is based in the national capital of Canberra, took the unusual step of writing an open letter attempting to explain the culture that led the church to turn a blind eye to priests accused of molesting children.
Factors include a determination to protect the church's reputation, a culture of discretion, "institutionalized immaturity" of priests fostered by seminary training, and an outlook of "sin and forgiveness rather than crime and punishment," Coleridge wrote.
Clerical celibacy was not itself a factor but it "has its perils," he wrote. "The discipline of celibacy may also have been attractive to men in whom there were paedophile tendencies which may not have been explicitly recognised by the men themselves when they entered the seminary."
Coleridge said as a young priest in the 1970s, he regarded pedophilia cases as "tragic and isolated." Coleridge's view shifted when he was called to serve at the Vatican as chaplain to Pope John Paul II during a five-year period that ended in 2002. While there, Coleridge came to regard child abuse in the church as "cultural."
"There is no one factor that makes abuse of the young by Catholic clergy in some sense cultural," Coleridge wrote. "It seems to me a rather complex combination of factors which I do not claim to understand fully."
Coleridge, a priest for 36 years, said no one could now deny the scale of the pedophilia problem in the church.
"All can see that this is a time of crisis for the Catholic Church … there will be no quick fix to this problem, the roots of which go deep and wide."
Coleridge said Monday that Pope Benedict XVI was the right church leader for the challenge. Before he became pope in 2005, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger held a key Vatican role in dealing with sex abuse.
"As cardinal and as pope, he has acted as vigorously as I think he can without claiming that he's got a magic wand or that the pope can just speak a word from on high and it all happens," Coleridge told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio Monday.
Canberra-based church historian Paul Collins said Coleridge's letter was unprecedented in Australia in that it openly admits the scale of the child abuse problem.
"Certainly Coleridge is the first bishop to have tackled it head on in this way in Australia," said Collins, an author and former priest.
Broken Rites Australia, a support group for victims of clergy sex abuse, said the church's failing as outlined by Coleridge was unforgivable.
"The archbishop's comments show how the Catholic Church hierarchy have covered up sex abuse and dealt very badly with the victims," group president Chris MacIsacc said. "But there is no excuse for not understanding that rape, sodomy and child sex abuse is a crime. To be more concerned for the perpetrator of crime than the victim is unforgivable."
keep it clean guys, no personal attacks.
pick on the arguments, not the person.
@tradcath
There is a difference between "conventional," and what is wrong. Once. Persecuting blacks and treating them as second-class citizens was society's convention, for example, but that doesn't make it any less wrong.
And quite frankly, I see far more wrong in a community telling a person who they can and should fall in love with, and persecuting them just because they fail to fall into some twisted sense of status quo.
You assume that conventions on human society are static. They're not. The more our society evolves, the more it grows, the more it begins to break down "conventional" boundaries that have done nothing but hinder our concept of human dignity.
Decades ago, that meant destroying state-endorsed racial prejudice and medieval concepts of women's rights. Recently, the hot topic has been destroying longstanding stereotypes of the gay community.
And no, I'm not gay, and I do think you are a close-minded fuckface to think that I need to have some personal vested interest just for me to stand up and call you out.
"This is a fact, the more you regulate your animal instinct, the more you are civilized, the more you are human, that’s why we cook or process our food before we eat them, although it is common to animals to eat their food raw.
"This is a fact, the more you regulate your animal instinct, the more you are civilized, the more you are human, that’s why we cook or process our food before we eat them, although it is common to animals to eat their food raw."
No, we learned to cook out of necessity – cooking is a more efficient way of processing the nutrients of meat, and was an adaptation developed given that our stomachs are not as efficient as that of other animals.
In fact, most other facets of human behavior are simply developed versions of the same animal instincts that we have always had. Let me ask you – are we born with an innate sense of being "Civil"? Does a baby automatically know which fork to use for desert, and which one to use for the appetizer?
"I shouldn’t have studied English in the first place, knowing that my own dialect is sufficient."
Keep studying. Your grammar is more atrocious than your farked up logic.
Please excuse me for my grammar. I'm just a 16-year-old highschool student from an ordinary school.
Maybe you're right, except for my "farked up logic".
There is a big gap between us, we will never understand each other. I believe to supernatural truths, and you don't.
"I believe to supernatural truths, and you don’t."
It's not a "supernatural" matter when a religion is used as an excuse by so-called moral crusaders to impose their dogma and bigotry on other people.
It is NOT a supernatural matter when Muslims use religion, their so-called bastion of morality, to torture mutilate, and abuse gays just because they do not fit into their lifestyle.
That is not the supernatural. It is not some god dispensing justice – it is the actions of men who use god as a veil for their hate.
And contrary to what you think, I do understand to a degree what you think. That religion is some sort of "saving virture" that can pull humanity out of a moral cesspool, and that we must all align ourselves to a faith before we fall into hell.
The semantics and imagery used by Christianity and Islam may be different, but their theme is the same.
"I’m just a 16-year-old highschool student from an ordinary school."
Then you have a lot of learning to do, kid. I do admire your courage for standing up and stating your opinion here, but keep in mind that we also keep to our opinions on such matters.
Opinions many of us have spent a considerable amount of time researching, debating, and reflecting on to formulate and polish.
They're not perfect, and I do understand that I come off as an obnoxious jackass at times, but my stance remains – if religion is used as an excuse to abuse people, then I believe that it deserves to be struck down and ridiculed.
"Then you have a lot of learning to do, kid."
Thanks for the advice. I know that. That's why I keep on researching on these matters.
"if religion is used as an excuse to abuse people, then I believe that it deserves to be struck down and ridiculed."
Well it's not like that all the time. Maybe it's some men that abuse people, but I'm pretty sure that real Catholics didn't want to hurt the concerned people. We just want to convince them that they must be aligned in "what we know is right and good".
So I said it all. The phrase is clear that it is based on our beliefs, so I do not impose in on anybody. I hope this will no more lead to further dispute. Thanks for the "nice" conversation! =)
On a related note, I suggest you read up on this man: George Rekers. It's because of his ilk that I'm convinced most so-called experts on gay therapy are sadistic sickos.
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/05/be…
I think I understand you. But I suggest that should not be so stereotypical. Even us Catholics will refute this kind of abuse.
@tradcath
"We just want to convince them that they must be aligned in 'what we know is right and good'."
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Read up on the Inquisition history books – how many times have you read of some revolutionary or leader that has claimed to be in the right, only to end up becoming the very monster they vowed to destroy?
"Maybe it’s some men that abuse people, but I’m pretty sure that real Catholics didn’t want to hurt the concerned people. We just want to convince them that they must be aligned in “what we know is right and good”.
It's very difficult for me to digest that Catholics are only looking for the welfare of the gay community. Especially when no less than the pope himself has repeatedly claimed during internationally broadcast speeches that homosexuality is some sort of real danger to the world.
That, despite the number of sex abuse cases that are plaguing the Vatican – cases that it has systematically kept silent despite the damage and trauma it has rendered to the victims.
While it's true that not all people in the Catholic church are like this, the fact remains that these sex abuse cases have been linked to several higher ups within the Vatican.
My question to you is this: If you are as devout and good-natured a Catholic as you claim to be, then what are you doing taking orders from somebody who is obviously not looking out for your spiritual development, and only aims to mantain their status quo?
Too lazy to read all the arguments, but just want to point out there's no such thing as "supernatural truths". The word you're looking for is "superstition".
Supernatural truths is only a euphemism for SUPERSTITION. Now get out of here.
Know your place, kid.
OK, I know my place. I just thought that everyone is welcome to expose their beliefs here because the website says "Filipino Freethinkers". But it appears that I'm not welcome. But still thanks for the "hospitality".
now we should tolerate homosexuality, accept it as natural instinct common to animals… now they're not far different to animals, for they let instinct to conquer them… now that defies the right of man to be civilized…
Let me get this straight – Muslim fundies are angry against homosexuality because they believe it's against human nature, but when we do prove it is natural, you go and tell us it's wrong exactly because it's a natural instinct?
Honestly, your reasoning is fucked up.
We should accept diversity–diversity in opinions, religious practices, sexualities, and etc. Its not about "instinct" but accepting diversity.
As for "civilized", what exactly is "civilized" and who defines "civilized"? Ancient Greeks believed that only Greek speakers were civilized. The Romans thought only Roman citizens were civilized. In the Philippines, the Spanish thought for 300 years all of the "indios" were not civilized. McKinley said that the US were to occupy the Philippines to bring civilization and Christianity to the Philippines. The Nazis thought they were civilized as they killed 9 million people.
Often in history, those who claim to be civilized say so at the point of a gun.
I am suddenly reminded of Pocahontas, and James Cameron's Avatar 🙂
…and that's the rub right there. you're making up your own definitions on what it means to "defile" or "how to be civilized". these are totally arbitrary concepts. everyone can make up their own rules.
there are religions that consider eating meat barbaric and uncivilized, it taints your body and turns it into a cemetery for dead flesh yet you can still go to KFC without worrying that eating that 2-piece chicken meal will "defile" you.
I'm not a Muslim, but affairs about homosexuality is one of my problems.
Pls. take note:
This is a fact, the more you regulate your animal instinct, the more you are civilized, the more you are human, that's why we cook or process our food before we eat them, although it is common to animals to eat their food raw.
To mr. "twinskies":
Yes it's natural, to animals, but, unconventional, to humans. You support this claim because it's natural, but why you don't consider the conventional? Apparently you're supporting this claim because you want to license yourself to something. Truthfully, it's your brain what's fucked up, not my reasoning.
To mr. Taric:
Accept diversity? That would result to individualism and anarchism. I shouldn't have studied English in the first place, knowing that my own dialect is sufficient. One apparent result of tolerance of diversity is the continuous wars between rebels and the state, because rebels refuse to be civilized in the correct way, that is, to accept the state's authority.
To mr. "wes":
So you mean that there is no true meaning of 'civilism'? Then why support the state? Why then join an organization, such as this, if it would require submitting to it's conditions and law of ethics.
???
Think…
Well you're clearly not gay either, so why is their love life your problem? 😉
Just using your same reasoning, bub.
Great post Taric this is very helpful!
you make a good point there. from a biological standpoint, a diverse genepool makes for a healthy species. in this sense, it goes against nature to try to force a homogeneous model. its social eugenics – but every religion has a different idea of what the ideal norm is.
Thanks for this post, Taric. I can confirm that my Muslim friends here and in Indonesia are more tolerant than what's usually portrayed in the media.
And I agree. More than the power itself it's the fear of losing control that makes these institutions do what they do. The problem is, they blame their actions on a high power. If there were no higher power to blame their megalomania would be painfully obvious — maybe even to themselves.